I trust the reader acknowledges that this is no outlier and that these antidemocratic antics happen everywhere, no matter the size of the town. Politicians pronounce the positives of their beloved democracy, but virtually no one else seems to share their enthusiasm. If “democracy” is “majority rules,” have most readers witnessed democracy functioning properly anywhere, especially at the local level? If a small but exceedingly obnoxious minority can dictate what the local government does, it’s reasonable to conclude that there’s no such thing as “democracy.” It’s nothing but a myth, nurtured by what’s taught in schools and exposed by what actually occurs. And it’s not just that the outcomes are often contrary to what was promised; when the results are dismal, at best, fixing what is now broken requires more of everyone’s money. Back to Rose Street’s remodeling, rather than fix the politically created problem, the problem is set to be duplicated.

Your author believes that drivers in Washington are among the worst in the country. “Left lane, fast lane” appears to have never been taught, and more than a peculiar few interpret the speed limit literally, meaning driving five miles per hour under the limit is preferable to five over. And now that Rose is one lane instead of two, it only takes one of these lamblike luddites to cause a mile-long caravan. But at least the bicyclists are thriving, right? Maybe elsewhere, but not on Rose. Seeing a bicyclist on Rose is an event rarer than witnessing a driver daring to exceed the speed limit. And Rose Street isn’t adorned with palm trees, as Walla Walla is no beach community. Distinct four seasons are a feature of Walla Walla, which means that for about three months of the year, no bicyclists dare to traverse the snow and ice.

One might conclude that with such an abject failure, the rotten Rose remodeling would be reversed, but it’s slated to be replicated on Poplar Street. In the real economy, markets—people—don’t intentionally harm themselves, but with the poison that is politics, trade-offs are ignored. Poplar’s perversion has yet to break ground, but citizens have already voiced their opposition. As with Rose, no one voted to remove one of Poplar’s lanes, and this is where the theory of democracy unravels. To those who criticize the plan for Poplar, the public servants reply that it’s public policy to press on. Washington’s politicians violently pat themselves on the back for their passionate support of democracy, but this is yet another example of democracy’s subversion. And again, only in the political economy do bad ideas get additional funding. No one in the political class seems to ask themselves, “After we do this, what will happen?”

As with Rose, Poplar’s remodeling will create more congestion, so will the general public be forced to pay for adding lanes to other streets? And with drivers avoiding both streets, which streets will suffer more wear and tear? Will bicyclists now feel less safe on roads that were previously less trafficked? And what if the backlash is so great that the political profits reaped from the minute minority end up transforming into a liability for the tax-fed? If policy overrides the will of the people, this is no democracy; it never was. This is civilized barbarism under the guise of democratic rituals. This is harming the people—with their own money and without their consent—under the guise of helping them. This is the government creating problems so that it can later offer ‘solutions,’ thereby justifying its parasitic existence.

But the government needn’t follow through with its Poplar plan; it can prove its critics wrong by cancelling the project, implicitly admitting that market forces trump the lie that the government exists to serve those who are forced to fund it.

The post Democracy Also Fails at the Local Level appeared first on Free the People.

Why were politicians pleased to provide what their most vocal constituents demanded, despite the Constitution prohibiting politicians from meeting those shrill demands? Because politicians exist to perpetuate their existence, and if their chances of reelection hinge on disregarding their oath to the Constitution, they’ll happily betray their oath. This is no theory. On November 3, 2020, 11 states held a gubernatorial race. Nine of those states were locked down, and eight of those states—comprising a combined population of 36 million—reelected the governor who locked down the state. This proves that the ability of the Constitution to restrict governments pales in comparison to the power of the popular sentiment that yearns, as Thomas Jefferson bemoaned, “for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” The politicians and voters who supported them, however, weren’t the only Americans who betrayed the Constitution.

