do Germany and France live under socialism today?

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Arkadi said:

Anthony--The "feeling he 'gave' his life for [me]" evokes only gratitude in me, not guilt. The former does not imply but, rather, exclude the latter, in my view.

The thought of someone giving his/her life for me evokes revulsion in me.  Yuck!

I've felt that way ever since I was a kid and was told in church school - which I didn't attend for long - about Christ's giving his life as salvation for people's sins.

What evokes gratitude in me most strongly is the thought of accomplishments which bring immense practical benefit and/or joy.  Major examples: Newton's mechanics.  Beethoven's music, which gives me the blessing of joy every day.  Great music in general.  "The greats last - especially Mozart," as Arthur Rubenstein said in a documentary about him which I think was called "Love of Life."

As to the emotion of gratitude for someone who's no longer alive, I think of something that occurred in 2006 when my husband and I visited the Musician's Corner at the big cemetery in Vienna.

The weather was drizzly.  Someone who had been at the Beethoven plinth not long before us had left amongst the many floral mementos a piece of lined notebook paper, a page torn from one of those bound note tablets.  The person had written in ink which was washing away in the drizzle:

"I cannot reach you where you are.  I can only give thanks for what you have given me here."

This brought tears to my eyes, and still does when I remember it.  I'm teary-eyed now, writing about it.

Those simple words, written in ink washing away in the drizzle, encapsulate for me the feeling of gratitude for a dead person's gift to my life.

Ellen

[Arkadi]

Ellen--What you wrote resonates with me. But on this Memorial Day I am reflecting on its meaning for me. I guess the claim that Christ gave his life for people's sins evokes revulsion in you because you do not believe (as I do not either) that such exculpation was needed. Yet I know that, given my Jewish genes, I would not have life, and would not thus enjoy Bach etc.,  had Hitler not been defeated.

[anthony]

5 hours ago, Arkadi said:

Anthony--The "feeling he 'gave' his life for [me]" evokes only gratitude in me, not guilt. The former does not imply but, rather, exclude the latter, in my view.

I tried to explain and you won't see.

First, that he didn't 'die for you'. Second, that his virtue, respected and appreciated by other rational beings, was of choosing such a career by rationally selfish conviction, and in knowing that he would most likely at some point *RISK* his life for his convictions -- but -- he could not and would not voluntarily *GIVE* his life, as if it were to be 'given away' tamely, arbitrarily, or sacrificially. Between the risk factor and actual injury/death is a great gap, and if there weren't we'd hardly risk driving on the roads every day.

Your feeling of gratitude, following his death, is just that, a feeling. Your own emotion to what you evidently consider a 'noble self-sacrifice' or some-such (Kantian?) premise (I gathered from your past arguments).

Then you haven't understood.

Altruism has been called a death worshipping morality for good reason. Only the ultimate sacrifice is good enough to meet with ultimate approval.

[Peter]

I found some old tidbits about “sacrifice” and other letters that just interested me. One quote from the Lexicon is, "Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

Peter

 

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms. Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor. end quote

 

Nathaniel Branden points out in "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice" (1963), "faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof."

. . . .  “Egoism holds that man is an end in himself; altruism holds that man is a means to the ends of others. Egoism holds that, morally, the beneficiary of an action should be the person who acts; altruism holds that, morally the beneficiary of an action should be someone ‘other’ than the person who acts . . . . To be selfish is to be motivated by concern for one’s self-interest. That requires that one consider what constitutes one’s self-interest and how to achieve it – what values and goals to pursue, what principles and policies to adopt  . . . . Selfishness entails: (a) a hierarchy of values set by the standard of one’s self-interest, and (b) the refusal to sacrifice a higher value to a lower one, or to a non-value . . . . To make this principle fully clear, let us consider an extreme example of an action which, in fact, is selfish, but conventionally might be called self-sacrificial: a man’s willingness to die to save the life of the woman he loves. In what way would such a man be the beneficiary of his action?  . . . . If a man loves a woman so much that he does not wish to survive her death, if life can have nothing more to offer him at that price, then his dying to save her is not a sacrifice.” Nathaniel Branden. (March 1963) “The Objectivist Newsletter.”

