SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RMF who wrote (56878)10/11/2012 9:04:58 AM
From: HPilot  Respond to of 71588
 
There was NO SOCIALISM during the time of our Founding Fathers.


Not exactly true, there were some monarchies that operated their economy on socialist or partial socialist ideals, but they did not call it that at the time.

The US had debtors prison till it was abolished in 1833.

en.wikipedia.org



To: RMF who wrote (56878)10/11/2012 8:38:31 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Of course there was socialism in the time of the Founding Fathers. The Plymouth colony (and others) was (were) founded on socialist ideals. It nearly collapsed because of it:

Thanksgiving, the Colonists, and Failed Socialism
Posted on Nov 24, 2011 in Blog, Editorials, & Thoughts, Constitutional & Liberty Issues, Political Issues
Kevin Hayden – TruthisTreason.net

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

truthistreason.net




To: RMF who wrote (56878)10/22/2012 10:58:17 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
From Obama, agenda at odds with founders
He's carrying on the welfare work that progressives learned in Germany.
Article by: KATHERINE KERSTEN
Updated: October 20, 2012 - 8:48 PM

On Nov. 6, Americans will vote in an election whose importance rivals that of the election of 1912 -- 100 years ago. That election, which put Woodrow Wilson in the White House, ushered in the progressive movement, of which President Obama is the heir and today's leader.

Progressivism views the roles of citizen and state very differently than our founding fathers did. The founders anchored the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in three principles. They believed that human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inherent in nature and human dignity, and preexist the state. They believed that government should be limited, and that its primary purpose is to protect these rights. Finally, they crafted our Constitution to disperse power and curb its abuse through mechanisms such as checks and balances, and federalism.

As the 20th century opened, progressives like Woodrow Wilson -- a former president of Princeton University -- dismissed the Declaration and Constitution as outmoded. They insisted that America's archaic political system was unsuited to solving the problems of a new industrial age. Ironically, however, they drew their own vision for perfecting democracy from a very undemocratic place: the imperial Germany of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

American intellectuals encountered Germany in the 1870s and 1880s, when thousands of them flocked there to study the new "social sciences" at its universities. Many were dazzled by what they saw as the world's most advanced and efficient nation, and by the top-down social welfare system Bismarck was building.

They were captivated, too, by the philosophy of Georg W.F. Hegel -- a German thinker whose "historical idealism" undergirded the Prussian state. Hegel's vision of man and the state ran directly counter to the American founders' classical liberalism. He did not view human rights as inherent in nature, universal, and existing prior to the state. Instead, he maintained that rights "evolve" historically and take different forms at different times and places. The state, in his view, is both the source of rights and the engine of historical progress.

Wilson, like many intellectuals of his generation, was besotted by the progressive vision. He scoffed at Americans' "blind worship" of their Constitution and the limits it placed on government power. And he was impatient with checks and balances, which he viewed as an irrational obstacle to the policy changes that progress demanded.

He sought to replace our nation's "limited" Constitution with a "living" Constitution that would "evolve" -- under the guidance of far-seeing intellectuals like himself -- to tackle the nation's changing problems. "No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live," he wrote.

Wilson advocated modeling America's national administration on Bismarck's Prussia, and envisioned a future, almost limitless expansion of government's role to guarantee "complete self-development" to all citizens.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson took up the progressive standard after Wilson passed from the scene. Now Obama is leading the movement's fourth wave, as political scientist Charles Kesler explains in his new book, "I am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism.

Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign sprang from the progressive faith that change is inevitably good when led by well-intended visionaries like himself. As president, he announced he would "fundamentally transform" America. On his watch, our "living" Constitution has become ever more incapable of placing limits on the size and role of government. Impatient of the limits on his power that remain, the president has frequently sidestepped Congress through regulatory actions and executive orders.

Meanwhile, bureaucracy expands exponentially. Obama's signature accomplishment -- the 3,000-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- creates no less than 159 new boards, commissions and agencies. The president's "Life of Julia" Internet ad campaign reveals that his ideal citizen is completely dependent on government for "full self-development."

Yet even if Obama wins this election, progressivism's days may be numbered. As Kesler points out, the economic and moral sustainability of the welfare state grows more and more doubtful. We are seeing the beginning of its slow collapse in Europe. Obamacare, says Kesler, is "exhibit A in the case for the intellectual obsolescence" of progressivism.

The American people want government to protect their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But they know that government endangers liberty when it assumes the power to try to guarantee happiness itself.

---------------------------

Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment. The views expressed here are her own. She is at kakersten@gmail.com.

startribune.com