|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| northway wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Unposter wrote: |
VisitorQ,
You have this highly idealized view of the 19th Century in America. Please correct me if I am wrong about these aspects of 19th Century America and if I am not wrong how they can be argued to be laisse-fare:
1) The U.S. used tarrifs against some imported goods
2) The U.S. government aided some industries, rail roads for example. I am sure there are others.
3) The U.S. government used eminent domain (sp?) to accquire land for the rail roads.
4) State governments favored some industries over others, such as cattle farmers over homesteaders.
5) There was federal taxation, though obviously quite different than that of the 20th Century.
6) Slavery was legal through most of the century |
All of the above notwithstanding (and since you don't even provide dates or context it's rather meaningless, but anyway...), the conditions for the average American were such that people had tremendous opportunities to advance themselves through merit and hard work. The state was always there, doing its thing, but to a far lesser extent than anywhere else in the world. |
Out of curiosity, have you ever read The Jungle? Many people also had the right to maim or kill themselves with little to no compensation from their employer. And those "tremendous opportunities" of which you speak frequently came by stealing the land of indigenous peoples (with state backing, using state resources). Personally, I think we've come a long way. |
You think the meat-packing industry has come a long way since Upton Sinclair wrote about it? Really?
Basically technology is what improves our lives. It makes work safer for people doing hazardous jobs and means less people have to do such work. But ultimately, the work needs to be done. Supply and demand. As long as nobody is being forced against their will, they should be allowed to take risks. In the past it was necessary for more people to work such jobs, because our society/economy had not yet developed to a level where such jobs became redundant. I am not against voluntary collective bargaining either. But to say the state cares about the common man and is going to protect us is pretty much the pinnacle of naivety.
As for stealing indigenous peoples' land, yes the blame does go to the state on that one. I do not accept that colonialism was a requisite for industrialization. It's like saying today we depend on the military-industrial complex for our technology and prosperity. I totally reject that notion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The meat industry is still a disaster, but yes, I do think that it's come a long way since letting human bodies melt in rendering pits. You really don't think there should be any worker protection laws?
I'm not saying that colonialism was a requisite for industrialization, but looking at America's growth during the nineteenth century and claiming it was due to a free market economy loses sight of the fact that it was largely built upon theft of native lands and rampant exploitation of immigrant and African American workers. Now, maybe this needed to happen, but personally, I think it's pretty disingenuous to act as if America was a better place at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Unposter wrote: |
VisitorQ,
You have this highly idealized view of the 19th Century in America. Please correct me if I am wrong about these aspects of 19th Century America and if I am not wrong how they can be argued to be laisse-fare:
1) The U.S. used tarrifs against some imported goods
2) The U.S. government aided some industries, rail roads for example. I am sure there are others.
3) The U.S. government used eminent domain (sp?) to accquire land for the rail roads.
4) State governments favored some industries over others, such as cattle farmers over homesteaders.
5) There was federal taxation, though obviously quite different than that of the 20th Century.
6) Slavery was legal through most of the century |
All of the above notwithstanding (and since you don't even provide dates or context it's rather meaningless, but anyway...), the conditions for the average American were such that people had tremendous opportunities to advance themselves through merit and hard work. The state was always there, doing its thing, but to a far lesser extent than anywhere else in the world. |
Out of curiosity, have you ever read The Jungle? Many people also had the right to maim or kill themselves with little to no compensation from their employer. And those "tremendous opportunities" of which you speak frequently came by stealing the land of indigenous peoples (with state backing, using state resources). Personally, I think we've come a long way. |
You think the meat-packing industry has come a long way since Upton Sinclair wrote about it? Really?
Basically technology is what improves our lives. It makes work safer for people doing hazardous jobs and means less people have to do such work. But ultimately, the work needs to be done. Supply and demand. As long as nobody is being forced against their will, they should be allowed to take risks. In the past it was necessary for more people to work such jobs, because our society/economy had not yet developed to a level where such jobs became redundant. I am not against voluntary collective bargaining either. But to say the state cares about the common man and is going to protect us is pretty much the pinnacle of naivety.
As for stealing indigenous peoples' land, yes the blame does go to the state on that one. I do not accept that colonialism was a requisite for industrialization. It's like saying today we depend on the military-industrial complex for our technology and prosperity. I totally reject that notion. |
Technology has vastly improved our lives, but there has also been a social progression that has improved as well. I mean obviously even some one who thinks we live in a fascist-corporatist whatever whatever can see that our system of government is much more free than the old absolute monarchs and feudal lords. Part of that progression has been better working conditions. Much of that is technology, but many people fought for workers rights, and laws that prevent the worst abuses of the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/ron-paul-admits-he-will-not-be-president/257167/
Ron Paul admits he won't be president, and says he will stop campaigning in states that haven't voted. Nothing to see in this thread. Games over. |
lol
Did you read the article, or just the title? If he was suspending his campaign, he would have said so. Also, if he had "admitted he will not be President", he probably would have included the word "President" in his statement. Here's an actual quote from Dr. Paul:
| Ron Paul wrote: |
| Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future. |
While the Presidency was always a long shot, "Ron Paul Republicans" continue to gain power in the GOP. The short game is coming to a close, the long game progresses quite well. Oh, and you'll note that the campaign isn't distancing itself from "State convention takeovers", only the "hostile takeovers". The peaceful takeovers are going as intended.
Maybe more importantly, the Ron Paul supporters will keep showing up at the national delegate elections... the Romney "supporters" will assume they've won and have no reason to show  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| After the Industrial Revlution started in England, English companies with the help of the British government guarded their technological advancements adn tried hard to prevent their spread, something I don't associate with laisse-fare economics. |
No idea where you're coming up with this. Care to source?
|
We learned this in high school. My home country's textile industry couldn't compete with the British because they banned export on their machinery. Getting caught smuggling industrial secrets was punishable by death.
