The Fisherman

By Scott Lilly | May 21, 2014

Once there was an island in the ocean and on that island was a village.  The men of the village fished for their food and the women kept their families well.  That was the way of the village since the beginning of time.

One day a man in the village invented a new way to wiggle his worm so that he could catch more fish.  When he came home from the day’s work early with more fish than before, his wife and children enjoyed the extra time with him – and the plentiful food.

This man continued in prosperity coming home early with plenty of food.  He had enough extra time on his hands to do a few improvements to his hut and even took some fish to a few friends who had been ill from a nasty cold that was going around.

The next day when he came in early as usual with a few extra fish, the village chief greeted him at the dock and told him for the good of the village, the chief would take 10% of his fish so that anyone who felt ill could have food for their families.  Having a good heart, the man gladly gave 10% of his fish and thanked the chief for distributing his fish to his sick friends and a few more that started feeling ill.  The next day he just worked a full day again and brought in 10% more than he normally would and the chief took the fish to those that felt ill.

His family missed seeing him early and they no longer had as much extra food.  But they were still happy and his fish-catching success was celebrated in the village.  Life was good.

It wasn’t long before much of the village was feeling ill and the chief again met the fisherman at the dock after a long day catching fish.  “For the good of the village, I’m going to have to take 20% of your fish.”  Now this upset the man as this meant he would have to work longer days than anyone just to feed his family.  But he knew the village depended on him so he left to fish early and fished long after everyone else went home.  He was now feeding many families in addition to his own.

When winter came and the fishing day was short and cold, fishing was a hard job.  Many fishermen realized they had the option to not go fishing and the chief would bring their family enough fish to be well.  And that’s exactly what they did.  The chief again met the hard-working man at the dock and told him he would now take 30% of his fish.  The man could not believe it and protested.  The chief agreed to hold a village meeting to discuss the new demands of the fisherman.

Seated around the fire at night, the man told his fellow villagers that he could not give more of his fish and he would not work longer to catch more fish.  They scoffed at him telling him he was selfish, uncaring, and lacked compassion.  They demanded more of his fish and instructed the chief to take the fish for the good of the village.  No longer was the successful fisherman celebrated and honored.  He was the subject of scorn – the fisherman who did not want to share his many fish.

With his back aching one day after a long day of fishing, he met the chief at the dock once again and told the chief of an idea he had.  He would teach every able-bodied man in the village his worm-wiggling technique so that everyone could help him feed those that were getting the fish from the chief.  The chief called a meeting to discuss the offer.  To his surprise, nobody wanted to know this technique.  Those that were receiving fish from the chief had no interest in fishing.  Those that were still fishing when the weather was good had no interest in working enough that they too would have to give up their fish.

The fisherman with the worm-wiggling technique went to his grave having worked tirelessly to feed so many people.  Few villagers came to his funeral as they thought he was greedy for always complaining about giving up 30% of his fish.

The day after the man’s funeral the village was hungry.  Many families went with the chief to the dock to greet the fishermen coming in with just enough fish to feed their families.

How will this story end?

Comments (7)
Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 23, 2014 09:57

           You may want to read this:         


  Mitt would have sold the pond to the Chinese.

  "bushishito" would have bombed it.                   

   If "rayguns" "no man in the house" rule had been applied, the men would have been banned from the villiage and the fisherman would have died a different kind of death.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 23, 2014 10:08

Regarding the referenced article by James Madison on Property, it is a valid concept.  However, the story about the fisherman is about work and effort -- not so much as property.  Some humans choose to do as little as is required to survive.  If there is an option to receive free fish, many will choose that option.  Some find wisdom in that kind of survival.  But for a society, that kind of option ought to be severely limited.


As far as how the story might end with different presidential philosophies, I knew I could count on Mr. Zimmerman to provide comic relief!  :-)


Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 27, 2014 10:23

              Considering it was written by the main author of OUR Constitution...



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 27, 2014 10:55

             Bogus non sense of a story whose retelling says plenty about the teller.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 27, 2014 12:53

"Bogus non sense of a story" -- Really?  The story is a simple way to understand the below concept while removing complicated distractions and "magic government pixie dust" that gets in the way of the simple fact of what's going on.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." -- Elmer T. Peterson in the December 9, 1951 The Daily Oklahoman  (Who may or may not have lifted that quote from a Scottish history professor of the 1800's.)


We're $17,000,000,000 in debt.  At what point will we declare our form of democracy a failure and become something else?  $18 Trillion?  $30 Trillion?  Until the rest of the world calls out our insolvency and will not accept the dollar?  Or at what point do we recognize what's going on and fix it?  What happens when democracy fails or how it can be fixed is the missing part of the story.  This can't be solved by "the rich".  Taking 100% of their money only runs the government for a few months.  Then what?

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 27, 2014 18:51


          There is an estimated $30 to 40 trillion in offshore accounts in order to avoid OUR taxes. Confiscate every dollar. Revoke citizenship of offenders.

          OUR debt primarily exists because herr bushishito chose not to fund the two unnecessary WARS or the pill program, etc, etc. Regardless, We are in no danger of default whatsoever as OUR debt to asset + income ratio is low. It would be better if the rich would pay their own way instead of insisting the rest of US "trickle" on them.

               The best solution is to never again elect a "rayguns" republican as President. Bill Clinton raised taxes and payed for "rayguns" failures/excesses, balanced OUR books and created a huge surplus.

                 While "Obamanater has done an excellent job considering the hole bush dug, 'Hillarity will bring US back to a prosperous nation where OUR wealth is shared by all, not just a few.

                   Equal protection requires redistribution.


Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 27, 2014 18:52

                And the story is bogus!



If you wish to comment, please login.