Skip to content

Month: August 2018

John McCain Has Died

Among other things, Tom Woods has more honest things to say about John McCain than McCain’s apologists in the government media:

McCain’s legacy lives on in every politician and journalist who jumps on every propaganda report to justify another round of bombing and destruction.

It lives on in every politician who, 15 years after another idiotic military intervention, finally admits it was a “mistake,” never apologizing to the people he smeared at the time who tried telling him it was a mistake and who predicted every obvious consequence that any damn fool should have known.

It lives on in a media that craves bipartisanship — but bipartisanship in the service of the state, and bipartisanship in which the left gets what it wants and the right gets a nice photo-op.

It lives on in the families who are missing children because of a war that McCain finally admitted had been a hideous mistake and a ludicrous expenditure of scarce resources.

McCain was a man of the state, in every fiber of his being. That is why they cheer him.

And that is why we must tell unpopular truths — about McCain, and the corrupt empire he served.

And Laurence Vance linked to his 2008 article about John McCain, in which Vance wrote:

All wars are not created equal. An unjust war is criminal, and soldiers who participate in it are murderers. No North Vietnamese gook (McCain referred to them as gooks in a U.S. News & World Report interview in 1973) had ever posed a threat to the United States or harmed an American until the United States intervened with military advisors, military aid, the CIA, intelligence missions, puppet governments, and finally, U.S. troops — thousands and thousands of U.S. troops. How could John McCain possibly be considered a war hero? He was not captured, imprisoned, and tortured because he was defending U.S. soil against invading enemy forces. Had this been the case, I would be the first one to congratulate him as a war hero. McCain is a war criminal because he rained down death and destruction on the people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions….If McCain had been executed by the Vietnamese after being shot down, would he not have deserved it? What would you do to the pilot who just ejected and landed in your backyard after bombing your house? Why is it that war criminals are always foreigners?…The real American heroes are the men who refused to go to Vietnam and participate in an immoral, unconstitutional, and unjust war.

Elizabeth Warren Wants to Control Every Infinitesimal, Microscopic Aspect of Private Businesses

Former economics professor Barry Brownstein writes about Elizabeth Warren’s “Accountable Capitalism Act,” in which the senior imbecile from Massachusetts wants the government to impose its own decisions on large businesses as far as diversity of its boards and payment and personnel decisions, and more.

Brownstein writes that Warren “wants corporate decisions to be made by armchair quarterbacks who lack essential tacit knowledge and the knowledge of ‘particular circumstances of time and place,’ as Hayek calls it. Without such knowledge, it is impossible to make decisions that effectively allocate resources to best serve consumers.”

So really Pocahontas wants corporations to be accountable to bureaucrats who are basically parasites who live off the labor of others, while businesspeople make a living by actually being productive and serving consumers’ needs.

Brownstein considers Warren’s proposals more like national socialism than “democratic socialism.” So she is not very much different from Donald Trump, in my view, the self-described “economic nationalist,” which really means “national socialist.”

In national socialism, the government gets into the economic affairs of the people, in the name of the “nation.” For example, Trump’s idiotic trade policies, in which he wants to tell American consumers what they may or may not buy and from where, at least attempt to control those matters by imposing huge costs on them. And Trump wants to dictate to American producers from where and from whom they may buy the capital goods they need to run their manufacturing plants and so on, by imposing huge costs on them (which eventually will reverse the positive effects of his tax cuts!).

A more extreme example of national socialism, which actually Elizabeth Warren’s ideas are closer to than Trump’s, is Nazi Germany. When Hitler took control he then became an obsessed central-planning control freak, dictating to businesses every aspect of the business in an attempt to make it better serve the nation, or at least so Hitler thought.

Back to Elizabeth Warren’s irrational ideas. You see, as far as “accountability” is concerned in a free-market economy (which Hitler hated, and for which Warren and Trump both show utter contempt), businesses are accountable to the consumers. When businesses are no longer serving the consumers’ needs or if the competition serves the consumers better, the failing businesses just go bankrupt, reorganize, or close down.

Meanwhile, as far as “democratic socialism” is concerned, as Robert Wenzel reports, the Young Democratic Socialists of Amerika are now urging members to infiltrate the schools by becoming teachers. Wait, haven’t they already done this? Like 100 years ago?

