Mises Wire |
- Record Numbers of Coloradans Are Crossing the Wyoming Border to Buy Illegal Fireworks
- Canada's Alcohol Laws Are Stuck in the Past
- Much Ado about Nothing in the Art Market
- Review: Niall Ferguson's Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe
- The Fed's Power over Inflation and Interest Rates Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
- The Policy and Politics of Cancer Care, with Ted Okon
- Is Guaranteed Basic Income the Solution to Robots Taking Our Jobs?
- Can States Nullify Federal Gun Laws?
- The Tyranny of the Minority Is Just as Dangerous as the Tyranny of the Majority
| Record Numbers of Coloradans Are Crossing the Wyoming Border to Buy Illegal Fireworks Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:30 AM PDT It's almost Independence Day, and for many Coloradans, that means a trip to Wyoming to buy illegal fireworks. That is, it's time to buy fireworks that are illegal in Colorado, but legal in Wyoming. In fact, this fact so well-known to everyone that Wyoming officials don't even try to hide the fact. This can be seen in the fact that fireworks stores selling these illegal fireworks are a mere two-minute drive from the border and among the first structures one will encounter driving north on I-25 from northern Colorado. There in the middle of the prairie, between Cheyenne and the Colorado border, there is little to see other than an RV park and some enormous fireworks shops. And what do Coloradans do with these fireworks after buying them? The local Fox affiliate reports:
This is true every year, but the use of illegal fireworks may be even more widespread this year after last year's experience: On July 4 of 2020, every fireworks show in metro Denver—and probably also statewide—had been cancelled. The result of this was something that officials probably did not anticipate. With no official fireworks shows to attend, Coloradans apparently decided to hold their own private, illegal fireworks shows in droves. When the sun went down that day, the night sky across the city was lit up like never before by countless airborne—and therefore illegal—fireworks set off by locals who were going to have a fireworks show one way or another. The police—who were already on the edge of being reviled thanks to their enforcement of stay-at-home orders and business closures earlier than year—appeared to be unenthusiastic about enforcing the fireworks ban. Nor are the police in the business of prosecuting Coloradans who import illegal fireworks into Colorado. There aren't any cops waiting on the Colorado side of the border to seize contraband. Possession of Wyoming-style illegal fireworks is generally legal in most jurisdictions. But this isn't just a Colorado-Wyoming issue. Apparently, in spite of severe wildfire danger throughout the west, many Americans aren't on board with fireworks bans. Local officials aren't unaware. As the AP reported this week,
There's a similar mood in other states as well.
Clearly, the presence of Wyoming and its liberal fireworks laws is a bit of a fly in the ointment for neighboring officials looking to stamp out the use of private fireworks. Thanks to America's relatively decentralized legal and regulatory regime—in some cases such as fireworks—enforcing local bans becomes a whole lot more difficult. As is the case with marijuana—or abortions or, in the past, legal divorces—the legality of something in some states often effectively makes that something a bit less illegal in all the other states. So why not ban the possession of fireworks and then arrest locals when they try to cross back over with their banned fireworks? After all, other states have taken this approach with marijuana and Colorado. Law enforcement officials in Nebraska, for instance, have long been on alert for "suspicious" vehicles that have recently crossed over from Colorado. It is illegal to even possess marijuana in most states surrounding Colorado. Well, making the possession of fireworks illegal is apparently easier said than done. As councilwoman Newton in Utah noted, her constituents don't appear to be in the mood for more bans on activities that many Americans would have considered to be perfectly legal, normal, and moral a year or two ago. In some ways, covid has encouraged lawlessness because many Americans figured out the connection between law and morality is a tenuous connection, indeed. The proliferation of illegal fireworks may be just another side effect of the covid panic.  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Canada's Alcohol Laws Are Stuck in the Past Posted: 01 Jul 2021 04:00 AM PDT If there is one thing that the never-ending lockdowns have taught us, it's that Canadians LOVE to drink. This has become especially clear during the pandemic. Unfortunately, Ontario residents are hampered in our beveraging hobby by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). The LCBO is a relic of a bygone age of prohibition. Like every government-controlled entity, the LCBO is a nightmare for consumers and producers to navigate: it uses red tape and bureaucracy to destroy market mechanisms and is enough to drive any person to drink. Instead of acting as a distributor for breweries, distilleries, and vineyards to get products to market, the LCBO partakes in price setting that limits competition and puts small businesses at a disadvantage against large corporations. The LCBO's single and most glaring problem is that when a producer wants to sell their product, the LCBO sets the price. That is the minimum sale price anywhere in Ontario, be it at a restaurant, brewery, grocery store, or any other place one can buy alcohol. Usually, this price is higher than the what producer initially sold the product for, thus driving potential consumers from the market. This price setting also means that producers are not allowed to mark down or put their LCBO-distributed products on sale. On the other hand, the LCBO can discount the alcohol products it sells, taking sales away from the local businesses. Of course, giant companies do not feel the squeeze of sales from the crown corporation, but the loss of income severely impacts microdistilleries and the like. The LCBO also prevents the wholesaling of alcohol to restaurants, selling to them at the same prices regular consumers pay for the same product. This is why alcohol is always substantially more expensive at restaurants than at the LCBO; restaurants have no room to mark up the prices without them becoming exorbitant. Earlier this year, the province attempted to partner with Canadian food delivery service SkiptheDishes to deliver alcohol to Ontarians. When the news broke, restaurant owners were livid, as the LCBO could charge less for alcohol as they do not have to compete with the price floor. A state company should never be in a position to outcompete private enterprises when the state biases the rules to their advantage. In May of this year, David Clement suggested in the Financial Post that the provincial government follow the lead of Alberta in a hybrid system. The Albertan model has private retailers selling to the public while the state maintains the monopoly on wholesale, albeit at competitive market levels. He argues that Ontario could pay off a large swath of its covid-19 debt by halting new expansion, and allowing more private competition in alcohol sales by removing regulations. Clement discusses how the increase in private sales created more tax revenue for Alberta, and thus would still supply the government with a steady income. Although Clement is correct in asserting more privatization is better than the current model, leaving any business in the hands of the state would still lead to malinvestment and a distortion of real market values. Government entities have no profit incentive and compete unfairly) with the smaller private enterprises attempting to survive, as the Ontario example shows. Even though it would anger the unions, the single best option for Ontario is to sell off all LCBO assets to various companies and allow a fully private retail market in alcoholic beverages. The best way to help businesses and consumers alike is to cut back the regulations and red tape around the LCBO and search for a private solution for alcohol. Peel back the price-setting regulations and allow for the private wholesaling of alcohol to restaurants and other venues. We do not need the Ontario government to dictate how adults consume alcohol, so let's drop the prohibition-era apparatus that's holding us back. The nanny state apparatus is outdated and out of touch. A genuinely free market in alcohol distribution really is something to raise a glass to!  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Much Ado about Nothing in the Art Market Posted: 30 Jun 2021 12:00 PM PDT The recent sale of an invisible statue for £13,000 is symptomatic of the thoroughgoing financialization of our economy. Investors have become ever more obsessed with the symbols of economic reality and less concerned with underlying economic facts. Original Article: "Much Ado about Nothing in the Art Market" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.  |
| Review: Niall Ferguson's Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe Posted: 30 Jun 2021 12:00 PM PDT If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Niall Ferguson, the celebrated British historian now at Stanford's Hoover Institution has spouted his own version of that age-old riddle. In Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe, the prolific author sets out to undermine the distinction between natural disasters and manmade catastrophes. "All disasters," he writes toward the end of this four hundred–page odyssey of present and historical catastrophes, "are at some level man-made political disasters." The good news is that Ferguson's latest isn't a history of covid, at least not entirely (he freely admits that it's much too early to write one). Still, the pandemic makes an appearance in almost every chapter, and a few chapters toward the end are fully devoted to it. Falling into precisely the trap outlined for historians prematurely writing the history of the present, he overwhelms his readers in mortality figures, infection rates, policy measures and central bank actions that were outdated when