12/07/12 – Sheldon Richman – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott Horton here.
After the show, you should check out one of my sponsors, wallstreetwindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by Mike Swanson, a former hedge fund manager who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
Mike's site, wallstreetwindow.com, is unique in that he shows people what he's really investing in, updating you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike's betting his positions are going to go up due to the Federal Reserve printing all that money to finance the deficit.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
In an empire where Congress knows nothing, the ubiquitous D.C. think tank is all.
And the Israel lobby and their neocon allies must own a dozen.
Well, Americans have a lobby in Washington, too.
It's called the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
They advocate for us on Capitol Hill.
Join CNI to demand an end to the U.S.
-sponsored occupation of the Palestinians and an end to our government's destructive empire in the Middle East.
That's the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, ladies, Scott Horton here.
If you would like truly youthful, healthy, and healthy-looking skin, there is one very special company you need to visit, Dagny and Lane at dagnyandlane.com.
Dagny and Lane has revolutionized the industry with a full line of products made from organic and all-natural ingredients that penetrate deeply with nutrient-rich ionic minerals and antioxidants for healthy and beautiful skin.
That's Dagny and Lane at dagnyandlane.com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott15 at checkout for a 15% discount.
Hey, folks, Scott Horton here for Veterans for Peace at veteransforpeace.org.
I'm not a vet, but if you are, I'd like to ask you to consider joining Veterans for Peace.
As you know, in matters of foreign wars, a veteran's voice is given much more weight.
Well, Veterans for Peace is making veterans' voices heard in ways and places where they can really make a difference.
There are more than 175 chapters of Veterans for Peace in all 50 states working hard to eliminate nuclear weapons, seek justice for veterans and victims of war, and abolish war as an instrument of American national policy.
It's the peace vets versus the chicken hawks.
Join up the good fight at veteransforpeace.org.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton, and our first guest today is our friend Shell the Richman.
You all know Sheldon.
He's vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation at FFF.org, and he's the editor of their monthly journal, Future of Freedom.
And you can find him at SheldonRichman.com.
That's his own personal blog.
Welcome back to the show, Sheldon.
How are you doing?
Hey, I'm doing great.
Thanks for having me back.
Well, good, and you're welcome.
I'm very happy to have you here.
Thanks for joining us.
A couple of articles here.
I like the way you do this, man.
Last couple of articles at the Future of Freedom Foundation I think could sort of be categorized as they're meant to appeal to the left in a way and sort of get them in their irony and in praise of profit, right, taking on presumptions about money being the root of all evil and all these kinds of things that liberals believe.
But then you also got this great one at the American Conservative Magazine appealing to the right called How the Rich Rule.
Libertarians know the financial system is rigged.
So you're really trying to appeal to the best of the left and the right here and get them.
I guess you figure that if they understood economics the way you understood economics, then they would be a libertarian like you are.
Yeah, I think that's a pretty good sizing up.
The last few articles at the Future of Freedom Foundation, my TGIF Friday column, has been almost a series.
I didn't formally call it a series, but you're right.
You picked up the common thread.
I am trying to talk to anti-market leftists in order to show them that they may never have dreamed this fact, but that what they want, assuming I'm talking about the good faith ones now, what they want would be most and best achieved by true, radically competitive free markets where the government is not in any way privileging anybody, but particularly owners of capital.
That that would actually get them what they want.
They don't know it, but I'm trying to raise their consciousness and show them that they've been wrong about the means.
Even if their ends can stay intact, they just need to realize that the libertarian means is what gets them closest to what it is they want.
Okay, well, so what is it exactly that they're missing?
Well, first of all, let's rewind.
You're saying a good faith liberal, and that means, well, I'll put it to you this way, and then you can refine the definition however you like, but it seems to me it's got something to do with Jeffersonian principles of natural rights and natural born equality of man.
Everybody, there's no such thing as a born demigod and a born untouchable.
Everybody's got the same divine right as the king of England kind of a thing.
And then 20th century, 21st century liberalism anyway, the way I learned it in junior college, I think it was a paraphrase or maybe it was a direct quote of Lyndon Johnson, and it was that only the national government of the United States has the ability to make sure that everyone in America has a chance to live out the American dream.
And so they're the ones with the capital to help get the things done that absolutely need getting done.
