Doug Casey: If I Were President

Doug Casey Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Hola Doug; what's on your mind this week?

Doug: Well, it occurs to me that for all the times we've criticized the counterproductive, foolish, or just plain wrong ideas of others and have sometimes offered sounder alternatives, I've never fleshed out a picture of what I would do if I could call the shots.

L: "If I were president"? But you're an anarchist!

Doug: Yes, but that doesn't mean that I don't have any ideas on what should be done, if there were anyone with the strength and courage to do it.

L: And a very good bulletproof vest.

Doug: Just so. I'm certainly not interested in taking up residence in the White House ? wouldn't want the job if offered. But say some other occupant of that government housing project got hit on the head and woke up honest, industrious, and willing to do what was right come hell or high water.

L: Okay, I'm game. What would she do?

Doug: Are you referencing that Heinlein story in which the crooked president dies and his honest VP takes over ? and she's a lady?

L: Good catch. Heinlein wrote that since men had held the office for 200 years, a law was passed limiting it to women for the next 200 years. He thought they would be less likely send young men off to die in wars for stupid reasons, and would generally be more sensible than men on many subjects. But anyway, as you were saying?

Doug: First, I would declare to the public that the problems we face today as a society have been generated by our own governments, particularly in the US, where it's pretty much 100% government induced.

L: "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Bob LeFevre.

Doug: Exactly. And it should be admitted, stopped, and apologized for ? just as should have been, but was not done when the writing on the wall regarding the Vietnam War was clear to all.

L: Okay, I'll buy that; calling a spade a spade is very important in this day of spin and misdirection. But how would you go about the "stopping it" part?

Doug: The first thing to do is to cut the budget. Almost all of the harm the government does would be reduced or eliminated if it weren't able to steal so much money to pay for its harmful activities.

L: Taxation is theft ? just try not paying the "voluntary" income tax to the IRS ? okay, but they also borrow and print money.

Doug: That's just indirect theft. Borrowing money forces future tax slaves to hand over money against their wishes, and printing it steals wealth from everyone by making the money in their pockets worth less and less with every new dollar, euro, yen, or whatever printed.

But it's not just the act of stealing that is so harmful, but the things the government spends it on. They are almost always directly against the best interests of those from whom the money was taken.

We need to starve the beast; so all these marginal, so-called budget cuts the politicians are wailing about are just smoke and mirrors ? not a real, meaningful scaling back of the government. It's too late for half measures. I'd cut the budgets of the federal, state, and local governments by 98%. For starters.

L: You're joking ? 98% ? that'll never happen!

Doug: Yes, it will. It's just a question of whether it happens in a somewhat controlled, voluntary way, or whether it comes about as a result of a totally out-of-control collapse. What's going on today is completely unsustainable, so I'm convinced this sort of change is coming ? it'll just be that much more destructive if we let it come as an involuntary crash. It's like when you have an old, unstable building that will collapse sooner or later; it's wiser and safer to bring it down at a time and in a way you control than to let it collapse on its own, with no warning to those around.

L: A controlled demolition of the US and global economies. US voters would probably love that just as much as Greek voters love austerity programs.

Doug: Probably so, but it's still the right thing to do. The whole current structure is rotten through and through, corrupt and counterproductive. It needs to be replaced, not fixed.

L: Replaced with what?

Doug: Economic freedom, of course. Let the future build itself, based on the voluntary actions of all market participants, acting in free exchange.

L: You know I'm on the same page, but many of our readers may be skeptical.

Doug: It's good to question everything. But this is not just a theory ? look at Iceland, which didn't bail all the idiotic bankers out, but let them crash. It has recovered much faster than most people expected. And that's without embracing real, thorough economic freedom; it?s simply as a result of letting stupidity reap its natural reward.