he wrote about them in the fall of 2020—and bordering on irrelevant for the reader in 2021. The really bad news is that, well, it's not clear what Doom's message is supposed to be: on the last page I'm as confused as I was halfway through. Ferguson's earlier books have been everything from brilliant to controversial, though always clearly and systematically argued: the institutions that made us rich are decaying (Great Degeneration); the British colonial reign had benefits in addition to its much-publicized horrors (Empire); the "killer-apps" of the West (Civilization); the history of finance and banking (The Ascent of Money). In Doom, we get network science as it applies to infectious diseases; nuclear meltdowns and crashes, from the Titantic and Hindenberg to the Tenerife airport disaster; an excellent rebuttal of historical-cycle theories from Ray Dalio's debt cycle to Strauss-Howe's recently revived Fourth Turning; and a very Nassim Taleb-esque description of pandemics that, like earthquakes, follow power-law distributions rather than the more intuitive normal distributions. We also get China and plenty of warnings about a Cold War II, a summary of dystopian science fiction literatures, Medieval quarantines, and a history of medical advances. It's both commonsensical and underappreciated that no event of the world becomes a disaster until it greatly affects human well-being—the tree in the forest—and no manmade disaster is inseparable from the natural world. This is a welcome reminder, especially to our environmental friends worrying about future natural disasters, but not new or particularly noteworthy. It's also not clear what it gets us: yes, we may not be the supreme masters of our own fate, but surely we always knew that outcomes were determined in part by how we respond to them—privately and politically? "You never get the same disaster twice in a row," Ferguson explained in a lecture on the book from September last year, "you're always fighting the last disaster more generally." Again, kicking in open doors, professor. We get political leaders and bureaucracies pursuing a pattern of repeating what seemed to have worked from the last disaster, whether or not that was appropriate for this one. "Bad historians," explains Ferguson, "tell the story of the First World War like you know who's gonna win and you know it's gonna last 4 and a quarter year, but no contemporary had any inkling!" Despite the wonderfully titled chapter 8 ('The Fractal Geometry of Disaster'), I'm not so sure Ferguson shows that the relation between small and large disasters mimic the internal structure of lightning bolts or algae or snowflakes. A fractal pattern of disasters would also cast doubt on the main candidate for Doom's major message: that catastrophes become catastrophes only when we botch our responses. While it's hard to argue with "Most disasters occur when a complex system goes critical, usually as a result of some small perturbation," again, arguing butterfly effects seems to undermine the idea that it's our own responses to disasters that decide our fates. For the rest of that chapter he identifies some common attributes of events gone bad, taken from psychologist James Reason: active and latent errors. Active errors are human beings making poor decisions, from incompetence to bad incentives or exhaustion. Latent errors are "background conditions," like resource allocations or organizational structures. How do these categories help us understand catastrophes? They don't, as Ferguson merely concludes that both matter for the outcome of disasters. Great. Chapter 10, on the economic consequences of the plague, are smack full of weekly death rate, excess mortality numbers, and poll data for spring 2020, with very little discussion of economic impacts. As we later learned, and many then predicted, the "success stories" of early pandemic merely shifted the worst of the shocks into the future. Some celebrated success stories then—say, Hungary or Germany—don't look so successful anymore. So, what is Doom about? I'm not sure. Everything, one is tempted to say, and yet nothing. Judging from how often Ferguson cites Nick Bostrom and Milan Ćircović's book Global Catastrophic Risks from a decade ago, we could call Doom a popularized version of that dense and technical handbook of professionally imagined existential risks. Still, the writing is superb, the stories interesting and the metadiscussions about asymmetric distributions and backward-looking historians are great. Ferguson concludes that black swans rarely "turn life upside down." "Mostly, for the lucky many, life after the disaster goes on, changed in a few ways but on the whole remarkably, reassuringly, boringly the same." That seems like catching the zeitgeist of the moment. If nothing else, Doom provides us with the confirmation bias of what we want 2021 to be like. Perhaps that's Doom's most important contribution.  