Unions decrease the quality of living for everyone

Unions are a dreadful thing in any society. No, not the kind of unions which, in return for dues, simply provide legal service and help people save up for holidays and bridge the financial gap between jobs, but the kind which is sheltered by the State and is legally, although immorally, allowed to use force and violence against employers.

Here is a useful quote:

"Those who tell you of trades unions bent on raising wages by moral suasion alone are like those who would tell you of tigers that live on oranges." The result of union activity, therefore, is to reduce the number of jobs in an industry and to raise the money wages of union labor, while at the same time relegating many workers, driven out of this line of work by the decreased quantity of labor demanded there, to other lines of work, whose money wages must decrease as a result of the greater supply of workers now forced to compete for them. (#)

This shouldn't be a mystery to any rational thinking person. Unions are a kind of price control, distorting the relationship between supply and demand. By increasing the price of one group of workers, they decrease the price of everyone else. By using law and State-force to uphold a manipulated price of one kind of work-labor, thereby decreasing the demand for it, all other workers must suffer with lower prices for their labor, since it is now artificially higher in supply.

The lesson? Abolish State-protection of union-activity, and returning to the time when "real wages in manufacturing climed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860-1890, and another 37 percent from 1890-1914", and that's it.

The State is Not a Market Player

The Trouble with "Just Compensation" - Mises Institute:

Even when a state buys assets from willing private interests, it cannot be said to be paying 'just compensation,' since the ones doing the compensating — the taxpayers — are not themselves acceding to the transaction voluntarily.

Heyr heyr!

Politics in USA

I think the following is a pretty clever description of politics in USA:

In general, elections come down to contests between two groups. The first consists of public-sector bureaucrats, unions, the elderly who are protecting their government checks, minority groups who cling to special privileges, the winners in the welfare-state lottery, and marginalized oddballs of all sorts who resent cultural impositions by bourgeois America. That group is also known as the Democrats.

They are not all bad because they tend to fight against policies that do not benefit them, such as those policies that help the other group.

And that other group consists of large corporations who seek mercantilist privileges, the commercial class of small and medium-sized merchants who rightly want fewer impositions from government, the Wall Street elite who favor a form of free enterprise that is compromised by loose credit and socialized protections against loss, middle-class producers and consumers who demand rising portfolios through any means possible, and the religious bourgeoisie who are always up for a good war against evil (drugs, moral deviancy, Islam, or whatever). That group is also known as the Republicans.

Full article.

Two small (seemingly unrelated) quotations

Stern und Drang (about the so-called Stern-report, the latest/hottest of doomsday predictions): "The Review takes the A2 family of scenarios as being the baseline. This is what he bases all of his subsequent calculations upon and he calls it the 'business as usual' model or BAU. Furthermore, he adds to the effects, puts in a few feedbacks that the IPCC certainly doesn't include, extends matters out for a far longer period of time, uses those very low discount rates and......aieee! But it is made very clear indeed in the SRES that A2 is not the baseline, it is not the business as usual case. All forty of the scenarios are equally likely and all forty of them contain no mitigating actions at all. That's actually in their very definitions: so to choose one of them only is, as far as all of the other climate science that's going on, simply wrong."

Have We Outgrown Recessions? (context very clear after reading the following): "Recessions, which are set in motion by a tight monetary stance of the central bank, are about the liquidations of activities that sprang up on the back of the previous loose monetary policies. Rather than paying attention to the so-called strength of real GDP to ascertain where the economy is heading, it will be more helpful to pay attention to the rate of growth of the money supply."

Why Do You Decide?

It truly is a strange stand in politics (and in general) to expect that everyone can agree on something. It is rarely so. Two persons who buy the same toothbrush could perhaps agree that the particular kind of toothbrush is the toothbrush of choice, but perhaps their reasons for it are completely different. One was going for the price, the other for the color. One was thinking about the design of the toothbrush, the other just wanted a blue rubber handle.

The same applies for everything else. Lets say two people want to live in a neighborhood guarded by trained security guards. Does that mean they both want the State's Police force to stand the guard? No. Do they request protection from the same security firm? Maybe and maybe not, and perhaps or perhaps not for the same reasons.

It would be safer to assume that no-one agrees on anything rather than assume that some people agree on something for the same reasons. Indeed, no-one can agree on anything for completely the same reasons. We are individuals, all with our own preferences, budget, taste and whims. No-one can solve our conflicts and expect everyone to be satisfied. This is why we need a free market - in everything! A free market where everyone will simply purchase (or not) what they want, and make producers of services and products compete for our different tastes and preferences.

And for this reason and many others, the State must be abolished. Because we don't agree on the purpose and role of this monopoly industry.

Insane Welfare

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Perhaps that's something to keep in mind the next time we hear a call for more welfare spending.

Neatly said and something to actually keep in mind.

How Collectivism still survives

A nice little observation by Rothbard:

I do not believe it an accident that Karl Marx is considered one of the great hermeneuticians. This century has seen a series of devastating setbacks to Marxism, to its pretensions to "scientific truth," and to its theoretical propositions as well as to its empirical assertions and predictions. If Marxism has been riddled both in theory and in practice, then what can Marxian cultists fall back on? It seems to me that hermeneutics fits very well into an era that we might, following a Marxian gambit about capitalism, call "late Marxism" or Marxism-in-decline. Marxism is not true and is not science, but so what? The hermeneuticians tell us that nothing is objectively true, and therefore that all views and propositions are subjective, relative to the whims and feelings of each individual.

In short, Marxists and other opponents of the successful, wealthy societies in the world cannot resort to reason and logic anymore. They are forced to rely on a kind of "philosophy" that denies truth, facts, correct, wrong, true and false. They must rely on a state of mind that refuses to be wrong - and right! For them, "A" is not necessarily "A" if someone claims that "A" is "B".

I wonder if me claiming I have lots of money actually makes it be so, or if objective, physical reality is still among us somewhere?

Take that, Greenies!

"The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even to bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one—not even the staunchest supporters of science and technology—had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them is forecast the weather—for the next one hundred years!"(source)

An excellent point

Today I sat a lecture with Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe on behalf of the Copenhagen institute. The topic was Private Law society, e.g. a society without a State. In such a society, law is enforced by individuals, private protection agencies and insurance companies (that is our idea today anyway - who knows what individuals in a free society will come up with to produce security and protection?).

As always when this topic comes up, all kinds of questions arise from those who cannot think outside the box (before today, I was more or less one of those).

The following question was raised, which goes something like this: Could not the mafia (or a mafia-like organization) decide to make its area of dominion a mini-State so that no-one else can operate there in the field of protection?

Hoppe's answer was brilliant and goes something like this: Are we afraid to give up the State because there is a theoretical risk of a mini-State arising? Then why not give up the State to begin with?

This answer should more or less eliminates all what if-questions about the anarcho-capitalist ideology of a State-free society. If people accept the argumentation that declares that no State can be justified, then the next step should be clear: Drop the State altogether, because the worst thing that could happen is for a State to arise again! Don't refuse the cure because you might get sick again. A lesson learned now.

Education: Free and Compulsory - Mises Institute: "Savagery is uniformity. The principal distinctions are sex, age, size, and strength. Savages … think alike or not at all, and converse therefore in monosyllables. There is scarcely any variety, only a horde of men, women, and children. The next higher stage, which is called barbarism, is marked by increased variety of functions. There is some division of labor, some interchange of thought, better leadership, more intellectual and aesthetic cultivation. The highest stage, which is called civilization, shows the greatest degree of specialization. Distinct functions become more numerous. Mechanical, — commercial, educational, scientific, political, and artistic occupations multiply. The rudimentary societies are characterized by the likeness of equality; the developed societies are marked by the unlikeness of inequality or variety. As we go down, monotony; as we go up, variety. As we go down, persons are more alike; as we go up, persons are more unlike, it certainly seems … as though [the] approach to equality is decline towards the conditions of savagery, and as though variety is an advance towards higher civilization…."

Production must come before consumption

The Left doesn't get many things right. Sometimes it's the complex things the Left misunderstands, for example the effects of taxation on society, the importance of free trade for growth and the effects of excess money printing by the State. But it's not only the complex things the Left doesn't understand. For example, the Left does not in any way understand that production must come before consumption.

The reason the Left is in the dark when it comes to this is that the Left is focused on the division and manipulation of present wealth, and completely ignores the fact that wealth must first be created before it can be divided.

A Leftist will often say that he wants to improve society or the lives of the poor by removing wealth from its rightful owners and hand it out to others. How does the Leftist expect wealth to be created when the creators of wealth continually get robbed? How does the Leftist think that wealth can increase when the sources of wealth are continually being drained of incentives and liberty? Clearly, none of this concerns the Leftist. He will focus on present wealth and its distribution among different groups of individuals (for example, those likely to vote for the Left), and demand that rightful owners give up their property to satisfy the grand visions of the Leftist, where nobody earns according ability, but according to whims of society-shapers.

What if Freedom and Justice wouldn't work so well?

We know that Liberty is not only the only justifiable state of things, but also a very practical state (the far most practical for those who don't have politicians as friends and business-partners). No State can be justified without violence (which again can't be justified if we admit the self-ownership of individuals). No coercion and aggressive attacks against individuals and their non-aggressive communities can be justified. No tax is justifiable. No forceful legislation can be justified. No non-aggressive actions of individuals can be outlawed.

But justifying is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you also need examples, especially when trying to convince the masses of the ideal of Liberty. Thankfully, examples are in plenty. Empirical data, flawed that it is, is overwhelming when it comes to show how Liberty is superior to the State and its applications. Free economies blossom while socialist economies fade into stagnation and decay. Taxes decrease wealth and prevent individuals from earning their way up in standard of living and well-being. Regulations hurt companies and growth and create unemployment and result in relatively lower incomes (average income can be high or on the rise in a socialist economy, but only compared to its own previous norms).

However, when it all comes down to it it's not about the number of examples and empirical proof. It's about Liberty and it's friend, Justice. It's about supporting a free society of free individuals and fighting for its creation (re-creation in relative terms). Because what if Liberty would create poverty and aggression? What if Liberty would have the same effects socialism has on society? Of course it could never, but a thought-experiment is perhaps worth the while. Would we sacrifice Justice and Liberty if they created poverty and aggression? We haven't when it comes to socialism, but would we in the case of Liberty?

In the end all the statistics and data doesn't matter when choosing right from wrong. Thankfully, Liberty and Justice have all the evidence on their side (besides the logic of course), but that is the wrong focus to put on things (although a very practical when arguing with the Left).

Can Justice combine with Reality?

The State is an entity of force and legalized violence. It cannot be justified without justifying violence and coercion, and that cannot be done if we admit the self-ownership of every man over his own body (only by denying such self-ownership can a person be logically consistent when justifying the State; no further details about that offered at this point).

So given that a person owns his or hers own body, how are we to accept the presence of the State? And if we don't, does it make sense in reality? Isn't State coercion necessary to keep the peace among individuals and groups of them?

One approach is to say: I don't accept the State as a justifiable entity, but I don't imagine we can live without it.

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified. (#)

Personally, I think is a short-cut to a peace of mind. If the State can't be justified, but we can't live without it or imagine we can achieve its absence, then there must be a flaw in the argumentation (if libertarianism is so logically consistent and correct, why would it not win in the long run?). But there is no flaw in the argumentation (given acceptance of the individual exclusive ownership of his own body), so the proposal that anarchy won't work is simply wrong.

And when it comes to achieving it, we must not forget that a few hundred years ago everyone was considered a property of kings and queens and everything else was considered unthinkable. How would modern times look like if all hope of improvements were considered impractical and impossible to achieve in the minds of early libertarians philosophers?

Another approach to "tackle" the problem of Justice versus Reality is to accept the argumentation for a no-State society as logically consistent, but deny its consequences and simply accept the State as a necessary practicality. Any injustice can be "argumented" for by using this kind of reasoning. The State could for example hire men to purposely cause car-crashes because that would force people to use seat-belts, which is a very practical thing to do. Violence is then used as a tool to force people to protect itself from it. Un-justifiable State is then used to show the practical necessity of the State. This is a ridicule.

The only consistent policy is to deny the presence of the State and go head-on with those who wish to uphold it. The practicality of this action is immense. We remove dictators and violent men from the streets without hesitations, and don't have any problems with dealing with the resulting relative freedom from violence. The same applies for the violence of State-coercion.

Difference in acceptance

We are so used to an incompetent State that we are more or less willing to accept whatever it does or does not do for us and to us. No-one really blames the State for its incompetence. It's simply accepted as a natural phenomenon.

A different story can be told about people's tolerance for private companies. People expect service and products at the wave of a hand. This is of course a very natural demand and the foundation for private companies to build increased productivity and service improvements on. Those who fail to meet the consumer's demands fade away into bankruptcy. Others blossom.

People accept a waiting period of months for an operation at a State-run hospital or a piece of paper from the local authorities and know there is nothing to do about it. High taxes have been paid, services have been promised, but no-one expects a reasonable waiting period or expedient service (let alone quality service at a reasonable price). But when it comes to ordering an internet-connection or the services from a bank the coin is flipped. All wait is too long. Any delay is met with angry phone calls to customer services. All price hikes are given skeptical response.

Violence is clearly acceptable when the State does the beating.

How about that?

The relative freedom of the computer industry has led to an explosion of innovativeness and productivity. The same freedom in the energy industry will lead to the same result. (#)

A bold statement, but that doesn't make it false. Those industries that have had the least government-monitoring have historically been those industries that have prospered (or swiftly perished when they were no longer needed). This is no coincidence. When a politician shows interest in something it usually means that this something is in great jeopardy (at least when it comes to innovativeness and productivity).

Adam Smith turns Austrian

Here is a nice little observation usually expected in the writings of the Austrian School:

As many economists and philosophers have tried to point out, what people actually want is best discovered by observing what they actually do.

However, this is written on the Adam Smith Institute Blog, and that is refreshing.

Sometimes, attempts are made to avoid the necessary focus on the individual when it comes to preferences and choices. Adam Smith made many such attempts, he being a statist in number of aspects. We shouldn't be fooled by the arguments of the statists when they address their individual readers. The individual has preferences, makes choices and seeks to fulfil his needs. No other point can be legitimately made.

Greenies should love the free market

At present I am living in a relatively socialist country, namely Denmark. Sure enough, Denmark is a free-market economy where the government is put to place with a strict constitution and where the State is forced to take small steps to decrease individual freedom. Taxes are high and regulations many, but the free market is alive and doing well thanks to bounds put on the government.

A trendy thing among generally well-doing Danish city-people is buying "organic" food (food grown without use of artificial fertilizers, for example when growing grass or raising livestock). Organic food is expensive, but many Danish people buy it anyway. As a consequence, when demand is in place, supply comes flowing. Even the cheapest of supermarkets now present organic food-products on their shelves and compete in price with the more exclusive higher-priced stores that focus on the organic buying consumers.

This is what happens in a free market when there is demand for something. A couple of decades ago, organic food was hard to find and almost impossible to afford. Only the rich, well-to-do former-hippies could buy it. Now it is easy to find and easier to buy. The free market has supplied the anti-free market Leftist creed with the products of their choice for an affordable price.

The Greenies should, but don't, learn from this. If they only want organic food, they can simply buy organic food. If they want people to live in straw-houses and cut down on energy consumption, they can simply build straw-houses and use less energy. If they want the public schools to receive more funds, they can simply transfer money to the public school system. Their problems first become real problems when they ask the State to increase taxes and multiply regulations so that their will can be forced upon everyone else.

How would the market for organic food look like today if the State had actively moved into the subsizidition and production of organic food? Economic growth would have suffered, the average guy would have been made poorer, the market would have shrunken and organic food would have been less in supply and higher in price. The Greenies should really start to appreciate the free market! In the name of anti-free marketers wishes!

Is high quality not a market product?

Ludwig von Mises is (or was) one of the greatest minds of our known existence. I don't disagree with the man in any areas. Everything he has written and I have read makes perfect sense to me. So far, with only one exception.

Mises writes:

One of the great problems of capitalistic civilization is how to make high quality achievements possible in a social environment in which the "regular fellow" is supreme.

How is this a problem? It is basic knowledge that in a rich society (thereby capitalistic), more people can afford more expensive luxury than in a poor society. The higher arts are a form of luxury. Therefore, the "normal" individual in a capitalistic society is relatively rich and can afford to buy more expensive products AND arts than the one stuck in socialism and other forms of economically destructive systems.

Mises's worries might be explained by the fact that relatively fewer will indulge in the higher classic arts compared to the normal when mass-production takes over from the historically more common home-craftsman-ship. But relativity is a false measurement for popularity. Ask a 1000 persons about their favorite book and only a percent or so will say the same title. But that doesn't mean there is a lack of taste among the masses. It only means the competition for the "best" is hard, and that a massive number of excellent books is competing for the title.

Social contract, or theft?

Leftists sometimes "argue" for taxation by using the term "social contract". Democracy gets the same treatment.

But here's a nice little quote that puts things in perspective:

Suppose five robbers break into the home of a family of four. As the robbers are about to leave with the owners’ possessions, the owners object, on the grounds of private property rights. The criminals, being of a philosophical bent, are willing to engage in dialogue with their victims. Under the influence of Pipes, they are willing to hold a democratic referendum on the issue of whether or not it is justified for them to "take" the family’s household goods. The vote proves conclusive: five in favor (the thieves) and four against (the family members.) Would it make any difference if thereupon the gang stated that it was their intention to distribute their ill-gotten gains to the poor, and thus their motives were "benevolent"? Not at all. Theft is theft, and there need be no benevolence to it at all. (#)

I guess the "social contract" and democracy theory would say this: The family memebers in question happened to be in the same geographical are as the thieves, and have the bad luck of storing their the property in this area. When a number of voters greater than that of the property owners invaded the property, all discussions about who owns what and why came down to a vote, and like with democracy the winner takes all. Is that fair or just or just plain theft?

A few good reads on climate changes and related issues

"The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has just put the polar bear on the endangered species list because it is supposedly "facing extinction" -- mainly, it claims, as a result of global warming. But statistics show the polar bear is not facing extinction, not by a long shot."
The Bear Facts (TCS Daily)

"The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media."
Global Warming: The Other Side of the Story (Capitalism Magazine)

"In the end, a relentless campaign to extend political control over the world’s energy use is likely to fail, in part because, even if severe climate change is in our future, most people intuitively recognize that rhetoric about “the end of civilization as we know it” is inconsistent with human experience. Our distant ancestors survived an ice age with little more than animal skins, crude tools, and open fire pits. For all the talk of science and progress, the global-warming alarmists betray an astonishing lack of confidence in human creativity and resiliency. It’s almost as if the scientific community had abandoned the idea of evolution."
Acclimatizing: How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming (AEI)

Red or green, or does it matter?

I can't resist posting this beautiful paragraph. Seperation of it into smaller sections is mine:

"In my judgment, the "green" movement of the environmentalists is merely the old "red" movement of the communists and socialists shorn of its veneer of science. The only difference I see between the greens and the reds is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as "exploitation" and "monopoly." The greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer and global warming.

Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.

In my view, environmentalism and ecology are nothing but the intellectual death rattle of socialism in the West, the final convulsion of a movement that only a few decades ago eagerly looked forward to the results of paralyzing the actions of individuals by means of "social engineering" and now seeks to paralyze the actions of individuals by means of prohibiting engineering of any kind.

The greens, I think, may be a cut below the reds, if that is possible."
- George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

Dissection of: Unions

Unions are probably one of the most over-estimated inventions ever. They are credited for improved working conditions, for higher wages of workers and a general rise in living standards. The fact is that the opposite is true. Living standards, higher wages of workers and improved working conditions are not the result of the hard work of unions, but something that has been accomplished despite the presence of unions. A simple dissection of unions now follows:

Unions gather workers of a particular company, industry - even country - together as a single negotiator of salaries and benefits. In most cases they use force - sometimes politicians and their law and police - to force employers to raise wages and benefits for a large number of workers.

The employers respond to the extra expenses by reducing the number of available jobs, changing the way they attract new workers (from offering different wages and benefits to different individuals, to offering the same base-level package for all), and hold back on all increase in benefits and wage during times of huge profits, knowing that they will only have to pay up when the next strike is threatened.

This reduces the overall competition among employers for new employees and reduces the number of available jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive (good) employees have to change jobs or ask for higher wages on an individual basis.

The reduced number of jobs, reduced competition among employers for employees and among employees for available jobs boils down to one thing: Fewer opportunities at a higher price. This will not harm those who are protected behind law-protected unions, but everyone else will hurt, and society as a whole will suffer the greatest loss with a (relative) reduction in productivity and less flexibility in all areas.

Unions today have mostly lost their status in the free societies. That is why they now turn their eyes towards the developing world, asking for "fair trade" instead of free trade, and pressure politicians and ask consumers to punish those employers who employ people but don't follow the guidelines suggested by rich Western union leaders.

What is a crime?

I recently had an interesting discussion about what should be considered a crime and what not. Lies - should they be illegal? I say no. What about fraud? I say yes. There is a significant difference in nature between a lie and fraud. If I call myself the most attractive, well-spoken man in the world, I could be telling a lie, and sure enough that would be easy to prove to some chosen jury of 12 people. But I have committed no crime. If I tell everyone my neighbor is a child-molester I have committed no crime although I could not back up my case with evidence. At best I have injured my own reputation among those who heard my accusations, asked for evidence and received none.

A thought worthy quote:

If I take but a single cent of a man's property, without his consent, the act is a crime. But if two men, who are compos mentis, possessed of reasonable discretion to judge of the nature and probable results of their act, sit down together, and each voluntarily stakes his money against the money of another, on the turn of a die, and one of them loses his whole estate (however large that may be), it is no crime, but only a vice. (#)

If there is any role for man-made laws, created by a man-made State, then it is to protect individuals from physical attacks and theft or manipulation of their physical property. A lie does not fall within these borders. A moral or ethical code of law has no place within the State-apparatus. If I tell you that a house is safe and you move into it without any further checking of its structural capacity, and the house falls to the ground one week later, I committed no crime. But if I bribe a house-inspector to give the house the thumbs up, and sell the house on the notion that it has been checked for faults against collapse, then the simple lie turns into fraud, and a crime has emerged. Yes, even if the house does stay up.

Gold

This is a wonderful little lecture by Walter Block, "Mr. Libertarian". The lecture is about the free-market gold standard, as opposed to the State-run central banking system, and makes a convincing case for the gold standard (or silver, for that matter).

State-supervised central banking is the "norm" in our minds, but a norm that should be disposed of. Central banking is a State-instrument to enable the State to spend more money than it can collect with taxes, creating inflation and sending wrong signals to borrowers and lenders of money (details on that issue). The sooner this can be made clear, the better.

Morally legalized theft

The following words are from this memo by Rothbard (some quotation marks omitted to clarify the text outside its full context):

Here is one example of centralized governmental operation: Paul wants some of Peter's property. For morel as well as legal reasons, Paul is unable personally to accomplish this desire. Paul therefore persuades the government to tax Peter in order to provide funds with which the government pays Paul a 'subsidy.' Paul now has what he wanted. His conscience is clear and he has proceeded 'according to law'.

The fact that there are millions of Pauls and Peters involved in such transactions does not change their essential and common characteristic. The Pauls have simply engaged the government to do for them that which they were unable to do for themselves. Had the Pauls done this individually and directly without the help of the government each of them would have been subject to fine and imprisonment. Furthermore, ninety-five percent of the Paula would have refused to do the job because the moral conscience of each Paul wou1d have hurt him if he did. However, where government does it for them, there is no prosecution and no pain in anybody's conscience. This encourages the unfortunate impression that by using the ballot instead of a blackjack we may take whatever we please to take from our neighbors.

