Liberty Rising: A Market Story

I originally published this article at RevoluTimes on November 25, 2011

Being the political junkie that I am, I often find myself debating one issue or another with friends, family and colleagues. This seems to be the trademark of the libertarian. When I’m not being completely denounced as “crazy” or “too radical” and am able to get a word in edgewise, I attempt to make the case for a truly free and voluntary society. The first and probably the most common objection to libertarianism I find is a lack of understanding or support for true capitalism. A frequent question I encounter from detractors is, “How do I hold any power under a free market?” To this I simply reply, “You are the free market.”

Capitalism and sound economics in general are often presumed to be exceedingly complex and confounding to the average person. There’s no doubt it requires vast knowledge and specialized skills to master, but ultimately economics is simply the study of human interaction and cooperation. What is often overlooked is that individuals act because of ideas and the degree to which those ideas shape society; the market is ruled by little else. Indeed, the groundswell of traditional conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians that is sweeping the nation today is nothing short of a market force. Just as all debit cards are rectangles because the market dictates this, (not because of some government regulation) and just as sold-out grocery stores during a blizzard are always re-stocked to fulfill consumer needs, societies respond and shape themselves in order to cater to new and innovative ideas.

Much like the founding of the Libertarian Party in 1971, the current surge in protests, political activism and independent media are acting as a market force to offer an alternative to the status quo. In the winter of 1971, as both major political parties were becoming increasingly authoritarian and the Old Right was vanishing, individualists and anti-statists of all stripes created what has become the nation’s third largest political party. This was all due to individuals taking it upon themselves to act on their ideas and fill a void in society that was needed.

The Libertarian Party continues to grow today, and in 2010 boasted 154 Libertarians holding public office. While their ranks have grown over the years, it has proven to be a long and mostly uphill road that has yielded poor results. Thanks to the advent of the internet, the philosophy of liberty has spread throughout the world and the plea for smaller government and more freedom was finally heard.

No one has taken advantage of the World Wide Web for the cause of liberty better than the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Their website Mises.org is a bastion of liberty and an intellectual powerhouse for the cause of free markets and individual freedom. Providing literally hundreds of books and thousands of articles and podcasts all for free, the site not only talks the talk but walks the walk.

The Mises Institute is yet another example of individuals taking action to provide a good or service, (in this case the scholarship of libertarian ideas) that was necessitated by the market. Founded by author Lew Rockwell with the blessing of Margit von Mises, (widow of classical liberal giant Ludwig von Mises) in 1982 and headed by libertarian hero and Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, (until his death in 1995) the institute’s purpose was to rekindle the old flame of laissez faire economics and to continue the teachings of the Austrian school. Having informed millions around the world with the scholarship of freedom and educated over 10,000 students in its summer Mises University program, the LvMI has proven to be indispensable in the struggle against the State.

In the last few years, organizations such as the Mises Institute and others have become very instrumental in education in the wake of government bailouts, unprecedented spending and endless wars. In 2008, a grassroots movement of the Tea Party shook the political establishment as it began to transcend the one dimensional narrative given by the Beltway talking heads. Inspired mostly by the presidential campaign of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Tea Party movement drastically impacted the 2010 elections and continues to be a strong force throughout the nation.

While I vehemently disagree with much of the conclusions presented by demonstrations such as Occupy Wall Street, it is indeed an important conversation to have. These protests, (that by now have likely been largely co-opted by the Democratic Party and professional activists) ironically began as just another example of the very market forces at work which so many leftists denounce. Similar to their right wing counterparts in the Tea Party, OWS was largely started by disenchanted left-liberals who no longer feel their representatives can be trusted and who recognize that the system is broken. Sadly, most are very misguided on how this occurred and what to do about it; but fortunately the market of ideas allows for competing philosophies– and we have history, economics and virtue on our side.

With the 2012 presidential elections heating up in a few short weeks, we may very well be nearing the pinnacle of this very long struggle for individual sovereignty as Congressman Ron Paul is rising in the polls despite concerted efforts to ignore him altogether. Despite the best efforts of the State and its cohorts to silence our ideas, the market has provided outlets for us such as Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Adam vs. the Man with Adam Kokesh, Stossel, and of course this very website you are reading now, The RevoluTimes. As with all other products of the market that are developed by individuals, if we desire an abundant supply of freedom, we must never cease demanding it.

