The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
The 'Great Reset' Is About Expanding Government Power and Suppressing Liberty
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

World Economic Forum Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab has proposed using the overreaction to coronavirus to launch a worldwide “Great Reset.” This Great Reset is about expanding government power and suppressing liberty worldwide.

Schwab envisions an authoritarian system where big business acts as a partner with government. Big business would exercise its government-granted monopoly powers to maximize value for “stakeholders,” instead of shareholders. Stakeholders include the government, international organizations, the business itself, and “civil society.”

Of course, government bureaucrats and politicians, together with powerful special interests, will decide who are, and are not, stakeholders, what is in stakeholders’ interest, and what steps corporations must take to maximize stakeholder value. People’s own wishes are not the priority.

The Great Reset will dramatically expand the surveillance state via real-time tracking. It will also mandate that people receive digital certificates in order to travel and even technology implanted in their bodies to monitor them.

Included in Schwab’s proposal for surveillance is his idea to use brain scans and nanotechnology to predict, and if necessary, prevent, individuals’ future behavior. This means that anyone whose brain is “scanned” could have his Second Amendment and other rights violated because a government bureaucrat determines the individual is going to commit a crime. The system of tracking and monitoring could be used to silence those expressing “dangerous” political views, such as that the Great Reset violates our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Great Reset involves a huge expansion of the welfare state via a universal basic income program. This can help ensure compliance with the Great Reset’s authoritarian measures. It will also be very expensive. The resulting increase in government debt will not be seen as a problem by people who believe in modern monetary theory. This is the latest version of the fairy tale that deficits don’t matter as long as the Federal Reserve monetizes the debt.

The Great Reset ultimately will fail for the same reason all other attempts by government to control the market fail. As Ludwig von Mises showed, government interference in the marketplace distorts the price system. Prices are how information about the value of goods and services related to other goods and services is conveyed to market actors. Government interference in the marketplace disturbs the signals sent by prices, leading to an oversupply of certain goods and services and an undersupply of others.

The lockdowns show the dangers of government control over the economy and our personal lives. Lockdowns have increased unemployment, caused many small businesses to close, and led to more substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide. We are told the lockdowns are ordered because of a virus that poses no great danger to a very large percentage of the American public. Yet, instead of adopting a different approach, politicians are doubling down on the failed policies of masks and lockdowns. Meanwhile, big tech companies, which are already often acting as partners of government, silence anyone who questions the official line regarding the threat of coronavirus or the effectiveness of lockdowns, masks, and vaccines.

The disastrous response to Covid is just the latest example of how those who give up liberty for safety or health will end up unfree, unsafe, and unhealthy. Instead of a Great Reset of authoritarianism, we need a great rebirth of liberty!

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Coronavirus, Government Surveillance 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. GeeBee says:

    As Ludwig von Mises showed, government interference in the marketplace distorts the price system

    Here we have the nub or crux of the writer’s credentials: he believes that ‘the market’ is the god before which we must all genuflect. The American ‘Spenglerian’ Francis Parker Yockey succinctly described Mr Paul’s stance seventy years ago:

    Whereas to Hegel, the State was an Idea, an organism with harmony in its parts, to Malthus and Marx there was no State, but only a mass of self-interested individuals, groups, and classes. Capitalistically, all is economics. Self-interest means economics. Marx differed on this plane in no way from the non-class war theoreticians of capitalism – Mill, Ricardo, Paley, Spencer, Smith. To them all, Life was economies, not Culture… All believe in Free Trade and want no “State interference” in economic matters. None of them regard society or State as an organism. Capitalistic thinkers found no ethical fault with destruction of groups and individuals by other groups and individuals, so long as the criminal law was not infringed .

    We have surely seen more than enough examples of where this substitution of ‘the market’ for traditional good governance leads. Which is to say to a situation whereby the desirable and traditional notion of good governance – one in which ‘the people’ are protected from the rapine and venality of the commercial interest – flies out of the window, and is replaced by a corrupt and mendacious normative political milieu in which professional politicians understand all too well that advancement in their uniquely tawdry and despicable ‘career’ depends upon toadying to powerful commercial vested interests, rather than in representing the interests of the people who naively vote for them.

    Or, to put it rather more simply, it results in our present world, in which the ordinary masses are deprived of hope, ambition, security and rights, at the expense of a puissant and uniquely repulsive ruling oligarchy.

    I thank Mr Paul for at least making it clear which side of the divide he supports.

    • Agree: Lurker, Mefobills
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    , @onebornfree
  2. Jokem says:

    What you do not see, is – we are moving toward a command economy, which never results in good governance. Rather good governance is replaced by political expediency. Every nation which has tried this ends up the same, with a large, cumbersome, intrusive government rolling over the individual, who is mostly powerless.

    The free market, instead of the politicians depending upon commercial vested interests, the commercial vested interests become dependent upon the consumer.

  3. The Great Reset should be more accurately called The Great Plantation. It will a Plantation Planet with the likes of Schwab, Gates et al as the overseers. Yes Massa will be the new national motto.

    By the way, 25 years ago I learned that any time you hear the term “Stakeholder”, just know you’re being set up for a scam.

    • Agree: Jokem
  4. The Great Reset ultimately will fail for the same reason all other attempts by government to control the market fail.

    That depends on what you mean by “fail”, Dr. Paul. The Bolshevik version, with 7 decades of USSR Communism was only a fail for the economy and the people. It was a success for the Communists. It was the same for 3 decades of hard-core Communism in China under the butcher Mao. For Mr. Mao, it was a splendid success.

    Which way will it go here? I always agree with the principles you espouse, but I am just not quite as optimistic as to how things will turn out.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  5. Jokem says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It will fail in the USA due to loose fiscal policy.

  6. @GeeBee

    OK, but can you refute his assertions about the “Great Reset”?

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  7. onebornfree says: • Website
    @GeeBee

    “I thank Mr Paul for at least making it clear which side of the divide he supports.”

    You are pretty frickin’ dumb if you’ve only just now figured out which side he’s on.

    But then again, you’re pretty frickin’ dumb to believe in your fantasy “traditional good governance ” too, so it’s simply a matter of “par for the course” in your case. 😎

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  8. All interesting points but I can’t help but wonder how things could (or should) go any different in real time than they are. How do you manage three hundred twenty-odd million people, each one convinced that the immediate gratification of their every desire is the definition of liberty? Americans seem convinced that any sort of regulation “to promote the common welfare,” as mandated in that ultra leftist communist manifesto called the US Constitution, is an encroaching tyranny to be fought at all costs. 20th century European fascists, the ones we’re told are the most evil people that ever were, pointed out that because of the degrading influence of capitalism, the Enlightenment’s noble reverence for the value of the individual had been deliberately perverted in liberal democracies into a cult of childish narcissism, which, ironically, makes its victims even more dependent on centralized authority. We see this today from the wokeist idiots of the so-called Left to the Trump worshippers of the Astroturf Right, from BLM to the Proud (of what, seriously?) Boys.

  9. Ron Paul: “Instead of a Great Reset of authoritarianism, we need a great rebirth of liberty!”

    A remark like that just displays a failure to grasp how liberty was lost in the first place. To the extent that Americans ever had any, it died a death of a thousand cuts, and each cut was supposed at the time to be necessary, justifiable and justified. Few are alive now to recall, but there was once a time in this country when anyone could walk into a hardware store and purchase a case of dynamite. Or a machine gun. Or a silencer. Needless to say, it didn’t take too many “abuses” of these so-called “rights” for them to vanish. These days, you have to have the permission of the government to legally own such things; pay a tax, pass a background check, etc. That will probably soon be true for any weapon, where it isn’t already in place.

    All kinds of taxes and regulations pervade modern life, and all of them were passed, one at a time over a span of years, under the excuse that they were necessary. Motorcycle helmets, insurance requirement to drive a vehicle on public roads, seat belt requirements, speed limits, food safety regulations, income taxes, business taxes, property taxes the effect of which is to make actual ownership of land impossible (you are in effect paying rent to the state) … the list is really endless. There was no point at which a meeting of oligarchs was held and someone said “Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Let’s get rid of liberty!” There didn’t need to be. All of these things were justified at the time, and would never be repealed today even if there was an inclination to do so, which there isn’t.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  10. GeeBee says:
    @onebornfree

    You trot out your tedious quotes regarding governments being ‘a disease masquerading as its own cure’ etc. etc. in almost all of your posts. As you apply this puerile condemnation to any and all governments, anywhere, and throughout history, your stance must therefore be that of an anarchist. I am confident that, with the odd exception, you will find little support for what passes for your political philosophy among the mostly worldly-wise and mature posters here..

    Also, you repeatedly wade in hurling your repulsive ad hominem insults at anyone who dares to refute your childish nonsense (I, for example, according to your latest outpouring of bile, am ‘pretty frickin dumb’, not once but twice). But I’m really not dumb, you know. Like most of the people on here who find themselves on the receiving end of your nasty and insulting remarks, I am far from being worthy of such vilification. So why engage me in such a way?

    At all events, taken together, these characteristics of yours make you one of the most deeply unpleasant posters on Unz. Most of us should be better off without you, I feel confident in stating.

    And I am not in need of your ‘Regards’ thankyou.

  11. GeeBee says:
    @Greta Handel

    I neither can nor would I wish to do so. The remark I made about his political philosophy, however, stands.

    • Thanks: Greta Handel
  12. Jokem says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Government is there to protect and serve. This costs money as the people charged to do this do not work for free. I have to agree with you government encroachment has gone too far, but absolute anarchy does not work either.

  13. Jokem: “I have to agree with you government encroachment has gone too far, but absolute anarchy does not work either. ”

    Libertarian ideals like Ron Paul’s are well-suited for an age in which technology was much simpler, such as in 1776. But increasing technological power through “Progress” necessarily entails increasing governmental authority to regulate and control it. Thus, the authoritarianism that libertarians decry is built into the very “Progress” they permit and applaud. To that extent, a transhumanist such as Klaus Schwab is quite correct to anticipate that these trends will only intensify as new technologies become available. For example, if it will eliminate crime, who will be able to oppose mandatory brain scans to detect criminal thoughts? “Liberty” will have to yield again, just as it always does.

    The only way to achieve libertarian ideals is to return to a technologically more primitive way of doing things, but this is something that people would never agree to do voluntarily.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  14. Jokem says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I agree with you that technology has put additional demands upon government to regulate it, but as usual, government goes too far. It regulates things which do not need to be regulated, or regulate them in the wrong way.

  15. As Ludwig von Mises showed, government interference in the marketplace distorts the price system.

    The Ludwig von Mises Institute has digitized Mises’s books and works by similar economists, and it gives them away over the internet as “free” ebooks, when you would have to pay market prices for these ebooks from online vendors. Which goes to show that the hardcore Misesians themselves ignore price signals, misallocate scarce resources and contribute to economic chaos when it suits them.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  16. It must suck for libertarians like Dr. Paul to realize that private businesses like the “big tech companies” want to help the government expand its powers of coercion. So much for the arbitrary and false distinction in libertarian theory between state power and market power.

    Also I don’t understand the libertarian disdain of the privately owned part of the Federal Reserve System, when in other contexts libertarians want to privatize as many of government’s functions as possible. Saying that our government has set up the Fed as a privileged monopoly really means that the government recognizes and protects the Fed owners’ property rights, which I thought a legitimate government had to do for private businesses.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  17. Jokem says:
    @advancedatheist

    Big companies like regulation in that they can more easily comply with such than small companies can. This put a squeeze on small business.

    Libertarians object to centralized control of the money supply, regardless of whether it is government or regulated business. Centralized power always end up being manipulative and restrictive to the market.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
  18. @Jokem

    The big tech companies don’t want to squeeze the small tech companies. They want to censor and control what individuals in the entire population can communicate to each other, along with the ability to dox people with disallowed opinions and beliefs, deplatform them from the internet, get them fired from their jobs, deprive them of financial services and so forth.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  19. @advancedatheist

    That’s a ridiculous comment. Do you think the Von Mises Institute is a simple profit-driven organization like a hot dog stand? Their goal is to spread the word of free markets to people, some who will get it, and others, like you, who are too stupid to get it. They still reckon it “pays” off.

  20. Jokem: “I agree with you that technology has put additional demands upon government to regulate it, but as usual, government goes too far. It regulates things which do not need to be regulated, or regulate them in the wrong way.”

    Libertarians would like to pretend it’s possible to restore liberty outside of its eighteenth century technological context, but it’s not. The idea that liberty can be restored by making small adjustments to what has grown into a tyrannical system is mistaken and absurd. But since people will never voluntarily agree to return to a more primitive way of doing things, it’s easy to see that the system must inevitably become even more tyrannical. People like Klaus Schwab understand this, and to the extent that libertarians persist in their delusion, they are assisting in their own enslavement.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Jokem
  21. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    All this talk of liberty – but where is racism in this? As a Darwinist, I would welcome big government if it increased my population’s evolutionary fitness. And in the industrial world on the verge of nuclear wars, it seems to be the case.

    To the contrary, I would indeed prefer a state of fracture and civil war (your bucolic anarchism) if there were no Aryan nation state to protect the Aryan interests. It so happens that exactly that is the case. Therefore, anarchism today – a totalitarian state tomorrow! But of course, such reasoning has nothing to do with this weird liberty fetishism. And the Whitie will die out one way or another. Christianity finds a way.

    About brain scans – have you heard of the fascinating tale of Oleg Sokolov? He was an accomplished Russian Napoleonic historian and a LARPer, also killed and dismembered a 24-year-old girl. (Can you imagine Kevin MacDonald or David Irving in this role?) Is the life of some slut more worthy than his tenure as an academic, of his priceless contributions to the Napoleonistics? That’s a moral statement!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Sokolov

    And in our past conversations, you could not prove that modern civilisation is built on efficiency and not on irrational, life-hating Christian axiology. Otherwise, Negroes would not be allowed to race-mix with Aryans, and venerated academics would be pardoned a murder.

  22. Adûnâi: “All this talk of liberty – but where is racism in this? As a Darwinist, I would welcome big government if it increased my population’s evolutionary fitness. And in the industrial world on the verge of nuclear wars, it seems to be the case.”

    I view racism as a natural, though weak force in human psychology. Stronger is the individual will to survive, but there exists also a collective will to survive that is not necessarily racial. This is manifested in the usual course of empire building, which through the construction of multi-racial empires eventuates in the death of discrete races. It’s driven by what could be called collective greed, or alternatively, a decision made by collective intelligence. It’s the reason why conquered races are almost always assimilated rather than exterminated.

    I definitely don’t see why you think that further technological growth will increase the evolutionary fitness of a particular race. The cyborg future seen by transhumanists is just another way of saying that in the future, humans will be extinct. This would include Aryans and any other race. Race is a biological concept restricted to the natural world. As this natural world is progressively replaced by an artificial one, it will lose all meaning, at least as applied to humans.

    Adûnâi: “And in our past conversations, you could not prove that modern civilisation is built on efficiency and not on irrational, life-hating Christian axiology.”

    If it were more efficient to exterminate a conquered race than to assimilate it, I think that would be shown by history. But the fact is, the uses to which a subject populace can be put seem to always outweigh, in the judgement of the collective intelligence, whatever could be gained by killing them. Christian societies are just another instance of this. Christianity provides an ideology for the race suicide attendant to the growth of empire, but it’s not necessary. Race-mixing with subject peoples is the rule in history, Christian or not.

    Adûnâi: “… have you heard of the fascinating tale of Oleg Sokolov?”

    Not until now.

    Adûnâi: “Can you imagine Kevin MacDonald or David Irving in this role?”

    LOL.

    Adûnâi: ” … venerated academics would be pardoned a murder. ”

    The vagaries of the decisions made by the collective intelligence are often hard to explain. I frequently find myself at odds with it. You or I might pardon him, but there might be some downside to it that society sees that we do not. Certainly, granting a license to kill is not something to be done lightly if you want to preserve order.

  23. Jokem says:
    @advancedatheist

    ‘The big tech companies don’t want to squeeze the small tech companies. ‘

    Absurd. Money is the blood that flows through the arteries of corporate entities.
    If what you accuse them of supports their bottom line, they will do it.
    So if controlling individuals does that, they will. If squeezing out small companies
    also does that, they will.

  24. Jokem says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    ‘Libertarians would like to pretend it’s possible to restore liberty outside of its eighteenth century technological context, but it’s not. ‘

    This is a vague statement. What you mean by this may differ significantly from what I mean by it.
    The principles of good government do not change. Concentration of power into a central
    authority always results in abuse. Any change to the ‘eighteenth century’ application of law
    need to be done with this in mind.

  25. Jokem: “This is a vague statement. What you mean by this may differ significantly from what I mean by it.”

    We differ in that you think that “liberty” is possible in the modern world. I do not, and the only reason you do is because you are afraid to face the implications if you agree it isn’t. Would Thomas Jefferson or any of the other founders of the American republic think this world of almost infinite taxes, fees, licenses, rules, regulations, ordinances, and laws is one in which they still had liberty? Absurd.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  26. Jokem says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I agree with you on the opinion of Thomas Jefferson and the founders.
    Are you contending the almost infinite fees, etc. are somehow necessary?
    I don’t, and I think it is manifestly obvious they are not necessary.

  27. Jokem: “I don’t, and I think it is manifestly obvious they are not necessary. ”

    As I said above, each was justified at the time and thought necessary, so it is actually far from obvious. Now you want to go back and examine each one again, maybe trimming off a few pennies here and there? That’s why they call it LOLbertarianism. As a political philosophy it’s a laughable solution to a serious problem.

    Virtually all of the erosion of liberty since the eighteenth century can be understood as an unforeseen side effect of technological “Progress”. It could not be more clear that as that continues, an already intrusive and tyrannical system is only going to get worse. People who deny this are simply refusing to face reality.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  28. Jokem says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Dr Morgan –

    You are stating as fact, matters of opinion. A brief look at the destruction of liberty can find many things which are a matter of overreach with excuses posing as ‘Justification’.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS