Thanksgiving - Have A Great One
Last year (2006), Ol' BC posted this brief holiday wish and observation. To no one's surprise it still applies today. Governor William Bradford, who was elected chief executive of the Pilgrims' colony in the 1600's, recognized then what so many fail to see today - big socialism and communism are contrary to human nature. The colony, which set sail as a communal experiment from England, was failing and failing in big fashion. People were starving and Bradford realized the cause. He awarded each his own parcel of land in the colony and whatever he could produce was his to do with as he saw fit. No donating all the production for the "good of society." Amazingly, the lazy began to work and production and yields increased dramatically. From this abundance, Thanksgiving was born.
Have a very happy Thanksgiving holiday and remember that efforts for the "common good" failed four hundred years ago as they do today. Perhaps you could even include Governor Bradford as you give thanks.
Happy Thanksgiving.
posted by Ol' BC @ 11:19 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
I'll try to remember the failures of common good as I access public roads to meet my family....
LOL
While your supposition is somewhat true, BC, the other more tangible reasons for the pilgrims' lack of survival was due to new arrivals to the colony not bringing their own food.
Also, the official date for Thanksgiving is 1621. The colonists at Plymouth did not truly suffer famine until 1622, for the reasons mentioned above.
I saw Mark's name and immediately wondered from whom he would suggest that the needy Pilgrims should steal food to satisfy their needs. After all, weapons control hadn't yet infected the local Indians.
Does Mark really suggest that every ex-European in subsequent vessels bring his own food? So that the needy residents of Plymouth can steal it for their own needs?
Moreover, how can he say that the original Plymouth colony Pilgrims didn't bring enough food when, after Governor Bradford divided the land into private parcels, very soon there was a very plentiful harvest--more than enough for their own needs and enough to be able to invite their Indian neighbors to join them?
The attempts of the left to revise history would be very funny, if they weren't importing these revisions into the government's children's prison system.
The resident colonists simply didn't have food enough to feed the newcomers. It is simple really, and not revisionist in the least. Thanksgiving was officially celbrated in 1621. The famines did not occur until later. Look it up.
And no one is suggesting that the pilgrims steal from anyone, though they did rely on Indians to aid them. I am only saying that it was sheer idiocy to come to the colonies without supplies.
Oh, Prudence, there's that pesky constitution coming into play again. You may wish to review Article II, section 8 (or thereabouts) where it talks about powers granted to the government. Roads are specifically mentioned I believe.
Mark,
That pesky public school education of yours has failed you again.
Try reading the actual writings of Mr. Bradford. You might get some important information from them.
Then again, someone of your socialist mentality might not.
RWR
You guys are rich. The "pesky" Constitution? And if you want to find "roads" look to the section about Congress, NOT the president. Lately, it seems, conservatives are concerned with a shift of power in favor of the president to the expense of Congress but the Framers stuck that branch in Article II where it belongs.
And as long as we're being literal, what does the "pesky" Constitution have to say about a standing army? My copy mentions a navy, no army. If the last few years have taught us anything it's this: If you give that Article II guy an army, he's going to use it.
The point that is being made here, gentle friends is that working for the common good benefits the individual too. Both sides of this argument fail to see fundamental concepts that are both mutually inclusive.
The first is what I just stated above. The second is that allowing the individual to benefit himself benefits everyone. These two ideas coexist quite nicely.
We build roads for the common good. We take care of the unfortunate people for the common good. We allow for individual freedoms for the common good. We create social programs because we are humane and to be humane is a common good.
None of us would be here if it weren't for the other people of our society, therefore it behooves us to take care of others so that we might be stronger and so that, when need arises, we ourselves might benefit from humane treatment.
Life is not about being self sufficient. Not one man in this modern world can claim that he has not been aided by others. Is it that much of a stretch to demand that our government act in accordance with this idea? I am not prescribing dollars for the needy masses so much as I am advocating that we demand that our representatives act with conscience.
While there is one man starving in a gutter in America, the land of abundance, we should not rest. Where there is one woman who can't afford to feed her children, how can we sleep?
OOOps, my bad Jeffie. It's Article I that defines the powers pretty clearly.
BTW, it does talk of "land" and naval forces. One may be able to stretch that to an army. Still doesn't make me a fan of Dubya though.
I'm new here. What's up with Rightard Rocker and his broken socialist record? What socialists are we talking about?
