An Ordered Liberty

by Emmanuel Ruiz, President of the LYC

Why Capitalism?

by Travis J. Wells, Senior Editor 

“Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It’s true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of the people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it’s that patterns are repeated. My oppressions, by and large, are no worse than any of the others, and, at least, I teach a new lesson.”   ~ Leto Atreides II, God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert.

Confession time: I used to be a Bernie Sanders supporter. I tell you this because I intend to earn your trust with my writing in this project. Yet today a mere six years after the absolute and unmitigated fecal hurricane of the 2016 election, and the insanity of election 2020… I am a hardcore dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist and borderline anarchist. My YouTube channel is to be called “Libertarian Extremist”. That’s quite a drastic change for someone to make, isn’t it? So to convince you I am no longer a socialist and deeply disagree with my former beliefs, I have decided for my first article as part of this project to explain the process that “red-pilled” me, and then, finally yellow-pilled me.

The short answer to this is directly related to the quote above. After seeing the open mockery of Democracy that was the DNC in 2016; and then seeing the man I had so much trust and confidence in take a knee before the political establishment and willingly give them everything – I was done with politics. Completely done. I voted for Jill Stein as a simple middle finger to Hillary and completely quit reading the news. For the next two years or so I focused on bettering myself, not through college, as I am self-educated, however, I studied the French language and primarily entertained myself by reading Dune by Frank Herbert. All six books, over and over. I grew consumed with the world and very much still am, despite the comparatively mediocre movie that just released.

In Dune, you open to see a royal House being given an apparent victory, and control of the most important planet in the entire Universe, a planet called Arrakis. On Arrakis, there is precious little water, and House Atreides comes from a world nearly covered in water similar to our Earth today. Water, on Arrakis, is indeed so rare, hard to get, and precious – that the native people called “The Fremen” even render down their dead to recover the water in their flesh. Saying “A man’s flesh is his own, but the water belongs to the tribe.” Water, in its penultimate importance, the people on Arrakis must wear “Still Suits” which recycle the water from their bodies in the form of sweat, urine, and feces. Have you ever been so thirsty that you’ve had to render down your own feces for the moisture in it? I dare say no one on earth, no matter how desperate, has had to do that.

On Arrakis, water is power, and water… is wealth. So precious that The Fremen do not even allow themselves to shed tears except on the most reverential and holy occasions, calling the act “He gave water to the dead!”. Even though Arrakis is the singular source in the entire universe for the “Spice Melange”. Spice is the only way the Spacing Guild can see a safe path through the stars and make sure the infrastructure of the Imperium keeps working. Without the Spice, a million worlds humanity lives on would all be isolated and eventually forget that each other exists. Everything in the Universe depends on the Spice, but on the planet that produces the Spice, only water is important… ONLY water. Why?

We learn that Frank Herbert wanted to tell a story about such things at the infamous “Banquet Scene”, which they for some reason decided to cut from the movie despite it being the eye of the hurricane so to speak for all of the thoughts Frank Herbert meant to convey in the entire book. 

Liet Kynes at the table of the Banquet Scene details “The Law of The Minimum” saying something to the effect of “Of all the things that a creature requires to survive, that which is in the minimum is what limits that creature’s growth. On Arrakis, the Law of The Minimum makes the water of ultimate importance. Everywhere else in the Universe, it’s the Spice Melange produced by the Sandworms and “Little Makers” of Arrakis. 

There’s a saying in Dune: “Control the coinage and the courts, and let the rabble have the rest.”

Centralized banks today control the coinage and the courts, then the rabble can vote and bicker to their hearts’ content about everything else, and nothing meaningful ever changes. We do NOT live under Capitalism today. Certain Capitalist things happen like Flea Markets or The Black Market. However, everything rolls right back to the Federal Reserve as the chief energy eater of the world. We live in what I choose to call Corporate Feudalism. As I see strong parallels between the ruling Great and Minor Houses of the Dune Universe and the corporate oligarchs we live under today. Instead of Dukes, and Barons, we call them CEOs and Board Members. Instead of the Landsraad and C.H.O.A.M, we have the United Nations and WEF.

For evidence, I submit for your consideration a perceived total piece of human excrement named Martin Shkreli. In 2017 his company bought the license to manufacture the antiparasitic drug “Daraprim” from the FDA. So ONLY his company could make that drug.  And then they raise the price of that drug 5,455℅… From $13.50 to $755 per pill. This sounds insane, and of course, it is. However, why were they able to do this? Under Capitalism, wouldn’t his competition be able to instantly undercut him and prevent his sale of that drug? College students in South Carolina figured out how to make that drug for a little over $2! 

It didn’t matter, the crux of the conversation is that the FDA license said that ONLY Martin Shkreli’s company could manufacture that drug and sell it. The FDA was and still is artificially cornering the market for the Shkrelis of the world, and Congress can only sit there like the morons they are and let it happen. I submit to you that Congress deserved it when he sat there and laughed at them, and invoked the 5th Amendment over and over. This is the system that they created, that they invest and insider trade within. Shkreli is therefore just a symptom of the problem, a natural result of it, instead of the problem itself. Because if Congress were to end the predatory system they wouldn’t make as much money insider trading, and they know it fully! So water is rare on Arrakis, Spice in the Universe, and Daraprim is rare and prohibitively expensive in poor countries where it’s needed. All hail the art of government overreach! This is NOT Capitalism, this is Corporate Feudalism. If this was Capitalism we lived in, the discussion would be such and as simple as: 

Shkreli: “Mwahahahaa, I am going to sell this drug for $750 a pill!”

South Carolina Students: “Cool, but it costs us $2 to make it, so we’re going to sell it at $6 for 300℅ Profit, so get rekt scrub!”

