“Why does our system produce more bread, manufacture more shoes, and assemble more TV sets than does Russian socialism? It does so precisely because our government does not guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations, and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America’s, based on freedom of choice, would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain.
“When government presumes to demand more and more of the fruits of man’s labors through taxation and reduces more and more his actual income by printing money and furthering debt, the wage earner is left with less and less with which to buy food and to provide housing, medical care, education, and private welfare. Individuals are then left without a choice and must look to the state as the benevolent supporter of these services. When that happens, liberty is gone.
“…Examples abound in the world of the failure of alternative systems to the free market. What amazes me is that we cannot see from their example the obvious failure of socialism, what is does to a nations economy, and how it morally debilitates a people.
“Great Britain is a tragic example of this. Here is a nation that has provided the free world with a tradition of freedom and democratic rights, stemming from the Magna Carta and coming down through other important historical documents and statements by famous Englishmen. Yet England today is losing her freedom. She has become a giant welfare state. Today government spending in Great Britain amounts to 60 percent of her national income.
“This is socialism. Medical doctors under socialized medicine are leaving Great Britain in record numbers, as are thousands of others.
“British Prime Minister James Calaghan said, ‘We used to think that you could just spend your way our of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you , in all candor, that that option no longer exists, and that insofar as it ever did exist it only worked by injecting bigger doses of inflation into the economy, followed by higher levels of unemployment as the next step.’ (London Times, September 29, 1976, from Labor Party Conference at Blackpool, England, p.4.)
“Such a confession led the renowned economist, the Nobel Laureate, Dr. Milton Freidman , to comment, ‘That must surely rank as one of the most remarkable and courageous statements ever made by a leader of a democratic government. Read it again. Savor it. It is a confession of the intellectual bankruptcy of the policy that has guided every British Government in the postwar period—not only labor governments but also Tory governments; of the policy that has guided almost every other Western government—including the U.S. under both Republican and Democratic administrations; of the policy that is now being recommended to Mr. Carter by his advisers.’ (Newsweek, December 6, 1976, p. 87.)
“Consider another example: our neighbor to the north, Canada. For twenty years (1944–1964), the province of Saskatchewan lived under a socialist government. Her is what the premier, the Honorable W. Ross Thatcher, said about this experience:
‘In 1944, the Socialists said they would solve the unemployment problems by building government factories. They promised to use the profits to build highways, schools, hospitals, and to finance better social welfare measures generally. Over the years they set up 22 so-called crown corporations… By the time we had taken over the government, …12 of the crown corporations had gone bankrupt or been disposed of. Others were kept operating by repeated and substantial government grants.
‘During the whole period the Socialists waged war against private business. The making of profits was condemned as an unforgivable sin. What was the result? Investors simply turned their backs on the Socialists. Dozens of oil companies pulled up stakes and moved out. Gas exploration ground to a complete halt. Prospecting in our vast north became almost non-existent.
‘During the period Canada was experiencing the greatest economic boom in her history, Saskatchewan received only a handful of new factories. After 18 years of Socialism, there were fewer jobs in manufacturing that existed in 1945—this despite the investment of $500 million in crown corporations.…
‘During the period more than 600 completely new taxes were introduced; 650 other taxes were increased. Per capita taxes in Saskatchewan were soon substantially out of line with our sister provinces—one more reason why industry located elsewhere.
‘…the Socialists promised to make Saskatchewan a Mecca for the working man. Instead, we saw the greatest mass exodus of people out of an area since Moses lead the Jews out of Egypt. Since the war, 270,000 of our citizens left Saskatchewan to find employment elsewhere.
‘If there are any Americans who think that Socialism is the answer, I wish they would come to Saskatchewan to study what has happened to our province.’ (Quoted in Corydon, Indiana, Republican.)
“We say, “It can’t happen here.” The lesson of New York City should tell us that this same thing is happening here–to us—now! As Dr. Freidman has pointed out, New York City is no longer governed by its elected officials. It is governed by a committee of overseers appointed by the State of New York. New York City has partially lost its freedom. When will we learn the lesson that fiscal irresponsibility leads to a loss of self-government? When will we learn that when you lose economic independence, you lose political freedom?
“We have accepted a frightening degree of socialism in our country. The question is, how much? The amount of freedom depends upon the amount of federal control and spending. A good measurement is to determine the amount, or percentage, of income of the people that is taken over and spent by the state. In Russia, the individual works almost wholly for the state, leaving little for his own welfare. Scandinavia takes about 65 to 70 percent of the income of the people, England some 60 percent. The United States is now approximately 44 percent.”
