Human Freedom Relies On Gold Redeemable Money

I think the title of this post is pretty close to a piece Congressman Howard Buffett wrote in the first half of the 20th century (yes, Warren Buffett's father - they have slightly different political leanings).

In any case, I felt it was an apt title to the below video from Charlie Rose where he discusses gold, inflation, "quantitative easing", and dollar debasement with a few folks including Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn (whom we are a big fan of), Jim Grant (again, we're huge fans), the Chairman of Barrick Gold and John Hathaway of Toqueville Asset Management. Enjoy.

Jim Grant - "gold is money."



HT: TB

Liberty Quote Of The Day: Rand Paul

We've Come To Take Our Government Back.

"Do we believe in the individual or believe in The State? Thomas Jefferson wrote the government is best that governs least. Likewise, freedom is best when enjoyed by the most. America can rise up and surmount these problems if we just get government out of our way."

-Rand Paul - 11/2/2010 U.S. Senate Acceptance Speech from Kentucky

Amen.

Vote or DIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vote donkey today and don't ever complain again

OR

choose a different path: one that supports liberty, encourages a government that protects and serves its people rather than controls and harbors power over them, and that provides for its citizens to operate relatively unfettered by centralized influences.

Margaret Thatcher On The Income Gap

Since the Canadian Broadcast Corp has blocked our prior video clip of Maggie Thatcher, herein we enclose another great Maggie video:

Vaclav Klaus On The Failure Of The Euro Experiment

TILB Political Hall of Famer Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, makes the point that "the Euro Zone has failed" in today's WSJ OpEd section. I could not agree more. Oh, to have Klaus as our president here stateside...

Below is the OpEd in its entirety and here is a link to the WSJ online site itself. The OpEd is basically a reprinting of an essay that he recently published via the Cato Institute (link here).

ESSAY - The Wall Street Journal
JUNE 1, 2010
'The Euro Zone Has Failed'
By VáCLAV KLAUS

After the fall of communism in 1989, the Czech Republic wanted to be a normal European country again as soon as possible, after being excluded from participating in the post-World War II European integration process for 41 years. The only way to achieve this was to become a member country of the European Union. We had no other choice, but the communist experience was still too "fresh." We wanted to be free and didn't want to lose our freedom and our finally regained sovereignty. Many of us were therefore in favor of a looser form of European integration, against the so-called deepening of the EU and against the creation of political union in Europe. People like me understood very early that the idea of a European single currency is a dangerous project which will either bring big problems or lead to the undemocratic centralization of Europe. My position was clear: With all my reservations, we had to apply for EU membership, but at the same time we had to fight against projects such as the euro.

As a long-standing critic of the idea of a European single currency, I have not rejoiced at the current problems in the euro zone because their consequences could be serious for all of us in Europe—for members and non-members of the euro zone, for its supporters and opponents. Even the enthusiastic propagandists of the euro suddenly speak about the potential collapse of the whole project now, and it is us critics who say we have to look at it in a more structured way.

The term "collapse" has at least two meanings. The first is that the euro-zone project has not succeeded in delivering the positive effects that had been rightly or wrongly expected from it. It was mistakenly and irresponsibly presented as an indisputable economic benefit to all the countries willing to give up their own long-treasured currencies. Extensive studies published prior to the launch of the European single currency promised that the euro would help to accelerate economic growth and reduce inflation and stressed, in particular, that the member states of the euro zone would be protected against all kinds of external economic disruptions (the so-called exogenous shocks).

This has not happened. After the establishment of the euro zone, the economic growth of its member states has slowed down compared to previous decades, increasing the gap between the rate of growth in the euro-zone countries and that in other major economies—such as the United States and China, smaller economies in Southeast Asia and other parts of the developing world, as well as Central and Eastern European countries that are not members of the euro zone.

Economic growth in Europe has been slowing down since the 1960s, thanks to the increasingly damaging economic and social system which started dominating Europe at that time. The European "soziale Marktwirtschaft" is an unproductive variant of a welfare state, of state paternalism, of "leisure" society, of high taxes and low motivation to work. The existence of the euro has not reversed that trend. According to the European Central Bank, the average annual rate of growth in the euro-zone countries was 3.4% in the 1970s, 2.4% in the 1980s, 2.2% in the 1990s and only 1.1% from 2001 to 2009 (the decade of the euro). A similar slowdown has not occurred anywhere else in the world (speaking about "normal" countries, e.g. countries without wars or revolutions).

