Two approaches - sometimes same result

Leftists, conservatives and libertarians more often than not have different goals in their battles. Leftists generally want the State to regulate everything, tax everything and govern most things. Although many Leftists tend to show compassion for, for example, homosexuality and even cannabis-usage, they still have great need to control peoples income and therefore time and efforts. Conservatives have more understanding for peoples need to control their own finances, but sometimes tend to impose moral codes on everyone, but not with every ones consent. Libertarians of course understand that true freedom means both moral and financial freedom, and that people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't enforce violence upon anyone.

But sometimes these groups share goals, although they use different methods of achieving them. Lets take for an example the so-called media-laws which have now been imposed in Iceland, and I have discussed on this website once or twice. Almost all political parties, except those holding power in Althing (Icelands parliament) agree that those laws are bad. They will impose restrictions on media-ownership and work against their own designated goal of increasing the variety in Icelands media-market. But how come all the different groups of libertarians, Leftists and conservatives can share a common goal like this? Well, the reason is this: Different arguments - same goal.

Of course libertarians oppose these laws for idealistic reasons - the market can function just fine without special regulations for this and that, and the consumer is in the end the one who decides who lives and who dies on the market. Conservatives, or the few of them who oppose the law, say that the laws have a too broad scale, and should be reduced to something less and more general (the laws will only affect one media-company in Iceland now - a company which the prime minister of Iceland isn't too happy about). The Leftists? Well, the Leftists only want some other laws than this one, but have not once said exactly what is implied in that.

But all in all a number of very different groups can agree on something, but each on his own terms. Even freedom-fighters like libertarians sometimes have to join authoritarians like Leftists to fight against some government action. When it comes down to it though, the Left will never do things for the right reasons as long as they stay to the left, although they sometimes hit the right note when it comes to picking their battles.

Welfare system - whose welfare?

The expansion of the so-called "welfare system" in Western countries is a remarkable phenomena and really a good example of how things should not evolve. This system is designed to do what? Yes, help those who for some reason can't help themselves, whether it's for a short period (the unemployed, the temporary ill or the mentally down) or a long period (the critically ill, the mentally challenged or the permanently handicapped). This, of course, has been a function which people have carried out without government interference for a long time. The Red Cross was founded by kind-hearted people and funded by kind-hearted people. Charity-hospitals have existed since hospitals in general have existed. Volunteer-work to help those who need help plays an important role in many peoples lives in many countries. We buy lottery-tickets and donate money on regular basis to support some good cause. But why all this government getting in the way?

Before Word War I and II, governments in Western countries were more or less small and had very limited but important jobs of protecting human rights and upholding the law. But with many years of bad economic-control and a number of hugely expensive wars, this changed. This is especially true for World War II which more or less crippled most of the major-economies in the world. Here is a little summary in that respect. Governments found themselves with destroyed markets and had to take some action. Some, like Germany, followed the guidance of free-market promoters like Hayek and Mises and quickly recovered. Free-trade alliances were formed between "friendly" countries during the Cold War and created large wealth and huge prosperity, while others hung on to socialistic means and showed good results in the short run, but devastating ones in the long-run. We all remember the Soviet Union don't we?

But although the free-market was given space to create prosperity and longer and better lives, most countries made the mistake of holding on to their "temporary" welfare-systems, and those systems continued to grow and continue still. The result is that countries like Sweden, which started out good, have now declined in huge steps, and even in Sweden the socialists have been forced to swallow their pride and privatize many of the governments functions to allow for some forward-movement.

Now the situation is that the public welfare-system in most Western countries is in fewest cases helping those who really need help. Do we want to help people educate themselves, have good health, get good jobs and stand on their own feet? Yes, I would think so. But does that happen by allowing the government to hold most of the major functions in society in its grips? No. Not at all. But why is that the case then? It's because what started out as a small-scale temporary means of getting back on track after years of devastating wars and failed government-economic control has now resulted in an over-grown ever-thirsty government blackhole which sucks in the time and energy of everyone, so that everyone is in need of help.

The situation is bad. It's bad for those who really need help, and it's bad for those who are forced to hand such a large share of their income to the government that they become needy of help. Every day we are told that the government needs to fund this and support that. We should ignore such lies, and better yet, demand that the government does less and focuses on doing well what it does now. That's the only welfare most of us need - the welfare of being left alone until proven in need for something else.

Fatties

It seems a little e-mail I wrote to Radley Balko after reading his article on obesity and public health received his attention and, like often happens when small islands in the middle of nowhere are discussed, led to some thoughts about porn and how few Icelanders are. Both is true of course - Icelanders have porn and there aren't so many of us. But the thought of Iceland in the minds of libertarians and other right-winged liberals should rather be about private-property rights of fishing quotas and well, Bjork. Is that really all we have going for us in Iceland? That and Lazy Town of course.

