Ah, does anyone know what time period we are talking about, or doesn’t it matter?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ah, does anyone know what time period we are talking about, or doesn’t it matter?
[/quote]
Shhhhhhhh…quiet.
Don’t stop the entertainment.
I am not sure why it would matter when in history we are talking about.
We are talking about the ability of any slave population to successfully revolt against their overlords.
It is theoretically possible but very highly improbable. History makes a strong case for this argument.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am not sure why it would matter when in history we are talking about.
We are talking about the ability of any slave population to successfully revolt against their overlords.
It is theoretically possible but very highly improbable. History makes a strong case for this argument.
[/quote]
But what if the afflicted classes dominate in teh hoopz and stuff?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am not sure why it would matter when in history we are talking about.
We are talking about the ability of any slave population to successfully revolt against their overlords.
It is theoretically possible but very highly improbable. History makes a strong case for this argument.
[/quote]
But what if the afflicted classes dominate in teh hoopz and stuff?
[/quote]
Or my gosh, what if they were even gladiators?
Do you think they could pull off a successful revolt?
Don’t lie to me. I saw the Spartacus series on Starz.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sport, he never said he thought that.
And YOU were never in chains. If you were speaking of your ancestors, which I know you were, you are completely correct. Somehow, some way those chains would have been thrown off.
History tells us exactly how it happened. And it would have and did happen much sooner because benevolent God fearing abolitionists aggressively pushed the agenda rather than waiting for an armed slave revolt.
Let me again remind you also that blacks were not the only ones who were enslaved centuries ago. My ancestors also were enslaved and they were “lily white.”[/quote]
Is that how you white Christians pat yourselves on the back?
[/quote]
Is your shit how you black racists pat yourselves on the back?[/quote]
Hey! Don’t take my name is vein!
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, I meant slavery as in forced labor, sans individual liberty whether it is sanctioned or not by a legal framework.[/quote]
Well gee, Lift, aren’t we ALL slaves in your world view?[/quote]
Not in Somalia…That is utopia for the anti government types. There is no government, no laws, nothing. It’s complete freedom.
I mean, yeah sure, there no economy and everybody is poor. Roving militias, rape, kill, and torture men, women, children and animals, but at least you don’t have ‘The Man’ pushing you around.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, I meant slavery as in forced labor, sans individual liberty whether it is sanctioned or not by a legal framework.[/quote]
Well gee, Lift, aren’t we ALL slaves in your world view?[/quote]
Not in Somalia…That is utopia for the anti government types. There is no government, no laws, nothing. It’s complete freedom.
I mean, yeah sure, there no economy and everybody is poor. Roving militias, rape, kill, and torture men, women, children and animals, but at least you don’t have ‘The Man’ pushing you around.[/quote]
Sounds like paradise…everybody who hates America should move there immediately.
I would say the problem with Somalia is not lack of government but rather the excess of violence.
Warlords are fighting over a power structure and trying to become the new “government” – i.e., the people who get to “legitimately” tell everyone else what to do.
That is not a problem of anarchy but rather a problem between people who wish to claim the right to use “legalized” force to their own advantages. Legalized, meaning anything the warring victors say is legal.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I would say the problem with Somalia is not lack of government but rather the excess of violence.
Warlords are fighting over a power structure and trying to become the new “government” – i.e., the people who get to “legitimately” tell everyone else what to do.
[/quote]
“lack of government” and “excess of violence” are linked.
Where there is no monopoly on violence, there is no “peace and love”.
There is a competitive market of violence with lower prices and bigger supply : ie, more violence.
Addressing the OP, if the alternative was $10 per gallon gasoline, yes.
Idealism is cool until it actually has a cost.
/thread
I would say it is “lack of market” that links “excess of violence” and not lack of government. Government is mostly the cause of violence – in fact, all major violent conflicts in history were the outcome of government politics gone awry.
There is never a monopoly on violence but the violent struggle is for the monopoly on the “authority to use violence”. It is only the threat of violence that restrains tyrannical power which is why there should never be a monopoly on that authority. Notwithstanding, people need to understand what proper application of violence is. If the nonaggression axiom is true then the only time violence should be justified is to defend against acts of aggression.
We don’t need government so much as we need people to take up arms to defend their own liberty against tyrants.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We don’t need government so much as we need people to take up arms to defend their own liberty against tyrants.
[/quote]
Like in Somolia.[/quote]
Yes and everywhere else too for that matter.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am not sure why it would matter when in history we are talking about.
[/quote]
Because Orion is talking about the slaves using old farm equipment and cotton balls as weapons, and Method Man is talking like the slave revolt is taking place in modern day LA or some shit.
Because if time periods indeed do not matter and we can bounce around from century to century to make our point, why not include millinial jumps in time as well?
I mean, shit, if that’s the case, the slaves could in theory ride dinosaurs into battle.
Wouldn’t that be cool?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am not sure why it would matter when in history we are talking about.
[/quote]
Because Orion is talking about the slaves using old farm equipment and cotton balls as weapons, and Method Man is talking like the slave revolt is taking place in modern day LA or some shit.
Because if time periods indeed do not matter and we can bounce around from century to century to make our point, why not include millinial jumps in time as well?
I mean, shit, if that’s the case, the slaves could in theory ride dinosaurs into battle.
Wouldn’t that be cool?[/quote]
Again, I didn’t start a thread about slavery, other people turned it into that. If we were talking a “timeline” I think that slavery would have well ended past present day America (even though it is hard to imagine America with the dominant cultural influence of black Americans in the 20th century). Whites are clearly delusional for a multitude of reasons if they believe that slavery would have made it…past the industrial revolution.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Addressing the OP, if the alternative was $10 per gallon gasoline, yes.
Idealism is cool until it actually has a cost.
/thread
[/quote]
Thank you for addressing the original question instead of slavery. Your point brings up an interesting one, of when is murder morally justified in general; when one nation attacks another, murder will follow.
Gasoline is actually a by-product of oil. You could have a glut of oil, yet if the refineries in the Gulf Coast for example, were down from a hurricane, you would see 10$ gasoline. Yet if oil was scarce there would be nothing to distillate.
Cost of oil= supply and demand plus the price fluctuations from speculators.
I cannot see the United States conducting a war of conquest for oil, and even if it did, it would not bring the price of oil down. Unless it was going to nationalize what it stole from Iraq and sell it to it’s own people?
[quote]method_man wrote:
Again, I didn’t start a thread about slavery, other people turned it into that. If we were talking a “timeline” I think that slavery would have well ended past present day America (even though it is hard to imagine America with the dominant cultural influence of black Americans in the 20th century). Whites are clearly delusional for a multitude of reasons if they believe that slavery would have made it…past the industrial revolution.
[/quote]
Ok, to be totally serious, I tend to agree with you. But on the other hand, the industrial revolution brought about a different form of slavery to Europe, that being child labor. And it was finally stopped as well in most civilized countries.
But in America, most of the heavy industry was done in the north, not sure if it would have spread to the south. If slavery brought the south big profits, why stop it other than because it was immoral and anti-Christian?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Again, I didn’t start a thread about slavery, other people turned it into that. If we were talking a “timeline” I think that slavery would have well ended past present day America (even though it is hard to imagine America with the dominant cultural influence of black Americans in the 20th century). Whites are clearly delusional for a multitude of reasons if they believe that slavery would have made it…past the industrial revolution.
[/quote]
Ok, to be totally serious, I tend to agree with you. But on the other hand, the industrial revolution brought about a different form of slavery to Europe, that being child labor. And it was finally stopped as well in most civilized countries.
[/quote]
Yeah well, I guess children had it so much better before.
After all, being anally raped 2 or 3 times a day is less of an effort than 10 hours of relatively light work in a factory, right.
Or starving.
Or subsistence agriculture, no really, bad, bad child labor.
Sniff.
I honestly dont get this.
What do people actually believe those children did before?
Frolicking in the meadows?
[quote]orion wrote:
After all, being anally raped 2 or 3 times a day is less of an effort than 10 hours of relatively light work in a factory, right.
[/quote]
lol, so, you’re probably cool with modern day sweat shops also, like maybe in Tailand?