Not even the expected convergence of inflation rates has taken place. Two distinct groups have formed within the euro zone—one (including most of the countries of western and northern Europe) with a low inflation rate and one (including Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland) with a higher inflation rate. We have also seen an increase in long-term trade imbalances. There are countries where exports exceed imports and countries that lastingly import more than they export. It is no coincidence that the latter countries also have higher inflation. It has no connection with the world-wide crisis. This crisis "only" escalated and exposed longtime hidden economic problems; it did not cause them.

During its first 10 years, the euro zone has not led to any measurable homogenization of its member states' economies. The euro zone, which comprises 16 European countries, is not an "optimum currency area" as defined by the economic theory. Even Otmar Issing, the former member of the Executive Board and chief economist of the European Central Bank, has repeatedly pointed out (most recently in a speech in Prague in December 2009) that the establishment of the euro zone was primarily a political, not an economic, decision. In such a situation, it is inevitable that the costs of establishing and maintaining it exceed its benefits.

My choice of the words "establishing" and "maintaining" is not accidental. Most economic commentators were satisfied by the ease and apparent inexpensiveness of the first step (the establishment of the common monetary area). This helped to form the impression that everything was fine with this project.

The exchange rates of the countries joining the euro zone probably more or less reflected the economic reality at the time when the euro was born. However, over the last decade, the economic performance of euro-zone countries diverged and the negative effects of the "straight-jacket" of a single currency have become more and more visible. When "good weather" (in the economic sense of the word) prevailed, no visible problems arose. Once the crisis (or "bad weather") arrived, the lack of homogeneity manifested itself very clearly. In that sense, I dare say that—as a project that promised to be of considerable economic benefit to its members—the euro zone has failed.

The second meaning of the term collapse is the possible collapse of the euro zone as an institution, the demise of the euro. To that question, my answer is no, it will not collapse. So much political capital had been invested in its existence and in its role as a "cement" that binds the EU on its way to supra-nationality that in the foreseeable future the euro will surely not be abandoned.

It will continue, but at a very high price—low economic growth. It will bring economic losses even to non-members of the euro zone, like the Czech Republic.

The huge amount of money that Greece will receive can be divided by the number of the euro-zone inhabitants, and each person can calculate his or her own "contribution." However, the "opportunity" costs arising from the loss of a potentially higher growth rate, which is much more difficult for a non-economist to imagine, will be far more painful. I do not doubt that for political reasons this price will be paid and that the euro-zone inhabitants will never find out just how much the euro truly cost them.

The mechanism that will save the European monetary union is the increasing volume of financial transfers that will have to be sent to euro-zone countries suffering from the biggest economic and financial problems. Yet everyone knows that sending massive financial transfers is possible only in a state, and the EU, or the euro zone, is not a state. Only in a state there is a sufficient feeling of solidarity among its citizens. Only in a state—and unified Germany in the 1990s is an excellent example—can massive financial transfers be justified and made politically viable. (By the way, the inter-German financial transfers in that era annually equaled the whole sum potentially needed for Greece to survive). Twenty years ago, I happened to be the minister of finance in a dissolving political—and monetary—union called Czechoslovakia. I have to confess that the country broke up because of the lack of mutual solidarity.

That is why Europe will have to decide whether to centralize itself politically as well. Europeans don't want that because they know (or at least feel) that it would be to the detriment of liberty and prosperity. There is, however, a real danger that the politicians will do it anyway—behind the backs of those who elected them. And this is what bothers me most. The recent dealings in EU headquarters in Brussels—literally behind closed doors—about the aid package for Greece demonstrated that there is no democracy there. The German-French tandem made the decision on behalf of the rest of the euro-zone countries, and I am afraid this will continue.

It is evident that the euro—the European single currency—and the currently proposed measures to save the euro do not represent any "salvation" for the European economy. In the long run, it can be saved only by a radical restructuring of the European economic and social system. My country had a velvet revolution and made a radical transformation of its political, economic and social structures. Fifteen years ago, I sometimes joked that after entering the EU we should start a velvet revolution there as well. Unfortunately, this ceases to be a joke now.

The Czech Republic has not made a mistake by avoiding the membership in the euro zone. I am glad we are not the only country taking that view. In April, the Financial Times published an article by the late governor of the Polish central bank, Slawomir Skrzypek. He wrote it shortly before his tragic death in an airplane crash near Smolensk, Russia. In that article, Mr. Skrzypek wrote, "As a non-member of the euro, Poland has been able to profit from flexibility of the zloty exchange rate in a way that has helped growth and lowered the current account deficit without importing inflation." He added that "the decade-long story of peripheral euro members drastically losing competitiveness has been a salutary lesson." There is no need to add anything to that.

