But Wall Street is upset, and with the help of the Departments of State and Treasury, and now President Bush, has begun a campaign to keep our stock markets open to anyone

Sickening.

Instead of the sons of the former Black slaves fighting for compensation for the wrong done their ancestors, why don't these sons of former slaves, whose life style and standard-of-living are wonderful compared to their brothers in Africa, stop the Sudanese from dealing in slavery today???.

The fact that it is Black Sudanese enslaving Black Sudanese doesn't mean its a family affair.

It is a worldwide affair.

Of course it is sacrilege to say this, but during the height of the slave trade, the African Blacks were selling their weaker Black brothers into slavery. The Arabs were the middlemen.

And if the truth were to be told, the Black slaves in America more than a hundred years ago had a much better life than their Black brothers living in villages in Africa.

The argument that markets should be free of political decisions can be made in cases such as these. However, IMHO, the US has a moral obligation to do the right thing and discourage dictatorships and tyranny by interfering in the marketplace. The US has been very inconsistent in the way they have enforced this policy.

Sanctions against Cuba while kow-towing to Red China for instance for basically the same conditions. Let the rest of the world make a fast buck with dirty dealing in slavery and oppression but keep our noses as clean as possible.

Instead of the sons of the former Black slaves fighting for compensation for the wrong done their ancestors, why don't these sons of former slaves, whose life style and standard-of-living are wonderful compared to their brothers in Africa, stop the Sudanese from dealing in slavery today???

If you want the short answer, it's because the U.S. and Europe have money to burn, and Sudan doesn't. Sudan won't give anyone a dime, but if they blackmail and extort hard enough, they could get a real shower of cash from us.

fyi - the Congressional Black Caucus is very much a backer of this ammendment, the Republicans are opposed to it. Also, the people who are committing the offenses in Sudan are not black, they are arabic. Northern Sudan is muslim and arabic, southern sudan is black and non-muslim. The arabic people of the north have killed a very large number of the southerners in the last 20 years, I think almost 2 million. The muslims who do have the backing of the government as well as that oil and gas money made possible bu the Canadian company that gets its financing on Wall street will come into non-muslim villages and just plain steal all the children, kill anyone who tries to stop them. They do this today, they've been doing it for many years. They do sell human beings in the open at marketplaces. Five to ten years ago you could acquire a person for $15. Today because of inflation or perhaps more likely because of all the international attention, it costs more like $50 or so to buy a person.

Decent people all support the legislation to punish the Canadian company who in effect provides financing to the Sudanese government. However, niether King George, nor his Country Club Republicans support this legislation.

I agree with much of your tone, but I think the decision should be left to
individual companies, not the government. (You didn't explicitly state that it should,
be outlawed, I'm just clarifying my own position.)

We should feel compelled morally not to trade with slavers, but I don't think
it's within government's proper scope to outlaw it.

Given the ability Green activists have shown to influence corporate policy, I believe
if we really believe in freedom, we could do no less in lobbying businesses not to trade with slavers.

We should feel compelled morally not to trade with slavers, but I don't think it's within government's proper scope to outlaw it.

An example of the moral bankruptcy of the libertarian position.

You are free to believe whatever idiocy you wish.