Three things about France

The following is a list of three facts about France, in three currencies:

• "The French public health insurance scheme is heading for a $15.5 billion deficit this year, threatening to bankrupt the system." (#)
• The social security system in France "has an annual deficit of 11 billion euros". (#)
• "[T]he 35-hour [working] week ha[s] lumbered the [French] state with £10 billion a year in additional social charges and [...] demoralised millions of workers." (#)

If the French can teach us anything then it's the fact that whatever seems like a perfectly good government-operation and -regulation is in fact a death-sentance for future generation's life savings and standard of living. I hope more people won't have to suffer to establish that fact even better.

Governments purpose

Some people wrongly accuse the advocates of libertarianism and related ideologies of being in favor of anarchism, and in general, of being anarchists. But this is wrong of course. Although both fight for limited government in the sense of wanting it limited from its size today, the two ideologies, libertarianism and anarchism, have a very different view on what the "end goal" should be. A short explanation now follows, which of course is biased since I am a human being with opinions and views:

Not all people are good and nice, and not all people care for other people. Some are selfish and violent, and some have a strong need to hurt others just like others have a strong need to heal and help. But most people just want to exceed on their own, live a peaceful life and do their own thing without posing violence to others. For the rare exceptions, there is generally a need for some law-enforcement and of course a court-system to clear disputes and decide a fair retribution when rights have been violated, be it government run or privately run.

Anarchists think a little different. They deny the need for law-enforcement besides a civilian-run one of course, and I don't think they are in favor of a court-system run by the state. I think they want some kind of citizen-councils to come together when something needs to be decided by the public, and be dissolved when the issue has been cleared out. But enough about that (since I'm on very weak ice when talking about the very broad term of "anarchism") ...

What most Leftists and many conservatives say is that libertarians want a very weak government which practically has no role in human society. That is wrong, and this is what makes people confuse libertarianism with anarchism. What libertarians want is a very strong government but with the very limited but important role of protecting people properties and rights. Not a complete definitions but close enough.

But don't we need to make some arrangements to prevent corporations to take everything over and force the public to buy stuff it doesn't need for the price they don't want to pay? No. The very strong government will maintain a free-market environment - no corporations set the law no matter how powerful they are. Corporations can only maintain their size by pleasing the consumer, but while they do so they will face no government action, such as "anti-trust"-laws or "competition-laws", which always come down to anti-trusting the consumer and reducing competition when it comes to pleasing the consumer.

But doesn't the government need to protect the environment? No. Where private property-rights have been clearly defined, and protected by law, there will be no such thing as pollution without the explicit agreement with the owner of land/soil. This is obvious of course. Where is pollution the biggest problem? Is it not in countries where big corporations have been able to grow strong without government action? No. Pollution is not the same in all countries which have heavy-industry inside their borders, for example. Pollution is the greatest problem in the lands of collective ownership of land, like in the former states of the Soviet-union, and many countries which have governments who have listened to socialist-propaganda about environmental-protection. Simply upholding a strong protection of well defined private property-rights is the environmental-protection which we need, and little other.

How about the poor and the children? The oldest cliche of the Left is to say that a huge government is necessary to help the poor and help the children. This is wrong. In free economies fewer people are poor than in socialist-economies, the poor are richer, the poor are poorer for a shorter period of time and the poor have more options of earning themselves up the income-ladder. This the Left wants to exchange for a system where the poor remain poor, but remain it in such a way that they wont really have to break out of poverty and, in fact, can hardly break out of poverty! Government expansion harms first those who have low income and great difficulties with putting out money for this government program or that, although it is meant to help those who need help. Historically, those who enjoy the fruits of "unlimited" capitalism are those who have worked their way fastest out of poverty and, in given time, become among the richest.

What about markets with market failures? Doesn't the government need to regulate them? This has never worked out to be an argument which holds. What markets are we talking about? Well, mostly people mean the markets of health-care, both the healing part and the insurance part. One popular term to use is information asymmetry and even use it with a tone which indicates that no other arguments are needed! I mean, doesn't the doctor know more about healing than the patient being healed? Can't the doctor overprice the patient and heal him badly without the patient being any wiser? Won't insurance companies find themselves mostly stuck with patients that are all very sick, because the healthy people won't see the point of insuring themselves?

This is actually the core and essence of the case against market-run health-care systems. Everyone agrees that the most poor will probably need help with paying the medical-bills, and also poor students and so on, but that is no case against the market, since privately provided help is abundant where the government stays out of financing (because less taxes mean people generally give more to charity and related operation). But the information asymmetry? Well, that's no good is it? In short, the case of that argument is also a weak one, and the reader should simply ask himself how much he knows about his future car-crashes before he buys insurance for the car, or how much he knows about fires coming up in his house in the future, and how the insurance companies attract buyers who generally drive pretty damage-free and have good fire-protection gadgets in their homes. (Hints: Bonuses, discounts and refunds.)

