How did the NYT get Hegseth’s mom’s letter? Did they hack and steal it? Has someone else stolen it and did the NYT receive stolen property?
***
There were no Roman prisons; fines, exile, or death were the usual punishments.
***
... many on the Left are still guided by the FDR view that welfare programs increase liberty by contributing to “freedom from want.” Smith would reject that argument, and conservatives should, too. To the extent welfare programs exist, they should be considered a necessary evil, not an enhancement of personal freedom.--Pino
***
***
There were no Roman prisons; fines, exile, or death were the usual punishments.
***
... many on the Left are still guided by the FDR view that welfare programs increase liberty by contributing to “freedom from want.” Smith would reject that argument, and conservatives should, too. To the extent welfare programs exist, they should be considered a necessary evil, not an enhancement of personal freedom.--Pino
***
Plymouth Plantation
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, 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.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.--Benjamin Powell, “The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson,” Independent Institute, November 25, 2008.
So incentives matter. This proposition, which seems so reasonable, nonetheless must constantly struggle with the irrational. Incredibly bad ideas always get an open hearing. Defund the police, open borders, modern monetary theory, and critical racial theory all are presented on an equal footing with sensible, reasonable concepts. So the prima facie is invalid.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, 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.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.--Benjamin Powell, “The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson,” Independent Institute, November 25, 2008.
So incentives matter. This proposition, which seems so reasonable, nonetheless must constantly struggle with the irrational. Incredibly bad ideas always get an open hearing. Defund the police, open borders, modern monetary theory, and critical racial theory all are presented on an equal footing with sensible, reasonable concepts. So the prima facie is invalid.
In such an atmosphere, vigilance--which seems to be an over-response--is essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment