lewrockwell--2020-04-22--Make It Impossible To Walk Through Your Park Peacefully

Some time ago , I resolved to do a thing dangerous in our era .
I resolved to speak truthfully to the people I met .
If they didn ’ t like it , I would stop , and let the conversation wrap up shortly thereafter , to allow us both to spend our time in ways we ’ d each prefer .
It ’ s not really that dangerous once you get used to it .
A few people may find contempt for you , but in all likelihood , they were never people whose admiration you would want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be taken as a compliment .
Fortitude : American Re ... Crenshaw , Dan Buy New $ 24.26 When you speak truthfully , you give an often welcome , much in demand , offer to a fellow human .
You invite them to speak truthfully back to you , and the way that this invitation tears down walls is nearly unmatchable .
You don ’ t even need to speak an invitation .
You don ’ t need to acknowledge what you are doing .
You merely need to take a risk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you believe .
Sometimes , you might need to speak a second , truthful sentence so that the other person has a moment to get over the shock of someone speaking truthfully to them .
You must forgive them for any hesitation to engage immediately .
It can take a moment in the empire of lies , where truth is treason , to confirm for oneself that what one thinks is happening is really happening : a person is being honest and inviting the same .
Sincerity can be too .
But then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to get a word in edgewise for a while .
It might be time for you to be quiet and listen , because it may have been some time since someone sincerely wanted to communicate with that person .
And that means you may be party to a special opportunity : you might hear some suppressed sincerity that has long gone unheard .
That shaken bottle might become uncorked with vigor .
The more vigor , the more that person likely wanted this sincerity you were able to offer .
The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if life gets tough , don ’ t be surprised if they come looking for you again .
If life gets complex , don ’ t be surprised if they come asking .
Don ’ t be surprised if they just need someone sincere to honestly share their view of the world with .
Humans need sincerity .
Humans need honesty .
Humans need courage .
Without those , humans can not come to know truth , can not come to engage reality , will not be able to reconcile a life that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that they are expected to be entertained through , and to have no explanation for why that fairy tale did not bring them fulfillment .
American culture is particularly susceptible to this .
The lies are wound tight .
The structures against what is permissible to say , share , or think are thick .
As Dante wrote in the unfinished Convivio ( The Banquet ) , those lacking guidance from their elders early in life are more easily lost to the whims of the world .
We live in an era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abrogated the duty of passing on wisdom from the past to those in the generations that succeed them .
This does not affect all , of course , but this is a difficult-to-miss trend that affects so many , and across multiple generations .
Google Archipelago : Th ... Rectenwald , Michael Buy New $ 12.36 The wisdom can not be passed by pop culture .
It is passed down one-on-one , one trusted person at a time .
This is not to be mistaken for the guru of eastern tradition , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout life .
This is the path of the westerner : where needed wisdom can be found at various points on one ’ s individual journey , except the people who today line that journey – parents , clergy , instructors , family , neighbors – have not done the work to gain the wisdom , and don ’ t willingly share what little wisdom they have .
We are often left to our equally lost peers to sort this mess out , stumbling through the darkness together , grasping at the slightest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let the succeeding generation feel so lost , so cut adrift by their elders .
The most vital inheritance handed down from the previous generation is not monetary , and neither is the most vital inheritance handed down to the next generation monetary .
Yet , the imperative of our era is increasingly to speak only the trite , the inoffensive , the intentionally bland-to-the-point-of-being-dishonest statements .
Political correctness is a political attack on sincerity , in hopes of stopping people from speaking that with which the censor disagrees .
All censorship , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to silence truth .
There ’ s no need to silence lies .
Lies can be easily laughed off .
Fake news leaves the fake news source incredible .
Anyone who will censor seeks to attack sincerity , courage , and honesty , seeks to limit the ability of two people to communicate , seeks to limit the mutual pursuit of truth .
Seeks to do the most anti-social of activities : to stop individuals in a culture from stumbling together through the hardships , joys , and lessons of this thing we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite of a debate .
It is the exact opposite of shared exploration .
It is the exact opposite of love .
It is the exact opposite of reveling in what it is like to be a human .
It is a dirty trick , played on what so many fundamentally want , probably what every one of us , in our healthiest of moments , fundamentally wants : to know at least as much truth as needed to negotiate life as well as possible .
You refuse to let that attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a truthful sentence to a stranger .
You allow them to join you there .
And in this very tense time in human existence , a time that barely feels real , you do your fellow human a great service by showing a little courage and speaking a true statement .
So many live lives in which they feel they could collapse under the weight of the neglected reality , under the weight of the lies .
Don ’ t be surprised if in a situation like that , a person reacts sharply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even finds themselves crying – in sorrow , in relief , in anger , in joy , in some combination .
The Chronic Fatigue Sy ... Ortleb , Charles Best Price : $ 16.55 Buy New $ 17.95 Do not be surprised , either , if a daily habit of honesty with those you encounter , will , days or weeks from now , build into a ministry of honesty .
In some places , in the midst of the lockdown , the parks , the grocery stores , the sidewalks are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into each other ’ s orbit , with even that being prohibited in many jurisdictions .
If you continue bravely in such a moment and do the natural thing , deep down , the natural thing for a human , and take a risk to connect honestly with this stranger , who probably laughs a lot like you , and probably hurts a lot like you too – then you will be so richly rewarded .
In a moment of crisis like the one we are in , you will barely be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it will be a blissful walk through the park .
The people who run into you will stop you .
Be the most honest voice in their lives , and you will be surprised at how many times each day , you hear that a person had been hoping to run into you , especially in a moment of crisis – personal , or global , like the one we face .
So many lies are poured onto a person each day .
So many taboos seek to prevent them from reacting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manipulation surrounds them .
The people around you – those known to you and those unknown to you – need your courage , want your sincerity , long for someone with honesty , who they can be honest back to .
This is a sharp contrast to the way in which many go through each day : being seen as an annoying object , whose truth needs silencing , no matter what manipulations and contortions it takes to silence that truth .
That fellow human needs that truth from you .
Needs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that courage is so contagious .
Please give it to them .
You will be repaid many times over .
The Best of Allan Stevo

Some time ago, I resolved to do a thing dangerous in our era.
I resolved to speak truthfully to the people I met. If they didn’t like it, I would stop, and let the conversation wrap up shortly thereafter, to allow us both to spend our time in ways we’d each prefer.
It’s not really that dangerous once you get used to it.
A few people may find contempt for you, but in all likelihood, they were never people whose admiration you would want anyway. The contempt of some can be taken as a compliment.
Fortitude: American Re... Crenshaw, Dan Buy New $24.26 (as of 02:51 UTC - Details) When you speak truthfully, you give an often welcome, much in demand, offer to a fellow human. You invite them to speak truthfully back to you, and the way that this invitation tears down walls is nearly unmatchable.
You don’t even need to speak an invitation. You don’t need to acknowledge what you are doing. You merely need to take a risk and speak a single, truthful sentence that you believe. Sometimes, you might need to speak a second, truthful sentence so that the other person has a moment to get over the shock of someone speaking truthfully to them.
You must forgive them for any hesitation to engage immediately. It can take a moment in the empire of lies, where truth is treason, to confirm for oneself that what one thinks is happening is really happening: a person is being honest and inviting the same.
Courage is contagious.
Sincerity can be too.
But then be ready. You might not have time to get a word in edgewise for a while. It might be time for you to be quiet and listen, because it may have been some time since someone sincerely wanted to communicate with that person. And that means you may be party to a special opportunity: you might hear some suppressed sincerity that has long gone unheard.
That shaken bottle might become uncorked with vigor. The more vigor, the more that person likely wanted this sincerity you were able to offer. The more the person needed this honesty.
And if life gets tough, don’t be surprised if they come looking for you again. If life gets complex, don’t be surprised if they come asking. Don’t be surprised if they just need someone sincere to honestly share their view of the world with.
Humans need sincerity. Humans need honesty. Humans need courage. Without those, humans cannot come to know truth, cannot come to engage reality, will not be able to reconcile a life that is anything more than a fairy tale, that they are expected to be entertained through, and to have no explanation for why that fairy tale did not bring them fulfillment.
American culture is particularly susceptible to this.
The lies are wound tight. The structures against what is permissible to say, share, or think are thick.
As Dante wrote in the unfinished Convivio (The Banquet), those lacking guidance from their elders early in life are more easily lost to the whims of the world.
We live in an era where the elder generations, have overwhelmingly abrogated the duty of passing on wisdom from the past to those in the generations that succeed them.
This does not affect all, of course, but this is a difficult-to-miss trend that affects so many, and across multiple generations. Google Archipelago: Th... Rectenwald, Michael Buy New $12.36 (as of 03:58 UTC - Details)
The wisdom cannot be passed by pop culture. It is passed down one-on-one, one trusted person at a time. This is not to be mistaken for the guru of eastern tradition, that leads a man along a set path throughout life. This is the path of the westerner: where needed wisdom can be found at various points on one’s individual journey, except the people who today line that journey – parents, clergy, instructors, family, neighbors – have not done the work to gain the wisdom, and don’t willingly share what little wisdom they have.
We are often left to our equally lost peers to sort this mess out, stumbling through the darkness together, grasping at the slightest hints of truth, vowing to never let the succeeding generation feel so lost, so cut adrift by their elders.
The most vital inheritance handed down from the previous generation is not monetary, and neither is the most vital inheritance handed down to the next generation monetary. Yet, the imperative of our era is increasingly to speak only the trite, the inoffensive, the intentionally bland-to-the-point-of-being-dishonest statements.
Political correctness is a political attack on sincerity, in hopes of stopping people from speaking that with which the censor disagrees. All censorship, in all ages, is an attempt to silence truth. There’s no need to silence lies. Lies can be easily laughed off. Fake news leaves the fake news source incredible.
Anyone who will censor seeks to attack sincerity, courage, and honesty, seeks to limit the ability of two people to communicate, seeks to limit the mutual pursuit of truth. Seeks to do the most anti-social of activities: to stop individuals in a culture from stumbling together through the hardships, joys, and lessons of this thing we call life.
It is the exact opposite of a debate. It is the exact opposite of shared exploration. It is the exact opposite of love. It is the exact opposite of reveling in what it is like to be a human.
It is a dirty trick, played on what so many fundamentally want, probably what every one of us, in our healthiest of moments, fundamentally wants: to know at least as much truth as needed to negotiate life as well as possible.
You refuse to let that attack on the social take place when you speak a truthful sentence to a stranger.
You announce your sincerity.
You allow them to join you there.
And in this very tense time in human existence, a time that barely feels real, you do your fellow human a great service by showing a little courage and speaking a true statement.
So many live lives in which they feel they could collapse under the weight of the neglected reality, under the weight of the lies.
Don’t be surprised if in a situation like that, a person reacts sharply to your invitation to sincerity, perhaps even finds themselves crying – in sorrow, in relief, in anger, in joy, in some combination. The Chronic Fatigue Sy... Ortleb, Charles Best Price: $16.55 Buy New $17.95 (as of 05:07 UTC - Details)
Do not be surprised, either, if a daily habit of honesty with those you encounter, will, days or weeks from now, build into a ministry of honesty.
In some places, in the midst of the lockdown, the parks, the grocery stores, the sidewalks are the only places where people might even come into each other’s orbit, with even that being prohibited in many jurisdictions.
If you continue bravely in such a moment and do the natural thing, deep down, the natural thing for a human, and take a risk to connect honestly with this stranger, who probably laughs a lot like you, and probably hurts a lot like you too – then you will be so richly rewarded.
In a moment of crisis like the one we are in, you will barely be able to walk through the park peacefully.
But it will be a blissful walk through the park.
The people who run into you will stop you. Be the most honest voice in their lives, and you will be surprised at how many times each day, you hear that a person had been hoping to run into you, especially in a moment of crisis – personal, or global, like the one we face.
So many lies are poured onto a person each day. So many taboos seek to prevent them from reacting with honesty. So much pressure and manipulation surrounds them.
The people around you – those known to you and those unknown to you – need your courage, want your sincerity, long for someone with honesty, who they can be honest back to. This is a sharp contrast to the way in which many go through each day: being seen as an annoying object, whose truth needs silencing, no matter what manipulations and contortions it takes to silence that truth.
That fellow human needs that truth from you. Needs that sincerity. Needs that courage.
And that courage is so contagious.
Please give it to them. You will be repaid many times over.
The Best of Allan Stevo


lewrockwell--2020-04-22--Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?

While philanthropy is considered noble , some philanthropists appear to be doing far more harm than good with their donated millions .
Bill Gates , who cofounded Microsoft in 1975 , is perhaps one of the most dangerous philanthropists in modern history , having poured billions of dollars into global health initiatives that stand on shaky scientific and moral ground .
Gates ’ answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through highly toxic methods , be it chemical agriculture and GMOs , or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.1 Rarely , if ever , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inexpensive holistic health strategies .
A March 17 , 2020 , article2 in The Nation titled , “ Bill Gates ’ Charity Paradox , ” details “ the moral hazards surrounding the Gates Foundation ’ s $ 50 billion charitable enterprise , whose sprawling activities over the last two decades have been subject to remarkably little government oversight or public scrutiny.
” Good Intentions : How B ... Nussbaum , Bruce Best Price : $ 42.79 As noted in this article , Gates discovered an easy way to gain political power — “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public policy ” — namely charity .
Gates has described his charity strategy as “ catalytic philanthropy , ” one in which the “ tools of capitalism ” are leveraged to benefit the poor .
The only problem is that the true beneficiaries of Gates ’ philanthropic endeavors tend to be those who are already rich beyond comprehension , including Gates ’ own charitable foundation .
The poor , on the other hand , end up with costly solutions like patented GMO seeds and vaccines that in some instances have done far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few examples , see the following references.3,4,5 ) The Nation reports:6 Companies that have received large donations from the Gates Foundation include GlaxoSmithKline , Unilever , IBM , Vodafone , Scholastic Inc. and NBC Universal Media.7,8 Those Calling the Shots Stand to Gain the Most In the video above , Spiro Skouras reviews how the global COVID-19 pandemic is being used to snatch freedom and liberty away from us , and the role Gates is playing in the process .
Fauci : The Bernie Mado ... Ortleb , Charles Buy New $ 5.99 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of someone who is both calling the shots and stands to gain handsomely from the COVID-19 pandemic .
How ?
First , by investing in the same industries he ’ s giving charitable donations to and , second , by promoting a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he ’ s invested in and supports .
How Gates ’ Foundation Benefits From Its Own Donations For example , in 2014 , a Mastercard affiliate , MasterCard Labs for Financial Inclusion , received a $ 19 million donation10,11 “ to ‘ increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults ’ in Kenya , ” The Nation reports , adding:12 Indeed , those are sensible questions that need serious review .
The Mastercard donation also appears to have benefited the Gates Foundation , making an investigation into Gates ’ “ philanthropy ” all the more necessary .
As explained by The Nation , at the time of that donation , the Gates Foundation had “ substantial financial investments in Mastercard through its holdings in Warren Buffett ’ s investment company , Berkshire Hathaway.
” That ’ s not the only questionable donation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to $ 250 million in charitable grants from the Gates Foundation to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds.
” In other words , the Gates Foundation is giving money to companies that it owns stocks in and will benefit financially from .
As a result , the Foundation and Gates himself continue to increase their wealth .
Part of this growth in wealth also appears to be due to the tax breaks given for charitable donations .
In short , it ’ s a perfect money-shuffling scheme that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Bed of Procrustes : ... Taleb , Nassim Nicholas Best Price : $ 11.42 Buy New $ 14.07 Companies that have received donations that in turn made money for the Gates Foundation include Merck , Novartis , GlaxoSmithKline , Vodafone , Sanofi , Ericsson , LG , Medtronic , Teva and “ numerous startups , ” The Nation writes , adding : If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you , you ’ d be right .
Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he ’ s simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in .
In reality , Bill and Melinda Gates should be given federal prison sentences , and while not directly spelled out , I believe that ’ s really the point of The Nation ’ s article .
Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you ’ re invested in is illegal .
If you are as repulsed by the fact that Gates is getting away with this illegal behavior as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to contact the IRS Whistleblower Office and ask them to investigate Gates ’ tax evasion .
You can also file a consumer complaint with the Washington State Attorney General ’ s office .
That Gates philanthropic endeavors protect his own investments can also be seen in his pro-patent stance .
James Love , director of the nonprofit Knowledge Ecology International pointed out to The Nation that Gates:13 Gates is a staunch and longtime defender of the drug industry , and his intent to further the pharmaceutical agenda can clearly be seen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Forbes,14 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $ 100 million to fight the global COVID-19 outbreak .
As much as $ 20 million will reportedly go to agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization to be used for front-line detection , containment and treatment efforts .
Another $ 20 million is earmarked for at-risk populations in Africa and South Asia while the remaining $ 60 million is to be used for vaccine development , diagnostics and other treatments .
Vaccines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solutions ” to most diseases .
Gates has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system15 that could involve vaccine records embedded on our bodies ( such as invisible ink quantum dot tattoos described in a Science Translational Medicine paper.16,17 ) Antifragile : Things Th ... Taleb , Nassim Nicholas Best Price : $ 7.69 Buy New $ 11.30 In fact , he ’ s stated that life will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) , has echoed this exact sentiment as well , as if they ’ re reading the same cue card .
It would not surprise me if they were , seeing how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation collaborates with both the NIAID and WHO “ to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan.
” 18 Fauci is on Gate ’ s Leadership Council board charged with developing this vaccine action plan , as is WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chan .
As explained in a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation press release : Gates influence over global health policies has been criticized for years , yet nothing has been done to limit it .
If anything , his power has only grown , and warnings that his corporate interests may undermine public health policy now appears to have come true .
