American government, we are told, is notable for its stability. And so it seems, at least on the surface. But stability over a long period, as the Russian tsars could tell us, is no guarantee of permanence. And the tsars fell very suddenly after ruling far longer than the U.S. government's two centuries.
Riots in the streets; protest against a hated government; cops arresting protesters. A familiar story these days. But suddenly we find that the protests are directed, not against a hated Communist tyranny in Eastern Europe, but against Mrs. Thatcher's regime in Britain, a supposed paragon of liberty and the free market.
The sudden collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe has amazed and elated the West. But what does it mean? If Communism has lost, what has won?
Why must taxpayers A and B be forced to pay for natural disasters that strike C? Why can't C—and his private insurance carriers—foot the bill?
As long as bureaucrat-bashing remains sport royal, there is hope. But how much? Even now, confronting bureaucracy's relentless encroachments and entanglements, whoya gonna call?
A truism among free-marketeers is that collectivism is flawed because it flies in the face of human nature. But many writers on our side also ignore a key aspect of human nature. They write about politics and economics as if they were logic or mechanics. Pull lever X for output Y. Disseminate the evidence of capitalism's success and collectivism's failures, and the capitalist paradise, in time, will come.
A truism among free-marketeers is that collectivism is flawed because it flies in the face of human nature. But many writers on our side also ignore a key aspect of human nature. They write about politics and economics as if they were logic or mechanics. Pull lever X for output Y. Disseminate the evidence of capitalism's success and collectivism's failures, and the capitalist paradise, in time, will come.
Winter is here, and for the last few years this seasonal event has meant the sudden discovery of a brand-new category of the pitiable: the "homeless."
British lower classes had a rough time until the Industrial Revolution (1760) made both production and freedom possible. Two political revolutions were also begun then: the American Revolution and the French Revolution. For the American Revolution, Life, Liberty, and Property became the three dominant foundations of the Declaration of Independence. For the French Revolution, Rousseau tried to create a brotherhood subservient to the general will with the word Equality. The French Revolution was to favor not freedom, but to change those who receive benefits – legalized plunder. The French Revolution was against the Industrial Revolution.
LeFevre then goes through the Declaration of Independence in careful detail.
Bob LeFevre presented this lecture to the Free Marin Supper Club on 4 July 1984.
Human beings are collaborators with each other. Socialism is one kind of cooperation of people. One thing determines the socialist organization. It is the lack of freedom and the complete obedience to a Fuehrer (leader). Not surprisingly, everyone considers themselves to be part of the ruling group, forcing others to submit.
