The Mayflower Compact; How People Set About Governing Themselves?

Question

Pondering foibles of the US economy and government, and possible wholesome direction for changes:

Starchild has suggested that what we (USA) currently have is not really capitalism at all, but more something called "corporatism," which actually stifles many positive qualities of capitalism (if I understood correctly?)

O'Tink brings up the need for carrying out changes thoughtfully, idealistically, from your finest beliefs...so as not to descend into chaos opening to desperate leadership as we saw with Napoleon, and then the 20th century disasters...

                                                                      * * *

Well I just learned that the Mayflower Compact of 1620 is considered a seminal American text, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...people who were starving/dehydrated, terrified and ill (two had already died), cooped on a fragile wooden ship journey oceanic for triple the time they had anticipated, with internal rebellion threatening. Plus it's November. They were now in sight of land (Cape Cod), and had the foresight to put together this simple (but innovative for its time) document that, apparently, helped carry them through the coming tribulations and even to help define the nation-to-come. 

                                                                       * * *

Here is the text, do you have any more thoughts on how the US could evolve its economic system and/or government more in keeping with its heritage?

"Having undertaken for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do these present solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

Answer 1

"...to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

Well, the problems begin when not everyone agrees that the laws are just and equal, even when a majority has voted for those laws. And of course the radicals of today, as in the past, will not submit and obey.

Comments

Other Tink...would you consider posting for discussion some of your information/contemplations on population control? Seven billion now...I saw your mention (responding to Marianne) that you see this as underlying essentially ALL current problems we face...

It's politically PC charged, of course; I read recently that in the US, the entire birth rate overage to death rate is accounted for by the immigrant population...

China's program was successful, quite draconian however...

* * *

Incidentally, I have been (a little bit, in spare time) looking on YouTube at climate change research; and so far I see nothing which, in my own limited experience, is scientifically convincing in favour. 

---

@ Virginia,

Regarding population control, at the very least, there should be as much publicity about it as there is about climate change, but of course there won't be for PC reasons, namely that the West is the evil despoiler and the Third World is the virtuous underdog. 

And yes, the predictions of climate change are not scientifically well founded, just as the "nuclear winter" models were not. Needless to say, Dyson didn't think much of them either (see the very end of this article).

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4244

"The physicist Freeman Dyson perhaps described it best when he said "(TTAPS is) an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight... Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" "

---

O'Tink...I did read the nuclear winter article...it's another concept I have (of course) heard of, but not paid much attention as It does seem - again - there are more immediate concerns, both now and in case of nuclear war. However, perhaps I begin to see why you take an interest in this and global warming, is it because of all the brouhaha distracting people's attention from more immediate concerns? Or perhaps the scientists creating publicity for themselves, with dramatic but unprovable scenarios?

* * *

Do you have thoughts as to how to approach the over-population concern? I did note your observation about the need for publicity...

---

@ Virginia,

I'm afraid publicity is the well-nigh insurmountable part. A majority in the UN General Assembly won't want to hear of it, and neither will many blame-America-first progressives, or indeed many of those conservatives who are opposed to birth control.

And like Dyson, to say that climate change is not the most pressing problem is risky, because, to paraphrase Dyson, who wants to be accused of favoring the flooding of all the coastal cities in the world?

---

You know O'Tink, I just want to say to you...our discussion has given me a new perspective... even though I never did go all wild-eyed over climate change, I still assumed it was correct and reported responsibly...now I am wondering if all that drama, correct or not (and perhaps questionable), might distract from other more urgent concerns.

---

Virginia, here's a chart that's VERY revealing, and something that's hardly mentioned by the Al Gore contingent: the increases in CO2 emissions since 1980 have been exclusively caused by increases in emissions from the 'Developing World'. The emissions from the 'Developed World' have shown no increase since then.

In 1980, the emissions from the Developing World were about 20% of total CO2 emissions; in 2013, they were about 60%.

I think Hillary did broach this subject when she visited India as Sec'y of State.  She was told (in diplomatic language, of course) to go to hell. 

---

O'Tink I have actually read about this...that the developing countries are the biggest polluters, and their hackles go up if they are asked to mitigate...yes, the chart reveals a whole lot...

Their point of view being, that the First World went wild without restraint to develop all their wealth, why should the Third World hold back, now is THEIR opportunity for all that good stuff...?!??

---

@ Virginia,

Why should the Third World hold back?  Well, Al Gore should explain to them that if carbon emissions are as dangerous as he says, and since there are about 5 times as many Third Worlders as there are First Worlders, if the Third World keeps increasing CO2 levels at the current rate, their emissions will not level off until they are producing about 75 billion tonnes/year in 2070. That would mean total emissions would be about 90 billion tonnes/year, almost 3 times what they are now.

So if Al Gore thinks what's happening now will lead to disaster, it will be 3x worse in 55 years unless the Third World holds back. Quite obviously, the Third World is either suicidal or it does not take Gore seriously, most likely the latter.

Even if both the 1st and 3rd Worlds (unrealistically) cut their projected emissions by half, then by 2070, total emissions would still be about 30% higher than today.

---

O'Tink...here is the idea I am currently considering, largely based on our discussions here...in fact, Marianne mentioned something like this in her answer, this same question...

"we should rather look into concrete damages and evidence, and try to restore as much as possible what can be saved:"

Okay, my idea (for the moment, anyway): There is so much we can SEE going wrong - so why not try to address those things we can see clearly, and not get all snarled up in global warming as such? At least for me, so far, I cannot find any science either way that seems well done! Although I am still planning to check in on James Lovelock, of the Gaia Hypothesis, and see what he has...(environmentalism never much of an interest to me, although I do realize it is important!)

And then whether or not there even IS such a thing as global warming catastrophic, that should resolve itself automatically as we take care of all the smaller things we CAN definitely demonstrate environmentally...

* * *

And frankly, I don't know what to do about the Third World industrialism pollution.

---

@ Virginia,

Oh, the Third World says it has a solution...

And as we might guess, it involves money... LOTS of it.

https://qz.com/570638/developing-countries-want-3-5-trillion-to-achieve-climate-goals-and-one-nation-wants-most-of-it/

And then, mysteriously, when the goal isn't met, more money will be required.

---

O'Tink, I basically read just the first few lines of your link...hoping to spend more time on it later - but tell me, do you think the following is any kind parallel?

In the 1990's, in Washington State, there were environmental changes to timber laws. Long story...but basically, people who had held timber stands for decades could no longer suddenly clear-cut, leave behind a devastated ecosystem and run out with their profits. This meant those who had invested in a stand of timber for their retirement, for instance, now had no access to their 'nest egg.'

I was myself raised on timber dollars...as were most of my generation here, and I was advocating STRONGLY for conservation; I did (and still do) feel that had the resources been properly managed, the forests could have provided us our living in perpetuity.

HOWEVER, looking at the fairness of this 'nest-egg' issue, I did end up feeling those timber-holders should have been grandfathered in, somehow. That the timber owners were correct, if the government wanted to change rules mid-stream, then they should buy out these timber-holders and not just pull the rug out from under them. The problem, of course, was the huge public $$$ expenditure that would have required.

* * *

As for your Third World folks, I now wonder if we even need to invoke 'global warming' here; the First World has proven how industrial pollution degrades living conditions IMMEDIATELY. 

Again, even if these ideas are accurate, I don't have an answer.

---

Hi, Virginia,

There may be a parallel in the example you cite, but with at least one or two important differences. Grandfathering in the timber holders would not have cost any money, and perhaps regulations could have been put in place to plant a few saplings for every tree cut (if such regulations did not already exist).  And if the timber holders were to be bought out, i doubt that the cost would have amounted to 100% of one year's state government expenditures.

The $3.5 trillion the Developing World is asking, on the other hand, IS 100% of one year of the US federal budget, or about 50% of the Developed World's budgets, so it's a non-starter from the outset.  Furthermore, buyouts of the timber holders would have been made to individuals, and that would have been the end of the matter.  Payoffs to the Developing World would be to governments (rather than individuals) where corruption is rife (half the money probably would not REALLY be spent on climate control), with no guarantees that they wouldn't hold the West up for more money when the goals were not met. Like most any government program, the final cost overruns would greatly exceed what the original promised estimates were.

So I don't have an answer either.  Humankind may well have to endure a catastrophic population decline on Nature's terms rather than its own, much as happened in the years of the Black Death.

---

O'Tink, IF the money to the Third World would really 'resolve' the situation, I would almost have said let's consider it...for reasons you allude, i.e., averting a catastrophic population decline on Nature's terms...

But after posting the timber example, I did go back to a book I read recently about the Mumbai undercity...and one thing we here in USA might not easily grasp is the depth of corruption, bribery etc. in other places...not that we are free of that here, of course...but from what I have read, it would be something of a miracle if even AS MUCH AS one-half the money actually went for the intended purpose...

* And just a comment on our local timber situation; government HAD to do something, because catastrophic 100-year floods come along on just "my-own" river about every five years now...larger than anything ever seen here...and it is becoming clearer those floods relate to stripping the land of the rainwater-storing capacity of mature forests...the land now acting like the desert washes/arroyos...but the timberland owners were the ones who took all that on the chin financially, when they were no longer allowed to strip-log, clear-cut their own land.

Answer 2

Yes, Virginia and T(h)ink, the problem with all these conflicting theories is that religious and less religious principles and rules - and neither the great organisations fighting for human, life and environmental causes - can find a sustainable solution, as in all the cases, there are fanatic, often abusive, extreme groups or individuals who are distorting, sponsoring or buying actions and campaigns (or frauding), and well thought programmes to improve and safeguard sustainable issues are often degenerating, failing or abandoned due to interfering interests, lacking support, crimes, disasters and other emergencies.

The real problem is indeed the incompatibility of certain mentalities, beliefs, cultures, identities, philosophies and "traditions", and, of course, strategies, interests and power.

And human overpopulation - with the resulting industries, mass cultures, breeding and productions, "standards", overconsumption and overwasting (especially plastics, hazardous and toxic residues), is polluting, intoxicating and depleting important natural sites and resources, biodiversity, health and society.

The aggravating elements are too big ambitions, neglect, cheating, greed, perversity, megalomania, hate, crimes and corruption.

But if evoking "climate change" and various theories (we can't deny changes, but they seem to forget about the fast depletion of the environment and the plundering of vital resources), and we should rather look into concrete damages and evidence, and try to restore as much as possible what can be saved:

Pollution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-marine-pollution/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_contamination

Toxic waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste

Deforestation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

Depletion of ecosystems: http://study.com/academy/lesson/resource-depletion-its-negative-effects-on-ecosystems.html

Soil erosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_erosion

Desertification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

etc., etc.

T(h)ink and Virginia: there are indeed priorities and emergencies, which are hidden behind certain campaigns.

But there are also great little people who are showing the example:

Comments

Marianne, the video is very heartening...learning through Sister O'Tink about the global warming quandary that everybody just fights over, that is discouraging...you cannot trust the scientists and "experts" to come up with research we can rely upon!

But you have reminded me again, I think...the solution lies with the little people, like you and me and Yin Yuzhen...we ourselves can come to know what to do...600,000 trees, it's so wonderful...!

* * *

btw, the desertification...a form of that has happened here in my RAINY homeland - the timber industry that should have supported us forever. When the land is stripped of trees, clearcut, you get terrible floods, landslides...all of that, plus people out of work, hungry... even the climate is affected, prolly.

---

Yes, Virginia, sadly enough, we can observe the damages caused by human activities, like the urban sprawl, for instance, and here, we get less rain than formerly ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

---

Marianne, I actually looked quite a while at the Urban Sprawl link...correlating with my own experience, growing up in the 1950's in a forest-riverine-wilderness neighborhood where there could not have been more than 100 people total...and then what we are facing today, so daunting!

Late Edit: I just checked on the current population of my old neighborhood Willapa, and it is now all the way up to 210 people! I may go back there someday...(sigh)

---

Yes, Virginia, I am not surprised, as this is nearly everywhere the case.

Here's, the example of Geneva:

https://na.unep.net/atlas/onePlanetManyPeople/downloads/urbanPosters/Geneva_WED_GRID.pdf

---

Marianne...I read the whole PDF...sounds like they do comprehend the situation, looking for ways to concentrate population density inside the city, but still the information does not seem to hold much hopefulness for good solutions...(sigh)

My primary impression of Switzerland still hearkens back to the 1950's when I read Johanna Spyri's book HEIDI...open space among beautiful mountains!

---

Lol - yes, there is much beauty, but behind the idyllic sights, a majority of small farmers, especially in the mountains, struggled and drudged in precarity to survive.

---

The history of much of humankind, Marianne! 

I am very glad for my simple childhood in rural 1950's, but now appreciate very much the worldwide digital connectivity...the search engines, knowledge in seconds (sometimes questionable quality of knowledge, however!)

---

Yes, it is, Virginia, and it is true also, that the worldwide digital connectivity (citing your excellent definition) is indeed very useful, though, like with literature, news, knowledge and people, we need to check and compare many sources, as many too one-sided declarations and beliefs cannot be relied upon.

---

...and I must always be careful, because I tend to be quite gullible, and trusting...

Answer 3

Hi Virginia,

Well, I guess that depends upon *which part* of the heritage of the United States you mean. Your quoting of the Mayflower Compact brings to mind part of the story of that early colony founded by the pilgrims, and the origins of Thanksgiving, that most of us didn't learn in school:

"It's wrong to say that America was founded by capitalists. In fact, America was founded by socialists who had the humility to learn from their initial mistakes and embrace freedom. One of the earliest and arguably most historically significant North American colonies was Plymouth Colony, founded in 1620 in what is now known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. As I've outlined in greater detail here before (Lessons From a Capitalist Thanksgiving), the original colony had written into its charter a system of communal property and labor. As William Bradford recorded in his Of Plymouth Plantation, a people who had formerly been known for their virtue and hard work became lazy and unproductive. Resources were squandered, vegetables were allowed to rot on the ground and mass starvation was the result. And where there is starvation, there is plague. After 2 1/2 years, the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property. The colony survived and thrived and the abundance which resulted was what was celebrated at that iconic Thanksgiving feast."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/21/how-a-failed-commune-gave-us-what-is-now-thanksgiving/#7f5b456567e5

Comments

Starchild! THAT is fascinating...

Here is what I read (approximately), in the book MAYFLOWER (by Nathaniel Philbrick)...the gardens were indeed communal, and the people were starving - year after year.

Then Governor Bradford had the brilliant idea of assigning to everybody their OWN separate garden plot, and THEY GOT TO KEEP whatever they grew there.

Well, the women who had been staying at home, keeping house and caring for the children, NOW they really got down into helping in their own private garden, husband wife and little kids too - and lo and behold, no more starvation, adequate food for all...

It's a great lesson...now in 2017, we don't know where we are going next...but I am going to believe it will be okay and good!

* * *

But I think your point is very well taken; the government-imposed and dictator-controlled "socialism/communism," that does not work, has failed drastically in every society it was tried.

btw, glad to see you peeking in now and then, whenever you can...