lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Iran Holds All the Cards in Coming Middle East Conflict With US

Iran has promised retaliation for the assassination of Qassem Suleimani .
Donald Trump said this will lead to a disproportionate response from the US .
One side can deliver on its threats , the other can ’ t , unless it goes nuclear .
“ Our reaction , ” Iranian general Hossein Dehghan said at the weekend , “ will be wise , well considered and , in time , with decisive deterrent effect.
” Dehghan also noted that Iran was not seeking a wider confrontation with the US .
“ It was America that has started the war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their actions .
The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted.
” Dehghan is no run-of-the-mill former Iranian general officer , but was one of the major decision makers within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) during the Iran-Iraq War , and later went on to command the IRGC Air Force , before eventually being appointed Iran ’ s minister of defense .
After stepping down from that position , Dehghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei .
War is a Racket - The ... Smedley Butler , Smedle ... Best Price : $ 5.97 Buy New $ 5.40 His words must be viewed as representing those of Khamenei himself .
A closer assessment of Dehghan ’ s statement , when considered in the context of the vote by the Iraqi Parliament this Sunday to remove all foreign troops from Iraq , provides clarity as to what the US and the Middle East can expect from Tehran .
First and foremost , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proxy .
The attack will be military in nature .
Assaults on the oil and gas infrastructure of America ’ s Gulf Arab allies , similar in nature to the drone attacks on Saudi oil production facilities last May , are not in the works .
The same holds true for shipping transiting the strategic Strait of Hormuz , as well as US diplomatic facilities in the region .
Likewise , Iran must respect the will of the Iraqi Parliament regarding the operation of foreign troops on its soil , which means that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted against US military forces currently stationed in Iraq .
This does not mean US troops and facilities in Iraq will be immune to attack ; Khaitab Hezbollah , the Iraqi militia whose leader , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , was killed in the same attack that took Qassem Suleimani ’ s life , have pledged their own retaliatory attacks separate from those promised by Iran .
There are a host of viable US military targets in the Persian Gulf region that are of high enough stature as to qualify as “ an equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Three come to mind ; the concentration of US forces based in Kuwait , the headquarters of the 5th Fleet in Bahrain , and the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar .
Of these three , only one , Al Udeid Air Base , has a direct connection to the Suleimani assassination ; the drones that fired the missiles that killed Suleimani were operated from there .
Al Udeid is host to critical US command and control facilities , as well as the bulk of the American combat aircraft operating in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range of Iranian ballistic missiles and armed drones , which could be expected to operate in concert with one another to defeat air defenses and then saturate the base with precision strikes which could destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of aircraft and equipment , and potentially kill and wound hundreds of US service members .
President Trump has promised that the US will not tolerate any attack against its personnel or facilities .
“ If they do anything , ” he told reporters , referring to Iran , “ there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted a very explicit warning , telling Iran that he had already designated some 52 sites inside Iran , “ some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture , ” for destruction .
“ [ T ] hose targets , ” Trump declared , “ and Iran itself , WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD .
The USA wants no more threats !
” Trump ’ s threat , however , rings hollow .
First , his tweet constitutes de facto evidence of a war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Defense Law of War Manual prohibits threats to destroy cultural objects for the express purpose of deterring enemy operations ) , and as such would likely not be implemented by US military commanders for whom niceties such as the law of war , which forbids the execution of an unlawful order , are serious business .
Of more relevance , however , is the fact that Trump has been down this road before , when he threatened massive military retaliation against Iran for shooting down an unarmed drone over the Strait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , he was informed by his military commanders that the US lacked the military wherewithal to counter what was expected to be a full-spectrum response by Iran if the US were to attack targets inside Iran .
In short , Iran was able to inflict massive harm on US and allied targets in the Middle East region , and there was nothing the US could do to prevent this outcome .
Little has changed since May that would alter the military balance of power between the US and Iran .
If Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Al Udeid Air Base , and Trump were to order a response , then Iran would most likely unleash the totality of its military capability , and those of its regional proxies , to devastate the military and economic capabilities of those targeted .
These strikes would most likely include oil production facilities in Kuwait , Saudi Arabia , and the UAE , in addition to US military facilities and diplomatic missions .
Seen in this light , Trump ’ s threats of retaliation appear to be little more than words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
However , there was a second significant development in the region on Sunday , in addition to the vote by the Iraqi Parliament to cut ties with the US military .
The Iranian government announced that it was ending all restrictions on the enrichment of uranium , in effect nullifying the Iran nuclear agreement ( the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action , or JCPOA ) , which the US withdrew from in May 2018 .
While Iran has stated that these measures were reversible if the US returned to the agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran well inside the one year “ breakout ” window ( i.e .
the time needed by Iran to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear device ) of one year that underpinned the prime purpose of the JCPOA .
In doing so , Iran has inadvertently opened itself up to a preemptive nuclear attack by the US .
The centrifuges that could be used by Iran to produce enriched uranium capable of being used in a fissile device are housed in a hardened underground facility located near the town of Fordow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US arsenal can destroy Fordow .
Only a modified B-61 nuclear bomb can do the job .
Trump has hinted that any future war with Iran would not be a drawn-out affair .
And while the law of war might curtail his commanders from executing any retaliation that includes cultural sites , it does not prohibit the US from using a nuclear weapon against a known nuclear facility deemed to pose a threat to national security .
This is the worst-case scenario of any tit-for-tat retaliation between Iran and the US , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might believe .
The statements , views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT .

Iran has promised retaliation for the assassination of Qassem Suleimani. Donald Trump said this will lead to a disproportionate response from the US. One side can deliver on its threats, the other can’t, unless it goes nuclear.
Iran means business
“Our reaction,” Iranian general Hossein Dehghan said at the weekend, “will be wise, well considered and, in time, with decisive deterrent effect.”
Dehghan also noted that Iran was not seeking a wider confrontation with the US.
“It was America that has started the war. Therefore, they should accept appropriate reactions to their actions. The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted.”
Dehghan is no run-of-the-mill former Iranian general officer, but was one of the major decision makers within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) during the Iran-Iraq War, and later went on to command the IRGC Air Force, before eventually being appointed Iran’s minister of defense. After stepping down from that position, Dehghan became a special advisor to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei. War is a Racket - The ... Smedley Butler, Smedle... Best Price: $5.41 Buy New $5.40 (as of 05:40 UTC - Details)
His words must be viewed as representing those of Khamenei himself.
Iran’s three likely targets
A closer assessment of Dehghan’s statement, when considered in the context of the vote by the Iraqi Parliament this Sunday to remove all foreign troops from Iraq, provides clarity as to what the US and the Middle East can expect from Tehran.
First and foremost, the response will not be carried out by proxy.
The attack will be military in nature. Assaults on the oil and gas infrastructure of America’s Gulf Arab allies, similar in nature to the drone attacks on Saudi oil production facilities last May, are not in the works. The same holds true for shipping transiting the strategic Strait of Hormuz, as well as US diplomatic facilities in the region.
Likewise, Iran must respect the will of the Iraqi Parliament regarding the operation of foreign troops on its soil, which means that the response will most probably not be conducted against US military forces currently stationed in Iraq.
This does not mean US troops and facilities in Iraq will be immune to attack; Khaitab Hezbollah, the Iraqi militia whose leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed in the same attack that took Qassem Suleimani’s life, have pledged their own retaliatory attacks separate from those promised by Iran.
There are a host of viable US military targets in the Persian Gulf region that are of high enough stature as to qualify as “an equal blow” in the eyes of Tehran.
Three come to mind; the concentration of US forces based in Kuwait, the headquarters of the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, and the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
Of these three, only one, Al Udeid Air Base, has a direct connection to the Suleimani assassination; the drones that fired the missiles that killed Suleimani were operated from there. Al Udeid is host to critical US command and control facilities, as well as the bulk of the American combat aircraft operating in the region. It is well within the range of Iranian ballistic missiles and armed drones, which could be expected to operate in concert with one another to defeat air defenses and then saturate the base with precision strikes which could destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of aircraft and equipment, and potentially kill and wound hundreds of US service members.
Trump’s all tweets, no capacity
President Trump has promised that the US will not tolerate any attack against its personnel or facilities. “If they do anything,” he told reporters, referring to Iran, “there will be major retaliation.”
Earlier, Trump had tweeted a very explicit warning, telling Iran that he had already designated some 52 sites inside Iran, “some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,” for destruction. “[T]hose targets,” Trump declared, “and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”
Trump’s threat, however, rings hollow. First, his tweet constitutes de facto evidence of a war crime (Section 5.16.2 of the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual prohibits threats to destroy cultural objects for the express purpose of deterring enemy operations), and as such would likely not be implemented by US military commanders for whom niceties such as the law of war, which forbids the execution of an unlawful order, are serious business.
Of more relevance, however, is the fact that Trump has been down this road before, when he threatened massive military retaliation against Iran for shooting down an unarmed drone over the Strait of Hormuz last May. At that time, he was informed by his military commanders that the US lacked the military wherewithal to counter what was expected to be a full-spectrum response by Iran if the US were to attack targets inside Iran.
In short, Iran was able to inflict massive harm on US and allied targets in the Middle East region, and there was nothing the US could do to prevent this outcome.
Little has changed since May that would alter the military balance of power between the US and Iran. If Iran were to strike a US facility such as the Al Udeid Air Base, and Trump were to order a response, then Iran would most likely unleash the totality of its military capability, and those of its regional proxies, to devastate the military and economic capabilities of those targeted. These strikes would most likely include oil production facilities in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, in addition to US military facilities and diplomatic missions.
Seen in this light, Trump’s threats of retaliation appear to be little more than words that cannot be backed up by reality.
Pushing the red button for Fordow
However, there was a second significant development in the region on Sunday, in addition to the vote by the Iraqi Parliament to cut ties with the US military.
The Iranian government announced that it was ending all restrictions on the enrichment of uranium, in effect nullifying the Iran nuclear agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA), which the US withdrew from in May 2018. While Iran has stated that these measures were reversible if the US returned to the agreement, the newly unconstrained enrichment capability puts Iran well inside the one year “breakout” window (i.e. the time needed by Iran to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear device) of one year that underpinned the prime purpose of the JCPOA.
In doing so, Iran has inadvertently opened itself up to a preemptive nuclear attack by the US.
The centrifuges that could be used by Iran to produce enriched uranium capable of being used in a fissile device are housed in a hardened underground facility located near the town of Fordow. No conventional munition currently in the US arsenal can destroy Fordow.
Only a modified B-61 nuclear bomb can do the job.

Trump has hinted that any future war with Iran would not be a drawn-out affair. And while the law of war might curtail his commanders from executing any retaliation that includes cultural sites, it does not prohibit the US from using a nuclear weapon against a known nuclear facility deemed to pose a threat to national security.
This is the worst-case scenario of any tit-for-tat retaliation between Iran and the US, and it is not as far-fetched as one might believe.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reprinted from RT News.


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Orange Man Lobs One at Tesla

Orange Man Lobs One at Tesla

The Orange Man didn ’ t just kill an Iranian general last week .
He may also have killed Tesla .
And not just Tesla .
This runs counter to the reports of Tesla selling more cars in the last quarter of 2019 than it ever sold before – which it did .
But only because the federal government has been paying people to buy them .
The president kiboshed a much-lobbied-for “ extension ” of the $ 7,500 kickback to electric car buyers that – up to the stroke of midnight on New Year ’ s Eve – has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a market for electric cars .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 The kickback transformed a $ 40,000 Tesla Model 3 into a $ 32,500 Model 3 .
Which made it seem cost-competitive with an otherwise similar non-electric compact luxury-sport sedan , such as an Audi A3 ( $ 33,500 ) and a deal compared with a $ 40k A4 .
Discount any car by almost $ 8k – and let ’ s not forget the tax-free ( and often just free electricity ) that electric car owners enjoy at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and it ’ s no wonder they “ sell.
” But without the $ 7,500 five-fingered discount – which expired along with 2019 , courtesy of the Orange Man – the Tesla3 becomes the equivalent of spending three dollars for six ounces of warm Coke that takes five hours to chill .
As opposed to 75 cents for 12 ice-cold ounces right now .
And that ’ s why so many “ buyers ” made off with a $ 32,500 Tesla 3 .
.
.
before it turned into a $ 40,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a $ 50,000 Model 3 .
That ’ s what most of these things actually “ sell ” for .
.
.
when equipped with a battery that can propel them for more than 220 miles , the best-case range of the $ 40k model with the standard battery .
Similarly the Nissan Leaf – the most “ affordable ” electric car you can buy .
It ’ s only $ 30k – without the five fingered discount .
But it only goes 150 miles .
If you want more range – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price rises to $ 36,550 .
The Best of Eric Peters

The Orange Man didn’t just kill an Iranian general last week. He may also have killed Tesla.
And not just Tesla.
This runs counter to the reports of Tesla selling more cars in the last quarter of 2019 than it ever sold before – which it did. But only because the federal government has been paying people to buy them.
Not anymore.
The president kiboshed a much-lobbied-for “extension” of the $7,500 kickback to electric car buyers that – up to the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve – has been perpetuating the fiction that there is a market for electric cars.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) The kickback transformed a $40,000 Tesla Model 3 into a $32,500 Model 3.
Which made it seem cost-competitive with an otherwise similar non-electric compact luxury-sport sedan, such as an Audi A3 ($33,500) and a deal compared with a $40k A4. Discount any car by almost $8k – and let’s not forget the tax-free (and often just free electricity) that electric car owners enjoy at the expense of the rest of us – and it’s no wonder they “sell.”
But without the $7,500 five-fingered discount – which expired along with 2019, courtesy of the Orange Man – the Tesla3 becomes the equivalent of spending three dollars for six ounces of warm Coke that takes five hours to chill. As opposed to 75 cents for 12 ice-cold ounces right now.
And that’s why so many “buyers” made off with a $32,500 Tesla 3 . . . before it turned into a $40,000 Model 3.
Which is actually more like a $50,000 Model 3.
That’s what most of these things actually “sell” for . . . when equipped with a battery that can propel them for more than 220 miles, the best-case range of the $40k model with the standard battery.
Similarly the Nissan Leaf – the most “affordable” electric car you can buy. It’s only $30k – without the five fingered discount. But it only goes 150 miles. If you want more range – 226 miles – the Leaf’s price rises to $36,550.
Without the five-fingered discount.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Eric Peters


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--US Empire’s Passion For Iraqi Democracy Magically Disappears

Following a vote by the Iraqi parliament to remove foreign troops from the nation , the US president threatened to destroy Iraq ’ s economy in retaliation and to refuse to leave unless an expensive military base worth billions of dollars was paid for .
“ If they do ask us to leave , if we don ’ t do it in a very friendly basis , ” Trump told the press on Sunday .
“ We will charge them sanctions like they ’ ve never seen before ever .
It ’ ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they do anything we think is inappropriate , we are going to put sanctions on Iraq , very big sanctions on Iraq.
” “ We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that ’ s there .
It cost billions of dollars to build .
Long before my time , ” Trump also said .
“ We ’ re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.
” This would be the same President Trump whose starvation sanctions are already known to have killed tens of thousands of people in Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The same President Trump who campaigned in 2016 on bringing the troops home from nations like Iraq .
Perpetual War for Perp ... Best Price : $ 26.96 Buy New $ 22.95 And this would be the same US empire that used the narrative of bringing democracy to Iraq in order to help manufacture public support for “ Operation Iraqi Freedom ” ( which Bush ’ s Press Secretary Ari Fleischer kept hilariously calling “ Operation Iraqi Liberation ” [ OIL ] by mistake ) .
The same US empire that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the institution of democracy in the Middle East to justify its evil and unforgivable invasion ever since .
Yet the instant Iraqi democratic institutions become even slightly inconvenient for the US empire , Iraqi democracy gets flushed down the toilet .
Iraq ’ s elected parliament voted very clearly for the removal of America ’ s military presence in the interests of its own sovereignty , and Trump has stated , in his typical accidentally-honest way , that America will not honor that vote .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of democracy that Americans have : democracy so long as it doesn ’ t inconvenience the powerful .
This is , of course , because the invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with democracy .
The invasion of Iraq was about controlling a crucial geostrategic region which refused to bow to the dictates of the US-centralized empire .
This is important to remember , because that is also exactly what the regime change agendas against Iran and Syria are about .
It is not a mysterious coincidence that all these horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of freedom and democracy just so happen to reside right next to each other .
The fight for control over the Middle East has always been about controlling important fossil fuel resources and trade routes , and thereby controlling the world .
If the empire can ’ t gain control of the nations in the region via absorption into the imperial blob ( Saudi Arabia , UAE , Turkey , etc ) or just constructing a satellite from scratch on top of a previously existing nation ( Israel ) , then the empire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace any noncompliant governments with compliant ones ( Iraq , Syria , Iran ) .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 And , as we now know , the second a compliant government begins to act noncompliant , it will immediately begin receiving the same treatment that noncompliant governments receive .
As things heat up with Iran you will begin hearing more and more babbling gibberish about the poor , poor Iranians and how unfortunate they are to live in a nation where the women can ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people need to hide who they are .
But as a leaked State Department memo revealed in 2017 , the empire is never actually concerned with human rights , and it is never actually concerned with democracy .
The sole concern of the empire is power , and the growth of that power .
That ’ s all this has ever been about .
Iraq seems to be destined to be the nation that keeps teaching us important lessons , so the very least we can do in response is make sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Thanks for reading !
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish .
My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around , liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation : Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke : A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
For more info on who I am , where I stand , and what I ’ m trying to do with this platform , click here .
Everyone , racist platforms excluded , has my permission to republish or use any part of this work ( or anything else I ’ ve written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of charge .

