Rockefeller vs. the United States

LFET ^ | Russell Madden

[Sir Gawain]

Rockefeller vs. the United States

by Russell Madden

When collectivists and statists want to convince the history-and-economics challenged that "unfettered capitalism" is a horrifying practice that must be restrained, regulated, and harnessed by the State for the "good of the common man," they relish trotting out that quintessential boogeyman, J. D. Rockefeller.

One of the founders of Standard Oil, Rockefeller became the richest person in America. Evoking the image of this "Robber Baron" is designed to trump any and all objections to "state-business partnerships." Allowing such "exploiters" to roam the land unchecked would be akin to permitting a ravenous wolf to prowl the nursery. The helpless and hopeless among us would be easy prey for the undisciplined and ravenous "greed" of these subhuman monsters.

A powerful picture, yes, but — despite its persistence and perverse influence for over a century — a portrait that is pure hokum and fraud.

Yes, Rockefeller did control nearly ninety-percent of the American oil industry. Yes, Standard Oil was a vertically-integrated company involved in the production of oil from its discovery to its retail sale. Yes, Standard Oil divisions in various states (established for tax purposes) were controlled by a single group of men. Yes, Rockefeller became fabulously wealthy.

For all of those facts, he was condemned and vilified and attacked by the envious and the politically powerful.

Perhaps one day justice and truth will prevail and Rockefeller's life will be celebrated, not denounced. He made it possible for people of modest means to light their homes with kerosene at a penny-an-hour, thus opening the night to others who previously could not afford whale oil and candles. (Coincidentally, he thus also helped save some whale species from extinction.) Despite his near "monopoly" on oil, he lowered the price of oil from 58 cents to barely a nickel a gallon, thereby aided the poorest among us.

For his productivity, Rockefeller became a target of the antitrust regulators and had his company broken up. The man who was declared guilty of "restraining trade" knew otherwise: Standard Oil faced competition from over a hundred oil companies in the United States, from Russian oil interests, and from that new source of energy, electricity.

The altruists praised him, though, when he gave away the wealth he had worked so hard to earn. The half-billion he passed around totaled more than the entire worth of any other American. If that money had been confiscated via the income tax — up to ninety-percent in later decades — the government would have frittered away what ended up helping so many people.

One example of targeted generosity arising from that money via Rockefeller's son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., exemplifies the stark difference between the results of State "charity" and "good deeds" and the efforts of those in the private sector.

In "The Crack in Liberty" (LFET, 6-24-02), I discussed the unpleasant experiences my wife and I endured when visiting Philadelphia, the Liberty Bell, and Independence Hall: misinformation, mobs of visitors, rude employees, inane "security," and poorly designed facilities.

The next week, we traveled south to Virginia and visited another center of foment leading up to the American Revolution. Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and other leaders met in the then-state capital, Williamsburg. Addressing his more timid and conservative fellow politicians, Henry there declared his preference for death over enslavement. As one of the major colonies, Virginia's support for opposition to King George helped make independence a reality.

After such auspicious glory, however, the town of Williamsburg fell into harder times. When state population drifted westward, the capital moved to Richmond in 1780. By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, only the College of William and Mary provided the town a modicum of attraction. Many of the buildings of major historic interest had either been destroyed or left to deteriorate.

Through the efforts of Dr. W. A. R. Goodwin, rector of the Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg, J. D. Rockefeller, Jr., decided not only to save the remaining Eighteenth Century structures but to reconstruct others that had burned or been torn down. Beginning in 1926, he purchased the necessary land and buildings. Eventually, what is now known as "Colonial Williamsburg" grew to include 173 acres. The major work was completed in 1934. Today, eighty-eight original homes and businesses have been restored, fifty buildings — including the capitol and the governor's palace — have been rebuilt, and hundreds of structures of later origin have been removed.

As one of the site's publications states, "Colonial Williamsburg is a private, not-for-profit foundation and is not part of the state or federal park system. Your purchase of tickets, gifts, food and lodging as well as tax-deductible contributions help us preserve and operate Colonial Williamsburg so that the future may learn from the past." For that, we can be thankful.

Unlike the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall which are "free" to visit, we did not suffer through throngs of school children while purchasing tickets or visiting the attractions. We did not have to wait in interminable lines to see the sites of interest to us. We did not run into brusque employees who did not want to be bothered by the tourists. We did not face unsympathetic martinets itching to exercise their coercive power against us. We did not have to grit our teeth and be searched for "weapons" such as penknives, have our backpacks rifled, yank off our belts or empty our pockets, or pass through metal detectors like common criminals. We did not have to be surrounded by fences and "permitted" to leave by guards standing at unmarked exits. We did not leave feeling insulted and put upon.

Amazing what positive incentives arise when one is a customer of a business and not an "owner" as we laughingly are called when it comes to State-run historic sites.

The fact that visitors pay for entrance to Colonial Williamsburg ensures that those who come do so because they actually want to be there and do not wander in out of idle or random curiosity. Putting a real price on a good acts to limit demand. That which is perceived as "free" encourages over-consumption.

This simple economic reality — balancing supply and demand via prices — has yet to filter into the minds of those responsible for running most State-run enterprises. One need not be surprised that — despite its crowds and popularity — Disneyland does not face the kinds of problems as does, for instance, Yosemite. Whether it is highways or entertainment or health care, when people have to cough up the actual cost of enjoying a good, they make wiser choices.

State employees have little incentive to be efficient. Whether a hundred or a thousand people pass quickly or slowly through the lines at a "public" park, the State employee gets paid the same. If people grow cranky or grouse about how they are treated, well, a State employee might receive a reprimand or he might not ... but it's extremely unlikely he will be fired. (For another example of this, if airline travelers think screeners are rude, inefficient, and annoying now, just wait until they are fully and completely integrated into the federal bureaucracy . . .)

A State employee ultimately is backed by the power of the government and its guns. The tin-Napoleons attracted to government "service" are able to assert themselves in ways they would never dare in the private realm. A visitor who complained too vociferously at the Liberty Bell might find himself arrested under the edicts of recent "security" legislation. A visitor at Colonial Williamsburg who was justly unhappy would have his concerns addressed, politely and immediately. For the State employee, another visitor is merely an added inconvenience or annoyance. For a business employee, another visitor is a measure of success and a source for his paycheck.

Unlike our Liberty Bell/Independence Hall experience, there were no gates, no fences, no overt security measures protecting Colonial Williamsburg or the buildings it contains. No one asked — let alone checked — regarding any "weapons" I carried. People crossed the streets between Colonial Williamsburg and modern day Williamsburg unimpeded. Visitors wore badges to prove they had paid the admission charge. If someone unscrupulously decided to wander the park without paying, they would be denied entrance to the buildings, no doubt, but they were not excluded from the park itself by metal barriers.

Indeed, in protecting valuable antiques, the employees of Colonial Williamsburg preferred relying on us rather than on silly metal detectors. One guide, for example, had us raise our hands and promise not to touch any of the furniture.

Trust in an individual and his word. Imagine that.

When we decided to leave, we did so easily. We simply walked back the way we had come. We did not feel put upon. Despite tired feet and sweaty brows from the heat, we left feeling good about our visit to Colonial Williamsburg: good dining; interesting programs (for instance, "Thomas Jefferson" spoke in the gardens for the better part of an hour); unique houses and exhibits; polite, friendly, and helpful employees ...

What a contrast between a State-run and a free enterprise.

Such comparisons, of course, could be made for any area of life into which the State has inappropriately intruded itself. Perhaps someday such lessons as this will join with the reality of such men as the Rockefellers and restore our society to a more congenial plane.

Patrick Henry said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? ... I know not what course others may take, but as for me — give me liberty, or give me death."

Many of Henry's fellow Virginians thought such sentiments radical and dangerous. How much more so they are today when turning to the State to solve most problems is the first impulse of large segments of our population.

As for me, I would rather entrust such national icons as the Liberty Bell to the likes of the Rockefellers than to keep them "safe" in the hands of a State that only too happily accepts "the price of chains and slavery" from its citizens.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[markfiveFF]

freedom bump

[Dales]

collectivists and statists want to convince the history-and-economics challenged that "unfettered capitalism" is a horrifying practice that must be restrained, regulated, and harnessed by the State for the "good of the common man,"

Interesting.

Unbridled capitalism is an awesome force that creates new factories, wealth and opportunities that go first to society's risk takers and holders of capital. But unbridled capitalism is also an awesome destructive force. It makes men and women obsolete as rapidly as it does the products they produce and the plants that employ them. And the people made obsolete and insecure are workers, employees, "Reagan Democrats," rooted people, conservative people who want to live their lives and raise their families in the same neighborhoods they grew up in.

Unbridled capitalism tells them they cannot. Conservatism is thus at a crossroads. And if social conservatism is at war with unfettered capitalism, whose side are we on?

Patrick J. Buchanan

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

lololololol.

Yes, interesting.

[Marobe]

Yes, Rockefeller did control nearly ninety-percent of the American oil industry. Yes, Standard Oil divisions in various states (established for tax purposes) were controlled by a single group of men. Yes, Rockefeller became fabulously wealthy. Yes, Rockefeller did sell oil to Japan and to Germany enabling them to kill many thousands of Americans soldiers and pilots while his extensive empire continued to flourish.. Yes, they made loans to Russia that were subsidized by our tax dollars. Yes, Rockefeller was a member of the CFR and used his vast wealth to control the media and to corrupt our political process of electing Presidents. Yes, the Rockefeller families have donated millions of dollars, none without extensive attachments and control and all to attempt to be seen as benevolent kind folks. Horse feathers !