Assets and Secure rightsfareSeptember 30 2010, 03:32:17 UTC
Stop "thinking" without an argument. Whether people are viewed as an asset is directly linked to one and only one thing: whether the (property) of the owner/ruler is stable or not. Where no property right is recognized (conquest underway), then the life of the conquered is worth shit. Where long-term property rights exist across generations without death tax, dynasties invest for centuries ahead (as was common under the Ancien Regime). Regimes based on recent usurpation by mere brute force are most oppressive. Old monarchies based on ancient usurpation are least oppressive. Democracies as such ensure a permanent usurpation with no possible long-term prospects, and are thus extremely destructive; this destruction is often limited by the power being actually held by a non-democratic establishment, but this establishment being insecure in its rights will be particularly ruthless. Western countries additionally have strong traditions of liberty countering democracy, but these traditions are eroding.
When under the influence of leftist scumbag do-gooders the Queen of Spain, with the intention to "protect" her subjects the (american) indians forbids the conquistadores from enslaving them, yet doesn't pay anticonquistadores to defend them (that she can't afford anyway), then she actually artificially lowers the value of the life of indians in the eyes of their masters, and leads to a vast destruction of her "protected" subjects.
When under the influence of leftist scumbag do-gooders the Queen of Spain, with the intention to "protect" her subjects the (american) indians forbids the conquistadores from enslaving them, yet doesn't pay anticonquistadores to defend them (that she can't afford anyway), then she actually artificially lowers the value of the life of indians in the eyes of their masters, and leads to a vast destruction of her "protected" subjects.
Reply
Leave a comment