The Pilgrims Failed Socialist Experiment

[East of Eden]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

[WinePusher]

Before citing history at least do a minimal check to see if what you are saying is correct. The US became a dominant regional power during this period and did not become a world power until after WW1 when basicallly all the European powers gave us all their money so they could slit each others throat.

Unfortunately you aren't able to distinguish between the points I'm making, so I'll have to spell them out for you. I said the US became a dominate economic power in the world, not a dominate political power in the world. They are not the same, just as Political Freedom is not the same as Economic Freedom. They are qualitatively different. It may be true that the United States became a major political power in the world as a consequence of WWI, but that's not relevant to my argument regarding the entreupretuerial capacity of the United States. If you think it is, go ahead and explain how te United States became a dominate economic power in the world as the result of WWI.

Also of course there is the fact that most of these entrepreneurs you are citing did not reach preeminence because they had a better product or more efficient means of production. If these people were alive today and engaging in the same practices which brought them to prominence back in the gilded age you would be bashing them as being crony capitalists. Back then the US government used all means possible both fair and foul to increase its economic clout including military interventions to seize economic assets from weaker nations such as Spain whose territories administration were then handed off to american companies in what was to be known as the banana republics. You need to remember ethics then were not as they are now.

This is the myth I was talking about. The myth is not that there was no mutual relationship between business and government, because there certainly was, the myth is that this mutual relationship paid off and was the cause of America's industrial boom as opposed to Free Markets. The relationship began once these companies had already been established. Look at American Steel, they established themselves independent of government. It was when they were already established and operating that they sought government intervention which turned out to be disastrous.

Whatever Jefferson's intentions were, they were not the intentions you ascribe to him. Your argument that people like Jefferson were Pro-Slavery because they themselves were slaveowners makes sense, right up until the first sentence of this document written by Jefferson.

Here again you are ascribing modern morals to people of two hundred years ago. Modern morality tells us that a slave is a person held in bondage against their will. Back in the eighteenth century though a slave was simply a piece of property that the owner could get work out of, no different than say a horse or ox.

I don't know what your political philosophy ideas from, but this is wrong. If you'd just stop ignoring the Declaration of Independence and read it you'd understand why. The Declaration of Indepedence was a standard maxim that the founders hoped America would one day reach. They were against, they made that very clear in their writings. They considered all men equal and not property, they also made that very clear in their writings. Slaves were regarded as people, not property. No action was taken to implement this idea because the Founders realized it was not politically feasible. They made this idea prevalent in their writings in the hope that America would some day aspire towards it, and we did.

Just because you are not allowed to change schools in your local district do not assume that is the case nation wide. It's kind of strange that you say you want this money to be put into the hands of the parents but in order to do it in the manner you suggest would require that money to first be given to the federal government even though previously all the funding was handled locally.

Well how did the D.C voucher system work before it was destroyed? It was funded by the Federal Government, and it worked pretty well. And it worked well because the Federal Government administered the money to different families who then spent it. The government spent nothing, they merely administered it.

So what are you saying? That education shouldn't be universal? That taxes shouldn't be used to fund education? That education should be totally privitized? Cause if education remains universal, you are going to be subsidizing the education of children you don't know throughout the United States.

And yet again I have to say it because you keep reading things into it that aren't there. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to the education of children within the framework of the current system but if you want to through your own free choice leave that system then I see no reason why everyone else should subsidize that choice you made at the expense of everyone else.

Yea, that's what I thought. You have no problem funding a system where government is the decision maker, but when individuals and families are empowered and can choose for themselves you suddenly have a change of heart.

Are you really going to base your argument on your cynical views on how the world works? Do you really think that if the district size is reduced that the district administration also would not reduce in a like amount?

I prefer being cynical than being naive. If some schools merged together or were completely abolished, I gurantee you the education budget would not be slashed by a single dime. The budget wouldn't be slashed, taxes wouldn't be lowered, and tax payers wouldn't get to keep any additional money. The superfluous money would simply be thrown around at different schools, since that seems to be your only solution to the problem. If you see a failing school, throw some money at it. If the school continues to fail in light of the money being thrown at it, increase the amount being thrown.

