Thanksgiving - Celebrating Private Property's Triumph Over Collectivism

By Tom Rhodes, 11/23/2015
I doubt anybody will notice but this as a repeat of my 2010 Thanksgiving article

As you know the original colony to Plymouth celebrated thanksgiving with the Indians in November of 1623. The Pilgrims arrived in December of 1621, and began their colony as a commune, and organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally. This experiment again proved what the ancient Greeks observed eons before. As Aristotle wrote, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."



The Pilgrims faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. The result was as winter of 1622 set in, they did not have enough food and provisions set for the winter and famine and privation ran rampant by the spring of 1623 only 5 women had survived. Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary, "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented.

The problem is that when people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. This was an early harsh and historically repeated lesson that socialism and communism result in less production even to the point of starvation. Thus again proving that the rules set to us by God are best to live by. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

Later of the colonists, Bradford said, they "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, (I 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. . . 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 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. Because of the abundance the Pilgrims not only were able to feed themselves, but to take care of those among them who try as they might failed to do so. It was private charity that took care of those less fortunate.

Thanksgiving is clear proof and evidence of the triumph of private property, connecting effort to reward, demonstrating that when everything is “shared equally” it incentivizes each person to contribute as little as possible to get their “equal” share. Whereas with every pilgrim given private property produced abundance which they could then trade with others for things they lacked. The free mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the entire community richer.

We should all be thankful that we do not have to learn the lessons of protecting private property in the same deadly way that the pilgrims. Thanksgiving is the quintessential American holiday, copied by many other countries; it is a polar opposite of May Day. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the fall of communism and are thankful for the abundance God provides through the free market.

Thanksgiving - thankful for what?

As you know the original colony to Plymouth celebrated thanksgiving with the Indians in November of 1623. The Pilgrims arrived in December of 1621, and began their colony as a commune, and organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally. This experiment again proved what the ancient Greeks observed eons before. As Aristotle wrote, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

The Pilgrims faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. The result was as winter of 1622 set in, they did not have enough food and provisions set for the winter and famine and privation ran rampant by the spring of 1623 only 5 women had survived. Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary, "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented.

The problem is that when people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. This was an early harsh and historically repeated lesson that socialism and communism result in less production even to the point of starvation. Thus again proving that the rules set to us by God are best to live by. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

Later of the colonists, Bradford said, they "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, (I 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. . . 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 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. Because of the abundance the Pilgrims not only were able to feed themselves, but to take care of those among them who try as they might failed to do so. It was private charity that took care of those less fortunate.

Thanksgiving is clear proof and evidence of the triumph of private property, connecting effort to reward, demonstrating that when everything is “shared equally” it incentivizes each person to contribute as little as possible to get their “equal” share. Whereas with every pilgrim given private property produced abundance which they could then trade with others for things they lacked. The free mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the entire community richer.

We should all be thankful that we do not have to learn the lessons of protecting private property in the same deadly way that the pilgrims. Thanksgiving is the quintessential American holiday, copied by many other countries; it is a polar opposite of May Day. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the fall of communism and are thankful for the abundance God provides through the free market.

Labor Unions Force Plant Closure Rather than Accept $30K Salary for Unskilled Labor.

Over the past few months I railed against GM and Chrysler using US taxpayer bailout money to expand and open new plants outside of the USA. It is absurd that these companies expand outside the USA after accepting such huge amounts of US tax dollars to keep them afloat.

The problem is labor, not labor costs but labor unions. Because of the UAW purposefully cost 650 people jobs in Indiana. "Motors Liquidation Co., which was created to sell surplus GM property during the automaker’s bankruptcy, owns the facility. Without a buyer, the plant will be forced to close in October 2011. JD Norman Industries, of Addison, Ill., planned to purchase the Indianapolis Metal Center and have it continue producing fenders, hoods and other metal parts for GM. Norman also planned to bring in new orders from other automakers. " (Source) "Norman agreed to save the supplier from closure under the condition that UAW workers bring their pay closer to the industry average. The result would be a 50-percent pay reduction. That would amount to $15.50 an hour down from $29 for unskilled workers, and $24 an hour, down from $33 for skilled trade workers Employees who continued working at the plant and agreed to the reduced salary would retain GM seniority and receive a cash bonus up to $35,000. Employees who did not want to accept the pay cut would be free to transfer to other GM plants for up to two years."

