Of course, what I ate was a mere snack compared to what I devoured at the Thanksgiving dinners of my youth. But that was then and this is now.

Gluttony is defined by the dictionary as “excessive eating and drinking.” But, metaphorically speaking, just about anything one does in excess is gluttonous.

Gluttony should not be confused with greed, which is an “excessive” desire to acquire wealth or material things. Everyone is greedy. That is what motivates people to produce better goods and services for others. They know that to the extent they do so, they have a good chance of being financially successful.

Gluttony, on the other hand, is self-indulgence. It is a lack of self-discipline. It is yielding to your desires even when you know it is not in your long-term best interest to do so.

We all know of famous billionaires who are driven to succeed but are not self-indulgent. Some, in fact, practice moderation to such an extent that they don’t seem to live much better than the average person.

When I was a young man, I reveled in gluttony. Not just when it came to food, drink, and … well, other things … but entertainment as well — plays, musicals, concerts, parties. I was even gluttonous when it came to sports. I never wore my ball cap backward or painted my face with my favorite teams’ colors, but I indulged myself in agonizing over their trials and tribulations. I was a sports glutton.

Thankfully, at some point in time, I grew up and came to realize that I was a slave to entertainment and a material lifestyle. Now, don’t get me wrong. Entertainment, in moderation, is a healthy aspect of life. And material things make life more enjoyable and more comfortable. But in excess, they can make one feel … well … gluttonous.

While it’s self-evident that the United States has become a gluttonous culture, this excessive craving for entertainment and material objects didn’t begin yesterday. It’s been evolving for decades, as evidenced by the words of Erich Fromm in The Art of Loving, written clear back in 1956:

Man overcomes his conscious despair by the routine of amusement, the passive consumption of sounds and sights offered by the amusement industry; furthermore by the satisfaction of buying ever new things, and soon exchanging them for others. …

Man’s happiness today consists in “having fun.” Having fun lies in the satisfaction of consuming and “taking in” commodities, sights, food, drinks, cigarettes, people, lectures, books, movies — all are consumed, swallowed.

The world is one great object for our appetite, a big apple, a big bottle, a big breast; we are the sucklers, the eternally expectant ones, the hopeful ones – and the eternally disappointed ones.

Our character is geared to exchange and to receive, to barter and to consume; everything, spiritual as well as material objects, becomes an object of exchange and of consumption.

Even Jdimytai Damour, a giant of a man (6′5″ tall and 275 pounds) who was a temporary worker at a Walmart in Valley Stream, New York, was no match for the gluttonous appetite of man. Forming a human tidal wave of consumption, Christmas shoppers pushing their way into the store the day after Thanksgiving consumed his life because he couldn’t get out of their way fast enough.

Of course, they didn’t set out to kill him. They were simply fixated on saving a few bucks on some goodies Walmart was offering at discount prices. Imagine: In the midst of a collapsing economy and faced with the prospect of a dramatically lower standard of living, they were so addicted to a life of gluttony that they swallowed up Mr. Damour’s life in their haste to indulge themselves.

I hardly need to point out that I am a hard-core, free-market capitalist. As such, I believe that a deflationary depression is a good thing for the economy because it shakes out excesses. It exposes the lie of artificial wealth. Above all, it calms the soul, tempers our gluttonous instincts, and causes us to refocus our priorities.

Periodically, I have to remind myself (usually as a result of impulsive, gluttonous behavior on my part) that I’m a much happier person when I practice temperance in all things (except, perhaps, when it comes to the cause of liberty). Refusing to yield to my gluttonous instincts makes me feel in control. It makes me feel strong. It’s like an investment in my self-esteem.

Remember — technically speaking, there is no such thing as adversity. Adversity is just a word we use to describe a fact (or set of facts). What’s important is how we react to it.

If a lower standard of living motivates you to practice moderation and self-restraint, a difficult economic time can turn out to be a proverbial blessing in disguise. At best, it may motivate you to connect — or reconnect. And being connected is worth far more than any material plaything money can buy.

I hope that what I have said here will help you think about how you’re going to handle the difficult economic times ahead. Always keep in mind that you have free will, which means that you can choose to find both business and personal opportunities that will not be visible to those who are focused on what they believe they are entitled to. Such people are likely to have a difficult time accepting the reality that the Age of Gluttony is coming to an end.

When it comes to ruling over people, even I agree that bigness is bad. The most recent example of this is the former Soviet Union. With its satellite countries biting at its ankles at an accelerating pace and its troops bogged down in Afghanistan, the bitter truth finally came to the surface: With all its military might, the thugs in Moscow couldn’t control the disintegration of their “Union.”

Panarin sees the U.S. breaking up as a direct result of a total collapse of the U.S. economy. Further, he believes that China and Russia will replace the United States as “regulators of world markets.” And he may be on to something, because both of those countries have one big advantage over the United States: Their politicians don’t have to bid for votes!

Instead, the top dogs use a simple formula to maintain order: CT = GYBK (Causing Trouble = Getting Your Butt Kicked).

