- 19 Apr 2018 20:23
#14907739
No you didn't.
That must be why when Roman government disappeared from Western Europe and was replaced by feudalism, the population declined by 1/4 over the next century....
No, landowning was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of securing property in fixed improvements, just as slavery was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of labor shortage resulting from warfare. The quick and dirty solutions were better than no solution, but today we know there are better solutions.
The alternative to slavery was to kill captives so they could never fight you again. That wasted labor, which was often very scarce after a war, and kept population small. Evil as it was, slavery was better than genocide, and definitely added enormously to the rise of humanity. Classical civilization was built on slavery.
Likewise, the alternative to landowning was violating the property rights of those who made fixed improvements. That made investment in fixed improvements too risky, keeping production and population down and poverty high. Evil as it was, landowning was better than the permanent poverty and intermittent starvation of hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding economies; so like slavery, it definitely added to the rise of humanity.
Alexander and the Romans had begun to learn that assimilation was more efficient than slavery, but they did not know how to manage it. Today we know that trading with or assimilating defeated enemies works way better than enslaving them. Similarly, we know that requiring landholders to make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of the land works way better than just giving them something for nothing.
It was actually pretty silly. I was never a big fan of George Peppard.
The actual quote says greed -- unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" -- is the root of all manner of evil, which is true almost by definition.
Yeah, but without the wheel, we'd be walking or riding horses. Lack of money would certainly have been inconvenient, but not an insuperable barrier. Modern data processing technology would make it quite feasible to do without money. We CANNOT do without the wheel, clothing, mathematics, written language, etc.
Zamuel wrote:... already did that ...
No you didn't.
Recall that landownership / feudalism allowed the population growth that enabled progress to industrialization.
That must be why when Roman government disappeared from Western Europe and was replaced by feudalism, the population declined by 1/4 over the next century....
A vital link in the chain leading to modern society. Slavery on the other hand was a regression to barbarity, it added nothing positive to the rise of humanity.
No, landowning was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of securing property in fixed improvements, just as slavery was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of labor shortage resulting from warfare. The quick and dirty solutions were better than no solution, but today we know there are better solutions.
The alternative to slavery was to kill captives so they could never fight you again. That wasted labor, which was often very scarce after a war, and kept population small. Evil as it was, slavery was better than genocide, and definitely added enormously to the rise of humanity. Classical civilization was built on slavery.
Likewise, the alternative to landowning was violating the property rights of those who made fixed improvements. That made investment in fixed improvements too risky, keeping production and population down and poverty high. Evil as it was, landowning was better than the permanent poverty and intermittent starvation of hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding economies; so like slavery, it definitely added to the rise of humanity.
Alexander and the Romans had begun to learn that assimilation was more efficient than slavery, but they did not know how to manage it. Today we know that trading with or assimilating defeated enemies works way better than enslaving them. Similarly, we know that requiring landholders to make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of the land works way better than just giving them something for nothing.
Maybe Mr. T's ( ) attitude can be attributed to it (indirectly). I guess maybe "The -A- Team" was before your time... He called everybody he respected enough to speak to "fool." Good show, but you probably wouldn't have liked it, hard on delicate sensibilities I suppose.
It was actually pretty silly. I was never a big fan of George Peppard.
Yep ... good ole "root of all evil" ...
The actual quote says greed -- unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" -- is the root of all manner of evil, which is true almost by definition.
We'd still be swapping fish for beer without it.
Yeah, but without the wheel, we'd be walking or riding horses. Lack of money would certainly have been inconvenient, but not an insuperable barrier. Modern data processing technology would make it quite feasible to do without money. We CANNOT do without the wheel, clothing, mathematics, written language, etc.