Every member of the U.S. military stationed in America in 2020 failed to do what they swore to do, what Americans are forced to pay them to do. “I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” Notice that the oath doesn’t require of those who swear it to “support and defend” the Commander in Chief or any other politician, and by tolerating the actions of state and local politicians, every member of the military stationed stateside in 2020 ended up supporting and defending politicians—domestic enemies—against the Constitution. There’s no pandemic paragraph or cowardice clause in the Constitution that renders the Bill of Rights null and void, but those in the military—and most cops—gave in to popular sentiment; they acquiesced to fear. But servicemen are supposed to be immune to popular sentiment, as they swore an oath to the law of the land, not to the court of public opinion; therefore, the U.S. military should be thrown atop the rotting heap of once-cherished institutions. It failed, and it will continue to fail.

What’s even more troubling, however, is the precedent that’s been set. The military sat idly by while domestic enemies trampled over the Constitution, so who’s to say that the military won’t take an active role in supporting the domestic enemies during the next constitutional crisis? Rather than allowing states to secede from the Union, Abraham Lincoln used the military against his own people, so what’s stopping a modern-day president from doing the same when it’s once again popular to be afraid? Governments worldwide excel at ginning up fear, and by no means was 2020 the first year in which the servile media assisted the government in terrorizing their fellow Americans. And when the next constitutional crisis hits, bet on the media once again applauding the government, not defending the people or the Constitution. What happened to America? Born out of revolution and later witnessing more presidents assassinated since Lincoln than any other country, not a single governor was killed in 2020. You might have thought that H. L. Mencken was exaggerating a century ago, but it’s been clear since 2020 he wasn’t: “The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”

There’s been much talk of the United States descending into civil war, but war needn’t be inevitable. Civil war can be averted, but the crux of America’s quandary must first be acknowledged: the more that the federal government controls, the greater the chances of civil war. Governments rule by coercion—not cooperation—which, naturally, breeds conflict. It’s hard enough for 33 people to agree, which is why it’s impossible for more than a third of a billion Americans to compromise. For every American who is aghast at the latest controversy, there’s an American who believes it’s glorious. There’s no compromise to be had here; therefore, instead of forcing each state to conform, as Lincoln did, why not do the opposite? Whether the issue is pathogens or protests, waste or war, a financier’s files or flagrant fraud, the federal government is either the cause of it or can only exacerbate it.

And what does the District of Columbia do besides tell the country that it’s doing something grand while hiding the fact that it’s inflicting great harm and parasitizing the very same people it purports to serve? If you’re still unconvinced about why this issue is of utmost importance, just read the Constitution—tyranny’s crutch—and consider the following clause from Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Regarding the precedent set in 2020, do you see why the vast majority of “the Laws of the Union” must be repealed? Do you see that with “Insurrections” undefined, the military will readily hunt down whomever the federal government deems an insurrectionist? Some would say that this already happened—in 2021—and that (and much worse) will happen again if the federal government doesn’t make itself far less relevant.

The post The Civil War, Lockdowns, and the Next Civil War appeared first on Free the People.

Speaking of a solution (which doesn’t exist), I’d very much like to see an end to the U.S. regime’s pointless and proxy wars, but again, I’m discussing tradeoffs, not solutions. Last year, I argued that low rates of military enlistment are actually a good thing, but again, hoping for the solution that is an imploding Department of Defense requires dreaming, not tradeoffs. It is those low rates of military enlistment that have spurred some to advocate filling the gap with illegal immigrants. And why not? The regime won’t simply stop waging war due to a lack of interest from those it parasitizes.

“But, but, but,” conservatives seem to groan, “dying in pointless wars is an honor reserved for my children, not illegals.” So very odd. And depressing. We happily pay others to do the “dirty” jobs we’d rather not do, so why do the right of center yearn to work such a lousy job? Also, each illegal ‘serving’ in the military frees one citizen to help defend the border, about which, in my opinion, conservatives are justifiably enraged. I’ve also seen Olympus Has Fallen, but are conservatives aware that it’s not a documentary? Even if illegals taking over the military were an actual concern, the tradeoff would be to make the military weaker and, therefore, less of a threat to its own citizens. After all, the current president keeps reminding us that one needs an F-16, not an M-16, to fight the regime, so a smaller military might prevent a sitting president from saying something so ludicrous, insulting, and obnoxious. If the regime doesn’t meet its enlistment goals, will it simply call it quits and bring the troops home? The question answers itself, and I’d think those on the right would prefer illegals in the military over legal conscription.

