Dandruff or scalp irritation? Try BLOO.

    Bioenergetic Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?

    The Junkyard
    52
    265
    16.6k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      S.Holmes @CO3
      last edited by

      I have great respect for the out of the box thinkers that have found this forum. That being said, would you be so kind as to apply your critical thinking skills to the following? I was raised in a futurist charismatic evangelical church and spent my early married life on a pilgrimage (search for truth really) which ultimately led my family here (see link) 25 years ago. If you choose to delve into this, thoughtful discussion appreciated, but please do not use Google to critique as we all surely know by now that it's controlled by warmongering globalists who look forward to an engineered (by them) Armageddon. You will find nothing there but smears and disinformation. If this ever goes mainstream, they are DONE.
      http://www.preteristcentral.com/Why I am a Preterist.html

      fiesterF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • fiesterF
        fiester @vesprad
        last edited by

        @vesprad said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

        @fiester said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

        So the Bible here is not condemning the rich, simply saying they are more concerned about things that aren't of spiritual value.

        What do you think this would lead to, naturally? What do you think happens when you're more concerned about things than about Heaven?

        Being carnally minded leads you selfishness. Spiritually minded leads to selflessness. What roads or avenues it takes you doesn't matter as long as the world or wiles of the devil or whatever you wish to call it has it's grasp on your attention rather than God. See James chapter 2 for example, keeping in mind James is talking to people who believe on God already and aren't working, not talking to everyone including non-believers.

        He was not commanding ALL rich men to give everything they have unto the poor, but he was telling how this one man who wanted to please God, how he could further please Him.

        Hm... What makes him different?

        He asked what else he needed to do, Christ told him. What makes him different is he is seeking the truth/God rather than more 'things'.

        Not sure how this helps you at all promote communism, it clearly points out how the ratio of what you put in to what you have is pleasing to God. I guess rich people=bad because not giving more? Pretty weak.

        Why wouldn't they? Do they need the money?

        God only commands us to give a tithe, 10% of our gross income, what people give beyond that is up to them. God only requires our faith, beyond that what you do with your money or time reflects your obedience towards God. Like James 2 above.

        Exodus 20:17

        Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

        “The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.” (Proverbs 20:30)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • KilgoreK
          Kilgore @Norwegian Mugabe
          last edited by

          @Norwegian-Mugabe

          @Norwegian-Mugabe said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

          People are indeed giving up, as it is impossible to reason with a moronic maniac

          Arguing with a commie is the worst thing you can do to yourself. He has nothing to lose but you will definitely lose brain cells. Its not worth it.

          CO3C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • CO3C
            CO3 @Kilgore
            last edited by

            @Kilgore pussy

            Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • CO3C
              CO3 @Norwegian Mugabe
              last edited by

              @Norwegian-Mugabe Hilarious! So you're not gonna even attempt to argue, since your head is empty. NEXT!

              Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • lutteL
                lutte
                last edited by

                Economists did not invent capitalism, it is material reality, independent of thought. The profit motive is not about being greedy, it is based on surplus value. One of the factors that weigh down on your wage (if you are employed). Socialism is easy to fail because it is the transitionary stage; balancing features of "socialism" and capitalism or actively trying to replace the laws of capitalism. Fortunately we have giant monopolistic corporations who are already planning logistics in large scale so even if there were/are no nominally socialist countries, the developement of society still tends toward it.
                Eventually it becomes crystal clear that a planned economy is not only possible but good; then the topic might finally move away from whether certain people are "tranny crybabies" " jealous/lazy" or "feigning sympathy". Capitalism is holding us back already.

                KvirionK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • VehmicJurymanV
                  VehmicJuryman @CO3
                  last edited by

                  @CO3 Christ did not live in a commune. In fact his ministry was largely financed by donations from wealthy people. Landlords, merchants, religious clerics, government officials. The very group of people your Marxist idols hated and massacred.

                  CO3C 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • CO3C
                    CO3 @VehmicJuryman
                    last edited by

                    @VehmicJuryman
                    Incredible the way in which you slander Christ, saying he and his flock were dependent on welfare from the rich. You are already implying it here; you pharisees would be the first to judge such a way of living where property was shared. Disgusting.

                    You are more of an opponent to his ideas than maybe anyone else, because you fake your allegiance to him and even use it to justify the satanic order of things in the world.