What would happen to them in a free society?

An un-countable number of organizations fight the State every day to gain rights, funds or protection. These organizations are as diverse as they are many, and each of them has an agenda that must be sold to the politicians, for example those fighting for gay-rights, labor protection, gender equality, farm subsidies, abolishment of racial discrimination and so on and so forth. But what would happen to these organizations in a free society? The answer is short: They would shrink or disappear completely.

This is not a hard riddle to solve. The free society cares for one thing and one thing only: The freedom to use ones own body and property as ones sees fit. This will usually translate into a search for an increase in ones own physical well-being and/or an increase in ones property and material wealth. Companies want growth and higher profits, and if that means hiring a black or homosexual man, a man in a wheel-cheer or a man with a vagina then so be it, as long as the hired individual is a profitable employee.

The scenery today is somewhat different from that of a free society. A number of laws offer protection and privileges to certain groups relative to others. If a female employee becomes pregnant, she will drop out of work for several months but still receive pay. If a black man is hired and then fired, the company could face expensive law-suits and other expenses as a result. If a homosexual individual gets a job and finds out he didn't do as good in the salary-discussion as the next non-homosexual man, he will file a lawsuit and claim damages without much effort. The whole spectrum of "anti-discrimination" laws and "equal pay for same job-titles" propaganda has shifted the focus away from the individuals in question and towards some vague definitions of minority groups that have homogeneous individuals among them, apparently with the same needs, desires and talent.

The fact of the matter is that discrimination takes place, but in nature not on the basis of gender, race or number of legs. Discrimination takes place whenever two compete for something. The one who gets the job will usually be the one who can convince his would-be employer that he is the one for the job because of skills, talent, education or ability to work overtime and during weekends. If a statistic shows that one group, on the average, receives higher pay than another, it should not be taken as a reason to make new laws. It should encourage those who think they are under-paid to convince their employer of exactly that, and that is all.

Special-interest organizations in a free society would find better things to do with their time than sue the State and demand laws that apply for all individuals, regardless of individual preferences, talent, wants and needs.

Labor unions

A small quote to honor this day of the working man:

Labor unions do not even know how to raise real wages. All they are concerned with is raising the money wages and protecting the jobs of the members of their particular union. Since labor unions do not control the quantity of money or volume of spending in the economic system, the only way that they can raise the money wages of their members is by artificially reducing the supply of labor in their field. But the effect of this is to correspondingly increase the supply of labor and reduce wage rates in other fields. In other words the success of any given union is obtained at the expense of the loss of wage earners in the rest of the economic system. And the losses necessarily outweigh the gains, because an essential aspect of the process is workers being forced into jobs requiring less skill and ability than the jobs from which they are expelled. (#)

The French protests are the ultimate culmination of the power of the labor unions. All law protecting strikes and union power should be abolished immediately. No-one would miss them in the not-so-long long-run. No-one.

A good point, based on a misunderstanding

Sometimes the Left hits the spot, but normally it happens for the wrong reasons. Logic and reason don't bring out the logical and reasonable from the Left. Slogans and misunderstanding does - sometimes.

An Icelandic Leftist-site, Murinn.is, is the star of the Icelandic Leftist-weblogs. Today, an attempt is made to disregard the whole free market-philosophy because some supporters of the free market talk about investments as something that the nation or country does, rather than an individual or certain groups of them.

If economists really believed in the invisible hand, they would never advise any man on the issue of economics, let alone practice economy-management. It hardly suits the idea about the laws of the jungle to practice while being subject to constant interference and social healing in order to maintain economic growth [..] instead of letting the laws work [uninterrupted] and watch their course.

The point is valid - there is of course no such thing as the "nation" investing, buying and selling. Individuals buy and sell, and pointing that out is only good.

But of course the valid point is not sprung from a solid ground of logic and reason. The author claims the "laws of the jungle" are what identifies the free market, and that just like David Attenborough watches lions eat zebras, free market economists should simply sit by and watch the rich eat the poor (or I assume that's to be read between the lines).

The free market is not the laws of the jungle. On thee contrary,

The truth is that economic competition is the very opposite of competition in the animal kingdom. First of all, it is not a competition in the grabbing off of scarce nature-given supplies, as it is in the animal kingdom. Rather, it is a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth. Unlike the lions in the jungle, who must compete for a limited supply of nature-given necessities, such as zebras and other game animals, which they have no power to enlarge, competition among business firms is competition in the creation of new and improved products and more efficient methods of production. ...

As the result of its basic nature, so far from being a process of survival of the fittest, economic competition is the foundation of the survival of practically everyone, including those who from a purely biological point of view are not at all very "fit."...

Furthermore, as Ricardo and von Mises have shown, because of the law of comparative advantage there is room for all in the competition of a capitalist society, including those whose productive abilities are modest in every respect.

It would seem strange to believe otherwise. Those who oppose the free market and follow the doctrine of wealth-distribution act very much in accordance with the laws of the jungle. Wealth that is created by one and, with State-coercion, is distributed to another tends to shrink with time. This is no mystery or hidden secret. But the Left will continue to distribute until all wealth runs out, just like a fox (giving the opportunity) will continue to kill chicken until there is no more (although the fox will have the good sense to bury his gain for harder times).

So yes, economists should renew their knowledge in the Austrian-style economics and discuss the different acts of different parties on the free market from an individual perspective. Nations don't buy or sell. Individuals do, although they usually carry passports that state some nationality or another of its holder.

The warming of a debate

A clever remark about the debate of global warming:

In an age where many of us believe that science has all the answers, while others believe that religion has all the answers, a clever mixture of science and religion can be very powerful. (#)

Greenie Watch gets the credit for the hat tip.

And why this extreme passion around the issue of (possible) human-induced effects on the Earth's climate? It has been demonstrated that fighting the real or imagined human-induced climate changes is not only an extremely expensive and impoverishing act, but also as close to hopeless as possible. Put in another perspective, by fighting climate change by punishing humans for their lifestyles will create poverty (or stop enrichment) and change nothing for the Earth's climate. And since this is the case (and the Warmers don't refute this as much as they try to create panic), why not use the resources on something a little more constructive? Drilling holes for water and pumping money into the HIV- and malaria-campaign are obvious examples. Why not shift the focus from something vague and mysterious to something that kills people every day? Why this passion for the climate change-debate?

One could present a theory to explain this complete lack of perspective: By fighting malaria, thirst and hunger, one does not gain political influence in the rich West. The Red Cross and Amnesty International don't promote politicians. The institutes promoting the human cruelty towards Earth's climate do. The Warmers can beg for money and influence to "prove" that humanity is sending humanity into the Global Warm-age (or Ice-age, depending on the decade we look at). The politicians can say that they understand that "action" is needed, and "action" does, of course, mean increased tax-funding to those who shout the loudest.

But of course this is just a theory. Who knows why global warming, out of all the real or unreal problems of the world, receives this attention, let alone political attention.

A necessary reminder

The Third Industrial Revolution is a nice little article about the changes that will increasingly come about with the (ever-going) globalization-process. Things are put into perspective in language that could even be fit for the average newspaper-reader (who seldom wants to see the big picture and is more obsessed with who writes, rather than what is written). Two quotes about the same phenomena - wages versus productivity, or, job-creation versus job-protection:

Moreover, the New Deal and Fair Deal introduced labor legislation that hastened the expansion of the service industry. It enabled and encouraged industrial labor unions to raise the cost of labor above its productivity, which has given rise to an unnatural economic phenomenon: mass unemployment. Unemployed factory labor has been seeking productive employment in the service industry ever since; it functions like a large net, legal and illegal, that can put all willing labor to productive use.

The forces of political intervention, in order to shield and benefit labor, are likely to increase labor costs, which invariably causes unemployment. After all, every penny of labor cost that exceeds labor productivity is bound to create unemployment.

This is saying it in human language that even the Left can understand (or can it ever?).

