I'm asking in the context of the last say, 400 years or so, since that's when Europe (and the US eventually) really started to take off.
In part I'm also asking, did imperialism give western nations a head start, or was it other factors such as economic freedom, trade, culture, etc.?
I don't think he is justifying slavery, but accurately portraying the evolution of a society,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stranger:The capital required to equip a fleet of ships and operate them over the entire world points otherwise. This was the reason European companies could colonize any place in the world, while Zulus, for example, could only migrate around their homeland in Africa.
The capital was provided by [ directly or indirectly ] by the State apparatus in the hope to bring wealth to their homeland. It is mercantilism. Britian didn't operate on anything else until the period of de-colonization.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
liberty student: Juan: As of late, it seems that Lam's hobby is to analyze politics from a materialistic point of view, and somehow justify slavery...cute. I don't think he is justifying slavery, but accurately portraying the evolution of a society, and slavery is a typical economic system that nearly every race and region has gone through at one point or another.
Juan: As of late, it seems that Lam's hobby is to analyze politics from a materialistic point of view, and somehow justify slavery...cute.
I don't think he is justifying slavery, but accurately portraying the evolution of a society, and slavery is a typical economic system that nearly every race and region has gone through at one point or another.
Well an evolution of society would mean there is some kind of determined dialectic behind the progression. That would be called a 'Whig' theory of history.
True, and the Dutch East India company was granted a 21 year monopoly as the world's first corporation. I would like to believe that western superiority was all capitalism, but even today, mercantilism (exploitation) in the 3rd world and imperialism are still a big reason for western domination.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Laughing Man:Well an evolution of society would mean there is some kind of determined dialectic behind the progression. That would be called a 'Whig' theory of history.
I'm just basing this off several hundreds hours I have invested into CIV 4.
liberty student: True, and the Dutch East India company was granted a 21 year monopoly as the world's first corporation. I would like to believe that western superiority was all capitalism, but even today, mercantilism (exploitation) in the 3rd world and imperialism are still a big reason for western domination.
Exactly, I think that we are going to experience more mercantilist tendencies in the future for the reason that countries that we would formerly borrow from are reluctant to continue. Is it any suprise that we had that 'buy American' clause not too long ago? With this economic crises, the state is more then ready to rely on zero sum trade rather then positive sum.
liberty student:I'm just basing this off several hundreds hours I have invested into CIV 4.
I bet your icon is Gandhi
Stephen Forde: Imperialism is a major drag on economic development. War is very expensive and the burden is born through taxes. A higher burden in taxes means that producers will tend to substituted present consumption and leisure for savings and future investment all other things being equal. Also expropriation, mercantilism, and slavery are never as productive as free trade and voluntary exchange since these are just forms of exploitation of foreigners and have the same effects on production for foreigners as is does for a domestic population. The hampering of the international division of labour reduces the reduces productivity of international trade to a greater extent than the benefits of exploitation in the long run. So, if anything, Western imperialism has made the West even less wealthy than it would have been if it had never forcibly colonized the rest of the world.
Imperialism is a major drag on economic development. War is very expensive and the burden is born through taxes. A higher burden in taxes means that producers will tend to substituted present consumption and leisure for savings and future investment all other things being equal. Also expropriation, mercantilism, and slavery are never as productive as free trade and voluntary exchange since these are just forms of exploitation of foreigners and have the same effects on production for foreigners as is does for a domestic population. The hampering of the international division of labour reduces the reduces productivity of international trade to a greater extent than the benefits of exploitation in the long run.
So, if anything, Western imperialism has made the West even less wealthy than it would have been if it had never forcibly colonized the rest of the world.
I've heard this before and don't disagree with what you're fundmentally saying, but I'm thinking in this case (the "age of imperialism") the temporary European advantages in warfare actually may have made such wars and resource plundering profitable. Such a dynamic will probably never come about again, but I think it should be kept in mind during that period unless you have some historical evidence basically showing that imperialism was a failure.
As far as the modern age goes, I'm sure a true socialist or other loon would look at how western corporations set up operation in 2nd or 3rd world nations to "exploit their natural resources" and say that 1st world nations are taking advantage of those countries. I'll have to think on this a little more but at the moment since the only benefit to the 3rd world nation is job creation, I'm not sure my counter argument is very strong.
liberty student: Laughing Man:Well an evolution of society would mean there is some kind of determined dialectic behind the progression. That would be called a 'Whig' theory of history. I'm just basing this off several hundreds hours I have invested into CIV 4.
Try this!
Statism is a religion.
filc: liberty student: Laughing Man:Well an evolution of society would mean there is some kind of determined dialectic behind the progression. That would be called a 'Whig' theory of history. I'm just basing this off several hundreds hours I have invested into CIV 4. Try this!
"Discover a strange and wondrous land in the uttermost East: the Orient!"
Enslave the Chinaman to highly addictive opium. Destroy social traditions that are deemed barbaric and odd. Conquer a whole nation and subject them to the 'unequal treaties' and what will be later called 'the century of humility'.
Dawn of Discovery...where libertarians can BE the imperialists
As a side note, I wish games like this would allow for libertarian societies. Peaceable peoples only interested in trade and prosperity. I demand Anarchism in Dawn of Discovery and Civ 4!
SLAVERY BY OPIUM!
On an observational note, the most realistic free-market economy based games ended up being the most fun, even if they were skewed in one way or another.
I cite old Star Wars Galaxies. The only other game that parallels SWG at that level of realism as far as market based economics are concerned is Eve-Online which is also a fun one.
Natalie: laminustacitus:It is most likely that the Western nations were able to abolish slavery was because of their economic, esspecially industrial, prosperity - they could afford the costly process while less developed nations that did not have the industry of the Western ones simply could not. But how do you explain the fact that slavery disappeared long before European countries started becoming prosperous?
laminustacitus:It is most likely that the Western nations were able to abolish slavery was because of their economic, esspecially industrial, prosperity - they could afford the costly process while less developed nations that did not have the industry of the Western ones simply could not.
But how do you explain the fact that slavery disappeared long before European countries started becoming prosperous?
Slavery disappeared in Europe itself, ignoring any influence ideologies played, because of the fact there was no economic use for slaves in Europe; the land was not organized in large plantations like in areas where slavery flourished. In addition, there is a strong correlation between nations that depended on slavery for economic reasons, and the length of time it took them to abolish the institution.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
This is how I think it went down.
The agricultural revolution made rapid gains in human prosperity possible. But then a formula of violence and brainwashing was discovered which enabled some men to become persistent parasites of that prosperity (the state).
A historical accident disrupted the winning formula of the state. This historical accident was the nature of the fall of the Roman Empire. For the first time in history, the brain and the muscle of the state were sundered. The existence of an independent Catholic Church challenging and hobbling European rulers (who themselves challenged and hobbled the Church in return). This resulted in the high middle ages and its largely ignored industrial and intellectual revolutions. The stronger property rights that arose under conditions of political fragmentation and weakness led to dramatic innovations in the harnessing of water and wind power and in agricultural techniques, which in turn led to an explosion in the production of food, metals, textiles, and other goods. A linguistically unified network of clerics sundered from unified secular power fostered the rise of Aristoteleanism and the university system, which engendered a bourgeoning intellectual class of rapidly increasing sophistication not beholden to a central state.
With the breakdown of the independence of the Catholic Church in the 14th century, the state became resurgent, and economic growth plummeted. But the seeds of freedom had already been sown. When the spread of resurgent autocracy reached England in the form of the Tudor dynasty, it met with stiff resistance, which eventually evolved into the English Civil War. This war and the conflicts following it dramatically weakened the English state, which made possible the industrial revolution in that country as well as the spread of liberal philosophy. The Age of Revolution was basically an attempt in other European and colonial nations to copy the success of the English experiment.
Empire was an effect of prosperity ill-used, not a cause of prosperity's explosive growth. Modern empire was made possible by the wealth accumulated in the industrial revolution. Of course some wealth was squeezed out of imperial subjects, as has always been the case with empires. But such rapacity is minute in comparison to the primary factor of freedom in generating wealth.
The historical accident that started this all happened in Europe, which is why its eventual consequences happened in Europe.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
He is asking for a question: "Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?"
laminustacitus:To tell you the blunt truth: this is a question that cannot be given any justice whatsoever in less than one hundred pages...
earthmoving
Torsten:The western Nations are inhabited by White people, while the third-world countries are inhabited by non-White or mixed race people. The mentality of White people allows for the building and maintaining of institutions that advance social and technological progress.
What is "the mentality of white people"?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap