The Ideology Behind Biden’s Disastrous First Nine Months

Sheer chaos and anarchy on the border? Afghanistan—the most humiliating defeat in recent U.S. military history? A labor-starved supply chain in shambles and holiday shelves emptying out? The worst inflation in 30 years that seems soon ready to match Carter-era levels? Gas hitting $5 a gallon with winter heating fuels soaring? Free-for-all looting in the major cities without consequences? Joe Biden’s policies and Biden himself diving in the polls?

Never in recent American history has any administration birthed such disasters in its first nine months.

Yet most Americans are arguing not over the sheer chaos and disasters of the Biden administration, but rather how could such sheer pre-civilizational calamity occur in modern America? Were these disasters a result of historic incompetency? Or mean-spirited nihilism? Or a deliberate effort to create the necessary turbulence to birth a new American revolution? Or a bit of all three?

Start instead with the idea that what most Americans see as sheer ruin is not what the left-wing puppeteers (who are pulling the strings of the Biden marionette) see. Our catastrophes are their minor glitches. For them bad polling is mostly a public relations problem of an occasional uncooperative media. Otherwise, a few broken eggs are always necessary to create the perfect socialist omelet.

The Left now controlling Washington believes that the U.S. border is a mere construct. Every impoverished person has a birthright to cross into America illegally. The 2 million who are scheduled to enter this fiscal year alone is a wonderful, if occasionally sloppy, event.

Sheer chaos and anarchy on the border? Afghanistan—the most humiliating defeat in recent U.S. military history? A labor-starved supply chain in shambles and holiday shelves emptying out? The worst inflation in 30 years that seems soon ready to match Carter-era levels? Gas hitting $5 a gallon with winter heating fuels soaring? Free-for-all looting in the major cities without consequences? Joe Biden’s policies and Biden himself diving in the polls?

Never in recent American history has any administration birthed such disasters in its first nine months.

Yet most Americans are arguing not over the sheer chaos and disasters of the Biden administration, but rather how could such sheer pre-civilizational calamity occur in modern America? Were these disasters a result of historic incompetency? Or mean-spirited nihilism? Or a deliberate effort to create the necessary turbulence to birth a new American revolution? Or a bit of all three?

Start instead with the idea that what most Americans see as sheer ruin is not what the left-wing puppeteers (who are pulling the strings of the Biden marionette) see. Our catastrophes are their minor glitches. For them bad polling is mostly a public relations problem of an occasional uncooperative media. Otherwise, a few broken eggs are always necessary to create the perfect socialist omelet.

The Left now controlling Washington believes that the U.S. border is a mere construct. Every impoverished person has a birthright to cross into America illegally. The 2 million who are scheduled to enter this fiscal year alone is a wonderful, if occasionally sloppy, event.

Our border calamity is their celebration of humanity and a long-overdue recalibration of ossified American demography, one that will properly warp the Electoral College to provide the necessary election result. If you believe that a culturally imperialistic America needs to be taken down a notch overseas, then the flight from Afghanistan is “impressive” and a “success”— by how quickly and efficiently we skedaddled.

Why worry about a lost $1 billion embassy, a $300 million refit of the Bagram airbase, or $80 billion lost in military hardware and training? Empty shelves? Boohoo.

Grasping, upper-middle-class consumers are angry that the working classes are not willing to risk COVID infection to supply them with their accustomed holiday trinkets.

So, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg intoned that the shortages mean only that the consumer class has to wait a wee bit—until Christmas Eve—to splurge on gifts.

Who worries about a little inflation? Under new monetary theory, printing dollars brings prosperity. Or as White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain put it in a retweet, inflation is a mere “high class problem” of the Peloton elite.

Only those with money worry their ill-begotten pile shrinks. But the majority without money will eventually rejoice that it is everywhere now”—finally and properly “spread,” as former president and now multimillionaire Barack Obama once promised.

As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez swore, gas and oil are going to be gone anyway in 10 years. So, if Joe Biden slashes over 2 million barrels a day in U.S. oil production, what’s wrong with that?

Didn’t Steven Chu, Obama’s energy secretary, long ago brag that when we hit $8 to $10 a gallon, we’d approach European levels of proper fuel usage? Why whine about paying over $100 to fill up, when the planet more quickly cools?

Did not Americans learn “critical legal theory” and “critical race theory”? Or as the architect of the “1619 Project” reminded us, destroying or taking someone’s property is no big deal. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey shrugged off torched downtown buildings; such torched stuff, he said, is mere “bricks and mortar.”

It is only a crime to “steal” over $500 of needed merchandise from a Walgreens in San Francisco, because the rich who make such absurd laws never have to steal goods from a pharmacy shelf.

If racists wish to point out that African American male youths are disproportionately represented in the latest crime wave, then maybe America should be learning not to create the conditions that force them to break the law.

In sum, we are on a left-wing roller coaster headed to a socialist nirvana.

Most Americans believe it is instead an out-of-control “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride” nightmare with incompetents at the wheel. But the architects of such “hope and change” shrug that the occasional disturbing news that the media sometimes accidentally leaks out is merely the cost of an equitable America. One man’s anarchy is another’s road to justice.

Keep that mentality in mind and the absurdities that are mouthed by Biden, Klain, press secretary Jen Psaki, Homeland “Security” Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Pete Buttigieg, or the ravings of the Squad make perfect sense.

They are merely trying to explain to us dummies that what we think is purgatory is actually the new paradise—a promised land that, once we are properly programmed and educated, we too will welcome and thank them for our deliverance.

Victor Davis Hanson

Don’t Reform the Income Tax—Abolish It

As I have repeatedly emphasized, in order to achieve a genuinely free society, it is necessary to dismantle or abolish infringements on liberty. If all we do is reform infringements on liberty, we have done nothing to achieve liberty. All that we have done, at best, is improve our lives as serfs. That’s because reform is not freedom. Reform is reform.

Obviously, making the case for liberty to people is much more challenging than making the case for reform. Since reform leaves the infringement intact, people feel more comfortable with it because it doesn’t entail a fundamental change in what they are accustomed to. Moreover, the arguments for dismantling or abolition are fundamentally different than the arguments for reform. (See my recent article “Don’t Reform the IRS. Abolish It Instead.”)

A good example of this phenomenon is a recent article in the American Thinker entitled “An End to Tax Withholding” by Lloyd Billingsley. In his article, Billingsley criticizes the federal withholding tax. He provides readers with an interesting history of the withholding tax. It came into existence as an emergency wartime funding measure in World War II and then became a permanent part of the government’s income-tax system. He also points out that the idea, ironically enough, originated with libertarian economist Milton Friedman.

So, what does Billingsley advocate? He settles for calling for an end to the federal withholding tax. He says, “ Long before the pandemic, the federal government was too large, too intrusive, and too destructive of freedom.  Freedom is seldom lost all at once, and once lost, it is difficult to recover.”

But ending the withholding tax does nothing to restore genuine freedom to the American people. After all, such a proposal doesn’t relieve people of having to pay the income tax. It just delays the payment of the tax.

In order to achieve a genuinely free society, it is necessary to abolish the income tax itself. Obviously, the arguments for doing that are different from the arguments calling for a repeal of withholding. With income-tax reform, the income tax stays in place. With income-tax abolition, the income tax is eradicated.

Freedom entails the right to keep everything you earn. Your income belongs to you — all of it. None of it belongs to the government. 

When government wields the power to take any percentage of your income it wishes, you become a serf. You exist to serve the state. Oh sure, sometimes the state is kind and lets you keep more of your income. Other times it’s not so kind and leaves you with less. But make no mistake about it: When government is determining the percentage, you are on an allowance.

That’s not a free society. That’s a serfdom society.

The problem, of course, is that most everyone has been indoctrinated into thinking that the income tax, along with the welfare state-warfare-regulatory state it funds, is freedom. That’s why many Americans really do believe it when they sing, “Thank God I’m an American because at least I know I’m free.”

Our American ancestors understood that freedom necessarily entails an income-tax-free society. That’s why America lived without income taxation and an IRS (and a welfare-warfare-regulatory state) for more than 100 years. 

Statists lament that an income-tax free society would produce massive disparities of wealth, but they are simply succumbing to the grave sins of envy and covetousness. They also fail to recognize that when people are free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, everyone benefits from rising standards of living, especially the poor. Income taxation destroys massive amounts of capital, which is a key to rising standards of living. In the process, it ensures greater poverty.

Let’s leave reform to conservatives. Let us libertarians continue leading America to freedom and prosperity by raising people’s vision to a higher level — to the level of genuine liberty.

Jacob Hornberger

Why no Jab Mandates for Welfare Recipients ?

Government has become a criminal enterprise. It enriches sociopaths, looters and moochers. And nobody else.

A meme asks: “Why doesn’t Biden require jabs to get a welfare check? Or food stamps? Why is it only required for those who work and contribute to society?”

Excellent question. It’s probably the same reason illegal immigrants — whisked into the country without regard for existing immigration laws — are not required to get the jabs. If you’re considered a sure-thing to be a DemCom voter, you’re OK. It’s everyone else who’s on trial here.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Ayn Rand Explains why the Silent Majority can Lose

The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.”

— AYN RAND

If They Lose in 2022 and 2024, Will They Go Peacefully ?

Let’s say the Republicans sweep the vote in 2022, massively retaking the House and the Senate. Let’s assume the Biden regime has not imposed a sweeping dictatorship by that time, instead of the dictatorship-in-stages they’re imposing now. So let’s say the Republicans win. What happens next, do you think? Will the Soros-funded and other Marxist/fascist organizations of the current Democratic Party accept defeat peacefully? Will Facebook and Twitter allow victorious Republicans to celebrate on their social media sites? Or will they use their money, influence and power to do what they successfully did in 2020 — start riots in the cities, all still run by left-wing mayors? Or do something equally sinister that decent people cannot dream up?

We know from experience in 2020 that they started riots and the mayors and governors of those Democratic states and cities enforced the law selectively. It was nothing more than legalized terrorism — and it was temporary, until Trump left office. Trump’s defeat was a reward for deceit and violence. If Republicans make a comeback, paving the way for Trump’s return or someone like DeSantis to step into the White House in 2025 (again, assuming there still is an American republic at all, by that time), do you think they will take the defeat calmly and simply say, “Well, better luck next time”?

Remember, these Democrats are the same ones now literally laughing at a breakdown of the supply chain and the early stages of hyperinflation. They are the ones shoving needles into the arms of citizens and promising to secure everyone’s private passwords to enter their bank accounts. They are the ones promising to end the filibuster and stack the Supreme Court so they can completely rig our system with one-party government. They are the ones laughingly destroying our military the same way an occupying country who defeated us after a long war would do. They are the ones who got into power with the help of force (Black Lives Matter terrorism), fear (wildly exaggerated COVID threats) and fraud (mail-in voting).

Do you think these people who still call themselves Democrats and “progressives” will surrender, even temporarily, just because Republicans win? If so, what’s the basis for your assumption?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Economic Foundations of Liberty

Animals are driven by instinctive urges. They yield to the impulse that prevails at the moment and peremptorily asks for satisfaction. They are the puppets of their appetites.

Man’s eminence is to be seen in the fact that he chooses between alternatives. He regulates his behavior deliberatively. He can master his impulses and desires; he has the power to suppress wishes the satisfaction of which would force him to renounce the attainment of more important goals. In short: man acts; he purposively aims at ends chosen. This is what we have in mind in stating that man is a moral person, responsible for his conduct.

Freedom as a Postulate of Morality

All the teachings and precepts of ethics, whether based upon a religious creed or whether based upon a secular doctrine like that of the Stoic philosophers, presuppose this moral autonomy of the individual and therefore appeal to the individual’s conscience. They presuppose that the individual is free to choose among various modes of conduct and require him to behave in compliance with definite rules, the rules of morality. Do the right things; shun the bad things.

It is obvious that the exhortations and admonishments of morality make sense only when addressing individuals who are free agents. They are vain when directed to slaves. It is useless to tell a bondsman what is morally good and what is morally bad. He is not free to determine his comportment; he is forced to obey the orders of his master. It is difficult to blame him if he prefers yielding to the commands of his master to the most cruel punishment threatening not only him but also the members of his family.

This is why freedom is not only a political postulate but no less a postulate of every religious or secular morality.

The Struggle for Freedom

Yet for thousands of years a considerable part of mankind was either entirely or at least in many regards deprived of the faculty to choose between what is right and what is wrong. In the status society of days gone by, the freedom to act according to their own choice was, for the lower strata of society (the great majority of the population), seriously restricted by a rigid system of controls. An outspoken formulation of this principle was the statute of the Holy Roman Empire that conferred upon the princes and counts of the Reich (Empire) the power and the right to determine the religious allegiance of their subjects.

