What's Wrong With Socialism? - Foreign Affairs - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Foreign Affairs / What's Wrong With Socialism? (1736 Views)
What's Wrong With Africa? / What Is Wrong With This Picture??? / US Economy Created 200,000 Jobs In December, What's Wrong With Nigeria?! (2) (3) (4)
| What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 2:47am On Nov 14, 2009 |
A very timely and thought provoking article by Joe Herring in the American Thinker. I am going to break up the article. It appears nairaland does not accept long posts anymore. The link is here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/whats_wrong_with_socialism.html I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama's campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, "What's so wrong with socialism?" I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man -- my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn't know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible. In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet "Road to Serfdom," laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 2:50am On Nov 14, 2009 |
Continued below: How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped. Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became "enemies of the state" for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed. So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn't be rationalized -- or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don't assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 2:53am On Nov 14, 2009 |
Continues below: I successfully informed my coworker of the irreparable crack in the foundation of socialist thinking, and he is now aware of the need to burrow beneath the surface of politics to find the roots from which the tree springs. We can't wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground. The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing. If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left's methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep's clothing, or it won't be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 2:55am On Nov 14, 2009 |
@topic, I did a little research on the referenced book "The Road to Serfdom" (infact,I just bought a copy online). I like the following description of the contents of the book by the Mises Institute. What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship--and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom. Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone. Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 9:43am On Nov 14, 2009 |
Nucca STFU!!! |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by 4Play(m): 11:07pm On Nov 14, 2009 |
This Obama is a socialist hogwash is just tiring. The idea that the state centralising the provision of healthcare to its citizens is a slippery road down to tyranny is bizarre. If the absence of Govt run social programs is the hallmark of individual liberty, countries like Nigeria would be a paradise. My key gripe with Obama's spending policies is that it is unsustainable in the long term. The long term costs far outweigh the short term benefits. Obama can be rightly accused of sacrificing the nation's long term needs for the Democrats' short term political expediency not of being a socialist. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by naliakar: 12:01am On Nov 15, 2009 |
Tayo-D: SOMEONE ALERT ME WHEN DAYO'S SOLILOQUY IS OVER. PLEASE I BEG |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 12:27am On Nov 15, 2009 |
4 Play:  GBAM!!! |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Nobody: 12:30am On Nov 15, 2009 |
4 Play:Isnt Nigeria a paradise? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 12:41am On Nov 15, 2009 |
@Ibime, Nucca STFU!!!Why am I not dissapointed by this response? Expecting better things from you is just asking too much! @4Play, This Obama is a socialist hogwash is just tiring.You definitely can't call him a capitalist. Obama is pretty clear that he is all about social justice (whatever that means). I believe he and other Leftists of his kind are of the opinion that the equality envisioned by the founding fathers cannot be said to be actualised until there is equality in social and economic outcomes. They can't be more wrong. The idea that the state centralising the provision of healthcare to its citizens is a slippery road down to tyranny is bizarre. If the absence of Govt run social programs is the hallmark of individual liberty, countries like Nigeria would be a paradise.I disagree that this is about provision of healthcare, it is not. What they are attempting is the control of healthcare. You do not provide anything by taxing it. We all know that taxing a product limits and controls its use. Don't we see them doing it with tobacco? In any case, this is more than just about healthcare. My key gripe with Obama's spending policies is that it is unsustainable in the long term. The long term costs far outweigh the short term benefits. Obama can be rightly accused of sacrificing the nation's long term needs for the Democrats' short term political expediency not of being a socialist.I agree with everything you wrote here except the enboldened part. Nothing describes his approach and philosophy better than socialism, except maybe marxism! |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Nobody: 12:46am On Nov 15, 2009 |
Tayo-D: How? 911 service is provided from taxes right? So isnt that socialism that MUST be cancelled? err so we shld stop taxing tobacco users? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 12:50am On Nov 15, 2009 |
