- 05 Aug 2010 05:47
#13467598
For the businessmen who gain from colonial gold, there is no cost. All the cost is born by the state, which is born by everyone. So this is the only "explanation" I can think of for your unlikely claim that colonies cost white-colonizers more than they gain.
If colonies were so expensive, no one would bother having them. I find the "argument" that colonies are "more costly than they're worth" not even worth the time to discuss, it's so illogical. It sounds like something callous rich people say to their Haitian maids. "Oh, those colonies cost us so much, sometimes I wonder why we bother."
When suggesting something this illogical, the burden of proof is on you, not those who don't believe you.
In response to the idea that colonies in fact constituted a greater cost than a gain long term, and that indeed some countries were ruined by their colonial schemes (Scotland and the Darien scheme) you had... no response.
For the businessmen who gain from colonial gold, there is no cost. All the cost is born by the state, which is born by everyone. So this is the only "explanation" I can think of for your unlikely claim that colonies cost white-colonizers more than they gain.
If colonies were so expensive, no one would bother having them. I find the "argument" that colonies are "more costly than they're worth" not even worth the time to discuss, it's so illogical. It sounds like something callous rich people say to their Haitian maids. "Oh, those colonies cost us so much, sometimes I wonder why we bother."
When suggesting something this illogical, the burden of proof is on you, not those who don't believe you.