CNS News reports that the number of employees under the federal government’s payroll is starting to grow once again under President Donald Trump’s watch. From April to May 2019, the total number of federal employees increased from 2,811,000 to 2,815,000. This increase of 4,000 adds up to the highest number of workers under the federal government’s payroll since President Barack Obamaleft office.Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that in Obama’s last month in office, December 2016, 2,817,000 workers were employed by Uncle Sam. Come January 2017, those numbers plummeted to 2,810,000. Thus far in the Trump presidency, federal employment bottomed out at 2,792,000 in February and March 2018. These figures have now jumped up by 23,000, to 2,815,000.Looking at the bigger picture, these numbers are still far from the figures during George H.W. Bush’s administration — a time when the federal government could count on 3,435,000 people on its payroll. Even though federal employment increased by 4,000 in May, employment at all levels of government fell by 15,000. During the period of April to May 2019, these numbers went down from 22,529,000 to 22,514,000.At the state level, 10,000 workers left the government workforce—dropping from 5,178,000 in April to 5,168,000 in May. Further, local government employment numbers saw a reduction by 9,000 workers—going from 14,540,000 in April to 14,531,000 in May. Employment at all levels of government reached a peak of 22,996,000 in May 2010 based on historical figures from the BLS. Since then, federal employment decreased by 482,000 down to a total of 22,514,000 government workers at the federal, state, and local levels. Indeed, the American government has morphed into a bureaucratic monstrosity. The Progressive Era, which brought us income taxation and central banking, has fostered non-stop government growth. No matter which party is in power, it appears that government growth is practically automated into the American political system. American presidents, Trump included, will always have their hands full taming this unruly beast. Draining the Swamp will be no easy task. It may require a complete shift in political culture to get all branches of the U.S. government to actually make a concerted effort to reduce the size of government. That means liberty activists can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines. The time to change political culture is now.
A newstudy on the universal basic income contends that giving every American adult a $1,000 cash stipend per month would grow the economy by 2.5 trillion by 2025.The study came from the left-leaningRoosevelt Institute.Three proposals were analyzed during this study: a full UBI where every adult gets $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year), a partial basic income where every adult receives $500 monthly ($6,000 a year), and a child allowance where parents received a monthly stipend of $250 per month ($3,000 a year).The report argues that the larger the UBI, the more the economy would benefit. This study found that a $1,000 no-strings attached handout to all adults would increase GDP by 12.56 percent after 8 years.According toCongressional Budget Office figures, GDP is around $19.8 trillion. In effect, the UBI stipend would increase GDP by $2.48 trillion based on research thatVox conducted. On the other hand, the $250 allowance would promote GDP growth of 0.79 percent and the $500 monthly payment would grow GDP by 6.5 percent.These estimates are based on the assumption that the federal government will be increasing the deficit. This same study calculated the economic impact of a UBI when it is financed through higher taxes. In this case, the report did not find any positive effects on economic growth.The report stated “When paying for the policy by increasing taxes on households rather than paying for the policy with debt, the policy is not expansionary.” It added, “In effect, it is giving to households with one hand what it is taking away with the other. There is no net effect.”Claims about UBI’s potential for economic growth should be taken with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, the UBI is a redistributionist scheme that takes resources from one class of people and gives them to another. No wealth is effectively created in this process, as it runs contrary to the way wealth is created, which is done through the accumulation of capital. As a result of this increase in the overall capital stock, worker productivity is boosted. That is how societies ultimately become wealthier.On the other hand, financing a UBI program through deficit spending is the economic equivalent of kicking the can down the road. Large deficits will either lead to taxation of future generations or the use of easy money policies to stave off the increased debt. In both cases, citizens end up being taxed and future generations are left with precarious economic prospects.Instead of the UBI, let’s look at other bold policy proposals. Say for example, scrapping ourfederal tax system, phasing outcentral banking, or scaling backfederal bureaucracy. These are actual reforms that liberate entrepreneurs from the shackles of government control and let them invest, save, and create businesses.However, today’s political climate only makes policymakers think in terms of redistributionism or fiscal changes around the margin. The days of beating around the bush are over. The road to prosperity is paved with bold reforms, not half-measures.
