Today is Thanksgiving. And there is no better time to remember an underappreciated lesson of the original Thanksgiving: that the Pilgrims nearly starved to death because of collectivism and eventually saved themselves by adopting a system of private property. Economist Benjamin Powell tells the story here:
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, 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.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
For a more detailed account, see this 1999 article by Tom Bethell.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
NOTE: This post is adapted from a similar one I wrote last year.
EricPWJohnson says:
And then an aelection happened half an eon hence and the people were reluctantly returned to the commune
November 26, 2009, 6:10 amWayne says:
Of course, the real irony of this history is the reason the Pilgrims initially instituted communal ownership. The investors backing the enterprise were concerned that the colonists would shirk their obligation to work on behalf of the investors if the colonists had their own property. In other words, the capitalists funding the expedition forced the colonists to give up private property rights as a condition of the investment. There is more than one lesson in this story, and to quote the immortal Inigo Montoya “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
November 26, 2009, 6:20 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Property Sale Direct, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims: Today is Thanksgiving. And there is no better time to remember an unde.. http://bit.ly/4QObgO [...]
November 26, 2009, 7:05 amnhertel says:
So those investors would fail, and smarter investors would succeed.
Still an appropriate lesson.
November 26, 2009, 7:21 amFarix says:
Didn’t the Jamestown colony follow a similar path? At first, Jamestown was based on communal agriculture. But the colony didn’t succeed until Governor Thomas Dale divided the land up among the settlers to let them farm for themselves.
November 26, 2009, 8:45 amwolfwalker says:
So now we have two entirely different and contradictory versions of “the first Thanksgiving.”
Why should I believe either one?
November 26, 2009, 8:49 amsteve_in_philly says:
November 26, 2009, 8:53 amanonymous homeowner says:
> In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights.
> . . .
> Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement
> a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could
> then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding
> themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal
> ownership had dramatic results.
So they got rid of their homeowner’s association (H.O.A.)?
November 26, 2009, 8:54 amDavid Gobel says:
The idea of communal approaches is often promoted based on the event found in Acts where early Christians sold fields and placed the moneys in a communal pot. What’s missing in this idea is that it was never intended to be a permanent arrangement (see the later dictum: “if one does not work, neither should he eat”). One of the great themes of the Bible is the importance of having one’s own vine and fig tree in security. A significant portion of Mosaic law deals with the sanctity of private property, bi-centennial debt annihilation to prevent hyperbolic concentrations of wealth, usury, inheritance, *voluntary* charity, a ban on standing armies, flat tax @10%, workfare-not welfare – in short, exactly the opposite of collectivism. So, the lesson is indeed appropriate.
November 26, 2009, 8:55 amWorking class ox says:
The ox always earns a bit of the grain derived from its labor regardless who owns the field or governs the plowing.
When the ox is forced to give to much of the fruits of its labor for the good of all, everyone starves.
The ox may be a messy, wasteful beast that emits greenhouse gasses in the face of all who contribute but without it, lofty goals desired by those who never walk in the field are impossible.
Suck it up, be thankful for the self interest of the ox, embrace it and continue to pray for it.
Or starve in your cold concrete planned communal tower.
That means exactly what it means.
November 26, 2009, 8:58 amColin says:
Correlation and causation, people.
November 26, 2009, 9:00 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims: Today is Thanksgiving. And there is no better time to remember an unde.. http://bit.ly/4QObgO...
November 26, 2009, 9:01 amDYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims says:
[...] Read it. [...]
November 26, 2009, 9:07 amPeteP says:
An interesting perspective on our history.
Proving yet again that Communism goes against human nature, and can not succeed.
It reminds me of that old 60′s story about a commune :
“Yeh, man, it was beautiful ! Like, we all got together and lived there and everyone did their own thing ! Unfortunately, everyone’s ‘own thing’ turned out to be sitting around getting stoned, so no work got done’ :-)
November 26, 2009, 9:31 amedh says:
I’d also like to know whether private property increased charity because it would be voluntarily given. Even if the plots were separately operated, I suspect that if one family could not cultivate because of disability, others be more likely to help or do so for some less than market compensation for two reasons. In the first place, there would be a greater surplus than under communal rules. Second, since the charity was voluntary and selective, they would be more motivated to help those they found deserving.
Does the act of charity increase when it is voluntary and self-motivated, rather than compelled?
November 26, 2009, 9:40 amSteveP says:
Can you document that claim or is it just something you made up?
Because one is documented by the diary of the governor of the colony, William Bradford.
http://mises.org/daily/336
November 26, 2009, 9:51 amHow Private Property Saved the Pilgrims | PowerTowneDistro.com says:
[...] http://volokh.com/2009/11/26/how-private-property-saved-the-pilgrims/ Share and Enjoy: [...]
November 26, 2009, 9:51 amDavid Gobel says:
Private property best creates the conditions that lead to innovation and surplus. Charity then becomes much more *possible* – and thus more likely from a probabilistic point of view. I’d argue however that this does not make it inevitable, and that other factors stacked on top of surplus must come into play to result in strong systemic charity…for instance, a strong culturally embedded empathy (ie “some day that will be me”.) Another empathic drive is biologically based “children must survive/should prosper” – but in most cultures this does not generate a society wide toward strong charity. Interestingly, the countries with the strongest support of charity are the US (by far and away the largest), Canada and (trailing at some distance) the UK.
November 26, 2009, 9:52 amFausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Happy Thanksgiving Day! says:
[...] How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims Silvio posts the Thanksgiving Declaration. [...]
November 26, 2009, 10:17 amMark W says:
Yes Wayne, we can all learn from this. It does not matter who institutes socialism, and it does not matter what their motives are. Socialism is antithetical to the interests of everyone. Capitalism forces everyone to work in their own best interests and therefore serve the interests of the community as a whole. To complain that capitalism has inefficiencies is not a sufficient argument for inflicting universal economic pain on the entire population.
November 26, 2009, 10:33 ammattski says:
I can think of two obvious retorts to Ilya’s post.
1) How does “private property” explain the ability of the native americans to feed themselves?
2) Private property is an artifact of the (dreaded) State.
November 26, 2009, 10:34 amklp85 says:
How does the initial distribution of parcels among families play into the beneficial nature of this system?
November 26, 2009, 10:42 amRob Mandel says:
Seems Aristotle answered that question 2000 years prior to the Pilgrims:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html
You’d think at some point in time, people would realize that private property and capitalism are the ONLY paths to prosperity. No matter how hard we try to “spread the wealth”, you always, always, end up with the same result.
November 26, 2009, 10:44 amThe Lesson The Pilgrims Learned: « Tai-Chi Policy says:
[...] The Lesson The Pilgrims Learned: November 26, 2009 Posted by taoist in History, Tai-chi Policy. Tags: Property Rights, Thanksgiving, The Pilgrims trackback Socialism doesn’t work. [...]
November 26, 2009, 10:56 amrpt says:
You are accurate in several respects, but the tithe was not a tax, it was to support the Levites, who had no property. Then the Mosaic law is fulfilled with Christ and things change somewhat, including in this area, per Acts 2.
November 26, 2009, 11:15 ambuddy larsen says:
Investor’s Business Daily provides us the recollections of a professional with experience in both systems, the individualist and the collective:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665
November 26, 2009, 11:16 amrpt says:
Don’t you think that a combination of personal incentive and collective benefit is necessary in daily life? In the Pilgrims anecdote, what prevented the able-bodied from going out and gathering/growing/obtaining their own food in order to avoid starvation, even though it violated the law or norms of the colony? Who enforced the norms; how did the enforcers eat? Did the colonists just starve passively through the winter until the Spring capitalist epiphany? That doesn’t make sense. Can someone fill in the facts here?
November 26, 2009, 11:33 amJoe says:
If those who did not do their fair share in the old system was punished in various ways, it could have worked out differently, as is suggested by — per matt. — how more communal societies don’t starve.
I reckon that given the people here were used to a more private property type system plus the problems inherent in just starting out while many are sick and dying in general, it is not too surprising that a great change in how things are done would cause problems.
This, however, on its own has a feel of a “just so” story.
November 26, 2009, 11:37 amLarryA says:
Which native Americans? They weren’t all the same. Some practiced agriculture, some were still hunter-gatherers. Some were politically sophisticated, some weren’t. Some were relatively well-fed, some came close to starving every winter.
Nope. The state is an artifact of private property. The private property may be commonly held, as the case with a monarchy, but until people settle down in one spot and develop the ability to store records, the state cannot function.
November 26, 2009, 11:38 amStating the obvious says:
Which native Americans?
Well, let’s start with the Inca, who present a real conundrum for those who claim there has never been a successful socialist society.
Nope. The state is an artifact of private property.
Turning this around doesn’t help the libertarian cause at all. Either way the implication is that the more complex the private property rights you are seeking to protect (intellectual property, international trade agreements, securities, etc.), the more complex, and intrusive the State is going to become. The more stuff you have, the more you need the state.
November 26, 2009, 12:01 pmFûz says:
“a combination of personal incentive and collective benefit is necessary in daily life” economic specialization.
The farmer needs implements to till the earth, the blacksmith forges them for the farmer. There’s your collective benefit from personal incentive and trade.
November 26, 2009, 12:07 pmreadery says:
i have a general question:
A lot is said about government, but very little about “private” arrangements.
One way of explaining some of our corporate governance difficulties is that corporate executives don’t own the corporation’s property, but merely manage it in trust for others, there is incentive to mismange it in ways that benefit them but don’t necessarily benefit the corporation’s or is shareholders’ long-term interests, for example by making decisions that manipulate the short-term stock price at long-term detriment.
Why is this not a problem for libertarians? Why do libertarians focus exclusively on “government”, and not on private arrangements that a similar effect of making people trustees for others and give them effective control over others? The theory would appear to apply either way, since government is merely a big trustee arrangement with additional enforcement powers, but a large corporation often has more de facto enforcement power than (say) a town government. Economic exclusion is a sanction, and an effective one.
one could look at the Pilgrim’s arrangement as a kind of partnership or corporate arrangement. If it wasn’t private property, than most of our current economy isn’t based on private property. Sole proprietorships are not common in business today, certainly not in business of any size.
Is it possible that sole proprietorships — pure private property — is rare because it, too, has drawbacks which counterbalance the drawbacks of the much more common trusteeship type arrangements? Or is the theory simply that limited liability and similar government incentives are propping up the trusteeship arrangements and sole proprietorships would dominate on a level playing field because sole proprietors, as their own trustees, wouldn’t have an incentive to put their gain over trustee interests?
November 26, 2009, 12:08 pmDavid Gobel says:
You are right regarding the purpose of the tithe, to help raise the status of the poor (every three years) and, otherwise annually, for the Levites who had the tasks of providing services such as administration of capital (and other) justice in cooperation with local councils – but the purpose to which a tithe/tax is put does not change the fact of it being a tax, a statutorily mandated non-voluntary levy. Further, the Levites did in fact own designated cities and their immediately surrounding lands.
November 26, 2009, 12:09 pmSarcastro says:
Yes, the Pilgrims, in going from total Communism to total Capitalism, showed that socialism can never succeed! Cause they weren’t socialist at all after the whole plot of land thing!
November 26, 2009, 12:10 pmironyshines says:
” who present a real conundrum for those who claim there has never been a successful socialist society.”
Yes, they’re a real success a people evidently so caught up in providing for each other – that they forgot providing for the common defense. Please go on, oh wise sage we have much to learn from you.
November 26, 2009, 12:12 pmCornellian says:
A significant portion of Mosaic law deals with the sanctity of private property, bi-centennial debt annihilation to prevent hyperbolic concentrations of wealth, usury, inheritance, *voluntary* charity, a ban on standing armies, flat tax @10%, workfare-not welfare — in short, exactly the opposite of collectivism.
A ban on standing armies is “exactly the opposite of collectivism”?
November 26, 2009, 12:13 pmreadery says:
It does seem to me that because people left to their own devices in non-governmental settings, frequently voluntarily choose cooperative management arrangements in which they give up direct control over property to managers or trustees or partners of some kind, their tendancy to do that at least needs discussion and explanation.
One can of course always chalk up the things people do that disagree with our beliefs about what they should do to irrationality and ignorance, but perhaps a more neutral observation without coming in with preconceived beliefs about should might find circumstances explaining the behavior that may be counterintuive and contrary to reason as one understands reason from ones own position, but not necessarily counterfactual or contrary to “reason” when “reason” ispermitted broader horizens.
November 26, 2009, 12:20 pmEddie Kovacs says:
While it’s true that the investors in this venture are to blame for imposing this communistic system on the settlers, it’s also worth noting that a great many of the settlers received news of this only when they were boarding the ship, and many of them sent messages back to their sponsors that the agents who’d agreed to this arrangement had not been authorized to do so. They’d already surmised what was in store for them in this system.
Of course, this would have been well over a century before Marx was even writing all his crap. Oppressive economic systems have been around a lot longer than the modern names for them. Among theologians, the Spanish Scholastics had lately come up with a Biblical justification for a more capitalistic system, but the pilgrims had never heard of those guys. Moreover, “capitalism” is a name our enemies gave to our preferred system of free trade; before Marx, whatever system one had was just known as the marketplace.
The pilgrims’ capitalistic success, moreover, came at a considerable cost. When their sponsors heard that the colonists had breached their contract, they demanded a significant sum in compensation and the colonists had to borrow money at hefty interest rates to pay them. Even though these rates were extortionate and they had to refinance several times, they ultimately managed to pay off all their debts with the capital gains they made from their new privatized system.
November 26, 2009, 12:27 pmSarcastro says:
The key to arguments like this is to recognize that there is no middle ground. You are either with Friedman or Stalin; Capitalism or Communism; Freedom or Tyranny!!
Continua are a tool of the lefties. Bright lines are what the Founders intended! Pilgrims on one side, those commie natives on the other!!!
Also, Norway’s army suucks cause they are all socialist and therefore lazy.
November 26, 2009, 12:28 pmbuddy larsen says:
If I have to go to the Incas in order to argue for socialism, what’s my point –that there may have been a socialism that worked for awhile six or seven centuries ago, and therefore we should ignore the dozens of spectacularly destructive failures that litter the intervening era, and go for it?
November 26, 2009, 12:39 pmDavid Gobel says:
Yes, but the logic is non-linear. A standing army increases the need for taxation. Higher taxes results in less capital available to the property owner. A standing Army becomes a power center and may invoke the fear of neighbors resulting in a military escalation and ascending need for further taxation. This is exactly what happened appx 500 years after Moses wrote the injunction against a standing army. Solomon accumulated horses and chariots for himself and at the later part of his reign taxed the people into slavery. After he died, his son decided to continue his policy, and this resulted in civil war, and permanent partition from which the culture never recovered.
November 26, 2009, 12:45 pmmike reed says:
Everyone here seems focused on an abstract vision of humanity as being morally/ethically neutral and always governed by purely logical and linear thinking. It is not. There are “good and bad” people interspersed in every population. Some people are bad, and are willing to take advantage of others in various ways. Living off the work of others thru deceipt, charm or force. Totalitarian social systems (monarchy & dictatorship, among others) can enforce “communal” activities by hook or by crook. Failing to see and admit this skews your reading of history. Also, you ignore the difference between sharing and tithing; and paying tribute. The hun and many other militaristic groups earned their way by domination and threats of continuing violence. It’s not a stretch to see even democratic governments, who by force of law with the threat of imprisonment, tax the population to support special classes of people as such. The problem is with the rulers & the ruled losing sight, over time, of what is right and good for themselves. Being “humans”, it just happens – and we need to constantly re-examine, reform and return to the best model. A society, like the individual, unexamined is not worth much.
November 26, 2009, 12:56 pmpirateguy says:
when under the rule of England the colonies were poor. As an independant state, the U.S expanded west and sold (and gave) land to private parties. Given to do what they wanted people went on to develope and start all manner of industry and invention. Under the freedoms we (used to) have America became the most powerfull and wealthy nation in the history of man. As we return to collectivism, we are losing our clout and our wealth. In large regulated cities just to scrape by people are forced to work there job day in and out, and if you “only” make 40k a year your broke. In a small town in southern Washington I clean gutters as my own boss and sometimes only bring in under $1000.00 per month but yet I own 3 cars and feed 4 children and a stay at home wife.
November 26, 2009, 12:56 pmIntelecualize the argument all you want, but when you look at real situations free enterprise and private ownership speeks for itself
Stating the obvious says:
If I have to go to the Incas in order to argue for socialism, what’s my point –that there may have been a socialism that worked for awhile six or seven centuries ago, and therefore we should ignore the dozens of spectacularly destructive failures that litter the intervening era, and go for it?
Ilya’s post is about 17th century settlers in the Americas. A society that lasted over 400 years and was finally defeated (caused mainly by devastating plagues of smallpox that wiped out up to 90% of the population) by the Spanish less than 50 years before the Plymouth Colony was founded, is certainly relevant to the conversation. It is even more relevant considering that the only reason the Pilgrims discovered a relatively unpopulated land was that the area had recently been struck by a devastating plague itself that left prime, cleared, farmland ready for the taking.
November 26, 2009, 1:05 pmJeff says:
Not true at all.
The reason the cost of living is so high in cities is because landlords charge high rents, and they charge high rents because the market can bear it, i.e. free enterprise. It has nothing to do with collectivism.
November 26, 2009, 1:12 pmJakeCollins says:
So it’s true! Private property is the first step towards genociding your neighbors. :)
November 26, 2009, 1:13 pmJab says:
I guess someone should tell the queen teabagger herself palin who believes that natural resources should be owned “collectively” and in spreading the wealth around
Palin:”we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
Palin:”Collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere”
November 26, 2009, 1:15 pmJohn, Sartell, Minnesota, USA says:
Working Class Ox, please remember that the Ox gave up something between his hind legs that I am certain he would now prefer he had kept.
The Inca were so regimented that we would call Hitler’s NAZI’s and Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China sweet Libertarian. Socialism without force can work, but only for groupes of less than 250 people. Even monistaries had the means to expell the non workers.
November 26, 2009, 1:17 pmGer says:
That only proves that Communism is against those pilgrims nature, not humanity’s in general, my question is, is human nature that way for everyone, hence the capitalism is the result? or is that the human nature of most people cause capitalism is the most common system?
I think that communism cannot forced to people with that nature, but i think that there are people that would be more happy and prosperous with a communist system.
November 26, 2009, 1:19 pmpirateguy says:
Jeff-the colonial governments wer not poor just the people, and everyone knows the people dont matter. And I own my own home. Im not forced to pay rent(private ownership) my original statement stands. I own my property less mony is required for basic needs therefor i have more freedom to use what mony i have as i please, unlike rentors Who answer to someone who owns home they live in
November 26, 2009, 1:23 pmrpt says:
Palin is a good example of how collectivism works well and is an integral but unspoken part of the functioning and enriching of the conservative elite; speak “free enterprise” but act to get all that you can through private and public coercion, i.e. Goldman Sachs, defense contractors and so on. It built her a nice house on the lake.
November 26, 2009, 1:24 pmSean says:
Read “Property and Freedom” by Richard Pipes..
November 26, 2009, 1:25 pmThis study shows that personal property and libery what drive economic prosperity. There will always be those who drain the system and those who work harder than the next, so personal ownership and private property is the ONLY way to have political, moral, social and economic balance.
Sergey says:
Every corporation is a socialist by its very nature, because inside it a vertical command structure exists. But if it is poorly managed, it get bankrupt and liberate its resourses for better managed firms. Capitalism is viable because of bankruptcy procedure and because no of its many socialist corporations can parasitize on other people’s money (at least, not for long).
November 26, 2009, 1:45 pmbuddy larsen says:
So, control those market-priced rents and what do you get? a mess, supply falls behind demand and price signals –and transactions –go underground. Society loses when gov’t creates moral hazard –the logical end is the Phnom Penh method of forcing supply and demand to mesh.
re Incas, okay, i’ll give you relevance there if you’ll let me add to the other side of the ledger North Korea and Cuba, with Venezuela catching up, China before capitalism, USSR and the dozens of ancient historic nations on its borders, & the Axis powers of WWII, just for starters, and the conclusions in the little black book of some 100,000,000 citizens sacrificed –again basically in an attempt to force certain supplies and demands to mesh. A meshing that as messy and slipshod as it is, freedom and the invisible hand has managed to accomplish every time without genocide, concentration camps, forced famine, and state terror campaigns by secret police and brownshirts.
of course there are exceptions, of course exceptions prove rules.
November 26, 2009, 1:45 pmplutosdad says:
Well, let’s start with the Inca, who present a real conundrum for those who claim there has never been a successful socialist society
yes and like every other socialist society they excelled at mass murder.
November 26, 2009, 2:02 pmgeokstr says:
Typical fudge packer comment.
Anytime any of you leftists call your opponents “teabaggers” you can count on me to call you “fudge packers”.
November 26, 2009, 2:02 pmJab says:
Oh geo. You always know what to say to turn a guy on
November 26, 2009, 2:10 pmSergey says:
Inca – pretty good example of success by cannibalizing (literally) their neigbours taken as prisoners in wars launched with the only goal to eat them.
November 26, 2009, 2:52 pmrc says:
Commies refer to the Inca as a ‘successful socialist system.’ And history shows that the Inca did indeed feed their people and dominate other cultures, so in that sense at least we can agree that the Inca were ‘successful.’ But what are some other hallmarks of Inca society?
google: “inca socialism”; Item 4: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=110264
“The Inca state seems to have been one of the fullest incarnations of socialist ideals in human history.”
“Socialist principles were clearly expressed in the structure of the Inca state: the almost complete absence of private property, in particular of private land; absence of money and trade; the complete elimination of private initiative from all economic activities; detailed regulation of private life; marriage by official decree; state distribution of wives and concubines.”
This is what successful socialism looks like! And the governing principles of the Incan civilization were inherent to socialism, not just some ancillary choices limited to the conditions in the Andes:
“More’s Utopia was written in 1516, while Peru was discovered by the Spaniards in 1531. The similarities are, therefore, all the more striking and show how socialist principles inevitably led to the same conclusions in the centuries-long practice of the Inca administrators and in the mind of the English philosopher.”
It’s very telling that Incan civilization is the hallmark socialist ‘success’ that’s hailed by commies and hippies. Socialist ‘success,’ in this vein, requires absolute control of a subjugated working class. In the end, it’s interesting that the ‘slavery’ that capitalism is accused of causing is in fact borne out in full force by socialism.
November 26, 2009, 3:00 pmSG says:
I think that communism cannot forced to people with that nature, but i think that there are people that would be more happy and prosperous with a communist system.
Perhaps. After all you can’t prove a negative (communism can’t work).
But we can state with certainty that the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Korean, Cuban, Polish, German, or Romanian (and I know I’m forgetting some) are not those people that would be happy and prosperous under a communist system.
Out of curiosity, who are the people that you think could make it work?
November 26, 2009, 3:06 pmrpt says:
I thought that you and I (a non-leftist) had a truce on this one. What are you doing about the Oxford Dictionary’s recognition of the word that shall not be written?
November 26, 2009, 3:21 pmrc says:
Ger says: “i think that there are people that would be more happy and prosperous with a communist system.”
Monasteries are examples of durable communities with successful ‘communist’ systems. And I don’t know if anyone else feels this way, but the only way I consider monasteries to be moral is because you must choose to be a part.
Also, islands of communism can survive only within a larger sea of choice and productivity: there are several reasons why. One reason is because when people are poor or starving, their choices favor self-preservation. This is a useful and unbreakable human trait- any efforts to eliminate this reality are both misguided and ultimately futile. Another reason why commie islands require a sea of choice is to have a sink in which to dump freeloaders and those who don’t believe in the cause.
Successful socialism requires the choice to opt in, a self-preservation safety valve, and a dumping place for freeloaders and free thinkers.
The Mayflower socialist system lacked these aspects- I believe that’s why the system failed.
November 26, 2009, 3:32 pmptt says:
Yeah, because leftists are stupid enough to pick a group name that so easily lends itself to sexual innuendo.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you’re not banned from this site.
November 26, 2009, 3:37 pmKILLALLLIBERALS says:
I thought Obama helped the pilgrims from starving. He is the messiah, right?
November 26, 2009, 3:47 pmR Gould-Saltman says:
Gee, this one certainly seems to have brought out the most thoughtful, reasoned comments from both sides, didn’t it?
Mark W. sez: “Capitalism forces everyone to work in their own best interests and therefore serve the interests of the community as a whole.”
sorry, guy; begs the question. The truth or falsity of that
“. . .and therefore. . .” is the whole debate.
You-all have a nice weekend.
I’m not commenting again ’til Monday unless Orin’s discussing music.
r gould-saltman
November 26, 2009, 4:05 pmRelic says:
ptt, the group name is Tea Party Protestors, Tea Party Patriots, or just Tea Partiers. “Teabaggers” is just an immature sexual slur.
November 26, 2009, 4:16 pmMark Field says:
Wayne and readery have touched on this, but I want to expand on their point. Jamestown and other colonies were often organized as corporations. The colonists were supposed to labor for the corporate owners. To the extent that this system failed, the blame rests with the corporations. It’s just an early example of the agency problems which are endemic to corporate structure.
Plymouth Colony was not, however, an example of this. The Pilgrims made their own decisions on how to structure land ownership, etc.
Moreover, “capitalism” is a name our enemies gave to our preferred system of free trade; before Marx, whatever system one had was just known as the marketplace.
Someone must be circulating this myth on the wingnut right; this is the second time I’ve seen it recently. As I pointed out last time, Marx used the word just twice in the whole of Das Kapital. The word had been around for about 100 years before that, but came to have its current meaning not long before Marx used it. The term “capitalist” goes back centuries.
There’s a word for those who sell stolen property.
November 26, 2009, 4:23 pmWinfred says:
November 26, 2009, 4:28 pm24AheadDotCom says:
I knew Randroids were glassy-eyed, but I’d expect a little more analysis from this site. Such as: in the three years, didn’t they also learn how to plant in the new world and didn’t that have an impact on their harvest? What happened to those who fell ill and who weren’t popular? Were they cast off into the wild? How hard did kids have to work, and was it more like child labor? Were the kids as educated as they would have otherwise been? Were there hidden costs to the new system, such as resentment of those who were lucky to get a good crop?
At least this site doesn’t have posts about Dianetics or something.
November 26, 2009, 4:32 pmrpt says:
At least this site doesn’t have posts about Dianetics or something.
Quote
Best comment in a long time.
November 26, 2009, 4:38 pmJab says:
Well, teabaggers called themselves that first, and only later after mocking from the left did they change their name. Considering all the inappropriate names they call Obama, I find it rich that they whine when given a dose of their own medicine. Don’t want to be called names, then show some respect and don’t use vile inappropriate names either.
November 26, 2009, 4:40 pmreadery says:
Well, I used to have a summer job at one of those tourists sites on Lake Michigan with a window where you can watch the candy being made. I was the one who took the fudge off the marble slab and cut it up and put it into those little boxes.
I liked the job and the place well enough. But it was just so embarassing telling my friends what I did for a living.
November 26, 2009, 4:43 pmreadery says:
Happy Turkey Day to the trolls!
November 26, 2009, 4:45 pmGene Madison says:
Yet, insurance is nothing more than communal type of program… I guess because insurance ultimately increases the cost to non-insured, making it appear as a benefit to have rather than not have.
They mentioned that people starved… But was that before or after the ‘investors’ got their share?
One of the Ideas behind communism is to provide for the neccessities… So there is more for trade. Similar thing happens in the U.S., and ultimately the purpose of the welfare system. (Ultimately subsidizes businesses by allowing them to underpay employees.
Things never really changed, they’re just substituted with what results in the same thing… Enriching the rich, oppressing the rest.
Incentivizing responsibility is like incentivizing freedom. It’s also inconsistent with Justice…
November 26, 2009, 4:46 pmGene Madison says:
One more thing. Capitalism is a mystery word. It’s defined as one thing, but means another.
Believe it or not, Capitalism(1) leads to Capitalism(2). A capitation tax is a tax on each head. A Capital city is the center or head of Government. It refers to power in its many forms, one of which is money. Central Banks created power, and were/are responsible for crushing it.
The greatest con of all times, is the american idea of Liberty. Belief is a powerful thing, if you believe in God, he is. If you believe someone is following you, they are. If your belief is strong enough, who needs realization/reality?
November 26, 2009, 5:14 pmRelic says:
Jab, they never changed their name. Anderson Cooper changed their name, and that led to others calling them that. I have never, not once, seen an instance in which the protesters called themselves “teabaggers”. It was always Tea Party Patriots, if they called themselves anything at all. I find it rich that the group who pioneered “bushitler” is surprised and enraged that the same charge is leveled at them.
November 26, 2009, 5:22 pmrc says:
24AheadDotCom, I feel that your objections are nitpicky, and ignore the prevailing point in favor of peripheral issues.
for example- “Were the kids as educated as they otherwise would have been?” That’s a small issue, when the real choice at Plymouth was between starving and surviving.
This Thanksgiving-season example has much less wiggle room than other arguments. There are fewer opportunities for hippies to say ‘yeah you’d be poor, but you’d be happier under socialism.’ The Plymouth choice was between fed and dead, and the webpost claims that private property made the difference.
Sure, taking responsibility for your life leaves less time for Shakespeare… but then Shakespeare had to make a living, too. People who resent this reality never create a better reality… they just create tyranny and/or poverty and/or death.
November 26, 2009, 5:25 pmGringo says:
Jab: Well, teabaggers called themselves that first, and only later after mocking from the left did they change their name.
November 26, 2009, 5:36 pmPlease document. IOW, prove it.
24AheadDotCom says:
rc: thanks for pointing out that the example doesn’t really apply to our modern system.
As for the “partiers”, here’s a play on teabagging (in pic form) from the end of Feb 2009, and probably from someone who wasn’t a plant:
bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/02/this_is_100_per.html
For a more grown-up discussion of what’s wrong with the “parties” (and the “partiers”) and what both they and their opponents should do (but aren’t capable of), see my extensive coverage.
