Everyone knows about the terrible things going on in and around the Indian Ocean these days. Truly a catastrophic situation which I feel terrible about. However, without trying to take the issue lightly, I can't escape one thought: How are Leftists planning on blaming global warming for the horrible things going on, like they usually do when natural disasters occur?
The other day I heard a man talking about politics in the United States, and in that respect he divided the political spectrum into "the liberal left" and "the Christian right". How might that be? What has the Left to do with being liberal, and how come the Right is associated with Christianity?
A part of the answer is the political landscape in America. Those calling themselves "liberal" in America are more often than not those who are willing to allow homosexuals to live together, and want as much as possible in the hands of the state. Those calling themselves "conservatives" (or to the right) are more often than not those who are reluctant to grant homosexuals the right to live together, but show understanding towards allowing the private enterprise to prosper without the state butting in all the time. (I am only speaking very roughly and not literally about the political landscape in America - counterexamples of my examples are easy to find).
So there we have it - the Christian Right and the liberal Left. But something doesn't add up. Those who want the state to grow in power economically, Leftists, are those who want the state to stay out of peoples private lives (excluding John Kerry and other canons in the Democratic Party). Those who want the state to grow in power socially, Rightist, are those who want the state to stay out of the market. Does this add up? In this formulation we have two groups of people, each wanting the state to strengthen in one area and weaken in another, and still we call them Leftists and Rightists! No, this won't do.
The fact of the matter is that those who want the state to gain power and increase control are one group, and those who want the opposite are another. Since Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Social Democratism and other inventions of the Left are generally associated with state-control and limited market-laws, we shall call those who want the state to control either people or markets Leftists, and the others Rightists. This would mean that when it comes to the mainstream politics, Americans only have Leftists with different views on exacly what the state should have a stranglehold on, but not whether or not it should have any kind of stranglehold.
The word "liberal" is nothing which suits the American Left. The word "Christian" or "conservative" is nothing which fits to the American Right.
A friend of mine wondered the other day whether the European Union (EU) is a good or bad thing. Roughly he said:
That peace remains within Europe and human rights are generally respected. People not being killed in state-run concentration-camps and private property rights are sacred as far as that goes. That no wars are in Europe anymore and so on. Acid not being pored on people as punishment in Turkey, and more.Is the EU good or bad? Are the pluses bigger than the minuses? In my opinion: Yes.
Or how much bureaucracy the EU stands for, which costs people loads of money each month and prevents tax-cuts etc.
But the European Union has evolved a lot since its founding after World War II. Originally it was a free-trade union between the biggest economies in Europe, and as such grew into tighter and tighter relations on the whole political spectrum. Today the EU has become a huge block of red tape and regulations and the economy of Europe as a whole has as a result grown to an almost complete standstill. The free trade, which eliminated wars and resulted in great increase of wealth, respect for human rights and clear protection of the private property right, has evolved into a superstate of regulations and restrictions with regards to relations outside Europe and flexibility within Europe, and an ever-increasing reluctance to give back freedom which has been tied into institutions and state-supervision.
I have no doubts about the peace-keeping role of the EU, and the EU itself forces its member-states to do many good things they would otherwise not do, or do only when they have no other choices (e.g. liberate various markets from state-monopoly, and suppress customs and trade-barriers within the member-states). However, if the trend of state-merger continues I fear that the EU will crumble from within, having forced one too many regulation down the throat of its members. There are limits to how much a single, centralized government can do for hundreds of millions of people, especially when it continues to remove power from local authorities to the global one. History teaches us that when a superpower of bureaucracy grows too much in ambition, power and size, it will eventually disintegrate from within, splitting up into blocks or collapse totally into its elements. I hope this won't happen to the EU since some of its members have a great tendency to fights its neighbors, but the risk is there.
Why doesn't the EU aim on looking more like the World Trade Organization, which only holds limited power over its member-states, and has no interest in making detailed plans for individuals - instead focusing on keeping governments on track when it comes to freedom of trade and respect for private property rights and human rights?
Being an Icelander living in Denmark has opened my mind for many new things. A few of them are:
Denmark is a rich country filled with well-educated, hard-working, creative people who strive to improve their lives in every sense of the word. Danish people enjoy the fruits of the free market more than inhabitants of many other states, and Denmark is a magnet for those who enjoy the very best of what a free society has to offer. But they have a socialistic bone in them which tells them that some things are best left in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and public officials, and as a result the Danish people are worse off than they could be. The newspapers are filled with left-oriented slogans and analyses, and it seems that the Right in Denmark (or 'de borgerlige liberals' like they call themselves to avoid comparison with national socialists) is careful of keeping its mouth very shut in the public discussion, hoping that people's common sense outwins the Leftist-anger. Sad and risky, to say the least.
But maybe I've just been focusing on seeing the bad for the last few months. Last week the idea was dropped that the best "family policy" for Denmark would be to lower taxes, thereby giving parents more flexibility to live of a single or one and a half income instead of two today, and this week it was suggested that the state should give up state-support in the housing-sector in exchange for more freedom and flexibility (which then would give more people better chances of finding appropriate, affordable housing). Maybe are some things okay in this country of pseudo-socialistic capitalism.
A friend of mine once asked: "Isn't old-fashion and out of date to fight against communism?" I was wearing a button which said "Communism kills", and for him it seemed weird - the communism being dead and all that.
Unfortunately, it isn't so. In my latest post on this website I said a few words about my Left-Right theory, which is that generally all people can be divided into two simple categories, depending on what they believe in in politics. In my opinion there is no fundamental difference between today's "social democrats", "greenies", "liberals" (in the American meaning of the word), and so on. The mentality is still the same as with the communists in the beginning of the 20th century: The state can organize the society, and then we can see what is left to be "free". My way of thinking is the opposite - everything should be left free from government interference, except perhaps very few and special tasks (one, for example, being law-enforcement and protection of the private property right).But the good-old fashion communists are still not extinct. In Denmark, a street-paper/internet-magazine called Socialistisk Standpunkt is published by some self-acclaimed marxists, and sold and I couldn't believe my own eyes when I read the following:
Hvis en kommende regering af arbejderpartier skal gøre noget reelt ved beskæftigelsen, må den have kontrol, dvs. ejerskab, over de væsentligste dele af økonomien. Gennem en demokratisk planlægning af økonomien kan man sætte en virkelig plan for velfærd og arbejde i gang, og man kan gennemføre den første betingelse for et rigtigt opgør med arbejdsløsheden: en drastisk nedsættelse af arbejdstiden med fuld løn- og personalekompensation.There you have it - the state should own in order to control and organize. Regrettable, this thought-process is more widespread than many thinks, and it seems that all the theoretical and empirical data from the last 200 years hasn't made a dent in the unsatisfying belief in government-control over individuals and their companies/organizations.
Actually, the quote here above included the world "nationalize" in the print-version. I thought I would never see that word again in writings about the future.
A question I hear from time to time is "what" I am in politics, and sometimes whether I'm a libertarian or even an anarchist! I have a hard time answering questions like these. I could call myself a liberal right-winger, but then I might be liberal in the USA-meaning of the word (statist and fond of increased government) and a right-winger in the European meaning of the word (national socialist). What I would be meaning is that I couldn't care less about social matters and what people do and don't do = liberal, and that I think the less there is of the state, the better = right-winged.
I could also call myself a libertarian. However, that isn't as straight forward as one might think. Some people confuse libertarianism with liberalism, and better yet - neoliberalism. If I'm not mistaken then neoliberalism is at its best in the USA, where the ruling "class" of the US-state believes in a relatively free economy, but wants a stranglehold on the American social-behavior. I'm not one of those.
It might be complicated to roll around in the definition-flood of the political spectrum. But maybe it's not. Maybe it's enough to divide the political spectrum into two poles - Left and Right - and do little else. Why so? Because I think people in general only have two approaches when it comes to politics and social thoughts, and everything else is derived from that.
It can be seen that when the Left is strong, the state gets more and more "important" projects to take control of, or makes them up and "solves" by itself. Likewise, when the Right is on the move, the state is given stronger and stronger restrictions to roll over people, companies and the free market in general.
I'm to the Right. I'm not sure I need to say more.
In short the documentary ass-kicked those who claim the Earth is warming up because of human activities. It was shown that it might be warming up, but then at most about a tenth of a degree over the last 25 years. In comparison, some claim that mans activities could increase the worlds temperature of about 6 degrees.
Also it was shown that the Earth has a solid system of stabilizing its temperature, using rain, clouds, evaporation, ice-formation, to name a few examples. It was even reasoned that if the Earths temperature would rise, say 10 degrees Celsius, it would actually increase the ice on the Antartica, thus lowering the ocean levels globally.
But are Danish people happy about hearing something else than constant propaganda about the need for Kyoto, need to reduce the usage of this and that, and not to mention the need for more taxes to fund these and that special government projects aimed on "saving" the environment?
I would say no and point to these discussion, out of which the following text is roughly translated:
This with the C02 not warming up the planet is completely wrong in my opinion. C02 grabs, along with H20, various wave-frequencies of infrared light, that is it catches the suns energy, which it then moves on to other molecules in the air, which then can warm up the atmosphere. It is true that water is the biggest greenhouse-gas, but many small springs can make up a large river. So if we burn all those coals and gases we have on the planet, we will significantly increase the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, which then will warm up the atmosphere.The author of this text must have been on the toilet when last nights documentary showed that C02 itself is a very weak measurement of the potential global warming we might possible see in the future, if we burn up "all" the coals and gases in the world. Shouldn't we stop volcanoes from erupting also, since they are a huge producer of C02 in the atmosphere?
We're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent. Best of all, the poorer nations are leading the way. Some rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, are doing well, but the developing world is leading this economic surge. Developing countries are seeing their economies expand by 6.1 percent this year - an unprecedented rate - and, even if you take China, India and Russia out of the equation, developing world growth is still around 5 percent... This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia..... What explains all this good news? The short answer is this thing we call globalization. Over the past decades, many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging.Hurray for globalization!
Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering. (#)Indeed.
Most problems fall into the first category. When a person feels sick, there are the options of staying home, visit a doctor or simply push on as long as health allows. When a person has financial problems there are the options of taking a loan, work more, ask for a pay-raise, switch jobs, spend less or sell property. Generally speaking: Most problems require no outside solutions.
Problems which need outside assistance to be solved are for example crimes. The police investigates crimes, courts solve disputes, the army fights off hostile invasions and the politicians lay frameworks for people and companies to act within. The problems which require outside solutions - or should I say outside interference - are few but important.
But the philosophical truth of this basic way of thinking is unfortunately not the reality in which we live today. For some reason the state (of all institutions) has taken the part of the problem-solving mechanism in the society. The consequence is plain and simple: Now everyone needs outside help of some kind. A few examples:
This problem-solving addiction of politicians and the state is itself dangerous. It undermines peoples way of thinking for themselves. It undermines free partnership when problems come up. Now everything is thrown at government officials and made to stand in line with all other problems. Those who dare to object to this centralization of problem-solving in society (like me) get reputations of being cruel and selfish. What about the poor? What about the elderly? Don't I want poor people to have education and access to health care? I do. However, catch-phrases like these don't suffice to explain why the state needs to have its fingers in education and health care. They just don't.
Life is not about money, and complaining about high taxes and extensive government simply because it costs taxpayers money is not my style. However, free choice is more often than not tied together with money. We choose to see a movie in exchange for money, thereby electing according to our choice. We choose to change grocery-stores, for example to lower the food-bill, and thereby elect limited selection in exchange for cheaper food. Consumers put companies out of business by choosing the competitors - using money as their vote. Voters are not so free when they dislike their childrens education in state-schools, or their doctors attitude in the state-hospital.
The problem is not the state itself, because the state is indeed very important in our society. The problem is the problem-solving state and its seemingly unlimited lust for more problems to solve.
In other words - they beg for more state-interferance, but at the same time exploit there freedom in the free market, without connecting the dots.
What dots? Well, the dot which says that freedom generally means prosperity in every sense of the word, and the dot that freedom is best achieved by the absense of the state.
Man A can fix a car in 1 hour. However, it takes him 4 hours to paint a room.
Man B can paint a room 1 hour, but it takes him 4 hours to fix a car.
A logical consequence of this difference in skills is that Man A hires Man B to paint his room, and that Man B hires Man A to fix his car. Then both save 3 hours of work, which they then use on whatever else they want (for example work more or simply relax).
But what happens if we throw in elements like licence-fees, taxes on work and materials and other of that kind? One consequence could be that it will take Man A too many hours to work in order to afford the price of hireing Man B. Man A will have to pay taxes of his own earnings and then pay Man B which again has to pay taxes of his own earnings. In Denmark (which has high taxes on everything which changes hands or is done at all) it takes the average man 5 hours to work for 1 hour of hired help.
What does that translate into then? It translates into a system where people spend a lot of time doing things they are not good at, and thereby doing less of the things they are good at.
Who benefits from that?
What rigth has one state (or groupe of states) to impose policies upon others? Did the UN, for example, have any right to interfere with Saddam Husseins Kurdish-massacres by limiting trade to Iraq? Does the UN have any right to interfere with Sudan, where millions of people are potentially being wiped off the face of the planet? Do Americans and Europeans have any right to pressure the communists in China to lay a little of their un-humane treatment of their own subjects?
Its a complicated matter. If Gaddafi, Castro and other brutal, facist/socialist dictators are allowed to participate in the society of free nations, isn't some kind of recognition of their power to torture and oppress innocent civilians? I would say yes. However, by blocking out dictator-ruled states from the global venue I think bad becomes worse. As an example: Communist Cuba. However, by doing nothing, bad might become better. As an example: Communist China.
China is big and powerful, and has been as long as anyone can remember. Americans have never dared to threaten China in any serious way, knowing that the Chinese could fight back and even shoot weapons of mass destruction at anyone who moves a muscle. Still China is ruled by commnuists, just like Iraq was ruled by a facist, Cuba is by a socialist, and North-Korea is by a maniac. Chinas force has enabled it to be left alone under communistic rule for decades, and allowed it to trade with other nations in the global market, although Chinese human-rights are in the dumpster.
The results of this tolerance towards socialism? Fantastic!
But the moral question is still remaining: How can we just sit back and watch dictators slaughter their subjects, and do nothing about it? Can we allow another Saddam Hussein to tramp on the UN for 10 years while he slowly wipes out the enemies of his state? Can we watch while the communists of North-Korea slowly starve their subjects to death? Can we hear news about the genocides in Darfur without feeling the need for action (American or European-style above-mentioned)?
Those questions I cannot answer. But I know what patience does in the long run, if its followed up with abundance of free trade. Something to think about, or what?
A big, greedy company wants to resign all its innocent, hard-working employers and move their jobs to a country where filthy poor people are willing to do the same job for a fraction of the cost.I see this propaganda hit me very hard in Denmark, with headlines like "Companies outsourcing for the wrong reasons" and "Job-loss expected in the coming years". A very subtle but clear message is being sent - the local workers should continue to do work which others can do for a lower cost, because moving the jobs out of the country will hurt families and force people to adjust to a changing environment.
Why is it that the obvious lessons of history don't sink in? Europeans should understand better than inhabitants of any other continent that outsourcing means (in most cases) a higher standard of living for all those who come near it. Essentials shrink in price, innovation and technology speeds ahead, the work force uses its strength and capabilities better, and the list goes on and on. Outsourcing is not only a good thing - it is necessary to give a bigger part of humanity a chance to live longer and have better lives. If I at some point in my life loose my job to a guy in India, which can do the same job for a fraction of the cost, will that give me any rights to demand government actions and protections and insist that me having a certain job is the best thing for everyone? No. It simply gives me the right to find something else to do - something that can stand a little competition without calling for panic and red flags.
Danish engineers and university-graduates are very worried about their jobs in the global market. High voices demand increased contributions from tax-payers to the school-system, and all kinds of special programs are created to try to fit Denmark into a new globalized landscape (except perhaps the "special program" of setting the market more free). The propaganda will go on. The lessons of history will be put to side. When will we learn?
Of course I have to answer with a no - the State can do this and that. Many who also call themselves libertarians think the State should run the police and the court-system, and even say that no-one else can do that in a fair and just way. I tend to agree with this, but I'm not sure if I can say that that's the only thing the State can do and should do.
How can we compare the State with the private sector? The price is a factor - an important one but not the only one. The less something costs, the fewer hours of work it took for the user/buyer to have the means to acquire/enjoy. Another factor is quality, the third might be the satisfaction of the staff in a certain sector, and the fourth of course the satisfaction of the users/buyers.
Historically, the private sector completely destroys the State in every way in every comparison. The staff and users are happier in the free market, the prices are lower, and the quality stands no comparison. It hardly matters what examples are taken - health-care, factory-operation, supervision, manufacturing and so and so on - if the State has something in its hands, and therefore doesn't allow the free market and the free consumer to shape, encourage, punish or reward in an environment of competition and free, unforced choices, then deterioration is the result. Patients are no longer given the best service for the most favorable price. Students are not shaped by the needs of the market with the help of the flexibility of the free enterprise. Drivers must use roads they hardly fit on, and non-drivers are forced to pay for roads they don't use. Money ( = time, energy and health of working people) is moved from one to another without any permissions being given, and it doesn't take a specialist to figure out that only thieves and criminals share that activity with the State.
The State can do a few things. It might be able to run the road-system if its a question of having roads which are okay and keep the standard there. The State is very well suited to distribute money between artists, and keep alive artforms which no-one is willing to pay for voluntarily any more. The State can do certain functions well if they are extremely well defined - the police and court-system fit that description since the law is written and no way around them. However, the State has never and will never run a health care, school system or anything that has to do with food production or distribution in a way that doesn't allow for very drastic improvements. In those areas I will not tolerate the low standards the State is so famous for in all its other activities.
What is my answer then? Can't the State do anything? Does everything have to be privatized and sold to parties on the free market? The answer is: In fields we can live with low standards and not the best of services I think the State will do a very fine job. In fields which touch our health, our freedom, essential products and services and our comfort I think we should keep the State as far away as possible.
But what are those agencies and institutions the taxes are funding? There is the police and the legal system, the parliament, in many cases a health care system, in many cases a school system, in many cases some welfare system, and so on. Taxes are ear-market to fund these and related functions of the State. That's all very well, although I am very much opposed to the State being in charge of many of the institutions and agencies it has in it clutches today (in Iceland).
But there are other taxes - taxes which have nothing to do with the legal system, the welfare system and so on. What taxes are those? Extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco besides the taxes put on other products. Extra taxes on gasoline and cars. Extra taxes on those who earn more than a certain amount a year. Extra customs on imported agricultural products.
In one word: Government babysitting and brainwashing of grown, free and sane individuals.
Why do we tolerate this State-control of what we should eat, drink and put into our bodies? The only valid argument is the cost-factor: People who eat and drink unhealthy quickly become an extra-baggage on the publicly run health care system, and therefore its justifiable to try to keep people away from something which leads to the unhealthiness. These arguments are valid because the State handles the health care system. I don't want the State to do that, but as long as it does these arguments hold. In the same way it can be a valid argument for high taxes on cars and gasoline that the government is trying to reduce the usage of public, State-owned roads. I don't want the State to own all the road-system but as long as it does this argument holds.
But then there are the classic Leftist-arguments that high taxes on "luxury"-items and "polluting"-items are necessary to guide people from wrong to right (according to the Leftists themselves). A nice side-product from the guiding-taxation is of course the money which are handed to Leftist-politicians to spend on their favorite group of voters. Leftists don't even make attempts to associate taxation with logic - their goal is simply to enforce their own taste of what is good and bad on others, and never think they have to ask for permission. Their noble cause doesn't need such boring formalities.
This usage of the tax-system is completely intolerable in my eyes. What business is it to others what I spend on? Why does the government subsidize milk but overtax wine? Is it in the name of good health and good science? No. It's in the name of control and supervision of adults. I will accept taxation to fund the operation of the institutions and agencies the State holds in it grips today, hoping that gradually the State will privatize and sell off and reduce its role in society as a functioning member (in stead becoming a guardian of law and order). I will never accept taxes which are aimed on a certain, pre-determined lifestyle. Leftists, Fascists, Communists and Socialists should mind their own business in their choice of lifestyle.
An Icelandic Leftist recently wrote in an article that "no-one but the most extreme libertarians say that the people of the Third World should celebrate globalization". Maybe she's right, and in that case I will gladly call myself an "extreme libertarian" (extremely much opposed to being ruled or seeing others ruled, I suppose). I celebrate on the behalf of the people of the Third World who are given the opportunity to compete with the rich countries on an international scale, having a considerable edge on them when it comes to salary-expenses and regulation-costs, but lacking in technology and skills. I hope the Western countries aren't afraid of a little competition, and especially when its result will probably be improved lives of hundreds of millions of people who today are living in conditions similar to those in Europe some 1000 years ago.
Yes, the jobs being created by globalization in the Third World might not be the best of the best on a Western scale. However, they are many times better in both pay and working conditions than those the people of the Third World have to choose from today (if any). That's the plain simple truth and those who fight globalization are fighting against the poor ones of the world being given the free chance of getting a job which will lift them a lot higher in all living conditions. Are Leftists evil or just ignorant when they fight globalization?
What lesson did the Spanish people teach terrorists? The lesson is this: If you want to force people to throw their government, bomb a few of the up.
Are we better off?
Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply.
When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken [for example queuing].If Leftists would learn to understand these facts they might start to realize what is wrong with "free" health care. If they could in the process learn to understand the basics of the free market, and back off a little with their distrust in the human being, we might be seeing some progress in the future!
But those are just the general Leftists-symptoms which are valid all over the world. What is special about the Icelandic Left is its ability to change its mind with in the period of hours, weeks and months!
The frequently-mentioned media-law in Iceland provide good examples here. Its first version said something about "a company in a market-controlling position" not being able to own more than 5% in a media. The Left said this was to harsh, not speaking in the name of liberty of course but just to say something to stir the public, and demanded at least a 10% part. In the last version of the media-law this ratio was indeed pushed to 10% but then the Left wasn't happy about that either, saying the whole deal is a bad idea (which it is, but for other reasons they use).
More? Two years ago one of the Leftist-politicians got angry with a company for firing his brother. He held a speech at the Icelandic parliament and demanded that laws would be made to split up the company, of course using the argument that it was becoming "too big" for the small Icelandic market. Today, he fights with hands and feet against any law which affects the same company, because it is thought that the CEO of the company shows good will for his political party, or at least some of its leading figures. No-one remembers the speech two years ago. No-one cares if he's speaking completely against himself. Why? Because he's a Leftist and doesn't have to hold up to his words.
Then there's the endless positive talk about government-interference in other countries, neglecting the bad effects of it, and endless negative talk about the power of low taxes and deregulation. The focus is on how many people hold this and this job, and entities such as evolution, development, work-force redistribution and so on are put to side. Economic growth is also of little importance to the Left, although some positiveness is given up when the market is allowed to flourish under strict supervision and when the possibility of taking some freedom back is an easy option.
So the Left stands like a flower in a desert when people try to get some logic or reason in its cause. This seems to be the situation now, and it seems it has always been the situation when it comes to the Left.
And that's about it.
Here are a few thoughts from John Ray on the matter, especially aimed at the political scene in the United States. John wants American libertarians to stay within the Republican Party, or at least not run an independent campaign for president or parliament, and fight for libertarian-views by encouraging people to vote for Republicans. John thinks that is the best way to promote the ideals libertarians stand for, so that they can actually come into practice. By running an independent campaign, libertarians only decrease the strength of the Republican Party, therefore increasing the risk of clowns like John Kerry seizing the office of president.
The American president has enormous power, both on international as well as domestic scale. The election of a single powerful president like that has both advantages and disadvantages, of course depending on the nature of the person holding the office. John Ray makes a point that libertarians who vote for a special libertarian candidate increase the risk of a man like John Kerry seizing power, because libertarians votes are primarily votes which the Republican Party would get in the absence of a special libertarian campaign. In the same way the Greens in America are spoiling the harvest for Democrats.This point I understand very well. However, I am still not convinced that libertarians should try to fight for their opinions within some bigger party which is in a better position to gain control. Libertarians can of course be spoiling the harvest for the big party, but there is another possible consequence of libertarians running their own campaign: They can move the whole political debate further to the Right by standing strong on their views as an independent voice.
This point I believe is enormously important. By being enclosed inside a big political party, libertarians risk being put to the side and their voice completely suffocated in compromises and political bargains with their own team-mates. This has been the case in Iceland. To fight this development in my country, many libertarians decided to split themselves free in order to influence the debate and move it to a more liberal and more open direction. The thought is that by running independently for the Icelandic parliament, the group of free-thinking people can be expanded. The thought is not that the number of Leftists is a constant, but a number that can be decreased with education, debate and discussions.
