Monthly Archives: October 2012

Let’s do it for the Kids

What are the two most popular explanations we hear from government to justify their actions; it’s in our national interest and we are doing it for the kids.   Shockingly, I agree with the later sentiment.  Let’s do it for the kids.  Sit down because I find myself in agreement with Michelle Obama.  Now that you have a moment to recover from that shock it’s time to face the facts; America has an obesity problem.

This obesity problem is not your normal, run of the mill obesity problem.  It is the most grandiose obesity problem of them all.   The government is obese.  Government is gorging itself on debt.  The government’s insatiable appetite for borrowing, spending, and printing money is reckless and endangers the very life of its host – the people.

Envision government as a 400 pound, 12 year old kid, eating dozens of Twinkes and Ring Dings while washing it all down with a 64 ounce slurpee.  And, that’s just the first course.

The series of graphs illustrate government’s obesity problem.

Source:  Government Printing Office, U.S. 2013 Federal Budget, Historical Data, Table 7-1 Federal Debt

Source:  Government Printing Office, 2013 U.S. Federal Budget, Summary Tables, Table S-5.  Note, the projections assume an average of 4.6% GDP growth Year-Over-Year for the next 10 years.

Source:  St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank

Source:  Federal Reserve Bank Flow of Funds Report

Source:  Government Printing Office U.S. 2013 Budget.  Mandatory includes Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the Debt.  Non-military is everything else not included in the other two categories.

During this election cycle how many candidates running for the House, Senate, or the President seriously talked about these problems?  How many candidates presented a plan to not only end the deficit spending and borrowing, but do it in a timely manner?  The answer is zero.

For all those that believe in the mantra “let’s do it for the kids” there’s one thing we must do for the kids.  We must end government’s obesity problem.  We cannot sell our children down the river like slaves at auction in Alexandria, Virginia.  We cannot continue social programs like Medicare and Social Security without destroying the county.  We cannot borrow money.  We cannot print money out of thin air.

Voting isn’t the answer.  Voting is the least of any patriotic thing you can do.  Because, if all you do is vote, then you are part of the problem.  If you vote without understanding the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the purpose of government, the Rule of Law, unalienable rights, and rightful liberty then voting means you are giving consent to an out of control leviathan.  You aren’t fixing the problem by voting in the very same people and type of people into office.  And, what can be more unpatriotic then voting for someone that will certainly enslave your children.

If there is anything you can do for you children and grandchildren it’s to unshackle them from the chains of this debt, from this oppressive government so they can live as free people.  Let’ cut our children free from the rotting umbilical connecting them to the parasitic government that is feeding on their very lives and their futures.

Indeed, let’s do this for the kids!

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophical

Rightful Liberty

When you hear the word “liberty”, what does that mean to you?  Below are dictionary definitions of the word liberty.

1.  Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.  Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.  Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

When we put the word liberty in context of unalienable rights as well as civil society there other important distinctions.  Thomas Jefferson defined rightful liberty as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”  Liberty is an unalienable right possessed by every individual, as a matter of their existence, to freely choose and freely pursue whatever they desire in life while recognizing that every other individual also possesses the very same rights.  Rightful liberty distinguishes itself from wrongful liberty or licentious actions.  From an individual perspective, wrongful liberty is the antithesis of rightful liberty because wrongful liberty — in a Jeffersonian context — is obstructed action according to the will of others within limits drawn around us by the superior rights of others.  

Liberty explicitly requires the recognition of every man’s equal rights.  When another person, entity, or thing imposes restrictions upon your liberty your rights become inferior to the rights of others.  I’ve itemized a few examples of how one person violates the equal rights of another:

1)  Restrict a person’s liberty to associate with persons of their own choosing.
2)  Require or force a person to follow a specific set of religious beliefs or prohibit them from religious activity.
3)  Lay claim to or take the property of another.
4)  Require a person to labor for your benefit.

When individuals choose to form civil society it is done for the sole purpose to better secure their unalienable rights.  Our government wasn’t formed under the premises that one person could force another to act against his own will, to allow one person to take the property of another, or violate any unalienable rights. I freely choose to labor to sustain and improve my life and the life of my family.  What I produce as a result of my physical and/or intellectual labor is my property.

Rightful liberty means no person has a rightful claim to another person’s labor, nor does any person has a rightful claim to another person’s property.  Otherwise, rightful liberty becomes wrongful liberty as one person has superior rights over another.  When this happens between two people this is generally defined as slavery.  That is, if I can force or require one person to labor and take the product of their labor then the person is a slave.

Let’s put this into practice.  John doesn’t work and remains home all day.  John expects Bob will go to work and use his labor to produce.  What Bob produces is rightfully his.  However, John lays claim to what Bob produces.  John claims Bob should work to feed him, to pay for his medical care, and to ensure he has a cell phone.  Assume John has the power to compel Bob to participate under these conditions.  John has exercised wrongful liberty as he has violated the unalienable rights of Bob.  In this scenario, John has superior rights over Bob and Bob has inferior rights to John.

This is precisely why labor and property rights are inextricably linked. Every person has the rightful expectation that they are free to labor as they choose.  Every person has the rightful expectation of absolute property rights.  And, nobody has an unalienable right to another person’s property or labor.

As I stated early, people enter into civil society for the sole purpose of better securing their unalienable rights.  As Madison said in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Madison is explaining in a state of nature, if all men recognized the unalienable rights of all others there were be no need for government.  But in a state of nature some men violate the rightful liberty of others as I’ve described.  Because men are not angels and man does indeed violate the unalienable rights of others, in a state of nature we cannot have rightful liberty as some men will obstruct the action of other men.  The identical sentiment is echoed in the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson wrote, “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.”

Before government is even instituted every man has these rights.  The founders and framers also recognized throughout the history of mankind some men desire to rule over others.  Those rulers exercise wrongful liberty to secure superior rights over other men.  Jefferson continues, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Jefferson clearly and unequivocally states the purpose of government is to secure these rights.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Moreover, that government is instituted by the people, therefore any powers government rightfully claims are from the consent of the governed.  Lastly, that because it is the people that instituted government in the first place, the people always retain the right and authority to ALTER or ABOLISH it.

As Madison stated, men are not angels.  Therefore, when creating a government how do you empower them and constrain them at the same time.  Madison went on to say, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The Constitution not only defines the style and framework of government, it also defines the specific powers delegated to the federal government.  This is referred to as the Rule of Law — where those in government are oath and duty bound to comply with the limits placed upon them in the Constitution.  When government acts outside its constitutional authority then government is exercising arbitrary power.  In context of liberty, government is exercising wrongful liberty because it is “unobstructed action according to the will of the government without limits or within limits drawn around them by the inferior rights of others.”

In this case government acts unobstructed according to their own will without limits or the limits drawn around them by the inferior rights of others.  Therefore, the rights of the people that instituted government in the first place are now inferior to the superior rights of government.  Recall, the example of John and Bob.  Instead of John compelling Bob to labor for him, John turns to the government.  John prefers to use the force and power of government against another person.  John uses government to compel Bob to work for him.  The government then takes Bob’s property and gives it to John.  From Bob’s perspective is there any distinction?  Of course not.  In either case Bob’s unalienable rights have been violated.  This is what Frederic Bastiat called legal plunder.

The term used by the founding generation for this behavior was licentious.  The dictionary definition is:
1.  Unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
2.  Going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.

In modern society too many people do not understand the proper role of government or simply do not care about it.  Instead, people view government as a means to an end.  That end may be to use government to take what rightfully belongs to others and give it to those that have no rightful claim to it.  That end may be the restriction or elimination of liberty in every manner of daily life; what light bulb you use, what car you drive, how much you drive, what energy you use, what food your produce or consume, etc.

We are at a crossroads, a precipice if you will.  People need to decide whether they want to live as autonomous, self-directed individuals exercising their rightful liberty with equal rights for all.  Or, do people want to live under rulers where the privileged few subjugate people under wrongful liberty.  People need to decide whether government is fulfilling its intended goal of better securing unalienable rights.  People need to decide whether this is a government worth preserving or a government that needs to be altered or abolished.

Note, the idea for the article came from comments I read from an unnamed source.  The last two sentences in bold are from those comments.  Though I cannot provide direct attribution for that, I do want to acknowledge that some unnamed source deserves credit for those two sentences.

1 Comment

Filed under Constitution, Philosophical

Sustainability Dilemma

Advocates for more environmental laws and regulations also call for a reduction in world-wide population.  According to environmentalists all environmental calamities are theoretically caused by mankind.  Ozone layer depletion, global warming, sea level rises, melting ice caps, species extinction, and a myriad of other environmental issues are a consequence of man.

Terms or slogans like sustainable development are used to promote ideas such as green living conditions, poverty eradication, reduction and elimination of fossil fuels, etc.  Sustainable development also encompasses population control.  Programs around fertility and reproductive policies are developed with the intention of reducing the overall world-wide population.  These policies include birth control, abortion, and even sterilization and forced abortions.

These policies are turned into politically divisive issues around themes such as reproductive rights, women’s rights, and poverty eradication.  In linking poverty to over-population, environmentalists also link so-called reproductive rights and environmental calamities to over-population.  Consequently, the agenda to reduce world-wide population is inextricably tied to other causes then advanced by making them politically divisive.  All of this is wrapped into a tidy term called sustainable development.  While this may look pretty from afar, it is far from pretty.

For purposes of this discussion let’s assume the environmentalists are right about man being the cause of global warming and other environmental calamities.  Naturally, a reduction in world-wide population is justified because science has determined environmental problems are caused by mankind.   Advocates for sustainable development developed plans such as Agenda 21 which encompasses:

  • Agricultural and rural resource land use
  • Transportation and land use systems
  • Water, sewer, schools and other public facilities
  • Water and natural resources protection
  • Lands subject to climate change impacts
  • Economic development
  • Community design
  • Social equity, safety, and education
  • Housing and neighborhood revitalization
  • Sustainability of energy, food, and water

This is as invasive as it gets.  But Agenda 21 primarily addresses what can be done to regulate and control activities of the living.  Population control is the opposite, yet complimentary, approach as its goal is to reduce the number of living people on the Earth.  Ultimately, these two go hand in glove with one another.  The origins of Agenda 21 can been found in the 400 page report titled “Our Common Future” which can be read here.  This is one excerpt from the report:

Present rates of population growth cannot continue. They already compromise many governments’ abilities to provide education, health care, and food security for people, much less their abilities to raise living standards. This gap between numbers and resources is all the more compelling because so much of the population growth is concentrated in low-income countries, ecologically disadvantaged regions, and poor households.

This one statement intends to link population growth to poverty, therefore, if you eradicate poverty you can lower population.  In other words, programs such as sterilization, access to free abortions, and birth control are promulgated throughout the world, but especially in third world countries.  Politically, this is sold as a reproductive rights issue or as a humanitarian effort to eradicate poverty.  Ultimately, these are population control programs.

Environmentalists and population control advocates also support increased government social programs.  Those include programs such as government provided free education, health care services, and social security programs.  Those with alternative solutions are demonized as wanting to push granny over the cliff or trying to interfere with a woman’s right to kill her unborn child.

Programs such as Medicare and Social Security programs are vigorously defended by those supporting big government.  The intersection of interests is dynamic.  Those in support of Social Security and Medicare programs are the very same people supporting a woman’s right to choose and more stringent environmental regulations.

Medicare and Social Security are premised upon a Ponzi scheme requiring more people at the bottom to support those at the top.  In other words, more young workers are needed to pay into systems such as Medicare and Social Security to support those receiving benefits from those programs.

Paradoxically, those calling for sustainable development pursue an agenda to reduce the overall world-wide population out of one side of their mouth also call for the retention and expansion of social security and Medicare out of the other side of their mouth.  These two stalwarts of the leftist, progressive agenda are at odds with one another.  Ironically, one side wants to reduce the population while the other side requires the population to increase to ensure the survival of social security and Medicare.   Demonstrably, both social security and Medicare are unsustainable as there are nearly $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities.   If the leftist progressive agenda truly believes in sustainability then use their Alinsky-like tactics and apply the sustainability mantra to Social Security and Medicare.

