Unconnected dots

Elections in Denmark will be held on the 8th of February, and they have now become a ruling topic in the public debate. Denmark has many strange "leftovers" in their political spectrum, which most other states have shaken off a long time ago. One is the national-socialist Fremskridtsparti, and the two "normal"-socialist parties Socialistisk Folkeparti and Enhedslisten. All-together they account for about 10% of the Danish vote - a remarkable number in the beginning of the 21st century!

The appreciation for socialism has a few negative effects on the debate. For the last two weeks I have heard politicians protest tax-cuts because people just spend their money on trips to other countries and luxury items. This was considered a valid point in a serious debate! Tax-cuts are also protested on the grounds of increasing the income-gap between those who have jobs and those who don't. Seriously! This goes on and on. Danish people swallow these idiotic "arguments" and as a result the whole political spectrum is pulled to the left, with all the damages that does.

Another effect of the appreciation for socialism is a lack of understanding of how an economy in a capitalistic state works. Denmark, like many other countries in Western-Europe, is plagued by high unemployment. The Danish don't understand this. There are plenty of meaningful jobs which have to do be done, right? Yes, but they are not being done for a few reasons. To name a few:

• 'Bistand': Social welfare for those who can't or won't work for some reason, for longer or shorter time.
• 'Dagpenge': Social welfare for those who loose their jobs and (really) can't find another.
• 'Kontanthjælp': Social welfare for those who need money for longer or shorter time. If a person receives 'kontanthjælp' for longer than a certain period of time then a little work is required to "earn" the welfare-check.

The Danish "welfare" system is filled with open treasures for those who can't work, and those who don't feel like working. Also, Denmark taxes companies brutally, and being a member of the European Union, regulates them brutally as well.

But the Danish people don't connect these dots. They don't see why jobs aren't flowing over Denmark. They don't want to hear about any restrictions on social welfare, and all talk about tax-cuts on companies and individuals is blown out of the debate as fast as it comes up. Maybe Denmark needs to hear a little story about a little island in the north which did well in shaking of socialism, unemployment and economic stagnation?

More globalization

What are the problems of the world? Poverty, starvation, diseases, ignorance, wars and pollution and general disrespect for the environment. How can these problems be solved? The answer is relatively straight-forward: Increased globalization. I know why.

Poverty decreases with increased globalization. In pure economic-terms, more globalization means more trade, and more trade means more wealth being generated, and more wealth has the tendency to lift the most-poor fastest up the scale of living. A country X being 10 times richer than country Y means that the poorest in country X are 10 times richer than the poorest in country Y (this has been showed empirically many times). The tiniest increase in income for the poorest can make a huge difference. A huge increase in income more often than not makes little or no difference for those who are already rich. Therefore it is a battle against poverty which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Starvation and diseases are common companions of poverty. Therefore it is a battle against starvation and diseases which is involved in the battle for increased globalization. Also the environment cleans up when people can afford to have other things then the next meal on their mind. A good, clean environment is a very demanded luxary as soon as the basics of living are satisfied.

Ignorance gives rise to phenomenon like racism, sexism and general prejudism. Sometimes this leads to (civil) wars, but mostly it means limitations for free individuals who want to move around the world and work, study or hang out. Increased globalization attacks ignorance at its core, by breaking down borders and barriers and encouraging hard-working individuals and growth-seeking companies to travel around the world in search of the best conditions. Who thinks of skinny little Buddha-monks when thinking about India? Some do, but others are now beginning to think of able programmers who threaten to suck up all computer-related jobs in Europe if Europeans slack of.

Companies care only about one color: The color of money. Employers care only about one specification: The capability to work. Race, gender and religion plays no role in either case. Therefore it is a battle against ignorance which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Wars come in two, very different shapes: Those companies fight in order to attract customers and investors, and those governments fight in order to increase their power or ego. Companies gain nothing from slaughtering their customers. Governments can gain immensely from slaughtering their neighboring country's citizens (though never economically). Since the biggest states of Europe joined hands with free-trade agreements after World War 2, Europe hasn't seen a war (excluding the parts of Europe which had the bad luck of getting the communism-flu). Communist-China and 'capitalist'-USA fight trade-wars now, and no lives get lost in the process. Those areas on the planet which do have wars don't have free-trade agreements with their neighbors. By rushing the world as fast as possible into an almost unlimited globalization (elimination of trade-barriers, relaxation of regulations, etc), we rush into world peace. Therefore it is a battle against wars which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

The environment is a hot topic today. It's not because the environment is becoming filthier or worse than before. It's because people are afraid of the possibility of man taking the final, drastic step which tumbles the Earth's atmosphere over and pushes us into endless floods and hurricanes, and maybe even an ice-age. But fear or not the question remains: How can we protect the environment in an effective way? The answer: Increased globalization. But not just any globalization. We need a globalization based on private property-rights, and capitalism. Oil costs money. When Earth's oil-reserves become to small, oil-prices will rise enough to force people into using less. Property costs money. Therefore a destruction of a, say, forest via acid-rain gives rise to law-suites against those who polluted (given that the forest is in private ownership). A natural reserve filled with rare and exotic animals is bound to stay protected and taken-care-of while in private-hands. Everything else would mean a decrease in value, and only governments allow their property to intentionally drop in value.

There is always the problem of deciding what does what to whom, when and where. Is a car in Copenhagen destroying the wild-life in Canada? But those are small issues compared to the big picture: Those who destroy property must compensate or suffer the consequences. It makes no difference whether the property is a tree or a car. The law protects private property, and a court-system figures out who (most likely) made the damage. If some "pollution" doesn't bother anyone, no-one will prosecute!

The main-goal is to spread out globalization which will make those who damage property suffer the consequences. The acid-rains of Eastern-Europe during the Soviet-era should not be allowed to repeat themselves. Therefore it is a battle for a better environment which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Lets face it: Since globalization began to take of, everything it touches has been doing better. Those who hate America and McDonalds can easily verify that and still continue to hate America and McDonalds.

A small summary of my views

The following is a simple, simplified, small list of my views on various issues. It is to be taken seriously, but it should also be known that it contains no explanations or arguments.

• Private property is more feasible than public property (whatever that is). Objects or things in private ownership are more valuable than objects or things in State-ownership for all thinkable reasons, materialwise and otherwise.
• Individuals own their own bodies and can rightfully do whatever they want with them, as long as they harm no other bodies (against their will). No governmental or public agency may justifiable decrease the span of this self-ownership.
• Centralized organization of a society of men cannot be carried out successfully. Never.
• The free market in an environment of well protected human rights and private property rights will maximize the welfare of men when it's as free from government interference as possible. No other entity will do better then the free market when it comes to improving and lengthening lives of all individuals.

Any questions?

An ideological foundation

The basic difference between those who lean to the Right and those who lean to the Left is politics is, in my opinion, the need to control others. Leftists often use phrases like "design the society", "influence choices", "control the free market" and so on. Rightists more often use phrases like "release from the grip of government", "set people and enterprises free", "increase peoples freedom" and so on (or am I wrong?). I see very little difference in modern-day Leftists and old-fashioned communists and socialists because the basic underlying way of thinking is the same: Control of others and design of society. Some might think that's a big simplification. Doesn't the modern day Leftist celebrate the free market and free choices? Doesn't he share the Rightist's doubts about too much State-control over people and companies? Yes and no, but the theme is still "to control and design".

But there is another fundamental difference between those who lean to the Right and those who lean to the Left in politics, and that's the ideological foundation on which the ideas and opinions stand on. How can it be justified through logic and reason that the State has permission to interfere with people's choices and the free market? I'm not talking about the State's "right" to stop violence, fraud and assaults, but the State's "permission" to transfer money from one to another, to prohibit certain consumption, behavior and choice of lifestyle, and to limit "dangerous" speech and activities. How can the Leftist justify a State-operated, tax-funded welfare system given that free, consenting adults have permission to control their own bodies and property? Or is the condition "given that free, consenting adults have permission to control their own bodies and property" not one which the Leftist is aware of or shows respect for?

I really think the Leftist cannot reasonable argue for his views on the basis of sound logic and reason. I think the Leftist doesn't care about the individual and his unlimited freedom of choice and behavior as such, but more about how to form society into some given frame. The Leftist may say he believes each individual should be able to make his own choices and decide how to run his own life, but in reality this doesn't hold. I think in reality the Leftist doesn't care if he's violating the rights of individuals as long as he has a clear conscience and a goal for his society-shaping.

But maybe logic and reason isn't so important when it comes to politics. The mathematician has to prove each point in his argument by using well-founded, most-likely-absolutely-true axioms and other proven statements and sentences. Maybe politicians are the engineer who "adjusts" the math to reality, allowing some things to float a little from the absolute truth so as to fit the "real world" better. Maybe the tolerance is even greater. Maybe the politician should be allowed to decide, design and manipulate without any concern for the proven, logical points of thinking. That's how I see the Leftist: He only needs to say what he feels, but not what is true or logically right.

Unfortunately, I can't live with that mind-process. I'm not a Leftist.

The obstacle for freedom

I think only one thing stands in the way of Leftism being eliminated once and for all - the inability of many to understand that wishing government-control over one area of society translates into wishing government-control over the whole society. Leftists say they are tolerant when it comes to moral issues, saying for example that homosexuals should be able to get married, adopt and so on, and preaching equality for everyone (economic equality for most part). Leftists even use the word "freedom" when they praise their message!

But while one hand of the Leftist preaches freedom in moral issues, the other hand preaches government-control in economic issues. High taxes on the rich and low on the poor, they say. High taxes on everyone so that education, health care, roads and social security can be offered "for free". High taxes so that money can be given to those who chose to go to school or have children, or both. Strict laws on companies so they don't step on the consumer or offer too low/high/equal prices.

What the Leftist doesn't see is that this need to control the money-flow translates into control of moral issues. By holding the market in the grips of the State, people are held in the grips of the State. A historical proof is the apparently inescapable result of communism in practice, which always starts out as an economic expansion of the State, and always ends up being complete oppression of free will and free speech. As long as individuals aren't given the freedom to use their time, energy, money, common sense and property as they see fit (more or less), then they aren't given the freedom to make moral decisions themselves.

The dots are pretty well connected: Having the need to control the market = having the need to control individuals and their moral behavior, even though the Leftist doesn't realize it himself.

I will refer to this article for more details about the whys and whats about my statements here. Skeptics are advised to read. I note though that I don't consider myself an anarcho-capitalist like the author of the article.

To follow or be followed?

Once again John Ray touches a sensitive nerve in me - that of libertarians in the political mainstream-battle - if they should group up with one of the "big", existing parties (e.g. conservatives), or stand on their own. It's an issue I've mentioned once or twice, but I see a few more words are needed.

People make political decisions based on their political nature (or that's my theory anyway). Either it's the need to control, or the will to set free. John Ray says:

Libertarians have always opposed conservatives on issues of sexual morality and Leftists on issues of economic regulation so libertarians have always had to make a choice if they wish to do more than spend all their time talking to one-another.

True for most part. Libertarians have a big job fighting for freedom on all fronts, but no job when it comes to compromising with the Left on economic-issues and the conservatives on moral issues. The problem is that this fight sometimes means that libertarians can't win votes on their own. Whether or not libertarians should run independently is another story, in part discussed by me here.

For my part I have a big challenge voting for non-libertarian politicians, and I tend to think I have to vote to minimize the damage from politicians rather than voting according to my personal beliefs. In that respect I have always ended on voting for "the big right-party" because it is the only one which shows some understanding for economics. A policy that (more or less) focuses on material well-being rather than spiritual tends to lead to increased social freedom and moral tolerance. That's why a vote to the right will "cover more basis" than a vote to the left. Besides, in Europe the whole political spectrum seems to have gotten the age-old libertarian point that no government has the right to control people's sexual activities, personal decisions and moral standpoints. A big reason for that is the economic success of Europeans, or so I see it.

Whether or not libertarians should run independently or not is a complex issue. In Iceland the political landscape seems fairly well suited that. However, if libertarians run independently they should have the goal of decreasing the total vote of the left, rather than fight too much for existing right-votes with other existing, right-winged parties.