On 4/6/2024 6:20 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:41:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Since you're complaining about the American
>> set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you
>> like about it and why?
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> My preference is for an imaginary country ...

Fairy tales are fun for some people.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/6/2024 4:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood),
>>>>> then perhaps we
>>>>> should finance our government using the traditional
>>>>> methods of
>>>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.
>>>>> This has worked
>>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the
>>>>> winners).  If you
>>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors
>>>>> usually hire
>>>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify
>>>>> their actions, all
>>>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than
>>>> the incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after
>>>> the XVI Amendment. Predictably the situation has
>>>> degraded such that more than half of us pay zip and many
>>>> of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they
>>>> are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And
>>>> also predictably election results reflect the avarice
>>>> and envy of the takers against the makers, creating
>>>> societal and cultural divisions to our greater loss.
>>>> There has to be a better way. And there was.
>>>
>>> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage
>>> things. Which leads me to again ask: Is there a nation
>>> that finances its operation in ways you like?
>>>
>>> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures
>>> that generate far less economic disparity. Taxes are
>>> higher, but tax-generated benefits are also far higher,
>>> and citizens are generally much more content. It's not
>>> that there are zero problems, but that there seem to be
>>> far fewer problems than we have.
>>>
>>> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say
>>> "The U.S. did things better in 1795" or whenever.
>>> Conditions were totally different then regarding society,
>>> technology, morality, customs, personal freedom etc.
>>> Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's just go
>>> back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose
>>> the vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of
>>> while males as well.
>>>
>>
>> Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat
>> on it later.
>>
>> As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other
>> cultural failings you mention, no nation in history
>> enjoyed so large a wealth increase and so fast and so
>> broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and 1914.
>>
>> Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have
>> shouted over the actual data:
>>
>> https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
>>
>> But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and
>> so 'official numbers' utterly ignore public transfers
>> (rent, food, medical, walking around money, negative
>> income tax and so on) which are no longer negligible. They
>> are in fact a huge drain on our society.  Economists have
>> noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.
>
> Nice try, but you really didn't address my points.
>
> You said "the original constitution had a better ethos." I
> tried to explain that the original constitution had severe
> problems, and we're never going back to it, for good
> reasons. Besides, let's remember that every change in the
> constitution was, in effect, approved by the constitution.
> It does specify a mechanism for changes, which is the
> opposite of "Thou must never improve this document."
>
> Also note, I didn't say "income disparity." I said "economic
> disparity." There is a difference.
>
> And your linked article is remarkably non-specific. It
> alludes to data that it claims isn't counted, but it doesn't
> seem to be a source of much of that data. I suppose they
> want me to buy that book, but they could certainly have
> provided a bit more detail to convince me.
>
> Regarding the surge in U.S. economics between 1865 and 1914:
> The U.S. was in a pretty unique position in the world. By
> 1865, the original inhabitants of the U.S. had been pretty
> thoroughly wiped out. The few remaining were mostly confined
> on reservations. Their land was given away or sold cheaply,
> and the resources on that land were up for grabs.
>
> And being at the dawn of the industrial age, the U.S. had
> the technology to take advantage of a continent full of
> untapped resources. So people like Carnegie could purchase,
> control and use vast amounts of resources, and make money
> using the new technology and the very inexpensive labor of
> countless immigrants drawn in part by the promise of former
> Indian land - even if that land was a small plot inside a city.
>
> Those were huge advantages, ones that other countries lacked
> at least in part. So I think the U.S. would have succeeded
> very well even with a markedly different constitution or
> political system.
>
> Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other
> nations I mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that
> many European nations have a far more contented population
> than the U.S., plus lower crime rates, less violence, more
> economic security, etc. Much of those are attributed to a
> different attitude toward taxation, wealth and social care.
>
> It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income, wealth
> and benefit rules. But let me ask again: Since you're
> complaining about the American set of rules, is there a
> country whose rules you prefer? What do you like about it
> and why?
>

Andrew Carnegie is an excellent example, a man (legal
immigrant I might add) who gave much more to this nation
than he took from it. Popular myth, such as the utterly
ahistorical presentism of the current educational propaganda
in our schools, reduces USA's greatest era to a dark time of
'robber barons', a claim which spins a blanket of lies from
a few errant threads.

Anyone moderately well read in the period will know that
excesses were real but more exception than rule.

Another excellent example is John D Rockefeller, who not
only saved the whales (literally, albeit inadvertently) but
dropped the going rate for kerosene from over $1 to 17 cents
in a few short years. You're big on costs and benefits
generally, so I know you'd appreciate the much better lives
of 75 million citizens against Mr Rockefeller's earned
wealth. If success is a sin, how do you judge George
Westinhouse, Thomas Edison or the perpetually litigious
Wrights, all of whom have decidedly distasteful aspects
thrown in with their gifts to our country.

And criticizing the Homestead Act? Really? We have a great
comparison to The Russian Empire where slavery was abolished
just before our own and shared a huge expanse of sparsely
settled fertile land with a similar desire to develop it.
We succeeded swimmingly while Russia never has. Never, in
that chinese are simply appropriating Siberia across the
Amur, as there's no one there to stop them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50185006
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 23:08:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/6/2024 6:20 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:41:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Since you're complaining about the American
>>> set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you
>>> like about it and why?
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> My preference is for an imaginary country ...
>
>Fairy tales are fun for some people.

Krygowski can't reply without editing what I posted. That's typical of
someone who can't deal with dismissal of their argumentative demands.

Like I said and he snipped....

One does not need to specify a preferred existing country to dislike
the direction this country is going.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/direction-of-country

Here's my complete unedited statement that Krygowski had no response
to.

My preference is for an imaginary country where there are no
professional politicians (that means term limits for Congress) and
where the government responds to what the people believe to be in
their best interest instead of what the professional politicians say
it is.

