Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights?

Suprisingly, slaves are also a lot less productive than free people.

More importantly, they pay a lot less taxes (none).

More importantly, they pay a lot less taxes (none).

Huh?  Don't slaves pay 100% in taxes?

Huh?  Don't slaves pay 100% in taxes?

They pay 0% to the state.  Which would you want more of if you were a state: (a) private property or (b) citizens.

I see.  Okay.

gotlucky:

More importantly, they pay a lot less taxes (none).

Huh?  Don't slaves pay 100% in taxes?

 

 

Not all slaves give up all 100% of their production. There have been many forms of slavery throughout history and many areas had government laws regarding what % a slave would get to keep. Also some areas had laws where slaves could earn their freedom after a certain amount of time.

Has anyone heard how old Law Dictionaries have a defintion for human which says... See Monster.

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

According to this way of thinking which is the basis for our modern system the only way to own anything is to become incorporated. Once you are incorpored you can be considered a person not a human. However the only way to become incorporated is to become an employee of the state.

So in some sence slavery was never abolished... it was simply improved and expanded upon.

Since women rights movement was closely tied to abolitionism I grouped them together. In both cases there were oppressed populations who received their freedom.

 

Well, let's not exaggerate... women received the right to vote which is not at all the same thing as freedom. The value of having a vote diminishes as suffrage becomes more universal. Today, the value of a vote is essentially zero on anything greater than, perhaps, the scale of local government. A realization of this fact on the part of the ruling Elite may be part of their decision to allow women and minorities to have the vote. As suffrage becomes more universal, the less meaningful it is to have a vote.

To sum up your answers, there are several possible reasons for the ending of these oppressions.

1. Christian religion - "All men are created equal"

2. Slaves were expensive

3. Perception changed because of economic freedom

 

4. The heat engine (steam/internal combustion/etc.)

5. Slaves are vastly less productive than free men

I think the development of the heat engine explains why slavery was abolished at the time that it was and not sooner or later.

But I'm still wondering why this happened, it still seems to me that slaves were economically beneficial to the slave owner. Perhaps people became wealthy enough to start thinking about the welfare of others? 

No. This is definitely not an explanation.

This will also explain the recent campaigns for animal rights, global warming, African poverty and diseases and so on. Perhaps this has little to do with economic reality but it was just simple empathy?

No. These campaigns are not motivated by some kind of selflessness. They merely serve political interests in non-obvious ways. Animal rights, for example, is one way for the State to further aggrandize itself by providing yet another non-entity on behalf of which it speaks. The State "protects animals" and "protects the environment" for the same reaosn it "protects society", that is, so that it can collect taxes to fund said protection of legal non-entities. It can also sue for imaginary torts (created by statute) against these legal non-entities. The modern State is just a protection racket with first-class PR.

Clayton -

 

Since women rights movement was closely tied to abolitionism I grouped them together. In both cases there were oppressed populations who received their freedom. 

No, those are separate issues. And event the most baloney feminists will hardly maintain that all White women were kept as slaves in the US.

To sum up your answers, there are several possible reasons for the ending of these oppressions.

1. Christian religion - "All men are created equal"

That "all-men-are-created-equal isn't actually from the bible. It sounds like a post enlightenment theological statement

2. Slaves were expensive

 

And only suitable for certain types of repetetive labor, like in the plantation system. 

3. Perception changed because of economic freedom

 

I would say there was a change in perception in the Western world. But then slavery wasn't an institution in Europe since the fall of the Roman empire. Ironically, the civilzation the cultural Marxists hate so much is the one that abolished slavery and treated women pretty well. 

But I'm still wondering why this happened, it still seems to me that slaves were economically beneficial to the slave owner. Perhaps people became wealthy enough to start thinking about the welfare of others? This will also explain the recent campaigns for animal rights, global warming, African poverty and diseases and so on. Perhaps this has little to do with economic reality but it was just simple empathy?

What you write here is only correct to some extent, but contains a number of false assumptions. 
Yes, in the beginning slavery was beneficial for slave owners. Bear in mind that this started with commodity production in the Southern states that produced for international markets. At that stage the colonist may not have seen America as his new home, but just a means of making a quick buck and then returning to England. There is a good argument that slavery isn't beneficial to society as a whole. It crippled the markets for free craftsmen, it let to all kinds of vices and it stigmatised manual labor as base and let to common idleness among Southern Whites. And I am leaving out long term problems here.  

No, Southern slave owners did actually care about the welfare for their slaves. 
Yes, wealthiness and the possibility of a common large leisure class has lead to more caring about social and environmental issues. But there is some common emphasis on empathy in Western culture as well, that preceeds the era of capitalis productivity. 
 

