End Federal Prohibitions of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms

End Federal Prohibitions of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms

05/08/2019Ryan McMaken

UPDATE: As of late Wednesday, the de-criminalization measure managed to close the gap of what had earlier been a 55 to 45 percent loss. It looks like the measure has now narrowly passed, and voters' laissez-faire attitudes toward mushroom consumption apparently (barely) overcame other concerns. The article has been modified to reflect this outcome.

Denver's municipal election this year featured a ballot measure to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms — or as the Phish groupies called them back in high school — "shrooms." The measure was narrowly approved by 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent.

Denver, of course, is a place that voted in the majority for the legalization of marijuana in 2012's successful statewide ballot measure — with 65 percent voting for legalization in Denver. Denver voters also voted in 2016 in favor of a city-wide ordinance allowing businesses to have designated areas for public consumption of marijuana.

So why did the decriminalization of psilocybin mushrooms barely pass this year?

Well, based on my thoroughly un-scientific survey of Denver voters, part of it may have been fear over the risk of mushroom enthusiasts flocking do Denver to enjoy local mushroom freedom.  In other words, given the lack of any other jurisdictions de-criminalizing psilocybin, some voters may have been less concerned about increased ease of access to mushrooms, and more concerned about attracting the sorts of people who use them.

This sort of thing was a relatively common complaint after marijuana legalization. Local residents rarely complained about the legality of marijuana, and few believed the hysteria of federal government agents — such as this guy — who maintained marijuana legalization would lead to a public health disaster.

On the other hand, many local residents were less than thrilled at the idea that potheads from across the nation would flock to the city primarily in to sit in their newly rented basements and smoke up all day.

Few had a problem with letting the existing local potheads be potheads, and few ever believed the propaganda that people otherwise uninterested in marijuana use would suddenly become addicts because of legalization. And there's still no evidence that has ever happened.

The problem stemmed from the perception that the proportion of potheads in the general population would increase substantially through in-migration from other states.

In the first few years following legalization, many local pundits and politicians asserted population growth and real estate prices were being driven quickly up by marijuana enthusiasts who were relocating solely to hit the bong, legally. The image this was intended to conjure up was one of scores of potheads pulling up in moving vans and moving in permanently.

It's unclear to what extent that was ever really true, though. And now that Massachusetts, Nevada, and the entire West Coast (including Alaska) have similarly overturned prohibition, few share this concern anymore.

However, when it came to de-criminalizing psilocybin mushrooms, fewer Denver voters may have been unenthusiastic about being pioneers this time around. Of course, even if the measure had passed, the situation would not have been very comparable to marijuana legalization. The city's DA noted "only 11 of more than 9,000 drug cases referred for possible prosecution between 2016 and 2018 involved psilocybin." Moreover, as a de-criminalization measure — as opposed to legalization — there wouldn't be any dispensaries popping up at the local strip mall.

Nevertheless, the prospect of local liberalization attracting more drug users is an unrecognized ace in the hole used by federal agents and regulators. Psilocybin remains a Schedule 1 drug  under federal law. By using nationwide federal policy to both mandate illegality — and to encourage similar state and local ordinances — federal agents can more easily isolate and fear-monger within communities considering legalization or de-criminalization within what is otherwise a uniform landscape of prohibition. Were state and local authorities truly left on their own when it comes to prohibitions of psilocybin mushrooms and similar substances, we'd likely see far more regional variation, and at least a notable minority of communities with varying degrees of laissez-faire.

As it is, federal policy sets the tone in favor of nationwide prohibition, and this makes it harder for any single community to break away from established federal policy, even if the voters don't fear the direct effects of the prohibited substance itself.

Image source:
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

The Latest Predictions

06/20/2022Robert Aro

After the 75-bps rate hike last week, Powell took to the stage, saying in just his third sentence:

We are strongly committed to bringing inflation back down, and we are moving expeditiously to do so.

The public can hardly feel confident in this. When taking the Fed’s latest median projection of Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) inflation, they don’t project seeing 2% inflation until some time after 2024, in the longer run, per below:

They even provide different perspectives of their data, like the one offered on this chart:

The expectation is that PCE inflation will peak this year and will level off back to 2% in the long run… of course, why they believe this and what data, if any data, they are using to arrive at these projections is beyond the knowledge of anyone outside of their top experts.

Future inflation is not all they predict. There is also the Fed’s dot plot chart, used to guide future interest rates:

According to participants, rates still have a long way to go, possibly reaching over 3.5% this year. That’s not even the expected height of it, as, in 2023 rates may well be into the low 4% range. It's only after 2024 rates are expected to be back around 2%.

As far as future outcomes for GDP and employment, the Fed predicts things will be quite all right for the foreseeable future:

No negative GDP is forecasted from 2022 and into the long run, while the unemployment rate is expected to persist around its current levels, from now and also past 2024.

Something eerily absent from all these predictions is any sense of a market downturn, or a recession. Even without employing lessons from the Austrians, or using ideas about the boom-bust cycle, one would think that the Fed’s shrinking of the balance sheet should give some cause for concern.

To go from a $5 trillion increase in the balance sheet in two years, to monthly decreases is no easy task. Even in my previous article I showed a visualization of the Fed’s holdings of US treasuries and how the last two times the Fed reduced holdings corresponded with a market crash and recession. Given the state of the world, the already high prices we’re seeing, and the Fed tightening to come, one would think a less than optimistic outlook would be reflected in their projections.

The problem with projections is that anyone can make them; however, there is a reason why the Fed’s projections are so detrimental. In the private sector, the entrepreneur must make predictions, forecasts and estimates all the time. They must anticipate future costs, sale prices, quantity demanded, consumer appetite, and countless other factors. They perpetually navigate a world of uncertainty. When the entrepreneur fails, the loss is borne by the entrepreneur first and foremost.

This is the opposite of how the Federal Reserve operates. When their predictions, forecasts, and policies are wrong, the errors, mistakes and failures are borne by society as a whole.

