Slavish mind-set

An excellent point:

If only one be tactful enough not to name the hated names of Socialism, Bolshevism, Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Hitlerism, or what not, one finds no particular objection to the single essential doctrine that underlies all these systems alike — the doctrine of an absolute state. Let one abstain from the coarse word slavery and one discovers that in the view of many Americans — I think probably most of them — an actual slave-status is something that is really not much to be dreaded, but rather perhaps to be welcomed, at least provisionally. Such is the power of words.

And how true!

A Dreadful development

I seems that a dreadful development is taking place. The powerful globalization that has been taking place for the last 25 years or so, liberating hundreds of millions of people from poverty, is now loosing its momentum! It seems that the Leftist-green is gaining the upper hand. Free trade and open markets are being replaced with "fair" trade and protectionism in many areas of the world. South-America is falling for socialism, Africa is stuck in its usual place of poverty and disease and the West is regulating and taxing itself to economic drowsiness in the name of environmental issues and social "justice".

This is a horrible development indeed. Milton Friedman died without an obvious successor in the public debate, while the Left produces men like Al Gore and Michael Moore, who make propaganda look like science and George W. Bush look like some kind of a symbol of the Right. The result is as expected: Liberty looses ground, globalization is put on hold and hundreds of millions of people get stuck in poverty and disease.

How to fight this? How to fight the Left that in many ways controls the public debate, has a firm grip on the ever-expanding State and has falsely managed to paint itself as the guardian of the environment and "public" health? For myself I can see no other way out than the one which created the freedom momentum 25 years ago: Tireless criticism of the statist popularism, preaching of the unpopular rational thought and recycling of the works of the great minds of libertarian thought (who I see as Rothbard and Mises and to some extent, Milton Friedmand and Hayek). Or is there another way?

A convenient truth

The "debate" over man-made climate change has, for a long time, not been about science, potential threats to the environment or anything of the sort. The debate has instead turned into a fierce battle over political intervention on the free market. Leftists pick those science data and speculations that indicate that man is having devastating effect on Earth's climate, and use it to suggest a bigger government, heavier taxes and stricter regulations. Those to the right play the opposite game, also plucking those science research and speculations that fit their cause - that of a smaller State and freeer market.

As uninteresting as this is, I sometimes feel myself forced to enter the "scientific" debate about potential human-induced climate change to fight the statist propaganda. One tool to help me do that are reports like these, Positive Environmentalism: A Convenient Truth:

Wealth is vital if we are to adapt, and help poor countries adapt, to climate change if that becomes necessary. And wealth is also essential to the development of those new technologies that truly have the potential to set us free from environmental danger.

The tone of the report is not the one of unlimited optimism or denial of "potential" climate change. Instead, the approach is this: If any climate change is on its way (or already in progress), then the correct way to handle it is not to keep mankind down with regulations, taxation and other State interference, but to focus on that which will allow mankind to become wealthier and in that way give a bigger proportion of mankind the necessary means to survive and be comfortable in the new, upcoming climate.

It's not my favorite thing in the world to argue for freedom on these terms, but I guess it is useful while the Leftist-environmental movement is slowly being exposed as the statist-movement it is, and its agendas exposed as just another way to expand the State and strangle the free market.

Why Socialism/Statism is popular

Why is it that not everyone is a freedom loving libertarian? How is it that many choose to support Statism, Socialism, Conservatism and other forms of the (democratic/autocratic) rule of the many over the few (and the other way around)? Is it because the arguments of libertarianism are faulty? No (then this would have been demonstrated). Is it because some people enjoy paying taxes and giving away their liberty and property to a few elected individuals? No (or else people would just give money to the State and follow moral codes similar to State-law, instead of just obeying when the tax-collector comes by). The reasons for the popularity of Statism are simple: Everyone thinks they know better on behalf of others, or is out to grab others property for either selfish reasons or their own "noble" reasons.

This can be explained with a hypothetical example: Suppose Mr Jones, a Leftist, believes "everyone should have equal access to higher education". Mr Jones will claim that this is a "human right", and a natural demand to make. He will present results from studies, which clearly indicate that education is a good investment for the student and "the society", and that poor individuals should not be stopped from educating themselves for "financial reasons". No, the Leftist says, education should be "free" and open to "anybody" who wants to seek it.

