I have a difficult time grasping the thinking of anyone who believes that his or her relationships with others should be subject to the approval of the state. The idea that state officials should endorse one’s choice of a marriage partner recalls the earlier practice of a young man asking a father for the “hand” of a young woman. That practice seemed to die off a good half-century ago, when it became evident that the ritual was premised on the father having a property interest in his daughter which, during an upcoming wedding ceremony, he would “give away.” When gays and lesbians call upon the state to approve marriages, are they doing anything more than substituting the state for the father in this arrangement?
Free market capitalism is an economic system of production, whereby each man owns the product of his own labors and, therefore, has great economic incentives to produce both for himself, his family, and as surplus goods to trade for the surplus product of others. Even under life and death threats neither the socialist worker nor his overseer would know what to produce, how to produce it, or in what quantities and qualities. These economic cues are the product of free market capitalism and money prices.
I see history as centrally a race and conflict between “social power”— the productive consequence of voluntary interactions among men—and state power. In those eras of history when liberty—social power—has managed to race ahead of state power and control, the country and even mankind have flourished. In those eras when state power has managed to catch up with or surpass social power, mankind suffers and declines.
Fiat currency gains its legitimacy through government threat and the muzzle of a gun.
Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.
Instead of relying on voluntary charity and good will towards men, the federal government continues its welfare-state policy of using the IRS to forcibly take money from everyone in order to distribute the money to some, all in the name of morality and righteousness. But where is the morality in coercion, as compared to voluntary choices?
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.
It is particularly frightening that a group of people skilled mainly at feeble speechifying and crass fund-raising would consider itself qualified to stand in judgment of corporate accounting scandals. All members of Congress are direct participants in the biggest accounting fraud going-the federal government-and have never lifted a finger to bring it under control.
The natural tendency of every government is to grow steadily worse-that is, to grow more satisfactory to those who constitute it and less satisfactory to those who support it.