Moral outrage and the U.S. Civil War

[giblets]

I don't think it makes sense to assume there were only massively wealthy plantation owners and poor free farmers with nothing in the middle.

[Elok]

Like I said, I don't know a lot about the big picture here. I tend to read more about medieval history. This is all idle thought experiment territory to me. To really know the answer one way or another I imagine we'd have to dig through a crapton of hard data, and then argue back and forth about what it all meant. I probably spend too much time on this damn site as it is.

[Sava]

I also think you should post less

[Aeson]

I'm not claiming their pricing took the civil war into account.

You're claiming their pricing was correct and all the other relevant factors that are plain in hindsight cannot be used to argue against that pricing.

They didn't properly take the Civil War into account. Nor did they take the rising sentiment against slavery into account. Nor did they take the soon to be rise in automation into account. Nor did they take global competition into account. They were dinosaurs on their last legs, throwing money (those that had it) into a growing abyss. And you want to white-knight for them against being called "stupid" ... since you seem to think all that matters is that there are at least some rich white people.

[giblets]

I'm claiming their pricing is an indicator that the product of slave labor was worth more than the cost of feeding, housing and supervising them. I don't think the welfare of black people is irrelevant, do you have any other strawman arguments you'd like to make? Automation? In our timeline cotton wasn't mechanized until after WWII, and in the actual historical antebellum south slaves were also used in urban occupations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think we should also recall that after the freeing of the slaves, the South fought very hard to keep the new freedmen from gaining many rights (they fought reconstruction tooth and nail) and in essence forced "freedmen" to take up slavery like positions, only they were getting a wage now. So obviously they thought that slavery like positions increased their financial position. Saying modern economics shows that this isn't the most efficient use of resources doesn't mean that people in the 1860s, 70s, etc. thought the same way.

[giblets]

Enslaving people is rent-seeking behavior so of course it's inefficient, just as cartels are inefficient. But aeson seems to be conflating descriptive claims with normative claims. If something is evil, aeson insists it must be against the economic interests of everyone involved.

[rah]

Go to any management class and see what they teach about motivation and productivity.
The method of last resort is always 'Fear' since it requires that you have to watch them more carefully which usually costs more than the the increase in productivity pays back.

[Aeson]

Saying modern economics shows that this isn't the most efficient use of resources doesn't mean that people in the 1860s, 70s, etc. thought the same way.

What matters is what is true, not what those who were clearly wrong thought in the past.

[Sava]

Enslaving people is rent-seeking behavior so of course it's inefficient, just as cartels are inefficient. But aeson seems to be conflating descriptive claims with normative claims. If something is evil, aeson insists it must be against the economic interests of everyone involved.

Evil tends to spark outrage. Outrage, in some cases, leads to a response. The greater the evil, the greater the response. Sometimes the response is even excessive because of that outrage. Evil is ultimately against anyone's economic interests because the last thing any smart business minded person wants is a highly motivated enemy coming for you. Governments, the insanely rich, and corporations are really the only entities that can cope with the cost of justice.

Evil is both "wrong" and a bad business decision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What matters is what is true, not what those who were clearly wrong thought in the past.

Not when we are talking about whether slavery would have continued onwards without the Civil War or whether it would have withered away for being unprofitable.

[Sava]

Not when we are talking about whether slavery would have continued onwards without the Civil War or whether it would have withered away for being unprofitable.

The North was also a stronger political entity than the South. I think, without war starting the way it did, there would have been some sort of Emancipation Proclamation event... which then would have led to a war.

Those crackers weren't giving up their slaves, and the idiots who fought for those rich men weren't going to support any meaningful legislative action by some northern yankee liberal or scallywag collaborator.

The only real mistake of the civil war was not de-confederizing the south afterwards. Their legacy lives today and is at the heart of our current political mess.

you ask me, more should have been lined up and shot

but i'm a monster who thinks killing a few thousand back then would have made our society a little better

maybe that's true, maybe not

is it working in afghanistan? lets go back in time and have the south be an active theater for uav warfare

kill the enemies of humanity whenever they live oooooh...


TRADEMARKED

[giblets]

Evil tends to spark outrage. Outrage, in some cases, leads to a response. The greater the evil, the greater the response. Sometimes the response is even excessive because of that outrage. Evil is ultimately against anyone's economic interests because the last thing any smart business minded person wants is a highly motivated enemy coming for you. Governments, the insanely rich, and corporations are really the only entities that can cope with the cost of justice.

Evil is both "wrong" and a bad business decision.

That would explain why the slaveholders tried to form their own government, I guess.

[Sava]

That would explain why the slaveholders tried to form their own government, I guess.

yes

[Aeson]

I'm claiming their pricing is an indicator that the product of slave labor was worth more than the cost of feeding, housing and supervising them.

No. I said the value of slaves was decreasing. You countered by referring to contemporary pricing, pretended that described the value of slaves going forward. I pointed out that pricing was obviously flawed when viewed from hindsight. You still want to use that flawed pricing (and even more absurdly, the pricing trend sans the bottoming out) to pretend that the pricing was correct if magically the Civil War didn't happen. You are ignoring all the other factors and pretending that without the Civil War, slavery wasn't an inefficient system that would leave the CSA a backwards place. Except of you even agree it's inefficient and detrimental to GDP. Just if there's some rich white people that makes it ok in your book.

But aeson seems to be conflating descriptive claims with normative claims. If something is evil, aeson insists it must be against the economic interests of everyone involved.

I can say slavers were stupid and racist, and also that they weren't pricing in future events properly. The fact you can't follow an argument with more than one point isn't my problem, it's your stupidity.