Tales of the Morally Backward
Although I know some people really do think there is no moral distinction between central banking and chattel slavery, or that John C. Calhoun was superior to Milton Friedman as an advocate for human liberation, I cannot help feeling flabbergasted when they emerge in the light of day and actually unleash these opinions without a hint of shame. From my comments:
… slavery was eventually abolished, but the central bank is still arouond and it has made slaves of us all. There is no difference, in fact, the bank is worse because it is slowly bleeding the country to death and no one is seriously talking about getting rid of it.
I prefer to believe this kind of thing is malicious trolling, but I’ve seen enough of this to not suspect the worst. It shouldn’t need saying, but here’s 2000 words:
I suppose the gold standard was a real consolation.
April 15th, 2008 16:37
I’m not debating your point–you’re absolutely correct. It is completely and totally morally backwards. I’m not a big fan of central banking but it has absolutely nothing on slavery.
However, your second “1000 words” can be debated. I recently heard a very interesting talk by a historian of the Atlantic World and the slave trade (especially along the Gold Coast), Ty M. Reese, who argued that tight-packing, as the cross section above attempts to show is shrouded in mythology and a product of abolitionist propaganda. This of course is not an attempt to minimize slavery whatsoever. Rather, it is to say that even issues such as this can be mired in errors that undermine ones point.
April 15th, 2008 17:42
And from Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government,
One of the greatest libertarian philosophers of his time, indeed, Mr. DiLorenzo.
Even putting aside the elephant of slavery, it’s still absurd for DiLorenzo and other Rockwellites (Rockwellians?) to consider Calhoun a champion of liberty. Calhoun was a politician first and foremost, desperate to become President, and was willing to engage in all manner of logical inconsistencies to get there. Calhoun only stuck to principle when the principle supported his side of the issue, which in turn supported his rise to power. Otherwise, he was a political pragmatist, willing to violate any principle if doing so was in his self-interest.
Consider:
Far from being a consistent advocate of free trade, “the first protective tariff in American history (1816) was introduced by Calhoun.” Only when tariffs hurt the interests of the slave-labor economy of the South did Calhoun suddenly become an advocate of free trade.
Also, we learn from the Mises Institute’s own archives,
Also from the same article, and in direct opposition to DiLorenzo’s claim that Calhoun was a consistent, principled defender of “state’s rights”,
April 18th, 2008 16:07
Will - Before issuing a generalized condemnation of the entire volume of Calhoun’s political philosophy for the fault of its particulars, it might be wise for you to heed the advice of Dr. Niskanen. As with many who have taken this road before, you have missed a forest of truly original constitutional insight for the tree of slavery. You are in the fortunate position of having familiar relations with Cato’s better minds though. There is much that they could teach you:
April 18th, 2008 16:14
Or, if you prefer, to quote the late Peter Aranson, noted libertarian economist and frequent Cato contributer:
April 19th, 2008 20:18
William,
I’m more than willing to deny Calhoun’s “understanding of the centrality of the process of consent.” Clearly, a man who believes slavery to be a positive good does not understand the centrality of the process of consent.
April 19th, 2008 20:42
Well Micha, then it is evident that you have missed the points of Aranson and Niskanen entirely.
The validity of Calhoun’s political theory is not altered by attacks on his person - even when those attacks are deserved for other reasons. That is called argumentum ad hominem. Look it up if you don’t understand it, as appears to be the case.
April 19th, 2008 22:09
I am not attacking his person; I am attacking his political theory. His political theory does not in any reasonable sense give centrality to the process of consent, and glaringly so.
That’s not to say that we might nevertheless be able to selectively extract parts of his writings that have some value if completely detached from other parts of his writings. But his “political theory,” if taken as an organic whole, is without value.
April 20th, 2008 00:34
Micha - If you were attacking his political theory, you would be stating the problems that you perceive with nullification and concurrent majoritarian federalism. You would then offer arguments to support your rejection of said theories and refute any responses as appropriate.
Yet in reading your posts here, I see no attempt at any of that.
I see nothing even remotely resembling a refutation of the basic tenets his political theory. In fact, I see precious little that even attests to your familiarity with the basic tenets of his political theory.
In its place you only argue that Calhoun supported slavery, therefore his political theory must be wrong.
But that is not an argument. That is a non-sequitur.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Rather it only attacks Calhoun, the person, ad hominem for supporting slavery. Thus your argument fails you on every logical assessment.