I fear that we are seeing now in the United States what Ludwig von Mises called “a return to barbarism.” Rhetoric about “working together” and understanding our common responsibilities to one another is superficially appealing, but it is fundamentally divisive. Embedded in these statements are assumptions about who is to serve and who is to be served. It necessarily assumes a class of parasites and a class of hosts. It does not recognize the fundamental and ennobling effects of capitalism. FULL ARTICLE
{ 8 comments }
The change is slow, incremental, and difficult to notice, but we can trace some of the increasing divisions in the world to state action that pit brother against brother and friend against friend. Increasing global integration occurs in spite of state efforts to divide us.
I am puzzled as to what this refers. It seems to me the State seeks ever more integration, eventually to be realized on a global scale. Localities that opt out of the NWO are declared “rogue states” and crushed by NATO/UN/EU action. Capital flight and competing currencies are extremely problematic for the globalists. The solution obviously is a uniform global tax and legal code and currency.
The organic trends, by contrast, are all in the other direction: secession and subsidiarity.
The interventionist does break the law: Supply and Demand, and Comparative Advantage were mentioned. The current crop of would be totalitarians are most guilty of breaking the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility as they create ever more currency that foreigners seem to be increasingly weary of purchasing.
Having lost all faith in US and European institutions to stop the insane spending and slow the creation of money and debt, My only hope is that the other folks in the world stop buying the debt and do so soon.
Byzantine:
Economic segregation for its own sake (eg. the idiotic “buy local” movement) is just as problematic as forced globalism, as far as material prosperity is concerned. But as long as that segregation is entirely voluntary, I don’t have a moral objection to it — even if it’s an incredibly bad idea.
Byzantine-
A current example of how intervention causes divisiveness would be how the govt has pitted the UAW against the stockholders in the takeover and reorganization of GM. Rather than let them sort it out in bankruptcy court so that they could cooperate and compromise to make the outcome more acceptable to all parties, the Obamination administration created greater divisiveness in what should be a partnership to advance the interests of the corporation, both for stockholders and workers, so that it was a more profitable company that could pay higher wages and employ more workers. Instead, what resulted will ultimately destroy the corporation and force more taxpayer bailouts, since investors will shy away from a corporation where the govt and the UAW have majority control and need not care about the rights or benefits of the investors.
Another excellent discussion of this was in the WSJ article yesterday, “Federal Intervention Pits ‘Gets’ vs. ‘Get-Nots.’ ”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124501974568613573.html
Govt wants “integration” via its absolute control over everything and everyone. It does not want the “integration” of a harmonious and cooperative relationship of trading partners, negotiating to maximize their own benefit, which we call “free trade.” This is the only form of “global integration” which will uplift all participants and increase the standard of living for all.
The NWO/CFR/WTO/IMF/Federal Reserve and other Central Banks/EU and other govt entities seek to restrict freedom of capital flow and take their cut in the process, not enhance it.
To govern means to restrict. Look the word up!
Just wanted to say that the picture alongside the article is awesome… what’s the source? thanks..
There will always been those that will oppose whatever the government says. And as it as been so aptly put, some are more equal than others.
Govt wants “integration” via its absolute control over everything and everyone. It does not want the “integration” of a harmonious and cooperative relationship of trading partners, negotiating to maximize their own benefit, which we call “free trade.”
Herbert Spencer referred (in “Man versus the State”) to the age-old opposing ideas of voluntary co-operation versus coerced co-operation.
I’m trying to help with my new book “Diaphysics,” which is on self-organizing systems. We need to educate everyone about bottom-up self-organizing, emergent systems. Too many believe that the only organization is from the top-down, created purposefully by someone. That’s the world view we have to fight.
Comments on this entry are closed.