Foreign Policy Isn't Free

I originally published this piece at RevoluTimes on November 22, 2011

War is a racket… easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious… It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives…. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes….I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.” -two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Major General Smedley Butler

When debating what should be cut from the federal budget, Washington promises that “everything’s on the table”. But is it? From entitlements to earmarks, congressional leaders and the president have spent the last several months pledging to address wasteful spending and restore fiscal sanity. Even if these sentiments were true, (which they’re not) it wouldn’t make any difference. No amount of tinkering around the edges or “reforms” of domestic spending is going to change the fact that our foreign entanglements around the world are not only destroying our liberties but crippling our economy. This cannot however be put completely at the feet of politicians as many Americans have yet to understand that there are limits to what the country can sustain.

The gut reaction to defend all military spending is understandable. If there is any legitimate role of government, it’s national defense. But in a post-9/11 world, the potential threat of terrorism has caused much of America to not question the reckless spending of the Pentagon. In our desperate attempt to feel secure, we’ve neglected our reason and placed faith in politicians. The same politicians and bureaucrats, who’ve proven to be unreliable and irresponsible with your tax dollars at home, haven’t suddenly become accountable and trustworthy when it comes to foreign policy.

Indeed few Americans are aware the Department of Defense is the only federal department expressly exempt from being audited. This alone should be startling to Americans, especially those concerned with an out-of-control government; but even more stunning is the fact that the US spends more on defense than all other nations combined. This is what economist and historian, Tom Woods has called, “The greatest fleecing of the American public in history.”

According to a recent study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University, the U.S. has spent over $3.2-4 trillion on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The study noted these numbers do not include: “Medicare costs for injured veterans after age 65; Expenses for veterans paid for by state and local government budgets; Promised $5.3 billion reconstruction aid for Afghanistan; Additional macroeconomic consequences of war spending including infrastructure and jobs.”

David Callahan writing at The Policy Shop summarized the report saying,

“… the total direct and indirect costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed $6 trillion…. That figure comes from combining congressional appropriations for the wars over the past decade ($1.3 trillion), additional spending by the Pentagon related to the wars ($326 – $652 billion), interest so far on Pentagon war appropriations, all of which was borrowed ($185 billion), immediate medical costs for veterans ($32 billion), war related foreign aid ($74 billion), homeland security spending ($401 billion), projected medical costs for veterans through 2051 ($589 – $934 billion), social costs to military families ($295 – $400 billion), projected Pentagon war spending and foreign aid as troops wind down in the two war zones ($453 billion); and interest payments on all this spending through 2020 ($1 trillion).”

These estimates are also excluding military operations such as Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia andUganda.

While these numbers are unconscionable, a fact even more astounding is the number of U.S. military bases around the world. The problem is, there are so many, no one knows the exact number. Writes Antiwar.com’s Nick Turse:

“…there’s one number no American knows. Not the president. Not the Pentagon. Not the experts. No one… There are more than 1,000 U.S. military bases dotting the globe. To be specific, the most accurate count is 1,077. Unless it’s 1,088. Or, if you count differently, 1,169. Or even 1,180. Actually, the number might even be higher. Nobody knows for sure.”

Having over a thousand bases worldwide not only dwarfs any other nation’s foreign bases, but the magnitude of the bases themselves is overwhelming. As author Tom Engelhardt explains,

“India, a rising power, almost had one (but the Tajiks said no). China, which last year became the world’s second largest economy as well as the planet’s leading energy consumer, and is expanding abroad like mad (largely via trade and the power of the purse), still has none. The Russians have a few (in Central Asia where “the great game” is ongoing), as do those former colonial powers Great Britain and France, as do certain NATO countries in Afghanistan. Sooner or later, Japan may even have one… All of them together… add up to a relatively modest (if unknown) total. The U.S., on the other hand, has enough bases abroad to sink the world. You almost have the feeling that a single American mega-base like Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan could swallow them all up. It’s so large that a special Air Force “team” has to be assigned to it just to deal with the mail arriving every day, 360,000 pounds of it in November 2010 alone. At the same base, the U.S. has just spent $130 million building “a better gas station for aircraft … [a] new refueling system, which features a pair of 1.1-million gallon tanks and two miles of pipes.” Imagine that: two miles of pipes, thousands of miles from home – and that’s just to scratch the surface of Bagram’s enormity.”

It’s safe to say most Americans would be surprised, even shocked by these staggering numbers, but it is unfortunately also likely that many U.S. citizens would find such exorbitant costs necessary. We have been conditioned to trust government with such decisions and forgotten Randolph Bourne’s timeless warning, “War is the health of the State.”

There’s no denying domestic spending must be drastically cut as well, but while lawmakers in Washington have been playing political theatre, the U.S. has had its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history, we just recently reached a debt of $15 trillion and we’ve lost over 6,000 U.S. soldiers; at what point do we admit these are debts that cannot be paid?

Newt Gingrich (D)

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 19, 2011

The growing sentiment across the country of “anyone but Obama” has placed the GOP, (driven by the enthusiasm of the Tea Party) front and center in American politics. The staggering number of Americans out of work and the unconscionable national debt has spawned a nationwide movement of voters searching for a candidate who will finally cut federal spending and shrink the size of government. Newt Gingrich is not that candidate.

Being a Georgia native, I’ve seen firsthand the masterful work of Gingrich the performer. It is unfortunately very rare to come across conservatives in Georgia who are aware of the former Speaker’s record. I’m sorry to say the two politicians Georgia is most noted for in modern times are Jimmy Carter and Newt Gingrich; contrary to popular opinion, the latter is no more conservative than the former. Despite his often touted, “Republican Revolution,” (which didn’t do much of anything at all) and harsh criticisms of Democrats’ endless spending, a look beyond the grandstanding and empty talking points reveals a charlatan, a professional blowhard who’s ability to rhetorically condemn big government policies is only overshadowed by his propensity to portray those same policies as conservative when they’re offered by Republicans.

One of the trademarks of George W. Bush’s big government conservatism, (and one of the scourges of the Tea Party) was the $400 billion Medicare Part D. Any self-respecting conservative has always wished to reduce the federal budget and the welfare state, not expand it. Gingrich on the other hand, strongly supported this increase in entitlement spending–and still does. Reports National Review:

“Gingrich supported Medicare Part D in 2003 — and the ensuing years haven’t made him any less supportive of the legislation. Asked in March if he regretted supporting the plan, Gingrich responded not with an apology, but with a ringing defense: ‘I feel strongly that the No. 1 purpose of health care is health, and Medicare was designed in the 1960s when pharmaceutical drugs were not a significant part of how you took care of people. And for us to have a government-run health plan that said we’re not going to help you with insulin but we’ll be glad to pay for kidney dialysis is an utterly anti-human provision. And so all I was in favor of was modernizing the system to recognize modern medicine.’”

While Newt’s words may indeed be comforting to seniors, they should be appalling to anyone who believes in constitutional government and particularly disturbing to those wishing to see a dramatic decrease in government spending and a restoration of the free market. Notice Gingrich does not seemed troubled at all by the notion of a “government-run health plan”; in fact he believes the government doesn’t go far enough. His statements regarding an opposition to government funded prescription drug benefits as being “anti-human” is predicated on the notion that without the State organizing and funding such care, it wouldn’t be available at all. How is this mentality and approach to government any different than that of liberal Democrats? For all of Newt’s lip-service to the free market, when the chips are on the table he folds every time.

Newt’s career is filled with endorsements of excessive and unconstitutional government spending and State interference in the marketplace. From ethanol subsidies, to No Child Left Behind and even a government bailout of the Mexican peso, one has to wonder how he’s managed to maintain his conservative cover for so long and why the Tea Party seems to favor him.

Perhaps it’s because the two policies most responsible for starting the Tea Party movement occurred while Newt was out of the limelight. His not being in Congress when TARP and ObamaCare were passed seems to have certainly helped to hide the fact that Gingrich supported TARP and has stated for years that he supports an individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
When asked in 2008 by George Stephanopoulos would he have voted for TARP, Gingrich replied:

“Sure, look, something has to be done. …I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end, George [Will] is right, and I would end up probably voting reluctantly yes…”

Newt’s right, something did need to be done, but not by the government. The market should have been allowed to liquidate the malinvestment, rather than such “troubled assets” being propped up at the expense of taxpayers. Newt’s tendency to presume so many social and economic ills can and must be remedied by government, rather than acknowledging government as the cause of much of our problems is further indicative of his insincerity when defending capitalism and the extent to which he’ll betray the economic freedoms and property rights of his supporters if given the opportunity.

One would think with such economic turmoil and anti-Obama sentiment pervading the country, supporting a government mandated purchase of health insurance would be a non-starter for anyone seeking public office. But the shape shifting Gingrich defies the odds as he has not only candidly admitted his support for an individual mandate over the years, but has also successfully condemned president Obama’s administration for imposing the same thing, simultaneously.
In an interview last May with NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gregory played a video of Gingrich from a 1993 interview discussing health care in which Gingrich said,

“I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” (emphasis mine)

When asked by Gregory does he indeed advocate for an individual mandate, Gingrich replied,

“…I believe all of us–and this is going to be a big debate–I believe all of
us have a responsibility to help pay for health care…”

Continued Gingrich,

 “…And, and I think that there are ways
to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently
we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you
post a bond…”

Not only does the former college professor have an obvious misunderstanding of libertarianism, but yet again Gingrich demonstrates his lack of conservative credentials. This notion of fixing big government rather than ending it has been seen throughout his career and persists in his current bid for the White House. His website remarks upon the need to “modernize the FDA”, (whatever that means) turn the Environmental Protection Agency into an “Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results”, return to “Reagan era monetary policy”, (despite that Reagan appointed the destructive Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman) and of course “Repeal and Replace” ObamaCare. Gingrich is the modern Republican Party personified. At no point is the prospect of actually reducing the size and scope of government and drastically cutting spending ever on the table. From the perspective of Gingrich and his fellow Rockefeller Republicans, excessive spending, crippling regulations and debasement of the currency aren’t to be condemned and certainly not to be reversed; but adjusted, revised and altered to the interests of the GOP.

The fundamental question that needs to be asked to Gingrich and each of the presidential candidates is this: Where are the actual CUTS in federal spending and where are you seriously shrinking the size of government? For far too long conservatives have confused pandering for principle, entertainment for integrity, and valued style over substance. If we are to truly turn the tide and rid our lives of government and restore prosperity, we can no longer afford to tolerate imposters, because political chameleons like Gingrich will always change their colors to mask what’s beneath the surface.

Prohibition: Why It Doesn't Work

I first published this piece at RevoluTimes on November 17, 2011

If you’re looking to start a screaming match with a parent, your neighbor, or just the average American, nothing will test their temper like calling for the end of the War on Drugs. Though drug legalization has found a somewhat stronger voice in recent years, the majority of Americans are far from supporting an end to the federal government’s role in drug policy. Most proponents of prohibition are certainly well-intentioned citizens seeking to relieve the nation’s drug-related woes; but an understanding of the market economy reveals such good intentions are paving a road to hell.

For four decades the U.S. government has waged what Nixon called, “a global war on the drug menace”. Nixon claimed that drug abuse in America was “public enemy number one” and swore to launch an unprecedented “all-out offensive”. (Hat Tip Reason.com) He stayed true to that promise but the results of this war, (and it is indeed a real war) leaves one wondering if those wishing for its continuation aren’t puffing on the Magic Dragon themselves.

Forty years and $1 trillion later , Washington has still failed to overcome the laws of economics. This is not to say they’ve suddenly had a change of heart but it is becoming increasingly clear that such a notion as a war to end drug abuse is as patently absurd as the rest of America’s wars. As a gentleman on the History Channel’s documentary, Marijuana: A Chronic History said, “I wish the government would declare a war on hot chicks. They’d be everywhere!” Indeed sir, indeed.

I understand it may be difficult for many to consider illicit drugs in strictly economic terms but this is essential if we are to have an honest discussion on drug addiction, crime and their causes.

