Happy Thanksgiving

[Gaspar]

Happy Thanksgiving to all TulsaNowers.

Something to be thankful of:


Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of that concept. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.

That's why they nearly all starved.

When people can get the same return regardless of effort, most people make less effort. Despite their strong moral and religious upbringing, Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.

"So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, I with the advice of the chiefest among them gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."

Because of the change, an abundant harvest resulted.  The gratitude of the early settlers for finally having enough to eat prompted the first Thanksgiving to be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. The problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.

What private property does -- as the Pilgrims discovered -- is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

That's the lost civics lesson of Thanksgiving.

--from an editorial by John Stossel

[bokworker]

You just had to put your Murdochian, RWRE spin on it didn't you Gassy?

snark off/

Happy Thanksgiving to all and safe travels for you and/or your family members.

[swake]

Happy Thanksgiving to all TulsaNowers.

Something to be thankful of:


Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of that concept. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.

That's why they nearly all starved.

When people can get the same return regardless of effort, most people make less effort. Despite their strong moral and religious upbringing, Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.

"So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, I with the advice of the chiefest among them gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."

Because of the change, an abundant harvest resulted.  The gratitude of the early settlers for finally having enough to eat prompted the first Thanksgiving to be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. The problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.

What private property does -- as the Pilgrims discovered -- is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

That's the lost civics lesson of Thanksgiving.

--from an editorial by John Stossel

Of course the early settlement also only survived with with the assistance of and by learning from the local natives, who lived successfully and, please note, communally.

[Red Arrow]

Of course the early settlement also only survived with with the assistance of and by learning from the local natives, who lived successfully and, please note, communally.

Must be genetic.

[Hoss]

Must be genetic.

Wow, sounding a little racist to this partial blood Native American...

[Gaspar]

Of course the early settlement also only survived with with the assistance of and by learning from the local natives, who lived successfully and, please note, communally.

That's true. . . and a great example Swake!  I was hoping someone would mention this.

The Native Americans aren't the only ones around the world who adapted communal living practices.  The common thread is that where you find communal cultures, you typically also find a "snapshot in time". 

Most communal cultures don't move past what we classify as Stone-age. 

Innovation has very little value when competition does not exist.  Why be better when you can simply be?


Edit: There is nothing wrong with this, it's just a different world view.  Problems only occur when competition reaches your shores.

[swake]

That's true. . . and a great example Swake!  I was hoping someone would mention this.

The Native Americans aren't the only ones around the world who adapted communal living practices.  The common thread is that where you find communal cultures, you typically also find a "snapshot in time".  

Most communal cultures don't move past what we classify as Stone-age.  

Innovation has very little value when competition does not exist.  Why be better when you can simply be?


Edit: There is nothing wrong with this, it's just a different world view.  Problems only occur when competition reaches your shores.

That's pretty racist too. I think you need to research a little more on indigenousness pre-Columbian native cultures here in the Americas before you pronounce them as "stone age"

[Gaspar]

That's pretty racist too. I think you need to research a little more on indigenousness pre-Columbian native cultures here in the Americas before you pronounce them as "stone age"

Not intended as raciest, as it has nothing to do with race.  It applies to any group of people who primarily utilize wood and stone tools.  As I said above, you can find these cultures around the world in many countries and of many races.  The common thread is the cultural one, not the race.

Communal cultures typically place little value on innovation.

[Red Arrow]

Wow, sounding a little racist to this partial blood Native American...

Over react a bit?  

Edit:
I forgot to ask, which part of your blood was offended?  The non-Native American part for being incapable of adapting to communal life?

[Hoss]

Over react a bit?  

Edit:
I forgot to ask, which part of your blood was offended?  The non-Native American part for being incapable of adapting to communal life?

Thanks for making my point even stronger...wow.

[Conan71]

Damn BOK stole my thunder.

The idea that white people from England were lazy thieves and lousy farmers has a racist overtone. Being an Anglophile, I'm severely offended. I want my pound of flesh!

[Red Arrow]

Thanks for making my point even stronger...wow.

Is it your position that every difference is negative?  I don't see it that way.  What ever happened to embracing diversity?  I thought diversity was a liberal mantra.  How can  you have diversity without differences?

[Hoss]

What else am I to glean from 'it must be genetic'. That native Americans have long dark hair?  I believe from the context we all know what the intent of the response was. Incredible.

[Red Arrow]

What else am I to glean from 'it must be genetic'. That native Americans have long dark hair?  I believe from the context we all know what the intent of the response was. Incredible.

Well, it turns out you were incorrect.  It's probably since you and I don't think the same way.  As such, it would be useless to try to explain further.

[Conan71]

What else am I to glean from 'it must be genetic'. That native Americans have long dark hair?  I believe from the context we all know what the intent of the response was. Incredible.

I'm sorry, I don't really see anything offensive in his original post.  Knowing Red's history on here, it's some light-hearted humor.  I'm not blood Indian but grew up in a household with a very strong Native American influence for a father figure.  I'm pretty sensitive to Native American issues but I also call them honestly (like casinos per se) and fail to feel an ounce of racism in his comment.  Had it been something to do with a common stereotype like drunken natives, I might be more tempted to speak up.