The U.S. Goverment

[EmperorNuke]

I like how no one here can beat Jorb and his GREAT WALL OF TEXT!

youre wrong, EmperorNuke.
no one here is trying to "beat" Jorb and his great wall of text.
most of us are enjoying the discussion.

I still lol'd.

[ArvinJA]

TLDR: There are two separate issues here. European colonialism brought about both division of labor and mutually beneficial trade, as well as political dominance. While we can be skeptical about the latter fact we should not deny the obvious benefits of the former. In the historical record of colonialism the two issues are inextricably entangled, and any honest account of European colonialism needs to display some level of awareness of both.

By the way, you admit that "the Zulus were bastards, all successful civilizations are". What, then, is it that you really hold against the English? The fact that they were better at it?

Best wall of text ever <3

I'm curious to know how colonies were mutually beneficial for empires and the natives. when I look at africa, south america, asia, I'm doubtful. Actually, how many examples do you have of former colonies that did briliantly after colonization era ? Not that many, and they're all very particular cases. If there maybe a few not-so-obvious benefits, they were completely negated by the beheading of upper and middle classes.
Btw we don't really hold grudge on people of the ancient times. We're just very surprised that you try to say that their deeds were good in our modern days standards, and that you use them as an example of how briliant your political ideas for today are.

I think his main point is that there were undeniable benefits of colonization, anecdotal evidence can not disprove the logical conclusions that jorb demonstrated.

[pyrale]

I think his main point is that there were undeniable benefits of colonization, anecdotal evidence can not disprove the logical conclusions that jorb demonstrated.

Fiest I would like you to stop using "anecdotal" everywhere. We're talking about dozens of countries, it's by no mean a small or unrepresentative sample.

I'm curious to know what you're talking about, when you talk about "undeniable benefits" of colonization. The former colonies were almost always part of third world when their relation with european countries ceased (the only exception I can think of is HongKong, which is quite "anecdotal" and the english expatriation colonies, in which you can't really say that colonization benefited to the natives). I'll agree on the fact that it is hard to find countries that were not colonized to compare them with.

[ArvinJA]

I think his main point is that there were undeniable benefits of colonization, anecdotal evidence can not disprove the logical conclusions that jorb demonstrated.

Fiest I would like you to stop using "anecdotal" everywhere. We're talking about dozens of countries, it's by no mean a small or unrepresentative sample.

I'm curious to know what you're talking about, when you talk about "undeniable benefits" of colonization. The former colonies were almost always part of third world when their relation with european countries ceased (the only exception I can think of is HongKong, which is quite "anecdotal" and the english expatriation colonies, in which you can't really say that colonization benefited to the natives). I'll agree on the fact that it is hard to find countries that were not colonized to compare them with.

Listing examples could by no means qualify as empirical science, hence I use the word "anecdotal". However, jorb did not try to demonstrate his point using empiricism, he instead on one hand referred to concepts that can be shown be beneficial with praxeology (one such concept was the division of labor) and on the other used sound logic . What he tried to show was that trade is beneficial logically anyway you slice it (a trade is beneficial to both parties or it simply wouldn't happen), and that colonization increased trade. You can try to deny that this is what colonization brought, but it is an undeniable fact.

[al]

Trade brought colonization. Colonization only brought "trade abuse".

[ArvinJA]

Trade brought colonization. Colonization only brought "trade abuse".

You can't trade what you don't know is there. Resources got allocated in a more efficient manner when things in nature suddenly turned into valuable resources that could enhance human life.
Sure, colonization came with it's fair share of abuses, but it also enhanced trade and made available the division of labor to a whole lot of people that previously were subsistence farmers. Have a look at Jorb's post again, I'm just echoing his post as best I can. I did say I wouldn't do any more confused ranting. However, I'm letting jorb regain his mana by trying to further explain his post (assuming I understood it properly).

[pyrale]

Listing examples could by no means qualify as empirical science, hence I use the word "anecdotal". However, jorb did not try to demonstrate his point using empiricism, he instead on one hand referred to concepts that can be shown be beneficial with praxeology (one such concept was the division of labor) and on the other used sound logic . What he tried to show was that trade is beneficial logically anyway you slice it (a trade is beneficial to both parties or it simply wouldn't happen), and that colonization increased trade. You can try to deny that this is what colonization brought, but it is an undeniable fact.

This must be the difference between us. I'm talking about facts, things that happen in the real world, while you are talking about concepts, philosophy, and more globally, what should be happening in your dreamed world using an oversimplified model. By the way, since you talk about science, science is about creating models. Those models are validated if they can predict events in our world. So yeah, finding a counter-example is completely a valid approach to scientific problems.
Yeah, our whole planet is anecdotal at the scale of our universe ~~.

So if I follow your logic, trade is beneficial for both parties, UNLESS FUCKING ARMIES COME IN YOUR COUNTRY AND FORCE YOU TO WORK AND TRADE, because otherwise it would not happen ?
Yeah right mate, now you understand what colonialism is about. Talk about flawed logic ~~.

[al]

Resources got allocated in a more efficient manner when things in nature suddenly turned into valuable resources that could enhance human life.

1. Who said this is good?
2. Who said this is more important than other aspects of civilization?

[ArvinJA]

Listing examples could by no means qualify as empirical science, hence I use the word "anecdotal". However, jorb did not try to demonstrate his point using empiricism, he instead on one hand referred to concepts that can be shown be beneficial with praxeology (one such concept was the division of labor) and on the other used sound logic . What he tried to show was that trade is beneficial logically anyway you slice it (a trade is beneficial to both parties or it simply wouldn't happen), and that colonization increased trade. You can try to deny that this is what colonization brought, but it is an undeniable fact.

This must be the difference between us. I'm talking about facts, things that happen in the real world, while you are talking about concepts, philosophy, and more globally, what should be happening in your dreamed world using an oversimplified model. By the way, since you talk about science, science is about creating models. Those models are validated if they can predict events in our world. So yeah, finding a counter-example is completely a valid approach to scientific problems.
Yeah, our whole planet is anecdotal at the scale of our universe ~~.

So if I follow your logic, trade is beneficial for both parties, UNLESS FUCKING ARMIES COME IN YOUR COUNTRY AND FORCE YOU TO WORK AND TRADE, because otherwise it would not happen ?
Yeah right mate, now you understand what colonialism is about. Talk about flawed logic ~~.

Society is causally one of the most complex objects in existence. It is very easy to mistake the causes of a given bad outcome. Whatever it is that you think is an example of the historical performance of libertarian ideas, I think you'll find that many libertarians are well aware of said example and do not agree with your assessment.

[pyrale]

Society is causally one of the most complex objects in existence. It is very easy to mistake the causes of a given bad outcome. Whatever it is that you think is an example of the historical performance of libertarian ideas, I think you'll find that many libertarians are well aware of said example and do not agree with your assessment.

Just in case you missed it, I'm not the one that used colonies (and generally, how great 19th century was) as an example of libertarian ideas.

Also, I'm curious to know what exactly do libertarians have over, say, communists. Both have interesting theories, failed attempts and will deny that those attempts nullify their models.