Human Action page 169, "Enslavement was by and largea preliminary step toward cooperation" as opposed to simply killing their tribal enemies. Could this statement be expanded to something like slave-rape was by and large a preliminary step to interracial dating? I think there is truth in Mises' statement but could such a point be delivered without offending the public?
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Jeremiah Dyke:could such a point be delivered without offending the public?
What is the public?
Anyone else?
Is it really that controversial to say that murder is worse than enslavement, and enslavement worse than theft?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
It seems to me at least that enslavement in some cases could be worse than murder.
I'm not sure that Mises was making such a value judgement here, but rather was engaging in a historical reconstruction. The fact that enslavement is more economically advantageous than slaughter is probably the key insight, here.
Another bold statement:
Paradoxical though it may sound, the poor receive what they do because rich people exist.
--Mises, Socialism
"Mises" is nothing but one bold statement after another.
One needs to take bitter medicine to get healthy. Similarly, colonialism is meant to bring freedom to dictatorial tribal systems.
Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. - Ludwig von Mises
"Similarly, colonialism is meant to bring freedom to dictatorial tribal systems."
Sources, please.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Another bold statement: Paradoxical though it may sound, the poor receive what they do because rich people exist. --Mises, Socialism
Mises spells out what he means by this in his paper Profit and Loss. (a fantastic read, btw) It's not really about rich people per se; it's about rich entrepreneurs:
The riches of successful entrepreneurs is not the cause of anybody's poverty; it is the consequence of the fact that the consumers are better supplied than they would have been in the absence of the entrepreneur's effort. The penury of millions in the backward countries is not caused by anybody's opulence; it is the correlative of the fact that their country lacks entrepreneurs who have acquired riches. The standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. It is to the foremost material interest of everybody that control of the factors of production should be concentrated in the hands of those who know how to utilize them in the most efficient way.
Huh? Read any history book about the colonialization of the Asiatic and African nations.
Okay, thanks. I didn't know that all history books about the colonialization of the Asiatic and African nations held the same view.
Daniel Muffinburg: "Similarly, colonialism is meant to bring freedom to dictatorial tribal systems." Sources, please.
Daniel, how many times must it be explained that MarketFundamentalist is a troll?
As in - a poster from a left-wing or Republican forum coming here to secretly annoy or make fun of us, while other forumers watch. Why do you get trolled by trolls?
It might be bold (although far form his boldest statement in HA) but appears to be true. Crowd can frown as much as they wish. Truth is no majority voting.
Does slavery predate trade? I don't think it does.
I agree in some cases, but not in others. Depending on the girl who's raped, I'd say she might think death is a better fate than getting raped and having to live with that fact.
It's weird to think about, but the most convincing debaters when it comes to this subject would be people who are descendents of slaves, only for the reason that they have the physical and emotional relationship with which to work. However, no descendent of a slave will argue that death is better than slavery because arguing against that point would be arguing against their own existence, most likely. If their ancestors were killed instead of being slaves, they might have never been born.
I've never heard of someone complaining that their mother didn't have an abortion.
Nothing can ever be worse than death, as one always has the ability to kill one’s self. So, it would seem that death is the upper limit of misfortune. I really don’t’ see what prevents those that think otherwise from putting a bullet in their temple.
Easy. Restrain them, give them basic sustenance through an IV. They can't kill themselves then.
That would seem to be true, but I have this impression that by will alone one can die. Comatose patients who ‘live’ for decades are probably unconscious the whole time. I can’t imagine someone living like that for long.
I've never seen any scientific justification for this, but I'll admit you see it a lot in daytime dramas.
Lots of anecdotal evidence too.