|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. You know, we've had a free market in children before.  Look at that great outcome!
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you aware that The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave? jrodefeld posted:And before you go into a tirade about the author being a white supremacist, Lerone Bennett, Jr is a black man who used to be executive editor of Ebony magazine. DoctorWhat posted:ACKNOWLEDGE THE WHOLE CONTRACT THING WE JUST POSTED LIKE TEN TIMES ABOUT GAAAH.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld, do you still seriously believe that this is the best and quickest way to create marriage equality? Legal changes needed to achieve marriage equality the 'classic' way: a few lines get re-written to make it clear that the sexes of the married don't matter for legal protection. Success to date: a majority of Americans are okay with this. Legal changes needed to achieve marriage equality your way: rewriting the tax code, contract law, and the legal structure needed to honor the above. Success to date: looks like you're batting 0 outside your own head? Do you have some method to convince people who aren't on SA to see things your way, or do you expect to have a long, lonely, and unsuccessful fight in every possible new venue to justify why this is somehow better and quicker? The very first thing this proposal needs is to be palatable to more people and faster than the currently-used method. How do you do that? ZeeToo fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:How'd you do in high school civics? Depending on where he went to school possibly quite well. I mean his understanding of the civil war is exactly how its taught here in Georgia(unfortunately).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
John McCain posted:Nobody who knows anything about the Civil War thinks that abolition was Lincoln's main reason for the prosecution of the war. But the terrible fear of abolition which gripped the South absolutely was their reason for beginning the war. I noticed earlier that you claimed Lincoln started the Civil War, which is patently false, since the first attack on Fort Sumter (an indirect one: the attack on its resupply ship) and the declaration of secession of South Carolina occurred before Lincoln's inauguration. First of all, I know all this. My only point was that slavery was not a concern FOR THE NORTH. And they had the ability to prevent this war. Also, the act of secession, which was accepted as a legal right that states had at the time, could NOT in itself possibly be justification for going to war. As far as the attack on Fort Sumter, the death toll from that attack was 1 horse, no humans. The death toll from Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter: 670,000 humans, thousands of horses. Does that seem like the most prudent, measured, statesmanlike response that Lincoln could muster? Not only that but Lincoln wanted to provoke a war before the attack on Fort Sumter. Lincoln sent warships to Charleston Harbor and the South Carolinians foolishly fired shots at the fort killing no one. Then Lincoln launched a full scale war. So, while the judgment to fire shots was wrong, the idea that this event, especially as the people of South Carolina thought they were being threatened by Lincoln's Navy, justified the response to launch a full scale war is absurd. There were plenty of opportunities for Lincoln to avoid war and negotiate a peace treaty with southern states. But Lincoln was not interested in avoiding war, but provoking war. But as Tom DiLorenzo stating in an interview, Lincoln was quite a tyrant with his "illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of political dissenters in the North; his shutting down of over 300 opposition newspapers; his deportation of the leader of the congressional opposition, Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio; and his purposeful waging of total war on civilians. He destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and destroyed the system of federalism that was the hallmark of the original constitution by using military force to "prove" that nullification and secession were illegal. Might makes right. Unlike England, Spain, France, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and other countries that ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century, Lincoln used the slaves as political pawns in a war that both he and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 was being waged for one reason only: to "save the union." But as I said, he really destroyed the voluntary union of the founders." Were many in the south bigots and racists? Certainly. But there is a reason that many true abolitionists of the day opposed Lincoln. They saw him for what he is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Also Bennett's main point was that the black abolitionists often get lost in the shuffle and Lincoln gets all the glory, and in truth we should respect their work while acknowledging that Lincoln was, at his core, a white man in a very bigoted era, and we do a great disservice to everyone to pretend he was some magically enlightened soul. But yea, I can see how the REAL point was 'if you think about it the confederates were ok' or whatever. edit: Oh my god 'plenty of chances to negotiate peace' and saying Lincoln should have ignored a bunch of slave owners splitting the nation and shooting at military forts, there's no way a grown man is this loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. You are insane. In the real world we do not support the rights of parents to sell their children or starve them to death. What in the world is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
The Boston Massacre only killed five people, and in response those drat colonists launched a war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and permanently destroyed the Majesty's kingdom. Was that the most statesmanlike response available to the Colonials? No, they had many opportunities to abandon their personal convictions and beliefs that they could have taken at any point. Edit: You fool, the Confederates should have just signed a CONTRACT and the government would have had no option but to do everything they want. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The goal of writers like Rothbard is to get you to think about novel solutions to problems. You might disagree with some of his proposals but it will compel you to think like an economist and effectively evaluate a situation in society. I've noticed a surprising resemblance between "thinking like an economist" and "thinking like a supervillain" in your worldview. quote:First of all, I know all this. My only point was that slavery was not a concern FOR THE NORTH. And they had the ability to prevent this war. What IS all of this? You're blaming the entire death toll of the Civil War on Lincoln's response to the attack on Fort Sumter. Apparently the Confederates have no moral culpability for starting a rebellion over slave property rights and being such bellicose idiots that they attacked a country that had industrial capacity far beyond anything they could hope to match (largely BECAUSE of that slave economy, hilariously enough). Have you ever heard about the Confederate dreams of adding Cuba and various parts of South America to an expansionist CSA? How could the U.S. have avoided war without caving entirely to the pro-slavery caucus in Congress? more friedman units fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
dorquemada posted:Reality disagrees. Housing discrimination is not a historical artifact, to this day two thirds to 78% of landlords will quote a higher rent or say that units are not available to blacks in Beaverton, Oregon. "Holy shitballs, folks posted:To check whether renters face housing discrimination, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon sent black and white testers with the same credentials into Beaverton and Ashland to look at apartments advertised in newspapers and online. The results they found in just one month alarmed them. This really shocked me because my parents are landlords in that area and would never, ever even think about doing that. Race has nothing to do with whether a person is going to be a good renter or not. Now, the "libertarian" argument would be that the bad landlords would lose money by losing out on renters, but at such a high percentage of discrimination the black renters would probably think that the rates that they were being quoted were normal. How much worse do you think housing discrimination would be if the government got out of it completely? If society as a whole is colluding against a minority, the only way to fight that is through the government, especially the federal government. This is in western Oregon, one of the more liberal parts of the nation. (although not as liberal as Washington with your marriage equality, darn you for getting it first  Next election cycle I swear!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I haven't given this much thought, but if that is the best attempt to denigrate the writings at Mises.org then it is not very persuasive. http://archive.mises.org/4391/mises-org-needs-ms-sql-2005/ http://mises.org/daily/1580
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Spooner was an abolitionist, and happened to have a beef with Lincoln (and in fact pretty much all government). That does not mean that Lincoln and the North "did not care about abolishing slavery." Lincoln was a well-known abolitionist; his election was what led the core slave states to secede and attack the US. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which, aside from freeing the vast majority of slaves in the US, also elevated the elimination of slavery to a war goal on par with preserving the Union - something that actually undercut Spooner's main criticism of Lincoln and the Republicans in the Civil War). Lincoln later pushed the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, where it was ratified by the northern states. Lincoln was not just an abolitionist; he was the abolitionist. He's the guy who freed the slaves. The fact that Spooner wasn't a fan of Lincoln, or government in general, does nothing to change the fact that Lincoln was the guy who freed the slaves. Pretty much everything you wrote about Lincoln is wrong. If you think the Emancipation Proclamation freed "the vast majority" of slaves you are completely clueless. The Thirteenth Amendment made slavery illegal, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, it was used as a battle tool in the Civil War, as Lincoln threatened to free slaves in states controlled by the Confederacy in order to weaken the state and cripple its economy. Of course he had no jurisdiction over the confederate controlled states, so not a single slave was freed. All the while he tolerated slavery in Northern states where he actually had jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was Lincoln who had to be pressured and coerced to support the thirteenth amendment, not the other way around. As far as Rothbard is concerned, that quote is taken slightly out of context. What he is advocating for in this case is anarchy. I don't agree with what he says but he tends to take a position and follow it to its logical conclusion, which can go off the rails at times. He also states later on in that article that the market will seek to limit the instances of such neglect and keep it to a minimum. Murray Rothbard was a brilliant economist and historian. This subject is a bit out of his area of expertise. He also said this about abortion, which I expect many of you might agree with: "The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers." This is clearly at odds with many libertarians. Are we to assume that the work of Austrian economics and Mises and Rothbard and all the other scholars and economists is somehow invalid or suspect due to a few controversial and contestable assertions of Rothbard? I don't think so. He had a habit of speaking extemporaneously and was not afraid to be controversial and provocative, even when it was not necessary. I don't agree with Rothbard on this. I doubt that even Rothbard himself agreed with this statement as I have read other writings that seem to contradict what he says here. He would frequently present a premise and follow it to its logical conclusions. He would revise his ideas and present them differently throughout his long career. I'm sure one could easily search through all the books and speeches and writings Rothbard published throughout his life and pick out the most controversial statements to slam him with. That is not fair. One needs to become familiar with the writings and subject matter and the overall ideology to fully grasp the whole ideology. Mises.org economists and writers do differ in opinions more than you might be aware.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
ANSWER MY loving QUESTION YOU SPINELESS TOAD! and that's coming from a frog.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Oh wow, that's great! He states that it will happen! I'll put that on my list of things to do to make my life easier. *Writes self massive tax credits* *Writes self contract granting me free health insurance for life* *States that the market will limit child neglect, thus ending the problem of child abuse* *States that the market will give me $5,000,000 and a rotating harem of lingerie models*
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Put another way: I don't understand this constant referring to hospitals in objections to my ideas. If a state effectively allowed any marriage in a contract, and this was widely understood, what would make you so sure that a hospital would want to prevent you from seeing your husband or wife in the hospital? Even a friend can get into see their friend in a hospital if they are injured. The more important part is regarding benefits and the ability to make medical decisions or any number of financial agreements, pre nup agreements and so forth. I don't think any hospitals are going to turn away spouses seeing their injured partners. Especially considering all heterosexual couples will have the exact same kinds of arrangements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Thirteenth Amendment made slavery illegal, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, dorquemada posted:I am aware that it freed every slave from New Bern to Morehead City (Union occupied at the time) and I am also aware that the above statement is therefore utter bullshit. Not to mention thousands more on Sherman's march alone and tens of thousands of more every other place that came under or was under Union control. So, once again, you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
The constant personification of The Market is something I didn't notice back when I had my libertarian phase, but it is really creepy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:First of all, I know all this. My only point was that slavery was not a concern FOR THE NORTH. And they had the ability to prevent this war. Yes, actually, it does. He faced, at the time of his inauguration, a massive armed rebellion, with seven (of what would eventually be eleven) states in open revolt against the federal government. jrodefeld posted:
Horseshit. As I already mentioned, the South Carolinian secession and the first attack by South Carolina on the United States Army occurred months before Lincoln's inauguration - it is impossible that Lincoln took any act as President to provoke a war which began before he became President (and God knows he tried to appease the South during his campaign and before his inauguration, hence all his speeches about preservation of the Union, free or slave). jrodefeld posted:So, while the judgment to fire shots was wrong, the idea that this event, especially as the people of South Carolina thought they were being threatened by Lincoln's Navy, justified the response to launch a full scale war is absurd. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant. He assumed extraordinary powers, some of which were never authorized by Congress, some of which were post hoc granted to him. But here is a critical point which you neglect to mention: Lincoln was President during the only existential crisis the Union has ever faced. No other war the United States has ever been involved in - not the War of 1812, not either World War, and certainly not any of our dirty colonial struggles have ever threatened the integrity or the future of the United States as much as the Civil War. And Lincoln willingly surrendered his extraordinary powers after the rebellion had been suppressed. In many ways he exemplified the ideals of the Founding Fathers - like Cincinnatus, after whom George Washington styled himself, he took up an extraordinary mantle and surrendered it once the crisis was past. And say what you will about the conditions of the North, antebellum and postbellum - but at least it was never a nation explicitly founded on the inferiority of black people, unlike the CSA; and by shortly after the end of the war, it had taken great strides towards both de jure and de facto racial equality, even though the de facto reforms were largely lost after the end of Reconstruction (a perfect example of how vigorous federal intervention can sometimes be necessary to ensure the recognition of civil rights). John McCain fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
I really don't know what's worse, your completely lack of knowledge of why and how marriage works and why people want it, how the Bill of Rights originally worked, how contracts work(or wouldn't work in these scenarios) or your failing at the civil war knowledge down to Lincoln taking executive actions before he was president apparently. This is almost surreal in how bad this is. This isn't even libertarian normal crazy, a lot of us went through an obligatory libertarian phase at one point, but jesus I never had delusions about the civil war or thought replacing marriage with contracts hospitals and poo poo would not honor 1/2 the time(see: gay people and civil unions) was a good idea. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:This is in western Oregon, one of the more liberal parts of the nation. (although not as liberal as Washington with your marriage equality, darn you for getting it first Now, back to jrodefeld telling us how to be libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think any hospitals are going to turn away spouses seeing their injured partners. Especially considering all heterosexual couples will have the exact same kinds of arrangements. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/20/713251/nevada-same-sex-couple-denied-hospital-visitation-despite-domestic-partnership/ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/first_gay_marriage_suit_hits_catholic_kIUqVFlJavuxZyr7W52s2H http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...gQCQ_story.html http://daily.decisionhealth.com/Articles/Detail.aspx?id=501927 http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2-governor-scott-walker-kills-same-sex-couples-hospital-visitation-rights/politics/2012/04/09/37781 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-couples/
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't understand this constant referring to hospitals in objections to my ideas. If a state effectively allowed any marriage in a contract, and this was widely understood, what would make you so sure that a hospital would want to prevent you from seeing your husband or wife in the hospital? Why and how would a third-party, presumably private entity recognize an unrelated contract between two private citizens? Why would that contract be relevent to that hospital/prison/etc? AND WHAT ABOUT ADOPTION you gutless pile of pond scum?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. You're a loving idiot. I'm a counselor at a nonprofit that serves homeless and displaced youth. I did an intake yesterday for a girl whose mother would have sold her for drugs had there been a buyer. There is no market for 17-year-old girls other than people who really do not have their best interests at heart. This is getting personal, I may have to bow out of this thread. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think any hospitals are going to turn away spouses seeing their injured partners. Especially considering all heterosexual couples will have the exact same kinds of arrangements. You may have heard of a minor player in the healthcare industry known as the Catholic Church. How do they feel about gay couples, I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Alright, Lysander Spooner was an insane anarchist who's main beef with Lincoln was that his lovely mail company was 'forced' out of business by the federal mail system, and he fully supported the confederacy seceding because of 'consent to be governed'. He legitimately believed the rights of some racists in power trumped the rights of the people within, and that Davis was totally a swell guy for bravely standing up for his right to refuse to be governed, while plunging his people into poverty and war. This is a ridiculous smear. Lysander Spooner was one of the greatest philosophers and abolitionists to have ever lived. So, as racist and abhorrent as many at the time were, he did not see it as justified to use violent force to prevent secession of a state. And yes, violent uprising, assisted by Northern abolitists, coupled with assisting runaway slaves in the underground railroad and nullifying fugitive slave laws could have sufficiently weakened the institution of slavery to the point where the thirteenth amendment could have passed without the need for the bloodiest war in U.S. history. You simply gloss over the enormous loss of human life and destruction of property that that war entailed and scoff at any intellectuals, no matter their pedigree and qualification to pontificate on the matter, accusing them of being crackpots and lunatics for suggesting a more humane and less bloody way to resolving the slavery issue. You know, one that doesn't tear the entire nation apart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:ACKNOWLEDGE THE WHOLE CONTRACT THING WE JUST POSTED LIKE TEN TIMES ABOUT GAAAH. I already have. Reread this thread and you are sure to find the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You simply gloss over the enormous loss of human life and destruction of property that that war entailed and scoff at any intellectuals, no matter their pedigree and qualification to pontificate on the matter, accusing them of being crackpots and lunatics for suggesting a more humane and less bloody way to resolving the slavery issue. You know, one that doesn't tear the entire nation apart. Isn't secession, by definition, tearing the entire nation apart? Edit: You know, it's not very statesmanlike to keep arguing with everyone on the forum. Why don't you follow your principles and secede to a different forum? CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I've got to say, usually trolls tip their hand much earlier than this. Good work, man. I'm not a troll. I'm an active participating member of this forum and I am arguing a position I believe in. If I was a troll, I'd just spam a bunch of cut and pasted junk and then leave. I am contributing. If you assume that every one who doesn't agree with you is a "troll" then you are not very tolerant of opinions contrary to your own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Isn't secession, by definition, tearing the entire nation apart? It was protecting property  Just like real activism is a white guy writing essays at home telling slaves they need to revolt more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not a troll. I'm an active participating member of this forum and I am arguing a position I believe in. If I was a troll, I'd just spam a bunch of cut and pasted junk and then leave. Said jrodefeld, noted supported of child slavery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:jrodefeld, noted supporter of being able to buy and sell children. So buying and selling children is horrible, but putting them in adoption homes to linger without parents for years to be abused and treated badly, THAT is acceptable? I didn't say I agree with Rothbard on this issue entirely, but I can understand the argument. What if "selling" children actually allowed unwanted children to find loving parents more easily than conventional methods of adoption? We are not talking about selling children as slaves or the new parents being abusive, we are talking about couples who desperately want to adopt being able to pay the biological parents for the privileged of taking custody of the child. Lets be very clear about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:It was perfect timing, just the other day I had some stupid rear end anarchist tell me how great Lysander Spooner was, so I looked up how loving insane and dumb he was, so this was just the planets aligning to let me call someone dumb. Why don't you back up that statement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So buying and selling children is horrible, but putting them in adoption homes to linger without parents for years to be abused and treated badly, THAT is acceptable? So buying and selling Negroes is horrible, but putting them in sharecropping homes to linger without I didn't say I agree with Rothbard on this issue entirely, but I can understand the argument. What if "selling" Negroes actually allowed unwanted Africans to find loving
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a ridiculous smear. Lysander Spooner was one of the greatest philosophers and abolitionists to have ever lived. So, as racist and abhorrent as many at the time were, he did not see it as justified to use violent force to prevent secession of a state. Those 'assisted uprisings' often lead to mass executions of slaves, it's super easy to kill a bunch of people you think are subhuman, especially if you think a trend is coming. You legit have no grasp of the confederacy, they seceded entirely because of slavery, how can you claim there were peaceful ways to end it when you had half the nation split off at the hair trigger of 'GAH DON'T TAKE MAH SLAVES'? Your calling an attack by seceded expats on a military fort something minor is insane as well, you don't get to split from a nation, then lob cannonballs at it. The idea of 'consensual governance' doesn't work because it still removes consent from the actual people. All people like Spooner do is shift the consent from the federal government to whoever's in charge of a state at the time. Hell, we have modern examples, we got petitions for a bunch of states to secede because Obama was elected again, should those be honored? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why don't you back up that statement? Um, he stated it, what do you think that you need "evidence" or something? Edit: Please refer to "What Empiricism Can't Tell Us, and Rationalism Can" at http://mises.org/daily/1999 before you ask for any more silly "backing up" in the future. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:11
|
|
|
Lycus posted:So in an ideal libertarian system, transfer of child custody can be done with just a contract without the involvement of any other laws and government agencies? My guess is yes. Also, that has happened in the past with good results! And by good results I mean the horrific deaths and neglect of thousands if not millions of children, but hey, that's the free market for you. Oh, yes, the free market was totally in control of what we call foster care today, and the result was many, many murdered and neglected children so that didn't go very well. Ah, the Golden Age when government allowed the people to do what they wished wished with little to no oversight! truly we live in a terrifying age where we cannot pay oodles of money to a baby farm to take care of our children so that we can go work in a sweatshop without minimum wage laws. But it's worth it. For freedom. Because the federal government is bad. Because of freedom. Dead babies are fine though. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What if "selling" children actually allowed unwanted children to find loving parents more easily than conventional methods of adoption? What if read my loving post on this very page? WHAT IF, BUT IT loving DOESN'T. If you want to see your magical paradise of human action, look in the slums of India, people sell their kids all the time. They sell them to pimps. What do you have to say about that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We are not talking about selling children as slaves or the new parents being abusive, we are talking about couples who desperately want to adopt being able to pay the biological parents for the privileged of taking custody of the child. We already have this  People can pay surrogates to have children for them, and adoption cost tons of  usually. Selling kids on your glorious free market essentially means girls will be sold to people who will use them as sex slaves and boys will be sent to work on farms or something. Your world has people having a giant incentive to have children and sell them to scumbags as the free market would pay grand sums for being able to legally buy and own kids.Basically, what the gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
dorquemada posted:I am aware that it freed every slave from New Bern to Morehead City (Union occupied at the time) and I am also aware that the above statement is therefore utter bullshit. To quote wikipedia: "The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power...The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So buying and selling children is horrible, but putting them in adoption homes to linger without parents for years to be abused and treated badly, THAT is acceptable? What if selling children leads to them being sold to people who rape them for child porn? How about we be very clear about that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:13
|
|