3 ms·
> but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist
by sangnoir 2y ago
> but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century
Are you seriously suggesting the voter pool received no monetary benefits from the government before 1920? President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act in 1862 - does getting 160 acres from uncle Sam for a token fee count as "monetary benefit" in your books? The act grant was for "heads of households" 21 years and older. I bet there were similar land grants in the original colonies predate the declaration of independence.
- TeaBrain 2y agoNo, of course I wouldn't argue that, and I not only did not, but it also has nothing to do with what I mentioned Thiel was referring to. I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century. The modern beneficiary system is what is being referred to by Thiel.
- sangnoir 2y ago> I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century I posit that the distinction is arbitrary. There is no qualitative difference between civil war pensions of 1862 vs the G.I. bill of 1944. If there was a change in government doctrine, I'd love to see concrete contrasts rather than hand-waving. Or perhaps Thiel's gripe is quantitative rather than qualitative?