Self-Preservation, Personal Responsibility, and Classicalism

Since the dawn of time, man has been given choices as to what he is to do regarding needs and wants. For instance, choices had to be made among the hunter-gatherers whether to gather food for the winter or relax and rely on current stockpiles. Kings have been given the choice to defend their kingdoms against opposing armies or be ruled by a foreign tyrant. Even today, we are given choices between working or going on welfare, applying ourselves above and beyond to a task or simply doing what is told of us, and becoming better versions of ourselves and working our way up the job ladder or living life paycheck to paycheck. In all of these instances, our choices boil down to work or leisure, ruling or being ruled, and doing what is easy versus what is difficult. Most importantly, these choices all have to do with self-preservation, and all require personal responsibility, which is perhaps the most important quality we possess, and is one of the reasons capitalism continues to work so well.

One concept that humans are born with that aids in learning personal responsibility is self-preservation. Self-preservation is simply a person’s instinct to look out for their own interests rather than the interests of the collective community. An ideal that describes this concept on a sociological scale is individualism, or the principle of caring more for the interests of the individual rather than the interests of the group. Self-preservation also dictates people’s ethics; whether they work hard to attain their wants, whether they are assertive to others, or whether they are confident about themselves. While self-preservation is a principle derived at birth, there are varying degrees of it in everyone. In order for the principle to grow stronger and have a greater influence on your life, you must nurture it as such.

Personal responsibility is not a trait that we are born with; it is a trait that is taught. If Harry is never taught how to be responsible, he will be handicapped in attaining the knowledge necessary to be successful in the world. He will never take personal management seriously, and will be at a disadvantage to others not only in his personal life, but in his professional life as well. Harry will make poor decisions with his finances, choosing to buy his wants before his needs. Instead of paying for college, he will buy a new computer, a new iPad, or what have you. Personal responsibility is a necessary principle for children to learn, and they must learn it from their parents, whom they will definitely take more seriously than a teacher, if they are to fully grasp the concept.

Classicalism, otherwise referred to as Austrianism, is a free-market, laissez-faire take on economic activities. Classicalism is the principle first taught by economist Adam Smith, and was later adopted by the Austrian school of economics. Classicalism, Austrianism, and free-market capitalism can be used synonymously to express the same ideals of liberty in the market, especially liberty of choice.

Now that we have defined our necessary terms, we can begin to discuss what self-preservation has to do with classicalism.

We have heard over the years about the evils of classicalism, of free markets, of the apparent shortcomings of laissez-faire principles in American and world history, mostly from academia. We have been told that these principles are mean-spirited, cold, calculated, and even evil, and that capitalism itself is to blame for all of the poverty in the world. One of the biggest lies is that there is poverty in the world because people are simply unable to help themselves climb out of poverty, and it’s because of the capitalist system rather than their own lack of self-preservation and personal responsibility. We hear these things being shouted from the “high” pedestal of academia, but we should all be aware that lies will always be lies, no matter how many times you say them. What we should watch out for is when people begin to believe them because of how often they are told the same lie.

Academia’s answer to the problem of capitalism is always socialism, and it would follow that they would find themselves at this answer, for in their own analysis of the system, they grossly underestimate the power of self-preservation. In fact, they try to ignore that part of the human consciousness. The reason is because it completely ruins the argument of classicalist shame. Take, for example, success stories of free blacks after emancipation. How about families that, over generations, worked their way up from impoverished immigrants to some of the most successful people in the world? Self-preservation and responsibility aided these people, not the government. These things really did happen over history, and the stories are uplifting and motivational, testaments to the American Dream, but we never see them explained in academia for obvious reasons. Their answer is government, and will always be government, so long as they ignore the human spirit. As long as they ignore basic human principles such as wanting to live, wanting a better life not just for them, but for their children, the left will always arrive at more government as the answer to our problems.

Throughout history, humans were not allowed the mobility that is available in classicalism and free-market capitalism. They were ruled by kings and monarchs, oligarchs, and the like, without being able to move themselves out of one class and into another one. In capitalism, class mobility is possible, and self-preservation is the engine that allows the capitalist system to succeed. If humans were not actively trying to better themselves and their lives, capitalism would be yield much worse results. It is because of self-preservation and personal responsibility that classicalism is able to bring a family’s generational poverty to a halt. No other system in the world can tout such feats, and that’s what angers academia and the anti-capitalist crowd.

The truth is that socialism underestimates the human spirit and the natural desire for self-improvement. Classicalism is the only system in the world that encourages people to express self-preservation and personal responsibility to better themselves and their family. While socialism tells us that natural instinct to better ourselves does not exist, and the only natural instinct is greed, classicalism tells us that all of these instincts exist, and they can help us succeed. Classicalism is not for the few, but for the many, and whoever can listen to their heart can succeed in a classical society.