 

Segway on JJ's vid, Steven Pinker explains how biology sets limits on what sorts of social goals are humanely realizable:

Interestingly, he almost exactly paraphrases Rothbard (though I'm sure inadvertenly as I doubt very much that Pinker has read Rothbard):

"Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that "pro-flappers" have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as "impractical." But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm-flying, and the preachers of arm-flapping make everyone's lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the "ideal" goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal." [emphasis added]

- Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

The more I think about the new normal in polite society - that women are to be thought of as essentially every way equal to men and made equal in any ways in which they might be at a disadvantage - the more I realize it's just absolute insanity. The female brain is, as Pinker says in another lecture, not indistinguishable from the male brain. This is a wry litotes - women think about life, the world and other humans in ways very different from men and they react to similar situations in very different ways than men do. In particular, I believe that the integration of women into the workplace has created a huge set of new social problems with no obvious solutions.

When you go back to the origin of male/female behavior in humans, you see that the female brain evolved to cope with a very complex set of circumstances that are largely irrelevant in the modern world. Our pre-human ancestors engaged in socialized reproduction, that is, the father was unknown or, even if he was known, did not take responsibility for the care and feeding of his children. The mother - as in most mammal species - was the primary provider for her children and any other support that went to the children was provided socialistically, that is, by genentic non-relatives motivated by a communal instinct.

Eventually, the idea of monogamous (from the female PoV) attachment to a single male (at least, for some duration) - who would both father children with her and contribute to the care and feeding of those children - emerged. We can see how this is a "privatization" of the costs of reproduction (I got this from Hoppe, can't remember the cite right now) and how such privatized reproduction would lead to reproductive advantages over time as things that are owned are cared for better than things that are unowned (socially owned). Biologists believe that the uniquely human trait of concealed fertility played a crucial role in making this situation possible as women who knew when they were fertile would be able to "cheat" the system by copulating with the genetically best male while she is fertile and pretending to be faithful to the less genetically excellent "provider male" the rest of the time. Male jealous rage also evolved in tandem with these developments (see the book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Miller and Kanazawa).

I think that a lot of distinctly female behavior - credible threats of doing something absolutely insane in order to invoke a response from her male partner, gambits for sympathy through crying or other ways of being pitiable, etc. - probably originated in the Ancestral Environment where there were no family law courts or recognized child support rights in divorce or separation, and so on. A woman who could get the father of her offspring to take pity on her plight or shame him into cooperation or - the darker side of female nature which is never discussed nowadays - credibly threaten the survival of his offspring with her, would have had a reproductive advantage over other women who could not prod their children's father into acting. Thus, modern women are the descendants of those mothers who survived that environment and passed on their genetic disposition to "crazy" behavior.

OK, I'm going to stop kicking the hornet's nest for now.

Clayton -

Mon. 12/07/02 18:58 EDT
.post #193

Clayton:

I'm going to stop kicking the hornet's nest for now.

I'll give a kick.

In "Men are superior," Adam Carolla says "I just don't like it when we try to force this 'everyone's exactly the same' mentality down everyone's throat." He goes on to give examples of the things men do better than women and the things women do better than men, and points out that instead of insisting that women and men are "the same," we should embrace and appreciate the differences ("I sorta like the diversity part" are his words).

Then, in
Adam complains about women (@2:35)

he opines that a woman will sit on a sofa reading a women's magazine featuring a beach in Negril and feel bad because she's sitting on a sofa and not in Negril, whereas "(men) look at genocide in Rawanda pictures and we're happy to be on our sofa."

At 3:39, he rhetorically asks "How 'bout you broads pick up a textbook every once in a while? How 'bout you learn something about World War II? How 'bout you learn one god-damn thing about World War II?!"

This seems inconsistent with his earlier lip-service to the virtues of diversity. Would a woman who exhibits more "masculine" interests (such as conversance with war history, for example) really be more attractive to Carolla?

I think Christopher Hitchens makes some valid observations in this video:

Christopher Hitchens: Why Women Still Aren't Funny


At 1:27 Hitchens says "...women don't need to be funny. But for most men, if they can't make women laugh, they're out of the evolutionary contest; they're never going to get laid (most men are fantastically unattractive). ... With women, there's no need to be rendering yourself attractive to men (by trying to be funny); we already find you attractive, thanks."

By the same token, I don't think women need to be rendering themselves attractive to men by, for example, boning up on war history. We already find you attractive, thanks (and we probably find you more attractive on a sunny beach than on the sofa discussing war history).


Oh Clayton, just a friendly correction:

The correct spelling is "segue," not "segway."

Mon. 12/07/02 19:27 EDT
.post #194

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?" Rex Harrison

MMMark:

This seems inconsistent with his earlier lip-service to the virtues of diversity. Would a woman who exhibits more "masculine" interests (such as conversance with war history, for example) really be more attractive to Carolla?

I don't think Carolla is saying women should learn more about history because it would make them more "masculine".  (In fact I've never before in my life heard anyone suggest knowledge of any kind of history was a "masculine" trait.  That actually sounds incredibly dumb to me.)

I think Carolla was simply suggesting that women should take it upon themselves to become more knowledgeable....hence "pick up a textbook every once in a while"...as opposed to one of the "279" women's magazines that all feature the "same junk" that "really just breeds envy."

I find it strange that you could miss that point.  (Unless of course you were simply looking for a way to refute Carolla/ take him down a notch.  Then it would be understandable as to how you might reach so far to mischaracterize his suggestion that way.  You wouldn't happen to be one of the women he's talking about, would you?)