The Orientals meekly acquiesced in this state of affairs. But the Christian peoples of Europe and their scions that settled in overseas territories never tired in their struggle for liberty. Step by step they abolished all status and caste privileges and disabilities until they finally succeeded in establishing the system that the harbingers of totalitarianism try to smear by calling it the bourgeois system.

The Supremacy of the Consumers

The economic foundation of this bourgeois system is the market economy in which the consumer is sovereign. The consumer, i.e., everybody, determines by his buying or abstention from buying what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality. The businessmen are forced by the instrumentality of profit and loss to obey the orders of the consumers. Only those enterprises can flourish that supply in the best possible and cheapest way those commodities and services which the buyers are most anxious to acquire. Those who fail to satisfy the public suffer losses and are finally forced to go out of business.

In the precapitalistic ages the rich were the owners of large landed estates. They or their ancestors had acquired their property as gifts (feuds or fiefs) from the sovereign who with their aid had conquered the country and subjugated its inhabitants. These aristocratic landowners were real lords, as they did not depend on the patronage of buyers. But the rich of a capitalistic industrial society are subject to the supremacy of the market. They acquire their wealth by serving the consumers better than other people do, and they forfeit their wealth when other people satisfy the wishes of the consumers better or cheaper than they do.

In the free-market economy, the owners of capital are forced to invest it in those lines in which it best serves the public. Thus ownership of capital goods is continually shifted into the hands of those who have best succeeded in serving the consumers. In the market economy, private property is in this sense a public service imposing upon the owners the responsibility of employing it in the best interests of the sovereign consumers. This is what economists mean when they call the market economy a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote.

The Political Aspects of Freedom

Representative government is the political corollary of the market economy. The same spiritual movement that created modern capitalism substituted elected officeholders for the authoritarian rule of absolute kings and hereditary aristocracies. It was this much-decried bourgeois liberalism that brought freedom of conscience, of thought, of speech, and of the press and put an end to the intolerant persecution of dissenters.

A free country is one in which every citizen is free to fashion his life according to his own plans. He is free to compete on the market for the most desirable jobs and on the political scene for the highest offices. He does not depend more on other people’s favor than these others depend on his favor. If he wants to succeed on the market, he has to satisfy the consumers; if he wants to succeed in public affairs he has to satisfy the voters. This system has brought to the capitalistic countries of Western Europe, America, and Australia an unprecedented increase in population figures and the highest standard of living ever known in history. The much-talked-about “common man” has at his disposal amenities of which the richest men in precapitalistic ages did not even dream. He is in a position to enjoy the spiritual and intellectual achievements of science, poetry, and art that in earlier days were accessible only to a small elite of well-to-do people. And he is free to worship as his conscience tells him.

The Socialist Misrepresentation of the Market Economy

All the facts about the operation of the capitalistic system are misrepresented and distorted by the politicians and writers who arrogated to themselves the label of liberalism, the school of thought that in the 19th century crushed the arbitrary rule of monarchs and aristocrats and paved the way for free trade and enterprise. As these advocates of a return to despotism see it, all the evils that plague mankind are due to sinister machinations on the part of big business; what is needed to bring about wealth and happiness for all decent people is to put the corporations under strict government control. They admit, although only obliquely, that this means the adoption of socialism — the system of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But they protest that socialism will be something entirely different in the countries of Western civilization from what it is in Russia. And anyway, they say, there is no other method to deprive the mammoth corporations of the enormous power they have acquired and to prevent them from further damaging the interests of the people.

Against all this fanatical propaganda there is need to emphasize again and again the truth that it is big business that brought about the unprecedented improvement of the masses’ standard of living. Luxury goods for a comparatively small number of well-to-do can be produced by small-size enterprises. But the fundamental principle of capitalism is to produce for the satisfaction of the wants of the many. The same people who are employed by the big corporations are the main consumers of the goods turned out. If you look around in the household of an average American wage-earner, you will see for whom the wheels of the machines are turning. It is big business that makes all the achievements of modern technology accessible to the common man. Everybody is benefited by the high productivity of big-scale production.

It is silly to speak of the “power” of big business. The very mark of capitalism is that supreme power in all economic matters is vested in the consumers. All big enterprises grew from modest beginnings into bigness because the patronage of the consumers made them grow. It would be impossible for small or medium-size firms to turn out those products that no present-day American would like to do without. The bigger a corporation is, the more does it depend on the consumers’ readiness to buy its wares. It was the wishes (or, as some say, the folly) of the consumers that drove the automobile industry into the production of ever-bigger cars and force it today to manufacture smaller cars. Chain stores and department stores are under the necessity to adjust their operations daily anew to the satisfaction of the changing wants of their customers. The fundamental law of the market is: the customer is always right.

A man who criticizes the conduct of business affairs and pretends to know better methods for the provision of the consumers is just an idle babbler. If he thinks that his own designs are better, why does he not try them himself? There are in this country always capitalists in search of a profitable investment of their funds who are ready to provide the capital required for any reasonable innovations. The public is always eager to buy what is better or cheaper or better and cheaper. What counts in the market is not fantastic reveries, but doing. It was not talking that made the “tycoons” rich, but service to the customers.

Capital Accumulation Benefits All of the People

It is fashionable nowadays to pass over in silence the fact that all economic betterment depends on saving and the accumulation of capital. None of the marvelous achievements of science and technology could have been practically utilized if the capital required had not previously been made available. What prevents the economically backward nations from taking full advantage of all the Western methods of production, and thereby keeps their masses poor, is not unfamiliarity with the teachings of technology, but the insufficiency of their capital. One badly misjudges the problems facing the underdeveloped countries if one asserts that what they lack is technical knowledge, the “know-how.” Their businessmen and their engineers, most of them graduates of the best schools of Europe and America, are well acquainted with the state of contemporary applied science. What ties their hands is a shortage of capital.

A hundred years ago America was even poorer than these backward nations. What made the United States become the most affluent country of the world was the fact that the “rugged individualism” of the years before the New Deal did not place too serious obstacles in the way of enterprising men. Businessmen became rich because they consumed only a small part of their profits and plowed the much greater part back into their businesses. Thus they enriched themselves and all of the people. For it was this accumulation of capital that raised the marginal productivity of labor, and thereby wage rates.

Under capitalism, the acquisitiveness of the individual businessman benefits not only himself but also all other people. There is a reciprocal relation between his acquiring wealth by serving the consumers and accumulating capital, and the improvement of the standard of living of the wage-earners who form the majority of the consumers. The masses are in their capacity both as wage-earners and as consumers interested in the flowering of business. This is what the old liberals had in mind when they declared that in the market economy there prevails a harmony of the true interests of all groups of the population.

Economic Well-Being Threatened by Statism

It is in the moral and mental atmosphere of this capitalistic system that the American citizen lives and works. There are still in some parts of the United States conditions left which appear highly unsatisfactory to the prosperous inhabitants of the advanced districts that form the greater part of the country. But the rapid progress of industrialization would have long since wiped out these pockets of backwardness if the unfortunate policies of the New Deal had not slowed down the accumulation of capital, the irreplaceable tool of economic betterment.

Used to the conditions of a capitalistic environment, the average American takes it for granted that every year business makes something new and better accessible to him. Looking backward upon the years of his own life, he realizes that many implements that were totally unknown in the days of his youth and many others that at that time could be enjoyed only by a small minority are now standard equipment of almost every household. He is fully confident that this trend will prevail also in the future. He simply calls it the “American way of life” and does not give serious thought to the question of what made this continuous improvement in the supply of material goods possible. He is not earnestly disturbed by the operation of factors that are bound not only to stop further accumulation of capital but may very soon bring about capital decumulation. He does not oppose the forces that (by frivolously increasing public expenditure, by cutting down capital accumulation, and even making for consumption of parts of the capital invested in business, and, finally, by inflation) are sapping the very foundations of his material well-being. He is not concerned about the growth of statism that wherever it has been tried resulted in producing and preserving conditions which in his eyes are shockingly wretched.

No Personal Freedom Without Economic Freedom

Unfortunately, many of our contemporaries fail to realize what a radical change in the moral conditions of man the rise of statism and the substitution of government omnipotence for this market economy is bound to bring about. They are deluded by the idea that there prevails a clear-cut dualism in the affairs of man — that there is on the one side a sphere of economic activities and on the other side a field of activities that are considered as noneconomic. Between these two fields there is, they think, no close connection. The freedom that socialism abolishes is “only” the economic freedom, while freedom in all other matters remains unimpaired.