The Importance of Small Businesses in a Free Market Society

‘An economy is nothing more than the sum of its businesses’

Businesses in America provide an essential role to the rest of society; that is, they provide value, and therefore create wealth. Businesses are the cornerstone to our economic system, and that is why it is of utmost importance to promote and incentivize business creation and growth. This is one of the reasons that economists began to measure GDP to see how businesses were performing, why governments created tax breaks for entrepreneurs, and so on. Businesses are important to the economy, and the most important sect of businesses as a whole are small businesses, both to their communities and their nation.

There are countless reasons why small businesses are important, especially to a free-market economy. Because we don’t have all day, however, we will only go over just a few reasons. First and foremost, small businesses offer greater competition in any market they enter into, and therefore increase standards of living in a society. In a true free market, there is financial incentive for small businesses to prop themselves up into any sect of the economy which lacks an adequate supply of competition in regards to consumer demand. Second, they offer jobs to a community, which both betters the life of those who would have otherwise been unemployed and increases its credibility and overall image in the eyes of its current, future, and potential customers.  Third, and most importantly, they do not operate as a large corporation. Small businesses have people to answer to the next day, a communal image to upkeep, whereas a corporation does not; at least, not to the extent of the small business. While these three reasons are simple and easy to explain, we should still go through the trouble of further understanding them and why they are important enough to be discussed here.

Greater competition is always good for the consumer. Competition between firms lowers prices for different commodities, makes the dollar more valuable in terms of American products, and increases standards of living for everyone involved. Why are these statements true of competition? They are true because companies who offer the same product to a consumer base must compete with each other on the open market in order to sell their product, thus creating revenue for their company. After all, items cannot collect revenue on a shelf; they only collect dust. Moving on to what I’m calling competitive deflation, because products are cheaper in the wake of increased competition, dollars are now more valuable than they were before. You can buy more of a product for the same amount, or even a lesser amount, than you could before competition. Competitive deflation therefore leads to a higher standard of living for everyone; the businessman, the employer, the employee, and the ordinary consumer. The businessman, because competition has unequivocally helped him sell more products and better his image in the eyes of his community. The employer, because he can now afford to hire more employees with the money being saved by the company and higher revenues due to more products being sold. The employee, because increased competition for labor has ensued between competing small businesses, trying to out hire and drive each other out of business. Therefore, higher wages are being offered to current and potential workers. An argument can be made that employees benefit the most from free competition, along with the consumer, who now pays less for goods, whether they be normal, luxury, or inferior.

Small businesses offer a solution to unemployment that other entities are simply unable to offer themselves; a greater understanding of different communities. Small businesses often mold themselves to offer a commodity that their community needs or wants; in other words, demands. Small businesses will also hire and operate locally, meaning not only do they create an image for themselves in their community, but they also have people to answer to if things go wrong. Large companies have an image to uphold too, but the smaller details often matter more to smaller businesses. In short, small businesses will have a greater respect for what they do, even for the minutest of details. Small businesses often require more than simply labor from their employees, and therefore offer more than labor to their employees; they offer career experience, and introduce young men and women to the real world and show how honest people operate. This helps the youth in a community find what they are passionate about, and teaches them about hard work and attention to detail.

Small businesses are the solution to a stagnant national economy. When we promote the creation and growth of small businesses, we promote higher standards of living for entrepreneurs, employees, and consumers in a free market. More than that, we promote an economy that, in the long run, will experience a downward trend of unemployment, an upward trend of business growth, and a more valuable American dollar. It is not solely the rich who benefit from increased competition and a more valuable U.S. dollar, but rather the poor and impoverished, for now they can afford more goods, and possibly get a higher-paying job to raise themselves up from the poverty line. In fact, it is the poor and impoverished which competition helps the most. It is not greedy to promote business, nor is it taking advantage of the poor; on the contrary, it is trying to make life better for those who may have had it rough, and trying to help them turn their lives around. Small business is the savior of a free-market, and it is imperative that, as a free nation, we remember this fact.  

The Fallacy of Government Spending and Why It’s Bad

‘Governments often hurt the very communities they try to improve’

It has become too frequent in this country that governments, whether federal, state, or local, feel the need to spend taxpayer dollars on improving their communities rather than protecting the citizens they represent. Whether it’s the Hoover Dam being built during the Great Depression or a city’s park being renovated every few years, governments have been known to spend every dime of taxpayer money on wants rather than needs. A city needs its government to provide police and fire departments rather than new parks and public projects. Roads are important to a city; city-sponsored homeless shelters are not. In fact, items such as these will only work against the city they are designed to help. Homeless shelters will only incentivize being homeless; regular park renovations and city projects rather than police protection will incentivize carelessness with taxpayer dollars as well as crime. Not only that, but spending money that is not yours is never a good idea, especially if you waste it on things you don’t need.

Some people like government spending, saying that they enjoy how their communities have improved. Some would even say that the increased government spending has increased commerce and consumer spending in the city or town they reside in. After all, they say, GDP increases with government spending, meaning a higher quality of life for those living under said government. Furthermore, city goods are non-exclusionary; everyone gets to enjoy them, regardless of if they helped pay for them or not. Basically, they say, a community is better off if a government spends more money than if it spends less.

