Nonsense does not address term2's post.

The 13th amendment "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" abolished slavery. It does not make slavery "technically legal".

Did you read past the end of my sentence?

Re: "It is even more difficult and perhaps unfair to judge people of a different time with our present day mores." I have no problem judging Hitler, Stalin, the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition and many other historical figures with our present day mores. Deliberate evil has been around for millennia, as have people who recognized and opposed it on the basis of moral standards that we would recognize and agree with today.

Robots do not have rights and have nothing to do with slavery.

Jefferson did not give "moral cover" for slavery and he did not believe he was "benefiting" from it. He argued that it was economically destructive. He opposed slavery even when he mistakenly believed that the blacks lacked the mental capacity of others. He had no legal authority to free slaves from the system and tried, unsuccessfully, to get it. He vociferously opposed slavery in spite of his political opponents who used it against him. He did as much as anyone to ensure that it would be eliminated in the future. He succeeded. That is not "moral cover to generations of slave holders".

Technically, slavery is still legal in the United States today, as a careful reading of the 13th Amendment shows.

At least until the robots start demanding their rights. :-)

Jefferson did not create slavery, but he participated in it and benefited from it. His deeds failed to match his words, and gave moral cover to several succeeding generations of slaveholders.

You could kill the stench by flushing her with the rest of it.

Energy from hydrocarbons was not the reason for abolishing slavery and socialist 'morality' does not require stopping its use for them to advocate collectivism.

Slavery was 'obsolete' before it started.

He also did not hold slaves for economic reasons. In the 1860s he tried to get the VA legislature to allow private citizens to emancipate their own slaves from the slavery system. Jefferson opposed slavery both morally and as economically ineffective.

In the Declaration of Independence he not only stated the general principles of unalienable rights, in the list of grievances he specifically denounced Britain for introducing the slave trade to America. Others removed it to appease the southern states in a time of war.

"Somewhat anti-Rand" is an understatement about his savage personal attacks.

Even that was not accurate. He took a vague description in a fictional account of encountering a new technology and pedantically tried to turn it into an "error". Atlas Shrugged wasn't a flight instruction manual.

The nihilistic anti-Ayn Rand polemicist Michael Shermer is not a credible source of "objectivity" and neither are Esceptico's own subjectivist personal accusations and misrepresentations.

Correction: the account of seeing the results of education demonstrating that blacks had the same mental capacities is about Franklin in the 1760s, not Jefferson. The equivalent for Jefferson was his discovery of a self-educated free black astronomer and mathematician in Maryland. He immediately took up the man's personal cause and used it in his own advocacy of equality.

Jefferson spoke for himself. There is no evidence that he enslaved people because he "wanted cheap labor". That is a Marxist smear.

The moral and legal necessity of paying your debts in not a form of slavery.

Slavery was never the "base of all civilization" and was never "necessary". It is the opposite of civilization and everything necessary for a creative, productive economy.

Jefferson did not violate people's rights "just so he could get cheap labor". That is a stock Marxist smear. Jefferson did not create slavery or the society he was born into. He outspokenly opposed slavery despite the political opposition against him.

I got you. I guess I meant more of a fundamental error in the philosophy. Thanks for answering.

In the case of Hillary, You can lead a skunk to water, but you can't stop its stink.

Thanks OA for your insight.
I always respect and enjoy your thoughts
Regards,
Dobrien

We were not discussing 9/11. We were discussing Francisco and my disappointment in a fellow Objectivist making statement regarding AS.