What do you think about this old Soviet policy?

RightinNYC · 01-31-08, 07:25 PM

So I was doing some reading about this old Soviet policy and I thought I'd get your views. In the 1930's Soviet Russia had some economic problems (like the rest of the world). In particular, the price of wheat was dropping, causing people to lose their jobs. As a result, they passed a law telling everyone exactly how much grain they could grow to sell. One guy grew a little more than his allotment, which he used to feed his family. Someone found out, reported him to the KGB, and he actually got heavily fined for growing the extra food. He argued that the Soviet Regime didn't have the power to tell him that he couldn't grow food to feed his family, but the high court said that his right to feed himself was less important than the nation's power to control how much grain was grown.

The reason I'm asking this is because I've heard some professors suggest that this is a decent policy and that the federal government could do something like this here if there were significant enough economic concerns. What do you all think - would it be fair for the federal government to tell a guy how much food he could grow and punish him for growing extra to feed his family?

new coup for you · 01-31-08, 07:30 PM

Are you having some kind of Republican spasm? No one is going to defend Soviet agricultural and distrubution policy.

We all know the question isn't fair: central control cannot provide for your family so it's not a question of the individual over society.

The silenced majority · 01-31-08, 07:38 PM

A commissar in the Soviet Union went out to one of those state collective farms, grabbed the first worker he came to and said, "Comrade, how are the crops?"

"'Oh,' he said, 'Comrade Commissar, if we could put the potatoes in one pile, they would reach the foot of God,'" and the commissar said, "This is the Soviet Union. There is no God." and he said, "That's all right, there are no potatoes.'" ~ Ronald Reagan

RightinNYC · 01-31-08, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

Are you having some kind of Republican spasm? No one is going to defend Soviet agricultural and distrubution policy.

We all know the question isn't fair: central control cannot provide for your family so it's not a question of the individual over society.

Fair enough...

Gibberish · 01-31-08, 07:45 PM

The individual right to feed one's family trumps the government's right to control wheat growth. Citizens should not be forced to starve, die, or lose their individual rights for the supposed betterment of the whole nation.

mikhail · 01-31-08, 07:46 PM

The soviets did have some very great ideas.For example railways run by children as part of a program to teach them work etc i believe the one in Hungary is still going.

The disaster for Communism was very bad for adults but if they could take some of the ideas and use them for children they would be brilliant.It may sound strange to you children being able to run a railway but it can be done.

new coup for you · 01-31-08, 07:47 PM

the disaster of communism was that it was like every other extreme ideology: inflexible and naive. However, the opposite extreme is just as bad.

Gibberish · 01-31-08, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

the disaster of communism was that it was like every other extreme ideology: inflexible and naive. However, the opposite extreme is just as bad.

Extreme in any ideology is bad.

new coup for you · 01-31-08, 07:53 PM

what are you talking about. Don't you believe in OUR SAVIOR RON PAUL? don't you UNDERSTAND that there is BUT ONE interpretation of the HOLY CONSTITUTION and that OUR SAVIOR RON PAUL is the font of that sacred understanding?

That the HOLY CONSTITUTION is not a document that can be interpretted but a SACRED AND ORDAINED TEXT that only one such as OUR SAVIOR RON PAUL can translate for us poor naive peons?

TOJ · 01-31-08, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

So I was doing some reading about this old Soviet policy and I thought I'd get your views. In the 1930's Soviet Russia had some economic problems (like the rest of the world). In particular, the price of wheat was dropping, causing people to lose their jobs. As a result, they passed a law telling everyone exactly how much grain they could grow to sell. One guy grew a little more than his allotment, which he used to feed his family. Someone found out, reported him to the KGB, and he actually got heavily fined for growing the extra food. He argued that the Soviet Regime didn't have the power to tell him that he couldn't grow food to feed his family, but the high court said that his right to feed himself was less important than the nation's power to control how much grain was grown.

The reason I'm asking this is because I've heard some professors suggest that this is a decent policy and that the federal government could do something like this here if there were significant enough economic concerns. What do you all think - would it be fair for the federal government to tell a guy how much food he could grow and punish him for growing extra to feed his family?

Check out the US peanut quota system.