For those on the political left who’ve been calling for ‘service’ as a path to citizenship, why would illegals put their lives on the line for citizenship when they’re already treated better than citizens? Yes, leftists have also forgotten tradeoffs, and maybe they never learned of them in the first place. One works a job for a paycheck; exertion, one hopes, is commensurate with compensation. However, if one were offered a salary for no slog—ask any parasite—the job will go unworked. That is precisely what liberals seem to be suggesting. “Citizenship?” illegals seem to ask, “we’re doing just fine being illegal.” This proposal, emanating almost entirely from those who are left of center, not only ignores tradeoffs but incentives as well. Where’s the incentive for citizenship when illegal immigrants can get a driver’s license and, in some cities, are about to be granted suffrage? It also seems that those on the left aren’t at all curious as to why rates of military enlistment have plummeted, despite the regime’s problem being seen as a possibility back in 2020. This proposal is a tradeoff that trades something for nothing.

The lack of regard for tradeoffs seems to contribute to the deteriorating political climate. When half of the country wants to force their solutions on the other half, is it any wonder why politics is so ugly? If there’s only one solution, most will be unhappy, but that’s exactly what politics does and is why I loathe it. Politics eviscerates tradeoffs and, therefore, voluntary exchange. No, a new president with a different set of solutions won’t save us; he’ll merely shift the misery to another tribe, which is why if there were fewer and fewer aspects of our lives that the regime controls, tradeoffs would help relegate policy solutions to where they belong—the realm of fiction.

The post Let the Illegals ‘Serve’? appeared first on Free the People.

“Are we heading into a recession?” The reader has undoubtedly heard that question many times this year, but because, like most, I’m a believer of business cycles, I’m wondering, “When will markets decide that we’re in a recession?” All year, I’ve caught myself muttering, “This doesn’t make any sense,” but no, expecting markets to “make sense” is actually what makes no sense. Again, markets are people, and to believe that markets act in only “sensical” ways helps illustrate the unbridled hubris at the Federal Reserve. The Fed, which continues to bring new meaning to “folly,” seems to truly believe that its actions can “correct” those of a third of a billion Americans. But are we deserving of this economic terrorism, or will their actions once again prove futile? Instead of a graph, let’s look at what markets—people—are actually saying. Taking a page out of John Tamny’s book, why not address sentiment through the eyes of The New York Times? Yes, it pains me to even type those words, but that doesn’t mean that the chief propagandist is universally ignored. Far from it. Here’s what it wrote in February:

And here’s an excerpt from March:

And now for a confession: I haven’t been honest with you. Those articles were indeed written in February and March, but they were written in 2007. Now that we’ve touched on just an infinitesimal fraction of the sentiment during Q1 of ‘07, let’s turn our attention to what preceded it. Over the course of 25 months—June of ‘04 to July of ‘06, the Federal Funds effective rate went from 1.03% to 5.24%, remaining there for 12 months (5.26% in July of ‘07). One way of interpreting that is to say that after aggressively raising rates, it took the Fed a full year to reverse course. Is that when markets—people—decided that the U.S. economy would begin to contract, and are we in a similar position today? To help answer those questions, let’s look at another NYT excerpt, from September of ‘07:

Earlier this year, I thought that if we’re about to be in a recession, and with data of the last recession now ubiquitous, why will the next recession unfold at the same pace? But I learned the hard way that that’s the wrong question. Again, unlike computers, people have short memories. Calculators don’t require consensus, but people seem to favor it. And though calculators are incapable of yielding an incorrect answer, people believe what they want to believe, regardless of validity. So, when you hear about the Fed’s underworked and overpaid “handling” the economy, bear in mind that they actually haven’t the slightest clue, as the title of this Wall Street Journal article makes clear: “Why Economists Are Betting A Recession Won’t Happen.” That was written in December of ‘07. Are we heading into a recession? Yes, but no chart can tell us when.

The post Charts Can’t Time the Market, But People Can appeared first on Free the People.

What began in 1776 as a manifesto for preserving voluntary exchange—capitalism—has been mutilated beyond recognition. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But today, it’s painfully obvious that our government, which was intended to “secure these rights” and is allegedly “from the consent of the governed,” truly acts as if some are created ‘more equally.’ “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” But the majority don’t wish to “alter or to abolish it;” they wish to augment it. Unfortunately for the reader and author, the “long train of abuses and usurpations” over the past three years weren’t abusive enough for the majority. Sure, I could contact my elected representatives, but it seems that the past 3+ years are no different from the past 2.5 centuries: “Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

Experts of injustice—lawyers—will say that the Declaration of Independence isn’t legally binding, but what about the oath of office that politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the military swore to uphold? “…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” Protecting Americans from foreign enemies is to be congratulated, but killing domestic enemies is treasonous? I fail to see the consistency. No, I’m not advocating violence; I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy. In the “land of the free,” only the experts of injustice are allowed to interpret the Constitution. How many more decades or centuries must pass before the following thoughts are accepted, before they’re internalized and acted upon?

It turns out that democracy is even worse than what Benjamin Franklin believed. Democracy is two lambs eagerly electing a wolf, which proves—to me at least—that politics is worse than worthless (like masks ‘fighting’ respiratory viruses). Politics is the poison that degrades everyone—even those who don’t consume it. There are no quick fixes—libertarian or otherwise—and since no one but the parasites can decide to change the manner in which they lord it over everyone else, the only solution to the malignant state is its implosion. It’s not just that the president is too old; it’s that we’re all too old to give a shit. Our once-great nation can no longer afford the incessant bitching. Though it’s also quite old, the Declaration of Independence provides the path to prosperity. Why has it been shunned? Yes, “live and let live” died long ago, but isn’t it preferable to “kill or be killed”? Our ‘leaders’ think we’re stupid. When will we prove them wrong?

Robert Higgs concluded his article—“Can the Rampaging Leviathan Be Stopped or Slowed?”—with: “…ultimately this criminal enterprise will attain such bloated size and scope that its own survival will no longer be possible, and it will implode, as the Soviet Union and other similarly overreaching politico-economic orders have imploded.” Before that glorious day arrives, I wish to declare independence from the geriatric parasites—federal, state, and local—who serve only themselves, not me or my neighbors. And other than parasitize us ‘peasants,’ they no doubt wish to have nothing to do with us. The tax-fed seem to have forgotten that without taxes, they don’t eat. It’s long past time that the host shows the parasites who’s boss. The win-win seems to be peacefully separating from each other. That’s something I’d like to celebrate on the 4th, and for those who seek domination over peace, comforting lies over inconvenient truths, or censorship over free expression, do us all a favor and #StayHome.

The post Independence from the Parasitic Caste appeared first on Free the People.

Those who toiled beneath the soil weighed the benefits of compensation against the downsides of a dangerous office, and they chose to accept the risks. Though there are many reasons for the coal industry’s deflation, surely a couple of them are risk tolerances and miner preferences. With different energy sources developed over the past century, and with technology enabling fewer and fewer people to produce more and more energy, Americans have been able to specialize—to give more weight to their skills and desires than to the risks and benefits of less-desirable jobs. This prosperity is nothing to sneeze at. When human capital is able to migrate to where it’s treated best—to their highest use—everyone benefits. To illustrate this point, you’ve likely seen videos of children in poor countries scrounging around in the mud for precious metals. But what if they were able to devote their time to something much more productive, something that enabled the capital accumulation known as “prosperity”? If given an opportunity that pays more or is less dangerous, would most dawdle in the dirt? When people no longer need to put their health in jeopardy in order to feed themselves, when they’re instead able to develop and devote their skills to more safe and efficient uses, we all get more for less. This is not entirely dissimilar from what’s been oddly perceived as the “crisis” in military recruitment.

For nearly a quarter-millennium, patriotic Americans have weighed the benefits of “serving” their country against the inherent risks, and they’ve readily enlisted.

But as risk declined in other industries, along with risk tolerances, exponentially advancing technology gave rise to safer and better-paying jobs. In the mind of the paternalists, however, technology somehow meant that more and more high schoolers were needed to produce greater security. But doesn’t that fly in the face of rudimentary reason? Since when did the technology that enables specialization require bloated overhead? The only way for this bizarre equation to make any sense is if the parasites’ policies—imposed preferences—invalidate the technological gains. This blunder was easy to cover up for most of the past 250 years, but with the Internet Age now in its fourth decade, the charade is not nearly as easy to conceal. Adding insult to injury, the past three years have been more than enough to dissuade the country’s youth from risking their life for “our democracy.”

At least with the coal industry, the mission is straightforward: “You’re gonna go in this hole and mine for coal.” But with the military, its mission is ripe for debate: “You’re gonna go to this shithole state to protect America the Great.” Oh really? What did they do to us? How is this abjectly poor country a threat to me and mine? Do my fellow Americans want me to fight for their freedom, or have the past three years proven that “freedom” is wildly overrated in the “land of the free”? Which governor said the following in March of 2020? “Everyone is free to go about their business and activities”? Answer: Hassran Rouhani, President of Iran. If the U.S. regime were as benevolent as its sycophants believe, would it need to bribe 18-year-olds with $50k to join the military? The past three years have revealed the gerontocracy’s true nature: “Though we’ve exceeded the average life expectancy, we’ll sacrifice your kids if it means lording it over you longer.” Are those in the military serving our country or these geriatric parasites?

The jig is up, and with the youth choosing to prosper and produce rather than parasitize and destroy, there’s a greater chance that, due to specialization, real problems will be solved, rather than manufactured problems being “reformed.”

Fewer in the military means more Americans minding their own business, and that will benefit the entire planet. The hand-wringing over recruitment rates under target distracts from this happy fact: if the troops come home, our government might finally fear the people whom it allegedly serves, and the rest of the world would breathe easy. Human capital diverted to production means more capital to go around. The whining over declining rates of military enlistment emanates almost exclusively from the political right, but the right also lament the jobs that were sent overseas or “taken” by immigrants. If the troops come home, and if the youth no longer deem killing the world’s poorest to be serving their country, at the very least, wouldn’t their priorities shift? Wouldn’t their tradeoff scale be zeroed? And the political left, aren’t they both anti-poverty and anti-war? Hey, I can dream. Less interest in the military means more interest on civilization’s capital accumulation.

The post Low Rates of Military Enlistment Portend Prosperity appeared first on Free the People.

Spare me the argument about an active genocide in China. As Donald Trump asked in 2017, “You think our country’s so innocent?” The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, as well as the world’s largest prison population. At the very least, doesn’t that make politicians’ Memorial Day speeches ring hollow? If one is really reaching, he could argue that American prisoners’ human rights aren’t violated to the extent that Uighurs have suffered, but isn’t the U.S. making up the difference by spreading its genocide abroad? Excluding domestic deaths from the War on Drugs, how many civilians in the world’s poorest countries have fallen victim to the War on Terror over the past two decades? The combined total in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq tops a quarter million, and the U.S. empire is proud to assist Saudi Arabia in tacking on to the death toll 400,000 children under the age of five who’ll starve this year in Yemen. I could go on, but how disgusted must you be to fully grasp the point? Regarding prison populations and incarceration rates, a prosperous country can’t, by definition, appear on either list, let alone at the top of both. If we must have prisons—paraphrasing Michael Malice—the only people who should be locked in them are the violent offenders who’d never be released. By denouncing China for crimes against humanity, the U.S. makes a mockery of itself. Key takeaway: when other countries kill, it’s a “genocide;” when America kills, it’s “defending freedom.”