 

Mon. 12/07/02 23:55 EDT
.post #195

John James:

I don't think Carolla is saying women should learn more about history because it would make them more "masculine".

I also don't think Carolla is saying that.

John James:

(In fact I've never before in my life heard anyone suggest knowledge of any kind of history was a "masculine" trait. That actually sounds incredibly dumb to me.)

Okay...I'm glad that's not what I suggested. I certainly did not write those words. You seem to imply here that I did. Perhaps, by changing my wording, you misconstrued my meaning?

John James:

I think Carolla was simply suggesting that women should take it upon themselves to become more knowledgeable....hence "pick up a textbook every once in a while"...as opposed to one of the "279" women's magazines that all feature the "same junk" that "really just breeds envy."

Mmmm...well, I think he's saying a bit more than that. He mentions "a textbook" once, at the beginning of his rhetorical questioning, but then he gets more specific: World War II. That subject of study is then suggested eight times. Some of the knowledge he disparages as "the same junk" and "nonsense" includes learning to "grow your own gourds with Martha Stewart." But all this tells us is that Carolla is interested in different knowledge than the women he "complains about."

Would Carolla really be happier if "women" took more of an interest in World War II, as opposed to learning how to grow gourds, or sunny beaches, or any of the other things that "women," according to Carolla, are typically interested in?

Is that the kind of woman Adam married? Here's an interview with his sexy wife, Lynettte:

Lynette Carolla Interview on The Paul Leslie Hour

"The real Lynette Carolla," straight from the horse's mouth, spends her typical Saturday "in the kitchen with the kids; I just made them lunch, ... I'm pouring myself a cup of coffee, and we're about to go take our blind dog Molly for a walk, and then we're gonna go run some errands ... and I'm gonna stay up and watch my reality TV."

Lynette co-hosts a "women's issues" show For Crying Out Loud. Here's a description of the June 21, 2012 show:

The show opens with a re-cap of Lynette’s gross green drink & Stefanie laments a problem preventing her from getting a new dishwasher. Stefanie then goes into a description of how she’s been trying to motivate her daughters (who are in studio for today’s show) to behave using a degree of bribery. Lynette agrees that some degree of bribery, or in her case reverse bribery, is almost a necessity and recounts how dogged Natalia especially can be if she wants something.

Now, do I disparage this as "junk" and "nonsense," just because it's not, typically, what men are interested in? Not in the least. She is a sexy, intelligent, ambitious, hard-working, successful woman. She's involved in things that, typically, women are more interested in than men.

So, Adam Carolla's "complaining" strikes me as not only inconsistent with his earlier lip-service to the virtues of diversity, but also as hypocritical, given that he seems to have married the very type of woman he "complains" about.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Adam and Lynette have really great discussions on the sofa about World War II, and what he really loves about her is her knowledge of history, especially war history.

John James:

I find it strange that you could miss that point.

As I said and have now elaborated, I think he's saying a bit more than what you infer as "that point."

I don't necessarily believe his rant represents what he personally believes. For example, he could be either "playing to his audience," or perhaps he's even ridiculing these very attitudes by pretending, using caricature, to espouse them.

John James:

(Unless of course you were simply looking for a way to refute Carolla/ take him down a notch. Then it would be understandable as to how you might reach so far to mischaracterize his suggestion that way.

John, I very much enjoy your energy and enthusiasm, both as a promoter of libertarianism, and also as the "forum pit bull" when you suspect your values are (either directly or subtly) under attack. I think you sometimes overreact, but I also understand that this is "part and parcel" of who you are.

You think I'm "reaching so far" and "mischaracteriz(ing) his suggestion," possibly because I'm "looking for a way to ... take Carolla down a notch."

None of those allegations, which pertain to my intentions, are true.
I think you're overreacting here.

John James:

You wouldn't happen to be one of the women he's talking about, would you?)

haha! Nooo (not last time I checked, anyway)!

I had not, before seeing your post, even heard of Adam Carolla. I did a bit of listening via YouTube. He seems funny and entertaining. Wasn't offended by anything he said. I enjoyed his performances. I see that he hosted "The Man Show" and has authored a book entitled In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy, which I've just requested from my local library. From my limited exposure, I gather his "shtick" is to portray the "manly man with a vulgar bent" persona. Sort of a modern Archie Bunker. He also reminds me a bit of Doug Stanhope, although Carolla is no libertarian; from his wikipedia page:

he is also in favor of ... some progressive causes such as "... [being] against semi-automatic and automatic weapons. I'm not an NRA guy by any stretch of the imagination."

And then, inconsistently,

"My feeling is this whole country is founded on the principle of 'if you are not hurting anyone, and you're not fucking with someone else's shit, and you are paying your taxes, you should be able to just do what you want to do.' It's the freedom and the independence."

Except, apparently, to keep and bear semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

MMMark:

John James:

I don't think Carolla is saying women should learn more about history because it would make them more "masculine".

I also don't think Carolla is saying that.

Then why did you suggest it?  What is even your point?