Should PCE inflation be twice, three times, or even five times higher than 2.6% in 2023, the Fed will explain why their forecast was wrong and revise accordingly. Unlike the entrepreneur who risks their own livelihood brining a product to market, weighed against the risk of going bankrupt due to potential failures, the Fed will not go bankrupt no matter the failure. In fact, not only will the Fed not go bankrupt, they’ll use any crisis as justification for more money printing endeavors, enriching themselves and those closely connected first and foremost.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

No, Inflation Is Not a Product of Corporate Greed

Seventeen months ago, as the keys to the oval office changed hands, for all of the political animus and theatrics, one thing seemed a given: the US economy would roar back to vitality in historic fashion, a point of optimism in a nation of discord and incertitude. Yet hope would give way to ambivalence, which, in turn, gave way to serious doubt. Today, a pathetic 23 percent of Americans feel economic conditions are even “somewhat good.” The primary reason for such abysmal economic sentiment? Inflation.

As consumer prices have accelerated out of control over the past year, a new political narrative on inflation has emerged, one that alleges corporate impropriety as the primary catalyst. The motive for such a messaging shift from select members of the political apparatus is clear: a need to shirk accountability for evidently inflation-inducing policies. Unfortunately, the corporate greed narrative has apparently paid dividends to its progenitors, garnering increasing acceptance among the body politic at large. Indeed, according to one poll from Data For Progress, a majority of likely voters now believe price-gouging is a major contributor to heightened inflation. However, that inflation is brought about by corporate greed is a sophistic political lie in every respect.

Yes, corporations are greedy. People are greedy. It turns out that greed is a natural characteristic of the human condition. It always has been. Why, then, has inflation only recently exploded after 40 years of calm, now clipping along at better than four times the Federal Reserve’s target annual rate of two percent?

In May 2020, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) grew just 0.1% year-over-year. Are we to believe that corporations were simply feeling particularly benevolent, only to reverse course in dramatic fashion the very next year? Of course, that is preposterous. 

But the prevailing evidence that peddlers of the corporate greed narrative have repeatedly cited is the reality that corporate profits are at historic highs. This is, in fact, true. But it is entirely irrelevant to inflation itself and is not even indicative of any measurably intensified greed.

The Producer Price Index (PPI), which measures cost increases for businesses, is up 10.8 percent from last year. With consumer prices rising at 8.3 percent over the same period, this frankly means that American businesses en masse are likely not even passing on the full extent of the higher costs they themselves are paying, to consumers. So how can this be, even as corporations are raking in record profits? The answer lies in a distinction that the corporate greed crowd will never make: the distinction between corporations and businesses

In fact, just five percent of businesses are corporations. While the CPI measures the general prices that businesses are charging, corporate profits figures only measure the profits of large corporations. Yet it is chiefly small businesses that cannot afford significant increases in the cost of doing business because they have fewer resources than their larger corporate counterparts. Thus, it is highly probable that small businesses, which account for nearly half of American GDP, are primarily driving broad price increases, on no account of elevated greed, but rather as a result of an increase in their own cost of doing business.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is perhaps the most prominent purveyor of the corporate greed doctrine of inflation. If anyone can point to resounding evidence of malign corporate price-gouging, it should be Reich. In an article laying out his argument for “corporate power” being the catalyst behind record inflation, Reich condemns multinational coffeehouse chain Starbucks for announcing price hikes earlier this year despite being “so profitable.” 

What the twice Ivy-educated pundit fails to mention is that Starbucks’ Q1 2022 earnings were cut by more than half when compared to Q4 2021, despite revenue holding steady. Q2 2022 earnings dropped below that of even Q1. What’s more, the company reported lower earnings in 2021 than it did back in pre-Covid 2018, despite having higher revenues. Reich even conveniently ignores the fact that Starbucks recently revealed it would be raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour nationwide beginning this summer. 

Evidently, Starbucks isn’t the insatiably gluttonous enterprise that Robert Reich would like you to believe it is. And this seems to be a common theme with many of the companies that he and others proffer as evidence of nefarious profiteering. But it still doesn’t answer for why corporate profits are at historic highs. First, it is important to understand that corporate profit margins are not significantly higher than they were pre-Covid. With that established, it is likely that inordinate growth in consumer spending since the Covid recession is largely to blame for record profits. Needless to say, when Americans drop unprecedented quantities of cash on consumer products, companies whose costs don’t rise significantly fare pretty well.

Certainly, it is understandable how the corporate greed dogma has caught on with vast swathes of the American public. Rancorous anti-corporate sentiment has been prevalent in America for years, and corporations, as such, make for quite convenient political scapegoats. But any effort to broadly place culpability for inflation on the private sector is demagoguery at best, and almost always attempted by ultracrepidarian activists rather than studied economists. 

The reality is that the true offender behind record inflation is the US government. The Federal Reserve has inflated the money supply by over 40 percent since the beginning of 2020, allowing congress to hand out checks to the public and driving an unhealthy initial spike in disposable income. As consumers spent off this superficial wealth, prices soared and disposable income tumbled. Consequently, today, as inflation ravages the wallets of everyday Americans, disproportionately impacting low-income families, the personal savings rate has plunged to just half of what it was in early 2019 and is now rapidly approaching all-time lows. 

American citizens are being forced to spend larger portions of their income on basic necessities and mundane lifestyle items, leaving less–or no–room for economically stimulating investment or leisure. The great evils of government–not corporation–inflation are every day becoming increasingly apparent.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Rising Interest Rates Are Revealing the True Damage Done by the Fed

06/16/2022Tho Bishop
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

On May 4, Jerome Powell dismissed the possibility of the Federal Reserve hiking the federal funds rate by three-quarters of a percent.

On June 15, he announced that America’s central bank was doing just that, a reminder that the Fed continues to give itself more power over the economy, even as it repeatedly demonstrates an inability to predict inflation, economic growth, or even its own policy.

Markets were already reacting to the move days in advance after a deliberate leak of the Fed’s decision to the Wall Street Journal this past weekend. The result is tens of millions of Americans watching their net worth collapse with stocks, cryptocurrencies, and other financial asset prices as investors pull capital away from investments and into cash and other safe harbors.

Of course, the demand for these investments that are now being devastated by rate hikes was itself a deliberate policy goal of the Federal Reserve. Low interest rates maintained by aggressive quantitative easing and other new Fed tools were designed to discourage Americans from saving in traditional banks and low-risk financial assets. The Fed subsidized risk, and risk is what we have.

While panic over America’s economic environment is starting to make its way into the pages of the corporate press, savvy Fed watchers have been warning about this self-made trap for years. On the Mises Wire, Austrian analysts like Daniel Lacalle, Thorsten Polleit, and Brendan Brown have warned about the damage a decade of monetary hedonism has done to the financial health of the global economy. The lingering question has been whether central banks' concern over price inflation would trigger the policy corrections necessary to pop what Lacalle has called "the bubble of everything." 

The Fed seems to be trying. We will see how other central bankers respond.

The fight against inflation should illuminate one of the most important, but often overlooked, parts of the Austrian understanding of business cycles. While a lot of the online conversation about Fed policy will often focus on the dollar's declining purchasing power or concerns about hyperinflationary environments due to central bank mismanagement, the more pressing insight is the true costs of the malinvestment that occurs in a low interest rate environment.

Artificial credit expansion means capital is invested in firms and industries that would not appear profitable without the intervention of central banks. One way we can see this manifested is in the form of zombie companies, which are firms whose operations are not profitable and that depend upon cheap debt to survive.

As Joshua Konstantinos noted on the Mises Wire in 2019:

Following the Great Recession, zombie companies became a worldwide phenomenon. Even with today’s very low interest rates; more and more companies are unable to pay the interest on their debts out of profits. According to the BIS, the share of zombie companies in the US doubled between 2007 and 2015, rising to around 10 percent of all public companies. And counterintuitively, as interest rates have fallen lower and lower the number of zombie companies has increased.

These numbers, of course, do not consider the financial frenzy that was created as a result of covid-related policies after the article was written.

An additional consequence of the Fed’s subsidization of risk in the financial system is damage done to important institutional investors. Pension funds and insurance companies, for example, have been forced to manage investment portfolios at a time when government bonds and other historically low-risk investments are yielding little. In such an environment, these institutions can either reduce payouts in the future or adjust their investments to higher-yield assets. If an aggressive increase in interest rates ends up taking down a large portion of these zombie companies, this could secondarily impact millions of Americans who never benefitted from the stock market.

It is precisely these deeper consequences to the busting of financial bubbles that inspired Ludwig von Mises to spend so much effort in trying to illustrate the consequences of central bank–fueled malinvestment. As he notes in Economic Policy:

Credit expansion is not a nostrum to make people happy. The boom it engenders must inevitably lead to a debacle and unhappiness.

The question going forward is how truly dedicated the Fed is to its campaign against price inflation. The purpose of its severe move, the largest single move in forty years, is to demonstrate a willingness to act boldly in the future—the Powell Fed has enjoyed a reputation for being willing to bring out "a bazooka," nerd speak for engaging in aggressive monetary policy. This was also an act of political necessity: $5 gas and double-digit increases in food costs is the sort of kitchen table issue to get Americans very angry at politicians and their bankers.

Will those calculations change with Americans seeing their 401(k)s draining away? Data from the Atlanta Fed is now signaling an official recession in the coming months. Will Jerome Powell be willing to increase rates with those head winds?

Only time will tell.

What we can be confident about is that the damage the Federal Reserve has done to the economy is only now being exposed. Unfortunately, the institution responsible is as blind and powerful as it has ever been.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

At Least Private Police Would Have an Incentive to Act

06/15/2022John Kennedy

Following the tragic events of Uvalde Texas, the whole country saw a disgusting act of senseless killing, and the police waiting outside as it unfolded. This article has a purpose to discuss police ineffectiveness in situations where they’re expected to serve and protect, and how private police companies are superior to government funded police departments. 

Prices: Providing Incentives

Thomas Sowell wrote in “Basic Economics” (p.59) how prices lead people to take more risks as they have an incentive to make profit. He writes:

When a Spanish blockade in the sixteenth century tried to starve Spain’s rebellious Antwerp into surrender, the resulting high prices of food within Antwerp caused others to smuggle food into the city. However, Antwerp authorities decided to solve the high food prices by laws fixing the maximum price to be charged for given food.

These price controls may have lowered the cost of food artificially, but it then caused a shortage within the city, as the smugglers would not risk their lives and freedoms for a low price incentive.

 Humans naturally run on incentives, and if one takes risk or puts in time, labor or some other form of action, they will expect  a reward. This rewards can vary, but it is more often than not some form of currency that is accepted by society as the medium of exchange, such as money. However public entities do not give out bills to people who use their services, at least not directly, as citizens pay through state or federal taxes for public services. 

In fact, the official webpage of the Uvalde Office of Finance shows that the police budget from 2018-19 is just shy of $4.1 million out of the city’s budget of $24 million. However, Bloomberg News states that the Uvalde Police Department takes up 40 percent of the budget. 

Despite this, the impersonal funding of the police department through taxation was not enough incentive for the officers to take action, the department does not rely on upfront prices for its very existence as they will always get funded, even if they fail in times where it matters most.

 In Uvalde Texas, according to a CNN timeline, the shooter entered the building at 11:33 am, and only at 12:50 did the police enter the classroom with a key and kill the suspect. However, the police were also in the school much earlier, as the timeline states. “The officers entered the building more than an hour before the shooter was killed.” Some have claimed that since the shooter supposedly barricaded himself in a classroom, the standard procedures were different, but the official Uvalde PD active shooter manual says differently in this case. The manual states the priority of life is first of innocent civilians in the area and that the officers must either isolate, distract, or neutralize the attacker.

The manual explains on how to handle barricaded suspects, “If an officer forces an attacker into a room or area where they are isolated, cannot escape, and can do no more harm to students, staff, or visitors, the officer is not obligated to enter the room to deal with the attacker.” Ignoring the obvious lack of obligation to neutralize a shooter, it was found out that the classroom the shooter was locked inside of still had at least one child in it, which meant the officer was still obligated to engage the shooter.

 Just as smugglers entered the blockaded Antwerp, private police would have more incentive to enter the school and stop the shooter, not only because of prices and morality, but because of competition.

Competition and Incentives

Competition is one of the most important aspects of a free market, as it provides an incentive for a business to provide the best service or product at the best price and quality. Economist Ludwig Von Mises noted on competition “The free market is not a struggle to defend one's own life against predators but a competition over who can be the best cooperator, over who can benefit the most people.” The current system of state or public funded policing, creates a monopoly over not only law enforcement, but of safety as well. 

The citizens of Uvalde have no other option other than the now loathed state-run Uvalde police department. At least if there were competing police companies and a particular company refused to help those children in the school, the Uvalde residents could have the freedom of choice and go to that company's competitors and leave the other underperforming business out of business.

