Does Democracy Make Us Free?

Democracy is often considered to be synonymous with independence and liberty-But is it? Whether it's Woodrow Wilson, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, countless wars, trillions of dollars and endless media propaganda have been dedicated over the years to sanctify democracy as the holy grail of all government forms. But is it necessarily better than any other? Is it mere coincidence that virtually every form of democracy, (or even constitutional republic) in modern times has devolved into a semi or full-blown socialist state that has bankrupted and oppressed its people? Even if it is better than other forms of government, are we truly free? New York Times Best-selling author and U.S. historian, Dr. Tom Woods narrates one of my favorite thought exercises on this topic. Tell me what you think:

What Do Governments Hate Because They Can't Control It?

Free trade is a Natural Right as inherent as your rights to free thought, expression and self-defense. The right to property acquired through voluntary exchange is what distinguishes a free individual from a slave subject to involuntary servitude. It is free trade that poses the greatest threat to the power of the State as it enables the individual to live beyond the clutches of the ruling class. Judge Andrew Napolitano explains how:

The Right to Enslave?

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 12, 2011

Do we have a right to any good or service? For many in America and throughout the world, this question is rarely even asked; but an answer is nevertheless presumed: yes. Though the development of Occupy Wall Street and the passing of the federal health care mandate are perhaps the most blatant examples of this concept in recent years, the widely held belief that individuals or even groups have an inherent “human right” to a good or service has been pervasive in the US since the New Deal. Today we’re told we have a “right” to education, health care, affordable housing, a minimum wage, a job, even to the earnings of younger generations should we come to find out that our Social Security trust funds are empty. While it seems there’s no limit to what rights will be discovered next, what are being overlooked are the rights that are lost.

At least on a superficial level, it’s understandable why someone would consider certain goods and services a right. People have needs to survive and prosper in their lives, so it only makes sense that human beings must have a right to such things. But where do goods and services come from? Does a starving man have a “right” to enter a grocery store and take whatever food he wants? No one suggests that a loaf of bread or an automobile is simply conjured out of thin air. If you want Internet access in your office or a pizza delivered to your home, no one pretends to I Dream of Genie the product into existence with a fold of the arms and a nod of the head. These goods and services must be produced and provided by human beings. This may seem to be common sense, (and it should be) but unfortunately this fact is often disregarded when rights and the economy are being discussed.

It may be common knowledge but where goods and services come from is seldom considered by the average politician or American citizen due in part to the implications that follow from such a line of thinking. As man ponders the marvel of the division of labor and the advancements in society created by it, man must first recognize the material blessings that have been bestowed upon him. From this the individual observes that he has made conscious decisions to better his standard of living in one form or another. If this is so, then it follows that he is responsible for the actions that created the opportunities for those decisions to be made. In other words man owns those actions, hence he owns himself.

Self-ownership is simple enough, especially for Americans as this nation was founded upon it and from that the right of self-determination; but from this it follows that all individuals own themselves. This is why the perception that people have a right to a good or service is not often discussed in depth as it creates quite an inconsistency with the most fundamental principles of our society. If I own my actions, logic tells us that I must also own the results of those actions.

While the notion that private property is theft may only be claimed by outright communists, those who believe in rights to education, health care, a “living wage”, (whatever that means) etc. are ascribing to the same mindset if you follow it to its logical ends. Indeed, many involved with OWS feel the rich are depriving them of their “resource” as we’ll discuss later.

In actuality, private property rights are the foundation of freedom. As was mentioned above, goods and services must be produced and provided by the labor of individuals. Just as I am responsible for and own the results of any foolish or wrongful acts I commit, I am equally responsible for and own the results of my virtuous and productive actions; the fruits of my labor. Property is merely the manifestation and extension of the principle of self-ownership.

Contrary to the approved opinions of the D.C. establishment, free trade is not exploitation in any form but the very essence of mutual respect. Just as property is a statement of sovereignty and self-worth, free trade is an act of reverence for your fellow man. In all transactions or voluntary exchanges both parties benefit, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. If a woman seeks to purchase dinner from a restaurant, she only chooses to pay the stated price because she values the food more than the dollars in her purse and the restaurant owner only agrees to provide the service of making the meal because he values the revenue more than he does the product. The trade is an act of recognizing each other with dignity as free human beings.

Even some of the most ardent economic statists would agree with the benefits of trade and its moral superiority but many fail to observe that free trade is precisely what is taking place when an employer hires someone. I do not have a right to a job or set wage any more than I have a right to my neighbor’s car. Convinced that the wealthy business owner is seeking to exploit the worker, it is often argued that people have a “right” to a minimum wage. But in any other context would someone suggest you have a "right" to the money in someone else's bank account? Many supporters of OWS have even proposed a minimum wage of $20 an hour. Why stop at 20? Why not $2,000? The answer of course is obvious: higher forced wages cause unemployment and raise the wage high enough, no businesses will be able to afford to employ anyone. Just as the individual seeks to only spend his hard-earned money on the best product for the lowest cost, a minimum wage forces the employer to fire those who are less skilled or less productive or to hire less in order to stay in business.

While the left claims to want to end poverty, at some point apparently, you can earn too much. Who decides this? What’s the limit? Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore  has argued the rich do not actually own their wealth, it’s a “national resource”. Not only does this suggest that you do not own yourself and thus the fruits of your labor, it further suggests that at a certain point your labor no longer holds any value. But what exactly do Moore and his comrades feel the rich need to “give back” to society? As previously explained, in a free market, (where there is no government intervention) individuals only become wealthy by providing services that better the lives of their fellow man through voluntary exchange.

The notion of having rights to services or wages is what Robert Nozick called involuntary servitude as it suggests the provider of such services is duty bound to serve others under threat of force and without just compensation. What differentiates the sovereign from the slave is his right to property. As Nozick stated, to tax 5 months of a man’s income away is to take away 5 months of his life and render him to forced labor.

The very fact that such egalitarian desires must be enacted by decrees and the violence of government removes any possibility of such measures to be “human rights”; as they are by definition privileges derived not from an inalienable part of one’s humanity but from the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. While it is truly saddening to witness the outcry for more legislative shackles to be placed on their fellow man, what is most tragic is that as the anti-capitalists grant the State more control, they are unwittingly consigning themselves to bondage as well.

The Unseen Causes of Rising Tuition Rates

As the great French economist Frederic Bastiat once said:

I originally wrote this article for RevoluTimes on November 10, 2011

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”

This is precisely the reaction given to Congressman Ron Paul’s proposal to eventually phase out student loan programs offered by the government. While Paul has stressed that his budget plan does not seek to actively eliminate federal student loans anytime soon, he does concede that this is the ultimate goal.

The words had hardly rolled off his tongue before the media blitz began. From CNN to NBC to various websites, the headlines were filled with claims that Paul sought to deprive the masses of a sound education. Paul addresses these claims here.

But perhaps the most outrageous (and horribly misinformed) article came from a site in which the author claims that education is a “human right, not a product.” Such thinking is unfortunately becoming common place among today’s youth as an entire generation has been raised under the pretense of entitlement. The author continues by stating:

“…the problem here is not who is doing the lending, but that such sums of money must be lent to young students at all. Many young people cannot possibly fathom the magnitude of debt they are accruing to obtain a degree that is fast becoming, let’s face it, more and more useless every year…We need to make university education more affordable. It should not put both young and old students into debt which they then spend a lifetime attempting to pay down.”

This is what Bastiat referred to as “What is Seen and What is Unseen.” As Bastiat explains, the sound economist does not only evaluate what is seen from government policy on a particular part of society, but must consider the effects that are not seen and how it affects society as a whole.

The concerns of Paul’s critics and many others who are desperately seeking to pay down their student loan debt are justified in their indignation at the skyrocketing cost of college tuition; however they’re condemning the symptom of the problem rather than addressing the root cause.

As Congressman Paul and many economists have demonstrated, prior to the government’s interference in the education market, tuition costs were much lower and the quality of education much higher. For many college students in the 1960s, tuition rates were low enough that working a summer job would pay for college and enable the student to graduate without facing a heavy burden of debt. Today, the total amount of money owed in U.S. student loans is over $1 trillion; that’s more than the total U.S. credit card debt!

