Separating America From Capitalism

[PoliticalChic]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"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."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

 

[Moonglow]

Damn, what happened to all the private ownership of business in the USA? Oh that's right, they are still there.....Same with farms, houses and STD's, still privately owned unless owned by a corporation which is supported by private individuals...If that ain't capitalism, I don't think it's communist...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Damn, what happened to all the private ownership of business in the USA? Oh that's right, they are still there.....Same with farms, houses and STD's, still privately owned unless owned by a corporation which is supported by private individuals...If that ain't capitalism, I don't think it's communist...

Bushwa!

Your understanding of the world is sorely limited.

1.Was National Socialism based on capitalism and private ownership?
Hardly.
"What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Mises Daily Mises Institute


2. "....it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners,..."
And that is the same situation due to the eco-fascists who determine the use of privately owned land.

1. The environmental movement is based on voiding of property rights. Land which is not public can be so bound by regulation that it ceases to be private property. In effect, the handmaiden of collectivism, environmentalism’s claim to be of a higher value is a step backward….toward a time when slavery was common.
2. See what happens if you have a spotted owl or a Delta smelt on your property.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. How radically things have changed cannot be realized until one sees that the aim of the United Nations is to do away with private property.

a. The picture is far more clear if one realizes that the target is the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.



8. The UN Conference on Human Settlements – Vancouver Plan of Action – 1976
This conference created the baseline for the UN’s viewpoint and future actions regarding individual property rights. See pdf page 2 [document page 28] under, Land – Preamble, for their stance on private property. This position is reflected in policies being enacted across the U.S. today.
- See more at: Agenda 21 American Policy Center
Agenda 21 American Policy Center


b. “Sustainable” is the catchword for every activist, bureaucrat, NGO…but try to get a definition.
For a hint, the following are considered ‘unsustainable’ by the true believers: single family homes; paved roads; ski runs; golf courses; dams; fences; pastures; plowing of lands; sewers; drain systems; pipelines; fertilizer; wall and floor tile.
These and many other elements of life today are on the list for eventual elimination.
Nickson, "Eco-Fascists," p.9.




4 . Now...where did we hear that idea before?

"1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)"
1http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html0 Planks ofThe Communist Manifesto


How can so many have become convinced that they are simply serfs, subjects of an all powerful central authority?

How?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!


a. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence, John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.” Property Rights Have Personal Parallels

And it is government's responsibility to protect same.


b. Here, William Bradford's own description of the flaws in 'communism:'

“For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could man husbands brook it."


There has never been an economic system to surpass capitalism in benefits to an industrialized society.

Never.

Believing that there is is a sign of intellectual weakness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. In William Bradford's view, folks will not put in the efforts if they are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
If people are convinced that government will provide for them....they let it.

Here's an example:


a. "....a recent study by four distinguished economists, released through the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded that “unemployment benefit extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession.”
Allen Halting unemployment benefits boosts employment Online Athens



Why get a job when you could sit around and get paid by the government?

b. " Most Unemployment Due to Extended Jobless Benefits
Are extended unemployment benefits costing jobs? An October National Bureau of Economic Research working paper suggests the answer is yes.

“Most of the persistent increase in unemployment during the Great Recession can be accounted for by the unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefit eligibility,” authors wrote in the working paper."
Most Unemployment Due to Extended Jobless Benefits - Bloomberg




Liberal policies fail when confronting human nature.


‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

 

[oldfart]

6. In William Bradford's view, folks will not put in the efforts if they are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
If people are convinced that government will provide for them....they let it.

Here's an example:


a. "....a recent study by four distinguished economists, released through the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded that “unemployment benefit extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession.”
Allen Halting unemployment benefits boosts employment Online Athens



Why get a job when you could sit around and get paid by the government?

b. " Most Unemployment Due to Extended Jobless Benefits
Are extended unemployment benefits costing jobs? An October National Bureau of Economic Research working paper suggests the answer is yes.

“Most of the persistent increase in unemployment during the Great Recession can be accounted for by the unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefit eligibility,” authors wrote in the working paper."
Most Unemployment Due to Extended Jobless Benefits - Bloomberg




Liberal policies fail when confronting human nature.


‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

Another case of PC talking to herself. Please do not feed the troll. Thanx.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. In William Bradford's view, folks will not put in the efforts if they are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
If people are convinced that government will provide for them....they let it.

Here's an example:


a. "....a recent study by four distinguished economists, released through the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded that “unemployment benefit extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession.”
Allen Halting unemployment benefits boosts employment Online Athens



Why get a job when you could sit around and get paid by the government?

b. " Most Unemployment Due to Extended Jobless Benefits
Are extended unemployment benefits costing jobs? An October National Bureau of Economic Research working paper suggests the answer is yes.

“Most of the persistent increase in unemployment during the Great Recession can be accounted for by the unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefit eligibility,” authors wrote in the working paper."
Most Unemployment Due to Extended Jobless Benefits - Bloomberg




Liberal policies fail when confronting human nature.


‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

Another case of PC talking to herself. Please do not feed the troll. Thanx.

"Please do not feed the troll. Thanx."

You ordering the other losers to not even try to deal with my posts.

Great!

I really scare the heck out of you, huh?

Just one more Liberal attempt to silence opposing voices......like a good ol' fascist.

Proves exactly what I post about you Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Thomas Jefferson had something similar to say....

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute



Yet, community organizers continue with a view that has been shown to be false, and, if they actually know the truth, malfeasant.


"In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.... ….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office. '"
Scribd



Can Liberals really be this stupid.....

....or do they, in reality, have no intention of alleviating of poverty.

The answer is clear.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Another case of PC talking to herself. Please do not feed the troll. Thanx.

translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ to refute any of the concepts she has presented.

Democracy is debate but a liberal will be too stupid to debate. Rather, a liberal is an animal looking for a herd to follow, not a human being looking for an idea to analyze.

Disconnect: Kirsten Powers' [a liberal] The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech

ever see a conservative or libertarian too stupid to debate. What does that teach you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. While due recognition has been given to William Bradford, who saw the mistakes in communism, and instituted capitalism, There is another to whom American capitalism owes a debt, one rarely mentioned.



"Sir Edwin Sandys.... one of the founders of the proprietaryVirginia Company of London, which in 1606 established the first permanent English settlement in what is now the United States in the colony ofVirginia, based at Jamestown."
Edwin Sandys died 1629 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Sandys was an entrepreneur, and it was his intention to populate the settlements in Virginia. Others of his occupation approached the gentry, merchants, the educated, having them spread the word about opportunities in Virginia. But Sandys included men and women of all social strata, he even hired hawkers to reach the illiterate.

Sandys campaign succeeded....but with the help that John Rolfe gave by developing a cash crop: tobacco.




Here is why Sandys belongs in the 'Capitalism Hall of Fame:'

"It is tempting to name Sandys yet another archetypal American since he believed in popular sovereignty, representative government, and social equality. But he was really an English businessman who happened to understand better than his fellow investors the company must give colonists a serious stake in their enterprise. His most effective political theory was 'What's in it for me?'

That....and he gave colonists a 'charter of liberty.'
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"byWalter A. McDougall, p. 43-44.




" ....who happened to understand better than his fellow investors the company must give colonists a serious stake in their enterprise."


That's capitalism.
The economic program that has never been surpassed.

 

[regent]

Wonder why most nations in the world have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism including the US?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wonder why most nations in the world have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism including the US?

I wonder why most of your posts have more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


I posted this: " ....who happened to understand better than his fellow investors the company must give colonists a serious stake in their enterprise."


That's capitalism.
The economic program that has never been surpassed."


You did your best to avoid this fact about human nature.

 

[regent]

Wonder why most nations in the world have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism including the US?

I wonder why most of your posts have more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


I posted this: " ....who happened to understand better than his fellow investors the company must give colonists a serious stake in their enterprise."


That's capitalism.
The economic program that has never been surpassed."


You did your best to avoid this fact about human nature.

Is capitalism being surpassed today by most nations using a mixture of socialism and capitalism?
Can you name one nation with pure capitalism?
Can you name one nation with pure socialism?
How many nations can be named that have a mixture of both socialism and capitalism besides the United States?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

 

[regent]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

 

[regent]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

Golly gee, do I have to love one more than the other? The Constitution is nice, just sits there gathering dust unless some commie liberal reads it and demands something, and FDR is dead. If FDR wasn't dead he'd be president.
As for who works harder, capitalists or socialists, I'd say socialists; capitalists seem to sit around a lot, play golf or run for political office like Trump.
Speaking of Trump, will Trump pick Palin to be his running mate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

Golly gee, do I have to love one more than the other? The Constitution is nice, just sits there gathering dust unless some commie liberal reads it and demands something, and FDR is dead. If FDR wasn't dead he'd be president.
As for who works harder, capitalists or socialists, I'd say socialists; capitalists seem to sit around a lot, play golf or run for political office like Trump.
Speaking of Trump, will Trump pick Palin to be his running mate?

Many a true word is spoken in jest is an adage, or aphorism.

And that is the case in your post.

Roosevelt had no regard for the Constitution, and saw to it that it was no longer the law of the land.
Acolytes such as you are accomplices.

Your words about capitalists as compared to socialists could have been spoken by Marx or any of his other drones.

You've served your purpose.

 

[regent]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

Golly gee, do I have to love one more than the other? The Constitution is nice, just sits there gathering dust unless some commie liberal reads it and demands something, and FDR is dead. If FDR wasn't dead he'd be president.
As for who works harder, capitalists or socialists, I'd say socialists; capitalists seem to sit around a lot, play golf or run for political office like Trump.
Speaking of Trump, will Trump pick Palin to be his running mate?

Many a true word is spoken in jest is an adage, or aphorism.

And that is the case in your post.

Roosevelt had no regard for the Constitution, and saw to it that it was no longer the law of the land.
Acolytes such as you are accomplices.

Your words about capitalists as compared to socialists could have been spoken by Marx or any of his other drones.

You've served your purpose.

Your opinion on FDR's regard for the Constitution is just that, opinion. Asking an "either/or question can be a fallacy and childish, and your question was both.