Work keeps people from committing crimes — at least that’s what years of research have proven, with a study from 2015 in particular demonstrating the importance of offering disadvantaged youth a summer job to reduce violent crime. So why aren’t we seeing a greater number of community leaders, labor organizations, and anti-violence advocates urging public policymakers to bring an end to minimum wage laws? After all, unskilled teens aren’t being able to obtain jobs on their own due to high minimum wage standards.
Instead, we see the opposite. Political groups and advocacy organizations actually joining the pro-minimum wage movement, pushing both local and federal lawmakers to impose ever-increasing wages on businesses and entrepreneurs, and forcing job creators to limit the number of unskilled workers they can afford.
Image credit: The All-Nite Images (https://bit.ly/2xLTPH1)
As The Acton Institute explains in this article, African American males are much more likely to be victimized by high minimum wage laws than other groups.
With every ten percent increase in the minimum wage, data regarding those between the ages of 16 and 24 shows, employment is reduced by 2.5% for young white males, 1.2% for Hispanic males, and a staggering 6.5% for African American males. And while most of us have heard of the impact of the Great Recession on our economy, researchers found that wage hikes had an even more devastating effect, especially among the African American youth.
Considering the evidence, it’s imperative that groups that seek to help disadvantaged youth understand the unintended consequences of minimum wage hikes, whether skilled and experienced workers are able to obtain an artificial boost to their incomes or not.
If young people are unable to start somewhere, especially if they have little access to higher education, loosening minimum wage requirements is a sure and easy way to boost the economic opportunities for Americans in the lower income brackets.
As The Acton Institute elaborated, we could see a great drop in the number of violent criminal cases if wage laws were eliminated. So why not allow cities and states to experiment with this?
As economist Murray Rothbard once explained, a minimum wage law makes it criminal for individuals to accept voluntary wage contracts, transforming the law in compulsory unemployment.
“In short,” he wrote, “you can haveas much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.”
There is nothing dignified in forcing disadvantaged people to choose between welfare or crime, and yet, that’s exactly what proponents of higher wage laws do. Until the young and unskilled are able to look for work and find it, they will continue to respond to the incentives created by these laws, looking at criminal actions or government dependence for sustenance.
Another gem from Tucker Carlson’s June 5, 2019, tirade in support of National Socialism was his claim that libertarians run the world. As if his economic ignorance didn’t prove his lack of knowledge on the topic, perhaps his claim that libertarians are powerful did. If libertarians ran the world, the world would not be what it is.
The Modern World: A Libertarian Paradise?
I’m sure Carlson had a reason to claim that libertarians run this world. I mean, it should be obvious considering that the establishment is anti-drug war. We know libertarians run the world because taxes are just so low! Tucker is a good anti-war voice.
He should know that libertarians have created a world without war! We have achieved a world in which there is no need for war because we respect non-interventionism.
Kids don’t need a permit to set up a lemonade stand. Eminent domain TOTALLY doesn’t exist. I can buy a machine gun out of a vending machine. The government doesn’t regulate us to death. We put the individual and the community above the state. The Non-Aggression Principle is the law of the land. Best of all, there is no Federal Reserve!
Oh, Wait… Tucker Carlson is So Wrong
While none of the hypotheticals I proposed are true, they all would be if libertarians were in charge. Tucker Carlson, however, believes that libertarians are owned by big banks. This should show automatically that Carlson has a fundamental lack of understanding of libertarianism. He does not know what Austrian Economics is. Ultimately, Tucker Carlson is clueless. If he actually understood what libertarianism was, he would never say something as stupid as the idea that libertarians are somehow the global elite.
Who is this Global Elite Tucker Fears so Deeply?