It seems reasonable enough to most people to blame the universities and claim it’s due to a capitalist system based on greedy universities only seeking to make a profit. If only this were true. There are two key factors however, that are not acknowledged by many college students and much of the American public.

The first is the direct correlation between government subsidies and rising prices. Prior to government issuing of student loans, colleges and universities were forced to operate within the market and cater to the interests of students that resulted in lower tuition rates and a higher standard of education. To those who claim this wouldn’t occur, they need only direct their attention to products such as cell phones and computers. Such industries that are mostly unregulated and left to the markets (especially compared to services like education and healthcare) continue to drop in price as the quality of their products increase.

Once the government intervenes in the market via student loans, universities no longer face market pressures to provide the most affordable education because their funding comes from the State (and the government has no limit to its resources-taxation). As all human action is based on self-interest, it’s to be expected that by eliminating the forces of the market and securing endless funding for universities, these institutions will seek to take advantage of the government’s meddling at the expense of the public.

The second factor is inflation. Just as the price of gasoline has risen dramatically over the last few decades, so too have other goods and services. As government expenditures vastly outweigh tax revenue, money is printed to cover the shortfall. This mass printing of currency decreases the purchasing power of the money already in circulation, wiping out the middle class as wealth is transferred to the wealthy and politically-connected.

The artificially high costs of college tuition are one of many examples of unintended consequences from government interference in the market and the lack of a sound currency. Without market forces, businesses and institutions are given the power to manipulate and exploit the consumer. Just as the Obama administration claimed to be fighting the insurance companies with its healthcare mandate, only to further entrench the power of the insurance companies by forcing those who would normally not seek health insurance to purchase it, the efforts to allegedly empower those seeking higher education has in fact stolen their power of influence over the market and left them in a state of indentured servitude.  If only the busy bodies in Washington were being graded on their performance, they would have flunked out a long time ago

Herman Cain's Economic Amnesia

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain appears to be suffering from a mild case of memory loss these days. In an article published last year at The Daily Caller, Cain writes, “The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.”

The former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza is absolutely right. The trouble is his now famous “9-9-9 Plan” seems to cause quite a discrepancy with the above statement. To be fair, Cain was condemning the proposal of implementing a national sales tax without removing the massive tax burden already imposed on the American people. He goes on to suggest scrapping the entire tax code and replacing it with the Fair Tax. While I applaud his desire to abolish the 16th Amendment and the IRS, many of the criticisms given by Cain in the article could be directed at his current economic plan.

As he notes regarding the threat of a value added tax being imposed, Cain writes:

“In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing its national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care reform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation ‘national retail and wholesale’ tax.”

Though Mr. Cain does not consider his tax plan to be a VAT, his points concerning the nature of government are just as applicable. Why should I trust an overzealous bureaucrat or politician under “9-9-9” any more than I do now? Why should job creators (the wealthy), feel more at ease with both an income and sales tax structure put in place?

To calm the nerves of his supporters, the Georgia native claims his plan is merely a stepping stone in the right direction of his desired goal to implement the Fair Tax. But yet again, Cain’s own words offer the greatest warning of what economic turmoil can develop from trusting such a promise:

“…Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, benefits have gone down… Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside.”

Once again, I find myself agreeing with the dire warnings of Herman Cain the writer, but am left with much dismay by Herman Cain the candidate. The previous quote illustrates a glaring inconsistency on Cain’s part as he seems to condemn the thought of trusting the government to not manipulate the tax code for its own ends and even casts the notion of expecting new taxes to not become destructive as naïve; unless of course he’s in office, in which case such dangers apparently cease to exist.

The most crucial point discussed in Cain’s article demonstrates the fundamental error in his 9-9-9 proposal. Despite the claims of economic growth and real wealth that will emerge should his tax plan be put in place, as Cain himself said last November, “…we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C., not a revenue problem.” Where are the substantive cuts in federal spending? How many departments is he abolishing? Should the American people be comforted by the thought that their wealth is being taken in a different manner? Is this what prosperity looks like?

Catchy slogans and “economic plans” are not going to bring about recovery. The tax plans proposed by Cain and many of the other candidates demonstrate the fatal flaw in mainstream economic thought: the notion that the economy can be planned. The issue is not necessarily how we are taxed, but why are we taxed and how much we are being taxed. It’s true a progressive income tax punishes success and drives jobs away overseas, but what is overlooked by such “revenue neutral” proposals as Cain supports is the amount of wealth being stolen from the productive sector of society and that government spending causes taxation in one form or another.

