In this context, individualism is the general concept that the individual is uniquely sovereign; that his/her actions, choices, and values rightly form the foundation from which their respective merit springs and that superficial, largely exterior characteristics bear no relevant impact on their individual character or worth.  In this way virtually all classical liberals, including most of the Founders, were individualists and the 20^th century’s finest champion of individual liberty – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – endorsed this approach as well.

Conversely, collectivism is the incorporation of all individuals of a given demographic, organization, or professed belief system (etc.) into a single, all-encompassing point of view.  Collectivism assumes common traits exist universally across the given collective, and as such, presupposes universally common actions, choices, and values extend from that collective as well.  All people collectivize in one fashion or another and many of us are particularly ignorant with our applications.

Individual rights and freedom, quite obviously, cannot exist without the recognition of and proper respect for the sovereignty of the individual.  As such, it would seem elementary for voters concerned with these principles to take an individualist approach to their evaluation of political candidates.  But this is not what generally occurs in society – today or yesterday.  Collectivism remains the most dominant underlying social perspective at times, which presumes that all Republicans or all Democrats (among other collectives) are identical in their individual characters, values, and beliefs.  Intuitively, this is not so yet the stereotypes persist.

Collectivism is the general, sometimes subconscious, way of thought that lies at the heart of more specific manifestations such as racial, sexual, or religious bigotry, and virtually everyone is guilty of this in one form or another.  Many people voted against Obama because of his skin color and perhaps many more voted for him for the same reason.  Neither approach is particularly noble or in keeping with the sovereignty of the individual.  Both approaches imply that an insignificant characteristic such as simple skin color is somehow a relevant factor in executive leadership.  This ignorant perspective is itself derived from the supposition that skin color is an exterior indicator of how he will conduct himself and his affairs in line with a given ideology or belief.  I think it is fair to suggest that Alan Keyes or Representative Allen West (FL) would disagree with this supposition.

What makes collectivism such a poor approach in the political context is that it stifles logical evaluation of the individual candidates’ actions, choices, and values in favor of presupposing that the “R” or the “D” tells one everything s/he needs to know to make an “informed” decision.  Many people will apply far more individualist scrutiny to who they vote for on American Idol, who they should draft in their fantasy football league, or what sort of car they wish to purchase than they do in the application of the most powerful and precious civil right they possess: the right of suffrage.

It seems clear enough that the concept of individualism can benefit us in scrutinizing government leadership far more than the lazy nature of collectivism.  Absent collectivism, there is no available avenue for general and ultimately misleading demagoguery.  Debates then must be decided on the merits of evidence, situations must be evaluated independently, and ultimately people – political candidates or otherwise – must be judged “by the content of their character.”

Individualism eliminates the current status quo, where the parties preemptively decide who we must vote for.  This approach puts the prosperity of the individual American where it should be, ahead of the prosperity of the collective party.  Independence of thought and, consequently, the vote sheds the false obligation of loyalty to a given party and forces the candidates to establish themselves genuinely as the candidates of individual freedom and rights as the Natural Law requires and as the Constitution recognizes.

Notwithstanding my opinions regarding the untenable nature of the so-called “War on Drugs,” this piece of legislation is refreshing in the mechanics of its approach, at least.  The title of the act is a bit absurd given that laws do not really prevent much criminal behavior in reality but at least in this case the legislation focuses on the punishment of criminals for the commission of illegal act(s) (upon conviction, of course), rather than on futile attempts to prevent crime by limiting or outright banning access to the implements of the crime.

How strikingly different this legislation appears when compared to most anti-gun messages, where the firearms themselves often garner more vitriolic attention than the people who illegally use them – as if the things are somehow responsible for their deviant behavior.  In order to prevent the violence typically associated with drug-related activity, for example, many seek to ban the guns, or make them nearly impossible for the law-abiding citizen to legally obtain, or vilify them to such a degree via misinformation that their proponents are socially marginalized by their very own government.

Imagine for a moment just how silly a federal law would seem to the average citizen if a particular type of aircraft were banned from peaceful civilian use simply because it was also favored by drug smugglers to traffic their wares.  Or imagine the next logical step along this train of thought, where basic commuter vehicles are banned simply because drug smugglers tend to use them as well.  Undoubtedly computers and the internet have become key elements of drug-related criminal enterprises – perhaps even more crucial than firearms in many ways – so it then follows that both should also be vilified according to this misguided approach.

If only we could take a step back, remove the emotions from the debate, and make rational, logical decisions regarding individual rights, crime, and how they relate to each other, we might one day be able to reinvigorate a credible political process that establishes respectable laws, respects individual rights and freedoms, and does not function simply as a mechanism of leverage for power to be applied by one group or individual at the illegitimate expense of another.

I have little doubt that the litigant in this case, Antoine Jones, is probably guilty of narcotics trafficking as accused.  But that alleged fact alone does not alleviate the government’s responsibility to conduct itself in a manner consistent with high standards of law enforcement ethics and constitutional propriety.  This case, in that sense, becomes much bigger than Jones and illustrates that principle – the foundation of credibility and legitimacy where a relationship between government and the consenting governed are concerned – must be exercised even when it is inconvenient or when it might result in the guilty going free.  No system is perfect in practice so when difficulties arise in our governmental system, we must err on the side of protecting individual rights pursuant to government’s just purpose; consequentialism is a well-practiced art of tyrants.

Clearly, neither the digital nature of modern surveillance nor the expanded technology now available for both public and private use negate the inherent premise of the 4^th Amendment’s purpose: to require the executive branch of government to establish probable cause (pursuant to obtaining a legitimately issued warrant) to the judicial before it surveils the populace (or an individual).  To that end, this ruling upholds the notion that the Constitution is not a living document absent the amendment process.  It was laid down (mostly) on a basic foundation of ethical principle, and ethics are everlasting even if the environmental factors and circumstances change over time with an ever-evolving society.  Unfortunately, the Court failed to address the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy,” saving that decision – as they are so often apt to do – for another day.

While United States v. Jones may have been the first 4^th Amendment case with modern technological implications at its heart to reach the Supreme Court, the elephant in the room still remains the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act.  Lower courts have already determined provisions of the so-called PATRIOT Act violate the 1^st and 4^th Amendments (among other constitutional aspects), yet it has not been taken up by the Supreme Court in its now decade-long existence.  If the Court fails to acknowledge an appeal by the government, or the government itself fails to make one, then the lower ruling stands – which means that current utilization of these provisions of the Act amount to criminal activity on the executive branch’s part (including the previous administration).

One thing is for certain: the Court cannot kick the can down the road indefinitely.  Either the justices will have to publicly acknowledge that Big Government trumps privacy rights in the 21^st century – effectively ending any legitimate notion of a “free” society and handing terrorists a major ideological victory – or they will have to actively or passively acknowledge that warrantless surveillance based on suspicion alone is antithetical to American (classic) liberal values and constitutional sovereignty.

While I tend to care very little about what actors in their ivory towers think regarding, well, anything, this story did cause me to reflect on the underlying topic.  Many Americans – most I know, at least – know that they are against communism as an ideal but few could articulate exactly why.  Ironically, when one starts digging into the communist ethos, one begins to notice just how many aspects of modern America have conformed to that ethos, a concept I will refer to here as “soft communism.”

In 1848, German philosopher-revolutionaries Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels co-wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party.  In it, they explain several characteristics of communism that are uniform across all nations and cultures:

1.  “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

2.  “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

3.  “Abolition of all right of inheritance.”

4.  “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”

5.  “Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and exclusive monopoly.”

6.  “Centralisation [sic] of the means of communications and transport in the hands of the State.”

7.  “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”

8.  “Equal liability of all to labour [sic].  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”

9.  “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”

10.  “Free education for all children in public schools.  Abolition of children’s factory labour [sic] in its present form.  Combination of education with industrial production.”

This list presents some alarming similarities to modern America, which indicates that our migration to soft communism is ongoing – if unacknowledged by the masses.  While the United States has largely been able to avoid the violent revolutionary upheavals that Marx and Engels advocated for, their revolutionary perspective is still being implemented to various degrees and through certain circles.

Let us consider each of these communist principles in turn:

1.  “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

While not in the single sweep fashion dictated above, the abolition of private property in the United States is nonetheless underway.  Land is one of the only commodities in America that is continually taxed throughout its existence, which is made doubly harsh considering it does not typically depreciate or have a finite lifespan as with most other goods.  When we go to the store and buy products, we pay a sales tax once and then the item is forever ours until we have exhausted its usefulness.  Not so with land, which seems to indicate that it actually belongs to the State – in line with the Marxist rationale – and we are just “leasing” it.  This becomes especially prevalent if we fail to pay those taxes and the government confiscates the land for use at its discretion.  After the Kelo v. City of New London (2005) Supreme Court decision, Eminent Domain has now become an authoritative weapon to redistribute private property at the economic discretion of the State (or the economic urging of the special interest) – constitutional intent be damned.

2.  “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

The “progressive” approach to income taxes is redistributive by its very nature and has existed continually in the United States since the early 20^th century.  The political progressives of this period passed and ratified the 16the Amendment, thereby making soft communism constitutional and permanently infusing it into the American Experiment.  While the current progressive rates are not as high as they once were (reaching 94% at one point in 1945), many politicians and special interests are calling for a return to those days.  The entire mentality mirrors the communist ideal with obvious socialistic effects.

3.  “Abolition of all right of inheritance.”

The so-called “Death” Tax in the United States facilitates this approach in many cases in the absence of Marxist-style government enforced policy.  Inheritance is subject to State pickings first – and to a shocking 35% degree (not including estate tax rates levied by the individual states).  Some politicians continue to call for higher rates with lowered/fewer exemptions.

4.  “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”

Property of confederate leaders was confiscated following the American Civil War (Robert E. Lee’s home was confiscated and eventually converted into what is now the Arlington National Cemetery).  But those instances occurred during a single time period, had different political motives at their root, and have not continued.  Fortunately for many, the United States has not adopted a property confiscation policy targeted at immigrants beyond what is already addressed in #3 but it seems clear that if modern socialists/communists get their way, immigrants will not find themselves allied with their policies as described in the Manifesto.

5.  “Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and exclusive monopoly.”

5.  This point is already long established and facilitated by the central banking system – the Federal Reserve – and the universal adoption of fiat currency through the abolition of the commodity-standard (i.e., precious metals).  With a currency whose value is based solely on the word of the State and a credit system that exists – limited or unlimited – solely at the monetary issuing discretion of the Federal Reserve, it is difficult to imagine a more perfectly implemented communist monetary doctrine.

6.  “Centralisation [sic] of the means of communications and transport in the hands of the State.”

While the means are not technically centralized in America (yet), the regulation of communications and transportation certain is.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are just two of the agencies that are growing in authoritarian presence in modern America.  The FCC still seeks to compel private businesses to provide political coverage they otherwise would not via the so-called Fairness Doctrine and the TSA is growing into a 21^st century Gestapo with its intrusive efforts to create an image of safety.

7.  “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”

This includes forced nationalization of industries more commonly seen in countries like Venezuela but with the bailout environment of late, in which the federal government took significant influential stock in companies such as General Motors and the American International Group, it is difficult to argue that some degree of nationalization is not occurring in the States as well.  Although the command economy approach has proven to be a dismal failure as a policy, there is no shortage of people in the world who arrogantly think that they can perfect intrinsically flawed systems this time.

8.  “Equal liability of all to labour [sic].  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”

Interestingly, this is the one area where America is significantly different than traditional communist nations.  A central tenet of socialism, at least academically, is that everyone must work.  The combination of inherited prosperity-inspired laziness and entitlement in America precludes this concept in practice, which virtually ensures American soft communism – the modern Welfare State – will fail as surely as the resources necessary to support the masses dwindle under inevitably diminished productivity.  To the “industrial armies” point, however, there is some reason to be wary of some politicians’ enthusiasm for establishing/expanding advanced, highly trained, and massive organizations such as AmeriCorps (among others) and unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

9.  “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”

Fortunately, we have not devolved into forced relocation of peoples to satisfy this goal as was the case in the Soviet Union and remains such in China but this would likely occur through coercion and social programs (if not by force) once the full nationalization of industries and resources has taken hold.