Don’t lie to yourself, however, there are elites in our world. These elites, however, are far from the libertarians Carlson claims them to be. Right now, we live in a world in which countries are trillions in debt. Taxes compose people’s biggest expense. Gun control is a pandemic. No matter how much Tucker thinks the big banks love libertarians, this is not true.
The Federal Reserve is destroying honest money every second it continues to exist, and libertarians vehemently oppose this. The warfare state goes on, and that is not because libertarians are warmongers. To some libertarians, in fact, war is the cement that holds it all together. If Tucker Carlson knew what he was talking about, he would know that libertarians avidly oppose the statist order in which we currently live.
Ultimately, we do not live in a libertarian capitalist world. When one looks at economic policy – the high taxes, regulations, subsidies, and the welfare state – and social policy – the warfare state, the war on drugs, the breaches of privacy, the forced morality – it all indicates that we actually live closer to Tucker Carlson’s ideal than any libertarian would ever desire.
Instead of blaming the world’s problems on the overwhelmingly powerless libertarians, perhaps Tucker Carlson should look in a mirror and see the suffering his disastrous economic “theory” has caused in this world and in America.
We Need to Do Better
The fact that Carlson actually believes that libertarians run this world teaches us a lesson: we need to be more clear in what we believe.
For libertarians, that means no compromise. We have to be precise in our language so that the world knows that what we seek is freedom. The people need to know that we live in an unfree world and libertarians want to change that.
Many traditionalists believe that the government must subsidize families and traditional morality. They will call for the state to support their ideas through forced morality or other incentives. Where traditionalists go wrong, however, is that they ignore the fact that any government is inherently harmful to the family.
There is no government policy that can truly aid the traditional conception of the family. If one truly supports the family as fundamental to society, then they would support keeping the government as far from it as possible.
Governments Grow at the Expense of Families
In Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community, Nisbet argues that as the community declines, a hole opens in the heart of humanity. This is particularly true as families decrease in social relevance. Because of this sudden loss of necessary social structures, governments take its place.
Andrew Breitbart is correct: politics is downstream from culture. What Nisbet miss out on, however, is that the growth of government is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whereas family, church, and community was the support system in the past, the government has tried to take that place in modernity.
In order to do this, the government must destroy these institutions. By establishing a massive welfare state, people believe that the need for family, church, and community is no more. Why have families when you can have welfare? Why have a community when the state defines who you are? A national identity is a direct attack on a family identity. The goal of the state is to make you one of theirs. This means that they must take you from your other social institutions.
The Family as a Defense Against the State
If Marx was right about one thing, it is that the family is a necessary aspect of capitalism. Marx, of course, means this in as negative of a light as possible, but why would anyone believe that to be a bad thing? Instead of relying on the state, families encourage people to provide for themselves and for those that mean everything to them. The family, in fact, is the first source of loyalty we as human beings will ever feel. This institution of civil society prevents us from giving our entire hearts to politicians. Whereas the government can provide material happiness, families do so much more.
Families provide an emotional backbone. They empower people to discover themselves – to be the best they could possibly be.
But as Jeff Deist points out: “But government wants us atomized, lonely, broke, vulnerable, dependent, and disconnected. So of course it attempts to break down families by taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge, discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind of intimacy not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce, etc. etc.”
This is why families are so important. The Family is our first line of defense against the alienating forces of government. They give you somewhere you belong. But social conservatives get it so wrong when they claim that governments must support the family.
Since the dawn of government, the state has oppressed the family. Politics has every incentive to destroy the family. By doing so, the government alienates you from civil society so that you need the government.
The single best way to oppose the government is to support the family, for it helps empower independence from the state; and the single best way to support the family is to oppose the government.
Tucker Carlson and Bernie Sanders became one on June 5, 2019, as the Fox News host trashed capitalism as unethical. In his tirade, Carlson opted to rant about protecting the “American worker,” and how the federal government should buy American goods.
These ideas come from Elizabeth Warren in a plan she calls “Economic Patriotism.” Carlson, of course, chose to attack libertarians, claiming that they run the economy. If libertarians ran the economy, this world would be a VERY different place.
Tucker Carlson: Ignorance Meets Arrogance
Carlson exposed his ignorance when he claimed that libertarians are “controlled by the banks.” I guess Carlson has never read Ron Paul’s End the Fed. Perhaps he should look into Murray Rothbard’s What Has the Government Done to Our Money? Carlson’s ignorance continues when he talks about how Republican policymakers care about Austrian Economics.
I’m assuming Carlson hasn’t read Human Action. I assume this charitably. The only other explanation would be that Carlson lacks the reading comprehension to read Human Action (or any economics book, for that matter).
While Carlson chooses to call for socialism as though that is freedom, perhaps he should consider educating himself. If he truly supported putting America First, he would oppose the tariffs he shilled for in this broadcast. What is a better way to ensure prosperity for the average American than to lower the cost of living? But instead of this, Carlson calls for an increase on taxes for American consumers. This is not protecting the American worker. Tucker talks about his skepticism of corporations, but then promotes Elizabeth Warren’s plan to subsidize American business.
Nationalist Social Control, Socialist Economic Control
In his opening monologue, Tucker Carlson makes the claim that the average American voter wants an economic nationalist. By this, he means that he wants someone to subsidize American business and provide social welfare for the people. In essence, Tucker Carlson is an unapologetic socialist. Perhaps if he wants to mock those who defend free trade, perhaps he should join Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren if he admires their disastrous economic policies so much.
But he can’t do that because Carlson wants someone who is a social traditionalist. He wants someone to continue the failed drug war according to his broadcast. Carlson, in other words, wants to force his culture on everyone else. Perhaps he should see that one of the benefits of Western Civilization is that people get to choose their own values. Western Civilization empowers the individual and the community, not the State. Carlson is not just a socialist, but also a nationalist.
Tucker Carlson Should At Least Be Honest
Tucker Carlson would not call his political philosophy what it truly is for obvious reasons. He beats around the bush as he calls for socialist economic policy mixed with nationalist social policy. He will not give a name to this code. This grand idea he has is not new. Rather, it is national socialism. It is a rejection of any economic theory. It is faith in the super-state; and it puts the state above all else. National Socialists, of course, are dedicated, central planners. It is the rejection of private property rights, which has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program ever could.
In other words, what Tucker Carlson calls for is nothing short of pure unadulterated fascism no matter what label he puts on it. This becomes clear when all that matters to him is empowering America.
By America, of course, Carlson means the American government and the heavily subsidized businesses he claims to despise. If Tucker Carlson truly cared about America, he would embrace capitalism, as any true opponent of fascism and tyranny would.
As summer approaches, young entrepreneurs are likely to set up lemonade stands to make a little extra money. The police, however, are just as likely to shut down these innocent business projects.
The stories of police shutting down children’s entrepreneurial ventures seem to never end. This is not just an unnecessary obstacle, but an insult to the American Dream and the spirit of freedom.
Shutting Down Lemonade Stands is an Insult to Freedom
As an individual, I have the right to own property. I have a right to start a business so people can voluntarily purchase my products/services, and I don’t need your permission to do so. This also applies to children. Young minds are quite creative so long as no one suppresses it. It only makes sense that children use their creativity to make some spare money.
When the state shuts down a child’s ventures, however, it shows the true cruelty of government. They say you have to teach them while they’re young, so the government teaches children to obey or pay the price. This is not freedom. Rather, this is the rule through fear. It is the government claiming ownership of children.
The Costs of Permits Exterminates Young Entrepreneurs
As the government tears down another child’s dreams, one must wonder what the course of action this child can make is. If they want to continue, they will need a permit that can cost them hundreds of dollars and hours of their time. For small ventures like lemonade stands, the child does not have enough money to buy the permit and would not make enough money to warrant paying for it even if the child could. In other words, the government is teaching your child that business is not worth it.
