US Immigration Crisis

Taxes on profits accumulated from the lucrative business of owning African slaves, ultimately.

All natural resources (like land) are just taken. No one or their ancestor's created them.

Lucium,

If you really were a libertarian your position on welfare would be that taxes are theft. The government is a thief. If someone steals from you and gives what they stole to someone else as a gift, it's not moral for you to hire someone to shoot the person who receives the gift.

But, you're an authoritarian bootlicking fascist and not a libertarian.

99%+ of american wealth has been built after slavery abolition

You seem to think the only possible libertarian position is anarchocapitalism.

I understand why you think so:

1) kids which expose those ideas (now in crypto, yesterday in poker) tend to gravitate towards that

2) american libertarianism often gravitates toward that

European libertarianism doesn't, it could also be described as classic liberalism (with modern connotations), or minarchism. It accepts there is no option without a state (power vacuum always get filled), it's a disgusting necessary evil to have a state.

The government is the mafia mob you choose to pay among many mobs for protection because you cannot not choose: if you don't the mafia mob other people pay, kills you and your family.

Inside a framework where the state has necessarily to exist (and be kept in check all the times) you take all other considerations.

If Yu want to call everyone in favour of law enforcement fascist do that but do it to every poster who is in favour of law enforcement existing, or It becomes evident you just dislike me and your arguments are simply ridiculous.

It's not fascism to want law enforcement to enforce property rights.

Oh the power of compound interest.

Lol, of industrialization (which came after slavery)

European libertarianism is Anarchism. The term was coined by an Anarchist newspaper that put libertarian in the title because Anarchism was illegal.

Then think of me of pre-progressive liberalism (circa 1830 UK?), 1st duke of Wellington ideology

are you genuinely stating that everything in the USA today is due to slavery?

Of course not. Did I say that?

I thought it was heavily implied from your statements and you do hear that said a bit in some circles, but I guess you were just responding to luciom's "slavery never hurt anyone" stance

my apologies

No need for apology. It's a typical forum thing. If you forget to take the trouble to first state what you don't think people will make assumptions.

You claimed American current GDP is mostly caused by slavery being legal 150+ years ago

Everything <> mostly

Hm even higher, all American extra GDP vs most other civilized nations is due to slavery being legal 160 years ago?

So why is Brazil which banned slavery later a **** hole compared to the USA? Like the poorest state in the USA is far richer than Brazil?

Cheap arable land and immense natural resources?

Which exist in Brazil as well?

To the same degree? The climates aren't the same for a start and Brazil doesn't have the Texas oil fields, while the rainforest isn't arable.

Brazil's problem was that it became independent later and the whole country (the populated parts) was a plantation. USA had a better start because of many reasons, but included among them are an earlier independence and a large industrial sector (which was protected by the protectionism of Alexander Hamilton) in addition to wealth from the plantations and slavery.

Ye so Brazil only had the slaves, USA had other stuff, and what made the USA far richer was entirely the other stuff, plantations with slaves are what kept it restrained until they gave up on it and they became actually rich.

It's neither extreme. There were slaves in the North who did build infrastructure and the wealth from cotton and tobacco was also instrumental in the early growth of the US. USA just resisted the colonial powers and stopped exporting raw materials just so it could import the manufactured goods and did the manufacturing itself.

If you've read Adam Smith you might understand that the corn (or equiv) is important and the people who grow and harvest it are part of that whether they are internal slaves, serf/peasants, or if the colonial power is exploiting slaves abroad and importing the raw materials.

Brazil suffered from extreme Capitalism and lack of planning. In the 19th Century, following the market, it became largely a one-trick pony, that trick being coffee. In the US, Alexander Hamilton was wise and used protections to make sure that US industry developed despite the fact that English manufacturing was more efficient at the time.

American capitalists hijacked the term. Ayn Rand hated American so-called libertarians and this was partially why.

My friend's mom (a Brazilian who lives in Brazil) would just say it's because of the Brazilian people. (Who are of course the best people).