 

The following author, Jennifer Burns, also makes Ayn (Alisa) seem a bit like a sufferer of Asperser’s Syndrome, though she and her younger sister Nora got along well, and her middle sister Natasha was a pianist, but not as great a confidante. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Lost World,” was one of their favorite books. From page twelve of “The Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right:”“Alisa’s most enthusiastic audience for these early stories were her two sisters. Nora the youngest, shared her introversion and artistic inclinations. Her specialty was witty caricatures of her family that blended man and beast. Alisa and Nora were inseparable, calling themselves Dact 1, and Dact 2, after the winged dinosaurs of Arthur Conan Doyle’s fantastic adventure story, “The Lost World.” The middle sister Natasha, a skilled pianist, was outgoing and social. Both Nora and Natasha shared a keen appreciation for the elder sister’s creativity, and at bedtime Alisa regaled them with her latest tales.”

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those "liberals" who claim that man has the "right" to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that "rights impose obligations." Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only "obligation" involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected.

Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents "involuntary servitude."
 
A volunteer army is the only proper, moral—and practical—way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes—if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army—an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why—is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.
 
It is often asked: "But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?" Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country's young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country's government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country's own government.
 
Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.

[Arkadi]

Anthony--They died for the nation. This is not a statement about their motivation but the nation's expression of its attitude to their death. This is why we have Memorial Day as a national holiday. For those who, like Rand, believe that only individuals exist, but not nations, all this must be sheer non-sense. There are quite a few professions in which people risk their lives in various degrees. Mercenaries die in combat, cab drivers in traffic accidents. Both risk their lives for their buck. Why such a fuss about the former?

 

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Arkadi said:

. For those who, like Rand, believe that only individuals exist, but not nations, all this must be sheer non-sense.

 

If Rand ever believed that,  then she was wrong.  Humans not only do not live atomically,  they cannot live atomically.  A human being requires  something like 2-3  years of nurturing in order to survive.  Early man  had to live in groups  in order to survive and humans by  habit, inclination and necessity have always dwelled in some sort of community.   

There have been feral humans raised from infancy by less than human animals but they are so very, very rare they can be  safely neglected  Humans who live totally solitary lives after they survive infancy and young  childhood  are extremely rare.   What does that leave?  Hermits, which are few.  People become hermits after they become capable of surviving alone.  It leaves humans who have dwelled in communities of some sort and have found their mates either in their own community  or in nearby communities.   The basic unit of society is not the individual but the extended family.  As the Dreadful Hillary Creature  once said --- it takes a village.   She just happened to be right on this.  Keep in mind a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 2/3/2017 at 1:52 AM, Arkadi said:

but Germany is currently doing better than US, as far as i can tell. so, it seems that the Economic Fascism they have works better than whatever we're having in US.

Whatever it is we have in the United States  it is not capitalism. We have a welfare state with some market  elements. In modern times a capitalistic society has not existed.   Capitalism is a philosophical ideal,  so far.  The city-state of Hong Kong has come closer to this ideal  than has the United States.

[moralist]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 2:37 PM, Arkadi said:

Ellen--What you wrote resonates with me. But on this Memorial Day I am reflecting on its meaning for me. I guess the claim that Christ gave his life for people's sins evokes revulsion in you because you do not believe (as I do not either) that such exculpation was needed. Yet I know that, given my Jewish genes, I would not have life, and would not thus enjoy Bach etc.,  had Hitler not been defeated.

This is something to which the musically cultured Ellen is tone deaf.

While airy fairy artsy stuff evokes gushes of emotion, the real heroes who put their lives on the line to keep evil people from destroying her freedom to gush receive only liberalesque spoiled entitled ingratitude. Yuck.

Ingratitude... the ugliest of human sentiments.

 

Greg

 

[moralist]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:06 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Whatever it is we have in the United States  it is not capitalism. We have a welfare state with some market  elements. In modern times a capitalistic society has not existed.   Capitalism is a philosophical ideal,  so far.  The city-state of Hong Kong has come closer to this ideal  than has the United States.

What Bob's liberal groupspeak "we" is really saying it that HE isn't a Capitalist... and that HE feeds off of a welfare state with some market elements.

What Bob will never understand is that American Capitalism is not collective in nature, but is the product of productive independent sovereign self motivated individuals who share the same ethical values... and not a useless group of weak collectivist bureaucratic pinheaded pencilpushing teat suckers.

My being an American Capitalist is independent of Bob's collectivist "we"... however, I do count on other independent productive Americans with whom to do business... but only because they share my values.

 

Greg

[Peter]

Arkadi wrote: Mercenaries die in combat, cab drivers in traffic accidents. end quote

Rand did not agree with Arkadi’s summation. Reread her address to the U.S. Military Academy. She did not call our soldiers mercenaries nor think of them in derogatory terms. It was quite the contrary, and she came *here* and *here* is a place with a name. I agree with Objectivism that we DO give our consent to live in a “country” though we don’t give a *constant consent*. We live in a certain geographical area we call The United States and its laws were originally established to protect individual rights. To coexist and protect each individual we established a government. In fact it sounds childish to suggest otherwise, like a two year old wanting to sleep with their “Teddy” but you telling them, “Sweetie it is only a stuffed toy with no real bear inside.” So, senor, one can objectively say we live on a plot of ground with certain coordinates and that place is called America and it is not a fiction (like Teddy having a personality,) and this region has rules in place. It is not some other plot of ground with an agreed upon name like England. Canada exists too. To say there is no country, but only individuals, is like stealing a concept.

Did all the immigrants occupying Ayn Rand’s “Atlantis” consent to be there? Yes. There were no stowaways living on Midas Mulligan’s land. Would any children born there give their consent? Maybe. Maybe not. But until they reached a “majority age” their right of consent was granted by their parents who were their guardians. After that initial agreement to establish a Government is, “implied consent” moral? Hell yes. Shucks, my fellow Americans, may I say, “God bless the U.S.A?”

Peter

Some contrary-ness and agreement.

George H. Smith wrote: Second, philosophic ideals function as moral standards that can be applied to real-life situations. Consider the question, Do we owe allegiance -- i.e., a moral obligation of loyalty and obedience -- to the U.S. government; and if we do, how far does this allegiance extend? There is no way to answer such questions without referring to general principles.
end quote

George H. Smith author, “Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies,” wrote: Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.”
end quote

And George continued with: I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate. end quote

[BaalChatzaf]

17 minutes ago, Peter said:

We live in a certain geographical area we call The United States and its laws were originally established to protect individual rights. To coexist and protect each individual we established a government.

You don't say?  Between 1787 and 1865 (78 years,  three generations)  the U.S. Constitution permitted slavery  and recognized slaves as property.  There was also the fugitive slave law duly passed by congress and signed by  the president. 625,000 people died  and 1.5 million were maimed  to put an end to this.

[Peter]

Ba’al, I can’t tell you how sorry I am that the Jews were enslaved by The South. It was wrong. Moses Malone and Abraham Linkun told Pharaoh to let my people go. Put those bubbies on The Chattanooga Choo Choo they advised. But alas, they would not listen . . .  but now you are suddenly outraged? Why didn’t you say something before this? Maybe an expose to The Times?

I am trying for the record to outrage as many people as possible in one post. Did I win?  Now go get a chocolate chip cookie and simmer down. 