In a two-party system like in the United States this method could be questioned. Icelanders don't have a president with any power - the multi-party parliament makes the law and the ministers uphold them. A two-party system is more vulnerable to dramatic changes. If a Leftist seizes power the whole country could be facing huge difficulties for a long time. By having a independent presidential candidate, libertarians could indeed be clearing the path for an authoritarian Leftist.
Can't libertarians stand alone?
The question libertarians all over the world ask themselves is this: Should we fight within some large political party and hope our voice will be heard there within, or have a independent voice which people can hear without compromises? Compared to the political scene in Iceland, I don't see how the first option is viable. The Icelandic Independence Party has for decades been the refuse for Icelandic libertarians. For decades it did okay. Of course there are the endless compromises on the political scene, and progress has been slow and it has been fast, depending on circumstances and the men in the front-line. Over the past few years a lot of positive steps have been taken to reduce the government in Iceland and therefore common well-being of Icelanders. Some came with the EEA-contract, and others by the initiative of Davíð Oddsson and the Independence Party.
But Adam and Eve didn't stay long in Paradise. The obvious flaw of operating inside a right-winged conservative party, which carries a wide variety of different opinions, some more fitting in a Leftist-party, became obvious a few years ago, and has since multiplied in strength. The State will not give up its radio-stations and television-station in the present political climate. The State will not release farmers, patients, doctors and teachers the way things are evolving now. The Left has loud voices and some meet a surprising understanding with the public, compared to the sufferings of totalitarianism in the 20th century. This must be fought, and the suffocated voice of libertarianism inside the Icelands only "right"-winged party wont do it. An independent voice is needed or else ...
But is there any hope of libertarians expanding the voice of freedom by working on their own and speaking directly what they want to teach? Some experience exists which gives rise to optimism. In Costa Rica the independent voice of libertarianism has had some success in the local political scene - see Movimiento Libertario. Why can't the same apply for others? Why is it necessary to remain within a stagnant, conservative, slow-moving, compromising political-machine, well tied within the society's structure and extremely reluctant to decrease its own authority when it finally gains power over the government?
I'm not going to speak for other countries and urge libertarians to stay or go from their local, big, right-winged political party, or urge libertarians to vote or not vote or how to vote. In Iceland I see the great need for an independent libertarian running for the parliament, and I'm sure the same goes for many other countries.
The Left is obsessed with learning nothing from history and ignoring all good logic. They fight against international free trade. Why? Because it might mean they lose control over their local job markets and undermine their authority to design and shape society into their ideal picture. Why do Leftists predict catastrophes when humanity uses a lot of this resource and a little of another resource? Because they have no knowledge of the free market, and how prices, supplies and demand work (or at least refuse to apply this knowledge in the real world). Why do Leftists insist on keeping resources in the hands of the government? Because they don't see the big picture when it comes to responsibility and profit-seeking - something that the free market understands very well.
When it comes down to it, Leftism is basically obsessed with ideas that don't rely on logic or experience. Most of the criticism on the free market is based on examples which again are mostly bad because of government interference and not the lack thereof. This I have said again and again and I will say it again and again. This was written in the 18th century by promoters of Laissez faire and has repeated it ever since. History has taught Leftist at best that some government interference is bad, and that some free market ideas are basically better for the general public than a lack of them. Bad ideas like Communism have been swept away and others will meet their end, but unfortunately new ones are continually being bred in the hoax-laboratories of the Left.
I don't see what is so hard to understand. I can understand those who doubt the free market when they hear of private companies polluting air, water and land because its not always obvious that the reason is in most cases a lack of responsibility and private property-rights. I can understand many worrying about the poor and their access to health care, housing and general good living because its not always obvious that the State is in most cases to blame for its continuous promises of providing for the needy in exchange for brutal tax burdens on the public. But in general I don't understand doubts about free trade, the power of the private enterprise and the lack of politicians to control humans like a farmer controls its sheep. I seriously lack the understanding.
French employees of a German car components plant have voted nearly unanimously to work an extra hour each week, the first such vote in French history. (#)Why would anyone want to add hours to their working week and not ask for higher salaries? Answer: When the government forces companies and employees to negotiate on certain terms. The law-binding 35 hour work-week in France has proven that people want to control their hours and consider what is good for their employer - even when it means more hours at work! A remarkable discovery for sociologists, isn't it?
But does that mean that the Icelandic media market has finally got its break from politicians? No. "Everyone agrees that some kind of media law is necessary", they say. "Everyone knows that although these laws were bad, some other laws are inevitable", they also say. In short: The Icelandic media market shouldn't celebrate its freedom from political interference just yet!
Why do we need laws for the media? They say that the risk exists that 'one man' will own 'all the media in the country/in the area', meaning of course that the public is likely to be brainwashed with propaganda which one man or one (non-governmental) power-block controls. Personally, I think that's absurd. In Iceland there is one 'big' media company owned mostly by companies where one man, Jón Ásgeir, is very influential. This company owns a few radio- and TV-stations and two newspapers. Together they add up to be the majority of all media in Iceland, with the second biggest one being RÚV - the government media company. Are Icelanders not in risk of being brainwashed by Jón Ásgeir? Isn't he killing of bad news about him and his companies and promoting the positive about himself by manipulating his medias? Aren't Icelanders sucking up everything he has to say?
- When people say there is 'great need' to impose media laws in Iceland, they are answering: Yes.
- If not, they are saying: No, Icelanders have a mind of their own.
I think Icelanders have a mind of their own. Icelanders aren't vulnerable to brainwashing, although believers of the great power of the State say so. Already when the ownership of one of the newspapers in Iceland became a hot debate, skeptics rose up everywhere, saying that news coming from this newspaper should be taken with care since it's most likely owned by a man with large interests in many big companies and would try to protect them from negative talk. Still there is talks about imposing laws to invoke skepticism, or better yet, eliminate the need to doubt the news depending on its source! I don't get it. Do Icelanders doubt the news, or don't they? Do they need babysitting and watching over like small children, or can they take care of themselves and think for themselves?
I hope Iceland will never have special laws about the media like they have with a lot of other things. I hope people are trusted to think for themselves, and that the government focuses on those who impose violence and don't hold up to their contracts. That's all.
Perhaps the most important difference between those to the Left and those to the Right is the belief in the State and its powers to 'shape' and mold people so that a certain kind of society can be formed. Left-wingers actually use words like 'shape' and 'form' when they talk about the function of the State! And that is were they fail. I don't think anyone will find a successful way to shape people and at the same time be free of revolutions, large number of fugitives and massacres in order to keep the peace.
But can't we shape a little here and a little there and just be careful of not shaping too much too fast? Isn't it okay to ban positive talk about tobacco, ban negative talk about colored people, have mandatory seat-belt use in cars and take about half of what people earn and try to make sure everyone has everything? Isn't it okay to use the State like that?
No!
It simply doesn't matter what kind of shaping is done - the State should not have anything to do with people besides securing their safety and properties! I haven't seen any good logic for any different role for the State. The State was originally created to oppress people, and unless the State is restricted to protecting people from violence and theft it is still an oppressor. Leftism is by heart an oppressive ideology and should be treated with the same disgust as national socialism and fascism.
But what about the poor and the sick? Doesn't the State have a role in helping them? I would say not. I have not seen anything which supports the idea that poor people and sick people will be worse off in a free society of volunteer help and free donations. The present system of bureaucracy, long waiting, undersupply of doctors and cut-downs on an ever more expensive medical care is probably the worst thing to offer patients. This is especially true for the poorest ones who rely on the government for medical care by pushing all free charity out of the way with high taxes and heavy regulations.
Not only does the State have no role when it comes to helping the poor and the sick - by trying to help the poor and the sick the State actually makes things worse!
Thankfully the 'world' has been learning for the last few decades and is now moving slowly towards more freedom and stronger restrictions on government interference (for example with international war-crime courts, international law, international free-trade negotiations, and so on). Leftism has never been more to the Right! But we shouldn't stop now. We must continue to fight Leftism and do whatever possible to prevent famines (Leftists hate technology-improvements in agriculture), wars (Leftists think that only the bad guys should have armies and weapons of mass destruction), poverty (Leftists think that only the rich should enjoy free trade and others should settle for charity and loans without conditions to dictators ) and racism (Leftists believe in restrictions on borders so that the local job supply isn't 'threatened' by 'cheap labor', thereby exciting hate and ignorance). In short, by exterminating Leftism we move closer to a free world of prosperity and well-being.
Leftists tend to think of the State as a tool to shape society with, rather than looking at it as an instrument to protect our rights to live and prosper on our own terms. Leftists don't accept the fact that the State is made by men to protect men. They prefer looking at the State as a super-human which rules over other men. Bad way of thinking if you ask me.
In Iceland there are now talks of taking up a somekind of "sugar tax" which would affect the prices of goods which are considered "unhealthy". Of course, having a centralized, government-operated health care system does involve somekind of manipulation of people's diets and lifestyles because men are sheep and have little or no personal responsibility. Or that's the Leftist-dream anyway. Alcohol-taxes, tobacco-taxes and now a sugar-tax - all aimed on pushing people from unhealthy lifestyles into the healthy ones. Men are sheep. But the sugar-tax is above all a very describing tendency of politicians to try to shape society into a certain image - mold people like clay and harvest their work and time to spend on some social experiments. This is not unusual - it's typical. Leftists, conservatives and others who want to rule over men cannot grasp the thought of men being free in spirit and have minds of their own.
So what if there was not State? Wouldn't we do just fine? Are we men or are we sheep?
But why is it that "the extreme right" is considered to be something like national socialism? Well, that and libertarianism. "The extreme right" is pretty far from being right and we know that. Historically however, its very convenient for the Left to support the myth of the "extreme right". It hides the resemblance the Left has with national socialism and all its historical catastrophes.
International free trade has been a subject of big debates since the 17th century (or even sooner). Right-winged liberals fight for it, socialists and others of that kind fight against it. A lot has been tried out when it comes to free trade. We have tried open borders, closed ones and everything in between. Experience has taught us that free trade is good - it lifts up living standards, undoes poverty, decreases the threats of war and terrorism, and insures stability in the political field. Organizations like the European Union and NAFTA were originally established on the idea that free trade leads to good and protectionism to bad. Experience, historical facts and right-winged economic theory all combines into supporting the notion that free trade is fundamentally good for all that enjoy it.
So why am I preaching these obvious facts? Hasn't humanity clearly learned its lesson once and for all? No, I'm afraid not. Socialism still prevails - even within Western countries today! David Boaz discussed that a little in an article where he fights protectionistic views in America which preach "dangers" and "woes" in relation with free trade. David has a few words of wisdom for Leftists, nationalists and others who criticize international free trade:
But trade is not a zero-sum game. Everybody wins when more goods are produced. The story of economic progress is the tendency toward increasing specialization and division of labor. When new market participants can produce wheat more cheaply, established wheat producers can move on to other tasks, generally higher-value-added production. If Americans can purchase wheat cheaper than we can make it, then we can turn our labors to software, financial services, engineering, entertainment, computer chips, medical instruments, telecommunications equipment, chemicals, and so on.Also:
When two parties trade, each expects to gain. It doesn't matter whether they live in different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations. I don't worry about my balance of trade with the grocer, and the grocer doesn't worry about his balance of trade with the car dealer. And it's the same with international trade. Why would we expect countries to import and export the same amount of any product, whether wheat, shoes, computers, or movies?Unfortunately David is not just repeating age-old facts to a crowd that knows them all too well. He seems to be speaking to a crowd which actually thinks free trade is a bad thing! Western unions and their politicians and supporters (Leftists) are still a noisy and annoying crowd which quite simply is wrong and needs to be stuffed with facts, logic, theory and historical data if we are ever to hope it will learn its lesson.
Many issues in politics are open for discussion. However, critics of free trade can never have anything to say which can hold against facts and logic. Critics of free trade have to go with their bullshit elsewhere than into a discussion based on common sense and historical knowledge. So much's for sure.
But how is it to be a Leftist when things turn out like this? How is it to be a Leftist in a country where the government has decreased its role in many fields with these very positive results? Well, two approaches have been made:
I'm glad I discovered early in my life that the government is not the key to common welfare and high living-standards. The more I read from the Right and the Left the more I'm convinced that my instincts were right from the start and that both logic and experience go hand in hand in underlining my beliefs. When I at one point thought the government should restrict drug-supply and fund a welfare-system I just had to gather reading-material and watch the news to see the approach which works. When I at one point thought the government should run the school-system I only had to compare the government and the free enterprise to change my views. The list is endless and always makes my opinions swing further towards a belief of a free and open market of limited government and increased self-control of people and companies. If I at some point was a little to the left on various issues, those have quickly changed.
