T Nation

Friendly Societies and Vroom

This deserves a thread on its own:

Apparently, in bad, old, Dickensian England, where classic liberalism ruled and Manchester capitalism destroyed peoples lifes and souls there you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity.

Also, capitalism had made England so rich that people were considered to be poor who weren´t anywhere else.

Government, in an effort to improve it, killed that system.

Before large-scale government and employer health insurance, friendly societies played an important part in many people’s lives. In some countries, half the population was covered by such societies.[citation needed] Many of these societies still exist. In some countries, they have been incorporated into the health system and become like insurance companies and lost their ceremonial aspect; in others they have taken on a more charitable or social aspect.

In their heyday, members typically paid a regular membership fee and went to lodge meetings to take part in ceremonies. If a member became sick they would receive an allowance to help them meet their financial obligations. The society would have a regular doctor who the member could visit for free. Members of the lodge would visit to provide emotional support (and possibly to check that the sick member was not malingering). When a member died, their funeral would be paid for and the members of their lodge would attend in ceremonial dress?often there was some money left over from the funeral for the widow. Friendly societies also had social functions such as dances, and some had sporting teams for members to participate in. They occasionally became involved in political issues that were of interest to their members.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/social_welfare_in_victorian_england/

Surprisingly, England in the Victorian era had a social welfare system that was both fairly comprehensive and independent of the government. Most of us draw our impression of conditions in Victorian England from the novels of Charles Dickens?and the situations that Dickens described were so bad that the word ?Dickensian? has come to mean oppressive, uncaring and inhuman. Something that needs to be noted here, however is that Dickens was what the Victorians called a ?Social reformer? or what we would probably call a ?socialist?. His novels are, in other words, political propaganda that concentrates on the failures of the system rather than on its successes. And because they are such good novels, they have been very effective in discrediting the Victorian system.

In truth, however, even in the modern era of universal government welfare payments we can still find people living in ?Dickensian? conditions?for one obvious instance, the Australian Aborigines. All systems have some weaknesses and concentrating on the worst cases tells us nothing about how well the system works as a whole. Had Dickens been writing today, he would probably be describing terrible situations caused by the actions of heartless government bureaucrats. So let us now look at what history tells us about the Victorian system rather than at what the novels of Dickens tell us about it…

[b]
I am posting this because Vroom posts again and again and again
that only government can protect people against injury or illness, as if no infinitely more efficient system had ever existed and as if we had to accept servitude to not have people dying on the streets.

This assumption is wrong.[/b]

Do you think this may be why Warren Buffett is donating $37 BILLION to ‘The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ instead of simply offering to help fund Medicare?

Now that’s a novel idea… thinking in terms of how capitalism has worked so well instead of it’s failures.

Capitalism has allowed our poor to have a roof, food, and in most cases cable TV.

Way late edit:
I mean noble not novel

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
Now that’s a novel idea… thinking in terms of how capitalism has worked so well instead of it’s failures.

Capitalism has allowed our poor to have a roof, food, and in most cases cable TV.

Way late edit:
I mean noble not novel[/quote]

This is not so much about capitalism but the fact that people literally have forgotten that people can take care of themselves without the government and how much of that spirit and social capital that capitalism has created was destroyed by government intervention.

I always get funny looks when I suggest that charity is a part of capitalism and not socialism.

Apparently people think the government organizes charities like Habitat for Humanity (which actually has a division for powering through government regulations that hinder them).

[quote]orion wrote:
In truth, however, even in the modern era of universal government welfare payments we can still find people living in ?Dickensian? conditions?for one obvious instance, the Australian Aborigines.

[/quote]

This shocking situation didn’t merely occur in spite of universal government welfare. It was directly caused by it.

[quote]orion wrote:
I am posting this because Vroom posts again and again and again
that only government can protect people against injury or illness, as if no infinitely more efficient system had ever existed and as if we had to accept servitude to not have people dying on the streets.
[/quote]

LOL. What a tard.

Hey, if you actually live in the states, get the fuck off the forums, go stand in line, and vote.

On a more serious note, things change over time.

You can pine away for society of the past, a monetary system of the past, and whatever else of the past you like – perhaps even a feudal society.

However, the rest of us live in the realities of today and what’s available, realistically, needs to be based on where we are now.

If you want to slowly deconstruct government, then it’s certainly possible, but I don’t see anyone (who gets any votes) running on that platform.

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a more serious note, things change over time.

You can pine away for society of the past, a monetary system of the past, and whatever else of the past you like – perhaps even a feudal society.

However, the rest of us live in the realities of today and what’s available, realistically, needs to be based on where we are now.

If you want to slowly deconstruct government, then it’s certainly possible, but I don’t see anyone (who gets any votes) running on that platform.[/quote]

Many of us are living in the realities of today watching the growing national debt of almost 11 trillion climb worrying what will happen to ourselves, our kids, and our kid’s kids. More government programs are not going to help the situation.

I think it’s extremely arrogant to assume those who accept government’s current role “live in the now” and those who don’t are foolish and “living in the past”.

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a more serious note, things change over time.

You can pine away for society of the past, a monetary system of the past, and whatever else of the past you like – perhaps even a feudal society.

However, the rest of us live in the realities of today and what’s available, realistically, needs to be based on where we are now.

If you want to slowly deconstruct government, then it’s certainly possible, but I don’t see anyone (who gets any votes) running on that platform.[/quote]

Ron Paul got over a million Primary votes, I know it’s a small percentage, but if you put a million people in one place at one time, it’s a real big number. Also I am regestered independant and my state did not allow me to switch to the republican party in time to vote in a primary.

Therefore in actual numbers of Primary supporters, he may have had closer to 1.5 or 2 million. Again, Small percentage, but large enough to become a political force. Our numbers will continue to grow and we will elect people into congress and the senate, this election, that will help us, “deconstruct” the government back to it’s constitutionally authorized size.

V

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
I am posting this because Vroom posts again and again and again
that only government can protect people against injury or illness, as if no infinitely more efficient system had ever existed and as if we had to accept servitude to not have people dying on the streets.

LOL. What a tard.

Hey, if you actually live in the states, get the fuck off the forums, go stand in line, and vote.[/quote]

I never pretended to live on the US. How is it that there is an “Austria” right under my avatar that nobody seems to see?

Some even think that it is there because I am a Ron Paul fanatic…

Strange…

Anyway, and arguments coming from your side or just childish insults?

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a more serious note, things change over time.

You can pine away for society of the past, a monetary system of the past, and whatever else of the past you like – perhaps even a feudal society.

However, the rest of us live in the realities of today and what’s available, realistically, needs to be based on where we are now.

If you want to slowly deconstruct government, then it’s certainly possible, but I don’t see anyone (who gets any votes) running on that platform.[/quote]

I do not think that slow deconstruction is an option any more.

To many people in power benefit from a federal reserve, welfare programs, socialized education and so on.

Plus, downsizing the government would lead to a world of hurt that people would blame the free markets for when it would just be government withdrawal symptoms.

All that remains is to educate people to such a degree ,that the inevitable accusation that capitalism failed when the system finally crashes, will be ignored and people do not make the exact same mistakes starting over.

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
I am posting this because Vroom posts again and again and again
that only government can protect people against injury or illness, as if no infinitely more efficient system had ever existed and as if we had to accept servitude to not have people dying on the streets.

LOL. What a tard.

Hey, if you actually live in the states, get the fuck off the forums, go stand in line, and vote.[/quote]

You don’t get it. You never have, and you never will.

Your, not-so-clever attempt at sarcasm is woefully misplaced, as orion never once mentioned the US. You can’t post without pretending to be a citizen of the US.

Pathetic.

Oh fuck it I just realized that I’m debating with a Canadian.

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
I am posting this because Vroom posts again and again and again
that only government can protect people against injury or illness, as if no infinitely more efficient system had ever existed and as if we had to accept servitude to not have people dying on the streets.

LOL. What a tard.

Hey, if you actually live in the states, get the fuck off the forums, go stand in line, and vote.[/quote]

Austria is not one of our states, Vroomy. Once we have a dictatorship here though, Quebec and Ontario will be our colonies. Does that count?

The Dems have to employ all those illiterate and innumerate bums who voted 'em in at something, right? Put 'em in the army and invade Canada.

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a more serious note, things change over time.

You can pine away for society of the past, a monetary system of the past, and whatever else of the past you like – perhaps even a feudal society.

However, the rest of us live in the realities of today and what’s available, realistically, needs to be based on where we are now.

If you want to slowly deconstruct government, then it’s certainly possible, but I don’t see anyone (who gets any votes) running on that platform.[/quote]

Have you been reading John Dewey (the educator) again?

"John Dewey, the Modern Father of Experiential Education

Dewey is lauded as the greatest educational thinker of the 20th century. His theory of experience continues to be much read and discussed not only within education, but also in psychology and philosophy. Dewey’s views continue to strongly influence the design of innovative educational approaches, such as in outdoor education, adult training, and experiential therapies.

In the 1920’s / 1930’s, John Dewey became famous for pointing out that the authoritarian, strict, pre-ordained knowledge approach of modern traditional education was too concerned with delivering knowledge, and not enough with understanding students’ actual experiences."

In other words, “We can’t worry about how we got here! We just have to deal with the reality of the moment!! Introducing concepts is pure evil!!”

How are Aboriginal and Victorian economies anything like today’s global economy? Reverting to this type of system would utterly destroy economic growth. Talented people would be stuck living wherever their friendly society was located; a corporation’s ability to restructure/relocate would be decimated.

Also, today’s medical advances make it impossible for a small group of people to completely cover any type of modern treatment. Just one person with cancer or a special-needs child would bankrupt the arrangement.

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
How are Aboriginal and Victorian economies anything like today’s global economy? Reverting to this type of system would utterly destroy economic growth. Talented people would be stuck living wherever their friendly society was located; a corporation’s ability to restructure/relocate would be decimated.

Also, today’s medical advances make it impossible for a small group of people to completely cover any type of modern treatment. Just one person with cancer or a special-needs child would bankrupt the arrangement.[/quote]

Not if the members all pitched in for group medical insurance. The modern medical world can still be tackled with a power of the group mentality, this is how employers buy thier insurance.

V

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
How are Aboriginal and Victorian economies anything like today’s global economy? Reverting to this type of system would utterly destroy economic growth. Talented people would be stuck living wherever their friendly society was located; a corporation’s ability to restructure/relocate would be decimated.

Also, today’s medical advances make it impossible for a small group of people to completely cover any type of modern treatment. Just one person with cancer or a special-needs child would bankrupt the arrangement.[/quote]

So you cannot imagine a life without government.

Which was my point.

However, if human beings are able to solve these problems, are they more likely to solve them in the private or the public sector?

Those societies would have involved with the times and I dare say they would have made use of modern devices like the “telephon” and the “Internet” and work around some of the problems you describe above.

[quote]orion wrote:
I never pretended to live on the US. How is it that there is an “Austria” right under my avatar that nobody seems to see?

Some even think that it is there because I am a Ron Paul fanatic…

Strange…

Anyway, and arguments coming from your side or just childish insults?
[/quote]

I know you aren’t from the US, and neither am I, but I WAS suggesting that those who ARE get off their asses and vote. How damned complex is that?

You, and some others, represent a fringe in society. Yes, a lot of people are disaffected by the republicans losing their fiscal conservatism, but as soon as they rediscover the path they should be on, the fringe candidates will once again be relegated to the fringe.

Their popularity just demonstrates that somebody has lost their way.