Pre-emptive strike

Osiraq - a pre-emptive strike no-one yells about today (not even the Left).

Economic freedom

Economic freedom is another way to say: Libertarian Economic Policy. It means low taxes, small government, few regulations, well protected private property rights, rule of law and a free market. It means Capitalism. Again and again it has been shown that capitalism is the best system to improve lives, health and environment, and is also the only system which passes the tests of logic, reason and fairness. However, many focus on usability of political theory and Capitalism meets all the demands in that respect.

To be continued...

Tax-cuts are a human rights issue, not money issue

Tax-cuts have always been a big issue in the political debate. The Right wants them because it boosts the economy, creates jobs and strengthens the State's revenue foundation. The Left opposes them and wants the State to control the society's wealth and thereby control individuals and companies, plus claiming that high taxes insure the State a strong revenue foundation. The Left doesn't know that time and time again, tax cuts increase, not decrease the State's tax revenues. The socialistic method of increasing taxes to fund a bankrupt State is still alive, despite evidence of the method's cruel consequences and complete lack of results.

Taxes are State control. Only a small part of taxation is actually about money. Taxes change behaviour, distort decision-making and move power from the people and to the politicians. Tax-cuts are a human rights issue, and cutting taxes is equivalent to stopping violence and hindering theft.

A new must-read website

An interesting website, The Private Sector Development Blog, recently emerged as a must-read for the (classically) liberal surfer (link via). A small self-portrait:

The Private Sector Development Blog (PSD Blog) gathers together news, resources and ideas about the role of private enterprise in fighting poverty.

But of course there is no lack of information about the great power of the free market to slash down poverty and reduce human misery. Capitalism is, after all, what separates the doing-wells from the doing-bads in this world.

The warming of Politicians

A useful point in the discussion of global warming:

While temperature numbers can be added up, the result is not a “total temperature,” because no such thing exists. Neither does the global “average” temperature describe the actual climate, any more than the “average phone number” describes the phone book. (#)

After decades of talk back and forth about global warming, global cooling and in general, changes in global climate, it is only just recently that some actual consensus has been reached about the methods for measuring temperature changes in Earth's climate. With that discussion coming to an end, the next question is to figure out what exactly causes these changes, if they are of any significance, if they are our (the human race) fault or no-ones fault, and if changes in global temperatures should become a reason for political intervention.

The Kyoto-protocol turned out to be just another tool of the Left to grasp control over the free market. Suggesting that politicians have a role when it comes to climate issues is a risky business. How about giving the free initiative a chance a little longer? It has worked wonders until now, and there is no reason to think it won't from now on.

Myths

Myths are many in the political debate. Here are two of them:

Video games are becoming more and more violent, and they result in more and more violence: Of course this statement is usually followed by some kind of State-intervention, new laws, bans or restrictions. This myth has been attacked with sound logic for a while, but it doesn't hurt to show (via) that the numbers clearly suggest that video games are not what triggers violence.

In order to save the Earth's climate from drastic changes due to human activities, we must force industries to reduce the release of CO₂ into the atmosphere: This myth is not only wrong, but also cruel: "If electricity prices are driven up, making air conditioning less affordable who will suffer the most [during heat waves]? The poorest amongst us who can least afford higher prices, and who thereby would suffer more heat related deaths." (#) Tech Central Station's Climate-section is an excellent reality-check in all the global warming hype.

The latest science indicates that the temperature increases over the past 150 years are simply a recovery from the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1400 to 1850. Current global temperatures aren't even as warm as the Medieval Climate Optimum of 900 to 1350 AD, a time when wine vineyards flourished in England. Vineyards also thrived in Britain two thousand years ago, during the earlier Roman Warming. At this point, three independent, real-world climate records -- ice cores, seabed sediments, and plant pollen databases -- indicate that a moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has occurred for the last half-million years, driven by variations in the intensity of our sun. And the science supporting the natural climate cycle grows day by day in the peer-reviewed literature. (#)

So, why are the rich countries of the world flushing billions of dollars down the toilet? And why is the market facing harsher and harsher regulations and costs in the name of environmental protection? Oh, because of an Ice Age 500 years ago! Those who confuse global warming with urban warning should be left out of the debate and not left to write the headlines.

