| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Ben Franklin Wisdoms********************************************************************** The great and wise Franklin, sounding much like an 18th Century Jack Kemp, wrote a fascinating response in 1784 in answer to an English editor accusing Americans of predilections towards luxury. Franklin, despite his own personal frugality, argued that a taste for luxury might not be a bad thing. “Is not the hope of being one day able to purchase and enjoy luxuries a great spur to labour and industry? May not luxury, therefore, produce more than it consumes?” Even self-indulgence to the point of dissipation had its advantages: “A vain, silly fellow builds a fine house, furnishes it richly, lives in it expensively, and in a few years ruins himself. But the masons, carpenters, smiths and other honest tradesmen have been by his employ assisted in maintaining and raising their families; the farmer has been paid for his labour and encouraged; and the estate is now in better hands.” Franklin followed with a story about how a gift of a stylish (but unnecessary) cap to a certain young lady spurred all the neighboring girls to want similar caps, expensive though they might be – and, in order to afford them, the girls began knitting mittens for sale in Philadelphia. A little cottage industry was begun; the girls were better off for earning the money, and the cold Philadelphians suddenly had a new source of mittens to warm their hands. “And you know,” he added, “that industry has continued, and is likely to continue and increase to a much greater value, and answer better purposes.” This account comes from the superb year 2000 biography of Franklin, The First American, by H. W. Brands. The same book recounted Franklin’s ideas about the best way to help disadvantaged people escape from poverty. As Brands described it, Franklin questioned: …the English statutes for the maintenance of the poor. Franklin asked himself whether these laws had not instilled in the poor “a dependence that very much lessens the care of providing against the wants of old age.” He did not question the morality of aiding the poor, only the efficacy. “To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; ’tis Godlike, but if we provide encouragements for laziness, and supports for folly, may it not be found fighting against the order of God and nature…?” Finally, Franklin argued against national indebtedness and against a failure to be dependable partners for national allies: If we do not convince the world that we are a nation to be depended on for fidelity in treaties, if we appear negligent in paying our debts, and ungrateful to those who have served and befriended us, our reputation, and all the strength it is capable of procuring, will be lost, and fresh attacks will be encouraged. Other, pithier statements have been attributed to Franklin, along similar lines: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” And: “The U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.” And: “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” And, finally: “I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power.” Now it might be said that neither the bons mots nor the considered philosophy of a man who died 222 years ago, even one as celebrated as Franklin, should be particularly relevant today. On the contrary, perhaps no man in history has better exemplified the essential American character than Franklin. Born into what now would be called a “working class” family, a runaway from an apprenticeship at age 17 with barely the clothes on his back, Franklin was the quintessential self-made man, duly honored for multitudinous discoveries in science, for his writing and publishing, for his civic organizing ranging from postal improvements to fire departments to organized militias – and, of course, for his great statesmanship. Before anybody else, Franklin (way back in 1754) was proposing a union of the American colonies; more effectively than anyone else, he was carrying America’s case in Europe against taxation without representation; more cannily than any other diplomat, he talked France into joining the colonies’ side in the Revolutionary War, thus providing the means of victory, and at the ripe age of 81, he was the first to propose the compromise on Senate representation that saved the Constitutional Convention. Franklin’s wisdom is applicable today because it is wisdom that has been successful every time it has been tried in these United States. The free market, combined with a limited government, spurs industry, creates jobs and diminishes poverty, far better than any government program. It is wisdom we should always heed. cfif.org |
||
|
I will add H. W. Brands' book to my library. |
||
|
Softy |
||
|
Stinky ... Further, there is a general public sentiment around the country that the rich are not paying their fair share. The wealthy simply must sit at the table and pony up during these depressed times ... and thereupon influence public sentiment. Even corporations are agreeing with this sentiment. |
||
|
chaz I assume you believe that the Constitution, Bill of Rights and our founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence plus all the legislation determined Constitutional by the Supreme Court means that citizens are meant to be treated equally and fairly by the government. But, you have never yet addressed HOW taking more private property from one person than another is fair or equal. (and btw, I am not saying I necessarily disagree in whole or in part with that), but I'd like to know how your justify that. What is your reasoning for allowing an unfair and unequal application of law? |
||
|
|
||
|
change |
||
|
|
||
|
chaz The only problem I have with rich people is when they get into politics. If you have a company and you can become a billionaire because of your products then so be it. If you have a company and you get into politics and you start dealing under the table and forcing tax money to be used for your products or passing laws that favor your company then I have a HUGE problem with it. |
||
|
Stinky ... |
||
|
|
||
|
chaz |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
"The wealthy simply must sit at the table and pony up during these depressed times ..." "But, we have a suffering middle class that is growing smaller in large part because of our unfair tax structure and greed among the top 2%." It seems that you've elect yourself to decide this so called 'fairness' criteria that you want used. Again, I prefer equality. Those comments sure sound like a hard left DM, not a self-proclaimed centrist (wink, wink). That's what happens when you make definitive comments. Best get back to the doublespeak. |
||
|
chaz There can be no "honest" discussion when you refuse to offer your reasons and opinions. The fact that you have different reasons and opinions is what is important. I want to hear them and debate them. You want to hide from them and slink away without discussion. You seem afraid to lay out what you believe and why you believe it. I have asked you why you believe that we should tax somebody unequally from others. That is a fair and honest question. It could have a reasonable answer. What is your answer? |
||
|
Thumper ... |
||
|
Softy ... It's becoming obvious again that you're not interested in discussion. Sorry. Bye. |
||
|
chaz That's your answer to my honest questions? Do you really think ANYBODY believes you are interested in "honest discussion"? After that? I don't know why you are afraid to present your views. It is not like they can be right or wrong answers. They are your opinion, just like my views are my opinion. When you make statements and fail to give your reason, especially after being asked, it leads people to make speculations. I speculate that you are a leftist and can not answer my questions. But, you are free to debate that and give me some argument. I'd welcome it. Consider that a challenge. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
chaz If you are too old and tired to play the game, protect your values, or present your views, then maybe you should retire. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
|
Log in 