This ideology extends out to the federal government. If the federal government spends more and more money, life will get better and better. Communities will thrive, the country will prosper, and the people will be happy with how their money is being spent. Government programs like welfare, Social Security, unemployment benefits, and others will be seen as outreach programs that help the downtrodden and encourage them to get back on their feet. This will all be possible, they say, because government is inherently good, and will help those it governs.

These are the people who refuse to look at the other side of the equation. In order for a government to bring in money for various projects, it must tax its citizens, sometimes at high rates. This is exactly the case with property tax in communities with very little property ownership and a liberal government. With a very small portion of the population paying property tax, we can assume that their rates will go up substantially rather than minimally. Therefore, in order to avoid financial downturn, landlords will increase their rent prices to soften the blow of the increased property tax. It’s only a softened blow because they cannot increase it so much as to lose their renters, meaning they will eventually take a hit on the increased property tax. Both the landlord and the renter are worse off because of the increased tax, and quality of life is therefore decreased. It does not matter what the government can produce, because at the end of the day, all they are doing is taking your resources from you and using them to produce something that will most likely provide no utility to you.

Governments claim to know what is best for you, and will continue to feed its constituents this lie over and over again. Government will claim that the free market cannot produce the goods that it produces because capitalism is built for the greedy, but government was built for the needy. If a community “needs” a park, the government will give them a park; if a city needs a library, the government will give it a library. According to government officials, these are things that capitalism can simply never provide.

But that is an incorrect statement on capitalism, and an inherently careless way to spend taxpayer dollars. First of all, the beauty of the free market is that if a community really does need a commodity, such as a park or a library, it will provide that product because it will have become profitable to do so. This can be seen with products such as private and charter schools, which were conceived as an alternative to the state-run public-school program, which was seen by many as a sub-par education system. Another example is the formation of accounting and tax firms. These were created because people were often too busy to do their own taxes or companies needed help keeping up with their daily transactions. The private market saw an opportunity to provide value – value that others would pay for – and thus a new industry was born. If it isn’t valuable to society, it will cease to exist in a free-market economy. If it is valuable to society, the free-market will step in to provide the commodity in question.

Government spending today has a lot of flaws, and shows almost no resemblance to the government that our founders envisioned; on that solely protected life, liberty, and property. Taxpayer dollars are precious, and should be used accordingly. Government-sponsored healthcare, libraries, homeless shelters, welfare programs, etc. cost the taxpayer a lot of their hard-earned money, and often work against the very communities the programs are designed to help. However, unless told differently, governments will use your money carelessly; they don’t care that it goes to waste. At the end of the day, it’s not the government’s money; its yours. If it was their money, they wouldn’t spend so much of it. Government is but a necessary evil chained by the Constitution, and you should remember that the next time you pay your taxes.

Capitalism and the Magic of Deflation

‘Capitalism is the only reason society is able to progress’

Capitalism has been a force for good since its inception. It has led to the development of what is known as the modern world, it has created products that we would have otherwise never known we needed (iPhone), and has paved the way for the strongest nation to have ever existed. While our current generation tries to cry out against capitalism, protesting in the streets while destroying the hard work of others and refusing to give to a common cause. They cry out because they have been taught the great lie of American shame, and have never been introduced to the greatness that comes with capitalistic competition.

One of the great phenomena that comes with capitalism is deflation. Deflation is defined as a general decrease in prices in an economy. Deflation is also used to describe how the dollar can purchase more products than it used to. For example, the Ford Model T costed more when it was first introduced than many cars do now; computers from the 80’s and 90’s costed more and performed worse than modern computers today. Deflation can hurt an economy in certain times, but as we have seen throughout history, it can also help an economy.

Deflation is constant in a capitalistic society, and this is due to two reasons. The first reason has to do with technological advancement; products become cheaper to produce and vendors are able to produce more of it at a time, driving the costs of production down, making the final price go down over time. The second reason is competition between businesses in the free market; businesses have to constantly compete with one another for customers, and must always offer their best price to the consumer. Costs of production could go down, but without competition there is nothing driving businesses to lower their prices.

Deflation is a powerful tool that can lead to the betterment of a society and a higher standard of living. In the early 20th century, agriculture was still very primitive. Even though tractors were introduced in the 1800’s, many farmers still used mules, farmhands, and spent all day harvesting crops. As a result, products such as flour, bread, corn, and other agricultural commodities were relatively expensive. It wasn’t that farmers were greedy or keeping their prices high on purpose; even as competition in the agriculture market was as healthy as ever, prices were high because of underdeveloped farming techniques. We compare the situation of the early 1900’s to now, and we see vastly cheaper agricultural commodities because of technological advancements and an even healthier competitive market, with more businesses entering the market to make a share of the profits in the food market.

