Comments on: The Pilgrims’ lesson for today’s health care debate

By: todd

todd — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:20:36 +0000

Byron,
I would put forward that ‘thinking deeply’ would be realizing that a simplistic lesson from a barely surviving agrarian society would hold little value for an advanced post-industrial society with complex division of labor, credit markets, advanced finance, etc. But keep putting forward the WorldNet Daily level of analysis. I am sure it is a big hit with this crowd.

By: Byron Schlomach

Byron Schlomach — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:54:03 +0000

OK, Todd, since you insist I’ll post the additional Bradford quote from a year later and Basil, quit being foolish. What the Pilgrims prove is that a free enterprise system does not preclude good will and charity and, in fact, makes this more possible by creating more prosperity. I mean really guys, think deeply, please.
“These matters premised, I will now proceed with my account of affairs here. But before I come to other things I must say a word about their planting this year. They felt the benefit of their last year’s harvest; for by planting corn on their own account they managed, with a great deal of patience, to overcome famine. This reminds me of a saying of Seneca’s (Epis. 123): that an important part of liberty is a well-governed belly, and patience in want. the settlers now began to consider corn more precious than silver; and those that had some to spare began to trade with the others for small things, by the quart, pottle, and peck, etc.; for they had not money, and if they had, corn was preferred to it. In order that they might raise their crops to better advantage, the made suit to the Governor to have some land apportioned for permanent holdings, and not by yearly lot, whereby the plots which the more industrious had brought under good culture one year, would change hands the next, and others would reap the advantage; with the result that anuring and culture of the land were neglected. It was well considered, and their request was granted. Every person was given the one acre of land, for them and theirs, and they were to have no more till the seven years had expired; it was all as near the town as possible, so that they might be kept close together, for greater safety and better attention to the general employments.”

By: Basil St. John

Basil St. John — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:54:40 +0000

I think Byron’s onto something. All we need to do is let families provide medical care to each other and outcomes will be much better. I’d much rather my own father perform surgery on me than some college-educated, ivory-tower, elitist medical doctor.

Now where did I put the leeches?

By: todd

todd — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:30:03 +0000

My point – they only did this for their corn crop and they had communal land management and assigned families to feed children not their own. While rejecting a pure ‘communistic’ lifestyle they hardly adopted a libertarian approach.

Oh, and it seems relevant to point out that the Native nations in the area, the ones that saved the Pilgrims, prospered quite well adopting collectivist economic models.

By: Byron Schlomach

Byron Schlomach — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:41:52 +0000

Todd, nothing the rest of the paragraph contradicts what I said. What’s your point? In addition, here’s the next paragraph Bradford wrote, and there’s another paragraph about going totally to private property a year later that I could post:
“The failure of the experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients,applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to
breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not
brook it. This feature of it would have been worse still, if they had been men of an inferior class. If (it was thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality
throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.”

By: Matt Sh.

Matt Sh. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:16:42 +0000

Were the pilgrims here legally?

By: todd

todd — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:52:26 +0000

Anytime you see ellipsis it is always worth checking to see what was left out. Here is the full paragraph:
“All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

What actually happened is that this applied only to corn harvesting, not all the other methods of gathering and hunting food. It was also achieved by the colony assigning land to people based on the size of their families and assigned children with no families to a specific family to take care of. The land was not owned by the family but was a communal resource they were permitted to use. Not exactly the free market lesson Dr. Schlomach wishes to read into it.