Obama and Slavery

AmericanThinker.com ^ | 12/10/2012 | Daren Jonescu

[RoosterRedux]

What, at its base, is slavery? Slavery, we would casually answer, is the ownership of one man by another. That is to say, it is a perversion of the notion of private property, rooted in a fundamental illogic about the nature and source of property itself.

Property is a derivation from what Jefferson, following Locke and others, termed the right to life. A human being, as an animal, has a natural inclination to self-preservation; however, as a rational being, this inclination is not simply an instinct, but initiates a moral imperative, i.e., it becomes a matter of choosing to live in accordance with his nature, first and foremost by preserving himself. It is this moral imperative that modern political philosophers termed a "right," in the sense that to thwart or restrict it is to deny a man his very nature, which means to deny Nature itself. Thus, it is literally correct to say that to violate the right to life is unnatural.

As a rational agent, a man achieves his self-preservation through voluntary effort aimed at providing the means of his survival and prosperity. Just as the right to preserve himself entails what may be called ownership of his own life, so the man's efforts are also his property, in as much as they are the practical manifestation of his right to self-preservation, i.e., of his self-ownership.

From this, it is a "self-evident" truth that the acquired (earned) product of the man's voluntary effort is also his rightful property, following upon his ownership of the labor that produced it, which in turn followed upon his ownership of himself, and his moral imperative of self-preservation.

[baddog 219]

[C210N]

[sickoflibs]

Slavery or democracy??

What if the slave owner (Obama in this case) gave the slaves a vote on freedom and most voted that they all must remain Os slaves?

He could warn them about how tough it is out there and if they leave the plantation how the which racist Republicans will starve them to death, and not let them marry the ‘partner’ of their choice :) . At least O gives them a place to stay and some food.

And the Republicans (some anyway) called them all ‘moochers’ before the vote which didnt help things like they thought it would.

[browniexyz]

Thanks for posting this amazing and brave article. I have been so distressed by academics’ recent attempts to trash Thomas Jefferson — Jon Meacham’s new book, Duke law professor Paul Finkelman calling him the “Monster of Monticello” — but to understand that to take down Jefferson means to take down our Constitution, and its notion of private property—listen up!! This is why Obama “slipped up” and “let out” his “you didn’t build that” statement about small businesses. He REALLY believes that — he’s a Progressive who does not believe in private property. The government OWNS YOU and OWNS it all. Read this article and understand it!!!

[17th Miss Regt]

And the Republicans (some anyway) called them all ‘moochers’ before the vote which didn't help things like they thought it would.

97% voted for Obama. You might have gotten 5% rather than 3%. So while it did not help, it also did not hurt.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”97% voted for Obama. You might have gotten 5% rather than 3%. So while it did not help, it also did not hurt.”

O did not win in those swing states by that large of margin.

Not only did MR insult them (with the hallelujah choir cheering ‘right on, finally we got a winner’) but Mitt was fundamentally incapable of converting anyone to his cause.

If you hated O then you voted R, if you didn't then you didn't. That was Mitts strategy.

BTW : Insulting voters is a great way to make sure they take their time to come out and vote against you. Remember that many of these folks didnt vote at all in 2010.