Imagine standing on the highest point in the land before the greatest battle of our time, so that you can see the battle lines being drawn, the two armies arrayed across the field from each other, and the strategy finally revealed for both sides.  The battle is joined.  We will have a new, or old, political philosophy in two months.  

The battlefield is the economy.  Looking more deeply, it is our individual freedom that hangs in the balance.  Freedom begins with the inalienable right to own property, to choose.  The economy should be free of outside influence.  Transactions should depend solely on the two parties to the transaction agreeing on the outcome; that is true economic freedom.

With that backdrop, the election is really between two ideas.  One is that government can do no wrong, that it can magically generate solutions from thin air and that there are no repercussions for these acts.  One candidate proposes a $25,000 tax credit for first-time home-buyers.  Or “forgives” student loans for one group.  The same lavishes welfare dollars on people who crossed our borders illegally.

Looks pretty nice, until we dig deeper.  That tax credit, that loan “forgiveness,” and that welfare have to come from some other place.  Since government doesn’t generate profits or earning, the credit comes from every other taxpayer.  Did you volunteer for this, or was it forced on you?  Is this freedom or control?  After a few decades of this, the cost gets too high.  Yet this candidate campaigns on more of the same.  

After all, the party to which she belongs started printing money out of thin air, too.  And today we have horrendous inflation, caused by dollar devaluation due to these artificially minted dollars.  Everybody suffers, equally.  Guess that’s the meaning of DIE.

In this battle for ideas is another flawed character, whose four years as president did bring about one of the best economies in decades.  We can disagree with his tariffs and the Q.E. under his watch, or object to his lack of moral fiber, but we are left with one fact: business and citizens prospered in a much freer economy while he was president.  He he wasn’t perfect, but he did bring us closer to individual freedom by controlling government spending, debt, and regulation.

Looking down on the battlefield, we see the two sides clearly.  One will increase control of government by an order of magnitude.  The other has, in the past, controlled the same government and thereby helped freedom thrive in a free-market economy.  We all prospered, not just the favored few.

The lines are drawn, the battle is engaged, and we get a choice.  That choice is not so much about a person as it is between more and less government.  After all, a vote is not a valentine.  

Jay Davidson is founder and CEO of a commercial bank.  He is a student of the Austrian School of Economics and a dedicated capitalist.  He believes there is a direct connection joining individual right and responsibility, our Constitution, capitalism, and the intent of our Creator.

Image: tomaszmichalkania via Pixabay, Pixabay License.