[BaalChatzaf]

34 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al, I can’t tell you how sorry I am that the Jews were enslaved by The South. It was wrong. Moses Malone and Abraham Linkun told Pharaoh to let my people go. Put those bubbies on The Chattanooga Choo Choo they advised. But alas, they would not listen . . .  but now you are suddenly outraged? Why didn’t you say something before this? Maybe an expose to The Times?

I am trying for the record to outrage as many people as possible in one post. Did I win?  Now go get a chocolate chip cookie and simmer down. 

I am just trying to set the record straight.  The Constitution of 1787  had serious flaws,  so serious that they led to the bloodiest war in U.S. History.  We lost more American in the Civil War (or War Between the States)  than in any other war.  The Constitution of 1787 was a seriously flawed design.  Even so it has produced the longest lived republic  in modern times (i.e. since the collapse of the Roman Republic and Empire).  Our constitution flaws and all has one Luminous Glory --- The First Amendment.  Notwithstanding the outrages of the Woodrow Wilson Administration, Americans have the greatest liberty to express themselves compared with other nations past and present. 

[Brant Gaede]

The Constitution embraced slavery for the sake of federalism and the War Between the States was its triumph.

--Brant

700,000 died

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

The Constitution embraced slavery for the sake of federalism and the War Between the States was its triumph.

--Brant

700,000 died

2.5 percent of the population killed and you call it a "triumph"???????

[Brant Gaede]

23 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

2.5 percent of the population killed and you call it a "triumph"???????

The latest figure is 750,000 dead, two-thirds from disease.

700,000 was not 2.5 percent of the population. (40 X 700,000 = 28,000,000. 50 X 700,000 = 35,000,000, the actual population or 2%. Then there were the wounded, over a million, many of them amputees. That's because body shots easily meant death back then).

Sure do call it a "triumph"--for federalism. The great American tragedy. It led to two great world wars, the Cold War, many smaller ones, the rise of many totalitarian countries mostly communist, and today's insane world run by the [stupid and ignorant) big government boys [and girls]).

Whatever his virtues--I think he has quite a few--Trumph is a big government boy, at home and abroad. What we see is what we're getting and will continue to get.

But after him--who? What?

--Brant

in the meantime politics has never been so much fun!

you've come a long ways from not caring about the "collateral damage"

[Peter]

I think war could have been averted, but swaying the South without a national media would have been tough and could have taken generations. And the same holds true for the time in the South after the Civil War from 1865, until the 1950’s and ‘60’s when it was no longer PC to make the negro a second class citizen. What southern states would have abolished slavery on their own? What states would have abandoned Jim Crow laws on their own?

So what if there had been no Civil War? America may have become a super power and an economic power house much sooner and our population would have swelled much sooner. Automation meant that fewer human workers are needed in the fields too.   

Here is a 2002 book report by someone named Bob about the Civil War. I must have proof read it for them.

Peter

For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, by James M. McPherson. New York, 1997. 

For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James M. McPherson explains the reasons why men personally choose to fight in the Civil War.  The author uses personal letters from the soldiers that fought in this war.  Based on the letters McPherson has found that some of the reasons why men fought were due to a sense of duty and a love of their country.  This book shows examples of the differences in ideas that caused brothers to fight against each other.  The book details the willingness of men to fight until they actually got into their first battle.  Armies in both the North and the South had different means of motivation to influence troops to be willing to put their lives at risk and fight for the Armies. This book suggests that one of the reasons that the men were willing to risk their lives because they wanted to avoid the label of coward. The men that fought in the Civil War did so for many reasons. This book showed, through personal letters from soldiers, the reasons why men would risk their lives to support their ideals. 

