Do not put all your eggs in one basket

by | Jul 14, 2023 | Philosophy

Irrespective of one’s personal beliefs or moral values, the absence of viable refuge due to the universal application of rules carries inherent perils. Should a problem arise that impacts you, as problems inevitably do within any society, be it economic or otherwise, you shall find yourself bereft of options, devoid of choice.

It was during my childhood that I first heard of the advice: Do not put all your eggs in one basket. As I was growing up, I was able to understand better the meaning of this phrase as I learned that this advice was a good advice for investments, meaning that we should not put all of our resources, investments, or trust into a single thing or relying too heavily on a single option.

The future is uncertain, and it is challenging to predict how things will turn out. By having diversity of options, we can benefit from different opportunities and protect ourselves from potential losses in case one area or market underperforms. If the basket falls, all your eggs will be gone.

You may think this article is about investments, but this is not the case. The ‘put all your eggs in one basket’ idiom can be applied to governments and States as well. Unfortunately, today, instead of having a decentralisation of governments and States, what is happening is that we are going towards a centralised global government and continental States and governments.

Organisations like the European Union are being pushed towards the federalisation. In South America we can see the Mercosur slowly advancing. Globally, the United Nations is certainly gaining more power as well since 2020, through the WHO and the international pandemic treaty. Other international organisations with a lot of power such as the IMF have pushed hard for a Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate of 15% and now most countries in the world will have the same minimum tax. Not to mention the WEF, where the global elites meet to determine in a supranational assembly what will happen to the rest of us. The list of things that may end up composing a World Government or a de facto Global State goes on and on and it did not use to be like that.

Some decades ago, we had several different countries doing different things, implementing different policies, be them good or bad. Now everything is becoming centralised through these proto global-state agencies, leaving us without options for when the things go bad, as every nation is basically following the same norms determined by those supranational organisations. And let us not fool ourselves. The people pushing for centralisation do want a society where there is no liberty for the majority. If you doubt that, just quickly analyse how freedom and liberty have been under attack over the last 10 years, where we can see countless cases of Western Countries arresting people for wrong thinking. Now the norm being pushed is composed by ideas that were totally alien in the West.

The human history is full of conflicts and bad ideas being implemented here and there and it is a common mistake to think that now we have evolved and that we became some sort of new men in a new world where everything will function under some sort of global government and that bad things will simply stop happening, but unfortunately, a lot of people still think that terrible things that happened in the past would not happen again, being totally incapable of seeing the madness that happened from 2020 until 2023.

Statism should not be endorsed, but in this article, the point is talking about minimising risks, and it is better to have different options of States than to have one single State in the whole world, where, if things go bad, you will have nowhere to run to. The Austrian-School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe once said: Instead of the European Union, we need a Europe of 1000 Liechtensteins.

If diversity is some sort of strength, it is certainly not what the woke socialists mean by that. Diversity may be a strength for the individuals when they have diversity of choice for them and having different options when it comes to nations, where each country will have their own rules, their own taxes etc., is certainly better than having no option because only one option exists.

How many times did we have persecutions happening against specific individuals or groups throughout the history? Countless times. The French Huguenots fled to Switzerland because of the European wars of religion that killed roughly 20 million people, the Jews have been constantly moving around because they had been persecuted because of their faith, and a contemporary case can be seen in South America where over 7 million Venezuelans have fled Venezuela due to the bad economic crisis caused by the totalitarian Socialist regime, which was never highlighted by the mainstream media as other events such as the war in Ukraine, as the suffering of the Venezuelan people is certainly not something that the western socialist elites that now dictate the culture want people to see.

Considering the very nature of those behind globalism, that means, they are nothing more than elitist international socialists obsessed with micromanaging every single aspect of everybody else’s lives, such as our diets, culture, sexuality, health etc., a tragic future is certain for every single individual if we continue going towards a world government.

Irrespective of one’s personal beliefs or moral values, the absence of viable refuge due to the universal application of rules carries inherent perils. Should a problem arise that impacts you, as problems inevitably do within any society, be it economic or otherwise, you shall find yourself bereft of options, devoid of choice.

Under the flag of pseudo-safety, unity and peace between different peoples, universal rules are being implemented, like every single example above mentioned and we have to be honest about it, even considering the arrangement of democracy to legitimise laws, most people never ever voted for these things, they hardly know what a Minimum Global Corporate Tax is or how it will affect them, that is considering they even heard about that, which is also highly unlikely.

The difficult task of surviving globalism is that nations are more and more entangled into bureaucratic arrangements set by those who wish to have a world government or some global order that will be a de facto world government, penalising those nations who do not want to do what they want to be done, like the Minimum Global Corporate Tax scheme that was certainly not interesting for countries like Ireland, Hungary and Estonia, that always opposed that as they benefited from being tax competitive, and suddenly, they dropped their opposition and accepted this international rule that is giving shape to a World Order.

Since I have talked about eggs in the beginning of this article, another idiom that comes to my mind is that we must keep in mind that you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs and you certainly put your eggs in a basket to be able to have an omelette in the future. In the short run, maybe it will be harmful to reject the liberticide policies that are being pushed by the globalists, as they are in control of the strongest nations in the world like the US, Germany and France, but in the long run, rejecting globalism, while we still can, will mean we will have a delicious omelette to eat. It is important to never forget this: There is no food in socialism.

To preserve liberty and prosperity from a global tyranny that is already bringing poverty, we will have to sacrifice a bit in the present for a bigger prize in the future. Having a low time preference is the key to keep us prosper, free and alive.