Posted on 09/17/2017 9:09:25 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
As I have written in the past, Progressivism would not exist at all if not for Henry George. John Dewey was influenced by George, many of the British Fabians, Margaret Sanger; one of the most proud proclaimations of progressive achievement in the early 20th century is Initiative, Referendum, and Recall - that entire movement was based on Georgist ideals (and dishonest ones at that.) The early unions, many of them were not socialist, they were Georgist. The Knights of Labor, Samuel Gompers, and others.
But understanding the link between big government and Henry George is not well understood. The fact that George repeatedly agitated for the nationalization of land typically falls on deaf ears. One of the most prominent members of the so-called "Social Gospel", Walter Rauschenbusch, is another who was deeply moved by the politics of Henry George. Rauschenbusch once gave a speech in which he proclaimed:
Mr. George has taught this proposition in his book. He is often called a socialist, but it is very incorrect to call him so; he is not a socialist, but the strongest opponent of socialism in the United States. He is a strong advocate of laissez faire in the highest sense of that term. Therefore he insists that artificial monopolies, such as the tariff, should be swept away, and that freedom should be given to the natural forces of society, and that natural monopolies should be owned and managed by the community to which they naturally belong. These are his propositions in regard to monopoly. Am I right?
By "his book" Rauschenbusch means "Progress and Poverty", George's most well known work.
Now, just earlier this week I pointed out that Progressives do not (and I believe they cannot; they are impaired from doing so) distinguish between "Government" and "Society". For a progressive, society is government and government is society. This speech from Rauschenbusch is no different. Reading the speech, he repeatedly uses "community", "society" and "the State"(and other synonyms) completely interchangeably.
For Rauschenbusch, natural monopolies need to be owned by the big organization of society i.e. government. He doesn't mean shareholders, read his speech. That's not his tone and its not his content. Besides, ownership by only the shareholders does not encompass an entire community. The only way "society" or "the community" can be the owners and managers is if the state at some level begins nationalizing property.
Which is what George was known for supporting anyways, at least in regards to land. It's clear what Rauschenbusch is talking about and clear who he is citing as his inspiration.
You seem so full of hate for successful people.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
You chose to not answer the question, but to comment on it.
That is a very superficial approach.
Gosh.
A parrot.
How clever.
You chose to not answer the question, but to comment on it.
That is a very superficial approach.
E, you personally responded to me.
I didn’t post to you.
You believe that you are some kind of mystic that can discern secret messages out of what I write.
I asked a question for consideration by all.
You decided to attack me for it.
And now you want to play word games because you don’t want to address my original question.
You are a poor sophist, E.
Why are you so against truth?
Just as I suspected. Another narcissist virtue signaler.
You argue like a third grader.
Go out and do some writing with your colored chalks on the sidewalk.
And you, dear E, are a poor sophist.
What is your definition of "help them" and "take advantage of them?"
Some villages or towns were founded as Georgist colonies: Fairhope, AL, Arden, DE, Free Acres, NJ, Rose Valley, PA. Some failed (Halidon, ME, Tahanto, MA), but others went on to become liberal or leftist or bohemian or non-conformist centers. There was some connection between Georgism and the "Little Lander" movement that sought to create self-reliant agricultural communes on the land.
It is a question written to cause people to consider.
What do you think, dear E?
The business of government is not to lead and manage citizens. That’s the belief system of progressivism.
The business of government is to secure liberty. It is up to us to lead and manage our own lives.
“The business of government is to secure Liberty.”?
Well, the rest of us are living in the real world.
You go ask those city employees to secure your Liberty for you.
See what happens.
It appears we are perhaps both saying the same thing, just in a different way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.