On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
>>>> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
>>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.  This has worked
>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners).  If you
>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
>>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
>>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
>>> incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI Amendment.
>>> Predictably the situation has degraded such that more than half of us
>>> pay zip and many of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e.,
>>> they are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also
>>> predictably election results reflect the avarice and envy of the
>>> takers against the makers, creating societal and cultural divisions
>>> to our greater loss.  There has to be a better way. And there was.
>>
>> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which
>> leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation
>> in ways you like?
>>
>> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate
>> far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated
>> benefits are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more
>> content. It's not that there are zero problems, but that there seem to
>> be far fewer problems than we have.
>>
>> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S.
>> did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally
>> different then regarding society, technology, morality, customs,
>> personal freedom etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's
>> just go back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the
>> vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of while males as well.
>>
>
> Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on it later.

bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.

'except for that'.....

'except for that'...

IOW, they aren't really originalists at all.

It's overly simplistic and myoptic to wax for the 'good ole days'.
Things change. Get used to it.

>
> As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other cultural
> failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed so large a wealth
> increase and so fast and so broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and
> 1914.

which also lead to labor riots and such "laudable" MAGA type events like
the the homestead riots and the triangle shirtwaist fire....

'except for that'....

'except for that'.....

so much for originalism.

>
> Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted over the
> actual data:
>
> https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
>
> But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so 'official
> numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent, food, medical, walking
> around money, negative income tax and so on) which are no longer
> negligible. They are in fact a huge drain on our society.  Economists
> have noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.

Yup, abolish minimum wage, get rid of that pesky OSHA, fuck the 40 hour
work week, let's put children back to work in mines...they're smaller
and can fit into tighter crevices - but hey, Carnegie built a few
libraries, so I guess that makes chaining children to looms for 2 cents
a day makes it all worth while.

'well, except for that...'

'except for that'.....

You can whine about fucking strawmen all you want, but excesses by
oligarchs are prevalent even to this day.

https://perfectunion.us/how-the-sacklers-got-and-stayed-rich/

Gee, maybe if they just built a few parks we could ignore their greed
murdered millions.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as
>"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
>that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
>version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
>yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
>vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.

Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.

Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.

On 4/7/2024 11:25 AM, zen cycle wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood),
>>>>> then perhaps we
>>>>> should finance our government using the traditional
>>>>> methods of
>>>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.
>>>>> This has worked
>>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the
>>>>> winners).  If you
>>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors
>>>>> usually hire
>>>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify
>>>>> their actions, all
>>>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than
>>>> the incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after
>>>> the XVI Amendment. Predictably the situation has
>>>> degraded such that more than half of us pay zip and many
>>>> of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they
>>>> are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And
>>>> also predictably election results reflect the avarice
>>>> and envy of the takers against the makers, creating
>>>> societal and cultural divisions to our greater loss.
>>>> There has to be a better way. And there was.
>>>
>>> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage
>>> things. Which leads me to again ask: Is there a nation
>>> that finances its operation in ways you like?
>>>
>>> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures
>>> that generate far less economic disparity. Taxes are
>>> higher, but tax-generated benefits are also far higher,
>>> and citizens are generally much more content. It's not
>>> that there are zero problems, but that there seem to be
>>> far fewer problems than we have.
>>>
>>> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say
>>> "The U.S. did things better in 1795" or whenever.
>>> Conditions were totally different then regarding society,
>>> technology, morality, customs, personal freedom etc.
>>> Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's just go
>>> back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose
>>> the vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of
>>> while males as well.
>>>
>>
>> Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat
>> on it later.
>
> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming
> _such_ things as "original Constitution had a better ethos"
> come up empty when reminded that racism and misogyny were
> quite literally written into the original version. Sure,
> when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh, yeah,
> except for that', then when asked about giving women the
> right to vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>
> 'except for that'.....
>
> 'except for that'...
>
> IOW, they aren't really originalists at all.
>
> It's overly simplistic and myoptic to wax for the 'good ole
> days'. Things change. Get used to it.
>
>>
>> As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other
>> cultural failings you mention, no nation in history
>> enjoyed so large a wealth increase and so fast and so
>> broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and 1914.
>
> which also lead to labor riots and such "laudable" MAGA type
> events like the the homestead riots and the triangle
> shirtwaist fire....
>
> 'except for that'....
>
> 'except for that'.....
>
> so much for originalism.
>
>
>>
>> Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have
>> shouted over the actual data:
>>
>> https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
>>
>> But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and
>> so 'official numbers' utterly ignore public transfers
>> (rent, food, medical, walking around money, negative
>> income tax and so on) which are no longer negligible. They
>> are in fact a huge drain on our society.  Economists have
>> noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.
>
> Yup, abolish minimum wage, get rid of that pesky OSHA, fuck
> the 40 hour work week, let's put children back to work in
> mines...they're smaller and can fit into tighter crevices  -
> but hey, Carnegie built a few libraries, so I guess that
> makes chaining children to looms for 2 cents a day makes it
> all worth while.
>
> 'well, except for that...'
>
> 'except for that'.....
>
> You can whine about fucking strawmen all you want, but
> excesses by oligarchs are prevalent even to this day.
>
> https://perfectunion.us/how-the-sacklers-got-and-stayed-rich/
>
> Gee, maybe if they just built a few parks we could ignore
> their greed murdered millions.
>
>
>
>

Your feelings aside, the actual minimum wage is, and always
will be, zero.
The higher the regulatory burden, the larger the number of
people earning zero.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/california-s-20-minimum-wage-forces-mass-fast-food-layoffs/ss-BB1kTBU3

And it's worse even than the Dismal Science aspect. It's
moral failure as well. As I mentioned regarding complex and
corrupt tax schemes, major Newsome contributor Panera Bread
finagled a special exemption to the new $20 minimum.

https://fortune.com/2024/03/01/california-minimum-wage-law-gavin-newsom-panera-bread-billionaire-exemption/

As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more
burdensome, bribery or outright illegal activity will become
more attractive and more pervasive. Examples abound, such as
the 20:1 ratio of illegal pot shops to licensed outlets in
NYC. The illegal ones aren't ever closed because the
licensed shops cannot afford kickbacks.

For many years, I've asked proponents of State meddling in
employment contracts* why not $100 per hour? Why not $500?

*See much ignored US Constitution contracts clause. Another
loss in our present post-constitutional dissolution.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as
>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>
> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it
> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
>
> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.

Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.

Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call
to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and
limited reprisal.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/7/2024 10:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 4:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> ... I think the U.S. would have succeeded very well even with
>> a markedly different constitution or political system.
>>
>> Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other nations I
>> mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that many European nations
>> have a far more contented population than the U.S., plus lower crime
>> rates, less violence, more economic security, etc. Much of those are
>> attributed to a different attitude toward taxation, wealth and social
>> care.
>>
>> It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income, wealth and
>> benefit rules. But let me ask again: Since you're complaining about
>> the American set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer?
>> What do you like about it and why?
>>
>
> Andrew Carnegie is an excellent example, a man (legal immigrant I might
> add) who gave much more to this nation than he took from it.  Popular
> myth, such as the utterly ahistorical presentism of the current
> educational propaganda in our schools, reduces USA's greatest era to a
> dark time of 'robber barons', a claim  which spins a blanket of lies
> from a few errant threads.
>
> Anyone moderately well read in the period will know that excesses were
> real but more exception than rule.
>
> Another excellent example is John D Rockefeller, who not only saved the
> whales (literally, albeit inadvertently) but dropped the going rate for
> kerosene from over $1 to 17 cents in a few short years. You're big on
> costs and benefits generally, so I know you'd appreciate the much better
> lives of 75 million citizens against Mr Rockefeller's earned wealth.  If
> success is a sin, how do you judge George Westinhouse, Thomas Edison or
> the perpetually litigious Wrights, all of whom have decidedly
> distasteful aspects thrown in with their gifts to our country.
>
> And criticizing the Homestead Act? Really?  We have a great comparison
> to The Russian Empire where slavery was abolished just before our own
> and shared a huge expanse of sparsely settled fertile land with a
> similar desire to develop it. We succeeded swimmingly while Russia never
> has.

It should be obvious that I'm not claiming Russia has a better political
system than ours.

The fact remains: Once Americans got past the Appalachians, they were
looking at an immense continent's worth of resources, with essentially
nobody to stop them from taking whatever they wanted. Practically
speaking, it was owned by nobody - or at least, nobody who could
effectively object.

And as I said, within decades - i.e. once the Civil War was settled -
America had not only the manpower but the technology to begin scooping
up all those resources. (Much to the detriment of Native Americans, of
course.) I don't think any other nation had that perfect set of
advantages. For example, Australia's deserts didn't work nearly so well.

We also had a big advantage in that unlike Europe, we suffered far less
devastation from wars. So to attribute American success 1865 to 1914 to
only the (amended!) constitution is ignoring a lot. In fact, those
benefits I listed extended to at least 1945 and somewhat beyond. We
didn't win World War II because our soldiers were braver than the
enemy's. We won largely because we were able to employ far more
resources than theirs.

And our current status is not nearly as glorious as many super-patriotic
Americans pretend. There are many, many ways in which the U.S. lags
behind many other nations. Yes, I know many immigrants choose to come
here - but those tend to be from places like Guatemala. I'll admit,
we're much better than Guatemala.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more burdensome, bribery
> or outright illegal activity will become more attractive and more
> pervasive.

Perhaps so. But I'd call that a universal phenomenon that other
countries seem to do pretty well, judging by results.

Also, "regulatory structural inefficiency" is hardly confined to
government initiatives. The insurance industry imposes enough of that to
cause U.S. medical care to be the most expensive in the world, and far
from the most effective.

So again, what country has a system of which you approve, or at least
like better than ours? Can we compare data?

If you can't name such a country, it seems like your libertarian dreams
are unrealistic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/7/2024 12:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 10:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 4:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> ... I think the U.S. would have succeeded very well even
>>> with
>>> a markedly different constitution or political system.
>>>
>>> Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other
>>> nations I mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that
>>> many European nations have a far more contented
>>> population than the U.S., plus lower crime rates, less
>>> violence, more economic security, etc. Much of those are
>>> attributed to a different attitude toward taxation,
>>> wealth and social care.
>>>
>>> It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income,
>>> wealth and benefit rules. But let me ask again: Since
>>> you're complaining about the American set of rules, is
>>> there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you like
>>> about it and why?
>>>
>>
>> Andrew Carnegie is an excellent example, a man (legal
>> immigrant I might add) who gave much more to this nation
>> than he took from it.  Popular myth, such as the utterly
>> ahistorical presentism of the current educational
>> propaganda in our schools, reduces USA's greatest era to a
>> dark time of 'robber barons', a claim  which spins a
>> blanket of lies from a few errant threads.
>>
>> Anyone moderately well read in the period will know that
>> excesses were real but more exception than rule.
>>
>> Another excellent example is John D Rockefeller, who not
>> only saved the whales (literally, albeit inadvertently)
>> but dropped the going rate for kerosene from over $1 to 17
>> cents in a few short years. You're big on costs and
>> benefits generally, so I know you'd appreciate the much
>> better lives of 75 million citizens against Mr
>> Rockefeller's earned wealth.  If success is a sin, how do
>> you judge George Westinhouse, Thomas Edison or the
>> perpetually litigious Wrights, all of whom have decidedly
>> distasteful aspects thrown in with their gifts to our
>> country.
>>
>> And criticizing the Homestead Act? Really?  We have a
>> great comparison to The Russian Empire where slavery was
>> abolished just before our own and shared a huge expanse of
>> sparsely settled fertile land with a similar desire to
>> develop it. We succeeded swimmingly while Russia never has.
>
> It should be obvious that I'm not claiming Russia has a
> better political system than ours.
>
> The fact remains: Once Americans got past the Appalachians,
> they were looking at an immense continent's worth of
> resources, with essentially nobody to stop them from taking
> whatever they wanted. Practically speaking, it was owned by
> nobody - or at least, nobody who could effectively object.
>
> And as I said, within decades - i.e. once the Civil War was
> settled - America had not only the manpower but the
> technology to begin scooping up all those resources. (Much
> to the detriment of Native Americans, of course.) I don't
> think any other nation had that perfect set of advantages.
> For example, Australia's deserts didn't work nearly so well.
>
> We also had a big advantage in that unlike Europe, we
> suffered far less devastation from wars. So to attribute
> American success 1865 to 1914 to only the (amended!)
> constitution is ignoring a lot. In fact, those benefits I
> listed extended to at least 1945 and somewhat beyond. We
> didn't win World War II because our soldiers were braver
> than the enemy's. We won largely because we were able to
> employ far more resources than theirs.
>
> And our current status is not nearly as glorious as many
> super-patriotic Americans pretend. There are many, many ways
> in which the U.S. lags behind many other nations. Yes, I
> know many immigrants choose to come here - but those tend to
> be from places like Guatemala. I'll admit, we're much better
> than Guatemala.
>

> 'owned by nobody'

It was owned. By the Federal government. That was part of
admission to the Union; untitled land became Federal
property. Except in Texas, because Sam Houston was steadfast
on that point. Down to today the only Federal land in Texas
is that which was given or sold by the people of Texas.
(1.8% vs next door NM which is 85% Federal land). Federal
land was given under terms of the Homestead Act (a quite
foresighted scheme) and much was also sold outright.

Contemporaneously, Russia had the same development problem
and also a newly emancipated population. Despite our
successful example the Empire, the brief Republic and the
communist regimes after never had anything like our
Homestead Act and much of Siberia remains sparsely settled,
even wild, today.

Brasil is interesting in that similarly rich land resources
(their abolition was twenty tears after USA), with no formal
plan, are finally being developed by farmer/settlers not
unlike our 19th century forefathers (or yours. Mine weren't
here yet). Almost entirely without legal structure, and
despite nattering of rich lefties in our hemisphere, but
very successful so maybe we didn't _need_ the Homestead Act
if we only had lax enforcement of restrictions. One wonders...

> [post Civil War] "America had not only the manpower but
the technology"

True. So did Italy, Greece and The Rus* (what is now
Ukraine, Poland, Bessarabia, Moldava, Byelorussia, er,
Belarus). Large numbers left anyway and worked equally hard
if not harder and longer here. Why? Personal liberty and
property rights. And for great grandfathers of some close
friends another feature, no Cossacks.

Lastly, you do make an excellent if largely unappreciated
point. I was very much aware when first seriously studying
economics (not in a school) that the postwar wealth and
imperial power of my youth was an unique historical anomaly.
Sad to say, this too shall pass. As Sweden (similarly
spared the devastation of the 1932~1945 wars) discovered,
bad policy based on temporary wealth can fund a downward
spiral of socialism. Avoiding disaster the Swedes have
turned sharply away from the worst of it now (though they do
suffer the crimes of rape, robbery, violence and even hand
grenade bombings from poorly regulated immigration). If the
Swedes can wise up I suppose there's hope for us as well.

*a discussion of US success in public stocks and bonds,
active capital markets generally would be tangential here.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/7/2024 12:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more
>> burdensome, bribery or outright illegal activity will
>> become more attractive and more pervasive.
>
> Perhaps so. But I'd call that a universal phenomenon that
> other countries seem to do pretty well, judging by results.
>
> Also, "regulatory structural inefficiency" is hardly
> confined to government initiatives. The insurance industry
> imposes enough of that to cause U.S. medical care to be the
> most expensive in the world, and far from the most effective.
>
> So again, what country has a system of which you approve, or
> at least like better than ours? Can we compare data?
>
> If you can't name such a country, it seems like your
> libertarian dreams are unrealistic.
>

I liked US medical services delivery plenty before it became
'improved until it didn't work'. But I am admitted outlier;
personally almost always a cash customer and we are now a
targeted group for whom no punishment is harsh enough.

I have noted here before that I bought a major medical plan
for my employees with a $1000 deductible (cost the company
$35 per capita), self insured between $5000 and $1000 with
the employee responsible for the first $500. Good system for
a large group of young active people and trust me no one
spends his own cash on frivolous medical visits so it was
quite self balancing. We had very good claims/expense
experience for a few years. Then one day the State of
Wisconsin decreed that such policies were not expensible
unless they included pregnancy and mental illness. Rate
quotes were in the $125~$140 per capita range so we have
never offered coverage since. That was 43 years ago.

Good medical story-
I occasionally grow wens and would visit a dermatologist
every year or two to have one excised. It's a 15 minute two
stitches adventure and I'd just hand him a $50 on the way
out. The last time I went he refused the cash, "I've joined
a medical group so we will bill you." Oh did they ever.
There's a billing code for 'Office Procedure'. It's $600.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:59:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more burdensome, bribery
>> or outright illegal activity will become more attractive and more
>> pervasive.
>
>Perhaps so. But I'd call that a universal phenomenon that other
>countries seem to do pretty well, judging by results.
>
>Also, "regulatory structural inefficiency" is hardly confined to
>government initiatives. The insurance industry imposes enough of that to
>cause U.S. medical care to be the most expensive in the world, and far
>from the most effective.
>
>So again, what country has a system of which you approve, or at least
>like better than ours? Can we compare data?
>
>If you can't name such a country, it seems like your libertarian dreams
>are unrealistic.

When Krygowskin is unable to defend his own opinions, which is fairly
common, he insists that those who disgree with him offer an
alternative, so he can then, attack it. It's easier for him to attack
other's opinion than to defend his own.

It's basically a cowards way out.

On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming _such_ things as
>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>
>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing.  What it
>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
>>
>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>
> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.

Maybe you should try reading in the period then.

from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on
the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of
persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the
character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it
will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is
only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into
subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation
of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be
refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants."

yeah....that's not about race at all.

You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully ignorant
dumbass.

>
> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to mayhem but
> rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited reprisal.