Václav Klaus has served as president of the Czech Republic since 2003

[click here for video of an excellent interview with Klaus by Peter Robinson from 2009]

Keynesianism Is So Nuanced

[This will be a multi-part series that discusses inflation, what money is and why it has value. We begin with some basics through the lens of Keynesianism's "attractiveness".]

I was on an email string recently about The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Uri Dadush. I made the statement that Dadush is simply a Keynesian, albeit one that is well connected and understands there are many difficult challenges that need to be addressed. In response to my email, a long-time friend of TILB and fellow liberty loving free marketer - though he is still finding his legs with regards to understanding the implications of his beliefs - responded to me that he has spoken at length with Dadush and that he's more nuanced and "complex" than being simply called a Keynsian. Here's a quote from Dadush's recent FT OpEd:

There are ways to mitigate the pain. For example, Germany and other countries could adopt more expansionary fiscal policies for a while. Or, more powerfully, the wider euro area could adopt more expansionary monetary policies for several years. Today, this second option is anathema as the “inflation fundamentalists” will have none of it.

Nuanced? I guess.

Here's what my friend said (mind you, he's an avowed libertarian - though he's still figuring himself out so to speak) - light editing for privacy reasons or clarification:

I met with the guy for 2 hours, and I would not classify him as such [a "strong Keynesian with fairly mainstream opinions"]. If anything, he is complex – and clearly what he says on CNBC and in NY Times oped is not what he can say behind closed doors. While Keynesian, he is not a classically academic Keynesian, sitting in a library dealing with only theory. He counsels governments facing massive social unrest and high unemployment, and he approaches his work with a much deeper appreciation for the human situation than we can. So while espousing money creation below, he was also very pragmatic with me about the moral hazard of this choice, the continued low interest rates, our over-reliance on debt, etc.

I am sympathetic with his situation. We often throw around our ideas without considering the reality of what will inevitably happen – at least in the short term – if our ideas were implemented. I know you will vehemently disagree with me on this, but the fact is that – again, in the short term – what you and I want ideally is economically wishful thinking and politically impossible. Yes, the opposite will bankrupt the world, and we are largely already insolvent. There’s no argument there. Should we suddenly balance our budget, shrink government dramatically, stop stimulus, war, and over-regulation, the result could be 50-60-70% unemployment rates – in the short run. I do believe the LT benefits of Austrian economics are obviously far superior to the Keynsian ponzi scheme.

However, no one talks about the transition, and what it would really mean for us. If you take a heroin addict, and suddenly “reform” him with complete withdrawal and going cold turkey, he will often die from this. His body cannot handle the shock.

Uri had just met with the Italian Finance Minister prior to seeing me – I can imagine that conversation. How do you convince someone like that that what he really needs is to leave the EU, get on the gold standard, balance his budget, cut taxes – and face assassination b/c 100 million are thrown into convulsions?

My point is that Uri deals with the reality of our current situation, while we do not. We read letters and books, then pontificate and rant without a good understanding of what it really means. It will kills us eventually, yes. But it will be a long, slow death probably instead of a quick one.

Lastly, I’ve read Ron Paul, Murry [sic] Rothbard, etc. They all talk about how wrong things are – and I agree with them. I have yet to see a transition plan, so if you know of anything they have written on how to get off the system we are currently addicted to, I’d love to read it.

I decided not to send him a reply by email. Instead, I decided to bring the discussion to TILB, as it's a more productive forum for this sort of thing. To be direct, I disagree with a number of his assertions.

In my opinion, what you described is in fact classic Keynesianism. No self respecting Keynesian would claim that running large deficits and printing money is a long-term viable solution or economically healthy approach. That is simply the tag line non-Keynsians use to belittle the Keynsian approach. It's the politicization the word "Keynesian" but not the reality. Dadush is a classic, behind-the-desk academic Keynesian. He provides advice based in theory as does every other economist, Austrian or otherwise.

The Keynesian argument is always more nuanced or "complex". The argument is generally that goverment needs to implement aggressive and targeted public spending policies during difficult economic periods because taking the hard medicine in the middle of a recession would (they believe) be too painful and counterproductive. By putting it into human terms it becomes very powerful (for obvious reasons) even if - in my opinion - the Keynsian trade is to attempt to avoid some human pain today in exchange for accepting much more human pain in the future.