The triangulation among environmental advocates, social program advocates, and government is a self-created intractable problem.   Two agendas, both centered on population, have diametrically opposing requirements and both agendas are dependent upon government for enforcement and compliance.

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21 & Plan Maryland, Economy, Philosophical

The Era of Debasement

The era of our founders and framers created a society formed upon principles never before instituted in the history of mankind.  The era of our founding generation built a society based upon a bottom-up approach where the people are the sovereigns, the masters, and the government is the servant.  A society that was void of monarchs, aristocracies, or theocracies ruling over the people.

Modern society is a mere shadow of the founding era principles that reigned throughout the Union 200 years ago.  Modern society has degenerated into the Era of Debasement.   Society has debased its most cherished belongings including the Constitution, the currency, free markets, and unalienable rights.  The cumulative consequence is the debasement of society itself.  Modern society no longer represents freedom and liberty, the Rule of Law, or the unalienable right to exercise autonomous judgment and self-direction to preserve and improve one’s life.  Modern society more closely resembles feudal societies from Medieval Europe.

The Constitution

Constitutions matter, until they don’t.  The former Soviet Union had a comprehension Constitution yet people suffered greatly under tyrannical regimes.  A Constitution only matters if it is upheld and enforced.  Those that swear an oath to uphold the Constitution must be held accountable every time they violate it.  Unfortunately, the checks and balances placed in the Constitution to constrain federal usurpation of power are no longer enforced.  Thomas Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”  The chains have been replaced with wet noodles, and the latter have indeed become the criminals that are no longer prosecuted or held accountable.

For all intents and purposes the Constitutional is nothing more than mere parchment.  Whenever a statutory law, regulation, or rule is enacted that is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution is supposed to win.  The country has a miserable track record of enforcing the Constitution.  When the Constitution is enforced the government is compelled to live under the Rule of Law.  And, whenever the rule of law is violated we have lawlessness.   Modern society no longer lives by the Rule of Law instead society is based on the Rule of Man.  Consequently, the debasement of the Constitution results in the debasement of society.

Free Markets

Free markets are a natural extension of our unalienable right to contract and association.  Markets are created by the desires of individuals to exchange goods and services.  The adjective free denotes the voluntary act between two people to engage in an exchange for their mutual benefit.  Goods are produced so long as there are members of society desiring those goods.   On the whole society benefits as only those goods desired by society are produced.  Moreover, scarce resources are properly allocated to goods people want.  When people no longer desire a good that good is no longer produced and resources are reallocated accordingly.

Government intervention in free markets reduces or removes the concept of free from the market.  In other words, government intervention retards the natural demand for goods.  This happens in a variety of ways.  First, through taxation government removes capital from the economy and redirects it to government centric preferences.  Those preferences include paying for government itself.  However, in modern society capital is redirected to specific industries, companies, constituencies (such as unions, non-profit groups, etc.).  Government grants and subsidies also redirect capital according to government preferences.

Consequently, many industries are either supported or decimated by government.  Bank bailouts and the bail out of General Motors are examples where an industry or a specific government was resuscitated because of the government.  For a free market to function properly those providing goods and services must adapt to the demands of society.

Once the automobile was invented and society began to purchase automobiles instead of horse and buggies, the horse and buggy industry was severely reduced.   Would it make sense for horse and buggy producers to continue creating these goods if there was no demand for them?  Of course not!  It is natural for goods to disappear from the free market if there is no demand for them.

