Why not also vote to prohibit holding capital? People get rich by owning capital, and it’s hard to compete with them if you don’t. What’s the difference?
I think you’re conflating your ethical views on slavery with what you wish other people would decide for consequential reasons.
People have, but it’s not that common. Also, when communism is instituted, it’s often by revolution rather than voting. There is a lot of incentive for the rich and powerful to be against it, but it only takes a comparatively small number of people who’d rather be powerful than rich.
Were there enough historical examples of this happening and failing horribly to stop this? Were the elite just really good at convincing people it was a bad idea? If so, did their ability to do so correlate with it actually being a bad idea?
Perhaps I should have explained better, but that was sort of my point. You ask why an event didn’t happen, and I pointed out that the event seems to be rare. I don’t think it requires a circumstances-specific reason. Or, put more simply: people didn’t do that because people didn’t do stuff like that then.
Also, I don’t think there are many instances of people voting out the capitalists before the Communist Manifesto, which was published in 1848. That’s well after “quickly after the US started”. I don’t think the timing is entirely coincidental.
Can you give me a circumstances-nonspecific reason?
Sure, here are a few off the top of my head, not having done any research. There are strong social norms against taking other people’s property. The prevailing culture of the time held this norm. Other people owning slaves has little direct impact on most people. I don’t think the economic competition argument was one likely to be known or understood by those competing with slaves, so I don’t think they would have made it. People who could make that argument were busy doing other things with their wealth. Status quo bias is generally strong.
For circumstances-specific logic, I’d suggest reading up on the period debates surrounding slavery; there certainly were some at high levels. I think the decisions were mainly made on political grounds, and by people who liked the economics the way they were.
Why not also vote to prohibit holding capital? People get rich by owning capital, and it’s hard to compete with them if you don’t. What’s the difference?
I think you’re conflating your ethical views on slavery with what you wish other people would decide for consequential reasons.
Workers compete with other workers, not capitalists. Worker wages are positively associated with the level of capital accumulation in society.
In the slavery example, free workers compete with slaves, not slave owners.
People have, but it’s not that common. Also, when communism is instituted, it’s often by revolution rather than voting. There is a lot of incentive for the rich and powerful to be against it, but it only takes a comparatively small number of people who’d rather be powerful than rich.
Were there enough historical examples of this happening and failing horribly to stop this? Were the elite just really good at convincing people it was a bad idea? If so, did their ability to do so correlate with it actually being a bad idea?
Perhaps I should have explained better, but that was sort of my point. You ask why an event didn’t happen, and I pointed out that the event seems to be rare. I don’t think it requires a circumstances-specific reason. Or, put more simply: people didn’t do that because people didn’t do stuff like that then.
Also, I don’t think there are many instances of people voting out the capitalists before the Communist Manifesto, which was published in 1848. That’s well after “quickly after the US started”. I don’t think the timing is entirely coincidental.
Can you give me a circumstances-nonspecific reason?
I haven’t heard of any, but I don’t know much history.
Sure, here are a few off the top of my head, not having done any research. There are strong social norms against taking other people’s property. The prevailing culture of the time held this norm. Other people owning slaves has little direct impact on most people. I don’t think the economic competition argument was one likely to be known or understood by those competing with slaves, so I don’t think they would have made it. People who could make that argument were busy doing other things with their wealth. Status quo bias is generally strong.
For circumstances-specific logic, I’d suggest reading up on the period debates surrounding slavery; there certainly were some at high levels. I think the decisions were mainly made on political grounds, and by people who liked the economics the way they were.