Jim Crow Was a Product of Government

Good point, Perry.

"Robert Smith points out that slavery is as old as civilization."

I should have clarified: slavery cannot continue to exist if there's no government. It's true that slavery is as simple as controlling another person's life by the threat and/or use of force. But we're talking about it as an institution.

My point is that if there's no government to sanction slavery, then the slaves can rise up against their masters; it becomes a matter of who is the strongest.

When owners do not have enough force themselves to keep all slaves in line, and when they want others to be compelled to help recover runaway slaves or at least be afraid to help runaways, then a government is needed. Whether it's the antebellum south or ancient Mesopotamia, it's about some sort of a police force to recover runaway slaves, and the same police would use the authority of "the law" to punish those who aided escaped slaves. This takes care of the occasional runaway or small group of runaways. To be effective, a great many slaves would need to rise up simultaneously, like Spartacus' revolt.

Thank you Methinks!

Tarran excellently points out that slavery cannot exist without some sort of government entity

Not true. Robert Smith points out that slavery is as old as civilization. Until the 18th century, slavery was an unquestioned human institution. During the 18th century, only the West became squeamish about slavery. The East, particularly the Middle East, continued to see slavery as a perfectly moral and acceptable institution. The West reacted by creating blockades to force the East to end slavery. It didn't work, but it did reduce the slave trade there.

Government did not need to enforce slavery. All one needed was might. He who is strongest both captured and kept slaves enslaved. Most slaves were people from conquered territories and slavery had absolutely nothing to do with racism. If your tribe was the weaker tribe and lost the battle, you were enslaved. Simple as that.

The word "Slave" comes from the word "Slav" as in "Slavic people". The Slavic tribes were nomadic and militarily weak. Thus, they were persistently raided for slave labour - particularly by Islamic Empires. They were enslaved so frequently and became so associated with slavery that they became the brand name. However, throughout history, all ethnic groups were both slave masters and were slaves themselves.

Many Americans seem to think that slavery began and ended with slavery of Africans in North America. Please. Americans didn't invent everything.

Mezzanine,

You're a nice guy.

I've concluded that Mierduck was born without a brain stem and was Sean Gleeson's first attempt to create an artificially-brained human.

This:

http://sean.gleeson.us/2004/11/27/new_mini_moonbat_fits_in_your_sidebar

was Gleeson's second, and more intelligent attempt.

Cheers,

Slavery is older than the Greeks. Mosaic law, written somewhere in the 1200-1500 B.C. era - says that the slaves must be given their freedom in the Year of Jubilee. Additionally, they spent approximately 450 years in slavery themselves. Not having read Hammurabai recently, I'm not sure, but it seems to address slaves and issues of the purchase and sale of people as well. This only shows that slavery is an institution as old as civilization. The one time that it seemed to die out, for a particular class of people, was in 1st century B.C. Palestine (Israel). The Jews of Jerusalem were carried back to Rome to be sold as slaves, as had the Greeks from Athens: For their skills and knowledge. For six days a week they were excellent slaves, but come Friday evening, that all changed. No manner of "Persuasion" was successful. Without going into the process in its entirety - I've gone to long already - by the time of Christ's birth there were no Jewish slaves in the Roman empire. This would seem to be the exception that tests the rule.

I can only conclude from this thread that muirduck is mentally ill.

Markets have more power than governments. Always have had, always will have.

Governments may attempt to control a stream, but markets are leakier than the Mississippi under flooding. And they always find the lowest, weakest spot.

The arguments against ad hoc balancing always seemed to be rather specious. How much planning makes sense? As we find out...empirically...not much. I know that I should be greatful for the recently passed Stimulus Bill, but I wonder, what will the size of the Underground Economy grow to as a result? Does anybody understand the concept of price elasticity, or the elasticity of demand? Will the next step be price controls? How much interference in the markets can be sustained by markets before the markets themselves fail? That is to say, you pick up your marbles and go home?

.

"Yes and slavery and the slave trade was a product of free market capitalism and free trade."