10.  “Free education for all children in public schools.  Abolition of children’s factory labour [sic] in its present form.  Combination of education with industrial production.”

Authoritarian “free” education is one area that American socialists have long advocated for, in part because once the State fully controls the education (as it does already at some levels) it can control the message taught to new generations entering society as new thinkers and doers.  It should be disturbing to note that some members of the Occupy Wall Street “movement” are advocating for the forgiveness of student loans – in effect, introducing free education at the collegiate level.  While I certainly have no problem with the absence of child labor practices as they existed in Marx’s time, allowing the State to control education also fully empowers it to determine who does what – which does not eliminate class distinctions as advertised but does eliminate the individual’s ability to follow his/her own path to happiness and prosperity, as his/her own desires, abilities, and skills merit.  Involuntarily forcing individuals into lifelong vocations is a natural outgrowth of nationalization and the command economy, and is the precipitator of forced relocations to fill State quotas and chase the resources.

Modern communists – especially American ones – are anything but dumb.  They realize that America is the crown jewel of socialist accomplishment but to get there they must amend Marx’s and Engels’ teachings to include subterfuge and take advantage of our collective ignorance and laziness (as has been accomplished in much of Western Europe).  This is why unions, redistributive wealth policies, and social programs have become such important political instruments for certain politicians, their parties, and special interests.  Only by paying attention, gathering the information, and applying it in ethical and proactive ways can we avoid or reverse this gradual transition – assuming that we agree that individualism, opportunity, and personal merit are sacred tenets of freedom that we are unwilling to concede to an oligarchy that arrogantly presumes it knows what is best for us.

*  The specific differences between socialism and communism are numerous enough to warrant their own dissection in a separate post but their overall goals are similar enough to generally collectivize them for brevity’s sake in this post.

It goes without saying that there are plenty of things the Congress can and should be doing other than passing measures for political gain that they know very well have no chance of making into law.  Not the least of these other concerns are substantively tackling the national debt or perhaps finally passing an annual budget for fiscal year 2012 – something that is the sole annual requirement levied on Congress by the Constitution and one they are thus far nearly two months delinquent on.

But be that as it may, I must admit I am ambivalent with regards to this measure.

As anyone who has even casually visited this blog can readily discern, I am a staunch supporter of the natural right to self-defense and the constitutional right to bear arms.  From a practical standpoint, the bill’s supporters are correct in asserting that a similar precedent has been set with the universal recognition and eligibility for tree travel with regards to driver’s licenses.  There is certainly far less government scrutiny afforded a potential driver, an activity that is statistically more dangerous than firearms-related crime or mishaps, than is currently afforded even the most lax state concealed carry license-vetting process.  Licenses such as marriage certificates generally enjoy reciprocity across state lines as well.

Constitutionally, this approach seems to pass the “smell test.”  Article IV, Section 1 states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.  And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”  Section 2 further states that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”  These two provisions seem to indicate that such legislation is within the general authority granted the federal government

From an ethical standpoint, the bill remains less clear cut for me.  As much as I generally support gun rights I am equally supportive of states’ rights and the concept of diversity between the individual states as a balance to federal and state authority.  Retaining the ability to vote with our feet is an important contributor to freedom in a federal republic.  Perhaps more important, given that the Constitution owes its existence to universal state ratification the founding document itself means nothing if state sovereignty is not preserved.

If I find it acceptable to support arbitrary federal government regulation of the states in cases where the circumstances happen to be agreeable to me then would I not have to support that same federal involvement in situations that are not in order to avoid hypocrisy?  Ultimately, it is much ado about nothing at this point but I am interested in anyone’s own thoughts relating to this quandary.

.