In saying that bureaucracy is worthless are you then actually saying that administration is not needed within the education system and that magically all the resources needed to educate a child will simply magically appear?

First of all, I'm not equating actual school administrations with government bureaucracy. Positions such as Principle are needed. But consider private, religious schools where no buereaucracy exists. Their reputation of being some of the best schools in the country is well known, yet they have no bloated bueaucracy backing them up. The conclusion is pretty clear, buereaucracy accomplishes nothing, government is inefficient and money used to fund these things is being wasted.

Your entire argument you make here is based on a false premise of unlimited school size which simply does not exist in reality. I would like you to show me a school district that has so much capacity that it can shut down half of its schools and still have sufficient capacity to serve everyone in the same manner it had previously.

Yea, this problem doesn't exist because you are operating under a false premise. Namely, that overcrowded schools is a bad thing. Tell me, where does a student make the greatest advancements in his/her educational career? College and University, where there can be up to 200-300 people in one single class. And besides, as more students flocked to a school that school would have to expand in order to accomidate these students. It's not as if the school will remain in a state of stasis as they're flooded with new students. And expansion is a good thing.

[WinePusher]

Before citing history at least do a minimal check to see if what you are saying is correct. The US became a dominant regional power during this period and did not become a world power until after WW1 when basicallly all the European powers gave us all their money so they could slit each others throat.

Unfortunately you aren't able to distinguish between the points I'm making, so I'll have to spell them out for you. I said the US became a dominate economic power in the world, not a dominate political power in the world. They are not the same, just as Political Freedom is not the same as Economic Freedom. They are qualitatively different. It may be true that the United States became a major political power in the world as a consequence of WWI, but that's not relevant to my argument regarding the entreupretuerial capacity of the United States. If you think it is, go ahead and explain how te United States became a dominate economic power in the world as the result of WWI.

Also of course there is the fact that most of these entrepreneurs you are citing did not reach preeminence because they had a better product or more efficient means of production. If these people were alive today and engaging in the same practices which brought them to prominence back in the gilded age you would be bashing them as being crony capitalists. Back then the US government used all means possible both fair and foul to increase its economic clout including military interventions to seize economic assets from weaker nations such as Spain whose territories administration were then handed off to american companies in what was to be known as the banana republics. You need to remember ethics then were not as they are now.

This is the myth I was talking about. The myth is not that there was no mutual relationship between business and government, because there certainly was, the myth is that this mutual relationship paid off and was the cause of America's industrial boom as opposed to Free Markets. The relationship began once these companies had already been established. Look at American Steel, they established themselves independent of government. It was when they were already established and operating that they sought government intervention which turned out to be disastrous.

Whatever Jefferson's intentions were, they were not the intentions you ascribe to him. Your argument that people like Jefferson were Pro-Slavery because they themselves were slaveowners makes sense, right up until the first sentence of this document written by Jefferson.

Here again you are ascribing modern morals to people of two hundred years ago. Modern morality tells us that a slave is a person held in bondage against their will. Back in the eighteenth century though a slave was simply a piece of property that the owner could get work out of, no different than say a horse or ox.

I don't know what your political philosophy ideas from, but this is wrong. If you'd just stop ignoring the Declaration of Independence and read it you'd understand why. The Declaration of Indepedence was a standard maxim that the founders hoped America would one day reach. They were against, they made that very clear in their writings. They considered all men equal and not property, they also made that very clear in their writings. Slaves were regarded as people, not property. No action was taken to implement this idea because the Founders realized it was not politically feasible. They made this idea prevalent in their writings in the hope that America would some day aspire towards it, and we did.

Just because you are not allowed to change schools in your local district do not assume that is the case nation wide. It's kind of strange that you say you want this money to be put into the hands of the parents but in order to do it in the manner you suggest would require that money to first be given to the federal government even though previously all the funding was handled locally.

