I am always suspicious that there is a strong connection between economy and politic.
Before slaves are the only way to get things done better. So incentive to support slavery is high.
Then industrialization run high and low paid workers can get paid higher. More and more capitalists find it easier to just pay workers than enslave them. Obviously those workers want it too. Unfortunately, those workers can't just move out. So there are bigger forces that want them to eliminate slavery. Either through democracy or through civil wars, those 2 forces fight and slavery is gone.
Slavery is not really gone. Slavery in a sense of menial workers forced to pick cottons are gone. But lifetime alimony is also slavery. Income tax is also slavery.
But perhaps history can repeat again.
Before, women are so valuable that men can only get them by trapping them into marriage system. In fact, in ancient societies, men pretty much rape women and all societies care is whether the man is responsible enough to marry her afterward.
This obviously hurt the interests of women and men with better offers. So rape and marry culture, which is pretty much slavery, is getting more politically incorrect and now it's gone.
Nowadays, relationship between women and men with better offers are often criminalized. In western civilization monogamy norms ensure that the poorest dumbest males can get laid to. In muslim countries prohibition of all sex outside marriage ensures that women and men are trapped into marriage.
Many women prefer to be sugar babies of richer males than marrying a poorer males the way voters' wish. However, the deal is borderline illegal.
Look at:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410060955AAmW2n4
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080711095317AAGNPkp
While no body get arrested yet for being a sugar baby, perception that it's illegal alone already turn of many people.
There are so many prohibition against various sex outside marriage that most people are pretty much forced to get married to stay in the gene pool.
Then disparity of wealth happen. There are plenty of men that are willing to pay women to be their mistress far bigger than a husband can do. Many beautiful (who care about the ugly) women obviously want them too.
So there are bigger and bigger incentive to decriminalize relationship between one rich males to many young beautiful girls outside governments' control. Emerging Sugar babies relationship in US is a sample of those tolerance.
Feminists insist that marriage terms are extremely dangerous for rich males that fewer and fewer people want to get married.
So slowly, marriage trap is deteriorating and most people simply don't get married. So marriage, like slavery is gone.
The same way with income tax and big government. In ancient time, the only way to get rich is to tax the people. Now we can get rich consensually too by hiring people rather than taxing people. We can think of capitalists bosses are competing with political bosses. Many capitalists can pay workers more than welfare checks. Obviously workers like that too. But welfare trap prevent those workers from working.
Obviously those capitalists bosses want workers to join their side. So as we get more and more prosper there are bigger and bigger demands for more freedom.
At the end, the world is getting more and more free as the results.
Something along that.
I like the general idea. It is going in the same general direction as Mises' observation that in the long run, freedom benefits even the ones who were formerly the opressors.
Allow me a few comments:
In fact, in ancient societies, men pretty much rape women and all societies care is whether the man is responsible enough to marry her afterward.
Which ancient societies are you talking about? Link please?
So this economic force that eliminated "rape slavery" took thousands of years to work? From ancient times until 2012? Do you know of other forces that only achieve results after a thousand years?
Finally they got something right.
In ancient time, the only way to get rich is to tax the people.
You must be talking about how a govt gets rich, because private people cannot tax anyone. But the rest of your paragraph talks about private industry.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
The most famous ancient society in the world.
Not sure what you mean. In many islamic countries rape victims are still forced to marry the rapists. So yes, it does take thousand of years and not done yet.
In fact, I consider all prohibition against consensual sex as simmilar with rape. The idea is the same. Remove a lot of choices women have so they ended up having to choose another. Many women obviously prefer sugar babies relationship rather than marriage. In fact, I wonder why anyone would still get married if being sugar babies are legal. Well, it's border line.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070528093922AAlMOZp
Feminists insist that marriage terms are extremely dangerous for rich males that fewer and fewer people want to get married. Finally they got something right.
Agree. That's the only thing the feminists got it right. Eliminate marriage. The problem is many of the alternatives are not legal yet.
Basically I am seeing the world from non judging point of view. There is no right, there is only power. There is no private/public sector. There is only leaders. There is no profit, only interests.
It's political land. Like businessland, but more realisitic. I think game theory is more like that but I like to see it through something more qualitative rather than quantitative.
In general I do not agree with variations of the theory that slavery existed because muscle-power was the only way to get stuff done prior to the steam engine. That might have been the case but it still doesn’t follow that a free labor market would not have been much more efficient than slavery.
I’d modify the idea in such terms: slavery existed because it was part of the general culture. Cultures that tended to evolve away from slavery got richer, and tended to displace other cultures. Slavery became less and less accepted. When the industrial revolution lowered the value of manual labor, the cost that slaveholders where willing to pay to retain their slaves (fighting the ideological battle, for one) also fell. So, slavery would have evaporated even in the absence of eth industrial revolution. The revolution just speed up these developments, since it no longer paid to fight to extend the ideological life of slavery.
I have read neither this thread nor the article I am posting, but I know that it is relevant:
http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/workshop-materials/cp_rogowski.pdf
It's a good document.
I watched transformers where decepticon want to enslave humans. They are then defeated by humans and autobots.
That makes me wonder. Why in the earth would decepticon try to enslave? With their high level of technology wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay hoomins?
So there are costs to slavery. You got to fight first. Slaves want to rebels and they may win. It set ugly precedents where the greatest among us are not those who serve but those who gain power.
Those can be the factor.
I like to think any government intervention in economy, like income tax, trade restriction, as slavery or perhaps more accurately serfdom and try to come up with some model.
Something along, if all of us are psychopaths, will slavery still go anyway? Keep in mind that slaves are psychopaths too like their owners.
I'd also point out that, at least in the United States, the costs associated with recapturing escaping slaves were socialized. Even if slavery itself were not outright illegal, had each individual slave owner had to bear the cost of securing and chasing down escaped slaves, it would have died as a viable business model much sooner. As it happened though, slave owners were able to use federal tax dollars and the power of the state to apprehend their fugitive property. In my opinion, this perspective is too often overlooked when talking about the persistence of slavery in the western world. It is true that the culture by and large needed to change to end slavery, but as we all know from other areas of life, the state has a way of calcifying and incentivizing bad behavior.
http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/workshop-materials/cp_rogowski.pdf this one is good. So basically when free people salary is too low slavery is gone because it's cheaper to just hire free people. But when free people salary is too high, slavery is gone too. Slaves have strong incentive to flee and owners of highly productive factories have every incentive to help them free, including waging war.
Now let's use the same analysis for marriage. Keep in mind that sallary of free women is pretty high, $5500 per hour, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw . I wonder if there will be enough incentive between women to avoid marriage and rich men wanting them outside of marriage that will eventually kick marriage out, like slavery.
Keep in mind that sallary of free women is pretty high, $5500 per hour
I somehow doubt that free women make that much money on average...
Outside of Oprah and A-lister movie stars, I have trouble thinking of any woman earning that much money.
Well may be not that high, but still higher than what she can earn under marriage. Assuming the same beauty, etc. In fact, I suspect that the real reason of prohibiting prostitution, including high class prostitution, is to lower what men has to pay.
Also afghanistan women will have higher pay as wife/sugar babies/prostitute for white men than becoming wife/sugar babies/prostitute for afghanistan male. If only they can choose, women opression will be gone.
At first I thought "No way!"
Then I did a quick search and...
Young, single, childless women out-earn male counterparts
Quite interesting. While this is interesting, they do not appear to have accounted for all the controlling factors discussed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
Furthermore, I am not sure how the article is able to prove that the women are ahead because of education specifically. Even if it is due to holding college degrees, it may not be due to having college education but rather the actual paper. I do not mean to beat down the women, I just mean that the market has been distorted by government forces putting pressure on the market to earn more college degrees.