Britannia Radio

The Daily Reckoning U.S. Edition

Home . Archives . Unsubscribe

The Daily Reckoning | Wednesday, August 22, 2012 Government-sponsored impediments to crossing invisible lines... Fellow reckoners weigh-in on what it means to be “free”... Plus, two important points to consider in your quest for liberty, and plenty more... ------------------------------------------------------- External Advertisement What Romney and Ryan Never Wanted You to Know Mitt Romney won’t release his 2011 tax returns. Meanwhile, Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan... Well, his net worth exploded by up to 130% over the last 10 years. “It’s absolutely stunning,” says political intelligence expert, Robert Williams, who just released theshocking results of his bipartisan investigation into the secret affairs of Congress. “I now know things that very few Americans know. Shocking things. It’s scary, actually,”says Williams. To view how Romney and Ryan got so rich, and to learn the incredible details around a bill called “Unicorn,” just click here. Quote of the Day... “One’s destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing things.” — Henry Miller Hither and Thither Aspiring to Travel Freely in a World of Invisible Borders Joel Bowman Reckoning today from Porto, Portugal... “Shall we drive up to Braga tomorrow?” asked our wanderlusting travel companion (and fiancé), Anya. Having just pressed “send” on yesterday’s issue, we immediately thought of David Galland’s definition of liberty from his excellent guest essay,“What Does Liberty Really Mean to You?”. “In the simplest and purest terms,” wrote Mr. Galland, “it means being free to come and go as I please.” Liberty cannot exist unless certain preconditions are present...and others absent. Freedom of movement is a rather obvious one...the opposite of captivity. Freedom demands an absence of bars and jail cells. Indeed, it would be a strange brand of freedom where one had to ask permission to go (or to “be”) here or there. Likewise, it would be a strange prison where inmates were free to “come and go as they please.” Along with freedom of association and freedom of speech, freedom of movement seems rather central to the idea of liberty. But let’s imagine for a second that, instead of driving to Braga, Anya had suggested flying to, say, Beirut...or Bucharest...or even Brasilia? (These are not infrequent suggestions, by the way.) Your Australian-born editor needs a visa to visit these places...and many, many more locales besides. Our freedom of movement is, therefore, compromised. It is seen by The State as something “to be granted,” as opposed to unalienable. Even for Hong Kong, a destination which makes a habit of ranking among the “freest places on earth” on lists that monitor such things (here’s one), individuals who happened to have been born on Terra Australis, through no fault of their own, are required to obtain a visa if they wish to “work, study, get trained, establish or join in any business or to take up residence.” So say the agencies that oversee such things (here’s one). In fact, your antipodean editor would have considerable difficulty just leaving this tiny country were his papers not “in order.” Likewise if he stayed too long. We need a valid passport to sit in a cafe in France or to sip a port in Porto...a permission book to move over imagined lines in the sand. Odd, isn’t it, what passes for freedom these days. That said, people born Down Under fare much better than most. Pity the poor Colombian, for example, for whom visas are required to visit some 130+ countries around the world. Same for those born in countless other lands. And what of the people who wish to travel to Australia, those who the various political elites refer to so demeaningly as “boat people”? Why is it that some people enjoy the freedom to live and ply their trade in (keeping with “B” cities) Brisbane, for instance, while others do not? What separates a person born in Burma from one born in Bundaberg? Is one more deserved of the freedom of movement than the other? Is one person somehow “entitled” to be in a particular place, simply because of an accident of birth? And who is so wise as to decide these matters either way? Who is so arrogant as to assume a freedom they would actively deny other, apparently “lesser” people. Remember, we’re not talking about private property here. We’re talking about artificial borders, erected by The State, which human beings need to ask “permission” before crossing. All this is simply to stir a little grey matter, to challenge our Fellow Reckoners to think about what liberty really means. If you’re not free to “come and go as you please,” what does that say about the state of the world? In yesterday’s issue, we asked our readers to tell us what liberty means to them. Here are a selection of their responses. You’ll find Part II of Mr. Galland’s essay on the topic below... Writes Reckoner L. Bella... I would rather take my chances every day of the week with a snake oil salesman that I can freely choose to purchase from or not purchase or believe or not believe than get anything from my government that is the biggest snake oil swindler of them all! Chimes Reckoner Dagwood... Freedom, at least to me, would mean actually having my country run efficiently, honestly, wisely, and with regard for the will of the people. What we have is difficult to describe accurately, but it is not what our forebears originally intended. It lies somewhere between a representative democracy and old fashioned fascism. We make a lot of chin music about the elections, but nothing really changes. We talk a lot about freedom, but we regularly deny it to those who disagree with us. We say we are peace-loving, but we are the most warlike people on the planet. We criticize nations like China for human rights abuses, but I suspect the 1.4 million Iraqis we killed had a right to live. 1 in 4 children are on food stamps, but we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. We speak of a rule of