FEE – The culture of coddling and protection we have built is the culprit.
Last week, former Stanford dean Julie Lythcott-Haims made a list of eight skills every 18-year-old should possess. The list ran as follows:
1.An 18-year-old must be able to talk to strangers.
2.An 18-year-old must be able to find his or her way around.
3.An 18-year-old must be able to manage his assignments, workload, and deadlines.
4.An 18-year-old must be able to contribute to the running of a house hold.
5.An 18-year-old must be able to handle interpersonal problems.
6.An 18-year-old must be able to cope with ups and downs.
7.An 18-year-old must be able to earn and manage money.
8.An 18-year-old must be able to take risks.
Straightforward and simple, right?
But according to Lythcott-Haims, the culture of coddling and protection we have built has made an 18-year-old with all of these skills a rare occurrence. Parents’ reluctance to give children chores, let them out of their sight, or even fight their own battles on the playground has, in essence, failed to teach basic responsibility to the next generation.
Author Dorothy Leigh Sayers sensed this same trend away from basic responsibility in her famous 1947 essay “The Lost Tools of Learning.” She noted:
When we think about the remarkably early age at which the young men went up to university in, let us say, Tudor times, and thereafter were held fit to assume responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs, are we altogether comfortable about that artificial prolongation of intellectual childhood and adolescence into the years of physical maturity which is so marked in our own day? To postpone the acceptance of responsibility to a late date brings with it a number of psychological complications which, while they may interest the psychiatrist, are scarcely beneficial either to the individual or to society. [emphasis added]
One doesn’t have to look far to see that today’s children are certainly plagued by “psychological complications.” Is it possible that simple training in responsibility is the pathway out of those problems?
This article was reprinted with permission from Intellectual Takeout
Fee – The widely-accepted “history” of America’s Gilded Age was grossly inaccurate, but it told a compelling story that many fell for hook, line, and sinker.
The widely-accepted “history” of America’s Gilded Age was grossly inaccurate, but it told a compelling story that many fell for hook, line, and sinker.
Culture Gilded Age Robber Barons History Marxism Myths
Note from the President: Burton W. Folsom is more than just my favorite historian. He’s also one of my very best friends. So I admit to some personal bias when I endorse his classic book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, as I’ve done on dozens of occasions. But even if I didn’t know him or didn’t like him, I would still say that it’s one of the best, most insightful books on American business and political history of the last century. The distinction he draws out between “market entrepreneurs” and “political entrepreneurs” has permanently altered historical interpretations of a crucial era in our past—for the better and with increasing effect as the years have gone by since the book’s first edition in 1991.
Now, a new edition—the eighth—makes its appearance with a new final chapter, excerpted here. What you’ll read below is about a third of that chapter, but it’s an excellent sample. Here, Dr. Folsom explores the question of how and why so many historians get the “robber baron” era precisely wrong, with a special focus on the deleterious impact of Matthew Josephson and his error-filled but influential book from the 1930s.
— Lawrence W. Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education
Capitalism Worked, but We Were Told It Didn’t
We study history to learn from it. If we can discover what worked and what didn’t work, we can use this knowledge wisely to create a better future. Studying the triumph of American industry, for example, is important because it is the story of how the United States became the world’s leading economic power. “Free markets worked well; government intervention usually failed.
The years when this happened, from 1865 to the early 1900s, saw the U.S. encourage entrepreneurs indirectly by limiting government. Slavery was abolished and so was the income tax. Federal spending was slashed and federal budgets had surpluses almost every year in the late 1800s. In other words, the federal government created more freedom and a stable marketplace in which entrepreneurs could operate.
To some extent, during the late 1800s—a period historians call the “Gilded Age”—American politicians learned from the past. They had dabbled in federal subsidies from steamships to transcontinental railroads, and those experiments dismally failed. Politicians then turned to free markets as a better strategy for economic development. The world-dominating achievements of Cornelius Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Charles Schwab validated America’s unprecedented limited government. And when politicians sometimes veered off course later with government interventions for tariffs, high income taxes, anti-trust laws, and an effort to run a steel plant to make armor for war—the results again often hindered American economic progress. Free markets worked well; government intervention usually failed.
Why is it, then, that for so many years, most historians have been teaching the opposite lesson? They have made no distinction between political entrepreneurs, who tried to succeed through federal aid, and market entrepreneurs, who avoided subsidies and sought to create better products at lower prices. Instead, most historians have preached that many, if not all, entrepreneurs were “robber barons.” They did not enrich the U.S. with their investments; instead, they bilked the public and corrupted political and economic life in America. Therefore, government intervention in the economy was needed to save the country from these greedy businessmen. To read more click here.
In an episode of the HBO comedy series Crashing, libertarian Penn Jillette offered this provocative opinion:
The most important revolution in human history, more important than agriculture, more important than writing, is the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution came down to these three words: I don’t know.
Jillette added, “No institution, no church, no king, no power structure had ever said in history, I don’t know.”
The Greek historian Thucydides put it this way: “Ignorance is bold, knowledge reserved.”
It’s hard to find a politician willing to say, “I don’t know.” Senator Elizabeth Warren is no exception. Her ignorance is bold. Recently she proposed The Accountable Capitalism Act. Under her proposed law, Warren and others in government will pretend to know much about that which they know nothing—running every large business in America.
The Accountable Capitalism Act
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senator Warren urges Americans to insist “on a new deal.” Under her Accountable Capitalism Act,
Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations.
Click here to read more.
To pick time and date to help at the fair use this link http://www.gakeller.com/fair/2018roster.pdf
To email your pick of time and date copy and paste in your email firstname.lastname@example.org
Mark Crawford, Republican Candidate for NC Senate 49 https://youtu.be/HrOtDXOdaPY
NC State Senator Chuck Edwards https://youtu.be/N5B60xLYOCo
Shad Higgins, Candidate for Buncombe County NC Sheriff https://youtu.be/pb93p42_KFk