A drug is simply a good. Simply because someone finds drug use deplorable does not negate its being a good that is made available to meet demands. This is economics 101. Where there is a demand for something, someone somewhere will provide for that demand to make a profit. Ironically, some of the staunchest supporters of the drug war are self-described “conservatives” who claim to revere the free market, while simultaneously demonstrating an utter inability to understand its most basic precepts.

Declaring prohibition on the buying and selling of certain substances may sound good on the surface to some, but it actually increases the value of these substances due to their scarcity; thereby encouraging new prospects to enter the market for it. Imagine a prohibition on bread, would Americans stop seeking to purchase and consume bread? To those who may claim bread is perfectly healthy and is no comparison to an illegal drug, you’re missing the point. Whether or not you think someone should consume bread or marijuana, the demands of those who wish to purchase and consume these goods are not going to vanish. Indeed, if bread were going to be outlawed tomorrow, millions of Americans would buy as much bread as they can tonight because its value would skyrocket.

This is what leads to an increase in drug trafficking. The greater the scarcity of the good and the harsher the penalty for violating drug laws, the more expensive the drug becomes due to the increased risk on the part of the drug traffickers and dealers. This creates the greatest incentive to those seeking to make a large amount of money in a short period of time, hence the ever-increasing number of drug dealers.

One of the most common objections to legalizing drugs is that the drug trade itself is responsible for the large amount of crime that surrounds the drug trade. First, even if this were true studies have shown the War on Drugs to be a failure as violence and drug abuses have increased since its inception. But this assertion isn’t true to begin with. Have you ever seen Budweiser and Miller have a gunfight in the streets to protect their turf? Of course not. These businesses have a legal framework with which to compete. Drug cartels on the other hand, form and create violence to protect their investments because they have no peaceful mechanism under the rule of law to settle disputes between competitors. As individuals seek to fulfill their self-interest, those involved in the drug trade are going to protect their investments at all costs; without the protection of law, the only recourse is violence.

Yet another misconception concerning drug-related crime is that its causes stem from addiction. While it’s certainly true that many drug users become desperately addicted to their preferred substances, it is not the addiction itself that leads to crime. It is commonly understood and accepted that cigarettes are extremely addictive and dangerous to an individual’s health; but when was the last time you heard of anyone holding up a convenience store for a pack of Marlboros?

Individuals use economic reasoning on a daily basis whether they realize it or not.

Just as you consider a cost/benefit analysis of where to purchase groceries or whether to drive across the country or take a plane, drug users weigh their options as well. If given the choice to buy drugs from a potentially violent dealer at an artificially high price or from a legitimate business, the buyer will take the legal, peaceful and cheaper route every time. This is why the drug cartels themselves are some of the strongest supporters of drug prohibition. It was no coincidence the mafia and bootleggers began to die out as did the violence they initiated once prohibition of alcohol was lifted.

An often overlooked unintended consequence of the drug war is the incentive it creates for drug cartels and users to seek more potent and more dangerous drugs. Because of the risk of violence and arrest involved in drug trafficking and purchasing illegal drugs, drug users want a bigger bang for their buck. This causes those seeking an intoxicant to try more addictive and dangerous drugs because of the greater intensity of the high. Some studies suggest a slight increase in the potency of marijuana has occurred since the beginning of the War on Drugs as well as great increases in the use of harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. There were similar results during alcohol prohibition as many drinkers began purchasing more hard liquor instead of beer.

Despite the economic case that prohibition has never, nor ever will work, many will still object that legalizing drug use would create a society of apathy that would grow comfortable with drug abuse and addiction as it became the social norm. I have two questions for them:

1. What has prohibition done to keep this from happening, if not made it worse?

2. At any point in your life have you ever encountered a co-worker, friend, or family member, anyone who sincerely felt that being an alcoholic was healthy, acceptable, or not detrimental to a person’s overall well-being? I’ve known many addicts in my life and even they emphatically condemn their destructive habits. Alcoholism is not accepted by society, it’s recognized as a dangerous and rampant disease; and yet we don’t lock alcoholics up in cages.

Amsterdam and Portugal have led the way in implementing more rational drug policies without seeing an increase in crime or drug use; in fact in some cases these factors decreased by simply recognizing that drug abuse is a disease, not a crime and addicts must be treated not imprisoned.

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.