Well, that's not fair! I want to live now because I'm unlikely to die in childbirth, my kids are all likely to survive, I can vote, own property, control my own movements, have human rights, be free of lice & parasites, be atheist, have antibiotics, dentistry, survive plaguehttps://twitter.com/derryborndo/status/961043032505307136 …
Which is a product of modernity. I don't know where you're going here. Do you think you are better off now than you would have been in the medieval period or not?
-
-
Of course I do. I am positing that the Lockean idea of petty bourgeois property rights as a take-off to economic growth worked: N America, in contrast to S America and its latifundia, was built on small estates. But they are no longer the dominant form of land ownership.
-
This doesn't appear to have any relation to anything I'm saying. America happened in the modern period.
-
OK, I happen to think that you have to go back to proto- and Enlightenment ideas to get a hang on the rise of the U.S. but that requires essays (& possibly a lifetime of study) from both of us. I think we should leave it there & thx for the convo. Sláinte.
-
Not to mention Rome! But I still don't get how this relates to my claim that things are better now than in the medieval period.
-
Yes, all is better now than the Medieval. & the BBC4 tendency of historians to be its apologists, rather than its explainers, irks, or, as Mrs. Bennet would say, vexes me. 1 does need to understand WW Rostow's "take-off to economic growth" to get the conditions for the modern.
-
Hang on, that last sentence is pompous piffle. I mean, we need a certain amount of economic growth to get the conditions for the modern.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.