Month: April 2020

The Bible on Quarantine Part 2

Richard Barnes

Last week’s post (Part 1) addressed the Biblical model with regards to pandemics or infectious diseases.

As we saw, that model requires quarantine of the sick but not of the entire population. 

There is a country that has followed that model. It is a country that long ago abandoned its Christian and Biblical heritage, but that, in this case, whether knowingly or not, has been following the Biblical model pretty closely.

That country is Sweden.

Sweden and the state of Michigan each have populations of about 10 Million people. Michigan has followed a draconic lockdown, which has spurred protests in the capital city of Lansing. Sweden has not resorted to any lockdown, the only developed country which has not followed the example set by the rest of the world. Michigan has over 3,300 deaths; Sweden has a thousand less than Michigan.

If you prefer comparing against neighboring countries, which did impose lockdowns, the results are comparable when taking population densities and other factors into consideration. Two California emergency room physicians in the front lines of this pandemic were interviewed last week and addressed comparisons between Sweden and Norway (links below).

Let us take a look at the model that Sweden has been following.

In the first place, Sweden has not mandated the closing of anything. Everything is voluntary. If the businessman wants to stay open, he may stay open. If the lady wishes to eat in a restaurant, she may eat in a restaurant. Schools, churches, and cities continue open. Warnings have been issued addressing the aged, advising they should stay inside, especially during times of high contamination, since the aged are the ones most affected.

If someone gets sick, they are asked to quarantine or to go to a hospital until well.

The police do not go about arresting or penalizing anybody for going shopping, or enjoying a day in the park, or just going for a ride in a car or on a bicycle. 

Of course, Sweden has been criticized, attacked, mocked, and despised.

Why?

Could it be that the experts in other countries do not like it when they are contradicted? Two weeks ago, a group of 22 “scientists” attacked the officials of Sweden’s department of health, demanding the Swedish government discard the directives of that department and impose the measures all the other countries have imposed. They implied that the Swedish population had been willfully deluded by ignorant authorities and by an epidemiologist who has been seduced by his sudden fame.

Wow. It’s not nice to contradict “experts.”

A French journalist may have let the cat out of the bag when, while interviewing a Swedish epidemiologist, he said, “…it’s almost as if we want Sweden to fail because then we’d know the fools are they and not us.” [the quote is a paraphrase; I cannot find the original source]

But, leaving polemics behind, let us take a look at the results thus far.

The development of the contamination and the illnesses and deaths has been following the Swedish medical predictions pretty closely. Their models differed dramatically from the English models, to which the great majority of the governments of the world submitted. Their initial numbers have since been substantially reduced because they were exaggerated numbers to begin with.

Sweden counts each death as a Covid-19 death if the deceased had the virus, even though they know that the virus is not necessarily the cause of death for all who die and test positive for the virus. In other words, someone might die of cancer but if he had the virus, they count the death as a Covid death. Sweden does it so in order to be consistent with the majority of countries (and states) which have been categorizing their deaths in like manner.

Daily deaths are about 80 but have been decreasing. More will die in the coming weeks and months, but the mortality rate has been much less than the alarming predictions of 80 Thousand to 90 Thousand that were supposed to have died by summer.

The contamination rate has also been decreasing. The hospital situation is acceptable. The English models (to which most other countries adhered) anticipated that there’d be 8 Thousand to 9 Thousand patients requiring intensive care. The actual numbers are a fraction of that: 530. The hospitals are not overwhelmed. 

Sweden did not buy the “flatten the curve” meme.

The Swedish department of health is expecting that the country will develop a “herd immunity” against the virus. This is something that would not be easy to develop in other countries who have, in effect, quarantined the entire population. For now, this expectation cannot be proved. But, going forward, when the other countries proceed to “loosen” their lockdowns, we shall see how acute the next “waves” of contamination in those countries will compare to Sweden. For now, some Swedish medical researchers believe that 40 percent of Stockholm’s population has had the virus and the herd immunity will be achieved by end of May. This too has not been proved, but if it turns out to be so, then the Swedes will be in a far better situation than the rest of us.

Of course, the Swedish economy has suffered: GDP is expected to decrease by 4% and unemployment is expected to hit 9%. But that compares extremely positively against the economic reality of other countries who’s numbers are far worse. For example, England’s GDP decrease is expected to be 13%, or more than triple the Swedish drop.

In sum, it would have been far better to have followed a model more aligned with the much maligned Bible, where the aged and the sick would have been placed in quarantine; where we would have had a better chance of achieving herd immunity; where the models predicting catastrophic (“apocalyptic”) death rates would have been scrutinized more closely and would have been seen to have been greatly exaggerated (in fact, historically, those models have never been very accurate).

It is not unwise to seek our guidance from the Word of God. 

Below you will find a link to one of the articles addressing the Swedish experience from The Spectator (London).

Also, further below, you will find two links to a presentation before the press given last week by two California doctors who are in the front lines of the fight against the virus. The interview is about 62 minutes long and is excellent. 

This presentation is now at 4.7 Million views. 

“We’ve never seen it where we put the healthy in quarantine.” The first link is about 50 minutes long; the second is about 12 minutes. Very informative and very valuable. These two emergency room physicians also compare the results between Sweden and Norway. In addition, they talk about the immune system.

“Academics and reality are two different things.”

“When I write a death note, we are being pressured to add Covid…even when we think that the death had nothing to do with Covid.”

They allude to the Bible’s requirements for quarantine. 

It is fascinating to listen to the journalists’ questions. In effect they tend toward: dare you question the wisdom of Dr. Fauci?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-swedish-experiment-looks-like-it-s-paying-off

Well. The longer link below got close to 5 Million views and was blocked by YouTube. Surprise! So it’s not really “Listen to the experts.” It’s more like, “Listen to OUR experts!” Anyway, link above had not been blocked as of this morning. Hopefully it is still accessible for you. It combines both links below.

Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing, Pt. 2

The Bible on Quarantine Part 1

Richard Barnes

Sometimes, this blog will “stray” from its focus on Venezuela. 

This is one of those times.

In our modern age, it is easy to scoff at any writing that has “The Bible” in its title, unless the purpose of the writing is to mock, degrade, or lightly esteem. However, our own founding documents, to which we adhere to this day (whether joyfully or grudgingly) were written in an era when the Bible was the most cited source in all polemics.

John Eidsmoe, in his Christianity and the Constitution reports on exhaustive research by Professors Lutz and Hyneman who reviewed “an estimated 15,000 items, and closely read 2,200 books, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and monographs with explicitly political content printed between 1760 and 1805 [our founding era]….

“…the source most often cited by the founding fathers was the Bible, which accounted for 34 percent of all citations. The fifth book of the Bible, Deuteronomy, because of its heavy emphasis on biblical law, was referred to frequently….”

In fact, in the 1770’s, when the Declaration of Independence was written, the Bible accounted for 44% of all citations. In the 1780’s, when the Constitution was written, it accounted for 34% of all citations. More than any other by far.

My point is simply that, however much the Word of God may be mocked by our illustrious elites and moderns, it clearly was foundational to the thinking of our founders and to the origins of our nation.

So, what does it have to say about quarantines and how might that apply to the “lockdowns” afflicting much of our country and the world?

The link below is to Thoughts on Quarantine by Chris Zimmerman.

I believe it is of utmost importance that we see all things by the Light of God’s Word. He not only defines reality, He created reality. He has determined how we should live. We stray from that path to our detriment and risk.

Our lenses should be the Bible, not daily press briefings or newspapers or the internet or — heaven help us — Hollywood celebrities.

Next week, the second part of this post will focus on a country which, knowingly or not, actually followed the biblical model pretty closely. How have they fared compared to the rest of the world, which has not?

The following is from the Chalcedon newsletter.

Thoughts on Quarantine

Chris Zimmerman

“Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.” Rev. 18:10

In recent weeks we have witnessed the frailty of all the systems of man worldwide. Indeed, Revelation 18:10 should come to mind to all of us and shake us to the core in the realization that when God’s just judgment comes it can bring down any stronghold of man in an instant. With the endless stream of press conferences and news, we have heard repeated assertions that all actions done in response to the recent virus spread and resulting quarantine are to protect lives and must be accepted as valid (read: morally right) regardless of the consequences. But, of course, for the Christian examining all things in light of Scripture, questions should arise:

1. Are the actions taken in alignment with Biblical laws on quarantine?
2. Against whom should these actions legitimately be taken when valid?
3. What is our responsibility to protect lives in respect to this issue?
4. Where are the Christians who should be leading in this battle for the truth?