What's here is tangible and it matters more to voters than tomorrow's pain.

So if we can just take a few easy money bong hits and confuse our body into thinking it's healthy, we can take the hard medicine then. We'll do what needs to be done, but just not yet. Tomorrow. Always some day in the future.

As you know, the issue is that the recession is not the problem, the recession is the cure. It's the cure to profligacy; a recession is simply a period of excess savings that offsets periods of excess spending and consumption.

Switching from a societal bias toward spending to one of savings is painful because society was confused by the profligacy into setting up a structure that serves society's apparent "needs" as if the profligate period is normal. The profligacy is full of false/unsustainable demand signals that trick people into creating/investing in the wrong kinds of businesses or in the wrong amount. The longer the cure is postponed by inflicting more easy money and socialist disease (e.g., Dadush's prescription), the more painful the necessary recession will be because the imbalances are greater and become more depended on.

It's not just imbalances as defined as switching from spending/borrowing to saving/investing. It's that entire industries were created to serve an unsustainable consumptive demand rather than productive advancement. It requires more than just saving new capital, but shifting existing capital from entire industries and possibly geographies to others. A human toll is left in the wreckage of these corrections. It is, however, unavoidable.

What is avoidable is compounding the problem through continued interference with the needed correction.

Bernanke/Bush/Obama's current postponement means the next recession (assuming we are - in fact - past "this one") will feel worse than this one. Their fight of postponement is really an attempt to induce even more capital to become malinvested toward less productive industries and to have us become even more dependant on unsustainable behaviors. So there will never be a period in which the hard medicine can be comfortably consumed because the hard medicine IS the recession and the imbalances it wants and needs to address continue to grow in the meantime. So avoiding taking the hard medicine means avoiding curing the disease; allowing it to metasticize, take root, grow and spread.

You know me well and you are correct: I do vehemently disagree with your statement. Short of a major North American landwar, there is virtually no scenario in which a society as productive as ours would experience anything like "50-60-70%" unemployment rates, even if one mistakenly changes the whole system in one yank.

Ron Paul and others have addressed transition plans. They logically begin with the easiest part: balancing the budget while cutting taxes. By taxing less and borrowing less, capital remains in private (productive) hands and out of public (unproductive) hands. Sounds hard, but if you are of the opinion that most of government is value-destructive, it's actually easy. First, bring the troops home and end the American military empire abroad (foreign military bases). Those two actions are somewhere in the $500 billion to $750 billion annually of savings (1/3 to half of our expected deficit this year and 100% of our deficit from three years ago). Other than for providing a platform for safe living and investment, military is a non-productive expense, by definition. Then end most of the "Department ofs", as I call them. Dept of Education, Dept of Interior, Dept of Energy, Dept of Homeland Security, etc. and slash the size of those you keep, emphasizing of course a strong defense (not offense - defense). This is key, bringing home the military does not mean having a weaker defense. It means changing the nature of it and allowing us to invest in true defense rather than wasting investment on overseas bases.

These cuts are - importantly - phased in but transparent and forecast so that the change is digestible.

That's the easy part. The harder part (though made much, much easier by having already shifted to a smaller government that runs a balanced budget) is moving to a harder currency. This involves ending the Fed and installing free banking, which means a banking system that doesn't "create" money with customer deposits. My personal view is the only way to do that is a slow, planned, well understood phase-in. It might take two decades to let happen so that the adjustment is manageable. I believe the huge benefits reaped from freeing capital from government hands would unleash such a lollapalooza of positives on society that shrinking the banking system would actually shift from an economic headwind to a tailwind by the latter years of the process.

As a final aside, in contrast to your assertion, I am not actually a government-installed-gold-standard man, because it relies on government to be well behaved. I am for market-based money, but that's a discussion for another day.

Paul Ryan Dismantles The Health Care "Reform" Legislation On The Congressional Floor

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan is quickly establishing a reputation in the republican community as an impassioned, logical, freedom loving voice of reason. A throwback republican of sorts. While certainly not our ideal politician, he's closer to the kind of republican that makes TILB still have hope for the GOP.

Here he blasts several of the most popular health care myths on the floor of the House of Representatives. He shows how it does nothing remotely close to reducing the debt, he rails against the legacy of leverage that we leave to the next generation to shoulder, and he lambasts the idea of government rationing health care rather than individuals making private decisions with their care providers and insurers.

Sadly, nobody listens; nobody cares.

The Borg, I Mean Obama Administration, Proposes Federal Price Controls On Health Insurers

Good lord, our president has no shortage of self-assuredness in his ability to control all aspects of society. Thomas Sowell preciently warned us of this prior to the 2008 election.

The Administration is apparently going to take another crack at health insurance reform (rather than healthcare reform) by imposing federal price controls on the insurance industry. The modicum of respect that I retain for the man declines everyday as his populist exploitations accumulate.

I mean, federally imposed price controls have worked so well in other areas of the economy. Fortunately, this effort is unconstitutional and clearly impedes states' rights and oversteps constitutionally limited federal authority. Unfortunately, we all know that Obama views the constitution as a simple set of best practices recommendations rather than the fundamental underpinning of the relationship between man and his servant government.

If it is not yet screamingly obvious that price controls reduce competition, reduce service quality, and impair productivity, then it never will be. There is not one sector of the economy that the government has ever successfully improved through price controls.

Here is the New York Times article on the topic of The Administration's efforts to set prices.

What's ironic is that every industry the government is heavily involved subsequently earns a terrible reputation: public schools, health care, banking, insurance, defense, etc. These are businesses that have costs that rise in excess of inflation and productivity gains that lag it. However, industries that are relatively more free such as high tech, retail, and consumer goods reflect the opposite: improving productivity, declining costs, and increasingly customer friendly prices and products.

The obvious answer is to free the health care and insurance sector of governmental interference and watch them blossom. Sadly, this will not happen under the rule of a man that believes he can impose better outcomes than individuals would receive through freedom (or, in the case of insurance, local judgement).

The Revolution Marches Forward

I have nothing to add.

Hayek Vs. Keynes

DJ Freddy Hayek b-slaps DJ Maynard, in this rap video.

Liberty Quote Of The Day: George Bernard Shaw

We instantly fell in love with this quote, when we heard it released from the lips of Margaret Thatcher, although it originates from George Bernard Shaw. It is so true. Enjoy the bonus Thatcher video below.

"Freedom incurs responsibility; that is why so many men fear it."

- George Bernard Shaw

Liberty Quote Of The Day: Booker T. Washington

As we sit watching the great freedom that our forefathers granted to us melting at the hands of huge oppressive government, an administration that believes it is all knowing, sovereign debt loads spiraling upward, and a Federal Reserve that has manipulated price signals to disasterous outcomes, it is pleasant to think back on what it must have been like to have the chains of slavery fall to your feet and to take your first few free steps.

Booker T. Washington reflects back on that moment - when the Emancipation Proclamation was first read to him. While we're not big fans of Abe Lincoln in many ways, obviously ending slavery was a true moral good.

"As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see."

- Booker T. Washington - Up From Slavery: An Autobiography

Liberty Quote Of The Day: Frederich Hayek

Amongst the collection of brilliant attendees of Mises's weekly seminars back in Vienna, Frederich Hayek would distinguish himself as first amongst equals when he later won a Nobel Prize for building on Mises's groundbreaking work in developing an understanding of the impact of credit creation in business cycles.

Hayek was a proponent of liberty and understood that the government could not solve man's inherent problems (they are inherent) and that in its efforts to do good, it would generally have a multiplier of negative unintended consequences. This is Hayek's second Liberty Quote of the Day.

"What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves."

- Frederich August Hayek - The Road to Serfdom: 1944

Liberty Quote Of The Day: Immanuel Kant

In his "Metaphysics of Morals", published in 1784, Kant discussed the singular right with which all men are endowed upon birth: freedom. It is this right which gives us equality, but from that single right nature demands we develop differently from that point forward, seeking out Kant's famous "ends."

The first sentence of the quote is the most famous portion.

"Freedom is independence of the compulsory will of another; and in so far as it can coexist with the freedom of all according to a universal law, it is the one sole original, inborn right belonging to every man in virtue of his humanity. There is, indeed, an innate equality belonging to every man which consists in his right to be independent of being bound by others to anything more than that to which he may also reciprocally bind them. It is, consequently, the inborn quality of every man in virtue of which he ought to be his own master by right (sui juris). There is, also, the natural quality of justness attributable to a man as naturally of unimpeachable right (justi), because be has done no wrong to any one prior to his own juridical actions. And, further, there is also the innate right of common action on the part of every man, so that he may do towards others what does not infringe their rights or take away anything that is theirs unless they are willing to appropriate it; such merely to communicate thought, to narrate anything, or to promise something whether truly and honestly, or untruly and dishonestly (veriloquim aut falsiloquim), for it rests entirely upon these others whether they will believe or trust in it or not. But all these rights or titles are already included in the principle of innate freedom, and are not really distinguished from it, even as dividing members under a higher species of right."

