Posted on 11/27/2019 5:25:58 AM PST by Kaslin
Families will argue this Thanksgiving.
Such arguments have a long tradition.
The Pilgrims had clashing ideas about how to organize their settlement in the New World. The resolution of that debate made the first Thanksgiving possible.
The Pilgrims were religious, united by faith and a powerful desire to start anew, away from religious persecution in the Old World. Each member of the community professed a desire to labor together, on behalf of the whole settlement.
In other words: socialism.
But when they tried that, the Pilgrims almost starved.
Their collective farming -- the whole community deciding when and how much to plant, when to harvest, who would do the work -- was an inefficient disaster.
"By the spring," Pilgrim leader William Bradford wrote in his diary, "our food stores were used up and people grew weak and thin. Some swelled with hunger... So they began to think how ... they might not still thus languish in misery."
His answer: divide the commune into parcels and assign each Pilgrim family its own property. As Bradford put it, they "set corn every man for his own particular. ... Assigned every family a parcel of land."
Private property protects us from what economists call the tragedy of the commons. The "commons" is a shared resource. That means it's really owned by no one, and no one person has much incentive to protect it or develop it.
The Pilgrims' simple change to private ownership, wrote Bradford, "made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Soon they had so much plenty that they could share food with the natives.
The Indians weren't socialists, either. They had property rules of their own. That helped them grow enough so they had plenty, even during cold winters.
When property rights are tossed aside, even for the sake of religious fellowship or in the name of the working class, people just don't work as hard.
Why farm all day -- or invent new ways of farming -- when everyone else will get an equal share?
You may not intend to be a slacker, but suddenly, reasons to stay in bed seem more compelling than they did when your own livelihood and family were dependent on your own efforts.
Pilgrim teenagers were especially lazy. Some claimed they were too sick to work. Some stole the commune's crops, picking corn at night, before it was ready.
But once Bradford created private lots, the Pilgrims worked hard. They could have sat around arguing about who should do how much work, whether English tribes or Indian ones were culturally superior, and what God would decree if She/He set rules for farming.
None of that would have yielded the bounty that a simple division of land into private lots did.
When people respect property rights, they also interact more peacefully.
At this year's Thanksgiving dinner, if people start arguing about how society should be run, try being a peacemaker by suggesting that everyone should get to decide what to do with their own property.
If your uncle wants government to tax imports or thinks police should seize people's marijuana, tell him that he doesn't have to smoke weed or buy Chinese products, but he should keep his hands off other people's property.
If your niece says everyone loves socialism now, remind her she has enough trouble managing her own life without telling the rest of the world what to do. When families don't agree, they certainly shouldn't try to run millions of other people's lives.
In America today, religious groups practice different rites but usually don't demand that government ban others' practices. Private schools set curricula without nasty public fights. Businesses stock shelves without politicians fighting about which products they should carry.
All those systems work pretty well. That's because they are private.
In most of our lives, private ownership makes political arguments unnecessary.
I'm thankful for that.
At least your property is private until the government decides they have a better use for it or you don’t pay your property taxes.
John, the US government can’t keep its hands off of my reportable income, nor income from production or sales of US made goods, so when we get rid of those taxes, we can get rid of the excise taxes.
John, excise taxes built this country.
Ping.
Very simple and elementary. The individual has a right to his/her possessions and property. This is known throughout the world, and in primitive societies.
But it is exactly what the left wants to deny us! Marxism wants all property in the hands of the collectivity.
> “John, excise taxes built this country.”
Excise taxes built the government. The People built the country.
Yep.
For well over a century our federal government was funded mostly by tariffs (about 20% on foreign imports). Excise taxes filled in more.
Then along came The Income Tax via 19A in 1913. And, gee, The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, too...
Wait until the Muslim population gets over 50%. They'll demand all others bow to Muhammad.
Our country never grew faster than when the US government was funded by excise taxes.
Let’s put it that way.
God grants gifts. Governments take away God’s gifts and tells everyone it is for everyone’s own good
USA United States Muslim Population Percentage By City Demographics Religion
There is a big chance that it's never going to happen. We definitely do have to pray though.
I will join you in prayer.
Keep one thing in mind, though.
If one of these Leftist democrats become president, now or the next election, they will push to let Muslims in without restrictions, just to virtue signal, or “prove” they’re not like Trump.
NEVER VOTE democrat!
EVERY election is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
I have never voted for a democrat, and I will never vote for one. It is indeed a battle we can not lose.
Good article; thanks.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I know that, FRiend! I didn't mean to imply you would at all. That was rhetorical.
Back in ther ‘60’s I knew a few folks that decided to try one of the communes the hippies were setting up...within a year they were back in the capitalist system because too many (probably them among them) wouldn’t pull their own weight...it takes work to live that way and they were all Maynard G. Krebs at heart...
Keep dinner to yourself and don’t invite anyone.
Why be the guy who rises with the sun to labor until dark to sow and reap 10 acres, while another man rises at noon -- if at all -- and dallies in the tavern, planting nothing and reaping the same? Yet when harvest comes, the latter is the first in line with his basket and gets the same amount of grain -- or more.
And that, in the bizarro world of the Left, is "fair."
Private property is at the very core of our current political debate.
Pre-1913 the federal government successfully redirected some funding that fostered interstate trade but within states the People decided how to foster their own intrastate trade.
