patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,198,715 comments by 14,141 users - Tenpoundbass online now
The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%
invite response
2013 Jan 25, 2:50am 108,519 views 354 comments
« First « Previous Comments 303 - 342 of 354 Next » Last » Search these comments
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 2:27am
Why? Because private sailors always had a suicide wish? Prince Henry the Navigator was operating in his private capacity, not some natioanl government.
Oh bullcrap. Henry was a member of the royal family, with estates and control over religious orders as well. That's where his money to fund this stuff came from.
If libertarians are going to say that Royals aren't members of government, then there's a whole bunch of "statist" actions assigned to pre-Modern Monarchies that they cannot then assign to "Governments".
.
Actually the "Dark Ages" was a reference to the lack of court historians recording things for us to read. Archeological digs and what written records of book keeping there is show that the standards of living in Western Europe was improving rapidly during that time, much better than the collapse in the late Roman Imperial period.
The Dark Ages is the time of the post-Western Roman Empire collapse. Most historians accept 800-900 as the beginning of the Middle Ages.
The Dark Ages saw the complete collapse of a monetary economy, the breakdown of infrastructure, trade in the Western Med disappeared almost completely, Pirates regularly raided the South of France, etc. The people of the Dark Ages looked at wonder at the fallen aqueducts the Romans built.
Sure, in the Dark Ages they developed better mail armor, and they got the stirrup from the Asians, because they fought a lot, but I would have much, much rather have lived as an ordinary person (and even more so as an equities or equestrian) in the Late Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.
So why do you bring it up again?
Nice quote omission. You could have quoted the relevant bits where I discussed large corporations enjoying the contracts from government, which they lobby to keep. There's no doubt the MIC lobbies for war spending and even increasing military activities.
Where do you think the money's purchasing power ultimately comes from? the government printer?
The power of taxation, voluntarily granted to the state by the people. Generally, if enough people really hate the government, it would be replaced.
Every time the government makes a grant, it deprives some other part of the real economy even more purchasing power . . .
... assuming that the money would be spent instead of being shoved under a mattress - or, used to buy government bonds. Or used to buy other productive assets to draw rent from. Etc. Spending it on goods and services or expanding production is not the only option for uncollected tax money.
Most people spend their surplus, the top 1% generally use it to buy more productive assets like Property they can generate rents from.
That's a ludicrous excuse. People can launch into the space over oceas.
Which is why Cape Canaveral is on a Cape. Problem is, the area around it has urbanized heavily in the intervening years. Which is why there is "Flight Termination" of all rockets, including booster rockets for the shuttle:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479
http://kscsma.ksc.nasa.gov/Range_Safety/FlightTermination.html
Which were detonated in 1986 during the Columbia disaster to prevent the chance of damage to populated areas by errant booster rockets.
How does food get to me from 1500 miles away but from highways and railroads, all of which are paid for or at least heavily subsidized by government?
Once again you are falling into the trap of slaves getting food only because the owners feed them. Food get to you because it is profitable for the farmer to grow it, profitable for the truck driver to haul it, and profitable for the store to stock it. The farmer has to pay land tax etc. to maintain the local infrastructure, the truck driver has to pay gasoline tax which more than pays for the road maintenance even after union labor rip-offs, and the store of course has to pay property tax again . . . all these taxes, or cost of doing business when the counterparty is a government monopoly, are not what bring food to your table, but things that the various middlemen have to pay in order to bring food to your table. If there had been more competition in road building etc., the food traders and transporters would be able to bring food to your table for less.
How do traffic lights, stop signs, paved roads get done without government - do I need to pay 25 cents every time I turn on a different road to the private owners?
You are already paying for all of that in your gasoline tax. Gasoline tax is far more than necessary for covering road maintenance and on-going building, even at the monopolistic union contract high cost. Politicians in most jurisdictions have been diverting gasoline tax to other uses.
Rockets weren't almost wholly the results of government sponsored research?
No. Werner von Braun got his inspiration from many American private rocketeers of the 19th and early 20th century.
Why is the high yield agricultural coastal land being converted into suburbs instead of being used to grow veggies?
Because home buyers are willing to pay more than veggie buyers vs. the alternative farther from coast. Veggies don't have to be grown on the coast per se; you can't irrigate a field with sea water anyway: salting the land would kill nearly all plants.
As for Plastic, Leo Baekeland attended the University of Ghent to study Chemistry on a scholarship paid by the city government of Ghent. I'm sure Baekeland was thankful that he got a world class education from Belgian taxpayers. Baekeland, of course, was the inventor of the first plastic, Bakelite.
More regurgitation of the statist propaganda. Bakelite was only one of the early modern plastics. Quite a few others were invented independently and made from entirely different feed material. There is little connection between one type of early plastic to another. They are just large organic molecules. On top of that, someone else would have attended University of Ghent if he hadn't taken up the seat. Leo may even have found other source of money to attend the university, especially if the city hadn't extracted the tax from the city's economy to begin with.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 2:33am
That's why you are so confused. Corporations are nothing more than individuals operating behind corporate veils. All decisions are made by Individuals.
I'm sorry - you've obviously never worked for a corporation. Corporations usually deliberate in groups, or collectives. Very few decisions in large corporation are made solely by one person without heavy debate and discussion beforehand.
Then, on top of lower level matters, there are these groups called boards, and these other groups called investors.
And as somebody who has worked for several large corporations, they are chock full of bureaucrats and red tape and bureaucracy internally. Some, but not all of these functions and functionaries are "waste", some of it is important checks on processes to insure better outcomes.
Oh bullcrap. Henry was a member of the royal family, with estates and control over religious orders as well. That's where his money to fund this stuff came from.
If libertarians are going to say that Royals aren't members of government, then there's a whole bunch of "statist" actions assigned to pre-Modern Monarchies that they cannot then assign to "Governments".
Royal family are not necessarily part of the government. Prince Henry was using his own money as a large land owner, and took on a crew of volunteers.
The Dark Ages saw the complete collapse of a monetary economy,
The monetary economy already collapsed in the late Roman Empire. The silver coin was reduced to having 0.03% silver; That's why the West Roman Empire collapsed.
the breakdown of infrastructure, trade in the Western Med disappeared almost completely,
No different from what would happen to the Pacific and Atlantic when you tariff advocates get your way.
Pirates regularly raided the South of France, etc. The people of the Dark Ages looked at wonder at the fallen aqueducts the Romans built.
The aqueducts had been out of commission for a long time. The city population fled to the country estates in order to avoid taxes that the late Roman Empire tried to collect. The economic collapse took place rapidly towards the end of Roman Empire. Much of the Dark Ages was a gradually building back from the individual country estates linked by traveling merchants (a setup initially structured to dodge late Imperial Rome tax collectors) to bigger networks of exchanges again.
Sure, in the Dark Ages they developed better mail armor, and they got the stirrup from the Asians, because they fought a lot, but I would have much, much rather have lived as an ordinary person (and even more so as an equities or equestrian) in the Late Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.
You have no idea what late Roman Empire was like in the West. What do you think was happening to the Equestrians when the city of Rome was sacked repeatedly? Why do you think it was so easy for the "nomads" to sack Rome? The frontiers farmers were welcoming the "barbarians" because they wouldn't seek the high tax from the farmers. Eventually the free citizens of Rome voluntarily sold themselves into bondage to the big estates in the countryside in order to avoid the high taxes. Roman taxation of currency debasement got so bad that the taxmen wouldn't even accept the debased coins that the government itself issued.
The market economy did not collapse in the Dark Ages. It collapsed in late Roman Empire. Dark Ages was the gradual building back up from the ashes caused by the catastrophe called the Imperial Government.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 3:04am
More regurgitation of the statist propaganda. Bakelite was only one of the early modern plastics. Quite a few others were invented independently and made from entirely different feed material.
"Statist Propaganda". Wow, I'm talking to a true believer.
I don't claim that government is ALWAYS involved in every invention that ever was.
You, however, dismiss any public role in the development of any technology.
Because home buyers are willing to pay more than veggie buyers vs. the alternative farther from coast. Veggies don't have to be grown on the coast per se; you can't irrigate a field with sea water anyway: salting the land would kill nearly all plants.
Don't be silly. Coastal regions tend to be the most fertile because they often receive more rainfall, and of course because rivers drain out to the lowest level, carrying fertile alluvial soil with them.
You also can't irrigate much of Dry West without damming rivers and creating irrigation systems over hundreds and thousands of miles. Something very difficult for countless landowners to agree upon - and it only takes one hold out to make it impossible.
That's why the government has the power of eminent domain, it's a far more efficient system than trying to get countless landowners to agree to rights and prices. And everybody knows the last to agree will command the highest price.
The farmer has to pay land tax etc. to maintain the local infrastructure,
I always laugh when residents of low tax states like Alabama think their new 4-lane highway got paid for with the $500/year property tax they paid on their .5 acre single wide. Thanks, New York and California taxpayers! Red States are generally the biggest tax redistribution beneficiaries.
If there had been more competition in road building etc., the food traders and transporters would be able to bring food to your table for less.
In most places, there is absolutely nothing stopping private roads from being built. Yet, they almost never get built privately.
Usually what happens instead is a government sells or rents a taxpayer-paid road already built to a private owner for much, much less than it's worth, thanks to Money-Speech.
I'm sorry - you've obviously never worked for a corporation. Corporations usually deliberate in groups, or collectives. Very few decisions in large corporation are made solely by one person without heavy debate and discussion beforehand.
And that would still be decisions made by individual human beings, including deferring to another's opinion. There is no magic being called "group" that can think for itself.
Then, on top of lower level matters, there are these groups called boards, and these other groups called investors.
Once again, each person in there is an individual, and is fully responsible of his/her own actions. There is no magic beast called "board" or "shareholder meeting" that can make decisions for itself without the individual human beings.
This is sounding like debating a German officer at the Neuremberg: no, you are not an automaton under an order. You obey an order because you choose to obey.
And as somebody who has worked for several large corporations, they are chock full of bureaucrats and red tape and bureaucracy internally.
No kidding. Such inefficiency is sustainable for the company because the large corporation has a degree of market power. The government, with its much more thorough monopolistic power than any large corporation, is orders of magnitude more chock full of bureaucrats marking their time and playing with red tapes.
You, however, dismiss any public role in the development of any technology.
Because most involvement is negative. Would you think a monopolistic and bureaucratic institution is a good for developing any technology?
Don't be silly. Coastal regions tend to be the most fertile because they often receive more rainfall, and of course because rivers drain out to the lowest level, carrying fertile alluvial soil with them.
So what, my living room makes for a great food production site with all the sunlight, but it also has far higher opportunity cost, so it is not used as a mini farm.
You also can't irrigate much of Dry West without damming rivers and creating irrigation systems over hundreds and thousands of miles. Something very difficult for countless landowners to agree upon - and it only takes one hold out to make it impossible.
Buy him out if you really think your project is that worthwhile. Developers do that all the time.
That's why the government has the power of eminent domain, it's a far more efficient system than trying to get countless landowners to agree to rights and prices. And everybody knows the last to agree will command the highest price.
Sounds like you would fit right in with Stalinist Russia or Communist China.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 3:16am
Royal family are not necessarily part of the government. Prince Henry was using his own money as a large land owner, and took on a crew of volunteers.
Not necessarily? Maybe - but Henry was absolutely part of the Government of Portugal.
Henry was of the royal family, commanded troops in battle for the nation of Portugal including conquering cities on the North African coast, ruled various estates, appointed people he liked as officials, was commander of a military order.
It is really grasping at straws to say the Henry the Navigator was an entirely private figure.
You have no idea what late Roman Empire was like in the West. What do you think was happening to the Equestrians when the city of Rome was sacked repeatedly? Why do you think it was so easy for the "nomads" to sack Rome? The frontiers farmers were welcoming the "barbarians" because they wouldn't seek the high tax from the farmers. Eventually the free citizens of Rome voluntarily sold themselves into bondage to the big estates in the countryside in order to avoid the high taxes. Roman taxation of currency debasement got so bad that the taxmen wouldn't even accept the debased coins that the government itself issued.
Only part of the story.
The other part is that the agrarian laws of Marius, which determined that public lands should be leased to veterans, was hijacked by the wealthy. One of the reasons the Brothers Gracchi were popular is that they pointed out that the Equestrians in the Senate were breaking their own laws by using land that was set aside - not for free by the way, the renters had to pay the state for it - for their own use. And often for free.
As the Roman Empire conquered more territory, they brought more slaves which displaced the town craftsmen. Our version of slavery is black people picking cotton. In Roman times, slaves did everything from herd sheep to weaving to functioning as scribes and secretaries. Skilled slaves even worked metal and made ceramics.
Over time, a combination of harsh debt laws and cheap imported grains meant Roman freeman lost their lands, which became part of latifundia owned by the wealth and worked by slaves.
Formerly, the bulk of the legions had come from sons of the Freeman Farmer, tough hardy and independent from being small landholders. Now they were poor and living in cities. The Bread and Circuses was a way of putting off reform of the system that benefited the wealthy.
When the growth of imports, loot, and slave labor came to end, Rome collapsed. Equestrians had exempted themselves from all kinds of tax, yet the controlled the lions' share of the wealth. Roman citizens were no longer legionaries because they were starvlings living on a minimal grain ration; many sold themselves into slavery. In response to a lack of legionaries, Rome used more and more mercenaries instead of Romans (Private Contractors again!). Roman industry was ravaged by the import of goods from foreign provinces, destroying yet more tax base.
When the barbarians (themselves under pressure from other barbarians) realized how powerful they were, they began to make emperors themselves. First they used Roman puppets, but then they just took over. So began the Dark Ages.
BTW, Cato gave his in-laws government jobs while whinging about bread and circuses. Cicero expressed glee when his slum buildings collapsed, because he could build them even higher and stuff them full of more plebes.
So yeah, I understand the Roman Era very well. If you look at many of my other posts, you'll realize I have a good command and strong interest in history.
I always laugh when residents of low tax states like Alabama think their new 4-lane highway got paid for with the $500/year property tax they paid on their .5 acre single wide. Thanks, New York and California taxpayers! Red States are generally the biggest tax redistribution beneficiaries.
What are you talking about? Property taxes don't pay highways. Gasoline and road tax does. Gasoline and road tax rates are lower in the south because they don't have winter snow removal cost and don't have to repave as often as they don't have freeze heaves either. In fact, the southern states usually have excess gasoline and road tax that politicians divert to spend on other things.
In most places, there is absolutely nothing stopping private roads from being built. Yet, they almost never get built privately.
That's because the government already collects money via gasoline tax that people pay at the pump. Anyone using private roads exclusively would be paying for the maintenance of public roads that they are not using anyway. That's how a monopoly works.
Usually what happens instead is a government sells or rents a taxpayer-paid road already built to a private owner for much, much less than it's worth, thanks to Money-Speech.
Once again you are just pointing out the concentration of power created by a brain-fart called "government" only facilitates capture.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 3:35am
Once again you are just pointing out the concentration of power created by a brain-fart called "government" only facilitates capture.
I'm pointing out the dangers of money in politics. I don't claim government is wholly or mostly evil. I do admit that government does dumb shit, misallocates money, gets captured by special interests. Even with all those flaws, it is still worth it overall.
That's because the government already collects money via gasoline tax that people pay at the pump. Anyone using private roads exclusively would be paying for the maintenance of public roads that they are not using anyway. That's how a monopoly works.
Some highways are federally funded, partially or entirely, depends on the interests involved. Not all highways are entirely federally funded, some highways receive very little.
I'm pretty sure Property tax can and does pay for highways in many jurisdictions. Many early highways received funding from property taxes, and not all highways are inter-state or even cross multiple counties in some places.
Not necessarily? Maybe - but Henry was absolutely part of the Government of Portugal.
Henry was of the royal family, commanded troops in battle for the nation of Portugal including conquering cities on the North African coast, ruled various estates, appointed people he liked as officials, was commander of a military order.
It is really grasping at straws to say the Henry the Navigator was an entirely private figure.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "primorgeniture": The first-born (son) inheriting the entire estate, then in practice in Western Europe. Henry's dad was "the government" then his elder brother was "the government" of Portugal. Henry was not. That's why he had to find his own domain on the high seas. The order you talked about is the Portugese branch of what used to be "Knight Templer, " obviously a "non-profit" (but very wealthy) and non-government organization like the Catholic Church or the RedCross except some of their members can be heavily armed, not surprising considering the main branch had been previously mass-murdered by the king of France coveting their wealth.
One of the reasons the Brothers Gracci
Are you kidding me again? When did the Gracci brothers live? circa 120-130BC. When did West Roman Empire collapse? late 5th century AD. What you are saying is essentially the equivalent of blaming our current economic problems on something happened 100 years before Columbus set sail? before even the last Norse settlement on Greenland died out?
Over time, a combination of harsh debt laws and cheap imported grains meant Roman freeman lost their lands,
Thank you for repeating what I already said. It should be pointed out that grain from Egypt was cheap because the Roman taxpayers were paying for the military rule of Roman Egypt and the control of the sea lanes to enable shipment. On top of that, the Roman government further subsidize grain price when the grain arrives at the port in Italy. That's why individual farmers in Italy became unprofitable.
BTW, Cato gave his in-laws government jobs while whinging about bread and circuses. Cicero expressed glee when his slum buildings collapsed, because he could build them even higher and stuff them full of more plebes.
Exactly like what politicians would do today.
So yeah, I understand the Roman Era very well. If you look at many of my other posts, you'll realize I have a good command and strong interest in history.
Try to stick with the facts and form your own interpretations based on what intelligent actors in a society would do instead of repeating the usual government-glorifying interpretation of events that are force fed to you by court historians.
I'm pointing out the dangers of money in politics. I don't claim government is wholly or mostly evil. I do admit that government does dumb shit, misallocates money, gets captured by special interests. Even with all those flaws, it is still worth it overall.
Glad we agree on something. Government's only value is in keeping out a more abusive version of itself. Its involvement in practically anything else is not worth displacing the private sector that would otherwise quickly respond to the need and keep the cost of the service low over time.
Some highways are federally funded, partially or entirely, depends on the interests involved. Not all highways are entirely federally funded, some highways receive very little.
All highways are maintained by highway funds, which derive their money from tax on gasoline.
I'm pretty sure Property tax can and does pay for highways in many jurisdictions. Many early highways received funding from property taxes, and not all highways are inter-state or even cross multiple counties in some places.
Property tax does not pay for highways. It's debatable whether some happened before the 1950's, or roads before the 1950's could be called highway. What you may be thinking perhaps is some state local and governments having to borrow money to pay for a tiny portion of the construction cost (the bulk of the construction cost of any road is once again taken out of the gasoline tax kitty). Most situations would be borrowed against future toll income. It's possible that some jurisdiction may consider borrowing against county income as pledge (but to be paid back by future gasoline tax) for some really small roads within a single county or few counties. Property tax is collected at county level. The federal government doesn't collect property tax, nor does most states.
Your thesis that somehow CA and NY property tax goes to building highways in the south doesn't make any sense at all.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 5:34am
Are you kidding me again? When did the Gracci brothers live? circa 120-130BC. When did West Roman Empire collapse? late 5th century AD. What you are saying is essentially the equivalent of blaming our current economic problems on something happened 100 years before Columbus set sail? before even the last Norse settlement on Greenland died out?
I'm explaining the dynamics of the Roman Republic and Empire. The seeds of destruction were already present when it transitioned to Empire. Sulla and then Caesar are the results of the breakdown. The destruction of the tax base and the reliance on non-Roman soldiers are all factors that arose out of the concentration of wealth and land into smaller numbers of hands.
I didn't think what I wrote was so hard to follow.
Reality says
What you are saying is essentially the equivalent of blaming our current economic problems on something happened 100 years before Columbus set sail? before even the last Norse settlement on Greenland died out?
I don't follow. I think you're making another bad analogy.
I'm tracing the outcome of an unequal distribution of land over time in one state. The United States is not a direct descendant of the Spanish Empire or the Vikings. The Roman Empire, however is a direct descendent of the Roman Republic, and while some of the early Emperors mitigated many of Rome's problems, the Equestrian interests still triumphed, and their failed policies doomed Rome.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "primorgeniture": The first-born (son) inheriting the entire estate, then in practice in Western Europe. Henry's dad was "the government" then his elder brother was "the government" of Portugal. Henry was not. That's why he had to find his own domain on the high seas. The order you talked about is the Portugese branch of what used to be "Knight Templer, " obviously a "non-profit" (but very wealthy) and non-government organization like the Catholic Church or the RedCross except some of their members can be heavily armed, not surprising considering the main branch had been previously mass-murdered by the king of France coveting their wealth.
Not this again. Henry was the Duke of Viseu, governor of the Algarve.
By the way, know how Henry became the Grand Master of the Order of Christ? King John of Portugal asked the pope to make him so.
Military Orders got their wealth from land grants from the nobility anyway.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 5:44am
Your thesis that somehow CA and NY property tax goes to building highways in the south doesn't make any sense at all.
Another Strawman. My point is that sources other than gasoline taxes pay for highways, particularly on the local levels.
I'm explaining the dynamics of the Roman Republic and Empire. The seeds of destruction were already present when it transitioned to Empire. Sulla and then Caesar are the results of the breakdown. The destruction of the tax base and the reliance on non-Roman soldiers are all factors that arose out of the concentration of wealth and land into smaller numbers of hands.
I didn't think what I wrote was so hard to follow.
You are going way too far back. Only court historians go back 600 years to explain something happening in front of their eyes. In real life, cause and effect are much more immediate. When was the last time when you explained anything happening to something that took place before Columbus discovered the New World? That was only 520 years go.
I'm tracing the outcome of an unequal distribution of land over time in one state. The United States is not a direct descendant of the Spanish Empire or the Vikings. The Roman Empire, however is a direct descendent of the Roman Republic, and while some of the early Emperors mitigated many of Rome's problems, the Equestrian interests still triumphed, and their failed policies doomed Rome.
Do you think the foreclosure wave that took place a few years ago had much to do with the town incorporating master deeds that took place merely 300 or 150 or even 100 years ago? The Gracci brothers were 600 years before the final collapse of Rome, with many reforms, revolutions, rebellions, wars, almost-collapses and more reforms in between. Linking these two together would be as silly as talking about the interaction tetween dynosaurus and early homo sapiens (e.g. Flintstones).
Not this again. Henry was the Duke of Viseu, governor of the Algarve.
By the way, know how Henry became the Grand Master of the Order of Christ? King John of Portugal asked the pope to make him so.
European feudalism doesn't work like modern bureaucracy. Henry went on his voyages in his private capacity as the old king's younger son , who is not inheriting the kingdom.
Military Orders got their wealth from land grands from the nobility anyway.