But what will likely become lost in the finger pointing and upcoming campaign rhetoric is that the Congress’ inability to reach compromise on this issue is a reflection of American society’s increasing use of government as a mechanism of authority and leverage to wield against others for personal gain and benefit.  Without this Big Government monster that continually conducts its affairs outside the scope of the Constitution and its legitimate role in individuals’ lives there is no great debate to be had, no fiscal crossroads to consider, no arguments to make over whether one group should receive special treatment over another – or worse, at their expense.

Many people like to vilify the wealthy because it is easy to blame others for our own problems or shortcomings in life – and politicians are unequivocal masters of the blame game.  But I do not understand how this vilification has grown to such a pseudo-socialistic fervor amongst the general public in recent years.  This envy has grown to such contentious proportions that it has become akin to the abusive spouse who kills his significant other because “if I cannot have her, no one can.”

I do not come close to residing in the so-called 1% but I understand that alleged progressive taxes, either income or corporate, nonetheless affect me as a consumer, as an employee, and as an investor at the least.  I understand that I do not have a natural, ethical, or otherwise legitimate right to seize the fruits of someone else’s labor – even if I may not agree with how they obtained it (short of actual thievery, of course) – and claim it as my own or give it to someone else for use.  Only the person who has earned that income through their own efforts and ingenuity possesses the legitimate right to redistribute it in unconstitutional ways.

Can anyone truly claim that taking a “fair” share from the wealthy and passing it on to other wealthy people through social programs or other spending is somehow magnanimous or that it will not adversely affect them in the middle and lower classes?  Do people really believe that this approach to taxation and spending has anything to do with the individual’s welfare rather than with votes, power, corruption, and influence?  I am frankly amazed that there are still people in this country that vehemently believe that politicians from one party or another actually care about them.

Remember this when considering the debate going forward: there is no money in a cure, only in a treatment.  Politicians offer cures every day – that is what they do for a living.  They offer cures to unemployment, poverty, broken education systems, crime, discrimination and numerous other emotive subjects but are vested in ensuring they persist so that there is some base for their political appeal and subsequent power to reside.  If these issues were irrelevant, as they surely would be without a Big Government to empower them through action and/or sanctioned action, what need would these politicians satisfy?

This is Demagoguery 101.

Chris Rock said it well (WARNING – EXPLICIT LANGUAGE).

28 October 2009

As I have mentioned in other posts, the troubling thing about debt monetization is that unlike other cases where countries or private entities purchase treasury bonds with already existing money that has a specific purchasing worth, the Federal Reserve typically orders new monies printed to facilitate these transfers.  This practice is incredibly inflationary to the money supply which generally causes prices of goods and services to rise.  Unfortunately, retirement investments like 401(k)s are harmed dramatically because the invested money’s buying power shrinks along with the increase in supply, and salaries historically do not keep up with this inflation to balance the growth.

Some argue that debt monetization actually reduces the real debt because it is a means of financing the government without actually borrowing, as the money is literally printed on demand.  That may very well be true but it will only be so if and when the government decides to write off these “obligations” to repay the Federal Reserve.  In the meantime, however, the inflated and thus weaker money created by the infusion of the new money is very real and hits those in society who receive it last the hardest – the poor and lower middle-class.  This inflation reduces consumers’ real ability to purchase the same goods in the same quantities they could before the new money entered the supply, and as prices rise as a result of this government finance it has the very real effect of taxation while circumventing constitutional legislative process to legitimately do so.  Additionally, absent paying the money back directly the only way to deflate the national money supply and thereby strengthen its purchasing power is to recoup it through higher credit interest rates, something that would be doubly impactful given the weakened state of the dollar due to its inflation in the first place.

The Federal Reserve has no legal constraints on how much debt can be monetized in this country and given the debasing nature of the effects this practice has it is ironic to consider that the Coinage Act of 1792 (also known as the Mint Act) – the first legislative act passed under the Constitution regulating monetary policy – made it a capital offense for any officer or employee of the Mint who debased the coinage.  For my part I agree with Congressman Ron Paul (TX), who states that “short of intentional war, inflation is the most immoral act political leaders can commit.”

Clearly, requiring individuals to purchase anything in support of the so-called “greater good” or public welfare is wholly outside of constitutional power possessed by the Congress, no matter how it is rationalized, so I will be shocked if the court rules otherwise – though stranger things have certainly happened where political power is concerned.

