Adam Smith is turning over in his grave. The author of The Wealth of Nations would cringe at witnessing the freest nation on earth frivolously tossing aside one of the pillars of that freedom, the free market. Such drivel and ignorance of economics issues forth from the gaping jaws of politicians of both parties that it is a wonder we have not simply changed the name of our nation to the Democratic People’s Republic of the United States.

But perhaps in a few years.

The basics of economics are simple. They are based upon human nature. A man naturally seeks ways to better himself and his progeny. Using his natural talents he creates wealth. He invests this wealth, providing capital for other wealth creators. Income levels rise, productivity increases, markets expand to seek other outlets for investment.

You know the formula. It works whenever it is tried.

The problem is government. It creates nothing but lives parasitically off the wealth created by the market. It can do nothing other than destroy this wealth—war is just one example—or move this wealth around—this is what our ‘progressive’ taxation does—or waste this wealth—think of the pyramids at Giza or the National Endowment for the Arts.

Markets involve freely made decisions of free men thinking wholly and solely for their self-interest. They are chaotic—think about the billion or so economic decisions made every day in the US—and anarchic—they are under the control of no one.

The market sees the role of government as nothing more exotic than as an enforcer. Its role is to keep the seas clear of pirates and the streets clear of outlaws. That is it.

If the matter were left there all would be well. But the matter is certainly not left there. All government is inherently expansionary and has been since Sumer. The reason for this is due to its being the sole possessor of force in any society—that is, almost any society. But more of this in due course.

Those possessed of force tend to see those without it as sheep to be sheared. History shows this is perfect clarity—from the Roman and his ‘tax farmers’ to the shogun and his bully-boy samurai to the Medieval king and his rude barons to George III and his colonial agents. Wherever there was wealth you would find government sniffing around and laying claim to part—or all—of it.

Thus have markets been at the mercy of governmental whims.

The boys who created this Republic certainly knew their history. Their grand idea was to split the powers of the State into competing chunks and to severely limit the powers of each part. In this way the market would be out of range of the State—what we call laissez-faire.

And it worked for a while. But what happened to Athens happened to the Americans. As soon as one group of citizens found that it could use the legislature to seize some of the wealth of other citizens, the game was up. It was a simple thing then as now to find politicians promising to do this—such creatures are called ‘populists’ though in Greek times they were called ‘demagogues.’

First was the income tax, then the New Deal, then the Great Society, each one giving government more control over the free market. These days it has become perfectly natural and expected that politicians and parties would rise to power by promising new government programs—health care being just the latest fad.

The market being the only source of wealth creation and the State’s sole source of income, every new program meant less wealth available to the market—that is, to the people. And every new program meant a larger state with a greater need for income to pay its noisome minions who carry out its dictates—we call this motley throng ‘bureaucrats.’

It makes no difference whether such programs are ‘popular’ with the people. What matters is that with every encroachment of the government into the economy the nation becomes less free. A people can vote themselves into servitude after all. This indisputable fact has gone unnoticed.

A nation where the government controls every aspect of the market is called ‘communist.’ And let us hear nothing about so-called ‘socialist’ nations. Socialism is simply a weaker from of communism—whose real name is, after all, ‘scientific socialism.’ The more that the government controls the market, the more communist that nation has become and the less free it has become.

To check on America’s regress from the freedoms she had in the 18th and 19th centuries to today, we need only read these headlines.

For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod

Hillary cares nothing of the free market, which she does not at all trust. She and creatures like her put their faith in the State.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration…Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

So there it is in plain English. And where does Hillary claim to derive such power? It exists nowhere in the Constitution. But that document has proved to be inadequate to deter the Clintons in the past.

Those who vote for such an economic program are voting themselves into servitude. Alas, these types might take the entire nation with them.

Except that the wily Madison placed something in the Constitution that, as a last resort, can prevent our nation from completely sliding into the tyranny of a government controlled economy. That something is the 2nd Amendment.

It is no accident that those who would seize the levers of the State to intervene in the economy are also those who despise that amendment. Indeed, the correlation is direct and easy to understand.

All tyrants throughout history have sought to disarm the people. The Clintons are no different.