Slave owners, reparations, and retroactive laws

[Gustaf]

Heh...I agree this is a tough one. Perhaps one could argue that certain things are so basic that current laws do not matter? Because total opposition to retro-active laws would have made it impossible to convict Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Hitler in Germany, and so on. The political leadership could simply legalize whatever tyranny they wish to have and then not be punished for it. Worrying for a libertarian, no?

[Gustaf]

Ok, been thinking, and we've got some food for thought.

Saddam. Evil guy, tyrannical dictator. He will be going to trial soon for the actions he commited while he was in power. Now, technically speaking everything he did was legal - in Iraq, his word was law - so if you advocate punishing him for those thing(not for violating the WMD agreement, but his actions that killed his own people) then you are saying that in that case a retroactive law punishment is justified.

We can also look at Hitler's men who were punished for the actions of the Holocaust. The Jews killed in Germany were killed 'legally' because the Nazis ran the government(though, arguably those killed in invaded countries were not because an unjustified invasion and conquest of another country could be viewed as illegal, so actions performed by the conquerers to the populace wouldn't be legal). Same as above - retroactive law.

Remember, just food for thought.

Didn't see this, but yeah. I think my position is that laws that allows violations of individual rights that the state has no right to violate can be disregarded. Basically, it's the same thing as civil disobedience towards a law that is in existence.

[Gustaf]

John, what do you think of my point? I take it from your statement that you would fight slavery even if you were legally a slave. Isn't it then equally justified to punish slave-owners retroactively?

[Gustaf]

This proves something I have long suspected - a lot of people who call themselves "classic liberals" or libertarians are just atheist conservatives. (talking about Philip of course)

[Gustaf]

This proves something I have long suspected - a lot of people who call themselves "classic liberals" or libertarians are just atheist conservatives. (talking about Philip of course)

Uh, I like to call myself a classical liberal and a libertarian too, ya know.

Yeah...but as far as I can tell you are. That is, your philosophy derives from liberalism. A lot of self-labelled libertarians are really just conservatives without most of the religious and cultural connotations.

And Philip, you can exchange atheist for immoral or whatever if you like.

[Gustaf]

Conservatism is classical liberalism.

I dispute that I am 'immoral,' but you're pretty dumb, so I'll let it go.

That's exactly my point - it isn't. Calling me pretty dumb is a pretty dumb argument. I didn't say that you were. My point was that the lack of strict moral principles, usually derived from religion, separates a group of conservatives often mistaken for classic liberals, from religious right type conservatives.