We are the future and you are the past

The European Union and Europe’s political elites are faced with many new political leaders that champion individual liberty and oppose socialism. Below you will meet 2 new European politicians that strongly oppose current European political policy.

Afroditi Latinopoulou, is a lawyer and former championship tennis player. In 2024 she established the Voice of Reason political party in Greece and was elected a member of the European Parliament. 

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Seriously ladies and gentleman, was it the right wing that destroyed industry? Was it the right wing that made an idol out of Greta Thunberg? Was it the right that imposed green energy at the expense of industry destroying the EU's competitiveness? Or was it the socialist governments that have been ruling the European Union for 50 years?

France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and my homeland Greece have been devastated by groundless socialist policies. And today you, the destroyers of Europe have the audacity to wag your finger at us claiming that we conservatives are a threat to Europe? I laugh, I truly laugh.

As Margaret Thatcher wisely said: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." So abandon these ghost stories about supposed far-right threats and implement liberal economic policies. Lower taxes, increase competitiveness bring back plastic straws leave lignite [coal] alone invest in the industry and above all face reality: YOU HAVE FAILED. Follow what we're telling you before it's too late for everyone. 

You have failed. We are the future and you are the past.

Kemi Badenoch just became the first black woman to lead the UK’s Conservative Party, the oldest in British politics, colloquially known as “the Tories.” 

Kemi Badenoch

The first step is to explain the value of liberty. Our opponents do not value liberty. They see it as the freedom to do bad things, whether they are offensive or exploitative; that is all they think about. But liberty is foundational for a flourishing society, not just a philosophical “nice to have.”

The second thing we have to do is to stop the expansion of the state.

The third thing we have to do is to stop being afraid to defend our beliefs.

People should always be treated as individuals (ideologies that suggest otherwise must be passionately opposed). Due process must always be ensured (there can be no room for mob justice of any kind). The rule of law must be protected, and the law must be applied neutrally (and there can be no special treatment depending on identity).

I will die to protect those things

And it isn’t so much about being on the left or being on the right, but about finding the common ground. So I am on the right. But I also recognize that just talking about things within your own bubble is not how to win other people over. I’m able to have conversations with people who have very different philosophies because there’s a way you can speak that shows the commonality and shows that we’re all trying to get to the same place. And that’s what I’m trying to do with my party now.

Tariffs “protect” us from lower prices

Here are 5 articles that might diminish your enthusiasm for tariffs:

Tariffs and Industrial Policy Fail

High tariffs distorted resource allocation, favoring inefficient industries over more competitive sectors. This misallocation led to higher consumer prices and suppressed overall economic welfare.

Their study highlights how tariffs weakened competition in manufacturing by protecting inefficient firms, which inevitably inhibited productivity.

His analysis reveals that trade liberalization—not protectionism—is consistently associated with higher economic growth. By reducing barriers to trade, economies can reallocate resources to more productive sectors, enhance competition, and promote innovation. The evidence strongly suggests that countries embracing open trade policies experience faster and more sustainable economic progress than those that rely on tariffs to shield domestic industries.

The failures of tariffs and industrial policies in the United States, Japan, and China underscore the broader limitations of anti-market economic strategies. These policies often stem from the belief that governments can outmaneuver markets in allocating resources and driving innovation. Yet, as history repeatedly demonstrates, markets are better suited to these tasks.

Our History of Protectionist Tariff Train Wrecks

Protectionist tariffs are associated with a long history of economic and social calamities in America.

The only real difference between a lobbyist for protectionist tariffs and an armed robber is that the robber is armed. 

Tariffs Are an Attack on Natural Rights

“Free Trade” means perfect freedom for every kind of industry; and it includes liberty to every man to employ his money or his labour in the way that he himself thinks most advantageous, and to buy and sell wherever he can do so with the greatest profit.

Bright asserted that the freedom to exchange the produce of one’s labor for that of his fellows anywhere in the world was the most fundamental of rights. Bright argued that there was no liberty without this liberty, which was simply the liberty to live. 

Tariffs Are Taxes on Americans

Protectionism remains popular. But, as Henry Hazlitt put it, voter support for raising tariffs is ”the result of looking only at the immediate effects of a single tariff rate on one group of producers, and forgetting the long-run effects both on consumers as a whole and on all other producers.” Those who are incapable or unwilling to examine policies beyond their most short-term effects are easy targets for protectionist rhetoric.

Tariffs have inspired a profusion of economic speculation and argument. The arguments for tariffs have one thing in common: they all attempt to prove that the consumers of the protected area are not exploited by the tariff. These attempts are all in vain.

The Immorality of Protectionism

Politicians who support these taxes and regulations like to frame it all like it’s some kind of public service to the community. These arguments generally employ some sort of feel-good language like “tariffs level the playing field for Americans workers.” 

In reality, of course, calls to raise or maintain tariffs are nothing more than a call to raise taxes on Americans. Describing these taxes as a burden only for foreign workers or foreign importers requires either dishonesty or impressive levels of ignorance about how trade barriers work. 

Protectionism  means Americans who are already taxed and regulated to the skies via income, sales, and property taxes must endure additional levels of taxation and regulation to get their hands on foreign goods. All these additional costs and taxes imposed at the import stage naturally filter down to the entrepreneurs, small business owners, and ordinary people  who benefit from access to less expensive foreign goods. 

There’s no moral high ground here for the protectionists, just unfounded self-righteousness. Of course, if protectionists don’t want foreign goods in their country, they are welcome to avoid purchasing such goods. Protectionists are also welcome to try to convince other people to not purchase those goods. One could also advocate against domestic regulations that drive up the cost of domestic production.

Investing for you

The opening paragraph of the news article below speaks volumes about the troubling state of today's society:

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) on Tuesday announced a plan to raise income tax rates for the state’s wealthiest residents, money that would help close a looming $3 billion budget deficit and fund public taxpayer investment in private industries meant to strengthen the state’s economy.

Moore announces tax increases for the wealthy to close budget gap

The Governor proposes to steal money from individuals and then invest the spoils into private industries. For those of you who do not see a problem with this proposal, consider the definition of Fascism provided by the founder of that political philosophy:

Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.  — Benito Mussolini, from a speech delivered to the Italian Chamber of Deputies on December 9, 1928

If this seems like an inappropriate comparison, how would you categorize the State taking money from private individuals and then investing it in private industry? Do you consider this free market activity? Do you consider this Capitalism?

Contrast Governor Wes Moore’s proposal with this advice:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801