The French protests clarify the picture. Last fall, thousands of desperate immigrant-descendant young people filled the streets of France, protesting an impossible unemployment-rate that hits those the hardest who have the least skills, training and experience (in short, young immigrants). This spring, thousands of well-educated native-French people are protesting a decreased law-enforced job-protection. Two sides of the same coin. Both sides are unhappy. The rulers loose votes on both events. Artificial job-security, and its partner in crime - huge unemployment, fight with car-torching and violence. Who's the villain? Hardly Villepin.

A friendly reminder to the Left:

If A thinks that the "impersonal market" is not paying him enough, he is really saying that individuals B, C, and D are not willing to pay him as much as he would like to receive. The "market" is individuals acting. Similarly, if B thinks that the "market" is not paying A enough, B is perfectly free to step in and supply the difference. (#)

And wouldn't that be a peaceful solution to the "injustice" of free trade and capitalism?

Positive Liberty.. to steal?

Icelandic Leftists have, for the past few months, worked hard to push the false term "Positive Liberty" into the daily discussion. Wiki defines:

Positive liberty is often described as freedom to achieve certain ends, ...

Its counterpart, Negative Liberty, is, of course, the

individual's liberty from being subjected to the authority of others.

Clearly these two are opposites. The positivist defines his "liberty" as the right to certain products or services, even if it means forcing others to give up their rightful property and the labor of their bodies.

Positive Liberty is in other words the freedom to steal. There is no way around it. If my "liberty" is about access to material goods produced by others, and to be given to me through the tax-system or some other police-enforced system, then my liberty boils down to the "right" to steal.

The sales' speech of those supporting this false notion of liberty takes on many forms. A few that have popped up in the Icelandic debate are,

1. "Positive liberty aims on giving people freedom from the oppression of the consumerism and the capitalists, but those aspects limit the individual; the liberty to use ones talents as best as possible for the sake of the society as a whole; the liberty to be an active participant in the debate and a voice to be reckoned with no matter who you are and where you come from." (expired link)
2. "And surely [the liberty to be free from coercion] is important like the libertarians say. "The freedom to something" is, however, also important. To reach this kind of freedom, the society must be governed according to the ideals of the Left or else we have inequality of wealth where some are doomed to poverty. Those who are so unfortunate have, truth be told, no liberty to many things the mind desires. The reason is their financial incompetence, which stops them from fulfilling their dreams." (#)
3. "Liberty, in part, is about access to material goods." (#)

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the whole political philosophy in the Icelandic debate is not an a very advanced level. It is more or less about shouting the fanciest slogans and excite the public. That's why the quotes above are a relatively easy target for the supporter of absolute (negative) liberty. Liberty, says the positivist, is about giving the Left the power of the individual's property, so it can be divided among those who are not the owners of the property, or in short: The old communist ideal reborn, while the Cold War corpse has hardly cooled down.

This positivism is hard to fight. It takes three words to say, "Divide the wealth", and receive applause and praises. It takes a little more to explain the death and destruction that follows this mentality, and describe the impracticality and ruthless lack of justice that it carries with it. But the battle must be fought. The Left's obsession with other people's money must be ended, one way or another.

Thank you for proving libertarianism!

By reading exactly this sentence you have proved a whole branch of the political philosophy spectrum: The Austrian praxeological approach on human action and economics. If you stop now, you prove it no less than if you continue reading. And isn't that just beautiful?

Are you still reading? Good for you. How did you just prove a whole political philosophy by reading a single paragraph (or not)? Because by doing so (or not), you chose a certain action, decided you use your time, available to you because you own your own body, on something rather than something else. No-one has a pistol pointed towards you and is forcing you to read (or skip it). No-one forced you to read or not read. You chose, you acted, and thereby you prove that you are an individual, have values, a time-preference (you do one thing rather than another because you choose it), and that's pretty much all there is to say about it.

If you doubt that you chose to read this, are an individual or did something as an individual rather than as a part of "society" or "the public", then read this (wont take more than 15-25 minutes and could change the way you look at everything forever). Heck, read it no matter if you believe you prove a whole system of thought or not. It will do you good (according to my value-scale).

Expecting a documentary? Expect something else

Michael Moore is a funny man. So funny in fact that he can make fun of horrible things and receive millions of dollars, prizes and applause in return. Now he is working on a "documentary" about the American health care system. He is asking people to turn themselves in to talk about their grief with the system. His sales' speech in his own words:

Have you ever found yourself getting ready to file for bankruptcy because you can't pay your kid's hospital bill, and then you say to yourself, "Boy, I sure would like to be in Michael Moore's health care movie!"?

Or, after being turned down for the third time by your HMO for an operation they should be paying for, do you ever think to yourself, "Now THIS travesty should be in that 'Sicko' movie!"?

Or maybe you've just been told that your father is going to have to just, well, die because he can't afford the drugs he needs to get better – and it's then that you say, "Damn, what did I do with Michael Moore's home number?!"

Of course there is nothing wrong with what he's doing. He is creating a movie that will describe the way Michael Moore feels about the American health care system. He is a socialist, he wants to nationalize the health care system and he is making a movie to make that point. Everyone knows this. No-one really looks at his work as a document of something like for example the wild life documentaries on the National Geographic channel - not anymore. Michael Moore uses his extensive network and popular website to draw out a few of the few who have a beef with their health care system and have, for some reason or another, received poor medical care.

But this should not cloud people's minds more than necessary. The fact is that the American health care system is the biggest health care money machine in the world, the heart and soul of all medical research in the world, the ground from which most of the latest and drugs and medical treatments grow in, and, all things considered even, an excellent provider of excellent health care.

Of course there are faults in the system. They are many and grave. But the big picture prevails despite of them. Michael Moore wants to nationalize the health care system, and use his wittiness, millions of dollars and video recorders to make that point. Good for him. But thats just about all thats good about his cause.

Division of labor

The concept of the division of labor is a fundamental one in economics. Leftists despise it of course, but that's for obvious reasons: They don't understand the actions of man. When a headline states that Outsourcing is a win win proposition it is not just stating a result of an experience - it is stating a logical conclusion which results from the division of labor. Or in the words of Mises (bold is my doing:

If, through his superiority to B, A needs three hours' labor for the production of one unit of commodity p compared with B's five, and for the production of commodity q two hours against B's four, then A will gain if he confines his labor to producing q and leaves B to produce p. If each gives sixty hours to producing both p and q, the result of A's labor is 20p + 30q, of B's 12p + 15q, and for both together 32p + 45q. If however, A confines himself to producing q alone he produces sixty units in 120 hours, whilst B, if he confines himself to producing p, produces in the same time twenty-four units. The result of the activity is then 24p + 60q, which, as p has for A a substitution value of 3 : 2q and for B one of 5 : 4q, signifies a larger production than 32p + 45q. Therefore it is obvious that every expansion of the personal division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it.

It takes a certain kind of human mind to deny the participants in the economy the full freedom to participate in a completely open and restriction-free market of theoretically indefinite division of labor. This certain kind of mind is a one that focuses on public popularity, voters, personal gain and power, but not on welfare and wealth increase, improvements in lives and personal liberty. Socialism is the name, death and destruction is the game.

The Leftist's dilemma

Being a Leftist in a free market-society is a tricky thing. In order to be a successful one (that is, a one that collects a lot of votes) you need a few things to be in place:

1. You need the filthy rich to talk bad about.
2. You need a big group of average- or low-paid people to envy the filthy rich.
3. You need the money of the filthy rich to spend on your favorite groups of voters.
4. You need to tax just enough to squeeze on the filthy rich, but not too much so you don't scare them away to other countries or reduce the incentive to become rich too much.

So basically, you need a society where you can actually become rich (or not low-paid), and design the tax-code in such a way that keeps the rich within your taxing grips. This means you can not create a full scheme of redistribution because although that would guarantee a big share of the votes from the low-income voters, it would also leave you without the rich to tax for the "benefit" of the poor.

So basically, in order to keep face as a Leftist, you need to be a capitalist in practice, but a socialist in speech. And isn't that a double-moral that would keep any honest man awake at night?

Irony of statism

It is ironic that those who are the biggest demonstrators against non-Clintonian wars are also those who are the biggest fans of the State. Only governments go to wars. Only States think they have an interest in sub-doing the rulers of other States. Somehow, the Left misses that point.

Free trade progresses

Google News search: "free trade" is becoming one of my favorite websites. It is encouraging to see the scores of countries offering and accepting free-trade agreements with each other while the WTO gradually falls victim to protests, paperwork and bureaucracy (mostly from the European Union and not helped by the USA). Or perhaps that's a good thing, because it distracts the Leftists from the bi-lateral and regional free-trade agreements (actually being made) and puts their focus on the WTO, where progress is slow at best and few hope for improvements.

Two good ones from Rothbard

The Mantle of Science by Murray N. Rothbard is a must read for anyone who wants to see the public debate in another perspective. Two catchy quotes:

[N]ext time someone preaches the priority of "public good" over the individual good, we must ask: Who is the "public" in this case?

Obvious answer: Some small but noisy favorite group of the politician speaking.

[I]f B thinks that the "market" is not paying A enough, B is perfectly free to step in and supply the difference. He is not blocked in this effort by some monster named "market."

Despite this, the Left usually wants the State for force the average man to pay for its demands. Immoral at best.

Free Trade finds a way

Encouraging news:

Multilateral negotiations aimed at ending trade and customs barriers are expected to last several more years and they face fierce opposition by anti-globalization campaigners.

Those countries wishing to proceed at a faster pace have mostly opted for the bilateral and regional route. (#)

It seems free trade is starting to act the way life does in Jurassic Park, "[trade] always finds a way". While the anti-capitalist movement of the world (Greenies, Reds, Leftists, Statists) gather up for protests during world-leader meetings, the real free-trade agreements are being made on a country-to-country basis.

A thing to remember

To complain that 10 percent earned too large a percentage of our income is to forget that they actually earned 100 percent of their own income. (#)

Unless, of course, in the case of the State, where a 100% of the income is stolen, no matter where some or another percentage of the total income came from.

Leftists: Encourage War!

Each war is also an internal emergency situation, and an emergency requires and seems to justify the acceptance of the state's increasing its control over its own population. Such increased control gained through the creation of emergencies is reduced during peacetime, but it never sinks back to its pre-war levels. (#)

Few question the observation that the historically biggest increase in State expansion in post-medieval times happened in the years after World War I and II. While engaged in war, the countries of the Western world gradually nationalized their schools, hospitals, infrastructure and utility services and have hardly let go since.

Put in another way: Everything the Left says is "public service" and must remain in State hands is in State hands because of the "emergency situation" created by war.

Put in yet another way: If it wasn't for war between governments, the Left would remain in its proper place - minimal and out of the way. But instead wars broke out and the Left got to see its dreams come true, with the State expanding without resistance during times of war, death and destruction.

But even worse than this pay-off war has for the Left is the denial of the Left of the fact that it in reality wants war, and needs it to gain ground. Somehow the Left beliefs it can have a big, great and powerful State but only in some areas but not others. A big, powerful State should remain in the school- and hospital-business and stay of the killing-business, the Left says. This is an ideological and a historical self-illusion. War is a friend of the Left and the Left knows it.

Perhaps this can explain the harsh opposition from the modern-Left that comes up whenever a non-Clinton president engages in a war outside his own borders, while the Right in some way accepts the reasons given by the Clintons when they go to war? Does the Left simply have a bad conscience?

State science

State Science is Bad for Your Health:

But the public doesn't know that tobacco use appears to be associated with many positive long-term health outcomes, including lower incidences of Alzheimer's and certain cancers. At this time, such conclusions don't have the weight of the results of rigorous research precisely because studying smoking for positive health outcomes won't be funded. The hypothesis itself is simply too politically incorrect.

Also, among other thoughts:

Alzheimer's disease. Similarly [to Parkinsons's disease], the frequency of this degenerative mental disorder has recently been found to be as much as 50%less among smokers than among nonsmokers for example, by the H studies reviewed in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1991.

On a related issue (obesity):

But the notion that our expanding waistlines have put us on the verge of a calamitous offensive against our health care system simply isn't borne out by the evidence. And so these incessant calls for immediate, large-scale government interference in how we grow, process, manufacture, market, prepare, sell, and eat our food ring hollow, hyperbolic, and needlessly invasive.

Maybe the whole public panic about health related problems is just another tool of the State to help it expand itself? Like global warming, moral hazards and other such home made issues.

Health and insurance in a free society

Does a free society mean the death for the sick and the poor? Far from it. The problems of health care and its provision are not market-related. The are a State-created problem. A brilliant analogy from a brilliant man serves as a good start to explain why:

For those who believe that consumer safety would be hurt under such an open, competitive system (a free market in healthcare), let me use an analogy. Suppose you were to say, "Look, some people have crummy Chevy cars, which are less safe and less comfortable. This falls short of our goal that all consumers get only the best. Therefore we should insist that all cars live up to the standards of a BMW or a Mercedes." Would we all wind up with the comfort and safety of driving luxury cars? Of course not. Many of us would have to resort to bicycles or go on foot. If all cars had to be luxury cars, very few of us would be able to ride in any sort of car. With respect to doctors, a similar situation has been put in place. We have basically outlawed all Chevy doctors who focus on the less expensive minor health problems (which is, in fact, all that most people have) and are forced instead to use Mercedes doctors who charge Mercedes prices even for ailments that can be fixed by people with significantly less training. (#)

A few question arise that are easily answered:

But what about the medium well-doing individuals that actually do need the luxury car, for example because of a difficult and/or rare sickness?
This is an easy "problem". Many have cars. Most of those have insurance. If a poor car-owner with a standard insurance hits an expensive car (by accident), his insurance will most likely cover it. The insurance market actually wants the unexpected and unanticipated, because why else would people buy insurance? The unexpected creates and incentive for the normal, average guy to buy an insurance (why else would he?). Those who actually become beneficiaries are the random statistic that creates the whole (hopefully profitable) market for rare-case and difficult illnesses.

What about the absolutely poor and devastated that have long-term difficult diseases?
Again an easy "solution". The quote above illustrates the health care that a free society would offer. There would be a whole lot of "okay" doctors and good ones that either can't or don't want to cure only the rich and famous. The market for health care in a free society would be enormous. And the wealth of the average person would be tremendous compared to the system we recognize today. And historically, the lack of State-interference in the market of health care means the presence of a vast number of volunteer, charity and non-profit health care institutions. When we aren't told the State solves the problems of the poor, individuals step in. And they do a better job. And the absolutely poor and devastated would be a tiny minority group that wouldn't create any kind of burden for the society of individuals as a whole.

But the important thing to keep in mind is the effects a State-regulated and -provided health care has on the actions of the rational individual. If you give away free candy, people eat more candy. When you give away "free" health care, more people get sick. This is the fundamental problem with collective systems of any kind. They create a demand for the otherwise undemanded or less-demanded. They make healthy individuals sick, to name one thing. And when everybody is sick all the time, everybody needs doctors all the time, and everyone pays the price (in all aspects of the term "price").

Hurray for more free trade!

El Salvador becomes first Central American nation to join free trade pact with US (via):

El Salvador on Wednesday became the first Central American nation to join a regional free trade agreement with the United States.

Truly good news for the country. Both countries actually. Of course there are downsides: Both countries have all kinds of restrictions and extra-demands, but the important thing is that an agreement was reached. Politicians can sometimes agree on something despite of politics.

Criticism from both El Salvadorians and American Democrats reflects the benefits of this free-trade agreement. From El Salvador:

But about 3,000 people marched elsewhere in the capital, San Salvador, to protest the agreement, which they say will hurt local farmers, street vendors and organized labor faced with competition from cheaper goods or with tighter restrictions on sales of counterfeit goods.

From USA:

Democratic critics contended the deal would expose US workers to unfair competition from low-wage nations and move more manufacturing jobs overseas.

This kind of criticism boils down to one concept: Division of labor. El Salvador will "steal" manufacturing jobs from Americans, and Americans will "compete unfairly" in prices on advanced consumer goods. American taxpayers will subsidize the agricultural goods for the people of El Salvador, and the people of El Salvador will gain jobs, increase domestic competition for labor and move forward towards a richer society.

In the end, both will be happy. Even while buying the soon-cheaper goods and services from their free-trade partner while complaining about each others unfair advantages.

Welfare - whose welfare?

What is welfare?

[M]ost 'welfare' is simply transferring cash from and too the same people at different stages of their lives. (#)

The now-in-ruins Western welfare system is a stubborn myth but a one that will soon be a historical monument. How soon is a little uncertain. The Left is good at making up new problems for the State to fix, global warming being one of the newest ones. These new Leftist-hobbies must be fought with teeth and claws when they pop up. So much is certain. The rest will kill itself off with repeated failures to provide the promised goods.

A note on capitalism

Never too often mentioned is the essence of the following quote:

The truth, which real economists, from Adam Smith to Mises, have elaborated, is that in a market economy, the wealth of the rich—of the capitalists—is overwhelmingly invested in means of production, that is, in factories, machinery and equipment, farms, mines, stores, and the like. This wealth, this capital, produces the goods which the average person buys, and as more of it is accumulated and raises the productivity of labor higher and higher, brings about a progressively larger and ever more improved supply of goods for the average person to buy. (#)

This simple truth is out of reach for those who focus on present consumption and spending of wealth. The Left does not grasp the term "capital" and "investment", but is obsessed with money and consumer goods. And to top the irony, the Left blames the Right for only thinking about money! I love to hate their sincere and utmost stupidity, too be frank.

The Magic of Government

It seems the State is a magical instrument that, simply by existing, magically can do all sorts of things that would otherwise not be possible to do (especially not in a way that is deemed acceptable to the majority of people). To explain I must first define the State (or Government) and then give a few examples.

The State is an entity that holds an exclusive right to exert violence and coercion upon free individuals and their companies and organizations. In Leftist-jargon this means that the State must shape the society of men into some form or another, for example that of equal income or equal access to everything found "basic" in human existence, regardless of everything else.

And what happens once you have the institution of State? First of all, everyone now has access to doctors and hospitals. No free and volunteer work of man can provide that. Only men who can use force to move money, time and energy from one individual to another can figure out how to help the poor and needy to get healing when sick or medicine when feeling bad.

Another magical effect of being paid with money collected with force is the ability to plan and construct roads, residential areas and utility service (such as water, electricity and telephone networks). No institution or company that relies on volunteer payments and employs private companies can provide these products of the magically skilled public officials. It seems you have to be paid with stolen money to organize roads and lay pipelines in the ground.

Also, when you receive stolen money as salary you seem to gain the emotions and skills that qualify you to settle disputes and protect people from fraud and violence. Only public officials can govern over police, courts and lay the framework of day-to-day interaction between free individuals and their companies. This is truly magical.

And last but not least, when you receive your salary from an institution of legalized violence and coercion you are the only one who has the brains and the balls to decide what people must learn to sustain their existence in society of man. Education must be organized and funded by means of public officials, since private companies and the individuals in their service don't have the magic touch it takes to provide education that is any good. And the younger the students, the bigger the need for public officials to be the sole decision-makers and organizers.

There is much to say about the good and bad sides of the institution of State, but the magic effects of its coercive nature are truly remarkable!

Economics of taxation

The effects of taxation? Here's a description:

The price that invariably must be paid for taxation, and for every increase in taxation, is a coercively lowered productivity that in turn reduces the standard of living in terms of valuable assets provided for future consumption. Every act of taxation necessarily exerts a push away from more highly capitalized, more productive production processes in the direction of a hand-to-mouth-existence. (#)

Knowing that a thief will rob you every time you earn a penny might encourage you to work more and harder so that the effects of the robbery don't affect the total income as much. However, this kind of incentive to work is in no way a positive one. Or sure, if you are an employer that does not get robbed of the extra hours your employee puts into your business as a result of the constant thefts. Perhaps the Left is secretly giving employers free labor by encouraging taxation? How ironic would that be?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The good people at the Mises Institute are finally putting a little more of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's brilliant libertarian argumentation into the spot-light (buy a book). A short quote:

The state is also not in the same way constrained by competition as is a productive firm. Unlike such a firm, the state must not keep its cost of operation at a minimum but can operate at above-minimum costs because it is able to shift its higher costs onto competitors by taxing or regulating their behavior. Thus, the size of the state also cannot be considered as constrained by cost competition. Insofar as it grows, it does so in spite of the fact that it is not cost-efficient.

Despite all of the masterpieces of Mises, Rothbard and other libertarian writers, few have made such a focused effort to build up the ethics of liberty by strict use of undeniable logic/fact as have Hans-Hermann Hoppe (like, e.g. Mises's "man acts"). Men really have to deny the self-ownership of man to deny the logics of Mr. Hoppe, and today that is not a fashionable thing to deny. Not even for hardcore-socialists.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is perhaps the most important, living libertarian thinker, or who else could that be? Important of course meaning: Can teach modern libertarians more, better and sounder than any other can.

Osama bin Laden is DEAD!

When will Western media stop swallowing down all those little "tapes" that are supposed to contain messages from Osama bin Laden? Osama hasn't been seen since Afghanistan and anyone can fake a voice. Why isn't he declared dead and the tapes disregarded as forgery?

Perhaps Cox and Forkum explain it best. Western media sells by beating up on the West and adoring the poor, passionate, haunted terrorists of the Middle-East. Hippocratic Western media like never seen before. How would Western media today cover an event like World Wars 2? "Innocent citizens of Berlin bombed by vicious British bombers" or "American troops show brutality against poorly manned SS-troops on the Western front" I suppose.

Bookmarks @ TCS

TCS Daily - A Consensus About Consensus. Related: Climate Science: In Need of Due Diligence.

The End Is Not Nigh?.

Two must-reads from the Mises Institue

I must point out two must-read essays I have recently come upon on the fantastic site Mises.org. Both deal with favorites of the Left - one is on welfare economics, and the other on environmentalism.

Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics, by Murray N. Rothbard is a harsh criticism of the Leftist's welfare term and general way of thinking about society, utility and even economics. Also, and perhaps more importantly, Rothbard offers solutions to our problems when dealing with welfare.

The Toxicity of Environmentalism, by George Reisman (website: Capitalism.net), is, for most part, a strong criticism of the "modern" socialism/anti-capitalism movement, frequently called the environmental movement. A must-read to really understand the debate in our society between the friends of man and prosperity and the friends of death and destruction. There is no need to go into more details with that here. Just read the essay!

The warming of the Left

Is there a small chance that the Leftist-Green is giving up on the global-warming issue? Perhaps so. Here it states that,

the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

Well, I guess global warming is on automatic now and nothing to do about it. I guess we can just all continue with our lives, live in warm houses, buy iPods, drive, travel and use refrigerators. Or is this just another scare-tactic from the Left?

The Leftist-faith in some science but not other is quite stunning. Or as one put it:

The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even to bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one - not even the staunchest supporters of science and technology - had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them is forecast the weather — for the next one hundred years!

Perhaps the best thing to do is ignore the Leftist-Green altogether, both in speech and in funding. They have been wrong until now, and they continue to get it wrong. They seek power of tax-funds and free economies, and the global warming taking place is taking place with or without human assistancence, and is well within control for humans to deal with.

War and statism - friends forever

The love for the almighty "protecting", "just" and "democratic" (in some sense) State is a well known voice in modern politics. The State must provide, support, equalize, distribute and protect. The State must uphold the law, take care of the sick and the needy and show an example. The State must keep the individual from damaging himself with cigarettes, alcohol, racism and excessive spending. And above all; the State must keep the peace. But at what expense?

Without given any consideration for the monetary requirements of the just and all-knowing State, this love for the State has had, and will continue to have, enormous negative effects on all human society. The State created the atom bomb to protect and keep the peace. The State has nationalized the health care and educational system to simplify the amount of service and knowledge people seek for. The State provides us with general guidelines for, in most cases, normally non-violent actions. But at what expense?