In a nutshell, he belongs to that large majority of people who believe that freedom of speech equates to a duty to speak freely. He is rarely informed. His reasoning is often spurious. And he is a constantly belching to the tune of the latest rhetorical gibberish spewed from the Right's spin machine...
Hmmm. Maybe he's just paultarded....
Have fun calling me uninformed, Mark. In a battle of knowledge, especially about the United States and her history, I'd cream you easily.
Your remarks about "the common good", for instance, are crap. Sure, most people get something out of helping others, but socialism as you envision it forces them to, which NO ONE benefits from, except those power-hungry asswipes in the government.
I trust government only a little bit more than those who brought about the Constitution. Government is evil by its very nature, and should be restricted as tightly as possible. That means giving it powers like tax-and-spend and expanding socialist foolishness that should never have been used in he first place is sheer idiocy.
All this nationalizing everything from education to retirement to healthcare just stinks far too much like Nazi Germany.
If the Founding Fathers really wanted all this socialism going on, don't you think they would have done it themselves????
I speak freely because I can, and because SOMEONE has to stand up to idiots like you who would gladly hand America over to whatever socialist happens to be promising the store that week.
America is about the strength of the individual, not about socialism. National socialism is illegal. We were better off before it, we can dismantle it, and therefore it is imperative that we do so.
Oh, and my reasoning is right on the money ... and the "Right's spin machine" would be well-advised to echo my sentiments. Rhetorical gibberish, indeed. I stand with the Founding Fathers. Were their words "rhetorical gibberish"??
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I see that once again you read only what words of mine you wish to read and ignore things that you and I actually agree about. I dislike talking to you solely because you can't see the merits of both sides of this argument. I do. This is where you and I differ. I agree with you on several of your points, yet I also believe that your ideas can coexist with social programs. In fact they can and do. And strangely the sky hasn't fallen and we haven't all seen the collapsing of the American Empire.
I grow rather weary of having you pick out only the things you disagree with and hounding them ad nauseum with rhetorical burble-babble. Perhaps we should look for common ground and start there?
"I speak freely because I can."
Thus you prove my point that you confuse your right to free speech with a duty to speak freely.
"All this nationalizing everything from education to retirement to healthcare just stinks far too much like Nazi Germany."
First of all fascism is diametrically opposed to socialism. Please get your metaphors right. And though I agree that nationalized education is not beneficial, I in no way think you should compare nationalized health care with a Nazi system which advocated euthanasia of infants, irradicating "inferior" races, and genetic experiments on prisoners and children.
If you think this is a valid argument, then I must truly question your mental stability.
In fact they can and do. And strangely the sky hasn't fallen and we haven't all seen the collapsing of the American Empire.
Had a look at the national debt lately?
Thus you prove my point that you confuse your right to free speech with a duty to speak freely.
No confusion. Again, there's no reason for me to mince words, and no justification for you to say what you said here. If I decide that it's my duty to speak freely, especially in defense of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, then since I have a right to that opinion and the same right to express it, guess what? I have that duty. Just like you.
First of all fascism is diametrically opposed to socialism.
This just shows how little you really know about Nazism. Hitler himself claimed to be a socialist, and it is undeniable that the Nazi party advocated socialism, especially the redistribution of wealth, in their platform.
And though I agree that nationalized education is not beneficial,
Glad we agree on the concept of education, though I'm not sure you would go to the extent I would and just privatize it outright.
I in no way think you should compare nationalized health care with a Nazi system which advocated euthanasia of infants, eradicating (spelling corrected just for fun) "inferior" races, and genetic experiments on prisoners and children.
Why not? It's exactly how they sold it to the German people:
The State is to care for the elevating (of) national health ...
Do you really think the German people would have bought into it had Hitler shown his true intentions??? Be serious.
Socialists do this all the time. They tell you that their idea is right and good, when there's something much more sinister at hand. Any time expansion of government is suggested, it should be considered highly suspicious. It's exactly how the Soviets and Nazis both came to power. It's how American liberals did, too, and they seek every day to expand their power. Do you really think Hitlerycare is anything other than the federal government taking over what is already the best healthcare system in the world? It's a power grab. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why would you put something as important as your health into the hands of something as evil as a government? Question my mental stability if you wish, but wouldn't your advocacy of such a practice call into question your own mental stability?
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Post a Comment
<< Home