@4Play, If the absence of Govt run social programs is the hallmark of individual liberty, countries like Nigeria would be a paradise.You have totally missed the point 4Play. This is about the role of govt in the society. While the US govt has gone beyond its limit, Nigeria's hasn't got to the starting block. Both govt are on opposite side of the divide. How can you imply that Nigerians are models of individual liberty? What is individual liberty when you have no govt to ensure your rights are not violated? And if violated, are there structures in place to seek justice? This in my opinion is the sole responsibility of the govt. The US before Obama, and more so with Obama, has reached too far! |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Nobody: 12:57am On Nov 15, 2009 |
Tayo-D: Examples? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 1:28am On Nov 15, 2009 |
@Davidylan, 911 service is provided from taxes right? So isnt that socialism that MUST be cancelled?This is where you miss the point. The services provided by 911 is directly linked with the role of the govt. I have no problem with the govt raising taxes to fund its legitimate role. err so we shld stop taxing tobacco users?Who said you should stop taxing them? The question is why single out its users by taxing them more than everybody else? The purpose of the taxes is to limits its use. Why should the govt have the power to determine your habit by intentionally raising the taxes so you can kick the habit? Is it not then safe to say that the proposed new taxes on medical devices and some healthcare products is a means to control their use?Taxing them is obviosuly not a means to providing them as 4Play implied. Examples?Seriously? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Nobody: 1:50am On Nov 15, 2009 |
Tayo-D: the public option would be funded exclusively by premiums. I'm tired of arguing the same thing over and over again. Tayo-D: This is senseless . . . sorry to use that word. Do you know how much treating tobacco-related disease costs the tax payer each yr? Its into the billions! Tobacco-related disease is going to be the world's largest killer by 2020 according to the WHO, lung disease directly related to smoking will be the 4th largest killer by that time. Why shld the government not try to use increased taxes to dissuade its use? Why shld i be taxed when i dont smoke nor purchase tobacco products? What has taxes on tobacco got to do with healthcare products? Tayo-D: yeah seriously we do need examples! What individual rights of yours has Obama confiscated? Enough of making bogus claims you cant back up. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 2:05am On Nov 15, 2009 |
@David, the public option would be funded exclusively by premiums. I'm tired of arguing the same thing over and over again.Just like Medicare and MedicAid is funded exclusively by premiums? What a joke! This is senseless . . . sorry to use that word. Do you know how much treating tobacco-related disease costs the tax payer each yr? Its into the billions! Tobacco-related disease is going to be the world's largest killer by 2020 according to the WHO, lung disease directly related to smoking will be the 4th largest killer by that time. Why shld the government not try to use increased taxes to dissuade its use? Why shld i be taxed when i dont smoke nor purchase tobacco products?So why not let people be held responsible for their action? People are aware of the consequences of smoking and still choose to smoke. That is what is called freedom of choice. Should the govt also control sex because many people are dying of AIDS? If you do not want to be taxed when you don't smoke, then tell the govt to hands off healthcare because you will be paying for these people's action. What has taxes on tobacco got to do with healthcare products?Increase taxes on tobacco is to control and limit its use. So for the govt to tax healthcare products, the unintended consequence will be to control and limit its use as well. Get it now? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by 4Play(m): 11:15pm On Nov 15, 2009 |
Tayo-D: That may be so in general but on the specific issue of healthcare, the US will surely benefit from a little state intervention. The principle behind lessening state intervention and relying on private enterprise is that private enterprise promotes efficiency. However, the US health system in its present form has failed to achieve these objective. Not only is it incredibly costly but it has failed to serve its basic purpose, that of providing coverage for everyone. What metric do you use in determining that the Govt has gone too far? For me, if a privately run system is failing, it's time to try something that has worked effectively in other developed countries - state run healthcare. So why not let people be held responsible for their action? People are aware of the consequences of smoking and still choose to smoke. That is what is called freedom of choice. The ill effects of tobacco affects third parties through second hand smoke. Also, the health burdens brought about the ill health of smokers is borne by society in general. It's what is called a Pigovian tax |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 11:53pm On Nov 15, 2009 |
@4Play, That may be so in general but on the specific issue of healthcare, the US will surely benefit from a little state intervention.There is nothing little about what Obama is proposing. This is nothing but another entitlement program. Last I checked, entitlement programs have eaten deep into the GDP. Even if the status quo is maintained, these programs are forecast to eat even deeper. Imagine what will happen with this entitlement monstrosity called universal healthcare. The principle behind lessening state intervention and relying on private enterprise is that private enterprise promotes efficiency. However, the US health system in its present form has failed to achieve these objective. Not only is it incredibly costly but it has failed to serve its basic purpose, that of providing coverage for everyone.We need to backtrack a little bit from your premise of its cost implication. Question is what has made it more costly than what it is now? What has limited competition? Could those be govt regulation? By the way, if coverage for everyone is the goal, then the bill has failed even before it is enacted. There is no way coverage can be guaranteed for everyone. Isn't that why Obama and co now want to criminalise people who refuse to obtain insurance under their plan? If coverage is guaranteed, why the fines and threats of jail time? Isn't this part of the problem the article points out? You either follow the leading of the centralplanners with unquestioned loyalty, or you are criminalised for exercising you freedom of choice. What metric do you use in determining that the Govt has gone too far? For me, if a privately run system is failing, it's time to try something that has worked effectively in other developed countries - state run healthcare.Medicare, MedicAid and co are govt run programs. They are not in great shape too are they? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 12:02am On Nov 16, 2009 |
Tayo-D: And you wonder why I always dismiss your rants in customarily curt fashion. . . . what you mean to say is that the expenditure eats deep into the budget. . . . FFS, any extra Government expenditure increases GDP, not eat it up. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by 4Play(m): 12:10am On Nov 16, 2009 |
Tayo-D: Mea culpa, I shouldn't call it 'little', nevertheless, US healthcare expenditure currently makes up a larger proportion of GDP than any other OECD country. That's clearly unacceptable. A significant majority of the growth in consumer spending in the US that has helped spurn a massive global imbalance is attributable to healthcare spending. We need to backtrack a little bit from your premise of its cost implication. Question is what has made it more costly than what it is now? What has limited competition? Could those be govt regulation? I agree that we need less regulation but there is little empirical evidence to show that the outsized US healthcare spending is purely down to too much regulation. By the way, if coverage for everyone is the goal, then the bill has failed even before it is enacted. There is no way coverage can be guaranteed for everyone. Isn't that why Obama and co now want to criminalise people who refuse to obtain insurance under their plan? If coverage is guaranteed, why the fines and threats of jail time? Isn't this part of the problem the article points out? You either follow the leading of the centralplanners with unquestioned loyalty, or you are criminalised for exercising you freedom of choice. I don't like the Obama plan(if he does have one). I think they should scrap the whole thing and have a single payer model like the UK or simply expand Medicaid to include everyone without health insurance. Either way, this will cover everyone. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 12:15am On Nov 16, 2009 |
@Ibime, And you wonder why I always dismiss your rants in customarily curt fashion. . . .nucca, you need to disambiguate in ya mind the difference between GDP and budget. . . . what you mean to say is that the expenditure eats deep into the budget. . . . FFS, any extra Government expenditure increase GDP, not eat it up.I'm not an Economist but I know BS when I smell one. YOur swearing does not make you right you know? I very well know the difference between budget and GDP. To a smart person who is interested in real cost and not a made up one, the right way to judge any govt program should be on the backdrop of the GDP. Budgets are based on an estimated guess of govt income and can be propped up by borrowing. GDP on the other hand gives a better idea of the prosperity of the nation. That should be pof greater concern to anyone. And by the way, here is a quote by an expert who I'm sure knows better than you. He rightly compares the cost of those programs to the GDP and not the budget. Peter Orszag is no conservative ideologue. The head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was a scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution before being picked for his current position by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet, Mr. Orszag recently warned that the rising cost of federal entitlement programs, particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, poses a grave threat to America's economic future. According to Mr. Orszag, without dramatic reform, the cost of those three programs alone will rise from 18 percent of GDP today to 28 percent by the middle of this century and as much as 35 percent soon thereafter. That means that just three federal government programs will be consuming between a quarter and a third of everything this country produces. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/33579 |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 12:23am On Nov 16, 2009 |
Tayo-D: You must be joking bros. . . .you made a statement of healthcare spending eating into something. . . . .you were obviously talking about expenditure, not production. . . . but erronously used GDP instead of budget. As I said: Ibime: |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 12:35am On Nov 16, 2009 |
@Ibime, You must be joking bros. . . .you made an erronous statement of healthcare spending eating into something. . . . .you were obviously talking about expenditure, not production. . . . but erronously used GDP instead of budget.Let me put this in a simple way that even you will understand. The best way to understand the cost of a product is to compare it to production. The cost of my health insureance premium needs to be compared to my wages, and not the money I will spend that month from my salary as well as my credit cards. Comparing the entitlement cost to GDP represents the former while comparing it to the budget represents the latter. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 12:50am On Nov 16, 2009 |
Tayo-D: Nah bruv. . . . drop all these circumlocutory arguments. . . . you never meant to express Govt production as a percentage of GDP. . . . you meant to express Govt expenditure as a percentage of budget. . . . any revision is a practice in self-deceit. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 1:02am On Nov 16, 2009 |
@Ibime, Nah bruv. . . . drop all these circumlocutory arguments. . . . you never meant to express Govt production as a percentage of GDP. . . . you meant to express Govt expenditure as a percentage of budget. . . . any revision is a practice in self-deceit.Na wah for you o. So now you know what I meant to say? It's funny that you are now talking about revisions only after settling down to understand what I said in the first place. I can see that you got hung up on the phrase "eat deeper into". Tell me, is that phrase a technical economic term? If it is not, why then didn't you ask for explanation before going a-swearing on a tangent? Try chill out next time, okay? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 1:06am On Nov 16, 2009 |
Tayo-D: Nah bros. . . . your revisionism isnt worth wasting time upon. . . . you say you meant GDP, not budget because US budget is inflated by external borrowing. . . . isnt GDP also boosted by borrowing in the US? . . . . so whats your point really? . . . come up with a better excuse, let me mull over it. . . .perhaps I'll give you a pass mark if you come up with anything sensible. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 1:19am On Nov 16, 2009 |
@Ibime, You tire me out with this your argument. But I think I am beginning to see where our differences lie, and it appears it is based on ideology. GDP to me, should be guaged based on the products and not just the spending. You Keynsians (If I may use that term) will definitely love to look at this only from the perspective of spending. A financial conservative like me will surely look at it only from the perspecive of real products made, sold and consumed in the society (basically in that order). Spending money that has not been made is no measure of real prosperity. Again if I may use the credit card analogy. That I buy more stuff with my crdit card does not make me richer than one who buys half of what I buy each month even though he makes ten times as much. My prosperity in this analogy is based on debt while the other person's is based on reeal wealth. I doubt you will agree, but that is the case from my perspective. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 1:23am On Nov 16, 2009 |
Tayo-D, Is US GDP not inflated by borrowing? Part of GDP is made exclusively from the budget (which is running at deficit). Come up with another excuse or just admit to using the wrong terminology. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 1:31am On Nov 16, 2009 |
@Ibime, Is US GDP not inflated by borrowing?Isn't this what I have basically implied all along? And isn't this why we are in the mess we are in today? Creditors are calling for their money which we have used to create an illusion of prosperity. The Keynes approach by the current administration is only trying to sustain this illusion. Come up with another excuse or just admit to using the wrong terminology.Okay you win. I admit I used the wrong terminology (even though I am still trying to figure out if "eat deeper into" is a technical economic terminology). I don tire going around in circles. I trust you will go to bed happy now, shei? |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by Ibime(m): 1:34am On Nov 16, 2009 |
hehehehe. . . . alright bros. . . |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 9:17pm On Nov 26, 2009 |
@topic, In the spirit of Thanksgiving that is being celebrated today, I thought I should bring to light an aspect of American history that many people are unaware of. Many of course will be shocked that the Pilgrims had experimented with Socialism. As expected, the experiment in socialism failed woefully and they had enough sense to revert to capitalism. William Bradford, an elected Governor of the colony kept an extensive diary that catalogued their journey on the Mayflower, their lives as a colony up until his death. According to his writings, the pilgrims fell for socialist ideas that were espoused by people like Plato and some other intellectuals after him. Ideas that encouraged taking away personal property and bringing it into a commonwealth equally owned and shared by everyone with the sole aim of creating a happy community (a liberal's dream). Liberals are still seeking such utopia today. William Bradford and his Chieftains quickly came to their senses when the community was close to starvation due to this experiment. People lost initiatives and would prefer to do nothing because they were guaranteed of food, shelter etc, regardless of their efforts. Thank goodness they changed directions on seeing the disaster that socialism was. Reverting back to capitalism brought back the prosperity they knew before trying out the social experiment they embarked upon. Socialism failed America at its founding, and it will fail it again if tried. |
| Re: What's Wrong With Socialism? by TayoD1(m): 9:32pm On Nov 26, 2009 |
@topic, Below is a reproduction of William Bradford's journal from [url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html#Private and communal farming[/url] All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. 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. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them. |
Cartoon Of Prophet Mohammed: 10 Killed At French Magazine Office / Russian Ground Troops Arrive In Syria In Unprecedented Military Action... / Zuma Copies Donald Trump, Bans 9 African Countries From Entering South Africa
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 124 |