| Line 34: |
Line 34: |
| | :* "And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. 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 any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. 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." | | :* "And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. 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 any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. 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." |
| | :Not only were all hands more industrious—the incentive to harvest communal corn before it was fully ripe, a problem equivalent to poaching in the case of wildlife, was also eliminated.<ref> [http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Robertsincentives.html Incentives Matter] - Russell Roberts - Library of Economics and Liberty</ref> | | :Not only were all hands more industrious—the incentive to harvest communal corn before it was fully ripe, a problem equivalent to poaching in the case of wildlife, was also eliminated.<ref> [http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Robertsincentives.html Incentives Matter] - Russell Roberts - Library of Economics and Liberty</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | ===National Socialism=== |
| | + | ==National Socialist workers state== |
| | + | [[Image:Ur8756.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ludwig von Mises]] ]] |
| | + | The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares: |
| | + | {{Quotebox|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]... |
| | + | |
| | + | The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands. |
| | + | |
| | + | What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners. |
| | + | |
| | + | De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.}} |
| | + | |
| | + | Because many businesses still are privately owned, [[ipso facto]], the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref> |
| | + | When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation. |
| | | | |
| | === Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism === | | === Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism === |