4 ms·

People are better judged by the mores of their time, not our time. Besides, without Franklin, there would be no United States, the free-est country in history.

ck2 3mo ago
Yeah no, Norway and a few others are the free-est country in history, just because someone declares US is "free" doesn't make it true, we disappear citizens all the time, police can seize your property without cause, government can seize your land for datacenters and women lose more and more rights every year Again, Franklin knew slavery was wrong, literally campaigned to end it for that reason, yet did it himself for decades in the meanwhile, not a difficult horror to grasp in any time
- WalterBright 3mo ago
  I consider freedom to include the free market. Norway has a mixed economy, due to its extensive regulation. While it operates as a free-market country, the Norwegian government holds large ownership stakes in strategic industries, including petroleum, hydroelectric power, telecommunications, and banking. Experts often characterize the Norwegian economy as a blend of private enterprise, state ownership, and social welfare that provides high standards of living. (Cribbed from google)
wat10000 3mo ago
Plenty of people at the time thought slavery was evil. Franklin was even one of them, calling it "cancer." He said this while still owning slaves, which is rather peculiar, but people are complicated.
- bensmoif 3mo ago
  In this century we have a word for that kind of talk by slaveholders who professed some longing for abolition (Franklin. Jefferson, Washington, John Jay) but did not really wanna be inconvenienced: trolling.
  - fhdkweig 3mo ago
    Trolls do things for the LOLs. They are motivated by humor. Someone who wants rules for others but breaks those rules personally is better referred to as a hypocrite. And while he did have a sense of humor (I hear that daylight savings time was just a joke), I don't think that is why he had slaves. He kept them because they were useful to him, and the moment he died they were no longer useful. The slaves owned by others were never useful to him, so they should be freed immediately.
    - bensmoif 3mo ago
      My brother: trolls troll out of cynical cruelty, there are many children's books that can illustrate this clearly. Franklin's ability to speak plainly about the evils of slavery, in between his own acts of unspeakable cruelty, and robbing families of their dignity and humanity, requires a level of disconnect and pride that is worth significant mention whenever we do justice to his great legacy. This talk of human utility sounds like a lot of chump shit.
krapp 3mo ago
Slavery was immoral during Franklin's time too, Walter. Many, many people of the time understood this. Even Franklin himself, hypocrite though he was, came around to it.
- WalterBright 3mo ago
  I understand that. I also know that half the country thought slavery was ok, and made it clear they would not join the union if it was abolished.
  - krapp 3mo ago
    So what? That doesn't affect the morality of slavery one bit. Subjective and relative moral questions do exist, but slavery isn't one of them. Likewise, Ben Franklin being a founding father doesn't somehow balance the scales in that regard. The existence of the United States doesn't retroactively make slavery ok.
    - WalterBright 3mo ago
      What is moral and what isn't changes with the times. For example, blaspheming could get you murdered by the state in medieval times. The colonies had different views of morality, especially religious morality. It was immoral to work on the Sabbath. It was immoral to have sex before marriage. The Founders saw fit to abolish the nobility, and disassociated religion from government. We've forgotten what an enormous leap both of those were (each of the colonies had an establishment of religion). I've seen endless documentaries on the founding of the country, and there's no mention of either of these. Half of the colonies did abolish slavery. But, again, if it was demanded of the other half, the Union would never have happened. Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington all held slaves. I am certainly not advocating slavery. I'm merely pointing out that people should be judged on the morality of their times, not today's morality. If we judged past people by our modern standards, they would all be condemned.
      - krapp 3mo ago

ck2 3mo ago

Yeah no, Norway and a few others are the free-est country in history, just because someone declares US is "free" doesn't make it true, we disappear citizens all the time, police can seize your property without cause, government can seize your land for datacenters and women lose more and more rights every year Again, Franklin knew slavery was wrong, literally campaigned to end it for that reason, yet did it himself for decades in the meanwhile, not a difficult horror to grasp in any time

WalterBright 3mo ago
I consider freedom to include the free market. Norway has a mixed economy, due to its extensive regulation. While it operates as a free-market country, the Norwegian government holds large ownership stakes in strategic industries, including petroleum, hydroelectric power, telecommunications, and banking. Experts often characterize the Norwegian economy as a blend of private enterprise, state ownership, and social welfare that provides high standards of living. (Cribbed from google)

wat10000 3mo ago

Plenty of people at the time thought slavery was evil. Franklin was even one of them, calling it "cancer." He said this while still owning slaves, which is rather peculiar, but people are complicated.

bensmoif 3mo ago
In this century we have a word for that kind of talk by slaveholders who professed some longing for abolition (Franklin. Jefferson, Washington, John Jay) but did not really wanna be inconvenienced: trolling.
- fhdkweig 3mo ago
  Trolls do things for the LOLs. They are motivated by humor. Someone who wants rules for others but breaks those rules personally is better referred to as a hypocrite. And while he did have a sense of humor (I hear that daylight savings time was just a joke), I don't think that is why he had slaves. He kept them because they were useful to him, and the moment he died they were no longer useful. The slaves owned by others were never useful to him, so they should be freed immediately.
  - bensmoif 3mo ago
    My brother: trolls troll out of cynical cruelty, there are many children's books that can illustrate this clearly. Franklin's ability to speak plainly about the evils of slavery, in between his own acts of unspeakable cruelty, and robbing families of their dignity and humanity, requires a level of disconnect and pride that is worth significant mention whenever we do justice to his great legacy. This talk of human utility sounds like a lot of chump shit.

krapp 3mo ago

Slavery was immoral during Franklin's time too, Walter. Many, many people of the time understood this. Even Franklin himself, hypocrite though he was, came around to it.

WalterBright 3mo ago
I understand that. I also know that half the country thought slavery was ok, and made it clear they would not join the union if it was abolished.
- krapp 3mo ago
  So what? That doesn't affect the morality of slavery one bit. Subjective and relative moral questions do exist, but slavery isn't one of them. Likewise, Ben Franklin being a founding father doesn't somehow balance the scales in that regard. The existence of the United States doesn't retroactively make slavery ok.
  - WalterBright 3mo ago
    What is moral and what isn't changes with the times. For example, blaspheming could get you murdered by the state in medieval times. The colonies had different views of morality, especially religious morality. It was immoral to work on the Sabbath. It was immoral to have sex before marriage. The Founders saw fit to abolish the nobility, and disassociated religion from government. We've forgotten what an enormous leap both of those were (each of the colonies had an establishment of religion). I've seen endless documentaries on the founding of the country, and there's no mention of either of these. Half of the colonies did abolish slavery. But, again, if it was demanded of the other half, the Union would never have happened. Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington all held slaves. I am certainly not advocating slavery. I'm merely pointing out that people should be judged on the morality of their times, not today's morality. If we judged past people by our modern standards, they would all be condemned.
    - krapp 3mo ago