A good example involves Cornelius Vanderbilt's steamboat company. Burton Folsom explains the story of Vanderbilts steamboat company in his book, “The Myth of The Robber Barons.” During Vanderbilts time (1806-1815) Robert Fulton owned a government regulated and subsidized steamboat company that carried its passengers up and down the Hudson River. 

However, travel was expensive and competing with this government monopoly was illegal, but Vanderbilt did it anyway, he would make his own steamboat company and carry passengers for a low price. Eventually, the price for Vanderbilt's steamboat would be $0, as he instead opted to sell products on board the ship to make profit. 

Truly an ingenious idea that benefited everyone!

 This is the point of a free market, competing companies trying to deliver the best product to its customers. But of course, people will have questions, what if the police company forms a cartel and raises prices for consumers and businesses? Economist Murray Rothbard talked about voluntary cartels businesses formed, and looking at the facts many of these cartels after six to nine months started to fall apart. Rothbard talks about the biggest enemy to cartels, undercutting, Rothbard notes railroad cartels “These guys are restricting production, rates are up, let me start undercutting them a little bit and I can pick up all that business.”

 Rothbard continues on how this will be done in secrecy because once competitors know you broke the cartel price, the advantage will be lost and they will start doing the same thing and the cartel breaks down in hatred. In the end, the only cartels that are able to last, are government cartels like the police department.


Through prices and competition, private police will have an actual incentive to provide you the service of safety and upholding rights. If news gets out of brutality against a suspect or violation of rights of a suspect by a private company, consumers will be more willing to go with their competitor. While some may complain about prices being paid, prices are meant to be prohibitive so that you will think before you buy, and at least this way you have a freedom to choose and when you do call the police, they’ll be there faster since their company's existence relies on you, the customer. 

Remember that state-provided police are not free either. In the fiscal year 2021, the U.S. Government spent $71.9 billion on policing and prisons and in 2019 that number was $205 billion. How can we spend this much money, of taxpayer money, on an organization that will not stop a school shooter? We do not even have the freedom to choose where our tax money goes, let alone have competing police companies, this is the true change needed in the problem of policing.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

It’s Beyond Time for a National Divorce

It’s been about six years since Michael Malice wrote his article “The Case for American Secession,” for the Observer. Since then, the talk of a disuniting of the American Empire has been discussed by people on the right, left, and the middle. There has always been a multitude of cultures in the USA, however recently the cultures on the right and the left have bubbled over into the political sphere. Everything from BLM protests gone violent, to January 6 protests entering the Capitol, shows that the political discourse is at a tipping point.

Every four years, a portion of American citizens go out and vote for who will sit in the White House and dictate many aspects of their lives. The right calls whoever is running on the left a commie, and the left calls whoever is running on the right a fascist. The political divide is getting deeper, you can see it at your Thanksgiving dinner table, in the media, and in national research polls. The question I ask, and asked by Michael Malice six years ago, is why should we remain as one country?

What is holding us together anymore? For those on the left, why would you not want to separate from the racist, fascist, hillbillies that you despise so much? You could have a much more left leaning country, where you could have UBI, universal healthcare, etc. You could adopt a model like the Nordic states in Europe. For the right, why would you not want to separate from the evil baby killing, commie, uppity yankees that you hate, and who don’t want you to be able to carry a firearm to protect your family? You could have a country where you could have constitutional carry, the Bible taught in schools, and outlawed abortion.

When I speak with my family and friends on the right side of the culture, their adverse reaction to a national divorce is usually about either what would some foreign powers do, or what about the idea of America. Well first, the idea of America is dead. We are a debtor’s economy now, with a global empire that is vastly overstretched and we are paying for it here at home. Inflation, caused not just by Biden, but by all those in congress that have voted for decades to keep the money printer going burr. And on the foreign power, such as China? The paper tiger economy of that quasi communist state is surrounded by enemies, and would have trouble mounting the largest amphibious assault in the history of earth on Taiwan, let alone America.

Any friends I speak with on the left that are against the idea of a peaceful national divorce, they’ll just say things like, “Well what would happen to all those minorities in the new conservative country or countries?” I don’t know, they’d likely go about their daily lives, with a better chance of affecting their government with it being smaller. The arguments I generally get from the left are all about what the left generally wants, power. They want you to submit to their drag queen story time hour for toddlers, and if you reject that, then you must be put in your place.

There are many valid questions to ask when discussing national divorce, what would happen to the nukes, federal government property, national debt, etc. This can all be done peacefully and without bloodshed. Look at the dissolution of the Soviet Union not long ago. A couple months after I turned one, the Soviet Union fell, and if you would have asked experts in the decades leading up to that, most never saw it coming. That was done mostly peacefully, and nuclear weapons were not spread out across the world and used in dirty bombs like you would see in Hollywood movies. Federal property, the national debt, and other issues are all something that will have to be negotiated by lawyers and politicians, but I repeat myself, if and hopefully when states begin to secede.

Recently the Libertarian Party, the third largest party in the USA, had sweeping victories for the Mises Caucus, who then proceeded to add secession to the planks of the party. It is time for Republican parties in each state, to do the same. Add secession to the planks of your state party, and fight like hell for it. I don’t see state Democratic parties adding this to their planks, but if you are involved in your state democratic party, you should really consider the opportunity this would give you.

I have looked at countless different national divorce scenarios, from two different countries to ten different countries. When the dust settles from the breaking up of the world’s largest empire in the history of the world, we would see a peaceful and more prosperous America, or Americas I should say. You may ask, what about my favorite sports teams, yes, they can play other teams from other countries, it happens in most major sports already with teams in Canada, or throughout Europe. You may ask, what about defense? Well, we’d likely see mutual defense pacts form for the new countries, so that if any foreign powers, as unlikely and disastrous for them as it would be, decided to invade the former borders of the USA, then they would have a defensive pact.

If you need any other motivation to entertain the idea of a national divorce, just look at the national debt, the skyrocketing prices for everything from food to homes. I’m in my early thirties with a stable good paying job, and it’s still hard for me to purchase a home. Multiple debt bubbles are ready to burst, social security running out in the next fifteen years. The US government has troops in over seventy countries worldwide, with about eight hundred bases! The global empire is just not sustainable, it never was, and our politicians in DC used it to enrich themselves and their friends. It’s time we broke away from the corrupt DC swampy empire, that has done nothing but destroyed our economy and our culture.

