#TRUMP2020

The pilgrims’ settlement at Plymouth, December 21, 1620. Read the “Mayflower Compact”. Research Governor John Bradford’s “History of Plymouth Plantation”. The important date is April 1623.

Long story short: The Mayflower compact was an agreement for “communal living”, created when they landed in Plymouth in December, 1620. By April, 1623, it was apparent communal living was a failure. The people were starving. It was abandoned for what you would basically consider capitalism. The community then flourished.

The things that are no longer taught in school!

By the way, this community was referred to as a “plantation” before slavery existed in America.

What we have now is not Capitalism as it was intended. Adam Smith optimistically believed that the richest in society wouldn't have an issue with making sure the poorest and most vulnerable were provided for.

Charities and churches do a lot of that work. It should not be the job of the government. Government hands out benefits too often with no verification of necessity. A charity or a church frequently has means of making sure the beneficiary is responsible towards himself.
When the government steps in the position of being charitable, people tend to stop doing it on their own.

Charities and churches often make judgements about those they support, against the teachings of their own religion.

"When the government steps in the position of being charitable, people tend to stop doing it on their own."

The people that require assistance require it exactly because they cannot do it on their own.

Do you imagine that if you withdraw support from disabled people they will suddenly be able to start supporting themselves?

"It should not be the job of the government."

The government are merely a middle man between the rich and the poor, they are redistributing wealth to make sure that everyone is taken care of.

Would you have the vulnerable starve?

Would I have the vulnerable starve?? No.
Do I want socialism/communism/Marxism? No no no no no and no!

My two favorite charities are Operation Smile and Smile Train. These charities fix cleft palates in children in impoverished countries. At no fault of their own, these kids were born with a birth defect. Fixing this defect is a life-changing event for these kids.

I prefer to have control where my charitable money goes. The government taking it from me also takes that control away from me.

“ Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient become independent of it”
John D. Rockefeller

What is the last charity to receive a donation from you?

"Do I want socialism/communism/Marxism? No no no no no and no!"

What makes you think that would happen? Are you unaware of the stranglehold that huge capitalist companies have on the country?

There are already socialist elements in society and we do not have real capitalism.

"I prefer to have control where my charitable money goes. The government taking it from me also takes that control away from me."

They take it in the form of taxes, you don't pay taxes?

"These charities fix cleft palates in children in impoverished countries. At no fault of their own.."

I am aware that cleft palates are not self-induced.

"What is the last charity to receive a donation from you?"

I support several by dd.

"Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient become independent of it”
John D. Rockefeller"

You are taking your guidance about charity from the richest guy in modern history?

There can be no charity without first prosperity.

So, taking more money than you could ever possibly spend in your lifetime and then giving a tiny tiny percentage of it to other people makes you a good person?

If people didn't hoard wealth there wouldn't be such a huge wealth divide.

Assumption that people are “taking” more money then you could possibly spend is incorrect. People are actually “creating wealth”.

I feel like now you’re contradicting yourself:
“ Are people poorer for lack of money or for lack of community, resources, the opportunity to give and receive, the opportunity to practice skills, shared childcare, control over working hours, the opportunity to benefit directly from their labor, sharing the cost of housing and resources?”

-From your comment below

After the 2004 tsunami, private Americans donated over $3 billion to aid the survivors.

Just curious, where is your info that the private donations were made by Americans from?

"UN data shows Japan was the single biggest donor to the tsunami response, committing more than $500m and deploying more than 100 emergency workers to assist with relief efforts. Seven years later, Japan experienced its own tsunami, forcing it to swap its position as one of the world’s biggest aid donors to one of the biggest aid recipients of 2011.

Donations from individuals, businesses, trusts and foundations topped the list, accounting for half of total aid to the UN fund and making it the largest private response to any natural disaster."

The U.S is seventh in the list of donors under Japan, DEC(Uk), UNICEF, European Comission, the UK and private donors.

Disaster relief is a really significant thing but there is also the everyday poverty of people struggling in low paid jobs, with disabilities, with crippling health costs etc

http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/americans-donated-more-than-3-billion-to-tsunami-relief-efforts-study-finds

This is donations from individuals and corporations, not government.

Thanks

It was communal living at its purest. Whatever one person produce was shared equally by all. I suppose it could be called Marxism.

Yes, the first winter was brutally harsh. But it was two years down the road when they changed. Bradford’s documentation of the Plymouth plantation makes clear the failings of their communal agreement and the success of the new system of personal responsibility and ownership of the fruits of one’s labor.

Paraphrasing Bradford, "the strong young man was not willing to work to support another man's family, so he did little to add to the community's common stores. When given their own plot of land, each worked and produced surplus which they exchanged freely and the colony prospered in abundance as those with varied skills exchanged their labor for the product of the labor of others."
The pilgrims also moved into an area where all of the Indian villages had been deserted for some time, from the descriptions there was probably a epidemic of some sort that was killing off the natives and the first winter man of the weakened pilgrims may have contracted whatever disease was present --hanta virus? flu (coronavirus)?, small pox (not just a white man disease- was world wide)? polio? measles?

If you’re talking about communities that call themselves “intentional living communities “, I’m not really sure how prosperous they are.
They tend to have small populations because not many people really want to live a lifestyle of poverty. Not to diminish those who choose a less modern lifestyle.

How are you defining poverty?

Perhaps austerity is a better word

Are people poorer for lack of money or for lack of community, resources, the opportunity to give and receive, the opportunity to practice skills, shared childcare, control over working hours, the opportunity to benefit directly from their labor, sharing the cost of housing and resources?

To your subsequent comments:
true that

The Yanomami are living the life!

Studies have shown that people living really simple lives are happier.

I suspect it's about finding a balance..

Does money buy happiness? If so, how much money do you need to be happy? And what is happiness anyway?

Harvard Business School researchers Grant E. Donnelly and Michael Norton penned their answer in the Wall Street Journal.
Donnelly and Norton reviewed the literature and found that money contributes to happiness to meet basic needs -- but above a certain level, more money does not yield much more happiness.

Researchers have found that above a certain point more money does not yield much more happiness. As Donnelly and Norton wrote, "The relationship between money and happiness has been studied for decades, and typically shows that money matters for well-being, but with diminishing returns: the difference in happiness between people with incomes of $50,000 and $75,000 is larger, for example, than between people with incomes of $75,000 and $100,000."

What made their research unique was their survey of 4,000 millionaires who are clients of a financial institution -- such a survey had never been done on people with that exalted level of wealth.

The Harvard researchers say that their findings have an important implication for the wealthiest -- they should give it away. They argue that doing so is better for the wealthy and their heirs."

The most content people I know are not the ones with huge houses and money, they are the ones that are self-employed, do some sort of craft that they can enjoy the results of and spend a lot of time outdoors.

When the pilgrims came here in 1620, I don’t think they had any notion of starting a “country“, let alone call it America.

So..... TRUE

They did, however, intend on practicing communal living.

So ....FALSE (see reply to Octavia_Melodt below)

By the time the 13 colonies rebelled against the British crown, the society was based upon Principles of free trade and private ownership. (Except for whatever the King chose NOT to take for himself, as everything belonged to the King)

So.....TRUE