https://www.aier.org/article/edward-c-harwood-biographical-sketch-film?utm_source=Daily+Economy+Digest+03202019&utm_campaign=Daily+Economy+Digest+03202019&utm_medium=email https://www.aier.org/article/clarity-diversity-and-pluralism?utm_source=Daily+Economy+Digest+03202019&utm_campaign=Daily+Economy+Digest+03202019&utm_medium=email MUTHAFUHKN BRILLIANT COMMENT IN THIS ARTICLE'S COMMENT SECTION: "Voice of Reason • a day ago "Inspired by the Enlightenment (eg classical liberalism, Locke et al) the founding fathers in America got things mostly right in politics. This set the stage for good economics. But they didn’t complete the philosophical project needed to sustain capitalism. This is not a criticism of the founding fathers - they did more than their share! Future generations of Americans benefited from their political insight, but didn’t build a correct philosophical system as a foundation of capitalism. Europe, which had been the philosophical fountainhead of the Enlightenment, abandoned Reason in the 19th century. Intellectually, Europe sank back into Faith, albeit a secularized version. Europe’s anti-Reason Faith in collectives (nationalist or socialist) set the stage for its disasters of the 20th century. Recall that anti-Reason Faith - in the divine - had previously led Europe into the Dark Ages during medieval times. Absent American intervention in the 20th century, the new anti-Reason would’ve taken Europe into the Dark Ages again under Nazism and/or Communism. In 1776 Americans had a post-Enlightenment political & economic system that was mostly pro-Reason (slavery was a huge exception). But we were stuck with pre-Enlightenment philosophy. 19th century Americans were either religious or “pragmatic”, an anti-philosophical mix that set the stage for the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. The decades that followed saw the rise of secularized forms of religion (trailing Europe by decades, but slowly succumbing to it). Either God -or- the other mystical entity “society” were the source & standard of values (not individuals & their lives). Rights were either conferred by God OR the State. To be moral meant that one should live for God or for society. But since men cannot live practical lives in this manner, the moral was split from the practical. To be moral one lived a wretched life of renunciation. Or one could be practical and lead a good life but feel guilty. This is the false dichotomy that arises from an improper code of morality. Capitalism was never defended on moral grounds. Pragmatism (“it works, therefore I like it”) is easily dismissed by those on the premise of altruism. “Prove that it works for X”. “Prove that it doesn’t cause Y”. Observe that even the good libertarian economists feel compelled to generate (defensive) empirical proof in every segment, with headlines such as “surprise! laissez faire policies work when there is a drought ... and during floods as well”. Stay tuned for our next installment “but does it work during a polar vortex?” If the moral IS the practical, then these would be “dog bites man” stories, interesting but not surprising. Capitalism (the practical) is falsely tagged as immoral, and therefore assumed to need the moralizing influence of Society. To many people “society” is represented by the force of government. Instead of using retaliatory force ONLY for protecting individual rights, as the founders intended, government wields its “force” in every segment. What’s the source of it’s moral justification? The use of majority rule as a proxy for something very mystical ... “social/collective consciousness”. Do > 51% of the voters support a min wage of $15/hr ... well, that’s gotta be the right number! Does it invalidate theories derived from objective evaluation of humans under various forms of price control? Well, who are you to argue with the collective consciousness. But only individuals have consciousness - there isn’t such a thing as “social consciousness”. Majority opinion driven mostly by emotions is used to fill this void. And we have the scary force of government, controlled by emotions. Min wage laws, Trumpian tariffs, green new deal, Obamacare ... observe the similarities: none can be justified under the morality of individualism ... which is the only morality that supports capitalism. But “elections have consequences” and the use of force proceeds under the influence of emotions." THIS USER'S SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!!! https://www.aier.org/article/us-should-welcome-and-celebrate-immigrant-investors?utm_source=Daily+Economy+Digest+03202019&utm_campaign=Daily+Economy+Digest+03202019&utm_medium=email