The Unfree Market

As an opposite to the Free Market of the Right, the Unfree Market is the core of the Leftist's political battle. The Unfree Market represents collectivism and government control over people and companies.

Historically, the Unfree Market has done more harm than most of the wars and diseases of the 20th century. Still it's being preached but of course with other phrases. To name one, the modern spokesman of the Unfree Market says that preaching government control over large proportions of the incomes of people and companies does not mean limited individual freedom. This, of course, is absurd because a particular action cannot have many different decisions behind it. A dollar can only be spent once and if the earner of the dollar doesn't agree with the State on how the dollar spent he might face jail time and other punishments. If an individual wants to say "fuck" and the State doesn't want anyone to say "fuck", the individual looses. When the State expands, the individual shrinks.

The Unfree Market also has other specifications than decreased freedom for individuals and their companies, such as giving individuals the feeling they are not the masters of their own destiny and not responsible for the decisions they make which result in the actions they take. Smoking, fatty and unhealthy diets, over-spending, stress, drug-usage and foul language become "social" problems. Rather than helping those who want to help to focus on those who need help and bring them together with those who seek help, everyone is made to believe they need help. The individual becomes a statistic that needs increased funding and/or more institutions.

The thought "free market" means individuals freely doing business with each other, or freely communicating, or freely exchanging something (money, goods, advice, hugs) for something else (stocks, gifts, recommendations, kisses) or sometimes something for nothing - and everyone participates as long as no-one harms anyone else with force (and if they do, the police shows up). Those who fight against the free market by promoting taxes, border-barriers, regulations and State-controlled moral-codes fight free co-existence of free humans and exchange it with canals for everyone to follow.

The Unfree Market is a terrible thing. Lets keep it in the history-books.

FAQ #3

Question: Private property rights are considered one of the basis of modern societies - the State needs to have a strong case to tamper with properties of free individuals. Why is it so? Shouldn't all property be evenly distributed and in common hands rather than tied to the individual? Wouldn't that ensure a more fair and prosperous society?

Answer: The case of private property does not seem to be a simple one, although few question its legitimacy anymore. Some say private property rights exists because individuals have a right to live. Others say that since property is created by labor of individuals and with the use of the individual's time and energy and thoughts, the right to private property equals the right to be free and not owned by anyone. There has even been said that private property rights are natural to the human being, and should therefore be respected.

The opposite view is that no-one should be able to claim something for its own since humans live in societies with other humans and should therefore accept their role as masks in a net rather than individuals in a community. The socialist questions private property rights for weak reasons and for the purpose of being able to redistribute wealth according to his whims and whishes.

But whatever the philosophical justification for private property rights the reality is that societies which don't respect the right of the individual to own something for himself remain poor and underdeveloped while others prosper.

FAQ-entries are intended to explain the myths of Leftism in short, simple language. Any comments on them or suggestions regarding them are welcomed.

FAQ #2

Question: Isn't the common good for the general public more important than the private good for an individual? Aren't the general public's interests more important than the individuals?

Answer: The answer is no for at least two reasons (or the same reason approached from two angles). (1) When trying to enforce some supposed general interests, the individual's interests are generally being sacrificed, and since the general public is nothing else than a collection of individuals, the general interests are being damaged by being focused on. (2) When the individual's interests are not put first and protected by all means, the individual will cease to seek his own private goals in life or work, and thereby his potentials are not being maximized, and therefore his contribution to the society is lessened, making the general public more poor in all economic and social aspects.

FAQ-entries are intended to explain the myths of Leftism in short, simple language. Any comments on them or suggestions regarding them are welcomed.

FAQ #1

Question: Why is a private buisness more efficient than a public one? Why does the private sector outperform the public sector?

Answer: Unefficient private companies go bankrupt in the free market. If a company in the private sector performs badly, overprices for a service or goods or fails to please its customers, it will be punished with bankrupcy. The public sector faces no such threat because it will always have access to funds via taxes and law-enforced fees.

FAQ-entries are intended to explain the myths of Leftism in short, simple language. Any comments on them or suggestions regarding them are welcomed.

The move towards Right

About a century ago the political landscape was a clear battle between the socialists and the libertarians/liberals. One demanded a total State-control and -ownership, the other increased individual liberty and decreased State-interference. The libertarians won. Western countries put together constitutions which more or less had the only purpose of tieing down the hands of the State and making sure people had protected human and property rights in a democratic system. The countries which took this path overran every other country in success, wealth, peace and harmony. This is the short version of the history of the 20th century.

What has happened since? The Left sees that socialism doesn't work. Government-owned and -run health care, educational and welfare systems expand rapidly in costs and decrease in quality. The solution at first is to pump more money into the bottomless pits and see what happens. Nothing happens of course so the next solution is to read about the ideas of the Right and change them into something which sounds like its from the Left. Lets take an example:

The European welfare system is on the verge of collapse in every respect. Social security runs at a huge deficit in the big "welfare" states of Europe. Jobs are not being created. The economy is stagnating. More and more people retire or are "unemployed" while fewer and fewer bring in the bacon. What to do?

One suggestion for a solution for some of those problems: Privatize services the State now provides but continue funding them with taxes (as a first step).

For the Leftist this would seem like an awful idea (because it mean less State). However, the Leftist knows in his heart its a good one. I know the Leftist knows that because Leftists have been privatizing wildly all over Europe for the past few years. But how?

The Leftist can't say privatize. He could say outsourcing or contracting. Still not a good idea. He could go through multinational institutions like the European Union, fight for increased privatization and liberalization on a super-state level, and thereby always have the excuse of saying the whole privatization-deal is forced in from above. Brilliant!

The important thing is that the Left is moving towards the Right. Good things result from that. Maybe we will one day realize the libertarian-society of Star Trek where collectiveness is nothing but a few cubes of Borgs in the distance?

Note to self

Is there a book which explains, in accessible language, why Leftism is wrong and Rightism is right? Has someone gathered, in one place, the arguments for why a free market society is the best framework to insure decreased poverty, improved environment, longer and healthier lives and continuous progress for all human welfare? Has the book Why Leftism is Wrong been written?

The political debate is full of nonsense, non-logic used as logic, myths, and false statements. Some, I admit, come from the Right. Most, however, don't. Where's the easy-reading book which will change the world?

Political experience is useless without a justification

The basic difference between a person who is wrong and a person who is right is the logical justification of a particular action/statement. If person A states that he is right because he has tried action X with success but has no other arguments to offer, and person B says he is right because logic L say so but no experience has been gained, then who is right? My take on it: Person A, if his logic is sound, no matter what action X person A refers to, given he has no sound logic to back up his case.

My point of view can be protested in many ways. One might for example say that relying only on logic shows a lack of reality. If it could be justified that people over 70 years of age should be put to permanent sleep, would I then fight for that point of view? What if it turns out that it is justifiable to kill fat chicks - am I then a spokesmen of such actions? The answer: Yes. However I have no worries of such things being justifiable. In fact, being able to do whatever I want as long as I hurt no others while being under the protection of a minimal state of law-enforcement and a court-system - all sound logic suggest that this is the only permissible political reality.

Relying only on experience is not only unwise, but dangerous. The Leftist could say: "My goal is to fight poverty and unequal distribution of wealth, and I don't care what the logical reasons are against the actions I chose to take, as long as I can reach my goal." He could also say: "My goal is to rid the world free of black people, and I don't care what the logical reasons are against the actions I chose to take, as long as I can reach my goal." In both cases the logical justifications are put to side in order to reach some goal. In both cases the statements could be followed up by: "The actions I took worked well to reach my goal. Those who shared my goal are now happy, and I don't care about any logic and reason pointed against my goal."

Examples of actions which can't be justified, but "work well": Concentration-camps to reduce the number of certain minority groups, public executions of petty-thieves to scare people away from crimes, smoking-ban in private property to reduce (suggested) health-damages, excessive taxation in order to reduce the wealth of the rich and increase the wealth of the poor, state-implemented racial discrimination to give racists a good feeling about their own race, etc.

Most evils of the world origin in minds of individuals who let go of the logical justification of their actions and rely only on their feelings and past experiences regarding various issues. However, having experience to back-up logically sound actions/decisions is nothing but good. At least that's my take on it, being a self-acclaimed libertarian, having both the logic and experience on my side.

Freedom: Fair, just and effective!

Freedom is not only the most just and fair goal of all political activity, but also the solution to most of humans problems. Poverty, crimes, social injustice, famine and diseases are problems for which freedom is the most effective solution. This, above all, is the lesson to be learned from all political experiments of recent times. But how can that be? How can a simple catchy word like "freedom" be so powerful?

Worldwide, the most straight-forward freedom to implement is economic freedom. The only thing a state can ask another state to do is to negotiate over trade-issues. One state cannot force another to change internal laws or improve human rights. That would be interfering and sovereign states should be free from involuntarily interference from outside. Free-trade agreements on the other hand are relatively easy to implement since they don't pose a direct threat against ruling governments. However, as free trade lifts living-standards and decreases poverty, people start to act against unfair governments. In China, for example, the communists have been forced to recognize private property rights, improve human rights and face accusations regarding environmental-issues, all resulting in China finally applying for membership in the World Trade Organization with all the obligations that comes with. So economic freedom, innocent by itself, pushes for reforms from inside states, thus tackling problems like poverty, human rights and social issues in general.

This is not a surprising result and has in fact been predicted by liberal-writers throughout the last three centuries or so. Political philosophers, many of whom would be called libertarians or liberals today, have reasoned for freedom as the only fair and just ambition in politics. The empirical results confirm their thoughts. Thus, freedom reasoned for on analytical basis has turned out to work in the "real world" too. Few remain to dispute that.