Friday, August 20, 2004

Outsourcing = good
European have been taught a new "bad" word: Outsourcing! Its meaning is supposed to be the following:
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?

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Is the State incapable of doing anything?
Many have asked me, knowing that I call myself a libertarian, if I think "everything" should be moved out of the hands of the State? Can't the State do anything according to my philosophy? Isn't everything the State does done badly?

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.

Monday, August 16, 2004

Denmark
I´ve moved to Denmark. Those who wish to call can do so via +45 2824 6896. Those who wish to mail can do so via geirag [@] frelsi.com. For now this page will be very scarcely updated, but with time I hope I can change that.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

The purpose and use of the tax-system
Taxes are something most of us look very differently at. They are usually a certain rate of our income and on prices of things we buy and sell. The purpose of taxes is to fund the State and its agencies and institutions. The State does not have to ask individuals and companies for permission before they are taxed, much like a thief doesn't ask before he steals. However, taxes are a legal theft.

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.