sherri wrote on Mar 18^th, 2014 at 7:17am:

Yes, a good example of the irrationality we can all express.

In the (comical) reverse.... "I love mankind ... it's people I can't stand!!” (Charles Shultz).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18^th, 2014 at 8:35am:


Okay, but let's not forget that for as long as Hitler's hordes were successfully riding roughshod over independent nations for the purpose of enslaving millions of people under a dictatorship ~ the German public treated the SS and the Wehrmacht as conquering heroes.

It was only when the tide turned that the German public became a little more reserved in their praise.

Sparky wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:


His right, after all it what happen is the USSR, and more recently in Venezuela were the socialist elites have cars, and food, the worker is finding it hard to find a store with food and even when they do, having enough money to pay for that food is rare.

And if he lost his job....He will just get another job... I know weird hey.. and maybe if he cant find a job, he will just create his own business.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 17^th, 2014 at 8:16am:


Some of my best friends were Croats, and they worshipped Ante Pavelic like a demi-God.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18^th, 2014 at 8:35am:


Famous people are criticised far more than most people, even if they are "heroes".

Which of those concepts are linked to common law?

Google turns up nothing on the distinction between radical and skeptical enlightenment. Did you mean radical vs moderate enlightenment?

Quote:

I am having trouble figuring out what your argument about common law is. You made some grandiose claims about it earlier. Those claims have vanished into thin air and been replaced with some moronic rightards vs leftards argument.

---

More on the "historical accident" theme - again, this is not explicitly stated by the authors:

When the bubonic plague hit, most of Europe was in pretty much the same boat, politically and economically. It was a feudal system, with the lords owning land, charging rent etc. There was a slight difference in that the lords in the east were a bit stronger and better organised.

The plague killed off about half the population (2/3 according to wikipedia). Almost overnight, land values and rents plummeted, and the value of labor skyrocketed. Lords were tempted to offer financial incentives to get more labor onto their land. As a group they resisted this and tried to maintain control of the situation and maintain their income by restricting people's right to move. The people revolted, everywhere. In the east, they failed, because the lords were a bit more organised. The lords took more of the land and instituted forced labor (eg 1 to 3 days a week for free). In the west they succeeded, and a sort of free market in human labor arose. The initially small difference at the time of the plague lead the two halves of Europe to drift further apart. The west started buying food from the east, which compounded the difference, because it increased the value of the land owned by the eastern lords and their power over the people.

Skip forward a few centuries and a few rebellions. England, France and Spain all have their own citizen's assemblies that are competing with the crown for power. The Spanish crown is filthy rich from all the gold they are getting from American colonies. In contrast, England is a bit player and the crown is weak. There are some wealthy and powerful English merchants around and the queen has to beg them for money. In return she yields more economic and political rights. The merchants, benefiting from an initially slight improvement in economic rights, were able to reinforce those rights by virtue of their new wealth and power.

It was no coincidence that the industrial revolution first took off in this environment.

The British Navy is largely a private merchant navy and many are starting to make money trading across the atlantic. This competes with the Spanish royal navy, so Spain sends the (far more powerful) Armada to put an end to it. This could have put a stop to the process, but the British have a very lucky naval victory. Their trade across the Atlantic and elsewhere expands, as does their merchant Navy, which was to have great ramifications later on.

When the British established a colony in America, they initially intended to do the same as the Spanish - ie take all the gold and put themselves at the head of the existing oppressive social structure, easily enslaving the entire population. Unfortunately Spain got the good bits long ago. The Brits were left with modern day US - no stockpiles of gold, and a fraction of the human population to exploit. Although they landed in a relatively large empire with a central authority, that authority was weak and in no position to exploit the population. So they turned to exploiting their own people. The first colony turned into a mini communist dictatorship. They starved to death. Over and over again, the British tried to set up an oppressive regime. They failed, not because the peasants revolted, but for far more practical reasons. A more robust economy was needed merely to survive. Furthermore, being a frontier, the peasants could simply wander off and join the natives, or competing colonies. The British rulers had to establish not only property rights and free trade, but inclusive political institutions. These institutions were, in accordance with a central theme of the book, self reinforcing, and grew into the "land of the free" that we know today.

Although not stated as part of the theory, there seems to be a recurring theme that relative poverty and disorganisation are what sowed the seeds for the inclusive political and economic institutions that later grew into the economic powerhouse that was western Europe and North America. Prior to the plague, pretty much the whole world was under some sort of oppressive regime and the world's wealth concentration was pretty much the opposite of today - ie concentrated in tropical regions.

The book explains this in terms of "small differences" and "critical junctures" (eg the plague).

So a book claiming that rights to private ownership and democracy are the foundation of wealth is too 'marxist' for you?

Some reasons for the industrial revolution:

1) The plague made life easier for all by reducing the population - more free time.

2) Free trade, property rights (including patent ownership), and a banking and investment market opened up all sorts of opportunities and provided the incentives needed. We take many of these things for granted, but before this time, the King or Queen basically handed control of an entire market to a single individual or company. If you invented something and spent your life getting it working, you might make someone else rich. Under the new system, you would make yourself rich. Furthermore, other people could invest in your ideas, hard work or business skills, growing the more efficient and inventive businesses.

---

My previous post made me think of the middle east in Muhammed's time. By the standards described above, it was ripe for a similar event. It was on the fringe of existing civilisation. Different groups lived together, somewhat uneasily, but as equals, with political power broadly distributed. Mercantilism was a recent introduction (according to Gandalf). It lacked a central state or authority, but the people recognised the need for one, and Muhammed initially gained his authority by being asked to step into such a role in Medina.

Unfortunately he created a strong, oppressive state, with control vested in one person - initially himself, and then the Caliphs. Non-Muslims were sometimes tolerated (not pagans), but by religious decree were excluded from any political power. Muslims themselves were also excluded and political authority was distributed among religious leaders. This was not a church-state coalition of convenience seen in Europe. Rather, it was the same group of people being the religious and political leaders. The oppressive regime was self reinforcing, and the religious connection was so strong that even today Muslim countries struggle to break the cycle and adopt democracy and liberty. Islam also created many economic barriers, forbidding conventional banking and taxing any significant accumulation of wealth, effectively destroying every successful business that arose.

Muslims often talk about the Islamic "golden age" but the reality is that it was a squandered opportunity that locked most of the wealthier parts of the world into an unchangeable regime and stifled innovation. Muslims often attribute Muhammed's rise to a rejection of the "decadence" of mercantilism. Had Muhammed instead created a society based on free trade without arbitrary injunction by the state, or divested political authority among the different clans he was invited to adjudicate over rather than himself, the world may have reached it's current state centuries earlier, without the hangover of a global economy turned on it's head in the space of a few centuries.