MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘socialistic’

Love It or Leave? – Doug Casey’s International Man

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2020

Sooner or later, the temporary relief of living in a location that’s a partial solution becomes a lesser relief. The trouble is: Once a government has been in the habit of treating its productive class as cash cows – and has put in place the laws that allow it to milk them – it rarely relinquishes its grip on them for long.

Essentially, this means that at some point, the light is switched on in the mind of a particular cow – the realisation that the ultimate objective is to get beyond the borders of governmental control.

https://internationalman.com/articles/love-it-or-leave/

by Jeff Thomas

Countries that are in the decline stages tend to lose their best and brightest.

What happens is that, as a country becomes more socialistic, it attracts thousands of new residents who are seeking free stuff. They wish to cash in – to live off the state.

But someone has to pay for that free stuff. And of course, that means that the more productive people in the country are handed the tab.

As a country grows more socialistic, an ever-larger number of dependent people must be paid for by those who are productive. This, of course, diminishes the retained earnings of those who have been productive.

What happens then is that a quiet exodus begins to take place. The very people who are ordered to pay the bill for everyone else tend to look for greener pastures.

In most every case, the first inclination is to look for a better corner of the country in which to live. Generally, it’s a location – a state, a city, a town – where the taxes are less, the crime is lower and the level of freedom is greater.

After all, you don’t really want to leave your country; you just want to free yourself from the burdens your government is placing upon you.

Unfortunately, it’s that last bit that ultimately inspires expatriation.

Those who choose a partial exit – say to Florida, Texas, or even Puerto Rico – at some point discover that the government that had treated them as a cash cows, ready to be milked to pay for government’s increasing entitlements, does not wish to lose its herd of cows.

Sooner or later, the temporary relief of living in a location that’s a partial solution becomes a lesser relief. The trouble is: Once a government has been in the habit of treating its productive class as cash cows – and has put in place the laws that allow it to milk them – it rarely relinquishes its grip on them for long.

Essentially, this means that at some point, the light is switched on in the mind of a particular cow – the realisation that the ultimate objective is to get beyond the borders of governmental control.

I’ve found, over the years, that those who are planning an exit tend to do it quietly.

But why should this be so?

Well first, they realise that their move will not be popular and they don’t wish to be explaining themselves to others. Second, they want it to go smoothly and they’d rather slip away than have anyone try to get in their way.

Therefore, the early exiters tend not to be noticed. Their numbers are small in comparison to the numbers of incoming largesse-seekers.

So, what happens to those who are now becoming aware that their government is bleeding them dry? Since they tend not to be aware that others have exited before them, they’re likely to feel quite alone, which is a great deterrent to their own inclination to leave. Since they don’t know anyone else who’s made an exit, it’s understandable if they feel that leaving simply isn’t an option.

What, then, is the tendency in such people? How do they deal with the situation?

Well, for the most part, they tend to tolerate the injustice, even though further weight continues to be added to the millstone around their necks.

But they do say, “This isn’t fair. We’re not going to take much more of this.”

And the key here is in those last four words. For the great majority of those who are oppressed by an overreaching government, the trigger never quite gets pulled. Instead, with every new burden, they tend to say, “Not much more.”

And governments recognise that, as long as the burden is added gradually, most people are foolish enough to tolerate the increases endlessly.

As Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Quite so. People can only be dominated if they accept domination.

The numbers that actually pull the trigger and leave are therefore quite low.

And in this there’s an advantage: Although thousands are now leaving the US every year and their numbers are growing, they are not at present in the millions or even in the hundreds of thousands.

It’s for this reason that those who choose to cease being milk cows may still make a fairly quiet exit.

At present, there’s an exit tax, but its threshold is relatively high. And although the government has begun to disallow travel offshore, those who are persistent can still find an opportunity to do so.

However, this possibility may cease in the near future.

As economic woes worsen in the US, more people will decide that they don’t wish to have their government lessen the ability to make a living and raise taxes to pay for the government’s loss in revenue.

Even now, the exit door is beginning to close, as the government realises that the trend has begun.