The advancement of computers since the 1980’s, or even the early 2000’s, shows how powerful a tool capitalism can be for increasing the standards of living in an area that accepts its principles. From the MacIntosh to the iPhone to the modern supercomputer, the progression of microchips in computers have become exponentially more powerful in the last twenty years. Even an off-the-shelf Dell Inspiron from Office Max is more powerful than a top-of-the-line supercomputer from the 2000’s. The same can be said for laptops, and the same can definitely be said for smartphones. Current products are more efficient, more powerful, and cheaper than those of 10 or 20 years ago.

Deflation can be bad, but it can also be wonderful for a society. Deflation can show how healthy a market is, how much it has progressed, and how many more people are able to get their hands on previously unattainable products. If it weren’t for capitalism, deflation would not exist. But because there is an always-increasing efficiency of production and capitalistic competition between vendors, products are inevitably going to become cheaper over time, allowing more and more people to enjoy them who otherwise could not. Capitalism is said by academia to be the enemy of societal progression; the truth is that capitalism is the only reason society is able to progress, and deflation is simply a side-effect.

A Word On Minimum Wage

‘No serious economist can deny the effects of this policy’

We have talked before about how price floors are detrimental for an economy; they create a surplus of a particular product, they artificially limit demand, and they lead to a lower standard of living. There are different types of price floors that take different names, but no matter how good politicians try to make their price floors sound, they will always be, fundamentally, price floors. Here, we will talk about the minimum wage, and how it has damaged the market for labor in this country, and has led to a decreased standard of living since its initial inception in the early 20th century.

The minimum wage began as a New Deal policy in 1938, as FDR and his fellow Democrats felt that the policy would help ease the depression to a halt. The wage began at $0.25 an hour, which was still considered a very low amount at the time, but desperate times called for desperate measures. It went about how anyone who is fluent in the effects of price floors can imagine; it stifled the labor market, increased poverty, and lowered standards of living. There are several reasons why this happened, all of which we will go over in this article.

The first reason this policy failed to fix the problem of rising poverty levels in the United States is because it stripped both employers and employees of their liberty of contract. In other words, the minimum wage prevented the employer from paying any employee less than $0.25 an hour, but more importantly, it prevented workers from providing their labor for any less than $0.25 an hour. Neither employer nor employee were able to negotiate without government supervision, and it made a difference, especially as the depression was made worse by other New Deal policies.

So, what are the short-term consequences of introducing a minimum wage? From data collected at the time and personal experiences from our elderly, finding a job in the private market became increasingly difficult. Unemployment in the private market skyrocketed, while politicians at the time rejoiced because of increasing government payrolls to counteract the problems they created.

This occurred because businesses could no longer afford to hire workers at the set price floor, and the unemployed were left to find someone else who could hire them for that amount. However, the workers who were laboring for less than $0.25 an hour before the minimum wage was enacted were paid that amount because their labor was simply not worth any more. In other words, the worker could not provide more than $0.25 an hour’s worth of profits, meaning the employer would lose money if they were to pay the employee any more than they were. This being true, the newly unemployed in America were barred from ever finding employment again in the private market, especially because of the heightening depression.

Unemployment is simply a short-term effect of a minimum wage. It could be considered a long-term effect as well, as unemployment would continue to rise until the market reached a new employment equilibrium. Another long-term effect of a price floor on labor is rising poverty levels. This phenomenon can be explained by the rising unemployment numbers. If people are unable to find work, they find themselves in poverty, not being able to sufficiently house, clothe, or feed themselves because of a lack of disposable income.

The federal government has tried to fix poverty in America, the most prominent example being President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” The Johnson administration set up unemployment benefits, welfare and government benefits, and finally, a substantial increase to the minimum wage in 1968. The idea was that all of these policies put together would end poverty in America, and lead to a higher standard of living and an overall better nation.

What Johnson and his fellow Keynesians failed to look at is the other side of the equation. If they increased the minimum wage, there would be massive layoffs because employers would have to adapt to the higher labor costs. Johnson’s other policies of government stimulus made life harder for those who actually kept their jobs, as they paid more in taxes and probably received pay cut to resemble the new costs of the employer. Johnson’s policies also incentivized unemployment, as unemployment benefit and welfare recipients could make a living not working at all. Now, employees were no longer working for their wage at all; they were working for the difference between their wage and the benefits they could get if they were unemployed.

Poverty increased under Johnson because of increased unemployment that continued into the 70’s, which leads to the third long-term effect of a lower standard of living. Now that wages have been forced upwards by overzealous politicians, businesses are forced to raise their prices by a proportional amount. Inflation occurs, and an employee who is making above the minimum wage cannot purchase the same amount of goods as they could before the policy was enacted. Even though other things were going on that had terrible effects on the economy, we can see the three effects of an increase in the minimum wage during the recessions of the 1970’s.

The minimum wage cannot exist in a free-market economy for the simple reason that the market is no longer free. A sector of the economy has been regulated, and as is the case with any regulation, economic losses are inevitable. Ever since the introduction of a price floor to the labor market was introduced, it has had terrible effects on the people it assured us it was out to protect: our young people. The minimum wage hurts the poorest in our society, and for some reason, the left continues to defend it without knowing the truth behind it.

Steve’s Story: A Word on Capitalism

‘Capitalism has brought tremendous prosperity’

Here on this website, we talk about economics a lot. Whether it’s the law of supply and demand or the law of marginal utility, we strive to educate our audience more than ever about the complicated topic that is economics. We take the study seriously because it can mean the difference between a prosperous society and a poor, destitute one. Economic thought itself is very important because it often comes from a set of morals and ideals that are significant to the economist. An Austrian might be against any increase in taxes because they want to help those who are living paycheck to paycheck, making sure they have a place to work and do not ever go hungry. Henry Hazlitt was a strong opponent of the minimum wage because he wanted to see more employment among the populace and higher wages among those who work hard. Today, we tell a story of how the United States government robbed a man of prosperity and sent him into a life that he did not want to live; that robbed him of a generational trade, and forced him to move away from his hometown.

The story today is of a black gentleman who walked into the store that I work at. He was there to make a purchase, but also to have a conversation with us. He sat down and started talking, and we started listening.

The story began in 1970’s Chicago, when the city was booming with the steel industry, as was Detroit at the time. This man, who we’ll call Steve, grew up with several generations of steel workers. Steve’s great-grandfather was a steel worker, his grandfather was a steel worker, his father was a steel worker, and Steve and his cousins were on track to become steel workers as well. It was a generational trade that they grew up learning how to do. In the 1980’s, it was an exceptional trade to learn, as steel workers made good money ($30-$50 an hour in today’s money), enough to support large families by themselves. Chicago, especially the South side, was a booming city of black-owned businesses, prosperity, and most importantly, equality. Not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity, as there was plenty in the city. Everyone had the opportunity to be self-made, to be wealthy, to be philanthropists, and to be role models for future generations.

However, foreign competition and incompetent ownership soon caused the collapse of the steel factories in Chicago. Jobs were lost and dreams were shattered, including Steve’s. His family’s long line of steel workers had come to an end, and he was forced to leave the city in search of gainful employment.

For the second part of the story, Steve took us to Austin, Texas, in the year 1999. Throughout the 90’s, Texas was offering large tax breaks to any company that would headquarter in their state. This was to inspire innovation and employment, something that the country needed exiting the hardships of the late 1980’s. Big cities, such as Dallas, saw the likes of Dell, HP, Texas Instruments, etc., that became a part of the “silicon prairie,” a term still used to this day. Steve worked as a merchandiser for Dell, where he made $11 an hour to make sure the shelves were stocked with computers. The city of Austin was booming at the time; as Steve put it, “it was like the roaring 20’s; we couldn’t put the computers out fast enough!” According to Steve, Dell even provided a bus to get the workers to work every day and provided a lunchroom as well. The state of Texas and the silicon prairie saw some of the best employment in the entire country, and thus saw the greatest prosperity among its people.

However, all great things come to an end, as did the high point of the silicon prairie. China had been competing with the United States ever since it was able to trade openly, and when the country was let into the World Trade Organization in 2001, it began to deflate American industry in electronics. The Dot-Com Bubble had also burst, hurting American industry even more. Steve was once again unemployed and began to search for another job.

These two stories prove one larger point that our country should take to heart: capitalism can create great prosperity among anyone who partakes in it. Capitalism knows no race or creed, and the only color that matters to it is green. Sure, there are mean-spirited and evil people who are capitalists themselves, but there are evil people everywhere, even government. However, capitalism can bring out the best in the many good people in this world, as we saw with Dell, who offered a bus to its employees to bring them to work. We saw the equality of capitalism in South Chicago and Detroit, when the black community was thriving due to the steel industry. Capitalism is not evil; only evil people are evil. With capitalism, a man can pull himself up from poverty to the highest ranks of society, a small business can become the biggest employer in their area, and best of all, a community can see an era of unlimited growth and opportunity. We must take this lesson to heart, that destroying the great system of wealth creation is not the answer, and we must, if we are to prosper, uphold capitalism, and observe its powerful effects on every society it touches.

What Has the Coronavirus Done to the World, and How Should We Respond?

‘We can’t sit back and watch this happen’

The world has been put on hold to protect itself from the “deadly” COVID-19 disease and the corresponding coronavirus. From the very beginning of the pandemic back in January, the entire world, not just the United States, has had to take precautions to flatten the curve. This meant to not necessarily stop infections and deaths, but to slow them down. This plan began with the president’s “15 days to slow the spread,” and soon morphed into something that it was never supposed to become because of the unrealistic goals of those thirsty for power.

“Flatten the curve” became “get rid of the curve,” as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the CDC became dictators in America, determining what was permissible and what wasn’t based on the fact that the coronavirus still existed in the world. Even in states that had very low susceptibility to the coronavirus, such as Oklahoma and South Dakota, Fauci’s orders stayed the same. It was a uniform policy for the entirety of the United States, and for states such as Michigan, whose governors and leadership had become invigorated by a new sense of power due to the pandemic, millions of people lost their jobs, lost their homes, and many lost their lives, but not due to the coronavirus; a more likely scenario is that they took their own life as their livelihood was being taken from them right before their eyes.

