Now if the plantations in the islands and the southern colonies were more limited, and free men only employed in working them, the general product would be greater, although the profits to individuals would be less, a circumstance this, which by diminishing opulence in a few, would suppress luxury and vice, and promote that equal distribution of property, which appears best calculated to promote the welfare of society. (Rush, p 44)
I am prone to say that the author was very brave. I am guessing that the author was an abolitionist, and he is saying that if there were less plantations down South and in the West Indies, operated by free men, then the products such as sugar cane and tobacco, may be much greater. In addition, the author is also of the opinion that so many people may not become wealthy. However, such a strategy would suppress greed and discrimination, thus, resulting in a better society.
The author said the above, because of what he saw as the destruction of, and total evil done by slavery, toward other human beings.
I chose this passage because I think all people are created equally, and should be treated accordingly. Furthermore, I also believe that one or two people should not control vast amounts of money and real estate, and at the same time, treat others like crap. I think a millionaire can survive on 10million dollars a year, compared to 9 million. How much money does someone require?
No comments:
Post a Comment