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| The Fed's Power over Inflation and Interest Rates Has Been Greatly Exaggerated Posted: 30 Jun 2021 09:00 AM PDT It is widely held that the central bank is a key factor in the determination of interest rates. By popular thinking, the Fed influences the short-term interest rates by influencing monetary liquidity in the markets. Through the injection of liquidity, the Fed pushes short-term interest rates lower. Conversely, by withdrawing liquidity, the Fed exerts an upward pressure on the short-term interest rates. Popular thinking also suggests that long-term rates are the average of current and expected short-term interest rates. If today's one-year rate is 4 percent and the next year's one-year rate is expected to be 5 percent, then the two-year rate today should be 4.5 percent ((4 + 5)/2 = 4.5%). Conversely, if today's one-year rate is 4 percent and the next year's one-year rate is expected to be 3%, then the two-year rate today should be 3.5 percent (4 + 3)/2 = 3.5%. Hence, it would appear that the central bank is the key in the interest rate determination process. However, is this the case? Individuals' Time Preferences and Interest RatesIt is individuals' time preferences rather than the central bank that hold the key in the interest rate determination process. An individual who has just enough resources to keep himself alive is unlikely to lend or invest his paltry means. The cost of lending, or investing, to him is likely to be very high—it might even cost him his life to consider lending part of his means. Therefore, he is unlikely to lend or invest, even if offered a very high interest rate. Once his wealth starts to expand, the cost of lending, or investing, starts to diminish. Allocating some of his wealth toward lending or investment is going to undermine to a lesser extent our individual's life and well-being at present. From this we can infer, all other things being equal, that anything that leads to an expansion in the wealth of individuals is likely to result in the lowering of the premium of present goods versus future goods. This means that individuals are likely to accept lower interest rates. Note that interest is the outcome of the fact that individuals assign a greater importance to goods and services in the present against identical goods and services in the future. The higher valuation is not the result of capricious behavior, but of the fact that life in the future is not possible without sustaining it first in the present. According to Carl Menger:
Hence, various goods and services that are required to sustain a man's life at present must be of a greater importance to him than the same goods and services in the future. The lowering of time preferences, i.e., the lowering of the premium of present goods versus future goods due to wealth expansion, is likely to become manifest by a greater eagerness to invest wealth. With the expansion in wealth, individuals are likely to increase their demand for various assets—financial and nonfinancial. In the process, this raises asset prices and lowers their yields, all other things being equal. Does Lowering the Interest Rate Permit Greater Capital Formation?Interest rates being the outcome of the fact that life sustenance imposes a greater importance on present goods versus future goods, fluctuations in them as such do not cause more or less investment. It is true that businessmen react to interest rates. In this sense, the interest rate can be regarded as an indicator. What permits the expansion of capital goods production is not interest rates as such but the increase in the pool of savings. Once individuals have decided to allocate a greater amount of saved wealth toward the buildup of capital goods this decision is going to be manifested in the lowering of time preferences. Note again, what enables the expansion of capital goods investments is the greater allocation of saved wealth toward the production of capital goods and not the lowering of the interest rate as such. The lowering of interest rates tells businesses that they should start the expansion of capital goods production in line with the instruction of consumers. When interest rates are not tampered with, they serve as an important tool in facilitating the flow of savings toward the buildup of a wealth-generating infrastructure. As a rule, a major factor in the discrepancy between observed interest rates and the time preference interest rate is the actions of the central bank. For instance, an aggressive loose monetary policy leads to a very low observed interest rate. The aggressive monetary pumping, however, also undermines the wealth formation process and works toward the increase in people's time preferences, i.e., an increase in the underlying interest rate. As the emerging gap between the time preference interest rate and the observed interest rate widens, this ultimately leads to an economic bust (note that in an unhampered market interest rates will mirror the time preference rates). Whenever the central bank lowers short-term interest rates, it falsifies this indicator, thereby breaking the harmony between the production of consumer goods and the production of capital goods. An overinvestment in capital goods and an underinvestment in consumer goods emerges. While an overinvestment in capital goods results in a boom, the liquidation of this overinvestment produces a bust. Hence, the boom-bust economic cycle. On this Rothbard wrote,
The longer the central bank tries to maintain interest rates at very low levels, the greater the damage inflicted on the wealth formation process will be. Consequently, the longer the period of stagnation is going to be. Interest Rates and Increases in Money SupplyAn increase in the supply of money, all other things being equal, means that those individuals whose money stock has increased are now much wealthier. This will likely set in motion a greater willingness by these individuals to purchase various assets. This in turn bids the prices of assets higher and lowers their yields. At the same time the increase in the money supply sets in motion an exchange of nothing for something, which amounts to the diversion of wealth from wealth generators to non–wealth generators. The consequent weakening in the wealth formation process sets in motion a general rise in interest rates. This implies that an increase in the growth rate of money supply, all other things being equal, sets in motion only a temporary fall in interest rates. This decline in interest rates cannot be sustainable because of the damage to the process of wealth generation. A decline in the growth rate of money supply, all other things being equal, sets in motion a temporary increase in interest rates. However, over time, the fall in the growth rate of money supply lays the foundation for a strengthening in the wealth formation process, which sets in motion a general decline in interest rates. Also, note that the central bank has nothing to do with the underlying interest rate determination process. The policies of the central bank only distort where interest rates should be in accordance with individuals' time preferences, thereby making it much harder for businesses to ascertain what is really going on. Stagflation and Interest RatesIn a situation where economic activity is declining while the momentum of prices is strengthening, how will interest rates be affected? What we will have is stagflation, i.e., a strengthening in the momentum of prices and a decline in economic activity. The key factor behind stagflation is the previous strong increases in money supply, which undermine the pool of wealth. Strong increases in money supply result in an exchange of nothing for something, which weakens the process of wealth formation. As a result, the pool of wealth is weakened, in turn weakening economic growth. Now, increases in the money supply weaken the purchasing power of money. Hence, we have here a weakening in economic activity and a general increase in the momentum of prices. A weakening in the process of wealth generation due to the strengthening in the money supply growth rate increases individuals' time preferences, i.e., raises the underlying interest rate. In response to the emerging economic slump, as a rule, the central bank enters the scene to counter the slump by lifting the money supply growth rate further. This pushes asset prices higher, thereby lowering their yields. After a time lag, though, this increase in the money supply and the resultant increase in the momentum of prices is likely to prompt the Fed to tighten its monetary stance. This means that relative to the previous situation, the Fed is likely to reduce its asset buying. Consequently, an upward pressure on interest rates is likely to emerge (compounding that from the previous weakening of the pool of wealth). This upward pressure on yields is likely to be temporary, since a tighter monetary stance is actually good news for the wealth formation process. This means that after a time lag individual time preferences are likely to be lowered, and this will work toward the lowering of interest rates. Are We Heading for Stagflation?The yearly growth rate of the money supply (the US AMS) stood at 79 percent at the end of February 2021 versus 6.5 percent in February 2020. This raises the likelihood of a strong increase in the momentum of prices of goods and services ahead. Because of past reckless fiscal and monetary policies, the pool of wealth could even be declining. Economic growth is likely to follow suit. This raises the likelihood of stagflation ahead. It is quite likely that the Fed is going to tighten its monetary stance by reducing the pace of asset purchases. Equally, any continuation of a loose stance by the Fed runs the risk of further depleting the pool of wealth, thereby further weakening the economy. Furthermore, because of the massive past monetary pumping, the time preference interest rate is likely to place the long-term yields on a rising trend. ConclusionsWhen the central bank engages in a persistent lowering of interest rates, this policy sets in motion an increase in the underlying interest rates as dictated by individuals' time preferences (the exact opposite of the central bank's intention). It is not going to help economic growth if the central bank artificially lowers interest rates when individuals did not allocate an adequate amount of savings to support the expansion of capital goods investments.
