Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
Which demonstrates WHY the left hates private property. They say it is because of the greed of some which deprives others but it is really the resulting lack of power they have over everyone that really upsets them.
“the starving time.” (1607-1610) cited was wrapped by the Little Ice Age.
The linked site includes this: “most of the colonists died of famine”.
The evidence is now in that the Jamestown settlement also underwent the “harsh” killing “Winter of 1607-08”.
…-
“While the lowest temperatures were recorded in the half-century from 1675 to 1725, there was a particularly severe cold period from 1550 to 1650.”
“The Winter of 1607-08 was especially harsh [Netherlands].”
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/reviews/2010/james_ice_age.html
“The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.” It was a commune. It was socialism. “All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well,” not to the individuals who built them.
“Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage.” They could do with it whatever they wanted. He essentially turned loose the free market on ’em. “Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism.” And they found that it didn’t work. ”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/21/the_real_story_of_thanksgiving
I cannot explain why the BBC hasn’t looked for “root causes” here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22362831
Pretty poor history. All groups set out in a communal fashion to establish a new settlement. They needed communal action to clear the monstrous forest and fend off the natives. Once the settlement was healthy, individuals began to take private pieces as per their communal agreements and the individuals investment in the project. There were as many variants of these agreements and covenants as there were groups making settlements and they were all under Royal seal and to come eventually under English property laws. To say it was invented to give the settlers incentive to survive is ridiculous revisionist history. Perhaps the fact the settlers arrived amidst the longest drought in the area may have played into their problems more so then “socialist welfare bowling louts” starving because they had no incentive for living. I know what the author intends but he is using the wrong example.
Communal living is communal living,whether in a drought or untold prosperity(which doesn’t happen in a commune).Socialism/communism is what it is…..anti-human.Aesop had it right with the ant fable.
It is wrong to extrapolate these communal endeavors of 400 years ago with socialism as it has been known for a century up to today. There was never the intent (except in some religious groups)to retain communal living past necessity. Of course you could research the times yourself and see the error in a modern comparison. I’m not backing socialism, I’m defending history.
If one thinks of “Das Kapital” as more or less the codification of the socialism of the past, it looks like it doesn’t work any better when it’s made “even better”.
strange that…
“It is wrong to extrapolate these communal endeavors of 400 years ago with socialism as it has been known for a century up to today.”
I call BS. It is called communal for a reason.It fits perfectly with communism/socialism as known today,and back to the time of humans climbing out of the trees.Ask the Eygptians,Romans,Huns,etc. Your “history” sounds like Nero standing around with his thumb up his butt(instead of his best boys),wondering why Rome is falling and blaming it on not forcing the elites theory on the proles better while stealing their money..(fiddles weren’t invented then).And communism/socialism is just a theory that has been disproven by the blood of millions for centuries.
and back then the price of gas was????…boy you guys are idiots, BB, has it rite, there is no comparison. A certain amount of “communal” has, and always will, exist in group of people. Kommunism/socialism over extends what is needed in an integrated society
There is far too much Crown/UN owned land in Canada, IMO. Some of the most beautiful and productive lands in this nation have been confiscated by inert landowners. The land is owned by people who pay taxes yet taxpayers have no access or rights to live or use the land . Small independent parks (like Bouchart Gardens/Stanley Park) are beneficial jewels in the crown of any nation; massive swaths of land cordoned off for ‘parks’ is indirect theft, IMO.
The Right to own Property was removed from the BNA Act by Turdo; Turdo was ahead of his time in the filthy pen of agenda 21 submersive creatures; he had a dream! If a citizen owns property he/she should be entitled to use it as he/she sees fit. If the property use infringes on the rights of his neighbours to do the same then it can be dealt with on a local level. The government, in a free nation, is the servant, not the arbitrator of rules and regulations re: landowners. In a nation where Property rights are enshrined, adjacent landowners decide what is an ‘infringement’ and what is not.