Prosperity only comes through production. Something must be produced before it can be consumed, and production is only possible through savings and investment. Real wealth and economic growth will only return to this country when we restore sound money and market interest rates that encourage savings, and drastically reduce the size and cost of government. This can only be achieved not by trusting the government to manage a new tax system, but by starving the beast. Don’t replace taxes, repeal them.

While such economic truths seem to have slipped the mind of business-savvy Herman Cain, they are truths the American people cannot afford to forget.


****

This piece originally appeared at RevoluTimes on November 8, 2011

Anarchy in Carolina

There are few things in life that satisfy my thirst for relaxation like a day at the beach. This is probably no surprise. Who doesn’t enjoy a few hours in the sun with freshly soaked sand beneath their feet? My tastes have changed over the years of course. No longer do I crave an overcrowded shoreline crawling with underage drinkers on a Spring Break bender. No I prefer the calm of a secluded cove or scarcely visited coast, armed with only a cold brew in my hand and Bob Marley in my ear; hidden from the rigors of a regimented society.Though the seductive breeze of a summer afternoon at high tide never fails to woo me, it is the blissful experience of self-organization that wins me over.

As I walked down Kiawah Island Beach this weekend, (a short drive from Charleston, SC) I took in the seemingly chaotic nature of the scene. There was no central planning. Hundreds of strangers sorted their way along the water’s edge, until finding the perfect spot to settle in. Parents marched along carrying bags, coolers and chairs, with their kids in tow, as young couples strolled among them, holding hands. All colors, creeds and socio-economic backgrounds were co-existing peacefully; each seeking their own self-interest and yet building upon each other. 

New friendships were made as neighboring children began to build sandcastles together. Was I witnessing the beginnings of a future architect? Who knows? An elderly couple enjoying retirement gazes as young teens prance by, enthralled with youthful love and excitement; no doubt reflecting on their early years. And yet no one was directing any of this.

I finally found my place as I meandered through a maze of beach towels and smells of tanning lotion, when I noticed a sign posted just to the left with the warning:

NO GUARD BEYOND THIS POINT

At last, Freedom! I was even beyond the jurisdiction of the lifeguard, as were dozens of others. And still, no one was directing anything as children covered themselves in sand, only to brush it off and reach for a bag of chips. But who will make them wash their hands?! Who will balance out their meal with a side of broccoli?

Ships were visible in the distance, small crabs lurked under rocks, waves rushed in higher upon the shore-and still no one was regulating the amount of swimmers in the water. Birds flew in circles overhead, occasionally swooping in to scoop up some indiscernible grub, and no one seemed to harm them. But I saw no presence of the EPA. And worst of all, I was enjoying an ice cold Heineken and not a soul had bothered to ask for my ID.

How is it that I not only witnessed this apparent state of lawlessness thrive for more than two hours without so much as a baby crying, but that it occurs on a daily basis around the world among millions of people?

The fact is society is self-organizing. Some may object that it is only because of government that such pleasures as a day by the ocean is possible but of course this is absurd. Contrary to what we’re led to believe by the media and policy-makers in D.C., legislation and bureaucrats possess no magical powers. No matter how many decrees they may make, there are no incantations that can enforce them everywhere, all of the time.

 Certainly there are laws in existence that protect person and property, and indeed they should exist-but by no means must they be administered by the state. There are thousands of ‘laws’ issued by regulatory agencies such as the FDA, EPA, etc. but where were these enforcers this weekend? Why were there no gun fights and massacres instead? Because individuals have an incentive based on self-interest to cooperate with one another peacefully and respectfully.

None of us on that beach could have claimed property ownership over the particular spot we held, and yet everyone minded their own business. There was no lack of commerce, commerce flourished-not because of government-but in spite of it. The few rules that need be enforced for protection of person and property could easily be dealt with on a voluntary basis with competing private agencies.

 Consider the lifeguard; typically, a privately hired individual is hired to carry out this job. And unless someone actually needs assistance, he or she stays put on lookout. The lifeguard has far more important things to be concerned with than what you’re pouring into your plastic cup, how close you are to a neighboring family or whether or not you’re a licensed professional swimmer.

Now consider if a government bureaucracy were entrusted with carrying out the same position. Is it difficult to imagine the debilitating and obnoxious regulations and arbitrary rules that would be enforced? Virtually no one would want to go to the beach.

This is precisely why I believe so many people long for a weekend in the sun. Of course the natural beauty is a major factor but there is also an inherent desire to break free from the shackles of the structured and rigid world we’re accustomed to. Whether you’re seeking a week-long party with college students or a soothing release from your day job, guarded from the outside world-crashing waves will always provide a cure.

What keeps calling me back to that chair or towel on hot sand is not just that it’s pleasing to the eyes, but the euphoric sense of autonomy. While I love the scent of saltwater, and the slight burn of summer’s first tan, I love the peaceful and exhilarating serenity of freedom more.

George Orwell's America

The recent assassination of Muslim cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki marks a tragic point in our nation's history and is an indication of how far we've truly drifted from the society envisioned by the Founders. It was once understood that a country only remains free so long as it jealously guards the natural rights of its citizens.

The first objection to Obama's critics in regards to assassination is that Awlaki was well-known to be associating with terrorists and had therefore committed treason; forfeiting his constitutional rights. But as fellow RevoluTimes contributor Wes Messamore has pointed out, Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states differently:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The Constitution mandates that even in the act of treason, a U.S. citizen is entitled to a trial by jury as indicated in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 


Not only has the government failed to present any evidence whatsoever that Awlaki is guilty of anything other than participating in free speech, (no matter how ignorant, hateful and evil the speech may be) but White House press secretary Jay Carney, explicitly stated that there would be no evidence presented to the public to substantiate the claims of the Obama Administration that resulted in the unconstitutional assassination of an American citizen.

What's more disturbing is the widespread support among Americans that their president now claims the power to kill anyone he deems worthy of a death warrant; the 1st Amendment and the Constitution in general be damned.

Is this what we've become? A mere shell of the nation of laws established by our forefathers, replaced with a nation of men that only honors their memory out of ritual and rhetoric? Have we long forgotten the warnings given to us by patriots such as Thomas Paine who said:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself"?

It was once taken for granted that liberty once lost, does not return; that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect the popular or the non-controversial--the popular and non-controversial need no such protection. It was adopted specifically to protect the unpopular, despised and the hated.

But as one individual claimed earlier today online in defense of Obama, "Some people need killing..." But exactly who holds the authority to make such decisions? At what point did the 1st and 5th Amendments become nullified? And how could the president being recognized with the power to order the killing of any American he wished be construed as anything but a threat to the American people? Where are the liberals who protested against Bush's civil liberties violations? And to conservatives desiring limited government, exactly at what point do those limits kick in?


 George W. Bush himself declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that, "freedom itself was attacked today," and what did he insist on taking in order to keep you safe? Your freedom. But the so-called president of "change" has out-Bushed his predecessor with his most recent circumvention of the Constitution by declaring himself Awlaki's judge, jury and executioner. No doubt we will be reassured in the latest Orwellian Newspeak such unlawful expansions of government power were necessary to protect our freedoms.

As fate would have it I had finished reading Orwell's classic 1984 the day before the assassination was reported. It's always troublesome when such works of fiction become prophecy. In the novel a tyrannical government kidnaps, tortures and murders its own citizens who it deems are guilty of "thoughtcrime". Thoughtcrime is simply to even consider having thoughts that doubt the actions of the State. As Orwell describes it in the book, "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

An American citizen was killed by his government last week for what amounts to thoughtcrime. This is no defense of his actions, views or remarks-but a defense of the rule of law. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Do we have inalienable Natural rights derived from our humanity that can not be taken away without due process? Or are we mere subjects to an omnipotent State? If the president holds the authority to kill anyone he deems a "threat" without having to provide any evidence to the public, what defense do the innocent have against  such actions?

If ideas justify assassination, what ideas are safe? Without free thought and speech, (even if those thoughts and words are repulsive) is there any freedom at all?

As Orwell himself said:

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."