Well how did the D.C voucher system work before it was destroyed? It was funded by the Federal Government, and it worked pretty well. And it worked well because the Federal Government administered the money to different families who then spent it. The government spent nothing, they merely administered it.

So what are you saying? That education shouldn't be universal? That taxes shouldn't be used to fund education? That education should be totally privitized? Cause if education remains universal, you are going to be subsidizing the education of children you don't know throughout the United States.

And yet again I have to say it because you keep reading things into it that aren't there. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to the education of children within the framework of the current system but if you want to through your own free choice leave that system then I see no reason why everyone else should subsidize that choice you made at the expense of everyone else.

Yea, that's what I thought. You have no problem funding a system where government is the decision maker, but when individuals and families are empowered and can choose for themselves you suddenly have a change of heart.

Are you really going to base your argument on your cynical views on how the world works? Do you really think that if the district size is reduced that the district administration also would not reduce in a like amount?

I prefer being cynical than being naive. If some schools merged together or were completely abolished, I gurantee you the education budget would not be slashed by a single dime. The budget wouldn't be slashed, taxes wouldn't be lowered, and tax payers wouldn't get to keep any additional money. The superfluous money would simply be thrown around at different schools, since that seems to be your only solution to the problem. If you see a failing school, throw some money at it. If the school continues to fail in light of the money being thrown at it, increase the amount being thrown.

In saying that bureaucracy is worthless are you then actually saying that administration is not needed within the education system and that magically all the resources needed to educate a child will simply magically appear?

First of all, I'm not equating actual school administrations with government bureaucracy. Positions such as Principle are needed. But consider private, religious schools where no buereaucracy exists. Their reputation of being some of the best schools in the country is well known, yet they have no bloated bueaucracy backing them up. The conclusion is pretty clear, buereaucracy accomplishes nothing, government is inefficient and money used to fund these things is being wasted.

Your entire argument you make here is based on a false premise of unlimited school size which simply does not exist in reality. I would like you to show me a school district that has so much capacity that it can shut down half of its schools and still have sufficient capacity to serve everyone in the same manner it had previously.

Yea, this problem doesn't exist because you are operating under a false premise. Namely, that overcrowded schools is a bad thing. Tell me, where does a student make the greatest advancements in his/her educational career? College and University, where there can be up to 200-300 people in one single class. And besides, as more students flocked to a school that school would have to expand in order to accomidate these students. It's not as if the school will remain in a state of stasis as they're flooded with new students. And expansion is a good thing.

[Wyvern]

Before citing history at least do a minimal check to see if what you are saying is correct. The US became a dominant regional power during this period and did not become a world power until after WW1 when basicallly all the European powers gave us all their money so they could slit each others throat.

Unfortunately you aren't able to distinguish between the points I'm making, so I'll have to spell them out for you. I said the US became a dominate economic power in the world, not a dominate political power in the world. They are not the same, just as Political Freedom is not the same as Economic Freedom. They are qualitatively different. It may be true that the United States became a major political power in the world as a consequence of WWI, but that's not relevant to my argument regarding the entreupretuerial capacity of the United States. If you think it is, go ahead and explain how te United States became a dominate economic power in the world as the result of WWI.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion I was talking about political power? How the US became a dominant economic power as a result of WW1 is really quite simple. In the financial sector both France and the UK received massive loans from the US in order to continue the war and as a result the major financial institutions of America were flush with cash which in turn was used to further increase economic activity in the US, at the same time european financial institutions were strapped for cash due to the fact all available capital was used in the war effort. Manpower, a necessity for economic activity was also affected greatly due to WW1. Again the US was virtually unaffected by WW1 while all the european powers on the other hand bled themselves white and in fact the WW1 generation is known as the lost generation due to the huge losses incurred by that generation. The less money and manpower available to you the less economic activity you will be able to generate, europe had little of either while the US had plenty of both. I could go on and on on the subject but I hope you get the idea.

This is the myth I was talking about. The myth is not that there was no mutual relationship between business and government, because there certainly was, the myth is that this mutual relationship paid off and was the cause of America's industrial boom as opposed to Free Markets. The relationship began once these companies had already been established. Look at American Steel, they established themselves independent of government. It was when they were already established and operating that they sought government intervention which turned out to be disastrous.

Maybe you should look into why the one company you cite didn't have these same connections as all the others. It's amazing you cite one company while ignoring how different the experiences for all the rail, sugar, fruit, timber and many other companies were.

I don't know what your political philosophy ideas from, but this is wrong. If you'd just stop ignoring the Declaration of Independence and read it you'd understand why. The Declaration of Indepedence was a standard maxim that the founders hoped America would one day reach. They were against, they made that very clear in their writings. They considered all men equal and not property, they also made that very clear in their writings. Slaves were regarded as people, not property. No action was taken to implement this idea because the Founders realized it was not politically feasible. They made this idea prevalent in their writings in the hope that America would some day aspire towards it, and we did.

If this is the case then it doesn't explain why the very same writer of the Declaration of Independance was himself a slave owner. If it was true that the founding fathers were against slavery why is it they continued to have them even after the publication of the Declaration? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that many of the founding fathers owned slaves? Also could you please show that in colonial times that slaves were regarded as people?

Well how did the D.C voucher system work before it was destroyed? It was funded by the Federal Government, and it worked pretty well. And it worked well because the Federal Government administered the money to different families who then spent it. The government spent nothing, they merely administered it.

Maybe you don't know it but everything within the District of Columbia is administered by the federal government. If something needs to be administered that means money is being spent on a bureaucracy which you have already stated is worthless.

Yea, that's what I thought. You have no problem funding a system where government is the decision maker, but when individuals and families are empowered and can choose for themselves you suddenly have a change of heart.

The government is empowered to provide an education to children which is why the public education system was created. If you decide you do not like what is provided and wish to give your child an alternate education that is your choice. The question which you still have not answered is why should everyone else have to pay you for your choice? The system as it stands allows individuals and families to choose for themselves already. Maybe you are not aware of the structure of the education system in the US but most education decisions are made by the local districts which are manned by the individuals and families of those very districts. Trying to set government up as the boogey man when it comes to education simply doesn't work due to the highly distributed nature of the system.

Are you really going to base your argument on your cynical views on how the world works? Do you really think that if the district size is reduced that the district administration also would not reduce in a like amount?

I prefer being cynical than being naive. If some schools merged together or were completely abolished, I gurantee you the education budget would not be slashed by a single dime. The budget wouldn't be slashed, taxes wouldn't be lowered, and tax payers wouldn't get to keep any additional money. The superfluous money would simply be thrown around at different schools, since that seems to be your only solution to the problem. If you see a failing school, throw some money at it. If the school continues to fail in light of the money being thrown at it, increase the amount being thrown.

I think you need to talk to EoE about this, his argument was exactly the same as I am using here. So then exactly where is the money for these vouchers going to come from then if you claim there will be no savings from closing schools or reducing manpower?

In saying that bureaucracy is worthless are you then actually saying that administration is not needed within the education system and that magically all the resources needed to educate a child will simply magically appear?

First of all, I'm not equating actual school administrations with government bureaucracy. Positions such as Principle are needed. But consider private, religious schools where no buereaucracy exists. Their reputation of being some of the best schools in the country is well known, yet they have no bloated bueaucracy backing them up. The conclusion is pretty clear, buereaucracy accomplishes nothing, government is inefficient and money used to fund these things is being wasted.

I think you really need to look at these private schools before you say they have no bureaucracies. In saying principals are needed you are in fact saying a certain amount of bureaucracy is needed. Schools are funded by government so a principal is one of your hated government bureaucrats. So in fact you are saying a pricipal is inefficient, wastes money and is also needed.

Yea, this problem doesn't exist because you are operating under a false premise. Namely, that overcrowded schools is a bad thing. Tell me, where does a student make the greatest advancements in his/her educational career? College and University, where there can be up to 200-300 people in one single class. And besides, as more students flocked to a school that school would have to expand in order to accomidate these students. It's not as if the school will remain in a state of stasis as they're flooded with new students. And expansion is a good thing.