As reported by Politico in 2017:19 According to statements made by Gates , societal and financial normalcy may never return to those who refuse vaccination , as the digital vaccination certificate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to go about your day-to-day life and business .
An April 4 , 2020 , article by OffGuardian comments on Gates ’ March 24 , 2020 , interview with Chris Anderson , the curator of TED ( which runs TED Talks ) above:20 EMF*D : 5G , Wi-Fi & Cel ... Dr. Joseph Mercola Buy New $ 22.49 Again , vaccine producers stand to make enormous amounts of money from any given pandemic , and the Gates Foundation is both funding and making investment profits from vaccine makers .
Is it any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoctrinate people into thinking there are no other answers ?
When asked by Anderson about the economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic , Gates says : At 33:45 in the interview , Gates goes on to reveal what appears to be a stunning insider ’ s insight into the current economic shutdown : In other words , if we are to believe Gates , we ’ re sacrificing the financial stability and sanity of hundreds of millions of Americans in order to prevent the infection rate from hitting 1 % of the population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate for COVID-19 now appears to be on par with seasonal influenza , according to Fauci,22 so the vast majority of those infected end up recovering after mild illness , and have antibodies that should provide them with long-lasting immunity .
Clearly , if you want to make money from a vaccine , you don ’ t want people to develop immunity naturally , and this is precisely what Gates is admitting to .
As noted by OffGuardian:23 The short video above summarizes some of the points I ’ ve touched on in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation influences public health policy at the very highest levels through a vast web of personal and organizational interconnections .
Gates has a history of “ predicting ” global pandemics with vast numbers of deaths,24 and with his call for a tracking system to keep tabs on infected/noninfected and vaccinated/unvaccinated individuals , he ’ s ensuring an unimaginably profitable future for the vaccine makers he supports and makes money from via his Foundation investments .
In an April 9 , 2020 , Children ’ s Health Defense article,25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ vaccine agenda .
As noted by Kennedy : The vaccination ID enterprise Kennedy mentions refers to a program called ID2020 , launched in 2019 , which is designed to “ leverage immunization as an opportunity to establish digital identity.
” 27 This digital identity system is said to carry “ far-reaching implications for individuals ’ access to services and livelihoods , ” so to think that Gates ’ call for implantable COVID-19 vaccine certificates would be limited to that alone would likely be a grave mistake .
It ’ s not so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your vaccine certificate simply replaces personal identifications such as your driver ’ s license , state ID card , Social Security card and passport .
Pharma : Greed , Lies , a ... Posner , Gerald Best Price : $ 26.77 Buy New $ 21.49 Wall Street Journal Wants Us to Pity Gates As people are starting to see the truth , Gates ’ social media accounts have been flooded with criticism , resulting in The Wall Street Journal publishing an article28 trying to raise pity for him , saying he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” April 17 , 2020 , Zero Hedge commented on the PR campaign to protect Gates:29 Far from being a force for good , Gates appears to have chosen to use his wealth and intellect to further a distasteful social control plan to benefit his own nefarious agendas , and people all over the world are finally starting to see his true colors .
The Best of Joseph Mercola

While philanthropy is considered noble, some philanthropists appear to be doing far more harm than good with their donated millions. Bill Gates, who cofounded Microsoft in 1975, is perhaps one of the most dangerous philanthropists in modern history, having poured billions of dollars into global health initiatives that stand on shaky scientific and moral ground.
Gates’ answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through highly toxic methods, be it chemical agriculture and GMOs, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.1 Rarely, if ever, do we find Gates promoting clean living or inexpensive holistic health strategies.
Gates Donates Billions to Private Companies
A March 17, 2020, article2 in The Nation titled, “Bill Gates’ Charity Paradox,” details “the moral hazards surrounding the Gates Foundation’s $50 billion charitable enterprise, whose sprawling activities over the last two decades have been subject to remarkably little government oversight or public scrutiny.” Good Intentions: How B... Nussbaum, Bruce Best Price: $42.79 (as of 05:07 UTC - Details)
As noted in this article, Gates discovered an easy way to gain political power — “one that allows unelected billionaires to shape public policy” — namely charity. Gates has described his charity strategy as “catalytic philanthropy,” one in which the “tools of capitalism” are leveraged to benefit the poor.
The only problem is that the true beneficiaries of Gates’ philanthropic endeavors tend to be those who are already rich beyond comprehension, including Gates’ own charitable foundation. The poor, on the other hand, end up with costly solutions like patented GMO seeds and vaccines that in some instances have done far more harm than good. (For a few examples, see the following references.3,4,5) The Nation reports:6
“Through an investigation of more than 19,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation has made over the last two decades, The Nation has uncovered close to $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies … which are tasked with developing new drugs, improving sanitation in the developing world, developing financial products for Muslim consumers, and spreading the good news about this work.
The Gates Foundation even gave $2 million to Participant Media to promote Davis Guggenheim’s previous documentary film ‘Waiting for Superman,‘ which pushes one of the foundation’s signature charity efforts, charter schools — privately managed public schools. This charitable donation is a small part of the $250 million the foundation has given to media companies and other groups to influence the news.
‘It’s been a quite unprecedented development, the amount that the Gates Foundation is gifting to corporations … I find that flabbergasting, frankly,’ says Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex and author of the book ‘No Such Thing as a Free Gift.’
‘They’ve created one of the most problematic precedents in the history of foundation giving by essentially opening the door for corporations to see themselves as deserving charity claimants at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high.'”
Companies that have received large donations from the Gates Foundation include GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, Vodafone, Scholastic Inc. and NBC Universal Media.7,8
Those Calling the Shots Stand to Gain the Most

In the video above, Spiro Skouras reviews how the global COVID-19 pandemic is being used to snatch freedom and liberty away from us, and the role Gates is playing in the process. Fauci: The Bernie Mado... Ortleb, Charles Buy New $5.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details)
“We have been encouraged to sacrifice our liberty for a false sense of security, being conditioned more and more each day to rely on the state for protection and now many of us find ourselves relying on the state to pay our bills,” Skouras says.9
“Some are beginning to see that there may be more to the official story than what we are led to believe. The very few may have seen this coming and are waiting for the next phase of what very well could be another step closer to global governance.
The exact same individuals and government agencies, in addition to global institutions who stand to benefit the most, are the ones calling the shots.”
Gates, surely, fits the description of someone who is both calling the shots and stands to gain handsomely from the COVID-19 pandemic. How? First, by investing in the same industries he’s giving charitable donations to and, second, by promoting a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he’s invested in and supports.
How Gates’ Foundation Benefits From Its Own Donations
For example, in 2014, a Mastercard affiliate, MasterCard Labs for Financial Inclusion, received a $19 million donation10,11 “to ‘increase usage of digital financial products by poor adults’ in Kenya,” The Nation reports, adding:12
“The credit card giant had already articulated its keen business interest in cultivating new clients from the developing world’s 2.5 billion unbanked people, McGoey says, so why did it need a wealthy philanthropist to subsidize its work? And why are Bill and Melinda Gates getting a tax break for this donation?”
Indeed, those are sensible questions that need serious review. The Mastercard donation also appears to have benefited the Gates Foundation, making an investigation into Gates’ “philanthropy” all the more necessary.
As explained by The Nation, at the time of that donation, the Gates Foundation had “substantial financial investments in Mastercard through its holdings in Warren Buffett’s investment company, Berkshire Hathaway.”
That’s not the only questionable donation on record. The Nation found “close to $250 million in charitable grants from the Gates Foundation to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds.” In other words, the Gates Foundation is giving money to companies that it owns stocks in and will benefit financially from.
As a result, the Foundation and Gates himself continue to increase their wealth. Part of this growth in wealth also appears to be due to the tax breaks given for charitable donations. In short, it’s a perfect money-shuffling scheme that limits taxes while maximizing income generation. The Bed of Procrustes:... Taleb, Nassim Nicholas Best Price: $11.42 Buy New $14.07 (as of 02:54 UTC - Details)
Companies that have received donations that in turn made money for the Gates Foundation include Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi, Ericsson, LG, Medtronic, Teva and “numerous startups,” The Nation writes, adding:
“A foundation giving a charitable grant to a company that it partly owns — and stands to benefit from financially — would seem like an obvious conflict of interest …
Tax scholars like Ray Madoff, a law professor at Boston College, indicate that multibillionaires see tax savings of at least 40 percent — which, for Bill Gates, would amount to $14 billion …
Madoff, like many tax experts, stresses that these billions of dollars in tax savings have to be seen as a public subsidy — money that otherwise would have gone to the U.S. Treasury to help build bridges, do medical research, or close the funding gap at the IRS …
If Bill and Melinda Gates don’t pay their full freight in taxes, the public has to make up the difference or simply live in a world where governments do less and less (educating, vaccinating, and researching) and superrich philanthropists do more and more.
‘I think people often confuse what wealthy people are doing on their own dime and what [they’re] doing on our dime, and that’s one of the big problems about this debate,’ Madoff notes.
‘People say, ‘It’s the rich person’s money [to spend as they wish].’ But when they get significant tax benefits, it’s also our money. And so that’s why we need to have rules about how they spend our money.'”
Take Action — Demand an Investigation
If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you, you’d be right. Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he’s simply getting away with it. The nonprofit foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in.
In reality, Bill and Melinda Gates should be given federal prison sentences, and while not directly spelled out, I believe that’s really the point of The Nation’s article. Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you’re invested in is illegal.
If you are as repulsed by the fact that Gates is getting away with this illegal behavior as much as I am, then I encourage you to contact the IRS Whistleblower Office and ask them to investigate Gates’ tax evasion. You can also file a consumer complaint with the Washington State Attorney General’s office.
Gates’ Pro-Patent Agenda Limits Reforms
That Gates philanthropic endeavors protect his own investments can also be seen in his pro-patent stance. James Love, director of the nonprofit Knowledge Ecology International pointed out to The Nation that Gates:13
“… uses his philanthropy to advance a pro-patent agenda on pharmaceutical drugs, even in countries that are really poor … He’s undermining a lot of things that are really necessary to make drugs affordable … He gives so much money to [fight] poverty, and yet he’s the biggest obstacle on a lot of reforms.”
Gates is a staunch and longtime defender of the drug industry, and his intent to further the pharmaceutical agenda can clearly be seen in the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Gates’ COVID-19 Plan — Vaccinate Global Population
As reported by Forbes,14 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $100 million to fight the global COVID-19 outbreak. As much as $20 million will reportedly go to agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization to be used for front-line detection, containment and treatment efforts.
Another $20 million is earmarked for at-risk populations in Africa and South Asia while the remaining $60 million is to be used for vaccine development, diagnostics and other treatments.
Vaccines are clearly one of Gates’ mainstay “solutions” to most diseases. Gates has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system15 that could involve vaccine records embedded on our bodies (such as invisible ink quantum dot tattoos described in a Science Translational Medicine paper.16,17) Antifragile: Things Th... Taleb, Nassim Nicholas Best Price: $7.69 Buy New $11.30 (as of 02:10 UTC - Details)
In fact, he’s stated that life will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has echoed this exact sentiment as well, as if they’re reading the same cue card.
It would not surprise me if they were, seeing how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation collaborates with both the NIAID and WHO “to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan.”18
Fauci is on Gate’s Leadership Council board charged with developing this vaccine action plan, as is WHO’s former director general Dr. Margaret Chan. As explained in a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation press release:
“The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.”
Gates influence over global health policies has been criticized for years, yet nothing has been done to limit it. If anything, his power has only grown, and warnings that his corporate interests may undermine public health policy now appears to have come true. As reported by Politico in 2017:19
“Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva. Over the past decade, the world’s richest man has become the World Health Organization’s second biggest donor, second only to the United States and just above the United Kingdom …
The Gates Foundation has pumped more than $2.4 billion into the WHO since 2000 … This largesse gives him outsized influence over its agenda … The result, say his critics, is that Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s …
Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”
Vaccinate or Become a Social Outcast?

According to statements made by Gates, societal and financial normalcy may never return to those who refuse vaccination, as the digital vaccination certificate Gates is pushing for might ultimately be required to go about your day-to-day life and business.
An April 4, 2020, article by OffGuardian comments on Gates’ March 24, 2020, interview with Chris Anderson, the curator of TED (which runs TED Talks) above:20
“Shockingly, Gates … suggests people be made to have a digital ID showing their vaccination status, and that people without this ‘digital immunity proof’ would not be allowed to travel. Such an approach would mean very big money for vaccine producers.”
EMF*D: 5G, Wi-Fi & Cel... Dr. Joseph Mercola Buy New $22.49 (as of 09:53 UTC - Details) Again, vaccine producers stand to make enormous amounts of money from any given pandemic, and the Gates Foundation is both funding and making investment profits from vaccine makers. Is it any wonder then that Gates is trying to indoctrinate people into thinking there are no other answers? When asked by Anderson about the economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates says:
“It is really tragic that the economic effects of this are very dramatic … But … bringing the economy back … that’s more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. So, we’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension, huge pain, in order to minimize the pain in disease and death dimension.”
As noted by OffGuardian, Gates’ statement:21
“… goes directly against the imperative to balance the benefits and costs of the screening, testing and treatment measures for each ailment — as successfully promulgated for years by, for example, the Choosing Wisely campaign — to provide the maximum benefit to individual patients and society as a whole. Even more importantly … there may be dramatically more deaths from the economic breakdown than from COVID-19 itself …
Millions could potentially die from suicide, drug abuse, lack of medical coverage or treatment, poverty and lack of food access, on top of other predictable social, medical and public-health problems stemming from the response to COVID-19.”
Gates Explains Economic Shutdown
At 33:45 in the interview, Gates goes on to reveal what appears to be a stunning insider’s insight into the current economic shutdown:
“We don’t want to have a lot of recovered people … To be clear, we’re trying — through the shut-down in the United States — to not get to 1% of the population infected … I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain.”
In other words, if we are to believe Gates, we’re sacrificing the financial stability and sanity of hundreds of millions of Americans in order to prevent the infection rate from hitting 1% of the population.
Keep in mind, the death rate for COVID-19 now appears to be on par with seasonal influenza, according to Fauci,22 so the vast majority of those infected end up recovering after mild illness, and have antibodies that should provide them with long-lasting immunity. Clearly, if you want to make money from a vaccine, you don’t want people to develop immunity naturally, and this is precisely what Gates is admitting to. As noted by OffGuardian:23
“Gates and his colleagues far prefer to create a vast, hugely expensive, new system of manufacturing and selling billions of test kits, and in parallel very quickly developing and selling billions of antivirals and vaccines.
And then, when the virus comes back again a few months later and most of the population is unexposed and therefore vulnerable, selling billions more test kits and medical interventions.”
Gates Leads Medical Tyranny Agenda

The short video above summarizes some of the points I’ve touched on in this article so far and reviews how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation influences public health policy at the very highest levels through a vast web of personal and organizational interconnections.
Gates has a history of “predicting” global pandemics with vast numbers of deaths,24 and with his call for a tracking system to keep tabs on infected/noninfected and vaccinated/unvaccinated individuals, he’s ensuring an unimaginably profitable future for the vaccine makers he supports and makes money from via his Foundation investments.
In an April 9, 2020, Children’s Health Defense article,25 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. further details Gates’ vaccine agenda. As noted by Kennedy:
“Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise26) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.”
The vaccination ID enterprise Kennedy mentions refers to a program called ID2020, launched in 2019, which is designed to “leverage immunization as an opportunity to establish digital identity.”27
This digital identity system is said to carry “far-reaching implications for individuals’ access to services and livelihoods,” so to think that Gates’ call for implantable COVID-19 vaccine certificates would be limited to that alone would likely be a grave mistake.
It’s not so far-fetched to imagine a future in which your vaccine certificate simply replaces personal identifications such as your driver’s license, state ID card, Social Security card and passport. Pharma: Greed, Lies, a... Posner, Gerald Best Price: $26.77 Buy New $21.49 (as of 02:57 UTC - Details)
Wall Street Journal Wants Us to Pity Gates
As people are starting to see the truth, Gates’ social media accounts have been flooded with criticism, resulting in The Wall Street Journal publishing an article28 trying to raise pity for him, saying he’s being attacked by “social media mobs.” April 17, 2020, Zero Hedge commented on the PR campaign to protect Gates:29
“The Wall Street Journal’s Deepa Seetharaman wants us to know that while poor billionaire Bill Gates has ‘long been a target for online trolls’ … ‘the social-media attacks have intensified’ as the Micrrosoft co-founder and World Health Organization (WHO) benefactor has become the left’s de-facto coronavirus czar …
Perhaps the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are having a little trouble digesting the fact that Gates — whose vaccine efforts in India were blamed for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children — coincidentally hosted an October, 2019 high-level ‘pandemic simulation’ in New York called Event 201 which specifically focused on coronavirus …
Combine that with Gates’ recent comments about mass vaccination and biometric identification in order to ‘open up’ the country and allow people to attend mass gatherings — an idea which Dr. Anthony Fauci said ‘has merit,’ and so-called conspiracy theorists have plenty of dots to connect.
According to the Journal, ‘social-media platforms remain fertile ground for virus-related conspiracies and online harassment, despite repeated pledges by the companies to crack down on such activity.’
So — Gates is being harassed and nobody is stopping these thought criminals with their menacing opinions. And of course, ‘bots’ are also being blamed for amplifying ‘conspiracy claims’ — since there can’t be that many real humans with bad things to say about Mr. Gates.”
Far from being a force for good, Gates appears to have chosen to use his wealth and intellect to further a distasteful social control plan to benefit his own nefarious agendas, and people all over the world are finally starting to see his true colors.
Sources and References
The Best of Dr. Joseph Mercola


lewrockwell--2020-04-23--A Protest From France

A Protest From France

After WWI , the distinguished British economist , Edwin Cannan was asked , somewhat reproachfully , what he did during the terrible war years .
He replied : “ I protested.
” The present article is a similar protest against the current lockdown policies put into place , in most countries of the western world , to confront the current coronavirus pandemic .
Here in France , where I live and work , President Macron had announced on Thursday , March 12th that all schools and universities would be shut down on the following Monday .
On that Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and announced that the entire population would be confined , starting the very next day .
The only exceptions would be “ necessary ” activities , especially medical services , energy production , security , and food production and food distribution .
This policy response was apparently coordinated with other European governments .
Italy , Germany , Spain , and have applied essentially the same measures .
I think that these policies are understandable and well-intentioned .
Like many other commentators , I also think that they are wrongheaded , harmful , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that the way to hell is plastered with good intentions .
Unfortunately , it seems as though the present policies are no exception .
The Ethics of Money Pr ... Hulsmann , Jorg Guido Best Price : $ 11.00 Buy New $ 14.00 My protest concerns the basic ideas that have motivated these policies .
They were clearly enunciated by President Macron in his TV address of March 12th .
Here he made three claims that I found most intriguing .
The first one was that his government was going to apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the country was “ at war ” with the Covid19 virus .
He repeatedly used the phrase “ we are at war ” ( nous sommes en guerre ) throughout his talk .
Secondly , he insisted right at the very beginning that it was imperative to heed the advice of “ the experts.
” Monsieur Macron literally said that we all should have to listen and follow the advice of the people “ who know ” – meaning who know the problem and who know how best to deal with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency situation had revealed how important it was to enjoy a state-run system of public healthcare .
How lucky are we to have such a system and to be able to rely on it , now , in the heat of the war against the virus !
Unsurprisingly , the president insinuated that this system would be reinforced in the future .
Now , these are not the private ideas of Monsieur Macron .
They are shared by all major governments in the EU and by many governments in other parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all major political parties here in France , as well as by President Macron ’ s predecessors .
Therefore , the purpose of the following remarks is not to criticise the president of this beautiful country , or his government , or any person in particular .
The purpose is to criticise the ideas on which the current policy is based .
I do not have any epidemiological knowledge or expertise .
But I do have some acquaintance with questions of social organisation , and I am also intimately familiar with scientific research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My protest does not concern the medical assessment of the Covid19 virus and of its propagation .
It concerns the public policies designed to confront this problem .
As far as I can see , these policies are based on one extraordinary claim and two fundamental errors .
I will discuss them in turn .
Organifi : GO Packs - G ... Buy New $ 79.99 ( $ 8.46 / Ounce ) The extraordinary claim is that war-time measures such as confinement and shut-downs of commercial activity are justified by the objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk because of the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic .
Over here in Europe , we have heard American presidents use such expressions since the 1960s , as in “ the war on poverty ” or the “ war on drugs ” or “ the war on terrorism ” or more recently in “ the war on climate change.
” Odd language of this sort seemed to be one of America ’ s many eccentricities .
It also did not escape our notice that none of these would-be wars have ever been won .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US government has spent to fight them , despite the new state institutions that were put in place , and despite the great and growing infringements on the economic and civil liberties of ordinary Americans , the problems themselves never went away .
Quite to the opposite , they were perpetuated and aggravated .
Most of the European governments have now joined ranks with the Americans and consider that they , too , are at war , with a virus .
It is therefore appropriate to insist that this is metaphorical language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to protect the state – and thus of the very institution that is commonly held to guarantee the lives and liberties of the citizens – against malicious attack from an outside power , usually another state .
In a war , the very existence of the state is under attack .
Clearly , this is not so in the present case .
Moreover , there can be no war with a virus , simply because a virus does not act .
At most , therefore , the word “ war ” can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serves as a cover and justification of infringements of the very civil and economic liberties that the state is supposed to protect .
Now , in the traditional conception , the state is supposed to protect and promote the common good .
Protecting the lives of the citizens might therefore , arguably , justify massive state interventions .
But then the very first questions should be : how many lives are at stake ?
Government epidemiologists , in their most dire estimates – the factual basis is still not solidly established – have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected persons might be in need of hospital care and that a large part of those would die .
It was also known , by mid-March already , that this mortal threat in the great majority of cases concerned very old people , the average Covid19 victim being around 80 years of age .
Waterpik Water Flosser ... Best Price : null Buy New $ 69.49 The claim that wartime measures , which threaten the economic livelihood of the great majority of the population and also the lives of the poorest and most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a point on which I will say more below – in order to save the lives of a few , most of whom are close to death anyway , is an extraordinary claim , to say the least .
Without going into any detail , let me just highlight that this contention squarely contradicts the abortion policies that western governments have applied since the 1970s .
There , the reasoning was exactly the other way round .
The personal liberty and comfort of the women who wished to abort their children were given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these yet unborn children .
According to WHO figures , each and every year , some 40-50 million babies are aborted worldwide .
In 2018 alone , more than 224,000 babies have been aborted in France .
However serious the current Covid19 pandemic may yet become , it will remain at a small fraction of these casualties .
Not only have governments neglected to “ save lives ” in when it comes to abortions .
They have in point of fact condoned and funded the killing of human beings on a massive scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here in France , all hospital services have been run down to free up capacity for the treatment of Covid19 victims – all except one .
Abortion services run unabated and have recently been reinforced by the legal obligation for hospital staff to provide abortions ( previously it was possible for individual doctors to refuse this out of personal conviction ) .
The pretention that drastic policies are justified in order to “ save lives ” also flies into face of past policy in other areas .
In the past , too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives ” by allocating a greater chunk of the government ’ s budget to state-run hospitals , by further reducing speed limits on highways , by increasing foreign aid to countries on the brink of starvation , by outlawing smoking , etc .
To be sure , I do not wish to make a case for such policies .
My point is that it has never been the sole or highest goal of government policy to “ save lives ” or to extend lives as far as possible .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and impractical , as I will explain further below .
It is difficult to avoid the impression that the “ war to save lives ” is a farce .
The truth seems to be that the Covid19 crisis has been used to extend the powers of the state .
The government obtains the power to control and paralyse all others human concerns in the name of prolonging the lives of a select few .
Never has this principle been admitted in a free country .
Few tyrannies have managed to extend their power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Price : $ 27.17 ( $ 27.17 / count ) Buy New $ 28.95 ( $ 28.95 / count ) The current beneficiaries of these new powers are the elder citizens and a few others .
But make no mistake .
It is likely that their destinies only serve as a pretext to justify the creation of new and unheard-of powers for the state .
Once these new powers are firmly established , there is no reason why the elderly should remain especially dear to those in power .
It must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case .
Now , in order to avoid any misunderstanding , I do not claim that the present French government seeks to grab power over life-and-death decisions , or dictatorial powers to introduce socialism through the backdoor under the cover of Covid19 .
In fact , I can not imagine that Monsieur Macron and his government are driven by sinister motivations .
I think they have the best of all intentions .
But the point here is precisely that there is a difference between doing good and wishing to do good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political issue .
But there are also matters of fact .
And this brings me to the two aforementioned errors .
The first fundamental error is to hold that is that the experts know and all the rest of us should trust them and do as they tell us .
The truth is that even the most brilliant academics and practitioners have in-depth knowledge only in a very narrow field ; that they have no particular expertise when it comes to devising new practical solutions ; and that their professional biases are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes to solving large-scale social problems such as the current pandemic .
This is patent in my own discipline , economics , but not really different in other academic fields .
Let me explain this in some more detail .
The kind of knowledge that can be acquired by scientific research is just a preliminary to action .
Research gathers facts and yields partial knowledge of causal connections .
Economics tells us , for example , that the size of the money stock is positively related to the level of unit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole picture .
Other causes come into play as well .
Real-world decision-making can not just rely on facts and other bits of partial knowledge .
It must weigh the influence of a multitude of circumstances , not all of which are well known , and not all of which are directly related to the problem at stake .
It must come to balanced conclusions , sometimes under rapidly changing circumstances .
3 Pack POLICE MAGNUM O ... Buy New $ 19.99 In this respect , the typical expert is no expert , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nobel Prize in economics have earned any significant money by investing their savings ?
How many virologists or epidemiologists have established and operated a privately-run clinic or laboratory ?
I would never trust a colleague who had the folly to volunteer to direct a central planning board .
I do not trust an epidemiologist who has the temerity to parade as a Covid19 czar .
I do not believe a government that tells me it somehow knows “ the experts ” who know best how to protect and run an entire country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , at best , a state of the art .
The precious thing about science is not to be seen in the results , which are hardly ever final .
What is crucial is the scientific process , which is a competitive process based on disagreements about the validity and relevance of different research hypotheses .
This process is especially important when it comes to new problems – such as a new virus , which spreads in unheard-of ways and has unheard-of effects .
It is precisely in such circumstances , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impartial confrontation and competitive exploration of different points of view is of paramount importance .
Research czars and central planners are here of no use at all .
They are part of the problem , not part of the solution .
A government which bets the house on one horse and hands the management of a pandemic over to a single person or institution achieves , at best , only one thing : that all citizens receive the same treatment .
But it thereby slows down the very process which leads to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which makes these treatments rapidly available to the greatest number of patients .
It is also important to keep in mind that academics – and this includes epidemiologists just as economists and lawyers – are typically government employees , and that this colours their approach to any practical problem .
They are likely to think that serious problems , especially large-scale problems touching most or all citizens , should be solved by state intervention .
Many of them are in fact incapable of imagining anything else .
This problem is reinforced through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academics who opt for an administrative or political career , and who make it into the higher ranks of the civil service , can not fail to be convinced that state action is suitable and necessary to solve the most important problems .
Otherwise they would hardly have chosen such a career , and it would also be virtually out of the question that they end up in leadership positions .
A good example among many others is the current WHO director , Tedros Adhanom , who I understand is a former member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not that a WHO director should have no political opinions , or that Dr Adhanom is an evil or incompetent person .
The point is that it is unsurprising that men like him occupy leadership positions in state-run organisations ; and that the approach he envisions to deal with a pandemic are likely to be coloured by his personal political preconceptions , not only by medical information and good intentions .
Twelve South Curve for ... Buy New $ 59.99 Along with such selection bias comes a peculiar ignorance in regard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This brings me to the second fundamental error that vitiates the Covid19 policies .
It consists in thinking that civil and economic liberties are some sort of a consumers ’ good – maybe even a luxury good – that can only be allowed and enjoyed in good times .
When the going gets tough , the government needs to take over and all others should step back – into confinement , if necessary .
This error is typical for people who have spent too much time among politicians and in public administrations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty is the most powerful vehicle to confront virtually any problem .
( The notable exception is that liberty does not help to consolidate political power . )
And the reverse side of the same truth is that governments typically fail whenever they set out to solve social problems , even very ordinary problems .
Think of state-run education or housing projects .
I will return to this point further below .
Because of the mechanics of the political process , governments are liable to overreact to any problem that is big enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become an issue for voters .
Governments will then typically zoom in onto this one problem .
In their perception , it becomes the most important of all problems that humanity has to solve .
If such a government has no clue about economics , it is liable to propose one-plan technical solutions that completely neglect the social and political dimension of what it means to solve a problem .
In the present case , the “ experts ” have blithely proposed to shut down the entire economy because this is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not contest that shut-downs are effective in slowing down the transmission speed of a pandemic .
I have no opinion at all on the most suitable way to deal with pandemics or other problems of virology or medicine .
But as an economist I know the crucial importance of the fact that there is never ever only one single goal in human life .
There is always a great and diverse array of objectives that each of us pursues .
The practical problem for each person is to strike the right balance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right temporal sequence .
Translated onto the level of the economy as a whole , the problem is to allocate the right amounts of time and material resources to the different objectives .
Mises : The Last Knight ... Ju00f6rg Guido Hu00fcl ... Best Price : $ 14.80 Buy New $ 48.96 For most people , protecting their own lives and the lives of their families has a very high importance .
But irrespective of how important this objective is , in practice , it can not be perfectly achieved .
To protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus I need to work , thus I need to expose myself to all kinds of risk that are associated with leaving the safe space of my house and encountering nature and other humans .
In short , human lives can not be perfectly protected , even by those who are ready to subordinate everything else to them .
It is a practical impossibility .
When it comes to protecting lives , the only question is : how much am I willing to risk my life and the lives of those who depend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often turns out that by risking much one protects best .
What holds true for the eternal life of one ’ s soul ( “ For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it , but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
” – Matt 16:25 ) also holds true for the mundane material life down here in earth .
Now , most people do not actually cherish the preservation of their lives , or the extension of their life spans , as the single highest goals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shorter , more joyful life , to a longer life of abstinence .
Policemen , soldiers , and many citizens are more than often driven by the love of their country and by a love of justice .
They would rather die than live under slavery or tyranny .
Priests would risk their lives rather than forsake their commitment .
A believer in Christ would rather risk death than apostasy .
Sailors risk their own lives to provide for their families .
Medical doctors and nurses are willing to risk their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rugby players and race drivers risk their lives , not only for the glory of winning , but also for the excitement and satisfaction that comes with performing well under danger .
Many young men and women gladly trade the excitement of dance for the risk of catching Covid19 .
All of these people , in one way or another , make material contributions to the livelihood of all others .
Smoker and drinkers ultimately pay for their consumption , not with money ( which serves them only as a tool of exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods and services that they themselves provide to others .
If they could not indulge in their consumption , their motivation to help others would diminish or vanish altogether .
If policemen , soldiers , sailors , and nurses did not have a relatively low risk-aversion , their services would be provided only at much higher cost , and possibly not at all .
The preferences and activities of all market participants are interdependent .
In the market order , each one helps all other in pursuing their goals , even if these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The meat eater might be a mechanic who repairs the cars of vegetarians , or an accountant who does the bookkeeping for a vegetarian NGO .
The soldier also protects pacifists .
Among the pacifists may be farmers who grow the food consumed by soldiers , etc .
It is impossible to disentangle all of these connections , and it is not necessary .
The point is that , in a market economy , the factors determining the production of any economic good are not just technical factors .
Through exchange , through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes are interrelated .
The effectiveness of doctors and nurses and their assistants does not only depend on the people who directly supply them with the materials that they need .
Indirectly , it also depends on the activities of all other producers who do not have the slightest thing to do with medical services in hospitals .
Even in an emergency situation , it is therefore necessary to respect the needs and priorities of these others .
Locking them away , locking them down , far from facilitating the operation of hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter as well , when supply chains wither and consumer staples start lacking .
Now one might contend that such consequences only obtain in the longer run and that a government confronted with an emergency situation needs to neglect long-run issues and focus on the short-run emergency .
This sounds reasonable , which is why governments have appealed to arguments of this sort with great regularity in other areas , most notably to justify expansionary macroeconomic policies , which also trade off the present against the future .
But the reasoning is flawed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the error is to consider that the Covid19 virus is an immediate threat to human lives , whereas the lock-down policies are not .
But this is not the case .
How many people have committed suicide because the lockdown measures have driven them to depression and insanity ?
How many did not receive life-saving treatments because hospital beds and staff were blocked for Covid19 victims ?
How many have become victims at home because of the lockdown-induced aggression of their spouses ?
How many have lost their jobs , their companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suicide and aggression in the months to come ?
How many people in the poorest countries of the world economy are now driven into starvation because households and firms in the developed world have cut back demand for their products because of the lockdown ?
The inevitable conclusion is that , even in the short run , lockdown policies are costing the lives of many people who would not otherwise have died .
In the short and in the long-run , the current lockdown policy does not serve to “ save lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people at the expense of the lives of others .
The lockdown policies are understandable as a panic reaction of political leaders who want to do the right thing and who have to make decisions with incomplete information .
But upon reflection – and certainly in hindsight – they are not good policy .
The lockdowns of the past month have not been conducive to the common good .
While they have saved the lives of many people , they have also endangered – and are still endangering – the lives and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created a new and dangerous political precedent .
They have reinforced the political-regime uncertainty – to use Robert Higgs ’ s felicitous phrase – that bears on the choices of individuals , families , communities , and firms in the years to come .
The right thing to do now is to abandon these policies swiftly and entirely .
The citizens of free countries are able to protect themselves .
They can act individually and collectively .
They can not act well when they are locked down .
They will greet any honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should do , upon which they will proceed responsibly , whether alone or in coordination with others .
The greatest danger right now is in the perpetuation of the ill-conceived lockdowns , most notably under the pretext of “ managing the transition ” or other spurious justifications .
Is it really necessary to walk through the endless list of management failures of government agents ?
Is it necessary to remind ourselves that people who have no skin in the game are irresponsible in the true sense of the word ?
These would-be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture from the very beginning .
Instead , so far , they have managed to get everybody else out of the picture .
If they are allowed to go on , they might very well turn the present calamity – big as it is – into a true disaster .
The historical precedent that comes to mind is the Great Depression of the 1930s .
Then , too , the free world was confronted with a painful recession , when the implosion of the stock-market bubble entailed a deflationary meltdown of the financialised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This recession , dire as it was , could have remained short , as had been all the previous recessions in the US and elsewhere .
Instead it was turned into a multi-year depression , thanks to folly of FDR and his government , who had the pretention of managing the recovery with government spending , nationalisations , and price controls .
It is not too late .
It is never too late to recognise an honest error and correct a wrong course of action .
Let us hope that President Macron , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of good will may rapidly come to their senses .
The Best of Jörg Guido Hülsmann

After WWI, the distinguished British economist, Edwin Cannan was asked, somewhat reproachfully, what he did during the terrible war years. He replied: “I protested.” The present article is a similar protest against the current lockdown policies put into place, in most countries of the western world, to confront the current coronavirus pandemic.
Here in France, where I live and work, President Macron had announced on Thursday, March 12th that all schools and universities would be shut down on the following Monday. On that Monday, then, he appeared on TV again and announced that the entire population would be confined, starting the very next day. The only exceptions would be “necessary” activities, especially medical services, energy production, security, and food production and food distribution. This policy response was apparently coordinated with other European governments. Italy, Germany, Spain, and have applied essentially the same measures.
I think that these policies are understandable and well-intentioned. Like many other commentators, I also think that they are wrongheaded, harmful, and potentially disastrous. An old French proverb says that the way to hell is plastered with good intentions. Unfortunately, it seems as though the present policies are no exception. The Ethics of Money Pr... Hulsmann, Jorg Guido Best Price: $11.00 Buy New $14.00 (as of 02:24 UTC - Details)
My protest concerns the basic ideas that have motivated these policies. They were clearly enunciated by President Macron in his TV address of March 12th. Here he made three claims that I found most intriguing.
The first one was that his government was going to apply drastic measures to “save lives” because the country was “at war” with the Covid19 virus. He repeatedly used the phrase “we are at war” (nous sommes en guerre) throughout his talk.
Secondly, he insisted right at the very beginning that it was imperative to heed the advice of “the experts.” Monsieur Macron literally said that we all should have to listen and follow the advice of the people “who know” – meaning who know the problem and who know how best to deal with it.
His third major point was this emergency situation had revealed how important it was to enjoy a state-run system of public healthcare. How lucky are we to have such a system and to be able to rely on it, now, in the heat of the war against the virus! Unsurprisingly, the president insinuated that this system would be reinforced in the future.
Now, these are not the private ideas of Monsieur Macron. They are shared by all major governments in the EU and by many governments in other parts of the world. They are also shared by all major political parties here in France, as well as by President Macron’s predecessors. Therefore, the purpose of the following remarks is not to criticise the president of this beautiful country, or his government, or any person in particular. The purpose is to criticise the ideas on which the current policy is based.
I do not have any epidemiological knowledge or expertise. But I do have some acquaintance with questions of social organisation, and I am also intimately familiar with scientific research and with the organisation of scientific research. My protest does not concern the medical assessment of the Covid19 virus and of its propagation. It concerns the public policies designed to confront this problem.
As far as I can see, these policies are based on one extraordinary claim and two fundamental errors. I will discuss them in turn. Organifi: GO Packs - G... Buy New $79.99 ($8.46 / Ounce) (as of 02:24 UTC - Details)
An extraordinary claim
The extraordinary claim is that war-time measures such as confinement and shut-downs of commercial activity are justified by the objective to “save lives” which are at risk because of the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic.
Over here in Europe, we have heard American presidents use such expressions since the 1960s, as in “the war on poverty” or the “war on drugs” or “the war on terrorism” or more recently in “the war on climate change.” Odd language of this sort seemed to be one of America’s many eccentricities. It also did not escape our notice that none of these would-be wars have ever been won. Despite the great sums of money that the US government has spent to fight them, despite the new state institutions that were put in place, and despite the great and growing infringements on the economic and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, the problems themselves never went away. Quite to the opposite, they were perpetuated and aggravated.
Most of the European governments have now joined ranks with the Americans and consider that they, too, are at war, with a virus. It is therefore appropriate to insist that this is metaphorical language. A war is a military conflict designed to protect the state – and thus of the very institution that is commonly held to guarantee the lives and liberties of the citizens – against malicious attack from an outside power, usually another state. In a war, the very existence of the state is under attack. Clearly, this is not so in the present case.
Moreover, there can be no war with a virus, simply because a virus does not act. At most, therefore, the word “war” can be used here metaphorically. It then serves as a cover and justification of infringements of the very civil and economic liberties that the state is supposed to protect.
Now, in the traditional conception, the state is supposed to protect and promote the common good. Protecting the lives of the citizens might therefore, arguably, justify massive state interventions. But then the very first questions should be: how many lives are at stake? Government epidemiologists, in their most dire estimates – the factual basis is still not solidly established – have considered that about ten percent of the infected persons might be in need of hospital care and that a large part of those would die. It was also known, by mid-March already, that this mortal threat in the great majority of cases concerned very old people, the average Covid19 victim being around 80 years of age. Waterpik Water Flosser... Buy New $69.49 (as of 09:00 UTC - Details)
The claim that wartime measures, which threaten the economic livelihood of the great majority of the population and also the lives of the poorest and most fragile people of the world economy – a point on which I will say more below – in order to save the lives of a few, most of whom are close to death anyway, is an extraordinary claim, to say the least.
Without going into any detail, let me just highlight that this contention squarely contradicts the abortion policies that western governments have applied since the 1970s. There, the reasoning was exactly the other way round. The personal liberty and comfort of the women who wished to abort their children were given priority over the right to life of these yet unborn children. According to WHO figures, each and every year, some 40-50 million babies are aborted worldwide. In 2018 alone, more than 224,000 babies have been aborted in France. However serious the current Covid19 pandemic may yet become, it will remain at a small fraction of these casualties. Not only have governments neglected to “save lives” in when it comes to abortions. They have in point of fact condoned and funded the killing of human beings on a massive scale.
They still do so now. Here in France, all hospital services have been run down to free up capacity for the treatment of Covid19 victims – all except one. Abortion services run unabated and have recently been reinforced by the legal obligation for hospital staff to provide abortions (previously it was possible for individual doctors to refuse this out of personal conviction).
The pretention that drastic policies are justified in order to “save lives” also flies into face of past policy in other areas. In the past, too, it would have been possible to “save lives” by allocating a greater chunk of the government’s budget to state-run hospitals, by further reducing speed limits on highways, by increasing foreign aid to countries on the brink of starvation, by outlawing smoking, etc. To be sure, I do not wish to make a case for such policies. My point is that it has never been the sole or highest goal of government policy to “save lives” or to extend lives as far as possible. In fact, such a policy would be utterly absurd and impractical, as I will explain further below.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that the “war to save lives” is a farce. The truth seems to be that the Covid19 crisis has been used to extend the powers of the state. The government obtains the power to control and paralyse all others human concerns in the name of prolonging the lives of a select few. Never has this principle been admitted in a free country. Few tyrannies have managed to extend their power this far. Flux Phenom Reinforced... Best Price: $27.17 ($27.17 / count) Buy New $28.95 ($28.95 / count) (as of 02:24 UTC - Details)
The current beneficiaries of these new powers are the elder citizens and a few others. But make no mistake. It is likely that their destinies only serve as a pretext to justify the creation of new and unheard-of powers for the state. Once these new powers are firmly established, there is no reason why the elderly should remain especially dear to those in power. It must be feared that the very opposite will be the case.
Now, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I do not claim that the present French government seeks to grab power over life-and-death decisions, or dictatorial powers to introduce socialism through the backdoor under the cover of Covid19. In fact, I cannot imagine that Monsieur Macron and his government are driven by sinister motivations. I think they have the best of all intentions. But the point here is precisely that there is a difference between doing good and wishing to do good.
A Grave Error: Rule by Experts
So far, I have commented on a political issue. But there are also matters of fact. And this brings me to the two aforementioned errors.
The first fundamental error is to hold that is that the experts know and all the rest of us should trust them and do as they tell us.
The truth is that even the most brilliant academics and practitioners have in-depth knowledge only in a very narrow field; that they have no particular expertise when it comes to devising new practical solutions; and that their professional biases are likely to induce them into various errors when it comes to solving large-scale social problems such as the current pandemic. This is patent in my own discipline, economics, but not really different in other academic fields. Let me explain this in some more detail.
The kind of knowledge that can be acquired by scientific research is just a preliminary to action. Research gathers facts and yields partial knowledge of causal connections. Economics tells us, for example, that the size of the money stock is positively related to the level of unit prices. But this is not the whole picture. Other causes come into play as well. Real-world decision-making cannot just rely on facts and other bits of partial knowledge. It must weigh the influence of a multitude of circumstances, not all of which are well known, and not all of which are directly related to the problem at stake. It must come to balanced conclusions, sometimes under rapidly changing circumstances. 3 Pack POLICE MAGNUM O... Buy New $19.99 (as of 02:24 UTC - Details)
In this respect, the typical expert is no expert, at all. How many laureates of the Nobel Prize in economics have earned any significant money by investing their savings? How many virologists or epidemiologists have established and operated a privately-run clinic or laboratory? I would never trust a colleague who had the folly to volunteer to direct a central planning board. I do not trust an epidemiologist who has the temerity to parade as a Covid19 czar. I do not believe a government that tells me it somehow knows “the experts” who know best how to protect and run an entire country.
Furthermore, consider that scientific knowledge is, at best, a state of the art. The precious thing about science is not to be seen in the results, which are hardly ever final. What is crucial is the scientific process, which is a competitive process based on disagreements about the validity and relevance of different research hypotheses. This process is especially important when it comes to new problems – such as a new virus, which spreads in unheard-of ways and has unheard-of effects. It is precisely in such circumstances, when the stakes are high, that the impartial confrontation and competitive exploration of different points of view is of paramount importance. Research czars and central planners are here of no use at all. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
A government which bets the house on one horse and hands the management of a pandemic over to a single person or institution achieves, at best, only one thing: that all citizens receive the same treatment. But it thereby slows down the very process which leads to the discovery of the best treatments, and which makes these treatments rapidly available to the greatest number of patients.