James M. McPherson is trying to prove that men were willing to fight and kill each other over ideas that they referred to as the “Cause.”  Men in both the North and the South had conflicting views but they felt that they were right and the other side’s ideas were wrong and unjustified.  The Civil War was not fought over money or religious freedom.  In fact, both Armies were Christian and claimed to be fighting to save this world from the heathen ideas of the other. "A Pennsylvania private was sure ("that God will prosper us in the movements about to be made against the cursed rebellion").  The patriotism and ideology of the men in each army fueled their fighting.  Although some men did fight for or against slavery, in most of the letters written by the soldiers, there is no mention of the issue. From these letters, it is clear that slavery was not the main reason that the Civil War was fought. The men who fought in the Civil War felt that they were fighting for the same ideas that the forefathers of this country were trying to instill in America.  Especially in the South, many of the men fighting in the Civil War felt as if it was another Revolutionary War.  Revenge for insult for injury was a reason that many men went to war.  In the South, for example, these men fought because their property was being destroyed by the war that was being engaged in the Southern states.  "Another Texan captain told his wife to teach their children ("a bitter and unrelenting hatred to the Yankee race that had invaded our country and devastated it." (pg.149.) Another reason men fought was for revenge for family members that had been killed.   Although many men in this war were tired and exhausted their pride and conviction of ideas kept them going. 

When doing the research to write this book, James M. McPherson used a variety of resources.  McPherson used diaries and personal letters of the soldiers out of historical journals from research libraries.  In addition to this, other historians were used when writing this book.  McPherson did his research using books and documents about the Civil War that have already been created.  For the most part, secondary sources were used when writing this book.  These secondary sources were from the letters of soldiers that fought in this war.  Using these sources gives the book a personal touch that helps people to actually see why these men fought in the Civil War.  If this book were just written using records and research with specific data, it would not have the same effect.  People actually fought for their ideas and beliefs and were willing to risk their lives to defend it. 

The organization in this book is topical.  Different topics are discussed in this book.  Some of these topics included why brothers fought against each other, reasons for revenge, battle fatigue, reasons to fight, home support of soldiers, and means of motivation.  Tables were used in this book to show the different break down of economic level of the men in the Civil War.  One of the tables showed what states all of the men in the North and South came from.  These tables are good resources to use when looking to see what states most of the men came from that were used in this book. 

In conclusion, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War explained the main reasons why the men fought. McPherson wrote about several main reasons why men wanted to fight.  These included a sense of duty, love of country, patriotism, defending the country, and revenge. This book overall was a very good book to read.  Using the personal letters of soldiers who actually fought in this war helps the reader to see how men would risk their lives to defend their beliefs. It showed the Civil War through the personal writings of soldiers that were involved in this war.  The book also flowed smoothly, was clear and to the point.  This book uses letters that help the reader to see why these men would fight. Simply stating the facts would not invoke the emotion that the letters did.  Varieties of resources were used when writing this book The author used his sources well when writing this book.  The literary quality of this book was great and it showed the Civil War for the war that it really was.  It did not try to explain this war as one for or against slavery but as a war that was fought by two groups of people with very different beliefs.  The author proved his thesis that men are willing to go to great lengths even death to prove their point.  This book was an excellent book to read when studying the Civil War as it describes the events of the war that cannot be explained by just using facts and dates.

[Brant Gaede]

They fought because there was a war on. It's a testosterone thing.

I wanted to fight in the First Gulf War. I could have but for middle-age obligations.

I'm a killer, after all. Let me get my hands (guns*) on some of those ISIS bastards!

--Brant

*my hands aren't up to it, besides, I have to go to the bathroom too often (maybe I could fight for the Kurds if I buff up on my medical skills)

first the testosterone then the reasons

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The latest figure is 750,000 dead, two-thirds from disease.

700,000 was not 2.5 percent of the population. (40 X 700,000 = 28,000,000. 50 X 700,000 = 35,000,000, the actual population or 2%. Then there were the wounded, over a million, many of them amputees. That's because body shots easily meant death back then).

Sure do call it a "triumph"--for federalism. The great American tragedy. It led to two great world wars, the Cold War, many smaller ones, the rise of many totalitarian countries mostly communist, and today's insane world run by the [stupid and ignorant) big government boys [and girls]).

Whatever his virtues--I think he has quite a few--Trumph is a big government boy, at home and abroad. What we see is what we're getting and will continue to get.