Following a vote by the Iraqi parliament to remove foreign troops from the nation, the US president threatened to destroy Iraq’s economy in retaliation and to refuse to leave unless an expensive military base worth billions of dollars was paid for.
“If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis,” Trump told the press on Sunday. “We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame. If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”
“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time,” Trump also said. “We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.”
#BREAKING: Trump says he’ll sanction Iraq if US troops forced to leave https://t.co/m4nemzUh6W pic.twitter.com/WueHTvkqrE — The Hill (@thehill) January 6, 2020
This would be the same President Trump whose starvation sanctions are already known to have killed tens of thousands of people in Venezuela, and probably much more by now. The same President Trump who campaigned in 2016 on bringing the troops home from nations like Iraq. Perpetual War for Perp... Best Price: $26.96 Buy New $22.95 (as of 10:55 UTC - Details)
And this would be the same US empire that used the narrative of bringing democracy to Iraq in order to help manufacture public support for “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (which Bush’s Press Secretary Ari Fleischer kept hilariously calling “Operation Iraqi Liberation” [OIL] by mistake). The same US empire that has used the “liberation” of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the institution of democracy in the Middle East to justify its evil and unforgivable invasion ever since.
Yet the instant Iraqi democratic institutions become even slightly inconvenient for the US empire, Iraqi democracy gets flushed down the toilet. Iraq’s elected parliament voted very clearly for the removal of America’s military presence in the interests of its own sovereignty, and Trump has stated, in his typical accidentally-honest way, that America will not honor that vote. The US is allowing Iraq the same kind of democracy that Americans have: democracy so long as it doesn’t inconvenience the powerful.
This is, of course, because the invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. The invasion of Iraq was about controlling a crucial geostrategic region which refused to bow to the dictates of the US-centralized empire. This is important to remember, because that is also exactly what the regime change agendas against Iran and Syria are about.

It is not a mysterious coincidence that all these horrible dictatorships that urgently need a forceful injection of freedom and democracy just so happen to reside right next to each other. The fight for control over the Middle East has always been about controlling important fossil fuel resources and trade routes, and thereby controlling the world. If the empire can’t gain control of the nations in the region via absorption into the imperial blob (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, etc) or just constructing a satellite from scratch on top of a previously existing nation (Israel), then the empire will work to gain control by attempting to replace any noncompliant governments with compliant ones (Iraq, Syria, Iran). Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
And, as we now know, the second a compliant government begins to act noncompliant, it will immediately begin receiving the same treatment that noncompliant governments receive.
As things heat up with Iran you will begin hearing more and more babbling gibberish about the poor, poor Iranians and how unfortunate they are to live in a nation where the women can’t feel their hair in the wind and LGBT people need to hide who they are. But as a leaked State Department memo revealed in 2017, the empire is never actually concerned with human rights, and it is never actually concerned with democracy. The sole concern of the empire is power, and the growth of that power. That’s all this has ever been about.
Iraq seems to be destined to be the nation that keeps teaching us important lessons, so the very least we can do in response is make sure that we learn those lessons, and remember them.
________________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It ‘Wild’ To Make Money & Advance Gun Control

Hollywood has a clever way of distorting our perspective on history , and a great example of this is Western film – a movie genre we ’ ve all come to love .
Cattle rustlers , guns blazing , outlaws running loose , and vigilantes dishing out vengeance indiscriminately .
These scenes have become more synonymous with the American Frontier than Winchester and their “ Cartridge That Won the West.
” But these fictional tales have produced more than entertainment for over a century ; they ’ ve also contributed to an ongoing , subtle push for gun control , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history books tell us that the “ Wild West ” was an anarchic period of time that was not conducive to human prosperity .
Images of a Hobbesian nightmare – a life that is brutish and short – are ingrained in our consciousness thanks to decades of public schooling and violent images on the silver screen which are light on actual history and heavy on creative license .
However , individuals who believe in liberty and developing their critical thinking faculties should be skeptical of most mainstream narratives regarding history , especially American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by and large have been created by Hollywood , a legacy institution that has historically advanced politically correct content with the support of Washington in order to perpetuate the cultural status quo .
When the curtain of political correctness that ’ s been draped over this particular period of history is pulled back , we see a much more nuanced picture of the American Frontier .
In fact , research by historians such as Peter J. Hill , Richard Shenkman , Roger D. McGrath , Terry Anderson , and W. Eugene Holland shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ not so wild , Wild West.
” For the purposes of this article , the Wild West will now be referred to as the Old West .
This is by no means a pedantic distinction , but rather an acknowledgment of the fact that this time period was not “ wild ” by any stretch of the imagination when compared to other chaotic periods in human history .
Indeed , the Old West had its fair share of challenges for American settlers .
But as we ’ ll see below , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutual cooperation – all done with very limited state interference – to create a stable order for generations to come .
National Geographic Th ... Stephen G. Hyslop Best Price : $ 12.99 Buy New $ 27.81 So let us delve into the “ not so wild , Wild West.
” The Old West was not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination .
There existed conflict between groups , such as American settlers and Native American tribes , once they came in contact in the Great Plains and other parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the cultural differences that existed between these groups and the lack of defined property rights in those regions .
However , in more settled towns on the frontier , there was not as much violence as the Hollywood flicks would like you to believe .
One of the most important texts disrupting this depiction of the Old West was W. Eugene Hollon ’ s Frontier Violence : Another Look .
Hollon argued that “ the Western frontier was a far more civilized , more peaceful , and safer place than American society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shenkman makes the case that the popular depictions of the Old West belong more in a movie script rather than a real-life historical account .
Dodge City has become a landmark for Western movies , but its portrayal is more fiction than reality .
Shenkman also dismantled the Dodge City myth : Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton also pointed out that the infamous bank robberies that captivate movie audiences were not very frequent .
His research uncovered that there were fewer than a dozen bank robberies in the frontier West from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schweikart argues that there are “ more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton , Ohio , in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade , perhaps in the entire frontier period.
” Arguably , the strongest and most concise text reclaiming the true history of the American West , Terry L. Anderson and Peter J Hill ’ s The Not So Wild , Wild West has forever changed the way Americans view the American Frontier .
Anderson and Hill ’ s research found that the establishment of property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West .
Indeed , this process took time , but it was well worth it .
The Old West was a demonstration of human ingenuity and long-term planning that eschewed the quick fixes of modern-day politics .
In mining-related matters , American settlers found ways to peacefully adjudicate disputes , which Anderson and Hill noted : The authors went as far as to say that the “ rules that govern western mining and mineral rights evolved literally from the ground up.
” These developments in the Old West were no trivial occurrences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developments that the authors note below : This manner of peacefully settling property rights disputes carried over into other sectors , such as ranching and farming .
There were obviously various roadblocks at the start , but settlers still found free-market ways of getting around these obstacles .
In sum , Anderson and Hill ’ s findings demonstrated that the Old West was not so chaotic : Such scenes of mutual cooperation on a voluntary basis are almost unheard of in today ’ s political climate .
For many busybody politicians , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government supervision .
As a matter of fact , had any of the problems in the Old West surfaced in present times , there would be instant calls for the government to step in and try to fix things .
Once the unintended consequences of these interventions set in , the same calls for more government “ help ” would come back to life .
Thankfully , our forebears were much wiser in the late 19th century .
By maintaining a relatively hands-off approach , the federal government allowed the unsettled American Frontier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation of settlers .
The most infamous images of the American West always consist of scenes of extreme violence and vigilante justice .
Many history books have implanted in the minds of millions of students that gratuitous violence was a normal way of life in the American Frontier .
It also does not help that Hollywood ’ s greatest Western films were laden with epic shootouts and cliche conflicts between outlaws and law enforcement .
Although there are some slivers of truth in these depictions of the American West , they tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wide array of literature has challenged these common assumptions .
In Gunfighters , Highwaymen , and Vigilantes , historian Roger McGrath looked at notable western cities in California , Bodie and Aurora , to see how they stacked up to modern cities as far as crime rates were concerned .
McGrath provided some context to famous scenes of bank robberies in the Old West : Armed citizens also deterred the robbery of individuals , while armed homeowners and merchants discouraged the burglary of homes and businesses .
So it ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and civic responsibility of providing defense transitioned quite seamlessly to the American frontier .
McGrath provided some interesting statistics on robberies in Aurora and Bodie : The historian then compares these numbers to American cities : Even general theft was not much of a problem in cities like Bodie : McGrath came to several powerful conclusions when observing Aurora and Bodie ’ s robbery rates : In McGrath ’ s view , armed citizens were the key factor behind low burglary rates : This is consistent with findings that gun researcher John Lott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he analyzed states that liberalized gun laws during the 1980s and 1990s .
Many of these states witnessed substantial decreases in robberies when citizens were allowed to not only defend their homes , but also carry firearms for self defense .
As far as rape was concerned , women were virtually safe from all occurrences of rape in Aurora and Bodie : McGrath did concede that homicide rates were indeed high in the Old West , but there was a caveat – these cases of homicide were confined to fights between willing combatants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common during this period where “ honor culture ” prevailed .
When we think about it , this makes sense .
Firearms are very effective tools in dishing out legal damage .
Guns did facilitate homicides , but McGrath argued that there was some nuance to this : Even in a relatively anarchic environment like the American Frontier , there was a tendency for society to police itself in some shape or form .
When the weak were attacked , citizens in these towns responded in vigilante fashion , but McGrath showed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : All in all , McGrath concluded that the violence we see in major urban centers today bears very little resemblance to violence in the American West : Because of nearly a century ’ s worth of historical misinformation spread in popular culture and schools , Americans have been led to believe that the American Frontier was the violent period in American history .
On the other hand , progressive urban centers like Chicago and Washington , D.C. are held up as enlightened cosmopolitan hubs , when in fact , they have witnessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unheard of in other points of American history .
These cities are in political jurisdictions that feature stringent gun control like universal background checks and make it nearly impossible for citizens to acquire firearms .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 And it ’ s more than just the guns .
These areas are already filled with a bevy of socialist policies like public schooling , minimum wage laws , and subsidized housing that create sub-optimal socio-economic outcomes .
On top of that , many urban centers have questionable policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t effectively apprehend criminals , nor prevent them from reverting back to their criminal ways once they ’ re back in normal society .
In turn , many individuals resort to crime in these cities as a way of making a living .
Adding gun control into the mix just makes things even worse .
Northfield , Minnesota vs. Tombstone , Arizona : A Tale of Gun Rights vs .
Gun Control Any proud gun owner should celebrate when an armed citizen steps up to defend himself against criminals .
Researchers like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases of individuals using firearms in self defense .
This is no recent phenomenon though .
Law-abiding citizens standing up to criminals actually occurred on numerous occasions during the Old West .
The most notable case was the failed bank robbery attempt conducted by the James-Younger Gang in Northfield , Minnesota .
The James-Younger Gang gained national notoriety for waltzing into towns and coming out with all the loot through well-orchestrated robberies .
With so many robberies under their belts , their next robbery attempt in the sleepy town of Northfield , Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the fateful day of September 7 , 1876 , the gang of outlaws would be in for a rude awakening once they entered Northfield .
The last thing these criminals expected was an armed citizenry that was willing to stand up against their devious schemes .
As the outlaws proceeded to carry out their robbery , Northfield ’ s citizens quickly realized what was going on .
Instead of turning to law enforcement , they took matters into their own hands .
The armed citizens of Northfield fired back at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the James-Younger Gang .
This incident had its fair share of tragedy when members of the James-Younger Gang killed the First National Bank ’ s cashier Joseph Lee Heywood and Swedish immigrant Nicholas Gustafson .
However , these deaths were not in vain .
After the smoke cleared , the rest of the James-Younger Gang bolted out of Northfield , which marked one of the biggest reversals in Jesse James ’ criminal career .
From there , James lost considerable prestige as a criminal and would later be murdered by one of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1882 .
Despite the chaotic nature of the Northfield incident , armed civilians made a positive difference to thwart this criminal act .
Had these citizens been disarmed , Jesse James and company would have made their way out of town with a cool wad of cash .
This is definitely one story American students won ’ t find in their history textbooks .
Although the Old West was marked by high degrees of freedom , especially when compared to present times , it still had pockets of gun control throughout certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infamous O.K .
Corral standoff .
This shooting has become legend throughout American folklore and an integral part of Hollywood Western movies .
However , there is much more to this story than meets the eye .
When we look past the dramatic effects and scruffy gunslingers , we see a much more nuanced picture of this event .
What many people don ’ t realize is that the O.K .
Corral shootout took place during a dispute over gun control legislation in Tombstone , Arizona .
According to an 1881 law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of Tombstone , without first obtaining a permit in writing.
” This law , however , did not deter the outlaw gang of Ike Clanton , Billy Clanton , Tom McLaury , Frank McLaury , and Billy Claiborne .
For them , criminal behavior like cattle smuggling and horse thievery was a way of life .
No law was going to stop them – above all , Tombstone ’ s gun control ordinance .
The gang of outlaws were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal behavior once they set foot in Tombstone .
From the get go , they encountered resistance from the Earp brothers – Virgil , Morgan , and Wyatt – and Doc Holliday , who were ready to stop these outlaws in their tracks .
The law enforcers even demanded that the bandits hand over their guns .
But much to the law enforcers ’ dismay , the outlaws could not have cared less about Tombstone ’ s gun control laws and continued to disobey them like any seasoned band of criminals would do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides drew their firearms and engaged in an explosive shootout .
Once the smoke cleared , three of the outlaws died during this confrontation .
Thankfully for the citizens of Tombstone , there was an armed law enforcement presence to push back against the outlaws .
However , this just goes to show that laws are not enough to prevent criminals from committing heinous acts .
Armed individuals are ultimately the best first responders againsts criminals .
Gun control laws like those in Tombstone were not the norm in the American Frontier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a valuable lesson behind this experience – gun control legislation will not magically make criminal activity nor gun violence go away .
Even in a not-too-distant past , gun control legislation could not stop criminals .
In sum , the Old West has not received a proper historical assessment that is free of Hollywood dramatization and pro-government bias .
Advocates of gun rights and other facets of limited government would be wise to closely examine the history of the American Frontier and restore it to its proper place .
The United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts , where advocates of Progressivism will distort historical events to advance their agenda .
The misleading depiction of the Old West is a historical sleight hand that not only advances false history , but also associates foundational freedoms such as gun rights with sprees of violence that never even existed .
That ’ s why it ’ s so important to think critically and do thorough historical research .
Gun rights have historically served Americans well , providing them a means of defense against violent criminals while checking the state from embracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We must remember that it ’ s not those who have the right ideas who win .
It ’ s those who create the most compelling narratives who come out on top .
Political outcomes are ultimately value neutral .
The forces of good are not always guaranteed victory .
Americans have been misled about capitalism , Americans have been misled about the New Deal , and it ’ s become clear they ’ ve also been subject to many falsehoods about the Old West .
History departments across America by and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the right material to understand our country ’ s most cherished political practices .
When institutions of higher learning drop the ball , it ’ s incumbent upon us to defend our history and culture by stepping up to ensure America has “ an alert and knowledgeable citizenry ” as President Eisenhower famously remarked .
Learning the true story of the American Old West is one step in that direction .

Hollywood has a clever way of distorting our perspective on history, and a great example of this is Western film – a movie genre we’ve all come to love. Cattle rustlers, guns blazing, outlaws running loose, and vigilantes dishing out vengeance indiscriminately. These scenes have become more synonymous with the American Frontier than Winchester and their “Cartridge That Won the West.” But these fictional tales have produced more than entertainment for over a century; they’ve also contributed to an ongoing, subtle push for gun control, all while making Hollywood millions.
Revisionist history books tell us that the “Wild West” was an anarchic period of time that was not conducive to human prosperity. Images of a Hobbesian nightmare – a life that is brutish and short – are ingrained in our consciousness thanks to decades of public schooling and violent images on the silver screen which are light on actual history and heavy on creative license.
However, individuals who believe in liberty and developing their critical thinking faculties should be skeptical of most mainstream narratives regarding history, especially American history. After all, these narratives by and large have been created by Hollywood, a legacy institution that has historically advanced politically correct content with the support of Washington in order to perpetuate the cultural status quo.
When the curtain of political correctness that’s been draped over this particular period of history is pulled back, we see a much more nuanced picture of the American Frontier. In fact, research by historians such as Peter J. Hill, Richard Shenkman, Roger D. McGrath, Terry Anderson, and W. Eugene Holland shows that this period was rather indicative of a “not so wild, Wild West.”
For the purposes of this article, the Wild West will now be referred to as the Old West. This is by no means a pedantic distinction, but rather an acknowledgment of the fact that this time period was not “wild” by any stretch of the imagination when compared to other chaotic periods in human history. Indeed, the Old West had its fair share of challenges for American settlers. But as we’ll see below, crafty settlers found ways through ingenuity and mutual cooperation – all done with very limited state interference – to create a stable order for generations to come. National Geographic Th... Stephen G. Hyslop Best Price: $11.40 Buy New $20.00 (as of 10:55 UTC - Details)
So let us delve into the “not so wild, Wild West.”
The Not-So-Violent West
The Old West was not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination. There existed conflict between groups, such as American settlers and Native American tribes, once they came in contact in the Great Plains and other parts of the frontier. This was natural due to the cultural differences that existed between these groups and the lack of defined property rights in those regions.
However, in more settled towns on the frontier, there was not as much violence as the Hollywood flicks would like you to believe. One of the most important texts disrupting this depiction of the Old West was W. Eugene Hollon’s Frontier Violence: Another Look. Hollon argued that “the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society is today.” Additionally, historian Richard Shenkman makes the case that the popular depictions of the Old West belong more in a movie script rather than a real-life historical account.
Shenkman noted:
“Many more people have died in Hollywood Westerns than ever died on the real Frontier.”
Dodge City has become a landmark for Western movies, but its portrayal is more fiction than reality. Shenkman also dismantled the Dodge City myth:
“In the real Dodge City, for example, there were just five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the little town’s Frontier history: scarcely enough to sustain a typical two-hour movie.”
Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton also pointed out that the infamous bank robberies that captivate movie audiences were not very frequent. His research uncovered that there were fewer than a dozen bank robberies in the frontier West from 1859 to 1900. In essence, Schweikart argues that there are “more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period.”
Arguably, the strongest and most concise text reclaiming the true history of the American West, Terry L. Anderson and Peter J Hill’s The Not So Wild, Wild West has forever changed the way Americans view the American Frontier. Anderson and Hill’s research found that the establishment of property rights was key in taming the American West. Indeed, this process took time, but it was well worth it. The Old West was a demonstration of human ingenuity and long-term planning that eschewed the quick fixes of modern-day politics.
In mining-related matters, American settlers found ways to peacefully adjudicate disputes, which Anderson and Hill noted:
“In the absence of formal government, miners in a particular location would gather and hammer out rules for peacefully establishing claims and resolving disputes over them.”
The authors went as far as to say that the “rules that govern western mining and mineral rights evolved literally from the ground up.” These developments in the Old West were no trivial occurrences, they set the stage for even bigger developments that the authors note below:
“Not only did the miners pave the way for mineral rights throughout the West, but they laid the foundation for western water law.”
This manner of peacefully settling property rights disputes carried over into other sectors, such as ranching and farming. There were obviously various roadblocks at the start, but settlers still found free-market ways of getting around these obstacles. In sum, Anderson and Hill’s findings demonstrated that the Old West was not so chaotic:
“In the mining camps and on the open range, the six-gun seldom served as the arbiter of disputes. Instead, miners established rules in camp meetings, and cattlemen used their associations to carve up the range, round up their cattle, and enforce brand registration. Though not all attempts at dispute resolution succeeded, institutional entrepreneurs found ways to define and enforce property rights that created, rather than destroyed, wealth. In short, the West was really not so wild.”
Such scenes of mutual cooperation on a voluntary basis are almost unheard of in today’s political climate. For many busybody politicians, all meaningful economic activity must be conducted under government supervision. As a matter of fact, had any of the problems in the Old West surfaced in present times, there would be instant calls for the government to step in and try to fix things. Once the unintended consequences of these interventions set in, the same calls for more government “help” would come back to life.
Thankfully, our forebears were much wiser in the late 19th century. By maintaining a relatively hands-off approach, the federal government allowed the unsettled American Frontier to naturally tame itself through the voluntary cooperation of settlers.
Understanding Violence in the American West
The most infamous images of the American West always consist of scenes of extreme violence and vigilante justice. Many history books have implanted in the minds of millions of students that gratuitous violence was a normal way of life in the American Frontier. It also does not help that Hollywood’s greatest Western films were laden with epic shootouts and cliche conflicts between outlaws and law enforcement.
Although there are some slivers of truth in these depictions of the American West, they tend to be exaggerated. Since the 1970s, a wide array of literature has challenged these common assumptions.
In Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes, historian Roger McGrath looked at notable western cities in California, Bodie and Aurora, to see how they stacked up to modern cities as far as crime rates were concerned. McGrath provided some context to famous scenes of bank robberies in the Old West:
“Next to stagecoach robbery, bank robbery is probably the form of robbery most popularly associated with the frontier West. Yet, although Aurora and Bodie together boasted several banks, no bank robbery was ever attempted. Most of the bankers were armed, as were their employees, and a robber would have run a considerable risk of being killed.”
Armed citizens also deterred the robbery of individuals, while armed homeowners and merchants discouraged the burglary of homes and businesses. So it’s clear America’s long established gun culture and civic responsibility of providing defense transitioned quite seamlessly to the American frontier.
McGrath provided some interesting statistics on robberies in Aurora and Bodie:
“Between 1877 and 1883, there were only 32 burglaries – 17 of homes and 15 of businesses – in Bodie. Again, Aurora seems to have had fewer still. At least a half dozen attempted burglaries in Bodie were thwarted by the presence of armed citizens.”
The historian then compares these numbers to American cities:
“Bodie’s five-year total of 32 burglaries converts to an average of 6.4 burglaries a year and gives the town a burglary rate of 128 on the FBI scale. In 1980 Miami had a burglary rate of 3,282, New York 2,661, Los Angeles 2,602, San Francisco-Oakland 2,267, Atlanta 2,210 and Chicago 1,241. The Grand Forks, North Dakota, rate of 566, and the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, rate of 587 were lowest among U.S. cities. The rate for the United States as a whole was 1,668, or thirteen times that for Bodie.”
Even general theft was not much of a problem in cities like Bodie:
“Bodie’s forty-five instances of theft give it a theft rate of 180. In 1980 Miami had a theft rate of 5,452, San Francisco-Oakland 4,571, Atlanta 3,947, Los Angeles 3,372, New York 3,369, and Chicago 3,206. Lowest theft rates among U.S. cities were those of Steubenville, Ohio, at 916, and Johnstown, Pennsylvania, at 972. The rate for the United States as a whole was 3,156, more than seventeen times that for Bodie.”
McGrath came to several powerful conclusions when observing Aurora and Bodie’s robbery rates:
“Institutions of law enforcement and justice certainly were not responsible for the low rates of robbery, burglary, and theft. Rarely were any of the perpetrators of these types of crime arrested, and even less often were they convicted.”
In McGrath’s view, armed citizens were the key factor behind low burglary rates:
“The citizens themselves, armed with various types of firearms and willing to kill to protect their persons or property, were evidently the most important deterrent to larcenous crime.”
This is consistent with findings that gun researcher John Lott uncovered in More Guns Less Crime when he analyzed states that liberalized gun laws during the 1980s and 1990s. Many of these states witnessed substantial decreases in robberies when citizens were allowed to not only defend their homes, but also carry firearms for self defense.
As far as rape was concerned, women were virtually safe from all occurrences of rape in Aurora and Bodie:
“Aurora’s and Bodie’s records of no rapes and thus rape rates of zero were not matched by nineteenth-century Boston or Salem. From 1880 through 1882, Boston had a rape arrest rate of 3.0 and Salem 4.8. A conversion factor of 2.6 – a figure consistent with FBI data in 1980 – gives the towns rape rates of 7.8 and 12.5. Nor are Aurora’s and Bodie’s rates matched by any U.S. city today, although in 1980 Johnsontown, Pennsylvania, had a rate of only 5.7.”
McGrath did concede that homicide rates were indeed high in the Old West, but there was a caveat – these cases of homicide were confined to fights between willing combatants, i.e., duels, as was common during this period where “honor culture” prevailed.
McGrath explained: “While the carrying of guns probably reduced the incidence of robbery, burglary, and theft, it undoubtedly increased the number of homicides. Although a couple of homicides resulted from beatings and a few from stabbings, the great majority resulted from shootings.”
When we think about it, this makes sense. Firearms are very effective tools in dishing out legal damage. Guns did facilitate homicides, but McGrath argued that there was some nuance to this:
“The citizens of Aurora and Bodie were generally not troubled by the great number of killings, nor were they very upset because only one man was ever convicted by the courts of murder or manslaughter. They accepted the killings and the lack of convictions because those killed, with only a few exceptions, had been willing combatants, and many of them were roughs or badmen. The old, the weak, the female, the innocent, and those unwilling to fight were rarely the targets of attacks. But when they were attacked – murdered – the reaction of the citizens was immediate and came in the form of vigilantism.”
Even in a relatively anarchic environment like the American Frontier, there was a tendency for society to police itself in some shape or form. When the weak were attacked, citizens in these towns responded in vigilante fashion, but McGrath showed it was not as chaotic as people think:
“Contrary to the popular image of vigilantes as an angry, unruly mob, the vigilantes in both Aurora and Bodie displayed military-like organization and discipline and went about their work in a quiet, orderly, and deliberate manner.”
All in all, McGrath concluded that the violence we see in major urban centers today bears very little resemblance to violence in the American West:
“The violence and lawlessness that visited the trans-Sierra frontier most frequently and affected it most deeply, then, took special forms: warfare between Indians and whites, stagecoach robbery, vigilantism, and gunfights. These activities bear little or no relation to the violence and lawlessness that pervade American society today. Serious juvenile offenses, crimes against the elderly and weak, rape, robbery, burglary, and theft were either nonexistent or of little significance on the trans-Sierra frontier. If the trans-Sierra frontier was at all representative of frontiers in general, then there seems to be little justification for blaming contemporary American violence and lawlessness on a frontier heritage.”
Because of nearly a century’s worth of historical misinformation spread in popular culture and schools, Americans have been led to believe that the American Frontier was the violent period in American history. On the other hand, progressive urban centers like Chicago and Washington, D.C. are held up as enlightened cosmopolitan hubs, when in fact, they have witnessed crime sprees in recent decades that were unheard of in other points of American history. These cities are in political jurisdictions that feature stringent gun control like universal background checks and make it nearly impossible for citizens to acquire firearms. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
And it’s more than just the guns. These areas are already filled with a bevy of socialist policies like public schooling, minimum wage laws, and subsidized housing that create sub-optimal socio-economic outcomes. On top of that, many urban centers have questionable policing practices and criminal justice policies that don’t effectively apprehend criminals, nor prevent them from reverting back to their criminal ways once they’re back in normal society. In turn, many individuals resort to crime in these cities as a way of making a living. Adding gun control into the mix just makes things even worse.
Northfield, Minnesota vs. Tombstone, Arizona: A Tale of Gun Rights vs. Gun Control
Any proud gun owner should celebrate when an armed citizen steps up to defend himself against criminals. Researchers like Gary Kleck point to over 2 million cases of individuals using firearms in self defense. This is no recent phenomenon though.
Law-abiding citizens standing up to criminals actually occurred on numerous occasions during the Old West. The most notable case was the failed bank robbery attempt conducted by the James-Younger Gang in Northfield, Minnesota.
The James-Younger Gang gained national notoriety for waltzing into towns and coming out with all the loot through well-orchestrated robberies. With so many robberies under their belts, their next robbery attempt in the sleepy town of Northfield, Minnesota seemed like a walk in the park. On the fateful day of September 7, 1876, the gang of outlaws would be in for a rude awakening once they entered Northfield.
The last thing these criminals expected was an armed citizenry that was willing to stand up against their devious schemes. As the outlaws proceeded to carry out their robbery, Northfield’s citizens quickly realized what was going on. Instead of turning to law enforcement, they took matters into their own hands.
The armed citizens of Northfield fired back at the outlaws and successfully killed several members of the James-Younger Gang. This incident had its fair share of tragedy when members of the James-Younger Gang killed the First National Bank’s cashier Joseph Lee Heywood and Swedish immigrant Nicholas Gustafson. However, these deaths were not in vain.
After the smoke cleared, the rest of the James-Younger Gang bolted out of Northfield, which marked one of the biggest reversals in Jesse James’ criminal career. From there, James lost considerable prestige as a criminal and would later be murdered by one of his partners in crime, Robert Ford, in 1882.
Despite the chaotic nature of the Northfield incident, armed civilians made a positive difference to thwart this criminal act. Had these citizens been disarmed, Jesse James and company would have made their way out of town with a cool wad of cash. This is definitely one story American students won’t find in their history textbooks.
Gun Control Could Not Save Tombstone
Although the Old West was marked by high degrees of freedom, especially when compared to present times, it still had pockets of gun control throughout certain regions.
Take the example of the infamous O.K. Corral standoff. This shooting has become legend throughout American folklore and an integral part of Hollywood Western movies. However, there is much more to this story than meets the eye. When we look past the dramatic effects and scruffy gunslingers, we see a much more nuanced picture of this event.
What many people don’t realize is that the O.K. Corral shootout took place during a dispute over gun control legislation in Tombstone, Arizona. According to an 1881 law, it was “unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.”
This law, however, did not deter the outlaw gang of Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Tom McLaury, Frank McLaury, and Billy Claiborne. For them, criminal behavior like cattle smuggling and horse thievery was a way of life. No law was going to stop them – above all, Tombstone’s gun control ordinance.
The gang of outlaws were ready to up the ante with their criminal behavior once they set foot in Tombstone. From the get go, they encountered resistance from the Earp brothers – Virgil, Morgan, and Wyatt – and Doc Holliday, who were ready to stop these outlaws in their tracks. The law enforcers even demanded that the bandits hand over their guns. But much to the law enforcers’ dismay, the outlaws could not have cared less about Tombstone’s gun control laws and continued to disobey them like any seasoned band of criminals would do.
Eventually, this conflict escalated when both sides drew their firearms and engaged in an explosive shootout. Once the smoke cleared, three of the outlaws died during this confrontation. Thankfully for the citizens of Tombstone, there was an armed law enforcement presence to push back against the outlaws. However, this just goes to show that laws are not enough to prevent criminals from committing heinous acts. Armed individuals are ultimately the best first responders againsts criminals.
Gun control laws like those in Tombstone were not the norm in the American Frontier. That being said, there is still a valuable lesson behind this experience – gun control legislation will not magically make criminal activity nor gun violence go away. Even in a not-too-distant past, gun control legislation could not stop criminals.
Why the American West Matters
In sum, the Old West has not received a proper historical assessment that is free of Hollywood dramatization and pro-government bias. Advocates of gun rights and other facets of limited government would be wise to closely examine the history of the American Frontier and restore it to its proper place. The United States is currently in a narrative war of sorts, where advocates of Progressivism will distort historical events to advance their agenda.
The misleading depiction of the Old West is a historical sleight hand that not only advances false history, but also associates foundational freedoms such as gun rights with sprees of violence that never even existed. That’s why it’s so important to think critically and do thorough historical research. Gun rights have historically served Americans well, providing them a means of defense against violent criminals while checking the state from embracing all-out tyranny as witnessed in present-day Venezuela.
We must remember that it’s not those who have the right ideas who win. It’s those who create the most compelling narratives who come out on top. Political outcomes are ultimately value neutral. The forces of good are not always guaranteed victory.
Americans have been misled about capitalism, Americans have been misled about the New Deal, and it’s become clear they’ve also been subject to many falsehoods about the Old West. History departments across America by and large have failed in providing their students with the right material to understand our country’s most cherished political practices. When institutions of higher learning drop the ball, it’s incumbent upon us to defend our history and culture by stepping up to ensure America has “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” as President Eisenhower famously remarked. Learning the true story of the American Old West is one step in that direction.
This originally appeared on Ammo.com.


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Why Do Christian Groups Support Anti-Christian Legislation?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964—an unconstitutional expansion of federal power that destroyed the rights of private property , freedom of assembly , freedom of association , freedom of thought , free enterprise , and freedom of contract—currently prohibits discrimination in “ public accommodations ” based on race , color , religion , or national origin .
After several years of failure to pass the Equality Act in the House when it was controlled by Republicans , Democrats , who regained control of the House in the 2018 election , passed the legislation ( H.R.5 ) in the House by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2019 .
Only eight Republicans voted in favor of it .
A related bill was earlier introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate ( S.788 ) , but has no chance of passing .
Prohibits discrimination based on sex , sexual orientation , and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities , education , federal funding , employment , housing , credit , and the jury system .
Specifically , the bill defines and includes sex , sexual orientation , and gender identity among the prohibited categories of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laurence M. Vance Best Price : $ 6.98 Buy New $ 19.95 Expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide ( 1 ) exhibitions , recreation , exercise , amusement , gatherings , or displays ; ( 2 ) goods , services , or programs ; and ( 3 ) transportation services .
Allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity .
Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a dressing room , that is in accordance with the individual ’ s gender identity .
This is a horrible bill .
So why would Christian groups support the equally horrendous Republican response to the Equality Act called the Fairness for All Act ?
The Fairness for All Act ( H.R.5331 ) was introduced in the House last month by Rep. Chris Stewart ( R-UT ) .
It has eight Republican cosponsors .
This legislation is designed to “ prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex , sexual orientation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free exercise of religion.
” Said Rep. Stewart at a press conference about the bill ’ s two purposes : “ They are not mutually exclusive principles .
There is enough space where both of those can be accommodated and that is what we tried to do here today .
Neither side has to lose in order for the other side to win.
” The legislation is based on similar legislation enacted in Stewart ’ s home state of Utah that bans discrimination against LGBT individuals—except when it is done by “ qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All Act basically amends the Civil Rights Act like the Equality Act , but exempts any building or collection of buildings that is used primarily as a denominational headquarters , church administrative office , or church conference center ; a place of worship , such as a church , synagogue , mosque , chapel , and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes ; a religious educational institution and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes ; in connection with a religious celebration or exercise : a facility that is supervised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , imam , or minister of any faith , or religious certifying body , and that is principally engaged in providing food and beverages in compliance with religious dietary requirements ; or any online operations or activities of an organization exempt under this section .
Like the Equality Act , the Fairness for All Act is anti-Christian .
It is anti-Christian because it is anti-private property , anti-freedom of assembly , anti-freedom of association , anti-freedom of thought , anti-free enterprise , and anti-freedom of contract .
It is anti-Christian because it uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be nice .
The Fairness for All Act is supported by the National Association of Evangelicals ( NAE ) , the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities ( CCCU ) , the Seventh-day Adventist Church , and the Mormon Church .
However , many secular and religious conservative groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom , the Heritage Foundation , the Family Research Council , Concerned Women for America , and Focus on the Family oppose the legislation .
As does some liberal and LGBT organizations .
Gun Control and the Se ... Laurence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do Christian groups support anti-Christian legislation ?
The answer is that doing so is simply the logical result of accepting the legitimacy of anti-discrimination laws in the first place .
The groups that oppose the Fairness for All Act are actually being inconsistent .
Supporters and opponents of the Fairness for All Act both agree on one central idea : The federal should prohibit discrimination in “ public accommodations ” based on race , color , religion , or national origin .
They only differ regarding whether sex , sexual orientation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , color , religion , and national origin .
Both groups consider discrimination to be morally wrong .
Both groups think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was good and necessary legislation .
Both groups believe that the government should seek to prevent and punish acts of discrimination .
Both groups think that “ public accommodations ” law trumps property rights .
Both groups believe that the government should decide whether acts of discrimination are reasonable , logical , rational , necessary , or justified .
If discrimination is wrong , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it is based on some religious conviction .
But since discrimination in any form is not aggression , force , coercion , violence , or threat , then , as far as the law is concerned , the government should not proscribe it , seek to prevent it , or punish those who do it .
In a free society , any individual , business , or organization—religious or otherwise—would have the right to discriminate not only on the basis of sex , sexual orientation , or gender identity , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or national origin .
This is because in a free society , any person , group , or entity would have the right to discriminate against any other person , group , or entity on any basis and for any reason .
The Best of Laurence M. Vance

The Civil Rights Act of 1964—an unconstitutional expansion of federal power that destroyed the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought, free enterprise, and freedom of contract—currently prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
After several years of failure to pass the Equality Act in the House when it was controlled by Republicans, Democrats, who regained control of the House in the 2018 election, passed the legislation (H.R.5) in the House by a vote of 236-173 on May 17, 2019. Only eight Republicans voted in favor of it. A related bill was earlier introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate (S.788), but has no chance of passing.
The Equality Act:
Prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation. The Free Society Laurence M. Vance Best Price: $13.55 Buy New $17.54 (as of 04:55 UTC - Details) Expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services. Allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.
This is a horrible bill. So why would Christian groups support the equally horrendous Republican response to the Equality Act called the Fairness for All Act?
The Fairness for All Act (H.R.5331) was introduced in the House last month by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT). It has eight Republican cosponsors. This legislation is designed to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity; and to protect the free exercise of religion.” Said Rep. Stewart at a press conference about the bill’s two purposes: “They are not mutually exclusive principles. There is enough space where both of those can be accommodated and that is what we tried to do here today. Neither side has to lose in order for the other side to win.” The legislation is based on similar legislation enacted in Stewart’s home state of Utah that bans discrimination against LGBT individuals—except when it is done by “qualified” religious organizations.
The Fairness for All Act basically amends the Civil Rights Act like the Equality Act, but exempts
any building or collection of buildings that is used primarily as a denominational headquarters, church administrative office, or church conference center; a place of worship, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, chapel, and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes; a religious educational institution and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes; in connection with a religious celebration or exercise: a facility that is supervised by a priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, or minister of any faith, or religious certifying body, and that is principally engaged in providing food and beverages in compliance with religious dietary requirements; or any online operations or activities of an organization exempt under this section.
Like the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act is anti-Christian. It is anti-Christian because it is anti-private property, anti-freedom of assembly, anti-freedom of association, anti-freedom of thought, anti-free enterprise, and anti-freedom of contract. It is anti-Christian because it uses the force of government to make people be nice.
The Fairness for All Act is supported by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Mormon Church.
However, many secular and religious conservative groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family oppose the legislation. As does some liberal and LGBT organizations. Gun Control and the Se... Laurence M. Vance Buy New $5.95 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details)
Why do Christian groups support anti-Christian legislation? The answer is that doing so is simply the logical result of accepting the legitimacy of anti-discrimination laws in the first place. The groups that oppose the Fairness for All Act are actually being inconsistent.
Supporters and opponents of the Fairness for All Act both agree on one central idea: The federal should prohibit discrimination in “public accommodations” based on race, color, religion, or national origin. They only differ regarding whether sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity should be added to race, color, religion, and national origin. Both groups consider discrimination to be morally wrong. Both groups think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was good and necessary legislation. Both groups believe that the government should seek to prevent and punish acts of discrimination. Both groups think that “public accommodations” law trumps property rights. Both groups believe that the government should decide whether acts of discrimination are reasonable, logical, rational, necessary, or justified.
If discrimination is wrong, then it doesn’t suddenly become okay if it is based on some religious conviction.
But since discrimination in any form is not aggression, force, coercion, violence, or threat, then, as far as the law is concerned, the government should not proscribe it, seek to prevent it, or punish those who do it.
In a free society, any individual, business, or organization—religious or otherwise—would have the right to discriminate not only on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, but also because of race, color, religion, or national origin. This is because in a free society, any person, group, or entity would have the right to discriminate against any other person, group, or entity on any basis and for any reason.
The Best of Laurence M. Vance


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Why Paternalists Keep Calling Us ‘Irrational’

Some economists , such as the 2017 Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler and his colleague Cass Sunstein , have proposed an unusual justification for government interference with people ’ s choices .
They do not intend , they say , to override the preferences that people have .
They don ’ t want to tell people what they “ should ” want , according to an external standard that people don ’ t accept .
They claim , however , that accepting the actual preferences people have still leaves room for government intervention .
How is this possible ?
Their answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrational way .
They make mistakes in reasoning and choose impulsively .
People don ’ t “ really ” want what they choose irrationally , so government intervention that pushes people to choose rationally is consistent with respect for people ’ s preferences .
One way to challenge this view is to deny that people who choose irrationally aren ’ t “ really ” choosing .
What you would choose if you had full information and weren ’ t making mistakes in reasoning may be an interesting question , but the answer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want .
If it does not , there is no room for government intervention that respects people ’ s preferences , contrary to Thaler and Sunstein ’ s assertion .
Escaping Paternalism : ... Mario J Rizzo Best Price : $ 35.62 Buy New $ 35.26 In Escaping Paternalism , a book that has just been published , Mario J. Rizzo and Glen Whitman offer a more fundamental response to Thaler and Sunstein ’ s argument , though the book is by no means limited to a discussion of these authors , nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss .
To the contrary , the lines of argument pursued in the dense and difficult book , far and away the best discussion of behavioral economics , are many and various .
Rizzo and Whitman ask , “ What is the evidence that people choose irrationally ?
” They find this evidence unconvincing .
Some people might say , “ Isn ’ t it obvious that people sometimes make irrational choices ?
For example , people often sign up for costly gym memberships and then wind up attending the gym fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They would have saved money if they had paid by the visit .
Isn ’ t the government helping people get what they want if it mandates a period of time for them to cancel long-term gym memberships ?
” The analysis is fundamentally static , and thus the crucial observations that individuals plan to go to the gym more than they actually do and that they delay canceling inappropriate contracts are interpreted as partial naiveté .
Indeed the individuals may be naïve to begin with , but does that explain where things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implausible .
Consider that the people in this study were new gym members and therefore likely inexperienced … Why should we expect inexperienced individuals to know how much self-discipline they will have in going to the gym ?
The only way they will find out is by getting feedback on their initial optimistic expectations .
And this will not happen all at once .
Inevitably there will be a period during which they will be paying for visits they did not use .
The more patient they are about learning , the longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquiring the knowledge necessary for self-regulation can be confused , ironically , with present bias .
Rizzo and Whitman ’ s strategy here is subtle .
They are not in this example accepting the view of biased behavior held by the behavioral economists , but rather they are asking whether , given this view , it has been shown that people are choosing irrationally .
Further , they aren ’ t here claiming that people for the most part do choose rationally by this standard , though it ’ s clear from other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good case can be made for this .
Their limited claim here is that it has not been shown that people act in a biased way .
They use the same strategy in analyzing other studies that claim to demonstrate biased choice .
In doing so , they confront many examples of alleged biased choice which have become notorious in the popular literature .
Their dissent from one common example of irrational choice illustrates the depth of their analysis .
According to one standard account , employees who can choose to participate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differently , depending on what the “ default ” option is .
That is to say , if people have to choose to join the program , fewer will sign up than will remain in the program when they have to “ opt out ” in order to leave it .
Surely , the argument goes , an important decision like participating in a retirement savings program should not depend on so trivial a matter as the default option .
Isn ’ t this strong evidence for biased choice ?
It comes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconvinced .
Employees face a complicated decision about whether and when to enroll as well as what savings contribution to make … The cognitive cost of considering options and reaching a decision is immediate , while the benefits are in the future .
Present-biased agents seek to put off the immediate cognitive burden ; ‘ let me think about this tomorrow.
’ … So we must ask ; is the fact that many agents eventually opt in explained by their learning about their own bias and then reducing it , or by their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including their preferences and the investments options available ) ?
… When they can not be distinguished , learning looks like procrastination .
Once more , the authors do not claim to have proved that behavioral economists err in asserting that people choose irrationally .
Their claim is that irrationality has not been proved to exist .
In other words , we in fact know much less about the prevalence of irrational choice than some behavioral economists think we do .
What follows from this , so far as government intervention is concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that much.
” In the face of objections to claims of irrational choice , he maintains that Only someone eager to impose his allegedly superior wisdom on the “ irrational ” masses could take this demand seriously , and the rest of us will join with Rizzo and Whitman in rejecting it .
The Best of David Gordon

Some economists, such as the 2017 Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler and his colleague Cass Sunstein, have proposed an unusual justification for government interference with people’s choices. They do not intend, they say, to override the preferences that people have. They don’t want to tell people what they “should” want, according to an external standard that people don’t accept.
They claim, however, that accepting the actual preferences people have still leaves room for government intervention. How is this possible? Their answer is that people often choose in an irrational way. They make mistakes in reasoning and choose impulsively. People don’t “really” want what they choose irrationally, so government intervention that pushes people to choose rationally is consistent with respect for people’s preferences.
One way to challenge this view is to deny that people who choose irrationally aren’t “really” choosing. What you would choose if you had full information and weren’t making mistakes in reasoning may be an interesting question, but the answer to it does not tell us what people want. If it does not, there is no room for government intervention that respects people’s preferences, contrary to Thaler and Sunstein’s assertion. Escaping Paternalism: ... Mario J Rizzo Best Price: $49.76 Buy New $34.68 (as of 10:55 UTC - Details)
In Escaping Paternalism, a book that has just been published, Mario J. Rizzo and Glen Whitman offer a more fundamental response to Thaler and Sunstein’s argument, though the book is by no means limited to a discussion of these authors, nor to the argument that I am about to discuss. To the contrary, the lines of argument pursued in the dense and difficult book, far and away the best discussion of behavioral economics, are many and various.
Rizzo and Whitman ask, “What is the evidence that people choose irrationally?” They find this evidence unconvincing.
Some people might say, “Isn’t it obvious that people sometimes make irrational choices? For example, people often sign up for costly gym memberships and then wind up attending the gym fewer times than they thought they would. They would have saved money if they had paid by the visit. Isn’t the government helping people get what they want if it mandates a period of time for them to cancel long-term gym memberships?”
Rizzo and Whitman aren’t convinced.
The analysis is fundamentally static, and thus the crucial observations that individuals plan to go to the gym more than they actually do and that they delay canceling inappropriate contracts are interpreted as partial naiveté. Indeed the individuals may be naïve to begin with, but does that explain where things end? To answer yes would seem implausible. Consider that the people in this study were new gym members and therefore likely inexperienced … Why should we expect inexperienced individuals to know how much self-discipline they will have in going to the gym? The only way they will find out is by getting feedback on their initial optimistic expectations. And this will not happen all at once. Inevitably there will be a period during which they will be paying for visits they did not use. The more patient they are about learning, the longer this period will be. Patience in acquiring the knowledge necessary for self-regulation can be confused, ironically, with present bias.
Rizzo and Whitman’s strategy here is subtle. They are not in this example accepting the view of biased behavior held by the behavioral economists, but rather they are asking whether, given this view, it has been shown that people are choosing irrationally. Further, they aren’t here claiming that people for the most part do choose rationally by this standard, though it’s clear from other things in the book that they think a good case can be made for this. Their limited claim here is that it has not been shown that people act in a biased way.
They use the same strategy in analyzing other studies that claim to demonstrate biased choice. In doing so, they confront many examples of alleged biased choice which have become notorious in the popular literature.
Their dissent from one common example of irrational choice illustrates the depth of their analysis. According to one standard account, employees who can choose to participate in a retirement savings program will choose differently, depending on what the “default” option is. That is to say, if people have to choose to join the program, fewer will sign up than will remain in the program when they have to “opt out” in order to leave it. Surely, the argument goes, an important decision like participating in a retirement savings program should not depend on so trivial a matter as the default option. Isn’t this strong evidence for biased choice?
It comes as no surprise that Rizzo and Wittman are unconvinced.
Employees face a complicated decision about whether and when to enroll as well as what savings contribution to make … The cognitive cost of considering options and reaching a decision is immediate, while the benefits are in the future. Present-biased agents seek to put off the immediate cognitive burden; ‘let me think about this tomorrow.’ … So we must ask; is the fact that many agents eventually opt in explained by their learning about their own bias and then reducing it, or by their learning more about the situation context (including their preferences and the investments options available)? … When they cannot be distinguished, learning looks like procrastination.
Once more, the authors do not claim to have proved that behavioral economists err in asserting that people choose irrationally. Their claim is that irrationality has not been proved to exist.
In other words, we in fact know much less about the prevalence of irrational choice than some behavioral economists think we do. What follows from this, so far as government intervention is concerned? Cass Sunstein answers, “Not all that much.” In the face of objections to claims of irrational choice, he maintains that
it is not enough to offer an array of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical arguments against behavioral paternalism. Rather, we must offer a broad and comprehensive argument that is sufficient to decisively rule out any form of paternalism whatsoever.
Only someone eager to impose his allegedly superior wisdom on the “irrational” masses could take this demand seriously, and the rest of us will join with Rizzo and Whitman in rejecting it.
The Best of David Gordon