It has definately been shown that overcrowded schools are bad from a student performance perspective. Maybe you haven't gotten past an intro level class in college but the majority of college classes have very low student to teacher ratios. Maybe you aren't aware of this but most schools are constructed of pretty solid materials and as such take time to expand.

[Wyvern]

Wyvern wrote:

These days many people have no interest in making this nation a better place and are only concerned with how much they can get out of it which is diametrically opposed to Kennedy's famous quote'"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".

And of course you are one of those who know what makes this nation a better place. You know what is best for us. That sounds almost as if you are a liberal. Are you also one of Plato's "Philosopher Kings" who are divinely authorized to rule because they know what is good for us, the masses?

This country was founded on the ideals of individual freedom, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Now America has more laws, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, government agencies and petty officials to govern every detail of our lives than any other nation on earth. That is the liberal concept of freedom, the freedom to do anything we want to do, as long as we don't want to do anything we are not free to do.

John

Well then by your definition of what a liberal is I am not one. It sounds like you are against improving our nation to the benefit of all. The US has grown a little bit and the world has gotten a bit more complicated since the time of the founders. So under your idea of individual freedom anyone should be allowed to fly any plane anywhere they want? By your idea of absolute individual freedom the 9/11 attackers were simply exercising their individual freedom to fly a plane into the WTC. Under your idea of absolute free enterprise a company should be allowed to dump their waste anywhere they please and it would then be the individuals responsibility to move away if they so choose.

[lo_rez]

That is the liberal concept of freedom, the freedom to do anything we want to do, as long as we don't want to do anything we are not free to do.

That is an incredibly meaningless platitude. Of course you have the freedom to commit any act save those acts not permitted by society. That's called civilization. I don't buy for a second that your definition of freedom doesn't include some level of 'do whatever you want but be prepared to face the consequences for doing so'.

I mean, who do you think you are? Aleister Crowley?

[WinePusher]

Unfortunately you aren't able to distinguish between the points I'm making, so I'll have to spell them out for you. I said the US became a dominate economic power in the world, not a dominate political power in the world. They are not the same, just as Political Freedom is not the same as Economic Freedom. They are qualitatively different. It may be true that the United States became a major political power in the world as a consequence of WWI, but that's not relevant to my argument regarding the entreupretuerial capacity of the United States. If you think it is, go ahead and explain how te United States became a dominate economic power in the world as the result of WWI.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion I was talking about political power? How the US became a dominant economic power as a result of WW1 is really quite simple. In the financial sector both France and the UK received massive loans from the US in order to continue the war and as a result the major financial institutions of America were flush with cash which in turn was used to further increase economic activity in the US, at the same time european financial institutions were strapped for cash due to the fact all available capital was used in the war effort. Manpower, a necessity for economic activity was also affected greatly due to WW1. Again the US was virtually unaffected by WW1 while all the european powers on the other hand bled themselves white and in fact the WW1 generation is known as the lost generation due to the huge losses incurred by that generation. The less money and manpower available to you the less economic activity you will be able to generate, europe had little of either while the US had plenty of both. I could go on and on on the subject but I hope you get the idea.

You're just misconstruing concepts now. China is a dominate political power in the world, and an economic power in the world. The state is a political power because of the fact that it wields American debt. The state is an economic power because it has a high capacity of production and consumption. Holding another nations debt says absolutely nothing about the economy of that nation. In fact, in order to hold debt you have to have a sufficient amount of money to loan out in the first place which is a result of a good economy. In some of our recent debates Wyvern, your arguments end up proving my claims and this is just another example of that. No school of thought in development economics says what you're saying, it's all about the growth of industry and trade which occured during the Gilded Age.

I don't know what your political philosophy ideas from, but this is wrong. If you'd just stop ignoring the Declaration of Independence and read it you'd understand why. The Declaration of Indepedence was a standard maxim that the founders hoped America would one day reach. They were against, they made that very clear in their writings. They considered all men equal and not property, they also made that very clear in their writings. Slaves were regarded as people, not property. No action was taken to implement this idea because the Founders realized it was not politically feasible. They made this idea prevalent in their writings in the hope that America would some day aspire towards it, and we did.

If this is the case then it doesn't explain why the very same writer of the Declaration of Independance was himself a slave owner.

Whatever that explanation is, it is not the explanation you're suggesting.

If it was true that the founding fathers were against slavery why is it they continued to have them even after the publication of the Declaration? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that many of the founding fathers owned slaves? Also could you please show that in colonial times that slaves were regarded as people?

The purpose of citing the Declaration of Independence isn't to explain why the Founders themselves had slaves, the purpose is to show that the explanation you're suggesting is wrong. I honestly don't know why they had slaves. I do know (via the Declaration of Independence) that your explanation is wrong.

Well how did the D.C voucher system work before it was destroyed? It was funded by the Federal Government, and it worked pretty well. And it worked well because the Federal Government administered the money to different families who then spent it. The government spent nothing, they merely administered it.

Maybe you don't know it but everything within the District of Columbia is administered by the federal government. If something needs to be administered that means money is being spent on a bureaucracy which you have already stated is worthless.

Yea, that's what I thought. You have no problem funding a system where government is the decision maker, but when individuals and families are empowered and can choose for themselves you suddenly have a change of heart.

The government is empowered to provide an education to children which is why the public education system was created.

No it isn't. Show me the enumerated power that says Congress has the power to 'Establish and maintain public schools from grades kindergarten to 12." There isn't one, public education developed as a societal norm because a purely private education system would be untenable. I agree with you abstractly, but don't give me this 'government has the power' nonsense. Government derives its power from the constitution, and this power doesn't exist in that document.

If you decide you do not like what is provided and wish to give your child an alternate education that is your choice. The question which you still have not answered is why should everyone else have to pay you for your choice?

Why should I have to pay for the education of a child I don't know and probably never will know? The answer to this question and your question are the same, your attempt at making a distinction fails.

I prefer being cynical than being naive. If some schools merged together or were completely abolished, I gurantee you the education budget would not be slashed by a single dime. The budget wouldn't be slashed, taxes wouldn't be lowered, and tax payers wouldn't get to keep any additional money. The superfluous money would simply be thrown around at different schools, since that seems to be your only solution to the problem. If you see a failing school, throw some money at it. If the school continues to fail in light of the money being thrown at it, increase the amount being thrown.

I think you need to talk to EoE about this, his argument was exactly the same as I am using here. So then exactly where is the money for these vouchers going to come from then if you claim there will be no savings from closing schools or reducing manpower?

In saying that bureaucracy is worthless are you then actually saying that administration is not needed within the education system and that magically all the resources needed to educate a child will simply magically appear?

First of all, I'm not equating actual school administrations with government bureaucracy. Positions such as Principle are needed. But consider private, religious schools where no buereaucracy exists. Their reputation of being some of the best schools in the country is well known, yet they have no bloated bueaucracy backing them up. The conclusion is pretty clear, buereaucracy accomplishes nothing, government is inefficient and money used to fund these things is being wasted.

I think you really need to look at these private schools before you say they have no bureaucracies. In saying principals are needed you are in fact saying a certain amount of bureaucracy is needed. Schools are funded by government so a principal is one of your hated government bureaucrats. So in fact you are saying a pricipal is inefficient, wastes money and is also needed.

Yea, this problem doesn't exist because you are operating under a false premise. Namely, that overcrowded schools is a bad thing. Tell me, where does a student make the greatest advancements in his/her educational career? College and University, where there can be up to 200-300 people in one single class. And besides, as more students flocked to a school that school would have to expand in order to accomidate these students. It's not as if the school will remain in a state of stasis as they're flooded with new students. And expansion is a good thing.

It has definately been shown that overcrowded schools are bad from a student performance perspective. Maybe you haven't gotten past an intro level class in college but the majority of college classes have very low student to teacher ratios. Maybe you aren't aware of this but most schools are constructed of pretty solid materials and as such take time to expand.