However, these two spheres are not independent of each other as this doctrine assumes. Human beings do not float in ethereal regions. Everything that a man does must necessarily in some way or other affect the economic or material sphere and requires his power to interfere with this sphere. In order to subsist, he must toil and have the opportunity to deal with some material tangible goods.

The confusion manifests itself in the popular idea that what is going on in the market refers merely to the economic side of human life and action. But in fact the prices of the market reflect, not only “material concerns” like getting food, shelter, and other amenities, but no less those concerns which are commonly called spiritual or higher or nobler. The observance or nonobservance of religious commandments (to abstain from certain activities altogether or on specific days, to assist those in need, to build and to maintain houses of worship, and many others) is one of the factors that determines the supply of, and the demand for, various consumers’ goods, and thereby prices and the conduct of business. The freedom that the market economy grants to the individual is not merely “economic” as distinguished from some other kind of freedom. It implies the freedom to determine also all those issues that are considered as moral, spiritual, and intellectual.

In exclusively controlling all the factors of production, the socialist regime controls also every individual’s whole life. The government assigns to everybody a definite job. It determines what books and papers ought to be printed and read, who should enjoy the opportunity to embark on writing, who should be entitled to use public assembly halls, to broadcast and to use all other communication facilities. This means that those in charge of the supreme conduct of government affairs ultimately determine which ideas, teachings, and doctrines can be propagated and which not. Whatever a written and promulgated constitution may say about the freedom of conscience, thought, speech, and the press and about neutrality in religious matters must in a socialist country remain a dead letter if the government does not provide the material means for the exercise of these rights. He who monopolizes all media of communication has full power to keep a tight hand on the individuals’ minds and souls.

What makes many people blind to the essential features of any socialist or totalitarian system is the illusion that this system will be operated precisely in the way that they themselves consider as desirable. In supporting socialism, they take it for granted that the “state” will always do what they themselves want it to do. They call only that brand of totalitarianism “true,” “real,” or “good” socialism the rulers of which comply with their own ideas. All other brands they decry as counterfeit. What they first of all expect from the dictator is that he will suppress all those ideas of which they themselves disapprove. In fact, all these supporters of socialism are, unbeknownst to themselves, obsessed by the dictatorial or authoritarian complex. They want all opinions and plans with which they disagree to be crushed by violent action on the part of the government.

The Meaning of the Effective Right to Dissent

The various groups that are advocating socialism, no matter whether they call themselves communists, socialists, or merely social reformers, agree in their essential economic program. They all want to substitute state control (or, as some of them prefer to call it, social control) of production activities for the market economy with its supremacy of the individual consumers. What separates them from one another is not issues of economic management, but religious and ideological convictions. There are Christian socialists (Catholic and Protestant of different denominations) and there are atheist socialists. Each of these varieties of socialism takes it for granted that the socialist commonwealth will be guided by the precepts of their own faith or of their rejection of any religious creed. They never give a thought to the possibility that the socialist regime may be directed by men hostile to their own faith and moral principles who may consider it as their duty to use all the tremendous power of the socialist apparatus for the suppression of what in their eyes is error, superstition, and idolatry.

The simple truth is that individuals can be free to choose between what they consider as right or wrong only where they are economically independent of the government. A socialist government has the power to make dissent impossible by discriminating against unwelcome religious and ideological groups and denying them all the material implements that are required for the propagation and the practice of their convictions. The one-party system, the political principle of socialist rule, implies also the one-religion and one-morality system.

A socialist government has at its disposal means that can be used for the attainment of rigorous conformity in every regard, Gleichschaltung (political conformity) as the Nazis called it. Historians have pointed out what an important role in the Reformation was played by the printing press. But what chances would the reformers have had if all the printing presses had been operated by the governments headed by Charles V of Germany and the Valois kings of France?1 And, for that matter, what chances would Marx have had under a system in which all the means of communication had been in the hands of the governments?

Whoever wants freedom of conscience must abhor socialism. Of course, freedom enables a man not only to do the good things but also to do the wrong things. But no moral value can be ascribed to an action, however good, that has been performed under the pressure of an omnipotent government.