On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 11:25 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
>>>>>> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
>>>>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
>>>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners).  If you
>>>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
>>>>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions,
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
>>>>> incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI
>>>>> Amendment. Predictably the situation has degraded such that more
>>>>> than half of us pay zip and many of those have a negative Federal
>>>>> tax burden, i.e., they are paid to be here. So much for 'shared
>>>>> burden'. And also predictably election results reflect the avarice
>>>>> and envy of the takers against the makers, creating societal and
>>>>> cultural divisions to our greater loss. There has to be a better
>>>>> way. And there was.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which
>>>> leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation
>>>> in ways you like?
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate
>>>> far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated
>>>> benefits are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more
>>>> content. It's not that there are zero problems, but that there seem
>>>> to be far fewer problems than we have.
>>>>
>>>> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S.
>>>> did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally
>>>> different then regarding society, technology, morality, customs,
>>>> personal freedom etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying
>>>> "Let's just go back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely
>>>> lose the vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of while
>>>> males as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on it later.
>>
>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming _such_ things
>> as "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when
>> reminded that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into
>> the original version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
>> they say 'oh, yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
>> women the right to vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>
>> 'except for that'.....
>>
>> 'except for that'...
>>
>> IOW, they aren't really originalists at all.
>>
>> It's overly simplistic and myoptic to wax for the 'good ole days'.
>> Things change. Get used to it.
>>
>>>
>>> As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other cultural
>>> failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed so large a wealth
>>> increase and so fast and so broadly shared as the USA between 1865
>>> and 1914.
>>
>> which also lead to labor riots and such "laudable" MAGA type events
>> like the the homestead riots and the triangle shirtwaist fire....
>>
>> 'except for that'....
>>
>> 'except for that'.....
>>
>> so much for originalism.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted over the
>>> actual data:
>>>
>>> https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
>>>
>>> But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so 'official
>>> numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent, food, medical,
>>> walking around money, negative income tax and so on) which are no
>>> longer negligible. They are in fact a huge drain on our society.
>>> Economists have noted this for years but in politics facts do not
>>> matter.
>>
>> Yup, abolish minimum wage, get rid of that pesky OSHA, fuck the 40
>> hour work week, let's put children back to work in mines...they're
>> smaller and can fit into tighter crevices  - but hey, Carnegie built a
>> few libraries, so I guess that makes chaining children to looms for 2
>> cents a day makes it all worth while.
>>
>> 'well, except for that...'
>>
>> 'except for that'.....
>>
>> You can whine about fucking strawmen all you want, but excesses by
>> oligarchs are prevalent even to this day.
>>
>> https://perfectunion.us/how-the-sacklers-got-and-stayed-rich/
>>
>> Gee, maybe if they just built a few parks we could ignore their greed
>> murdered millions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Your feelings aside, the actual minimum wage is, and always will be, zero.
> The higher the regulatory burden, the larger the number of people
> earning zero.

Interesting "logic"....get that from breitbart, maybe?
Funny how other countries seem to have figured it out:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/31/finland-universal-basic-income

Even endorsed by every magatards favorite "free speech" advocate

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-physical-work-choice-2021-8?op=1

>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/california-s-20-minimum-wage-forces-mass-fast-food-layoffs/ss-BB1kTBU3

I see your fear-mongering op-ed piece and raise you an economic study:

https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/14/even-in-small-businesses-minimum-wage-hikes-dont-cause-job-losses-study-finds

>
> And it's worse even than the Dismal Science aspect. It's moral failure
> as well. As I mentioned regarding complex and corrupt tax schemes, major
> Newsome contributor Panera Bread finagled a special exemption to the new
> $20 minimum.
>
> https://fortune.com/2024/03/01/california-minimum-wage-law-gavin-newsom-panera-bread-billionaire-exemption/

Nah, it'll be fine, I hear Greg Flynn will be donating a new wing to the
Sacramento public library...Hey, it worked for Carnegie, right?

>
> As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more burdensome, bribery
> or outright illegal activity will become more attractive and more
> pervasive. Examples abound, such as the 20:1 ratio of illegal pot shops
> to licensed outlets in NYC. The illegal ones aren't ever closed because
> the licensed shops cannot afford kickbacks.
>
> For many years, I've asked proponents of State meddling in employment
> contracts* why not $100 per hour? Why not $500?

wow...talk about strawmen....

For many years, I've asked opponents of fair wage/labor laws, why not
allow children to be put back to work in the mines? Why not allow slavery?

see how that works?

> *See much ignored US Constitution contracts clause.  Another loss in our
> present post-constitutional dissolution.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-doubles-down-universal-175300665.html

"Musk doubled down on his initial support for the concept.

"I think we'll end up doing universal basic income," Musk told the crowd
at the World Government Summit in Dubai, according to Fast Company.
"It's going to be necessary.""

On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming
>>>> _such_ things as
>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty
>>>> when reminded
>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
>>>> into the original
>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
>>>> they say 'oh,
>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
>>>> women the right to
>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>
>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
>>> thing.  What it
>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
>>> politcal power of
>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
>>> slaves.
>>>
>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>
>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>
> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>
> from The Federalist papers, #54
> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
> propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in
> the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in
> fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on
> them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be
> denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is
> only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
> negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed
> them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that
> if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
> away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share
> of representation with the other inhabitants."
>
> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>
> You should know better than to follow the lead of a
> willfully ignorant dumbass.
>
>>
>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call
>> to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and
>> limited reprisal.
>
>

Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years
apart. It's always a good read and I must say generally
underappreciated.

Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.

Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution even
precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.

The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred to
count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The Southern
leaders had probably never heard of an irony meter but if
there was one it would shoot off the end at that proposition.

For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states
did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally
outlawed it in 1780, well before our Constitution, before
Wilberforce, before anywhere else on earth AFAIK.) and were
firm on not bumping the number of Southern representatives
in the Congress.

Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the
practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".

p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and there
were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that this was
and is inherently race tainted to our greater loss, then and
now. It is also critically viewed as a rift between
universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
conflict then and now, here and everywhere. Humans are
imperfect but the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
aligned to destroy the chattel system well before anyone
else on earth had considered it. Then 2 generations later
the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her citizens to end it.
Not the first instance on earth, but early to the change.

*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:35:19 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming _such_ things as
>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>
>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing.  What it
>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
>>>
>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>
>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>
>Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>
>from The Federalist papers, #54
>"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on
>the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of
>persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the
>character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it
>will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is
>only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into
>subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation
>of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
>rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be
>refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants."
>
>yeah....that's not about race at all.
>
>You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully ignorant
>dumbass.
>
>>
>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to mayhem but
>> rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited reprisal.
>

Simple fact: The southern (slaver) states wanted to count all the
slaves, The northern States wanted count none of them. Counting less
than all the slaves was not racist, it was anti-racist because it
reduced the political power of the slave states.