Interstate trade was a small percentage of overall trade until the railroads matured and established trade efficiencies while also bringing control mechanisms which eventually led to Civil War.
With growing interstate trade the federal government needed to grow faster because it was their creation. In 1861 Lincoln imposed an income tax. It was shot down as unconstitutional.
After reconstruction the towns and municipalities grew with little federal government involvement.
In the very large part, the towns and cities were NOT grown by the government.
Most trade was local until corporatism took hold after 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. This was not a coincidence as the Federal Reserve provided liquidity through fractional banking to Wall Street investment banks who in turn funded national corporations.
The error of concluding that taxes grew the country conflates the growth of national corporations with the growth of the country when in fact the regional and local businesses were shut out of money streams from Member Banks to local banks.
Simple analogy:
Divide a parcel in half.
Plant seed on both halves.
Water one half but not the other.
Conclude that watered half grows faster than half not watered.
Local banking was dominated by the Federal Reserve-Investment Banking nexus which backed favored corporate enterprises (Corporatism).
Income taxes transferred to the Federal Reserve in exchange for bond paper led a tax stream funding member banks who in turn funded corporations (their stake). Local and regional businesses were shut out. Ultimately federal taxes slowed regional growth and boosted national corporate growth.
Which grew faster, regional or corporate growth? Of course, corporate growth grew faster because they were fueled ultimately by tax streams amplified by fractional reserve banking.
In the Contrapositive, if the federally backed corporate activity is not outgrowing the regional activity, then it is the fault of a lack of federal funding, ergo a lack of tax stream.
Back to the watering of parcels analogy:
If the watering of the federally favored parcel (or federal parcel) is shut off in favor of watering the regionally backed parcel, and the regional parcel grows not only faster but faster than the federal parcel before its water supply was restricted, then a conclusion is the regional parcel was more fertile.
How can this be proven with the real engine of economic growth which is ultimately the energy of the People?
Before the Federal Reserve - Wall St. nexus, regional and local banks managed streams of liquidity allowing farms, towns, municipalities to grow without noticeable federal involvement.
Which model grows faster?
Look at the plight of Americans today.
When Donald Trump says the country will be richer than it ever was before, he is talking about dismantling the Federal Reserve-Wall St. nexus and allowing regional control. This is because corporatism stymies local growth (hoards water for its own plots).
Country growth does not come from federal government. Federally backed corporate growth is illusory, It impedes and halts local growth. It looks like growth but hides the decline of local growth.
People as local businesses work for growth most often measured by money or more suitably expressed as ‘for a better life’. People work harder for more money, for a better life. If federally backed corporatism disables them by shutting off their access to local capital, they recede as expected and stop working as hard.
Comparing growth rates of federally backed corporations to growth rates under local and regional businesses which are ‘people’ reveal that people are poorer under federal models.
Corporations pay people wages and salaries thereby setting limits on a person’s growth.
The country does not grow without people. The country grows as people grow.
People grow faster according to the size of their stake. Under corporatism, a person’s stake is capped. The corporation grows according to how many persons it has capped.
Wall St. banks grow according to how much debt they impose/addict people with. Their product, their only product is debt. The more dent they produce, the bigger their growth.
The above are simply facets of the larger picture.
Excise taxes helped fund, via redirection, infrastructure projects that facilitated trade. But this accounted for only a fraction of growth.
The real energy was always in the People. That’s where the real growth came from. What fueled this real growth was freedom to choose. Freedom to direct one’s own energy is always more efficient and powerful than corporate prescriptions. When a person’s growth is uncapped, they tend to grow faster and larger (in terms of wealth and independence).
For corporatism to dominate, a person must be stripped of ability to act independently. Imposition of debt and curtailment of business opportunities shuts off the fuel for local growth in favor of corporate prescriptions.
The reason Americans are facing socialism today as never before is because a large segment of Americans have nothing. They have no stake. Many, if not most, have no memory of ever having a stake.
Parents of today’s Americans were stripped of their full ability to grow. Since 1913, generations were confined to producing just enough to satisfy basics. Producing more than needed (profit) became less feasible. If previous generations had produced more than they needed, they would have traded their surplus with others to gain things that enhanced their growth. Their children would be the beneficiaries. But most never got there. They never got there because growth opportunities were restricted.
They must submit to corporations.
They are captured.
They have very little prospects to regain or achieve freedom.
If and when they experience freedom, they will grow on average orders of magnitudes more than under corporatism.
In sum, corporatism is a growth mechanism fostered by federal government and funded by a fiat currency managed by an entity that causes the federal government to extract taxes from the People who are the real energy source of growth. Corporatism thus grows while People shrink. But as People shrink, corporate growth slows unless injected with magic fiat liquidity like Crack to an addict. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Socialism is the scam that radicalizes the People against Corporatism when they realize they can never get ahead. It is effective when the People lose memory of real freedom usually because real freedom was never experienced by People having no or very little stake.
Tax cuts foster an environment of increased freedom which leads to more growth.
Tax increases lead to a growth in government.
Simply put, taxes of any form did not grow this country, people did. And people grow faster when they owe less and are allowed to produce more.
Why do Americans hold two and three jobs?
Why are American families mostly two-earner families?
Was it always this way in history? No.
What caused it to become this way?
Ans. Government growth and Corporatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.