[wat0n]

That's not the definition of slavery. Slavery is labor compelled by force, not property in human beings. Chattel slavery is only one form of slavery -- and perhaps one of the less destructive ones, because a slave that is property is a valuable asset, and cannot be mistreated too severely without jeopardizing his value. Other forms of slavery are:
1 penal slavery, such as France used well into the 19th century, and the USA still uses
2 military slavery, such as the press-gang slavery that abducted men and forced them to labor as ships' crew, and the modern military draft
3 industrial slavery such as the Spanish conducted in Latin America, forcing the indigenous people to labor in mines, or Nazi Germany forcing Jews and others to work in factories, in both cases without ever going through the formality of making them into anyone's property

In the time of Lincoln's childhood -- which lasted legally until he was 21 -- parents had virtually total authority over their offspring until they reached the age of majority. Lincoln was literally forced to labor for local employers -- his father was legally entitled to beat him if he did not -- so he was indeed a slave until he reached the age of 21.

Right, but selling your children is closer to chattel slavery than the other forms.

[Hakeer]

Neither of them. You are thinking of someone else, like Rothbard, Hoppe, or David Friedman (Milton's son).

Ayn Rand had the private army idea before the Rothbard guy…

https://johnmilsom.online/libertaian-armies/

I vaguely recall that Branden had it also, but I am not interested enough in this crap to try to track it down.

Bottom line: If you don’t have an army, sooner or later chances are you’re going to get overrun by somebody who does.

[Truth To Power]

Right, but selling your children is closer to chattel slavery than the other forms.

Of course. But Lincoln's father did not sell him, just his labor.

[Truth To Power]

Ayn Rand had the private army idea before the Rothbard guy…

https://johnmilsom.online/libertaian-armies/

No she didn't, and there is nothing in the above link to support your claim, certainly no actual quote from Rand to that effect.

Having spent more than a decade of my misspent youth as a fairly convinced Randroid, I think I can claim to know her oeuvre better than most. She was against anarchism of all stripes, and supported government military, court, and police functions administered by democratically elected officials.

I vaguely recall that Branden had it also,

Also incorrect.

but I am not interested enough in this crap to try to track it down.

Perhaps your lack of interest explains your incorrect claims.

Bottom line: If you don’t have an army, sooner or later chances are you’re going to get overrun by somebody who does.

Absolutely. The problem has always been to control it. The system of civilian control by elected officials, and the military pledging loyalty to the Constitution rather than to any individual or office holder, seems to have worked pretty well.

[Hakeer]

No she didn't, and there is nothing in the above link to support your claim, certainly no actual quote from Rand to that effect.

Having spent more than a decade of my misspent youth as a fairly convinced Randroid, I think I can claim to know her oeuvre better than most. She was against anarchism of all stripes, and supported government military, court, and police functions administered by democratically elected officials.

Also incorrect.

Perhaps your lack of interest explains your incorrect claims.

Absolutely. The problem has always been to control it. The system of civilian control by elected officials, and the military pledging loyalty to the Constitution rather than to any individual or office holder, seems to have worked pretty well.

You are wrong, but I’m not going to waste my time digging up a Rand quote for you. Go ask the author for a quote.

[Potemkin]

You are wrong, but I’m not going to waste my time digging up a Rand quote for you. Go ask the author for a quote.

@Truth To Power is correct about Ayn Rand, @Hakeer. She always recognised the necessity of a stable, centralised government with a monopoly on the use of violence in order to enforce contracts. Without it, capitalism simply cannot exist. It’s no accident that laissez-faire industrial capitalism only made its first appearance in Britain after the political and social system had stabilised following the upheavals of the 17th century. Rand understood this point, and Rothbard never did. This is why Rand always despised Rothbard, and always rejected Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

[Truth To Power]

You are wrong,

No, I am objectively correct and you are objectively wrong, as typically happens whenever you presume to dispute with me.

but I’m not going to waste my time digging up a Rand quote for you. Go ask the author for a quote.

I don't have to ask anyone for a quote because unlike you, I know what I am talking about. Rand stated many times that government's only legitimate purpose is to secure men's rights, and that to do this, only three government functions are required: "the police, to protect men from criminals; the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders; and the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws." -- Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

[Hakeer]

I don't have to ask anyone for a quote because unlike you, I know what I am talking about. Rand stated many times that government's only legitimate purpose is to secure men's rights, and that to do this, only three government functions are required: "the police, to protect men from criminals; the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders; and the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws." -- Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

And, since you are a Rand expert, you know that “the armed services” refers a group of paid volunteers. And you probably know that there’s a whole debate among “Objectivists” about how that can get done. Are they employed by the State directly or does the State subcontract it to one private corporation? She objected to having multiple private armies, but one serving as subcontractor to the government could fulfill the function. One way or the other, you need an army for national defense.

[wat0n]

Of course. But Lincoln's father did not sell him, just his labor.

Rothbard believed parents should be able to sell their parental rights in an open market (i.e. their children).

[Truth To Power]

And, since you are a Rand expert,

What a gracious concession that your claim was a bald falsehood, and that you falsely -- and unforgivably -- claimed I was wrong when you were in fact objectively wrong and I was objectively right, as usual.

you know that “the armed services” refers a group of paid volunteers.

I.e., professional soldiers, like the current US armed services. And your point would be...?

And you probably know that there’s a whole debate among “Objectivists” about how that can get done.

No there isn't. You are simply makin' $#!+ up again.

Are they employed by the State directly or does the State subcontract it to one private corporation?

At no point did Rand ever say the armed services should be run by a private corporation. You are simply makin' $#!+ up again.

She objected to having multiple private armies, but one serving as subcontractor to the government could fulfill the function.

Nope. At no point did she ever advocate private armies, not even one of them.

One way or the other, you need an army for national defense.

And Rand stated explicitly that it was properly a government function. She was not an anarcho capitalist, and had nothing but scorn for them.

[Truth To Power]

Rothbard believed parents should be able to sell their parental rights in an open market (i.e. their children).

Rothbard believed a lot of stupid, evil garbage.

[Hakeer]

What a gracious concession that your claim was a bald falsehood, and that you falsely -- and unforgivably -- claimed I was wrong when you were in fact objectively wrong and I was objectively right, as usual.

I.e., professional soldiers, like the current US armed services. And your point would be...?

No there isn't. You are simply makin' $#!+ up again.

At no point did Rand ever say the armed services should be run by a private corporation. You are simply makin' $#!+ up again.

Nope. At no point did she ever advocate private armies, not even one of them.

And Rand stated explicitly that it was properly a government function. She was not an anarcho capitalist, and had nothing but scorn for them.

There is more than one way to have an army. Yes, it’s a government function, but functions can be subcontracted. Trump will subcontract some of his deportation operations. Shit, George Bush subcontracted to mercenaries in the Iraq War. The only thing she explicitly rejects was a multiplicity of private armies, because they would get into gang warfare with each other. That’s the problem with anarcho capitalism.

[annatar1914]

That's not what I meant. He wasn't sold to anyone, like Black slaves were.

His childhood as you said was common, even after slavery was abolished... But he wasn't literally sold to another family.

As for the DOGE, you're looking too much into it. It seems to be a glorified consultancy, this can either be:

1) A real effort that will be done competently and provide advice for effective reform
2) A real effort that will be done incompetently and cause a mess if their advice is taken
3) A fake effort that will be used to let them be handsomely compensated (directly or indirectly) just like those politically connected consultants hired by cities like San Francisco that are known to issue reports that are never implemented (possibly even read)

@wat0n :

His labor was coerced and he was unpaid for his work as well, his father was paid. It was very common for masters to hire out their slaves as workers to other business concerns including multiple persons desiring laborers.

An worker who has no say in the matter and is unpaid is a slave.

[Truth To Power]

There is more than one way to have an army. Yes, it’s a government function, but functions can be subcontracted. Trump will subcontract some of his deportation operations. Shit, George Bush subcontracted to mercenaries in the Iraq War.

None of that alters the fact that your claims about Rand's views are objectively false.

The only thing she explicitly rejects was a multiplicity of private armies, because they would get into gang warfare with each other.

No, she explicitly rejected private armies, period.

You are wrong. You made a false claim about something of which you are ignorant -- kind of a habit with you -- and are now trying to dance around it. Just own it and move on.

[Truth To Power]

@wat0n :

His labor was coerced

That is the essential point: he was forced to work under threat of physical punishment if he declined.

and he was unpaid for his work as well, his father was paid. It was very common for masters to hire out their slaves as workers to other business concerns including multiple persons desiring laborers.

Correct.

An worker who has no say in the matter and is unpaid is a slave.

It doesn't matter if he has a say -- e.g., slaves have sometimes been rewarded for good behavior by being given their choice of which worksite they will be sent to -- or if he is paid -- most slaves have been paid in food and lodging. The defining characteristics of slavery are labor compelled by force, denial of the liberty to leave, and absence of recourse for physical assault.

[wat0n]

@wat0n :

His labor was coerced and he was unpaid for his work as well, his father was paid. It was very common for masters to hire out their slaves as workers to other business concerns including multiple persons desiring laborers.

An worker who has no say in the matter and is unpaid is a slave.

Yes, but he wasn't sold to another family. If anything, his family was against Southern chattel slavery, so Lincoln perfectly understood the difference.