For example, I was just actually just yesterday out driving in the Texas Hill Country, and it occurred to me that LBJ held a gun to everybody's head and forced the entire country to pay for the Hill Country to be wired with electricity.
After decades and decades and decades after electricity was in widespread use throughout the land, it wasn't in the Hill Country, West Austin, Texas.
And so LBJ is the one who got it done, I think, as part of the New Deal.
And so and then so that would be what liberalism is now, right, is that you can't leave it to the people because they screw it or even the state governments or whatever for bigger projects that they're interested in.
Because history shows that it's the national government, the LBJs of the world who really can help us.
Yeah, that sounds like Rachel Maddow.
Yeah, exactly.
Which, you know, hey, a lot of decent and fair and honest people believe that crap.
So what is it that Maddow is missing so bad, Sheldon?
Well, she's missing a lot of things.
Number one, you know, while the state can do these highly visible things that seem to bring benefits to a group of people, like your case of the rural electrification, it does a lot of other stuff that's sometimes not so obvious that trashes people, often in foreign countries.
LBJ became pretty good at that once he became president, didn't he?
Right.
I mean, that's what I learned about him my whole life was, yeah, you know, what a tragic figure, because his great society was so wonderful.
But the Vietnam War just undermined it all.
Right.
Well, I'm from Austin, so that's the way I learned it.
If you're from somewhere else in Texas, you might have heard it the other way around.
Right.
But these big visible projects that politicians like to point to, it hides the fact that if the government was not absorbing resources from, you know, from the civil society, all kinds of resources, you know, people's wealth and labor and all, to put into those projects, things would be getting done.
People do things when they don't just wait around for the government.
So it's a question of the seen and the unseen, as Frederick Bastiat liked to put it.
So you can see the electrification, but we don't know what would have been done with all those resources if the government didn't basically commandeer them.
Now, as to the exact question, why wasn't electrification accomplished in that area before that point?
You know, you'd have to look at the particular case.
You know, it was earlier in our history, right?
There's been technological advance since then.
There might have been technological reasons why electrification hadn't occurred yet but would have occurred soon.
Or there might have been other government barriers to it before that time.
I mean, you have to look at the exact case.
The point is the fact that government does something in itself shouldn't impress us because, number one, it uses force to do it, and number two, it displaces something else.
The government has no resources that it doesn't seize from somebody first.
And those people would have been using the resources.
Now, you know, the left may say, the anti-market left may say, well, sure, yeah, if those resources were just left in the private hands, they wouldn't be used for good purposes.
They'd be used for, you know, selfish profiteering purposes.
And this is where we have to educate them in terms of economics because if it's a truly competitive economy where government is not privileging anybody, then people have to use their resources to benefit other people because that's how you earn profits in a truly free market through voluntary exchange.
I mean, you can't get anybody to spend money on your product if they don't like the money, if they don't like it, if they don't like the product or service.
So we can correct the left's prejudice against markets by showing that Adam Smith's invisible hand metaphor was correct.
It was never meant to be anything literal.
It just means that the way voluntary and free social cooperation operates is that you benefit yourself by benefiting other people.
Right.
All right.
Now, here's something I think anybody who's ever had a job can identify with.
How come I got to do all the work and you get to make all the money?
It's not fair just because you own it and just because the government says that that's the way it works.
Well, OK, that's a that's a pretty big subject.
Well, it's it's your subject here.
In praise of profit, you know, that's the theory.
And it makes a lot of sense on the face of it anyway, that your profit is my excess that you're running off with.
You know, I'm assuming you own the construction company and I'm the one swinging the hammer, for example.
Right.
OK, we need to we need to disaggregate this.
First, we need to discuss what would happen in a truly free market where there's no privilege whatsoever.
That's that's the abstract.
But then we have to look at actual history and the current period to see how the real world departed from what the theory says.
In other words, what kind of intervention has occurred to prevent the actual market from operating?
So in a free market where there isn't legalized crime and legalized plunder, to use a Boston term, people work and produce and trade with each other.
That was certainly possible and likely that some people, people are different.
People's aptitudes are different.
People's attention to what consumers want vary.
So some people are going to do better than other people.
That's certainly true.
You know, free market, radical free market philosophy doesn't promise everyone's going to have equal income because people are different in talents and everything else, energy, strength or whatever.
Every dimension, people, people of every sort of dimension of that sort, they're equal.
They should be equal in terms of liberty and equal in terms of authority.
In other words, nobody has a right to rule anybody else.
But in other respects, they're never they can't be equal because people are just too different.
So some people are going to be better at catering to consumers and others and make more money.
Now they may, as a result of that money and saving of that money, form a firm, right, buy machinery, make a factory or whatever, and be willing to hire people to work in those factories.
And some people will think the deal is a good deal and come and work for them rather than do something else.
Now, keep in mind, we're talking about a society without any privilege.
So there are no barriers to entry.
People can form their own businesses if they want, rather than go to work for somebody else.
There's no zoning that says you can't open a little company in your house, right, making crafts or something.
There's no land use restrictions.
There's no licensing.
Lots of professions, including things like being a florist, are licensed in the various states because that just means the people already in the trade try to keep out new people because they don't want their incomes driven down by competition.
All that's gone in the world I'm talking about.
So some people will still choose to go to work for other people.
And, Dale, you may say, well, but if the factory owner or the business owner is making a profit, isn't that money he's taking from the mouths of labor?
And which is a way a lot of people have looked at it over the years, including even some free market individual anarchists like the early 20th century, late 19th century, Benjamin Tucker and the people around him.
They thought that.
They believed in the labor theory of value, like Adam Smith did, like Ricardo, like Marx did.
And so they thought that if a worker doesn't get the full amount that the product brings in the marketplace, that he's been cheated.
But in a completely free market, that is not true because, and this is something the Austrian economist Bomberwerk, who actually was literally an Austrian economist as well as the Austrian school.
He pointed out that that need not be the result of any kind of exploitation, that the worker doesn't get the full amount that the product brings later on.
Because the worker wants to be paid every week or every two weeks, right, or every month.
But the product may not sell for some period of time.
If you're working on a car, it may take, I don't know, a month to make it.
Or if you're working on something else, it may take a year to make it.
Most of the time, someone who goes to work for someone else doesn't want to wait for a year or a month.
They want to get paid every week or every two weeks.
So in other words, the employer is advancing money to the employee because he's getting paid before the sale.
And maybe the thing won't even sell.
So in effect, this is what Bomberwerk pointed out, the employer is in a way making a loan to the worker.
So when the product finally sells, if the employer reaps more than he had paid his workers, that difference is an interest payment.
It's an implicit interest payment because of the advance, right?
It's like if you ask your father for an advance on your allowance and he says, okay, here's an advance, but you're getting less next week.
In a sense, he's charged the interest for a loan because time is worth something in human action.
So you can justify that difference, what looks like exploitation, in pure market terms.
The problem is once the government intervenes on the side of employers, which it tends to do in a lot of ways, then that spread is much larger than it would be in a truly competitive economy.
And there we can identify that spread as exploitative.
In other words, if it's above what the market would produce, then that additional amount that the employer gets versus the employee is legitimately called exploitative, I think.
So I know that's probably a little complicated, but that's the answer I'd give.
All right, now I want to talk about the piece in the American Conservative as well, how the rich rule libertarians know the financial system is rigged.
And this is, you know, I guess when I first heard of the word libertarianism, I was in 10th grade or something.
And it was defined to me as the rich white man's anarchy.
Yeah, everybody who's already privileged and well born and their dad already owns some business or whatever, they all get to be free and everybody else can go die in a gutter somewhere.
And so to this day, I still see, to be perfectly honest about it, which I like to be, I still see libertarians who obviously are just spoiled, rotten sons of Republicans born with trust funds and never worked a day in their life and actually don't care at all about like what you say here, individualist collectivism, where the people who aren't well born are actually better off in a free society.
They don't even care about that.
That's not even an argument they're making.
All they know is they're Alex P. Keaton and they want to be free for themselves and don't care what happens to anyone else at all.
And it really does seem to fit that stereotype that liberals believe in probably more than conservatives, that that the libertarian movement is really the whole thing is just a front for corporations to get deregulated so they can rip everybody else off worse.
Well, that's an impression left by the unfortunate alliance between libertarians and conservatives over the years that really began, well, probably during the New Deal and then it was intensified during the Cold War where there was the perception that we have this common enemy, namely the Soviet Union and then socialism or state socialism in general, we have this common enemy.
And then so we end up with this the enemy of my enemy is my friend, which doesn't always work out.
That's not always true.
So there's been this unfortunate affinity between sort of mainstream libertarianism and conservatism.
And that's been very damaging because if you go back to an earlier generation of libertarians and I already mentioned them, the people around Benjamin Tucker and his magazine called Liberty in the late 19th century and into the 20th century, you see a very different kind of libertarianism.
It's a workers' movement.
It's a pro-workers' movement.
They were pro-strike.
They were critical of employers, not so much in Tucker's case because an employer per se is a bad person, but that in the system they were living in, in the United States in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, they wouldn't use the word corporatist, but it was a corporatist system.
In other words, government had all kinds of things in place, rules and programs in place that benefited the current owners of capital and tamped down competition from upstarts and from newcomers who wanted to challenge the established businesses.
And so that's where you get the evils.
I mean, Tucker was always very clear that if you take away a worker who was an anarchist, he would say take away the state, but to be more specific, if you take away all the sources of privilege, the tariff, the patents, the banking cartel or banking monopoly, land use monopoly, government handing out the prime land, the railroads and other people, these evils would go away.
It would go away.
And so if you look at Tucker, it's very hard to say you're just an apologist for corporations because he's quite clear what he thinks ought to happen.
They ought to be all disenfranchised by the abolition of these sources of monopoly.
And so does that mean that you're perfectly happy to see every firm on Wall Street fail if, say, central banks stop propping them up with funny money?
Well, yeah, look, these big banks, I think we should call them creatures of the state.
They weren't evolved in the free market.
They grew up in a cartelized banking system.
Certainly since 1914, 1913, with the Fed, the banking has been heavily dominated by government.
And by that I don't mean imposed on the bankers.
The bankers are happy partners in all this.
I don't mean to take the old Ayn Rand position that big business is America's most persecuted minority.
I think that's wrong, and libertarians were answering her immediately when she wrote that essay.
And then this goes back to historians of the New Left, like Gabriel Kolko and other people, who show in their books that big business, the big business elite, they were the movers and the shakers of the so-called progressive movement reforms, so-called reforms, because they didn't like wide-open competition, where their market share was always at risk, their profits were always at risk, and they wanted the government to, as they would put it, rationalize things.
In other words, keep things calm, calm them down, constrict the limits within which competition could occur, so there was more certainty.
You know, it could always be presented in a very benign way, right?
We need more certainty, and we don't need the wild cutthroat competition.
Yeah, but that means, yeah, the incumbents want to make sure they're not thrown out by some upstart competitor that they didn't see coming.
Competition isn't cutthroat when in the free market, but it can be very vigorous.
And someone who is, you know, as the old Frank Sinatra song goes, you can be riding high in April and shot down in May, but shot down only figuratively, not literally, by someone offering consumers a better deal or offering workers a better deal.
Right, which sort of gets into what you're saying in this piece about individualist collectivism and all of that.
If what you're interested in is the greater good, well, you've got to go with personal and individual liberty anyway, even just from a utilitarian point of view.
That's what gets the job done.
But now, let me ask you about this, and I'm sorry if this sounds too stupid to people.
I think it's a good question.
It's based on another thing that I quote-unquote learned in junior college, although I doubt if this one ever stuck, because I think I'd already read Jekyll Island by then.
But anyway, what they said was inflation is good for the poor.
That's why William Jennings Bryan said, you can't nail me to a cross of gold.
We want silver currency, i.e. more currency, the paper of its day, right, so that all the farmers who are in debt can pay off those debts with depreciating dollars, so they don't all have to die.
And so isn't it great that the average American can own their own home or whatever, because over a 30-year note, the principal, yeah, they got all these interest payments, but still the principal is worth so much less as far as a share of their income adjusted for inflation over the decades.
And so inflation is great, and yet here in your great for regular folk and bad for creditors like bankers who have to loan this money out, right?
But then you make the opposite case in your American conservative piece.
Well, you know, big business is a debtor too, right?
Businesses borrow all the time.
They can be very highly leveraged.
So, you know, if inflation means paying back your debts with cheaper dollars, it's only poor people that would benefit from that.
But we've got to keep in mind that, you know, it's not a static situation, right?
This is a movie, and the movie keeps running.
So even if you get your inflationary policy or Bryan gets his and people find that their existing debts now can be repaid with cheaper dollars, what about lending and borrowing from here on out?
Aren't lenders going to be looking for a premium?
They'll offset that.
They're not stupid, right?
If they see that inflation is happening, they just raise the interest rate.
And so that's one point to be made against the inflationist.
You know, what do you have to do?
You can't have one answer might be, okay, well, let's have even greater inflation.
Let's have galloping, accelerating inflation.
But we know what happens with that.
You get runaway inflation.
There have been, I don't know, some 50 examples throughout history of really bad runaway inflation, which I believe is technically defined as over 50% per month.
And so we saw it in Germany in, you know, 23 and Zimbabwe very recently in this century, where things just go nuts.
Haywire.
The whole society is turned upside down.
Nobody can do any calculating.
Prices are changing, you know, by the moment.
It's just total chaos.
So that's what that would lead to.
What's better is just a market-based currency, which would tend to be a sound, stable currency, and with increases in productivity that would come from technological innovation, you'd find gently falling prices over time.
So that's good for the poor because that means, you know, it's good for everybody, but it's especially good for lower-income people because it means your dollar is becoming worth more month by month, you know, not dramatically, but just a sort of slow, steady increase in the value of the dollar.
And that means you're getting a raise even if you're not really getting a raise, right?
Because if your dollar goes out and buys, you know, one and a half times what it was buying previously, that's like getting a raise.
So that's the real benefit for low-income people, not the phony short-term benefit that inflation gets you.
Inflation is very upsetting, and one reason it is, and there's been quite a discussion of this in the blogosphere recently, is that it upsets the price system.
It distorts relative prices.
Prices are important not just because, you know, it tells you how much you have to give in order to get something, but the relative prices are important because they carry information about what's more or less plentiful in terms of resources, final products, labor.
Prices are information.
Now, they're information that has to be interpreted, right?
They're not perfect, and they don't automatically tell you what to do, but they do guide people in their activities.
And, you know, it works pretty well.
In fact, there's no better alternative.
There's no better alternative that would work well.
But what inflation does is interfere with and distort relative prices, so it performs its function less well to the extent the government is inflating, and that makes it bad for all of us because when the price system's allowed to operate, when the market's free, production and consumption are generally well-coordinated, so that when you go into the store, the stuff you're looking for is on the shelf rather than the shelf being chronically empty.
You know, there's this more or less certainty.
It's never absolute, never perfect, but it's as close as we can get because producers and consumers can coordinate their activities over time and over a geographical space.
It also, well, and maybe this isn't right, but it seems like if what we always are dealing with, with government-controlled banking is artificially low rates and inflation all the time, that presumably without that intervention, interest rates would tend to be higher, and then regular people could just have a regular savings account and actually save money and then maybe be a capitalist on their own.
And instead of having to take out a loan and be in debt to somebody else, they could just save up money and invest their own money in improving their own situation.
And it would be like capitalism, instead of just, you know, it seems like they have everything turned upside down, where you're not supposed to save.
You're supposed to get cheap credit from the bank that creates it with their magic wand or their gun or whatever you call it.
Right.
I mean, a low interest rate policy, I don't like the word capitalist for the system.
I favor just like free market.
Well, you know what I mean, like actual capital being saved rather than just created by the chase and making it basically a bad move for you to try to create.
The problem is people don't like us to save.
I mean, ever since Keynes, there's been this idea that savings actually is a bad thing.
You get what they call the paradox of thrift.
I mean, if you save, what's savings?
Savings is deferred consumption, right?
You say, I'm not going to consume today, I'm going to put the money away, hopefully earn some interest so I can consume more in the future.
Or so your children can consume more in the future.
So it's a deferring of consumption.
But Keynes said that's a bad thing, because if you defer consumption, well, sellers, store owners, you know, stores are not selling as much because you've deferred consumption.
Restaurants aren't selling as many meals because, again, you've deferred consumption.
So, okay, they're all going to lay their people off.
So they'll lay people off, and then they have less to spend because they're laid off.
So that means other businesses will lay people off and so on and so forth.
So we end up in the Great Depression.
So he didn't like savings.
He didn't like savings.
That's bogus, though.
The reason it's bogus is because the economy exists in terms of many stages of production.
And by stages, I mean how close or how far they are from the final consumer good, right?
Some stages of production are right near the production of consumer goods or putting the final touches on it before it goes into the market, consumer market.
But other stages of production are further away in terms of time from the consumer good, right?
If you're mining iron ore, which is eventually going to be made into steel and then eventually into an automobile, the mining industry is remote from the consumer level in terms of time, basically.
And so if people decide to save more and spend somewhat less at the retail level, that frees up resources because the money is being saved.
It can now be lent out to producers.
And people will then move from, say, retail level to a more remote level where there are new jobs being created.
Savings doesn't have to throw people out of work if the market is free.
So Keynes was wrong about that.
But the government policymakers, by keeping rates low, interest rates low, in order to benefit business, which, like I said, are big borrowers, they also discourage our savings.
Because what do you get on a savings account these days?
You used to be able to get, like, 5%.
That was actually a limit.
The government used to have a ceiling.
Today, what are you getting?
1%, less than 1%.
And if you want to get more than that, you've got to go into something a little more complicated.
You've got to read up on money market funds.
You used to be able to just put it in your neighborhood bank, and you'd be getting with compound interest.
You know, you get 5% a year.
Now you've got to be much more knowledgeable, and you've got to get into the financial industry, which is all good for the financial industry, right?
Yeah, you've got to put it in the stock market bubble.
Yeah, or take risks with stocks, hoping you hit it big.
So our lives have been financialized by all this intervention by government.
So the point of that article in The American Conservative was to show that it's all one big system of privilege.
People are doing well off this, particular people.
I don't mean the run-of-the-mill guy, you know, you and me.
But the people can make a killing in the financial industry, and, you know, things ran aground in 2008 because, you know, things got out of hand.
But those people were able to protect themselves better than the rest of us anyway.
And, you know, the government is just trying to reinflate the bubble again, and those guys will be back on top because they get bailed out, and then they, you know, they're the insiders.
So the rest of us have to, you know, live with the worry that we're going to get laid off.
Right.
All right, listen, thanks so much for your time, especially for staying over time.
As always, Sheldon.
Thanks, Scott.
Enjoy it any time.
All right, everybody, that's Sheldon Richman from the Future Freedom Foundation, vice president of the Future Freedom Foundation.
That's FFF.org.
And check out his website, his blog, SheldonRichman.com.
The Scott Horton Show is brought to you by the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org.
Join the great Jacob Hornberger and some of the best writers in the libertarian movement like James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more for a real individualist take on the most important matters of peace, liberty, and prosperity in our society.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
As you know, I've been laid off from Antiwar.com, and I've embarked on a mission to make this show into a real business.
And as you can tell, I've been doing all right at lining up some sponsors and some great ones at that.
But it isn't enough, so the Perpetual Fund drive rolls on.
The Scott Horton Show needs donors, needs donors and more advertisers if the show is to outlast my meager savings.
So please, stop by ScottHorton.org.
You can make single donations or sign up for a monthly subscription with PayPal.
You don't need an account with them to do so.
Or use Google Wallet, WePay.com, Give.org, and now even accepting Bitcoins.
And if you own or represent a company or organization interested in sponsoring the show, please email Scott at ScottHorton.org so we can work it out.
That's ScottHorton.org/donate, and thanks.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton here for LibertyStickers.com.
If you're like me, then you're right all the time, surrounded by people in desperate need of correction.
Well, we can't all have a radio show, but we can all get anti-government propaganda to stick on the back of our trucks.
Check out LibertyStickers.com.
Categories include Antiwar, Empire, Police State, Libertarian, Ron Paul, Gun Rights, Founders Quotes, and, of course, this stupid election.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Ben Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
Hi, Scott Horton here for the Bill of Rights Security Edition from SecurityEdition.com.
It's a plain card-sized steel Bill of Rights, designed to set off the metal detectors anywhere the police state goes, so you can remind those around you the freedoms we've lost.
For a limited time, get free shipping when you purchase a frequent flyer pack of five Bill of Rights Security Edition cards.
Play a leading role in the security theater with a Bill of Rights Security Edition from SecurityEdition.com.