All of the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 23in Indiana if they choose could maintain their current pay at another GM facility. What they were voting on was whether to keep this facility open in Indiana under an agreement that would keep it competitive and pay over $30K per year for unskilled labor. It is no wonder US car makers have to move production outside of the country when base pay before taxes, health insurance, and other benefits is $60,000 per year for unskilled labor.

UAW Local 23 workers jobs were saved by the tax payers bailing out GM. Their wages were protected they could move or accept large cash bonuses. What the UAW did was slap the face of every future Indiana unskilled worker who would be happy to work for from 30 to 60 thousand dollars rather than flip burgers part time for minimum wage.

Huge areas of Detroit are a ghost town of empty factories rotting away. New manufacturing facilities in the UAW controlled Midwest are a pipedream. Nobody is building factories where they used to be. Companies are building new factories in the USA to make cars etc. They are building them and offer jobs that pay very well and have happy dedicated employees, just not in UAW controlled areas of the country.

Obviously the UAW doesn’t care future jobs or the future of manufacturing in the USA. We cannot give unskilled labor $60K per year base in pay and sell a competitively priced product. It doesn’t matter what the product is, cars or paper clips. The UAW’s position that unskilled labor must be paid $60K per year or they will force the closing of the shop is one of the a significant contributor to why unemployment is at 10% and the manufacturing sector is not expanding (especially in the Midwest).

Why is the Government using Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Upscale Urbanite Toys?

Things are tough, unemployment hovers near 10%; there were only 71,000 new jobs created last month, but with 202 thosand jobs lost in the same period there was a net loss of 131,000 jobs, things don't look good. We are having to borrow money to extend unemployment benefits, and consumer spending is low. In light of this our government is subsidizing $40,000 toys for rich urbanites.

You can get $7500 off your taxes if you purchase a Government Motors Chevy Volt. The Volt is a $41,000 mid size car that is beyond the purchasing power of most Americans. It's limited range and design lead it to be an urban type car. So the extreme rich who can afford new $41,000 cars get to have a feel good toy, at the expense fo the average tax payer. Sorry this doesn't make sense to me. I'm not alone in this feeling,

Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute says, "Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market, the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations."

Governemnt Motors is already owned and operated at taxpayer expense, the true cost of the volt is around $81,000 dollars according to blogger Doctor Zero So a government owned company is selling the electric car at 1/2 the cost of creating it, and is giving rich elite a $7500 tax credit if they choose to buy this overpriced toy.

I call it an overpriced toy, because the same car configured with a gasoline engine, the Chevy Cruze, costs $17,000 and gets 40mpg. Considering the extra energy and expense that goes into creating and recycling the electric version, environmentally it’s hard to justify the government losing $40,000 per car, and subsidizing its sale. Total cost to tax payers will be almost $47,500 per volt sold (correction: since the taxpayers only own 61% of GM, they will only lose $32,000 per car).

Now the pro-electric car, environmental extremists say that this is necessary to get the electric car industry up and running, and that this will allow technology to make them more affordable. Exactly how long should it take before we realize that the energy density of electric cars make them totally impractical for the vast majority of Americans. We've only been working on this for a little over 100 years.

Here is an ad for an early electric car.



At the time it sold for around $2600, and new batteries cost about $600, A new Model T cost $600 that same year. Note that today the Chevy Cruze sells for about the price difference between it and it's electric version the Volt. Interesting comparison is that to lectrify a car in 1914 cost the same as a basic car did and today electrifying a car cost about the same as a basic car does. Electric cars have been competing with gasoline/diesel cars for a century, they routinely lose for two reasons, they cost too much, and they have too little range. Even the Volt is dependent upon a gasoline engine, to make it a usable toy for the urban elite who can afford to spend $41,000 so they can feel good about the environment.

The volt's target market is upscale urbanites. It's safe to say that upscale urbanites, who are environmentally conscious and would choose to be early adopters of the Volt, are probably liberals. This demographic is one of the few that haven't abandoned Obama. It looks like he is spending taxpayer money to support what little base he has left.

Remember when Obama told Joe the Plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too, My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

I didn’t realize that rich liberal urbanites who can afford $41,000 cars needed a chance at success too. I’m outraged that to Obama "spreading the wealth" means subsidizing rich urbanites so they can pompously feel good about themselves for purchasing a echo-friendly midsized sedan, that Government Motors is selling at a loss. Would somebody please explain to me why is the Government using Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Upscale Urbanite Toys?

Copenhagen, The UN War Against Free Enterprise

In my past blogs, in the news, and on the net it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Previous posts listed quotes of environmental leaders that clearly noted that the science didn’t matter, that it was an “opportunity” for social justice.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world," Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998.

