Watch: Liberal activists try to explain why they dislike Trump, hilarity ensues
Animal activists were out protesting President Donald Trump this week in Hollywood, and they were eager to talk to Dartmouth graduate and aspiring filmmaker Austen Fleccas about their beef with the president, even though those reasons didn’t always make sense.
Congregating on Hollywood Blvd around Trump’s Hollywood Walk of Fame sidewalk star, the protesters held up signs while chanting, “There’s no excuse for animal abuse!” One protester added that Trump is “against all humans and animals.”
Fleccas interviewed several of the participants, who told him they were protesting the USDA’s decision to remove their list of animal welfare reports from its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, but attributed the decision directly to the president.
“Why are you against Trump,” Fleccas asked one protester.
“Because he’s an evil dictator,” she responded, then went on to explain it is because he is a capitalist. Explaining that she is a communist, the unnamed protester continued, saying that communism has worked in America. “It’s kind of worked in America, in a way, back in the day…no?”
Others focused on the animal rights aspect, saying they wanted all animals to be set free.
“Total animal liberation,” one protester said. Another proclaimed that people who fight for human rights but not for animal rights are “speciesists.”
Last month, the USDA removed public access to tens of thousands of records documenting whether animals kept by research labs, circuses, and other entities were being treated humanely, citing individual privacy rights as the reason for the removal. Though the documents were still available through FOIA requests, the United States Humane Society challenged the legality of the move, saying that the agency was eliminating transparency.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services office has since clarified that the information was taken offline to conduct a comprehensive privacy review and the information is slowly being loaded back onto the site as appropriate.
When the colonists embraces communal enterprise it nearly killed them all. It was way before Marx and tried by people of faith.
The Himalayan Times ^ | 24 Jan 2005 | Rakesh Wadhwa
I write this especially for our Maoist brothers. While the US is commonly vilified as the bastion of capitalism, it is little known that the US too has tried communism. It was only when communism failed that property rights and capitalism took hold.
Let us go back into history and see what lessons America learned from its relatively short dalliance with Maoism much before the ‘great leader' himself was born.
The year was 1607. The first 104 settlers had arrived from Europe in Jamestown in the Virginia Tidewater region of the US in May. They found soil which was fertile beyond what they had seen in the lands which they had left. Fruits were abundant. Wild game such as deer and turkey were everywhere. There was no shortage of fish and other seafood. And yet within six months 66 of the original Jamestown, Virginia settlers had died. Only 38 survived.
Another 500 settlers were again sent to settle in Virginia in 1609 and within six months 440 of these too died by starvation and disease. This was called ‘starving time' and one eyewitness described it in English of those times, ‘So great was our famine, that a Savage we slew and buried, the poorer sorte took him up againe and eat him; and so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs.'
How could this be? How could there be such death and starvation amidst so much plenty of meat, fruits, and fish. The fault as the witness said lay not in the ‘barrenness and defect of the Countrie' but in the ‘want of providence, industry and government'.
What caused this lack of ‘industrie'? Were the Virginian settlers lazy and indolent? It could not be. People who were sent there were the chosen ones – the very best of men.
The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.
As so frequently happens with present day government policies, the results were the opposite of what was intended. Since hard work was not personally beneficial for the settlers they responded by stopping work.
Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.
This is what happened in Mao's China and in Soviet Russia on a grand scale. In America a few hundred deaths stopped the communist experiment, in China and Russia, millions had to die before these nations abandoned the principles of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
Jamestown changed course just two years later in 1611 with arrival of the ‘high marshall' Sir Thomas Dale from the UK. He understood the problem, freed the settlers by abrogating communal ownership. Each man received three acres of land and, other than a lump sum tax of 2 ½ barrels of corn, did not have to contribute anything to the common pool. The colony immediately began to prosper. It prospered because each individual directly benefited by his labour and knew that he would also bear the full consequences of any reduction in output. Private ownership and capitalism worked.
Communism doesn't work because it destroys the reward and work nexus. Communism doesn't work because the absence of property rights heralds the end of all incentive to produce. Communism doesn't work because humans do no wish to sacrifice themselves to the common good.
I do not know or care about the political philosophy of the Maoists. I would, though, like to know what their economic policies are going to be. Do they want to take back Nepal to what America experimented with almost 400 years ago? Nepal lags behind the US in economic development, but is it to be put back by four centuries?.
No comments:
Post a Comment