Any charity and non-profit can get government grant. When Henry went on his voyage, it was his way of taking leave from his older brother Edward the new king's court, so Henry wouldn't be any threat to Edward or vice versa.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 10:48pm
You are going way too far back. Only court historians go back 600 years to explain something happening in front of their eyes. In real life, cause and effect are much more immediate. When was the last time when you explained anything happening to something that took place before Columbus discovered the New World? That was only 520 years go.
What about the Federal Reserve devalue the dollar argument (95+% in about 100 years) or the "Slowly losing our liberties" idea (That esp. since the Civil War, the Fed Gov has grown stronger...)? Those are just two popular ideas. Historically, the Industrialization of England began way back in Middle Ages with Mills and was a long, slow process that gradually "gained steam" as time advanced. The Catholic Church Reformations, which also lasted over centuries - Luther wasn't first, either. There were also the Hussites, Lollards, etc. So yes, one can see social trends over several hundreds of years, sometimes a thousand years.
Those involve century(-ies) long timeframes.
European feudalism doesn't work like modern bureaucracy. Henry went on his voyages in his private capacity as the old king's younger son , who is not inheriting the kingdom.
Of course it didn't work like modern bureaucracy. That doesn't mean Henry wasn't a titled ruler with governing responsibilities; and like many powerful noblemen of the time, he held a variety of positions simultaneously. You're dismissing the fact that Henry had many governorships and powers granted to him by the State.Before that he was given governorship of the entire Algarve, and before that made commander of the defense of Ceuta. In 1448 he was given exclusive rights by the King to all trade arising in Guinea, for example. Not to mention appointed Grand Master of the Order of Christ, all of which gave him the resources to fund expeditions and build observatories.
Henry didn't go on voyages of discovery around Africa, he arranged them.
What about the Federal Reserve devalue the dollar argument (95+% in about 100 years) or the "Slowly losing our liberties" idea (That esp. since the Civil War, the Fed Gov has grown stronger...)? Those are just two popular ideas.
Do you honestly believe that the Federal Reserve will last another 500 years? or for that matter the United States as currently constituted?
Historically, the Industrialization of England began way back in Middle Ages with Mills and was a long, slow process that gradually "gained steam" as time advanced.
So are you going to attribute your access to internet today to the prototype Steam powered water pumps in the coal mines 400 years ago? Remember, that's only 400 years ago, compared to the 600 years between Gracci Brothers and the collapse of WRE.
The Catholic Church Reformations, which also lasted over centuries - Luther wasn't first, either. There were also the Hussites, Lollards, etc. So yes, one can see social trends over several hundreds of years, sometimes a thousand years.
Those involve century(-ies) long timeframes.
What social trends today are you able to attribute to something that happened 1000 years ago? It's not like the Gracci Brothers started a new religion like Christianity or Islam. We are talking about a couple politicians, the likes of which come and go every generation.
Of course it didn't work like modern bureaucracy. That doesn't mean Henry wasn't a titled ruler with governing responsibilities; and like many powerful noblemen of the time, he held a variety of positions simultaneously. You're dismissing the fact that Henry had many governorships and powers granted to him by the State.Before that he was given governorship of the entire Algarve, and before that made commander of the defense of Ceuta. In 1448 he was given exclusive rights by the King to all trade arising in Guinea, for example. Not to mention appointed Grand Master of the Order of Christ, all of which gave him the resources to fund expeditions and build observatories.
This is a brain dead argument to support government. At the time of Henry, all wealth were concentrated in the hands of feudal lords of one type of another. I argue that feudal lords are just the equivalent of wealthy landowners today. You argue that feudal lords were part of the government. Well, are you then arguing that we need to bring back the feudal lords in order to have new discoveries and innovations? Obviously it takes wealth to organize discoveries and innovations. Before the emergence of widespread merchant class, the feudal lords were the only ones with the resources. Then of course voyages of discovery would have to be funded by them. That's hardly an argument for the need of government in order to have any discovery or innovation.
Your argument essentially boils down to this: because Nazi Germany led the world in Rocket technology and they used slave labor to build rockets, it's prove positive that advancing technology is impossible without slave labor!
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 15, 5:24am
Do you honestly believe that the Federal Reserve will last another 500 years? or for that matter the United States as currently constituted?
No, I don't think the Federal Reserve will last unchanged as it currently is for the next 500 years. The US has started and ended several incarnations of national banks with varying levels of public and private controls. I doubt the US will remain in more or less its current configuration 500 years from now.
This is a brain dead argument to support government. At the time of Henry, all wealth were concentrated in the hands of feudal lords of one type of another. I argue that feudal lords are just the equivalent of wealthy landowners today. You argue that feudal lords were part of the government
Counts, Dukes, Barons, Governors, Viceroys, etc. didn't:
* enforce laws and hear legal cases
* administer justice (however shitily)
* raise armies
* collect taxes
* build infrastructure and charge tolls
* finance mills
* patronize scholars and artists
* Grant charters to orders, for the incorporation of cities, merchant companies, etc.
Of course they did so.
Your argument essentially boils down to this: because Nazi Germany led the world in Rocket technology and they used slave labor to build rockets, it's prove positive that advancing technology is impossible without slave labor!
That's a false dilemma, not my argument at all.
For example: Rocket Technology can also be developed by NASA and the DoD spending tax dollars without the slave labor, but well compensated employees.
Obviously it takes wealth to organize discoveries and innovations. Before the emergence of widespread merchant class, the feudal lords were the only ones with the resources. Then of course voyages of discovery would have to be funded by them. That's hardly an argument for the need of government in order to have any discovery or innovation.
I'm arguing against the idea that only private enterprise can carry on research effectively. The point all along was that government can and does create innovation and sponsor discovery. Many times in history, theoretical research is too speculative for private agents to engage in and only government has the power to support it.
The US is an incredibly productive place for R&D, and one of our secrets is generous grants, patent protections, heavily subsidized world class universities and laboratories that people around the world compete with each other to study and work at, and other government services.
No, I don't think the Federal Reserve will last unchanged as it currently is for the next 500 years. The US has started and ended several incarnations of national banks with varying levels of public and private controls. I doubt the US will remain in more or less its current configuration 500 years from now.
So why did you even bring the FED up to defend an untenable thesis that postulates 600 year delayed effect in government policies? when much more proximate reasons were readily available.
Counts, Dukes, Barons, Governors, Viceroys, etc. didn't:
* enforce laws and hear legal cases
* administer justice (however shitily)
* raise armies
* collect taxes
* build infrastructure and charge tolls
* finance mills
* patronize scholars and artists
* Grant charters to orders, for the incorporation of cities, merchant companies, etc.Of course they did so.
Some medieval feudal lords did, others didn't. The difference was quite significant from one region to another, from one time to another. For example, the powers of English barons at the time of King John of England was very different from the powers of French barons at the time of King Louise XIV, which was again different from Russian barons at the time of Peter I.
Some medieval feudal lords, especially kings of major domains, were best approximated as the equivalent of government in today's society, others are much better compared to the captains of an industrial enterprise with a few hundred thousand employees.
In any case, Henry was sponsoring the voyages in his private capacity. Are you going to argue that Einstein's Relativity Theory was also impossible without government because he was a patent office clerk at the time? obviously a government employee?
That's the fallacy of the false dilemma, not my argument at all.
For example: Rocket Technology can also be developed by NASA and the DoD spending tax dollars without the slave labor, but well compensated employees.
Then why is it so hard for you to make the next cognitive step forward: Rocket technology can also be developed in the private sector by private companies and individuals?
The NASA and DoD approach is actually much closer to the German approach than you think: most Germans researchers were government paid scientists and military officers, just like NASA and DoD. The Germans forcibly took almost all the surplus labor of a few hundred thousand laborers and made that available to Werner von Braun and his crew. First DoD then NASA forcibly took part of the surplus labor from millions of laborers and made that available to Werner von Braun and his crew. Your alleged middle-road is actually little different from the typical statist solution.
I'm arguing against the idea that only private enterprise can carry on research effectively. The point all along was that government can and does create innovation and sponsor discovery. Many times in history, theoretical research is too speculative for private agents to engage in and only government has the power to support it.
So you are indeed arguing that Einstein undertook his purely theoretical work on relativity only possible because he was a government office clerk!
Government itself does not do research. Government bureaucrats direct other individuals to do research. Those bureaucrats sometimes can be associated with research results, in the same sense that the soviet bureaucrats sometimes could get people to put food on the store shelves too! Do you honest believe that the food wouldn't be there without the government bureaucrats supporting it? or do you recognize that food got to the shelves, when they did, despite the soviet bureaucrats' meddling?
The US is an incredibly productive place for R&D, and one of our secrets is generous grants, patent protections, heavily subsidized world class universities and laboratories that people around the world compete with each other to study and work at, and other government services.
The US used to be a very productive place for R&D when the universities were privately funded, and when the government just started to infiltrate the institutions that were still largely operating on private enterprise principles and personal responsibility. As more and more money wash through American universities, they are becoming just like government funded universities in other countries and church-funded universities before the industrial revolution: researchers and students twisting their funding proposals according to political needs! Why do you think the Russians, Japanese and Chinese produce far more degreed scientists and engineers every year than we do, yet they have far less productive R&D results to show for all that heavy handed government investment? Because for many decades, their universities have been over-run by nonsense political research subjects akin to our Anthropogenic Global Warming in recent years. That's the natural result of government funding for research institutions: it corrupts the research environment. Government bureaucratic process always seek to preserve existing order and take up more resources, and what better to preserve the pecking order than researching nonsense that has no real solution or new breakthrough possible? That's why in the most recent years, the most productive R&D's are moving away from university campuses onto corporate campuses like Google and Microsoft . . . while college graduates are finding themselves having paid a princely sum for learning nothing useful, just like the millions of Russian, Chinese and Japanese college graduates.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 18, 12:33am
So why did you even bring the FED up to defend an untenable thesis that postulates 600 year delayed effect in government policies? when much more proximate reasons were readily available.
Nobody said there was a delayed effect. I said these were recurring problems that were never satisfactorily resolved in the Roman Empire. I used several other examples, including the industrialization of England. Another example in Western History of a struggle lasting many centuries would be religious toleration between Christian - and later other - Sects. Had the West not solved the issue, it may have retarded or even destroyed Western Civilization.
The point, of course, was to show that there are similar narratives in Libertarian thought ("Losing our Freedoms" and "Central Banking") that span generations in length, so any criticism of my thesis based on length of time apply to many libertarian ideas.
In any case, Henry was sponsoring the voyages in his private capacity. Are you going to argue that Einstein's Relativity Theory was also impossible without government because he was a patent office clerk at the time? obviously a government employee?
Again, Henry was a commander of Portugal's Army, Governor of the Algarve, a Duke, and the Grand Master of a religious order.
To say that as Governor of the Algarve that Henry had no governing power, never mind powers from all his other titles, is extraordinary. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What about King John II continuing the explorations Henry began, and sponsoring Vasco da Gama's trip to India after Henry's death? What about the English sponorship of the Cabots, and Queen Isabella's sponsorship of Columbus? Were all these actions performed by Royal Family members solely in their role as private actors, too?
Zooming out even further, it seems to me the consequences of what you are suggesting regarding the private status of many feudal lords, including even some Monarchs, must mean that the pre-Modern time period in Europe can be characterized as a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist system dominated by private actors?
So you are indeed arguing that Einstein undertook his purely theoretical work on relativity only possible because he was a government office clerk!
Another False Dilemma. I did not argue that all theoretical research is always too speculative for private actors to get involved.
From his patent office job to the University of Zurich (founded by the Swiss Government) to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (now Max Planck Institute), the first and most fruitful half of his professional life, Einstein was doing his thinking in Government Institutions.
Reality says
Government itself does not do research. Government bureaucrats direct other individuals to do research.
I could turn this argument around into:
Managers and Admins don't produce, they simply direct. It's the lumberjacks and the truck drivers that actually do the work at Acme Sawmills Inc. Therefore, we should axe all the executives and let the workers control the company and get rid of the dead weight.
The ironic thing about free marketeers is that their Hayek-derived complaints about a small number of individuals controlling too much can easily be thrown back on their private heroes, for example commercial banks where a tiny group of people control massive amounts of resources with limited oversight from other groups.
The US used to be a very productive place for R&D when the universities were privately funded, and when the government just started to infiltrate the institutions that were still largely operating on private enterprise principles and personal responsibility
Do you have evidence for this assertion?
Patent filings, a good indicator of R&D, are growing almost everywhere, both the US, Japan and China. Note that in almost every category, the US is in the top 2. Our only rival is Japan, which is even more state capitalist than we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents
(Source is the World Patent Organization)
Even more interestingly, the countries with the highest ROI on R&D is South Korea followed by Japan, again, both more state capitalist and protectionist than the USA.
I've discussed the glut of STEM grads before in other threads.
Nobody said there was a delayed effect. I said these were recurring problems that were never satisfactorily resolved in the Roman Empire.
In case it's not obvious, aside from the historians with racial leanings, the employment of soldiers from outside of the city of Rome itself was never a big problem: after all the Republic and the Empire lasted half a millenium using hired soldiers.
I used several other examples, including the industrialization of England.
The First Industrial Revolution took place over only about 70 years, from circa 1760 to 1830; the 2nd Industrial Revolution took only about 30 years, from circa 1840 to 1870. You are having difficulty grasping the time span of 600 years; it's like the 3yr old toddler counting: 1, 2, 3, many!
Another example in Western History of a struggle lasting many centuries would be religious toleration between Christian - and later other - Sects Had the West not solved the issue, it may have destroyed Western Civilization.
From the time of of Martin Luther putting forth his "95 Theses" in 1517 to Peace of Westphalia in 1648, there was only about a century and half. That's a far cry from 600 years! For you to make a link across 600 years, it's like blaming the recent Pope resignation on Martin Luther of the early 16th century! That's rather preposterous.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 18, 12:58am
Then why is it so hard for you to make the next cognitive step forward: Rocket technology can also be developed in the private sector by private companies and individuals?
Because that's speculative. Practical Rocket Technology was developed largely by government efforts in funding and direction, we don't know what would have happened if left up to private efforts.
The NASA and DoD approach is actually much closer to the German approach than you think: most Germans researchers were government paid scientists and military officers, just like NASA and DoD. The Germans forcibly took almost all the surplus labor of a few hundred thousand laborers and made that available to Werner von Braun and his crew. First DoD then NASA forcibly took part of the surplus labor from millions of laborers and made that available to Werner von Braun and his crew. Your alleged middle-road is actually little different from the typical statist solution.
So you're comparing direct slave labor to paying income taxes?
Again, Henry was a commander of Portugal's Army, Governor of the Algarve, a Duke, and the Grand Master of a religious order.
To say that as Governor of the Algarve that Henry had no governing power, never mind powers from all his other titles, is extraordinary. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What about King John II continuing the explorations Henry began, and sponsoring Vasco da Gama's trip to India after Henry's death? What about the English sponorship of the Cabots, and Queen Isabella's sponsorship of Columbus? Were all these actions performed by Royal Family members solely in their role as private actors, too?
Zooming out even further, it seems to me the consequences of what you are suggesting regarding the private status of many feudal lords, including even some Monarchs, must mean that the pre-Modern time period in Europe can be characterized as a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist system dominated by private actors?
You are making the classic mistake of "classification mania." Not everything can be classfied neatly into "government" vs. "private," especially for the time period that we are talking about. Even in modern life, a head of house hold in an isolated place can be the de facto government of that household. The most crucial difference between "government" vs. "private"
is whether the relationship between individuals is Hegemonic or Contractual.
More importantly, back to the core point, the reason why those feudal lords became sponsors was because they were the only source of great wealth after they plundered the rest of the society. It's like the Soviet government was the sponsor of scientific research in that country because the soviet government monopolized all resources in that country. It's not at all proof that R&D would be impossible without the government, like you claimed.
Another False Dilemma. I did not argue that all theoretical research is always too speculative for private actors to get involved.
From his patent office job to the University of Zurich (founded by the Swiss Government) to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (now Max Planck Institute), the first and most fruitful half of his professional life, Einstein was doing his thinking in Government Institutions.
Yet most of his intellectual output was done before he joined any of them. Perhaps the politics at the institutions bogged him down? If anything is proven, it seems to be the counter-productivity of such institutions.
If high theorectical work can be done and often is done outside the government sponsored institutions, then your whole thesis about their necessity becomes invalid.
Managers and Admins don't produce, they simply direct. It's the lumberjacks and the truck drivers that actually do the work at Acme Sawmills Inc. Therefore, we should axe all the executives and let the workers control the company and get rid of the dead weight.
That's exactly why lumberjacks and truck drivers should be allowed to choose which company to work for . . . instead of the ancien regime arrangement of serfs being attached to particular management institutions!
Government does not allow people individually choose what service to buy what refuse service on.
The ironic thing about free marketeers is that their Hayek-derived complaints about a small number of individuals controlling too much can easily be thrown back on their private heroes, for example commercial banks where a tiny group of people control massive amounts of resources with limited oversight from other groups.
That's a ridiculous statement. Apparently, the government bureaucratically run deposit insurance schemes and central bank schemes have been running so long that you have completely forgotten what a bank-run involving thousands of people was like. Bank-run by all the depositors is the ultimate market supervision on commercial banks.
ElenaMo313
2013 Feb 18, 1:13am
But many companies love those bases and the military spending. Boeing uses a lot of "Money-Speech" to "Convince" the government to spend like water on aircraft, no. KBR loves the lucrative, cost-plus contracts knowing their Money-Speech guarantees that they'll never be held to account for non-performance. GE makes a bundle on military gear. Even ol' IBM collects nice checks from the military.
The contributions of the MIC - aka "Money-Speech" - are major factors in military spending and intervention.
^^ I agree with this. A lot of this is just one vicious cycle at our expense. And it's a great hustle: These corporations not only get us to buy their goods/services, but they get an additional kickback via our tax dollars to fund so-called government activities.
Do you have evidence for this assertion?
Patent filings, a good indicator of R&D, are growing almost everywhere, both the US, Japan and China. Note that in almost every category, the US is in the top 2. Our only rival is Japan, which is even more state capitalist than we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents
(Source is the World Patent Organization)
Goes to show the brain-deadness of the modern college-bred brain. Just by looking at the lack of innovativeness in Japanese economy compared to the US should give you a hint that perhaps patent filing numbers is a very very poor indicator of innovativeness. . . yet it's cited because the mainstream professional misleaders use it. Goes to show you the modern college education has become the training of regurgitators perfected suited for reciting scriptures.
Even more interestingly, the countries with the highest ROI on R&D is South Korea followed by Japan, again, both more state capitalist and protectionist than the USA.
How are those ROI on R&D calculated? Do you like believe every printed number dropping into your laps?
Because that's speculative. Practical Rocket Technology was developed largely by government efforts in funding and direction, we don't know what would have happened if left up to private efforts.
Considering the massive success that the private industry had with flight and automobile despite much more backwards manufacturing base, it takes serious lack of imagination to think that the private sector wouldn't be able to do space technology without the government. If space technology had developed at a comparable pace to flight earlier, there should long have been space hotels and perhaps even colonies on the moon by now, instead of having resources mis-directed to the pre-mature moon-shot then three decades of space shuttles.
So you're comparing direct slave labor to paying income taxes?
The difference is in degrees, and with income tax rates rising the difference becomes smaller. BTW, the state slaves of Roman and Egyptian time faced an effective tax rate in the teens.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 18, 1:32am
From the time of of Martin Luther putting forth his "95 Theses" in 1517 to Peace of Westphalia in 1648, there was only about a century and half. That's a far cry from 600 years! For you to make a link across 600 years, it's like blaming the recent Pope resignation on Martin Luther of the early 16th century! That's rather preposterous.
Sorry, what's preposterous is your assertion that the Peace of Westphalia ended religious discrimination in one fell swoop. It was centuries before religious toleration existed in Europe. In most European countries, Jews and non-majority Christians were persecuted by law and did not gain the same rights of ordinary citizens until well into the 19th Century, 300 years after Luther.
Religious persecution also didn't begin with Lutherans. There was also the Hussites, Wycliff and the Lollards, Cathars, Bogomils, the Knights Templar, and many other sects and orders that were discriminated against and persecuted throughout European history.
How many times has the Jesuit Order been banned by various States, including Catholic ones?
In the 17th Century, about the same time as the Peace of Westphalia, England passed various laws restricting the rights of Catholics and various Protestant "dissenter" groups (like the Puritans). Many of these Puritans left for MA, where they quickly began exercising plenty of intolerance of their own, particularly against Quakers and Unitarians, plus a good witch craze to boot.
Around 1600, France tolerated Calvinists (but not other Protestants) - but they did not enjoy full rights. Yet in 1700, France had repealed the toleration and began persecuting protestants again.
It wasn't until 1829 when state discrimination of Catholics pretty much ended in Britain.
In the 1700s, Maryland banned Catholics from holding office. It was founded by Catholic Lord Baltimore almost a hundred years before and had established no religious test. Yet the demographics shifted and, led by Puritans, who had previously been given shelter there, soon controlled the colony and imposed their intolerance on Catholics, who suffered legal discrimination, including the prohibition on holding office, banning of catholic churches, religious instruction, and a ban even on sending away children for religious instruction out of the colony, for many decades to come.
Jews couldn't join the Prussian military until 1812.
Sorry, what's preposterous is your assertion that the Peace of Westphalia ended religious discrimination in one fell swoop. It was centuries before religious toleration existed in Europe. In most European countries, Jews and non-majority Christians were persecuted by law and did not gain the same rights of ordinary citizens until well into the 19th Century, 300 years after Luther.
You were talking about intra-Christian religious conflict that threatened the very survival of western civilization. That was the period between Martin Luther and Peace of Westphalia. What intra-Christian religious conflict since Westphalia has threatened the very survival of western civilization?
General discrimination and religious conflicts have been with humanity long before Martin Luther, and probably will go on till the humanity ceases to exist.
How many times has the Jesuit Order been banned by various States, including Catholic ones?
The Jesuit Order was founded in 1534. Do you want to argue countries ban it for religious reasons till 600 years later 2134 for religious reasons relating to something St. Ignacious of Loyola personally did in 1534? as opposed to political ones utterly unrelated to its founding 600 years earlier?
In the 17th Century, about the same time as the Peace of Westphalia, England passed various laws restricting the rights of Catholics and various Protestant "dissenter" groups (like the Puritans). Many of these Puritans left for MA, where they quickly began exercising plenty of intolerance of their own, particularly against Quakers and Unitarians, plus a good witch craze to boot.
What's your point? That was all within that couple hundred years after Martin Luther's "95 Theses" not 600 years later in 22nd century. Like I said, you are suffering from: Dynosaurs lived a long time ago, early homo sapiens lived a long time ago, therefore they must have played together like in the Flintstones.
Around 1600, France tolerated Calvinists (but not other Protestants) - but they did not enjoy full rights. Yet in 1700, France had repealed the toleration and began persecuting protestants again.
Again, it was 1700, not the 2200's, 600 years after Calvin.
It wasn't until 1829 when state discrimination of Catholics pretty much ended in Britain.
That was still only a couple hundred years after the last time when Catholicism was the state religion of England (Britain didn't even exist as a political entity back then, but only a geographical concept).
In the 1700s, Maryland banned Catholics from holding office. It was founded by Catholic Lord Baltimore almost a hundred years before and had established no religious test. Yet the demographics shifted and, led by Puritans, who had previously been given shelter there, soon controlled the colony and imposed their intolerance on Catholics, who suffered legal discrimination, including the prohibition on holding office, banning of catholic churches, religious instruction, and a ban even on sending away children for religious instruction out of the colony, for many decades to come.
As you can see, things change dramatically in 100 years. Blaming Maryland discrimination on something happened 600 years prior would be silly.
Jews couldn't join the Prussian military until 1812.
What was "Prussia" in 1212? A land of pagans ("Old Prussians" unrelated to Germans that later conquered the land) 600 years before 1812. The Duchy of Prussia did not even exist until the 16th century.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 18, 8:53am
You are making the classic mistake of "classification mania." Not everything can be classfied neatly into "government" vs. "private," especially for the time period that we are talking about. Even in modern life, a head of house hold in an isolated place can be the de facto government of that household. The most crucial difference between "government" vs. "private"
is whether the relationship between individuals is Hegemonic or Contractual.
When somebody with actual law making and law enforcement powers and the command of force to back it up makes decisions, I call that government.
You seem to want to have Feudal Lords as paragons of private investment when useful for your ideology, but ignore their role as rulers when it is inconvenient for your ideology.
Yet most of his intellectual output was done before he joined any of them. Perhaps the politics at the institutions bogged him down? If anything is proven, it seems to be the counter-productivity of such institutions.
Einstein made his bones when he got 4 influential papers published in one year while working at the Swiss Patent Office.
Maybe the nice leisurely pace at the government bureaucracy allowed him bounce ideas of his coworkers and plenty of time to expound his ideas.
What intra-Christian religious conflict since Westphalia has threatened the very survival of western civilization?
Shifting goalpost.
I said:
Another example in Western History of a struggle lasting many centuries would be religious toleration between Christian - and later other - Sects Had the West not solved the issue, it may have destroyed Western Civilization.
The main point was to establish that the struggle for religious tolerance was another example of long term trends in history, to counter your argument that the impoverishment of the Roman Farmer and Craftsman wasn't a long general trend across the Late Republic and Empire. The mention of the potential to destroy Western Civ was an ancillary remark.
You are very interested in 600 years, as if I asserted there is some mystical trend of 600 years in anything and everything, rather than a remark about the impoverishment of Roman plebes starting in the late Republic.
What's your point? That was all within that couple hundred years after Martin Luther's "95 Theses" not 600 years later in 22nd century. Like I said, you are suffering from: Dynosaurs lived a long time ago, early homo sapiens lived a long time ago, therefore they must have played together like in the Flintstones.
As stated above, my point was to identify a long term trend.
Lutherans weren't the first religious group to challenge Catholic dominance and be on the receiving end of active, state-sponsored discrimination. Your arbitrary date of 1517 ignores a thousand years of religious intolerance in Europe previous to Luther.
Bogomils: circa 900s - six hundred years before Luther
Waldensians: circa 1200s - three hundred years before Luther
Cathars: circa 1200s - three hundred years before Luther (the first recorded persecution of Cathars was in the 1000s)
Lollards: circa 1400 - more than one hundred years before Luther
Hussites: circa 1400s - one hundred years before Luther
Furthermore, there were great religious persecutions that happened during the Roman Empire, before the collapse of the Western Empire and the birth of the Dark Ages. For one, Arianism, circa 200s. For another, Donatism, about the same time.
That's more than 1500 years of religious discrimination before finally freedom of religion was universally embraced. I'd say that's a bit of a long term trend.
When somebody with actual law making and law enforcement powers and the command of force to back it up makes decisions, I call that government.
That power was simply absent for a little Portugese duke in dealing with sea-farers. The latter could easily move to Spain, France or Italian city states if the duke decides to squeeze them with force.
You seem to want to have Feudal Lords as paragons of private investment when useful for your ideology, but ignore their role as rulers when it is inconvenient for your ideology.
Not at all. Like I stated numerous times, the feudal lords got involved with the activities of the age of discovery because they were the only available bags of money at the time, and not so coincidentally they were competing against each other like big plantation owners. Your labelling them "government" is completely irrelevant. Claiming that voyages of discovery therefore would be impossible without government support would be as silly as claiming the insightful Declaration of Independence would be impossible without slave ownership: because the primary authors were slave owners. Slave ownership gave them the wealth and time to read, study and contemplate. However, it is the time and knowledge that was decisive, not slave ownership. Likewise, it was the money that made the hiring of sea-farers possible (and the scribes to record it), not the government office-holding per se. If anything, the concentration of wealth into the fuedal lords (mostly via tax on trade) in medieval time probably impeded commerce and sea-faring, and therefore discovery.
Einstein made his bones when he got 4 influential papers published in one year while working at the Swiss Patent Office.
Maybe the nice leisurely pace at the government bureaucracy allowed him bounce ideas of his coworkers and plenty of time to expound his ideas.
Like I suspected in the last post, the statist training in your bones is leading you down the path to believing slavery made Declaration of Independence possible. LOL.
Regarding Einstein, have you ever thought of the possibility that if not for the myriads of government office holders and military spending in Germany, the entire German people, not just Einstein, would have had more leisure time, and there would have been more men with great theoretical scientific accomplishment like Einstein?
What intra-Christian religious conflict since Westphalia has threatened the very survival of western civilization?
Shifting goalpost.
I said:
Another example in Western History of a struggle lasting many centuries would be religious toleration between Christian - and later other - Sects Had the West not solved the issue, it may have destroyed Western Civilization.
No shifting of goal posts at all. What intro-Christian religious conflict after the Peace of Westfalen has threantened to destroy Western Civilization? There has been none. The existence-threatening religious conflicts due to the emergence of the Reformist Churches of the 16th century were over within a couple hundred years.
As stated above, my point was to identify a long term trend.
There's no trend there. Conflicts emerge, conflicts resolved or overshadowed by some other bigger conflicts. There will always be conflicts. You are searching in futility for something to support your untenable thesis.
That's not a trend. thunderlips11 says
The main point was to establish that the struggle for religious tolerance was another example of long term trends in history, to counter your argument that the impoverishment of the Roman Farmer and Craftsman wasn't a long general trend across the Late Republic and Empire. The mention of the potential to destroy Western Civ was an ancillary remark.
It's preposterous to draw such 600-year long trend of impoverishment. Obviously the society held together for 600 years despite your alleged trend. So why did it suddenly collapse towards the end of 5th century? What would you call the cause of the latest economic crash that we are having now? the discover of the New World and arrival of European colonists on borrowed travel expense 500 years ago? That's the sort of silly explanation that you are giving.
Lutherans weren't the first religious group to challenge Catholic dominance and be on the receiving end of active, state-sponsored discrimination. Your arbitrary date of 1517 ignores a thousand years of religious intolerance in Europe previous to Luther.
Bogomils: circa 900s - six hundred years before Luther
So are you going to give Bogomils as the reason for the 16th century religious wars in Europe? instead of Luther? Are you serious? You are proving my point about the ancient events being irrelevant when there are much more proximate causes.
