A New Cause: Privacy For WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks demands privacy for itself. Poverty pays political dividends. Euro charades and what your money's worth.

The best one. Wait for Assange's defense against the sexual molestation charges in Sweden. The struggler on the front line for open access to all information will have his attorneys plead what is in this instance an amazing case. The expected claim is that the man's privacy is violated by the leaked release to the public of the prosecutor's charges against him for his sexual improprieties. Is privacy and confidentiality not a right that deserves protection?

This, as the newest from this battleground, will be new to you. WikiLeaks had used the Swiss "PostBank" to have donations processed. Obviously, Mr. Assange must have been a victim of myths regarding Swiss banking practices. Accordingly, the business deal went sour. When opening the account, its beneficiary claimed to be a resident of the country. The publicity surrounding the case made the arrangement transparent. The klieg lights revealed that the bit about residency was not quite the case. So PostBank announced that it closed the account. Now a local branch of Asange fans is preparing to sue PostBank. They claim — and I hope you are seated when you read this – that the announcement violated banking secrecy.

Taxes, poverty and votes. There was a time when your correspondent used to accept a consequence of progressive taxation. While made to wonder about some of the details of the international praxis, it seemed that exempting low incomes from taxes is logical.

As so often, the good theory can be fatally wounded by its practical application. It would seem that, on this basis, some theories would remain attractive theoretical constructs if only they would remain theory and avoid being applied to save thereby their good reputation.

I live in a genuine federal system in which the lion's share of taxes is locally levied. The result is, reflecting the quality of fiscal management and local priorities, a tax burden that varies widely according to the Canton and within that between communities. This local tax autonomy furnishes us with a globally valid insight that can explain a lot regarding taxation.

In a near-by town, they have just raised taxes. After a split second of amazement caused by the hefty raise the explanation emerged. The town has a sizeable leftist voting bloc. Many inhabitants are part of the administrative apparatus of the Canton. These people being in practice "the state" their importance and ability to be elected hinges upon having loyal clients. Keeping commitment alive requires money that comes from taxes. High taxes, therefore, mean there is a lot to distribute which buys votes.

There is a further factor operating. Low earners benefit from progressive taxes and do not contribute to the scheme. This means they receive support payments and benefits in other forms. None of this burdens them. On the other hand, since high taxes mean more benefits, approving of parties and projects that cost more is as attractive as it is gainful. The individual contribution to what is sold as "the common good" is zero. It reminds one of being enabled to win in the lottery without purchasing a ticket.

The above has a consequence that contributes to rising taxes. The demographics of "generous" communities undergo change. The more one gets by living there the more people that are inclined to let themselves be supported will move there. This will raise expenditures but also the size of the vote that will support parties that advocate a redistribution. Another one will accompany this process. Rising taxes and levies over expected standards will induce those that pay to move their domicile to friendlier locations. The consequence is shrinking revenues. That, however, creates a vicious circle, as the remaining contributors will need to be squeezed more.

What one should not say loudly. One should, for reasons of state and to protect one's own investments, not discuss the real — as against the officially admitted – crisis of the Euro. Some of the birth defects of the Euro are frequently articulated. Their gist: the Euro is a currency without a government and a central bank. This makes it an aircraft carrier without a rudder. Less frequently, one hears the murmured admission that the common currency connects economic entities that have little in common. Some of the riches, "straightest" and most developed countries share a vessel with some of the less developed, shadier and most poverty stricken ones. This implies that the instinctive formulation of policies and the ability to pursue the resulting strategies differ sharply. Most significant is that the goals set by these entities lack a common dominator.

Expectations and reality. Eastern Europe joined the EU to get funds to finance the continued survival of unfit producers. All too frequently, the unstated goal had been to avoid meaningful and politically painful reforms. Besides this economic goal, in the foreground a security consideration appeared. New members assumed the community provided protection against the feared and foreseeable resurrection of Russian imperial appetites. Today, the EU is in danger of sliding into bankruptcy unless it separates itself from some of the bankrupt Euro users. Furthermore, from the outset, old Europe was not willing to protect anyone against anything. Least of all against Russia under whatever nametag, she might carry. Assumed guarantees were limited to verbal posturing — unless the threat happened to be domination by Lichtenstein. The ignored reality is that even in the face of the Soviet peril, Western Europe expected to be protected by the USA. The only challenger Europe was willing to face was the imperialism of the defunct local Great Powers such as newly pacifist Germany. This amounts to a riskless strategy against a conveniently safe enemy.

A convincing argument in support of an illusion. The assumed financial invulnerability of EU states and Euro-economies has encouraged ruinous strategies. Bubbles were created; the consumption and living standard not supported by local productivity were encouraged. And since the Community, out of deference to local pride, went easy with controls, the cooking of the books to cover up problems was tolerated while economic tumors could grow and spread.

Now that the breeze has toppled the badly secured common tent, the economically sound members of the EU/Euro are asked to paste quick financial patches on the wounds. This costs a lot and also provokes the reluctance of those that are to give blood for the transfusion. The sacrifice asked runs counter to EU rules and to what the donor populations consider fair. Solidarity with those that knowingly caused their own misfortune is not a convincing argument. Therefore, the donor countries are being told that averting through spending the economic collapse of the "South" means saving the Union.

Regardless of the merits of this thesis, the sales pitch is that rescuing failing members from state bankruptcy is worth any price. That is alleged because the EU and its predecessors are credited with having averted a reoccurrence of conflicts such as the two world wars. On the surface, the claim of sixty-year peace appears to be justified. Indeed, since the creation of European institutions there has been no general war in Europe. Is the result a consequence of the claimed cause? With comparable logic — and knowing that analogies are less than perfect – one might pretend that no war between Canada, the USA and Mexico is to be credited to NAFTA. Germany, France and England had no war because they lacked a cause. The conflict with Russia — not a participant in European institutions – was averted by NATO. It did so due to the efforts of only one of that treaty's members. And that one did not even happen to be located on the Continent.