| | :* "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> |
| − | The centerpiece of Obamacare was the [[individual mandate]] or ''[[diktat]]'', a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which was unprecedented in American history. There was no [[bi-partisan]] or national consensus.<ref>Epic [[Direct spending#New spending|new spending]] and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> More than 150 million Americans were completely locked out of the process.<ref>Crabtree, S. (2009, October 20). "[https://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room Democrats Lock Republicans Out of Committee Room]." ''The Hill''.<br>Pershing, B. (2009, October 23). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html Democrats on House Committee Lock Out Republicans]." ''Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Freeman, J. (2009, October 20). "House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room." ''Wall Street Journal''.<br>(2009, October 21). "[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/oversight-panels-democrats-lock-republicans-dispute/ Oversight Panel's Democrats Lock Out Republicans After Dispute]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Obama's progressive Democratic Socialists had single party control.<ref>Davis, S. (2009, April 28). "[https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/28/sen-specter-to-switch-parties-democrats-near-60-vote-majority/ Sen. Specter To Switch Parties, Democrats Near 60 Vote Majority]." Washington Wire. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> <ref>keithmsnbcer (2009, April 29). "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYBbFMeFNc Bernie Sanders on Ed Show]." ''MSNBC''. YouTube.</ref> | + | The centerpiece of Obamacare was the [[individual mandate]] or ''[[diktat]]'', a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which was unprecedented in American history. There was no [[bi-partisan]] or national consensus.<ref>Epic [[Direct spending#New spending|new spending]] and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> More than 150 million Americans were completely locked out of the process.<ref>Crabtree, S. (2009, October 20). "[https://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room Democrats Lock Republicans Out of Committee Room]." ''The Hill''.<br>Pershing, B. (2009, October 23). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html Democrats on House Committee Lock Out Republicans]." ''Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Freeman, J. (2009, October 20). "House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room." ''Wall Street Journal''.<br>(2009, October 21). "[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/oversight-panels-democrats-lock-republicans-dispute/ Oversight Panel's Democrats Lock Out Republicans After Dispute]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Obama's progressive Democratic Socialists had single party control.<ref>Davis, S. (2009, April 28). "[https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/28/sen-specter-to-switch-parties-democrats-near-60-vote-majority/ Sen. Specter To Switch Parties, Democrats Near 60 Vote Majority]." Washington Wire. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref>keithmsnbcer (2009, April 29). "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYBbFMeFNc Bernie Sanders on Ed Show]." ''MSNBC''. YouTube.</ref> |
| − | * "Wonderful system, wrong species" -- Edward O. Wilson; who believed that collectivism was better suited to an ant than a human.<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201101/communismsocialism-great-idea-wrong-species-e-o-wilson Communism/Socialism: “Great Idea. Wrong Species.” (E. O. Wilson)]</ref> | + | * "Wonderful system, wrong species"—Edward O. Wilson; who believed that collectivism was better suited to an ant than a human.<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201101/communismsocialism-great-idea-wrong-species-e-o-wilson Communism/Socialism: “Great Idea. Wrong Species.” (E. O. Wilson)]</ref> |
| | * "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to ''consolidate'' and ''control'' the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all."—Gary Allen <ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=UuKnhw27vUwC&q=%22if+one+understands+that+socialism+is+not+a%22&dq=%22if+one+understands+that+socialism+is+not+a%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBGoVChMI9b6puNfryAIVxSQmCh2CHw7j None Dare Call It Conspiracy], page 33</ref> | | * "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to ''consolidate'' and ''control'' the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all."—Gary Allen <ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=UuKnhw27vUwC&q=%22if+one+understands+that+socialism+is+not+a%22&dq=%22if+one+understands+that+socialism+is+not+a%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBGoVChMI9b6puNfryAIVxSQmCh2CHw7j None Dare Call It Conspiracy], page 33</ref> |