Posts
President Elect Obama has decided that we would be better off if we had "all things in common", or basically, a socialist system in which the people that make less than $250,000 would have no increase in their tax. This puts more of the burden squarely on the shoulders of those earning more than $250,000.
While this might sound good, it is doomed to failure. Look at other programs that have tried the same thing: Russia and Communism, Canada and their failing Socialist Health Care System...the United States and Medicaid and Social Security.
We should also have a look back in History...
William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth settlement in the 1600's, wrote in his journal, "Of Plymouth Plantation", about the first few years the colonists were in America:
"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 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 labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors everything else, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them."
"And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
The early settlers tried to live with "all things in common" and it nearly wiped them out. It wasn't until they went back to a more capitalist approach that,
"They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression? By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the faces of things were changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God."
This is why Thanksgiving didn't happen until 1623, even though they had been in the Americas since 1620.
Further back in history, we can look at people's reactions to communal living within the New Testament in the Bible:
Acts 4:32-37
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 ...
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Ok, working so far...but now, human nature is introduced, the need to have something of our own, the desire to ownership, or having something more than someone else...
Acts 5:1-11
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy [Spirit], and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
These systems might work in a wholly religious aspect, but, as Peter alludes to here, it is VOLUNTARY, but must be done HONESTLY.
And more recently in History, Joseph Smith and the LDS Church set up what was called the Law of Consecration. This is a program similar to what you read in Acts above, but different in that people gave all to the Church, and were given a stewardship (a responsibility) for a portion of what the Church had. This stewardship made the individual responsible for whatever it was; a farm, a store, a printing press, etc. Similar to the parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:15-30.
With the Law of Consecration, each individual was responsible for "doing their part" to make it all work. But like as happened in the New Testament, and in the Early American Settlement of Plymouth, Greed and Slothfulness prevented this system from working.
These individuals were religious, all of them. And in a Religious society, the members "fear God" or rather, they fear not receiving their Eternal Reward. If these individuals can be caught up in Greed and Slothfulness, what hope do regular "non-religious" people have of making this type of system work? When people "want what they didn't earn" or when they "don't want to do the work for someone else" the system fails.
Especially when you take into account the desire of many Americans to remove religion from ANYTHING that touches the "public domain"...
And, just to bring about the death knell of this Obama "all things in common" thing...Bush's plan was to give tax rebates, and then spend more to help the poor...but if you give back taxes, where does the money come from to "spend more"?
"Middle class tax cuts, state bailouts could come soon"
"Obama's tax hike for the rich may be delayed"
Cut taxes (the equivalent of a "rebate") and spend more... Recently, our National Debt reached 10 TRILLION. It took Bush 8 years to go from 6.3 TRILLION to 10.7 TRILLION. If Obama continues this policy (as is in evidence by these latest news reports on his economic policy) we could hit 15 to 20 TRILLION in the next 4-8 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment