Genesis of the "NO" Logo
In history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the 20th and 21st century, collective variations have included socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Under collectivism, a ruling class of “intellectuals”, bureaucrats, politicians and/or social planners decides what people want or what is “good” for society and then uses the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax and redistribute wealth in an attempt to achieve their desired objectives. Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence and responsibility. It embraces opposition to controls over the individual when exercised by the state. The Preamble to our Constitution makes it plain that all power rests originally with the people, as individuals.
The “O” within the circle represents collectivism in its various forms. The “N” represents an emphatic repudiation of collectivism. The red, white and blue circles encompassing the “NO” are emblematic of our Republic. It is the responsibility of the individuals in an engaged and enlightened republic to limit the influence of the government, especially one that attempts to wield power outside the boundaries delineated by the Constitution.
A thoughtful person might be forgiven for asking the obvious question here: Why is the government — i.e. the least productive institution in any economy — charged with the duty of stimulating anything? Everyone knows DC is a veritable cash vortex. When it comes to vacuuming scarce resources from those most in need, nothing sucks quite like bureaucracy.
So how do they get away with it? Why are people sending in their tax dollars instead of rioting in
the streets? Why do swindled citizens applaud trillions squandered on programs to buy small business cyanide and economy-sized nooses? The trick, as usual, lies in a carefully plotted economic public relations campaign. It’s in the way these schemes are sold.
As George Orwell once noted, “Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.” People seldom riot while waiting in line for a free lunch. Recognizing this, politicians and their lackey economists go about convincing people that a nation really can spend its way to riches.
In this manner, the Keynesian economic theory of interventionalism enjoys a growing popularity among those it will eventually ravage. The hungry man will do well to remember, therefore, that the only thing a universal “free lunch” can reasonably guarantee is mass starvation.
Joel Bowman
