Your tax dollars at work: California might ban dark colored cars?

[Lagduf]

but if driving was a right then one would be able to drive wherever one wanted without a license. My point is that just because our society is dependent on something does not mean that we have a right to it.

Please read my post again. You are free to drive wherever you want on private roads.

It's not my fault 99% of our road infrastructure is public and therefore subject to the restrictions we the people have agreed upon [through the election of our representatives who have legislated what conditions must be met in order to use the public roads].

 

[norton9478]

It is the risk you'll have to take when living in a free society.

Just trust that if they were negligent, they should face criminal charges, if they have any assets or insurance, you can collect, and when all else fails, just get good insurance for yourself (or family if you happen to get killed)

Anyways, Sending someone to prison doesn't pay my medical bills. I could sue, but you can't get blood out of a stone. I don't like the idea of paying for insurance to cover other people's fuck ups. Even If I had insurance, they probably wouldn't pay without a fight. Especially in your little utopia where the corporations run the show.


If that's what freedom is, then I guess Kris Kristofferson was right then.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Anyways, Sending someone to prison doesn't pay my medical bills. I could sue, but you can't get blood out of a stone. I don't like the idea of paying for insurance to cover other people's fuck ups. Even If I had insurance, they probably wouldn't pay without a fight. Especially in your little utopia where the corporations run the show.


If that's what freedom is, then I guess Kris Kristofferson was right then.

Keep in mind that in the world Lithy lives in, slavery is able to be rationalized.

 

[norton9478]

Keep in mind that in the world Lithy lives in, slavery is able to be rationalized.

Only virtual slavery....

Or as I call it... 21st century sharecropping.

 

[lithy]

Keep in mind that in the world Lithy lives in, slavery is able to be rationalized.

Rationalized but not condoned.

Being unable to see the economic advantages of slavery in plantation style agriculture is just an academic deficiency.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Rationalized but not condoned.

Being unable to see the economic advantages of slavery in plantation style agriculture is just an academic deficiency.

What are economic advantages in the face of human dignity and the supposedly inalienable right to self-determination?

 

[norton9478]

What are economic advantages in the face of human dignity and the supposedly inalienable right to self-determination?

I don't know... But I can tell you that without the end of slavery, Baseball would have been much more boring.

 

[striderpunk]

Please read my post again. You are free to drive wherever you want on private roads.

It's not my fault 99% of our road infrastructure is public and therefore subject to the restrictions we the people have agreed upon [through the election of our representatives who have legislated what conditions must be met in order to use the public roads].

yes, a private road; but if your ability to universally operate a motor vehicle can be infringed upon then it is not a right.
In essence the problem is the abuse of the term "right" which is improperly applied to a wide variety of situations. There is a certain gray area where there exists certain latitude for operation of a motor vehicle; having a right to do so is different from being not being told that you can't do it.

Rationalized but not condoned.

Being unable to see the economic advantaes of slavery in plantation style agriculture is just an academic deficiency.

umm... you do realize that the efficiency of the plantation system caused the deterioration of the southern cash crop base right?

 

[abasuto]

It is the risk you'll have to take when living in a free society.

Most people have a morbid fear of a free society. There's no government to tuck them into bed at night, no one to cry to when shit goes wrong, and last but not least, no one to whine to when laziness lands them up in the gutter.

 

[lithy]

What are economic advantages in the face of human dignity and the supposedly inalienable right to self-determination?

Like I said, you can't include these factors in a strictly economic evaluation of the benefit of slavery.

Seriously? Is this all that difficult to comprehend? Slavery has existed since the dawn of man and still exists in various forms. If there was no benefit, why would it continue?

Edit: I'm ignoring striderpunk until he actually posts something that doesn't sound like he lifted from a book he just read, or at least elaborate on his opinions.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Like I said, you can't include these factors in a strictly economic evaluation of the benefit of slavery.

What is the purpose of evaluating slavery purely in economic terms? What meaning is there in it?

If there was no benefit, why would it continue?

Well, of course it benefits someone. So can murder, robbery, fraud, genocide, what have you. You make it legal and safe for one group to do any of those things to another group, and you will see some big benefits for that first group.

 

[lithy]

What is the purpose of evaluating slavery purely in economic terms? What meaning is there in it?

To understand how was allowed to happen for so long.

Well, of course it benefits someone. So can murder, robbery, fraud, genocide, what have you. You make it legal and safe for one group to do any of those things to another group, and you will see some big benefits for that first group.

The very first statement I made when starting this mess, I said "Rationalized but not condoned".

I would never in my life want a return to the use of slaves but to ignore an attempt at understanding the reasons slavery exists is something akin to saying that all Germans were Jew-hating Nazis when Hitler came to power. Quit simplifying an issue.

There are human rights problems with slavery, who has denied that? I'm asking you a different question that you have conveniently ignore in favor of a more emotional response.

 

[Lagduf]

What is the purpose of evaluating slavery purely in economic terms? What meaning is there in it?

To gain a complete understanding of American history up until 1865?

That is the first thing that comes to mind.

yes, a private road; but if your ability to universally operate a motor vehicle can be infringed upon then it is not a right.
In essence the problem is the abuse of the term "right" which is improperly applied to a wide variety of situations. There is a certain gray area where there exists certain latitude for operation of a motor vehicle; having a right to do so is different from being not being told that you can't do it.

You're wrong. How is it a grey area? It's pretty cut and dry. There are pre-existing conditions you must meet to drive on public roads, yes, but those are conditions that the people have freely agreed upon. If you don't like those conditions, then don't drive on public roads. Establish your own private transportation infrastructure. The feasibility of doing this has no bearing on this discussion.

And with regard to driving on public roads: you can't be denied automobile insurance [at least in my state.] If a private organization won't insure you then the state will and must [assuming you can pay, of course].

 

[SouthtownKid]

To gain a complete understanding of American history up until 1865?

That is the first thing that comes to mind.

Duf, no. I'm sorry, but separating the economic aspect of slavery from slavery's effect on its victims doesn't increase your understanding of those times. The opposite, if anything.

 

[Lagduf]

Duf, no. I'm sorry, but separating the economic aspect of slavery from slavery's effect on its victims doesn't increase your understanding of those times. The opposite, if anything.

Perhaps I misunderstood the entire discussion? Slavery has to be understood from all avenues, yes. Perhaps I should have said "To gain a more complete understanding of American History until 1865."

But I still don't see why you can't independently look at different aspects of it. American slavery was at it's core about economics. The formation of our government and the course of our early [American] history was deeply effected by Southern business interests which almost exclusively relied on slavery.

We didn't snatch up Africans and put them in to bondage because we hated them. That's absurd.

We did it for cheap, almost free, labor. If anything an understanding that other humans were put in to bondage so a few rich guys could get even richer only helps to further one's insight on the issue.

With a multifaceted issue why can' t we look at different aspects independently and then combine the knowledge we've gained to reach a holistic conclusion? Or maybe I missed something that was said?

 

[SouthtownKid]

American slavery was at it's core about economics.

I know going into this post that this is going to sound trite, but it was "at it's core" about economics only to the slave owners.

We didn't snatch up Africans and put them in to bondage because we hated them. That's absurd.

If not hate, then how about contempt? Generations of people treated as sub-human from birth to death. If we didn't hate them, why weren't there any white slaves along with the people kidnapped from Africa? What do you call it, if not hate?

 

[Lagduf]

I know going into this post that this is going to sound trite, but it was "at it's core" about economics only to the slave owners.

If you mean it was an economic issue only for those who supported and condoned it, then yes. For slaves and persons opposed to slavery then of course it was about basic human rights.[/quote]

If not hate, then how about contempt? Generations of people treated as sub-human from birth to death. If we didn't hate them, why weren't there any white slaves along with the people kidnapped from Africa? What do you call it, if not hate?

Contempt that Africans looked like humans but weren't? I'm sure it was probably something along those lines. It's an idea which today is very difficult for us to understand. It's insane really to get rich off of the direct suffering of others.

Although we need to keep in mind that black African slavery was a thing of the past in many countries by the early 1800s. Even if Africans were viewed as an inferior people, there were a lot of people around the world, and even many in the United States, who viewed owning a person as wrong (hence free vs slave state debate in the US.) And we all know the idea of Africans as an inferior people still perpetuated for a hundred+ years after the end of the Civil War. I mean it's okay to enslave an animal but not a human, or so the thinking of the times went i'm sure.

I guess i'm just saying that strong Southern business interests coupled with the Southern state's threat of secession over the slavery issue [state's rights :kekeke] kept that "peculiar institution" from going away in the US until 1865. American plantation owners of the 18th ad 19th century would fit perfectly well in that "World's Most Evil Companies" thread. It's a perfect example of putting profit first.

 

[lithy]

I would just like to add that the color of the person's skin became a low-cost way of determining who was and was not an enslaved person. The Sneeches on Beaches effect...

The contempt in my opinion seems to have been borne more out of necessity in keeping slaves in their station, the same reason things like education were denied to slaves. Just a way of helping people justify their actions to themselves, the more like them they were, the more difficult it would be to enslave them.

I think you have to remember that not everyone that owned a slave was actively going out and enslaving Africans, the importation of new slaves ended shortly after the Revolutionary War yet continued for another 100 years. It seems to me to be difficult to question something that has existed since long before you were born, is widespread and common during your life and persisted long after you die. These things are just generally accepted as normal.