I can only imagine that the situation is similar for a large number of individuals in search of their political beliefs. Icelanders have for the past 15 years or so seen more of the power of free enterprise than many other nations, and I hope the process will continue until we can finally hope for a free society.
So what's the deal? Am I doing something wrong by having strong opinions on the aspects of free trade and limited government? Am I just a brainwashed believer of some words of wisdom I read in books I've been told to read? Are my political opinions in any way different from those religions people have when it comes to their religion? For example, the Bible says Jesus died and rose back from the dead, and therefore that's my belief. Is this my take on what I think about the power of free trade?
In short: No. In a little longer version: I do not have opinions which I can't back up with both logic and facts. A strong part of my views are based on reasons of logic and fairness, but another part, and perhaps a more important one in many peoples minds, is based on experience of human kind with various forms of government and interference with peoples freedom and property. I state with 100% certainty that a very limited government which focuses on protecting people from violence and from hurting others and their property is the "system" which is best fitted to give good and long lives to the vast part of humanity. Those who don't exceed in this system can easily be helped by others. This I back up with reasons of logic, fairness and of course - experience!
Since 9/11 the debate worldwide has more or less handled one thing: Terrorism. We all want to be safe, right? We don't want our houses to be bombed away by men who hate us, our religion, our way of life and our sins against some god or another, right? I imagine no-one likes terrorism and terrorists. But how to fight it? Shall we do like the Left says and obey every demand made by catholic, Islamic, Christian or just generally deranged terrorist makes on us, do what the most crazy ones would like us to do, and hope everything turns out well? Do we really have to give up our way of life, our freedom, our views and our politics to make everything neutral and therefore happy in some sense? It would decrease terrorism I imagine, and no-one would have any reasons to hold a grudge against anyone else, but I'm not so sure that's the way to go.
So what is best? Here are a few thoughts on that, which combine the very precious free-trade with the so-called war on terrorism. Lets quote:
But free trade should not be seen merely as a bargaining chip. Free trade is a good, contributing to better living standards for all peoples. Unfortunately, the very forms of beneficial voluntary person-to-person contact that are instrumental in defeating terrorism, and that are celebrated by the free-market trade, private investment, tourism, cultural exchange – have come to a near standstill. Reversing these trends should be a primary objective in the campaign against terrorism.So I say: Away with soldiers, bombs, Leftists, politicians, threats, embargoes and other instruments and tools of governments to shape the world in their image. Free trade goes a long way in eliminating conflicts, ignorance and the need to go to arms to fight for causes. Leftists who oppose it should realize this as soon as possible and therefore take part in making the world a better, free-er and safer place. Right now they contribute to the opposite.
In short: No. In short I will state here and now that those who fight against Capitalism are either ignorant or stupid. Does that sound like an arrogant point of view? Allow me to try to explain myself then.
Those who oppose Capitalism oppose a number of other things at the same time, whether they acknowledge it or not. For example, they oppose:
Why shouldn't politicians try to make sure in some way that everyone has this and that, and access to this and that, and be left alone to do so? Well, why doesn't Socialism and its bastard-baby, Communism, work? Why hasn't and won't the so-called Third Way work? Because as soon as you try to control the natural process of free exchange of services and products between peaceful induviduals, you might as well throw sand into an engine and expect it to work better. I can name a long list to underline my point, and I will:
The point is that those who fight against Capitalism can't stand how some people become extremely rich, while others pretty much stay the same. They call it the "income gap", and hate those to are at its higher end. The opponents of Capitalism must learn that those who are rich invest, and those who are poor gain jobs. Under the system of Capitalism, the free flow of money and people insures that the best solution at each time is underway. Under a system of Socialism, the restricted flow of money and people, enforced by law and governments, insures that something else than the best solution is underway.
The Swiss parliament, the House of Representatives, recently voted narrowly against decriminalizing the production and consumption of cannabis for personal use in Swiss. The main promoters of the decriminalizion are Leftist - the centre-left Social Democrats and the Green Party. Strong supporters of the decriminalizion are the Federal Health Office in Swiss, and police officials and teachers. Those against the decriminalizion are the right-winged and centre-rights in Swiss.
In Iceland it's the other way around. Leftists in Iceland are very keen on banning this and that. The Left in Iceland voted against selling of beer in Iceland in 1989, and the far-left in Iceland is very opposed to allowing anyone except the State to sell beer and wines. No-one dares to mention decriminalizion of any kind of drugs in Iceland. Just the thought of it is considered "extreme right" in Iceland, and no political force will discuss the issue openly except the Libertarian Society of Iceland (wiki). So the political-scale is reversed in Iceland compared to the fellow-European country of Swiss. I find that remarkable.
But I know like many others that the Left-Right is often not an applicable scale in personal affairs. It usually comes down to the economic issues, where the Left wants a big government taxing everything that changes hands, and even properties which don't change hands are taxed, while the Right fights for lower taxes and increased personal responsibility (which, as a result, will improve everything the government handles today and lower costs and increase selection and reduce government-excited poverty and so on).
The author of The Law, Frédéric Bastiat made many points about the socialistic attitude of looking at people like sheep, or a piece of land. Socialists tend to have the attitude of looking at people as materials for social-experiments. They say: "Lets raise taxes and expand government here and here and see what happens." Then they say: "Lets raise taxes and support this artist, this industry and this sheep-farmer and hope for the best." And of course they say: "Lets impose moral-laws upon the ignorant people, so they wont think bad thoughts, or at least not express them to anyone." This is the socialistic attitude of Bastiats time, and its the same today.
It is sometimes amazing to hear a socialists (Leftist) ask if a libertarian state has been tested out somewhere. Then it's not good enough to point to the USA during its 18th and 19th century, where a minimal-state of limited government and individual and economic freedom gave millions of poor, non-skilled immigrants from Europe the chance to create the wealthiest and strongest state in the world in record-time. It's not enough to point to Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan - countries with little or no natural resources but with citizens which enjoy some of the highest living-standards in the world. It's not enough to point out how Germany, Sweden and other European-countries made their fortunes after World War II. It's not enough to give examples.
Also, the logic of justice and fairness do not suffice. Is the free market just and fair? I don't know. Is it fair that some are poor and some are rich? Probably not. Why can't I buy a car but others can buy cars and houses? Hard to say. But does the government have a role when it comes to all of these moral-questions? No. Why not? Because when the government increases one persons income, it reduces someone elses, and asks for no permissions. Much like theft, isn't it? And if we think theft is immoral, it shouldn't make any difference if the thief is Robin the Hood, Uncle Sam or the bum down the road. But the fairness- and justice-logic doesn't work on the Left either.
Bastiat said:
Law is justice. And let it not be said - as it continually is said - that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.The law, the government, or government-agents - those entities are not what define, shape, encourage, inspire or teach individuals. Individuals are more than capable of that themselves. The government should simply protect our rights to act, think, say and do what we want, as long as we don't impose violence and property-damage on to other individuals. Given the law is restricted to that role, we will in future like in the past see magnificent changes in the society of man, improving lives, abolish poverty and hunger, and so on.
200 years ago, many great thinkers sat down and figured out that the government is at its best when its doing the least, focusing on protecting rights and properties of free people. Today, experience has proven this point time and time again, and that plus the arguments of fairness and justice should have eliminated the threats of socialism and Leftism a long time ago. The reason it hasn't is partly unknown to me.
Bastiat predicted many things which today have come, and said many things which still hold valid. Please read his following words:
The Vicious Circle of SocialismDidn't Bastiat here, like many other free-market liberal philosophers in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, just predict the totalitarianism involved in the communist-states of the 20th century? Where the state owned all production tools and gained them by taking them from the people, and where liberty as a consequence suffered greatly. Where the system of socialism ended in sufferings of millions and kept people poor and hungry for decades. Where endless belief in government-interferance led to the near-end of individualism and the free will of men, or as close as possible to that socialistic goal.
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?
Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.
And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?
Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.
Here's a quote especially appropriate today, although it's from the 19th century:
A Confusion of TermsI strongly recommend that everyone reads The Law and not only learns very good points about socialistic attitudes, but first and foremost the attitudes of a man who wants individuals to be free from all violence and force, as long as they don't use violence and force on others. An ideology called by the Leftists in Iceland, "nýfrjálshyggja" (neo-libertarianism, strangely enough), and has lived and will live as long as totalitarians, authoritarians, Leftists, social-democrats, Greenies or any other types of socialists walk this planet.
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
The largest Protestant denomination in America---Southern Baptists, with 16 million members---will be voting next week on a resolution calling on their members to remove their children from government schools!Now how about that? The voice of educational freedom is no longer a small, weak libertarian one sitting in some corner. People seem to be fed up and now a mass-movement has risen to free kids from the public school-system. More on http://www.GetTheKidsOut.org. This movement of Southern Baptists is a religious one of course, but their cause applies for every group in society where there are children and parents who seek for a good education. Isn't that simply everyone? I would think so. But it has to start somewhere, and a religious based freedom-fight is just as good as any other.
The government and the agitators of government-run social programs, like the education and health care system, mean well. They simply want "equality" and "fairness" and believe, with some degree of honesty, that government-action is necessary to achieve that (and of course I mean government-transfer of funds from one person to another without asking anyone for a permission first). They are, in my humble opinion, dead-wrong. Actually, they couldn't be more wrong! Government-run programs are in fact like badly run companies in almost any respect, except for the part of going bankrupt. They don't have to show good outcomes, and they can always demand more funds from their "customers" (taxpayers) without having anything to show for it. Then why be stubborn and still demand even more government-expansion?
I support the Southern Baptists and others who are trying to escape Big Brother and bring better future for their children. In general, I support all those who want to be free from the web of "common values", and start to live their own lives individually. People have compassion, and people generally just want to live in happiness and freedom. If we let them do so, then there will be more energy and efforts for those who are left behind and really and genuinely need help. We don't need the government to achieve that. We simply don't.
Leftists are a very broad group of people, just like those to the Right of course. Leftists call themselves Greenies, Social-democrats, liberals (in USA), feminists, radicals (in Iceland anyway) and then of course there are those who say they don't want to label themselves anything, not join any political organization or club, but are in fact very hard Leftists in heart, although they pretend they are neutral and above the daily disputes.
All of these different kinds of the same sub-specie: the Leftist, have one thing in common: They want to control! Yes, that's right. No matter what they call them-selves, or even if they don't call themselves anything at all. They have this common need to get as deep as possible into peoples lives, jobs and hobbies and regulate, manipulate, guide, force and of course, tax! They don't like or trust the free market and don't listen to any reason in that respect. They don't trust individuals to handle their own properties well enough to escape regulation and taxation. They want to ban smoking, overcharge alcohol and force people to pay to government-run pension-funds. They want pollution to kill, but not by increasing it to the levels needed so it could kill, but by forcing the world-economy to spend so much money to prevent so little pollution, that no money is left to spare for those who might need it for drinking water and food.
A shortage of free-market capitalism, if you will, is the Leftist drive. A shortage of freedom - that's the Leftists drive! Too much freedom will generate too much prosperity for Leftists to thrive in, or at least make the damage they create of lesser extent. Big Leftist-names like Stalin and Hitler were men who made it to high offices with almost unlimited powers to control every detail of society. In short, the Leftist dream! The results? Millions of dead bodies after thousands of special-interest government programs, designed to achieve some common goal of success and progress, but resulted in the destruction of lives, wealth and resources. A true Leftist-utopia as a result of a fertile ground for Leftist-growth.
To destroy fertility for Leftist-growth, those to the Right need to fight for freedom and capitalism and generate prosperity so abundantly that no Leftist will ever make it to the top of the government-structure. And if it is to happen, like it did in Iceland a few years ago, the Left must be fought with full force and no surrender! Never underestimate the Leftist-need to govern others. Don't let the Leftists new-age names for himself fool you. He is simply an offspring of the same ideologies that drove Stalin and Hitler to insanity and massacres!
The Leftist will be born for undetermined future, and perhaps not extinct until we reach the level of freedom, technology and prosperity like described in Star Trek and other libertarian future visions, where the "the Collective" of the Borgs is not the friend, but the ultimate enemy. I will probably not live to see that happen, but I will do my best to speed things up. Meanwhile, I hope everyone will realize what drives the Leftist, and why it's bad and needs to be fought.