It remains to be seen how well things work out for Iceland ? it still has way too much government in my view ? but there's an earlier, well-documented example in the history of Chile. When Pinochet overthrew Allende, he enacted deep and far-reaching reforms of the Chilean economy. He didn't go as far as I would have, but he did enough, and in such a way that it stuck and has had greatly beneficial economic consequences long after his departure. Chile is now the most prosperous country in Latin America, and may well be the most prosperous country in the western hemisphere.

L: I've been there many times and have noted the modern buildings and clean streets of downtown Santiago. The middle class in that city exercises on mountain bikes on weekends and enjoys excellent restaurants evenings. They dress fashionably and stroll along sipping Starbucks lattes? downtown could be a city in California. But there are hovels in the poor districts and dirt streets in the countryside. Are you saying Chile is more prosperous than the US or Canada?

Doug: Yes. Parts of the place may still look third world, but Chileans are not loaded with debt the way North Americans are. My understanding is that the average Chilean has greater net worth than the average US tax slave.

One important contributing factor to this is that Pinochet privatized the social security program, and Chileans pay into individual retirement accounts that they own and control. There are restrictions, but they can fire their managers and move them to those who deliver results ? this is good use of a vital market mechanism. These are real assets that can be liquidated and reinvested ? not like US Social Security, which is nothing but a vague promise backed by nothing but an impossibly debt-ridden government with financial problems that are about to get much worse.

Taking this single step in the US would enable a huge reduction in budget and unfunded future spending. There is absolutely no need for government involvement; people's retirement should be their own individual responsibility, and their employers' contributions to their retirement accounts should be negotiated between the people and their employers.

L: Just to be clear, you're not condoning Pinochet's death squads and such ? just commenting on the results of his economic reforms.

Doug: The facts are the facts. Pinochet was a rare bird. And yes, it seems certain that he had several thousand people killed ? but how many people did Baby Bush kill in Iraq over so-called weapons of mass destruction that weren't even there? Many of the world's big governments are guilty of far greater atrocities and numbers of deaths that are orders of magnitude larger.

The US has supported ? and continues supporting ? far more barbaric and destructive dictators around the world. It seems to me that Pinochet is demonized because he instituted many free-market reforms ? that was his truly unforgivable sin, particularly among leftist intellectuals.

L: The sort of people he had killed?

Doug: Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right, but the fact is that Chile has many advantages today because of Pinochet. It's not as cheap as Argentina, but it's cheaper than Uruguay. It's the least corrupt of Latin American countries, and one of the least corrupt in the world. You picked a good analogy; it has a fantastic California climate. It has a low population density. It has one of the freer economies in the world ? And it?s growing rapidly. Plus, they grow some world-class wines in Chile. It has many advantages.

What I don't like about Chile is that it's the most conservative country in Latin America ? probably in the western hemisphere. It's the most religious, and that's saying a lot in Latin America. They love their police. They love their army. And it's isolated. It's like an island, with the Andes to the east, the South Pacific and Antarctic oceans to the west and south, and a desert to the north. That makes the culture more provincial than I prefer ? but that is a personal preference. I find Argentina more welcoming to bon vivants, even with all the problems it has ? those problems really don't affect foreigners living there who have income from abroad.

L: So noted. I can't say I wish we had a Pinochet takeover in America ? the US version would almost certainly be hawkish and have the world's biggest military budget to play with. Scary. But suppose a Ron Paul type made it and was following your plan, cutting the budget 98%, privatizing Social Security. What would be next?

Doug: Default on the national debt. That would punish the people foolish enough or unethical enough to lend the US government money. It would reduce the budget and greatly reduce the ability of the government to spend beyond its means. But most important of all, it wouldn't make indentured servants out of future generations of US taxpayers.

Look, I know this seems unthinkable to most people, but it's going to be defaulted on anyway. There is simply no way it can be repaid, and an uncontrolled default would be catastrophic ? probably in the form of total destruction of the US dollar as we know it today.

It has to be emphasized that default on the national debt is default on the government's debt, not the people's. Most of the real wealth in the world will still be there after the dust settles ? it'll just be in different hands. The feds might even be forced to sell off their assets ? a sort of gigantic "going out of business" sale that would put those assets into more capable and productive private hands. NASA, for example, as we've discussed already.

