81

I keep expecting some day that you will break out of your chains and take a position supported in reason. But I am always disappointed.
It was my hope that with the vast array of studies people on this forum have engaged in we could discuss the impact of surplus production and surplus labor on migration.
how over population in some areas corresponded to labor shortages in other areas and how government actions developed to cure these ailments and the impact of those actions on property and human rights.
But instead I am called the problem,

so Guvnah in historiological terms what is the difference between the current technological shift and previous ones that facilitated huge changes in government and human rights?

82

ā€œThe goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.ā€

Same reason it wasnā€™t ended here. The French were hypocrites.

Not Lafayette, though. The man who principally penned the Rights of Man was an abolitionist. Thomas Jefferson guided him in his writing and made numerous contributions. Jefferson himself was not an abolitionist and was a hypocrite on the issue of slavery.

If anything the DOTROM is a clearer picture of the society Jefferson wanted for us, but tempered by his fellow Framers who held more political power.

83

Well one difference is that the DOTROM was a declaration of intent, not a governing constitution. In that day, it was seen as a document of guiding principles rather than a document of law. Similar to the DOI.

The US constitution was a document of law that established a new form of government.

84

i believe you should read more on Jefferson. But if you ream article 16 in then declaration you may understand it was not Hypocrisy at all.

85

Exactly the kind of posting Iā€™m talking about.

Iā€™m just not interested in engaging with someone who posts like that.

Hope you can understand.

86

DOTROM was law

87

I understand that you are not familiar with the subject matter and have no intention to become familiar. and therefore you resort to pointing fingers like a child. man up Guvnah and spread your wisdom.

88

And more of the same. :roll_eyes:

89

Lol for maybe five minutes.

The Legislative Assembly and the National Convention did whatever they wanted. They had legislative supremacy, with no executive or judicial branches to check them.

90

Thatā€™s ironic.

91

Also what exactly is your point with this thread Bootz?

I donā€™t think youā€™ll find a poster on this board who will say that slavery was justified.

So whatā€™s the end game here? We can all argue 18th century politics and philosophy till the end of time.

Iā€™ve already stated my answer. The framers of both the United States and the First French Republic were hypocrites. Freedom and liberty for them, not so much for the African slaves.

Doesnā€™t mean I donā€™t admire the hell out of most of them.

92

step up or step out, please.

93

did they establish voting rights?

94

For 4 million out of 29 million people in France.

Ya know, the whole active-passive citizen ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā–  that was rampant in the minds of 18th century philosophers.

95

Define slavery.
Define ā€œwrongā€

96

Christians sometimes refer to themselves as slaves to jesus. Is that wrong?

97

Yeah, you might want to do a bit of research on what Socialism actually is.

98

Care to explain what you mean?

99

That explains a lot.

100

The question isnā€™t was, the question is why it IS.

I take that to mean present tense. There is still plenty of slavery that exists today.