Though it is a bit offensive to those of us who prefer persuasion over force, the CT = GYBK formula, sort of a simplified version of Machiavelli’s advice on the subject of keeping the masses in line, is remarkably effective. Dictatorships (and it looks likely that Russia is again headed in that direction) violate the rights of their citizens, repress free speech, and can be brutally harsh in handing out punishments.

Hmm … come to think of it, that sounds a bit like the U.S. Our government violates the rights of its citizens and is moving rapidly toward the elimination of free speech (i.e., the elimination of conservative and libertarian free speech). But, in all fairness, it is not nearly as harsh (yet) when it comes to meting out punishments to dissidents.

In any event, I agree with Professor Panarin that the U.S. economy has barely begun its collapse, and that there is no way it can sustain the government’s insane fiscal policies. Regardless of whether we have a deflationary or inflationary collapse (or both!), millions of folks are certain to become downright hostile toward Washington as their standard of living continues to decline.

And if that hostility leads to “civil disobedience,” a dictatorship could be the government’s only way of maintaining control. But even if that should happen, I doubt it would last very long. The U.S. government is too much of a clumsy giant to maintain dictatorial control indefinitely, because there are still too many Americans who take Patrick Henry’s words seriously.

The reality is that no one knows for certain how things are going to play out in the coming years, but I believe there is a real possibility that the United States could eventually break up into a number of independent states or regions. Notwithstanding what I said earlier about all fifty states now being infected with the HIV virus, the people who live in Oklahoma are still as different from Californians as the Kurds are from the folks in Baghdad.

The primary reason Iraq has been able to force the Kurds to remain under its control is because of its small geographical area (roughly twice the size of Idaho) and its relatively small population (about 28 million). And, of course, it helps to have the freedom-loving U.S. and other Western countries insist that the Kurds not be set free.

Remember that paragon of wisdom, Rodney King, who once asked, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer, Mr. King, is because thousands of years of human history have clearly demonstrated that people of different cultures don’t particularly like to be around each other.

I said cultures, not colors. In this day and age, I don’t think many people care about skin color. But they do care about the social and cultural mores of their neighbors. Which brings me back to a possible breaking up of the U.S. If it should occur, I don’t see it happening along the lines Professor Panarin suggests. I believe many states would secede individually, and a number of them would work to weed out the dreaded HIV virus and return to Jeffersonian principles of government.

In other words, ideology would be the driving force behind such a breakup. Which would probably make Panarin’s view accurate in some respects — e.g., on ideological grounds, it might be convenient for such states as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine to stick together in the Northeast, and California, Oregon, and Washington to form a coalition of some kind on the Left Coast.

To paraphrase the signers of that long-ago-forgotten document: It is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government and institute new government. It is not only their right, but their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.

Of course, Rodney King’s thinking is correct — it would be much simpler if we could all just get along. But at this late date, what odds do you think Vegas bookmakers would give on that ever becoming reality?

Charlie Gibson’s now-famous question — “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?” — tongue-tied Sarah Palin for a second. And well it should have, because it was based on a false premise! Alert the media: There is no such a thing as the “Bush Doctrine.” The so-called Bush Doctrine can be just about anything you want it to be. There was no reason for the question other than to make Palin look bad. Why play games?

To her credit, she recovered quickly and fired back at Gibson, “In what respect, Charlie?” That caught him off guard, and he staggered against the ropes for several seconds. Then, instead of answering her question, he came back with, “What do you interpret it to be?” He sounded (and looked) like a stern college professor asking a student a trick question.

Up to that point, my scorecard had Sarah Barracuda ahead on points, with Gibson reeling and trying to stay on his feet. But when she blurted out “His world view,” she opened the door for him to press on with this nonsensical subject that was completely irrelevant to the presidential campaign.

Having been through this kind of Gotcha Garbage many times myself — and having the advantage of watching the Gibson-Palin interview in the comfort of my living room — I found myself wishing I could slip her a note. The answer I thought she should have given Gibson was something like, “First of all, there is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. The term means different things to different people. Second, I’m not here to take a test on George Bush. I’m here to talk about what John McMush and I plan to do for this country.”

The point is that the premise of Charlie Gibson’s question — that there is such a thing as a “Bush Doctrine” — was false. But Gibson decided that Palin had flunked his little quiz, and he proclaimed that the Bush Doctrine is that America has the right to “anticipatory self-defense.” So, why play games? Why not just ask the woman, straight out, if she believes the U.S. has the right to anticipatory self-defense?

The lesson we should all draw from this is that as we make our way through the coming years of endless, deadly doublespeak, we must keep reminding ourselves to carefully check a person’s premise before answering his question. I find that when it comes to questions regarding politics, most of them are based on premises that are false. And it’s simply not possible to give the right answer to a question based on a false premise. For example, suppose someone responds to your stated belief that wealth redistribution is wrong by asking, “So, you don’t care what happens to the poor, the sick, and the homeless, right?”