Shutting Down Entrepreneurship Stunts Progress and Emboldens the Welfare State
As young people see the government crush their side hustles, they develop learned helplessness. They believe that there is no reason to fight for themselves, thus developing a dependency complex.
By shutting down children’s lemonade stands, the government is guaranteeing that some children will lose the entrepreneurial spirit, stunting our growth as a society. But even worse, this guarantees that some children will grow up thinking that the only thing they can do for themselves is asking for help.
By crushing their innocence while they are young, no child will ever ask “what if?” and create something amazing for themselves and for society at large. Lemonade Stands are proof of the entrepreneurial spirit! Celebrate it, don’t crush it.
I recently crashed my car. The impact badly damaged my laptop. I had enough money to fix my car, but I simply could not afford to fix my laptop. I tried to offer services or use referral programs to gain the funds, but I had no luck.
As a last ditch effort, I started a GoFundMe. Within two days, I had gained enough donations to cover the costs of this laptop.
My story is just a small example of the market for charity in this world. Simply put, people like to help others. GoFundMe has raised at least $5 billion USD since its founding. This includes at least 50 million individual donors. No one forces these people to donate.
They do it out of concern for their fellow human being. Because of GoFundMe, people are receiving the funds to fight disease, to recover from a loss and to get their feet off the ground. This charity only comes from freedom.
Freedom Makes GoFundMe Work
In a welfare state, people lose their connection with the community. They take no pride in helping others for they have no direct means of determining the results of their charity. The state alienates you from the good you can do on your own. There is no incentive to do good when a monopoly on force controls the means of helping the poor. In a welfare state, the public assumes that everything is taken care of even if this is not the case.
In a voluntary society, however, people want to help people. GoFundMe is proof of this. Once again, people have raised billions on GoFundMe alone. Millions of people have helped and been helped purely from the goodwill of other people through this platform alone. Imagine how many more people could be helped if the people weren’t stolen from en masse through coercive taxation.
In other words, the welfare state hurts the poor’s prospects for upward mobility. Thanks to the goodwill of the people who helped me out, I am able to get back on my feet again and pursue writing for the ideas of liberty. Because private charity is private, voluntary, and decentralized, it is far more efficient than the bureaucratic mess that is the government.
To all who donated, this one’s for you.
You helped prove that people can be good without government. You proved that the market for charity is strong. You proved that government is an entirely unnecessary burden in our lives.
You are voluntaryism in the real world!
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that in Obama’s last month in office, December 2016, 2,817,000 workers were employed by Uncle Sam. Come January 2017, those numbers plummeted to 2,810,000. Thus far in the Trump presidency, federal employment bottomed out at 2,792,000 in February and March 2018. These figures have now jumped up by 23,000, to 2,815,000.
Looking at the bigger picture, these numbers are still far from the figures during George H.W. Bush’s administration — a time when the federal government could count on 3,435,000 people on its payroll. Even though federal employment increased by 4,000 in May, employment at all levels of government fell by 15,000. During the period of April to May 2019, these numbers went down from 22,529,000 to 22,514,000.
At the state level, 10,000 workers left the government workforce—dropping from 5,178,000 in April to 5,168,000 in May. Further, local government employment numbers saw a reduction by 9,000 workers—going from 14,540,000 in April to 14,531,000 in May. Employment at all levels of government reached a peak of 22,996,000 in May 2010 based on historical figures from the BLS. Since then, federal employment decreased by 482,000 down to a total of 22,514,000 government workers at the federal, state, and local levels.
Indeed, the American government has morphed into a bureaucratic monstrosity.
The Progressive Era, which brought us income taxation and central banking, has fostered non-stop government growth. No matter which party is in power, it appears that government growth is practically automated into the American political system.
American presidents, Trump included, will always have their hands full taming this unruly beast. Draining the Swamp will be no easy task. It may require a complete shift in political culture to get all branches of the U.S. government to actually make a concerted effort to reduce the size of government. That means liberty activists can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines. The time to change political culture is now.
Three proposals were analyzed during this study: a full UBI where every adult gets $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year), a partial basic income where every adult receives $500 monthly ($6,000 a year), and a child allowance where parents received a monthly stipend of $250 per month ($3,000 a year).
The report argues that the larger the UBI, the more the economy would benefit. This study found that a $1,000 no-strings attached handout to all adults would increase GDP by 12.56 percent after 8 years.
According to Congressional Budget Office figures, GDP is around $19.8 trillion. In effect, the UBI stipend would increase GDP by $2.48 trillion based on research that Vox conducted. On the other hand, the $250 allowance would promote GDP growth of 0.79 percent and the $500 monthly payment would grow GDP by 6.5 percent.
These estimates are based on the assumption that the federal government will be increasing the deficit. This same study calculated the economic impact of a UBI when it is financed through higher taxes. In this case, the report did not find any positive effects on economic growth.
The report stated “When paying for the policy by increasing taxes on households rather than paying for the policy with debt, the policy is not expansionary.” It added, “In effect, it is giving to households with one hand what it is taking away with the other. There is no net effect.”
Claims about UBI’s potential for economic growth should be taken with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, the UBI is a redistributionist scheme that takes resources from one class of people and gives them to another. No wealth is effectively created in this process, as it runs contrary to the way wealth is created, which is done through the accumulation of capital. As a result of this increase in the overall capital stock, worker productivity is boosted. That is how societies ultimately become wealthier.
On the other hand, financing a UBI program through deficit spending is the economic equivalent of kicking the can down the road. Large deficits will either lead to taxation of future generations or the use of easy money policies to stave off the increased debt. In both cases, citizens end up being taxed and future generations are left with precarious economic prospects.
Instead of the UBI, let’s look at other bold policy proposals. Say for example, scrapping our federal tax system, phasing out central banking, or scaling back federal bureaucracy. These are actual reforms that liberate entrepreneurs from the shackles of government control and let them invest, save, and create businesses.
However, today’s political climate only makes policymakers think in terms of redistributionism or fiscal changes around the margin.
The days of beating around the bush are over. The road to prosperity is paved with bold reforms, not half-measures.
The Modern World: A Libertarian Paradise?
I’m sure Carlson had a reason to claim that libertarians run this world. I mean, it should be obvious considering that the establishment is anti-drug war. We know libertarians run the world because taxes are just so low! Tucker is a good anti-war voice.
He should know that libertarians have created a world without war! We have achieved a world in which there is no need for war because we respect non-interventionism.
Kids don’t need a permit to set up a lemonade stand. Eminent domain TOTALLY doesn’t exist. I can buy a machine gun out of a vending machine. The government doesn’t regulate us to death. We put the individual and the community above the state. The Non-Aggression Principle is the law of the land. Best of all, there is no Federal Reserve!
Oh, Wait… Tucker Carlson is So Wrong
While none of the hypotheticals I proposed are true, they all would be if libertarians were in charge. Tucker Carlson, however, believes that libertarians are owned by big banks. This should show automatically that Carlson has a fundamental lack of understanding of libertarianism. He does not know what Austrian Economics is. Ultimately, Tucker Carlson is clueless. If he actually understood what libertarianism was, he would never say something as stupid as the idea that libertarians are somehow the global elite.
Who is this Global Elite Tucker Fears so Deeply?
Don’t lie to yourself, however, there are elites in our world. These elites, however, are far from the libertarians Carlson claims them to be. Right now, we live in a world in which countries are trillions in debt. Taxes compose people’s biggest expense. Gun control is a pandemic. No matter how much Tucker thinks the big banks love libertarians, this is not true.
The Federal Reserve is destroying honest money every second it continues to exist, and libertarians vehemently oppose this. The warfare state goes on, and that is not because libertarians are warmongers. To some libertarians, in fact, war is the cement that holds it all together. If Tucker Carlson knew what he was talking about, he would know that libertarians avidly oppose the statist order in which we currently live.
Ultimately, we do not live in a libertarian capitalist world. When one looks at economic policy – the high taxes, regulations, subsidies, and the welfare state – and social policy – the warfare state, the war on drugs, the breaches of privacy, the forced morality – it all indicates that we actually live closer to Tucker Carlson’s ideal than any libertarian would ever desire.
Instead of blaming the world’s problems on the overwhelmingly powerless libertarians, perhaps Tucker Carlson should look in a mirror and see the suffering his disastrous economic “theory” has caused in this world and in America.
We Need to Do Better
The fact that Carlson actually believes that libertarians run this world teaches us a lesson: we need to be more clear in what we believe.
For libertarians, that means no compromise. We have to be precise in our language so that the world knows that what we seek is freedom. The people need to know that we live in an unfree world and libertarians want to change that.
There is no government policy that can truly aid the traditional conception of the family. If one truly supports the family as fundamental to society, then they would support keeping the government as far from it as possible.
Governments Grow at the Expense of Families
In Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community, Nisbet argues that as the community declines, a hole opens in the heart of humanity. This is particularly true as families decrease in social relevance. Because of this sudden loss of necessary social structures, governments take its place.
Andrew Breitbart is correct: politics is downstream from culture. What Nisbet miss out on, however, is that the growth of government is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whereas family, church, and community was the support system in the past, the government has tried to take that place in modernity.
In order to do this, the government must destroy these institutions. By establishing a massive welfare state, people believe that the need for family, church, and community is no more. Why have families when you can have welfare? Why have a community when the state defines who you are? A national identity is a direct attack on a family identity. The goal of the state is to make you one of theirs. This means that they must take you from your other social institutions.
The Family as a Defense Against the State
If Marx was right about one thing, it is that the family is a necessary aspect of capitalism. Marx, of course, means this in as negative of a light as possible, but why would anyone believe that to be a bad thing? Instead of relying on the state, families encourage people to provide for themselves and for those that mean everything to them. The family, in fact, is the first source of loyalty we as human beings will ever feel. This institution of civil society prevents us from giving our entire hearts to politicians. Whereas the government can provide material happiness, families do so much more.
Families provide an emotional backbone. They empower people to discover themselves – to be the best they could possibly be.
But as Jeff Deist points out: “But government wants us atomized, lonely, broke, vulnerable, dependent, and disconnected. So of course it attempts to break down families by taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge, discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind of intimacy not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce, etc. etc.”
This is why families are so important. The Family is our first line of defense against the alienating forces of government. They give you somewhere you belong. But social conservatives get it so wrong when they claim that governments must support the family.
Since the dawn of government, the state has oppressed the family. Politics has every incentive to destroy the family. By doing so, the government alienates you from civil society so that you need the government.
The single best way to oppose the government is to support the family, for it helps empower independence from the state; and the single best way to support the family is to oppose the government.
These ideas come from Elizabeth Warren in a plan she calls “Economic Patriotism.” Carlson, of course, chose to attack libertarians, claiming that they run the economy. If libertarians ran the economy, this world would be a VERY different place.
Tucker Carlson: Ignorance Meets Arrogance
Carlson exposed his ignorance when he claimed that libertarians are “controlled by the banks.” I guess Carlson has never read Ron Paul’s End the Fed. Perhaps he should look into Murray Rothbard’s What Has the Government Done to Our Money? Carlson’s ignorance continues when he talks about how Republican policymakers care about Austrian Economics.
I’m assuming Carlson hasn’t read Human Action. I assume this charitably. The only other explanation would be that Carlson lacks the reading comprehension to read Human Action (or any economics book, for that matter).
While Carlson chooses to call for socialism as though that is freedom, perhaps he should consider educating himself. If he truly supported putting America First, he would oppose the tariffs he shilled for in this broadcast. What is a better way to ensure prosperity for the average American than to lower the cost of living? But instead of this, Carlson calls for an increase on taxes for American consumers. This is not protecting the American worker. Tucker talks about his skepticism of corporations, but then promotes Elizabeth Warren’s plan to subsidize American business.
