rickusn

True "Communism" can never work given human nature. The word as applied to the former USSR or even Cuba and China is actually a misnomer. As they were not and are not actually communist as much as elitist authoritarianism at best. Others call them far worse.

The Tragedy of the Commons
By John Stossel

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. "Isn't sharing wonderful?" say the teachers.

They miss the point.

Because of sharing, the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

The failure of Soviet communism is only the latest demonstration that freedom and property rights, not sharing, are essential to prosperity. The earliest European settlers in America had a dramatic demonstration of that lesson, but few people today know it.

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort. 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. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. 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, (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."

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, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. But 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."

When action is divorced from consequences, no one is happy with the ultimate outcome. 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 and will not be refilled -- a bad situation even for the earlier takers.

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.

Secure property rights are the key. When producers know that their future products are safe from confiscation, they will take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

That's the lost lesson of Thanksgiving

gunnut

Sharing works as long as it's not forced.

Forced sharing is extortion. Or in our case, welfare.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Bluesman

Back when the US Postal Service was a government-operated monopoly, a study was done to determine why the mail trucks needed replacement so much more often than any other type of delivery vehicle. The discovered what the rest of us already know: commonly-held property is not valued by anyone, and even those that are charged with its upkeep will seek to increase their budget, authority, manpower, facility, time off, etcetera, but aren't all that concerned with the mission of keeping the trucks on the road. Private concerns that had to watch their bottom line tended to be VERY mindful of cossetting and protecting their resources, and were VERY mindful of ensuring that their vehicles were maintained properly with the absolute minimum of overhead.

I'll bet the commies on this Board have no concept of what we're even talking about.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Bluesman

There is no virtue in the liberal's favorite form of charity: government redistribution of resources. While their aim is egalitarian and selfless and altruistic, their method does them no credit, and neither is the 'giver' blessed in any sense or way, because he's 'contributing' at gunpoint. Where is the sense of selflessness when there is no choice in the matter? This is coercion and extortion, and when practiced by any non-governmental agency, it's illegal, but when a liberal does it through governmental exercise of authoritarian power, he believes himself exalted.

Liberalism is inimical to the concept of liberty.

Feanor

Ah yes. Of course. I'd argue, but I can't convince you. And you can't convince me. So have fun mulling over something you all already agree with.

dalem

I'll never really understand the intellectual dishonesty of the Left.

Unfettered capitalism chews up workers like a giant sausage grinder, and sometimes IN a giant sausage grinder when the boss decides railings are too expensive. Unfettered capitalism eventually destroys the very competition it needs to survive. Unfettered religion grinds men into dust and stifles intellectual culture. Unfettered libertarianism yields inefficiency and ultimately chaos. Unfettered patriotism can lead to authoritarianism and/or fascism.

These are the kinds of things that any "man of the Right" knows are true. History has shown us that they are some of the things about the institutions and processes that we tend to support that we have to be constantly vigilant of.

But what of the Left? What self-policing do they worry about? History has shown them that unfettered liberalism crushes tax bases, depresses population growth, and stifles class mobility.

Communism, fettered or unfettered, has killed tens of millions of people outside of wars and revolutions.

But is there any tax high enough? Any wealth mismatch that is acceptable? Any personal act that is just plain Wrong, to a man of the Left?

They can't even acknowledge the failings and dangers inherent in their own beliefs - how can they really understand those of another?

-dale

Dwarven Pirate

I dont think Ive ever heard the tragedy of the commons used as a condemnation of social justice before.... I've heard it used most often as a condemnation of capitalism. Such as, when every man is most concerned over his own increase, he acts without regard toward the welfare of either other individuals or the group, and even to his own detriment in the long run in destroying the source of his wealth.

In fact, one could say that individual property rights were the root cause of the trouble, since the system allowed for individual property taken from the common weal in the first place, as presented in what I believe is the original story, that of cows on a pasture.

The example provided above speaks more of the lack of ethics in puritan culture than anyhting else.

gunnut

Dwarven Pirate, may I ask you if you work or not? And if you want to share the information, your salary range?

dalem

Sorry, but that's a load of crap. I am most concerned over my "own increase", and the better off I am, the more time and effort I can contribute, on my own hook, to the community. I think most people are like that - the more they have, the more they give.

-dale

Adux

Exactly.
Though Capitalism given a complete free hand does no better than Communism.

Dwarven Pirate

This may very well be true. I have no problem with someone believing that generally, tho I hope we can agree that it is not a universal truth. Nevertheless, here is 'Tragedy of the Commons' written by Garrett Hardin: The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin - The Garrett Hardin Society - Articles

Basically, it states that, with a finite system of resources, unfettered demand will cause it to be depleted, with the amount available to each individual consumer decreasing over time. You can make your own evaluations about what he meant.

What the OP wrote above holds little resemblance to the original essay, IMO, and I stand by what I said about lack of ethical behavior being the root cause of the problem he identifies. And I think this is really what he (and perhaps you) are saying in this argument against socialism. Namely, that human nature says it cannot work (because we cannot consistently act ethically or with social conscience).

Yes, I work. I get an hourly rate for my labor, which varies depending on the particular job of between $20 and $30.

gunnut

OK, very good.

Now, after buying all the essentials like food, shelter, clean clothes, basic utilities, do you enjoy your money? Like traveling, buying some toys, eat fancy food once in a while, going to a ball game...that sort of thing?

Dwarven Pirate

No, I generally burn it in the furnace, because it doesnt buy enough heating oil.

gunnut

OK. If it did, would you spend it on some entertainment?

Dwarven Pirate

Ok, I'll play along, tho why you cannot make a point using yourself or a fictional charicature I dont know.

Yes, I do purchase non-essentials.