Inalienable rights....comes from a moralistic viewpoint, or even a religious viewpoint in that they come from GAHD!!!!.......GAWD has no place in a discussion of a society without morals.
The concept of inalienable rights didnt even exist til a few hundred years ago. So again, your inalienable rights...dont exist in a free market....mainly because in your view, there is no moral government and it isnt the governments job to protect the people from the market and the market isnt contrained by morals. Therefore...slavery is viable and good.
Stop trying to bring morals and beliefs into your amoral government and market.
So, yes, my inalienable rights do exist in a free market.
And once again, despite the fact that it's not relevant, nowhere did I suggest that gov't cease to exist. Gov't has a role and it is clearly defined. Market manipulations is not one of its roles.
No...your..."rights" dont exist. Your rights are allowed because the morals of society dictate that they be allowed from a moralist perspective. Otherwise, we would not have ...gun rights abridged/taken away, illegal searches, et al. ....they exist because people with more power than you allow them to exist. If those same people decide not to grant you those rights...guess what, unless you can kill them....you dont have those "unalienable rights"...of course I might be wrong...I'll wait for Jehovah or Zeus or Vishnu to correct me though.
No self respect.
I'm not advocating it, and if I read you correctly, you are condemning me for having some morals like not putting other humans in chains.
Slavery always ended when government's stopped subsidizing it. Slavery existed almost exclusively when governments existed. So let's just summarize. I don't want slavery. If it happens to come out in a free market I would oppose it. If it happens so that the slave owners can enforce slavery, I doubt a government can stop slave owners so strong.
You have no idea what natural rights are then. In order to not be in a state of war between two people they must recognize each other's natural rights. Otherwise they must war. So if a group of people say they goal is peacefully live together they must admit that natural rights exist for one another.I know the premise...and it wasnt intended that the government would be amoral. Again, if the government decided tomorrow to impose martial law and house soldiers in your home and confiscate your weapons, and put you in jail for speaking against the government...you have two choices....either die fighting to keep them from doing it, or admit that the Creator aint going to do shit to protect your "unalienable rights" and submit to their power.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
I am thinking it is you who does not understand what amoral is. If you take out the question of right or wrong, slavery is great. Everything I have been showing you, is to show you exactly that.
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious
An amoral government and market will certianly look immoral ....to a moral person. Which is the mistake you have been making this whole time.
You want a different level of morality. But you still want a moral government.
Last edited by Ziegler; 06-02-2012 at 13:11.
You may not harm another individual or put that individual in hazardous danger. You may not steal another individuals labor, property or other valuables.
Anyone that thinks we need more laws than this should be hanged at dawn.
And slavery isn't possible.
Let me put it this way. Humans are not capable of being truly amoral. Animals are amoral. When you think of it like that, perhaps it will make it easier to see.