A new wage-policy in Socialism

Everyone knows the old communist slang, From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. It's not Karl Marx's words, but a description communists use themselves when packing their evil ideology into something sellable (gulags, Stalin and empty old-Soviet store-shelves don't sell that good any more).

But now it seems socialism has had a face-lift. The so-called Communist Party USA, and old-fashioned anti-trade, labour theory of value organization of socialists, has re-shaped the old communist-slang, and now it's become:

From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work.

..followed with a short explanation:

Socialism provides incentives for working better, producing more and higher quality goods, acquiring advanced skills. It does NOT equalize wages. Wages vary according to occupation and efficiency, although everyone is guaranteed a liveable wage.

This is an important change. Now wages are dependant on something: The doctor is rewarded for his education and skills (hence he's not going to join other doctors in Cuba in the taxi-driving business). The un-skilled worker is rewarded for his increase in skills (hence he will have less incentive to join workers in France on social welfare while jobs stay vacant). In short - communism has become market-oriented and abandoned the labour theory in principle.

It takes a long time to shift an old ideology like socialism in the right direction. However, it's possible and it's happening. Who knows, maybe in another 200 years we will have eliminated the ideology and the majority of its descendant ideologies?

Not If, but When

The following picture is a popular one to have on fashionable clothes available in the capitalistic free-market: The question now is not if, but when the same crowd, which decorates itself with that picture, starts to use the one here below: Of course I might be wrong, and I hope history will prove me wrong, but I don't think so.

Myths

The media is filled with myths. Some myths are repeated so often that it's often hard not to believe them. At times like that it's good to have the shelter of good think tanks to seek protection from the brain-washing.

The current [state operated, tax-funded health care] system [in Britain] provides care to all regardless of income. Again, there is a belief that this requires nationalised provision. And again, this is a myth. The mixed system that once existed in the UK, and similar systems that currently exist in other countries, generally provide better health care for the poor than the does the NHS. Health care for the less well off can be financed by general income redistribution or by the provision of government finance to allow the less well off to obtain private insurance. Indeed, the voluntary sector is often more effective than the state in providing assistance to the less well off. Changes to the structure within which health care is delivered in the UK could benefit all and end the equality of misery from which we suffer at the moment. Today’s system of allocating resources through the political system does not benefit the poor: it benefits the articulate, and those in the more prosperous areas that have the least difficulty attracting medical staff. (#)

A nationalised, tax-funded, centralized health care system is a crippled one. It has no incentives to improve its practice, increase quality and service, cut costs, attract good staff, prevent people from getting sick or help people get well. The only mentionable incentive is the ambition of the good, well-intentioned bureaucrat who regulates with his right arm and hires more bureaucrats with his left.

The myth of the nationalised health care-system is very much alive, despite facts, research and experience telling a different story. How can we change that?

Freedom to... surf?

An Icelandic Leftist recently wrote a bad article about libertarianism, stating many weird things about the fundamental logic behind the ideology (sorry, its in Icelandic!). The article was typical in the way that it described the fundamental difference between those who doubt the power of the State, and those who doubt the power of the free market and individual liberty. One of the claims the author made was the following:

According to the ideology [of libertarians], a certain reduction of the individual's liberty is involved with the State giving everyone access to basic rights without regards to income.

(Yes, he wrote "access to basic rights"). The reversed version could be something like this:

The State should have the right to give everyone access to basic rights without anyone feeling like his individual liberty is being reduced.

The basic difference between the mindset of the libertarian mind and the socialist mind comes clear to light: The former defines liberty as being free from violence and fraud. The second defines liberty as some kind of certain "basic" materialistic standard of living.

Of course no-one has to doubt which one of those two ways of thinking has worked better (one being a utilitarian only interested in such things). The negative definition of liberty, like the one the libertarian uses, is by far superior to the positive definition of the socialist, and huge amounts of historical experience and research data verifies that every time (mail me if you aren't convinced - geirag $at$ gmail.com). But what about the justification? Can it be justified that liberty shouldn't include some kind of "safety" for the poor and the weak? Isn't it cruel and inhumane to exclude materialistic needs from the definition of liberty? Is anyone free when he's poor and hungry?

To answer this question one needs to answer another question first: Do we accept the self-ownership right of the individual? If we do then liberty can only be defined as the right to be left alone. If we don't, the first question is up for discussion. By defining liberty as the right to some materialistic values, such as access to schools, hospitals, food, housing, clothes, internet-connections and mobile telephones (like an Icelandic student-union once suggested), transportation and more, we reject the self-ownership of the individual. The liberty purely becomes a definition of what the members of the society should have in order to be "free". Factors such as the will to work, the individual's ambitions and goals in life and the individual's drive (be it money, a view to the ocean or an interest in collector's stamps) becomes irrelevant because he has been defined as a member of a society where he must first and foremost have access to certain services and products before he can seek other things in life.

So the basic issue involves the individual's self-ownership. The socialist rejects it, and so do the descendant ideologies of socialism. The libertarian accepts the individual's self-ownership, and so do the descendant ideologies of libertarianism/classic liberalism. By hiding this basic difference between Left and Right the socialist has been able to keep his popularity with the public. If it's fundamentals were realized by more, we would have had socialism and its Leftist-offspring away a long time ago.

The ever-lasting victim (to the Left)

Activism is a physical expression of an opinion. It is that of protesting, walking with a sign, meeting people on the streets, distributing fliers, holding speeches and giving out a message in any form. It is the opposite of sitting at home and nag about the state of things. It is the active person versus the inactive.

However, not everyone would share this personal view of mine on what activism is. Groups of people seem to think that activism is a licence to destroy, disrupt, injure and steal. The justification is that the ruling class of some sort is bulldozing over the common man and nothing less than hard action is necessary to express the public outrage against the political elite. Those who give themselves the licence to destroy tend to look at themselves as victims, and sometimes even oppressed victims. When their behaviour is criticized they fight back by claiming everyone else is sucking up to the political elite. Even the most common guy who raises his voice against a group of sabotagers can catch himself in the storm of name-callings and sometimes even threats. No-one can criticize those who destroy in the name of oppression and victimization.

In Iceland, my native land, this trend is unfortunately coming very much alive. A small group of professional protesters is destroying road-signs, tools and cars in the name of their self-righteous battle against the ruling class. Another group of protesters took up the French method of road-blocking to create a name for themselves. Those who object these methods are nick-named members of the ruling class - if you don't like the destruction and the disruption you are one of those, one of the rulers, one of the controllers of the public debate.

We all know where the sabotaging protesters land on the political spectrum. The are Leftists, Greenies and anti-capitalists. The liberal/libertarian protester [1, 2] respects the free will, the free debate, private property rights and the democratic framework. Pointing that out to those who sympathise for sabotage in the name of protest doesn't help. It results in more Leftist-wrath and name-calling. I know.

Materialistic, work-a-holic, hyper-consuming... and happy!

A fine point made here by Johann Norberg. It seems Europeans are not just poorer than Americans, but also less happy, or is there a connection?

Europeans usually get a thrill talking down to Americans. "Americans are big, fat, stupid television-junkies" is not an uncommon statement in the mouth of the European self-acclaimed intellectual. Americans don't mind that much. They are more successful, richer and happier. Why should they care? Do Europeans care if the average sub-Saharan beggar nicknames Europeans big, fat, smart-ass materialistic idiots? I think not. The European is the poor, cheap, grumpy and unsuccessful man in America.

Americans pave the way in medical science. Americans bring us GPS, most of the satellites orbiting Earth, an army that keeps all threats from hostile countries well away from Europe, the biggest economy in the world to do business with, the latest energy-saving technology available, most of the newest science-breakthroughs in the world, the best universities in the world, and the list goes on. What's the grudge all about then? Jealousy and envy? Some, of course, make big bucks on the capitalistic free market by selling anti-American anti-capitalism propaganda to Europeans and American Leftists, but for the most part it's about envy and bitterness. That's this author's theory.