November 26, 2009, 5:38 pmGene Madison says:
One more thing. Capitalism is a mystery word. It’s defined as one thing, but means another.
Believe it or not, Capitalism(1) leads to Capitalism(2). A capitation tax is a tax on each head. A Capital city is the center or head of Government. It refers to power in its many forms, one of which is money. Central Banks created power, and were/are responsible for crushing it. The centralization of the Worlds powers.
The greatest con of all times, is the american idea of Liberty. Belief is a powerful thing, if you believe in God, he is. If you believe someone is following you, they are. If your belief is strong enough, who needs realization/reality?
November 26, 2009, 5:40 pmi certainly says:
the earth is flat,,,,theres no such thing as the pilgrims,,,,it bushes fault,and if you dont agree then your a racist
November 26, 2009, 5:44 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Alaska is, in regards to natural resources and per the state Constitution, set up as a corporation, which I suppose is collectivism.
We (the citizens of the state of Alaska) elect a board of directors (the Legislature) to manage the resources (leasing and taxes) on publically-held land which pays for our capital expenses. The board (Legislature) then appoints managers (the board of the Permanent Fund) to invest the remaining income therefrom for the future. Said investment account pays each shareholder (citizen) a dividend on the interest.
Which is exactly what people think of when they think “collectivism”.
November 26, 2009, 5:47 pmRelic says:
24aheaddotcom:
The protests that became known as the Tea Party Protests occurred on April 15. Therefore, your picture is questionable. Furthermore you start off your “coverage” with:
I’m not seeing anything here that qualifies as “grown-up”.
November 26, 2009, 5:49 pmsetnaffa says:
It really boggles my mind how many trolls and other “useful idiots” (Lenin’s term) have posted here.
Charity cannot exist in an environment without personal property.
Socialism is just communism with lipstick and a condom.
The Incas lived in a Monarchy, not a socialist state.
And another read of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government seems to be in order for many of you.
Those who dislike capitalism can move to North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, or some other “Worker’s Paradise” if they wish; but they are not welcome to spread their treason (see 18 US Code, Chapter 115 for a definition) in America. As will be readily apparent in November 2010.
November 26, 2009, 6:25 pmrc says:
24AheadDotCom: “rc: thanks for pointing out that the example doesn’t….”
What I really pointed out is that sometimes reasonable people cite examples where property ownership is the literal difference between life and death. Then hippies respond with hand-wringing concerns about how providing for oneself leaves less time in the day for fingerpainting.
The pilgrims found a way to feed themselves… but that’s bad, because it might have hurt someone’s feelings. One side of this argument is more serious than the other.
November 26, 2009, 6:35 pmGene Madison says:
That’s interesting, because congress has no authority to define Treason according to the Constitution. But you seem to believe they do?
That which is Superior, cannot be overruled by the inferior.
November 26, 2009, 6:36 pmJab says:
Before tossing of charges of treason, absolutely no one here is advocating communism. I would guess thR the vast vast majority of the “leftist” on this site are capitalistS. As sarcastro said above, it us adenine to act as if there is only pure communism and pure socialism. We have never been a 100% capitalist nation however you define it. Even the queen teabagger herself seems to appreciate that states can own resources collectively and redistribute the wealth.
November 26, 2009, 6:39 pmJab says:
Sorry about all the typos. I find it difficult to post comments from my phone while in turkey-induced semi-coma. I meant to say that it is silly to think that there exists only pure socialism and pure capitalism. I would venture that the vast majority of leftists who frequent this blog are capitalists. The debate is what extent of a socialistic safety net. And there are legitimate moral/ethical issues regarding healthcare and whether 100% pure capitalistic approach is best. It would be nice to have that debate without the words Marxist, communist, socialist cavalierly tossed around. Oh, or even that we’re being treasonous. I admit my passions at times get the best of me when I call the tea partiers teabaggers. But how else do you respond when Obama is compared to marching us all off to dachau death camps.
November 26, 2009, 7:04 pmrpt says:
I don’t agree re this interpretation of the tithe, but it doesn’t matter because the Mosaic law was fulfilled, and the 10% tithe (to God for the support of the Levites, not the state as a tax) is no longer required. Instead the New Covenant requires 100%, i.e. Ananias and Saphpira and parable of the “rich young ruler”. This is rarely discussed, as it indicates an inherent contradiction between Christianity and modern capitalism. Marx, of course, was not a Christian but rather an occultist.
November 26, 2009, 7:21 pmwolfwalker says:
SteveP wrote: “Because one is documented by the diary of the governor of the colony, William Bradford.”
Where? Transcripts of Bradford’s History of Plimoth Plantation can be found in several places on the Web — here, or here, for example. I looked at the alleged quote therefrom, as given in Bethell’s article, and picked the rare word “chiefest” as a good one for a word-search. I found one example of that word in the text, but in an entirely different passage and an entirely different context. I tried other words and phrases from the alleged quote, and still found nothing. Please point me to the place in History of Plimoth Plantation where Bradford describes this early attempt at communism, and its failure.
November 26, 2009, 7:25 pmRelic says:
Jab, sorry, but no. The collective ownership of Alaskan resources is not something that Palin implemented, nor is it something she has the power to change. The collective ownership of Alaskan resources is established in the Alaskan constitution.
And again with the “teabagger”. Are you really that immature? You still haven’t shown that the protesters called themselves that.
November 26, 2009, 7:34 pmJab says:
Relic,
November 26, 2009, 7:39 pmI did not say Palin started the sharing of the wealth and collective ownership. But she does talk about it very positively and expanded payments via a oil profit windfall tax. I’ve already admitted that my passions get the best of me when I call them teabaggers. But deal with it. They have been calling Obama far far worse long before. Police you side before you come at me crying over the term teabagger.
Relic says:
Jab, that makes you a child. Did you hear me called Obama Hitler? No, you didn’t. Your passions obviously didn’t “get the best of you” because you did it again. I do not have the power to control how a group of protesters express themselves. Nor is protest language getting out of hand something new to Obama. Grow up.
One last point. Englighten me. What have the protesters been calling Obama that is “worse than teabagger”? I mention the Hitler comparison because that’s the most prominent, but again, this isn’t the first time a president was compared to Hitler.
November 26, 2009, 7:42 pmgeokstr says:
Truce? I didn’t know we had ever had one. I do remember calling you out for directing that same slur at me a long time ago, but don’t recall you ever responding. In any case, I was referring to “jab” this time, not you.
And you are a “non-leftist”? Then you and David Welker must both hold to the same mysterious political philosophy that despises everything on the right, and agrees with nearly everything on the left, but is not “leftist”. Since he has declined repeated attempts to name that philosophy that is “not left”, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Much as you would like to claim that people who attend Tea Parties are “stupid” and picked that slur for themselves, others above have ably demonstrated that this is just more of the left’s lying and use of ridicule as a debate tactic. Your team is noted for that.
Yes, it would make leftists happy if all those who disagreed with them, stood up for themselves and were willing to fight back were banned, re-educated, killed, or whatever it took to silence them, wouldn’t it?
FYI, I read most of the posts here in order to learn about the law and its relation to past and current events. I leave the occasional sarcastic snark (for which SirCastro is much loved by the leftists, since he only attacks the right), but am constantly amazed and angered at the arrogance, hubris and overall general nastiness of the leftists who comment here. I do not intend to let you get away with it. If they want to ban me for that, so be it.
November 26, 2009, 7:49 pmKen Arromdee says:
Is there any reason why the Conspiracy even allows this? Someone who called someone a c*cksucker or a m****r f****r (without the asterisks) would get banned pretty fast. Just because the vulgarity here is a little obscure, and because leftists rely on that to get the phrase repeated in the media when other vulgarities wouldn’t, doesn’t mean we need to be fooled here.
November 26, 2009, 7:56 pmgeokstr says:
Thank you, well said.
Civility is something that only the right must be held to, apparently. (That very thing is covered under Rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Hold your opponents to their standards, while having no standards of your own to be held to.)
And you must forgive them, their “passion” just forces them to be derisive, dismissive and despicable towards anyone who disagrees. Maybe that’s why Stalin and Mao had to break a hundred million eggs, they were just being “passionate”.
November 26, 2009, 8:15 pmjab says:
Ken, geo, relic,
November 26, 2009, 8:35 pmOh please, spare us all the crocodile tears over the loss of civility… seriously. It’s incredibly transparent because you refuse to engage on the merits of the disagreement (namely that Palin speaks very positively about collective ownership of natural resources, of spreading the wealth around equally to all citizens… no, she didn’t start it in Alaska, but she is an advocate for it, including profit windfall taxes to spread even more wealth around). And especially you geo… I can safely say you are one of the worst offenders of the regular commenters when it comes to civility… you crack me up with phrases like “fudgepacker” (waaaaa, but you said teabagger first… and I’m the imature one… LOL), and then you turn around making comparisons to Mao and Stalin…
The worst I have ever said on this blog is the phrase “teabagger”… but now, all of a sudden, OMG, THAT IS THE WORST EVER and I should be banned… get over it.
Relic says:
Jab, teabagger is a synonym for c*cksucker. As Ken said, calling somebody c*cksucker would earn a ban. But fine let’s discuss your argument’s “merits”. It has none. It doesn’t matter whether or not Sarah Palin thinks that a windfall profit tax is a good idea. It doesn’t matter whether or not Alaska “spreads the wealth around”. Palin is not the Republican Party. Palin is not the Libertarian Party. Palin is not all conservatives. Palin isn’t even a Tea Partier. It’s an argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because Palin supports it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, nor does it mean that other conservatives or libertarians support it.
November 26, 2009, 8:42 pmrpt says:
Geo:
1. Sometime ago I agreed to use the term “Tea Party Person” so as to avoid this issue. I don’t care if it’s accurate or not, it’s a distraction.