Shkreli then would look at the camera confused and the Curb Your Enthusiasm music would begin playing.

In Capitalism of the early 1800s, especially the system we inherited directly under Alexander Hamilton; we have a system that allows for upward mobility, and a person, let’s say Fredrick Douglass for example, could be born as someone else’s property, and upon being freed and going into business for himself become one of the greatest thinkers and doers of American history.

If you would care to take another look at that quote now I would like to dissect it for you. “Scratch a Conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future.” The flaw with Conservative fundamentalism is that it’s often too slow to adapt to a world, figuratively speaking, on fire. A world changing faster than any one man can keep up with. This is a fair criticism and even most Conservatives can agree. 

And then the real meat of the quote: “Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It’s true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of the people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies.”

As all of these Liberals and Socialists see themselves as part of the aristocracy in the world they wish to create, not a single one sees themselves swimming through liquid human feces to keep the sewers in working order. However, an olive branch I feel compelled to offer is that as a former socialist myself, I know for a fact that these socialists and Communists see themselves as the “good guys” and they almost always (sans a few people like Stalin and Hitler) really are trying to help people. However, they do not see the laws of nature that will bring about Capitalism as the natural economy as it closely mimics energy and nutrient exchanges in nature itself. Therefore communists and socialists are just misguided and not evil – usually.

Marx and Ingles suggest at length in The Communist Manifesto that all labor is of equal value. This could not be further from the truth. And quite literally they speak on how a man could be a journalist one day, and a cattle farmer the next if they felt like it. Well, my uncle’s father was a cattle rancher for over 40 years and was an absolute expert and knew his stuff about the trade in a way that boggles the mind. He was thrown and partially crushed by a raging bull. So I ask you, could a New York Times journalist be expected to do any better in that situation? Or would they get themselves killed not understanding how dangerous cattle are? Would you allow a Starbucks barista to give you kidney surgery? All of these are rhetorical questions of course. 

 The reason people are getting Master’s Degrees and then getting jobs that have them work 80 hours a week for $35,000 is that these degrees are not rare. And I mean rare as in scarcity. Do the math and that works out to circa minimum wage. Yet you could go and get a Tradesman degree for welding, and write your own paychecks two years later. Why? Because you are dealing with the “Law Of The Minimum” as Liet Kynes explains at the Banquet Scene in Dune. Welders are relatively rare, and the market is currently over-saturated with Liberal Arts degrees and degrees in Underwater Bubble Blowing. Welders provide more value to the economy, so therefore they make the real money, and the value of your Bachelor’s Degree is deflated greatly. That’s Capitalism in action whether we like it or not as it derives from nature itself and nature always wins.

Sure, then some may say: some people are going to do horrible, evil, and downright unforgivable things with their wealth and success like William Ellison. However, for every William Ellison, there are going to be a thousand Fredrick Douglass or Benjamin Franklin because 99.9℅ of humanity are just average, good hard-working people just trying to pay their bills and eat, just like you and I. Capitalism allows for upward mobility in the typical class structures and allows these rags-to-riches stories we love to hear. But find me a socialist or communist who would willingly go and swim through liquid human feces to remove sewer clogs in this socialist paradise they’re trying to build, please? I’d like to meet one. I wouldn’t even be rude to them, as I’m not rude to anyone other than the Feds. I’m genuinely interested if one exists, as that would go a long way to “proving” all labor is equal in value as Marx attests. I doubt very much Marx ever poured concrete and tied rebar in 115°F heat and 100% humidity.

So to tie all this together, I say to you, we are currently living under a miniature Landsraad like in Dune. Held up by the Federal Reserve and a rotten government of morons and charlatans who provide no actual value to society. If we switch to a socialist system, and you ignore that we pretty much already are living in one, we end up with a ruling class of bureaucrats and everyone gets paid the same. In short order, the difficult and dangerous jobs will stop getting done and society will collapse. So begin voting for Capitalism, and force your politicians to remove the Federal Reserve. If we choose to proceed any other way than true meritocracy and value-based pricing, we eventually will suffer and likely go extinct.

What Happened To Liberalism?

by Ezra Wyrick, Editor-in-Chief

When we think of a liberal today, the image that comes to mind is quite different from what it used to be. Instead of picturing an extremely well-dressed gentleman with a killer mustache passionately defending the virtues of freedom and self-determination, we now envision a different picture altogether – that of a figure with short blue hair, a mindset of absolute control, and a desire to govern almost every aspect of our lives. It’s quite a stark contrast, and I think it begs the question: What happened to liberalism? 

Let’s start by going back to where liberalism began. It emerged during a time known as the Enlightenment, an era that celebrated reason, individualism, and questioning the authority of the status quo. Unmatched thinkers such as John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Paine championed the principles of minimalist government, natural rights, and free markets. These ideas became the bedrock of Western society, emphasizing the protection of all the essential human rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – as well as the right to the whole fruits of one’s honest labor. 

At that time, liberalism stood as a beacon of hope, challenging the prevailing norms of absolute monarchy and aristocracy. Its proponents fought for the recognition of rights like freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. They advocated for separation of powers, checks, and balances, and limiting the size and scope of the state, in order to prevent rampant abuses of the citizenry at the hands of an out-of-control government.

In stark contrast to its modern-day perversion, pre-modern liberalism had a distinct and oftentimes unwavering focus on safeguarding both the rights and autonomy of individuals. It recognized the inherent dangers posed by an overreaching state and the myriad of nameless, faceless enforcement apparatuses it wields. It was a philosophy that championed the idea that individuals should be able to flourish, unfettered by unnecessary interference or oppressive coercion. Pre-modern liberals recognized the fundamental rights and dignity of every human being, forging a vision of a world where every citizen would be free to pursue their dreams, express their thoughts, and make their own decisions, free from the iron-fisted grip of top-down political control.

