The Predictables

Warning: This post is basically a long list of incoherent thoughts with no real conclusions.

Being predictable in politics is a two-edged sword with pros and cons. A pro is that being predictable usually means being consistent with oneself. The socialist is more or less always against privatization, liberalization and deregulation and is therefore both predictable and consistent with himself and his political ideology. The libertarian is more or less always against nationalization, authoritarianism and State-enforced discrimination and therefore has the same traits. A con is that the very predictable one isn't as exciting in elections - he can't give out the flashy statements or vague promises because he plans on following his own line of thinking.

Those between socialism and libertarianism can go either way on any issue - they are therefore not predictable but does it mean they are not consistent with themselves?

Let's take an example: The pharmaceutical industry. It is a huge industry which plays an extremely important role in any society. Everyone needs medicine at some point in their lives, and some need more than others. The pharmaceutical industry is, in some way, "trusted" to seek cures for the most deadliest and crippling diseases man knows. However there's a catch. Some diseases don't have a "target group" big enough to sustain a profitable development of a medicine. What to do?

The Leftist (being the one who denies being a socialist but despises everything which libertarians say) claims the State has a role in "making sure" medicine is development and subsidised for those with the rare and deadly/crippling diseases. The Leftist claims the pharmaceutical industry "waists" valuable funds on advertisements and propaganda and on "welfare diseases" such as obesity and erection-problems. The State, however, makes sure the funds are used "where they are needed" - on R&D and effective (State-run) distribution (*). However, the Leftist doesn't deny that there is real need for the private enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry. Private companies work hard on making good products in a highly competitive market where time, quality and the lowest possible costs are key factors. Only the pure-grown socialist says otherwise. Do we have inconsistency?

But what about the libertarian? He would claim that a big part of the high costs of developing medicine is the State's own fault because the State sets extremely high standards before a medicine can be used by patients in need. Years and even decades can go by before a medicine can leave the laboratory and go into the hands of patients. Also, the libertarian claims that no market is small enough. How big is the market for the £450,000 Ferrari Enzo for example? The mere size of the market tells very little about someones will to satisfy it.

With that myth out of the way there's still the question of who should pay? Not all patients have money, and many long-term sick patients are actually poor. Perhaps there the Leftist could make a valid point and say that the State should pay the bill, even though it has nothing to do with the R&D and let alone the marketing and distribution. The State could hold auctions where pharmaceutical companies compete for a prize for coming up with the best medicine for the lowest price. But this method has the flaw of putting the decision of what to send to development into hands of politicians, thereby turning an illness into a project in lobby ism and a competition of what group of patients can put the most public pressure on their government.

Also, aren't companies always striving to make something which is the best, the cheapest and has high quality? The State can offer nothing new except fresh tax-money most likely removed from the hands of those who need medicine!

The libertarian would say that the free market is the best tool to solve the problem - the State should keep regulations to a minimum and trust that patients and pharmaceutical companies can work together on solving the problems at hand. If it's a question about who should pay the bill there are charity funds, the general public, private companies seeking a positive image and the pharmaceutical companies themselves in search of experience and know-how who could all contribute. Experience shows that when the State no longer claims it taxes in the name of charity and social aid, or claims its contributions to charity institutions will not increase while taxes are being decreased, people increase contributions to private charity funds by the tens of percents and even more. Also, when the State deregulates and leaves more choices up to the free market the whole social mechanism gains speed to everyone's advantage. In short: The market and the free individuals that form it are better suited to find the solutions needed than politicians.

And finally to the question: Is the Leftist being inconsistent when he promotes State-interference and the existence of the free enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry? It seems the free market can be "trusted" when it comes to satisfying the needs of the masses. Painkillers, allergy-pills, hemorrhoids-creams, influence-vaccinations, various cancer-medicine, HIV- and AIDS-repressing medicine and so on are all provided by the free market, despite State-interference, extremely harsh regulations (even for drugs for dying patients with no alternatives) and the typical excessive taxation and sky-high monitoring costs. However, the Leftist seems to think that the future need of medicine can not be met unless the State pours tax-money into the pharmaceutical industry - or the parts which the government controls (State-run universities for example). This is typical scepticism coming from the Left, and, I would say, a clear sign of inconsistency.

How is a society to function when controlled by minds which doubt all past achievements of the free market of free people, glorify all past failures of collectivism and base decisions on feelings and political pressure instead of reason, logic and experience?

(*) I think most people are familiar with the State's efficiency when it comes to using money well, but that's a whole different discussion not made here.

All about the money?

Sometimes the poorly-informed Leftist says libertarians are "all about the money" because they tend to oppose excessive taxation and increased State-expansion (even though the State is merely blowing up its welfare-system and distributing money to various groups of voters with some issues). The Leftist forgets that it's usually him who is demanding "more money" for this and that "underfunded x-system" (where x could stand for health-care, education or welfare). The Leftist hardly says a word without demanding more money. The Rightist rarely uses this approach - he does't say the health-care system needs less money, nor the education-system or the system which provides help to the needy. The Rightist simply points out that there is no justification for the State to forcibly take money from one person and give it to another (minus excessive administration-costs of course).

The private property of a person is an extension of his self-ownership (be it money, a house, a car or a cheer). The Leftist should comes to terms with his inner demons and simply admit his disbelief in the individual's natural right to own himself. Then the Leftist would free himself from uncomfortable philosophical conflicts with taxation versus individual freedom - whoever preaches one thing cannot support the other without logical errors in his way of thinking.

Libertarian campaign

It happened in Costa Rica, USA and New Zealand in 1994. It happened in Iceland in 2002. It happened in Denmark in 2005. Libertarians are increasingly figuring out that they must have a name for themselves in the public debate to get the voice of liberty in the air. The conservative parties of the West have changed into machines of State-controlled moral codes, strict foreigner-policies and a limited will to reduce the scale of the State. The old Leftists have actually gained an ally in the conservatives in most of the big issues. We risk loosing the West to the Left. A free, unsuppressed voice of liberty must move us away from that direction.

Of course there are the technicalities of the matter:

• Does and independent libertarian party in the two-party system of USA undermine the Republican Party and therefore do more harm than good? That might be. Maybe American libertarians should focus more on the states rather than fight on federal grounds.
• Can libertarians become big enough to influence the politics, or do they simply undermine the big conservative-parties? The popular voice of liberty will either make libertarian-parties big, or push the conservatives more into the direction of liberty. Either way the libertarians win.
• Isn't the unsheltered libertarian-message generally unpopular with the public, for example the libertarian stand on drugs, guns and privatization? Perhaps, yes, when it comes to the whole package. However, when serving as a voice in the debate, these issues are rarely a matter of hot debate. Libertarians are generally in the role of fighting State-expansion, attacks on personal freedom and tax-increases. Libertarians have a bigger job in pushing Leftists-myths out of the way than they have in gaining a lot of seats in parliaments. Libertarians rarely dream of becoming the "biggest" party even though they do well in elections (like in Costa Rica), but they need to stand alone if the voice of liberty isn't to be suffocated by the conservatives.

The list goes on. Libertarians in general can no longer afford to dwell within the big conservative-parties. That seems to be the case. Sure, libertarians might be "stealing" votes from the conservatives, increasing the risk of a Leftist-coalition seizing power. However, the voice of liberty does have the effects of increasing the Right so that the libertarians and conservativese have more votes to share.

Communism: A State-enforced slavery

Everyone has heard or read the following sentence:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

It's one of the best descriptions of communism I have heard, and I'm sure many agree. Some think it's "a beautiful thought", and then add, "but humans are too selfish to be able to work according to it". But is that why it doesn't work? If humans were more giving and loving would it then work? Would it work and would it make us happy?

In short: No. Slaves work according to their ability (or else face punishment or even death from their master). They receive just what they need - minimum food and clothes and a place to sleep. Karl Marx was in fact describing the lives of slaves throughout human history. Slavery is evil. Communism is evil along with all its socialistic roots.

A dangerous way of thinking: "I feel that..."

As it has turned out over the past few decades in Western politics, it seems that the biggest part of the modern politician's job is to discuss banning or not banning of this and that. The free speech has again and again met restrictions in the name of "public health", "public interest" and such phenomenons. The self-ownership of individuals over their own bodies has been cast away long ago, more often than not in the name of "public"-this and that. All good reason and logic, all concrete political philosophy, and all good sense says that this shouldn't be the case. How is it that we cannot own ourselves and not say what we want without a State interfering? Is it because bad words are violence like bullets? Is it because someone has built a concrete case stating that no-one is himself and everyone is everyone and therefore no-one can harm him/herself because then it's a matter of the general public? No - no such case has been built. The reason the individual is increasingly being swallowed up by the State is the "I feel"-logic (IF-logic).

The IF-logic can be seen in use all around. It's not real logic - Hitler used it to "justify" his actions, and so did Stalin, Pol Pot and other well known celebrities of the far-Left, and who wants to justify their actions today? However, the IF-logic has been allowed to reach the status of being enough to support banning of this and that. A few examples from various debates:
Should be ban public smoking? Yes, because I feel it's uncomfortable to breathe in second hand smoke in other people's private houses, and I don't feel like convincing my one smoking friend of going to a smoke-free cafe with our six, mutual non-smoking friends.
Should we ban certain kinds of sex between consenting adults, for example that which comes to be because money exchanges hands? Yes, because I feel that no-one should sink so low as to having to sell their own bodies to make a living, even though there would be police all around to catch those who abuse and use violence and oppression. I feel I couldn't imagine doing anything like that myself.
Should we force companies into hiring more women in executive-positions if there are proportionally few women in such positions? Yes, because I feel that men and women should be equal - not just when it comes to the law but also when it comes to wages, job-division and other measurable units.

The IF-logic should in reality be nothing more than a casual sentence to be used when arguing with the girlfriend about the color of the bed-sheets, or the quality of Sylvester Stallone as an actor. In politics the feelings can of course be there (and should be to a large extent), but without sound logic they should merely be looked at as a weak reminder of the person's inner desires. Never should one person's feeling govern another person's actions, and that's exactly what happens when the IF-logic is deemed sufficient as a case for new laws and regulations.

The question that won't be answered

The following question will never be answered by a Leftist because a Leftist doesn't have a convincing answer:

The industrial-revolution sprang out in Europe at a time when the continent was ruled by kings and queens. The kings and queens realized that if they were to gain economically from the new-born industries they would have to allow some kind of economic freedom. Free trade was encouraged by many (in many degrees) and great wealth was created unlike any before. Many citizens made vast fortunes and a middle-class formed in most countries of Western-Europe.

The newborn middle-class was in an awkward situation. It had the wealth, and it had the control over its own destiny in more ways than ever before. However, it didn't have any political influence. This had to be changed and little by little the kings and queens gave in (because it's harder to challenge a wealthy middle-class than poor peasants). One thing lead to another and before anyone knew most countries of Western Europe has democracies, freedom of speech/religion, freedom of press and so on. The economical freedom gave birth to the political one.

Today the same thing is happening in China: The communists started out by giving in to some economic freedom. Growth increased and more freedom was given. A middle-class appeared and with that pressure increased on the government to increase political freedom. Now the communists have admitted the existence of private property rights, are starting to respect human rights and all odds point to the fall of the Chinese communism within a few years.

Kings, queens and communists don't increase economic freedom to deliberately undermine their own power. They simply want to profit from the wealth of free trade. However, the economic freedom paves the way to private property rights, democracy and increased political power of the people. Since free democracies don't fight each other it might also be said that economical freedom strengthens peace and prosperity.

The Leftists needs to answer this: Isn't the best and fastest way to improve human lives to support free trade, capitalism and economic freedom in its broadest sense? Isn't the Right the key to peace on Earth and well-doing of all people?