With that nauseating hypocrisy out the way, I’ll discuss human action—also known as “economics.” Is killing people good for growth? Of course it isn’t for the slain, but what of the killers? What happens when a particular third-world country has no fabricated fiends left to destroy? I try to think outside the box, but it seems that people can’t be killed more than once. Instead of scouring the world for the next abjectly impoverished ‘threat,’ perhaps the military-industrial-congressional complex can learn from Big Pharma’s business model. To “beat” China, allow them to enrich us; doing so will give them a reason to envy us. Americans pat themselves on the back for living in a “free country,” but their alleged freedom to voluntarily exchange with whomever ends at the border. Tariffs on Chinese goods are nothing but taxes on Americans’ purchases, taxes that indirectly flow to America’s producers. You might scoff, “But without tariffs, some American manufacturers will go out of business!” Perhaps. And good riddance. If certain American firms exist not because their quality and/or pricing are competitive but because the parasites in DC decided to protect them, Americans will be better off when they’re no longer ripped off. More likely than a rash of bankruptcies would be a proliferation of choices. If people feel compelled to “buy American,” nothing would stop them, and for those who don’t consider the so-called morality of their purchases, for whatever reason, they’ll be healthier having fed themselves for less. Despite importing 90% of its food, Singapore was the most food-secure country. You think they accomplished that 2019 ranking with high tariffs?

What passes as “news” serves only to distract Americans from their realization that the U.S. government is illegitimate. Have people already forgotten that the vast majority of America’s governors recently obliterated the distinction between inmate and private citizen? For a country obsessed with democracy, will Americans acknowledge that though the means appear different, the ends look eerily similar to China? There’s no “winning” when DC’s actions so heavily overlap with those of Beijing; the idea to force China’s hand isn’t serious, and maybe that’s intended. If certain industries benefited from two decades of war in Afghanistan, those same industries will warmly welcome three decades of fighting with China. Most would prefer three decades of unbridled trade, but under the big lie known as “democracy,” the small minority in power don’t care for the majority’s preferences. Which is the better idea, war or peace? The question answers itself. If Americans were truly free, instead of a billboard for bullying, the world would see the American flag as representative of a readily realizable pursuit of happiness:

Your inferior ideas are on display for the world to see, as evidenced by your miserable people; we’d point and laugh if their suffering weren’t so tragic. We, on the other hand, are dominating life, minding our own business. Criminals have a habit of getting shot, so the politicians and their police have been resigning in droves. And due to the lack of criminals, most of our prisons have been emptied and repurposed. We’re so busy enjoying ourselves that instead of making certain products, we’d rather pay you for them. We’re picky but loaded. Get in line.

This article originally appeared on UncleNap.com.

The post China, China, China! appeared first on Free the People.

With insurance, we get what we pay for, but with the state, we have neither a say about what we’re ‘buying’ nor any benefit from what is bought. Again, the minute your insurer demands that you buy certain things, you find another insurer. But we all paid for the COVID vaccines, and then many were coerced into using them. Other than to the national debt and to the tax-fed, to where do our tax dollars flow? Just one of the many foreign destinations is Ukraine—a country whose government is about as corrupt as Russia’s. Why is our government choosing to pick one corrupt side over the other when it can ignore both and focus on its own ‘customers’? On the 25th of April, “the top American officials announced an additional $322 million in military aid for Ukraine,” and on the 28th of April, “Biden called on Congress to approve an additional $33 billion to fund weapons and provide economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.” What brought on that rapid escalation? Political science, no accountability, and other people’s money.

My new job is the best I’ve ever had; however, I can’t help but notice the following discrepancy. 7.4% of my salary pays for my insurance, which includes auto, rental, property, medical, and dental insurance, and it also includes my children’s medical insurance. But 13.6% of my salary is stolen from me, and what the plunder pays for isn’t entirely clear. If one is concerned about, say, our national debt or Ukraine, one can donate to either, but the state’s agents feel entitled to others’ money and claim that taking it is for our own good. One can travel to Ukraine to help in whichever way one chooses, whether that’s as a medic or a mercenary, but the state claims that we must be coerced into doing the ‘right’ thing. “You must wear a mask” isn’t too different from “You must pay for ‘our’ cause, ‘our democracy,’ our salaries,” etc. For how much longer can the state sustain this charade?

When Bill Maher openly discusses the “unbridled kleptocracy” that is our state, I’m more hopeful. Taxes are nothing but coerced insurance payments made to a bankrupt insurer. “We can’t fix your damaged home, but keep paying us—or else” is what our national ‘insurer’ tells us every year. Walter Williams—seemingly baffled by why the following opinion isn’t more widely held today—often wrote about James Madison: “Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, ‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.’” Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government,” but today’s government is nothing but charity that flows to everywhere but “objects of benevolence.” And the people whom the parasites claim to be helping are worse off because of it. Can an insurance claim make one worse off? And in response to the disaster that it created, our national ‘insurer’ blames Vladimir Putin and expects us to believe it.

Saifedean Ammous has said that if those who care about the planet more than about their neighbors were sincere, they’d commit suicide. Similarly, if our nation’s politicians and bureaucrats were sincere, they’d acknowledge that they created the current mess and then promptly resign. But we’re not ruled by honest people. Instead of paying for two insurers but half of the benefits, imagine how much better off we’d all be if “taxes” no longer appeared on a paystub. For fans of a universal basic income, the absence of taxes would mean a massive, universal raise for the employed. And a tax-free income seems far more sustainable than a work-free income—but not for our national ‘insurer.’ Unlike insurance, which, through voluntary exchange provides benefits for the insurer and the insured, taxes benefit one at the expense of another—a ‘service’ devoid of mutual gain. But it’s worse than just the absence of mutual gain. Frank Chodorov explained, in 1959:

This article originally appeared on UncleNap.com.

The post Insurance Trumps Taxes appeared first on Free the People.

The past two years have made painfully obvious what has long been taken for granted: economic progress is the greatest enemy of death and despair. Since March of 2020, death and despair have been exacerbated by the willful destruction of most of the world’s economies, which are comprised of people, not just profits. Those who voluntarily exchange goods and/or services with others don’t have just a job; they have a livelihood, and regardless of one’s opinion of “the rich,” it is they who create livelihoods. Countless people have ideas that could very well catapult them from employee to employer, but only a small fraction of them have access to capital. Bill Gates has said, “banking is necessary; banks are not.” Without agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, no one can deny that Gates employs many, but if his statement is accurate, I can think of no better way than the following to both differentiate our bank from a sea of banks while simultaneously creating more employers.

In 2021, the bank’s advertising and marketing expense was equivalent to 3.00% of net income. I’m not belittling marketing; I understand its necessity. I’m merely highlighting the supremacy of tangible benefits—something that marketing promises but cannot guarantee. Which is more honest: selling the intangible or the tangible? Over $6M was spent on professing theoretical benefits, but $4M could be spent on transforming four of the bank’s most loyal, credit-worthy, but relatively poor customers into four millionaires—one in each state that the bank operates. Imagine the upbeat publicity—the goodwill—that the bank would generate by “producing” one millionaire each quarter. A “flywheel effect” would ensue, whereby many customers would donate to the bank’s fund—turning a bank-funded, marketing operation into a customer-funded, charitable operation. Imagine the allure of “help your fellow customer become a millionaire” or “bank with our bank for a chance to be a millionaire,” and imagine the headlines:

“With $1M from the bank, customer turns passion project into projected unicorn, employs thousands.” “With $1M from the bank, customer stumbles upon treatment for Alzheimer’s while studying REM sleep.” Headlines like that won’t materialize if headlines read: “Bank donates $1M to charity.” Once implemented, this program would redefine philanthropy, and the bank would forever be associated with it. Imagine the friendly competition that the bank would start with, say, Citizens Business Bank or Columbia Bank. Which companies will join the competition? Which company will create more millionaires? And which company will be able to claim having facilitated the next big thing?

Bank credit is generally hard to come by because banks lend to those who don’t need it. Credit is reputation, and boosting the credit of just one lucky customer per quarter will greatly enhance the bank’s reputation. While the bank survived with relative ease over the past two years, many small businesses were either murdered—shut down by government edicts—or committed suicide—voluntarily closed. Perhaps some of those business owners are the bank’s customers, and if so, why not add them to the bank’s pool? What transpired over the past two years will likely happen again, and with this proposal implemented, there will be a greater chance of great ideas materializing into great businesses—firms that will help us all better weather the next downturn. Instead of an expense, I’m proposing an investment, and I’m eager to discuss it with you at your earliest convenience.

This article originally appeared on UncleNap.com.

The post More Millionaires, Higher Living Standards, More Customers appeared first on Free the People.

Since March of 2020, independent thinkers have witnessed among their communities a never-before-seen subservience, and though the servility has somewhat subsided, an increasing number of partisans have unleashed their inner despot, delightedly dictating their neighbors’ business instead of minding their own. If parentalists and paternalists reinforce each other, and if both groups comprise a majority of the electorate, what do those in the military believe they’re defending? And from whom? Chanting “American exceptionalism” through a mask rings hollow. Yes, foreigners continue to flock here, but does striving for “least bad” sound like the American way?

Members of the military have been coerced into vaccination against a virus that poses no threat to them, and they’ve been told that complying with the muzzle mandate is an act of patriotism. Their religious exemptions were deemed meaningless, but they must continue training to “support and defend” the 1st Amendment? H.L. Mencken wrote nearly a century ago, “The whole history of the country has been a history of melodramatic pursuits of horrendous monsters, most of them imaginary,” and that’s never been more obvious than it is today. Is that why military recruiters are failing to attract “talent”? Are the monsters no longer sufficiently scary? If fear of the “novel” virus follows fear of terrorist “sleeper cells,” for how long will impoverished Russia continue to serve as the dutiful monster?

Threats to liberty reside domestically. Vladimir Putin didn’t lock down America; state and local politicians did.

Patriots who’ve considered joining the military have no doubt wondered why they’d risk their life for the Constitution if even the “conservative” Supreme Court doesn’t respect it. And just as people don’t need to be coerced into avoiding behaviors that might lead to hospitalization or death, foreign countries don’t need the U.S. military imposing “our democracy” on them. If it’s such a great idea, it’ll be readily adopted; force would be redundant.

2020 must have been an incredibly awkward year for the regime, as it was likely the first time that many Americans questioned why they were thanking those in uniform for their “service.” And throughout 2021, curiosity gave way to contempt. After being forced out of their job and into their home, “nonessentials” found it bizarre to continue reflexively thanking veterans who force foreign nonessentials out of poverty and into their grave. How that corresponds to “protecting” America has become increasingly difficult to articulate. To commemorate Veterans Day of 2020, I wrote that Goethe’s dictum—“none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”—implies there are no soldiers more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are fighting the enemy. If I was fortunate to have your readership then, you might have dismissed that analogy as extreme, but can you deny it today? Who can claim with a straight face that servicemembers regard Russia as a legitimate threat to America?

Sentimental Americans claim that servicemembers aren’t political pawns, but they fail to define them. They are, indeed, political pawns, and if their deployment to Syria didn’t make that clear, then perhaps the current U.S. president—seemingly bored of his own unbridled arrogance—will help more people see the farce that is provoking other countries in the name of defense. If “war is the health of the state,” then why bother sending troops abroad when waging war on its own people is cheaper and comes with the added benefit of a servile populace and fawning corporations? The rally that occurred in D.C. on the 23rd was inspiring; however, the anti-corporate sentiment was odd to behold. Absent governmental mandates, those “greedy” corporations are just powerless puppies. Economic growth is the greatest ally of human longevity, so corporations—even the most insufferable among them—are a net positive. Growth is a consequence of liberty, so attacking corporations at a pro-liberty rally is self-defeating.

Terrorism is privatized warfare. Warfare is nationalized terrorism. Characterize American interventionism in whichever way you please, but let’s not kid ourselves. A Russian invasion of Ukraine worries Joe Biden & Co., not the average Joe. As with the latest variant, there’s no stopping the spread of irrational fear, so is it really that surprising that fewer and fewer Americans have any interest in “serving”? Democracy is revered only when its disciples get their way, and more and more people are realizing that the will of the majority—“the greater good”—is a myth. No, voting on whom will be next to trample our natural rights doesn’t warrant celebration. Enlistment bonuses might have to be given in tandem with endless “booster” shots in order to entice patriots to defend such a demonstrable sham. If democracy were so great, we could’ve voted out lockdowns, restrictions, and mandates. We could’ve voted to end military adventurism long ago. As with COVID, Russia won’t yield to the good intentions of America’s parasitic caste, and it appears that those who’ve considered joining the military have determined that neither is worth their time or attention.

This article originally appeared on UncleNap.com.

The post You Care About Ukraine? appeared first on Free the People.