                    The point is the mask you call your 'religious' views are downstream of your covetousness. You proved it in this thread but are too blind to see it.

                    Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                    VehmicJurymanV 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • CO3C
                      CO3 @VehmicJuryman
                      last edited by CO3

                      @VehmicJuryman
                      Referring to this, dummy?

                      Acts 4 32-35
                      

                      And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need

                      Probably wouldn't even recognize that last line from another work, because you guys unironically take pride in ignorance.

                      Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                      VehmicJurymanV 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • KvirionK
                        Kvirion @lutte
                        last edited by Kvirion

                        @lutte said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

                        Economists did not invent capitalism, it is material reality, independent of thought.

                        LOL! What an exponential BS!

                        You have never heard about Adam Smith and the (especially recent) critique of his works, do you?

                        BTW, you have mistaken a local exchange of goods with the whole capitalistic doctrine...

                        I will not comment on the rest of your scribble, because I guess that ignorance is bliss for you... ;--)

                        A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
                        Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
                        There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
                        And drinking largely sobers us again.
                        ~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

                        lutteL 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • fiesterF
                          fiester @S.Holmes
                          last edited by

                          @S-Holmes

                          iirc Preterists believe most if not all prophecy has already been fulfilled, basically disallowing any dual-fulfillment, and their eschatology is wacky and unbiblical. I would suggest everyone avoid this site.

                          “The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.” (Proverbs 20:30)

                          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • lutteL
                            lutte @Kvirion
                            last edited by

                            @Kvirion economists have not invented capitalism. biologists have not invented life.

                            KvirionK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S
                              S.Holmes @fiester
                              last edited by S.Holmes

                              @fiester said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

                              @S-Holmes

                              iirc Preterists believe most if not all prophecy has already been fulfilled, basically disallowing any dual-fulfillment, and their eschatology is wacky and unbiblical. I would suggest everyone avoid this site.

                              I've observed that those who make these claims have never really done a deep study of eschatology and usually just go along with the Scofield crowd, whether they're aware of it or not. (I bet you didn't even skim the article.) It's also interesting that you don't think others can critically assess whether or not preterism is true, so you unwisely advise them to steer clear. If you have scholarly (IN CONTEXT) arguments to refute it I would like to hear them. I've been asking futurists for nearly 25 years for a thorough refutation. I'm STILL waiting.

                              Every person we have studied this with were convinced, one the son of a Baptist minister, and ALL well versed in scripture. They were astonished and asked how we all could have missed something so obvious and hiding in plain sight for so many years. Futurism is the brainchild of the criminal and scoundrel Cyrus Scofield (and John Darby). The Zionist puppetmasters had/have deep pockets and hired Scofield to author the commentary which was then distributed far and wide, for FREE. Once people read it, and began watching the sky they lost interest in being good stewards, and leaving an inheritance (liberty or wealth) to their families. I mean why polish the brass on a sinking ship? We must reverse the lies told by Scofield.

                              This is the truth I had been searching for. Let people make up their own minds.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • KvirionK
                                Kvirion @lutte
                                last edited by Kvirion

                                @lutte said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

                                economists have not invented capitalism. biologists have not invented life.

                                DoubleFacepalm.jpg

                                1. Your argument is a simple (ontological, epistemological) fallacy
                                2. You mistook (weak, utopian) social science with natural science...
                                3. You seem to not have any idea about philosophy, which is a necessary condition to discuss such topics...

                                BTW If you don't know that something exists it does not mean it doesn't... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

                                A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
                                Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
                                There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
                                And drinking largely sobers us again.
                                ~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

                                Norwegian MugabeN lutteL 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • Norwegian MugabeN
                                  Norwegian Mugabe @Kvirion
                                  last edited by

                                  @Kvirion Point number two is enough to bury his argument. Men created capitalism, so it does not make sense to compare it with biological life forms, which were not made by man.

                                  Put yourself on fire for peak energy metabolism.

                                  Ignore, judge, overcommit.

                                  KvirionK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M
                                    Mulloch94
                                    last edited by

                                    Capitalism describes a system of ownership. So I would agree it should be differentiated from a simple commodity exchange, which is something even Marx himself took notice of. The fatal misconception in the left's argument is believing private ownership doesn't (or otherwise can't or never has) existed outside the scope of State decree and artificial scarcity. Ownership occurs at that precise moment when the natural environment has been transformed by the physical labor of another individual.

                                    And once this transformation has taken place, then the owner can exchange with another individual who has also transformed nature via physical labor to create property. Hence how the early free-market radicals viewed capitalism...a system of voluntary exchange. This is also why wealthy plutocrats originally feared the early libertarian radicals in the late 1960s, as this radical approach to property appropriation would make Big Business a thing of the past. Murray Rothbard's homestead principle paper entails the situation perfectly. It would basically be a proletariat takeover without the nationalization. Basically Rothbard took Marx's idea and upgraded it. Then the libertarian movement got corrupted in the 70s by the kochtopus and has essentially been seen as a pro-corporate movement ever since (except for another brief stent in the 90s when libertarians allied with right-wing populists). But typically speaking, true right-wingers are rarely free market supporters.

                                    When you drift far enough to the right, it's basically the same thing as the left. Fascism is Socialism with a side of nationalistic fervor. If you go ALL the way to the end of the right-wing spectrum, which is Eco-Fascism, then you arrive at "reactionary anti-capitalism." There also anti-human in general, but that's besides the point I guess. I suppose the point I am making is that Capitalism has not held a clear distinction of itself throughout the 700 years of it's existence. And from a historical analysis, a critique of Capitalism largely rests on the land grabs by English parliamentarians in the 16th century. Although modern leftists continually forget (or remain ignorant to) the State itself is what made those land grabs possible, and that forcing people into a wage-rent cash nexus is mutually exclusive to transforming labor into private property.

                                    CO3C KvirionK 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • CO3C
                                      CO3 @Mulloch94
                                      last edited by

                                      @Mulloch94 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

                                      The fatal misconception in the left's argument is believing private ownership doesn't (or otherwise can't or never has) existed outside the scope of State decree and artificial scarcity.

                                      @Mulloch94 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

                                      Ownership occurs at that precise moment

                                      If there is a productive conversation to be had here, you have to absolutely try to be aware of the position you are trying to represent, and not just write about your impression of it!

                                      Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • KvirionK
                                        Kvirion @Norwegian Mugabe
                                        last edited by

                                        @Norwegian-Mugabe said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

                                        Point number two is enough to bury his argument. Men created capitalism, so it does not make sense to compare it with biological life forms, which were not made by man.

                                        Yeah, you're right I am often too generous (comprehensive) with my arguments...

                                        I often forget that You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

                                        A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
                                        Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
                                        There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
                                        And drinking largely sobers us again.
                                        ~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • KvirionK
                                          Kvirion @Mulloch94
                                          last edited by

                                          @Mulloch94 I assume that the problem is more complex than a one-dimensional left-right axis...

                                          PoliticalCompass.gif
                                          This picture is a bare minimum to consider - to start comprehending that we have at least two dimensions to think about...

                                          BTW the whole economics and practical thinking about economies need a serious upgrade with a multi-perspective approach... https://evonomics.com/new-ways-to-teach-economics/

                                          A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
                                          Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
                                          There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
                                          And drinking largely sobers us again.
                                          ~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

                                          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • lutteL
                                            lutte @Kvirion
                                            last edited by

                                            @Kvirion
                                            Economists have not invented capitalism. Thomas Edison has not invented electricity, or any other person. No biologist has invented life
                                            The capitalists arose through capital, private property, which was made possible by feudal conditions, managed to overturn the feudal system and state (monopoly on violence) through a bourgeois revolution (aided by their own employees and serfs). Long before anyone knew what it would actually bring or how it would look like.
                                            Tell me what is utopian about science? Or were you talking about some specific tradition of social science you are discontent with?
                                            Not only do we need to reassess science, history every time because of recent relevations or understandings, but also because life, everything is constant flux. Even physical laws.