However, the human spirit lives on. In the state of Michigan, thousands upon thousands of protestors took to the streets of the capitol to demand that the state reopen. Michigan’s governor, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer, was the target of these protests, as the citizens who took up arms and headed towards the capitol called for her prosecution for ruining the state of Michigan, killing thousands of elderlies by placing COVID-19 patients in nursing homes, and taking advantage of a pandemic to play dictator.

What the coronavirus has taught us is to be a lot more sanitary, take care of our bodies to the fullest extent, and most importantly, beware of those thirsty for power over you. The coronavirus has taught the American people that the Democratic party, and some on the Republican side, yearn for power over the rest of the population. They crave to be in charge, to make decisions for you, and keep your support by telling you that they are doing what they are doing to protect you. The truth is much more sinister, and we saw it with characters such as Dr. Fauci, Gretchen Whitmer, WHO director Dr. Tedros Adhanom, and others. Their hearts are empty, and they must fill that void with power.

There are several policies that have been talked about and enforced during this pandemic, such as the mask policy, social distancing, and the possibility of removing the cultural norm of shaking hands to stop the spread of the coronavirus. All three of these policies threaten the American way of life.

How? Because in the United States of America, our culture’s foundation is liberty, especially the liberty to exercise free will. We could institute a mandatory mask policy in the United States, but you would be infringing on other people’s liberty. You would be making a decision for them that they have the right, as humans, to make for themselves. There would be outcry, and there would be outright disregard for this ridiculous mandate. We’re seeing it play out in many states, including Oklahoma, Texas, and others. This especially helps when there’s a movement to defund the police, as now police departments are unwilling to enforce your laws for you, which poses a threat to your dictatorship. Social distancing is just like wearing a mask, as it’s a mandate made by the government that you have to agree to. There would be no problem if the government didn’t make social distancing mandatory; it’s considered rude to stand too close to anyone in a line anyway. But the fact that there are people who wanted to mandate this policy and force everyone to abide by their rules made the American people want to rebel.

Trying to get rid of the handshake is a ludicrous idea, but the point was never to enforce it; the point was to scare people into thinking the coronavirus is something that it isn’t. The coronavirus is not as deadly as those in power are saying it is. Even as the death rate gets lower and lower, those in power are portraying it to be the next black plague if we’re not careful. All the while, they ignore the fact that the World Health Organization, Dr. Fauci, and the communist government of China did not say anything about the coronavirus until two months after it most likely entered the U.S. and other parts of the world. These are not the people who have your best interests at heart; they are downright evil people who feel the need to fill their hearts with power over their fellow Americans. Just look at the history of the WHO director and the actions of Gretchen Whitmer and Andrew Cuomo, who are responsible for thousands of deaths in their own states. The coronavirus has shown us who the real enemy is in this world, and it’s not COVID-19. Dictators still exist, and more often than not, they are hidden behind the shield of party politics.

So how should we respond? How should the liberty-loving American take back their country from the likes of those descended from the very ideals we fought to rid ourselves of? We ought to keep and bear arms, to protect ourselves and our families first and foremost. Next, we ought to protect our fellow man; they will try to squash any rebellion against them. Any threat to their power, they will crush; Whitmer did that to the protestors at the state capitol. We ought to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and band together against the evil in this world. This nation is different because it was born of an idea, and that idea was that man was given by God the right to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights are inalienable, and are self-evident in every person. As Patrick Henry once said, “give me liberty, or give me death!”

Sending in the Troops; Executive Power to Use the Military Domestically

‘The president has the right to enforce federal law’

The Chicago mayor has said that the president cannot send in federal troops into her city, and in doing so will result in a lawsuit of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, there have been dozens of shootings in Chicago over the past few days, and countless dead or critically wounded from these shootings. In fact, Chicago has had almost 50% more shootings than they did this time last year. That’s a crazy number, and what’s even crazier are the BLM protests that continue to destroy her city and terrorize her home.

Needless to say, the president signed an executive order to send in federal troops to Chicago to help stabilize the situation before it gets worse, meaning that he faces attacks from the left as well as the Chicago mayor for his “stubbornness.” However, this is no different than any other decision he makes and frankly, the mayors and even governors can’t do anything about it.

President Trump is not doing anything different than previous Republicans when they sent in federal troops to enforce the law in hostile territories. For example, President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to desegregate the schools. This event was a little different because the mayor of Little Rock had requested assistance to protect the nine school children, but the principle is the same.

Even if the mayor had not requested help, Eisenhower still had the right to send in federal troops to enforce the law. And this makes sense, because if people’s lives, liberties, and properties are at stake, and local leaders refuse to protect their own citizens, the federal government, per the Constitution, has the power to enforce the law themselves.

