James A. Donald
> > There are no capitalist disasters. Every major
> > famine in the last century or so was caused by war
> > or socialism - usually socialism.

Free Lunch
> How nice of you to try to ignore overwhelming
> disasters like the Irish Famine.

I said "the last hundred years or so" in order to
exclude famines caused by natural disasters such as the
potato virus.

Back in those days, nature was too powerful, and man too
weak, so natural disaster could cause major famine even
in capitalist societies. But now that man is stronger
and nature weaker, only human evil can cause really
serious famine, so we do not see famine where there is
peace and capitalism. We only see famine where people
like yourself have power over people like me.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:07:32 +1000, in alt.atheism
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in
<teghm31o49q9uh55n1dr3adl5h074qtdok@4ax.com>:
>James A. Donald
>> > There are no capitalist disasters. Every major
>> > famine in the last century or so was caused by war
>> > or socialism - usually socialism.
>
>Free Lunch
>> How nice of you to try to ignore overwhelming
>> disasters like the Irish Famine.
>
>I said "the last hundred years or so" in order to
>exclude famines caused by natural disasters such as the
>potato virus.
>
>Back in those days, nature was too powerful, and man too
>weak, so natural disaster could cause major famine even
>in capitalist societies. But now that man is stronger
>and nature weaker, only human evil can cause really
>serious famine, so we do not see famine where there is
>peace and capitalism. We only see famine where people
>like yourself have power over people like me.

There was food in Ireland. It wasn't available to the peasants.

--
James A. Donald
> >Back in those days, nature was too powerful, and man
> >too weak, so natural disaster could cause major
> >famine even in capitalist societies. But now that
> >man is stronger and nature weaker, only human evil
> >can cause really serious famine, so we do not see
> >famine where there is peace and capitalism. We only
> >see famine where people like yourself have power over
> >people like me.

> There was food in Ireland. It wasn't available to the
> peasants.

The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
and they would have starved even if there was no virus.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:08:38 +1000, in alt.atheism
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in
<s9flm353mhto4sfhr57ordt74kssqcksgc@4ax.com>:
> --
>James A. Donald
>> >Back in those days, nature was too powerful, and man
>> >too weak, so natural disaster could cause major
>> >famine even in capitalist societies. But now that
>> >man is stronger and nature weaker, only human evil
>> >can cause really serious famine, so we do not see
>> >famine where there is peace and capitalism. We only
>> >see famine where people like yourself have power over
>> >people like me.
>
>> There was food in Ireland. It wasn't available to the
>> peasants.
>
>The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
>Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
>the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
>charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
>and they would have starved even if there was no virus.

Yes, the poor starved to death so the rich could get more money. That is
the epitome of capitalism and you have perfectly condemned the problem
with capitalism. If you support killing the poor, you are just evil.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:s9flm353mhto4sfhr57ordt74kssqcksgc@4ax.com...
> --
> James A. Donald
> > >Back in those days, nature was too powerful, and man
> > >too weak, so natural disaster could cause major
> > >famine even in capitalist societies. But now that
> > >man is stronger and nature weaker, only human evil
> > >can cause really serious famine, so we do not see
> > >famine where there is peace and capitalism. We only
> > >see famine where people like yourself have power over
> > >people like me.
>
> > There was food in Ireland. It wasn't available to the
> > peasants.
>
> The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
> Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
> the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
> charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
> and they would have starved even if there was no virus.

The British government refused to intervene as that would inhibit 'free
trade', the right of the landowner to sell to whom he pleased. That the
cheap imports were useful to England and lack of same would cause price
increaes and potential problems in England did not enter the calculation, we
must assume.

That the major landowners were not Irish, but English, this was the
Protestant Ascendancy after all, was probably a factor as well, the
satisfactory sight of thousands of Fenian Catholics dying daily was probably
considered a fair punishment for kneeling to the Harlot of Rome. But, of
course, christians don't think that way, do they?