But after him--who? What?

--Brant

in the meantime politics has never been so much fun!

you've come a long ways from not caring about the "collateral damage"

o.k.  2 percent.  And you call that  a "triumph".  Yes, I am aware most of the fatalities were NOT  gunshot or cut wounds.  Most died of some kind of infection.

And if not a powerful  central government  here is what would have probably ensued.  Continuation of chattel slavery.   If the States were sovereign there would have been little incentive to put an end to chattel slavery  with mostly Negro victims prior to 1900  and it most likely would have continued past that.

The idea that a human being can be made into property  and be bought,  sold and used at the pleasure of his/her "owner" is an Abomination.  So much for  human rights.  Is that a "triumph"?   Slavery was and is  the sin and curse of the United States and the consequential and associated racism is still with us.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

o.k.  2 percent.  And you call that  a "triumph".  Yes, I am aware most of the fatalities were NOT  gunshot or cut wounds.  Most died of some kind of infection.

And if not a powerful  central government  here is what would have probably ensued.  Continuation of chattel slavery.   If the States were sovereign there would have been little incentive to put an end to chattel slavery  with mostly Negro victims prior to 1900  and it most likely would have continued past that.

The idea that a human being can be made into property  and be bought,  sold and used at the pleasure of his/her "owner" is an Abomination.  So much for  human rights.  Is that a "triumph"?   Slavery was and is  the sin and curse of the United States and the consequential and associated racism is still with us.

If the slave states had gone their own way technology would have crushed the economic value of slavery. The slave states that stayed in the union could have been compelled by law to get rid of their slavery. But the triumph of federalism meant the triumph of (big) warism. The triumph of slavery within the union would have been the extension of slavery into future states on a north-south divide extending west. The Republicans rejected the compromise. That would have averted most of the successions and the war but that would have been a true abomination as mores evolved toward modern understanding, including yours and mine.

Regardless, the southern staes should have gone their own way when the country was set up, but the Founding Fathers wanted it all. They got it. Even with our historical knowledge and the ability to go back in time we couldn't have changed anything. Imperfection marches on. The Civil War was a great reset in human "progress." The first one I can think of aside from the Black Plague. The second was World War One. The reset of all resets. These resets were giant lurches. The gradual ones tend to be economic as with the industrial revolution and now what is going on with enabling technology and electronic communication. Frankly, I can't figure out if that's fluff or historic. How does social media, for instance, substantially increase wealth aside from some obvious benefits? In the meantime, "globalization" is destroying the middle class, at least in this country. The two big questions are what is the future (nature) of work and what is the future of war--wars (big and small and in-between)?

--Brant

I hope I die ignorant about the future of wars--I may have as many as 25 years to go (I'd be happy with 98; I don't need to make it to 100)

[BaalChatzaf]

21 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

If the slave states had gone their own way technology would have crushed the economic value of slavery.

You must be an optimist.  Old bad habits die very hard.  Even if outright ownership  were abolished legally  Negroes still would have been treated as second class folk. 

[Peter]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You must be an optimist.  Old bad habits die very hard.  Even if outright ownership  were abolished legally  Negroes still would have been treated as second class folk. 

Brant also, wrote: The Civil War was a great reset in human "progress." end quote

I still think slavery would have ceased without a war. You can claim that racism still exists / therefor slavery would still exist without a Civil War, but I do not see a direct cause and effect. As white and black Americans became more educated and civilized, slavery would have stopped. We were truly looked down upon because of slavery, especially by our greatest influence, England. And there is still slavery by another name in some parts of the world, but it would have ceased in Christian and secularist America.

A lot of people recognized the contradiction between the Constitution and slavery before the Civil War and not all were in the North. Don’t forget even Abraham Lincoln thought negroes were inferior because they believed their own eyes and thinking. That *belief in one’s own experiences* persists even if no one cares to admit it without looking over their shoulder. Yet old Abe wanted to stop slavery . . . even though he saw lesser innate, (not cultural) intelligence in blacks.     