Unknown to most Americans, all of the restrictions needed to literally close the doors on the departure of both wealth and people have been passed into law, primarily under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011.

These restrictions are not yet implemented. They’re intended to be implemented automatically, should a president declare a national state of emergency for any reason.

If, for example, an economic crisis were to unfold, as it’s presently doing, it’s likely that a state of emergency would be declared.

Similarly, if civil unrest were to escalate for any reason, it’s likely that, at some point, a state of emergency would be declared.

Therefore, for any milk cow who is considering an exit to greener pastures, the window of opportunity may well close relatively soon.

Those who may love their country, but do not love what it’s become, may choose to leave the herd whilst greener pastures remain an option.

Editor’s Note:The prospect of a disputed US presidential election amid the global pandemic is not only a possible scenario but a likely one.

It could lead to enormous and unprecedented effects, such as mass unrest in American cities, stock market convulsions, a dollar collapse, and much more.

That’s precisely why making the right moves in today’s turbulent political, financial, and social environment is absolutely crucial.

URGENT VIDEO: The Day After—How to Prepare for What’s Coming After the 2020 Election

For the first time, legendary investor Doug Casey is joining the world’s top economists, geopolitical analysts, investors, military experts, historians, and Washington, DC insiders to bring you actionable information on what comes next, including what you can do right now to prepare.

Click here for all the details.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

No, We Don’t Need a Government Post Office | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 24, 2020

Any time any activity is preempted, all thought as to how it would be conducted by free and self-responsible people is deadened.

An example…mail delivery. Our postal system is a socialistic institution….Its record? As all users know, a dramatic increase in rates, enormous deficits mounting annually, and service deteriorating rather than improving.

Observe the effect of this pre-emption: no intelligent thought of what this type of communication would be like among a free and self-responsible people.

There are many among us…without the slightest idea of what the freedom alternative would be. Why this blindness as to the results of freedom? The answer is: the actions of free men are quite impossible to foresee!

https://mises.org/wire/no-we-dont-need-government-post-office

The US Postal Service has recently made a comeback in the headlines. Not only has the red ink it has long bathed in gotten deeper, but now it has become embroiled in mudslinging over vote-by-mail issues, such as people failing to get the ballots mailed to them and possible delays in processing election results, using that to make “new and improved” monetary bailout requests, with politicians and letter carrier unions attacking any cutbacks in service, even down to dropping underutilizing drop boxes.

With the Postal Service’s massive and unsustainable losses, what is striking is that even with a new reformer in charge, there is virtually no consideration of abandoning the USPS’s monopoly on first-class mail, allowing rivalry from private providers to reveal the services and prices market competition could offer. Not only does competition have a long record of success in countless products and services, but history shows it is not impossible in postal services. As Adam Summers has written,

Several private mail entrepreneurs sprouted up from about 1839–1851. While they were eventually shut down by the government, they proved that private mail delivery was possible. And the competition they provided forced the government to drastically reduce its prices in the process.

Summers brings up an important question: What so blinds us to even the possibility of allowing postal competition? He is not the first to ask that question. Leonard Read, wellspring of the Foundation of Economic Education and tireless advocate of “freedom philosophy,” wrote about the postal monopoly several times, starting more than half a century ago. The current mail meltdown makes it worth revisiting his understanding. Consider his insights from “Pre-Emptors: Agents of Destruction” in Comes the Dawn (1976) and “Causes of Authoritarianism” in Why Not Try Freedom? (1958):

Any time any activity is preempted, all thought as to how it would be conducted by free and self-responsible people is deadened.

An example…mail delivery. Our postal system is a socialistic institution….Its record? As all users know, a dramatic increase in rates, enormous deficits mounting annually, and service deteriorating rather than improving.

Observe the effect of this pre-emption: no intelligent thought of what this type of communication would be like among a free and self-responsible people.

There are many among us…without the slightest idea of what the freedom alternative would be. Why this blindness as to the results of freedom? The answer is: the actions of free men are quite impossible to foresee!

It is one thing to believe that competition affords more efficient service than does a monopoly. Indeed, this very belief is implicit in the arguments of government officials who refuse to permit private delivery of mail: the U.S. Postal Service couldn’t stand the competition; someone else would do it more efficiently and at less cost to the customer.

But as long as the monopoly is coercively maintained, there is no legal way to prove that the cost of performing an identical service would be lower under competition—or how much lower. Nor can it be proved beyond doubt that competitive private enterprise would indeed perform precisely the same services now available through the Postal monopoly.

But this is the whole point of anyone who believes in the blessings of competition as the most efficient way to provide the goods and services customers are willing and able to pay for. Such faith must concede that no one knows or can know in advance just the form in which the postal service would emerge and develop were everyone free to devote his own ingenuity and time and scarce resources toward serving the ever-changing demands of willing customers in a free market.

If all those changing conditions could be foreseen by any one individual, there is no logical reason why he could not make socialism work. But that is the whole case against socialism and for competitive private enterprise: the unknown is not foreseeable or predictable with certainty; conditions change, and freedom affords us the best possible chance to cope with those changes.

If one believes the Postal monopoly should be abolished, it is in part because he has witnessed miraculous market developments in the delivery of items other than mail.

Take voice delivery. How far could the human voice be delivered prior to the beginning of the Bell system…[now] the miracle of the market—around the earth…at the speed of light….Those who find this not particularly amazing are nonetheless reluctant to entrust the delivery of mail to the unhampered and unpredictable ingenuity of a free and self-responsible people!

Why this fear to try—this lack of faith in the potential wonders that might be ours? There are at least two reasons: (1) we cannot foresee the unknown and, thus, we are not attracted to the unimaginable, and (2) the moment a miracle is wrought, we take it as much for granted as the air we breathe….We no longer give it a second thought.

Years ago, I observed that no person knows how to make such a “simple” thing as an ordinary wooden lead pencil. Yet, that year, we made 1,600,000,000 pencils in the U.S.A. Were we to grasp this single miracle of the free market, we would know that there is not a person who knows how to operate a postal service.

Why, then, does the Free Society work its wonders? Why, when no one knows how to make a pencil, do we have such a proliferation of goods and services?…ideas by everyone are free to flow!…Ideas configurate and show forth in everything from billions of pencils to jet planes.

But most people fail to generate ideas on activities that have been pre-empted.

As the belief grows that coercion is the only practical way to get things done…belief in the competence of man acting privately, freely, voluntarily, competitively, cooperatively declines. As the former increases, the latter decreases.

In the U.S.A., for example, government has a monopoly of mail delivery. Ask citizens if government should do this and most…will reply in the affirmative. Why? Simply because government has pre-empted this activity for so many decades that all enterprisers have ceased to think how mail could be delivered were it a private enterprise opportunity. Indeed, most of them have come to believe that private enterprise would be wholly incapable of effective mail service.

Yet, I note that each day we deliver more pounds of milk than mail. Further, milk is more perishable than a love letter, a catalogue, or an appeal for funds…the delivery of milk is more prompt and less costly to us than is the delivery of mail.

I ask myself, then, why shouldn’t private enterprise deliver mail? Private enterprise delivers freight.

But, no; my countrymen have lost faith in man’s ability, acting freely, to deliver letters…men who do such fantastic things have lost faith in themselves to do the simple chore of letter delivery.

Today, even the massive, ongoing failures of the US Postal Service and the new political attention being drawn to it seem unable to overcome a pervasive blindness to the potential of competition to benefit Americans. That vindicates Leonard Read’s insight that not only are the ideas and the benefits that freedom can create often preempted by government, but that people can, as a result, lose the belief that a free society can do those things that have been coercively crowded out. And, in his ominous words, “A decline in faith in free men and what they can accomplish results in a rising faith in disastrous authoritarianism.”

The current postal situation offers a chance to rethink what many have been lulled into taking for granted. Not only is real competition a valid alternative, despite our inability to know in advance precisely what it would look like, but if the history of freedom is any guide, it would be far superior.

Author:

Gary Galles

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. He is the author of The Apostle of Peace: The Radical Mind of Leonard Read.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »