If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 20, 2007, 7:12 pm
@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>> THey couldn't pick cotton with steam-powered machines
>
> I didn't see anybody claim that.
>
>> > Slaves were not cheap, to purchase, maintain, enforce, etc., but steam
>> > power was essentially free and increased the bottom line.
>>
>> Free? You're joking, right...?
>
> Steam _power_ was _essentially_ free. You might do better to ask "I
> don't understand, please explain."
>
>
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.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 19, 2007, 4:21 pm
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>> "Don"> wrote
>>> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>>>> Governments cannot and should not try to create "equality".
>>>
>>> Everyone is different.
>>> If a gov't tries to treat everyone *equally* it must set different
>>> standards for each and every person.
>>> Quite the enigma, no?
>>
>> Huh...? That makes no sense.
>
> It does if you take a look at the current legal system.
>
[ ... ]
>>
>> If you steal my car, it's grand theft auto. If Edgar steals my car,
>> it's still grand theft auto. THe crime shoudl be investigated, and
>> punished, the same.
>>
>> Also, if a person is hit by a car, and has to be rushed to the Trauma
>> center, that person shoul be given proper treatment, proper
>> diagnoses, and so on. It shouldn't matter whetehr the victim is rich
>> or poor, white or melanistic, male or female, or whatever.
>>
>> THat is what is "fair".
>
> I was speaking of the reality of the thing today.
> Poor people are generally treated *less fairly* than wealthy people.
> If a caucasian male rapes a negro female he will incur the addition of
> a *hate crime*, based solely upon the race of those involved.
> We seem to be talking about 2 different words, *equal* and *fair* and
> they don't mean the same thing.
> My comment at the top of the page was meant to illustrate that.
>
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=fair
That explains it better, and in more detail, than I either can or am
willing to take the time (and bandwidth =:-o ) to attempt...
|
|
Posted by 3D Peruna on July 18, 2007, 11:27 am
Edgar,
Some food for thought for you...
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/alone.html
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 16, 2007, 11:47 pm
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>>>> After the last boomer cashes their last Social Security check, who
>>>> needs more people?
>>> Social Security is already finite in terms of benefits. Meanwhile,
>>> we would be helped with at least universal health care in the US.
>>
>> One of my favorite things about Canada.
>
> Nothing scares me more than universal health care. If it comes, I
> want out. I hope I'm rich enough to pay my own doctors, fly to where
> I want to go for medical care, or whatever it takes. There isn't a
> country on earth with universal health care that I'd consider living
> in.
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.
>
> Universal health care is the last stop before socialism before
> communism. Just wait until the government is responsible for your
> health... and they'll start limiting what you get to eat (New York
> City), how much you must exercise...
>
> Governments are not the answer. Governments have become the
> problem(s).
>
Gov.ts end up being bureaucracies that cater to the least common
denomenator.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 16, 2007, 11:52 pm
> "++"> wrote
>> Don wrote:
>>>I'm pretty certain things will have to get much, much worse in the US
>>>before the people start to wisen up.
>>>Keep your network of associates small and tight.
>>
>> I don't think " the people" are the problem.
>
> Specifically, the ignorant people that fail to learn from their
> mistakes are the problem.
> The voters, whom are the *tools* (fools) the politicians use to
> elevate themselves to lofty positions of power.
> The cowardly, that stand on the sidelines cheering the tools and their
> masters.
>
> Take a look at Michael, though he's Canadian, his attitude that *gov't
> knows best* permeates the US society.
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.
> If I could wave my magic wand I'd give these people exactly what they
> will have sometime in the future, now.
> Its appalling that these people even exist, nothing more than pathetic
> parasites.
>
|
Page 7 of 10 < 1 2 3 > last >>
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap