Replies

My point was that ideas of historical or economic inevitability lead people not to take actions that can stop or prevent or end evils. The notion that slavery was dying out economically made many not take actions to end it, and in fact prolonged its life. It's the same with the notion that unconstitutional actions by the states didn't need to be counteracted by the federal government in 1861. Or with the notion in the 1930s that one need only give Hitler what he wanted for him to be reasonable or go away. Or with the feeling that nothing need be done about Soviet expansion because "eventually" the Soviet Union would collapse from within.

It's a stupid idea, because if you let such things go unchecked, they start to look like an unstoppable wave of the future. If we followed such advice, we would have given into every evil under the sun in the hope that it would just go away on its own. That's hardly wise policy. I'm not saying that we go out of our way to slay dragons, but if they come at us, we shouldn't stay our hand because of some theory of economic history that later generations may come up with. If things have worked out for the best in the past, it's at least in part due to the fact that people didn't flinch when action was needeed or give into comforting ideas of economic inevitability.

It all depends on who's ox is being gored -- on who suffers. I doubt most African-Americans would agree with your belief that yielding to the slaveowners on everything would have made things better for them. That was the slave owner's attitude throughout history -- "Give me everything a want and all will be well" -- but slaves and their descendants thought differently. I doubt most Poles or other Eastern Europeans would share your servile philosophy either. But reading your tag line about the "god" of the market suggests that arguing with you is probably futile. Some things do sort themselves out on their own, without people taking action intentionally, but many don't. If you don't recognize that or if you take people's efforts at fighting tyranny or slavery lightly, there's not much point in continuing the argument.

It's the same with the notion that unconstitutional actions by the states didn't need to be counteracted by the federal government in 1861 You mean like refusal by some northern states to abide by the Dred Scot decision? But seriously, the states were virtually autonomous before the Civil War. The only federal official the people knew was the postmaster. Secession was just the next step and not specifically proscribed by the Constitution. What settled the matter was military action. The Civil War was a second Revolution, but this time the rebels lost.