National divorce is a scary proposition. Just as anything you do in life that will better yourself or your family will likely be a scary decision. Can we afford a house at this mortgage rate, another car, school, etc. Just as on an individual level, we make the decision for being better in the long term or short term, we must make that decision on a national level as well. I fear that if we do not have peaceful votes at state levels to secede and join new forming nations, we are all headed down the path of most other falling empires. Ruin, and death.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

No One Should Have This Much Power

06/14/2022Robert Aro

If you’ve never given much consideration to the power of central banking, it’s time to make that a priority. June 15 marks the start of the Fed’s balance sheet reduction. It’s important to understand what’s in store regarding the upcoming crisis and who’s to blame.

Look at some of the ideas produced by the Federal Reserve System. In the paper, authored by four economists, titled Substitutability between Balance Sheet Reductions and Policy Rate Hikes: Some Illustrations and a Discussion:

Overall, the model predicts that reducing the size of the balance sheet by about $2.5 trillion over the next few years, as opposed to maintaining the size at its peak level, would be roughly equivalent to raising the policy rate a little more than 50 basis points on a sustained basis.

Their model equates shredding a quarter of the Fed’s nearly $10 trillion balance sheet to no more than a 0.50% increase in interest rates. However, the real-world economy seldom, if ever, fits into their economic models.

Then there is the St. Louis Fed illustrating the projected monthly balance sheet run-off:

By the end of next year, nearly $1.7 trillion is scheduled to be removed from the balance sheet.

Even in one of the very many Fed surveys, they expected a reduction of:

$2.8 trillion in total runoff or about a third of the balance sheet over 3 years.

Unfortunately, none of these projections are going to come to fruition. While one can never say never, a confident probability of approaching zero percent can be assigned. It begins with just one chart:

With gray bars denoting formal recessions, the last time the Fed reduced treasury holdings was from 2018 to 2019 by roughly $400 billion and from 2007 to 2008 by around $300 billion!

Of course, the Fed, mainstream economists and those on TV never discuss the Austrian Business Cycle or how the Fed causes booms and busts. But take note that in the last two instances where treasury holdings were reduced, there was a significant decline in the stock market, an eventual market crash, a recession… and lastly, further expansion of the balance sheet to climb out of the recession.

Naturally, the mainstream narrative was that COVID caused the last crash and evil bankers (excluding central bankers) caused the previous crash.

Consider where we are now in the boom-bust cycle. We’re waiting for the appearance of a gray bar in 2022 or 2023; but those take time and recessions are called after the fact. The Fed will begin shrinking tomorrow. Should history be our guide, the reduction will not last 1 to 3 years. The stock market will continue to decline, leading to another crash. There will be a recession (we may already be in one), and the Fed will eventually announce the resumption of balance sheet expansion.

Consider “boom” periods like 2010 when the Fed owned less than $800 billion of US Treasuries. Rather than reduce holdings, they increased them to $1.6 trillion by 2011. And again, during an alleged period of prosperity, they further increased holdings to $2.4 trillion by 2014.

What the Fed could not do in a strong economy can scarcely be done in a weak one. True, the Fed will reduce its asset holdings; however, this is transitory. Any talk of asset reduction being remotely close to a trillion dollars, let alone two or three trillion, becomes, for lack of better words, laughably absurd.

“But inflation is high” some may say. Also true, inflation measurements are considered astronomically high by American standards. But this sentiment misconstrues the role of the Fed, erroneously believing they possess the knowledge to fight (price) inflation, or even the will to do so.

Once this current round of Quantitative Tightening fails, should inflation still persist to levels deemed unacceptable by society, there will be a new narrative explaining why we need high inflation, or why high inflation is preferred to a depression or other catastrophe. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what inflation numbers we see. The balance sheet can only go one way, and that is up. The entire history of central banking and unbacked fiat currency supports this.

If the government provided you the ability to legally counterfeit currency, the only restraint being your own will, would you ever stop? This is the case with the Federal Reserve. They will never stop growing the balance sheet. A currency monopoly on the US dollar is more powerful than a nuclear bomb. No one would ever freely give up that power; no one should even have that power.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Wholesale Prices Rise More than 10 Percent, Pointing to Continued Price Hikes

06/14/2022Ryan McMaken
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics released new Producer Price Index (PPI) data today, and it’s not good news for consumers.

The PPI is a measure of prices at the production phase of goods and services, and is often an indicator of where consumer prices are headed. Prior to 1978, the index was known as the Wholesale Price Index.

This May, year-over-year PPI growth came in at over 10 percent for the sixth month in a row, reaching 10.8 percent. This was a small drop from April’s year-over-year rate of 10.9 percent, but continues to suggest ongoing upward pressure in prices. The month-over-month change for May was 0.8 percent, which was up from April's month-over-month change of 0.5 percent. Movement remains upward, and from a very elevated base.

Year-over-year changes in the PPI have been over 7 percent for twelve months.


As with the Consumer Price Index, the narrative among optimistic analysists was that PPI measures would moderate significantly in May and signal a downward turn. That does not appear to be the case so far. Indeed, consumer prices showed few signs of moderating in May, as CPI inflation surged near to a forty-one-year high of 8.6 percent. Continued growth in the PPI points toward ongoing growth in consumer prices as well. 

Changes, of course were not uniform, and the AP reports today:

 A 1.4% jump in the prices of goods accounted for nearly two-thirds of the rise in the PPI. Goods prices, which rose 1.3% in April, were driven by soaring costs for energy products.

Wholesale gasoline prices rebounded 8.4% after falling 3.0% in April, making up 40% of the rise in the costs of goods. Jet fuel increased 12% after shooting up 14.8% in April. There were also increases in the cost of residential natural gas, steel mill products and diesel fuel.

Wholesale food prices were unchanged after increasing 1.4% in the prior month as the cost of beef and veal fell 9.5%, offsetting an increase in processed young chickens. Excluding food and energy, goods prices rose 0.7% after increasing 1.1% for two straight months.

These numbers will put further pressure on the Biden administration and the Federal Reserve to "do something" about price inflation. It is unclear what this means for the Fed, however, which has signaled it is reluctant to depart from its ongoing policy of extremely timid moves toward slowly ratcheting up the federal funds rate and selling off Fed assets. Rather, the Fed is increasingly behind the curve. It is truly remarkable to have a CPI inflation rate of 8.6 percent while the federal funds rate sits at 1 percent and the Fed portfolio remains near $9 trillion in assets. 