-Muit

And if unfettered free markets were a viable way to organize societies(production) and their economies they would exist as well. They don't exist.

-Muir again

Amazing.

Geoih points out:

Muirgeo: "unfettered free markets ....don't exist."

Geoih: And yet you continue to cite them as the major cause of all of our problems.

When a mind voluntarily swallows blatant contradictions -- such as the notion that a system of freedom (capitalism) causes the elimination of some people's freedom (slavery) -- the effect is to render that mind impervious to reason, facts, evidence and logic -- for it is precisely reason, facts, evidence and logic that must be turned off and evaded if the contradiction is to be absorbed. What you are left with then is a mind that is completely untroubled by contradictions, including its own.

Quote from muirgeo: "And if unfettered free markets were a viable way to organize societies(production) and their economies they would exist as well. They don't exist."

And yet you continue to cite them as the major cause of all of our problems.

Muirgeo,

"And if unfettered free markets were a viable way to organize societies(production) and their economies they would exist as well."

We can't really say that a completely free market system is not viable. There's no evidence one way or the other because the political classes have throughout history exploited the productive classes. This was, by the way, the problem for which Marx imagined his solution.

muirgeo,

There is nothing "unfettered" about the free market. Without legal restrictions on the actions of participants, both private and public, there can be no free market. Regulative rules are what coordinate the allocation of resources, i.e. create order, in the marketplace. What governments call "regulation" is, in fact, usually, anti-regulation. Markets are corrupted, price signals are skewed, and long run discrepencies between supply and demand are maintained.

In any case, the 'free market' is an abstraction--an ideal situation which does not actually exist anywhere. Most of the time, however, people are better off when reality more closely corresponds to the ideal. It is impossible to develop a theory which accounts for all relevant variables, and so abstract explanations of principle are the best we can do.

Gil,

My point was not that Greece was a democratic slave state. Rather that slavery is independent of governmental organization, particularly when both representative (American) and direct (Grecian) democracy have demonstrated failings in this capacity. Rather, I was demonstrating that there is perpetually a desire to exploit the lives of others that is more likely to be perpetuated by those given power to rule over others (governments, "citizens", etc)

Muir, You lying Son of Gun. You have no honor. You have no guts. You are a propagandist. Dork, If I look up your campaign contributions, will i find contributions to democrats prior to 1996?

Randy,

Right, if gulags were an viable way to organise production, then they would still exist.

Posted by: Lee Kelly

And if unfettered free markets were a viable way to organize societies(production) and their economies they would exist as well. They don't exist.

Pretty lame Cheers. Greece was 'democratic' and 'had slavery' = makes good argument for Libertarians to bash Democracy. Any halfwit knows slavery had no obvious starting point and has existed throughout known history.

Then again, if 'slavery' is merely defined when 'someone is forced to work against his/her will and is forbidden to leave and will be tracked down and returned to their place of work should they escape then 'just' forms of slavery include:

1. Prisons

2. Debtor's prisons


3. War reparations whereby the (successful) defenders force the invaders to replace what they destroyed.

We must always remember that, in essence, there are no corporations, there are no governments, there are only people and their behaviors.

And Walter Williams showed in his book, The State Against Blacks, that racism was the original motivation for minimum wage laws.

I watched about 1 hour long segment of "House of Cards". I have zero sympathy towards the "home owners" who refinanced to put pool in their backyard, or took vacation, or upgraded to an unaffordable lifestyle. I have zero sympathies for the enablers on wall street who find themselves in bankruptcy or financial trouble. If the program was created for me to sympathize with the so called "home owners", then it failed, at least in my case.

Slavery is a government sponsored institution. Let us not forget our favourite federal Jim Crow Law the Davis-Bacon Act. Old Congressman Bacon saw that the contract for his beloved VA hospital in his district had been given to a coloured contractor from the south. Ergo, he sponsored “prevailing wage” legislation that ensured that work would go to more skilled white labour. While I am at it let us not forget that David Duke ran for senator as a Democrat. And if we are playing the party with more racists in it let us not forget Jeff Davis or better yet Fred Phelps. While we are at it how about George Wallace (segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever—D Alabama). Oh and let me not forget Bill Clinton’s hero Senator Fullbright the author of the Southern Manifesto. I am no Republican, but I do enjoy poking fun at the party (the Democratic Party) with such a history of racism that it can claim the KKK as its militant wing. The market hates racism. It was the market that wanted to integrated the railroads (See Plessy v. Fergason). It was the market that wanted to hire blacks in South Africa (See my grandfather’s diary). The market does not care what colour you are. The market is the most colour blind institution. Only governments discriminate on race. To love government is to love racism—you statist may not love racism yourself (and I do not think that you do) but you are just as complicit. Now if you will excuse me, one of my favourite movies (Blazing Saddles is on AMC).

Both Jim Crow laws and Slavery are things of the past thanks to democracy and no thanks to unregulated market economies.

Another zinger from George. I'll add this to his list of mistakes he won't own unless he surprises me below. Because most agree that the Civil War was largely an economic disagreement between the industrial North and the agrarian South. See:

http://tinyurl.com/top5causes

Randy,

Right, if gulags were an viable way to organise production, then they would still exist.

Mierduck needs to blame free markets because it is his beloved Democratic Party that defended slavery and wrote the segregation laws. Most of the tenets of modern socialism that Mierduck adores are borne of the belief that minorities are inferior.

Being devout socialists like Mierduck, the dominant leftist press has blindly accepted the Democratic Newspeak, where those who would judge minorities by the content of their character are called racists, and those who judge people by the color of their skin are called the Good Guys.

When Klansman David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana, he was kicked out of the Republican Party. Fellow Klansman Robert Byrd was not only welcomed by the Democrats, he was named their Senate Majority Leader.

Gil,

You make a good point. As muirgeo deftly avoided mentioning, one of the first occurrences of slavery was democratic greece. Slavery was allowed because only citizens (property-owning males) were allowed to vote. The question is not one of "government" or "democracy" or "capitalism". The issue is that there are people who would enforce their individual will on others in a way that interferes with their freedoms. Sometimes they are "citizens" sometime they are governments. At this particular point in time, the exercised power of government is at an unprecedented level, and there is currently quite a few that seem intent on extending this beyond what many consider acceptable, and hope to do so through a system that doesn't allow individuals the opportunity to vote for or against these decisions, or the opportunity to opt out of a system in which forced labor, extreme taxation or other fates are decided.

And before the inevitable "just move out of the country" argument is brought to bear, I will humbly ask whether North American slavery would be acceptable or reasonable had there been a vote in which the majority of people agreed on the subjugation of an entire race.

geoih and Sam made the most sense and it went downhill from there (let's bash government), namely - people in those times wanted slavery hence even if there wasn't any formal government they would have found another way to do it.

Slavery is exploitation. Government is exploitation. Its just a question of efficiency. We're not slaves only because the government has not yet found a way to make slavery efficient. Conscription is still on the books, its just not currently in use.

It is curious that every time I see one of these examples of a problem government has fixed it reminds me of a Simpsons quote (yes, I know). "Ah beer, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems." I'm sure there are good things government has done, but it is uncanny how every time a polititian argues that the government must fix something it's cause (many argue) is previous action by that very government. Slavery, lack of health insurance (involutary), the roots of this last recession, hell without government action it is unlikely New Orleans would have been as big a city because no one would have built the levies and the Katrina disaster would have been one of those average horrible things we talk about.

Government, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems.

Bill,

Yes.

"Personally, I think freedom of association should be at least as sacrosanct as the "right to privacy" and find no legal problem with such discrimination.

Posted by: Bill | Feb 15, 2009 12:56:28 PM"

Freedom of association is as sacrosanct as any other right, it isn't a case of "should be".