Copenhagen was not about saving the planet, or global warming, or climate change. It is the majority of UN nations (dictators, despots, socialist juntas, and all), wanting to end free market economics. The majority of less fortunate countries have significantly less economic freedom than the wealthier countries. Read the Handbook on Economic Freedom, or Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report.

Comparing the countries on the ranking chart for economic freedom to the activities at Copenhagen, it is clear that what they are trying to do at Copenhagen is transfer money from economically free countries to mostly economically un-free countries. Proof that Copenhagen is a war against capitalism, not a science based reaction to mans activities, comes from the words spoke to the general audience at Copenhagen.

“…our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” ~ Hugo Chavez, COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference, December 7-18, 2009.

From the writings and speeches of the proponents of dramatically changing the way everybody lives to stop “global warming”, the obvious agenda is against free market economics. The hostility towards free markets is based on some unfounded assumptions. 1) Since free markets allow some people to get “rich,” while others remain “poor,” the free market system is itself unjust; 2) The accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means; 3) The re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is the only means of attaining “social justice”. These are the same tired old Marxist arguments for socialism that history has repeatedly proven to be false, detrimental to society, and lead to more deaths in the last century than all the religious wars in history combined.

The first assumption that because some people receive more than others in a free market society, that it is unjust doesn’t take into consideration individuals. Societies are made of individuals not groups. Some individuals are smarter, more industrious, stronger, and/or more charming than others. In a free market, society rewards individuals based on the benefit they offer their fellow man. Tiger Woods is a charming, good looking, man who can hit a golf ball better than anybody else, and does it with style, and has a reputation for putting in more hour practicing and improving his craft than anybody else. Other individuals in society are willing to pay to watch him or have him promote their product, literally millions of individuals in society pay extra for products, or pay directly to watch him, thus he was richly rewarded. No person, or any corporation was forced to give Tiger money, he was rewarded voluntarily. His rewards were commensurate with what the rest of society voluntarily thought his work was worth. Tiger has now greatly hurt what society is willing to pay him to watch him hit a ball. Individuals in society have determined that his actions in breaking his marriage contract with his wife, that they no longer are willing to pay to see him hit a golf ball. Is that fair, why should he be paid less to hit a ball than he used to be paid? Because the benefit he provided to society is not as valuable. He was paid huge sums of money because the combination of skills, talent, work ethic, and charm he cultivated were rare and valuable. The same reason a schlepping tacos is paid little, the skill, talent and charm required to prepare a taco are low, and common. Would you pay $100 to for a taco? Of course not, but millions pay $100 or more to see a play, a sporting event, or go to a concert, because we feel it is worth the money, and are willing to exchange $100 of our labor, for the labor of some other to entertain us. This is a free market voluntary action. People are rewarded based on what other are willing to reward them for their service. Why should a person who is unwilling to take advantage of the education offered, un willing to do what has proven to lead to success and independence, be giving the fruits of the labor of people who do?


The second assumption that the accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means is even sillier. Again Tiger Woods has accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. How did he unjustly accumulate that wealth, nobody nor any company has ever been forced to give him a dime. The only unjust means I currently see in our US economy is large corporations buying off government officials to create laws to stifle completion. Our current system can and should be referred to as “Corporatism” not free enterprise, as the government has created huge hurdles for new business to get into any market thru excessive regulation.


Attaining “social justice” through the re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, exactly what Copenhagen is calling for, has been proven to only benefit the ruling elite, and send the remaining part of society into relative poverty. Look at the average Cuban for proof. Better yet, look at the Chinese, who have shown that as they move their economic system towards capitalism their standard of living is increasing. A final example Zimbabwe, which was called the breadbasket of Africa, exported huge amounts food until the Land reform in Zimbabwe redistributed wealth from “rich” is now starving and dependent on food aid.

AGW is just another excuse for Marxist elitists and despots of the world to try and gain control, and punish countries that are successful.

Publicly Legitimate Ideas

The left clearly sees that using civil discourse to debating their ideas is not working. They no longer want to allow individuals to use logic, reason, history, nor their own personal experience, life goals, and dreams to judge the ideas. They find when having to debate their ideas openly and honestly, they are not garnering enough support. It seems people actually want to be able to advance themselves in voluntary exchange of goods and services, and don't really want the government to do more than keep a fair playing field for everybody. The people threw out the corporatism of the Republicans (they certainly aren't conservative), because rather than a level playing field the Republicans have been working towards offering big corporation unfair advantages in the free market.