-Immanuel Kant

Liberty Quote Of The Day: Ron Paul

Avowed protector of Liberty, Congressman Ron Paul tells us what freedom really means. Folks less familiar with Texas's great Dr. No should realize that when Ron Paul talks about robbing our neighbors, he means it both literally and figuratively. For those that follow our Liberty Quote of the Day series, you understand that in most modern forms, taxes, monetary inflation (money printing), and governmental borrowing are the primary forms of the figurative theft he (and we) refer to (see our recent Cliff Asness or Francisco D'Anconia quotes, for instance).

"The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free."

— Ron Paul

Liberty Quote Of The Day: The First Amendment

Our ongoing series in quotes on liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility is going to occasionally remind us of the rights we are granted simply by waking up as citizens of these United States. The Bill of Rights (or the first ten amendments to the Constitution) were first authored by James Madison. Today, we begin with the First Amendment which guarantees no laws establishing a national religion, no restrictions on your exercise of religion, and no laws restricting your speech (including via a free press and the right to peaceably assemble):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-First Amendment of The U.S. Constitution

Liberty Quote Of The Day: Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cicero was a great Roman philosopher and statesman. His simple quote below on the value of freedom rings as true today as when he put pen to paper over two thousand years ago.

Cicero's views on freedom were forged from a remarkable and unlikely life lived in the crosshairs of history. After a variety of hurdles including an exile that caused Cicero to reflect on freedom lost, Cicero stood bravely behind his conviction in opposition to Julius Caesar's dictatorship and in favor of a true republic. While not part of the conspiracy that led to Caesar's assassination at the hands of Brutus, allegedly Brutus called out for Cicero to restore the Republic even as he withdrew the bloodied knife from Caesar's body.

The power vacuum created by Caesar's murder was filled by the competing efforts of Cicero and Caesar's loyal servant Mark Antony. Cicero fought Antony with a barrage of words in his attempt to re-establish the Republic. After losing a power struggle, Cicero sought to escape the Empire before being captured, decapitated and de-handed (if that's a word). Antony nailed his head and hands to the speaker's podium of the Roman Forum (yes, you read that correctly). Wikipedia states that Antony's wife removed Cicero's tongue and "jabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin in final revenge against Cicero's power of speech."

Having processed the above, TILB dares not take its own freedom for granted. As Cicero noted:

"Freedom is a possession of inestimable value."

- Cicero

Follow Up To Yesterday's Patrick Henry Liberty Quote Of The Day

Long-time friend of TILB, CK, emailed a request for historical context on today's Patrick Henry Liberty Quote of the Day. Herein follows the complete text of his famous Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech from whence we plucked today's quote [red font added]:

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Having read Patrick Henry's great words, another long time reader of TILB said in an email to investmentlb@gmail.com, "A different breed TILB, a different breed."

Indeed.

We find it quite remarkable how many of our founding fathers feared government. Statement after statement of the evils of government permeate their public words and actions. They took that healthy fear and built a system designed explicitly to limit government, but 230 years of bastardization later and even a seemingly foolproof system is struggling under the weight of power hungry bureaucrats.

While today the revolutionary fire in America burns dimmer on the whole, it sits on a tinderbox shielded by misplaced patience. As patience with stolen liberties and a future of debt-burdened national servitude awaits us, the need for action grows greater by the day. We are treated by our government in much the same way Henry complains of the British Ministry treating Americans. Our war, of course, is not a war of flesh, but a war of principle, a war of oppression, a war to recover the ideals on which our nation was built and in which its greatness took root. Hope in and patience with government are our greatest obstacles in the struggle to break free from the oppression of the ruling elite whom daily seem to take our liberties and labors and use them for their own power hungry purposes.

May we live to see the day when we revert back to a high regard for true personal freedom and liberty. Government, at its best, provides protection of personal freedom. Alas, government's ever increasing size is inherently the enemy of that freedom it is designed to cherish. We observe that our government does not seem to be shrinking. Liberty lovers should readily understand that what they cherish is under a powerful attack and persistent oppression.

Stand by quietly and watch your freedom evaporate. "Hope" will not solve the ills we suffer from. Patrick Henry understood that clearly 230 years ago and TILB believes the lesson rings true today.