Their vision of government was not that of a suffocating nursemaid, but rather that of a well-chained steward. They understood that the role of government should be one of responsible guardianship, carefully balancing the need for order and protection with the preservation of individual liberty. In their eyes, the government was not meant to try to micromanage every aspect of people’s lives or dictate their every decision, but rather to provide a basic framework that allowed individuals to chart their own course in life, guided by their sense of moral judgment and above all, personal responsibility.

So, how did we end up in this perplexing situation? To find the answer, let’s briefly embark on a journey to the early beginnings of the 20th century, where a new political force had burst onto the scene—the left. At first glance, the left seemed to share at least some common ground with liberalism, embracing the notions of free trade and the pursuit of national prosperity through mostly unhampered markets. Surprisingly, although he would later become infamous for his insatiable addiction to power, Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself momentarily embraced a semblance of genuine liberalism in the very early stages of his long – and later infamous – political career.

For a few hopeful moments, it appeared that the left was poised to carry the torch of liberal ideals, fostering an environment of economic freedom and ensuring that every individual had a fair chance to revel in prosperity. But Father Time has a certain way of revealing the true nature of things. As the 20th century unfurled its tapestry, the left quickly began to veer off course, departing from the principles that once united liberals across the spectrum seemingly overnight. Enchanted by the seductive promises of centralized control, and an expanded state apparatus in the name of the elusive “greater good,” the left drifted further and further away from the very essence of liberalism, reaching a point where its professed “principles” – if we may charitably refer to them as such – became irreconcilable with those cherished by true liberals.

One pivotal turning point in the left’s abandonment of true liberalism can be traced back to the administration of President Woodrow Wilson. Despite the lofty rhetoric of upliftment and progress, the Wilson administration witnessed a profound deviation from the cherished principles of liberalism, marked by a complete departure from the principles of limited government and respect for civil liberties. During his power-drunk tenure, Wilson implemented a series of policies – too numerous to list in entirety – that expanded the scope and influence of the government like never before. 

The passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 marked a particularly significant turning point in the government’s attitude towards the nation’s banking system, representing a total departure from the previous disposition towards decentralized control. This legislation ushered in a new era of centralized authority with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, effectively consolidating power over monetary policy and banking regulation in the hands of a few key decision-makers.

The passage of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act further exemplified this shift, as they introduced unparalleled regulatory burdens that encroached upon the autonomy of businesses and stifled the forces of competition. Wilson’s administration also exhibited a disheartening disregard for civil liberties and freedom of expression. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were employed to suppress dissent and silence voices critical of the government’s actions during the tumultuous period of World War I. These repressive acts constituted clear violations of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, totally betraying the essence of liberalism’s commitment to safeguarding individual rights. 

Regrettably, this departure from true liberalism did not end with Woodrow Wilson’s administration. A subsequent turning point arrived with the advent of the New Deal under the leadership of now-President Franklin Roosevelt. Far removed from the aforementioned liberalism of his younger self, Roosevelt’s policies arguably strayed even further than Wilson’s from the path of limited government and free markets.

The so-called “New Deal” introduced a sweeping array of government programs and regulations, aimed at alleviating the economic hardships of the Great Depression. While some of these countless initiatives provided short-term relief, they represented an egregious departure from the core tenets of individual freedom and highly limited government that were once the cornerstones of liberalism. The federal government’s involvement in the economy expanded exponentially, giving rise to numerous new agencies and programs, such as the Works Progress Administration and the National Recovery Administration. Simultaneously, government spending drastically increased, personal taxation rates skyrocketed, and private industry faced mounting restrictions. 

Measures like the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act granted the federal government unprecedented power to manipulate agricultural production, regulate industries, and dictate business practices. These new intrusions heavily encroached on the rights of individuals to engage freely in economic activities and disrupted the delicate balance of voluntary cooperation and property rights, the very cornerstone upon which the liberal world order was erected in the 18th Century. 

Despite appearances, this hijacking of liberalism by the left didn’t actually happen overnight. It was a gradual process fueled by rank political opportunism and lust for power. By completely redefining liberalism to suit their new agenda, they successfully shifted public perception and reshaped the political landscape. Concepts like “social justice”, identity politics, and wealth redistribution schemes became synonymous with liberalism, and truly liberal values such as meritocracy, personal responsibility, and rugged individualism were tossed in the proverbial wastebasket making way for what Thomas Sowell so keenly referred to as the notion of “Government as Santa Claus.”

The successful distortion of liberalism by the left can be attributed, in part, to the influence of philosophers and thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School and the rise of so-called cultural Marxism. These ideologists aimed to challenge traditional social hierarchies and power structures, viewing them as oppressive and unequal – not realizing that inequality is a natural aspect of the human condition. As a result, the left began prioritizing group rights and identity politics over the individual, leading to a fragmentation of society along lines of race, gender, and other identity markers. 

This usurpation has yielded profound consequences of great magnitude. The authentic voices of liberalism, characterized by their commitment to reason and prudence, have been subsumed beneath the overpowering dominance of many unreasonable or reactionary ideologies – which has in turn given rise to an extremely alarming escalation in political polarization, whereby the space for rational discourse and principled deliberation has been significantly diminished, allowing for the emergence of fervent, tribal, partisan divisions and the near-total erosion of common ground. 

Within the spectrum of political discourse, increasingly radical factions have found fertile ground on both sides of the aisle. On the right, nationalism and economic isolationism and protectionism have gained momentum, while on the left, the halls of Congress now echo with the rhetoric of unabashed socialists who preach a regressive doctrine of degrowth, advocating for downsizing – not expanding – economic activity. The total abandonment of fiscal restraint in favor of an illusion of prosperity through reckless spending has become the prevailing ideology among Washington politicians. 

Rather than embracing the liberal principle of responsible and prudent financial management, they have succumbed to the allure of what I prefer to call “money tree economics.” This mindset perpetuates a cycle of unsustainable growth in the money supply, where economic stagnation, and often contraction, becomes the new norm. The refusal of our government to live within its means has severe repercussions for our economic well-being across the board, especially for consumers and investors. 

These troubling developments that I have just outlined are symptomatic of a broader problem—the lack of a rational and genuinely liberal voice in contemporary politics. In the absence of this needed voice, the prevailing narrative tilts towards the illusion of perpetual abundance and unwarranted faith in the superior virtue and capability of government. This intellectual void leads to dire consequences because it perpetuates a relentless cycle of economic instability and the gradual erosion of individual liberties. 

In this lamentable absence of uncompromising advocates for fiscal prudence and the vital idea of restrained governance – a void that has persisted for over a century – we have witnessed the alarming ascent of a prevailing doctrine: the illusion of unending prosperity through an omnipotent government. This doctrine propagates the belief that all societal ills and injustices can be rectified by an all-powerful state, casting the “outdated” virtues of individualism and personal responsibility to the proverbial wind.

By now, I trust that I have provided a thorough exposition concerning the unsettling phenomenon of the progressive left’s co-optation of liberalism and the correlation of this theft to the challenges we confront in our present circumstances. And thus, we arrive at the pivotal question: what course of action should pave the way forward?  

We stand at a pivotal juncture where the reawakening of genuine liberalism is not just desirable but crucial for safeguarding our personal freedoms and advancing real, meaningful progress. The moment has come to reignite the fire of pre-modern liberalism, embracing its tenets of restrained governance, sound fiscal stewardship, and unwavering respect for the rights of individuals. It is time to breathe new life into these timeless principles, guiding our actions as we shape a society that reinforces liberty, responsibility, and the limitless potential of every individual regardless of their skin color, national origin, gender, religious persuasion, or sexual orientation. 

It is long past time to stem the insidious tide of toxic identity politics and the divisive and dangerous game of race hustling that has engulfed our political landscape. I personally believe that we can take significant strides towards reconciling the deep scars of our history by embracing a perspective that sees individuals as unique beings, rather than relegating them to narrow categorizations based on certain immutable characteristics or group affiliations. We must judge our fellow citizens by the quality of their character, casting aside all other considerations. This is the only way forward. 

To the modern libertarians, a word of caution: Embrace and uphold your Misesean heritage, for it embodies the bedrock of your principles. Do not surrender to the seductive allure of unprincipled populism. Though it may well dangle the enticing prospect of momentary power before your eyes, I believe you will find that the price exacted for forsaking your ethos will be steep indeed. Take heed of this sobering thought: if you yield the very principles that define you one after another in the pursuit of political power, how can you claim moral superiority over the modern conservatives whom you oftentimes scrutinize? Do not let the allure of expediency blind you to the bedrock values that shape the very essence of your ideas. Stand strong in your commitment to human liberty, for to sacrifice your principles for the sake of transitory gain would be to lose the very essence of what makes you libertarian in the first place. 

In this tumultuous era of political polarization, it is our solemn duty as true liberals no matter if we prefer to call ourselves libertarians, classical liberals, or some other entirely different label, to seize the moment and restore the prevailing narrative. Together, let us ascend with a unified purpose, igniting a beacon of hope and love that illuminates the collective conscience. As we march forward, guided by the ideals that we hold dear, may we forge a path toward a society that is truly worthy of the noble epithet “A beacon on the hill.” With unwavering resolve and a steadfast commitment to the principles that define us, let us build a future where liberty, justice, and prosperity intertwine, creating a blueprint to success that inspires generations to come. In this shared journey, let us remain steadfast, undeterred by the challenges that lie ahead, and let our united efforts bring forth the realization of a society where the flame of freedom burns brightly, casting its radiant glow upon a world transformed.

​The End of the Keynesian Epoch

by Anthony Cezanne

The economic “end times” for America seem to be just around the corner. With consumer prices up officially 8.5% year over year (and unofficially up much higher), the unviability of this bubble economy on life support is slowly being exposed. Sure, the same powers that drive this train will continue to operate as if nothing is wrong, but the crash that puts the nail in the coffin is inevitable. We know it, and they know it too.

​Because this moment we’re living is unique in many ways outside of economics, people have neglected to zoom out and deduce just how and why we are in this position as a country. We have failed, as a citizenry, to ask the right questions. What started us on this wrong path in the first place? Have we faced a crisis like this before? And, is the US economy being 70% consumption-based sustainable, or healthy for the long-term?

Predictably, the rapid inflation and economic deterioration of today is the conclusion to the most destructive era in this country’s history: The Keynesian School of economics in mainstream American economic thought.

Three major events define this era leading up to the post-Covid inflation we’re seeing now. These moments embody characteristics essential to Keynesian Economics: Government stimulation and intervention in the economy, rapid inflation, and crony bailouts of failed institutions. We’ll give a closer look at all these events.

Fiscal Stimulus Proves Futile: The Stock Market Crash and the Subsequent “Hoover New Deal”

​The end of the unfettered free market in America can firmly be placed after the stock market went bust in 1929, which would eventually spiral into the infamous “Great Depression.” The President at the time of the crash, Herbert Hoover, did the unthinkable and intervened massively in the economy. Up until Hoover’s time, US government action in the economy in peace time was never the answer. This includes the recession of 1920-21, when then-President Warren G. Harding elected to not intervene in the economy. He saw the recession over in a short 9 months. It is also important to note that this restrained response was not thanks to then-Labor Secretary Hoover, who wanted massive government intervention and big public works campaigns to stimulate the economy.

