The Ridgewood Blog Brings a Free Market Laissez-faire Point of View to Local, New Jersey State and National Issues.
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
By Richard J. Maybury
Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood Nj, In a collection of intimate interviews with some of America’s most provocative black conservative thinkers, Uncle Tom takes a unique look at being black in America. Featuring media personalities, ministers, civil rights activists, veterans, and a self-employed plumber, the film explores their personal journeys of navigating the world as one of America’s most misunderstood political and cultural groups: The American Black Conservative. In this eye-opening film from Director Justin Malone and Executive Producer Larry Elder, Uncle Tom examines self-empowerment, individualism and rejecting the victim narrative. Uncle Tom shows us a different perspective of American History from this often ignored and ridiculed group. Written by Ryder Ansell.
There are people in high places of government, of wealth, of influence – that all want to see their power at least maintained and, if possible, increased. A corollary of their goal is to reduce/remove the power of the individual citizen as much as possible. Since the power of the individual cannot be reduced to zero while the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution is in effect, they seek to diminish the effect of that Amendment by any means possible.
Every THINKING person knows that gun laws only penalize law-abiding citizens; criminals do not, by definition, obey laws – they are CRIMINALS. But the passage of more strict gun laws in NJ is not without some intended effects:
1-it further chips away at the 2nd Amendment
2-it makes Murphy look like he’s “taking action” against “gun crime”.
3-it makes older law-abiding gun owners more apt to move out of NJ – which would be wonderful for the Left.
NB – for a high-level view of where the USA is as a country today, look up “The Tytler Cycle of Democracy”.
REMEMBER: it’s not the wand, it’s the magician…
Ridgewood High School Principal Calls “Student Led Walkout ” a “powderkeg”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/21/2015 11:45 -0400
Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,
I got into an early discussion today about America. I came to the conclusion that today’s America* is an ugly fraud. We wave the flag adorned with stars and stripes, we reminisce about a glorious history, we point to the constitution, the founding fathers and freedom and then we include ourselves as part of this legacy; as though we have some natural right to call ourselves by the same name. But is that true? Do Americans* by way of history simply get to partake in the greatness of our past? Do we get to say we are somehow part of all the great things done by those who came before us?
Libertarianism’s Untroubling Aristocracy of Self-Control
by Pamela J. Stubbart
Pamela Stubbart theorizes that a no-holds-barred libertarian political order would benefit everyone, not only those born with exceptional self-control.
All prospective political orders, by their existence and maintenance, would create advantages for some people (as compared to the baseline of no state having been formed at all, or the baseline of some pre-existing state). Indeed, that is a main point of having a state at all: systematically conferring benefits (construed broadly) that are justly due to citizens. It is a mistake to think that any state is or could be “neutral,” in the sense of benefiting everyone literally equally. Rather, we use a normatively-loaded conception of “fairness” to evaluate whether any possible set of benefits and burdens to citizens is distributed equitably.
That being said, consider the claim that a libertarian system (i.e. one created by a government significantly smaller and/or less active in most citizens’s individual, properly private lives) would generate a “self-control aristocracy.” Although this objection has undoubtedly been raised many times, I find Joseph Heath’s statement of the “self-control aristocracy” objection to libertarianism particularly straightforward and succinct.
Because I am self-conscious about my membership in the self-control aristocracy, I am acutely aware of the fact that, when I think about questions of “individual liberty” in society, I come to it with a particular set of class interests. That is because I stand to benefit much more from an expansion of the space of individual liberty than the average person does—because I have greater self-control. So I recognize that, while a 24-hour beer store would be great for me, it would be a mixed blessing for others… What does this have to do with libertarianism? It is important because every academic proponent of libertarianism—understood loosely, as any doctrine that assigns individual liberty priority over other political values—is a member of the self-control aristocracy. As a result, they are advancing a political ideal that benefits themselves to a much greater extent than it benefits other people. In most cases, however, they do so naively, because they do not recognize themselves as members of an elite, socially-dominant group, that stands to benefit disproportionately. They think of liberty as something that creates an equal benefit for all. (Or, to the extent that it fails to benefit some people, it is entirely the fault of those people, for failing to exercise sufficient self-control.)
Indeed, humanized portrayals of the realities of willpower are sometimes clearly aimed at making us feel as though our own capacities to make good choices are deeply fragile (our membership in the “self-control aristocracy” only tenuous), and that poor people whosedecision fatigue leads them astray are owed our sympathy. High time preference, learned helplessness, and the apparent rationality of objectively poor choices…there but for the grace go we.
Au contraire, understanding self-control as not just fragile but rather as learned and malleable is the proper response to the science. Practicing and developing more willpower won’t make every poor person rich, but it will make the importance of willpower and self-regulation into a largely self-fulfilling prophecy. One likely upshot of the incremental (“growth”) theory of intelligence is that people who see their failure of self-control as inevitable (fixed by genetics and circumstances) will be much less likely to do the things that will help them to choose better the next time. Heath may be correct that many individual libertarians have this blind spot with respect to their self-control privilege, but it is not an inherent philosophical difficulty of libertarianism.
This is not to deny that there are individual differences in capacity for willpower and self-control: almost certainly there are. But these differences are not revealed by simply observing how people behave in one situation or at one slice of time and inferring immutable personality traits from that. Indeed, Walter Mischel’s now-legendary “marshmallow test” may have done just as much to obscure understanding of self-control as it did to elucidate its nature. If you recall, the marshmallow test confronted small children with the difficult choice between two marshmallows later or one marshmallow now. Delaying gratification was found to be correlated with other positive outcomes even much later in life (e.g. higher SAT score, lower BMI).
At first blush, the marshmallow test’s implications seem as clear as day: we can see differences in the innate willpower of even preschool-aged children, and these children carry their willpower (or lack thereof) with them throughout the rest of their lives, for better or for worse. If this were the simple truth, we would rightly worry that a more laissez-faire regime than we have presently would do more to create than rectify misery and injustice for citizens (most of whom must, on this view, be rather unremarkable in the innate willpower department).
But that’s not the simple truth. Though a few kids may be natural self-control superstars, those who “passed” the marshmallow test by delaying gratification often showed overt signs of effort. Coping mechanisms like distracting oneself with another object or body part helped the gratification-delayers to take focus off the immediate pleasure of one marshmallow and to reach their self-defined goal of waiting for two. Although these self-control boosting tactics surely happened largely subconsciously in the small children, they may have been learned in the first place and are surely learnable.
For this reason, suggestions about how to improve willpower (“do your hardest work earliest in the day!” “don’t shop on an empty stomach!”) are not merely silly “lifehacks”appropriate only for elites. Notice that some self-control self-help tips already comprise the psychologically-accurate core often unfortunately hidden in exchanges about, for instance, why poor people don’t eat well. It may be true that no one (poor or wealthy) makes good food choices when they’re that tired and in a hurry. This reflects proper humility with respect to the limits of human willpower. But those urging others to “plan meals ahead of time” and “make a food budget” are correct, too. These are reasonable pre-commitment measures that really can enhance even a tired and hurried person’s ability to make good choices.
A libertarian world may be one in which citizens with self-control most fully reap the benefits of self-control, but it’s also a world where citizens are best-positioned to develop it. In other words, a libertarian world’s systematic (but organic) benefit to those with self-control is a feature of that world, not a bug. How people respond to policy by developing willpower (or not) is to some extent an empirical question, and we can study these matters empirically. But is it any wonder, for instance, that Americans stopped saving when they had become confident that big government would take care of them forever? A less generous, means-tested retirement benefit might seemingly slight a few people on the margin, but it also could help to recreate a society of savers. Either “libertarian paternalist” policies or unilateral individual practices (like opting in to a automatic monthly savings account contribution) can get us there. And this is the power of allowing conditions to reward virtuous behavior: you get more virtue.
Citizens improving their willpower is a positive-sum game, and government can encourage this game to flourish by largely leaving untouched the institutions and structures that inherently reward delaying gratification. This does constitute, in some sense, a systematic benefit of libertarianism bestowed (or allowed to fall) upon those who do achieve and maintain self-control throughout their lives. But a large degree of self-control is prosocial (good for self and others), widely available, and conducive to long-term societal stability. Sometimes the government helps citizens to develop their moral and intellectual powers by providing materially, as in the case of education. In the case of self-control, the goal may be better reached through declining to provide. If this creates a “self-control aristocracy”—merely a group of people whose natures and choices have caused them to develop and benefit from the exercise of willpower—then long live the self-control aristocracy. This is one aristocracy into which one needn’t be born.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarianisms-untroubling-aristocracy-self-control?utm_content=buffer19c96&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.
The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.
The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.
The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
What happened?
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.
Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
* * * * *
Mr. Maybury writes on investments.
This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.
The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.
The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.
The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
What happened?
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.
Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
* * * * *
Mr. Maybury writes on investments.
This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.
https://mises.org/daily/336
>
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.
The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.
The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.
The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
What happened?
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.
Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
* * * * *
Mr. Maybury writes on investments.
This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.