The expense is: War, death and destruction.

When the governments of Europe and Asia, during World War 2, decided to push their own citizens into war with citizens of neighboring countries (and well outside that), the power of the State became clear. Economies of free trade and peace were turned into economies of war, many of the institutions of the free market were nationalized "for the sake of the war". By sending your citizens to the slaughterhouse you create a false demand for doctors and nurses - hence nationalizing the health care system becomes a must (never to be returned to the free market again). By sending young men to the battlefield you create an abnormal market for education, thereby creating the need to nationalize, and gradually minimize, the education system. Governments invent atom bombs, Tomahawks, battleships and bombers in the name of peace and protection - investments doomed on the free market but deemed necessary by the State to fulfill its own needs when it comes to protection of its citizens.

And this isn't just an old story from the 20th century. Today the front has been pushed even further, now reaching to the very individual, who can be a terrorist or pervert, both in need of surveillance and random arrests now and again. The "war on terrorism" is perhaps not the war of ground-forces and airborne fighters, but its real just the same, run by the State, run for the State.

Statism and war go hand in hand. Ask Bill Gates if he's willing to use some of his billions to create a new weapon of mass destruction. Even if he'd agree with the need for massive protection and massive strike-power against possible enemies, I doubt he'll go along, or even make the effort to gather his fellow billioneers together to sponsor the project. Why kill your possible customers? Only the State values such a possibility.

A small thought experiment

An undeniable principle of all human existence is: Humans act. This is the basic principle of Ludwig von Mises' book Human Action, and no-one can deny it (thus acting, thus proving the point).

But since humans act, they must prefer one action against another. Only the insane act randomly. People eat when hungry, dress when going out, piss when need to, sleep when tired.

Since humans choose certain action as opposed to other, they must seek actions that satisfy them in some respect. Only the insane work on purpose to destroy their own existence. Even the sickest junky chooses actions that benefit his position (most likely actions that acquire him drugs). In general people choose beneficial actions.

Since humans act to benefits, they don't act so as to reduce their benefits. Violence is a non-beneficial action since it could spur revengeful actions against oneself. Theft too, is non-beneficial, since it could have the same consequences. Peaceful, non-violent behavior is, in general and for most humans, not only a question of good morality, but also of a strong self-beneficial action that minimizes the chances of being beaten up or robbed (that being non-beneficial).

And since humans act for their increased benefit, a force that requires them to act in a different way is non-beneficial for humans, and thus non-preferred by them.

And since force is non-preferred by humans, then forcing them to change their behavior, consumption, their non-violent (=beneficial) behavior, and tell humans to reduce their property so that another entity can take control of it is non-preferred. If this other entity is indeed going to use or spend the value of the property on the same products/services that the original owner was going to (on his behalf), then this moving of property rends itself useless and meaningless.

But by forcing humans to give up property, and then spend the value of the property on something else than the original owners were going to, a non-preferred action has taken place.

And this in all simply translates into the fact that taxes are not only non-preferred, but also non-beneficial to humans

How to avoid this logical error? Abolish taxes, and accept a society of humans living without violence and each seeking to improve his life.

The hypocrisy of a socialist hero

"Capitalism has destroyed the ecological equilibrium of the earth. It is now or never!"
-Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela, January 2006

Government spending [in Venezuela] rose 38 percent during the first 10 months of 2005, spurring a 9.4 percent economic expansion last year. A surge in oil exports to a record $48 billion last year funded the increase in spending in Venezuela, the world's fifth- largest crude exporter. (#)

Fuck the public

Is there traffic congestion? Ban all cars! Water shortage? Drink less water! Postal deficit? Cut mail deliveries to one a day! Crime in urban areas? Impose curfews! No private supplier could long stay in business if he thus reacted to the wishes of customers? But when government is the supplier, instead of being guided by what the customer wants, it directs him to do with less or do without. While the motto of private enterprise is 'the customer is always right,' the slogan of government is 'the public be damned!' -Murray N. Rothbard (#)

Oh, how true! Related message.

The Scandinavian indoctrination

As a current resident of Danmark, I found the following quote from a resident of Sweden very amusing:

The real problem is, nobody gives you the other side of the argument in an academic environment where the government has forced environmentalism and radical leftwing feminism into every education. Students are offered free food and free ecological wine from the government controlled alcohol distributor Systembolaget (a state monopoly controlled by the wife of the Prime Minister) while they watch ridiculous science fiction movies. This is the Swedish version of the indoctrination I saw as a young boy in an Iranian school named after a suicide bomber. Being forced to shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" in the school yard is at least an open form of propaganda. The Swedish version allows you to drink wine, feel intellectual and perhaps even win a printer, but is not much less biased. (#)

It is really amazing to think that the countries most successful in the free market capitalist society foster one of the strongest (and, of course, richest) anti-capitalist' movements in the world. Students are one of the hardest hit groups, being "teached" that the world is about to perish and that America is a cooking pot of evil.

The same story told above can be said about Danmark (although alcohol not locked up behind government-doors). The newspapers do never cast doubts on the global-warming doomsday-alerts. A typical sentence in a paper could be something like this: To figth the man-made global warming, that threatens to change the Earth's climate drastically, this and this government action has now been put into works.., and people are taking it in. Fast.

The self-pity of intellectuals

Not only do the so-called intellectuals despise the very society that supports their comfortable, coffee-drinking, suburban lifestyles, but they also suffer from great self-pity (perhaps for the same reasons?). I recent argument for a State-funded university education has recently reached my ears (from the mouth of a Leftist university student, of course): The cost of sacrifice for the university-attending student is underestimated by economists, and should be considered a reason to protect the hard-pressed student from participating in the cost of his or her own education.

I have seldom heard such nonsense before!

What about the sacrifice of the worker who has to pay x% of his salaries to taxes instead of y% (smaller than x%), making his working hours longer, his pay-check smaller and hence clothes, housing, food and spare-time less in quality and quantity? What about the benefits of having a university degree? Better and more pleasant jobs, higher wages, more respect, and so on and so on. Why even bother to attend a university if it is such a sacrifice that it must be put on non-university attending people as a financial burden and a kind of punishment for even having a paying job!

This is the height of the Leftist intellectual arrogance. I hope I will never hear anything like this again.

Is private property justifiable?

Is private property just something made up by men and defended by libertarians, in order to suppress the working man and allow the cruel and greedy capitalist to prosper? Is private property just an instrument made by man and upheld by man, and not really justifiable with logic and reason?

Of course not. There are many brilliant logic for private property, and none against it that hold. One can be found here, and is a new one in the eyes of this author. The following is a quote:

Because rights in one’s own body have been established, property rights may be established by building on this base. This may be done by pointing out that rights in one’s body are meaningless without property rights, and vice-versa. This can be illustrated by the following example. Imagine that A, a thief, admits that there are rights to selfownership, but that there is no right to property. But if this is true, we can easily execute A simply by depriving him of external property, namely food, air, and/or space in which to exist or move. Clearly, the denial of a person’s property through the use of force can physically harm his body just as direct invasion of the borders of his body can. The physical, bodily damage can be done fairly directly, for example by snatching every piece of food out of a person’s hands (why not, if there are no property rights?) until he dies. Or it can be done somewhat more indirectly, by infringing upon a person’s ability to control and use the external world, which is essential to survival. Such property-deprivation could continue until A ’s body is severely damaged, implying that physical retaliation in response to a property crime is permissible, or until A objected to such treatment, thereby granting the existence of property rights (for this can be the only grounds for his objection to being denied property). Just as one can aggress against another with one’s body (e.g., one’s fist) or external property (a club or gun), so one’s self-ownership rights can be aggressed against by affecting his property and external environment.

So, sure, private property can be looked upon as a mere instrument of man, but then the same must apply for food, clothes and general survival. Survival is surely an instrument of man and can be removed or disposed of. Sounds like that which happened in the planes of Ukraine during Soviet Union supervision of one of the most fertile areas in the world.