We have seen the actions at the federal and state levels and, no doubt, felt their impact. Social distancing, prohibitions against gatherings of 10 or more (sometimes even fewer), restrictions on retailers and more have been mandated. It seems with each passing week the doomsday predictions were justification for further restrictions. As the weeks slowly crawled by we began to hear a growing crescendo of cries against the quarantine actions under the banner of “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” and, thus, invalid. Is there truth to this? What saith the Scriptures?

While all of Scripture is God’s Law-Word, central to this discussion will be the laws of hygiene and disease found in Leviticus 13-15. It is here we can see the patterns, precepts and principles of God’s commands that must be the foundation of any of our thinking on the issues of disease and quarantine. What do we see? We see that there are responsibilities for family, church and state with respect to these questions. God’s Law speaks to the reality of disease in a fallen world and gives us the lawful responses to it. These responses not only limit the spread of said disease but support its elimination at the same time while minimizing the impact on the larger community and its dominion work.

First, the actual practice of quarantine is thoroughly Biblical. What is described as leprosy in our translations can be better understood as typical of any infectious disease. As Rushdoony points out,

“It is important to note that the concern is for the welfare of the family and the community; neither can be sacrificed out of pity for the victim. It is thus noteworthy that we have here the source of the idea of quarantine . The concept is Biblical. As applied by Orthodox Jews and by orthodox Christians, it has included the quarantine not only of infected persons but also of infected animals and plants.” (1) [emphasis mine]

Rushdoony’s point is that pity for a diseased victim should not override the well being and health of the family and broader community by allowing the infected person to destroy either. Indeed, he goes on to say,

“Quarantine, it should be noted, is a moral fact: it asserts that there is a good and evil response to a situation. Quarantine does not say that the sick man is evil, but to expose others to a serious illness or disease is evil, and therefore separation is good, healthy, and necessary.” (2)

So, this is an open and shut case today, then, right? We have a virus making its rounds across the world so all actions taken by the state are, thus, good and right? Or, is there more to this issue than initially thought?

“Many commentators have seen the forms of “leprosy” or diseases described in Leviticus 13-14 as types or symbols of sin. However, as Harrison reminds us, the Bible never does so. Disease is simply presented as disease, one consequence of a fallen world. Quarantine is a separation of disease, and more quarantine is a separation of evil from society. This is very important to note. We do not flee from disease and sin, but rather separate sin and contagious disease from the community. Our Lord says, “I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil (or, the evil one)” (John 17:15). Modern separationism too often quarantines the healthy and the moral, not the diseased and the criminal members of society.” (3)

There are two points that are missed when considering whether quarantine actions are lawful. First, note that in all cases it is the sick individual that is quarantined, not the healthy. As pointed out in these same chapters, the fact that the healed member is required to be consecrated back into his priestly, dominion work means that the healthy member is expected to continue in his, without interruption. Rushdoony recognized this in the earlier quotes where, historically, infectious persons, plants, homes, etc were placed in quarantine; in other words, those confirmed to be sick or, as Leviticus 13:1-8 points out, those who were believed to be sick by outward evidence . This requirement of outward evidence is crucial as it strikes the balance between the freedom of the individual (this would include protections opposed to mandatory invasive testing) against the protections for the community. We have a similar practice in the legal sphere: the Biblical requirement of “innocent until proven guilty” is likewise to be applied here as “healthy until proven diseased.”

Second, Rushdoony has pointed out that disease in the Bible is “presented as disease, one consequence of a fallen world.” Inherent to true freedom are the risks of life in a fallen world: you could fail in business, you could be injured or killed in a collision or you could be exposed to any number of sicknesses that abound in our world. That world, true, is being renewed by the Lord through His actions and those of His people in their dominion work but the pushing back of the curse means we must deal with the problems of the curse along the way. This means exposure to a hidden illness is not the same as being made ill by it. We regularly swap viruses and bacteria in our daily interactions with others without a single incident due to the body’s normal, God given immunities. So, while we must apply the laws of quarantine to those who are actually ill and manifesting the symptoms thereof, we must also protect the work for the kingdom among those that are healthy.

The implications of this in light of the present debate are enormous: so called “social distancing” should be between the diagnosed ill and the healthy, not between the healthy alone. Businesses should function as normal but those that become ill should remain at home until healthy. Risks of disease have always been present in any large gathering of people, today’s virus notwithstanding. It is a simple fact that we must choose to live in the reality of this fallen world, God’s world marred by man’s sin and full of risks (and blessings), or we will be forced to submit to increasing tyranny “for our own safety.”

We must therefore recognize that while it is wrong for Christians to think that the state has zero authority in regard to disease it is also equally wrong to lock down the healthy with the sick. Christians alone bear the Truth in this world and we need to be about the business of directing the debate on this issue accordingly so that true freedom can be realized. To just blindly follow the masses only adds to our judgment and is our assent to tyranny.

(1) R. J. Rushdoony, Leviticus, Vol. III of the Commentaries on the Pentateuch (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2005),135.

(2) Ibid., 136.

(3) Ibid., 144

One of the most mocked books in the Bible, yet its remedies have always had a salutary relevance to a healthy society throughout history. We see yet again that God’s injunctions are less draconian or cruel than those of men: Leviticus requires quarantines of the few; most modern governments are requiring quarantines of the many (except for themselves, of course).
This is NOT in line with proper quarantine
Quarantines have worked throughout history

https://mailchi.mp/791fbab642b8/our-worries-get-in-the-way-3046954?e=be71bf23aa

El Loco

Richard Barnes

El Loco’s haunts were unknown. For the most part.

Mining camp residents spotted him occasionally, and only when they journeyed to or from San Felix, the port town on the banks of the Orinoco River, about 40 kilometers north. If they were lucky, their trip would coincide with an El Loco sighting. He’d be seen walking jauntily, swinging his arms in an exaggerated, yet nonmilitary-type, arc; unmindful of the storms of dust raised by cars or trucks as they passed him, always slowly, because everybody wanted to see El Loco and laugh with him, and the sightings seemed too few and too far between.

He’d always laugh and lift his arms in childlike, yet firm salute; one hand always gripping a staff, as if some sort of rudderless Moses wandering the El Pao – San Felix road for generations. 

Probably no American had seen him up close. But, judging from 30 or 40 feet away, a consensus of sorts had developed among them affirming El Loco was probably in his early thirties

He seemed to be much taller than average in that era and in those regions, maybe five feet nine or ten inches; wiry, strong, virile, and with huge hands. These judgments-from-afar were about as much as could assuredly be said about him, as the distance did not permit inspection of his physiognomic features. More on that further below.

Of course, everybody understood that someone had to be “taking care of” El Loco, else he could not survive. Here, perhaps, the legendary Venezuelan hospitality played a critical but hidden role.

An American cattleman with business interests in Venezuela once wrote his personal impression of Venezuelan society saying that it was the most open and cordial in all of South America. He further noted that, unlike the Argentines and Brazilians, who used hotels or restaurants or clubs to entertain visitors, the Venezuelans entertained in their own homes; in that respect, he concluded, they were very much like the Americans.

That observation was true, though too limited. Venezuelans didn’t invite only known, or business, guests to their homes; they compelled strangers, especially the poor, and the “locos”, apparently mindful that, at times, some, unawares, had entertained angels.

Then weeks would go by with no one having seen him. Where was he? At such times I would hear speculation when accompanying my mother at the commissary in the Otro Campo (known to the Americans as the labor camp), or with my father in the American Camp bar. Some voices affirmed, as if they were eye-witnesses, that El Loco was still on the road, but, in fact, no drivers or passengers had seen him. Others rumored El Loco was on jungle paths, headed temporarily for other destinations, as if looking for side adventures to spice up his El Pao – San Felix routine. Still others did not really care or think about it, and just assumed El Loco would reappear on his favorite road soon enough. And he eventually did, as if he had been nowhere else. As if he would live forever.

Regardless of opinions as to his whereabouts, the Venezuelans along the El Duo road just shrugged, confident in the truth of the old Spanish aphorism, “God takes care of the widows, the orphans, and the crazies.” It did not occur to them that God used them to do the caring.

El Loco walked with a swinging gait, a long, thick staff in one hand. His dusty jet-black hair shagged over his collar and a bit over his ears. He always walked with, never against, the traffic. Whenever I heard or read about a man in rags, I’d picture El Loco. His rags were always in khaki, just like the men in El Pao, only very worn and torn. And, instead of a dull yellow, El Loco’s khakis seemed rusty red.

Once, on a drive to San Felix, we saw him up close.

As we approached him in our car, to my utter, indescribable delight, El Loco swung round and stopped, looking toward the Oldsmobile as it slowly approached. El Loco began jumping in place, raising his arms and waving them. He was strong; he could wave the arm carrying that staff as easily as the other. Then he yelled a loud, croaking-like cheer as he laughed. His entire face laughed. And his teeth shone a bright white.

To me, laughing with my parents as we all saluted El Loco, it seemed even the Oldsmobile laughed. We drove slowly by El Loco, as we waved at him while he waved back, croaking, yelling, laughing, screaming, jumping. His cheeks’ bony arches seemed like sharp hills guarding his oviform eyes, whose color matched his hair, only brighter. And they seemed, to the boy, to be looking right into his own eyes.

Unlike most adults, El Loco was able, with absolutely no awkward self-consciousness, to look at someone in the eye, no matter what the age, and sustain that look until naturally broken. I just knew El Loco looked only at me, as if he knew me. As if we’d met before. Somewhere. There was no fear in me. On the contrary, like all children, I considered El Loco as very approachable, a dear friend and protector.

I stuck my head out the back window resting it on my arms on the frame as I looked back at El Loco, who was still jumping and yelling and laughing, forming a striking, puppet-like silhouette against the green, as the dust rose behind the car.

What most knew about El Loco was limited to the fact that he spent his days and years striding between El Pao and San Felix. Clearly folks cared for him; after all, it was assumed, he ate and slept. The I recall once, and only once, during an unusual mid-day drive to San Felix, seeing El Loco sitting peaceably in a chair in the front, porch-like structure of one of the cabins off the road. The farmer sat across from him, as the wife served him lunch and the children stood by. Sometimes El Loco would not be seen for what seemed to be weeks, before he’d reappear again on the road bringing joy to folks, especially children, who drove by.

I don’t remember the last time I saw him. He just melted away, like a mirage, into the jungle and before I knew it, I realized I had not seen him in years, maybe decades.

But I think about him. I can see him walking firmly, soldier-like, on the right side of the road, gripping his staff with his right hand, wildly swinging the left. El Loco whirls round and there is that wide grin once again, mouth way open, white teeth flashing. He lets off that loud cheer as he raises his hand and staff, pointing to the heavens.

1959 Oldsmobile Delta 88. Ours was white, not two-toned. As my father used to say, “Se come la carretera.”[Roughly translated, “She swallows the road.”]
Picture a cross between Henry Silva and Anthony Perkins in old, raggedy khakis, with hair more like Perkins’, but a bit longer, and you’d have an approximation of El Loco as I remember him from early childhood.
Clearing and building the El Pao-San Felix road. The period I remember most about El Loco was when the road was unpaved. 

Extra Judicial Deaths

Richard Barnes

In the early 1960’s, two American Peace Corps volunteers driving in the city of Caracas inadvertently ran a Venezuelan National Guard checkpoint. They were immediately pursued by siren-blaring vehicles and motorcycles. Once they realized they were being chased, they pulled over and stepped out of their car with their hands in the air, only to be shot down in a hail of bullets. One died instantly, the other was in critical condition but was rushed to the hospital and eventually recovered.

Such was the nervousness in those days. Pérez Jiménez had been exiled and Rómulo Betancourt, a former Communist, had been elected president and immediately invited Fidel Castro for talks in Caracas. The talks did not go as anticipated, Castro being impatient for immediate Latin American revolutions, Betancourt having moderated somewhat and being more patient to wait for a revolution over time, wherein the state eventually took over most major private enterprises, including the oil and steel industries.

But Castro’s impatience blew up like an exploding cigar. Arms, ammunition, and explosives caches were found along the Venezuelan coast and easily traced back to Cuba and in November, 1961, Betancourt, very publicly, broke diplomatic relations with Cuba. Immediately, Communist guerrilla activity flared and intensified. Checkpoints were set up across the country, so much so that decades later, when stopped at checkpoints while visiting Latin American countries on business, I experienced no nervousness whatsoever, as I had become inured to such since childhood.

That was the atmosphere and the context in the early ’60s when the two hapless volunteers were shot down.

But the early 1960s were a piker compared to extra judicial deaths in Venezuela between January 2018 and May 2019: 6,856 according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. That’s more than the killings attributed to Augusto Pinochet’s 17-years in office. And many believe that the commission likely undercounted.

Of the top 20 “murder capitals” in the world, Venezuela has 4 (second only to Mexico) and Caracas is in third place, after Tijuana and Acapulco. If you have been following this blog, you have an idea how shocking this is when you recall that as late as the mid-20th century Venezuelans left their doors not only unlocked, but sometimes open to allow air to flow through on warm, humid nights.

Our earlier posts told of Richard Nixon’s visit in 1958 (Nixon) and the leftist fervent in Caracas university student bodies and their involvement in that close run thing (Universities). The United States National Security Council’s minutes after the Vice President’s return records some interesting insights by John Foster Dulles, the United States Secretary of State as to what might have ailed Venezuela in that era. The following is excerpted from the minutes in 1958, declassified decades later:

“Secretary Dulles went on to say that there was one more very important factor in the Latin American problem which the United States faced. This was the collapse of religion generally in Latin America. We all believe in this country that religion, with its emphasis on the rights and freedoms of the individual under God, is the very core of our democratic system and that it is also the greatest bulwark against atheistic communism. Unhappily … organized religion had practically no influence on the mass of the people as opposed to the aristocracy. Admittedly, said Secretary Dulles, he did not know what we could do about correcting this very grave situation, but it was certainly at the heart of our problem in Latin America.”

Secretary Dulles was on to something. Search for any listing of the top 50 murder capitals in the world, and you’ll find that all but 9 or 10 are in Latin America. However, you’ll also see a smattering of US cities in the lists. As the true religion wanes in the hearts of a people, their capacity for self-government and self-restraint, as well as their courage in restraining others by simply calling a spade a spade, so to say, also wanes. As to the very little crime in Venezuela up to the middle of the last century, it must be said that much of that was likely due to the mano dura of “benign dictatorships who promptly and at times ruthlessly dealt with crime. As Dulles might have put it: you either govern yourself, or you will be governed.

Even today, in Latin America, the mano dura approach is applauded by people of all philosophical stripes. For example, Coronavirus lockdown decrees (which are not different from those of a number of US state governors) would easily have been characterized as totalitarian not too many decades ago. But, whereas in the US there is genuine questioning and push back, including hard-hitting editorials and opinion columns, in Latin America it is amazing to see very little intellectual resistance, but rather applause because “sometimes such measures are necessary.”

Latin America flirted for a long time with, to use Dulles’ words, “atheistic communism”. There are hopeful signs of an awakening, which cannot come too soon. However, looking at our own dalliance with the living-without-God option, might we facing our own dark night?

In this Easter Season, let us all look to Him Who was lifted up and Who draws all peoples unto Him. Personal knowledge of Him gives us an understanding and an inclination to deny oneself thereby to control oneself. This, in turn, foments a growing appreciation for liberty under God and the eternal vigilance necessary to preserve it.

May you have a wonderful Easter.

Christ on the cross — Rembrandt

How Socialism Ruined Venezuela

Richard Barnes

Researching for the series on ranchitos, I came across a well-written piece published in 2017 by the Mises Institute, and set it aside for future publication in this blog.

While not “all in” on Austrian economics, I certainly will refer to any publication whose narrative accurately reflects the course of the Venezuela miracle and catastrophe of the 20th and early 21st centuries. 

I vividly recall sometime-heated conversations in the early 1960’s regarding the course that Rómulo Betancourt was taking, although I did not understand the substance of the matters being discussed. I smile when remembering an aged aunt’s utter hatred of Pérez Jimenez and adoration of Betancourt and his party. She was an energetic firecracker and I miss her. My godmother ( Madrina ) was equally fervent for the other major party and just as energetic. 

However, looking back and considering those and subsequent years, one must become aware of the ever-increasing size and power of the state over the lives of Venezuelans, far beyond anything its dictators were ever able to accomplish.

The article below was written by Venezuelans with an expertise in economics. The writing is lively and informative and, aside from a few very small quibbles, trustworthy. The link to the article is below.

Enjoy.

How Socialism Ruined Venezuela, by Rafael Acevedo and Luis B. Cirocco

In order to understand the disaster that is unfolding in Venezuela, we need to journey through the most recent century of our history and look at how our institutions have changed over time. What we will find is that Venezuela once enjoyed relatively high levels of economic freedom, although this occurred under dictatorial regimes.

But, when Venezuela finally embraced democracy, we began to kill economic freedom. This was not all at once, of course. It was a gradual process. But it happened at the expense of the welfare of millions of people.

And, ultimately, the lesson we learned is that socialism never, ever works, no matter what Paul Krugman, or Joseph Stiglitz, or guys in Spain like Pablo Iglesias say.

It was very common during the years we suffered under Hugo Chávez to hear these pundits and economists on TV saying that this time, socialism is being done right. This time, the Venezuelans figured it out.

They were, and are wrong.

On the other hand, there was a time when this country was quite prosperous and wealthy, and for a time Venezuela was even referred to as an “economic miracle” in many books and articles.

However, during those years, out of the five presidents we had, four were dictators and generals of the army. Our civil and political rights were restricted. We didn’t have freedom of the press, for example; we didn’t have universal suffrage. But, while we lived under a dictatorship, we could at least enjoy high levels of economic freedom.

A Brief Economic History of Venezuela

The economic miracle began a century ago, when from 1914 to 1922, Venezuela entered the international oil race. In 1914, Venezuela opened its first oil well. Fortunately, the government did not make the mistake of attempting to manage the oil business, or own the wells. The oil wells were privately owned, and in many cases were owned by private international companies that operated in Venezuela. It wasn’t totally laissez-faire, of course. There were tax incentives and other so-called concessions employed to promote exploration and exploitation of oil. But most industries — including the oil industry — remained privatized.

Moreover, during this period, tax rates in the country were relatively low.

In 1957, the marginal tax rate for individuals was 12 percent. There was certainly a state presence, and the public sector absorbed 20 percent of GDP. But, government spending was used mainly to build the country’s basic infrastructure.

The area of international trade was relatively free as well — and very free compared to today. There were tariffs that were relatively high, but there were no other major barriers to trade such as quotas, anti-dumping laws, or safeguards.

Other economic controls were few as well. There were just a few state-owned companies and virtually no price controls, no rent controls, no interest-rate controls, and no exchange-rate controls.

Of course, we weren’t free from the problems of a central bank, either. In 1939, Venezuela created its own central bank. But, the bank was largely inactive and functioned primarily defending a fixed exchange rate with the US dollar.

Moving Toward More Interventionism

Despite the high levels of economic freedom that existed during those years, government legislation started to chip away at that freedom. Changes included the nationalization of the telephone company, the creation of numerous state-owned companies, and state-owned banks. That happened in 1950 [telephone company was nationalized in 1953]. The Venezuelan government thus began sowing the seeds of destruction, and you can see the continued deterioration in the level of economic freedom in the decade of the 1950s.

In 1958, Venezuela became a democracy when the dictatorship was overthrown. With that came all the usual benefits of democracy such as freedom of the press, universal suffrage, and other civil rights. Unfortunately, these reforms came along with continued destruction of our economic freedom.

The first democratically elected president was Rómulo Betancourt. He was a communist-turned-social democrat. In fact, while he was in exile, he founded the Communist Party in Costa Rica and helped found the Communist Party in Colombia as well. Not surprisingly, as president, he started destroying the economic institutions we had by implementing price controls, rent controls, and other regulations we hadn’t had before. On top of that, he and his allies created a new constitution that was hostile to private property.

In spite of this — or perhaps because of it — Betancourt is almost universally revered in Venezuela as “the father of our democracy.” This remains true even today as Venezuela collapses.

Of course, compared to today, we had far greater economic freedom under Betancourt than we do in today’s Venezuela. But, all of the presidents — with one exception — who came after Betancourt took similar positions and continued to chip away at economic freedom. The only exception was Carlos Andrés Pérez who in his second term attempted some free market reforms. But, he executed these later reforms so badly and haphazardly that markets ended up being blamed for the resulting crises. [Pérez nationalized the oil and iron industries early in his first term (1974-1979). That eventually drove my family from El Pao. Pérez redivivus (1989-1993) attempted to rein in the whirlwind he had unleashed, but to no avail.]

The Rise of Hugo Chávez

Over time, the destruction of economic freedom led to more and more impoverishment and crisis. This in turn set the stage for the rise of a political outsider with a populist message. This, of course, was Hugo Chávez. He was elected in 1998 and promised to replace our light socialism with more radical socialism. This only accelerated the problems we had been facing for decades. Nevertheless, he was able to pass through an even more anti-private-property constitution. Since Chávez’s death in 2013, the attacks on private property have continued, and Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, promises only more  of the same. Except now, the government is turning toward outright authoritarian socialism, and Maduro is seeking a new constitution in which private property is almost totally abolished, and Maduro will be allowed to remain in power for life.

A Legacy of Poverty

So, what are the results of socialism in Venezuela? Well, we have experienced hyperinflation. We have people eating garbage, schools that do not teach, hospitals that do not heal, long and humiliating lines to buy flour, bread, and basic medicines. We endure the militarization of practically every aspect of life.

The cost of living has skyrocketed in recent years.

Let’s look at the cost of goods in services in terms of a salary earned by a full college professor. In the 1980s, our “full professor” needed to pay almost 15 minutes of his salary to buy one kilogram of beef. Today, in July 2017, our full professor needs to pay the equivalent of 18 hours to buy the same amount of beef. During the 1980s, our full professor needed to pay almost one year’s salary for a new sedan. Today, he must pay the equivalent of 25 years of his salary. In the 1980s, a full professor with his monthly salary could buy 17 basic baskets of essential goods. Today, he can buy just one-quarter of a basic basket.

And what about the value of our money? Well, in March 2007, the largest denomination of paper money in Venezuela was the 100 bolivar bill. With it, you could buy 28 US dollars, 288 eggs, or 56 kilograms of rice. Today, you can buy .01 dollars, 0.2 eggs, and 0.08 kilograms of rice. In July 2017, you need five 100-bolivar bills to buy just one egg.

So, socialism is the cause of the Venezuelan misery. Venezuelans are starving, eating garbage, losing weight. Children are malnourished. Anyone in Venezuela would be happy to eat out of America’s trashcans. It would be considered gourmet.

So, what’s the response of our society? Well, it’s the young people who are leading the fight for freedom in Venezuela in spite of what the current political leaders tell them to do. They don’t want to be called “the opposition.” They are the resistance, in Spanish, “la resistencia.” They are the real heroes of freedom in our country, but the world needs to know that they have often been killed by a tyrannical government, and all members of the resistance are persecuted daily.

This is not surprising. As Venezuelans, our poor understanding of the importance of freedom and free markets has created our current disaster. We Venezuelans never really understood freedom in its broader dimension because when we enjoyed high levels of economic freedom, we allowed the destruction of political and civil rights, and when we finally established a democracy, we allowed the destruction of economic freedom.

But there is reason for hope. Along with the Mises Institute we do believe that a revolution in ideas can really bring a new era to Venezuela. On behalf of the resistance and millions of people in our country, we thank the Mises Institute for this opportunity to briefly tell the full history of Venezuela. 

Thank you very much.

https://mises.org/library/how-socialism-ruined-venezuela