Here is a random source I found with google:
| http://inventors.about.com/od/indrevolution/a/history_textile.htm wrote: |
| During the early eighteenth century, Great Britain was determined to dominate the textile industry. Laws forbade the export of English textile machinery, drawings of the machinery, and written specifications of the machines that would allow them to be constructed in other countries. |
| visitorq wrote: |
You think the meat-packing industry has come a long way since Upton Sinclair wrote about it? Really?
|
I haven't read his book, but I do have some experience with modern meat packing industry in Scandinavia, and I can't say the working conditions were too bad. It was of course a bit cold, and most of the jobs were quite boring, but that's hardly a cause for uproar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Technology has vastly improved our lives, but there has also been a social progression that has improved as well. I mean obviously even some one who thinks we live in a fascist-corporatist whatever whatever can see that our system of government is much more free than the old absolute monarchs and feudal lords. Part of that progression has been better working conditions. Much of that is technology, but many people fought for workers rights, and laws that prevent the worst abuses of the past. |
Why on earth are you comparing the US a hundred years ago to monarchs and feudal lords? If anything, the US has become more feudalistic and tyrannical than it has ever been since the first war of independence.
As for "social progression", that's all fine and good as long as its voluntary. Offering the state as a solution is a ridiculous fallacy, however. The more power you give government, the more abuses there are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| The meat industry is still a disaster, but yes, I do think that it's come a long way since letting human bodies melt in rendering pits. You really don't think there should be any worker protection laws? |
As opposed to illegals coming up from Mexico to work in what the Dept. of Labor ranks as the job most likely to result in injury in the country today? Frankly, I don't think we even know what goes in some of those places. More like "out of sight, out of mind". It's nasty work, but if someone is willing to do it voluntarily (and would have no job otherwise) then they should be allowed.
If you honestly think that setting up some government bureau to regulate giant companies like Tyson would be any sort of solution, then all I can say is you're dreaming... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think what VisitorQ is grasping at is that in 1840 (after the start of the Industrial Revolution, some scholars think much later as they point to the development of the printing press as the real beginning) Great Britain eliminated tarrifs to international goods based on their understanding of Adam Smith and some of the other classical liberal economists.
Of course, this move was a product of, not a determinant of the Industrial Revolution.
And, while removing tarrifs is all fine and dandy, IMHO, that alone does not constitute a laisse-fare economy. In many ways, the British economy was interfered with and barriers were established. Also, considering the reaches of the British Empire eliminating tarrifs is hardly the bold move it would be today.
It would also be "relatively short-lived" (my belief) as eventually the tarrifs go back up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
To get this thread back on track, of all the Rublican nominees, Ron Paul is easily the best. The thought of a Romney presidency fills my veins with ice-water. I'd much rather see a Ron Paul versus Obama general election.
I don't like everything Ron Paul believes in and stands for but I don't exactly like everything Obama believes in and stands for either. I would just say that both are the lesser of two evils (and there are a lot of evils out there IMHO) in this election.
I also don't think that voting for the Libertarian candidate is a viable option. The U.S. is going to elect a Republican or a Democrat. That is the reality. Any vote for another candidate, sadly, is not just a vote wasted but is potentially a vote for Romney who I see as a real danger in this election.
Call me practical. My idealist days are long gone...
Just my two cents and you can take it for whatever it is worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
I also don't think that voting for the Libertarian candidate is a viable option. The U.S. is going to elect a Republican or a Democrat. That is the reality. Any vote for another candidate, sadly, is not just a vote wasted but is potentially a vote for Romney who I see as a real danger in this election.
Call me practical. My idealist days are long gone... |
The commonness of that practicality is why they're able to run Romneys and Obamas every 4 years. If people will always vote for the lesser of two evils, we will always have evil candidates.
Hopefully Obama will be gone in 4 years and a candidate who is -not- evil will represent one of the two parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Comm,
I disagree with you on the first but I kind of agree with you on the second, though I am not exactly sure what you mean by "Hopefully, Obama will be gone in four years." He will either be gone in less than one or he will be gone in slightly more than four, but either way, he won't be President.
Personally, I would really like to see a Paul versus Obama election. I suspect that it would definitely push Obama to an even more socially liberal position. I suspect there would actually be a lot of points that Obama and Paul would agree on, though obviously there would be some they would disagree on.
I also think history will be kind to Obama, though it is way too early to make that assessment yet.
Anyway, we all know, it is what we do, not what Washington does, that really matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
I disagree with you on the first but I kind of agree with you on the second, though I am not exactly sure what you mean by "Hopefully, Obama will be gone in four years." He will either be gone in less than one or he will be gone in slightly more than four, but either way, he won't be President.
Personally, I would really like to see a Paul versus Obama election. I suspect that it would definitely push Obama to an even more socially liberal position. I suspect there would actually be a lot of points that Obama and Paul would agree on, though obviously there would be some they would disagree on. |
Gone in 4 years rather than 1 is what I meant but didn't articulate well. And yes, an Obama vs Paul matchup would probably make Obama into the candidate he was in 2008... decrying the addition of $4 trillion in debt as "irresponsible and unpatriotic", opposing the privacy invasion of the Patriot Act, and supporting the decriminalization of marijuana. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| I also think history will be kind to Obama, though it is way too early to make that assessment yet. |
Kind as in all of his many misdeeds will be forgotten? Or kind as in he won't be nitpicked like Limbaugh does him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" linked here takes a look at the IRS and Federal Reserve:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ[/quote]
| Alan Greenspan, yes, that Alan Greenspan wrote: |
"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value ...
- Alan Greenspan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
