The Republican Party: An Enemy of Private Capital

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.



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.)





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



Heck, he even supported Lincoln's centralizing view:



Source



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

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.

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

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

Good point: Teddy Roosevelt, the trust-buster.

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.

We must not confound individual freedom and the corporate interests. The "private" interests of a corporation are not the same as the private interests of a individual. I see nothing wrong to declaring some corporate activities illegal. Right now corporation can d things forbiden to individuals. In fact, right now as the market become more free, the individuals rights lose points.
Some corporates interests had been buddy-buddy with the Nazis. They even tried to install a fascist government in USA! http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/11/08/18628134.php