The pesky constitution keeps getting in the way of liberals. Although he can't outright jail or imprison those who don't agree with him, Obama both directly and through his administration is attacking anybody who doesn't agree with him. This is hardly the open and honest debate he promised, but then lying and obfuscation has been his pattern since long before he was elected.

Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) beat senseless protestors because they didn't follow the liberal line, and what did the health care chairman of the SEIU do about it? He denounced conservative "terrorist tactics" aimed at derailing debate on healthcare. What the Hell! It’s OK for SEIU members to beat people who don’t agree with them because being a peaceful protestor, if you’re not liberal, is now defined as a terrorist.

Rush who is decidedly not a libertarian, and definitely not a liberal, has on occasion been critical of the ideas of those who may be considered left of center. He is also somewhat critical of the Obama administration. Rush has a little 3 hour radio show in the afternoons where he exercises his first amendment right and expresses his ideas. He's been doing so for around 20 years and I hear has been able to sell commercials for his broadcasts and done fairly well. His success is based on people freely choosing to listen to his ideas. Liberals don’t like his ideas so in communist authoritarian style, they have attacked him with made up quotes and lies about what he said, and using those to defame him, and have succeeded in denying him the right to purchase partial ownership in a private business. So you are no longer allowed to purchase a part of a business if you express your opinion and the left doesn't agree with it.

Harvard business school professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter justifies the depiction of tea partiers as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter in Politico writes, "President Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed - instead of the greater good - that they no longer have public legitimacy."

Aren’t America's enemies Islamofascists, people who would force Islamic law on everybody, who have called for the destruction of America? Aren’t our enemies those people who would silence free speech, and take away our unalienable rights? According to liberals American citizens who disagree with the president or the government elite are now the enemies of America. The ideas of the left can't win in reasoned debate and civil discourse so they simply declare any idea that is contrary to their agenda as not having "public legitimacy". Just try and ask Nancy Pelosi to constitutionally justify the Democrat’s health care legislation, “are you serious”. You see questions like that are not legitimate.

The liberal agenda appears to be ending free enterprise and individual achievement and consolidate power in the hands of elite leaders. So to further their agenda, they are now working as hard as they can at silencing opposition, attacking the individuals and groups who don't agree with them, rather than debate the merits of their agenda. Liberals have found that they cannot honestly debate and compete based on ideas. Violence is OK, dismissing and degrading those who don't agree is OK, denying people there rights is OK, as long as the violence, and attacks and violated rights are not liberal. If you’re a libertarian your really in trouble, as the ideas expressed by libertarians, ideas for liberty, and personal responsibility, are ideas liberals cannot tolerate and liberal leaders will not debate and if possible will not even allow others to hear. You see libertarians believe that in a free society, as long as an individual’s choice doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another, individuals are free to choose what’s best for them, and if an individual chooses poorly others are not forced to pay for that poor choice. That is an idea that the left has worked decades to silence, and cannot tolerate or allow to re-ignite, as it would put power pack to the states and the people, which is antithetical to their obvious goals.

Obama Offers Honest Analogy

Obama has quit comparing the proposed health care options to the Unite States Postal Office, the USPO is on track to lose $7 Billion this year. The USPO is so bad that Government accountability office put the postal service on its high risk list because of its “increasingly shaky financial footing.” His new analogy is to compare the proposed health care option to state college and universities.

I think that is probably accurate. State college and universities costs have grown faster than private colleges for the past 3 decades. Don't believe me just check out the College Board's annual tuition survey. In fact the rising rates of state college and universities has been rocketing for years and their cost increases have outpaced even the skyrocketing increases in the cost of healthcare.

I think in this comparison Obama is being honest about what will happen when/if the proposed democrat plans for health care are enacted. Even higher costs with worse service.

The reasons both higher education and health care costs are both getting out of hand are the same; inflated demand and over reliance on third party payers and subsidies.

These situations are the result of big business who have lots of money, getting in bed with big government who make the laws, to hinder true free enterprise and protect big business and big government by limiting free markets using laws and government to limit competition. How else do you explain that big business get a tax breaks for offering employees health insurance, and individuals and small businesses don't? It's big business/government in bed together to limit competition.

Where true free markets exist, costs go down and quality goes up; look at Lasik and plastic surgery, or computers. Where government/big corporations control and hinder free markets costs go up and quality go down; look at education and health care, and banking.