Ludwig von Mises

Buttigieg is a Prop; America is Not the Biden Regime’s Concern

On Saturday’s edition of Newsmax TV’s “The Count,” Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow, author of Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruption, said Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was absurdly “indignant” that people thinking someone in charge of running a government agency shouldn’t be taking two months off during a crisis.

True, but more than that: Government should stay THE HELL OUT of economic activity. Pete Buttigieg is an especially good example of why. He cannot and will never be fired for his arrogance and incompetence. He has achieved NOTHING in his life and his whole reason for existence is to serve as as a prop so other incompetent people and tyrants can exercise authority over others. Pete Buttigieg would not last 5 minutes in the real world, not with any kind of a real job. Yet do-nothings and know-nothings like him enjoy unearned power over others — power for which he holds NO accountability whatsoever.

Remember: The supply chain is not their concern. They got into power thanks to the subjectivity and fraud of mail-in voting. Their party will retain power regardless of how bad things get, at least so far as they are concerned. They are incompetent, totally unaccountable nitwits, presiding over what is, in effect, an occupied country. They answer to China, where the Biden crime family have made their millions. America is not their concern. #NotMyDictatorship

Michael J. Hurd

American Optimist

There’s so much negative news these days. I was glad to see that a new podcast, “American Optimist,” features good things that are coming.

It’s hosted by Palantir founder and venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale. He interviews entrepreneurs like Sal Churi, who funds companies like Icon, which found a way to 3D print homes in just one day.

The process is cool to watch. You can see it in my new video.

Fast home-building is such a good thing for poor people who want an affordable house! Unfortunately, Churi has to struggle to get past the government’s rigid zoning and safety regulations.

“It’s actually impossible to do 3D printing of homes with modern technology because government regulation is making it impossible,” says Lonsdale.

“That infuriates me,” I tell him. “I keep seeing these wonderful new things we can’t have … because of regulations that don’t matter.”

“We’d probably have twice as big of an economy if we didn’t have bad regulations,” he replies.

If innovators finally do get past the regulators, we’ll get lots of cool things.

People predicted flying cars for years. Now it may actually happen because Lonsdale’s friend Paul Sciarra (Pinterest’s co-founder) invested in Joby Aviation, which built a small helicopter that looks like a flying car. He hopes it will be used as an air taxi.

“It’s about 100 times quieter than a helicopter,” says Lonsdale. “Goes about 200 miles on a charge – safer, much quieter. The idea is to use this as a commuting vehicle. I’m pretty excited as we start to scale this out.”

Another Lonsdale friend is Elon Musk, whose Boring Company hopes to create faster ways to move traffic by building tunnels.

But again, it’s hard to get such new transportation past the bureaucrats’ rules. Digging tunnels today actually often costs more( and takes longer – even though construction equipment is much better!

“The EPA is going to insist you do these studies that take four or five years,” complains Lonsdale. “It’s almost like they delight in delaying you.”

Musk is the rare entrepreneur who triumphs over regulations – sometimes by ignoring them.

Thankfully, in new fields, like neurotechnology, innovators sometimes escape stupid rules because regulators don’t understand what they’re doing.

Musk’s company Neuralink invented technology that may let us control things with our minds. Our Stossel TV video on Lonsdale includes a Neuralink video clip showing a monkey playing a video game just by … thinking.

Soon this technology will help paralyzed people do new things. It may someday even help us communicate without speaking. We’ll just … think … to each other.

Lonsdale’s podcast includes Rick Klausner, a scientist who founded Grail, which designed a blood test that detects 50 types of cancers. But it’s not available to us yet because the Federal Trade Commission blocked a merger with the company that would be selling it.

“This could be saving over 1,000 lives a month right now by detecting early cancers!” complains Lonsdale.

He interviews Maureen Hillenmeyer, founder of Hexagon Bio, which turns fungi into drugs that fight cancer. But of course, those drugs may need 10 years to get approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

“It definitely does not need to be 10 years!” says Lonsdale. “Competition of ideas is very important. When I am in charge of the federal government, I’m going to have the FDA compete against itself and have multiple competing agencies.”

Will he be in charge of the government? Probably not. Would competition make bureaucrats less slow and sleepy? Probably yes.

“We’re living in one of the most exciting times,” concludes Lonsdale. “The quality of life we have even during COVID is so much higher than anything humanity experienced, and it’s only going to get better.”

I’m glad such optimists exist.

John Stossel