Logo
Northwest Rhode Island
Tea Party
  Home Contact Us
 

Sign up to receive updates from the North Western RI Tea Party

Open to the Public - The Northwest RI Tea Party usually meets monthly in or near the Village of North Scituate, in the early evening for approximately one and one half hour. We represent Burrillville, Foster, Glocester, Scituate, Smithfield, and N. Smithfield

Typically there are 1-3 speakers drawn from RI Gen'l Assembly, Tea Party, local business, etc. as well as video and audio presentations. Bring a friend. For more details about each month's agenda subscribe here.

   
 
 
 
“...no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.” Ayn Rand
 
 
x
 
 
State Legislative Officials From The NWTP Area
 
 

Burrillville
Sen 23 Paul Fogarty
Rep 48 Brian Newberry
Rep 47 Cale Keable

Foster
Sen 21 Nicholas Kettle
Rep 40 Michael Chippendale

Scituate
Sen 21 Nicholas Kettle
Rep 41 Michael Marcello

Glocester
Sen 23 Paul Fogarty
Rep 40 Michael Chippendale Rep 47 Cale Keable

Smithfield
Sen 22: Stephen Archambault
Rep 44: Gregory Constantino
Rep 53 Thomas Winfield

N. Smithfield
Sen 17 Edward O'Neill
Sen 23 Paul Fogarty
Sen 24 Marc Cote
Rep 48 Brian Newberry

 
     
  (top of page)  
 
 
     
       
 
Highlights
   
       
  Next Meeting:
   
 

Tuesday
March 25, 2014
6:15-7:45pm
North Scituate Library
(more info)

   
 
   
  Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” Named One of 88 “Books That Shaped America”    
  Fifty-Five Years after Publication, Rand’s Novel Recognized by Library of Congress
Press Release from the Ayn Rand Institute
   
 
   
  Don't attribute success to "somebody"    
  President ignores individuals who built America and principles upon which they built it.
Article from the Orange County Register
   
 
   
  Obama And Romney Are Wrong: Outsourcing Is America At Its Best    
  Article from Forbes    
 
   
  Two New Articles    
  One-Robin Hoods Don't Smash Shop Windows
Two-Immoral Beyond Redemption
   
       
  What are Rights?    
  You Can't Defend Your Rights Unless You Know What Rights Are    
 
   
  Unemployment Statistics    
  A picture (or spreadsheet graph) is worth a thousand words. An example of how to use government statistics to disprove government statistics. (Courtesy of our NW Tea Party resident statistician with a black belt in spreadsheet weaponry a.k.a. LeoRI)    
 
   
  Bad Words    
  Some words we use that hurt individual rights.    
 
   
  America Before The Entitlement State    
  "If Americans could thrive without an entitlement state a century ago, how much easier would it be today, when Americans are so rich that 95 percent of our “poor” own color TVs?"
Article From Forbes
   
 
   
  Activism From Your Couch    
  How to protect individual rights without leaving the comfort of your own home.    
 
   
  Recommended Reading    
  Link    
       
       
  (top of page)    
       
       
       
       
   

 

 
     
     
 

From Forbes - Contributed by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

America Before The Entitlement State

 
     
 

Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives.

In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.

But in a culture that revered individual responsibility and regarded being “on the dole” as shameful, formal charity was almost always a last resort. Typically people who hit tough times would first dip into their savings. They might take out loans and get their hands on whatever commercial credit was available. If that wasn’t enough, they might insist that other family members enter the workforce. And that was just the start.

“Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloonkeeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community–those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”

One of the most fascinating phenomena to arise during this time were mutual aid societies–organizations that let people insure against the very risks that entitlement programs would later claim to address. These societies were not charities, but private associations of individuals. Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.

Mutual aid societies weren’t private precursors to the entitlement state, with its one-size-fits-all schemes like Social Security and Medicare. Because the societies were private, they offered a wide range of options to fit a wide range of needs. And because they were voluntary, individuals joined only when the programs made financial sense to them. How many of us would throw dollar bills down the Social Security money pit if we had a choice?

Only when other options were exhausted would people turn to formal private charities. By the mid-nineteenth century, groups aiming to help widows, orphans, and other “worthy poor” were launched in every major city in America. There were some government welfare programs, but they were minuscule compared to private efforts.

In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the city’s 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories.

“In fact,” writes Trattner, “so rapidly did private agencies multiply that before long America’s larger cities had what to many people was an embarrassing number of them. Charity directories took as many as 100 pages to list and describe the numerous voluntary agencies that sought to alleviate misery, and combat every imaginable emergency.” It all makes you wonder: If Americans could thrive without an entitlement state a century ago, how much easier would it be today, when Americans are so rich that 95 percent of our “poor” own color TVs? But we won’t get rid of the entitlement state until we get rid of today’s widespread entitlement mentality, and return to a society in which individual responsibility is the watchword.

 
     
     
 
(top of page)
< Home>      <Humor>       <Articles>      <Books>      <Bad Words>    <Facts>