law, but selectively enforce those laws which are not politically sensitive, such as immigration and war crimes of the Bush administration. Corporate influence has become a huge force in politics, and our leaders are frequently “bought” by them with promises of employment or “campaign contributions.” The right to privacy is implied by our constitution, but our government regards our private affairs far less deserving of protection than it once did. This is far from the country I was born into. And this, from Reckoner B.W., writing from across the pond... Couple of points from me on your daily articles today. I’m a ‘Brit’ but have studied the US Constitution and read about it in order to try and understand where we took the wrong road in the UK... The ‘right to bear arms’ was intended to say afterwards (though didn’t need to at the time it was written) ‘in order to protect myself and property from the oppressive government’. The US bill of rights is drawn from the English BoR from 90 years earlier and says the same thing. The other concerns the meaning of Liberty and Freedom which is ‘liberty and freedom from oppressive government’. The only ‘right’ level of income tax for example is no income tax. A serious government that understood freedom would be striving to maintain personal income tax at zero. That doesn’t mean no sales tax, etc. But you have a choice how you spend; you have no choice when the government puts its hand into your pocket each payday under penalty of imprisonment if you object. And finally, Reckoner Stu writes... In the ’70s and early ’80s I did mountain guiding in Alaska. I owned a 14.5 acre piece of land that ran from the Glenn Highway to the Matanuska River at mile 102 on the Glenn Highway. It overlooked the terminus of the Matanuska Glacier and had a spectacular 180 degree view of the Chugach Range. Every June 1 I would arrive there, set up a two room tent on a tent platform, plant a garden, and commence the guiding season. We had an outhouse facing the view. It had no door, because nobody lived in that direction. We had a wood cook stove and a GI shower in a small teepee-like structure. We had no police or fire protection, being 60 miles from the nearest fire or police station. Nobody tried to tell us what to do. We took care of our own problems, including a forest fire. We knew who the three “bad guys” in the area were and made sure they didn’t do anything to us. This is as close to freedom as I probably will ever experience. At the time I took it for granted. Now I see it was a very rare opportunity. Contrasting this to the eroding freedoms now being experienced in the “lower 48”, “I wanna go home”. What to Expect in 2013... Between 2004-2007, Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin did their best to alert their loyal readers to the dangers of the housing bubble well before the mainstream said anything about it. Well, today, they see something even worse looming just over the horizon. It’s not often our Reckoner-in-Chief agrees to appear on-screen, but this was just too important. Click here (or the image below) to see what they’re talking about now... The Daily Reckoning Presents What Does Liberty Really Mean to You? Part II David Galland [As I mentioned yesterday], freedom to come and go is the core principle of my personal liberty. What else? Well, part of that freedom has to do with personal finances. Namely, you can have all the liberty in the world, but if you don’t have the money necessary to actually travel, you probably aren’t going to get very far... at least not in a fashion you might enjoy. While there are countries such as North Korea where the government makes accumulating any wealth almost impossible (unless you are part of the dictator’s inner circle), in most of the world, this aspect of life — call it “financial freedom” — has far more to do with a person’s willingness to work hard than anything else. That said, I readily acknowledge that governments everywhere are a constant weight on the entrepreneur’s back. Yet, simply looking at the facts as they are, I personally know dozens of people, here in the US — and in places like Argentina, where the government makes doing business an order of magnitude more difficult — who, through their own creativity and exertions, are fabulously successful. Despite the government’s meddling, financial freedom is imminently attainable for individuals who focus on their work and who put in steady efforts at increasing their personal knowledge (including learning how to handle your money, once you have some). Of course, succeeding may not be easy... it rarely is, though it can be. While I’m sure there are additional nuances to my personal definition of liberty that I could mention, the big point is that as long as I am free to come and go as I please and have the capability to build the wealth I need to do so, then I have pretty much all the liberty I need to enjoy my limited lifetime on this planet. After all, with those two conditions in place, if one place becomes too unfree for my taste, I can move on. “Wait a second!” some of you may find yourselves thinking indignantly. What about the wholesale trampling of the US Constitution in recent decades? What about the militarization of the domestic police force here in the US? What about the loss of freedom in the Land of the Free? I might respond with a sad shake of the head and by mouthing words such as “tragic,” or “damn shame,” or even “it’s outrageous, criminal even.” And there’s no question it’s all of those things and more. The idea of America in its youth was amazing, especially considering the era in which it was birthed. But that idea has been so diluted at this point to be almost meaningless... here in the United States. And therein lies the importance of being able to travel freely. You see, unlike many, I refuse to define myself by the artificial borders that were determined solely by an accident of birth. Why should I? Do I relate to the idea of America? Of course; what thinking person wouldn’t? But during these philosophical Dark Ages for freedom in the United States, what practical purpose does clinging onto that idea serve? To use an overused comparison, what practical purpose would it have served for the head of a Jewish family during Hitler’s Germany to stand on a street corner handing out anti-Nazi pamphlets? The obvious answer is “none.” It would have just resulted in the ultimate loss of liberty — his death and likely that of everyone he loved. Personally, I look at the Americans and I see a people who have been very effectively brainwashed, or who simply have given in to the entirely human tendency to shuffle unquestioningly onto the path of least resistance and let themselves go. I see a people who, on a wholesale basis, have consciously or unconsciously decided to trade the idea of America for the false security of a totalitarian state. While there are voices in the woods, such as Ron Paul, that warn of the consequences, I’m trying to focus today on hard realities. And the hard reality is that if you were to assemble all 300 million US citizens in an auditorium to listen to well-presented arguments for less vs. more government and then ask for a show of hands, the vast majority would raise their hands in favor of the current system that has the state deeply involved in pretty much every aspect of the economy and society at large. Skeptical? Then ask yourself what percentage of the audience would raise their hands in favor if asked the following: “How many of you want Social Security to remain intact?” “How many think the government should subsidize health care?” “How many think the rich should pay more taxes?” Or ask your questions in the negative, and watch how few hands stick in the air. “How many of you think the Food and Drug Administration should be abolished?” “How many of you think recreational drugs, including cocaine and heroin, should be legalized?” “How many of you think the Department of Education should be shuttered?” “How many of you think that the tax credit for mortgages should be canceled?” At the end of the exercise, the level of support for the very same tangled body of state-controlled handouts, regulations and central economic planning now choking the last gasps of life out of the body politic would be obvious and overwhelming. The practical point I am trying to make here is that the champions of liberty (COL) are fighting against a very entrenched and increasingly dangerous public mindset. Some like to hearken back to the days of the revolution when prominent men in the community risked it all to overthrow the British. I would contend that the situation today is totally different. Then it was a foreign enemy daily adding salt to the open wound of what was essentially an occupation by marching troops around and passing highly unpopular and often arbitrarily punitive laws. Today the enemy (of true freedom) is within. In fact, the nation is overrun by them... they dominate in most every community, in most businesses and even in most families. And your fellow citizens don’t want what the COL are selling. Sure, there are a fair number — for instance, members of the Tea Party — who might be sympathetic on a largely abstract level, but drill down into the specifics by asking questions such as those above and you’ll quickly find just how far off the grid you are. So what’s the point? 1. Face the facts — free no more. Contrary to popular delusions, the United States is no longer the Land of the Free — either in terms of its judicial system or its market structure. Rather, it is the land of the paranoid, the state-dependent, supporters of Guantanamo and permawar... with the highest incarceration rates in the world, militarized police and... and... and... That said, it’s also the land of the convenient shopping, relatively inexpensive food and housing and trains that run on time. Provided you pay attention not to trip over the big legal no-nos, you can enjoy a very high standard of living (though, in fairness, that’s true of most of the world). If, on the other hand, you don’t think you can stay out of trouble here or in any country whose government is becoming a danger to residents, then go somewhere else. Or, to quote my friend and partner Doug Casey, “Stop thinking like a serf.” 2. Define what it is you want from your life. And I am speaking about this life, not some promised afterlife. Do you really want to put yourself on the front line of a battle that the vast majority of the populace wouldn’t support you in? If the answer is “yes,” that you are willing to lose your liberty — the ability to travel freely — in support of the cause, then I can only wish you well. I hope at the end of your life, which in the US could come quicker than you’d like, you’ll have found satisfaction and purpose in the struggle. Just be sure you are clear on your objectives and are willing to accept the consequences. Of course, I’ll continue to support the champions of liberty here in the US, even though I think they are tilting against windmills for the most part. And I will almost certainly find occasion to speak against the totalitarian tide myself, albeit in terms sufficiently tame to avoid leading to a loss of my liberty. Far more important, as it relates to my personal liberty, I’ll continue the process of diversifying my life between political jurisdictions so that if and when things in my native country become unbearably oppressive — and therefore an active risk to my ability to freely go about my business — I can bid it goodbye. Call me a coward, but in my view it’s far better to switch than to fight, especially when the vast majority of my fellow citizens wouldn’t know the true meaning of freedom if you served it to them on a silver plate. Regards, David Galland for The Daily Reckoning ------------------------------------------------------- Here at The Daily Reckoning, we value your questions and comments. If you would like to send us a few thoughts of your own, please address them to your managing editor at joel@dailyreckoning.com