If you read the "Narrative Life of Fredrick Douglass" Douglass tells stories of people who were turned, or somehow corrupted by slave ownership. It is a deeply disturbing story. Inherited or not, most slaveholders were sick people.
Michael,
I think we have a contextual problem here. I doubt if Patrick Henry was pro-slavery. It would have been duplicitous. Maybe he was duplicitous.
But let's get back to my original statement:
"I'm not so charitable. Sure they could be misinformed but the
misinformation serves their interests over mine, with violent
coercion. In the same way slave owners were misinformed. In both
cases each embraces a system over the objection of another. In both
cases there is justification for their use of force to obtain benefit at
the expense of others.
"Misinformed" doesn't quite cut it unless there is deep pathology."
There is a perspective on slave ownership to embrace, that is very much like the perspective of the man who believes he has the right to beat his wife.
Even if this pathology is of social origin, it is still pathological for its asymmetry. Asymmetrical relationship are pathological unless the information is symmetrical. Misinformation on the part of one party does not abrogate the pathology of the non-consensual asymmetrical relationships.
The social origins of the justifications for this asymmetry are also pathological in the same way as cannibalism and witch burning.
Alice Miller and Robert Fuller both examine the various dimensions of this pathology.
John
It's not as simple as that. Many Romans had the choice to buy slaves or they would be fed to lions. There were similar exigencies in the colonies. And it would be true that "slavery" would be voluntary in many cases. This is not to be confused by the slavery supported by the Dred Scott decision and the subject of my statement.
Patrick Henry spoke against slavery, yet owned slaves.
Since a limited State rests on "violent coercion," in your opinion are limited govt libertarians sick with deep pathology?
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
I think we have a contextual problem here. I doubt if Patrick Henry was pro-slavery. It would have been duplicitous. Maybe he was duplicitous.
But let's get back to my original statement:
"I'm not so charitable. Sure they could be misinformed but the misinformation serves their interests over mine, with violent coercion. In the same way slave owners were misinformed. In both cases each embraces a system over the objection of another. In both cases there is justification for their use of force to obtain benefit at the expense of others.
"Misinformed" doesn't quite cut it unless there is deep pathology."
There is a perspective on slave ownership to embrace, that is very much like the perspective of the man who believes he has the right to beat his wife.
Even if this pathology is of social origin, it is still pathological for its asymmetry. Asymmetrical relationship are pathological unless the information is symmetrical. Misinformation on the part of one party does not abrogate the pathology of the non-consensual asymmetrical relationships.
The social origins of the justifications for this asymmetry are also pathological in the same way as cannibalism and witch burning.
Alice Miller and Robert Fuller both examine the various dimensions of this pathology.
John
Yes as well, there is a relationship quite different from beating your wife, whatever you want to call it. In that relationship, it can be consistent to speak-out against marriage, when the culture has given the name "marriage", to wife-beating. The relationship is not the condition that endorses wife-beating.
I wasn't expecting to take on the meaning of the word "slavery" in responding to your question about pathology, in terms of slavery.
I could just as as well say that Patric Henry had people in his employ, paid with room and board and lifetime job security. Calling it slavery confuses the issue if it was consensual.
He could very well speak out against slavery and "own slaves" without any duplicity as he is speaking out against the pathology of the relationship, not the name of the relationship. The "extreme case of slavery" was brought up by you, to examine an underlying pathology. In the "extreme case" as in Dred Scott, there is nothing close to consensual and it is pathological.
Even when the pathology is institutionalized, it is still revealed in the mechanics of its violence, domination, and submission.
In the same way, the ambiguity of "limited government" needs to be resolved into whether it is consensual, and to what degree. If the violent coercion you speak-of, is the force to prevent lynchings, the libertarian is on solid footing. If the violent coercion is a protection racket, although it is limited government, its support by the libertarian would put him in muddy water.
The context of this discussion is the examination of political systems by the resolution of the terms of the relationship between me and another person. When that person is advancing a position that serves his interests over mine, seeking asymmetrical conditions and the force of others to secure his advantage, that's pathological. If the person is incapable of recognizing the pathology, it's a deep pathology.