pjriot

I think I'd rather see lower unemployment than higher corporation tax take if that was the choice.

Its basic economics. Had the ruling elite deemed it necessary I'm sure Punch could have been commissioned to print all manner of xenophobic cartoons about subhuman slaves and their barbarism in order to justify the practice further.

This isn't to diminish the efforts of the anti-slavery movement or the individuals involved.

*Edit: Also, yes, this is not unique to any country at all. I'm sure there are a myriad of examples of slavery within any of the countries that Britain colonised throughout history.

I would note however, that the goal of wiping out a people (in this case it could be argued that "a people" could just as easily refer to "poor people" as "Irish people") was at least a bonus as far as Westminster was concerned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...

"The Irish viceroy actually proposed in this fashion to sweep the western province of Connacht clean of as many as 400,000 pauper smallholders too poor to emigrate on their own. But the majority of Whig cabinet ministers saw little need to spend public money accelerating a process that was already going on 'privately' at a great rate."

If a genocide occurs as a result of a commitment to a political or economic ideology, does intention really matter?

"while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (their opinions count right?)

Edit: ah, but only to customers paying for support.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Thing-Called-Science-Third/dp/0...

You'd be surprised how difficult it is to nail down what constitutes a science.

Funny, the button clearly says "Buy now". Not "License now" or anything else. If retailers want to make that distinction clear thats fair enough, otherwise I'm perfectly happy with the attitude you refer to.

What bothers me about this statement is that either side of the net neutrality debate could claim it was meant to support their position. Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to.