Socialsim built the middle class in America

[Razgovory]

Why? Because that is what makes it worthwile for humans to invest energy into bettering the lot of themselves and by turn others. Because at the end of the day, everything ends up as somebody's de facto property. The only difference is that in some unfortunate cultures these owners are called kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.
And the degree your livelihood and existence depends on the goodwill and handouts of others  (private or state), is also the degree your freedom is restricted.

In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.  The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves.  The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.

[Valmy]

The state played the same role in slavery as it plays with any property ownership.  Same as owning a cow.

Laws passed by the colonial governments defined the institution and defined the terms of servitude and who was a slave and who wasn't.  I don't think governments can pass laws declaring people cows...well ok I guess they could...

But the legal structures of the government were required to maintain the slave society.  And owning slaves and owning cows was not even considered the same at the time.

Jim Crow was formalized in state laws, but that was not necessary, nor did it originate from state law.  Jim Crow has it's origins in public minded individuals with white sheets.

The Black Codes predated the guys with the white sheets.  But in any case the government was complicit with the dudes in the white sheets, the white sheet guys could not have done what they did without that.  Heck the Democratic Party was so beholden to the white sheet people it almost created a rift in the party.  So I say it is total nonsense that it was unnecessary.  If the government had merely been neutral Jim Crow could not have worked, it was essential.

In the North were there weren't as many laws restricting blacks, blacks still were at the very bottom of the totem pole and stayed there.  Despite the lack of state intervention job positions were denied to them.

Hey big business did not bring those people north to not act as a cheap labor source.  But I honestly do not know how things worked up in yankee lands as well.

[Valmy]

In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.  The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves.  The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.

Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible).  Because the state was about preserving the slave system.  You cannot have it both ways here Raz.  You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it.  Both had massive roles in both.

[Tamas]

Jesus H Christ, Raz.

[grumbler]

Jesus H Christ, Raz.

I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you KNEW, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little RAZ isn't it?"

[Valmy]

Jesus H Christ, Raz.

I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you KNEW, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little RAZ isn't it?"

Nice

[Razgovory]

The state played the same role in slavery as it plays with any property ownership.  Same as owning a cow.

Laws passed by the colonial governments defined the institution and defined the terms of servitude and who was a slave and who wasn't.  I don't think governments can pass laws declaring people cows...well ok I guess they could...

But the legal structures of the government were required to maintain the slave society.  And owning slaves and owning cows was not even considered the same at the time.

Jim Crow was formalized in state laws, but that was not necessary, nor did it originate from state law.  Jim Crow has it's origins in public minded individuals with white sheets.

The Black Codes predated the guys with the white sheets.  But in any case the government was complicit with the dudes in the white sheets, the white sheet guys could not have done what they did without that.  Heck the Democratic Party was so beholden to the white sheet people it almost created a rift in the party.  So I say it is total nonsense that it was unnecessary.  If the government had merely been neutral Jim Crow could not have worked, it was essential.

In the North were there weren't as many laws restricting blacks, blacks still were at the very bottom of the totem pole and stayed there.  Despite the lack of state intervention job positions were denied to them.

Hey big business did not bring those people north to not act as a cheap labor source.  But I honestly do not know how things worked up in yankee lands as well.

Bullshit.  Slavery predates all governments.  Laws in the US only codified existing practices.  The ownership of a person is still a property right, and unless you believe that property rights come from governments, slavery does not come from governments either.  I also call bullshit on the Jim crow, the government tried to suppress those plucky individualists in white sheets but failed.  Afterword local governments codified what had already been accomplished, the pacification of the black populace.  Hurray for local control!

[Razgovory]

In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.  The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves.  The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.

Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible).  Because the state was about preserving the slave system.  You cannot have it both ways here Raz.  You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it.  Both had massive roles in both.

Okay, give me one state that eradicated slavery entirely by the volition of private citizens.

[Razgovory]

Jesus H Christ, Raz.

I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you KNEW, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little RAZ isn't it?"

Nice

On the other hand, maybe you are just a piece of shit like Grumbler and should just go fuck yourself.

[Tamas]

WHY DOES LACK OF COMPLETE STATE CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY EQUALS LEGALISATION OF SLAVERY YOU TWAT?!

[sbr]

[Valmy]

Bullshit.  Slavery predates all governments.

Prehistoric things are a bit outside of my area of knowledge.  I defer this question of grumbler.

Laws in the US only codified existing practices.

Um.  They were practices somewhere but they were not standardized.  There was certainly no universal idea that slavery was for life, was inherited through the mother only, and had a racial component.  Those laws were passed because they were needed in order for a slave economy and society to function.  Before it was pretty chaotic.   

The ownership of a person is still a property right, and unless you believe that property rights come from governments, slavery does not come from governments either.

I do not think ownership of a person is a property right.

I also call bullshit on the Jim crow, the government tried to suppress those plucky individualists in white sheets but failed.

A government tried to do so sure, but things were just a little unusual in the ten years after the Civil War.  It stopped but not because it failed to suppress anybody.  It was a policy decision based on political calculations.

Afterword local governments codified what had already been accomplished, the pacification of the black populace.  Hurray for local control!

Untrue it took decades of work by the state governments for Jim Crow to be fully established.  I thought local governments were still governments.

[Josephus]

The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.

No. [sigh] we're not. Not yet.

[Jacob]

For starters, how on earth can you be middle class if removal of welfare benefits would push you back to poverty? Then you are just poor enjoying the fruits of others' labor.

You're making no sense, Razmas.

[Barrister]

In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.  The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves.  The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.

Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible).  Because the state was about preserving the slave system.  You cannot have it both ways here Raz.  You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it.  Both had massive roles in both.

Okay, give me one state that eradicated slavery entirely by the volition of private citizens.

United Kingdom