3 ms·

Two points: 1) The capitalist formula for this is basically: Can i extract more value from this individual through "free" productivity minus wages, or from "sl

by croon 6y ago

Two points: 1) The capitalist formula for this is basically: Can i extract more value from this individual through "free" productivity minus wages, or from "slave" productivity minus enforcement cost. Your arguments don't convincingly prove the former. 2) Even if I were to accept your reasoning (which to be very clear I don't), I still don't understand what argument you're making. Because it naturally leads to: a) Capitalism solved slavery by it being unprofitable, so the regulation/ban was unnecessary. which leads to: b) If it was profitable, the ban would hamper economic growth. I'm much more interested in the second part. What would your stance be if we assume it would be profitable? Capitalism doesn't concern itself with morality, but humans do. Should we do nothing about it because all political intervention is bad?

throwaway201103 6y ago
No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. But I think it is also true that slaves (at least as a source of agricultural labor) were becoming economically unviable regardless, due to advances in technology. Mechanized harvesting and other agricultural mechanization was just less expensive than using (and housing, and feeding) people to do the same work.
- croon 6y ago
  > No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. Just to make sure, I assume this is your opinion of agreement with me? Which I appreciate, even if you weren't GP. It's just that the phrasing makes it sound like a disagreement in reasoning, which if that is the case I would like you to expand on. But as to your second point, labor hasn't (yet) disappeared due to industrial revolutions, only shifted. What has changed is simply the scale one unit of labor could perform. Slaves would very much still be valuable in the 1800s. If nothing else proven by the fact that still to this day farming jobs are very often imported low-income jobs. I can't reconcile that fact with your reasoning.

by croon 6y ago

throwaway201103 6y ago

No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. But I think it is also true that slaves (at least as a source of agricultural labor) were becoming economically unviable regardless, due to advances in technology. Mechanized harvesting and other agricultural mechanization was just less expensive than using (and housing, and feeding) people to do the same work.

croon 6y ago
> No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. Just to make sure, I assume this is your opinion of agreement with me? Which I appreciate, even if you weren't GP. It's just that the phrasing makes it sound like a disagreement in reasoning, which if that is the case I would like you to expand on. But as to your second point, labor hasn't (yet) disappeared due to industrial revolutions, only shifted. What has changed is simply the scale one unit of labor could perform. Slaves would very much still be valuable in the 1800s. If nothing else proven by the fact that still to this day farming jobs are very often imported low-income jobs. I can't reconcile that fact with your reasoning.