2. I don’t know David Welker.
3. I don’t think that the terms “left” and right” as commonly used are defined with any kind of precision so as to constitute a philosophy. “Left” is just a pejorative. It’s not so easy to categorize everyone in such a simplistic way. If I criticize some “right” person or idea, deal with the substance, not trying to place me in some category in which you can criticize other ideas that you believe are part of some coherent philosophy, with which I do not agree, and avoid the point.
4. There is not a whole lot of difference in the U.S. when you get to the top of the political class, as reflected by the remarkable continuity of Goldman Sachs and Citibank, et al influence, among others. Re Palin, a true conservative, as I understand the definition, would not hand out unearned royalties to Alaskan citizens because it reduces their incentives to work hard, etc., which is the point of the original post, and much contemporary political doctrine. My observation is that conservatives will take advantage of government largesse and resources for their private benefit as often as they can get away with it. Witness Sanford, Palin, and so on.
5. My philosophy? It’s based on the teachings of a Jewish carpenter who died some time ago. Smartest guy who ever lived, and sold a lot of books post-Gutenberg.
November 26, 2009, 8:50 pmRelic says:
rpt:
3. I feel compelled to agree here. Political labels of this kind only distract from the discussion
November 26, 2009, 9:02 pm4. Power corrupts. The solution is to get an ideologue into office, but they’re fairly rare and the uncorruptables are hard to get into office, in my opinion.
5. Jesus taught the Jews to follow the laws of their fathers. In his more “socialist” moments, he advocated getting rid of all of your property and going out to preach. I haven’t found his teachings to be in favor of one government type or another. They were all about how you, as an individual, behaved. His most prevalent teaching was to serve fellow man and live for God. Conservatives think that expanding free markets serves man. Many conservatives think it serves God.
Gulf Coast Bandit says:
I have no desire to get drawn into this argument, but Acts 5:4 indicates that Peter thought that Ananias/Sapphira has the right to do whatever they wanted with their property: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?”
November 26, 2009, 9:04 pmrpt says:
Relic:
Thanks. I understand and hope the dialogue can continue at this level.
November 26, 2009, 9:05 pmjab says:
Fine,
November 26, 2009, 9:10 pmIn the interest in civility, I will refrain from using the word “teabagger.”
Somehow, I doubt that relic, geo, or ken will refrain from continuing with calling those who disagree with them kindred spirits with Marx, Mao, or Stalin… we will see.
Leo Marvin says:
Right wing origins of “tea bag” label for the tea party protesters:
http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/02/27/rick-santelli-is-as-mad-as-hell-chicago-tea-party/
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=3864
http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party
Then there’s also this.
November 26, 2009, 9:24 pmRelic says:
Your links came out far after the protests. Mine came from the day of the protests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M
November 26, 2009, 9:33 pmNote that in none of those links did the protesters call themselves teabaggers. Cooper later apologized for his part in this. I will end my discussion of this here.
Leo Marvin says:
Those who know your history here will draw their own conclusions about how much irony impairment that comment reveals.
I assume you mean stuff like this:
I realize taking a name like “KILL ALL LIBERALS” is pretty deranged, but you really shouldn’t indict the whole right wing on account of a few hateful nuts. Trust me, there are plenty of decent, fair-minded conservatives. Just give them a chance.
November 26, 2009, 9:43 pmAllan Walstad says:
Not to change the subject from scholarly disputation over the origin of “teabagger” etc, but I wanted to respond in general to some earlier comments about firms as collectivist or socialist structures. Someone also mentioned agency problems and it was wondered how libertarians live with the separation of ownership and control.
Firms are voluntary associations. You don’t have to buy in, and you can sell your stock if the firm is not performing for you. In fact, you can sell your stock to corporate “raiders” who buy control of mismanaged firms and boot the management. Interesting how this very useful mechanism has been stigmatized in the news media and films (think Richard Gere in “Pretty Woman”). So there are market mechanisms that work in favor of efficiency and against, in effect, managerial embezzlement. With government it’s not quite that way. Each of us does not get to choose individually who to deal with. The government has a big gun, and each of us is looking down the barrel. Agency problems are far worse with government; I suggest Thomas Sowell’s Knowledge and Decisions for a good discussion of why.
November 26, 2009, 9:48 pmSG says:
In the interest in civility, I will refrain from using the word “teabagger.”
Somehow, I doubt that relic, geo, or ken will refrain from continuing with calling those who disagree with them kindred spirits with Marx, Mao, or Stalin… we will see.
While both are insults, there’s a qualitative difference between the two. One is a sexual innuendo while the other is a political analogy.
The difference doesn’t make either one inherently right (or wrong), but it does make the two not directly analogous. Given that the discussion is political in nature, a political analogy seems at least somewhat germane. If nothing else, I don’t see any correlation between sexual practices and preferred tax policy…
November 26, 2009, 9:49 pmjab says:
SG…
Maybe with Marx, but certainly NOT Mao or Stalin… None of the regular left commenters on this blog are anything close to advocating mass genocide. Comparisons to Stalin and Mao are far, far, far worse than a little sexual innuendo.
November 26, 2009, 9:54 pmSG says:
jab,
Which form of insult (sexual innuendo or hyperbole) is more insulting is in the eye of the beholder, but I stand by my claim that the two are not directly analogous.
November 26, 2009, 10:04 pmSG says:
Furthermore, after spending at least 5 years being analogized to Hitler, I’m unsympathetic to claims that hyperbolic political analogies are beyond the pale
November 26, 2009, 10:07 pmrc says:
Allan Walstad says: “Agency problems are far worse with government.”
I agree, and I don’t understand how someone could believe otherwise.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that socialism is sunk. I gave an example of how socialism can work: monasteries.
These societies exibit: the choice to buy in, a self-preservation safety valve, and a dumping ground for freeloaders and free thinkers.
Any collective effort that does not have these things will not work.
Single-payer / universal health care, for example.
November 26, 2009, 10:19 pmmattski says:
First, I think it suffices to say I’m talking about the native americans who provided for themselves.
Second, “commonly held” private property? Sounds like a tough sell, especially at a site like this!
Look, a HUGE problem at Volokh, IMO, is the overuse of such grossly overbroad terms like “capitalism” and “socialism.” These words don’t convey anything meaningful in the majority of cases here. There are few if any industrial nations today which do not combine both free markets and communal programs of various sorts. Today, modern economies are mixed. What liberals and conservatives argue about are matters of degree, not kind.
That’s why I find Ilya’s post a tad exasperating. My point is not only can we have both private property and commonly held property (such as social contracts like SS) but in practice we DO have both and so does the entire civilized world.
November 26, 2009, 10:25 pmScummyD says:
It still means what we think it means.
The point still remains: the communal system was less dynamic and failed to produce as much as the private property system based on individual ownership.
November 26, 2009, 10:28 pmRelic says:
mattski:
In monarchies, the monarch is the owner of the land. He lends out the land to others in exchange for 1) military service or 2) services related to using the land. No liberals and conservatives do not argue about degrees. Conservatives often argue that the social programs shouldn’t exist. They also realize that they don’t have the support (now) to undue them, so they attempt to prevent new one’s coming into service.
Capitalism refers to the distribution of resources through markets, and socialism refers to the distribution of resources through governmental forces.
No, you can’t have both. One interferes with the other, and the commonly held properties eventually overtake the private properties.
November 26, 2009, 10:32 pmjab says:
Great SG… guess we’re back to square one.
November 26, 2009, 10:50 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
I am skeptical (sceptical) of this story. it works nicely as a fable, but i’m dubious about whether it accurately describes the facts. i’ve been researching some of my pilgrim ancestors recently, mostly at ancestry.com, Resolved White, his parents, a couple others. it’s more complicated than that. If this is going to be an annual event, let’s have better citiations, more fact-checking. It is true that there were political disputes among pilgrim factions about how land for farming would be allocated. One of my ancestors was in a splinter group that went and founded a new town and congregation in massachusetts because they wanted more compact farms. I only recently learned that a heckofalot of the pilgrims were economic refugees, and the Mayflower Compact was sort of a plot by the religious faction to manipulate/control the nonreligious ones.
November 26, 2009, 10:56 pmMost of the deaths happened the first winter, before any crops were in anyway. They forgot to bring fishhooks. Etc. I would advise overreliance on this story without a good grasp of the facts, although there is some grain of truth to it.
Leo Marvin says:
I don’t see why that would matter if it were true, but it so happens the links are dated 2/22/09, 4/1/09 and 8/9/09, i.e., before, right in the middle of and after the initial protests.
Did you read what Blue Collar Republican said?
As well he should have. Everyone should be called whatever they want, within reason. Obviously, if I change my name to “Your Holiness”…. The point, as usual, is that reality doesn’t conform to the neat little “us good, them bad” narrative some people here are promoting.
In case you read all the links as carefully as you did that Blue Collar Republican post, here’s a quick summary:
1. There’s the conservative protester pictured in The Washington Independent in February holding a sign that reads “TEA BAG THE LIBERAL DEMS BEFORE THEY TEABAG YOU.” Do you suppose that might give some people ideas?
2. There’s the post from ReTeaParty.com, the self-identified “Tea Party Coordinator Blog” on April 1, two weeks before the first mass protests, urging readers to “tea bag the fools in Washington.” Hmmm. Think they were brainwashed?
3. There’s the conservative blogger, Blue Collar Republican, who admits as late as August that he sees the “tea bag” label as something conservatives have brought on themselves, and in any event, no big deal. Another liberal plant, I’m sure.
4. And to this day there’s the blatantly racist TeabagObama website.
So yes. It’s a rude, obnoxious epithet. One that’s been used both inadvertently and intentionally by both sides. Everyone should cut it out, and anyone on a partisan high horse should get off and grow up.
We’ll see.
November 26, 2009, 11:00 pmRelic says:
Leo Marvin:
Giving people ideas is different from being the origin. Giving ideas is also different from using a crass sexual joke as the label for a given group. Yes, the “Tea Bag” sign does show that some of the protesters were familiar with the slang in question. Yes, the label was easy to corrupt. That does not mean that calling them teabaggers is acceptable, nor does it mean that the label came from the protesters. Yes I’m back. Yes, I’m ashamed.
I don’t care about the TeaBagObama site. There’s whackos in every group. That there’s racists in this one isn’t surprising given the color of our president.
November 26, 2009, 11:04 pmJeff proper says:
Their is a difference between a status with capital and a capitalist, yes they both would be looking for profit, but the status at that time were also looking for control, kind of like today.
November 26, 2009, 11:10 pmtheobromophile says:
Leo, rpt, etc:
The tea party movement includes a huge number of people. That a handful among them do not mind a vulgar sexual slur (or, as per Leo’s incredibly irrational reasoning, use tea bags, which contain tea, as a symbol and therefore are fine with being associated with a sexual practise) does not mean that the millions of people who are involved or support the movement should be demeaned this way.
Some women are fine with being called the “b” word (or worse) and find it to be empowering. Some African-Americans, apparently, do not mind calling each other or being called words that were used to demean and dehumanise their race. Under the reasoning put forth by the anti-Tea Party commenters above, therefore, it is now socially acceptable to use those words in reference to all women or all African-Americans.
That a small minority of members of a group do not mind the slurs (or even adopt them as their own) does not mean that it’s socially acceptable, mature, or morally correct to demean the entire group with those slurs, especially when the entire purpose of using the term is to be demeaning. Does anyone really think that phrases such as “queen teabagger” are employed as a matter of respect to the people involved?
November 26, 2009, 11:15 pmSteve says:
So wait, the government assigned every family a parcel of land, and this is a lesson about private enterprise?
As always, the lesson of these historical anecdotes is whatever the heck you want them to be.
November 26, 2009, 11:17 pmtheobromophile says:
PS – a very Happy Thanksgiving* to all.
*or Turkey Day, Tofurkey Day, risotto day… whatever your culinary preferences may be.
November 26, 2009, 11:17 pmRelic says:
I would like to apologize. Sorry, guys. I wrecked the thread.
November 26, 2009, 11:19 pmgeokstr says:
Exactly. For the first time since I’ve been coming here, I totally agree with you (almost). That’s all I’ve been demanding since the leftwing commenters here first started their juvenile use of the term.
But, please, don’t even begin to claim that the usage by the left was “inadvertant”. I call BS on that one.
And the only ones on any horse are on the left on this one.
So what if you can find, among all the hundreds of thousands of posters at the Tea Party rallies, one that says “tea bag” on it, or one or two quotes from Tea Partiers. That’s just trying to excuse your own side’s incivility. Until the Tea Party movement, I doubt that one in 100,000 people knew that there even was also a vulgar meaning of the term, and if they had, would never have used it to describe themselves. I consider myself as worldly as anyone, and I certainly didn’t know it.
But when the left started to use it heavily as a perjorative, they knew exactly what they were referring to. Even Bill Clinton used it in an interview recently, and I doubt he was ignorant of what it meant.
November 26, 2009, 11:26 pmjab says:
Well, since we’ve all come to this wonderful understanding about not using demeaning names for political groups with which we disagree… I won’t use “teabagger” and we see if the other side stops using Communist or making comparisons to Mao or Stalin… then we’ll know who is sincere and who are hypocrites… we’ll see.
November 26, 2009, 11:30 pmgeokstr says:
Relic:
No apologies necessary. It’s about time people started standing up to the left about their uncivil behavior, among lots of other very objectionable things they’ve perfected as tactics over the last several decades. I wish more people would out there in the real world too.
November 26, 2009, 11:30 pmMark Field says:
This was true only in some monarchies at some times. By no means was it true in all of them or at all times. I mean, Britain is a monarchy today, but QEII doesn’t own all the land, much less enfoeff others in return for knights service.
Same as above. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
November 26, 2009, 11:44 pmgeokstr says:
Why, jab, that’s so very nice of you. You’ll stop using one word and we have to stop criticizing the political philosophies, policies, and tactics with which we disagree, even if we do it civilly.
What a deal. Another phony moral equivalency.
Sorry but no ceegar. I agree to stop calling you a fudge packer or any other crude sexual reference if you agree to stop using teabagger to describe those on the right.
November 26, 2009, 11:47 pmMark Field says:
This being Thanksgiving and all, I hereby interpret the latest posts from LM, Relic, jab, and geokstr as general agreement that we’ll all be polite to each other from now on.
Back to the pie.
November 26, 2009, 11:47 pmtheobromophile says:
Jab: it’s not just “teabagger.” Perhaps you did spend the greater part of the last eight years railing against anyone who made the Bush=Hitler comparisons. Perhaps you’ve criticised the people who call my side “anti-choice.” Most likely, though, you haven’t – so you’re asking to give up exactly one (extremely vulgar) term in exchange for a total lack of debate, while retaining the right to call my side all sorts of other names.
Look, after eight years of “BusHitler,” your side has a credibility problem. Somehow, that’s highbrow political debate, but calling Obama a socialist is somehow racist or on par with using a vulgar term? To hear your side talk, criticisms of an administration that nationalised a healthy percentage of the economy are just as illegitimate as, say, making fellatio jokes after all of Obama’s bowing to foreign heads of state.
November 26, 2009, 11:51 pmRelic says:
Pumpkin or Pecan?
November 27, 2009, 12:00 amjab says:
theo…
I’ve never used the phrase bushitler… never even made comparisons between bush and hitler.
I cannot speak for everyone on the left… we were specifically talking about blog comments on this blog.
Also… you are being silly by taking it so literal that I meant I would give up EXACTLY one word… if you read what I wrote, I said we shouldn’t use names to demean our political opponents… I used the example of teabagger because that is the one I specifically used in this thread.
And there is a huge difference between “socialist” in the small “s” sense of the word, and making equivalencies between Obama and Mao, or Obama and Stalin… or equating health care reform to marching us into the incinerators at the Dachau concentration camps.
As for credibility problems… after the last election cycle… pot. meet kettle.
November 27, 2009, 12:03 amCertainly do not need a lecture from you on civility or credibility.
theobromophile says:
What’s that supposed to mean?
November 27, 2009, 12:19 amGringo says:
In return for your not using the term “teabagger,” are you then stating that in return the other side should refrain from pointing out facts like the following? That Anita Dunn stated that Mao with the blood-stained hands was one of her “favorite philosophers.” That Van Jones stated that he was a “communist.” That Obama launched his political career at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Billy and Bernie were among the co-authors of Prairie Fire, a book which advocated dictatorship of the proletariat, which is very few person’s idea of fun. Not to mention that the book was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, among others.
Are you saying that in return for not uttering the derogatory word “teabagger,” the other side should refrain from pointing out facts such as the above?
November 27, 2009, 12:37 amAllan says:
About the term teabagger. I think it came from the Tea Party movement when they used a truckload of teabags in a protest. If I remember correctly, they called it teabagging. Then the media that though the movement was crazy took up the cause. And the Tea Party members proudly stood beside the term, for about a day. Then they finally got wind of what the term meant and decided it wasn’t for them. But the anti-Tea Party movement never let go, being juvenile, surely. I firmly believe that, had the anti-Tea Party pundits not ridiculed the name, “teabagging” would now be synonymous with attending a Tea Party rally.
As far as insults, I would rather be called a Teabagger than Hitler, Mao, or Stalin. Certainly, the teabagging nomiker, being self-imposed, is less of an insult. Unless, of course, I were to say that I am doing something to be more like Hitler, Mao, or Stalin — or, as in the case of one person, I said that I thought Mao was a great philosopher.
Oh, and Mao may have been a great philosopher (I don’t know), just as Hitler was a very charismatic speaker. Were they not, they probably would not have risen to the level they did.
November 27, 2009, 12:59 amjab says:
I saw the youtube clip of Anita Dunn giving the graduation speech… cringe-worthy and in poor taste, certainly… it was clear she thought she was being “clever” (she used the word “ironic”) by juxtaposing mao with mother theresa… she praised mao for his ability to win a war that no one thought was possible for him to win against incredible odds… she certainly was not praising him on his politics, policies, or governance in any way, shape or form… and then she talked about mother theresa…
It was clear she thought she was going to spicen up a boring graduation speech with a highly controversial claim that she looked to both mother theresa and mao… very poor taste in my opinion, but ZERO evidence that she agreed with Mao’s Communism… dumb yes, implication that Obama is a Communist because of it… please.
The implication is clear though that SOME (by no means all) of the right wing on this site see no problem with cheap shots like “Obama pals around with terrorists” or is a Mao-loving Communist, or as I saw on theo’s website, being sure to refer to Obama as B. Hussein (get it… he’s like Sadam!)… but then catch the vapors when the word “teabaggers” is used. So much for civility. I’ll stand by my statement that I won’t use any more derogatory language… but it’s clear it will be a one-sided disarmament of the obnoxious rhetoric.
November 27, 2009, 1:20 amjab says:
Don’t know if it’s even possible to get the conversation back on track…
November 27, 2009, 1:32 ambut I would be curious to hear **libertarians’** views on the collective ownership of natural resources in Alaska and the resulting redistribution of the wealth equally among all Alaskans that Palin seems to champion as good… is that socialism? Is it a good kind of socialism or a bad kind of socialism? Given that Palin herself has used the words “collectively” and “spreading the wealth” in a positive way, how can we take her seriously when she sneers at Obama as a socialist?
Leo Marvin says:
So far we’re in complete agreement.
No, but neither does it mean “tea bagger” was concocted out of whole cloth by the left to insult Tea Partiers. We don’t know whether the author of the instruction to “tea bag the fools in Washington” on the self-identified Tea Party Coordinator blog knew about the sexual innuendo, but it can’t come as a surprise that some opponents without a clue of the innuendo would respond to that and similar messages at some right wing rallies by calling Tea Partiers “tea baggers.” Up to a point, who knew what about the innuendo and when they knew it is speculation. All we can say for sure is that a couple of cable commentators knew what they were doing, and the intentional innuendo spread from there. By now it’s reasonable to assume almost everyone is aware of both meanings, so they should cut it out or be presumed to know what they’re saying.
It’s the same way some people innocently latched onto the subtle metamorphosis from “Democratic Party” to “Democrat Party,” unaware that it was an intentional effort by some on the right to slander Democrats. For a while everyone could plead ignorance because some no doubt were, but eventually it became reasonable and fair to assume everyone who continues saying “Democrat Party” intends the insult.
That was unkind of me. I knew you’d respond.
It was only worth mentioning to illustrate how so much of this non-stop, left-right food fight takes place among a small handful of people like us, and then most of it is over the deplorable behavior by an even tinier faction on each side. Of the 67 million Americans who voted for Obama, how many do you think have ever said the words “tea bagger?” Likewise, I’m confident that in the real world, very few conservatives sit around cooking up new ways to jab a stick in the eye of Democrats. But you’d never imagine either of those from how blogs and talk radio can percolate endlessly with pissing contests over how many left/right a-holes can destroy everything we value, on the head of a pin.
Happy Thanksgiving.
November 27, 2009, 1:39 amtheobromophile says:
If you’ve had to search through my blog – which I have not used in almost two years – to find a single instance in which I referred to the current President by his given name and somehow find me to be “uncivil,” then just admit defeat, Jab.
This isn’t a case of me being some horrible, perpetually offensive commenter who regularly makes everyone’s lives miserable with her snark; this is a situation in which you are just looking for anything to justify your actions. In fact, it bears a startling resemblance to the use of the vulgar “tea bagger” term – you’re bound and determined to take a certain position and, only when called out on it, search for something to justify it.
Nice try. Epic fail.
November 27, 2009, 1:47 amjab says:
Don’t flatter yourself… I found that reference in 2 seconds on your blog after clicking on the first link I followed on th emain page… the link about the Large Hadron Collider (I’m a physicist)… and it was dated on March 31, 2008… less than 2 years ago. Sorry if I made the mistake of inferring what YOU wrote on YOUR blog within the recent past is not representative… I had no idea BEFORE I followed the link that you haven’t written on your blog regularly recently… and yes, referring to Obama as “B. Hussein” is his name, but please don’t insult our intelligence that you meant nothing by using that construction. Your self-righteous hypocrisy is disgusting.
November 27, 2009, 1:58 amLeo Marvin says:
In the spirit of Mark Field’s comment I’m pretending your response ended there, and didn’t go on to retract your agreement with everything I said that contradicts your Manichean world view.
Happy Thanksgiving.
November 27, 2009, 2:05 amLeo Marvin says:
You’re arguing witha straw Leo. This one wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving.
November 27, 2009, 2:11 amtheobromophile says:
Aww, Jab, do you need a hug?
I mean, you’re down to arguing that 20 months is not “almost two years,” then you complain that I’m insulting your intelligence.
Once you’ve hit the bottom of the barrel in your criticisms of me, turn it over and start digging. Can’t be worse than the route you’ve taken now, right?
November 27, 2009, 2:40 amtheobromophile says:
PS – you obviously didn’t follow a link directly to the LHC because you are a physicist (although that’s a nice try); the post title, which is all you can see from my facing page, refers to Dan Brown. Thus, your search through my blog was not the casual perusal of someone with an interest in the field, but rather a deliberate undertaking, from which you got that I referred to Obama by his name. (Yes, that is his name. He’s used others in his life, too, if I’m not mistaken.)
But, apparently, I’m the one running around insulting people’s intelligence.
November 27, 2009, 2:50 amGringo says:
jab: you did not answer my question: Are you saying that in return for not uttering the derogatory word “teabagger,” the other side should refrain from pointing out facts such as the above?
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
What would have been your reaction if someone in the Bush Administration had said something like the following: “In 1927 nearly everyone in Germany thought that Adolf Hitler had a snowflake’s chance in Hell of becoming the leader of Germany. Hitler never gave up hope, and six years later became Chancellor. Hitler is one of my favorite philosophers for his never-say-die spirit.”
I am saying that President Obama is comfortable with having someone in the White House who thinks that Mao is one of her “favorite philosophers.” (The test of Mao as a philosopher is his application of his philosophy.)
You may not like to be reminded of it,but Obama did pal around with Bill Ayers, a self-admitted terrorist and advocate of dictatorship of the proletariat. Not to mention Bernadine. I am unable to understand why it is a “cheap shot” to point out the truth.
Here are some “cheap shots” where the President is referred to as Barack Hussein Obama. Granted, it’s not exactly the same as “B Hussein”, but it still uses the middle name.
The first speaker was President Obama. The second speaker was Farouk Shami , candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for Governor of Texas. So it is kosher for Democrats to use the President’s middle name, but not kosher for Republicans to do so?
Obama is comfortable with people who are communists or who think that commies are cool. such as Bill and Bernie and Anita and Van. Ok, Anita thinks only Mao is cool. That makes ME uncomfortable, perhaps because I grew up with many refugees from Nazism and Communism. Billy and Bernie drank the Kood-Aid down to the last drop. Anita Dunn is like those who walked around US campuses with Mao’s Little Red Book, thought Mao was cool,or at least is was cool to carry around his book, but most likely had spent all of two minutes reading it. Only an ignorant fool could think like Anita Dunn did, that Mao was cool. I have a problem with an ignorant fool working in the White House. Sorry Anita, commies ain’t cool.
November 27, 2009, 3:00 amHarry Eagar says:
I thought the lesson we were supposed to derive was that the really smart capitalist buys a slave and makes him raise the food.
November 27, 2009, 7:06 ammattski says:
Relic:
On the contrary, capitalism cannot exist without socialism!
As I said above, the terms are extremely broad in their usage. But if you want to be precise about it you’ll have to admit that as soon as you have taxation (commonly held wealth) then you have socialism. And as it happens, you can’t have a market economy without a State strong enough to enforce contracts. But this is such a remedial discussion!
“You can’t have both”!
Rather, you can’t see the evidence of modern life right in front of your nose.
November 27, 2009, 8:04 amSara says:
I am still curious about the use of this story defending private property, when property was seized and assigned by government. Is this story, true? Does anyone have reference to scholarship on this era, instead of the polemic provided?
November 27, 2009, 8:24 amMark Field says:
The only proper answer to this is “yes, please”. Note the British style — I’m trying to make them feel included in Thanksgiving.
November 27, 2009, 10:49 amAllan Walstad says:
Jab:
Palin is a conservative, not a libertarian. I still don’t have a good fix on how libertarian she might be. In the case of Alaska, if you have the state taking ownership of previously unowned resources, and then perhaps using income from those resources to support its activities without further taxation, the result might still not be ok to the strictest libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) but for many (some? one?) of us with very strong libertarian leanings it does allow for the possibility of a fairly minimal state and minimal coercion. I’m inclined to agree (or at least accept for the time being) that socialized defense may be necessary to preserve maximal liberty. And maybe socialized a few other things too, like establishing roads or at least rights of way. When it comes to wholesale robbery and coercive ponzi schemes like Social Security, Medicare, and the travesty Congress is poised to dump on us, we are way, way beyond the pale in my opinion.
November 27, 2009, 11:09 amAllan Walstad says:
(Continued) On the other hand, government ownership is not likely to result in very efficient use of resources, so that’s the down side. For the most part, the important thing is to get property into private hands so that market mechanisms can work. How initially unowned resources become privately owned is an interesting question. Locke tangled with it famously. If the pilgrim elders split the land among families, apparently that was a lot better than keeping it collective.
November 27, 2009, 11:13 amSome Guy says:
Read the history of communisim in Russia, China, and any other place you can think of. You will read about massive famines and massive starvation. Communism and famine go hand in hand.
November 27, 2009, 12:20 pmRandy says:
I’m very glad that the early Pilgrims learned the value of property rights. Just after they stole the property from the Indians. Perhaps if they truly valued property, they would have paid the market value? Just a thought.
AS for the tea baggers, one need only google a bit to find that many people were happy to mail tea bags to Washingtons, such as here or here.
One can logically conclude that if tea bags are entered into the political conversation, then one might be labeled a tea bagger. The folks who want to protest Washington could just as easily argued to mail loose leaf tea (my preference in drinking anyway), or suggested something like orange pekoe tea, or jasmine tea, and the ‘tea bag’ reference would have been obviated without diluting the message. The metaphor could have been expanded to bring in other interests: Herbal teas would attract a ‘new age’ voting bloc, whereas ‘afternoon tea’ would have attracted anglophiles and gay men.
November 27, 2009, 2:25 pm24AheadDotCom says:
I stopped scanning after a bit, but I’m already as convinced as the “partiers” are that anyone who opposes them or even just criticizes them in any way is a Communist. Dirty hippies!
Meanwhile, Relic a) offered no counter-argument but simply listed what’s at my tea parties page, and b) the idea that the Buffalo Tea Party – promoted by Instapundit et al – was not a “real” tea party is absurd. The picture at my page is at flickr.com/photos/mattmargolis/3392511145/in/set-72157616038389908/ and the person who took it use to run BlogsForBush.com, now BlogsForVictory or whatever. That shows another component of the tea parties mindset: they’re willing to lie and mislead if they think it will help them.
November 27, 2009, 3:16 pmrpt says:
The Plymouth colony settlers are now deemed pre-Marx communists?
November 27, 2009, 4:53 pmsquggty says:
If that was true then the leadership could not of changed the system to the privatization. Can you show proof that any such ‘investment agreement’ like that even existed?? From what I recall they were self funded and really a bunch of refugees who left Europe to get away from that kind of and religious limitations.
November 27, 2009, 6:43 pmsquggty says:
You need to try to understand that 400 years ago the World operated (and largely still does) where people with power pushed otheres aside. ALL those Indians themselves had previously pushed other tribes out of that land long before the ‘evil whiteman’ ever arrived. Read the rest of the real story where the Indian tribe that befriended the Pilgrims itself was under threat from other tribes and was seeking an alliance with the newcomers who had valuable trade resources and military strength.
Consider how the English eventually treated Indians and compare it to how they treated the Irish (the soldiers at Jamestown had recently come from deployment in Ireland where they treaeted the people there much the same way).
The Indians had plenty of murderous wars amongst themselves and the names of all the destroyed tribes were never written down and are long forgotten.
There was good reason that established Indian towns were built like forts.
What was the most popular and sought after trade item for the Indians ?? Guns. Guns to be used to fight other Indians.
Please try to understand that people throughout history have not had the security in their lives that you are blessed with today (and which you probably have no part in achieving or maintaining).
November 27, 2009, 6:56 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Alaska is “collectivist” only inasmuch as the state Constitution directs that the resources of the state are to be held in trust for and benefit the citizenry as a whole.
We the owners (shareholders) of the resources on state-owned lands elect a board of directors (Governor and Legislature) to manage those assets with our input. They negotiate and lease, to private companies, contractual access to the resources. Those private companies then do the work (with associated capital investment and risk) of developing and extracting those resources, paying a portion of their profit to the state as part of the lease contract.
The receipts from these leases and taxes pay for the cost of running the corporation of the state, the excess is then invested by a board appointed, again with shareholder involvement, by the overall BofD (Gov, and Leg.) to manage an investment portfolio, the Alaska Permanent Fund. A percentage of the interest from that portfolio (after inflation proofing and other costs) is then returned to the shareholders of the corporation (the citizenry) in the form of dividend checks every year.
That may be a kind of socialism, but it isn’t any kind of statist authoritarianism.
November 27, 2009, 8:09 pmLeo Marvin says:
Exactly. Proving that socialism and authoritarianism aren’t inextricably intertwined.
November 27, 2009, 9:11 pmMatthew Carberry says:
As it is limited to natural resource development on state land, and the state doesn’t “own the means of production” but operates a free market in contracting for terms of access, it is a very limited socialism, which I don’t think is antithetical to an overall capitalist economy and in fact has done very well for Alaska and Alaskans. There are many resource-extraction based countries looking at the model as an alternative to Venezuela-style nationalization or neo-colonial corporate dominance.
Anyway, land ownership is treated very conservatively, as the lands in question become more valuable for other than resource development they will be privatized as many non-financially-viable, non-resource bearing lands have been.
The idea is that eventually the Permanent Fund will, through the magic of compounding interest and wise investment, grow large enough that state government, limited by the Constitution, can “live off” of dividend income alone.
November 27, 2009, 9:25 pmRandy says:
squggty: “The Indians had plenty of murderous wars amongst themselves and the names of all the destroyed tribes were never written down and are long forgotten.
There was good reason that established Indian towns were built like forts.
What was the most popular and sought after trade item for the Indians ?? Guns. Guns to be used to fight other Indians.”
So it’s okay to steal from a thief? Even if all your points are true, how does that justify the Pilgrim’s taking the land? Would you be okay if the Indians just forced the Pilgrim’s off the land?
“Please try to understand that people throughout history have not had the security in their lives that you are blessed with today (and which you probably have no part in achieving or maintaining).”
Please try to explain how I’ve had no part in achieving or maintaining the security in our lives, or else apologize. Thanks.
I *can* tell you that not only have I worked for a long period of time as a prosecutor in a DA’s office, I was the founding editor of the CEELI newsletter. CEELI was an project put together by the ABA Section of International Law and Practice after the Berlin wall fell. We offered legal advice for free to all the former communist countries to help them write their constitutions, establish an independent judiciary, and help the understand the importance of the rule of law. Once the constitutions were in place, we then help them draft implementing laws, and then followed through on that to make sure the legal system was working properly. I hosted several delegations of foriegn jurists in my house. I could go on, but you get the point. So please save your snark for another person that you disagree with, okay?
November 27, 2009, 10:58 pmXLiberal says:
Were you sincere in that question, you would return to a country from which your ancestors came.
November 28, 2009, 12:36 amEshipProf says:
I dearly love this story about property rights, the incentive for individual effort, and the near-failure of the Plymouth Rock colony (a la Jamestown) — and have for over two decades. But to really understand the discussion, you need to read more than the various rehashes of the original 1985 Marbury piece. I recommend reading the following essay on various Thanksgiving “myths,” some of which have more substance than others:
Thanksgiving on the Net: Roast Bull with Cranberry Sauce
You’ll note that Prof. Bangs doesn’t refute “The Libertarian’s First Thanksgiving” — but does sneer at it, and then clarifies the extent to which the 1623 reallocations of property rights are similar to (and different from) private property, viz.:
The key point is that the incentives to work hard, and the ability to reap the fruits of one’s own labor (rather than to share in everyone’s) did NOT show up before 1623. (Full privatization, with property rights and debt, apparently occurred around 1627.) Given how thoroughly the rest of the “roast bull” is debunked, the Libertarian story looks downright reasonable by comparison.
I claim that 1623 was the first “real” Thanksgiving. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
November 28, 2009, 1:03 amRicardo says:
What kind of argument is this? Nearly every Medieval town or city of any significance between Beijing and London was surrounded by a wall with watchtowers and holes you could fire arrows through at invaders. If the fortification of towns shows how uncivilized the native Americans were, what does it say about the people of Europe and Asia?
November 28, 2009, 1:56 amMatthew Carberry says:
I believe the point is that the “noble savage in touch with the earth” revisionism is just so much BS, people are people, some people just developed guns, large scale transoceanic travel and population-enhancing agriculture first.
The only way to call European expansion in the America’s “theft” is to arbitrarily start “ownership” with the last people to have sometimes walked on a certain piece of dirt once maybe.
Given the decline of the major North American Indian cultures, particularly the Cherokee (not necessarily due to imported disease, latest science has it possibly an effect of the Little Ice Age) prior to the European arrivals in North America (vice Central), it would be more accurate to say that the land (other than actual fixed village sites where applicable) was there for the taking, although some people had become used to using it without formally declaring ownership.
So rather than “steal”, consider the Europeans the first people to claim and enforce the squatter’s rights the locals had been enjoying previously.
November 28, 2009, 5:11 amAman says:
Yeah, but there’s still one problem here everyone’s over looked. The families were ” GIVEN LAND!” so there’s an emmense incentive to tend to one’s ” private property.” With that in mind, and the raping and pillaging of U.S. citizens’ wealth, the incentive to advance and succeed is fast losing its lust. Forget petitioning your senators and congressmen they’ve already given their alligence to the New World Order. We the people of this once great nation are eye ball to eye ball with the opposition and whose goin’ to blink first?
November 28, 2009, 8:01 amAman says:
Also, this rediculous notion of the europeans stealing land from the indians. To begin with and according to the best estimates according to annals, wars, and recorded history, there was a total population estimate of only less than five million Indians populating the entire contenential United States. While I have no way of actually verifying the given figure I will take it upon myself increase the five million by five-fold or twenty-five million. So, twenty-five million inhabitants who are presumably guilty of the very same crime the europeans are guilty of i.e. the search for a homeland for thriving and expansion. Indians were not the original inhabitors of the land. Caucasoid remains pre date those of Indian descent discovered here in modern day America. Assuming that to be correct you mean to tell me all those bleeding hearts out there feel that there is no room at the inn? Twenty-five million inhabitants occupying the hundred of millions of acres we now call the United States. Also, keep something in mind the Indians were expansionist as well! So when the europeans and the Indians intersected fighting was a common occurrence.
November 28, 2009, 8:46 amRandy says:
Xliberal: “Were you sincere in that question, you would return to a country from which your ancestors came.”
My ancestors came from Poland around 1900. They didn’t steal any land, and in fact paid full market value for all land they have bought since then. I don’t see how your question changes anything.
The Pilgrim’s didn’t pay anybody for their land. After they took it, they found out the value of property rights — that’s the point of this thread. I’m merely pointing out that it’s great that the Pilgrim’s found such rights important, and it’s too bad that they didn’t treat the natives equally well. This is beyond dispute, but apparently merely pointing out this truth makes some people rather uncomfortable.
November 28, 2009, 11:20 amRandy says:
Aman: “So, twenty-five million inhabitants who are presumably guilty of the very same crime the europeans are guilty of i.e. the search for a homeland for thriving and expansion”
So once again, we find that it’s okay to steal from thieves. Worse, if your ancestors stole, it’s okay to steal from you. Therefore, it should be okay for someone to steal my land, since our ancestors stole land, right?
I don’t recall the US government ever paying natives for their land, although I might be wrong about that. But it certainly wasn’t common. In fact, throughout the 19th century, we forceably relocated many indian tribes. Or don’t you recall the Trail of Tears under the Jackson Administration?
But I guess that’s all okay. After all, they didn’t live up to their image of the ‘noble savage,’ so it’s okay to take any land you come across, and shove off the natives, with arms if necessary, and kill the ones you don’t like.
Sheesh. It’s amazing the mental gyrations people go with to justify illegal or immoral behavior. Aman, you made a good stab at it, though.
November 28, 2009, 11:27 amXLiberal says:
The point is that if the Pilgrims stole the land, and by extension all land was stolen from the Indians, then your ancestors bought stolen property, which makes them just as culpable. Stolen property remains stolen property. If your parents inherited stolen property from your grandparents, they inherited stolen property. And so on.
November 28, 2009, 12:28 pmRandy says:
Xliberal: “The point is that if the Pilgrims stole the land, and by extension all land was stolen from the Indians, then your ancestors bought stolen property, which makes them just as culpable. ”
That’s a good point. I’m not sure if everyone today is culpable, as that would require some knowledge that the land was originally stolen. Nonetheless, stolen land is stolen land, and so therefore most land in the US would have a cloud over its title if it can be established that it was stolen from the natives. I wouldn’t be surprised if this has been argued in court at some point.
I offer no solutions, but merely raise the issue. As you can see, merely raising the issue offends some people, so offering a solution is bound to raise a lot of contention. If we as a country ever are called to account for the atrocities and broken treaties, we wouldn’t have enough money to make equity.
November 28, 2009, 10:58 pmRicardo says:
Incidentally, if you are referring to Kennewick Man, this is wrong. DNA analysis of the skeletal remains confirmed what anyone could have guessed: the man was of Asian descent (probably most closely related to the inhabitants of Northeast Asia where the first humans would have crossed to the Aleutian islands and mainland Alaska), not Caucasoid.
November 29, 2009, 12:46 amBentov says:
BS!
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Is heaven and earth passed away?
no.
Has all prophecy been fulfilled?
no.
501-c3 psuedo-christians are hypocrites and frauds.
April 1, 2010, 6:44 pm