Discover more from Liberty Word
Give Me Liberty!
Texas Heartbeat Act, Wealth for All, Real Votes Chose Trump, Patrick Henry
In this Issue…
Liberty Perspective: Texas Heartbeat Act
Wealth Digest: Wealth for All
The Word: Real Voters Chose Trump
Historical Hero: Patrick Henry
The Texas Heartbeat Act is now law. The Supreme Court rejected Planned Parenthood’s emergency request to block the bill. The Court determined that private citizens had standing to sue any person for $10,000 in damages who assists a woman in having an abortion. Such heartbeat laws will likely be taken up by the Highest Court in the future to determine their constitutionality.
42 of our states restrict late term abortions already. Late term is 20 to 28 weeks and is when a baby is viable outside the womb. The heartbeat bill is about 6 weeks and is when a heartbeat can be detected.
Roe v. Wade allowed states to restrict abortion after the first trimester, but not outlaw it during the second trimester. During the third trimester, however, at the point of viability, a state could outlaw abortion in the interest of a “potential life.” The exception to prohibiting abortion was if the health of the mother was at stake.
Back in 1973, the Court determined that only babies that were viable could potentially be considered a person with rights. Those unborn babies then could be protected by the state.
The Liberty Perspective is that determining when life begins had nothing to do with the Court finding a “right to privacy” within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Allowing for exceptions to protect life was added by that Court at the point where they believed life began, at viability.
Such an opinion of when life begins surely can be updated by another Court by looking at today’s scientific evidence. Roe, therefore, could be partly overturned on that basis. The Court is unlikely to remove the privacy rights aspect of Roe that permits abortion, but will allow states more flexibility in determining when life begins.
Wealth for All
A great benefit for those who live within free market capitalism is the ability to create wealth. The process of creating wealth begins by taking something of value such as one’s labor and exchanging it for income within a marketplace. This income then can be saved to create new wealth.
Having the freedom to meet demand encourages society to earn more than just enough to survive. It’s within our God given nature to do so. We not only desire a better quality of life for today, but we also want to invest in the future. A free economy begets income creation which then allows for wealth creation.
As I detail in Organic Wealth, saving income results in brand new wealth having never existed before. The so-called wealth pie just gets bigger. Most new wealth is created this way while asset appreciation makes up the rest. In order to initially buy assets without a loan, however, requires saved income.
What this means is that anyone can create wealth. All that’s necessary is meeting demand in a marketplace and saving a portion of one’s income. Then, bingo, new wealth is created.
Those in the media and on the political left who bemoan wealth inequality never encourage people to create wealth for themselves. When was the last time you heard an appeal to live within our means or to save for our future?
They don’t even propose policies that would produce a tight labor market, which would increase average wages so people could save more. In fact, policy makers usually support the exact opposite.
For example, our political leaders support policies that encourage illegal immigration. These types of stances include not mandating E-Verify, failing to secure our borders, and having benefits for illegals that act as magnets. The aftermath is an increase in the labor supply which not only takes jobs away from citizens and legal visa holders, but also puts downward pressure on wages.
The left also support policies that target businesses. They want higher tax rates and burdensome regulations, which both eliminate jobs altogether or end up sending good jobs away to other nations.
The consequence of such laws or policy positions is lower or stagnate average wages. A weak economy makes it almost impossible to save and invest for anyone not in the upper middle class.
Giving businesses and people more freedom, on the other hand, means employers competing for workers resulting in a strong labor market. Of course, this leads to higher wages, upward mobility and low unemployment rates. The natural outcome is that people earn more income permitting them to save more.
Brand New Wealth
Having an economic system that’s freedom based is necessary for everyone to succeed financially by meeting demand. Once we have more freedom and people are prospering, the question is do people who build wealth remove the opportunity for the rest of society to create their own? Do they even diminish the chance even slightly?
I prove in Organic Wealth that the answer is no. Those who create wealth are essentially building wealth out of thin air. It’s brand new wealth that never existed before because it’s not the result of a wealth transfer. It’s directly from their labor or by meeting demand in some other way. As such, they’re not preventing others from doing the same.
Let’s say, for example, there’s a large private company that earns billions of dollars each year. The sole owner is the only person who receives the company’s profits which equates to $100 million yearly. Did this company or owner cause anyone else in society to lose their wealth or their opportunity to build wealth for themselves? Did the “wealth pie” shrink because of this company sucking up billions each year?
Those who bought the products from the company didn’t lose anything because the items met the buyer’s demand. They got what they wanted. The transactions were each a net zero being equal on both sides.
The billions the company earns are mostly paid out to employees, vendors and government treasuries, which becomes income to those people and entities. The people who receive that money will consume it which then becomes income once again to others. So the billions that were removed from society is put right back in as income to others. No wealth or income was permanently lost as a result.
As for the owner’s profit of $100 million, it will be exchanged for other assets. The profit won’t likely remain as cash. If any money is saved, however, it will be used by banks to loan out. Loaned money, of course, is consumed in our economy and becomes income once again. For example, if someone buys a new car with a loan, the car dealership receives that money as new income, which will be consumed and become income again.
Any assets the owner purchases becomes income or a gain to the seller of the assets. This person could then consume that money in our economy. If the seller instead just buys other assets with their new money, then those sellers could consume the proceeds. This could go on many times until it’s eventually spent in our economy by someone instead of just buying other assets. Of course, once it is consumed, it becomes income once again.
Money is withdrawn from investment accounts continually to raise funds to consume. For instance, this occurs with venture capital or to lend to others who will spend it. Also people sell assets for other reasons like to buy luxury items, to purchase a second home, to give to charities or for traveling. It’s especially true at retirement when people live off their investments. Let’s not forget times of economic hardship or when estates are ultimately liquidated.
On a side note, the same process is true for stock buybacks that the left says doesn’t benefit our economy.
The bottom line is that when any of us create wealth, we are not preventing others from doing the same. All of us can build wealth because wealth creation is from earning an income by meeting demand and not from some wealth transfer. The money isn’t permanently removed out of society because it finds its way right back in as income again for other people and entities.
Since this is true, the real issue then is assisting people so they can meet the needs of a marketplace to earn an income. Additionally, we need to encourage more saving and investing. This should be our focus and not on punishing those who create jobs, income and wealth.
The left is good at picking a narrative and getting their people on board with it. At one time, Democrats believed Republicans were winning because of messaging. The GOP, however, was never good communicators. They just stated the truth and sometimes it resonated.
The solution the left came up with was to adopt a cleverly worded message and then line up every one of their sheep political leaders and the media to ‘bah’ the same thing. It doesn’t matter so much as to what’s true or not, just that it’s a consistent message that people can believe.
For instance, take their retort of “the big lie” as a response to those who claim the 2020 election was stolen. It doesn’t work because it’s true that Trump and his voters are lying. It works because it’s simple and it places the burden of proof on those who make the claim. That’s not easy to do without the media revealing all that happened.
Instead of the big lie, what if they just said that Joe Biden won fair and square? Well, then any evidence to the contrary would place the burden on them to defend Biden’s victory. Was it really fair and square?
If he did win fairly, then it would have been a good talking point.
Now, consider these facts: The GOP gained seats in Congress… Trump won nearly all bellwether counties… and Trump expanded the base of Republican voters.
How could Donald Trump have won 16 of the 17 bellwether counties, which historically vote for the winner, and still lose? How did he lose the presidency while at the same time the GOP picked up seats in Congress? After all, new Republican voters were motivated to turn out to support Trump not the congressional candidates. It doesn’t add up.
Could the Republicans’ message (not including the Never Trumpers) have been a consistent, “real voters chose Trump”? The implication is that fake voters chose Biden.
Yes, the burden would be on Trump supporters, but that’s okay because it’s based in truth. They could just say the facts that I listed, and others, to back it up and any evidence of fraud would also resonate. The point is that a simple easy to say true message from the whole team is what people would remember.
Going forward, The Word will be devoted to GOP messaging. I have no desire to deviate from the truth, but rather to state things clearly. Truth presented clearly and concisely will reverberate with voters more than just clever slogans.
Patrick Henry is a Founding Father who’s famous for his Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech. Henry stood up in the Virginia Convention after others spoke against an armed conflict with the British. His voice echoed throughout the hall as he passionately convinced his fellow Americans, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, there was a real chance for freedom. But that freedom had to be fought for as the Brits were already arming up around the colonies. Armed conflict was inevitable.
At the end of his speech, Henry raised his arms together as if they were handcuffed or shackled and said, “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty...” He then lowered his hands to pick up an ivory envelope opener and pretended to stab himself in the heart. While doing so, he continued by saying “or give me death!”
The War began one month later.
In our day, we don’t have to pick up arms to fight against our oppressors, at least not yet. We’ve already won our freedom thanks to our Founding Fathers. Our job though is to maintain that freedom by voting for people who’ll protect it. Be like Patrick Henry and only support liberty and vote against those who support more government control.
Spread the Liberty Word
“The Court is unlikely to remove the privacy rights aspect of Roe that permits abortion, but will allow states more flexibility in determining when life begins.”
“Wealth creation is from earning an income by meeting demand and not from some wealth transfer.”
“Real voters chose Trump. The implication is that fake voters chose Biden.”
“Our job… is to maintain that freedom by voting for people who’ll protect it. Be like Patrick Henry and only support liberty.”