Archive for July 2nd, 2009It is Independence Day as We Become More DependentThursday, July 2nd, 2009America Is In Hock To The World And We Have To Accept The New Reality by Danny Schechter
Global Research, July 2, 2009 As Independence Day approaches, the question of the day remains—how Independent are we? Our Declaration signed on a July 4th declared us so to be. And, dutifully, generations of Americans have believed we were and always would be. The late Michel Jackson even had us singing and thinking “We Are The World.” And yet, truth be told, we are more dependent than ever despite all the flag waving and bluster of our politicians. Mei Zinyu, a senior researcher under the Chinese commerce ministry who few have here have ever heard of explained the facts of life in the Shanghai Daily: “It should be noted that the US is the biggest debtor country in the world…. By the end of 2006, the US’ accumulated net debt overseas hit US$16 trillion” In order to keep our economy going, we need China to finance that debt by buying our Treasury bills. The truth is: financial infusions from China, and Japan, and some other Middle Eastern nations keep us alive and very much dependent. The Chinese fear we are getting ready to default on our debt in part by letting the dollar drop Writes Mei, “as most of the debts were calculated in US dollars, the US is actually welshing on its debts malignantly by allowing the devaluation of US dollars. Since China is the country with the world’s biggest foreign exchange reserves, most of which are calculated in US dollars, China thus is hurt most greatly from the US dollar devaluation.” Actually, the US and China are co-dependent but the relationship is getting rocky. We need each other but increasingly we are coming to dislike each other intensely as Economist Brad Setzer notes: “US and China bicker like an unhappily married couple…. the squabbling is getting nastier. And worse, both parties seem to fail to recognize how deeply enmeshed they are, and how divorce is not a realistic option.” Explains the Naked Capitalism Blog, …”neither party is willing to deal with the fundamental problem: the US needs to consume less and save more. That means fewer goodies from China and more US exports. While China in theory could increase exports to Europe, the Europeans place much greater stock in preserving employment than does America, and will likely encounter formal and informal protectionism.’ And so, to put it less delicately, the seeds of an economic war is being planted if as Mei suggests, we also factor in the “rising prices of all primary products, the intensified pressure on inflation globally, the confusion in the settlement of international transactions, etc.” Not good. And where do we end up? With an eroding failing Pax Americana; An Economy which is not—sorry Barack—recovering, an economic system that has still not been reformed or restructured in any fundamental way, and many signs that the crisis is not over as the President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick reminds us: “There are risks that could threaten the turnaround and I have emphasized the world needs to recognize that dangers will come in waves.” Why? Mounting debt: “The World Bank estimated in March that well over $1 trillion in emerging market corporate debt and $2-3 trillion in total emerging market debt will mature in 2009, the majority of which reflects claims of major global banks extended across borders or through affiliates in emerging markets. Also, vengeance freaks please note, the sentence meted out to Bernard Madoff won’t change much or argues Eric Lotke: ‘We can’t let Madoff’s sentence distract us from the underlying problems.
No wonder consumer confidence is dropping. Unemployment is not being checked. The Treasury Department has not solved the bank disaster. Neither has the housing foreclosure crisis been abated. No one is even talking yet about the need for a moratorium. The Banksters are still in charge and still at large. And even attempts to investigate their role in the crisis is beings sabotaged. Economist Dean Baker fears that a proposed Commission to assess blame is being undercut, writing, “there is a real possibility” that the commission appointed by Congress may coverup the real criminals. “Instead of striving to uncover the truth, it may seek to conceal it.,” he fears/ Already bankers are threatening to go to war to stop Obama’s proposed consumer protection agency. At the same time, even media outlets sympathetic to the administration’s plans are worried that any recovery is far off. Writes NY Times business columnist David Lionhardt: “it’s hard not to look back on the last six months and worry that the administration is still underestimating the severity of the situation…. The problems are too big. So it would make sense for everyone — the administration and the rest of us — to have a sober view of what might lie ahead.” No wonder self-styled trends forecaster Gerald Calente is warning a lack of real progress on the economy could doom the Obama Administration, writing: “The “green shoots” sighted by Field Marshall Bernanke this past Spring were a mirage. The 2010 economic “recovery” predicted by the same experts, authorities and financial boy scouts and cheerleaders who didn’t see the economic crisis coming is pure delusion. “By 2012, even those in denial and still clinging to hope will be forced to face the truth. It will be called “Obamageddon” in America. The rest of the world will call it “The Greatest Depression.” Let’s hope not, but, at least, as some of us raise the flag alongside the fireworks and barbecues this July 4th, let’s recognize on this independence day that we now live in an age of Interdependence and have to start acting like it. Mediachannel.org’s News Dissector Danny Schechter is making a film based on his book PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity, (newsdissector.com/plunder) Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org Danny Schechter is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Danny Schechter Covering (up) the coup in Honduras – the BBC does its bit for the EmpireThursday, July 2nd, 2009by William Bowles. Global Research, July 2, 2009 The devil lives in the small print, the devil in this case being the BBC in its coverage of the coup d’etat that ousted President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras on 27 June, 2009. Take the following para from a BBC piece titled ‘US treads careful path on Honduras’ (30 June, 2009) “So while Washington’s reaction has been strong and swift, when it comes to statements, its actions have so far been measured. Now you may wonder why the BBC chose the word ‘measured’ to describe the US’ response to the military coup d’etat? Not only why but how? The following para explains, “This is a signal that Washington is not keen to use its clout to help Mr Zelaya return to power, shying away from any action that could be seen as interventionism in a region where the US has a long, complex history.” But ‘measured’ is not a word that describes the US administration’s response. Obama simply stated that the Honduras coup is “not legal”. And note that the US interventions, both direct military and covert over the years, for example, US support for the Contras in Nicaragua, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile, the attempted overthrow of Chavez in 2002, are described by the dissembling BBC as “long [and] complex [sic], which is the BBC’s standard method of covering up the crimes of Empire. In a related BBC piece with the title of ‘’Mistimed coup’ in Honduras?’ we read, “Recent events in Tegucigalpa, with hundreds of protesters chanting the president’s name have proved that he has his fanatical supporters.” Why does the BBC choose to use the word “fanatical”? Here we have a legally elected leader of a country ousted in a coup that it is alleged the US knew about in advance [see ‘US Govt. Confirms It Knew Coup Was Coming in Honduras’], bundled onto a plane and flown to Costa Rica, describing Zelaya’s supporters as “fanatics”! What does this tell us about the BBC’s alleged impartiality and objectivity? Clearly, any leader of any country who the BBC describes as “leftist” have been tarred with an extremist brush in the eyes of a misinformed public, hence the description of his supporters as “fanatics”. And why call the coup ‘mistimed’? Does the BBC know something the rest of us don’t, like when is the ‘right time’ to stage a coup d’etat? Inquiring minds want to Auntie Beeb. The really important aspect of the BBC’s manipulation of language has to be seen in the larger context of the BBC’s mandate to control our perceptions of reality. So for example, its use of the programme ‘Masterchef’ to boost the UK’s illegal invasion of Iraq by promoting ‘our boys’, when the fact is, the great majority of Brits opposed the invasion of Iraq, so they’re not ‘our boys’ but the Empire’s. In the piece ‘US treads careful path on Honduras’, the BBC lets us know why it uses such potent words, “But Mr Zelaya, who came to power in 2006 as a centre-right leader, turned into a supporter of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez halfway through his term. “He then joined the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a leftist alliance led by Venezuela.” There we have it, Zelaya did an about turn and joined forces with that other thorn in the side of the Empire, Hugo Chavéz and his “leftist alliance”. So it’s not Zelaya’s actual policies that troubles the BBC but the fact that he’s sided with the "leftists" (with the assistance no doubt of his “fanatical supporters”). The term “leftist” is loaded with hidden meaning for Western readers, it’s way beyond ‘left-wing’ which may well describe a handful of Labour MPs who consider themselves as such. Even the title of the piece reveals much about the relationship between the BBC and the USUK state, after all what does ‘US treads careful path on Honduras’ really mean? Careful not to reveal their role in the coup? Careful to make it look like the US supports actual democracy as opposed to fake ones, eg Iraq and Afghanistan? Careful not to let the cat out of the bag is closer to the truth, that the US is more than happy to see Zelaya removed but makes all the right noises in public. Any actual steps to restore Zelaya to his rightful position eg, cutting off the military aid the US ‘gives’ to Honduras is noticeable by its absence. And in an not unrelated piece on the ‘sovereignty’ that Iraq is alleged to have gotten with the relocation of US forces outside Iraq’s cities and towns (but close enough to be moved whenever their overwhelming firepower is required), the BBC quotes the US ambassador to Iraq at length, “Yes, we think Iraq is ready and Iraq thinks Iraq is ready. We have spent a lot of time working very closely with Iraqi security services… and I think there is an understanding that now it is the time.” “Mr Hill stressed that there would still be "a lot of US combat capabilities in Iraq for months to come”. “After 30 June, with US combat forces out of cities and villages, localities, we’ll still be in Iraq, “We will still have a very robust number of US troops in Iraq and, in fact, those troops will not begin to withdraw from Iraq until probably several months from now.” ‘US soldiers leave Iraq’s cities’, 30 June, 2009 So how can the BBC say that Iraq has achieved sovereignty when the country is occupied by over 130,000 troops as well as omitting the fact of the vast airpower that the US still lords over the country it bombed back into the Stone Age. My thesaurus tells me that sovereign means ‘independent’, ‘autonomous’ or ‘self-ruling’ and clearly Iraq meets none of these definitions. The other key word is ‘probably’, in other words it’s just as probable that the US won’t withdraw completely by 2011. The BBC piece offers us no alternative explanations, the US view is the preferred one, so that’s what we get for our extorted license fee. William Bowles is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by William Bowles America’s Third World Healthcare PlanThursday, July 2nd, 2009Conversation with Dr. Quentin Young, Former Obama Healthcare Confidant by Dr. Gary Null. Global Research, July 2, 2009 Progressive Radio Network – 2009-06-22 Gary Null (GN): We’re going to talk about the severity of America’s healthcare and review President Obama’s health reform. Our guest is Dr. Quentin Young, and he is quite simply one of our nation’s most distinguished medical physicians and a leading advocate for a universal health plan. Dr. Young recently retired from private practice after 61 years. He served as the physician for Martin Luther King and was the Chairman of the Medical Committee for Human Rights, Chairman of the Medicine department at Cook County Hospital, a founder of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group and President of the American Public Health Association. Dr. Young is now Clinical Professor of Preventive Medicine and Community Health at the University of Illinois Medical School at Chicago and a founding member and National Coordinator of the Chicago based Physicians For A National Health Program, a nonprofit physician advocacy organization. Dr. Young, it’s nice to have you with us today. Quentin Young (QY): Thank you very much. GN: Dr. Young, I’d like to get an insider’s view to set the record straight about what President Obama actually ran his campaign on regarding healthcare reform. There are those who claim he promised a single payer, universal model. Others say that while giving lip service to it he actually dodged a firm commitment to universal care. As a fellow Chicagoan resident and a community leader who provided health consultation and friendship to Obama the Senator and Presidential candidate over the years, how would you compare the would be President Obama with Obama the Commander and Chief for the public’s health crisis? QY: Well you did a good job of summarizing his evolution. No less than four years ago, he was on the public record saying he supports single payer. It’s the way to go. Then as his fortunes improved—and they certainly did during those four short years when he became a national senator, then presidential candidate and finally the President of the United States—he modified his position. He began by saying that if he was starting from scratch he would go for the single payer system. Then more recently, in fact as we speak, the Administration’s position is that we want to build on what we have experience with in this country. That translates into relying on the employment-based insurance arrangement that many millions of Americans receive. That’s what’s on the table now. That’s where the President is. He no longer says that single payer is the way to go. They sort of mealy mouth the expression that while single payer may work in many countries, in the US we want to build on what we have. Well that has a nice ring to it, but it’s crazy. The plan that we have has put us in desperate straits. Let me be straightforward; the employment-based insurance scheme has proven to be an increasingly empty promise. For example, there are thousands of employees in the big three auto companies who are losing their health insurance as these plants shut down. And we’re seeing an increasing number of uninsured citizens annually for the last 20 years. We’re now up to about 50 million people with no health insurance and another 50 million with very poor insurance. If these people have a serious illness they’re out of the loop. So I am very critical of the President’s compromise. If you were to ask me why he did that—obviously we can’t get inside his mind—the best answer I can give is to replay what happened to President Clinton in 1993 when he came forward with an ambitious plan. The industry attacked the plan ferociously with a multi-million dollar media blitz. By the time it was over in 1994 we had nothing. And now it’s some 15 years later, and we’re seeing another round. So let’s understand why the forces opposing reform are so powerful. Last year healthcare in this country cost $2.5 trillion. We’re getting used to the word trillion, which is one-sixth of the gross domestic product. In other words, one out of six dollars goes to healthcare. And the companies that profit from it, notably the for-profit insurance companies, Big Pharma, the drug companies, and many other huge players, are very concentrated on making sure the Congress doesn’t do anything to spoil their enormous profits. That’s the way they act, and that is what we should expect. I’m not complaining that they’re acting according to script. I am complaining that they’ve brought the American health system to its knees. We’re spending twice as much per capita. For every person in this country we’re spending $7,800. That’s twice as much as the next three countries in the world. Switzerland, France and Germany spend roughly $4,000 for systems that are much more effective. What I mean by that is their outcomes are better. What are the outcomes? In healthcare we measure things like life expectancy. These countries do significantly better than we do. Infant mortality and maternal mortality are useful measures. We’re way down on those lists. There is prevention of preventable diseases, meaning immunization and public health measures. Again, we’re 37th in the world on these measures and these countries are in the top ten. So we are not only not getting a decent health system, we’re also paying a confiscatory price. This is being played out in our Congress but it’s not an even playing field. Senator Baucus from Montana is the Chairman of the powerful Finance Committee that has the main jurisdiction in the Senate for this bill. Senator Baucus has said for the past six months, every time he makes a public statement, that everything is on the table except single payer healthcare. Now in a democratic society that’s almost incomprehensible. The New York Times on June 19 said 82 percent of Americans favor government health insurance. And listen to this. The American medical profession, which I’m a part and I can testify is extremely conservative and was over the years by and large opposed to these forums—has turned around. Last April in The Annals of Internal Medicine, a prestigious refereed journal, a study showed that 59 percent of America’s doctors now favor a government program. Now that’s a turnaround for American doctors. The American doctors discovered that there’s “something” worse than government because everybody was going around with the bogeyman – government medicine – and that “something” is corporations. The corporations now control the American health system. They work for maximum profits. What this translates into is denial of care, raising premiums, and putting people into bankruptcy. You can’t run a health system on those principles. GN: I appreciate your overview. I’d like to go into some specifics now. I have studied the English, French, and the Canadian healthcare systems. Using the Canadian healthcare system as an example, after looking at actual facts, the ten leading arguments against any of that being done in the United States were wrong. Yet our major media, which should have gone to Canada for itself and do its own original investigation instead of listening to lobby groups and their backers have attacked Canada’s system. When you look at the US you find that over $400 billion a year is accounted for by fraud in our existing system. You also see that 27 to 31 percent of all the money in that system goes to the private insurance industries. One healthcare corporation paid the largest fine in American history for a single corporation. It was over 1.1 billion dollars. You’ve got to ask, “What kind of company has got a billion dollars in cash that it can give away for crimes it committed?” Then I consulted Lexis-Nexis for lawsuits that the insurance companies, medical for-profit corporations and hospital businesses have paid. It’s into the billions and billions of dollars. However, no reputations are sullied. No one says the model itself must be corrected. Surely the Surgeon General and the US Public Health Service would start to deal with the diseases we know could be lessened if we as a country began to eat better and take account of our environment. However, not a single step has been taken to make Americans healthier except to stop smoking. We don’t look at anything that’s natural and nontoxic. We look only at a pharmaceutical approach when study after study has shown that some drugs work, some don’t and some are deadly. Then you look at the cost of all this. Surely a single payer model would be better after looking at other countries. Now when it comes to the meetings Obama held in the White House, unless I’m mistaken, you weren’t one of the people invited. In fact, none of the more progressive voices for single payer coverage were invited. Baucus only invited people who are deeply connected to the health insurance agencies, the medical system, and the pharmaceutical industry. Am I off-base about the power that these lobbyists have in controlling our healthcare system? QY: I certainly agree with absolutely everything you said, and it parallels our experience in The Physicians for a National Health Program. We’ve been around for twenty years. We have very close ties with the Canadian leadership and the Canadian Physician Group. They’re not without criticism, but the difference between the major premises and activities of Canada’s health system and ours are as night and day. When polled, 96 percent of Canadians prefer their system over an American alternative. And they know the US. Canadians and Americans cross their border a lot. So it’s an informed opinion. And I agree with you that from all appearances the power players, the people who are in this for maximum profits, are the ones who have the President’s ear. That’s very bad. Not only in principle are the beneficiaries of a bad system calling the shots, but also their solutions. They’re hardly solutions and their proposals will not solve anything. The system that is now deteriorating is going to get worse. Just last week there were a number of headlines in the major papers that tell the whole story. For example, Senator Kennedy, who is Mr. Health in the Senate and in the past has supported really good stuff, presently has a bill that will add a trillion dollars during the next ten years and it still leaves 15 million people uninsured. The pundits are saying that puts a huge hole in the President’s program. Now today they’re celebrating the fact the big drug companies are agreeing to cut in half costs of drugs for the poor. Well that begs a question. If you can cut the cost of a drug to a huge sector of the population, what’s been going on for the last 20 or 30 years? The profits that they’ve pocketed are astronomical. These are minor shifts in the problem. We need a fundamentally sound system that is based on a single payer plan. It’s worth noting that 19 countries share two characteristics. They’re industrialized, therefore their economies are advanced, and they have democratic societies. They have elections and they have accountability. Every one of those 19 countries, except the US, has moved to a single payer system and are doing much better than we are. Getting away with half or less per capita cost, and at the same time much enhanced health status leaves a sense of solidarity, a sense of satisfaction because their governments look after the person on the street. We have a healthcare system that puts people in bankruptcy and jeopardy every day, and then the solutions that are coming forth are not addressing this. To borrow from Senator Baucus, single payer is not on the table. Well, we want it on the table. The American people support the notion of a government tax supported system. We want them to have a voice. GN: I agree. A nation’s healthcare can be summarized as “the best medical care possible with the least amount of money to the largest number of people.” So there are three things: quality care, low cost and universal access. There are recent claims stating that as many as 119 million Americans would shift from private coverage to a universal government health plan if the latter was in place. So if we look at this figure as a public vote on the quality of healthcare in today’s medical system, it’s clearly an indictment that not only our healthcare system is failing many people but it is also providing horrendous medical services. So what does this say about our legislators who choose not to care what Americans think? QY: Well we have to first reckon with the fact that the finance of our legislators’ campaigns are heavily indebted to these drug and the healthcare companies. For example, Senator Baucus has the main jurisdiction over health legislation. Last year he received a half million dollars from the industry, and over the preceding six years over a million. Well what can I say? I’m not making an accusation that he’s been bought off. But then you have these huge contributions to a Senator’s political campaign, and then he says publicly with the power to make it stick that single payer is off the table. It’s very hard not to connect those two events. So we have an ongoing problem in this country in campaign finance reform because these people are very sensitive to the issue of contributions. Well I needn’t say the obvious thing. Democracy is dead, and only occasionally can this kind of unity against reform be breeched. I’m old enough to have participated in the Civil Rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s, and things were bad then in regard to segregation and racism in this country as it is in the health system today. So I have a certain optimism that the healthcare system is very close to that point in history where it’s not tolerable. The irony of this is that we have everything we need to be the best in the world. You know the popular words from the American Medical Association – we have the best system in the world. This is the one social problem we have where all the tools we need to make it good and to fix it are in place. Certainly there is money. We’re starting out with twice as much per capita as any country in the world. I’d say it is downright unpatriotic for anybody to say that we can’t do as least as well, maybe a little better, than anybody else. We have a superb health workforce: doctors, nurses, and other health workers. So all the tools that we need to make it happen are in place, but the intrusion of for-profit corporations and their transactions have held us back and indeed have dragged us down. American citizens have to recognize there’s a specific task they have to communicate to their legislators and tell them what they would like to have happen. I think that would make a difference. In fact I think it’s beginning to make a difference now. GN: Just two more issues. I believe this discussion on healthcare reform in Washington is taking place in a vacuum and disconnected from the economic realities facing Americans, especially the crisis facing small business owners who may be required to provide health coverage at a time when Americans are facing a dramatic decrease in savings. This means that it is impossible for most working Americans to be able to save a nest egg for that time when a loved one becomes ill and has to pay out of pocket regardless of whether or not they have moderate coverage. Moreover a recent Tompkins Reuter Survey released this week of 100,000 households shows that 40 percent of respondents feel they need to postpone any healthcare for several months. Now as a physician you know what this means. Their conditions will only get more serious without care and will become all the more costly as a consequence. How are we to understand the economic crisis as it relates to the necessary conversations on health reform? And what is fundamentally lacking in these discussions in Washington? QY: Well it’s a fact that with this economic downturn there’s a sharp increase in the number of people who just can’t afford, or feel they can’t afford, to visit a doctor, and they fend for themselves. Of course, some make it. People do get well without physician intervention but many don’t. The condition of health in American is declining, and we’re beginning to resemble third world countries in their absence of real support for the health of the nation. I think the economic downturn, which you allude to, has a profound effect in accelerating the crisis. What hasn’t been done is to bring enough Senators and Representatives together for the kind of reform this country needs. That’s exactly where we are right now. I would be happiest if President Obama—who has demonstrated superb political skills—would return to the wisdom of just four years ago when he said single payer is the way to go and he supported it. I’m sure he could bring the American people along. Would there be a really tough fight? You can bet your life. These industries I’ve spoken about will spend whatever it takes, tens of millions of dollars in misinformation. But I have at the end of the day enough confidence in the American people that we’ll do the right thing. So you’re right to point out that we’re entering a period where all the contradictions and all the problems are going to get worse, and we need a huge public awareness to get a decent health system for our people. GN: I really appreciate the opportunity for you to share your ideas with us today. I’m hopeful that at some point President Obama will reconsider his trajectory and realize that there are citizens as well as professionals like yourself who will nudge and remind Obama that he believed in this ideal for the average person. Now he is getting lots of pressure from the special interest groups. And too often we see the special interest groups becoming dominant in what they want. They’re writing laws that protect and self-serve themselves only. They have unwarranted influence, and as a result we have the unintended consequences of their actions. So I’m hopeful there will be change, and I thank you very much Dr. Quentin Young for being with us today to share your insights. QY: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative health, an award-winning director of progressive documentary films, and founder of the Progressive Radio Network. Global Research Articles by Gary Null Uncelebrating the FourthThursday, July 2nd, 2009by Harry Browne Originally published July 4, 2003 Unfortunately, July 4th has become a day of deceit. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declared its independence from Great Britain. Thirteen years later, after a difficult war to secure that independence, the new country was open for business. It was truly unique — the first nation in all of history in which the individual was considered more important than the government, and the government was tied down by a written Constitution. It was the one nation where you could live your life secure in the knowledge that no one would ask for your papers, where you weren’t identified by a number, and where the government wouldn’t extort a percentage of your income as the price of holding a job. And so each year July 4th has been a commemoration of the freest country in history. False Celebration But the America that’s celebrated no longer exists. The holiday oratory deceitfully describes America as though it were the unique land of liberty that once was. Politicians thank the Almighty for conferring the blessings of liberty on a country that no longer enjoys those blessings. The original freedom and security have disappeared — even though the oratory lingers on. What made America unique is now gone, and we are much the same as Germany, France, England, or Spain, with:
Yes, there are some freedoms left, but nothing like the America that was — and nothing that you can’t find in a few dozen other countries. The Empire Gone, too, is the sense of peace and security that once reigned throughout the land. America — bound by two huge oceans and two friendly neighbors — was subject to none of the never-ending wars and destruction that plagued Europe and Asia. Now, however, everyone’s business is America’s business. Our Presidents consider themselves the rulers of the world — deciding who may govern any country on earth and sending Americans to die enforcing those decisions. Whereas America was once an inspiration to the entire world — its very existence was proof that peace and liberty really were possible — Americans now live in fear of the rest of the world and the rest of the world lives in fear of America. The Future Because the education of our children was turned over to government in the 19th century, generations of Americans have been taught that freedom means taxes, regulations, civic duty, and responsibility for the whole world. They have no conception of the better life that could exist in a society in which government doesn’t manage health care, education, welfare, and business — and in which individuals are free to plot their own destinies. Human beings are born with the desire to make their own decisions and control their own lives. But in most countries government and social pressures work to teach people to expect very little autonomy. Fortunately, in America a remnant has kept alive the ideas of liberty, peace, and self-respect — passing the concepts on from generation to generation. And so today millions of Americans know that the present system isn’t the right system — that human beings aren’t born to serve the state and police the world. Millions more would be receptive upon being shown that it’s possible to have better lives than what they’re living now. Both groups need encouragement to quit supporting those who are taking freedom away from them. You and I may not have the money and influence to change America by ourselves, but we can keep spreading the word — describing a better society in which individuals are truly free and government is in chains (instead of the opposite). And someday we may reach the people who do have the money and influence to persuade tens of millions of Americans to change our country for the better. I don’t know that it’s going to happen, but I do know it’s possible. I know that the urge to live one’s own life is as basic in human beings as the will to live and the desire to procreate. If we keep plugging away, we may eventually tap into that urge and rally the forces necessary to restore the real America. And then the 4th of July will be worth celebrating again. Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. See his website. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/02/uncelebrating-the-fourth/ |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