L: I understand, but that would still hurt a lot of people who have their savings in Treasury Bills.

Doug: Those savings will be lost anyway, if they leave them in Treasuries. The people it would hurt the worst are the fat cats in bed with the government ? the kind who got their pals in Washington DC to bail them out. It'd be poetic justice.

L: Okay. What's next?

Doug: Eliminate the Federal Reserve. Get the government out of the money business entirely, so it can't inflate it to pay for things people would not willingly, knowingly pay for.

L: Why stop there ? why not go for complete separation of economy and state? The same logic applies as with the separation of church and state, which once seemed unthinkable and now is the norm in much of the world ? in the West, at least.

Doug: All in good time, Lobo. Next, I would take whatever gold is left in Fort Knox and use it to back the US dollar. After defaulting on the debt and the ensuing collapse, trillions and trillions of dollars would cease to exist. Assuming the gold is still there ? the government doesn't allow any independent audits of Fort Knox ? I would use it to put what dollars were left on a solid, inflation-proof footing, at whatever price of gold that could be accomplished at the time.

L: Right. What next?

Doug: Eliminate unnecessary, counterproductive, and unconstitutional government programs. Cutting spending is only a beginning; you have to abolish the programs if you don?t want the spending to come back. We've already talked about getting the government out of Social Security. This and other social spending is the biggest chunk of government spending and liabilities ? something on the order of $220 trillion, last I heard. So, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have to go.

Unfortunately, people over 50 have come to rely on it too heavily to take it away from them, so their payments and benefits would have to continue. But people under 50 don't get anything, and the payroll taxes that support the programs would be ended immediately.

L: Who pays for the older ones who keep getting the benefits? They were deceived into thinking they were making savings deposits of a sort, but it's not true; the government has already spent every dime they put away for the future.

Doug: I know. A large portion of whatever income the government could honestly generate from core services like running the courts and military would have to be directed to this expense until it went away naturally.

L: That won't win any popularity contests, but I suppose it would be an extension of the default you?ve already recommended. Bankruptcy is never pretty. It's also unavoidable, when the money just isn't there. What next?

Doug: De-fund, eliminate, and abolish every single alphabet agency the government currently lavishes money on. If any provide services people value, the market will step in to provide those services ? at a fraction of the cost and without the ability to ride roughshod over citizens who dissent. For starters, every agency and government action not expressly listed in the Constitution should be uprooted entirely and the ground where it stood sown with salt. Enforce the 10th Amendment. Then we can see if there's anything left that we really don't need anymore.

It's important to understand that the budgetary savings are really the lesser issue here. What's really important is getting the government off the peoples' collective back. The state is sand and glue in the gears of the economy, and it needs to be completely cleaned away to allow it to function freely to create greater prosperity for all.

L: That wouldn't leave much? the military.

Doug: Yes. Unfortunately, most people in the US are under the delusion that the military is the one part of the government that is honest and works ? that it protects them from dangers foreign and domestic. The truth is that even if many soldiers are honorable, the politicians who control them are not, and their missions around the world are creating more enemies and stirring up more hatred almost everywhere they go. This is making the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.

Further, the "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower warned us of is still in place, more entrenched, and greedier than ever. Remember the $600 toilet seats?

But more important than this financial debacle is that the military now exists to protect the government, not the people. Veterans are being increasingly indoctrinated to view civilians as potentially hostile enemies, rather than the very thing that justifies the military's existence. And when they muster out and go to work for law enforcement agencies (not people protection agencies), their training and attitudes become extremely dangerous to average citizens.

L: That'll be a hard pill for most people to swallow. They still want to think of most cops as being like Andy Griffith, even though the evidence is strong that many, if not most cops see civilians as potential threats and object to control. Your whole list is going to be hard for most people to believe, let alone accept.

Doug: No doubt. But once the avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. This is all going to happen. The only questions are how, and whether the damage and chaos can be limited along the way.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I see absolutely no way that these steps will be taken voluntarily. As we discussed when we talked about Ron Paul, the kind of person who could do these things would never get elected ? and if by some cosmic accident such a person were elected, he or she would almost certainly be assassinated in short order. Remember Kennedy ? and don't say it can't happen in the place that was once America. It's going to be like France after 1789.

Chaos is coming.

L: Our regular readers should know what you recommend doing about it?

Doug: Yes. I am doing exactly what I've been saying for some time now: I'm building cash to deploy buying great assets during the crash, I'm putting my savings in gold and silver, and the businesses I'm building are in productive agriculture. As a speculator, I remain convinced that these junior mining stocks that you follow have explosive upside ? as much now as at any point I've ever seen.

L: Okay then. Enough said. Not a happy vision of the future, but our aim is to offer the best guidance we can, not to sweet-talk people into smiling. And ? speaking of offering guidance ? our own chief economist, Bud Conrad, will be speaking at the upcoming Global Currency Expo, held April 5-7 in San Diego. He'll share his big-picture views of the American economy over the near future, as well as making some specific investment recommendations.

Doug: Yes, I enjoyed your conversation with Bud last week, and encourage those able to attend to do so ? it should be a great event.

L: Very well. Thanks for your thoughts, Doug.

Doug: You're very welcome.

Doug Casey writes every month for The Casey Report, which focuses on leveraging emerging trends to outstanding gains. These are the same tactics that have made Doug and other legendary investors like Rick Rule and Peter Schiff fortunes. Learn more about The Casey Report.
_
Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey?s International Speculator.

View the original article here

Doug Casey: 'We are living in the middle of the biggest bubble in history'

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');

GoldMoney's Andy Duncan talks to Doug Casey, the founder and chairman of Casey Research and the author of a new book called Totally Incorrect. They discuss the current state of global finance and the chances of an upcoming paper money collapse.

Casey points out that the recovery after the 2008 financial crisis is just an illusion created by central bank money printing which will ultimately lead to very high inflation once bank lending starts to pick up again. Both men discuss what will happen when all the US dollars currently held overseas are repatriated as foreigners lose confidence in the greenback. They also speculate about what Keynesians might be thinking at the moment, and analyse how non-western central banks are beginning to behave with regards to gold.

They evaluate the likelihood of western economic collapse in 2013, what this would imply for the global monetary standing of gold, and how GoldMoney subscribers can best protect themselves and their assets. On this note they also talk about how a future world monetary situation might look like once we are through the Keynesian collapse. Casey also speculates about how the theories of Professor Hans Hermann-Hoppe might have applicability to the shape of the world order post-crash, and what readers can look forward to if they purchase a copy of Totally Incorrect (www.caseyresearch.com/totally-incorrect).

Finally, they discuss what type of "black swans" we can expect to land in the coming months.

This podcast was recorded on 15 January 2013.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- Jeff Berwick: Get far away from USA... Its collapse will be messy
- Fitness Crackdown: Santa Monica Gets Tough On Trainers
- 37 Statistics Which Show How Four Years Of Obama Have Wrecked The U.S. Economy
- The Trillion Dollar Trick
- Jon Stewart Smacks Paul Krugman Over Trillion Dollar Coin: It's 'A Stupid F*cking Idea'
- There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.
- Americans Used to Tar-and-Feather Tax Collectors
- Section 8 housing voucher distribution canceled after thousands waiting in line get out of control

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Doug Casey on the Nanny State

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Doug, you're going to love this; there's a new study out, purporting to show that eating any amount of any kind of red meat is bad for you ? making you 13% more likely to die, in fact. So, with your growing herd of cattle in Argentina, you're close to becoming a mass murderer.

Doug: I saw that. I wonder what you have to do to make it 26% more likely to die? If I go back to skydiving, does that mean I'm 1,000% more likely to die? It's rather strange, in that I always thought we're all basically 100% likely to die.

It's yet another sign of how degraded US society has become, that something so ridiculous can be passed off as news. According to the LA Times article I read, the "study" was just a survey of people's reported eating habits. So, at best ? assuming people responded accurately and honestly ? the survey might show us a correlation. But even a high-school student should be able to tell you that correlation does not establish causality. The typical science journalist may be even more ignorant and misinformed than the typical financial journalist, which is saying something. It's why I read the papers mostly for entertainment.

L: The study failed to consider, for example, if those who reported eating more meat happen to include more people who ride motorcycles, party hardy, or engage in other higher-risk behaviors ? which could easily be true of steak lovers. This survey wouldn't catch such patterns. And yet I read one of the authors claiming:

"This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death ? On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity and mortality."

Doug: It sounds as if the authors might have a political agenda. But what do you expect from government "science?" Much of it is politically driven, and if you don't arrive at politically correct answers, funding might dry up.

L: But this was a Harvard study?

Doug: Sure it was ? but paid for by two branches of the US government health bureaucracy, the NIH. These so-called scientists may well be hacks who got paid a lot of money because they were deemed likely to deliver a result that meshes with the agendas of various politically correct groups. One of those is the anti-meat fanatics, including the animal rights activists at PETA; they're relatively few in number but very strident. Another is the environmentalists who fear the methane cows and sheep produce; because methane ? CH4 ? is a "greenhouse gas." They believe it will turn this rock with its thin skin of an atmosphere ? floating in the cosmos where the average temperature is a couple degrees above absolute zero ? into an inferno. Actually, termites and decomposing vegetable matter emit hundreds of times more methane than domestic animals ? not to mention volcanoes. I'm of the opinion that these greens don't really love animals; what's really going on is that they hate people in particular and life in general. Anyway, these types have taken to using science as a cover. There should be a separation of science and state, for the very same reasons there should be a separation between church and state.

L: What would you say to people who say you're biased, because you're in the cattle business?

Doug: Yes, the busybodies have convinced Boobus americanus that anyone who actually makes his living dealing with nature shouldn't say anything about it. People who mine minerals, drill for oil, farm, grow animals ? people who actually know something about these things, and make them available for use ? have largely been intimidated into silence. They're commercial, and to be commercial is bad, QED. Of course that's a completely insane attitude. But the self-righteous busybodies have managed to claim the moral high ground and discredit the producers. They've done this by capturing the government, academia, and the media.

Anyway, I'd say the average "consumer" ? which is itself a perverse and degrading way to describe a person ? should start using what's left of his own brain instead of relying on experts, whether those be government-stooge scientists or? me. Just think about it: humans evolved over millions of years eating meat ? and as much of it as they could get, whenever and wherever it was available. The conclusion of the anti-meat study, at least as broadly stated in the press, has serious credibility problems on its face.

L: The study does make a point of saying that processed meats, like hot dogs, are supposed to be much worse for us. That would seem to have some face validity.

Doug: Yes, I can see that. When you're providing mass quantities of stuff for the masses through industrial processes, it seems inevitable that all kinds of additives, chemicals, and preservatives will get into the mix. Indeed, how much pure beef remains in a typical modern hot dog? I think they're mostly cereal and artificial flavoring these days, plus a good measure of the "pink slime" the USDA puts into lunchmeat for school kids' government-mandated meals. Equally important in my view is that almost all meat these days is from cows raised on unnatural diets, pumped full of steroids and antibiotics, eating cardboard and unnatural food, living miserable lives, shoulder to shoulder in feedlots. How many survey respondents would know or care what kind of chemicals and pharmaceuticals went into the meat they are eating? I doubt they could give accurate answers to such questions, if they were even asked ? I'd guess the researchers didn't even bother.

Here in Argentina all my beef cows eat grass on wide open and quite pleasant pampas. No antibiotics, steroids, or cardboard are necessary. I understand that if you're going to provide meat for the masses that quality may suffer. But that's all the more reason to elevate yourself out of the masses. Entirely apart from the fact "the masses" is a term Marx originated?

Trends in demonized foods are like trends in fashion. For some time, salt was the greatest bogeyman ? until some people, particularly an Iranian doctor I once knew named Batmanghelidj, pointed out the obvious, namely that salt is essential to life, and that problems attributed to too much salt are usually problems with not enough water. You need a lot of water washing through your cells. But anything in excess can be a problem, including water. If it's not salt, then it's sugar. If it's not sugar, then it's fat. Red meat has had its turn as demon du jour before, and it looks like it coming back into fashion again.

L: I see Dr. Batmanghelidj's book on Amazon: You're Not Sick, You're Thirsty. I remember the salt scare ? that was a big thing back in the '70s, as I recall. The odd thing is that post-scare, salt still seems to have a bad name, but consumption has moved toward gourmet salts. Plain old iodized Morton's salt is not to be found in certain politically correct cupboards, but sea salt or rock salt you grind yourself is acceptable.

Doug: Yes, rich people can't be denied their gourmet designer salts, even though what we generally call "salt" is made of sodium and chlorine ? two of the deadliest elements on the periodic table. It's all part of the War On the Periodic Table of the Elements. Plutonium was perhaps the original enemy element, then uranium, then sodium. Gold is considered an evil element by many. Now the most evil element of them all is carbon, which is the essential component of all organic matter, and hence all life on this planet.

L: Hm. Now that you mention it, sodium ends in ?ium, like thorium, so it must be bad.

Doug: Yes, and if it weren't for government policy, we'd likely be generating power from thorium instead of uranium; it's a much better fuel. But that's another story. I'm sure that once the Greens discover that it's atomic number 90, it too will join the enemies list.

This reminds me of all the government-funded crash programs to find the cause of AIDS. Lo and behold, they found one and called it the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). But as I understand it, there are people who have AIDS but no HIV, and there are people who have HIV and never show any symptoms of AIDS. And yet, to question the HIV orthodoxy is to invite accusations of being a "denialist," homophobe, and maybe even a remover of those tags you're not supposed to take off of mattresses under penalty of law. Fortunately, the AIDS hysteria, which was supposed to destroy the human race, has pretty much burned itself out.

And then there's the "overwhelming evidence" of anthropogenic global warming that fear-mongers proclaim. Again, with a lot of government "science" involved. It's turned into an industry that destroys capital.

If we could get the state and its corrupting influence completely out of the science business, I'd be much more inclined to accept what the majority of scientists believe on "soft" sciences ? like climate studies and epidemiology. Those things aren't quite the same as physics and chemistry. Certainly, as long as there's government money with a political agenda involved, I'm inclined to take so-called consensus views with at least a grain of gourmet sea salt, or even as possible contrary indicators for the truth.

L: That's a pretty strong statement, Doug.

Doug: It pays to be skeptical ? about everything. Most of the reading that I do is either science or history, so I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in those areas, although I'm not a professional in either. But I didn't say I would refuse to believe anything supported by solid evidence just because I didn't like its source. I just said that if the data come from what I regard as a corrupt source, I proceed with greater-than-usual caution.

Although the corruption of science is very bad, what's even worse is the continuing and accelerating encroachment of the "nanny state." This meat study ? and others like it ? can easily be used to manufacture a scare. The scare will then be used to implement more laws and restrictions on people's freedom to live their lives as they see fit? and to destroy another industry. One example of that is the FDA's campaign against farmers who sell unpasteurized milk to those who prefer it.

L: So, whether or not red meat is good for us, we all have a natural, or God-given right to eat what we want and go to hell in our own way? Big Brother, step aside, Big Momma is gonna make us eat our veggies.

Doug: Exactly. I'm of the opinion that quality of life trumps quantity of life. That's the exact opposite view from what rulers and would-be rulers hold; they view the rest of our species as milk cows, to be kept alive and milked for as long as possible, no matter how much joy is taken from them. The purpose of life, however, is to enjoy yourself. It's not to be treated like part of a herd and be fed what your master wants for his own purposes.