As it turns out, Hoover got his wish of massive intervention in the Economy 8 years later as President. After the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and subsequent economic woes, Hoover raised tariffs by 59% and spiked tax rates on businesses to unbearable levels. This, along with other actions such as imploring businessmen to not drop wages, passing laws to encourage worker unionization, and sinking endless amounts of money into public works endeavors, sunk the US economy into a depression that would take nearly 15 years to get out of. FDR’s presidency only furthered this agenda with his version of the “New Deal.”

What largely went unnoticed at the time in this economic cataclysm was the role of the Federal Reserve in creating the bubble and crash. Under the Coolidge Administration, the Fed spearheaded a massive inflation of credit in the open market. This predictably led to malinvestment in the economy, and when the Fed started to tighten the screws on monetary policy in early 1929, it laid the foundation for the biggest economic crash in US history. Government distortion created the crisis, and unfortunately, later government intervention made the crisis infinitely worse.

Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, the response to the stock market crash and Great Depression sent the US down a path of no return. Anytime the economy turned down after this point, the US doubled down on interventionist policy in the economy. The bureaucrats were now in charge.

The Fed Lets the Inflation Genie Out of the Bottle: The 1970s Inflation Crisis, and What Stopped It

The 1960s brought us many infamous events in US history, but what doesn’t get talked about nearly as often is the massive increase in government spending and the subsequent deficits at the federal level. The new age “guns and butter” economy, born from ideas borrowed from New Deal Keynesianism, brought us the moon landing and the “Great Society.” Few theorized this period of massive credit expansion and low unemployment would give way to massive inflation and steadily rising unemployment. However, as it turns out, the laws of economics are like gravity: What goes up must come down. The hangover from the 60s, with persistent high inflation and low economic growth, dogged the US for a decade. Surprisingly however, it was finally stopped by an unsung hero in Paul Volcker.

Volcker was appointed as Federal Reserve chair during the Carter administration, and inherited a mess created by his many predecessors in the 60s and 70s. Despite being a liberal in his personal life, Volcker seemed to know exactly what to do in these trying times and acted on his good instincts. Volcker steadily hiked Fed interest rates upwards, quickly getting the rates above the inflation percentage to a peak of about 20%. With this aggressive policy, Volcker did what seemed unlikely just before his reign as Chair: He successfully defeated massive inflation without collapsing the US economy.

Many have compared the times we are living in right now to the Stagflation Era of the 1970s mentioned above. With an increasingly sluggish economy and rampant price increases, this seems correct on its surface, but as we look deeper, these are indeed different situations. First, the US economy during Volcker’s time was much sounder than the US economy today. We were still the world’s leading producer and creditor nation. We could afford these higher interest rates because the debt we were taking on as a country was long-term.

Today, our economy is 70% consumption based, and nearly all our debt is short term, making it much more of a crunch if we were to aggressively hike interest rates. The economy today is so overvalued and levered up, that any meaningful rate increase by the Fed would cause a crash multiple times worse than the housing and financial crises of 2008 and would most likely cause a sovereign debt crisis as well. So, while the 1970s can be helpful in terms of learning how inflation comes about, the strategies used to eventually solve that inflation problem cannot be used in this crisis. Sadly, there seems to be no way out for the US.

Greenspan Seals the United States’ Fate: The Housing and Financial crashes of 2008, and What Could’ve Prevented Them

​The economic period in the US from post-Stagflation to pre-2008 can be summed up as a drift away from sanity and into the darkness below. New Fed chair Alan Greenspan, seemingly oblivious to the lessons learned in the Volcker era, blew up a huge bubble in the stock market throughout the 90s due to easy money policy. This money particularly drifted towards tech stocks in the up-and-coming internet sector. Companies with no earnings, real business plan, or even basic competence were drowning in investments and high share prices. Inevitably, this insanity gave way to reality, and eventually into recession in 2001 that would last 8 months.

While the Fed initially did the predictable action of raising interest rates slightly, Greenspan started to ease off. He then went even further in the mid-2000s, taking rates down to an unthinkably low 1%. This produced more bubbles not only in the financial markets, but now in the housing market.

With some help, or coercion, from the government, lenders started lowering standards dramatically. Adjustment rate mortgages with nothing down were being thrown out like hot cakes, and home prices surged in the bubble. But the housing and financial markets were soon brought back to earth in a crash-landing multiple times worse than 2001. As the Fed started tightening the screws entering the late-2000s, mortgage and credit payers started defaulting in mass. The stock market didn’t fare any better. Malinvestments were exposed and major financial institutions went under. In 2008, we learned that nothing is too big to fail. Try as you might, you cannot escape gravity.

The government response to the crisis was predictably wrong on every level.

Had the Fed finally put their foot down and raised interest rates to a sane level, and had the government not intervened in the economy to bail out the unsound institutions that defined the boom period, this country would have experienced a real economic recovery, and not a fake one. Unfortunately, the fear of economic pain trumped sound economics, and the economy after all this government action was a permanent service economy.

We are no longer producing for the rest of the world and ourselves, we are now the debtors of the world: Producing next to nothing, and reliant on other countries for necessities.

The economic recovery never came, and the inevitable catastrophic pain was kicked down the road in a desperate attempt to refuel the bubble. Entire areas of the country were destroyed economically, for good this time. This leads us to the great abyss we are facing now.

Nowhere To Go: The Economy Post-Covid and Possible Hyperinflation

​This current moment we face poses a threat to every single one of us as Americans. An economic hurricane is approaching, and the Federal Reserve, through years of ever-looser monetary policy, has painted itself into a corner. Raise interest rates to the amount they need to (above the inflation rate), and the economy will head for a possibly lethal crash and a sovereign debt crisis. Raise interest rates slowly, and they can’t get ahead of inflation. This situation is one that the US government and Federal Reserve can’t get itself out of, and the taxpayers will be the ones feeling the pain of their recklessness.

What Libertarians Can Do for the Public

​It’s sad to see people suffering in everyday life because of the choices of the government, but libertarians have something to offer these people. Our economic ideas, laid out clearly, explain exactly what got us to this point. When the economy crashes, it is important for the libertarian influencers of today to explain what happened and explain how we rebuild from the ashes. In times of trouble, the masses look for explanations. The liberty movement needs to be at the forefront of this and tell the people the truth:

This era that is ending destroyed a once-prosperous nation through an inflationary centralized banking system and rampant government overreach. The Keynesian economic machine got us here, and we do not mourn its passing. However, all hope should not be lost for the future. This country was conceived in liberty, and it can be reborn in liberty. It’s left up to us, the citizens, to pick up the pieces.

COVID-19 vs The Free Market

by Isaiah Dzhura, LYC Communications Coordinator

Would we have a Covid vaccine without the subsidies of government funding through projects like Operation Warp Speed and the existence of institutions like the NIH, WHO, and CDC? Would the damage of Covid-19 have been worse if we had only had the free market to look to for help? 

Science on the free market is mostly limited in its research and development as well as its production of medicine based on the speculations of entrepreneurs and businesses that hope to profit from bringing particular goods to the market. (Of course charity fundraising can play a role in this type of research and development too.) 

“How much money do we spend on research? The more we spend, the less we have to spend on other things.” David Gordon from the preface to Rothbard’s ‘Science Technology, & Government’¹

A common argument from mainstream economists and other advocates of central planning such as politicians as well as scientists like Anthony Fauci and others at institutions such as the NIH, WHO, and CDC is that there is a differentiation between the nature and categories of goods such that some goods cannot be produced by the private sector, either in general or in a sufficient quantity, and so must be produced by the “public” sector, i.e. The government. 

If there were no other demands from consumers other than the treatment of a particular disease or sickness (a virus like COVID-19) then that’s where every entrepreneur and business would focus its energies and resources and the advancement of that treatment and prevention would be accelerated. Of course there’s more in demand in society than a treatment for any one particular illness or disease. There are countless medicines and prevention methods that need development and countless other industries and goods that people rely on to stay alive and to thrive. If resources, including scientists and other labor, are diverted to one particular industry (and one particular vaccine in this case) other industries correspondingly lack in resources and labor. On the free market there is an incentive for resources to be invested where it’s believed they’re most in demand by the consumer and all capital and labor is invested voluntarily. Any losses due to malinvestment are losses to those who malinvested, none of the burden is shifted onto the rest of us. In some cases there’s liability to be paid if what you’re selling is falsely advertised and gets someone hurt. You have to compete against others on the free market and you don’t have the advantage of allocating others resources and capital against their will. 

If the government wants to stimulate scientific research and development it should give tax cuts across the board. Cuts in particular industries for particular r&d is good but many scientific breakthroughs come from research that initially focused itself in a different direction (such as chemotherapy which is now used as cancer treatment.)² Central planners can’t possibly predict what r&d will be beneficial and potentially game changing to any particular cause. We might not ever have gotten a Covid vaccine on the free market but it seems safe to assume that we would be better off without the leaky vaccines that we have now. They spent a lot of tax dollars advertising the vaccine and scaring the public. There would likely be much less fear of covid if the government hadn’t pushed its fear mongering propaganda campaign. 

Thus far we’ve primarily focused on the seemingly innocent mistakes and misconceptions surrounding COVID-19 and scientific research but what if government not only malinvested in a leaky vaccine but actually purposely stifled other treatments and prevention and censored information that could have kept people alive during this outbreak? For starters it was quickly realized that COVID-19 does not survive well in sunlight and vitamin D drastically lessens you susceptibility to the virus. You can find articles in different publications like Newsweek and several scientific journals going over this in more depth.^3,4 There’s even evidence that ultraviolet lighting can kill the virus indoors and at night.⁵ Treatments such as ivermectin were dismissed as “horse paste”(one of its uses is indeed medicine for horses and other animals in dealing with parasites) and doctors who prescribed it were suddenly at risk of losing their medical licenses even though it had previously won a Nobel prize for its use on humans.⁶ 

We haven’t even covered the full extent of the economic costs of lockdowns. We can look at the current recession and rampant inflation, the stagflation that’s seemingly bound to inevitably turn into an intense depression. The costs of lockdowns on mental and physical health including the drastic increase in suicide,⁷ particularly among youth. The surge in cancer deaths stemming from people avoiding hospitals out of fear of breaking quarantine.⁸ The decline in children’s literacy and other educational progress.⁹ We will never know the full extent of mental health issues that will arise from these Draconian lockdown measures and its effect on children’s development down the line. I’m sure there will be excuses made as to how all of these problems aren’t a result of lockdowns just as the corporate media is already attributing vaccine side effects to the effects of climate change.

We don’t have any way of knowing how many lives could have been saved and suffering lessened if the government just left the fight against COVID to the real experts on the free market instead of threatening and silencing them while pushing misinformation about vaccines being produced by their cronies at Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna. The only solution is to get government completely out of the business of medical science and leave research and development to those who are incentivized to provide the most effective and sought after treatments demanded by the free market. 

We need to have a separation of medicine and State.

For further reading on the topic of government intervention in the fields of science and technology see Murray N. Rothbard ‘Science, Technology, & Government’._⁹ For more on the distinction between the public sector and the private sector of the economy see Hans-Hermann Hoppe ‘Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security ‘ in ‘The Economics and Ethics of Private Property’¹⁰ and Murray Rothbard ‘The Fallacy of the Public Sector’ in ‘Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays’.¹¹

 An Anti-political Christian Politics

by Daniel Kientzle 

One can be a thoroughly anti-political Christian who engages in politics. I have been interested in and dreamed of engaging in politics since I was a child. I gave a speech about my dream of being the President at age 5, I was voted most likely to be President in high school, and I went to college for Political Science. I have always been keenly aware of the fact that it is not Christian or virtuous to avoid the political realm. Many important and consequential decisions are made in politics, and nothing will get better if Christians simply retreat from politics, but what the question is, what is the truly Christian way of engaging in modern American politics? 

Imagine for a second, you live in Sodom and Gomorrah, you know almost no faithful Christians. The state murders, and the people enthusiastically partake in the murders. Now let’s say Sodom and Gamorrah was a representative democracy, do you think the most obvious Christian response to the world would be to run for office, supporting one of the parties, knocking on doors for one of the parties, or fighting with your neighbors about their support for another party? Do you think a truly and thoroughly Christian politician or thoroughly Christian party would be elected or allowed to remain? Then why would someone think that a thoroughly Christian politician would be elected in a nation in which 80% think abortion (murder) should be legal in either some or all situations. In 2022 America, it can be seen as wasteful, foolish, and unwise to focus our efforts on elections in which it is obvious that if we were honest about everything we believe, we would have no chance of success. We could succeed with a miracle from the Lord, of course, but Christians should not have their strategy dependent on an undeserved miracle. It is not only a waste of time, it is also seen to be dangerous. Many young Christians have set their sights on political offices, gone to college, moved to a state capital or DC, and have themselves been corrupted. Is it easier to uncorrupt an entire system from the inside or to corrupt one young Christian who is surrounded only by lost people and degeneracy? Psalms 1:1 says, “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers.” Is it not more Biblically responsible, historically reflected, and rationally obvious that a Christian response to living in Sodom and Gomorrah is to be building a true Christian movement, community, family, and life alongside the falling world we find ourselves in? Is it hard to see that a true Christian movement would offer a helping hand to those in the world, provide an example of what a beautiful world and life could be, and build something that will survive the coming collapse promised to all proud nations who forget God? 

Escape the mental prison of CNN vs Fox News, Republican vs Democrat, etc. Christian politics should be about supporting truly Christian policies, defending Christian marriage, fighting all abortions, and focusing on helping our neighbors, but neither party wants to do this. It was not long ago that both parties shared these values, now neither do, at least with their actions. We live in a brave new world, and we need to act accordingly. Modern American democracy is a trap, it enslaves our minds to think that national elections are the things that will either save or enslave us, and while we focus on the elections every 2 or 4 years, our nation’s values and our children, the land of our birthright has been subverted and stolen, and all along all it would have taken was for Christians to stand up in the real world, join together, and fight the degeneracy in the real world not in elections. If we want to stand up for conservative and traditional values, but we now longer reflect traditional and conservative doctrine, hymnology, or worship style then we have already lost the real battle of tradition. The lesson, be thoroughly Christian and traditional in your life and in your church, and the political solution will present itself naturally. 

Abortion: Why It Matters And What To Do About It

by Mastin F. Barry, LYC South Regional Director 

Abortion – controversial as it is, remains a hot topic for debate, and many in the United States today find it uncomfortable to discuss. Some believe it to be a medical procedure beneficial to women because it liberates them from the discomforts of pregnancy or the responsibilities of motherhood. That it is useful for the societal benefit of population control, and the prevention of children growing up in poverty and becoming criminals. Others see it as a great evil and scourge upon the nation, because, although cloaked in euphemisms such as ‘fetus’ rather than ‘baby’ or ‘child’, the procedure kills a human being, and therefore is deeply evil and morally reprehensible. Some, of course, would rather not think of abortion at all. 

Abortion, this termination of the life of a human being, is often justified by advocates in one or more ways: They say the word “fetus” (a Latin word meaning “Little One”) which is located within his mother’s body and dependent on her for his survival, that he is her property, or even that he is a part of her body and not an actual human being yet, especially before external viability. Scientifically, of course, this last belief falls short. 

Life is generally defined as something like this: A quality that distinguishes the organic from the inorganic, characterized by capacities of growth, metabolism, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction, none of which are functions of the inorganic. At conception, the new human formed has his unique DNA, constructed of combinations of all his ancestors, yet an exact copy of none of them. Cellular reproduction and metabolism begin immediately, as in all organic life. Circa three weeks from conception, his heart has begun to form and begins to pump blood throughout his own body no longer totally reliant on his mother’s. As we pass eight weeks, the heart has four fully formed chambers; between four and eight weeks the limbs are formed. As we approach week twelve the individual fingers and toes have formed. Twenty-four weeks have now passed, the internal organs are fully formed, and now he has a discernible human face, at this point doctors consider babies to be viable outside the womb. These are the steps of development that every one of us human beings have undergone. 

Of utmost significance to this issue is whether humans have essential value and natural rights: What is it that grants a person moral value such that it is wrong to kill them, or neglect them to death? Is it his utility to the community or society, the wealth he creates, or the functions he can perform, which will make a man valuable? Or in a state of an invalid, is there moral value to his life? The social utilitarian, the communist, or the Darwinist may contend that, indeed it is something he does which grants him moral value. And therefore it is wrong to kill a child only for the potential that one must sacrifice. But this is not my view.

I ascribe to an older view, an antiquated, some may say – outdated in the minds of modern man: I ascribe to the view that all men are created with certain unalienable rights, endowed upon them by their Creator, and that the primary one of these is a right to life, a right, owed by every other human being to him particularly, not to take his life, through malice or recklessness, because the gift of life is by divine right, or must be treated as such, so that even a child’s own parents, physical authors of his existence, have no authority to end his life by malice or negligence.  Because they also have received their own lives, as their ancestors, all the way back to the miracle of the first organic system. Even if one disagrees with the view that all human beings have inherent value and natural rights, it must be admitted that without this premise or assumption of innate human dignity, some other premise must be considered as a basis for human rights. Yet no other premise which allows for the arbitrary assignment of some to a category of moral importance while excluding others may be held up as such a universal guiding principle in the policies of man as the assumption of innate human rights.

Now it has been argued by some that her offspring is essentially the property of the mother, that she may dispose of him as she will, and therefore may have him killed by an abortionist with her consent. But every human being has a right to their own person: to their liberty, and their own pursuit of happiness. Yet to say that a child is a part of the mother’s body is to me obviously not the case, insofar has his own life systems, and unique DNA, in fact, the offspring of both the mother and father that we would also be compelled to say the child is member of his father’s body, though not in fact inside his father’s body, and therefore we are all members of each of our parents’ bodies. As to the baby’s attachment to the mother by the umbilical cord, this cannot seriously be considered as proof of his membership of her body, because this condition of attachment is simply for his sustenance and at a later stage is replaced by another form of consumption. The slogan ‘my body, my choice’ is used as a rallying call for pro-abortion advocates, but can only be attributed to ignorance at best, or perhaps dishonesty. (WIP)

One might say the child is violating the mother’s rights of property and may be considered a trespasser or parasite if the child was conceived through any circumstance where conception was unintentional. However, while pregnancy is the natural result of sexual intercourse, abortion is neither a natural occurrence nor a passive relaxation of sustenance to the child but is done with the knowledge and intention of the demise of the child. Whereas the use of force in self-defense or defense of property is justified only if done. Self-defense on a moral principle sometimes called the ‘Non-Aggression Principle’, which is the principle that violence and killing are only justified when absolutely necessary for self-defense or in defense of others; is only wrong if, not self-defense on one’s life, nor under any urgency, but finding a stranger upon his property, one was to terminate that stranger for trespassing and nothing else. Furthermore, if one was to hire a professional to kill this trespasser, this would not be considered self-defense yet a Solicitation of Murder for Hire.

Another argument may assert that in a self-defense claim, conception resulting from rape, abortion ought to be allowed. In my view this is not logical as the child is neither more of a trespasser nor a threat in these cases; the fetus’ conception was no more intended in the case of the irresponsible lover than in the case of the violent assailant, and so the argument is merely emotional, and not just. Justice may dictate that the irresponsible lover cover the costs incurred by the mother, or that the violent assailant be punished according to his crime against the mother, and likewise cover the cost of rearing his child, but to punish the child for the crime of his father is not just. One might suggest that a baby could be a threat to the life of the mother, and in these circumstances, abortion is justified. Yet even in ectopic pregnancy or another scenario, where the life of the mother is at serious risk, the killing of another scenario could only be resorted to as self-defense, when all other measures (induced premature birth, c-section self-defense see either unsuccessful or impossible. The procedure resulting in the child’s death should not be a procedure with the intention of killing the child, just as a man who kills another in defense has the intention of neutralizing the threat and preserving his own life, rather than the self-defense death of his assailant. 

There is an assertion that abortion is necessary for the benefit of society through population control. This to me is obviously wrong because it violates the supreme rights of the life of the individual, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Besides this, there seems no evidence of a societal benefit to artificial population control in the United States. In 1920 there were 106.5 million people in the United States, and between that date and the year 2020, the population increased to over 320 million. The life expectancy of men increased by 20.5 years, while the life expectancy of women increased by 23 years. Quality of life has improved dramatically as well: technology, innovation, information, travel, entertainment, food, clean water, and healthcare, all have increased in universal availability. Diseases have decreased in lethality and with advancements in medicine, national security has increased. So by any metric, the quality of life for American society has increased dramatically along with the increase in population.

Another argument is that this is good and profitable for eugenics, cleansing society of undesirable traits and illnesses: Autism, mental and physical, and other ailments. Indeed, fiscally it may be an effective tool in that pursuit, but that is beyond the realm of rights or morality, and is rather in the realm of authoritarianism and artificial selection for the fittest characteristics. Some have claimed that abortion is justified to prevent children from growing up in unloving families or foster care, poverty, or crime. While this argument seems to appeal to a twisted sense of mercy, it is anathema to any true concept of mercy or empathy. As to poverty, what right does anyone have to deprive another human being of their night, without his consent, without even the knowledge that the alternative would be worse? Indeed, how could the alternative be worse, unless his life was constant pain and suffering to render all joys of life obsolete? As to crime, this is an argument for the preemptive deprivation of life before any crime is committed. This is morally reprehensible.

Now, if we are to ignore all these facts, scientific and moral, we consign ourselves to our fate: In justifying late-term abortions, we may well slip into justifying infanticide, even as Virginia Governor Northam did in 2019 with his remarks on children born after failed abortion attempts. If we justify pre-viability, pre-heartbeat, and pre-brain-activity abortion, we will slip into the justification for the execution of people dependent on individuals or society for life support. There is no morally consistent standard besides conception. Therefore we must secure the rights of the unborn. Since 1973 there have been over 61 million human children killed legally in the United States. That is nearly fifty times the number of all the casualties sustained in all the wars we have ever engaged in combined. They all died legally. When in 1776 thirteen States joined together in declaring independence from England, they proclaimed the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, true, and unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”