The articles points were bloviated. Basically, Rush was right.
Here’s the paragraph that I disagree with :
________________________________
“Both Bradford and his assistant Edward Winslow described the shift not as a good thing, in and of itself, but as a concession to human weakness. It was an acknowledgment, in Winslow’s words, of “that self-love wherewith every man, in a measure more or less, loveth and preferreth his own good before his neighbor’s.” Because “all men have this corruption in them,” as Bradford put it”
______________________________
I fail to see how Rush Limbaugh’s essay contradicts the above. I am sure you agree that HUMAN WEAKNESS is real as we are all sinful and we all fall short of God’s glory. William Bradford just made that observation by his own account.
If men loved each other unconditionally and perfectly as God command all to do, yes, I will agree with you. If this were true, We would all work as best as we can and be productive as best as we can for the good of the community instead of just ourselves and own family.
However, it is NOT true that men ( even the Pilgrims meet that standard ).
So this is not the case in reality. Hence, capitalism and free enterprise are EXACTLY what was needed because of this observation.
Agreed.
I have it on good authority that Rush was not really there when the Pilgrims were there, despite the claim in his book.
“bloviated”
Perhaps the most accurate and on point use of the term I have seen. Perfect description.