by Benjamin Franklin
I have heard it remarked that the poor in Protestant countries, on the continent of Europe, are generally more industrious than those of Popish countries.
May not the more numerous foundations in the latter for relief of the poor have some effect towards rendering them less provident?
To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but if we provide encouragement for laziness, and support for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance?
Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.
In New England they once thought blackbirds useless, and mischievous to the corn. They made efforts to destroy them. The consequence was, the blackbirds were diminished; but a kind of worm, which devoured their grass, and which the blackbirds used to feed on, increased prodigiously; then, finding their loss in grass much greater than their saving in corn, they wished again for their blackbirds.
[1753]
10 comments:
I had just thought today I needed to qualify the "Protestant work ethic", after writing about the subject on my personal blog.
Although the Protestand work ethic has benefited our sense of responsible behavior toward work, there are many in other countries that work harder than Americans with little or no incentive or reward. So, what is the difference? Free market economies!
The Free Market works along similar lines as mentioned in this post. A natural balancing of the market transpires, whereas, when government "intervenes" too much, and some believe, at all, it disturbs the natural order and brings about more "government interventions" or " solutions".
And whenever government is controlling the market, the elite hold the power over others and their livlihoods. The market it driven by "self interest" which makes for profit and cooperation because of the benefits to both contractual parties. This is "common sense".
But, again, the above entry, and your asessment about the "natural order" and punishment on the poor needs some balance.
I differ as to the origins of any tragedy. We cannot know that, but what do we do about it? That is the question that responsible people ask. And those that are in the place to make those determinations hopefully will come to solutions.
That's cool. Everybody knows that Catholics invented capitalism.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Catholic+Ethic+and+the+Spirit+of+Capitalism.-a015412179
Yes, let's continue to foolishly apply 18th century thinking to 21st century problems.
Though, in some regards, there are memes from the Enlightenment era that have been unwisely discarded.
However, whipping out Franklin to proclaim how all that evil is the bane of do-gooder government in an era where just about all of the technological marvels that have advanced our condition of life are the work of government "controlling the market" — modern computing, the transistor, modem, internet, pharmaceutical research, advanced science, etc.…
Naum
Are you saying that government grants are what makes for the 'creative spirit' because government is the only means to the end of research?
Government also is the means to produce lucrative business prospects, without taking on the expense oneself. You just have to know how to play the system. But, is this ethical to use taxpayer money to support a private company, even when that company is providing a service for the public? That is a personal call of conscience.
And unless government deems it important to investigate, and regulate or control the monies, then there will be not law forbidding such behavior.
...if we provide encouragement for laziness, and support for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance?
Why not argue against [or for] what Franklin actually said, instead of what he didn't?
What did Franklin actually say, then?
And because I don't want to be considered "lazy", I will try to look it up :) !
Franklin was not nearly the do-gooder sunday school type many Mericans take him to be. Here's some of BF's poetry found on the linked site:
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
He s Bowz d.
Been at Barbadoes.
Drunk as a Wheelbarrow.
Burdock d.
Busky.
Buzzey.
Has stole a Manchet out of the
Brewer s Basket.
His head is full of Bees.
Has been in the Bibbing Plot,
drank more than he has
bled.
He s Bungey.
As drunk as a Beggar.
He sees the Bears.
He s kiss d Black Betty.
had a thump over the
head with Sampson s
Jawbone.
Bridgey.
He s kiss d Black Betty! Scandalous.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/06/ben-franklin-dirty-old-man-but-pious.html
Wow! A quote! Neat!
Post a Comment