 This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| The Policy and Politics of Cancer Care, with Ted Okon Posted: 30 Jun 2021 09:00 AM PDT Our guest is Ted Okon, a nationally recognized expert on the policy and politics of cancer care. Mr. Okon has testified before Congress on cancer issues and is frequently on Capitol Hill discussing the nation's cancer care delivery system. SHOW NOTES
 |
| Is Guaranteed Basic Income the Solution to Robots Taking Our Jobs? Posted: 30 Jun 2021 07:00 AM PDT The automation doomers assume that when jobs are eliminated by automation in one place, that the number of jobs are permanently gone. For this to be true, there would have to be no growth in the need for labor elsewhere. Original Article: "Is Guaranteed Basic Income the Solution to Robots Taking Our Jobs?" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.  |
| Can States Nullify Federal Gun Laws? Posted: 30 Jun 2021 04:45 AM PDT In June 2021, Missouri passed a new law stating it would not assist in the enforcement of federal gun laws. Tho and Ryan discuss how states can use strategies like this to resist federal laws within the states. Marijuana legalization and opposition to the Fugitive Slave Acts provide compelling historical examples. Articles Mentioned in this Episode"Missouri Tells the Feds: We Won't Enforce Your Gun Laws" by Ryan McMaken: Mises.org/RR_58_01 "When Nullification Works, and When it Doesn't" by Ryan McMaken: Mises.org/RR_58_02 "The Feds Collect Most of the Taxes in America—So They Have Most of the Power" by Ryan McMaken: Mises.org/RR_58_03 "Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Legal Cannabis" by Ryan McMaken: Mises.org/RR_58_04 "Nullification Works: Congress Ends Federal Ban on Medical Marijuana" by Ryan McMaken: Mises.org/RR_58_05 Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.  |
| The Tyranny of the Minority Is Just as Dangerous as the Tyranny of the Majority Posted: 30 Jun 2021 04:00 AM PDT In a previous installment, I pointed out that in On Liberty, John Stuart Mill advocated for minority opinion to be specially "encouraged and countenanced,"1 and thus that Mill was not an absolute free market thinker where opinion is concerned. Mill suggested that minority opinion should not only be tolerated but requires special encouragement in order to gain a fair hearing. Such special encouragement would amount to the subsidization of opinion, most likely by the state. Thus, Mill did not argue for a free and fair "marketplace of ideas." It should be noted here that "the marketplace of ideas" is not only an analogy, where commodities are to markets what ideas are to the public square. The public square is also market in its own right, and not only metaphorically associated with the market. The expression "the marketplace of ideas" somewhat obscures rather than clarifying the situation of opinion. Further, I argued that Mill's advocacy for special treatment of minority opinion does not solve the problem of "social tyranny," which Mill suggested is "more formidable than many kinds of political oppression."2 Rather, when minority opinion is foisted on the majority through special sanctions or subsidies, "social tyranny" is actually increased rather than diminished. To the extent that a majority is unwillingly subjected to minority opinion, the majority is tyrannized. This argument begs the question: What about the opinion of minorities? After all, the mere mention of minority opinion invokes minorities themselves. Don't the opinions of minorities require special encouragement, special sanctions, especially when said opinions have to do with fair and equal treatment of minorities themselves? Doesn't a free market in opinion, or an unfettered marketplace of ideas, drown out or otherwise suppress the opinions of minorities? Wouldn't a free market in opinion thus serve to perpetuate discrimination, lack of recognition, or unfair treatment? Isn't the state required to rectify the situation through special subsidies for opinion? Leaving the nonremunerated voicing of opinion aside—that is, opinion expressed casually or even in public demonstrations—the question becomes whether in the actual marketplace of ideas, state subsidies are necessary for the opinions of minorities to get a fair hearing. The question implies that state actors are specially qualified or motivated to subsidize minority opinion in order to rectify the unfair treatment of minorities—that the state is the most qualified entity for intervening in opinion to favor minorities. But it is easily demonstrated that the market provides more incentives to advocate for the fair treatment of minorities than does the state. Markets encourage legal equality among buyers and sellers. The state, meanwhile, has no monopoly on equal treatment—to say the least. Quite to the contrary, states have more incentives to discriminate against particular groups, as state prerogatives often depend on discrimination. Consider the treatment of the Japanese and Germans in America during World War II, or the treatment of Middle Easterners after 9/11. (Notice how discrimination against Middle Easterners morphed into the consternation about "Islamophobia" when the prerogatives of the state shifted from "the war on terror" under George W. Bush to the incorporation of Islamic immigrants into the electorate under Barack Obama.) Thus, we should be quite skeptical when states impose the opinion of minorities on the majority through special programs in schools and elsewhere. Such programs likely involve "positive discrimination" against particular groups, consistent with state objectives. In fact, discrimination is precisely what is involved in the teaching of critical race theory in schools, the military, the intelligence agencies, and in other government agencies today. Critical race theory is a minority opinion that even most blacks do not agree with. It is being foisted on the majority to establish discrimination against "whites," in order to destroy a political contingent deemed inimical to the Democratic Party–run state. It is a means for marginalizing oppositional elements and driving others into the voting ranks of the Democratic Party by means of ideology. The state imposition of minority opinion does not serve minorities.
 This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mises Wire. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment