11/05/13 – Sheldon Richman – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here.
Ever wanted to help support the show and own silver at the same time?
Well a friend of mine, Libertarian activist Arlo Pignotti, has invented the alternative currency with the most promise of them all.
QR silver commodity discs.
The first ever QR code one ounce silver pieces.
Just scan the back of one with your phone and get the instant spot price.
They're perfect for saving or spending at the market.
And anyone who donates $100 or more to the Scott Horton Show at scotthorton.org slash donate gets one.
And if you'd like to learn and order more, send them a message at commoditydiscs.com or check them out on Facebook at slash commodity discs.
And thanks.
Alright y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
And you know, it's funny, I didn't mean to just spend half an hour talking about central banking especially when I've got Sheldon Richman on the line and that's one of the things we're going to be talking about today.
But now introducing our good friend Sheldon Richman, he is the vice president of the Future Freedom Foundation and the editor of their journal, their monthly journal, The Future Freedom.
Welcome back to the show, Sheldon.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine.
And once again, thanks for inviting me back.
I hope you're doing okay.
I'm doing good.
I really appreciate you joining us here.
And let me tell the people here real quick about the dates of this cool thing that you're doing with Jacob here.
It's the Libertarian Angle Tour.
And I see that your first stop was the University of North Florida in Jacksonville.
That's all you've done so far, correct?
That was last night, yes, and we're in Atlanta right at the moment as I speak, and we'll be at Georgia Tech at 6.30 p.m. eastern time tonight.
At Georgia Tech at 6.30 eastern time tonight, and then Scheller College of Business, oh, it is at the Scheller College of Business.
And then, I'm sorry, I thought I had it here, but I do not have the whole schedule, but I'll find it while we're talking about other things, and we'll remind you by the end of the show.
I can tell you real fast, tomorrow night we're at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia.
I believe that's at 7, but that can be checked on the website.
And then the next night we'll be at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, and then Friday night we will be at NC State, North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
Great.
So, here's your chance, everybody.
Go out and meet Sheldon Richman and Jacob Hornberger and read in Bumper's write-up of the Shindig last night.
It sounded like it went really well, huh?
It did.
We had a nice crowd, and we liked the chemistry, the format seemed to work, and we never did a live libertarian angle.
We figured instead of the two of us giving dry lectures, we would do this more interactive thing, and the people seemed to like it quite a bit.
It says here, topics range from the Fed, the Great Depression, FDR, and the gold confiscation, foreign policy, and how we can prevail in our quest to bring libertarianism to America.
I sure like that.
Yep.
And you guys know Jacob Hornberger has a great presence.
He's a great speaker.
If you've ever seen him give a speech, he always keeps everybody on the edge of their seat and incredibly interested.
And Sheldon, of course, is great, as you've heard a million times and you're about to hear some more of.
So, go out there and check him out, The Libertarian Angle on tour, and we'll have, again, dates and times and things.
We'll bring it back up at the end of the show, but I guess I will say again one more time that tonight it's at Georgia Tech from 6.30 to 8 at the Scheller College of Business, room 101.
Great.
Okay.
So, here's the first thing I wanted to talk to you about is did you see that there is a new interview of Michael Hastings' brother?
I bring that up because I know that you were fans of Michael Hastings and we were sort of fans of him together, especially in the few months leading up to his death, actually, letting each other know, Hey, Hastings is going to be on TV and all that kind of stuff.
So.
Oh yeah.
So, I didn't bring up to you this interview and ask you if you had a chance to see it.
No, I haven't.
Tell me about it.
All right.
Well, first of all, if you go to Pressing Issues, which is Greg Mitchell's blog, the great Greg Mitchell.
He has a link to it.
It's at Salon.com and then they link over to the original blog and what it is is it's longtime friends of Hastings' older brother, Jonathan, and apparently they knew Michael Hastings very well as well, not as well as his older brother, I guess.
So they decided that they would do this really wide ranging interview and talk all about, you know, get his brother to tell the whole story of his life basically and everything.
But obviously they start with the headlines first as well.
And that is asking about the night of the car wreck and all of that.
And the brother's story is that he's not suspicious at all, that if it happened in a vacuum that, you know, he was writing about the CIA and everything.
He had written about the JSOC and everything.
And if it happened in a vacuum, he might be suspicious.
But based on the context of what was going on with Michael Hastings that day and everything, he says no.
He in fact had just hopped on a plane on a moment's notice to go to L.A. to try to bring Michael Hastings back to Vermont for treatment because he was having not just he was abusing drugs, but he was having a real hard time and some kind of manic episode, whatever.
And he said he realized when he was there, he wouldn't be able to bring him back to Vermont without a fight.
And then but he was going to get back to trying to convince him the next day.
And then that night he went out, snuck out and went and wrecked the car.
And so anyway, that was his brother's take.
And I guess I had already pretty much settled on that conclusion myself.
But you know, if that puts anybody's mind at rest about it, I'm pretty sure I agree with the brother about that, especially hearing it from him that way.
Yeah, that does sound pretty persuasive.
I mean, it's a really sad thing that happened.
And obviously, you know, there's probably a lot of bad people who were happy that it happened to a lot of people who who would have gotten them if they'd had a chance or something.
So, you know, I think probably the best way to honor his his work and his death would be to stay on their ass the way he would have.
So I agree.
I'll never forget the image of him when he was on, I guess, the Steve Kornacki show, probably just a Saturday or two before his death.
It was pretty soon before.
Maybe it wasn't that soon.
And you saw it, too, I think.
Right.
He was really feisty.
He was getting his points in.
He wasn't getting he was making sure he had his time.
And at the end, when he was being thanked, he raised his fist.
Remember, he raised his fist and smiled like, yeah, we're going to triumph.
Yeah, triumph.
And there's going to be more to come.
And unfortunately, from him, there won't be a bad thing.
All right.
Well, anyway, and I thought it was also interesting that, as his brother points out, that all the truthers who are cashing in on pretending that they know the real truth about this and whatever, none of them were interested in his work before he died because he wasn't a truth.
He did real journalism.
And so none of them paid any attention whatsoever.
But now he's their meal ticket or or at least a meal ticket, not, you know, the biggest deal in the world, but worth an extra 60 bucks in Google ad clicks.
Right.
So why not exploit a dead man if you make a little money?
That's the same goes, I think.
Well, unfortunately, I never met him.
I miss him, though.
Yeah, he was a great journalist.
I mean, we're all much worse off without him, that's for sure.
But anyway, it's kind of weird way to start an interview, but I just thought is quite notable.
And I'll send you the link in the email there.
I'll tell people here, everybody else listening.
The website is uncouth reflections dot wordpress dot com uncouth reflections.
And it's interview with Jonathan Hastings about his brother, the journalist Michael Hastings.
And you can also find, I guess, a shorter version of it at salon dot com as well.
All right.
So anyway, you wrote this thing about Obamacare, and I'm so glad that you did, Sheldon, because, of course, you're right about everything because you're a libertarian, but also you're what they call, which to me, you're the plumb line.
I don't know.
But to everybody else and maybe to you, you're something like a left libertarian, which means you actually care about people, even ones you haven't met before, which is somehow supposed to be unique, probably among all humans and maybe especially libertarians.
I don't know.
But anyway, so you have this article where it's so plainly clear that you would like for every person to be able to be taken care of if possible.
And you share that sensibility with liberals.
And you admit, unlike probably most Obamacare critics, that the people behind this thing, for the most part, mean well, if any of them are trying to sabotage health care to try to force us all the way to a single payer system or any kind of thing like that, that would be some very, very small percentage anyway.
This is supposed to work.
It just doesn't work.
And you know why.
So tell us why.
Well, you know, on the first part, I mean, I say in the beginning that I will stipulate that most of the people in and out of the government pushing for the Affordable Care Act, and maybe even for those pushing for a single payer, are primarily motivated by this humanitarian concern.
I don't mind conceding that.
Now, that doesn't mean that some also see political advantage in it.
That can be true.
They can see that as lining up with their political interests.
So I don't mind conceding that.
I'm happy to concede that because at the same time, I'm willing to concede that people who oppose the Affordable Care Act don't hate the poor and downtrodden and want to make sure they never get medical care.
So, you know, you can't have a double standard.
I'm willing to grant good motives.
And, you know, I don't know these individuals involved.
So how can I judge them as being cynical and merely want political power?
I'm sorry for interrupting, but that's your second point.
There is a very important one as well that I actually meant to build into my intro there, which was I generally respect Bill Moyers, even though I disagree with him on pretty much everything.
But he's a well-meaning Democrat type.
But I saw where he ran an essay about whether maybe just all right wingers are mentally ill, because how else can you explain that they would be so upset that someone is just trying to make sure that poor people can have health insurance?
Why would you be against that?
You must be psychos.
There's no other explanation for it.
You're upset that someone else could be helped at no expense of yours.
Yeah, well, that's right.
And that's despicable, whichever way it cuts, you know, to say the only reason you'd be taking this position is you're either pure evil or mental.
You have no respect for people that engage in that kind of argument.
I will say, though, that I and I say this later in the piece, I'm I don't like that.
You know, one of the many things I disagree with conservatives on and right wingers is that and I heard Rush Limbaugh saying this just around the time I was writing the piece, that before Obamacare, we had the greatest medical system in the world.
I love to say that.
And when the Congress was under the control of the Republicans.
I didn't see them touching the medical care system, even though the partnership between government and the insurance industry and the medical society, the medical profession has been very, very close for many, many years, particularly at the state level, which means there's maybe some limit to what the federal government can do.
But I never hear I never heard conservatives or Republicans speaking out about breaking up the regulatory cartels, insurance cartels in each of the states or the medical, you know, medical licensing.
I don't hear him going after that stuff.
So they didn't do anything about the system, which was getting more and more expensive and obviously hurting, therefore, lower people, lower income people.
And and this link to the, you know, employer based insurance, I didn't hear them calling breaking that stuff up.
They only started talking about it when Obamacare came along.
Right.
And the only reason Obamacare got passed in the first place was because the entire society agreed that something's got to be done because nobody can afford insurance anymore.
It's ridiculous.
Right.
And it's just stupid to say, well, we have the greatest system in the world.
Don't mess with it, especially when in 1993, the Everett Foundation was pushing an individual mandate for for buying insurance under their answer to Clinton care back then.
Hillary care back in 93 was that people should be forced to buy insurance and therefore they'll be responsible.
We won't need to we won't need to have a big a big government bureaucracy.
But Heritage Foundation was pushing the mandate, which they then complained about in 2009 and ever since.
So there's a lot of hypocrisy on the right on this.
But my point was that, look, I would I and I think any decent person, I don't claim any kind of special status here.
Any decent person would hope that that medical care could be affordable and accessible to everybody in a society who wants to see someone go without medical care.
So my point is that the state is not a good route to it.
The state will screw it up for all the reasons we point out in other respects.
The greatest protector is free competition.
The greatest protector of individuals is free competition.
That means no regulatory cartels or licensing, all the stuff we have.
So that's where that's the direction we need to work in.
That's what we need to achieve.
Freely free competition.
We don't have competition.
Obama and the advocates of Obamacare like to talk about, oh, no, it creates competition.
That's bogus.
You don't need to set up exchanges or markets.
Markets set themselves up.
People set up markets spontaneously.
You don't need the government to do that.
What we have is phony competition because government prescribes the product that needs to be offered.
Right.
There's a basic insurance package that the government has defined.
Health and Human Services has defined it.
And there are all kinds of controls on on prices.
People, companies are not at a lot of price according to risk, but not a lot of price according to sex.
Even if even if women use the medical, you know, use medical services more often than men, which as I understand it is the case, you still can't charge them more for insurance, even though, you know, they're going to, you know, cost more during a year.
You can't the difference between the premium to an older person versus a younger person.
That difference is prescribed by government.
It can't be greater.
In other words, we don't have true market pricing and we haven't freed the market of anything.
We've encumbered it even more than it was previously, which was already quite a bit.
So this is not going to work.
And now the liberals are going to say that, Sheldon, come on, man, you're just being ideological here.
That, oh, yeah, the market capitalism is some magic thing that solves everything.
But what about all the externalities?
And what about all the Jon Stewart was saying?
Hey, when you're sick, you can't shop around.
You got to just go to the doctor, man.
And what else is capitalism doesn't count.
It's it's off in this case.
That's ridiculous.
For one thing, a lot of medical care is purchased not in the heat of an emergency, a lot of medical care.