First of all, the premise that wealth redistribution does, in fact, help the poor, the sick, and the homeless is false. In fact, I would argue that it makes them worse off — especially over the long term. Second, the premise that there is a correlation between a belief in redistribution of wealth and compassion for the poor, the sick, and the homeless is also false.

Politicians are notoriously prolific truth twisters. While they work hard at trying to make the world believe they are acting in the best interests of their constituents, their real purpose is obfuscate the truth to achieve their own ends.

They accomplish this by conditioning our minds to accept false premises, which are cemented into place by the government-controlled education system. A classic example of this is the widely accepted notion that the president and Congress not only have the power, but the ability, to perform such miraculous tasks as “getting the economy moving” and “creating jobs.”

The premise that a president can affect the economy in a positive way is ludicrous on its face, yet the vast majority of voters accept it as a premise. The reason for this can be found in French philosopher Michel Montaigne’s observation that “Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.” The vast majority of the population knows nothing about macroeconomics (and some would argue that the same is true of most professional economists), so they are ripe to believe almost anything — especially if it sounds like it’s going to put dollars in their pockets.

But this is not just true for politics and ideology. You have be alert to being asked questions based on false premises in your business and personal life as well. One of the games people love to play is to use their personal opinions as premises. Oftentimes, what this really means is that they use their conclusions as premises! The latter is known as an a priori argument.

I find that the best defense against being taken in by false premises is knowledge. Whenever my knowledge comes to my aid in refusing to acknowledge a false premise, it reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci’s words: “The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding.”

Above all, be vigilant about checking your own premises. The path to success is paved with correct premises, because they, and they alone, lead to correct conclusions. Thus, you have to constantly defend yourself against false premises on two fronts: (1) Those that others would use against you and (2) those you might be tempted to use yourself.

To the extent you succeed at these two objectives, you, too, will experience the noblest pleasure — the joy of understanding.

The producer of ABC News Nightline called me one day out of the blue and said he would like to do a show on “fear in the workplace.” He had already lined up Harold Geneen, former chairman of IT&T, and a psychiatrist from Wharton to be two of the guests. He said that because my name was “synonymous with intimidation,” he felt I would be the ideal person to round out the program.

I told him that although I admired Ted Koppel and thought it might be fun, it probably would be unfair for me to do the show. I explained that my book, Winning Through Intimidation, had been incorrectly positioned by the media as a book about how to get ahead by intimidating others, and that if he was counting on me to play along with that misrepresentation, he would be sorely disappointed.

The producer said that he understood what I was saying and assured me that I needn’t worry about being cast as “the bad guy.” I warned him one last time that I had resigned from playing the role of master intimidator for TV producers years ago, and that Koppel might be less than thrilled with my answers if he took that approach with me.

He again assured me that he fully understood and that there would be no problem. So, based on those assurances, I agreed to do the show. In my haste, however, I had forgotten one well-established fact about producers and interviewers: Most of them have no qualms about lying in order to suck you into their game plan!

The first half of ABC News Nightline that evening consisted of film clips of scenes from Psycho, The Exorcist, and Poltergeist. From this rather odd beginning, Ted Koppel segued into the evening’s discussion topic: “Fear and the marketplace: How executives use it to get more out of their subordinates.” It was a stretch that proved to be too difficult even for a professional like him.

Koppel started by asking Harold Geneen if he attributed his remarkable success at IT&T to his ability to motivate his executives though fear. Geneen replied that he had never advocated motivation through fear, and that he saw himself only as a demanding board chairman who set challenging goals for his people.

Looking disappointed by Geneen’s answer, Koppel then addressed me by saying, “Mr. Ringer, you’ve been called ‘the Apostle of Intimidation.’ How do you feel about motivating workers through fear?”

I politely but firmly told him that I objected to his introduction, and proceeded to explain that my book, Winning Through Intimidation, was not about intimidating others, but about how to defend yourself against intimidating people. He twitched so noticeably that I feared his hair mousse would crack, and the interview went downhill from there.

It was a long, uncomfortable hour for everyone involved. The producer’s good-guy/bad-guy scenario had failed to materialize. As you might have guessed, he neither thanked me nor said goodbye when I left. Standing on principle can be very lonely endeavor.

As annoying as that ABC News Nightline experience was for me, I was proud of the fact that I had held fast to my beliefs and refused to play the producer’s deceitful game of “pin the tail on the villain.” Years earlier, when I was a naïve young man, I had fallen into the trap of playing the bad guy in a number of interviews. The low point for me was when I play-acted the role of an intimidator on The Tonight Show, making an utter fool of myself – to the delight of producer Freddie de Cordova, who held me over for a second segment.

I shall not go into that story in detail here, as I have discussed it at length in my book Action! Nothing Happens Until Something Moves. But I will say that it was a turning point in my life in that it made me think a great deal about the danger of accepting false premises — and the efficacy of learning to challenge them.

In Part II of this article, I’ll tell you what it was that prompted me to think about the details of my ABC News Nightline experience in the first place.