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:10:42 -0600, <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:08:38 +1000, in alt.atheism
James A. Donald
> > The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
> > Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
> > the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
> > charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
> > and they would have starved even if there was no virus.

Free Lunch
> Yes, the poor starved to death so the rich could get more money.

The poor starved because of massive crop failure and very poor
transport.

If capitalist famines ever existed, we would still be having them, the
way we still have socialist famines.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:59:26 +1000, in alt.atheism
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in
<vkqqm3p2hunfihqt2c954ntu4qav6cpfri@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:10:42 -0600, <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:08:38 +1000, in alt.atheism
>James A. Donald
>> > The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
>> > Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
>> > the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
>> > charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
>> > and they would have starved even if there was no virus.
>
>Free Lunch
>> Yes, the poor starved to death so the rich could get more money.
>
>The poor starved because of massive crop failure and very poor
>transport.

The transport was good enough to take food out of the country. Your lies
about the Irish famine are so transparent that only the most mindless
cretin would believe them.

>If capitalist famines ever existed, we would still be having them, the
>way we still have socialist famines.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

James A. Donald
> >The poor starved [during the Irish famine] because of
> >massive crop failure and very poor
> > transport.

Free Lunch
> The transport was good enough to take food out of the
> country.

Ireland did not export its main crop, which was
potatoes. Failure the potato crop necessarily led to
starvation, and would have led to starvation even if
socialists were in charge, for what socialists would
have done would be to pass a law against starvation, and
shoot alleged evildoers until people stopped starving -
or at least till people stopped admitting that anyone
was starving.

If there ever was a capitalist famine, why don't we
still have capitalist famines, the way we still have
socialist famines?

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald
> > The proximate cause of the famine was the potato
> > blight. Therefore there was not enough food for
> > everyone. So the poorest starved. If you
> > benevolent planners were in charge, everyone but the
> > planners would have starved, and they would have
> > starved even if there was no virus.

"brique"
> The British government refused to intervene as that
> would inhibit 'free
> trade', the right of the landowner to sell to whom he
> pleased

And in Zimbabwe, the government *is* intervening.

Your argument presupposes that socialism works,
therefore the government failure to apply socialism was
a great wickedness.

You assume what you seek to prove - that government
intervention is apt to have beneficent effects: That
government does good things for good reasons, and that
these things are apt to accomplish the desired effect.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:vkqqm3p2hunfihqt2c954ntu4qav6cpfri@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:10:42 -0600, <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:08:38 +1000, in alt.atheism
> James A. Donald
> > > The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
> > > Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
> > > the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
> > > charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
> > > and they would have starved even if there was no virus.
>
> Free Lunch
> > Yes, the poor starved to death so the rich could get more money.
>
> The poor starved because of massive crop failure and very poor
> transport.
>

James, it was 1850. it may seem strange to you, but cargo-vessels were
criss-crossing the globe, the short stretch of water between Liverpool and
Dublin, or between Bristol and Cork was not some massive obstacle beyond
overcoming, England was importing massive amounts on a daily basis from her
colonies in Asia, the Caribean, Africa, Australiasia, the Americas.

Odd, how they were unable to ship any food but managed to export 100,000s of
their population fleeing the famine, to places like Australia, Africa,
Canada.....oh, and America.

The poor starved because the economics of tenant-farmers, absentee landlords
and the particular form of agricultral economy in place in Ireland at that
time ( the majority paid 'rent' by working the landlords farm and growing
their own food on small holdings of a few acres, , thus the dependence on
potatos as the most efficient crop: the occupation of which land was 'tied'
to their labour, get hungry, get sick, die, thus no labour, you and your
family get evicted, as happened, and thus no food at all) made it inevitable
when the subsistence crop failed.

Previous potato crop failures had been met with bans on the export of
foodstuffs which had ameliorated the problem, the 1840's blight was met
with an adherence to 'free trade' principles which not only didn't ban
exports of foodstuffs but posited it was no business of government to
intervene in any way beyond shaking their heads and blaming 'providence'.

> If capitalist famines ever existed, we would still be having them, the
> way we still have socialist famines.

And just what economic system did the Chinese and Russians use to sell
their grain as exports when starving their populations? Come on James, or is
the global trade system all 'socialist' now?

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:m78rm39et8dje8f2eftcco783dlanc1tc1@4ax.com...
> James A. Donald
> > >The poor starved [during the Irish famine] because of
> > >massive crop failure and very poor
> > > transport.
>
> Free Lunch
> > The transport was good enough to take food out of the
> > country.
>
> Ireland did not export its main crop, which was
> potatoes. Failure the potato crop necessarily led to
> starvation, and would have led to starvation even if
> socialists were in charge, for what socialists would
> have done would be to pass a law against starvation, and
> shoot alleged evildoers until people stopped starving -
> or at least till people stopped admitting that anyone
> was starving.

****ing idiot. Potato was not the main crop, dairy products, grain and
livestock were the main produce, all for export.

Potatos were the main crop of the agricultural workers, grown on small
holdings granted by the absentee landlords as payment for the workers labour
on the estate it was on. te majority of farm labourers received no other
payment, thus growing potatos was the most efficient use of the small plot
for feeding themselves and their families.

It was not the first potato blight, or the first famine, but previously the
policy was to ban exports and the subsequent drop in local prices eased the
problem. But, guess who objected to that? Thus in the 1840's such a ban was
not implemented and the principle of laissez faire were strictly adhered to
and guess what..... major starvation and forced emmigration, enough to halve
the population within decades. Not even Lenin, Stalin, Moa or Pol Pot
managed that, did they?

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:sqhrm3pkibki1rdtonmg9bs22f5kbt3v7u@4ax.com...
> James A. Donald
> > > The proximate cause of the famine was the potato
> > > blight. Therefore there was not enough food for
> > > everyone. So the poorest starved. If you
> > > benevolent planners were in charge, everyone but the
> > > planners would have starved, and they would have
> > > starved even if there was no virus.
>
> "brique"
> > The British government refused to intervene as that
> > would inhibit 'free
> > trade', the right of the landowner to sell to whom he
> > pleased
>
> And in Zimbabwe, the government *is* intervening.
>
> Your argument presupposes that socialism works,
> therefore the government failure to apply socialism was
> a great wickedness.

****ing idiot. The Britsh states non-intevrention in the Irishfamine was
based on the capitalist principles of 'free trade', previously it did
intervene to halt food exports and those earlier blights were eased, this
time it didn't, being good capitalists, and hey presto. half the population
was dead or fled within the decade.

See, it works!

>
> You assume what you seek to prove - that government
> intervention is apt to have beneficent effects: That
> government does good things for good reasons, and that
> these things are apt to accomplish the desired effect.

You assume you know anything when the evidence is that you are a dumbass of
supreme idiocy and self-satisfied witlessness.

"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message <news:1198386268.71143.0@iris.uk.clara.net>...

> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:vkqqm3p2hunfihqt2c954ntu4qav6cpfri@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:10:42 -0600, <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:08:38 +1000, in alt.atheism
> > James A. Donald
> > > > The proximate cause of the famine was the potato blight.
> > > > Therefore there was not enough food for everyone. So
> > > > the poorest starved. If you benevolent planners were in
> > > > charge, everyone but the planners would have starved,
> > > > and they would have starved even if there was no virus.
> >
> > Free Lunch
> > > Yes, the poor starved to death so the rich could get more money.
> >
> > The poor starved because of massive crop failure and very poor
> > transport.
> >
>
> James, it was 1850. it may seem strange to you, but cargo-vessels were
> criss-crossing the globe, the short stretch of water between Liverpool and
> Dublin, or between Bristol and Cork was not some massive obstacle beyond
> overcoming, England was importing massive amounts on a daily basis from her
> colonies in Asia, the Caribean, Africa, Australiasia, the Americas.
>
> Odd, how they were unable to ship any food but managed to export 100,000s of
> their population fleeing the famine, to places like Australia, Africa,
> Canada.....oh, and America.
>
> The poor starved because the economics of tenant-farmers, absentee landlords
> and the particular form of agricultral economy in place in Ireland at that
> time ( the majority paid 'rent' by working the landlords farm and growing
> their own food on small holdings of a few acres, , thus the dependence on
> potatos as the most efficient crop: the occupation of which land was 'tied'
> to their labour, get hungry, get sick, die, thus no labour, you and your
> family get evicted, as happened, and thus no food at all) made it inevitable
> when the subsistence crop failed.
>
> Previous potato crop failures had been met with bans on the export of
> foodstuffs which had ameliorated the problem, the 1840's blight was met
> with an adherence to 'free trade' principles which not only didn't ban
> exports of foodstuffs but posited it was no business of government to
> intervene in any way beyond shaking their heads and blaming 'providence'.
>
> > If capitalist famines ever existed, we would still be having them, the
> > way we still have socialist famines.
>
> And just what economic system did the Chinese and Russians use to sell
> their grain as exports when starving their populations? Come on James, or is
> the global trade system all 'socialist' now?

Yes, it is all socialist, in that it isn't sufficiently laissez-faire capitalist.
People need to starve until True Capitalism is brought about, and
the Invisible Hand will magically provide for all, at least all who are
left alive and working and spending like good True Capitalists...

"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
<news:1198386268.71143.0@iris.uk.clara.net>...
> James, it was 1850. it may seem strange to you, but
> cargo-vessels were criss-crossing the globe, the short
> stretch of water between Liverpool and Dublin, or
> between Bristol and Cork was not some massive obstacle
> beyond overcoming,

Indeed it was easy to get from Dublin to Liverpool - but
people were not dying in Dublin, at least not in
exceptionally unusual numbers.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:2mgsm3d1sc8brniopqr6c8kamlrp763mtg@4ax.com...
> "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
> <news:1198386268.71143.0@iris.uk.clara.net>...
> > James, it was 1850. it may seem strange to you, but
> > cargo-vessels were criss-crossing the globe, the short
> > stretch of water between Liverpool and Dublin, or
> > between Bristol and Cork was not some massive obstacle
> > beyond overcoming,
>
> Indeed it was easy to get from Dublin to Liverpool - but
> people were not dying in Dublin, at least not in
> exceptionally unusual numbers.

Showing your ignorance again, James.....

James A. Donald
> > Ireland did not export its main crop, which was
> > potatoes. Failure the potato crop necessarily led to
> > starvation, and would have led to starvation even if
> > socialists were in charge, for what socialists would
> > have done would be to pass a law against starvation, and
> > shoot alleged evildoers until people stopped starving -
> > or at least till people stopped admitting that anyone
> > was starving.

"brique"
> ****ing idiot. Potato was not the main crop, dairy products, grain and
> livestock were the main produce, all for export.

Your own citations seem to indicate that about 25% of crops by value
were exported

So what was exported was not the main crop.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:skfum3d25jemu8g0trgctok9d3ipg031f7@4ax.com...
> James A. Donald
> > > Ireland did not export its main crop, which was
> > > potatoes. Failure the potato crop necessarily led to
> > > starvation, and would have led to starvation even if
> > > socialists were in charge, for what socialists would
> > > have done would be to pass a law against starvation, and
> > > shoot alleged evildoers until people stopped starving -
> > > or at least till people stopped admitting that anyone
> > > was starving.
>
> "brique"
> > ****ing idiot. Potato was not the main crop, dairy products, grain and
> > livestock were the main produce, all for export.
>
> Your own citations seem to indicate that about 25% of crops by value
> were exported

> So what was exported was not the main crop.

Are you truly as dumb as you pretend to be? or do you have work at it,
because to be that dumb, you must work awfully hard.