Nationalist Social Control, Socialist Economic Control
In his opening monologue, Tucker Carlson makes the claim that the average American voter wants an economic nationalist. By this, he means that he wants someone to subsidize American business and provide social welfare for the people. In essence, Tucker Carlson is an unapologetic socialist. Perhaps if he wants to mock those who defend free trade, perhaps he should join Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren if he admires their disastrous economic policies so much.
But he can’t do that because Carlson wants someone who is a social traditionalist. He wants someone to continue the failed drug war according to his broadcast. Carlson, in other words, wants to force his culture on everyone else. Perhaps he should see that one of the benefits of Western Civilization is that people get to choose their own values. Western Civilization empowers the individual and the community, not the State. Carlson is not just a socialist, but also a nationalist.
Tucker Carlson Should At Least Be Honest
Tucker Carlson would not call his political philosophy what it truly is for obvious reasons. He beats around the bush as he calls for socialist economic policy mixed with nationalist social policy. He will not give a name to this code. This grand idea he has is not new. Rather, it is national socialism. It is a rejection of any economic theory. It is faith in the super-state; and it puts the state above all else. National Socialists, of course, are dedicated, central planners. It is the rejection of private property rights, which has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program ever could.
In other words, what Tucker Carlson calls for is nothing short of pure unadulterated fascism no matter what label he puts on it. This becomes clear when all that matters to him is empowering America.
By America, of course, Carlson means the American government and the heavily subsidized businesses he claims to despise. If Tucker Carlson truly cared about America, he would embrace capitalism, as any true opponent of fascism and tyranny would.
Shutting Down Lemonade Stands is an Insult to Freedom
As an individual, I have the right to own property. I have a right to start a business so people can voluntarily purchase my products/services, and I don’t need your permission to do so. This also applies to children. Young minds are quite creative so long as no one suppresses it. It only makes sense that children use their creativity to make some spare money.
When the state shuts down a child’s ventures, however, it shows the true cruelty of government. They say you have to teach them while they’re young, so the government teaches children to obey or pay the price. This is not freedom. Rather, this is the rule through fear. It is the government claiming ownership of children.
The Costs of Permits Exterminates Young Entrepreneurs
As the government tears down another child’s dreams, one must wonder what the course of action this child can make is. If they want to continue, they will need a permit that can cost them hundreds of dollars and hours of their time. For small ventures like lemonade stands, the child does not have enough money to buy the permit and would not make enough money to warrant paying for it even if the child could. In other words, the government is teaching your child that business is not worth it.
My story is just a small example of the market for charity in this world. Simply put, people like to help others. GoFundMe has raised at least $5 billion USD since its founding. This includes at least 50 million individual donors. No one forces these people to donate.
They do it out of concern for their fellow human being. Because of GoFundMe, people are receiving the funds to fight disease, to recover from a loss and to get their feet off the ground. This charity only comes from freedom.
Freedom Makes GoFundMe Work
In a welfare state, people lose their connection with the community. They take no pride in helping others for they have no direct means of determining the results of their charity. The state alienates you from the good you can do on your own. There is no incentive to do good when a monopoly on force controls the means of helping the poor. In a welfare state, the public assumes that everything is taken care of even if this is not the case.
In a voluntary society, however, people want to help people. GoFundMe is proof of this. Once again, people have raised billions on GoFundMe alone. Millions of people have helped and been helped purely from the goodwill of other people through this platform alone. Imagine how many more people could be helped if the people weren’t stolen from en masse through coercive taxation.
In other words, the welfare state hurts the poor’s prospects for upward mobility. Thanks to the goodwill of the people who helped me out, I am able to get back on my feet again and pursue writing for the ideas of liberty. Because private charity is private, voluntary, and decentralized, it is far more efficient than the bureaucratic mess that is the government.
To all who donated, this one’s for you.
You helped prove that people can be good without government. You proved that the market for charity is strong. You proved that government is an entirely unnecessary burden in our lives.
You are voluntaryism in the real world!