When was the last time you stepped foot into a college classroom? Almost all upper division classes have a minimum capacity of around 50 students. That is not a low student:teacher ratio.

[East of Eden]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

As far as I can tell, having read all of the linked article, this thread is misnamed.


There was no failed Pilgrim socialist experiement because there was no experiment. The article does not say Bradford tried socialism and it failed, it says he dismissed it without even trying it, it appears on the alleged experience of others.

In fact, elsewhere in this link, it says:

What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

In other words, Bradford rejected the directions of his sponsors, and as far as I can see here, before even trying to follow them. I would be interested in seeing what was written both before and after this particular quote, and exactly when in the course of the history of the colony this was written.



In addition, it should be pointed out that having "shares in common" is also a capitalistic practice. Owners of a company, especially when they are not many, often share equal shares.




It appears the author of the article is putting his own views forward as if Bradford agreed with all of them and may be misrepresenting what actually happened.


Can East of Eden point to a direct quote of Bradford that says his groupd of Pilgrims tried "socialism" and that he deemed it had failed after having tried it?

No, it says Bradford realized the failure of collectivism and abandoned it. From the link:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

[GiddyUp]

The socialist experiment described in the OP sounds a lot like what the apostles had going in the New Testament, doesn't it?

Under your idea of absolute free enterprise a company should be allowed to dump their waste anywhere they please and it would then be the individuals responsibility to move away if they so choose.

That is absolutely not the case. A company could dump their waste into property they own only, doing that on someone else's property would be coercion. Of course, if that property where they dump their waste happens to be a river running through their lands then it's just too bad for the folks downstream.

[micatala]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

As far as I can tell, having read all of the linked article, this thread is misnamed.


There was no failed Pilgrim socialist experiement because there was no experiment. The article does not say Bradford tried socialism and it failed, it says he dismissed it without even trying it, it appears on the alleged experience of others.

In fact, elsewhere in this link, it says:

What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

In other words, Bradford rejected the directions of his sponsors, and as far as I can see here, before even trying to follow them. I would be interested in seeing what was written both before and after this particular quote, and exactly when in the course of the history of the colony this was written.



In addition, it should be pointed out that having "shares in common" is also a capitalistic practice. Owners of a company, especially when they are not many, often share equal shares.




It appears the author of the article is putting his own views forward as if Bradford agreed with all of them and may be misrepresenting what actually happened.


Can East of Eden point to a direct quote of Bradford that says his groupd of Pilgrims tried "socialism" and that he deemed it had failed after having tried it?

No, it says Bradford realized the failure of collectivism and abandoned it. From the link:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

Fair enough. It was unclear to me that this was his own experience he was explaining or the experience of others. I do note that he was directed to follow the "socialist" practice by his contract.

Just as a side note, do you have a source for the whole diary?

[East of Eden]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

As far as I can tell, having read all of the linked article, this thread is misnamed.


There was no failed Pilgrim socialist experiement because there was no experiment. The article does not say Bradford tried socialism and it failed, it says he dismissed it without even trying it, it appears on the alleged experience of others.

In fact, elsewhere in this link, it says:

What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

In other words, Bradford rejected the directions of his sponsors, and as far as I can see here, before even trying to follow them. I would be interested in seeing what was written both before and after this particular quote, and exactly when in the course of the history of the colony this was written.



In addition, it should be pointed out that having "shares in common" is also a capitalistic practice. Owners of a company, especially when they are not many, often share equal shares.




It appears the author of the article is putting his own views forward as if Bradford agreed with all of them and may be misrepresenting what actually happened.


Can East of Eden point to a direct quote of Bradford that says his groupd of Pilgrims tried "socialism" and that he deemed it had failed after having tried it?

No, it says Bradford realized the failure of collectivism and abandoned it. From the link:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

Fair enough. It was unclear to me that this was his own experience he was explaining or the experience of others. I do note that he was directed to follow the "socialist" practice by his contract.

Just as a side note, do you have a source for the whole diary?

No, but here is chapter 1:

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/do ... ord_1.html