                                            "The scientists of empire are announcing the end of
                                            science and art, and of all cultural progress. Their argument
                                            is simple: The knowable world is finite, and our knowledge
                                            of it grows at an increasing rate. The end must come soon.
                                            Some of them say that physics and chemistry are already
                                            finished, and that biology will be completed when a few
                                            puzzles are solved in genetics--and the general form of
                                            these solutions is already known.
                                            For German idealists--like Hegel or Hitler--"our
                                            world, our own time" tends to be seen as "the last stage in
                                            History." The Golden Age, or the 1000 year Reich, is
                                            always just now arriving. At the end of the last century,
                                            many physicists were certain that their science was
                                            complete, except for a few details.
                                            Idealists see "pure knowledge" as the source of
                                            technology, and so technology must come to an end too, a
                                            little later than science.
                                            Materialists are more likely to see our time as being
                                            near the beginning, not the end. For example, Marx (who
                                            borrowed so much from Hegel) said that "real history" couldn't
                                            begin until capitalism has been overcome.
                                            I think this observation is more tautology than
                                            perception. The term "materialism" describes the attitude
                                            that likes to begin with "the matter at hand," "idealism"
                                            describes an approach that emphasizes the importance of
                                            established ideas. One's place in the world obviously
                                            influences judgments as to where truth and value can be
                                            found.
                                            Ever since Heraclitus, materialists have emphasized
                                            change, while idealists emphasize stasis. "Pure knowledge" is
                                            a source of technology, but technology is also a basis for the
                                            development of new formalized knowledge. The steam engine
                                            was already in common use when Carnot and Joule formulated
                                            its basic theory.
                                            What the idealists are saying is that their science is
                                            nearly complete, and there is no other science. What they
                                            imply is that there can never be technologies which conflict
                                            with their laws. In the Golden Age, science must achieve
                                            certainly, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. Hegel's version of
                                            this was: "...the laws of real Freedom--demand the
                                            subjugation of mere contingent Will."
                                            German idealism has been influential in western
                                            science for most of the 20th century, but now scientists in
                                            capitalist countries are letting it guide them into cultural
                                            fascism."

                                            "Several years ago, in the quarterly publication Social
                                            Sciences, I noticed an article by a man whose specialty was
                                            exploring the future of work; he projected a future in which a
                                            person's desire for growth and exploration is realized in his
                                            work. This person's job was to clarifY the changes that must
                                            be made in the "economy" so that it will serve humanity--the
                                            workers and consumers--instead of vice versa.
                                            Previously, in Mind and Tissue, I had briefly discussed
                                            some Soviet views on labor: That work tends toward perception, as machines become available; politics, work, culture,
                                            and science interpenetrate; brain function, education. science,
                                            and work have much in common--an emphasis on purpose
                                            and goals, deep reorganization, and complex perceptual interaction with the material. P. K. Anokhin and A. A. Ukhtomskii, and their students have created a sound basis for the role
                                            of goals and future thinking.
                                            The attitude toward the future is an important part of how
                                            we orient ourselves and what concrete things we do to prepare for the future. A mechanistic view argues that we can't
                                            intervene to change the future, that it must fundamentally resemble the past, and that if people just invest in things that
                                            promise to give them a good profit the future will be nice.
                                            Another view sees the future as being composed of choices
                                            which lead to new choices, with new possibilities emerging as
                                            choices are put into action.

                                            It's important that people start talking about the possible
                                            choices we have. If we accept that "the choice" is between
                                            being unemployed and having a job, the job we get is not likely to be what we want to do with our lives. And "status" isn't
                                            what I'm talking about. Giving maximum meaning to our
                                            lives should be one of the basic things that we demand of our
                                            work.
                                            I. To start with concrete and familiar things, we might first
                                            want to discuss what work is, and why-wunder capitalism, and
                                            also under fascism, primitive cultures, and socialism. The issue of specialization could be considered here.
                                            2. This might be followed by considering what work could
                                            become, and how. The nature of history, time, and culture
                                            should be considered, as well as the projections that are made
                                            by different groups.
                                            3. And at some point, I think it is important to consider
                                            how work shapes us, how we are our work, and why it defines what we can be. Cultural, intellectual, and biological influences should be considered.
                                            There are some things I want to quote, because they suggest some of the things that work is, what it does to us, and
                                            what it should be.
                                            About 1790, William Blake wrote the poem "London," which begins

                                            "I wander thro' each charter'd street,
                                            Near where the charter'd Thames does flow,
                                            And mark in every face I meet
                                            Marks of weakness, markd of woe .
                                            . . . the mind-forg'd manacles I hear."

                                            Another poem, "The Human Abstract," begins
                                            "Pity would be no more
                                            If we did not make somebody Poor .. . . "

                                            Repeatedly, Blake tried to define the mechanisms of oppression and limitation of the human personality. He observed that the State chartered corporations, licensed
                                            that it used false science, devious moralizing and religion, and
                                            illiteracy to create a culture of obedient drudgery. Commercial interests, he pointed out, distorted and degraded human
                                            life, art, and science.
                                            "Schoolmaster of souls, great opposer of change,
                                            arise'! O how could'st thou deform those beautiful
                                            proportions Of life & person; for as the person, so
                                            is his life proportion'd. "
                                            "Thy self-destroying, beast form'd Science shall be
                                            thy eternal lot. "

                                            Blake referred to factories as the "Satanic Mills," whose
                                            technology was invented
                                            "To perplex youth. .. & to bind to labours Of day
                                            & night . . . that they might file and polish. . . hour
                                            after hour, laborious workmanship, Kept ignorant
                                            of the use that they might spend the days of wisdom
                                            In sorrowfull drudgery to obtain a scanty pittance
                                            of bread. In ignorance to view a small portion &
                                            think that All. And call it demonstration, blind to
                                            all the simple rules of life. "

                                            Several people in the following century were influenced by
                                            Blake's attitudes and perceptions, but most of them wanted to
                                            retreat to a simpler past, rather than (as Blake desired) to advance into a more generous future.

                                            "And when all Tyranny was cut off from the face
                                            of the earth living flames winged with intellect and
                                            Reason, round the Earth they march in order, flame
                                            by flame. . . . Start forth the trembling millions into
                                            flames of mental fire . .. "Why sit I here & give lip
                                            all my powers to indolence . .. ?

                                            [...]

                                            People like Blake, Higgins, and Marx have realized that
                                            there are different ways of being, that one is fragmented and
                                            diminished, and the other is whole, alive, and growing. When
                                            people feel that they are in possession of their own lives, then
                                            problems become opportunities. Each problem leads to new
                                            problems. The world draws us forward, and we are not defined by an "occupation" or "profession," but by the work we
                                            have achieved, and the problems we have confronted."

                                            • Ray Peat

                                            "The policy of some nations has given extraordinary
                                            encouragement to the industry of the country; that of others to the
                                            industry of towns. Scarce any nation has dealt equally and
                                            impartially with every sort of industry. Since the downfall of the
                                            Roman empire, the policy of Europe has been more favourable to
                                            arts, manufactures, and commerce, the industry of towns, than to
                                            agriculture, the industry of the country. The circumstances which
                                            seem to have introduced and established this policy are explained
                                            in the third book.
                                            Though those different plans were, perhaps, first introduced by
                                            the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men,
                                            without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the
                                            general welfare of the society; yet they have given occasion to very
                                            different theories of political economy; of which some magnify the
                                            importance of that industry which is carried on in towns, others of
                                            that which is carried on in the country. Those theories have had a
                                            considerable influence, not only upon the opinions of men of
                                            learning, but upon the public conduct of princes and sovereign
                                            states. I have endeavoured, in the fourth book, to explain, as fully
                                            and distinctly as I can, those different theories, and the principal
                                            effects which they have produced in different ages and nations."
                                            ...
                                            "According to the natural course of things, therefore, the
                                            greater part of the capital of every growing society is, first,
                                            directed to agriculture, afterwards to manufactures, and last of all
                                            to foreign commerce. This order of things is so very natural that in
                                            every society that had any territory it has always, I believe, been in
                                            some degree observed. Some of their lands must have been
                                            cultivated before any considerable towns could be established, and
                                            some sort of coarse industry of the manufacturing kind must have
                                            been carried on in those towns, before they could well think of
                                            employing themselves in foreign commerce.
                                            But though this natural order of things must have taken place
                                            in some degree in every such society, it has, in all the modern
                                            states of Europe, been, in many respects, entirely inverted. The
                                            foreign commerce of some of their cities has introduced all their
                                            finer manufactures, or such as were fit for distant sale; and
                                            manufactures and foreign commerce together have given birth to
                                            the principal improvements of agriculture. The manners and
                                            customs which the nature of their original government introduced,
                                            and which remained after that government was greatly altered,
                                            necessarily forced them into this unnatural and retrograde order."

                                            "When the German and Scythian nations overran the
                                            western provinces of the Roman empire, the confusions
                                            which followed so great a revolution lasted for several
                                            centuries. The rapine and violence which the barbarians exercised
                                            against the ancient inhabitants interrupted the commerce
                                            between the towns and the country. The towns were deserted, and
                                            the country was left uncultivated, and the western provinces of
                                            Europe, which had enjoyed a considerable degree of opulence
                                            under the Roman empire, sunk into the lowest state of poverty
                                            and barbarism. During the continuance of those confusions, the
                                            chiefs and principal leaders of those nations acquired or usurped
                                            to themselves the greater part of the lands of those countries. A
                                            great part of them was uncultivated; but no part of them, whether
                                            cultivated or uncultivated, was left without a proprietor. All of
                                            them were engrossed, and the greater part by a few great
                                            proprietors.
                                            This original engrossing of uncultivated lands, though a great,
                                            might have been but a transitory evil. They might soon have been
                                            divided again, and broke into small parcels either by succession or
                                            by alienation. The law of primogeniture hindered them from being
                                            divided by succession: the introduction of entails prevented their
                                            being broke into small parcels by alienation."

                                            "Laws frequently continue in force long after the circumstances
                                            which first gave occasion to them, and which could alone render
                                            them reasonable, are no more. In the present state of Europe, the
                                            proprietor of a single acre of land is as perfectly secure of his
                                            possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand. The right of
                                            primogeniture, however, still continues to be respected, and as of
                                            all institutions it is the fittest to support the pride of family
                                            distinctions, it is still likely to endure for many centuries. In every
                                            other respect, nothing can be more contrary to the real interest of
                                            a numerous family than a right which, in order to enrich one,
                                            beggars all the rest of the children."

                                            "To the slave cultivators of ancient times gradually succeeded a
                                            species of farmers known at present in France by the name of
                                            metayers. They are called in Latin, Coloni partiarii. They have
                                            been so long in disuse in England that at present I know no
                                            English name for them. The proprietor furnished them with the
                                            seed, cattle, and instruments of husbandry, the whole stock, in
                                            short, necessary for cultivating the farm. The produce was divided
                                            equally between the proprietor and the farmer, after setting aside
                                            what was judged necessary for keeping up the stock, which was
                                            restored to the proprietor when the farmer either quitted, or was
                                            turned out of the farm.
                                            Land occupied by such tenants is properly cultivated at the
                                            expense of the proprietor as much as that occupied by slaves.
                                            There is, however, one very essential difference between them.
                                            Such tenants, being freemen, are capable of acquiring property,
                                            and having a certain proportion of the produce of the land, they
                                            have a plain interest that the whole produce should be as great as
                                            possible, in order that their own proportion may be so. A slave, on
                                            the contrary, who can acquire nothing but his maintenance,
                                            consults his own ease by making the land produce as little as
                                            possible over and above that maintenance."

                                            "To this species of tenancy succeeded, though by very slow
                                            degrees, farmers properly so called, who cultivated the land with
                                            their own stock, paying a rent certain to the landlord. When such
                                            farmers have a lease for a term of years, they may sometimes find
                                            it for their interest to lay out part of their capital in the further
                                            improvement of the farm; because they may sometimes expect to
                                            recover it, with a large profit, before the expiration of the lease."

                                            "After the fall of the Roman empire, on the
                                            contrary, the proprietors of land seem generally to have lived in
                                            fortified castles on their own estates, and in the midst of their own
                                            tenants and dependants. The towns were chiefly inhabited by
                                            tradesmen and mechanics, who seem in those days to have been of
                                            servile, or very nearly of servile condition. The privileges which we
                                            find granted by ancient charters to the inhabitants of some of the
                                            principal towns in Europe sufficiently show what they were before
                                            those grants. The people to whom it is granted as a privilege that
                                            they might give away their own daughters in marriage without the
                                            consent of their lord, that upon their death their own children, and
                                            not their lord, should succeed to their goods, and that they might
                                            dispose of their own effects by will, must, before those grants, have
                                            been either altogether or very nearly in the same state of villanage
                                            with the occupiers of land in the country."

                                            "But how servile soever may have been originally the condition
                                            of the inhabitants of the towns, it appears evidently that they
                                            arrived at liberty and independency much earlier than the
                                            occupiers of land in the country. That part of the king’s revenue
                                            which arose from such poll-taxes in any particular town used
                                            commonly to be let in farm during a term of years for a rent
                                            certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county, and sometimes to
                                            other persons. The burghers themselves frequently got credit
                                            enough to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort which
                                            arose out of their own town, they becoming jointly and severally
                                            answerable for the whole rent.
                                            To let a farm in this manner was
                                            quite agreeable to the usual economy of, I believe, the sovereigns
                                            of all the different countries of Europe, who used frequently to let
                                            whole manors to all the tenants of those manors, they becoming
                                            jointly and severally answerable for the whole rent; but in return
                                            being allowed to collect it in their own way, and to pay it into the
                                            king’s exchequer by the hands of their own bailiff, and being thus
                                            altogether freed from the insolence of the king’s officers—a
                                            circumstance in those days regarded as of the greatest
                                            importance."

                                            "The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not
                                            only as of a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves,
                                            almost of a different species from themselves. The wealth of the
                                            burghers never failed to provoke their envy and indignation, and
                                            they plundered them upon every occasion without mercy or
                                            remorse. The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords. The
                                            king hated and feared them too; but though perhaps he might
                                            despise, he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers.
                                            Mutual interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and
                                            the king to support them against the lords. They were the enemies
                                            of his enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure
                                            and independent of those enemies as he could. By granting them
                                            magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their
                                            own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and
                                            that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military
                                            discipline, he gave them all the means of security and
                                            independency of the barons which it was in his power to bestow."

                                            "Without the establishment of some regular government of this
                                            kind, without some authority to compel their inhabitants to act
                                            according to some certain plan or system, no voluntary league of
                                            mutual defence could either have afforded them any permanent
                                            security, or have enabled them to give the king any considerable
                                            support. By granting them the farm of their town in fee, he took
                                            away from those whom he wished to have for his friends, and, if
                                            one may say so, for his allies, all ground of jealousy and suspicion
                                            that he was ever afterwards to oppress them, either by raising the
                                            farm rent of their town or by granting it to some other farmer."

                                            "The militia of the cities seems, in those times, not to have been
                                            inferior to that of the country, and as they could be more readily
                                            assembled upon any sudden occasion, they frequently had the
                                            advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords. In
                                            countries, such as Italy and Switzerland, in which, on account
                                            either of their distance from the principal seat of government, of
                                            the natural strength of the country itself, or of some other reason,
                                            the sovereign came to lose the whole of his authority, the cities
                                            generally became independent republics, and conquered all the
                                            nobility in their neighbourhood, obliging them to pull down their
                                            castles in the country and to live, like other peaceable inhabitants,
                                            in the city. This is the short history of the republic of Berne as well
                                            as of several other cities in Switzerland. If you except Venice, for
                                            of that city the history is somewhat different, it is the history of all
                                            the considerable Italian republics, of which so great a number
                                            arose and perished between the end of the twelfth and the
                                            beginning of the sixteenth century."

                                            " Order and good government, and along with them the liberty
                                            and security of individuals, were, in this manner, established in
                                            cities at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were
                                            exposed to every sort of violence. But men in this defenceless state
                                            naturally content themselves with their necessary subsistence,
                                            because to acquire more might only tempt the injustice of their
                                            oppressors. On the contrary, when they are secure of enjoying the
                                            fruits of their industry, they naturally exert it to better their
                                            condition, and to acquire not only the necessaries, but the
                                            conveniences and elegancies of life. That industry, therefore,
                                            which aims at something more than necessary subsistence, was
                                            established in cities long before it was commonly practised by the
                                            occupiers of land in the country. If in the hands of a poor
                                            cultivator, oppressed with the servitude of villanage, some little
                                            stock should accumulate, he would naturally conceal it with great
                                            care from his master, to whom it would otherwise have belonged,
                                            and take the first opportunity of running away to a town. The law
                                            was at that time so indulgent to the inhabitants of towns, and so
                                            desirous of diminishing the authority of the lords over those of the
                                            country, that if he could conceal himself there from the pursuit of
                                            his lord for a year, he was free for ever. Whatever stock, therefore,
                                            accumulated in the hands of the industrious part of the
                                            inhabitants of the country naturally took refuge in cities as the
                                            only sanctuaries in which it could be secure to the person that
                                            acquired it."
                                            -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

                                            KvirionK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 7
                                            • 8
                                            • 9
                                            • 10
                                            • 11
                                            • 12
                                            • 13
                                            • 14
                                            • 9 / 14
                                            • First post
                                              Last post