But you forget the poor people in other countries! We need government to provide them with help! Do we? How about just not restricting them with customs and excessive regulation and let them trade with what they have, and become rich the same say we did! Experience shows:

• Free trade gives rise to wealth.
• When a certain part of the people have the means to become rich, they tend to lift the living-standards for others in their society, and therefore allow even more people to participate in wealth-generation.
• When people start to enjoy the wealth of capitalism, they tend to demand more freedom in social matters and political ones as well.
• Results: Capitalism encourages freedom and democracy

This has been found true for many societies, if not almost every one! So to the original question - to help the poor in poor countries, we need to give them free trade, but not free aid, and capitalism instead of socialism (unrestricted aid and loads of trade-restrictions) and fascism (give aid which ends up in the hands of corrupted politicians).

A system of private property rights and well protected civil rights, or libertarianism and related ideologies, is the system of choice. Don't confuse it with something else. Thank you very much.

My health or public health?

I simply can't resist posting this on my site:

The best way to alleviate the obesity "public health" crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there anyway. It's difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans.

That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with one's health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn't belong to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own retirement, we're less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a cold.

We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices. (#)

There.

To consider

One of my all-time favorite quotations is a one by the German priest Martin Niemöller, which fell into the hands of the Nazis when speaking a little too freely in their opinion.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

These words still have a very strong message for modern-people in "free" countries. Every single day the government tries to restrict our freedom in this way and that, and every time we don't bother too much to protest because it's not really affecting us. Or is it?

I live in Iceland. I can pretty much say whatever I want, but there are exceptions. Recently a man was found guilty on criminal charges because he spoke a little "too" freely about black people in Africa. He said they were lazy. He became a criminal. But there's more: I can't speak publicly about tobacco in Iceland, except to warn against its harmful effects. Not a bad law? I mean, tobacco is un-healthy isn't it? And of course black people in Africa are not lazy, right? Well, that is completely besides the point. The Earth is round, but what has that to do with the law, and not with free speech?

Whenever we accept freedom-restrictions like the ones I mentioned, we put the taste of blood in the mouths of those who feel the great need to use the government to control this and that. I've heard of all kinds of ridiculous suggestions made by such blood-needing people. Some simply want to ban fast-food restaurants near schools because kids are getting fatter. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Others claim that the government should forever and ever be the only seller and distributor of alcohol and tobacco. I mean, isn't it un-healthy for us anyway? Still others now say that the media should not under any circumstances be owned by "too few" individuals or companies. Exactly what that means seems to be a more of a debate that the "fact" that there is need for those laws. And of course the list is endless. The taste of blood has been passed out, and not the cannibals of freedom seek fresh pray to extend their lives with.

Someone once made the very good point to state that God himself only seemed to need 10 commandments to ensure a civil society of honest and hard-working people. Why do we then need so many more?

Those who need to control others

I hope I'm not putting myself in a situation where I wrongly use various terms and expressions according to the reader, since the same words sometimes mean different things in different countries. But here goes!

Two groups of modern, free people have a very deep and sincere need to control others, namely the Leftists and conservatives. When I use these terms I mean:

• Leftists: People in favor of an expanded government operation in cultural and educational affairs, as well as in health-care and welfare. They believe that a forced transfer of money is the key to a just and fair society of chances in life and well-being of all. On the other hand, the Leftist generally have no troubles in moral and ethic affairs.
• Conservatives: Not as keen on running peoples budgets and generally favor a decreased tax-burden and increased privatization. However, they have huge issues with things like homosexuality and want to protect "Christian values" and are unafraid to put the government to use in their attempt to spread out their moral stands.

What those groups don't realize is that they are the same. Yes that's right - Leftists and conservatives are the same. In my mind, there is no difference between the need to control behavior directly by inforcing moral-codes, or indirectly by removing peoples income and in that way shift behavior from one thing to another. Is there any difference? You can stop me from having a baby by either banning me directly to have sex outside of marriage, or indirectly by removing enough money away from me so I can't afford a baby (not that I have anything in my name today except debts, but you know..).

These restrictions affect the personal responsibility of people. Lets take for an example health-care like the Left wants it run: I can smoke and smoke but my medical-bill for my self-inflicted damage will be paid by everyone else (besides the small amounts I paid via tobacco-taxes). I can complain about a cough and throat-irritation and demand expensive drugs to heal me since I've paid taxes already and the health-care should therefore serve me, no matter at what cost.

The controlling groups, the Left and the conservatives (according to my definition) have huge issues with other people. "Other people shouldn't do that or spend on that" they say, showing complete overconfidence in themselves and lack of trust for others. But they are not all that bad. The Left often show tolerance in moral-issues and generally don't mind other peoples religions and sexuality as long as they are peacefull citizens. The conservatives generally don't have huge problems in trusting people with their own income, and maybe put the government-focus on all kinds of programs to help those who can't help themselves after being relieved of the tax-burden (although that's one of the worst things to do to groups that have troubles!).

Gratefully, the combination of the Leftist and the conservative, namely the Fascists and Socialists, have seized to exist as any real power anymore. I'm grateful for that, although my irritation towards those who still need to control others is great.

Cheeky propaganda

There are many ways to convince politicians to raise taxes, expand the government, regulate the economy and interfere more with every day life of people. One way is to pinpoint a very short period of time when some number is high, and use that number when speaking about certain conditions in general. A very popular method to say the least although it is on the boundaries of being called a lie! Lets take an example:

Rather than admit they have been overstating the number of uninsured by a factor of two and make an embarrassing retraction, which might tend to deflate the campaign, Cover the Uninsured Week continues to claim there are 44 million uninsured. The only possible way to explain this is that they take refuge in the CBO's finding that the original, faulty government statistic does happen to be roughly equivalent to the number of Americans who lack insurance at any specific point in time, rather than for the entire year. (#)

In a similar way I could for example say that I have cold coffee in my cup now (later finding out it wasn't really that cold). Does that mean that cold coffee as such is a problem for me? No, because the coffee-machine is not far away, and I normally have hot coffee whenever I want, and it usually stays warm when I'm drinking it (although it doesn't now because I'm writing this post). I could however create the cold-coffee problem because the coffee could get cold at some time and we don't want that ever to happen, do we?

Why is it not such a good thing that noise-making groups like Cover the Uninsured Week use and abuse flawed statistics in order to receive attention from the politicians? Because it might lead to increased government expansion, and in the case of government-run health care systems, that could mean that "having coverage does not always guarantee access" to medical care. Icelanders know that all too well, with long waiting-lists and a financially crippled health-care system (although government-contributions to it are in historical high).

I urge the reader to read the full article and think about it's final words, which more or less apply for all markets:

A better goal would be to restore to America's largely socialized health care system the market processes where producers compete to provide consumers with value, and consumers keep costs down by patronizing efficient producers and avoiding inefficient producers. That patient-centered process has begun with the introduction this year of health savings accounts, and it will do more to provide quality, affordable health care to the masses than a century of Cover the Uninsured Weeks.

Right? Right. I have said it again and I will say it now: Let the government do whatever it wants, as long as it stays out of important things like health-care and education!

In more detail: More reading-material. A few words on information asymmetry and the health-care market.

Copy-cats

One of the loudest arguements for banning this and restricting that in Iceland is that "other countries" have taken this and that road towards contraints and regulation. Of course we have the arguements of "social good" and "nationally beneficial" (or "þjóðhagslega hagkvæmt" as we call it in Icelandic), but the "other countries"-arguement is one of the most abused ones. Lets take an example:

Recently a law-change was proposed in Althing (Icelands parliament) which shifts the criminailty of prostitution from the prostitude to the buyer and the "pimp" (or a third party of some kind). I could of course name an endless number of arguements for why I think prositution shouldn't be considered illegal at all but for now I won't. I just want to say that one of the biggest arguements for this law-changing proposal is that "in Sweden they have taken this path", and more often than not, with apparently "good results", although that is not at all the case unless we evaluate "results" by what we see on the streets. The fact is actually that prostitution has been made an even worse field to operate in in Sweden, and not to mention the neighbouring countries since the poision of unfair laws spread just like freedom spreads welfare and improved living for those who enjoy it.

This "other country"-arguement can of course be used, and is used by others than the Left of course. For my part I have pointed out again and again that the paths Sweden has taken in the operation of health-care and education have lead to seemingly very positive results for patients, doctors, teachers, parents and children, but the Swedes are now privitazing many schools and hospitals and allowing the private sector to educate and cure in greater measure than before. So yes, I have used the "other country"-arguement and will continue to do so.

However, this form of argument has faults like most other kinds of arguements. It shouldn't be used about bad regulations and bad laws. In the case of prostitution, there are few or no laws that protect prostitutions from violence and abuse better than allowing them to operate legally, so that the police and the legal system protects prostitutions like every other citizen. By making this party or that a criminal, there will be consequences which decrease the quality of life for those who didn't do all too well before - namely the men and women who seek to earn money by selling sexual favours. This has been verified a thousand times, but still in countries where noisemakers like left-feminists have strong influence, there continue to be criminal laws against consenting adults in search of sex or sex-related services.

One day the government will pass laws that will restrict you in some way or another, although you know that you are not doing anything wrong and not violating anyones rights. I hope you will start doubting the wisdom of politicians before that, and fight against the government thinking on your behalf as a result. No "other countries"-arguements, or any other, should make you doubt your own integrity.

Two things to point out

For those interested (and Icelandic-speaking), writings of one of Icelands noisiest Leftist who, among others, shares the discussion-section I occasionally write in in the Icelandic newspaper DV.

I would also like to thank two links I've received to this humble little blog: Audda sends me a diss in disguise by finding it "appropriate" to link to me after trashing DV. Bjarni is a hardcore-freedom fighter and should be reason enough for libertarians to learn Icelandic.

Later thoughts: Maybe I shouldn't say that Audda is sending me a diss in disguise since she actually compliments my blog. Sorry 'bout that!

A personal story

For the past few weeks I have been writing once and a while in a newspaper in Iceland, DV, in a special column for discussion. Now it appears I will be writing regularly (every Tuesday) so my nagging voice is at least not tied to the internet.

I asked the editor for some inspiration today and he told me to write on a more personal level. So far I've been pretty focused on general discussion on current affairs, and trying to squeeze in a little libertarian message in a way that doesn't scare of Centrists or Leftists. But more personal? I can do that! Starting now!

I use glasses. I don't see very well. In fact, I see extremely bad. For those who know the language of eye-sight, I have about minus 8-9 on each eye, which basically means I can have no more than about 20-30 cm between my eyes and a book if I'm to read it without glasses. But that's not all. My eyes don't "point" straight, which also has to be corrected with the glasses. Terrible isn't it? I must be desperate for help, right?!

No, actually not. The government does not, by most part, interfere with the rules of the market for eye-wear in Iceland, besides taxing heavily of course. I go to an eye-doctor or some other specialist who can measure eye-sight, take the prescription to an eye-wear store and buy the latest of latest in eye-wear technology at a reasonable price. Well, maybe not the latest of latest, but still pretty advanced stuff compared to the prices. Dozens of eye-wear stores compete in the market, attracting customers with the best of the best at the lowest possible prices, trying to make profits for themselves but at the same time insuring bad-sighted Icelanders good and advanced products for reasonable prices.

Some will now argue that the glasses-buisness is a pretty special one, because there are so many people who need glasses, compared to e.g. those who need hearing-devices (which the government subsidises if you care to stand in a long line). For me, these arguements are bogus to say the least. I don't know how many percent of the population need hearing-devices, but compared to the number of eye-wear stores just in Reykjavik, I'm sure there is a very good marked for quite a few stores with hearing-devices, if only the government would get of the market and stop collecting taxes for hearing-assistance!

Another arguement is that the technology behing hearing-devices is much more complicated than with glasses. Again, I'm not so convinced. Glasses are now stronger and thinner than ever before, repel steam better, don't scratch as easily and are lighter. No-one can tell me there aren't great leaps of technology being taken with eye-wear every year. I'm sure the same goes for hearing-devices, cell-phones and MP3-players. The difference is not the complicated technology, which there already is great demand for. The difference is the bounderies the government puts on the free market when it comes to these things.

That was my personal story. I wish more people could "see" the way I see how the free market helps those who have real and desperate need for some things regarding health and social capabilities. The hell with it if the government destroyes theatres, museums and green valleys, if it would just get out of the buisness of helping those who really need help!

Let us celebrate capitalism on Sunday, June 6th, 2004.

Socialists and the free market

To the point:

Socialists cannot grasp the benefits of privatization because they don't understand the nature of markets. It's not enough to empirically show that privatization has generated benefits. One must explain why free markets produce these results: this is where Austrian economics has been exceptionally successful. (#)

True, true. Mises and Hayek and other Austrians are among the most influencal economists of our time and have done a better job than many others in explaining why limited goverment and indivudual freedom makes lives better and longer for more people than any other social system. Their legacy should never be neglected.

But why this distrust in the free market? Why does the Left need so much convincing? Of course I'm not saying that the Left should without a thought swallow all economic theories of the Right. Of course we should all be critizising in our minds and not follow some straight line to some one goal without a second thougth. Many of those who call themselves right-winged in politics have doubts about privatization of the welfare-system and others are not so sure that limited government would have the strength to protect private property and protect induviduals from violence and theft. However, they can be reasoned with and some kind of solution found which is based on the ideals of liberty and respect for the induviduals right to make right and/or wrong decisions at his own responsibility. This does not hold for the Left without some serious battles and that is bad and just prolonges bad systems and human sufferings.

Of course these thougths automatically bring me to Iceland where the so-called center-right government is passing laws against ownership of medias. The Left doesn't disagree with the "need" for restricting laws. No, no. They just disagree with how the law is being passed. Not surprising. Actually, rather typical. When there is talk about tax-cuts the Left can disagree in principle, but when there is talk about restrictions and more regulation its just the technicalities which bother the Left. Damn.

Dr. Ruwart says: Putting government in charge of protecting the environment is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. (#)

When everyone is in need of help

Alan Reynolds suggests a clever way to reduce the tax-burden:

I have discovered a foolproof strategy for beating the income tax, the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax: Lower your income.

Although not a very original idea, it's still fun to see it written out so clearly.

In many peoples mind, the government has a role when it comes to helping those who cannot work themselves or are suddenly faced with great difficulties of some sort, e.g. get a possible deadly disease which needs expensive treatment, or simply go broke. In order to finance this role, the government taxes those who work, saying it's "for their own best". I mean, we don't want diseases to kill of the poor or the poor to live in a society where they cannot educate themselves! But giving the government a role in providing everyone with a "fair chance" in life is a dangereous move, to say the least!

Most people don't need government support. They can afford to pay insurance, put aside money for hard times, own a house and a car, have good food on their tables and warm clothes on their shoulders and can take a nice summer-vacation. Most people in "free" economies are middle- and upper-class, although their livestyles vary greatly with income. Although the Left argues that income-inequality is bad in itself, this point should kindly be ignored. What is bad however, is how the poor are doing, and if they can afford to take time off, go to school or get health-care.

But the government shouldn't have a part to play in helping the poor with their basic needs of any sort. The European social-democrats will argue that if the government doesn't provide for somekind of support, then no-one will. Taxing the working people heavily, and distributing the tax-income to various institutions, is in their mind the only way to "make sure" the poor can go to school and see a doctor.

This arguement has not proven correct. The government, however well-intended the politicians are, will not succed in this role. The government has time and time again proven that it will tax the working people only to create institutions that require more and more money to do less and less. This hurts the poor the most because their lives are already a thin line between food and no food, or education and health care and no such thing. The government will at some point have created a system which will make everyone needy for government support, and only a few evil "rich people" are said to be on their own. A family with good income made by people with good education, living in a big house, and owning two cars, will at some point have to seek to the government for help. When 40% of their income has been sliced away and all government-run services made 50% more expensive than they are in the hands of private entrepreneurs, they will need support when they have children, when they use the roads, when they owe money and when they need to see a doctor. In Iceland, even buying a piece of lamb-meat or a liter of milk is an action which the government has interfered with. By its role as a helper, the government has made sure that everyone is really in need for help.

Why is this the case? Why is this tolerated? For that I have no good answers really. I'm not sure if I would protest against government-action in helping those who need help if it only showed a slidest sign of doing its function well. But like with any operation which is free of competition and consumer-feedback, the government does not. I can't say, "hey you government-people, start helping my poor neighbour or else!", but instead must watch a good portion of my salary go into a system that may, but probably wont, give help to those who need it.

Therefore, I call myself a libertarian. Therefore, I have the energy to fight government-run welfare- and support-programs in any way I can.

Government restrictions in Iceland

A few days ago I wrote a little something about a new law that are being passed in Iceland now - the so-called media law. These soon-to-be-laws will restrict the rights of Icelanders to own and run medias in such a way that today they will only affect a single company which our prime minister has a grudge for. A possitive side-effect of the laws seems to be largely increased interest in libertaria-views in Iceland, which of course benefits my political club very well. However, negative effects are still extreme.

But although many people are just now realizing the dangers in politicians with great needs for control, these dangers have existed since the beginning of government. A few years ago in Iceland, a man was declared guilty of breaking the law when he expressed certain oppionions about black Africans. The Icelandic government invites Chinese communists and mass-murderers to Iceland for talks and throw people in semi-jails when they want to come to the country and protest their abuse on human-rights. Not that a herd of a thousand professional-protestors is good for any city, but as long as no laws are being broken this should not be accepted. Icelanders are banned from talking about tobacco except to warn against its harmful effects.

The income-tax in Iceland (certainly a form of liberty-restriction) is about 39% for the middle-income person and up to 45% for people who happen to earn more than a certain amount per month. No wait - if you can live of interests you get away with 10% tax, and if you can hide your income with a dummy-company you might find a way to pay 18% tax. In short, the government creates huge gaps in the tax-system, tempting people to pull all kinds of stunts to hide their income.

Where am I going with this blog-entry? I have no idea. Ohwell. A little more on Iceland then.

The Icelandic government produces/provides the following things/services/recreation: Sex and the City, lamb-meat, swimming-pools, beer, classical music and theatre of course, besides the tradional health-care and welfare-bureaucracy. The list is much longer but these examples stick out in my head right now. Libertarians want this changed and want to move choices away from the politicians into the hands of people. I hope the new media-law will increase distrust people have in the government and create a wave of inlightenment in the name induviduality, compassion and free enterprise.

I am a polite man and therefore I return links with links.

Asymmetric information

I have never learned economics in school. I hardly know anything about the subject and I probably can't explain any economic-term in a sufficient manner. However, I do have some "home-schooling" in economics and I have studied some of the most-used terms in the public-discussion. I also know that many economic-terms are abjused by the Left to explain "market failure", and the term asymmetric information is one of them.

Information asymmetry has been defined as the situations where one party to a transaction has more or better information than the other party. This is an easy term to grasp. When you go to a doctor you don't have a lot of information about your condition other than a cough or a pain somewhere. The doctor says something, writes something and the next thing you know you have to pay a high bill for treatment and drugs without having any option of comparing differenct doctors or ask about other possibilities of cure! The same goes for car-buying where the car-dealer, or the car-owner who is trying to tell, has information which you don't have and keeps it so in order to jack up the price at your expense

This information asymmetry has been used by many to "explain market-failures" at various fields - the most popular ones being welfare-issues, health-care and education. Skeptics of the free market point to studies of economic Nobel-price winners like George Akerlof who say that "[i]t is even possible for the market to decay to the point of nonexistance" because of asymmetric information. Also:

Because of information asymetry, unscrupulous sellers can "spoof" items (like software or computer games) and defraud the buyer. As a result, many people not willing to risk getting ripped off will avoid certain types of purchases, or will not spend as much for a given item.

Of course, market sceptism has deep roots and will therefore continue to bring about many offsprings. However, in the case of information asymmetry, the Left will not succeed in their critisicm. The arguements, as far as I can see, are at best distant armageddon-theories. Can some-one point out any market free of information asymetry? I certainly cannot. I bought a phone in good faith of word-of-mouth, technical reviews, producers promises and sellers guarantee. The same goes for the computer I'm using now, the glasses on my nose, and so on. The Left is yet to learn that the free market doesn't need perfect flow of information about products between buyers and sellers. It only needs to offer induviduals to chose and not chose certain products/services for whatever reason they want. If a seller lies about his products, the free market will punish him faster than any government agency.

The new role-models of the Left like George Akerlof and Joseph E. Stiglitz may well provide usefull insigth into the function of the free market, and doubt and be concerned and whatever they want to be. They can probably explain better than others why socialism failed in Eastern Europe, and maybe even blame the West for it, and these men can probably argue that governments role should be greater and/or market distrust more ruling in peoples every day actions. However, as long as governments ignore their message, and stay away from the free market outside of law enforcement, then I'll be perfecly happy with their preaching.

Icelandic

Now I also have an Icelandic weblog again - geirag.blogspot.com. You choose which one you prefer. They are not the same material in different languages.

Logic versus feeling

Political-debate is a sensitive battleground for people with strong feelings and solid opinions. The complexity is not only regarding the issues themselves, hardcore facts about this and that or thick reports saying this and that. The complexity is also related to the different ways people discuss. Some are logical, others emotional. Some are both. Some are perhaps neither and think with their arse instead (though socialists are not that common as they used to be).

When it comes down to the straight hardcore facts, obvious experience with various experiments in politics, and pure statistics, the case is clear: The Right is right. However, we still see poor people in rich countries, and many are working physically hard jobs for low wages, and cannot afford many of the things others can afford. For the Left, this group is their one and only "logic" and "arguement" in politics. Why do these induviduals have so little in this society of abundance? Why do they get so little pay? Why? Hasn't capitalism failed them? Isn't this induvidualism creating pains and sufferings for those who have had bad fortune in their lives?

When something like this comes up, no logical reasons or hardcore facts suffice. Unless I say, "hey you are right! Lets tax the rich double than others and in that way transfer money to the poor so they can buy all the stuff they need not later than tomorrow!", I can not in any way calm the Leftist down. This is what he wants to hear. He is thinking, "all this money exists in the society today and simply has to be moved to those who need it the most", and will act accordingly. I can't stop him. I can't tell him that in societies of limited government interferance and great economic freedom, the poor are richer than the poor in societies of obeast governments, and are poor for a shorter time too.

I myself am an example of that. Right now I own nothing but depts and not a single object is in my name on papers. However, soon being graduated with a degree in engineering, I will hopefully get a job soon and start building up property and wealth and in just a few years climb high up the income ladder. Right now I am officially "poor". However, I live in an open market society in a country that is well plugged into the globalized job and financial market and therefore I am not too worried about my future possibilities - not even if my education turns out to be useless! I am sure my state of mind would be different if I lived in North-Korea!

But the beat goes on, like the poet said, and the Left will not be convinced. Feelings will again and again hinder any progress, and delay the Right by yet another 50 years in implementing a globalized world-economy of small and limited governments, protected property rights and restrictions on violence. What a shame.

Property rights

Like all well-informed, reasonable people today know, private property rights create and protect while "collective property" decreases and destroyes. However, we are not all well-informed or reasonable. Some must be taught, which in itself is okay but can sometimes be hard. How can you teach an old dog new tricks? How can you teach a socialist the laws and virtues of the free market, and thereby the advantages of private property?

One of the strongest advocates of private property-rights is Hernando de Soto, an economist who has long irritated the Left with his success in teaching the leaders of the poor states of the world to welcome private proparty rather than despise it. How so? Here is a short answer to that question:

In explaining property rights as vital to prosperity, de Soto makes plain that it is the system of property law, not just physical possession, which confers most of the value to property in the marketplace. This is true because ownership is much more than possession. It is a process of buying, selling, renting, and collateralizing that goes on constantly, and effective rules can only come from a legal process common to everyone in the marketplace. Local customary rules are not sufficient to create either a wide or efficient market.

This we must teach the Left. It is still being said that governments should own this and control that in the name of e.g. environmental protection. Nothing could be further from the truth (except socialism as an ideal but that's another story). The Right is to blame for this ignorance. We must teach the Left or accept their horrible doings!

Drafting

Two interesting articles about drafting:

• We Don't Draft Firemen by Alan Reynolds: "All these apologists for a military draft have earned the same respect we would accord anyone who openly advocates placing the financial interests of the state above the freedom of individuals, or to anyone who openly extols the practical and egalitarian virtues of slavery."
• The Economics of the Military Draft by Walter Williams: "National defense is an important government function; for rational decision-making, we mustn't permit concealment of its cost through measures like the draft."

Yes it's true: Even though many libertarians favour the national defense role in the hands of the governement, they still oppose draft. Thist just goes to show how wonderfully libertarians in general are against all forms of violence and force. Not even the government can apply force to carry out its core-functions (or more precise: especially not the government!).

And since I live in Iceland and we have no army I might add that the Icelandic government still finds ways of forcing people to work without compensation. An income-tax of about 39%, and higher for people earning more than a certain amount per month, is our goverments way of nationalizing the work-force.

Media laws create libertarians

The media laws I mentioned here before have had a surprising side-effect on the Icelandic Left, namely that the center-right government is now being beat up by the Left ...from the right! The Left is talking about and fighting for liberty and freedom of speech which in all normal cases should be a job of the Right. It has almost become a crime now to not be liberal enough! Very pleasent surprise for Icelandic libertarians to see the discussion in society evolve like this. It goes to show that many liberal-thinking members of the Icelandic conservative party - the only "right"-winged party in Iceland today - are getting restless nowadays, while the Libertarian Society (which aims on running for Althing in 2007) sits on the side-lines and gloats.

I must write more about "liberal", "conservative", "Right" and "Left" from the Icelandic perspective soon. It doesn't go well with the American versions I think.

Why libertarian?

One of the greatest myths clouding libertarianism (at least in Iceland) is that the followers of the ideals of induvidual freedom, free markets and limited government are just doing it "for the money". They are supposed to be young men in black suits and white shirts working for their dads financial company, selling and buying stocks and bonds all day, driving around in a sports-cars and living in a big house in the suburbs.

Needless to say - this is complete bullocks. Of course libertarians, like most others, are fighting for a fair and just society where everyone has food, clothes, housing, education, health care and some money to spend outside work. The myth itself is rubbish, but sometimes I think: Why is it that the right-winged are those who are thought to be obsessed with money, and the Left is the friend of the poor, hard-working labour?

The answer to this thought illudes me most of the times, but once and a while the picture becomes clearer. The Left is, in my opinion, a big bag of empty promises. In it's extreme form it creates death and sufferings for millions and millions of people, whether it's from slow and ongoing starvation (Soviet socialism - communism) or plain and simple executions and torture (National socialism). In it's weaker forms, e.g. the so-called "Third way", it creates pain and sufferings through countless numbers of "small" government interferance and special interest policies for institutions like labour unions, the Greens and left-feminists. Also, the third-way-leftist seem to be very keen on government-run health-care systems and school-systems, thereby creating sufferings by suffocationg market laws. However, all of this is covered up nicely with distrust-phrases against the free market and shoutings against buisness-men who do well and make more money per year than most of us see in our entire lives. Propaganda of that sort is easy to use because the man who has little or nothing will easily be tempted to envy and to hate those who do better. No considerations have to be made regarding the reasons behind one mans success and another mans failure. No-one mentions that the millionaire is more likely than others to invest in new technologies and ideas, and in the process of increasing his own wealth create new jobs and push into society newer, better and cheaper ways of doing or making the same things and new things which could improve our lives.

But the most remarkable about the good-will the Left has is still not explained. We all hear propaganda all the time and we are usually quick to filter the right from the wrong in our sensible logical heads. However, in the case of politics this process seems to have huge reluctance. The facts should, under any normal circumstances, suffice to eliminate the Left. Economic freedom has time and time again proven its powers to strengthen democracy, lengthen lives, raise the living-standart of the poorest of poor and so on. Countless pages of pure facts show that when government is limited to protection of induvidual rights in their broadest scale, and when government impedes and protects private property rigths in as many areas as thinkable, then lives improve for all. Why this hasn't been made clear to the public is a wrong which I aim on making right.

The mistery of the success of the Left will remain a mistery for me for now. I hope that can be cleared out somehow.

Attack on liberty

Although relatively right-winged in economic affairs (at least compared to the Left if that says anything), the Icelandic center-right government hasn't exactly been bursting with need to increase the liberty of the Icelandic public - especially not during the last few months. The latest act in that circus is a well-known phenomena in the West, or namely a law on restricted ownership on the media.

But the Icelandic version has it's uniqe aspects like often is. This time the prime-minister is out to get a father and son who got rich against his will, bought a newspaper and are now preaching "propaganda" and "biased news", or so the government says. So what? Is it not their freedom to do so? What does that have to do with media-laws? Well, now they are passing laws that are, at least when looked at, general laws which everyone should follow, but in reality only affect the buisnesses of the prior-named father and son. Ain't that a nice coincidence?

While all this is going on the Left is now trying to protest like it usually does. In this case however, many of the protests from the Left are against the government from the right! Now the Left is talking about freedom this and liberty that and the Right is trying to pass restrictive laws. All pretty weird I must say. Maybe I will bother to write more about it later.

What? Why?

Hi. This webpage is an experiment. I will try to maintain a website in English even though I am Icelandic. Hopefully something good will come out of that.

The purpose of the site is to write about politics in Iceland in English in such a way that foreigners can get a glimpse of what is going on. I will not claim I am a neutral source of information since my political views very seldom coincide with those of Iceland's esteemed politicians. An idea of what I stand for in politics can be found in my links to the right. I don't like socialists.

Testing

This is my first blog in English. Enjoy!