I have no idea what you are talking about. I was not quoting anything aside from Ballad of the White Horse. I was stating my own position in my own words. I am not quoting whatever you claim to have said (why would I? ), so there is no mistake. And without property rights, no one can guarantee civil rights.

Obviously you can't own people. Their own prior claim of ownership supercedes a slaveowner's. But this just illustrates the point - rights were not respected equally, which caused the problem.

And property is the highest of civil rights. Since it is not listed as a prerogative of the government, individual property rights trump State AND Federal powers, by virtue of those very Amendments.

Those are not civil rights. They are invented and bullshit rights. A man alone in the wilderness will NOT be provided food, housing or health care. He CAN claim all the property he wants, right up until it transgresses someone else's claim. He HAS life, and he is free from being murdered. He has the liberty to do whatever he wishes, so long as he does not transgress on others' liberty. He has the right to engage in whatever pursuits make him happy. These are naturally occurring rights, because absent human institutions, he still has them, and only artificial, anthroprogenic activity can restrict them! On the other hand, those rights you sniveling grasshoppers proclaim CANNOT happen without human institutions. They not only require OTHER people to produce those things, but they require an outside agency to redistribute them. There is absolutely NO basis for those rights aside from the wishful thinking of spoiled children who think they are entitled to what they want.

What logical error? That is your own preference and personal view, and by your own admission, you have no argument, merely an assertion of your presumed moral superiority! Keep your morality the fuck to yourself! It is not mine, and you have no right to impose it on me, any more than I have the right to convert you to my Church by force!

Blow it out your ass, douchebag, and get over yourself.
As if I even remember what that was, or who you were. Who the hell do you think you are that I would consider your opinion to be worth quoting in an argument?

GET. OVER. YOURSELF. It's a fairly commonplace way to express an idea. The idea that one concept is superior to another is a frequently occurring human notion. I chose the words I did because I felt they were the best words to express the equation. That someone else chose similar words to express the same equation with different variables is a matter of supreme indifference to me. The idea that I find ANYONE on this site to be any kind of authority worth quoting as an argument or so eloquent as to be worth borrowing their words is hilariously absurd.

It was a quote from a poem, that I felt expressed why my religious views on a particular situation had no bearing on my political position. In this case, I feel that even if sinful or morally objectionable, it is not the sort of behavior you can legislate away without more serious consequences. If they are in the wrong, God will sort them out, and there is no need to introduce a dangerous precedent of government legislating morality, merely to save the souls of a few who would not choose salvation on their own.

What does democracy have to do with it? People have been property in lots of democracies, and the form of government has nothing to do with the principles. I would prefer a dictatorship with a mechanism to ensure that natural rights were protected over a democracy any day, since in the latter, they can be repealed at the will of the majority. And YOU are the one who is wrong, because if natural rights are respected consistantly (and slavery is a violation of THOSE rights, NOT civil rights), then people could not be property.

I am not interested in the limitations of the imagination of an arrogant moralist who thinks to impose his own views of what constitutes humanity on everyone. Property is an inherent natural right, and is not a particular right handed out at the whim of a government. Under the US Constitution, since property ownership is not a power given to the governments, it is reserved to the people. But I don't give a damn about the Constitution. I was talking about the concept in its own right, regardless of the peculiar legal situation in any given polity. Slavery was, after all, permitted in the Constitution. That did not make it right, nor did it excuse the President levying war on the States without a declaration from Congress, or negate the right of secession.