20 Years

Page 2 of 3  


While you may be right about equality in general, equality in particular should be a goal, that is what I believe. Specifically, with regards to exactly what you said, nobody should be given less of a chance to pursue their happiness. For example, I believe gays have just as much right to marry each other and therefore pursue their happiness (or unhappiness as the case may be) just like everyone else. Or an even simpler idea that everyone should be familiar with, is the right of women to vote, or of not forcing people to the back of the bus based on color. I understand certain things can be taken too far, and I am always the first to lambaste the extremists, and call for moderation, but can you honestly say anything would have changed regarding civil rights if the people didn't take action through the government. Can you honestly say if we left things to "market forces" that slavery would have worked itself out over time?
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edgar wrote:

Yes...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see how that is even possible, I have to completely disagree with you there. The only thing market forces would have done is change the price of a slave.
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm, market forces would see that slaves are cheaper than paying for workers so therefore what reason would a slaveowner have to free their slaves?

Examples?
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Cotton Gin separated the seeds from the fiber. It did not plant, tend, or harvest the crop...
"It was first invented in the 1920's, but was not made practiccal until the 1950's, and even then, it was not implemented on most farms..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There you go, you're catching on, good. Save one of us having to explain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Er.....I want a reasonable level of accuracy...I already have a good idea of the timeline. IF I wrote *everything* down, tho', it'd turn into a book... =;-o And *nobody* wants *that* =8-O

*Not at that period (pre-Civil War) of time.*

In the US. Not necessarily so in other countries which are cash-poor but labor/population-rich.
There is the economic crux. Machinery has a high up-front cost, and has maintenence and fuel costs; human labor is proportionally far less efficient, but in many countries, is immensely cheaper.

*Eventually*. And, again, that also depends upon whcih geographical location is being described. More to the point, most humans don't tolerate slavery, but vast numbers do tolerate wages that aren't much higher than what provides a minimal level of shelter, clothing, and food.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

THe problem *as I see it*, however, is that, if businesses and/or consumers in the US profit from another country's economic disparities, then the US remains patrt of the economic web, and is not isolated from it all (and therefore, also not entirely innocent).

Sadly, yes, in various forms...

During that time-frame, what also happened was that large amounts of cheap labor entered the US - so many desperate immigrants came that companies were able to get away with paying laborers *less* than what it would cost to maintain slaves, less than "living wages".
IOW, in the late 1800's and through the early 1900's, the availability of machinery occurred in tandem with a burgeoning population of potential workers who were also quite desperate. Without large numbers of barely- paid workers, and government policies that were pro-industry and anti- labor, the insdustrial revolution would have been hindered - not halted, btu eitehr ti would have occurred more slowly, or ther might have been a greater push towards efficiency, or I dunno what else - but it would have been different.

All of the above is true. THe gov.t deals with gov.ts, and it seems tha tthe poorer a nation is, the more corrupt its governemnt - which is one major reason that the countries *are* so poor. In more than one instance, famine has occurred, not because of crop shortfalls ro food shortage, but because of direct gov.t or military interference with distribution of goods to people they didn't like.
What burns me is that my tax dollars end up going, not to all those starving mothers and children that Americans are admonished to help/feed, but often, the the guns used to slaughter their people...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

THey couldn't pick cotton with steam-powered machines - even as recently as 40 years ago, much (and maybe all, I'd have to check) harvesting was done by hand. I'd have to check, but this is *IIRC* one reason that cotton-production has largely shifted to other countries which have large pools of cheap labor. Again, I need to check, btu that's my current understanding (I know someone whose family used to raise cotton in Arkansas - tehy switched to rice and soybeans because those were far more easy and economical to grow, and therefore far more profitable at market).
Similar situation with many fruits and vegetables. Increasing numbers of clever mechanisms have been developed overthe past couple of decades, but there is still a need for people to hand-harvest many items.

Free? You're joking, right...?
The machines were not free; spare parts were not free; the labor needed to stoke the machines was not free... Engines made many processes *more efficient*, but saying that engines were "free" is, sorry, but just plain absurd. Even today, there are many things that machines simply can't do, and manual labor is not a thing of the past.

I think you've missed some of the details abotu certain aspects of market economics...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't see anybody claim that.

Steam _power_ was _essentially_ free. You might do better to ask "I don't understand, please explain."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except that I do understand, and it's neither true, nor the point. I say not true, because, even after teh engine was purchased (i.e., produced and shipped), someone had to collect the fuel, and stoke the engines. Unless one proposes a scenario in which one individual refines their own ore, pours their own molds, builds their own engine, chops and processes their own wood/charcoal, then it's inaccurate to say that the power is free. IOW, a power source cannot be economically separated from the infrastructrue required to provide it.
Going by your statement, human power is also essentially free. What is expensive is housing and feeding the labor force so as to obtain that power.
But the notion of whether power is "free" is not the point. The advantage of the engine is the power *output* in relation to size and the efficiency of the fuel source. And teh constraint is whether that power can be applied to the performance of a specific task.
The specific task refrenced is the harvesting and processing of cotton. As I noted elsewhere, cotton was not commonly machine-harvested even in the 1950's. So how do you think the cotton was *picked*? It was harvested via manual labor. And, in poorer countries, this remains the case.
What happened is that the cotton gin *increased* the number of slaves, because the ability to process more cotton bolls in ever-shorter periods of time meant that more could be usefully grown, which in turn required more labor to plant, tend, and harvest it.
Sorry but your contention that steam power was eliminating the need for slaves before the Civil War due to some sort of "market cometition" simply doesn't hold. Teh need for them might have shifted somewhat, but the overall demand for them actually increased.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, go back to the top line and re-read what you wrote. Note specifically that you said, "If a gov.t tries to...." That introduces the hypothetical, which in turn indicates a discussion open to accurate definitions, as opposed toindicating, as you later state, nothing mroe than an exposition of current conditions and, especially, slang or vernacular useages.
I'm not trying to be uppity, I'm only trying to increase accuracy so as to have, for myself, a better handle on what is and is not being said.
Now, in most legal systems, starting from small villages and extending through complex societies, there is nearly always a *set* of reactions to what that society considers to be criminal actions. So, in that sense, yes, many (and I'd think most) legal ssytems take into account various extenuating circumstances.
Re: the meaning of the term "equality", this is the best summary I'd found to date: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality /
Equality as a sociopolitical term is simply not the same thing as the matematical conccept of "equates to/equating to". IOW, you're mixing up terms, concepts, and definitions.
As for the word "fair", you introduced it, not I. There is some fascinating information also at the Stanford site: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query ir That explains it better, and in more detail, than I either can or am willing to take the time (and bandwidth =:-o ) to attempt...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edgar,
Some food for thought for you...
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/alone.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I spent 10 yrs in Canada, under "universal health care". Between the misdiagnoses, inability to get a second opinion, waiting times for specialists, and so on...well, it si a system that only works if you never have any serious health problem, or need for specialized care. If you wanted a second opinion, you had to go to the US an dpay for it competely out of pocket, because it would not be covered, nor would any treatment associated with it - even if the second opinion was the correct diagnosis, and the original had been completely wrong.
I know it's the truth, because it happened to me personally, also to someone I know well, and to a few people I knew peripherally. That is in addition to the stories that made the news.
People like to ignroe the down side, and call the stories of negative events "fables", but that's just another sort of agenda-pushing.
It's true that the US system is seriously flawed, but what passes for "universal health care" is not the answer. The main problem is that the politicians just want easy "sound-bite" answers, and do not want to actually have to *think* about it - and especially, nobody wants to <GASP!!> discuss things and come to any agreements.

Gov.ts end up being bureaucracies that cater to the least common denomenator.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think that's what it is. I think it's that it's *easier* to turn things over to someone else. It's easier to not have to think, or learn, or take resoponsibility for one's actions, beliefs, or morals.
The gov.t tells ya what to do, the preacher tells ya who to love and who to hate, the teevee tells ya what to buy, the neighborhood committee tells ya how to do your yard, and so on, and so forth.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have guns. I like to do target shooting. If I'd grown up having a Dad who was a championship Archer, I guess I'd have bows. But I grew up around handguns. So, for me, it's no differnt than Zen Archery.
I get quite tired of hearing all this pop-psyche BS about why *anyone* has guns. IMO, it's jst plain stupid. There are various reasons - and not all of them have to do with paranoia or shooting animals or whatever.
If I couldn't have guns, maybe I *would* take up Zen Archery. Or maybe Javelin. In which case, I'm sure we'd then get a lot of absurd pop- psyche nonsense about *those* as well.
=:-/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not spouting about anyone who owns guns, in this case Don has said numerous times why he owns guns and thinks everyone else should. I'm not going on about some pop theory, I am going off what has been explicitly stated here in these forums.
Then again are you saying you have no phantom fears?
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Fuck you asshole. Get on google and search around if you can't remember what the fuck you said with that shit you call brain.
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

But I did make a mistake (which you jumped at the chance to flame about) as that part you underlined should have read "and thinks everyone who doesn't own one is a douchebag/idiot/insert name of the week" Have a nice day shit for brains.
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Actually no, I am not lying, I may have made a mistake, but I am certainly not lying. You repeatedly called me an idiot for not wanting to "defend" myself from some phantom fears of yours. Google doesn't seem to be working for me or else I would show you. No use reasoning with shit for brains.
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.