This chain of events is something we haven’t seen since the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. The fact that mayors and governors are bending to the will of the mob, whose demands are clearly out of reach and whose mentality is to burn the country down if they don’t get what they want, is repulsive to the core. The truth of the matter is that the citizens of Chicago are crying, burning, and being shot, and the mayor does not care at all. She refuses to apprehend the members of the mob who are destroying her city, and she threatens the Commander-in-Chief with legalities if he sends federal law enforcement to help her own city. These are truly crazy times.

The message to the Chicago mayor should be, “stop making everything about politics and save your city! Your citizens are crying in the streets, being shot at a higher rate than last year, and literally burning inside their own buildings, and you want to make this about politics? This is about the health of the people who elected you.”

Of course, she knows that this is what people across the country are thinking, but she doesn’t care. All she can think about is her hatred for the president and his administration. If she does this, she can just blame the Trump administration for any further deaths in Chicago.

How do these people sleep at night, knowing that people are dead because they didn’t take action to protect those who voted for them?

Why Police? A Brief Explanation of Why Laws are So Important, and Why They Must Be Enforced

‘We are a country of freedom because we are a country of laws’

The United States has always been a country of freedom and liberty, and because of these two things, we have been prosperous. In fact, we are, have, and will always be the most prosperous nation in the world if we continue to be a beacon of freedom and liberty for everyone else to model. America is a nation founded by revolutionaries who molded their new nation by the values expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. America was founded as a nation of rights and freedoms, and will always stand for these.

However, among these rights and freedoms, the founders knew that there must be restrictions for what citizens and the federal government can do. These are otherwise known as laws, which legally bound the people of the United States from becoming anarchists; the founders knew that this had to be a nation of laws as well. These initial laws, however, were not for the citizens, but rather the federal government, for tyrannical governments were feared first and foremost. The founders needed a government; not one unlimited in power, but one that was a necessary evil, bound by the chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights gave citizens many rights that protected them against an overarching government, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and most importantly, the freedom to bear arms. However, the founders obviously knew that their nation had to be a nation of laws. For example, you could not murder, you could not steal, you could not bear false witness, etc. You may notice that the laws listed here are similar to the laws of the Bible and the Ten Commandments. That is because America was founded by people whose morals were of the upmost importance to them, and their morals consisted of those taught to them in church and written in their hearts by God. America was to be a nation of Judeo-Christian laws, and to those who rejected the morals of these religions, the laws of the United States would make no sense. This is not to say that those who rejected the religions could not live in the country, but those who did not live by a code of civility and respect could not possibly live beside those who did.

In our current age, we are being asked one of the most important questions of our lifetimes: “in a country built to protect individual liberty, why do we need laws, and why do we need law enforcement officials to hold law-breakers accountable?”

The answer is simple, but we will delve deeper into the answer. The answer is that we are a country of individual liberty because we are a nation of laws. In other words, liberties are practiced because others do not have the right to infringe on them. Someone cannot deprive you of free speech, they cannot come and take your guns away, and they cannot search your house and take your property. In fact, even law enforcement cannot infringe on your rights, and can be legally held for doing so; that’s how serious our country was in protecting the rights of citizens.

The longer answer to why we need laws is a little bit wordier. Laws are simply a way to protect an individual’s rights, and the larger threat to the individual is not another individual; it is the government. This is because the government is more likely to violate someone’s rights than another citizen is. Logically, rights are a zero-sum game; the more rights you have, the less rights the government has, and vice-versa. Laws were also another way that the founders could further chain the government from overstepping its bounds. However, it was the responsibility of the citizens to hold it accountable. The failure to do so would have given the government more power to become tyrannical, and that is what we have seen develop up to this point.

This sort of answers the question of why we need law enforcement. Law enforcement in this nation consists of the DOJ, the FBI, the Secret Service, the FOP, state and local law enforcement and justice departments, security guards, etc.  The jobs of these institutions and people is to enforce the law, otherwise known as safeguarding the rights of their fellow citizens. When law enforcement does not do its job, it has become not only useless, but a threat to the society that it swore to protect. Therefore, the citizens should rise up against feeble law enforcement just as it should an oppressive government or criminal counterpart.

We have people in this nation calling for the abolition of the police departments and law enforcement in general. Not just theirs, but everyone’s. They are doing this because they believe that law enforcement has not done its job; it has instead abused its power and “oppressed” the minority population because they know that they can do nothing about it.

With any accusation, we must meet it with our side of the story as well as see our accuser. In this case, we’ve just gone over the accusation of police brutality and systemic racism. Our accuser is the Democratic party. With these facts being known, we must present facts for our side to prove that the claims of the Democrats and the left are simply untrue. For example, we must assert the other side that blacks, contrary to popular belief, committed 48% of the known murder in 2018, and 82% of that murder was interracial, according to the FBI Crime Statistics. These facts are good to know because it shows that police officers have to be more cautious when brought into black neighborhoods or communities with high numbers of blacks, like Chicago or Detroit, than white neighborhoods or communities. Blacks also commit a majority of the crime in the United States, according to the FBI, while only making up 13% of the population. This year is only halfway over, and already New York City has beaten the number of murders in their city from last year, but this hasn’t stopped the left and mayor DeBlasio from crying out against the police.

These are the facts that need to be said to the opposition, and this is why law enforcement is so important. We all should have skepticisms of law enforcement and the law in general; there are bad people everywhere, including our government. But what happened in Minneapolis in respect to George Floyd was completely misrepresented by the mainstream media; there is still no evidence that it was a racist act, and everyone who watched that video was obviously disgusted at what happened. Everyone agreed that the law had been broken by a law enforcement official, and we all rose up against him; but we are a country of laws, and are therefore a country of freedom, and we will not let our freedoms be taken away and let our law enforcement officials be dragged through the mud because of a radical decree based on feelings and victim culture; we know the truth, and we should preach.

Price Ceilings: An Economist’s Analysis

Price ceilings don’t even work in theory…

In our previous discussion, we talked about price floors, and the dangerous nature of these price fixtures. They are used with the intent to limit supply, and have a secondary effect of migrating demand away from any certain product. Price floors claim to help the downtrodden by making sure a “decent living” can be made and fixing prices so they cannot go any lower than any set price. However, price floors limit the free market from working effectively, and can completely decimate a market for a product by forcing a community to move to substitutes. Today, we will talk about price ceilings, why they’re enacted, and what effects they have on an economy.

                What are price ceilings? Price ceilings are the exact opposite of price floors, with the government setting a price or wage that companies cannot charge any more than for their product or service. This price or wage is almost always below the market price at the time; otherwise, it would serve no purpose. Price ceilings are often used to “guarantee” services for the poor and underprivileged in a community. What is fascinating about price ceilings is that they produce precisely the opposite of what they promise; they promise goods for all, but what they actually produce is a shortage for any given product in a market.

                A price ceiling’s road to becoming law is a very simple road to travel. “We cannot afford the rent in Manhattan,” says the poor community, “and we see that there are plenty of apartments and office spaces for sale in the City. If we cannot afford rent, then we will be homeless, and none of us want that, right? Therefore, there should be a limit on how much the greedy landlord can charge for a single apartment or office space so we don’t have to be homeless.” The community’s reaction is similar to that of the apple community in the story about price floors; they grasp at their hearts with a new, but unjustified hatred for the “greedy” landlord, and vote for, say, elected official Smith, who promises to enact price ceilings and “save the poor” in his community from the evil landlords. Once the price ceiling is enacted, the community rejoices, happy that they can serve their fellow man and teach those greedy businessmen a lesson. Rent is now held way below market price, and the new price is affordable to everyone.

                There are so many things wrong with the economics of price ceilings that it may be hard to follow. The first thing is a simple generalization about price ceilings, and that is that while price floors limit supply while inadvertently limiting demand, price ceilings limit demand while inadvertently limiting supply. When a price ceiling is set for, say, apartment rent, usually called rent control, it allows the poor and working classes to buy living space. However, it also allows the customers with the highest purchasing power to acquire more of it than they did before. In the end, this leads to a shortage of apartments to rent, thus stopping demand from growing, because those with the most purchasing power have acquired more apartments and larger living spaces for less money. Ultimately, those with the least purchasing power cannot buy any living space for themselves because there are no more apartments on the market for them to purchase.

On the other side of the equation, let’s take the perspective of a family who just moved to Manhattan on business. They cannot find a living space either, because no matter how much purchasing power the family has, they are unable to rent or buy any property. Let’s also not forget the people who used to rent out penthouses and luxury apartments; they are now out of business because they cannot afford to rent out their properties for the absurdly low price ceiling. Supply in the luxury housing market has been severely hurt, if not completely decimated.

These are the primary ways that price ceilings hurt an economy. They allow the ones with the most purchasing power to buy more while not allowing the poor to buy any. They also restrict supply, creating a shortage in the market. Price ceilings hurt the producer as well, because now that there is a price ceiling, it serves no purpose to provide luxury products. To do so would prove unprofitable and completely pointless. Price ceilings do more harm than good to an economy, and even though this has been proven many times, there are still politicians who swear by the price ceiling theory, saying that it has the power to “save the poor” and “equalize the purchasing power of all classes.” If price ceilings are anything, they are policies that have been heavily recommended by the wealthy in an area to gain more of something at the expense of someone else.

To conclude this two-part series about government price control, we must remember that the free market is not to be trifled with. Laissez-faire capitalism is a mystical machine that has the power to uplift people out of poverty and into the ranks of the upper classes, create new products and innovate beyond our wildest dreams, and create a stable economy for all of us to enjoy. Unfortunately, this idea has been perverted for the past 200 years to mean something completely different than “free-market;” it has become “government-regulated market,” and consumers and producers have paid the price for the government’s interference in the economy. This is not the Austrian’s way of thinking; this is the economist’s way of thinking, but economics itself has been perverted to pursue government regulation with good intentions, ignoring the terrible side-effects of government intervention, blindfolded by arrogance and self-preservation. This series was written in an attempt to reverse what has happened to economic thought, help the citizens of this country realize what is being done to their economy, and how much better life could be without government intervention in the market.