Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

... half of the to-be-country's founding states had economies almost entirely dependent on slavery at that point.

In 1776?  There were plantations for sure but it was hardly the 1850s.

"Abundance of free land" only really existed after America both 1) fought tooth and nail to remove Britain's protections of indigenous territory rights after they won, and 2) bought large tracts of land from the French that sat to the west of their respective states.

We could debate the historical nature of political economy vis-a-vis land ownership but I was just saying there was a lot of land to go around.  Do you disagree with that part?

A lot of southern aristocrats were pissed off that Britain didn't respect their status because they were considered a provincial gentry. 1776 was only egalitarian in many places if you consider "pretty easy to get ahead if you are white and male and without empathy for anyone who isn't" egalitarian.

This is a rather salient point.  People often treat inequality and sexism as different issues and I was certainly doing it right there.

[Willfor]

I am talking more about who founded the country, which was the point you originally were addressing.

Land also requires a considerable amount of effort to clear for farming, and so despite there still being land, a lot of free space at the time was uncleared, poorly situated land. Most people socially advancing in 1776 were not doing it by becoming backcountry hick farmers. Tobacco and cotton were the primary crops of the south, and plantations were the ones making money there.

[SalmonGod]

What that article - or blog post or whatever it is - seems to be suggesting for the "replacement system" - going by the aggression and general pathos of "FUCK DA POLEECE"

Yeah, I said I agree that the guy's manner of expression was fairly immature.  That or just a lazy rant, because sometimes you just want to vent without writing a dissertation that carefully defends every aspect of what you believe.  I'm sure I've written things similar before.  Problem with political expression, but anarchist even more than others, is that your ideas are generally misunderstood and any weakness in your expression will be taken advantage of if you don't write that exhaustive dissertation.

And anarchy is probably the system most prone to "corruption" because one individual with enough power can completely turn the anarchy into a more ordered system under either monarchy or dictatorship and do whatever they want.

But here, you have to describe what exactly you mean by an individual with "power".  Because the whole point behind anarchist schools of thought is to assert that there are ways of organizing society without relying on social hierarchy (power).  So if someone manages to gain power that flips an anarchist organization to something else, it's by direct attack or failure.  Someone convinced others to abandon anarchy or to violently destroy it.  Pointing out that this can happen doesn't really stand out to me as a problem that any other political theory doesn't also have.  The thing that anarchists do tend to believe is that social hierarchy is corrupt and doomed by its very nature to repeat the cycles of instability that you describe, which is why finding other ways to organize is desirable.  A group of people can agree on a solution to a problem and implement it, without institutionally granting some people more power than others to force agreement and obedience.  It may not be as simple to theorize as politics that rely on "how do we decide who is most suitable to tell everyone else what to do", but I've never encountered an argument that led me to believe it's impossible.

[Spehss _]

And anarchy is probably the system most prone to "corruption" because one individual with enough power can completely turn the anarchy into a more ordered system under either monarchy or dictatorship and do whatever they want.

But here, you have to describe what exactly you mean by an individual with "power".  Because the whole point behind anarchist schools of thought is to assert that there are ways of organizing society without relying on social hierarchy (power).  So if someone manages to gain power that flips an anarchist organization to something else, it's by direct attack or failure.  Someone convinced others to abandon anarchy or to violently destroy it.  Pointing out that this can happen doesn't really stand out to me as a problem that any other political theory doesn't also have.  The thing that anarchists do tend to believe is that social hierarchy is corrupt and doomed by its very nature to repeat the cycles of instability that you describe, which is why finding other ways to organize is desirable.  A group of people can agree on a solution to a problem and implement it, without institutionally granting some people more power than others to force agreement and obedience.  It may not be as simple to theorize as politics that rely on "how do we decide who is most suitable to tell everyone else what to do", but I've never encountered an argument that led me to believe it's impossible.