 

[striderpunk]

Edit: I'm ignoring striderpunk until he actually posts something that doesn't sound like he lifted from a book he just read, or at least elaborate on his opinions.

You want me to elaborate not a problem; With the expansion of the plantation system from large sugar cane plantations in the Carribean (where large numbers of slaves were needed due to the hazards of sugar production and the sheer acreage required to grow the cane) to the American South the conditions that limited cane(and other sugar based goods) were not present in the production of cash crops (such as cotton, tobacco, and indigo) in the South and the "efficiency" of the system lead to systematic overproduction and devalued the crops that they were producing. Which is ironic considering these crops had been profitable for close to two hundred years. Hope that was breezy enough for you.

 

[Lagduf]

striderpunks post consists of three sentences? [meh, he did some ninja edits]

You want me to elaborate not a problem; With the expansion of the plantation system from large sugar cane plantations in the Carribean (where large numbers of slaves were needed due to the hazards of sugar production and the sheer acreage required to grow the cane) to the American South the conditions that limited cane (and other sugar based goods) were not present in the production of cash crops (such as cotton, tobacco, and indigo) in the South and the "efficiency" of the system lead to systematic overproduction and devalued the crops that they were producing.


Which is ironic considering these crops had been profitable for close to two hundred years. Hope that was breezy enough for you bitch.

You replied to something he wasn't asking/talking about.

On that note, what is your point? That Southern Slavery's effeciency perpetuated itself by devaluing it's own product which necessitated the sale of even more and more of that devalued product [which required more and more slaves]?

Although I guess you're trying to say that from an economic standpoint it was not exactly the most viable of enterprises. Still one that existed in North America for centuries.

What fun times those were!

 

[striderpunk]

You're wrong. How is it a grey area? It's pretty cut and dry. There are pre-existing conditions you must meet to drive on public roads, yes, but those are conditions that the people have freely agreed upon. If you don't like those conditions, then don't drive on public roads. Establish your own private transportation infrastructure. The feasibility of doing this has no bearing on this discussion.

And with regard to driving on public roads: you can't be denied automobile insurance [at least in my state.] If a private organization won't insure you then the state will and must [assuming you can pay, of course].

The argument is not over whether you have a right to own an automobile, it's a debate over the ability to universally operate an automobile. And I do not deny that one can operate a vehicle on a private road but your ability to do so comes not from a right to drive but one's right to private property. I still maintain that we do not have a right to universally operate a motorvehicle. So whatever we have a new argument to engage in.

You replied to something he wasn't asking/talking about.

On that note, what is your point? That Southern Slavery's effeciency perpetuated itself by devaluing it's own product which necessitated the sale of even more and more of that devalued product [which required more and more slaves]?

Although I guess you're trying to say that from an economic standpoint it was not exactly the most viable of enterprises. Still one that existed in North America for centuries.

What fun times those were!

You almost got it 'duf

What I am arguing is that the plantation system only worked in the Carribean because so many people died during the harvesting of cane and the production of sugar that even though they were importing obscene numbers of people but the long term population didn't grow. The crops being produced during this time in the American south were difficult but not as hazardous to produce so the slave base remained constant; if the US had been producing sugar cane (I know that it is not possible in mass) which the plantation system was based around in it's region of origin i.e. the Caribbean slavery would have ended with the transatlantic ban because the slave population would have died off. The crop base that historically netted the most profit and was commonly planted in the US were under the plantation system produced in such quantities that the system destroyed itself by devaluing its end product. So yes the plantation system was extremely efficient but it also overwhelmed demand negating its overall effectiveness as an economic engine.

'duf I am not ignoring the human aspect of the situation but Lithy arguing that the plantation system was effective is like a doctor suggesting that crack cocaine is an alternative for a beta blocker.

 

[lithy]

I don't even know what striderpunk is talking about.

 

[Deuce]

Although I guess you're trying to say that from an economic standpoint it was not exactly the most viable of enterprises. Still one that existed in North America for centuries.

Businessmen (and politicians, for that matter) tend not to think in the extreme long-term. An oil-based economy is unsustainable for very long in the grand scheme of things, for instance, but even when people are finally starting to come to terms with the fact that "nonrenewable resource" means "We really might not have anymore in my lifetime," any steps to move away from it are halting, at best.

Likewise, the economic benefits of slavery were so considerable in the short-term (ie. the slave owners' lifetimes) that no one gave it a great deal of thought. And the short term keeps getting pushed back with each new generation raised to believe that such a mindset was acceptable, or even preferable.

Humanity, as a species, tends to always retain that teenage sense of invincibility. I suspect that it will take something like a worldwide pandemic and/or complete economic collapse before anyone wakes up. And even then, I wouldn't hold my breath.