Slavery Note:

I have been accused by several idiots in the discussion groups of "advocating the reintroduction of slavery".

Of course, there is no need for me to "advocate" any such thing, since slavery has already been reintroduced, and exists now. There are tens of millions of slaves in the world, today, many of whom can be purchased for almost nothing.

The point is: should this state of affairs -- this inescapable fact of life -- be recognized, legalized and regulated, according to the principles of the liberals?

It could also be legalized and regulated (in many cases) according to the principles of the Objectivists, Libertarians and Free Traders, as long as there was a "contract" of some sort (coolies, peons, sharecroppers, etc., not to mention the age-old practice of selling oneself into slavery to pay one's debts, quite a relevant idea at present).

Who cares if they don't read the fine print?

That's the "Free Market"!

[Actually, this is already being done as a freak sideshow to the Great Libertarian Abortion Debate -- if we have a "right"to kill a foetus in the womb, do we also have the "right" to kill or abandon our children after birth? After all, logically, it's more or less the same thing. Regardless of whether or not we have a "right" to kill or abandon them, do we have the "right" to enslave them? After all, we made them, therefore they are "ours". Why not?

- C.P.,
19 March 2008

Return to:
See also
An Analysis of the Philosophy of AYN RAND by C.W. Porter (with afterword by Michael Shermer)
The Aristotelian Connection
Ayn Rand's Theory of Knowledge by Tom Porter (reviewed by Carlos W. Porter, with personal comments)
Kevin MacDonald

One should never underestimate the irrationality and inhumanity of the Libertarian and Objectivist movements.

I could never have imagined the following "rational arguments" even in my wildest moments as a satirist.
The foetus is an "aggressor", the foetus is a "trespasser", etc. etc.etc.
The foetus is guilty of the "initiation of physical force" [!] by "occupying your property" [!], etc. etc. etc. therefore it may be "evicted" [!] or "expelled" [!], etc. etc. etc.
One of the foremost proponents of this line of "rational argument" is the "libertarian" Murray Rothbard, a Jew so ugly he makes an ant-eater look like Brad Pitt.
This is Talmudism.
What is slavery compared to this?

For further examples, see "The 'Right' of Abortion: A Dogma in Search of a Rationale" by Dr. Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer
-- click here)