It's appropriate on Thanksgiving Day to revisit America's first socialist experiment, since this thread (with recent exception) breaks down into a discussion of capitalism and socialism.
The following is courtesy of Paul A. Rahe - Historian and Author <http://bit.ly/8Ykn9o>
On Thanksgiving, it is customary that Americans recall to mind the experience of the Pilgrim Fathers This year, it is especially appropriate that we do so--as we pause, in the midst of an economic maelstrom, to count our remaining blessings and to reflect on the consequences of our election of a President and a Congress intent on "spread[ing] the wealth around."
We have much to learn from the history of the Plymouth Plantation. For, in their first year in the New World, the Pilgrims conducted an experiment in social engineering akin to what is now contemplated; and, after an abortive attempt at cultivating the land in common, their leaders reflected on the results in a manner that Americans today should find instructive.
William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony, reports that, at that time, he and his advisers considered "how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery." And "after much debate of things," he then adds, they chose to abandon communal property, deciding that "they should set corn every man for his own particular" and assign "to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end."
The results, he tells us, were gratifying in the extreme, "for it made all hands very industrious" and "much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Even "the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Moreover, he observes, "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times . . . that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing." In practice, America's first socialist experiment "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."
In practice, "the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."
Naturally enough, quarrels ensued. "If it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men," Bradford notes, "yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And [it] would have been worse if they had been men of another condition" less given to the fear of God. "Let none object," he concludes, that "this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one's own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.
But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man's labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.
The following is courtesy of Paul A. Rahe - Historian and Author <http://bit.ly/8Ykn9o>
On Thanksgiving, it is customary that Americans recall to mind the experience of the Pilgrim Fathers This year, it is especially appropriate that we do so--as we pause, in the midst of an economic maelstrom, to count our remaining blessings and to reflect on the consequences of our election of a President and a Congress intent on "spread[ing] the wealth around."
We have much to learn from the history of the Plymouth Plantation. For, in their first year in the New World, the Pilgrims conducted an experiment in social engineering akin to what is now contemplated; and, after an abortive attempt at cultivating the land in common, their leaders reflected on the results in a manner that Americans today should find instructive.
William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony, reports that, at that time, he and his advisers considered "how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery." And "after much debate of things," he then adds, they chose to abandon communal property, deciding that "they should set corn every man for his own particular" and assign "to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end."
The results, he tells us, were gratifying in the extreme, "for it made all hands very industrious" and "much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Even "the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Moreover, he observes, "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times . . . that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing." In practice, America's first socialist experiment "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."
In practice, "the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."
Naturally enough, quarrels ensued. "If it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men," Bradford notes, "yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And [it] would have been worse if they had been men of another condition" less given to the fear of God. "Let none object," he concludes, that "this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one's own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.
But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man's labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First, you must surely mean that you would prefer to be able to choose whether it is wise spend your own money (not public money) on a CT scan -- in which case, there is nothing stopping you in any country I know of. I assume that when you say 'on my behalf' you mean 'on me' and not 'on someone else who might die if their illness is improperly diagnosed'.
Second, your contemptuous use of the word 'bureaucrat' ignores the fact that it is, in fact, doctors who normally decide whether you need relatively commonplace procedures, not bureaucrats.
Third, it recently occurred to me why so many people regard the United States as being so backward in its rejection of socialized medicine. A hundred years ago, no-one had it. Today, just about every country that can afford it has adopted some form of public health system. Most people outside the United States find it hard to understand why Americans should fail to recognize the benefits that have commended themselves to the rest of the world.
Cheers,
R.
Oh, and this was a couple of centuries before income tax, too. 
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Those are unconstitutional in the state of Indiana if used to completely replace state-run schools. Our state constitution REQUIRES the state to directly operate public schools and guarantees every child in the state a free public education in such schools. Those whose parents want to send them to private or church schools are free to do so, and those who want to home school can do so as well, but the public schools are required by the state constitution. This is not some modern lefty invention, Indiana's current constitution dates from the mid nineteenth century. Many other states have similar constitutional requirements.
Why yes, I believe he is, by action, and word.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nor can mindless greed, arrogance and selfishness. Part of the role of the state is ensuring that self-interest does not tip over into mindless greed, arrogance and selfishness.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Veteran
Preposterous nonsense. Roger Williams had nothing to do with the Constitution, being long dead. The religious views of the people at the Constitutional Convention varied, but to argue they were motivated by a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is absolutely incorrect. You can believe what you wish, but the belief you have asserted here is not in accord with reality.
Embarrassing preposterous nonsense. Evidence that racism is as alive today as it was in ante bellum times.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
No Rick! you just haven't heard truth such as this!
You like the rest miss my point. Sitting back dwelling on the past isn't going to change anything, but one getting off their duffs & doing something to try & help themselves instead of depending on someone else to give them a handout. I guess you think Sharpton & others bilking millions of $$'s out of slavery issues & blaming everyone else for what happened in the past is ok!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Bill, I actually don't think that giving people things will fix the problem of poverty. It'll certainly alleviate the suffering of those in poverty, but doesn't fix the cause of it. Poverty is caused, first and foremost by businesses hiring people and paying wages that are often less than half the actual cost of an individual living in our society. That is immoral and a violation of the basic human rights of those workers. Force the payment of living wages, poverty disappears, its that simple. Then you don't need welfare programs.
wgerrard
Veteran
Then you do not know what a socialist is, simple as that.
No I meant what I said. I do not want a bureaucrat deciding if I'm worthy of specific medical care, and when. If it is public money, it comes with a bureaucrat attached, and yes, I use the word contemptuously. It is NOT a fact that doctors will make the decision, it will be rationed care. This is the way of every socialized system.
The system we have now is by no means perfect, primarily because of government and law. I cannot purchase health insurance across state lines, for example.
What the system needs is more competition, not less. If the government controls it, quality will go down, and costs will go up. This is the nature of government. One need only look at the post office (losing billions and providing fewer services, with mediocre performance, at ever higher costs) as compared to the private companies such as Fedex and UPS.
Alternatively, look at procedures that are not covered by insurance at all, such as LASIK. Competition drove the price down, and quality up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Another thing to think about regarding Bill Gates. He pays his employees living wages, and often they make far above average wages. I think businessmen like him should be rewarded, and allowed to get as rich as they want. He got rich the honest way, by selling a product people wanted, not by exploiting people.
Businessmen who exploit people, paying starvation wages, should have to pay 95% income taxes, no deductions allowed, until every employee makes enough to live like human beings. I have long thought that corporate taxation should be based on this. Businesses that do not exploit, 0% corporate income taxes. Those that do? 95%.
wgerrard
Veteran
Chris, here in North Carolina the state constitution contains a clause that ays public education must be available to all children and, to paraphrase, that education must be of equal quality across the state. The courts have ruled that unequal spending means unequal quality. This has set the stage for a long-term ruckus because our school funding obviously varies enormously from county to county.
Oh, sorry I'm such a simpleton.
The government taking over private enterprise and government control of healthcare and 'spreading the wealth around' is then what exactly?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Right now a corporate bureaucrat decides if you get care, and yes they often decide to let people die to avoid paying for costs of care. Thats murder so far as I am concerned. Tell me, why do you trust businessmen with your life when they have NO responsibility to you, unlike government which is responsible to us and can be removed by voters if it doesn't do the right thing?
The same thing happened in Texas. It was called the 'Robin Hood' plan for obvious reasons. The idea was to take money from more prosperous districts and 'spread the wealth around.' So instead of having the normal bell curve distribution, the goal was mediocrity everywhere. Such a plan!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Well, Hamilton was a great admirer of Locke, who was also long dead, ad who is another with a good claim to being one of the frst to advocate the formal separation of churh and state. I seem to recall Hamilton's quoting both Locke and Williams with approval -- he certainly quoted the former -- so it is disingenuous to pretend that separation of church and state as having nothing at all to do with Williams.
After all, separation of church and state is not a uniquely American idea, and it has been interpreted in different ways at different times. Laicité in France is so marked that a church wedding, on its own, is not a valid civil marriage.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Veteran
Oh, sorry I'm such a simpleton.
The government is not taking over private enterprise. The government is not attempting to control health care. The government is not attempting to "spread the wealth around". Assertions to the contrary are simple lies or delusions.
The Obama administration is not proposing government ownership of the means of production, the central tenet of socialism.
The health care legislation proposes needed reforms of health care and, as it stands now, proposes a public option that would be available to a tiny fraction of the public. Little of this reform would be needed if we had not suffered the consequences of decades of government by conservatives who put profit before health.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Oh, sorry I'm such a simpleton.
Of course you are free to define 'socialist' in any way you like. It is just that very few outside the far right, and more specifically the American far right, would recognize your description of Obama as a socialist.
All economies in the world are mixed, and most governments recognize the advantages of trying to make life better and fairer for all their citzens, not just the rich.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
That statement is defacto liberalism.
Sorry, there is a definition of socialism, Roger, and it's not simply however any one person wants to define it.