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.

A few thougths in Icelandic

Síðan ég las bókina Atlas Shrugged hef ég byrjað að líta töluvert öðruvísi á margt í kringum mig, og ég segi stundum að bókin hafi breytt heimsmynd minni eins og hún leggur sig. Sérstaklega finnst mér að hugarfar Hank Rearden í fyrrihluta bókarinnar sé ríkjandi hjá mér, en því má lýsa nokkurn veginn svona:

Ég get yfirleitt tekið á mig aukavinnu ef það hjálpar öðrum sem getur/geta það ekki. Ég get alveg séð á eftir krónu hér og krónu þar, því miðað þá miklu hjálp sem krónan veitir öðrum þá skerðir hún ekki mína möguleika það mikið (ómælanlegt, tilfinningalegt mat). Þetta tvennt ásamt töluverðri þolinmæði gerir það að verkum að ég er ansi opinn fyrir "árásum" þeirra sem þurfa eitthvað (aðstoð, pening, hjálp).

Afleiðingin er meðal annars sú að í marga, marga mánuði eftir að ég og ákveðin manneskja af kvenkyni breyttum formlegri stöðu okkar á milli hef ég verið að gefa pening hér og pening þar til að hjálpa, aðstoða og bjarga. Oft er um "neyð" að ræða þar sem hún er búin að eyða öllum peningum sínum, maxa yfirdrátt sinn og lofa sér í hitt og þetta sem kostar pening og er rosalega mikilvægt og nauðsynlegt fyrir hana og hennar framtíð og drauma, og á svo allt í einu ekki fyrir mat og hvað þá lofuðum útgjöldum.

Maður getur nú ekki látið neinn svelta er það? Og hvað munar mig um þessa upphæð og þessa miðað við hvað henni munar mikið um aðstoðina?

Ég hef fengið skammir frá þeim sem ég hef sagt frá þessu, og verðskuldaðar skammir ef ég má bæta því við. Á endanum þýðir lítið annað en að segja við grátandi andlit að nú hætti þetta kropp og að sjálfsábyrgð sé orðin ákaflega aðkallandi hjá manneskjunni.

Hvað ef ég svo segi að ég neiti að gefa betlandi heimilisleysingjum á götunni? Nei, þá er ég orðinn vondikallinn sem neitar að hjálpa þeim sem minna mega sín. En gilda aðrar reglur um mann sem býr á götunni í hinu svokallaða velferðarkerfi sem er þéttofið af skattgreiddri aðstoð, hjálp, ráðgjöf, húsaskjóli, námskeiðum, meðferðum, atvinnu og almennum stuðningi? Nei, og heldur ekki í fjarveru alls þessa þar sem bara væri um sjálfviljuga aðstoð í boði sjálfboðaliða og fólks sem fær laun frá frjálsum framlögum (sumsé, aðstoð sem er ekki fjármögnuð með sköttum og unnin af opinberum starfsmönnum).

Í vinnunni er þetta svolítið öðruvísi. Ég er (eða ætti ef ekki væri fyrir blogg í lok hádegispásu að ræða) að vinna örlítið verkefni fyrir eina á vinnustaðnum sem er í svolitlum vandræðum með andlegt jafnvægi. Hér er ég a.m.k. spurður ef ég geti bætt á mig til að aðstoða annan. Ég játa því yfirleitt og raunar alltaf hingað til, því ég get (a.m.k. núna) og vil (yfirleitt) hjálpa til.

"The Rearden-syndrom" er merkilegt og ruglingslegt fyrirbæri og banvæn blanda samviskubits, umburðarlyndis þegar það á ekki að vera til staðar og almennrar hjálpsemi sem á yfirleitt að vera til staðar en þó alls ekki alltaf.

Difference in nature or in degree?

I have huge doubts about the existence of the State. However, I have grown up with having a State. My reason and my experiences and habits have a conflict about the State. Logically, the State is always a violator of the individual liberty. Historically, the State has taken upon its arms many functions in society that have rarely been given freedom since. Roles such as the Educator, the Doctor, the Priest and the Road-builder are more often than not played by the State. The Policeman and the Judge are roles even libertarians want the State to keep, even though everything else is set free.

But as complicated the debate is, the whole thing pretty much boils down to one thought: Is there a difference in nature or in degree by having many individuals, and many states/state institutions?

An example: I have to take a shit. I must do this alone (or have a nurse on a payroll). Every individual goes to the toilet alone. This is accepted. No-one, not even the biggest statist, pictures the State as having a role in the individuals' toilet trips.

Now lets jump over to law-enforcement. Almost everyone casts the State in this role, and exclusively so (give or take a few private security firms). But how come I don't even get the option of protecting myself? Most people prefer going to the toilet alone, but a few need help or want help. Most people prefer to have an agency or firm to protect their property and bodies, but a few want to do so without help. Why the huge separation of state-participation from one action or choice to another? Why the State's almost complete absence from one area of actions, and the complete monopoly for others?

I don't think the difference is logical. Taking a shit is a natural thing no-one can do without. Being protected from violence and theft is another one. Having a monopoly of the individual on one area and the State's on another has, I think, to do with nothing but habit. The difference is in degree, not nature.

A straight forward solution to the logical error of the different degree of State-participation: Abolish the State.

Capitalism in a free market society

I must strongly recommend this essay to every free-thinking individual. Its theme is capitalism and its popularity in a free market (capitalistic) society (or rather lack thereof). How come people can live in a wealthy, capitalist society and still look fondly at socialism and its offspring? Read and find out.