Ann Coulter a Socialist at Heart

Michael Rozeff has a post on the nutty nationalist nudnik Ann Coulter. He quotes Coulter as stating, “We need to apply the First Amendment to social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, because it is a public square, and there is precedent for that and it’s gotta be done…”

You see, like most collectivists and nationalists, Coulter doesn’t understand the difference between private property and public property or government-owned property.

No, Twitter, Facebook and Google are not a “public square,” in comparing them to the street corner and sidewalks, etc. Those social media companies are privately owned.

The First Amendment applies to them in which the owners of those companies have the right to decide who and what may or may not participate on their forums, and for any reason, ,just as the owners or publishers of a newspaper and the editors decide which columnists may or may not be published in their newspaper.

No one has a First Amendment right to use the property of another to express one’s views. But you do have a First Amendment right to express your views on your own property or with your own privately owned media, or in the “public square” which generally is “publicly owned.”

Some people can make the case that Google especially is “doing the government’s bidding,” by censoring content that government bureaucrats want censored. But that is a totally different issue. I’m not dealing with that here.

Nevertheless, Coulter has a choice to make. Either choose the free market and private property, in which she will approve of the private control that Facebook, Twitter and Google now have and have a right to exercise (and if the users don’t like the rules they can use some alternative social media platform for their rants, their stupidity and their pictures of Grandma getting drunk, etc). And the free market will provide for competitors to get in the social media business and provide a platform that the SJW censors of the Establishment platforms have banned, etc.

OR, Miss Coulter can choose her fascist scheme of government taking control over those social media companies, or her socialist scheme of government taking ownership of those social media companies, turning them into “public squares.” (If it’s the fascist scheme, that is still a de facto ownership, so it would be socialist either way.)

And I must say that Ann Coulter is now sounding more like those SJW whiners (“Oh they’re not being fair to us conservatives, waaaaa”), isn’t she?

UPDATE: Ryan McMaken has some further analysis on Ann Coulter now favoring anti-discrimination laws.

Freedom in Amerika

Tucker Carlson of FoxSnooze debated Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute on the immigration issue, especially on the subject of immigrants using fake IDs to work in the U.S. Supposedly, the recent alleged murderer of the Iowa university student used a fake ID to work “illegally.”

Now, I don’t watch TV, thank god, but I have seen several videos of Tucker Carlson, and I can safely conclude that he, like most other statist conservatives, supports the current central-planning government controls in immigration. Alex Nowrasteh apparently supports free immigration.

In the argument, before Carlson cut off Nowrasteh and went on to the next interviewees, Carlson was hysterically and repeatedly bringing up the question as to why he as an American citizen would be thrown in jail for using a fake ID but “illegals” are allowed to get away with it. Nowrasteh continued to make the point that we in America (of all places, the land of the free, etc., etc.) shouldn’t have to have an ID to work.

But because of their irrational and ignorant fear of foreigners, these conservatives don’t hear rational arguments given to them. They panic when an “illegal” murders some innocent person, certainly more than they react to when their own fellow American citizens murder others. That’s been my observation. Being collectivists, the nationalist conservatives seem incapable of distinguishing between the peaceful, innocent immigrants (who should be left alone) and the violent ones. They probably are better able to distinguish between peaceful and non-peaceful citizens, however. But they’re not foreigners, you see. It’s the foreigner thing. (See Carl Watner on the concept of citizenship, by the way.)

No, we shouldn’t have to ask the gubmint for permission to work (or to do anything for that matter), and we shouldn’t have to have some sort of government-issued ID to show that we have a bureaucrat’s approval to live our existence. But basically that is the view of anti-immigration conservative collectivists who are afraid of foreigners and don’t want them coming to “our” country.

Here are a few links to my recent articles or posts on the immigration issue. Those nationalist conservatives are collectivists, and generally are not supporters of individualism, they are not supporters of the free market, they are not supporters of private property, and they are not supporters of the presumption of innocence. If you don’t suspect some individual of committing a crime against the person or property of others, then you leave that individual alone. And that was to be the American way. But collectivist nationalists don’t believe in that freedom-shmeedom stuff.

And Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute discusses why we can’t ignore the “militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is another good, informative article about the 2nd Amendment. However, in my view I really don’t care what the 2nd Amendment says. Either people have a right to defend themselves against aggression inflicted against them, or they do not. And, based on property rights, all people have a right to own and possess whatever material item they want to have, as long as they don’t steal it or otherwise obtain it deceitfully.

The Bill of Rights doesn’t describe rights that the gubmint is giving us. It is a set of rules that armed enforcers must follow as a way to protect the inherent rights that all people have (including non-“citizens”), rights which preexist the formation of any nation or government. Unfortunately, the writers of the Bill of Rights were not clear enough about that.

And does it matter, anyway? The feds have been ignoring the rules as imposed by the Bill of Rights, and violating just about every and any right that is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Federal, state and local bureaucrats and their enforcers have been acting like thugs and gangsters, breaking into and invading people’s homes and vehicles, stealing from the people, and assaulting and murdering innocents for decades and decades. In some cases, it’s been like rule by Antifa.

Do 59% of Americans Really Approve of Mueller Investigation?

A new Fox News poll indicates that 59% of respondents approve of the Robert Mueller kangaroo fishing expedition in search of crimes that hadn’t happened investigation of Trump campaign and Russia, while 37% disapprove. This can’t be right. I hope that people are lying to poll questioners. They must be asking registered voters in blue states, and mainly in New York City and Los Angeles.

59% of the people approve of FBI/DOJ shenanigans? Oh, I see. They don’t know about such shenanigans. I guess many more people still get their news from CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, CNN, etc., than I thought.

The poll also tells us that 49% of the sheeple will be voting for the Democrat candidate in their congressional district, while 38% will vote for the Republican. And also, “The GOP tax law is less popular (40 percent favorable) than Obamacare (51 percent favorable),” according to the poll. I just find all this hard to believe. The tax-cuts really have given the economy a boost, according to figures I’ve read or heard in recent months. I find it hard to believe that that many people approve of ObamaCare. Wait, didn’t the tax-cut bill that Trump signed in December repeal the individual mandate from ObamaCare? Did people approve of that? Why would they?

Rudy Giuliani Is Right about Perjury Traps

James Bovard explains what Rudy Giuliani was trying to say regarding the “perjury trap” that many people believe “special counsel” Robert Mueller might try to put Donald Trump into. Giuliani wasn’t particularly articulate, and many ignoramuses in the media were making fun of him. They either don’t know how corrupt prosecutors like Mueller get innocent people who really are telling the truth into a false charge of perjury (“lying to law enforcement”), or the media co-conspirators with the State do know about perjury traps but, because it’s Donald Trump who might be entrapped, that’s okay.

Bovard explains how investigators such as FBI get people into a charge of perjury. You see, there might be two versions of a story. James Comey tells investigators or Senators what he remembers was the conversation he had with Trump, and then Trump tells what he remembers was the conversation. If there is any discrepancy between Comey’s and Trump’s testimony, the investigators will go with what their close friend Comey said, and then conclude that Trump is lying, even if Trump told the truth, and even if Comey is lying (and even if the investigators know that Comey is lying!).

This situation happened with Mike Flynn who was entrapped into a perjury charge. Flynn pleaded guilty not because he believed that he did lie to investigators, but because Mueller was going after his son. And Flynn pleaded guilty even though the investigator who interviewed him — the smirking Peter Strzok — believed that Flynn was not lying in the interview. But, the Mueller zealots overruled Strzok and they got their first victim. That is because this really is a “witch hunt,” as Trump has been saying. And I’m not a Trump supporter as readers know.

So besides this week’s Michael Cohen guilty plea that was obviously timed by the witch-hunters to coincide with the Paul Manafort conviction, the feds are now going after a Republican congressman, charging Rep. Chris Collins with “insider trading,” even though that’s not a real crime, and the latest victim of the gestapo purge is Republican congressman Duncan Hunter and his wife who are charged with misusing campaign funds. You will not see the feds going after the Democrats in Congress who have been doing various things that could easily get them charged with criminal violations, you know, their “three felonies a day” and all that. The Mueller-Clinton-Democrat gang are dead serious in getting Trump.

And CNN, “The Most Trusted Name in News,” has sued to get the Manafort jury’s names and addresses — and that was days before the verdicts were decided!

Jury tampering much, CNN?

The Government-Media-Mobster complex is alive and well now.

You see, all this crap in Washington makes me root for the corrupt Rethuglicans in November, even though they’ve been starting wars for 25 years and acting like utter criminals and socialists! (Yech. I need a shower.)

Always Question the Mainstream Narrative

A lot of people are complaining that Facebook and Twitter are taking their pages down, “shadow banning” them, censoring. The Establishment are going after those who dissent, going after sources of alternative viewpoints and going after truth tellers. Our Betters are insecure and their power is being diminished by people exercising freedom of speech, and by the Internet.

Some of the SJWs and activists are ignorant and really believe they are “fighting hate,” and others know that what they are censoring isn’t “hate” but merely are sources of questioning and challenging the statist quo. They want censorship on behalf of power-grabbers.

So in a recent post on telling the truth and expressing one’s informed opinion not being “hate,” I made references to the modern phenomenon of transgenderism or gender confusion, and was very critical of the bizarre and Orwellian nature of that whole thing. I think it’s important to question the mainstream narrative of various subjects, because oftentimes the mainstream consensus and accepted narrative is just not correct, is irrational and/or just doesn’t make sense. So a more honest discussion needs to happen.

Like when anti-vitamin supplements “studies” are in the news. You know, those ones with the findings that “prove” the assertions made by the companies who fund the studies (as well as their FDA revolving door bureaucrats and their stock holdings in such companies, and on and on…)

For example, the vitamin E study that concluded such supplements don’t help your health, but the media narrative didn’t mention that studies and others like it were flawed, because of using synthetic vitamin E, not natural vitamin E. I just happened to pick that comprehensive article among many about the flaws in those studies.

The media repeating the “don’t take vitamins” narrative probably also didn’t mention the conflicts of interests in that particular study:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Thompson reported receiving research support from the National Cancer Institute for a randomized controlled trial testing finasteride against placebo, both of which are supplied by Merck. Dr Gaziano reported receiving grant support (to his institution) from Wyeth (now Pfizer) in the form of vitamin and placebo pills and packaging. Dr Karp reported receiving grants to his institution from Pfizer. Dr Klotz reported receiving travel support for meetings from sanofi-aventis, Merck, and AstraZeneca and research support for investigator-initiated trials from Abbott and GlaxoSmithKline, and institutional grants pending. Dr Chin reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, and Firmagon; receiving payment for lectures from Firmagon; and payment for development of educational presentations from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Firmagon. Dr Meyskens reported being a co-founder of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals. Dr Baker reported board membership for Merck for which he receives no compensation. Otherwise there were no other conflicts of interest disclosed.

Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement grant CA37429 awarded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and in part by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (National Institutes of Health).

Biased much?

But the mainstream media who report on newly published studies also have drug companies as their main sponsors, so they have a financial interest, and loyalty, in not reporting ALL the facts of a story.

More recently, studies have been concluding, “Don’t take multi-vitamins,” and “Don’t floss or use non-fluoridated toothpaste,” etc. etc. But you should take a multi-vitamin, especially one that passes third-party testing for purity and potency. Just avoid the crap.

Unfortunately, some vitamin products contain synthetic ingredients which won’t do anything for you, or contain additives and preservatives that are unhealthy. And yes, flossing is important, and yes, use a non-fluoride toothpaste (but getting enough calcium, magnesium and vitamin D is also important for your teeth). That one was the most recent fiasco I’ve heard.

And then there’s the AIDS narrative. We’re not allowed to question that. If someone’s tested positive for the AIDS virus (HIV), but hasn’t been diagnosed with or developed actual AIDS, then doctors say take this AIDS drug to prevent you from actually developing AIDS. We aren’t allowed to say that in some cases the toxic drugs themselves actually cause HIV-positive people to develop AIDS or cause other diseases such as cancer. Perhaps by the drugs compromising the immune system. The pharmaceutical industry has made a lot of money and they don’t like their drugs’ legitimacy or lack thereof being questioned.

But, as retired heart surgeon Donald Miller, MD wrote in his article on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis,

These drugs are toxic. With prolonged use they can cause cardiovascular disease, liver damage, premature aging (due to damage of mitochondria), lactic acidosis, gallstones (especially with protease inhibitors), cognitive impairment, and cancer. The majority of people who take them experience unpleasant side effects, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

AZT, the most powerful “nuke” in the ART arsenal actually killed some 150,000 “HIV-positive” people when it started being used in 1987 to the mid-1990s, after which, if the drug was used, dosage was lowered. [3] When an HIV-positive person on long-term ART gets cardiovascular disease or cancer, providers blame the virus for helping cause these diseases. Substantial evidence, however, supports the opposite conclusion: it is the antiretroviral treatment itself that causes cancer, liver damage, cardiovascular and other diseases in these patients. [3] They are iatrogenic diseases.

Dr. Miller wrote that people who question or challenge the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are branded as “AIDS deniers.” He noted there is good evidence to show that in many cases HIV doesn’t actually cause AIDS, but instead AIDS can actually be caused by “recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition.”

On the malnutrition aspect, I discussed talk radio personality David Brudnoy who I concluded was quite thin and could have been malnourished simply by his lack of conscientiousness in eating habits, and that “his refrigerator was a 7-Eleven,” and so on. He had tested positive with the AIDS virus in 1988, and received the “preventative” drug therapy therapy treatment. (Hmm, I wonder if his 1988 HIV test was actually a false positive?) But in 1994 he was extremely ill and had viral pneumonia, an enlarged heart, shingles, a brain tumor, and he had been in a coma. Brudnoy recovered from all that and returned to his radio show. But in 2003 he was diagnosed with Merkel Cell Carcinoma and died in late 2004. It is my view that it was the AIDS-“prevention” drugs that caused all the illnesses (along with his possible malnutrition and bad eating habits).

And then there’s the autism/ADHD/ADD/Asperger’s/Etc. narrative. Many little kids are already labeled with one of those early on, and in many cases they are given drugs to treat the “ailments.” None of these is an actual disease. As the late Thomas Szasz, MD observed, psychologists and psychiatrists (and schools) use these labels to stigmatize and control people.

Oh, and the vaccines aspect of autism. I know, I know, that’s been “debunked,” but by studies that are as skewed as the other ones telling us not to take vitamins.

Look, you can believe what you want. Believe the mainstream narrative, and believe what The Powers That Be want people to believe, as repeated by their stenographers in the mainstream media. That’s up to you.

But, as Sharyl Attkisson pointed out,

Many Studies Suggest Possible Vaccine-Autism Links

When the popular press, bloggers and medical pundits uncritically promote a study like The Lewin Group’s, it must confound researchers like Lucija Tomljenovic, Catherine DeSoto, Robert Hitlan, Christopher Shaw, Helen Ratajczak, Boyd Haley, Carolyn Gallagher, Melody Goodman, M.I. Kawashti, O.R. Amin, N.G. Rowehy, T. Minami, Laura Hewitson, Brian Lopresti, Carol Stott, Scott Mason, Jaime Tomko, Bernard Rimland, Woody McGinnis, K. Shandley and D.W. Austin.

They are just a few of the many scientists whose peer-reviewed, published works have found possible links between vaccines and autism. But unlike The Lewin Group’s study, their research has not been endorsed and promoted by the government and, therefore, has not been widely reported in the media. In fact, news reports, blogs and “medical experts” routinely claim no such studies exist.

Attkisson has an entire page of links to information on vaccines that you won’t find from the mainstream media.

And Dr. Julian Whitaker wrote that “Depending upon which vaccine is being administered, a single shot can contain a brew of adulterated bacteria, viruses, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and/or numerous multisyllabic chemical additives. To say that repeated exposures to such a wide range of toxins have no cumulative adverse effects on a child’s developing nervous and immune systems is more than irrational—it’s diabolical.” Dr. Whitaker also points out that kids receive 14 different vaccines in 49 doses by the age of six.

Bill Sardi states that “children under age 2 are not able to develop sufficient antibodies to develop immunity from vaccination.  Despite this basic fact, the medical establishment insists upon administering a total of 19 shots, containing 24 vaccines, to infants on their 2, 4 and 6 month pediatric visits.” Sardi gives a lot of important information with links for further inquiry (for those open-minded enough to not fall for the “science is settled” mantra).

The medical establishment are even using brain scans on very young children to predict autism!

And I’ve certainly mentioned how processed foods can harm a kid’s cognitive development, and that food dyes have been linked to ADHD. Dale Steinreich of the Mises Institute tells of a case of an ADHD-diagnosed kid’s mom eliminating processed foods from her kid’s diet, and how things greatly improved. But, like Big Pharma, Big Agra doesn’t like the truth to come out about the crap they are pushing. There is so much crap food out there, it is literally poison. No wonder there is an obesity epidemic in Amerika, and a diabetes epidemic as well.

As I have written before, autism may very well have emotional etiologies, such as a dysfunctional relationship between the child and parents. But no, we can’t look into that. Getting a “doctor” to label the kid this or that and putting him on some drug is easier! But if you do want a healthier situation, you can get a psychological practitioner for your kid (or whole family) who isn’t an Establishment zombie (i.e. quack, which most of them are!).

And when I was an undergrad in psychology, early 1980s, we learned that autism was mainly characterized by the kid hitting himself. Mainly it was about self-abuse, but also showing withdrawn behavior. But now the medical establishment has expanded the list of symptoms and behaviors. It seems that any kid who exhibits behaviors of “arranging toys in order,” “repetitive behaviors,” “preoccupation with one toy,” or a kid who’s “withdrawn,” is considered “autistic.” Rather than addressing the actual aforementioned causes (such as dysfunctional family, malnutrition and/or artificial chemical-laden processed foods), many kids are put on those psychiatric drugs which makes their problems worse. The pharmaceutical industry likes that, of course. They have profited a great deal from other people’s problems.

I think on those college campuses in which the young people are shouting down speakers, invading deans’ offices, and at various protests in which hysterical activists repeat mantras against “hate” and want to “punch a Nazi” or white supremacist, I would bet that many of these protesters are on psychiatric drugs, maybe combined with years of marijuana smoking and other drugs, and cognitive development-crushing processed foods. Healthy people don’t act in those ways.

There’s also the issue of computer/phone screen-staring and hypnotizing with not just the young but older people as well (like with me, after I’ve finally finished this long post!).

Socialist Security

Jacob Hornberger explains what Social Security is in Amerika, and that libertarians shouldn’t support it. It is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme. No, you didn’t put money into an account to be given back to you later in life. Even the Social Security Administration website says no such thing. But that myth remains alive today. Social Security is a scheme in which some of Mr. Smith’s paycheck or other earnings are taken away involuntarily by the government and redistributed over to his neighbor Mr. Jones’s grandmother (in addition to the bureaucrats of the federal government). The money that is taken out of your paychecks is put into the U.S. treasury’s general fund, and it is squandered away by CONgress with the rest of the loot.

Some Ideas for Freedom Lovers to Use in Debating Socialists

Thomas DiLorenzo has this blog post showing the connection between Nazism and socialism. After all, with the acronym “NAZI,” when translated into English refers to the “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

DiLorenzo refers to an appendix of the book The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek, titled, “Nazi Socialism,” in which the Nazis expressed outright anti-capitalistic views. They hated individualism and the free market and loved government central planning, just like today’s socialists (and self-proclaimed “democratic socialists”).

Back to School Articles

Don Boudreaux says there’s no such thing as “the will of the people.”

Jacob Hornberger suggests abolishing campaign contribution limits. When we have economic liberty and private property rights, we can spend our money on whatever we want.

Rev. Ben Johnson asks, Would Jesus take an Uber?

Ron Paul asks, Trump vs. his own administration?

Carey Wedler discusses a judge trying to censor Parkland School’s treatment of Nikolas Cruz.

Jesús Huerta de Soto discusses the problem with historical illustrations of free-banking systems.

And Daniel Mitchell has an article on the link between economic liberty and national prosperity. The commenters have it right, that many people understand the linkage, yet their emotional and indoctrinated ideology nevertheless takes over as they call for more government interventions and intrusions anyway. And by the way, Donald Trump with his tax cuts contributing to much more prosperity, that’s a good thing. But why does he want to reverse the prosperity with the trade tariffs and restrictions? What’s wrong with him?