The Republican Party: An Enemy of Private Capital

Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

19 Jan 2010, 12:26 am

From the start, the Republican Party, far from being a friend of private-property rights, has been an enemy of private property. President Abraham Lincoln himself acted against the interests of capital in the plantation South when he decreed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves who were once valuable private property. After Lincoln's assassination, Republicans in Congress created new government agencies like the Freedmen's Bureau to help integrate former slaves into Southern society. In these times, it was the Democrats who could be counted on to protect private capital from radical do-gooders like President Lincoln. The Dixie Democrats were the conservatives who valued homegrown tradition and states' rights over an intrusive nanny-state meddling in affairs best left up to the individual and sovereign states; in many states, that tradition involved the bondage of man unto man in the institution of slavery.

Lincoln was the socialist of his day, and his actions paved the way for the contemporary socialist-Hitler-Stalin monstrosity that is Barack Hussein Obama. How does the Right, especially the Teabagging Right, feel about all this?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 Jan 2010, 1:38 am

NeantHumain wrote:
From the start, the Republican Party, far from being a friend of private-property rights, has been an enemy of private property. President Abraham Lincoln himself acted against the interests of capital in the plantation South when he decreed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves who were once valuable private property. After Lincoln's assassination, Republicans in Congress created new government agencies like the Freedmen's Bureau to help integrate former slaves into Southern society. In these times, it was the Democrats who could be counted on to protect private capital from radical do-gooders like President Lincoln. The Dixie Democrats were the conservatives who valued homegrown tradition and states' rights over an intrusive nanny-state meddling in affairs best left up to the individual and sovereign states; in many states, that tradition involved the bondage of man unto man in the institution of slavery.

Lincoln was the socialist of his day, and his actions paved the way for the contemporary socialist-Hitler-Stalin monstrosity that is Barack Hussein Obama. How does the Right, especially the Teabagging Right, feel about all this?


To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

19 Jan 2010, 2:22 am

Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Would it be better to propose that humans should be accepted as public property?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 Jan 2010, 3:04 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Would it be better to propose that humans should be accepted as public property?


What are the conditions for being public property? Does it mean guaranteed health insurance, being subject to military draft, having to pay taxes for the support of the state, guaranteed employment and unemployment insurance plus a few other things?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

19 Jan 2010, 8:46 am

Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Now we know you're definitely Aspie, Sand, since you don't get sarcasm.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 Jan 2010, 8:51 am

Orwell wrote:
Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Now we know you're definitely Aspie, Sand, since you don't get sarcasm.


My sarcasm sensitivity has been permanently crippled by so many of the idiotic proposals on this site that I doubt if it will ever recover. It wasn't bad when I first entered.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

19 Jan 2010, 9:18 am

Here's something I wrote about Wal-mart, but it applies to the modern American right in general...



GoonSquad wrote:

...it's this sort of impulse that made Hobbes write Leviathan.

Sometimes it falls to government to protect society from the shortsighted, self-destructive impulses of individuals.

Personal freedom is inversely proportional to governmental control, but the need for governmental control is inversely proportional to the peoples' capacity for moral restraint. :wink:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 Jan 2010, 10:01 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Here's something I wrote about Wal-mart, but it applies to the modern American right in general...



GoonSquad wrote:

...it's this sort of impulse that made Hobbes write Leviathan.

Sometimes it falls to government to protect society from the shortsighted, self-destructive impulses of individuals.

Personal freedom is inversely proportional to governmental control, but the need for governmental control is inversely proportional to the peoples' capacity for moral restraint. :wink:


I wish it were that simple. Where ever power takes root misbehavior very frequently follows, whether the power is governmental, private individual, institutional, intellectual, or economic.



WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 488
Location: Massachusetts

19 Jan 2010, 10:12 am

NeantHumain wrote:
From the start, the Republican Party, far from being a friend of private-property rights, has been an enemy of private property. President Abraham Lincoln himself acted against the interests of capital in the plantation South when he decreed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves who were once valuable private property.


The Emancipation Proclamation by itself actually freed no slaves, it is actually a very strange document in that it did not end slavery in areas that either had never risen in rebellion (slavery existed in Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky) or were under Union control at the time it was issued. So what it technically did was declare slaves free in areas where the Union had no ability to free them.

What it really was, was a slick bit of propaganda to keep the various European nations neutral. And it worked as intended.

Quote:
After Lincoln's assassination, Republicans in Congress created new government agencies like the Freedmen's Bureau to help integrate former slaves into Southern society.


A few northern states actually had statutes that prohibited anyone with black skin from living in them. Illinois, "the land of Lincoln," was one, and as far as I know Lincoln never spoke out against this law in any seriousness, though he did poke fun at Stephen Douglas for supporting it. (And did so in an extremely racist fashion, his argument being that negroes were so ugly no one white could ever possibly want to voluntarily associate with them.)

Quote:
In these times, it was the Democrats who could be counted on to protect private capital from radical do-gooders like President Lincoln. The Dixie Democrats were the conservatives who valued homegrown tradition and states' rights over an intrusive nanny-state meddling in affairs best left up to the individual and sovereign states; in many states, that tradition involved the bondage of man unto man in the institution of slavery.


Quote:
Lincoln was the socialist of his day, and his actions paved the way for the contemporary socialist-Hitler-Stalin monstrosity that is Barack Hussein Obama.


Dunno about that, but it is certainly the case that Hitler was no fan of anything resembling "states rights." From Mein Kampf:

Quote:
The National Socialists, moreover, would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: "Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power"


Heck, he even supported Lincoln's centralizing view:

Quote:
On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler clearly expresses the Lincoln/Jaffa view: "[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."


Source

Quote:
How does the Right, especially the Teabagging Right, feel about all this?


I have no idea, but someone probably should have invoked Godwin's Law once Hitler's name came up.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 Jan 2010, 10:23 am

Since Godwin's law is so popular in squelching mention of Hitler who was undoubtedly a significant milestone in the history of human vicious insanity, perhaps we might resort to similar legalisms in the same manner inventing laws suppressing the mention of G.W.Bush, George Washington, Dante, Jesus Christ, FDR, Plato, Stalin, Marx. Freud, Marilyn Monroe, Groucho, Santa Clause and the little engine that could.



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,827

19 Jan 2010, 11:37 am

From a historical standpoint, the last of the 'old style' Republicans was probably Teddy R...;)


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

19 Jan 2010, 1:36 pm

The Democrat party is also the enemy of private capital. Both major political parties are Statist. The advocate the view that government is or ought to be the prime mover and regulator of economic activity in the society. They regard income is the property of the government first and we, who earn it, are allowed to keep what the government thinks we ought to keep.

ruveyn



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

19 Jan 2010, 9:23 pm

pakled wrote:
From a historical standpoint, the last of the 'old style' Republicans was probably Teddy R...;)

Good point: Teddy Roosevelt, the trust-buster.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

19 Jan 2010, 9:24 pm

Orwell wrote:
Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Now we know you're definitely Aspie, Sand, since you don't get sarcasm.

Quite; it was along the lines of a modest proposal.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 Jan 2010, 10:09 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Now we know you're definitely Aspie, Sand, since you don't get sarcasm.

Quite; it was along the lines of a modest proposal.


Since I have seen opinions on this site indicating a strong belief in the inferiority of various races your modest proposal was a bit too modest. Swift at least proposed eating babies which is nicely beyond the acceptability of almost everybody.