The Fed will meet this Wednesday, and the consensus is that the Federal Open Market Committee will raise the target rate by 50 basis points. The Wall Street Journal even reported yesterday that there is growing evidence that the FOMC could raise rates by 75 basis points. If this happens, we'll be in uncharted territory, since the Fed will then be raising rates just as the S&P500 (a leading economic index) enters a bear market, and as the yield curve is showing signs of inversion and flashing warning signs for a recession. On the other hand, if the Fed elects to do nothing, it will have no room to maneuver as economic conditions continue to worsen. That is, the Fed routinely cuts the target rate by more than 200 basis points going into recessions, but the Fed will be in negative territory if it cuts even 100 basis points, given the current target rate. One could now easily imagine a scenario in which the Fed raises the target rate by one or two percentage points midyear this year only to cut by the same amount later this year. This would follow the Fed's usual playbook of resorting to easy-money stimulus whenever the economy shows signs of slowing down. The problem the Fed now faces, however, is that price inflation will continue until the Fed truly scales back on its easy-money efforts—which will likely cause a significant downturn. 

There is no easy way out. No matter what the Fed does, the economy will still have to deal with the countless malinvestments and bubbles that have sprung up on the back of easy money over the past decade—and which accelerated in 2020 and 2021. Simply raising the target rate won't make this difficult adjustment go away. We must also acknowledge that the Fed cannot pick the "correct" target rate that will "fix" the economy. The only fix is for the Fed to altogether stop using open market operations to manipulate market interest rates and let the market set prices.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Should Gun Laws Be Decided at the Federal Level? Or Even the State Level? Why Not the Local Level?

06/13/2022Connor Mortell

Uvalde, Texas, is where I was born. It’s where my mom taught kindergarten less than a mile from Robb Elementary. Uvalde is where I learned to master a Daisy BB gun. I took that – that took two years before I graduated to a 410 shotgun. Uvalde is where I was taught to revere the power and the capability of the tool that we call a gun. Uvalde is where I learned responsible gun ownership. And Uvalde called me on May 24th, when I learned the news of this devastating tragedy. I had been out of cellular range working in the studio all day when I emerged and messages about a mass shooting in the town I was born began flooding my inbox.

These were the words of Uvalde native actor Matthew McConaughey at the White House following the recent tragedy. This same tragedy has led to all sorts of calls for gun control. Most notably, the Protect Our Kids Act which, among other things, would raise the age to purchase an “assault rifle” to 21 and would bar the sale of large capacity magazines and dictate proper at-home gun storage.

My gut instinct as a proud gun owner is to rail against such legislation - as anyone should. As Mises Institute editor, Ryan McMaken, has written, such legislation would merely put more faith in the police. The very same police who have proven time and time again - including this very same tragedy - that they have no duty to protect you.

McMaken, in another article, explains many of the obvious inherent flaws in such gun control legislation. In addition to all this that has already been laid out, there is the fact that as Austrians we don’t believe in “gun rights” or any other specific rights but rather we know that all rights are property rights. As Ludwig von Mises has said, “The truth is that every infringement of property rights and every restriction of free enterprise impairs the productivity of labor.” Such regulation as this would infringe on the property rights of millions simply on the grounds that they may one day far down the line become a criminal (and these outcomes of becoming such a criminal are far less likely than we are often told).

However, the solution goes deeper than that. The reaction to such a tragedy should not be handled by the Congress but rather by - as McConaughey repeated many times for emphasis - Uvalde, Texas itself. Mises Institute President Jeff Deist has previously posed the question “Why couldn’t the big question of the twenty-first century be where you’re governed rather than how?” We as libertarians like to get bogged down in the how, but the question of where is equally - if not, more - important.

This issue has absolutely no realistic reason to be handled at the federal legislative level. The state of Texas has time and time again proven it values its guns highly through actions like their constitutional carry law passed last year. But despite this, Uvalde, in a moment of wholly justified fear, is calling for a reverse in that trend. We like to ask in arguments favoring soft secession and hard federalism why Alabama and California under any logical system would be forced into the same abortion laws. But the question goes further, why should Uvalde and Fort Worth, Texas, have the same gun laws? Why should Miami and Okeechobee, Florida, have the same systems? Why should Birmingham and Morris, Alabama, face the same restrictions? We find ourselves with wildly diverse cultures even within the same state. In the face of these gun control debates the answer is to allow them to be decided at the most local level. If Uvalde in the face of tragedy wants to crack down on guns, then let them. However, on the flip side, if a more conservative student body in College Station or Lubbock wants to have campus carry readily allowed then Uvalde must respectfully allow that as well.

Another Mises Wire editor, Bill Anderson, has explained that the more we politicize mass shootings the more we simply guarantee them in the future. Decentralizing these decisions will take the heat out of them and let them be more peacefully and diplomatically handled at federal levels - as with any conflict. We can close this issue with the words of Jeff Deist:

Mass democracy, under shifting rules often determined by nine politicized judges, is not a prescription for harmony and goodwill among 330 million very diverse Americans. Those millions don’t much agree about guns, God, abortion, and plenty more. But they don’t have to agree. In a “post liberal” and post-good-faith environment, aggressive federalism and realistic discussions of political secession are the obvious path forward. If you claim to love your fellow American citizens, unyoke them from the federal superstate and demand the same for yourself. The universalist, totalizing impulse, which resulted in the dramatic centralization of state power through the twentieth century, must be reversed in the twenty-first. The other way lies political strife, and worse.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Is It Time to Rethink Ayn Rand?

It has become trite for American fiction writers to lambast capitalism and the free market system as inherently immoral. Because few have entered the fray to counter these spurious notions, progressives dominate fiction, allowing them to mold the cultural milieu into one that is increasingly statist. Of the few in fiction who do defend liberty, Ayn Rand is perhaps the most prominent. Yet, while Rand makes a persuasive case for her worldview, she misunderstands key components of the market system, inadvertently giving ammunition to those who wish to characterize the market as merely a selfish, base enterprise.

Rand defined selfishness in The Virtue of Selfishness as “concern with one’s own interest.” Since she writes that this is the dictionary definition, it is not unreasonable to expand upon that by including Merriam-Webster’s definition as well: “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself.”

Since Rand believed that selfishness was a moral virtue, Rand’s heroes and heroines exhibit the trait by design – it is what separates her protagonists from the other characters. But Rand’s veneration of this vice causes her defense of capitalism leaving much to be desired. Setting aside moral philosophy and discussions of the like, selfishness is not something central to capitalism at all – in fact, quite the opposite. Capitalism is a system that works only if agents are not selfish.

Ludwig von Mises argues in Human Action that the free market is a system of social cooperation organized around the division of labor. This system, says Mises, is driven by the wants of consumers:

In his capacity as a businessman, a man is a servant of the consumers, bound to comply with their wishes. He cannot indulge his own whims and fancies. But his customers’ whims and fancies are for him the ultimate law, provided these customers are ready to pay for it.

Mises continues by pointing out the obvious fact that people are “never merely a consumer.” Because our activities are organized according to division of labor, people serve multiple roles in the marketplace at the same time. For example, when we work, we produce as producers, and when we patronize businesses, we consume as consumers. We must provide something that others desire so that we can trade for the goods and services we don’t produce ourselves. Making something that others want to purchase requires us to consider what others’ interests may be. Those that are selfish, by definition, cannot do this – or at the very least cannot do it well.

It is certainly true that people’s actions are guided by self-interest. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments describes self-interest as a restrained version of selfishness in which people pursue goals they deem desirable while considering the effects their actions will have on others. Put another way, when people act in their self-interest, they act in such a way, within the bounds of just behavior, that will help them reach the ends they have selected as good.

For people to attain the goals they believe good in a market system, they must satiate the desires of those around them. If people were blind to what their neighbors needed, goals would be left unachieved for lack of the necessary means. Under capitalism – that is a system organized around persuasion and trade rather than coercion - people must look beyond themselves and serve others if they hope to serve themselves. If market actors were selfish, they would never seek to understand - nor care to understand - how to satisfy others’ wants and needs. Self-interest is not selfishness and vice versa.

Thus, Rand’s protagonists are misinforming readers – the market system is not a system guided by selfishness. Certainly, the market system’s virtues do not come from the fact that it allows people to act selfishly. The market system demands that actors not be selfish, else there would be no trade, and everyone would become a Robinson Crusoe on their own island, fighting for survival and struggling for self-sufficiency.

Since criticizing Ayn Rand without proposing a replacement is useless, I propose we should turn to Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables as a character whose actions better argue the case for free markets.

Valjean is an ex-convict who, in dodging parole, assumes a new identity and moves to a hamlet outside of Paris. He reshapes the town’s economy, which is driven by manufacturing consumer goods, when he suggests using a lower cost substitute for one of the inputs in the production process. Hugo writes, “This very slight change had worked a revolution.” Valjean becomes incredibly wealthy, providing jobs for people in the town and donating generous sums to build hospitals and schools - just like the “robber barons” of the Gilded Age. Because of Valjean’s ingenuity, “idleness and misery were unknown” in the town. In proposing a change in the production process – that is, in innovating – Valjean “had become rich, which was well, and made all around him rich, which was better.”

Valjean, unlike Dagny Taggart, was not guided by selfishness – he was guided by self-interest, which in his case was to improve the lives of those around him. As Hugo’s narrative explains, in the entrepreneur’s pursuit of their own interests, they enrich others and enhance the lives of those around them. He helped himself only by first helping those around him. Valjean’s actions explicate the fact that the free market necessitates that people concern themselves with others’ interests. Rand’s view of capitalism neglects this truth entirely, lending credence to asinine conceptions of the market system as an inhumane system driven primarily by self-centered materialism.

Defenders of liberty must utilize fiction if they hope to make the case for the market system. People’s minds are not changed through economic theory or political philosophy so much as they are changed through fiction – through the stories we tell ourselves. But proponents of the free market must not settle for authors who feed into the erroneous arguments raised against capitalism. Jean Valjean and characters like him - not John Galt - should serve as the spokespeople of capitalism.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Democracy Dies of Democrats

06/10/2022Jason Morgan

“Democracy is under attack!” I wish I had a fiat nickel for every time I heard some variation of this panic-line these past half-dozen years.

Trump will destroy our democracy!

Our sacred democracy is under assault!

Mostly peaceful protesters are in the streets trying to protect our besieged democracy!

Rioters stormed the Capitol to take down our democracy!

We must have more democratic process in boardrooms—for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE)!

We need a Disinformation Czar to approve citizens’ conversations so we can save democracy!

I don’t have any fiat nickels left, alas. I spent them all at the local gas station.

But I do have good news. Democracy is a political ideology. It’s not something that you should want to save in the first place. We can all relax and wish democracy a speedy death. I know you’ve read Hoppe and Rothbard. Democracy is a sham. It’s the same old organized crime as governments of old, except under democracy you get to “vote” (LOL—cf. the 2020 “election”) for the people who will rob you. So, be of good cheer, friends. Democracy is bunkum, and you don’t have to give a damn if it’s under assault. In fact, if someone is “attacking democracy,” my first thought is to ask myself how I can help him out. Because I know I will be much freer and happier the sooner democracy and all other ideologies disappear.

In fact, though, democracy doesn’t need any special attacking to keel over. It collapses of its own accord. Democracy doesn’t die in darkness, as the motto of a certain fake news emporium would have me believe. Democracy dies of democrats. Huzzah! All I have to do is sit back and wait, and democrats will kill and bury their own ideology for me. That’s something really worth celebrating.

And not just democracy. All political ideologies are destroyed by those who truly believe in those ideologies. The more feverish the believer, the faster that believer will lay the beloved ideology low. The more people double down on the political ideology of the hour, the faster that ideology collapses. Thank God in Heaven. If this is true, then all the talk we are hearing about democracy being in peril is very, very good news. Perhaps, soon, the thing really will die and leave us all in peace.

Democracy dies of democrats. Let us rejoice.

Consider just a few heartening signs of democracy’s imminent demise, and all from just one American newspaper which has made “democracy” the very reason for its ongoing existence. This past week, some members of the “democracy dies in darkness” crew at the Washington Post spent most of their time on Twitter sniping at one another for not being sufficiently democratic. It began when one person at that newspaper liked one tweet containing one off-color joke. Another person at the Washington Post responded on Twitter in the tone of innocent indignation which defines the Twitter brand—the social media equivalent of clutched pearls. A third Washington Post person jumped in to chide the pearl clutcher for calling out the tweet-liker in public. The Post’s executive editor then issued two memos to address the incident. The pearl-clutcher lashed out again online. Then others at the Post got involved and it turned into a dugout-clearing tweet brawl. (https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-week-from-hell)

Now, democracy, I have been told since I was old enough to be brainwashed by democrats in an American public school, is about listening to other people’s opinions. It’s about honoring all views. You have to be able to have reasoned debate. You need to protect minority positions so that everyone can share their ideas and we can all decide together how to run our country.

I can’t remember when I stopped believing that any of that was true. I think it was probably around the time that I read Hans-Hermann Hoppe. But please let me recap the latest WaPo saga for anyone who still clings to the fiction that democracy is “the good ideology,” the one that’s “the worst except for all the others that have been tried.” The people who keep shouting at us that democracy is dying, that democracy is under attack, have proven incapable of acting democratically and resolving their differences through reasoned debate. In true democratic fashion, the person who found herself in the minority in the Twitter fracas was promptly fired. This was after the WaPo bigwigs tried clamping down on the debate using pure power of office.

Zoom out a little and you can see that the WaPo in microcosm is pretty much the same as the WaPo writ large. Honoring all views? Protecting minority positions? You may have noticed—at least I have—that when I don’t agree with the Washington Post or other democratic ideologues, I am branded a “fascist” or a “racist” or a “bigot” or a “denialist” or a “Republican.” I abhor all five, but never mind. Democracy has nothing to do with debate. Democracy is—has always been—about throwing your opponents into prison or, better yet, sentencing them to death.

Plato had a serious problem with democracy, probably because he watched a gaggle of democrats run Athens into the ground during the Peloponnesian War and then execute the one man in that city who had refused to play political games with the warring factions. The Washington Post is not Athens, but you get the idea. Don’t like the fact that I liked a tweet? You’re gone! Fundamentally, absolutely nothing about democracy has changed in going on three thousand years.

All of this business about tweet-liking is to say nothing of the Washington Post’s other woes of recent days, such as yet another fake news scandal involving beleaguered Post reporter Taylor “Save Democracy!” Lorenz (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/twitter-saga-obscures-the-washington-posts-taylor-lorenz-scandal), or the disturbing revelation that the defamatory material which the Post published in 2018 about Johnny Depp was not only false but also ghostwritten by the ACLU. (https://www.insider.com/aclu-wrote-amber-heard-washington-post-oped-johnny-depp-2022-6) It’s not just that democrats can’t debate and refuse to listen to other people’s views. It’s that democrats can’t stop feeding lies to the general public. Why? Because democracy must be protected at all costs.

Hmm. Doesn’t quite add up, but I’m not buying anyway so I don’t care.

Here’s the bottom line, the one that will never make it into your friendly neighborhood democratic newspaper. Democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It always dies in broad daylight. And it dies at the hands of democrats.

Why do democrats kill democracy? The reason is simple. Democracy is an ideology. Like all ideologies, it operates under magical assumptions. An ideology is an insistence that contingency can be controlled by ignoring certain facts and facets of lived reality. An ideology attempts to enclose the world within a cocoon of words and wishes. Ideologies, to put it bluntly, are elegant-sounding, actionable lies. The whole point of an ideology is to blind oneself, or others, to the way things really are.

Because ideologies are magic spells to make the real world turn into something that can be controlled, ideologies necessarily produce people incapable of making rational decisions. Ideologues—and that includes democrats—will almost always double down on the ideology when faced with clear and mounting evidence that it isn’t true. It must be true. That’s what makes it an ideology. And the more an ideology fails, the more, under the twisted logic which makes ideology possible in the first place, it must be infallible. The ideology crumbles, all while the ideologues keep insisting that only the ideology can save them. Robespierre and the guillotine were not aberrations of ideology. It’s always that scene in one form or another. Every ideology ends when that ideology’s ideologues take the ideology to its natural conclusion and declare war on reality.

The people who work at the Washington Post (or used to!) are among the most rabid democratic ideologues on the planet. If they can’t make democracy work, then nobody can. If the people who want to inflict democracy on all the rest of us can’t even sort out who gets to like a tweet and what should be done when someone else disagrees about it, then democracy is shown to be the farce that it is. In the event, even the WaPo democrats failed at democracy. That’s how ideology operates. Democracy dies of democrats.

The same can be said, mutatis mutandis, of any other ideology. Take communism, for instance. In the Soviet Union, communism worked just as the Austrian economists knew it would. Secret police, bread lines, gulags, personality cults, misery, death. No surprise there. Communism is a hateful ideology. Mises and Hayek tried telling us just that.

No one had more reason to understand this than the communists themselves. They were the ones standing in bread lines or rotting in gulags, after all, or else condemning others in their communist paradise to those fates. But what did the communists do? Just what the democrats at the Washington Post did. They ratcheted up the ideology.

We need price boards! What’s missing is more collectivization! What we really have to have is a purer Marxism than ever before!

And so on, as millions, and then millions more, starved to death or snitched on their mothers for a promotion at the Number Four Munitions Factory. Communism didn’t die in darkness. It died in broad daylight. And it died of communists.

I could extend the list, but you get the idea. Insert the name of any ideology into the blank and then run the program. Or just flip through the pages of a history book to see how the mechanism works in real life. An ideology is a vehicle to power at first. It’s what gets the worst people to the top of any government—Hoppe and Rothbard proven right again and again. Once in power, the ideology begins to work against its erstwhile masters. The ideology takes over, and ideologues work themselves into a sustained trance. The ideology must be true. The way to overcome apparent failures in the ideology is with more ideology. This scales up, the gearwheels of ideology and yet more ideology turning faster and faster, until total collapse comes.

How does one get out of an ideology? One simply walks away. One stops believing in it and therefore stops trying to prove to oneself and to others that it’s true.

But, truth be told, anti-ideology can itself feel like an ideology at times. It’s not so easy to free oneself from the grips of ideological thinking, I mean, and it’s even harder to shake others out of the trance. Try this experiment if you don’t agree with me. Ask an average American how to fix what’s wrong with the country. He or she is likely to say, “We have to wait until the next election. Then we can vote our way to a better democracy.”

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here