Jump to content

Patriot Act and the ACLU


Recommended Posts

Hugo wrote:

OK, so obviously those examples I mentioned wouldn't be enough to outrage you. Let's consider another (it's hypothetical, but not outside the realms of possibility).

Are you trying to outrage me so that I can get banned? (I'm on to you Hugo... ;) )

Hugo, I'm an admitted nationalist, realist and I'll vote Republican this year. I'm not going to get into your hypothetical world of "what if" scenarios" but will give a quick answer: Government will never monitor voting. (period)

If anyone monitors, it will be an independent, non-partisan organization, state by state.

So America is the government's house? They own it, they can tell people how to behave, or to get out?
How does that work? Does the Republican Party own the USA right now?

(I see where you are going, so I'll play...)

Pretty much! Federal, State and local levels! Constitution, Law (order)! Shouldn't you already have known this?

It's like a bar, Hugo... Everybody's welcome (we don't discriminate) But there are rules to obey. Not everyone is going to like or follow them, and the govt. is the "bouncer"!

You hope. A lot of Germans never knew about the Final Solution until after the end of the war. Consider that most of the Patriot Act allows investigations and arrests to be carried out in secret, often without judicial oversight.

Well lets just hope not! Our govt. is f*cked up, but not Nazi's!

You dodged my question about; If we had the Patriot Act in place pre-9/11, would we even be here discussing such topics?How hard is that to answer? YES or NO? I already know your "ideological agenda", I don't agree, so quit trying to push it on me! Stick to one subject/question at a time Hugo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not going to get into your hypothetical world of "what if" scenarios" but will give a quick answer: Government will never monitor voting. (period)

This hasn't really answered my question. My point is that there are some things that you would consider as going "too far" in the interests of national security. You don't draw the line at snooping in your bank account, but at inspecting the electoral ballots. Some wouldn't find even that objectionable. Stalinism is, as political philosophy, the belief that any act committed for the cause of advancing socialism is inherently moral.

Consider that the point at which you draw the line is purely arbitrary and indefensible.

Pretty much! Federal, State and local levels! Constitution, Law (order)! Shouldn't you already have known this?

It's like a bar, Hugo... Everybody's welcome (we don't discriminate) But there are rules to obey. Not everyone is going to like or follow them, and the govt. is the "bouncer"!

No, not really. The bar analogy involves private ownership, shareholding and so forth.

Let me put it another way. Let's say I live in the US, and I say to the government,

"Listen, I don't like you and you don't like me. So here's the deal: I stay on my farm, that I own, and I'll never leave it again, and in return you won't charge me any taxes ever again."

Obviously, the government wouldn't accept that. Why do they have the right to tax me? Do they own my farm? Why do they own it - because the majority (i.e. other people) said they could? So you can steal somebody else's property, as long as you can get a bunch of people to agree with you?

If an individual doesn't have a right (e.g. appropriation of anothers property), how can he defer that right to government?

Well lets just hope not! Our govt. is f*cked up, but not Nazi's!

Oh, you're on the way. Did you recall Blackdog's summary of how the PA violates the constitution and operates in privacy and secrecy?

You dodged my question about; If we had the Patriot Act in place pre-9/11, would we even be here discussing such topics?

Very probably, but I'm sure people would be outraged, and the administration would be in serious trouble for passing such an Act without good reason - hence the wait for 9/11 before the Act was passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hasn't really answered my question. My point is that there are some things that you would consider as going "too far" in the interests of national security. You don't draw the line at snooping in your bank account, but at inspecting the electoral ballots. Some wouldn't find even that objectionable. Stalinism is, as political philosophy, the belief that any act committed for the cause of advancing socialism is inherently moral.

So what are you arguing?

No, not really. The bar analogy involves private ownership, shareholding and so forth.

We were talking about "house rules"... You got the point! Same applies to the farmer's taxes! There might be a day that an asteroid crashes on and destroys his farm, while he is at the market. It's every citizen's taxes (his taxes too) and or donations that are going to come to his aid, so that he may farm again.

Oh, you're on the way. Did you recall Blackdog's summary of how the PA violates the constitution and operates in privacy and secrecy?

Sure Hugo...someday we're going to be a bunch of crazy, racially mixed Nazi's! "Aboot time, eh?"

Yep, sure did read it! Gee, I wonder if it's being revised?

Very probably, but I'm sure people would be outraged, and the administration would be in serious trouble for passing such an Act without good reason - hence the wait for 9/11 before the Act was passed.

Good answer Hugo! I actually agree with you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are you arguing?

Firstly, that your position is indefensible. It's just your opinion, and it isn't founded on any underlying principle or simple law. Simply put, your ideas are held because you are personally comfortable with them, not because of any theory of ethics or morality or any empirical evidence.

Secondly, that your assumption that the public could "police" the government has to be false if you also believe that people could endorse a government you find reprehensible. After all, Hitler came to power constitutionally and had the mandate of the masses, and if the German people failed to monitor their own government, what makes you think Americans never would?

We were talking about "house rules"... You got the point! Same applies to the farmer's taxes! There might be a day that an asteroid crashes on and destroys his farm, while he is at the market.

Strawman argument. I think we should assume that the farmer wants nothing from the government, either.

Sure Hugo...someday we're going to be a bunch of crazy, racially mixed Nazi's! "Aboot time, eh?"

That's your response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, that your position is indefensible. It's just your opinion, and it isn't founded on any underlying principle or simple law. Simply put, your ideas are held because you are personally comfortable with them, not because of any theory of ethics or morality or any empirical evidence.

Does it bother you so much that I have been simplifying everything you say with common sense? AGain, you are not an "elitist" so quit trying to act like one.

Secondly, that your assumption that the public could "police" the government has to be false if you also believe that people could endorse a government you find reprehensible.

Not an assumption but fact! We've been doing this for what... 228 years now?

After all, Hitler came to power constitutionally and had the mandate of the masses, and if the German people failed to monitor their own government, what makes you think Americans never would?

(You may not like it) But our history, longevity and sovereignty speak for itself! You do the math... You overestimate our govt. and underestimate Americans. Look at Germany now... Are you going to try and speak for all Germans, and say that they are worse off now? Because of the U.S.? What an absurd comparison Hugo!! Is our military rounding up the Jews or any other ethnicity to exterminate them? Did Germany go through any kind of civil war, revolution or civil rights movement? Did they have a right to bear arms? These are just basic answers as to why Americans will never fail to monitor our own govt.

Strawman argument. I think we should assume that the farmer wants nothing from the government, either.

There you go again...dodging; one little mind trying to assume, think for and speak for the people. Could it be that HUGO wants nothing from the govt. Why are you even online? You sound like someone who should be hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, trying to survive. As much as you complain about govt. I'm sure you do not mind cashing that tax refund, welfare or disability check you get from the taxpayers of Canada!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try answering the points instead of selected words out of each sentence.

Denseyou may be - I don't really know. However, if you cannot deal with what you are dealt, then you must be dense. No matter how simple I try to keep my addresses to you, you fail to understand them.

One area where I think that Higo and I would differ is in the effects of liberalism and free markets. It was that combination that, in the nineteenth century, led to unprecednted human misery around the world.

That is what your administration is attempting to recreate. The idea that its purpose is to spread Liberal Democracy and Freedom is a bad joke. It is now in the same mode as Britain in the mid-nineteenth century when it abandoned those ideas in favour of a more militant approach to Empire.

That failed with deadly consequences. But, Britain learned and allowed democracy and freedoms to develop where they could and as they could.

Your country still has not learned that lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it bother you so much that I have been simplifying everything you say with common sense?

No, I note that nothing you have said has been simplified to common sense. It amounts to "because I say so" or "because I feel like it" - there are no underpinnings to your arguments. You're clearly not a moral absolutist since you believe that the state can do things that would be called criminal in the individual, but you've also denied being a nihilist, so that puts you somewhere in the middle, and where is basically down to where you feel like being and nothing more justifiable than that.

Not an assumption but fact! We've been doing this for what... 228 years now?

No, "you" did it for 85 years, and then the great experiment of the USA came crashing down in a horrible, bloody war. Ever since then, the USA has been just like any European power - big government, mercantilist economics, international meddling, standing armies and gunboat diplomacy.

Are you going to try and speak for all Germans, and say that they are worse off now?

Ironically, they are worse off now. I think only a fool would argue that Germany is better off having suffered massive and near-total destruction of property and incredible loss of life, twice, and then to have been split asunder and had part of its population subjected to the brutality of Soviet communism.

Did Germany go through any kind of civil war, revolution or civil rights movement?

Yes, yes and yes, all before Hitler.

As much as you complain about govt. I'm sure you do not mind cashing that tax refund, welfare or disability check you get from the taxpayers of Canada!

I take my tax refund because it was my money in the first place. I think I have a right to my own property. I've never drawn a penny of welfare, disability, unemployment or any other government stipend in my life.

One area where I think that Higo and I would differ is in the effects of liberalism and free markets. It was that combination that, in the nineteenth century, led to unprecednted human misery around the world.

This isn't really true (see our debate from before), but in any event this wasn't capitalism but what capitalists call state capitalism or mercantilism (Marx was mistaken in lumping mercantilism and capitalism together, as he would have known if he had read Adam Smith, who was a capitalist and spent a lot of time debunking mercantilism).

State capitalism is a horrible mixture of free markets and state interference. In essence, the state creates a "free" market and then becomes a player in it, and obviously, with armies, police forces and hangmen the state-player has a massive advantage. The government meddles in the economy, skewing it all over the place and creating monopolies, often at gunpoint e.g. the East India Company, price fixing, unemployment, shortages, and so forth.

Argue against capitalism if you will, but don't argue against mercantilism and call it arguing against capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try answering the points instead of selected words out of each sentence.

Denseyou may be - I don't really know. However, if you cannot deal with what you are dealt, then you must be dense. No matter how simple I try to keep my addresses to you, you fail to understand them.

One area where I think that Higo and I would differ is in the effects of liberalism and free markets. It was that combination that, in the nineteenth century, led to unprecednted human misery around the world.

That is what your administration is attempting to recreate. The idea that its purpose is to spread Liberal Democracy and Freedom is a bad joke. It is now in the same mode as Britain in the mid-nineteenth century when it abandoned those ideas in favour of a more militant approach to Empire.

That failed with deadly consequences. But, Britain learned and allowed democracy and freedoms to develop where they could and as they could.

Your country still has not learned that lesson.

Just picking the main points Eureka... Not going to "Quote" everything.

I am dense (already admitted this in an open forum)

Just got tired of reading your "political philosophy" It's like poetry... Only the writer can interpret it!

I could care less what you and Hugo differ on... It's irrelevant!

Interesting... I thought almost all of the previous administrations (not just the current) attempted to recreate or spread freedom & democracy. Just admit you hate anything and everything Republican or Conservative! I might agree with you if we were still living in the 19th century or if America were truly an empire. That's just a classic Liberal argument... Trying to use history & theory to fulfill "self-righteousness"! But of course, has very little substance (only to the believer) You in this case! Only time will tell history, Eureka!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I note that nothing you have said has been simplified to common sense. It amounts to "because I say so" or "because I feel like it" - there are no underpinnings to your arguments. You're clearly not a moral absolutist since you believe that the state can do things that would be called criminal in the individual, but you've also denied being a nihilist, so that puts you somewhere in the middle, and where is basically down to where you feel like being and nothing more justifiable than that.

Sure Hugo... If that were the case, you would not waste your time trying to debate me! I'm just an average American, who lives a simple life, and loves his country! I graduated high school, volunteerily served in the Marine Corps, graduated from a technical school (No Ivy League by all means)... Just got the skills to pay the bills! And can argue in a reasonable manner. What we have been arguing is not complicated; just see things differently.

When are you going to acknowledge that you overestimate govt. and underestimate the American people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Hugo, it was liberalism and its slavish adherence to ideas of "Free Markets" and Free Trade. In the first half or so of the 19th. century, the East India Company became obsessed with those liberal ideals. It was not until the Sepoy rebellion that it became "Statist" or "Capitalist" in your sense.

But, I won't push that here. It is too much fun seeing the ignorance of America unfold through one of its "average" citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were the case, you would not waste your time trying to debate me! I'm just an average American, who lives a simple life, and loves his country!

What kind of response is this???

Actually, Hugo, it was liberalism and its slavish adherence to ideas of "Free Markets" and Free Trade.

The trading activities of the East India Company were conducted at gunpoint - are you seriously telling me that armed robbery constitutes "free trade"?

Liberalism and mercantilism are two very different concepts. Please don't mix them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One area where I think that Higo and I would differ is in the effects of liberalism and free markets. It was that combination that, in the nineteenth century, led to unprecednted human misery around the world.
Eureka, I realize this question does not belong in this thread but you made the remark here.

Hugo showed good evidence that the 19th century was a period of steady, continuous if rather small economic growth in Europe and North America. This growth benefited everyone. In the US, average real GDP per capita grew at about 1.5% per year through the whole century. This growth was unprecedented in human history.

I would argue that an ordinary person born in the west in 1850 and living to 1920 saw more radical changes than any generation born before or since.

Eureka, do you dispute these "facts"? Or do you dispute their "cause"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing you elect both Reagan and Bush Jr., I think it is difficult for Canadians to underestimate Americans' political acumen.  ;)

This coming from a Canadian who probably voted for Paul Martin? And you criticize America for Reagan & Bush?

"Screw the Red Book!... Don't tell me what's in the Red Book. I wrote the godamn thing! And I know that's a lot of crap!"

Still waiting for all of those promises? Promises from a man who admits that his political career has been against his own principles. What a moron! But then again, you people voted for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dispute the spread of benefit. Growth and prosperity was the lot of the rich: the population, in general, suffered incredible hardship. Perhaps not so much in North America but certainly in Europe.

Another book of the times, since someone does not like Diskens, is "Mary Barton" by Mrs. Gaskell. It is one of the finest novels of the century and stresses conditions in the heart of the industrial revolution in Mnachester.

Mercantilism was dead by around 1800. Liberalism, Free Markets and Free Trade, were the ideals of the first half of the 19th. century. Adam Smith was anti-Mercanrilism and his ideas in economics were dominant.

The East India Company was governed by the ideas of men like Trevelyan who sought to bring enlightment and liberal ideas to India.

As we agreed, this is not the thread to discuss that but I have to respond in brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Growth and prosperity was the lot of the rich: the population, in general, suffered incredible hardship. Perhaps not so much in North America but certainly in Europe.

That's not what the source I cited says. The general population saw great rises in life expectancy, real income, literacy and so forth.

The big misconception seems to be that, before the industrial revolution, life was great. It wasn't. The overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate, would die early (45 or so), have no choice but to follow the profession of their fathers and eke out a subsistence level of living at best.

Mercantilism was dead by around 1800.

Mercantilism still exists today. Look at all the trade tarriffs and taxes. Look at crown corporations in Canada, or Halliburton, General Dynamics or Raytheon in the USA.

The East India Company was governed by the ideas of men like Trevelyan who sought to bring enlightment and liberal ideas to India.

With the rifle and the bayonet. The East India Company generally forced Indian peasants to sell their produce at below market prices and forced them to buy their goods at far more than they were worth. They would have made a killing were it not for the massive corruption within the company that burnt up all profit.

Then they decided to try and make America buy all their surplus tea, the Bostonians threw it all in the harbour, and the rest is history (well, it all is, but you get my point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my misconception, Hugo. Life expectancy in industrial England was much lower, though, and illiteracy was the lot of almost all. Unemployment was an epidemic: child labour was, in part, used to replace more expensive adult workers. Sanitation was non-existent and disease widespread. It was well into the nineteenth century before any education became available to the common folk. Only a handful of scholarship boys made it from below until about the 1880's.

Those companies you cite have nothing to do with mercantilism although some might like certain aspects of the policy. Mercantilism is diametrically opposed to Free Trade and can not exist in open markets, Mercantilism as a belief that wealth can only come from competition that reduces others as one grows, was dead and buried by 1800. In Holland it was probably never an economic ideal. Capitalism arrived there in the 16th. century and, with it, a desire to trade without barriers.

Your ideas of the East India Company seem unusually, for you, ill informed. That company after Clive gradually came around to the beliefs of the English Liberals - I cited Trevelyan who was a great influence. In the first half of the 19th. century, there was the idealist approach of bringing liberalism and all its perceived market benefits to India, The belief was that Indians too could prosper and not simply lose to British competition.

That policy was disastrous and led to famine through distribution failure as government no longer "interfered" with the "market." The grease question that led to the Sepoy rebellion was just the tipping point for a population ready to rise. Rifle and Bayonet followed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my misconception, Hugo. Life expectancy in industrial England was much lower, though, and illiteracy was the lot of almost all. Unemployment was an epidemic: child labour was, in part, used to replace more expensive adult workers. Sanitation was non-existent and disease widespread. It was well into the nineteenth century before any education became available to the common folk. Only a handful of scholarship boys made it from below until about the 1880's.

I'll grant you most of that, but you still have to acknowledge that all of those problems were worse before the industrial revolution. To summarise, your complaint is not that the revolution made things worse, but that it didn't make things better fast enough.

Mercantilism as a belief that wealth can only come from competition that reduces others as one grows, was dead and buried by 1800.

If you keep repeating it, that doesn't make it a fact, you know. The evidence that mercantilism still exists is plain to see: import tarriffs, job protectionism and anti-outsourcing, government industry, government contracting, etc. are all part of mercantilist policy. Adam Smith never advocated any of those, quite the opposite, in fact.

So if you call what we have today "capitalism" or "liberalism" then you're simply confusing your terminology. Your argument is akin to saying, "I take the word 'black' to mean the word 'rapist', therefore, I think all blacks should be imprisoned."

In the first half of the 19th. century, there was the idealist approach of bringing liberalism and all its perceived market benefits to India

I was discussing the East India Company as it was in the 18th Century, prior to the American Revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two statistics: men's average heights (measured by military uniforms) and average urban meat consumption. I would consider either to be reliable evidence of a rising standard of living of ordinary people during the 19th century. My recollection is that the stats show this, at least after 1830.

I am trying to find these on the Internet or elsewhere.

Any other suggestions?

----

The arrival of cell phones has meant that many payphone manufacturers/repairmen have lost jobs. The early 19th century faced such a situation. The stats may show that ordinary people lived better in 1770 than in 1820. (There were the Napoleonic wars too...) There should be no doubt whatsoever that ordinary people lived better in 1860 than in 1820 or in 1770.

The 18th century produced at best Fielding or Rousseau. Dilettantes. The 19th century produced Zola and Dickens because a "middle class" existed for the first time to read their romantically appealing stories.

Incidentally, the art of the 18th century is the art of a small elite: Mozart. The art of the 19th century is the art of the crowd: Verdi.

I am sorry for using a Euro-centric argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See here.

Since the introduction of reliable statistical evidence in Sir John Clapham's An Economic History of Modern Britain in 1926, it has become increasingly obvious that real wages rose. The evidence is now so conclusive that one historian has confidently declared that "unless new errors are discovered, the debate over real wages in the early nineteenth century is over: the average worker was much better off in any decade from the 1830s on than any decade before 1820" (Williamson, p. 18).
As one can imagine, the increase in real wages resulted in significant improvements in the standard of living. An excellent example is the changes in diet that occurred. Per capita consumption of meat, sugar, tea, beer, and eggs all increased. An even better indication of the rising affluence was the great increase of imported foods. Per capita consumption of foreign cocoa, cheese, coffee, rice, sugar, and tobacco increased. Meanwhile, meat, vegetables, and fruits, long considered luxuries, were by 1850 eaten regularly (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 328-29). In fact, the average weekly English diet of 1850-five ounces of butter, thirty ounces of meat, fifty-six ounces of potatoes, and sixteen ounces of fruits and vegetables-is quite similar to the English diet of today (Hartwell, 1971, p. 330).
Although the existence of child labor cannot be denied, it is clear that most pessimists have overstated both its magnitude and the effects on the health of the children involved. In fact, much of the evidence for the pessimist's case comes from the very famous, yet very inaccurate, reports from the government committees investigating the factory system. Almost all of the "condition of England" novels by Dickens, as well as the works of Engels and the Hammonds, have been in large part based on these committee reports (Jefferson, p. 189). Politically motivated and seriously defective, the evidence in these reports is marred by the fact that the doctors who testified against child labor in the factories had not even been in a factory and refused to testify under oath (Hutt, pp. 161-167). Moreover, the great improvement in mortality rates seems to indicate that either child labor was not extensive as before or was less harmful. Indeed, it was the great improvement in productivity instigated by the industrial revolution that has enabled Western societies to banish child labor.
The great population explosion that happened during the industrial revolution was fueled by a steep fall in death rates. Even in cities, where living conditions are said to have been the worst, mortality rates improved somewhat (McCloskey, pp. 105-106). Deteriorating living conditions and longer life spans are difficult positions to reconcile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are citing only revisionists. In the early 19th. century, the Napeolonic wars mitigated against any possibility of improvement. The Luddites, around 1812 were reacting to famine and scarcity of work as to the conditions of the work available. The Corn Laws made even that staple product exorbitantly expensive for the "working" classes. The 1820's saw a deep depression on top of those negatives.

The Chartists were not reacting to prosperity. The Petreloo "massacres, in Manchester were a consequence of the desperation of the lower classes - in the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. It was not until the Repeal of the Corn Laws (1848, I think) and the legislation that followed the work of those Commissions that your cited historiian denigrates that prosperity began to appear.

The 3rd. quarter of the century did, indeed. see a growth in prosperity - a significant one - for the average. It also produced a high birth rate and a lowering of the death rate with the consequent groth in population.

However, even that was an average. There was a burgeoning middle class - a healthy development for the long term - but a more deprived lower strata. As it is today, the poorer classes were falling even further behind. It is a reflection of thosed days that has led to the designation of neo-libs for the brutes in politics of today.

The difference now is that the middle class is shrinking and the average is not improving.

The only connection between this and the Patriot Act that I can see is the mindless slavery to false doctrine that colours the actions of the new libs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 3rd. quarter of the century did, indeed. see a growth in prosperity - a significant one - for the average. It also produced a high birth rate and a lowering of the death rate with the consequent groth in population.
Eureka, if you won't accept Hugo's data. Then surely, you would accept birth rate data.

The world's population began to grow exponentially around 1800. If I'm not mistaken, Malthus wrote in the 1820s.

Would you agree that an increasing population is evidence that ordinary people are better off?

The only connection between this and the Patriot Act that I can see is the mindless slavery to false doctrine that colours the actions of the new libs.
Good point. God knows how we got from the Patriot Act to a rapidly increasing human population for the first time in history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are citing only revisionists.

It seems that the doomsayers of the industrial revolution are the revisionists. As the sources I cited say, their work is based on wildly inaccurate and biased evidence.

In the early 19th. century, the Napeolonic wars mitigated against any possibility of improvement. The Luddites, around 1812 were reacting to famine and scarcity of work as to the conditions of the work available... The 1820's saw a deep depression on top of those negatives.

All of this is true. It's also true that it's only true because of the massive increase in taxation, government (military) spending and national debt due to the Napoleonic wars. It is not a secret that massive wars bankrupt nations, and the Napoleonic wars were indeed massive. Had they not happened, these problems would not have arisen.