L: Is that why politicians bother meddling with whether people eat hot dogs or salads?

Doug: That, among many other reasons. They can win brownie points with very vocal activists if they beat up on an unpopular personal choice, like smoking. That's very valuable to them come election time. Politicians, with the possible exceptions of the likes of Ron Paul, always want to increase the state's ? and thereby their own? power. Any scare is a great tool for manipulating people into handing over more of their freedom, which is to say, increasing their power over people.

L: Crisis and Leviathan.

Doug: Right. That's an important book everyone should read. The whole trend is very ominous. It's as Martin Niemoller said during WW II: "First they came for the communists, but I didn't speak out, because I was not a communist."

L: "And then they came for the Jews .... And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Doug: Right. I believe in speaking out, even though it probably doesn't do any good. I do it because I have to live with myself. I do it because I believe in karma.

L: I agree. If we end up in a totalitarian police state or nanny state, I don?t want my children to lift their manacled wrists before my eyes and ask me why I didn't resist while resistance was possible.

Doug: Indeed. In spite of the blatantly obvious and disastrous results of Prohibition, politicians declared open season on drug users, then smokers, then gun owners ? All Things Fun. How far can it be from regulating politically incorrect eaters to regulating just about everyone's choices on every subject?

L: Not far.

Doug: And it gets worse. Now that we have socialized medical services in the US (which is not the same as health care), genuine bad health choices that used to be individuals' problems have become everyone's problems, because we all have to pay for them. Socialized medicine is terrible ? it's entrusting medical services to the same bankrupt organization that can't even deliver the mail reliably. It's also a powerful excuse for the nanny state to monitor, inspect, interfere with, and control all aspects of our lives, from what we eat and drink all the way down to what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms ? because everything can impact our health, which is now society's obligation.

L: But it's all for our own good. "If it saves one child?"

Doug: If it saves one child, how many children does it kill? If you ban Freon over an unproven fear that it contributes to ozone depletion, for example, and require use of a more expensive, less efficient, and incidentally more toxic and corrosive substitute, all because it might save one child, how many babies did you kill with spoiled milk and meat? What other consequences to your intervention are you ignoring?

This reminds me of the time Madeleine Halfbright was told that the sanctions she saw imposed on Iraq had killed about half a million children, and she answered: "Yes, it was costly, but we think it was worth it." These people are hypocrites ? and extremely dangerous. They don't care about saving human lives ? they are more than willing to expend any number of them, like pawns on a chessboard, to advance their quest for power.

L: Bastiat's broken window all over again: "the seen and the unseen." But you've gotta have a good cover story, like saving children's lives.

Doug: Of course. If you say you're doing it for the children, you can get away with almost anything.

L: Clearly, you don't subscribe to the precautionary principle ? the idea that no new technology or innovation should be implemented until it can be show to be safe.

Doug: It's a load of horse manure ? and you can quote me on that.

L: [Laughs] I will.

Doug: [Laughs] Good! If our ancestors had even been stupid enough to adopt such an absolutely paralyzing idea, we'd still be shivering in caves, ravaged by dread diseases and hunted by animals larger and more powerful than we. No, I misspeak; most likely, we'd have gone extinct.

If the car were invented today, it would never be approved for use. The idea of millions of people racing towards each other at high speeds in vehicles they control themselves, with tanks full of explosive gasoline? it would never make it through OSHA, EPA, or a dozen other agencies. The idea of air travel ? forget about it. We're just lucky these things were in common use before the nanny state came into its own.

L: Extinction? another strong statement. That's what you think would happen now if the precautionary principle were adopted and enforced by law?

Doug: 'Fraid so. Life without risk is a patent impossibility. Almost a contradiction in terms. And life without risk, innovation, new horizons, would hardly be worth living. But that's the way the world is headed.

You know, most people hardly pay any attention to such matters these days. Important news hardly gets discussed, while Rush Limbaugh insulting some law student is headline news for a week. Whether or not the student in question is a slut, as Limbaugh said, is her business, not mine or Limbaugh's ? and the whole issue is a matter of manners, not even deserving of a mention in the back of the society section of the papers.

The issue of the student's call for expanding the US's socialized medical system to include free birth control, however, is a suitable issue for conversation, as the costs affect us all ? and it's another tightening of the grip of the nanny state on people's lives. And all this squabbling over what should be paid for by the state would be eliminated if nothing were covered at "public" expense (i.e., using other people's money). But most people don't even think about that possibility.

We've already beat up on Limbaugh, so we don't really have to go there, but while it's on my mind, I have to point out that he really showed what an ignoramus he is when Rush defended Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army last year. He apparently thought they were Christians fighting Muslim tyrants, not the kidnappers and murderers the preponderance of evidence says they are. There's a video about Kony that's gone truly viral on YouTube, with over 75 million views in just one week.

The fact that an ignorant hypocrite like Limbaugh, who wanted to have drug users executed even as he was getting phony prescriptions for his Oxycontin habit, has such a large following is another sad sign of our times. It's not just the socialists advocating the nanny state who are the problem. So-called right-wingers are just as dangerous to personal freedom as left-wingers.

L: Any way to stop this train wreck?

Doug: None. It's like I said to begin with: this is a sign of advanced decay in a society that has lost its ?lan. It's not something you can fix independently of fixing the whole rotten mess; nanny-state thinking goes hand in hand with the entitlement mentality, which goes with irresponsible and self-destructive behavior. That accelerates the other, "male" side of ever-expanding state power that people like Limbaugh favor: the warfare state, the paternalistic, authoritarian state.

The bottom line is that, with more than half the US population on one form of government dole or another, we've crossed the point of no return. We're going to have to go through the wringer before things can improve. The current situation is unsustainable. It's going to collapse.

Incidentally, as unpleasant and inconvenient as it will be, a collapse and reboot is necessary and will be a good thing. Hopefully it will destroy the nanny state, if only because the nanny state is a dead hand on the development of technology. The most positive thing going on in the world today is the advance of technology. But, just as the car and the airplane likely couldn't be developed today because of the safety-first nanny state, there are lots of other technologies that won't ever come into existence ? and we might never know it. Our conversation on technology is an example of what I mean by that. Anyway, we've got to pay the piper first? and the bill is rapidly coming due.

L: [Sighs] Okay, before we go all poetic, are there investment implications to the rise of the nanny state?

Doug: Yes, but it's nothing new to longtime readers. On the wealth-preservation ? and health-preservation ? side, it's vital to understand that today's wealthy Western countries are increasingly hazardous to the well-being of the people who live there. They have the power and the motive to do harm to any citizen as suits the short-term goals of those in office. That's long been the case financially and is increasingly becoming the case physically, both in terms of health and safety from police brutality. Just as we said last week in our conversation on cashless societies, the time is approaching ? if not here already ? when the wisest course of action is to get out of Dodge? or at least out of countries with powerful governments.

On the investment side, the West's increasingly irrational attitudes about meat may create more buying opportunities in the cattle business. Even if every single person in the US stopped eating meat, those eating more in China and the rest of the developing world would make up the difference before long. At the same time, herds continue to go into liquidation in the West. Cattle have been in a bear market for many, many years, making it one of the best contrarian plays in decades. That's why I'm building my own herd: I'm buying low so I can later sell high. But we've talked about that before. Like any good speculator, I plan on making a lot of money while performing a public service.

Other implications are as we've discussed many times: buy gold and silver, speculate on gold and silver mining stocks, own long-term energy plays and technology plays that will do well in hard economic times, harden your assets, and diversify yourself internationally.

L: Well then, I think our readers know what to do. Thanks for another interesting conversation.

Doug: Any time.

L: Next time.

Doug: [Laughs]
__
Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey?s International Speculator.

Copyright ? 2012 Casey and Associates

View the original article here