Slavery a necessary evil or What an Idiot

[5fish]

but it seems there's an attempt here to condemn capitalism itself, as if capitalism was slavery.

Our capitalism is based on Propertarianism, the Slave-holding gentry believe in property rights above all else...

Locke’s classical liberalism has hardened into propertarian dogma.

The most important is that there is no justification for treating property rights as fundamental human rights, on par with personal liberty and freedom of speech.

More precisely, Locke’s principles perfectly suited the Southern Federalists who dominated the early years of the United States. On the one hand, they justified rebellion against the British Crown. On the other hand, they rejected any interference with property rights, including slave ownership.

Murray Rothbard's form of libertarianism as propertarian because he "reduced all human rights to rights of property, beginning with the natural right of self-ownership".[10]

Apparently Locke's ideas were employed in defense of slavery,

Chief Justice John Marshall was a property rights man gave us Propertarianism as the bases of our capitalism... Tan

Paterson's insistence on the sanctity of property anticipated the work of the Marshall Court. As these examples made clear, judicial protection of property as a basic right limiting the reach of government started before Marshall became Chief Justice in 1801.

Marshall's constitutionalism was inseparable from his commitment to property rights. To be sure, respect for the rights of property owners was an integral feature of the American social order well before John Marshall became Chief Justice.

Snip... Taney court... Propertarainism logical end is men are property too...

Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. ... Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the [36°N 36' latitude] line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void


LINK: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/#:~:text=As regards misunderstanding, Locke's oft,sounds like a statement of

 

[byron ed]

...Our capitalism is based on Propertarianism, the Slave-holding gentry believe in property rights above all else...Locke’s classical liberalism has hardened into propertarian dogma...Locke’s principles perfectly suited the Southern Federalists who dominated the early years of the United States...

Good for him, but John Locke was not a founder of the U.S. and was never a citizen of the U.S. -- he died decades before the U.S. Constitution was even written, meaning that he was not able nor did he advise on what our capitalism was to be based on. And as to this animal called "propertarian dogma," it was not mentioned in the U.S. Declaration Independence or the Constitution. No kind of dog was.

...Murray Rothbard's form of libertarianism as propertarian because he "reduced all human rights to rights of property, beginning with the natural right of self-ownership"...

Good for him, but neither did he have anything to do with what our capitalism was based on. He's merely one among many 20th century economists having wildly variant views. He had no official standing in the U.S. government whatsoever. Whatever "Austrian school" preclusions he had, we sure don't care. This is the U.S. and we have our own history. Clearly, the founding ideal was that all men are created equal.

You make much of our struggle to obtain that ideal, as if slavery was the founding principle of the Country. It was allowed, that's it. And then it became no longer allowed -- yet clearly capitalism marched on without it, apparently not dependent on slavery after all.

...Chief Justice John Marshall was a property rights man gave us Propertarianism as the bases of our capitalism...

Or, he couldn' possibly have done that because he didn't even become a chief justice until a couple decades after the founding -- that earlier point at which the basis of our capitalism had already been set, based on an attempted fair system of taxation and tariffs, not slavery..

...Paterson's insistence on the sanctity of property anticipated the work of the Marshall Court...

Good for him, apparently he was able to tell the future. But guess what; Paterson was not a Founder either. He neither established what the basis of our capitalism was at the founding.

... Taney court... Propertarainism logical end is men are property too...

...as we all well know, the Taney opinion was roundly criticized and dismissed not only at the time it was made, but to this day remains the ne ultra example of the worst court opinion ever written. In any event, the only actual ruling, the only thing that became law, was that one person, Dredd Scott, could not file suit because he was not a citizen. Everything else was non-binding opinion without any force of law (that was left to expected upcoming cases, which never did happen). So no proof at all that our capitalism was based on slavery.

Do you have any more examples of people or opinions that didn't establish the basis of our capitalism? We'd appreciate more of the ones we've actually heard of (if you don't mind), or the ones that had an actual part in the founding.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

He's merely one among many 20th century economists having wildly variant views.

 

[Jim Klag]

Our capitalism is based on Propertarianism, the Slave-holding gentry believe in property rights above all else...

Locke’s classical liberalism has hardened into propertarian dogma.

The most important is that there is no justification for treating property rights as fundamental human rights, on par with personal liberty and freedom of speech.

More precisely, Locke’s principles perfectly suited the Southern Federalists who dominated the early years of the United States. On the one hand, they justified rebellion against the British Crown. On the other hand, they rejected any interference with property rights, including slave ownership.

Murray Rothbard's form of libertarianism as propertarian because he "reduced all human rights to rights of property, beginning with the natural right of self-ownership".[10]



Chief Justice John Marshall was a property rights man gave us Propertarianism as the bases of our capitalism... Tan

Paterson's insistence on the sanctity of property anticipated the work of the Marshall Court. As these examples made clear, judicial protection of property as a basic right limiting the reach of government started before Marshall became Chief Justice in 1801.

Marshall's constitutionalism was inseparable from his commitment to property rights. To be sure, respect for the rights of property owners was an integral feature of the American social order well before John Marshall became Chief Justice.

Snip... Taney court... Propertarainism logical end is men are property too...

Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. ... Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the [36°N 36' latitude] line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void


LINK: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/#:~:text=As regards misunderstanding, Locke's oft,sounds like a statement of

I'm pretty sure our form of capitalism was a gift from a gentleman named Alexander Hamilton. I highly recommend that everyone read Hamilton's three massive reports on credit, banking and raising revenue. In addition to founding the National Bank, Hamilton founded the U.S. Mint, created a system to levy taxes on luxury products (such as whiskey), and outlined an aggressive plan for the development of manufacturing. Jefferson hated him so he couldn't be all bad. Most of the people Jefferson hated were okay by me - John Marshall was at the top of the list next to Hamilton.

 

[jgoodguy]

You are correct. Only in the south was the economy ever dependent on slavery and what they practiced was hardly capitalism as we know it. Those great cotton planters made the robber barons of the turn of the century look like altruists. If they didn't need Yankee money or foreign money for their cotton, they would have built castles with moats to isolate themselves and their crops/livestock would be walled off so the little people couldn't get at them.

I'd suggest that the sugar economy of the Caribbean was also dependent on slavery also not capitalism as we understand it.

 

[5fish]

but John Locke was not a founder of the U.S. and was never a citizen of the U.S. -

You are right about Locke but his ideas crossed the pond to the Americas. His ideas influence the Southern gentry like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe , and other founding fathers. His ideas would not embraced by the English upper classes, if you would have read the article you would this. His mixture land ownership and slavery was the writings found a willing audience in the Southern gentry.

. He had no official standing in the U.S. government whatsoever

I was pointing out that Southern gentry put land ownership as a right equal to man's inalienable rights. The concept Propertarianism grew form the soil of our Southern States to infest our Constitution and our Capitalist system. Have you ever listen to companies ownership when their workers demand fair wages or unionism. They say "I built this company" , "The stockholders own this business" , and so on... Those words are Propertarianism spilling out of their mouths...

, he couldn' possibly have done that because he didn't even become a chief justice until a couple decades after the founding

NO, John Marshall came in 12 years later in 1801... and he enshrined in our Constitution Propertarianism. Our Constitution hold property rights sacred... He was was the driver behind it....

Good for him

Was it is good for slaves...

the Taney opinion was roundly criticized and dismissed

It does not matter if its a bad opinion but its shows when Propertarianism goes to far humans become property. I want to point out if the civil war had not come along Slave would have stayed property...