I'll admit when I wrote that line I was envisioning end-of-world anarchy, ala Mad Max or Fallout, where "power" translates to "military power". Neither of those depictions of anarchy is really applicable to real life or what we're talking about; in those scenarios anarchy becomes the political system simply because the pre-existing system collapsed due to outside influences, not because of the system itself having problems or because the people in the system wanted to change it.

I think I'll stick my foot in my mouth now.

[mainiac]

Most people socially advancing in 1776 were not doing it by becoming backcountry hick farmers.

I guess how you define advancing.  If you want to become an oligarch no, you wont farm your way to that.  But homesteading your way to the good life was an option for many.

[redwallzyl]

Most people socially advancing in 1776 were not doing it by becoming backcountry hick farmers.

I guess how you define advancing.  If you want to become an oligarch no, you wont farm your way to that.  But homesteading your way to the good life was an option for many.

subsistence farming is not really the "good" life. it was hard, dangerous and often unsuccessful. not to mention the hundreds of thousands of native peoples who were killed/displaced/enslaved to get all that land. they vary much disagree with the whole abundance of land for the taking thing.

basically any time someone says something was better at some time in the past its pure bullshit.

[mainiac]

But that is the fate of man before the industrial revolution.  A good society isn't measured in terms of the tiny few that escape to become aristocrats, it's measured in how good the life was for the 90% stuck to the land.

[FearfulJesuit]

As we inch nearer to primary season, the Atlantic's front-page article on the Republican implosion. Merry Trumpmas!

[Spehss _]

But that is the fate of man before the industrial revolution.  A good society isn't measured in terms of the tiny few that escape to become aristocrats, it's measured in how good the life was for the 90% stuck to the land.

How would you judge the "good" of a society after the industrial revolution? Based on how good life is for the 90% that are not the highest social class?

I'm not seeing much difference between the two time periods.

[wierd]

Much of the issue with "quality of living" is colored with modern glasses.

The outstanding thing with moving west was the lack of a social safety net. No real police presence to speak of, running water was a joke, and electricity had not been invented yet.

The majority of people heated thier homes with coal or wood burning furnaces or fireplaces, even the aristocracy. So, the choice was between having a rented home in a big city, without running water or electricity, heated with wood and or coal-- and facing the economic realities of scarcities when demand was high, because of the grim realities of transport and distribution of the age-- OR, you could move out west, still have a wood burning stove, but have land to grow the fuel on, have more privacy from the neighbors, etc.

There were pros and cons to either, but living in a city was NOT a cakewalk either. Lots of people froze to death in the streets in that era. The story of the little match girl as a modern fairytale comes immediately to mind.

If you could afford to move west, the abundance of land available for the taking meant a huge potential increase in personal liberty and wealth, at the expense of not having police, medical, or fire control services.  That's it.

[mainiac]

I'm not seeing much difference between the two time periods.

I didn't mean to draw a distinction so much as to point out that saying people are sustenance farmers doesn't tells you very little when you are talking pre-industrial.

[Dorsidwarf]

Can an american explain the idea of "concealed carry permits" to me?

I genuinely don't understand why the hell you'd want to hide your gun. The whole point of carrying around a gun is "look I've got a gun don't try and mug me motherfucker", is it not?

And even then - what benefit to a law-abiding citizen does concealing a firearm bring?

As an english, I'm very, very confused.

[scriver]

My non-american self figures ist's so you can fulfill the power fantasy of a mugger walking up to you and then you turning the tables and shooting you :v

But more seriously I figure it is so a potential threat cannot reach for your gun and use it against you, or steal it from you and then sell it or whatever. It's not much use carrying a gun if a robber can easily get to it.

[Strife26]

It's all about the power fantasy. Just like the way that having the biggest sexual organs is crucial to well being, so is the carrying of a handgun. Similarly, though, other people get jealous when they can see it.


Damn but I'm bitter this week. Regularly scheduled Strife will continue at some point, probably maybe

[Loud Whispers]

Can you conceal carry and regular carry at the same time? 2gun