“There are indications that America is moving away from the philosophy that made her the most prosperous nation in the world. In effect, we are moving toward the philanthropic philosophy of Mr. B and abandoning the work incentive philosophy of Mr. A. [Mr. A. and B. relate to a parable related earlier in the book, Mr. A representing the US Founders biblical philosophy, Mr. B representing a well meaning but destructive philosophy of socialism, the ‘nanny state.’] Mr. B’s philosophy has crept in unawares under the guise of a new name—egalitarianism. It is, of course, the socialist doctrine of equality. It strikes a sympathetic chord with many Americans because its initial goal is equality of rights. Today, however, the goal for the proponents of equality is to restructure our entire economic system using the power of the federal government to enforce their grand design. They now advocate throughout our economy that we ‘redistribute wealth and income,’ a good definition for socialism. Our present middle –of-the-road policy is as Von Mises suggested, socialism by the installment plan.
“Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We’ve done this on the basis of Judeo-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s egalitarians are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a matter of right.
“The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this equality is through so-called transfer payments. This is a term that simply means that the federal government collects from one income group and transfers payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of Social Security benefits, housing subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, to name a few.
“Today, total cost of such programs exceeds $150 billion dollars. That represents about 42 percent of the total of all government federal spending, or about one dollar out of every 7 dollars of personal income. (See U.S. News and World Report, August 4, 1975, pp. 32–33.) When will we resolve as Americans that a dollar cannot make the trip to Washington, D.C., and back without a bureaucratic bite being take out of it?
“Medicaid, the government’s regular health program for the poor, cost taxpayers $13 billion in 1975. Medicare, the program for the disabled and elderly, cost $15 billion. Aid to families with dependent children cost over $5 billion, and about $3 billion was spent on food stamps. This is to name only a few of the so-called benefits paid out.
“Our present Social Security program has been going in the hole at the rate of $12 billion a year, and yet the party now in power wants to increase the benefits to include a comprehensive national health insurance program. Recognizing that the present program will be insolvent by 1985, President Carter has now recommended that Social Security be funded out of the general tax funds. Charges were made in the last election campaign that the Social Security program was going bankrupt. These charges were denied. Now the truth is out. The President’s recommendation must be regarded as an admission of the failure of the present system and as a calculated policy to take this country into full-scale socialism.
“Our major danger is that we are currently—and have been for forty years—transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government, precisely the same course that lead to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York. We cannot long pursue this present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
“Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of egalitarianism: ‘A perfect equality will indeed be produced—that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and, on the part of the practitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.’
“All would like to equalize with those who are better off than they themselves. They fail to realize that incomes differ, and will always differ, because people differ in their economic drive and ability. History indicates that governments have been unable to prevent inequality of incomes. Further, equalization efforts stifle initiative and retard progress to the extend that the real incomes of all are lowered.
“We must remember that government assistance and control are essentially political provisions, and that experience has demonstrated that, for this reason, they are not sufficiently stable to warrant their utilization as a foundation for sound economic growth under a free enterprise system. The best way—the American way—is still maximum freedom for the individual guaranteed by a wise government that provides for police protection and national defense.
“History records that eventually people get the form of government they deserve. Good government, which guarantees the maximum of freedom, liberty, and development to the individual, must be based upon sound principles. We must ever remember that ideas and principles are either sound or unsound in spite of those who hold them. Freedom of achievement has produced and will continue to produce the maximum of benefits in terms of human welfare.
“Freedom is an eternal principle. Heaven disapproves of force, coercion, and intimidation. Only a free people can be truly a happy people. Of all sad things in the world, the saddest is to see a people who have once known liberty and freedom and then lost it.
“We are a prosperous people today because of a political-economic system founded on spiritual values, not material values alone. It is founded on freedom of choice—free agency—an eternal, God-given principle, and personal virtue.
“The Founding Fathers, inspired though they were, did not invent the priceless blessing of individual freedom and respect for the dignity of man. No, that priceless gift to mankind sprang from the God of heaven and not from government. Recognizing this truth, they forged safeguards that would bind men’s lust for power to the Constitution. Each new generation must learn that truth anew.
“Yes, America’s foundation is spiritual. Without the moral base to our system, we are no better off than other nations that are now sunk into oblivion. If we are to remain under heaven’s benign protection and care, we must return to those principles which have brought us our peace, liberty, and prosperity. Our problems today are essentially problems of the spirit.
“We here in America, as Theodore Roosevelt said over a half century ago, ‘hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years, and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hoped of man.’
With God’s help and inspiration, perhaps we may rekindle a flame of liberty that will last as long as time endures.” (Ezra Taft Benson, This Nation Shall Endure, pp. 108, 112–117.)
Today, the damned and wicked government masquerades as the “health protector” as it does and will do great damage to the people it pretends to help out, just as the farmers have been, as stated above.
We don’t have a free market operating today. Halliburton, as Lew Rockwell pointed out some years ago, is the largest corporate welfare client in world history (before the Bank bailouts.) Is Halliburton operating in a free market? Absolutely not. Fascism. No-bid contracts and a corporation in bed with government sucking on the taxpayer teet.