Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back to the subject:
When the Pilgrims first landed in America, their governor William Bradford writes that they set up an economic system very similar to socialism, where everything they produced went into a common pools, and each person was allowed to take only what he needed to survive. Inevitably, some produced little, and even stole from others to get enough to eat. Other complained that they were being required to produce for the ones that didn't and their families. The result was that little was produced, and many starved.
After a few years of that, Gov. Bradford abolished their socialistic system. He gave each family their own land, and each was allowed to keep whatever they produced. And starvation quickly stopped, with far more produced that in past years.
Today we still have a number of people who are ignorant of the results of their desired socialistic systems, and who are determined to force all of us to repeat them.
Bradford wrote about the first system they used: "...all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.
Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines.
Have you noticed that when liberals can't come up with a sensible reply to the subject, they start ranting hysterically like this instead?
Here's a response that will be over your head:
Pretty much every first-world nation on earth is not 100% capitalistic or socialistic; effective societies exist as a mixture of the two across various economic and social aspects. That's why no one is suggesting we collectivize all the farms, but we can still productively discuss maintaining some social safety net or a healthcare system that is actually cost-effective and covers everyone. When conservatives start talking about how everything free market is always good in every circumstance and socialistic principles are always bad in every circumstance...that's the hysterical ranting.
Pretty much every first-world nation on earth is not 100% capitalistic or socialistic; effective societies exist as a mixture of the two across various economic and social aspects.
Yup. And no banking system is free of bank robbers, there are always a few around. Yet the banks don't fail. They are usually still effective banks.
Does that mean bank robbery is a GOOD thing?
Similarly, as you point out, nearly every society has some socialism (i.e. forced wealth confiscation and redistribution) in it, and some of those societies don't fail (while some do fail). But your conclusion that such forced theft and distribution of stolen goods is a GOOD thing, is completely silly.
But since it's likely over your head, you'll probably keep believing it's OK, as though voluntary charity can't take care of problems the poor have.
Back to the subject:
Governor Bradford pointed out emphatically that the forced socialistic policies of the original Pilgrims, had major effects on the death rates of the colonists, by discouraging hard work and production while rewarding sloth and corruption of those who violated the colony charter. As Gov. Bradford pointed out, they turned some formerly productive members of the colony, into unproductive ones, and even into thieves.
Some people did indeed get more than they earned. But claiming that the system was therefore a good one, is the most naive kind of dreamy wishful thinking. Especially after half of them died.
Those of the OPs ilk are continually trying to imply that their liberal opponents are promoting and practicing some sort of socialist/communist policy or ideology.
No, we are not trying to imply that. We are stating it directly and categorically.
Those ideologies take a good thing such as a desire to help those in need, while maintaining the shame that must envelope the recipients due to their (hopefully temporary) inability to support themselves and their family. And they turn it into an "entitlement", removing the shame that pushes the indigent to work his way out of his need, and forcing everyone else to make that this "help" their first priority above bare subsistence for themselves and their families. So they remove any incentive for the rest of the population to better themselves, since everything they do beyond bare subsistence must go to "help" others.
It's an ideology that discourages hard work while encouraging people to live off the efforts of others - which the Pilgrims found out the hard way, would destroy them all if they let it continue.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Yup. And no banking system is free of bank robbers, there are always a few around. Yet the banks don't fail. They are usually still effective banks.
Does that mean bank robbery is a GOOD thing?
Similarly, as you point out, nearly every society has some socialism (i.e. forced wealth confiscation and redistribution) in it, and some of those societies don't fail (while some do fail). But your conclusion that such forced theft and distribution of stolen goods is a GOOD thing, is completely silly.
But since it's likely over your head, you'll probably keep believing it's OK, as though voluntary charity can't take care of problems the poor have.
Back to the subject:
Governor Bradford pointed out emphatically that the forced socialistic policies of the original Pilgrims, had major effects on the death rates of the colonists, by discouraging hard work and production while rewarding sloth and corruption of those who violated the colony charter. As Gov. Bradford pointed out, they turned some formerly productive members of the colony, into unproductive ones, and even into thieves.
Some people did indeed get more than they earned. But claiming that the system was therefore a good one, is the most naive kind of dreamy wishful thinking. Especially after half of them died.
It is a good thing, because you are so blinded by your ideology that you think that pure laissez-faire capitalism is 100% upside, 0% downside.
In the real world, it has a huge downside. You may think that "non-producers" not getting jack squat is a "good thing that should motivate everyone to produce; or that workers who are more productive should get millions of times more than workers whose jobs aren't as productive; but not too many agree with you. There has to be some balance, as at the end of the day, we are all humans, and we don't want people dropping like flies around us
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
No, we are not trying to imply that. We are stating it directly and categorically.
Those ideologies take a good thing such as a desire to help those in need, while maintaining the shame that must envelope the recipients due to their (hopefully temporary) inability to support themselves and their family. And they turn it into an "entitlement", removing the shame that pushes the indigent to work his way out of his need, and forcing everyone else to make that this "help" their first priority above bare subsistence for themselves and their families. So they remove any incentive for the rest of the population to better themselves, since everything they do beyond bare subsistence must go to "help" others.
It's an ideology that discourages hard work while encouraging people to live off the efforts of others - which the Pilgrims found out the hard way, would destroy them all if they let it continue.
One, you use the slippery slope fallacy in this argument. And two, I don't think that the majority of "recipients" should be shamed, only the ones who are scamming the system (which is not most)
Translation: I can't believe that people don't just believe the 1950s version of Thanksgiving and shut the hell up.
Not even close to what he said or meant. But you apparently don't care about being accurate, only malicious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
