Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/23/2011 1:20:07 PM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: inkling

Why didn’t they ever teach this to us in public skrools?


2 posted on 11/23/2011 1:21:31 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling
Rush has recounted this history every Thanksgiving for many years now.
3 posted on 11/23/2011 1:22:16 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

“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.”


4 posted on 11/23/2011 1:26:10 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

Young men were hunting for treasure rather than work in the communal fields. Why not, they’d still get an equal share.


6 posted on 11/23/2011 1:28:02 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling
The truth is a bit more complex then that. It always is, when dealing from something from the pages of history. It just goes to show that you got be careful when trying to writing an indictment of something. Make Haste From Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World Pg 250. From the outset, the colony was a commercial project, as well as a mission inspired by religous ideals. Weston wished to make money, as the contract put it, from "trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing" on the American coast. Far from being a commune, the Mayflower was a common stock: the very words employed in it's contract. All the land in the Plymouth Colony, its houses, its tools, and its trading profits (if the appeard) were to belong to a joint-stock company, owned by the shareholders as a whole. When the final value of the assets was determined after seven years, the investors and the colonists would divide them up: that was the plan. All of the participants, those who stayed in England and those who had come to America, would recieve a dividend in proportion to the amount of shares they woned. Those who had no capital, but simply came on the boat, were deemed to have a single share. If any investors injected more cash, he or she would recieve extra shares accordingly. It was not the same thing as a modern corporation, but a likeness existed. See what I mean? Someone could just as easily turn the intent of the article on its head, say that this is proof of the inherent failures of the economic model of corporations. It's never good to give your enemy ammunition they can toss right back at you.
9 posted on 11/23/2011 1:43:50 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling; ixtl; Envisioning

Send this to a libtard you know. Maybe she will post it on DU.

Ever noticed DU also stands for dirty underwear?


10 posted on 11/23/2011 1:46:30 PM PST by waterhill (Strawberry jello is wild pig crack, they love it more than life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

Also consider that these people were used to working hard to live. If even from these kinds of people you got slackers and those who wouldn’t pull their weight waiting for others to augment their poor outcomes, and the experiment failed,

think about the average person in the USA today, and ask yourself if we’d have more, or less, chance of this succeeding.

I would suggest that the problems we find ourselves in today are the result of failed socialist programs. Too many wanting others to take care of them no matter what they have or haven’t done.


11 posted on 11/23/2011 1:54:47 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

It’s a great story and I’ve read it before.

My only question is regarding the one-acre parcel of land “given” to each person.

Weren’t they perched on the edge of a fairly empty continent of immense size?

I wonder how they settled on a one-acre limit?


13 posted on 11/23/2011 2:23:12 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

· In 1978, we took the RV and the kids up to Plymouth to see my wife’s sister who lived there at the time. We visited Plymouth Plantation. During the tour, I was struck by the presence of fortified guard shacks in the town square and asked the guide if they were a last line of defense for the citizens there if trouble with the natives spilled into the compound. He told us that they were for the control of the FOOD RIOTS which broke out those first few winters — BEFORE they wisely abandoned their clearly failed experiment with collectivism — before Marx was even born.

Seems each generation or so we must relearn the hard lessons of history.

OBOZO will teach us the next round of such lessons. If he persists in driving America into the ground, I suspect those lessons will be some of the MOST BITTER we have ever experienced.

Have a wonderful day.


15 posted on 11/23/2011 3:13:14 PM PST by Dick Bachert (Obozo deserves another term: IN LEAVENWORTH. 25 to life sounds about right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

Funny, while I was doing Genealogy research, I found that on my Mother’s side (French), that after migrating from Virginia they had gone to the New Harmony,Indiana “communist” settlement.

They only stayed for 2 years and settled further west.

When are people going to learn Commie/Socialist/Marxist/Progressive BS DOESN’T WORK. It goes AGAINST Human Nature.


16 posted on 11/23/2011 3:31:51 PM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling
After allowing for tilling of private property "...The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

Human nature is certainly fixed and immutable.

18 posted on 11/23/2011 4:47:04 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inkling

The Pilgrims and Property Rights: How our ancestors got fat & happy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QdQErc8JQ


23 posted on 11/23/2011 9:24:01 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson