Private Property Rights Under Siege (Part I) – OpEd

People invest in gold for many different reasons. Many do so out of concern over economic, monetary or political uncertainty. Others seek a hedge against inflation, a way to protect and preserve the real purchasing power of their savings. There are also those who simply seek some peace of mind, a dependable insurance, so that no matter what the future holds and no matter how bad the “worst case scenario” turns out to be, they would still have a solid “Plan B”.

All these are valid, sound and sensible reasons to invest in gold; at least for long-term investors, for those who truly understand the true value and the core purpose of physical precious metals. 

Yet ultimately, all these concerns share a common denominator. They all emanate from the same, very well founded and clearly troubling realization that our entire sociopolitical, economic and monetary system is merely a mirage – it is a house of cards, supported and backed by nothing but blind faith. It is also designed to favor and reward recklessness, opportunism, improvidence and sheer greed and to punish and penalize prudence, restraint, patience and personal responsibility.  

This entire system, as complex and intricate as it might seem, is actually built on a very simple premise: It all relies upon the individual’s willingness to trade a promise of compliance, obedience and submission to a higher authority in exchange for security, order, protection and stability. 

For those of us who have attained a meaningful understanding of history, of economics and of geopolitics, it will likely be clear that anyone tempted by this bargain is not only cowardly and dishonorable, but exceptionally foolish too. As Benjamin Franklin famously and concisely put it: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 

Still, in realistic, pragmatic, and purely cynical terms, such as those that underpin every modern, advanced, “enlightened” democracy, there remains a reasonable expectation of fairness. The citizens’ rights and (especially) their obligations are plainly laid out, but the State’s duties and limitations are also clearly defined. After all, that’s what Constitutions are for, on paper at least. 

In modern democracies, those in government are supposed to be the servants of the people, not their masters. All state institutions, ministries and public offices are supposed to function as mere tools and conveniences for the average citizen, not as their whips or their shackles. In theory, both the government and the governed have distinct roles to play and there are clear, thoroughly negotiated and mutually accepted rules they must adhere to. In practice, however, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Much more often than not what actually happens deviates wildly from what was originally expected or agreed upon. 

This is because those in positions of power tend to abuse said power unilaterally, surreptitiously and arbitrarily, and they bend, or even totally change, the rules in their favor. This inevitably leads to system that is fundamentally and inherently unjust, one which operates under the assumption that there are “rules for thee, not for me” and which functions under the tacit understanding that “we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others”. 

For any individual citizen, the “law of the land” is clearly laid out. It is strict and unyielding (e.g. there is no negotiation to be had or any “wiggle room” over the taxes they are compelled to pay, or over the permissions, licenses or official documents they have to obtain just in order to be able to work and earn a living, to travel or to relocate, to sell a property they own or to buy a new one, to build a business wherever and with whomever they deem fit, or even to freely speak their minds and voice their opinions and criticisms). For the governed, there is no choice but to abide by the rules, no matter how absurd or feckless they may be – if they dare oppose or defy them, swift and severe consequences will surely follow. 

They could be heavily fined, they could have their bank accounts frozen, or their savings and their assets seized – as we saw over the last couple of years. Any and all of these punitive measures could leave them irreparably and irredeemably financially ruined. 

Or perhaps they could be stripped of their basic civil rights, like the right to privacy, to free expression and self-determination. Maybe they could become targets for ideological zealots and all kinds of deranged lunatics on- and offline. They could be “cancelled”, they could lose their jobs, they could be banished from their social circles, shunned by their loved ones and ostracized from “polite society”. And if they were to persist and maintain their objections and if their reasons for doing so were dangerously well-founded and alarmingly compelling, they could even be physically detained and incarcerated. 

Faced with such formidable opposition, that has access to and control over immense, diverse and powerful resources and that has the capability and willingness to deploy every offensive tool and weapon in its arsenal, clearly, it is easier, safer and patently more prudent for any individual citizen to simply comply, to conform and to just follow the rules. There is thus a clear guarantee that they’ll keep their side of that original deal and to deliver the compliance and obedience they promised; by force if not by will.