However, if government props up a business or industry, it results in the misallocation of scarce resources and retards the normal function of a free market.  If the government bailed out the horse and buggy business and continued to subsidize it to keep it afloat how does that reflect the desires of those in society?  It does not!  It reflects the desires of government.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, government ignores price signals when it interferes in free markets.  Whenever government subsidies an industry or company, prices are manipulated.  In a free market prices are free to rise or fall depending on supply and demand.  An oversupply of a good may not clear at price x, but when the price falls to a point where there is demand for the product the goods will clear the market.  For instance, 10,000 Ferrari’s are produced every year and generally sold for $300,000.  However, if the supply was increased to 50,000 Ferrari’s and there wasn’t demand the Ferrari’s would go unsold.  Would Ferrari continue to produce (supply) that number of cars if the demand were 1/5th of the total production?  If they want to stay in business they would reduce supply.  But how does the market clear the overproduction?  The goods are cleared because prices fall to a point where additional demand is generated.  Perhaps the price to clear 40,000 additional Ferrari’s falls to $100,000 each.

As long as government is involved in free markets, markets cannot be free.  Markets are now government controlled markets and the market does not accommodate society’s demand for goods.  If the government were to intervene and subsidize the Ferrari business so the 40,000 additional Ferraris produced sell near the original price of $300,000 the government has manipulated the market.  Not only has government redirected scarce resources (capital, which it first has to take from the private sector) to subsidize Ferrari production, but it has artificially held prices higher.  In other words, government intervention caused prices to remain higher than they would in a free market.   So, society ends up paying higher prices and capital is wasted on a good that is not in demand by society.

Today’s markets are driven by growth in the global credit debt market.  That is, GDP growth is inextricably tied to credit expansion.  Credit expansion occurs through the fractional reserve banking system as well as monetary policy.  Interest rates are simply the cost of money over time, and the Fed controls interest rates.   The Fed holds interest rates near zero to spur consumer demand for more credit which in turn drives consumption.  As borrowers use credit money to buy homes, automobiles, or other goods it is supposed to increase economic activity which the government measures through the GDP.  It is not the production of real goods and services that drives GDP growth.  Instead it is the cheap credit money being lent to borrowers that is driving demand.  However, those debts must be repaid.

The following excerpt if from an article by Murray Rothbard on the price clearing mechanism.

If production is too large in relation to consumption, then obviously this is a problem of what is now called “market failure,” a failure which must be compensated by the intervention of government. Intervention would have to take one or both of the following forms: reduce production, or artificially stimulate consumption… Stimulating consumer demand has long been the particularly favored program of interventionists. Generally, this is done by the government and its central bank inflating the money supply and/or by the government incurring heavy deficits, its spending passing for a surrogate consumption. Indeed, government deficits would seem to be ideal for the overproduction/underconsumptionists. For if the problem is too much production and/or too little consumer spending, then the solution is to stimulate a lot of unproductive consumption, and who is better at that than government, which by its very nature is unproductive and even counterproductive?”

We do not need government to have a free market economy.  We need people that want to freely engage in economic transactions with one another.   Government subsidized industries and monetary policy are interventionist actions meant to manipulate what otherwise should be a free market.   In a free market, the people would determine the market bottoms and market tops.  The people would create equilibrium between supply and demand.  Only those goods and services desired by society would be produced; which implies an efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Government intervention in the economy debases free markets and society as a whole.  Free markets are the ultimate expression of decentralization where power is dispersed to the lowest possible level; the individual.

The Currency

A currency that is not backed by something of intrinsic value is a fiat currency.  The Federal Reserve Note has not been backed by anything of value since Roosevelt removed the U.S. from the domestic gold standard in 1933.  Internationally, the dollar served as a surrogate for gold until Nixon removed the U.S. from the international gold standard in 1971.  Before 1971, foreign central banks could exchange Federal Reserve Notes for gold.  In fact, the dollar was the only currency that could be exchanged for gold.

As I written many times, the value of the dollar today is worth 3 cents when compared to the value in 1913 when the Federal Reserve started.  The government controls the printing of our currency.  Which means the government can print money at will.  There are numerous ways the Fed manipulates the currency.  Deficits are funded by borrowing money.  The Treasury sells securities through the Fed and as a result takes in money.  The money is then used to fund deficits.  Eventually, the securities come due and the securities are redeemed for their principle plus interest.   More recently, the Fed has been buying securities outright.  Meaning the Fed buys the security.  It does this by printing money (electronic money).  Whenever the Fed prints money the base money supply expands which fuels the fractional reserve banking scheme.  When the money supply expands it results in more money chasing the same volume of goods and services; which results in higher prices.   This phenomenon is called inflation.

What this means to the consumer is the purchasing power of a dollar is decreased.  It also means any savings/wealth denominated in the currency is debased.   Whenever taxes are increased people understand this means less purchasing power because the government takes more money from everyone.  When the loss of purchasing power happens secretly and invisibly the people don’t understand why things cost more and why the items they bought a year ago cost more this year.   Naturally, people want to blame someone for their misfortune.  Politicians use this to their advantage.  To blame the rich, the private sector, banks, the one percent, or whoever is the bogeyman today.

What most people fail to realize is how the currency impacts their very existence.  In other words currency debasement is a debasement of your life.  The scarcest resource a human being has is time.  You have a limited quantity of time.  You use your labor over a period of time as a means of preservation.  Your labor is translated into currency which is then used to sustain life and to engage in free markets.   In other words when you devalue the currency you devalue a person’s life and the time they’ve labored to receive the currency as compensation.  An anonymous commenter wrote this on currency debasement:

“It’s a lot more than debasing trust, it’s debasing the most inherently limited commodity a human can have: time. Money is the translation of our labor over time into a common unit of exchange. When you destroy it, you are not just destroying paper or perception, you are devaluing the human beings themselves that rely upon it. There’s a word for when people are forced to labor and not compensated for it: slavery.”

Under chattel slavery people were property and whatever the slaves produced was taken by the slaveholder.  To rephrase, the people labored to produce a good or service which another took from them.  If a slave spent ten years working and the slaveholder takes all the slave produced what does the slave have to show for his labor?  Nothing!  Likewise, when you work for many years and the government confiscates your compensation (currency) through a process of inflation, the government has taken from you’re the very same thing the slaveholder has taken from the slave.  Without question slavery is immoral.  Just because the government passes laws – which are in conflict with the Constitution – and uses violence to ensure compliance doesn’t make the law moral.  Legality doesn’t imply morality.  And what is illegal to do privately is not magically legal because the government enacts a law that is used against the people to plunder their property.

If through the process of inflation the government can erode the value of your savings and wealth to by 50%, 80%, or 100% then the government has not only debased the currency, but government has debased your life and your life’s work.   More importantly, your scarcest resource – time — has been confiscated.   Consider this proposal.  If given the choice to work for 40 years and save enough money to retire and live another twenty years would you spend a lifetime doing that if you knew the government would confiscate your life’s savings the day you retire?  Would you work as hard?  Should the government have the power to destroy your life’s savings?  Was it worth your time to labor so hard for so long for that outcome?


We live in the Era of Debasement where nearly every aspect of daily life is controlled by an authoritarian government that uses institutionalized violence to enforce compliance.  The Constitution is mere parchment.  Free markets no longer exist.  The currency continues to be debased.  Our lives are of no consequence to the DC’vers.

The debasement of the Constitution leads to lawlessness.  Lawlessness begets more lawlessness.  The debasement of free markets leads to government mandates, dictates, rules, regulations, etc. to control the people and the markets according to government centric preferences; usually to meet some political or social outcome.  In fact it has reached the point where the government now mandates that you engaged in economic transactions against your will.  The currency is the lynchpin that ties our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property together as currency is our compensation for our labor and, therefore, our rightful property.

Nobody, including the government, has an unalienable right to your labor. To believe someone else has an unalienable right to your labor is to condone slavery.

But, when government debases the currency, government debases our unalienable rights to life and liberty.  Because property rights are the implementation of those unalienable rights, we are the rightful owners of our property.  When government confiscates property through currency debasement (inflation) government believes it is the rightful owner of our property.  The government acts as though it is the master and the people are the slaves.  This is how society is transformed from liberty to tyranny.

These are the ingredients for the Debasement of Society.


Filed under Economy, Philosophical