Rand Paul under fire from black leaders for slavery remarks

[awake]

"Slavery meant NO choice", which is what socialism and state run anything is - NO CHOICE.

It appears that there are only certain people empowered, by some divine right, to fling the words "slavery" and "racist". It is too bad they are so completely blind with power they can't recognize those two words in action. In the meantime there are the rest of us who have to do it.

And what of the institution of slavery; would it be justice to have given every black slave a vote on who his slave master would be? If even the selections came from the ranks of the slaves themselves? Could we have said that slavery was abolished in this form?

Monarchy clearly defines the slave master and slaves, dictatorship does as well in much more brutal fashion. Democracy simply defines temporary slave masters and promises that every slave can in theory be slave master, but does not abolish the institution of slavery itself. This power to enslave, under false humanitarian reasons, is the current that moves the worst to the top.

 

[Cowlesy]

The Congressional Black Caucus uses the fact that at a point in American History there were slaves imported from Africa for redistributing government largesse to their people.

If they *really* wanted to battle slavery, they'd attack the massive human sex trafficking networks that still exist today, worldwide, in which countless humans are enslaved and likely operate within our own country.

http://www.meetup.com/HTACouncil/

Their Caucus's purpose in Congress is not to combat injustice, but to redistribute the tax money. Until that changes I don't care what they have to say and I will not take them seriously.

 

[AndrewD]

You know what. My parents had to deal with Jesse Jackson's shit. They got sick of it.

Now there is ANOTHER Jesse Jackson. He is my generation's problem and I have to deal with the same shit my parents dealt with. It aint fair. Just when your comfortable with one Jesse Jackson keeling over and dying, another one comes...God Bless America.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It is factually true that your are not legally required to earn taxable income, and it is in fact possible (though not very practical) for most people to survive doing so. This is not the same to being literally chained up and beaten if you refused to work. Moreover, whatever principled arguments you can make in comparing the income tax slavery get completely lost in the stupidity of not also conceding the massive factual differences between 1850s chattel slavery and the modern income tax. You can make a great argument along the lines of "You should be able to keep the fruits of your labor. Isn't the principle of the income tax like slavery?", but you will deservedly get no where by trying to defend the assertion that "The income tax is just as bad as chattel slavery."

Zoning laws are bad, but conscription is worse. Monopoly postal service is bad, but the war in Iraq is worse. The income tax is bad, BUT SLAVERY WAS MUCH WORSE. No one will ever take you seriously if you try to dispute that.

No one (at least in these parts) will take you seriously if you persist in refusing to acknowledge that "1850s chattel slavery" or "being literally chained up and beaten if you refused to work" is the only meaningful sense or definition of "slavery." Even you yourself are unable to maintain such a ridiculously constricted use of the word - as shown by comparing the bolded parts of your post (above) and AuH20's post (below). Note especially the underlining.

Where did he say American Slavery? I looked up the word slavery in the dictionary and found this.

slav·er·y
   [sley-vuh-ree, sleyv-ree] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the condition of a slave; bondage.
2.
the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3.
a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.

 

[Churchill2004]

No one (at least in these parts) will take you seriously if you persist in refusing to acknowledge that "1850s chattel slavery" or "being literally chained up and beaten if you refused to work" is the only meaningful sense or definition of "slavery." Even you yourself are unable to maintain such a ridiculously constricted use of the word - as shown by comparing the bolded parts of your post (above) and AuH20's post (below). Note especially the underlining.

Of course there are other defintions. The one I was using was not "narrow", it's what immediately comes to mind when 98% of people hear the word slavery.

 

[awake]

I dunno guys, the IRS can beat you if you resist, they can place chains on you and put you behind bars. If you decide to escape they can possibly shoot you. You might not be forced to work in any clear way but the people who put you there profit; you are given a clear task to stay put or face physical threat. Chattel slavery is what again?

And so when I try to refuse to pay the government doctors, or better yet, try to be a doctor with out slave master permission, they can come and do all of the above.

In Canada, health care is a government provided right, if I tried to seek out non government doctors I could be charged, fined and jailed if I persist.

 

[awake]

neg rep for the completely uncalled for rudeness. I am not defending the income tax- I hate it as much as everyone else here. It is factually true that your are not legally required to earn taxable income, and it is in fact possible (though not very practical) for most people to survive doing so. This is not the same to being literally chained up and beaten if you refused to work. Moreover, whatever principled arguments you can make in comparing the income tax slavery get completely lost in the stupidity of not also conceding the massive factual differences between 1850s chattel slavery and the modern income tax. You can make a great argument along the lines of "You should be able to keep the fruits of your labor. Isn't the principle of the income tax like slavery?", but you will deservedly get no where by trying to defend the assertion that "The income tax is just as bad as chattel slavery."

Zoning laws are bad, but conscription is worse. Monopoly postal service is bad, but the war in Iraq is worse. The income tax is bad, BUT SLAVERY WAS MUCH WORSE. No one will ever take you seriously if you try to dispute that.

I get it; repeatedly hitting me with a bat is not the same as shooting me. But does this really make the bat beating less violent and the gun shot more violent? The bat could be argued as less violent, yes, but both forms of violence should be prevented by law based on individual rights. Slavery in all of its forms and degrees needs to be abolished.

 

[hillertexas]

If they *really* wanted to battle slavery, they'd attack the massive human sex trafficking networks that still exist today, worldwide, in which countless humans are enslaved and likely operate within our own country. http://www.meetup.com/HTACouncil/

Excellent point

 

[Nic]

Anyone who would ever take the likes of Jesse Jackson seriously are inconsequential. They don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the liberty movement anyway, so who cares.

 

[Churchill2004]

I get it; repeatedly hitting me with a bat is not the same as shooting me. But does this really make the bat beating less violent and the gun shot more violent? The bat could be argued as less violent, yes, but both forms of violence should be prevented by law based on individual rights. Slavery in all of its forms needs to go.

There's noting wrong with this argument. The problem is with implying or outright stating EQUIVALENCE between slavery and the income tax. That's what gets people so upset- they take away that we're arguing the current tax system is somehow as bad or worse than chattel slavery. And that turns people off.

 

[I Don't Vote]

In Canada, health care is a government provided right, if I tried to seek out non government doctors I could be charged, fined and jailed if I persist.

For real? Excuse my ignorance.

 

[TheDriver]

So, what, white people can't use the world slavery? Is that what I'm gathering from this attack?

 

[Travlyr]

Slavery in all of its forms and degrees needs to be abolished.

Needs to go the way of the dinosaur ... to never again return.

 

[awake]

For real? Excuse my ignorance.

In Canada, private services are against the law. All doctors are paid by the government (provincially) nurses as well. Nearly every politician uses the threat of market based healthcare as the embodiment of Hitler resurrected; to pump more money with little resistance into the socialist trap. There really is no debate whether it should be a right - it is in all important points - 'other people pay'.

The U.S. State wants our style healthcare because it becomes another powerful gigantic tentacle that it gets to wield over the people to gain votes. The Healthcare professionals love socialization as it guarantees security and monopolistic control. Both work very hard, hand in hand, to keep any market alternative out.

 

[kah13176]

I think Rand was right on and should not apologize.

In a society where property rights have been eroded to any degree, then there is SOME degree of slavery.

 

[I Don't Vote]

Maybe Rand made a bad choice using the word slavery (although I think it's fucking awesome), but he should NOT apologize.

That would make him look worse and more like a clown that just says shit just to say it.

 

[MelissaWV]

In my opinion, no apology is necessary but perhaps the word "servitude" or even "indentured servitude." If the Black Caucus folks are half as smart as they'd like to think they are, they would realize that indentured servitude was merely slavery with more broken promises... and it was largely visited on "whites." Of course, if you went back in time and asked the German, Irish, Dutch, Italian, and other settlers whether they were all a part of some monolithic group henceforth called "the whites," they would fight you to the death for comparing them with the "lower" groups.

 

[awake]

An apology would invalidate the initial statement, which is an accurate one. It would as well help to re-enforce the idea that government slavery as opposed to private slavery is OK ; holding up the illusion that it is something else instead of being essentially the same thing.

Bill Clinton redefined sexual relations by such methods.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Of course there are other defintions. The one I was using was not "narrow", it's what immediately comes to mind when 98% of people hear the word slavery.

I am extremely skeptical that so much as one single person, upon hearing or reading Rand Paul's remarks, seriously believed (or even imagined) - for even a fraction of a second - that Rand was using the word "slavery" in the sense employed by you, other friendly critics, and pretty much every hostile critic.

The notion that Rand's assertion that "[believing in a] right to health care [...] means you believe in slavery" can in any way be reasonably interpreted as using the word "slavery" in the sense of "chained-and-beaten chattel" is grotequely absurd. It is prima facie ludicrous.

Everyone - Rand's defenders, Rand's critics (friendly & hostile), and anyone else with two functioning brain cells to rub together - knows this.

Rand's hostile critics know this: but they are so rabidly opposed to the implications of what he really DID mean that they will stoop to the lowest level to smear him rather than honestly attempt to address or refute his actual meaning. They are so terrified that people will come to agree with & accept what he really did mean that they will desperately engage in blatantly farcical misrepresentations of that meaning (in hopes of preventing or polluting an understanding of it).

Rand's friendly critics know this: but they are so afraid of the condemnations of Rand's hostile critics (and of how those condemnations might play out with the public at large) that, rather than standing up and defending Rand against such scurrilous & intellectually bankrupt nonsense, they instead cringe in fear and chide Rand & his defenders for being impolitic.

Kowtowing to the braying jackasses who refuse to address Rand's claims on their merits will accomplish nothing. It will only embolden & empower our enemies.

Scolding Rand & his defenders for their "political incorrectness" only panders to the abusers of language & meaning. This is what our enemies are counting on.

Without their ability to engage in hysterics - and to have those hysterics taken seriously - they have nothing to oppose us with.

As for the public at large: in the end, most will thoughtlessly side with whomever they were already disposed to side with. In any case, ALL of those who care to give any thought at all to the matter will recognize that the apoplectic bloviating we are witnessing is nothing but political circus.

The controversy in which Rand now finds himself is a routine for his father. I say that it is to Ron Paul's credit that he refuses to play the part of side-show barker, hawking his wares in the most palatable, packaged, & pandering way possible. It is his blunt statements of truth, as awkward & clumsy as they may sometimes be, that have won him all the gains he's made. The spluttering outrage evinced by his adversaries fools no one - except those who wish to be fooled.

Rand Paul is not quite the man Ron Paul is in this regard, but in this "slavery" controversy, he is in full measure the son of his father. He deserves our full & vigorous support for it.

Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots need not apply.

 

[Anti Federalist]

LBJ stated that in a very racist way.

that was probably the real reason behind Title II of the CRA. get blacks to vote for Democrats.

LBJ quoted after the passage of the CRA -

“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...r-fire-from-black-leaders-for-slavery-remarks