It is also important to keep in mind that academics – and this includes epidemiologists just as economists and lawyers – are typically government employees, and that this colours their approach to any practical problem. They are likely to think that serious problems, especially large-scale problems touching most or all citizens, should be solved by state intervention. Many of them are in fact incapable of imagining anything else.
This problem is reinforced through a nefarious selection bias. Indeed, those academics who opt for an administrative or political career, and who make it into the higher ranks of the civil service, cannot fail to be convinced that state action is suitable and necessary to solve the most important problems. Otherwise they would hardly have chosen such a career, and it would also be virtually out of the question that they end up in leadership positions. A good example among many others is the current WHO director, Tedros Adhanom, who I understand is a former member of a communist organisation. The point is not that a WHO director should have no political opinions, or that Dr Adhanom is an evil or incompetent person. The point is that it is unsurprising that men like him occupy leadership positions in state-run organisations; and that the approach he envisions to deal with a pandemic are likely to be coloured by his personal political preconceptions, not only by medical information and good intentions. Twelve South Curve for... Buy New $59.99 (as of 02:45 UTC - Details)
Another Momentous Error: Neglect of Economics
Along with such selection bias comes a peculiar ignorance in regard to the functioning of complex social orders. This brings me to the second fundamental error that vitiates the Covid19 policies. It consists in thinking that civil and economic liberties are some sort of a consumers’ good – maybe even a luxury good – that can only be allowed and enjoyed in good times. When the going gets tough, the government needs to take over and all others should step back – into confinement, if necessary.
This error is typical for people who have spent too much time among politicians and in public administrations. The truth is that civil and economic liberty is the most powerful vehicle to confront virtually any problem. (The notable exception is that liberty does not help to consolidate political power.) And the reverse side of the same truth is that governments typically fail whenever they set out to solve social problems, even very ordinary problems. Think of state-run education or housing projects. I will return to this point further below.
Because of the mechanics of the political process, governments are liable to overreact to any problem that is big enough to make it into the news and to become an issue for voters. Governments will then typically zoom in onto this one problem. In their perception, it becomes the most important of all problems that humanity has to solve. If such a government has no clue about economics, it is liable to propose one-plan technical solutions that completely neglect the social and political dimension of what it means to solve a problem. In the present case, the “experts” have blithely proposed to shut down the entire economy because this is what “works.”
Now, I do not contest that shut-downs are effective in slowing down the transmission speed of a pandemic. I have no opinion at all on the most suitable way to deal with pandemics or other problems of virology or medicine. But as an economist I know the crucial importance of the fact that there is never ever only one single goal in human life. There is always a great and diverse array of objectives that each of us pursues. The practical problem for each person is to strike the right balance, most notably, to act in the right temporal sequence. Translated onto the level of the economy as a whole, the problem is to allocate the right amounts of time and material resources to the different objectives.
Mises: The Last Knight... Ju00f6rg Guido Hu00fcl... Best Price: $14.80 Buy New $48.96 (as of 07:55 UTC - Details) For most people, protecting their own lives and the lives of their families has a very high importance. But irrespective of how important this objective is, in practice, it cannot be perfectly achieved. To protect my life, I need food, thus I need to work, thus I need to expose myself to all kinds of risk that are associated with leaving the safe space of my house and encountering nature and other humans. In short, human lives cannot be perfectly protected, even by those who are ready to subordinate everything else to them. It is a practical impossibility. When it comes to protecting lives, the only question is: how much am I willing to risk my life and the lives of those who depend on me? And it more than often turns out that by risking much one protects best. What holds true for the eternal life of one’s soul (“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” – Matt 16:25) also holds true for the mundane material life down here in earth.
Now, most people do not actually cherish the preservation of their lives, or the extension of their life spans, as the single highest goals. Smokers, meat eaters, drinkers prefer a shorter, more joyful life, to a longer life of abstinence. Policemen, soldiers, and many citizens are more than often driven by the love of their country and by a love of justice. They would rather die than live under slavery or tyranny. Priests would risk their lives rather than forsake their commitment. A believer in Christ would rather risk death than apostasy. Sailors risk their own lives to provide for their families. Medical doctors and nurses are willing to risk their lives to help patients with infectious diseases. Rugby players and race drivers risk their lives, not only for the glory of winning, but also for the excitement and satisfaction that comes with performing well under danger. Many young men and women gladly trade the excitement of dance for the risk of catching Covid19.
All of these people, in one way or another, make material contributions to the livelihood of all others. Smoker and drinkers ultimately pay for their consumption, not with money (which serves them only as a tool of exchange with others), but with the goods and services that they themselves provide to others. If they could not indulge in their consumption, their motivation to help others would diminish or vanish altogether. If policemen, soldiers, sailors, and nurses did not have a relatively low risk-aversion, their services would be provided only at much higher cost, and possibly not at all.
The preferences and activities of all market participants are interdependent. In the market order, each one helps all other in pursuing their goals, even if these goals may ultimately contradict his own. The meat eater might be a mechanic who repairs the cars of vegetarians, or an accountant who does the bookkeeping for a vegetarian NGO. The soldier also protects pacifists. Among the pacifists may be farmers who grow the food consumed by soldiers, etc.
It is impossible to disentangle all of these connections, and it is not necessary. The point is that, in a market economy, the factors determining the production of any economic good are not just technical factors. Through exchange, through the division of labour, all production processes are interrelated. The effectiveness of doctors and nurses and their assistants does not only depend on the people who directly supply them with the materials that they need. Indirectly, it also depends on the activities of all other producers who do not have the slightest thing to do with medical services in hospitals. Even in an emergency situation, it is therefore necessary to respect the needs and priorities of these others. Locking them away, locking them down, far from facilitating the operation of hospitals, will eventually come to haunt the latter as well, when supply chains wither and consumer staples start lacking.
Now one might contend that such consequences only obtain in the longer run and that a government confronted with an emergency situation needs to neglect long-run issues and focus on the short-run emergency. This sounds reasonable, which is why governments have appealed to arguments of this sort with great regularity in other areas, most notably to justify expansionary macroeconomic policies, which also trade off the present against the future.
But the reasoning is flawed in the present case. The root of the error is to consider that the Covid19 virus is an immediate threat to human lives, whereas the lock-down policies are not. But this is not the case. How many people have committed suicide because the lockdown measures have driven them to depression and insanity? How many did not receive life-saving treatments because hospital beds and staff were blocked for Covid19 victims? How many have become victims at home because of the lockdown-induced aggression of their spouses? How many have lost their jobs, their companies, their wealth and will be driven to suicide and aggression in the months to come? How many people in the poorest countries of the world economy are now driven into starvation because households and firms in the developed world have cut back demand for their products because of the lockdown?
The inevitable conclusion is that, even in the short run, lockdown policies are costing the lives of many people who would not otherwise have died. In the short and in the long-run, the current lockdown policy does not serve to “save lives” but to save the lives of some people at the expense of the lives of others.
Conclusion
The lockdown policies are understandable as a panic reaction of political leaders who want to do the right thing and who have to make decisions with incomplete information. But upon reflection – and certainly in hindsight – they are not good policy. The lockdowns of the past month have not been conducive to the common good. While they have saved the lives of many people, they have also endangered – and are still endangering – the lives and livelihoods of many others. They have created a new and dangerous political precedent. They have reinforced the political-regime uncertainty – to use Robert Higgs’s felicitous phrase – that bears on the choices of individuals, families, communities, and firms in the years to come.
The right thing to do now is to abandon these policies swiftly and entirely. The citizens of free countries are able to protect themselves. They can act individually and collectively. They cannot act well when they are locked down. They will greet any honest and competent advice on what they can and should do, upon which they will proceed responsibly, whether alone or in coordination with others.
The greatest danger right now is in the perpetuation of the ill-conceived lockdowns, most notably under the pretext of “managing the transition” or other spurious justifications. Is it really necessary to walk through the endless list of management failures of government agents? Is it necessary to remind ourselves that people who have no skin in the game are irresponsible in the true sense of the word? These would-be managers should have stayed out of the picture from the very beginning. Instead, so far, they have managed to get everybody else out of the picture. If they are allowed to go on, they might very well turn the present calamity – big as it is – into a true disaster.
The historical precedent that comes to mind is the Great Depression of the 1930s. Then, too, the free world was confronted with a painful recession, when the implosion of the stock-market bubble entailed a deflationary meltdown of the financialised economy, along with massive unemployment. This recession, dire as it was, could have remained short, as had been all the previous recessions in the US and elsewhere. Instead it was turned into a multi-year depression, thanks to folly of FDR and his government, who had the pretention of managing the recovery with government spending, nationalisations, and price controls.
It is not too late. It is never too late to recognise an honest error and correct a wrong course of action. Let us hope that President Macron, President Trump, and all other people of good will may rapidly come to their senses.
The Best of Jörg Guido Hülsmann