That does bring up some great “ifs.” What if we HAD gone to war with Cuba in 1962? What if we HAD NOT gone to war with Iraq? I think the former home of exported terrorism, Afghanistan, was a near necessity for some sort of ground war.

What if we go to war with North Korea now? Is it better not to fight and defeat them? I think we don’t pull the first trigger because it would lead to the use of nukes and needless death.
Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Brant also, wrote: The Civil War was a great reset in human "progress." end quote

I still think slavery would have ceased without a war. You can claim that racism still exists / therefor slavery would still exist without a Civil War, but I do not see a direct cause and effect. As white and black Americans became more educated and civilized, slavery would have stopped. We were truly looked down upon because of slavery, especially by our greatest influence, England. And there is still slavery by another name in some parts of the world, but it would have ceased in Christian and secularist America.

A lot of people recognized the contradiction between the Constitution and slavery before the Civil War and not all were in the North. Don’t forget even Abraham Lincoln thought negroes were inferior because they believed their own eyes and thinking. That *belief in one’s own experiences* persists even if no one cares to admit it without looking over their shoulder. Yet old Abe wanted to stop slavery . . . even though he saw lesser innate, (not cultural) intelligence in blacks.     

That does bring up some great “ifs.” What if we HAD gone to war with Cuba in 1962? What if we HAD NOT gone to war with Iraq? I think the former home of exported terrorism, Afghanistan, was a near necessity for some sort of ground war.

What if we go to war with North Korea now? Is it better not to fight and defeat them? I think we don’t pull the first trigger because it would lead to the use of nukes and needless death.
Peter

Even if Dixie had legally abolished chattel slavery of Negroes,  I have good reason to think that Negro inhabitants of the south would not have gotten full political rights.,  Look at what DID happen.  The civil rights act was passed but only after serious scuffles with some of the southern states  and it took several years to fully enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1965.  Do you think it would have gone more smoothly if the Civil War did not happen and slavery was abolished in 1865?  As it was  the Black Codes that existed in the Southern States enforced de-facto slavery (serfdom actually)  on black folk. 

Economic factors  do not  fully bring about rational states of affairs.  There are cultural habits that are oblivious to economic rationality.  

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Even if Dixie had legally abolished chattel slavery of Negroes,  I have good reason to think that Negro inhabitants of the south would not have gotten full political rights.,  Look at what DID happen.  The civil rights act was passed but only after serious scuffles with some of the southern states  and it took several years to fully enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1965.  Do you think it would have gone more smoothly if the Civil War did not happen and slavery was abolished in 1865?  As it was  the Black Codes that existed in the Southern States enforced de-facto slavery (serfdom actually)  on black folk. 

Economic factors  do not  fully bring about rational states of affairs.  There are cultural habits that are oblivious to economic rationality.  

The Civil War and Reconstruction had a lot to do with the vile racism that followed, not that there wasn't a lot of that prior, but it was more wood on the fire.

If the South had some group guilt for racism before that war, perhaps what replaced it was hatred to the North and wartime atavism.

The Southern economy was destroyed by using industrialized and total warfare. The U.S. didn't do that again until WWII. What the machine gun was to WWI the air-delivered bombs were to WWII. The nukes are next, but not yet. The atomic bombings of Japan were merely a taste and a continuation of the fire bombings which did as much if not more damage killing many more people.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote: The atomic bombings of Japan were merely a taste and a continuation of the fire bombings which did as much if not more damage killing many more people. end quote

I read about the fire bombings in Japan especially over Tokyo. So in a sense you are correct. Total obliteration over Tokyo by conventional means lead to a mind-set of ending the war asap and therefor to our latest 1940's innovation, to a nuclear bomb over Nagasaki.

Now here is an ARI test of inclusiveness. Where and how many nukes should we use to make the world a better place?

Peter