And you can you can make arrangements in advance of an emergency, since people know someday they may have an emergency.
That's what the insurance in the first place, they can make arrangements for what happens.
So it's ridiculous to make it seem like, you know, all medical care is purchased, you know, during the heat of an emergency where there's no chance to make any choice.
That's certainly true.
But the fact is, you can do some planning in advance and a lot of care, you know, is not bought during during an emergency.
If you're deciding what doctor you want to go to for your physical, that's not a that's not an emergency decision.
That's a something planned and maybe months before you have your your appointment.
So, you know, that's kind of bogus.
Look, when you say it's ideological, that's just that's just a negative spin on.
Yes, I think in terms of principles, I understand how markets work and I understand how governments work, bureaucracies work.
And yes, I'm applying that understanding to this particular case because there's no reason to think it's unique.
For the same reason, bureaucracies are not very good at providing bread or shoes or all the things they tried to provide in the in, you know, socialist countries, communist countries and communism.
But I'm saying we know what happens when government tries to be the provider.
It's not very good at it.
And so I'm applying those principles.
If you want to call it ideological, I don't mind that.
But yes, I'm using principles.
I don't I think it's ridiculous to say we ought to approach every issue fresh and new.
You have people say, I'm practical.
I judge everything on a case by case basis.
That's a lot of that's a load of, you know, you know what?
Because because either the person is is applying principles and not realizing it, you know, because of the sort of implicit you can't really you can't really judge things on a case by case basis because there are principles.
Everybody knows that there are things that apply to whole set classes of cases and fine if they want to dismiss them as ideological.
I'll accept the term ideological.
Yeah.
Well, now, so how come my insurance is going up and they're telling me that it's going to go up even more and I'm going to have to change to a whole new plan next year if I'm going to keep Blue Cross crap that I don't even want in the first place, but I have to have at all.
Well, you know, I don't know yet previously, but in what cases I've been reading about good people who bought more or less, you know, sort of high deductible, bare bones policies that didn't cover a lot of services they don't want.
But now those don't qualify for under the standard set by health and human services, which have to include a lot of things.
And so therefore, even though there's this grandfather clause, there's a vagueness about it.
If the company has significantly changed it since twenty twenty ten, then it's not grandfathered.
And so the companies are going to people like you or, you know, there are other individual policyholders and saying we're canceling your policy doesn't qualify under the Affordable Care Act.
Now, we have other policies which you can shop for, but they're going to be more expensive because, you know, everybody now has to have maternity services covered.
Everybody has to have mental health services covered, which I have a lot to say about.
I think there's a lot of people there.
And so services that you might have chosen not to buy in a free market, you're being forced to buy.
That's why they're more expensive.
Now, some people will be getting subsidies, right?
If you're making if you're making less than 400 percent of the poverty level, there's going to be a sliding scale of subsidies.
And so some people will pay the full cost because of the subsidy.
But that means other people will be paying.
And the subsidies have to be paid for by somebody who's paying for the rest of the thing.
The cost of this is all so much of the cost of this is hidden.
We don't know what this is even costing because it's not it's too diffused.
You know, it's not right out there on the price tag.
Well, yeah, sorry to make it personal, but yeah, they're raising my rate and then promising they're going to cut me a welfare check that I don't want.
I don't want to be dependent on them in any way.
I'm just going to have to suffer their price hike.
Yeah, you could end up being on Medicaid.
I mean, I know I know people in the state I live in, which is Arkansas, of people who are part time working, maybe going to school, and they now are being put on Medicaid.
They may not like that.
I want to move to Mexico like Bob Higgs and be free.
Well, a lot of people might be following him down there.
Maybe the reason he doesn't give out the name of the village.
Yeah, well, I know sort of where it is over there on the end of the Yucatan Peninsula or something.
Oh, OK.
He mentioned it one time.
I mean, the Yucatan Peninsula is pretty big, though, so I hope I'm not giving too much away.
I don't know.
We should go visit him and then just stay.
But now.
So, listen, we got about seven minutes or something, and I was thinking that and, you know, maybe I could be wrong, but you could disagree with me all you want.
But it occurred to me that if we had sound money instead of a central bank, that was the cause of the giant boom and bust dislocations that everybody has to suffer through every few years.
Then maybe you wouldn't even have this kind of call for, you know, in this sort of health care crisis.
In the first place, you wouldn't have people calling for this kind of horrible solution that just makes everything worse.
We could have settled for bad enough.
Well, that certainly aggravates things, but there's a lot of bad stuff just in the, you know, in the medical regulatory system that, you know, is bad on its own, even if you have sound money.
You have medical licensing.
So, you know, the state medical societies are able to decide on how many doctors are produced every year.
They can control the medical schools.
There's accreditation.
There's also license, occupational licensing.
And so that's one way of keeping the doctor's incomes high.
There was a great historian, unfortunately passed away last year, I think Ronald Hamaway, who did a study of the movement to institute medical licensing at the turn of the 20th century.
And he read their journal, their minutes of their medical society meetings in the various states.
And their concern was not consumer protection.
It was how are we going to keep our incomes up with all these doctors?
Well, the answer is, let's not have so many doctors.
And this led to a movement to close a lot of the medical schools.
There was this Flexner Report, which was issued by the Rockefeller Foundation, I believe, which said, well, one problem is we have too darn many medical schools.
We need to close about half of them.
Well, you know what they closed?
They closed the women's medical colleges and the black medical colleges, mostly.
Surprise, surprise.
They didn't touch many of the white and male medical colleges.
And that was a way to make sure not too many doctors were produced every year.
They also went after something called lodge practice.
A lot of people got their medical care for themselves and their families through the lodges they were members of.
It was called Lodge Practice Mutual Aid Society.
And it was a very successful system.
But the organized medicine did not like it because it drove down their income because a doctor was on a contract with a lodge for a year.
And so he'd have this guarantee amount of money coming in through the year.
And then as a as a privilege of membership in the lodge, you and your family members were had access to this general practitioner during the year.
And people were very happy about it.
They interviewed doctors very carefully before deciding, you know, whom to sign the contract with.
You know, they grilled them.
But the organized medicine condemned lodge doctors as, you know, amateurs.
They go into private colleges, not Harvard.
And they denigrated them.
They went to the hospitals and said, don't give privileges to these lodge doctors because they're, you know, they're we don't like them.
And so they ended up driving the whole practice, you know, out of existence.
And that's how a lot of low income working class people were getting medical care.
They solved the problem back then.
And yet today, you know, Obama says, oh, how can we get medical care, good medical care to old people?
Well, people break your leg and hand you crutches and say, yeah, you better get on your knees and thank me.
That's what and that's what that's what I think is so shameful about conservatives.
They talk about markets, they hate Obamacare, but they never talk about what really needs to be done is that they say, oh, we have the greatest system in the world and now it's being messed up.
That's nonsense.
Many, many people were priced out of it.
The price inflation in medical care was much greater than general price inflation.
And that's because we don't have true markets, free markets, competitive markets, insurance or medical care.
And you know what you say about the Medical Association there and everything.
I mean, to me, that's the most important lesson that liberals have to learn is that in in virtually every case, regulatory capture was the scheme in the first place.
It's not that wonderfully public spirited professors, as Tom Woods would say, come up with these agencies just to help perfect society a little more.
It's always a bunch of rent seekers.
It's always the worst, greediest characters in the entire profession of this, that or the other, including medicine, who conspire with the government to persecute their competition from the railroads to the bankers, to the doctors, to the rest of them.
I was just going to say the railroads wanted the ICC to regulate their rate.
The meatpackers wanted the government to do the inspection, the meat inspection.
You're right.
In every case, it's not some consumer protection device.
It's some incumbent firm protection device.
And that's how it works out.
It's not a coincidence.
You know, look, who's going to have more access to the regulators, you and me or the companies, the CEOs of the companies that are working, you know, 24 hours a day on the stuff?
Yeah, well, you know, the way it works in practice, too, is if you have a real legit complaint that you could maybe sue in court, say over an environmental matter, somebody pollutes on your property or something, a company pollutes on your property, certainly here in Texas.
And I know on the national level, too.
I don't know about in every state, but the headline here always would be that the defense attorney for the company stood up and told the judge, hey, the EPA or the Texas version of the EPA gave us a smiley face on our report card.
So everything's fine.
And then the judge isn't going to overrule the regulators.
The regulators said that they're within the parts per million.
And so your case is dismissed.
Right.
That's right.
And that's happened in a lot of different ways.
I agree.
That's a great insight.
So it rigged the system against just sort of regular people.
And again, who's going to have who's going to be more comfortable in the holes of power?
The CEOs of these companies or just regular people who don't know the ins and outs are too busy making a living, putting the kids into school and.
Well, who really wants a free market?
Somebody's trying to make it in the world or somebody who already made it and has a lot at risk.
Right.
That's a little that's the last thing that the last thing they would want is is real competition.
See, I think everybody ought to listen to you, man, because then they'd get it.
It's easy, especially for liberals.
I can put myself in liberal shoes easier than a conservatives, I guess.
And I can see why it is that they believe that libertarians are some kind of right winger and you just want rich white people and their businesses to be free and whatever.
And they don't really understand a Sheldon Richmond in point of view.
So I'm glad I had the chance to try to bring it to him.
Well, thanks, Scott.
Anytime.
Thanks very much, Sheldon.
Appreciate it.
Take care.
All right, everybody.
That is the great Sheldon Richmond, vice president of the Future Freedom Foundation and editor of the Future Freedom, their journal.
And check out FFF.org for the speaking tour him and Jacob going around doing libertarian angle in the south this week.
Hey, I'll start here to talk to you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State, the Cold War origins of the military industrial complex and the power elite.
In the book, Swanson explains what the revolution was, the rise of empire and the permanent military economy, and all from a free market libertarian perspective.
Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of the Future Freedom Foundation, says the book is absolutely awesome and a Swanson's perspectives on the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis are among the best I've read.
The poll numbers say that people agree on one thing.
It's that America is on the wrong track in the war state.
Swanson gets to the bottom of what's ailing our society.
Empire, the permanent national security bureaucracy that runs it and the mountain of debt that has enabled our descent down this dark road.
The war state could well be the book that finally brings this reality to the level of mainstream consensus.
America can be saved from its government and its arms dealers.
First, get the facts.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson, available at your local bookseller and Amazon.com or just click on the book in the right margin at ScottHorton.org.
Hey, I'm Scott here for MyHeroesThink.com.
They sell beautiful seven inch busts of libertarian heroes, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul and Harry Brown.
I've got the Harry Brown one on the bookshelf now.
Makes me smile every time it catches my eye.
These finely crafted statues from MyHeroesThink.com make excellent decorations for your desktop at work, bookends for your shelves or gifts for that special individualist in your life.
They're also all available in colors now, too.
Of course, gold, silver, bronze.
Coming soon, Hayek, Hazlitt, Carlin.
Use promo code Scott Horton and save $5 at MyHeroesThink.com.
Why does the US support the tortured dictatorship in Egypt?
Because that's what Israel wants.
Why can't America make peace with Iran?
Because that's not what Israel wants.
And why do we veto every attempt to shut down illegal settlements on the West Bank?
Because it's what Israel wants.
Seeing a pattern here?
Sick of it yet?
It's time to put America first.
Support the Council for the National Interest at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org and push back against the Israel lobby and their sock puppets in Washington, D.C.
That's CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
Hey, all.
Scott here, hawking stickers for the back of your truck.
They've got some great ones at LibertyStickers.com.
GetYourSonKilled, Jeb Bush 2016, FDR, no longer the worst president in American history.
The National Security Agency, blackmailing your congressman since 1952.
And USA, sometimes we back Al-Qaeda, sometimes we don't.
And there's over a thousand other great ones on the wars, police, state elections, the Federal Reserve, and more at LibertyStickers.com.
They'll take care of all your custom printing for your bandier business at TheBumperSticker.com.
LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here for the Future Freedom, the monthly journal of the Future Freedom Foundation.
As you may already be aware, Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman, and James Bovard are awesome.
They're also in every issue of the Future Freedom.
And they're joined by others of the best of the libertarian movement.
People like Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, Lawrence Vance, Joe Stromberg, and many more.
Even me.
Sign up for the Future Freedom at FFF.org slash subscribe.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition, $15 to read it online.
That's the Future Freedom, edited by Sheldon Richman at FFF.org slash subscribe.
And tell him you heard it here.
TheBumperSticker.com.
TheBumperSticker.com.