On 4/7/2024 3:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 12:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more burdensome,
>>> bribery or outright illegal activity will become more attractive and
>>> more pervasive.
>>
>> Perhaps so. But I'd call that a universal phenomenon that other
>> countries seem to do pretty well, judging by results.
>>
>> Also, "regulatory structural inefficiency" is hardly confined to
>> government initiatives. The insurance industry imposes enough of that
>> to cause U.S. medical care to be the most expensive in the world, and
>> far from the most effective.
>>
>> So again, what country has a system of which you approve, or at least
>> like better than ours? Can we compare data?
>>
>> If you can't name such a country, it seems like your libertarian
>> dreams are unrealistic.
>>
>
> I liked US medical services delivery plenty before it became 'improved
> until it didn't work'.  But I am admitted outlier; personally almost
> always a cash customer and we are now a targeted group for whom no
> punishment is harsh enough.

Yes, that's a bad situation. But I don't think it was imposed
(primarily?) by the government. I doubt very much it's a problem that
arises often in, say, Estonia.

I pick that country because I had some minor skin lesion (not a wen)
soon after arrival. Our friends living there directed us to a clinic,
where a woman took care of it quickly. IIRC it cost me about $10,
including the medication I took with me.

> I have noted here before that I bought a major medical plan for my
> employees with a $1000 deductible (cost the company $35 per capita),
> self insured between $5000 and $1000 with the employee responsible for
> the first $500. Good system for a large group of young active people and
> trust me no one spends his own cash on frivolous medical visits so it
> was quite self balancing. We had very good claims/expense experience for
> a few years.  Then one day the State of Wisconsin decreed that such
> policies were not expensible unless they included pregnancy and mental
> illness. Rate quotes were in the $125~$140 per capita range so we have
> never offered coverage since. That was 43 years ago.

Personally, I believe pregnancy and mental illness should be somehow
covered. It wasn't for one of our kids, and it was seemed pretty
expensive - although it led to a big IRS refund, which led to our
"wasting" it on our custom tandem.

But I'm sorry you had a bad experience as an employer. Again, I doubt
that's a problem in, say, France.

> Good medical story-
> I occasionally grow wens and would visit a dermatologist every year or
> two to have one excised. It's a 15 minute two stitches adventure and I'd
> just hand him a $50 on the way out.  The last time I went he refused the
> cash, "I've joined a medical group so we will bill you."  Oh did they
> ever. There's a billing code for 'Office Procedure'. It's $600.

And So far it sounds like you're saying "Our medical system is screwed
up." I agree, as does our primary care doctor, who's very friendly with
me, to the point that he'll discuss the issue with me during office
visits. The extended family member who's a now-retired physician agrees.

Many, many countries do medicine much better than the U.S.. AFIAK all
"developed" countries do it better. But this doesn't convince me of your
original point, which as I understand it was "We were way better off
back when the constitution was un-amended."

If that's not accurate, perhaps you can restate your main point concisely?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/7/2024 3:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 12:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> It should be obvious that I'm not claiming Russia has a better
>> political system than ours.
>>
>> The fact remains: Once Americans got past the Appalachians, they were
>> looking at an immense continent's worth of resources, with essentially
>> nobody to stop them from taking whatever they wanted. Practically
>> speaking, it was owned by nobody - or at least, nobody who could
>> effectively object.
>>
>> And as I said, within decades - i.e. once the Civil War was settled -
>> America had not only the manpower but the technology to begin scooping
>> up all those resources. (Much to the detriment of Native Americans, of
>> course.) I don't think any other nation had that perfect set of
>> advantages. For example, Australia's deserts didn't work nearly so well.
>>
>> We also had a big advantage in that unlike Europe, we suffered far
>> less devastation from wars. So to attribute American success 1865 to
>> 1914 to only the (amended!) constitution is ignoring a lot. In fact,
>> those benefits I listed extended to at least 1945 and somewhat beyond.
>> We didn't win World War II because our soldiers were braver than the
>> enemy's. We won largely because we were able to employ far more
>> resources than theirs.
>>
>> And our current status is not nearly as glorious as many
>> super-patriotic Americans pretend. There are many, many ways in which
>> the U.S. lags behind many other nations. Yes, I know many immigrants
>> choose to come here - but those tend to be from places like Guatemala.
>> I'll admit, we're much better than Guatemala.
>>
>
> > 'owned by nobody'
>
> It was owned. By the Federal government.

OK, true. The point is, land was easy or free for individuals or
corporations to acquire. I'm in Ohio, where like the Appalachians, the
first settlers didn't bother with legalities. The Indians had been
largely wiped out, so they came and squatted. Later, as you said, vast
tracts of federal land were essentially given away. Ditto mineral
rights, railroad rights-of-way, etc.

Those were opportunities not available to peasants in Italy, Poland,
England or other countries, very specifically because those living there
before them had not (almost) all been killed off.

> Contemporaneously, Russia had the same development problem ...

We both agree the Russian system is and was a mess.

> Brasil is interesting in that similarly rich land resources (their
> abolition was twenty tears after USA), with no formal plan, are finally
> being developed ...

Which "development" is problematic in other off-topic ways. But I don't
think the 200 year delay is because they didn't have our constitution.

> >  [post Civil War] "America had not only the manpower but the technology"
>
> True. So did Italy, Greece and The Rus* (what is now Ukraine, Poland,
> Bessarabia, Moldava, Byelorussia, er, Belarus).

I don't think Italy, Greece or Poland had vast acreage of easily
tillable land, forests ready for easy harvest, great mineral resources,
all without any claims of prior ownership. That was a huge benefit to
America, one of my major points.

I'm saying that globally significant chunk of resources was at least as
important to America's prosperity growth as was its constitution. The
U.S. would have probably surged to world dominance if George Washington
had become king.

And I'll note that after our constitution was enacted, several other
nations tried something very similar - often, with improvements. They
did not see the huge surge seen in the U.S. because they didn't see an
entire continent waiting to be taken over.

> Lastly, you do make an excellent if largely unappreciated point.  I was
> very much aware when first seriously studying economics (not in a
> school) that the postwar wealth and imperial power of my youth was an
> unique historical anomaly.  Sad to say, this too shall pass. As Sweden
> (similarly spared the devastation of the 1932~1945 wars) discovered, bad
> policy based on temporary wealth can fund a downward spiral of
> socialism.  Avoiding disaster the Swedes have turned sharply away from
> the worst of it now (though they do suffer the crimes of rape, robbery,
> violence and even hand grenade bombings from poorly regulated
> immigration). If the Swedes can wise up I suppose there's hope for us as
> well.

Hmm. What I'm finding on Sweden vs. the U.S. doesn't make the U.S. seem
particularly wonderful by comparison!

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/17/best-countries-quality-of-life-us-news-world-report.html

https://thomasjelpel.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/sweden-versus-america/

https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=SWE&country2=USA

But that is the closest you've come to proposing a different country to
emulate! Got another? ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> Humans are imperfect but
> the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
> chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.

From Wiki:

"The first country to fully outlaw slavery was France in 1315, but it
was later used in its colonies. Under the actions of Toyotomi Hideyoshi,
chattel slavery has been abolished across Japan since 1590, though other
forms of forced labour were used during World War II. ..."

And of course, plenty of folks in the southern U.S. disagreed that the
constitution was set up to aligned to destroy slavery.

As far as _actually_ destroying it:

"The first and only country to self-liberate from slavery was actually a
former French colony, Haiti, as a result of the Revolution of 1791–1804.
The British abolitionist movement began in the late 18th century, and
the 1772 Somersett case established that slavery did not exist in
English law. In 1807, the slave trade was made illegal throughout the
British Empire, though existing slaves in British colonies were not
liberated. Vermont was the first state in America to abolish slavery in
1777, followed by the rest of the northern United States. By 1808 the
United States outlawed the international slave trade and importation of
slaves but did not ban slavery outright until 1865.

"In Eastern Europe, groups organized to abolish the enslavement of the
Roma in Wallachia and Moldavia between 1843 and 1855, and to emancipate
the serfs in Russia in 1861. The United States would pass the 13th
Amendment in December 1865 after having just fought a bloody Civil War,
ending slavery "except as a punishment for crime". "

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/7/2024 2:01 PM, zen cycle wrote:

<snip>

>> For many years, I've asked proponents of State meddling in employment
>> contracts* why not $100 per hour? Why not $500?
>
> wow...talk about strawmen....

LOL, sounds like he's been listening to Fox News, Breitbart, the
Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution

We had one fast-food restaurant in our city close because our minimum
wage was too low. Their franchise agreement mandated that they could not
pay employees more than the minimum wage. As a result they could not
retain enough employees because the minimum wage in the next city over
is 80¢ higher per hour so workers migrate to restaurants in that city.

When the California $20 per hour minimum wage for workers at fast food
restaurant chains took effect on April 1, the reality was that in urban
areas it had little effect on a restaurants costs because the actual
hourly rate was already higher than $20, i.e. one burger chain has a
starting wage of $22 per hour. Of course they still used the new minimum
wage law as an excuse to raise prices.

On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming _such_
>>>>> things as
>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the
>>>>> original
>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the
>>>>> right to
>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>
>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing.  What it
>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>
>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>
>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>
>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on
>> the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of
>> persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is
>> the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
>> it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it
>> is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes
>> into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the
>> computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to
>> restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no
>> longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other
>> inhabitants."
>>
>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>
>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully ignorant
>> dumbass.
>>
>>>
>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to mayhem
>>> but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited reprisal.
>>
>>
>
> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years apart. It's
> always a good read and I must say generally underappreciated.
>
> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly insurmountable
> barrier to union. Union being considered of exceptional even existential
> import, something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
>
> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before, voting in general
> elections. Note that our Constitution even precedes William
> Wilberforce's eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
>
> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that reliance only
> increased after the Founding) but preferred to count 'all persons' for
> Congressional seats.  The Southern leaders had probably never heard of
> an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at that
> proposition.
>
> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states did not
> generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally outlawed it in 1780, well
> before our Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
> earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of Southern
> representatives in the Congress.
>
> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several of the
> Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the practice would
> necessarily have to end, albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>
> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that time was of
> black slavery, there were black freemen (including early patriot
> fatality Crispus Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
> agree with you that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
> greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
> between universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
> conflict then and now, here and everywhere.  Humans are imperfect but
> the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
> chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.

?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and the practice
of holding african slaves was generally banned by every nation which had
practiced it well before the US did, while the US not only maintained
slavery as an institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution. Further to that,
the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave traders such that
free blacks - either emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold
into slavery in the south.

"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in Freedom at Risk
(1994) and estimated there were likely thousands of others"

https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978

Then there's Solomon Northrup:

"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in Essex County,
New York state.....In 1841, Northup was tricked into going to
Washington, DC, where slavery was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and
sold into slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years.
One of the very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he later
sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited
Northup from testifying against the white men because he was black and
so he lost the case."

Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the experience.

Then
> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her citizens to
> end it. Not the first instance on earth, but early to the change.
>
>
>
> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time than the
> mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.

--
Add xx to reply

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>
> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.

That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
take millennia for the market to produce them? Same goes for any
industrial or even agricultural product -- only real needs satisfiable
using available technology can be provided by markets. Of course, this
provides an incentive to expand the boundaries of available technology.

> But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical
> Engineer be able to design and build one?

--

On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those
>>>>>> claiming _such_ things as
>>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
>>>>>> empty when reminded
>>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
>>>>>> into the original
>>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
>>>>>> they say 'oh,
>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
>>>>>> women the right to
>>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
>>>>> thing.  What it
>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
>>>>> politcal power of
>>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
>>>>> slaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>>
>>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
>>> propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
>>> in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
>>> is in fact their true character. It is the character
>>> bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
>>> it will not be denied, that these are the proper
>>> criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
>>> laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
>>> property, that a place is disputed them in the
>>> computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
>>> laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
>>> away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
>>> share of representation with the other inhabitants."
>>>
>>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>>
>>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a
>>> willfully ignorant dumbass.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
>>>> call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
>>>> mercy and limited reprisal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
>> years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
>> generally underappreciated.
>>
>> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
>> insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
>> exceptional even existential import, something was
>> desperately needed to bring resolution.
>>
>> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
>> voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
>> even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
>> campaign in the British Empire.
>>
>> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
>> reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
>> to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats.  The
>> Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
>> meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
>> that proposition.
>>
>> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
>> states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
>> formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
>> Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
>> earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
>> Southern representatives in the Congress.
>>
>> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
>> of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
>> the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
>> Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>>
>> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
>> time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
>> (including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
>> there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
>> this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
>> loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
>> between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
>> fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
>> Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
>> incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
>> well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
>
> ?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
> the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
> by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
> did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
> institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
> acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
> Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
> domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
> emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
> slavery in the south.
>
> "The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
> Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
> thousands of others"
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
>
> Then there's Solomon Northrup:
>
> "born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
> Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
> tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
> legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
> he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
> very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
> later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
> law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
> because he was black and so he lost the case."
>
> Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
> experience.
>
>
>  Then
>> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
>> her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
>> but early to the change.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
>> than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
>

And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
and general savagery. Who could dispute that?
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:53:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those
>>>>>>> claiming _such_ things as
>>>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
>>>>>>> empty when reminded
>>>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
>>>>>>> into the original
>>>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
>>>>>>> they say 'oh,
>>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
>>>>>>> women the right to
>>>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
>>>>>> thing.  What it
>>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
>>>>>> politcal power of
>>>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
>>>>>> slaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>>>
>>>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>>>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
>>>> propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
>>>> in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
>>>> is in fact their true character. It is the character
>>>> bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
>>>> it will not be denied, that these are the proper
>>>> criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
>>>> laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
>>>> property, that a place is disputed them in the
>>>> computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
>>>> laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
>>>> away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
>>>> share of representation with the other inhabitants."
>>>>
>>>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>>>
>>>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a
>>>> willfully ignorant dumbass.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
>>>>> call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
>>>>> mercy and limited reprisal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
>>> years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
>>> generally underappreciated.
>>>
>>> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
>>> insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
>>> exceptional even existential import, something was
>>> desperately needed to bring resolution.
>>>
>>> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
>>> voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
>>> even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
>>> campaign in the British Empire.
>>>
>>> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
>>> reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
>>> to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats.  The
>>> Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
>>> meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
>>> that proposition.
>>>
>>> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
>>> states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
>>> formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
>>> Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
>>> earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
>>> Southern representatives in the Congress.
>>>
>>> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
>>> of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
>>> the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
>>> Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>>>
>>> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
>>> time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
>>> (including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
>>> there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
>>> this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
>>> loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
>>> between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
>>> fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
>>> Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
>>> incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
>>> well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
>>
>> ?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
>> the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
>> by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
>> did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
>> institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
>> acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
>> Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
>> domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
>> emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
>> slavery in the south.
>>
>> "The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
>> Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
>> thousands of others"
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
>>
>> Then there's Solomon Northrup:
>>
>> "born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
>> Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
>> tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
>> legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
>> he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
>> very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
>> later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
>> law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
>> because he was black and so he lost the case."
>>
>> Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
>> experience.
>>
>>
>>  Then
>>> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
>>> her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
>>> but early to the change.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
>>> than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
>>
>
>And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
>many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
>History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
>and general savagery. Who could dispute that?

I don't, for a minute dispute that there was massive racism in the
USA's early years. It was worse in Northern Illinois when I was in
grade school, than it is in a southern state like Florida today.

Unfortunately, so much of the so-called reform policies has hindered,
rather then helped the situation.

On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those claiming _such_
>>>>>>> things as
>>>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when
>>>>>>> reminded
>>>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
>>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the
>>>>>>> right to
>>>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing.  What it
>>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal
>>>>>> power of
>>>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>>>
>>>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>>>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety
>>>> on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character
>>>> of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It
>>>> is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live;
>>>> and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion;
>>>> because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed
>>>> the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them
>>>> in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws
>>>> were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes
>>>> could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the
>>>> other inhabitants."
>>>>
>>>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>>>
>>>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully
>>>> ignorant dumbass.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to
>>>>> mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited
>>>>> reprisal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years apart.
>>> It's always a good read and I must say generally underappreciated.
>>>
>>> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly insurmountable
>>> barrier to union. Union being considered of exceptional even
>>> existential import, something was desperately needed to bring
>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before, voting in
>>> general elections. Note that our Constitution even precedes William
>>> Wilberforce's eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
>>>
>>> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that reliance
>>> only increased after the Founding) but preferred to count 'all
>>> persons' for Congressional seats.  The Southern leaders had probably
>>> never heard of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot off
>>> the end at that proposition.
>>>
>>> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states did not
>>> generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally outlawed it in 1780,
>>> well before our Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere
>>> else on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
>>> Southern representatives in the Congress.
>>>
>>> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several of the
>>> Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the practice would
>>> necessarily have to end, albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>>>
>>> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that time was
>>> of black slavery, there were black freemen (including early patriot
>>> fatality Crispus Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
>>> agree with you that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
>>> greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
>>> between universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
>>> conflict then and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
>>> the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
>>> chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
>>
>> ?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and the
>> practice of holding african slaves was generally banned by every
>> nation which had practiced it well before the US did, while the US not
>> only maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at least two
>> laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the
>> institution. Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
>> domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
>> born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the south.
>>
>> "The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in Freedom at
>> Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely thousands of others"
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
>>
>> Then there's Solomon Northrup:
>>
>> "born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in Essex County,
>> New York state.....In 1841, Northup was tricked into going to
>> Washington, DC, where slavery was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped,
>> and sold into slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
>> years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such circumstances,
>> he later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its law
>> prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men because he
>> was black and so he lost the case."
>>
>> Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the experience.
>>
>>
>>   Then
>>> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her citizens
>>> to end it. Not the first instance on earth, but early to the change.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time than the
>>> mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
>>
>
> And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems, many were
> killed, half the survivors were castrated. History, ours and everyone's,
> is full of violence injustice and general savagery.  Who could dispute
> that?

I doubt the Barbary Muslims were claiming their laws were designed to
(eventually) eliminate slavery. But that's been claimed here.

--
- Frank Krygowski