Furthermore, there were great religious persecutions that happened during the Roman Empire, before the collapse of the Western Empire and the birth of the Dark Ages. For one, Arianism, circa 200s. For another, Donatism, about the same time.
Are you going to claim these too as the reason for the16th century European conflict? Or are you going to give these as the reason for the recent Pope resignation?
That's more than 1500 years of religious discrimination before finally freedom of religion was universally embraced. I'd say that's a bit of a long term trend.
You are going to claim today's religious freedom in some countries is because of the religious persecution in some parts of the world 1500 years ago?? Are you serious? The events you list are mostly unrelated to what's happening today, heck mostly are not even related to each other. There is no universally embraced religious freedom even in today's world. There is some degree of religious freedom in the US and Western Europe. In case you didn't know, ancient Persian Empire embraced religious freedom, that was 2500 years ago. Ptolemic Greeko-Egypt had religious freedom for 3 centuries. Ancient Roman Empire for a time also tolerated religious freedom so long as subjects pledged ultimate fealty to the state authority (similar to our "religious freedom" today); then a few emperors made the enforcement a lot more strict for a couple centuries; then the persecuted religion became the state religion. Go figure! There's hardly a trend in there over thousands of years. More important, the events across multiple hundreds of years do not have causal relationship with each other.
Considering the massive success that the private industry had with flight and automobile despite much more backwards manufacturing base,
So you are saying that the model T and planes made of cloth, wood, and wire are comparable technology to an orbital rocket? That's an interesting opinion.
Considering the massive success that the private industry had with flight and automobile despite much more backwards manufacturing base,
So you are saying that the model T and planes made of cloth, wood, and wire are comparable technology to an orbital rocket? That's an interesting opinion.
Considering the primitive manufacturing facilities and technologies they had circa 1910 for boot-strapping both automobile and aircrafts, and building from that base into entirely new cities with enormous mass production facilities dedicated to churning out millions of cars every year within a couple decades, and trans-pacific passenger air routes, all with private sector funding . . . it should not be much of a stretch to imagination that space flight should proceeded much farther along if that industry had not become a government monopoly.
The idea that only government would make big investment is completely false when one look at the enormous production plants that Ford and GM built, or the type of aircrafts and aircraft handling facilities that Howard Hughes built.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 19, 5:31am
Like I suspected in the last post, the statist training in your bones is leading you down the path to believing slavery made Declaration of Independence possible. LOL.
Regarding Einstein, have you ever thought of the possibility that if not for the myriads of government office holders and military spending in Germany, the entire German people, not just Einstein, would have had more leisure time, and there would have been more men with great theoretical scientific accomplishment like Einstein?
Maybe, maybe not. It's a fact that Einstein had his papers published while working at the Swiss Patent Office, that there would have been other Einsteins had those poor taxpayers not been forced to pay for evil government services like patent protection is speculation.
If memory serves - and I may be wrong on this - the reason he was at the Patent Office was because he was rejected from University on account of his bad math scores.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 19, 6:54am
That power was simply absent for a little Portugese duke in dealing with sea-farers. The latter could easily move to Spain, France or Italian city states if the duke decides to squeeze them with force.
Where's the beef? You have evidence or are you just going to speculate more about the powerlessness of a Duke with multiple titles, including an explicit governorship?
How about Dias and Da Gama? Were they also wholly funded by the "private sector" and not by the state?
Not at all. Like I stated numerous times, the feudal lords got involved with the activities of the age of discovery because they were the only available bags of money at the time, and not so coincidentally they were competing against each other like big plantation owners. Your labelling them "government" is completely irrelevant.
You've said it many times, but I still find your notion that feudal lords aren't "Government" to be quite bizarre, requiring substantial evidence on your part, and not just assertions.
It's preposterous to draw such 600-year long trend of impoverishment. Obviously the society held together for 600 years despite your alleged trend. So why did it suddenly collapse towards the end of 5th century?
Roman suddenly collapsed? Seems to me it reached it's greatest extent around 100 AD; after that it began to surrender territory it could no longer hold. It took centuries for the Western Empire to decline to the point to where an invader could sack Rome.
The collapse of the Roman Empire wasn't sudden and a bolt out of the blue. It was the culmination of one or more trends.
Claiming that voyages of discovery therefore would be impossible without government support would be as silly as claiming the insightful Declaration of Independence would be impossible without slave ownership: because the primary authors were slave owners. Slave ownership gave them the wealth and time to read, study and contemplate.
I don't claim they're impossible, ever, under any circumstances.
I claim as a fact that the Voyages of Discovery were indeed funded by government.
And the Declaration was drafted by committee, with the majority of the members not being slave owners: Sherman, Livingston, and John Adams - lawyers and politicians to a man. It's debatable who were the primary authors as no minutes were apparently kept, and Adams and Jefferson have differing accounts of it.
Where's the beef? You have evidence or are you just going to speculate more about the powerlessness of a Duke with multiple titles, including an explicit governorship?
How about Dias and Da Gama? Were they also wholly funded by the "private sector" and not by the state?
So do you think without the Nazi's, the autobahn would never have been built? Like I explained several times already:
1. The feudal lords historically became the sponsors of exploration because they were the only money bags in those "countries"/entities, not because they were "government." In an earlier time, wealthy men like Crasus of Rome even sponsored wars.
2. The "governmentness" of little Portugal and its sub-entities were hardly government in the modern sense. Those entities had only a few hundred thousand people (some as few as few tens of thousand, if not a few thousand), no bigger than a large corporation today, and the seafarers could easily go to a different feudal lord if squeezed too hard. For example, Columbus was an Italian, not even a subject of Spain until he chose to get Isabella's money; at the same time he was lobbying for Isabella's money, he had sent his brother to English court to do the same thing. If the Spanish money bag had refused to fund his voyage, the English money bag would have. The whole dynamics was very different from today's concept of "government."
Roman suddenly collapsed? Seems to me it reached it's greatest extent around 100 AD; after that it began to surrender territory it could no longer hold.
100AD was more than 200 years after your claimed cause for Roman collapse. Gracci brothers lived before 100BC! Your theory is as silly as claiming the current economic problem was due to British tea tax on the colonies 200+ years ago, just because the resistance at both times call themselves "Tea Party."
It took centuries for the Western Empire to decline to the point to where an invader could sack Rome. The collapse of the Roman Empire wasn't sudden and a bolt out of the blue. It was the culmination of one or more trends.
It would still be wrong to attribute the cause to something that took place before the Republic even had expanded to eastern Mediterranean, 100+ years before the Empire even emerged from the Republic!
Empire of course brings ruin in the long run. The actual end of the WRE was actually quite sudden and unexpected: Odoacer had a moment of clarity in thinking: it was pointless to ascend the throne himself, unlike all the previous generals who had committed regicide. That act probably bought himself a decade of life.
I claim as a fact that the Voyages of Discovery were indeed funded by government.
The voyages were funded by money bags. If the feudal lords had not robbed the rest of the society to concentrate almost all wealth in their own hands, some other money bags would have funded the voyages. . . albeit not necessarily as many court historians recording it for the later brainwashers to cite (as illustrated by Portugese fishermen exploiting New World natural resources before Columbus arrival)
And the Declaration was drafted by committee, with the majority of the members not being slave owners: Sherman, Livingston, and John Adams - lawyers and politicians to a man. It's debatable who were the primary authors as no minutes were apparently kept, and Adams and Jefferson have differing accounts of it.
It's usually attributed to Jefferson. In any case, even Adams' New England fortune came ultimately from New England transatlantic slave trade.
« First « Previous Comments 303 - 342 of 354 Next » Last » Search these comments
The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.
An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.
But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar†in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.
The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.
Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed’s answer:
“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public’s ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.â€
In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar’s value is the best the FOMC can do.
Here’s why:
First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/
#investing