It was protected by government, but it wasnt enforced. Enforcing something implies demanding it take place or required. It was neither. It was allowed and the government....protected this free market principle from being outlawed or dismantled. But no, the US government didnt require slavery be enacted or practiced.
What people were the main influence behind trans Atlantic slave trade?
I just love to tease.
1.to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2. to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.
3. to impose (a course of action) upon a person: The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4. to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force: to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5. to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon: He enforced his argument by adding details.
But I still stand by my contention that slavery is the ultimate form of a free market. It's the cheapest labor and if you have no morals, then you need not be concerned with the feelings/rights/needs of the labor force. If they dont like it, they can escape.
Anyway, you can stand by it all you want. A free market requires two sides agreeing to an exchange of goods/labor for a price. Voluntary slavery isn't slavery by definition so....... Slavery in a free market is an oxymoron.
sso delivers again.
he must be a troll. noone can think that way without his brain evaporating.
Free Market: A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Without Government intervening and making slavery illegal, it works in a free market and is the ideal situation...nearly free labor...you still have to maintain the equipment(slave)...but it is as cheap as you can get for labor. If we go one step above that, and say slavery is illegal only...then indentured servitude is next, and it's almost as good as slavery. But that fucking evil govenment intervenes and says nope...indentured servitude is illegal as well....
fucking governments...messing with the markets...those evil bastards, how could they?
where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely
Did you miss this part? Do you not realize that the "seller" in the labor agreement is the worker? Do you not realize that freely choosing slavery is an oxymoron? Or did you think slaves chose to be sold into slavery in exchange for room and board?
Last edited by Ziegler; 06-01-2012 at 15:58.
Free market economics don't create slave markets. A 'seller' is a slave trader in a slave market. We are talking about labor markets in a free market. In a labor market, the worker is the seller, they are selling their labor to business (the buyer). Both parties must agree to the terms of the deal. There are no slave traders spontaneously popping into existence....
Nor does a free market eliminate inalienable rights.
Not confused at all. You dont like the fact that in a "free market" with absolutely no morals, and no restrictions....slavery is very possible. Only if you have some morals do you see slavery as distasteful.
But your contention is that the free market should be amoral and so should the government.
Without morals, there are no rights just the law of the jungle. We can keep going back and forth but it's not going to do any good, you're not going to admit that your free market without any morals or beliefs justifies slavery because you might have to admit that a little morality or regulations is a good thing.