Proponents of the law have compared this mandate to the states requiring drivers to purchase liability automobile insurance but even marginal inspection reveals that these two scenarios are not created equal.  Requiring insurance in exchange for the privilege to operate a vehicle on a public road does not equate to requiring individuals to purchase medical insurance for simply existing.  And in any event, the healthcare mandate would be roughly equivalent to the states requiring collision insurance, which they do not, vice liability insurance which covers others’ property in the event of an at-fault incident on the part of the insured.

There are a number of reasons why this mandate is troubling in a free society.  First and foremost, it clearly violates even the most liberal, no pun intended, interpretations of power granted to the federal government.  Simply put, there is no provision in Article I that empowers the legislative branch of the federal government to make consumer choices on behalf of its citizens.  Second, the mandate lies in contradiction to the basic premise of why government is instituted among men in the first place.  From a practical perspective, if government can dictate to us what we purchase based upon subjective reasoning that such a power grants “Congress the broad deference it is due in enacting laws to address the nation’s most pressing economic problems,” how long before that same rationale is applied to require we buy a vehicle from General Motors to once again save the American auto industry or open a credit account with Bank of America to save the “too big to fail” financial institutions?

This whole approach is a clear overreach of legitimate government authority dressed up in the classic façade of government paternalism.  But I fear this case may be a lose-lose scenario for individual freedom, regardless of which way the court ultimately sides.  It is possible that the individual mandate was originally worked into the PPACA with the understanding that it would not pass judicial or public scrutiny.  If/when this element of the legislation is struck down it might set the stage for universal application through taxation and entitlements – much like Social Security or Medicare – since the individual mandate serves as the foundational basis for the entire act from a solvency perspective.

The argument would be that since full participation is crucial to the success of the act, and mandating the purchase of private insurance is unconstitutional, then full participation should be achieved through nationalization and taxation.  Such an approach is already long-established as constitutionally compatible (though erroneously so) and would usher the statists’ ultimate goal: single-payer, government managed, socialized health care.  Not only is this the ultimate development to be feared from an individual freedom standpoint – nothing destroys said freedom quite like total dependence on the state for survival – but this is also the development to be feared from a practical one.  Government simply cannot manage large, complex bureaucracies in a manner that outperforms or even paces the private sector.  There is no example that empirically contradicts this point.

It has been correctly posited that the absence of young, healthy people in the healthcare system contributes (among many other factors) to higher premium costs for the rest of the participating populace but there are better ways to go about encouraging personal responsibility than by empowering government to violate the purposeful Constitutional limits placed upon it.  One approach that would greatly reduce healthcare premiums for private consumers is to empower the free market to function as intended by eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, or at least limiting their respective eligibilities.  Additionally, reforming the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in a way that prevents the uninsured from using emergency rooms as health clinics and for routine procedures would help with costs that are ultimately deferred to the insured as well.  This would also serve to encourage personal responsibility amongst those capable of taking care of themselves by removing the safety net that comes at others’ expense.  The notion of tort reform was all but dismissed during the contentious debates leading up to the bill’s passage – no doubt due to the powerful malpractice industry lobby – and the idea of removing absurd and hypocritical restrictions on interstate commerce of health insurance has been largely ignored as well.

In the end, there are many practical and ethical choices to debate and decide from that do not give the Congress subjective discretion over our consumer choices.  Once this personal power is surrendered it will likely never be regained and history indicates that the scope of this new power wielded by government will steadily increase.

Phil Donahue Interview with Dr. Milton Friedman – 1979.

Further, Dr. Friedman debunks the Free Lunch Myth before an academic audience.

Dr. Friedman at the University of Chicago (unknown date).

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Friedman, he was a Nobel Laureate in Economics and an oft apologist for capitalism and its positive effects on the societies that have embraced it.  For more information concerning the late economist, please see this autobiography published by the official website of the Nobel Prize.

]]> http://giftoffreedom.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/capitalism-and-the-free-lunch-myth/feed/ 0 keathwarlick