You can extend your understanding and realize that the northern victory in the second revoltionary war meant that government took upon itself to dictate all future associations and there was no such thing as an individual or state right to freedom of association any more. We do what the government tells us to do, or we prepare to do battle.

BTW, I called your Alabama Secretary of State about the "license" question and she referred me to the State Bar. There I was told that there is no State agency that issues a "license to practice law", that is issued by the Bar itself. I think we more or less agreed on that.

However, the State Bar is not an official state organization, so I claim rightful authority to say that no Attorney has a real license to practice law, only a Bar card. It serves as a defacto license to be sure, but I get the thicker slice of the hair we split.

Remember that the Constitution itself sanctioned slavery. Tarran excellently points out that slavery cannot exist without some sort of government entity, which Tom DiLorenzo in "The Real Lincoln" expounded on at length. Slavery would have died out like it did in Latin America.

What Muir doesn't understand is that in a true free market system, because all transactions are done voluntarily, by definition there can't be any slavery. The irony is that the twit accuses the free market of creating slavery, when it's his concept of "government" that enslaves people via taxes and regulations on their property.

Muir, on CNBC

You arrogant lout. CNBC programs are sponsored by the same corportations you called "Wall Street Crooks". Yes, you never openly named the chief of NY Fed, Tax Cheating, Tim Geithner on that list. Yes, he is in charge of organized extortion in the Obama administration. You coward, grow a pair.

Milton Friedman speaks of institutionalized racism here. 19:35 minute mark.

"Yes and slavery and the slave trade was a product of free market capitalism and free trade."

-Muir

Similar to the argument that Somalia and Ethiopia are free market economies.

As I've done before I would again refer Muir to the case of Hong Kong.

Sorry off topic but very pertinent to the general discussions here.

Watch, "House of Cards" on CNBC repeated regularly now through Monday.

An excellent discussion of how we got into this financial situation.

The odd thing is that the Slave trade was really the product of governments too: the original Atlantic slave trade was used to finance the empires of Spain and Portugal. The Spanish king, for example, sold monopolies on the slave trade as a way of raising revenue.

Slavery on a small scale is impractical. 1 or 2 people can keep a slave on their own, but its hard. To be economically viable, slavery requires a condition where the slave keeper has to exert little effort to keep a slave. Without government laws like the Fugitive Slave Act it is imppossible for large scale slavery to exist. It is telling that slavery, on a large scale, only occurs when governments promote it, and dies out within decades of support for it being lifted. Furthermore, it is also telling that in the modern era, when societies abandoned slavery that it was generally a peaceful affair. The slave keepers lacked the economic and political strength to keep the institution in place.

Saying that slavery is a product of the free market is about as accurate as saying that Darwinism is responsible for the Holocaust. And about as stupid.

Slavery was democracy. Majority rule. Majority could decide to enslave you if they wanted to, and that is the essence of democracy.

Quote from muirgeo: "Both Jim Crow laws and Slavery are things of the past thanks to democracy and no thanks to unregulated market economies."

No, they were both perpetuated and supported by government through democracy and coercive force. It was very regulated through numerous laws and court actions.

As long as the local force monopoly (government) wanted slavery or segregation, and the majority supported it through democracy, then it continued.

muirgeo

can you define slavery for us please?

and please let it not involve G.W. bush

thanks

Yes and slavery and the slave trade was a product of free market capitalism and free trade.

Both Jim Crow laws and Slavery are things of the past thanks to democracy and no thanks to unregulated market economies.

But some of Jim Crow was exclusive to the private sector. Examples include excluding blacks and others from restaurants and from real estate developments. No government action was needed to do this (unless a breach of the peace ensued). Personally, I think freedom of association should be at least as sacrosanct as the "right to privacy" and find no legal problem with such discrimination.

Which goes to show how government is a manifestation of culture rather than an inculcater of civilization.

Very true, but you can't ignore the fact that the majority within these polities were quite content in letting the government enforced segregation go on. If anything, I think its an example of the tyranny of the majority.