But how will the Leftist plan to accomplish his wish? Will he ask people to donate money, which in return will be given out as scholarships to students, for example poor ones? No. Will he donate money himself to support those who wish to seek higher education? No. Will he do anything which, in a voluntary way, eases access to universities for the few and the poor? No.

What he will do is say: "Dear politicians, please raise taxes on people's income and capital savings and use the proceeds to finance State-run schools so that every interested applicant can attend the study of his or her choice."

He will also say: "People are selfish and greedy and won't support students who want to seek higher education but have tight financial means to do so. Therefore, you must listen to my noble and just plan, and force it on everyone else, and never even try the voluntary way."

So, what does this teach us? How come Leftism is so popular? Because, either Mr Jones is himself a student in some higher education and wants others to subsidize his choice of investment/consumption, or he believes his opinion is so noble and so just that no-one should really have the right to protest in any meaningful way. And this is why Leftism enjoys wide popular support in many groups in society (notable the intellectuals and those who want to grab from the rich and bring to themselves).

Why Socialism is evil

In my last entry I said, with very little backing up, that Socialism is evil. I will now spend a few more words than last time and explain what I mean (and didn't explain earlier).

Socialism can be described in the following way:

[A] broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

The key concept behind this system is the abolition of private property (everybody owns nothing). In theory this applies only for property rights over material things. In practice, and inevitable so, the individual's self-ownership is also abolished ("society", "community", "the collective" and other such words always refer to many individuals, and each individual by himself is therefore not an entity in a system of Socialism).

Some people say that Socialism is a "beautiful" or "charming" thought. Individuals who hold this opinion say, or think, that individuals can become "equal" in some respect (for example monetary income) if "society" (for example the State) is placed higher than the individual. Everybody would then become less greedy, more equal and happier. Envy would become extinct. No-one would have lots of money and no-one would be desperately poor. Or so the Socialist says.

But Socialism is not a beautiful thought. Socialism is the system of ants - of a society where each individual is no more than a slave to "society", and whose talents, ambitions, preferences, interests, needs and cravings are no different from any other. Ants live for "the colony" - for the physical well-being of one queen - and each individual is therefore worthless as long as others can take its place. No ant suffers from envy because all are the same. No ant har more or less talents than the next. No ant gets business ideas and takes risks while implementing them. No ant discovers new and improved methods in hope of profits and wealth. No ant has any value by himself. All are equal. None is special.

How an individual, with a free mind and having a recognized self-ownership right in a free society, can call Socialism a "beautiful" thought is beyond me. The beauty of humanity is the diversity of its individuals, be it in talents, tastes or looks. A system based on enforced "equality", be it in monetary income or something else, does not see the individual, and denies him as a basic "unit" in society.

Socialists want to abolish the private property right (that can actually not be done, but at least they want to outlaw it). At the same time they often deny that they want to outlaw the individual's self-ownership right. This is the same as to say that a person can own a car, but the "society" decides where and when it should be driven. If the individual owns his own body, but cannot apply it the way he sees fit (for example, sell labor to a factory-owner or keep the apples he picks from the "public" trees), then the term self-ownership is worthless and meaningless.

Socialism is not a system suited for a society of individuals, and every attempt to impose Socialism is un-humane (if logic doesn't tell us that, then history sure as hell does). Socialism is State-enforced slavery, and evil.

How to beat the evils of Statism

Some people believe socialism is a "beautiful thought", but a very difficult one to implement. The same applies for all the little bits of socialism we discuss everyday: Socialized medicine, socialized schools, socialized roads. Of course this is nonsense. Socialism is not a beautiful thought in any way, and the right way to beat it is to show why that is.

Here is a useful quote:

So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance. (#)

This is an important lesson. Never allow a Leftist to catch you agree with his notion of a "beautiful thought" or "noble idea". Socialism is pure evil, designed to mold humans into little packages of equal monetary income and destroy individual liberty. Humans are not equal, but different in every single aspect (talent, intelligence, will, preferences, etc). A system designed to equalize individuals is therefore un-human, and a horrible, evil idea.

To demonstrate that is the way to beat the evils of socialism.

Update: This entry has been picked up by an Icelandic Leftist. So far, not good, but hopefully that will change (with the next entry).