The answer, then, is that the fault lies not with industrialism but with the wars and the states that waged them. Indeed, were it not for industrialisation, Britain might not have survived the Napoleonic wars at all. I think it's a given that the only reason Britain was able to defeat Napoleon in the long run was by outproducing him in war materiel, due to the more industrialised British economy.

The Corn Laws made even that staple product exorbitantly expensive for the "working" classes.

The Corn Laws are a good example of exactly what I am opposed to: state interference in the economy and state power. It was pushed through by landowners who dominated Parliament and wanted to protect their profits.

The Chartists and the Peterloo demonstrators were not protesting industrialism, they were protesting government interference and government power.

It was not until the Repeal of the Corn Laws (1848, I think) and the legislation that followed the work of those Commissions that your cited historiian denigrates that prosperity began to appear.

Obviously, since prosperity is difficult at best when government interferes in the economy.

What you have said doesn't support your argument, it supports mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugo!

What I wrote does not support your argument rather than mine since you are imputing to me an argument I did not make.

I do not say that Industrialization is a bad thing: I am saying that the early effects on society were bad. The sources you cite are immediately suspect when they denigrate the Commissions set up to study the problems I point to, and on whose recommendations much of the palliative - and curative - legislation was based.

The other parts of your response simply attempt to make the case for your hobby horse of Anarchism so I will let them pass by. It is obvious that the wars cost money. It is also a fact that the kind of taxation imposed to finance them ended with the war's ending.

One little fact that may help you to understan that the misery of the first half of the century was real is that the users of the Poor Houses; those subjected to the Poor Laws, quadrupled in number compared to the late 18th. century.

August!

I do accept the growing population. I am saying that it was greater in the following period. The growth that so affected Malthus was also real, but Life expectancy was short and that is part of what stirred Malthusianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not say that Industrialization is a bad thing: I am saying that the early effects on society were bad.

The sources I cited said that the early effects of industrialization were not bad, and the sources you cited effectively said that the effects of war and statism were bad. Therefore, you still have no supporting evidence for your claims.

The sources you cite are immediately suspect when they denigrate the Commissions set up to study the problems I point to

These Commissions were run by those biased against capitalism, the people they called upon as witnesses had never set foot inside a factory although they claimed to be experts on factory conditions, and these same witnesses refused to testify under oath.

Do you dispute any of this? If so, with what evidence? If not, how can you claim these Commissions are of any value as historical evidence whatsoever?

on whose recommendations much of the palliative - and curative - legislation was based.

Actually, if you read up on capitalistic theory, you will see that the abolition of child labour, rising real incomes and better working conditions are the natural and inevitable consequences of capitalism, due to the increasing development of the economy creating an increasing demand for labour in which the "price" for labour (wages, holidays, working conditions) will consequently grow higher. Simple market economics, as true in the labour market as in any other.

It is obvious that the wars cost money. It is also a fact that the kind of taxation imposed to finance them ended with the war's ending.

In some cases. In the USA, for instance, taxation and the presence of the state in the economy actually grew after every war, rather than shrank. Germany's economic collapse after WWI was due to the fact that the German state, rather than retreating from the big-government stance necessitated by total war, actually grew. Britain did recede from big-state economic policies after WWI, and consequently enjoyed some economic growth, until 1925 when they abandoned it, and therefore entered a slump.

One little fact that may help you to understan that the misery of the first half of the century was real is that the users of the Poor Houses; those subjected to the Poor Laws, quadrupled in number compared to the late 18th. century.

Ask yourself who built the poor houses and who passed the poor laws.

The roots of the poor houses are back in 1536, when the largely monastic voluntary tradition of caring for the poor was abolished and a compulsory, coercive system of caring for the poor with tax money was adopted. This system became so expensive that government looked for a better solution and the workhouse or poor house promised to save tax money, so they adopted it. It was a lousy solution, conditions became terrible mostly due to deliberate policy, as a deterrent for paupers in order to stop the workhouse population growing as they were becoming increasingly expensive.

Basically, workhouses are a bad government solution to a problem that government created and, as such, have nothing to do with industrialization or capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...