Once again, Don Boudreaux rebuts those who are eager to defend collectivism, in this case, people who maintain that we can’t draw any lessons about the success the Pilgrims enjoyed after they abandoned socialism in favor of private property and free enterprise.
25 November 2010
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
E.J. Dionne believes that we free-market types mischaracterize the pilgrims’
experience when we point out that they enjoyed no abundance until after Plymouth colony abandoned communal ownership for individual private property (“On Thanksgiving, remembering our common bonds,” Nov. 25). Mr. Dionne cites Rush Limbaugh as the chief spokesman for the free-market view, and he directs us to New York Times writer Kate Zernike’s recent article for evidence against this free-market interpretation.
If Mr. Dionne is dissatisfied with Mr. Limbaugh’s interpretation of the economy of early Plymouth colony, he can read Yale University law professor Robert Ellickson’s account of the same in a celebrated article, “Property in Land,” published in 1993 in the Yale Law Journal.*
As for Ms. Zernike, she argues that no lessons about collectivism versus
individualism can be drawn from Plymouth colony’s experience because that
colony’s initial arrangement wasn’t really collectivist. She bases her claim on
the fact that collective ownership was demanded by the private investors who
funded the colony.
Ms. Zernike’s fact, though, is beside the point – which is that collective
ownership and ‘share-and-share alike’ arrangements (outside of the immediate family) give individuals weak incentives to produce and strong incentives to free-ride on the efforts of others. The fact that Plymouth colony was a private joint venture between Plymouth colonists and London investors changes this point not one iota: collectivism is a turkey of an arrangement.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
