'Crimes' against the State are not immoral

Illegal or immoral? These two concepts should not be confused with each other. Law er merely a description of what is legal and what is not. Morals are a description of that which is morally defensible behavior or action, and what is not.

Lets give the word to Rothbard:

If the State, then, is a vast engine of institutionalized crime and aggression, the "organization of the political means" to wealth, then this means that the State is a criminal organization, and that therefore its moral status is radically different from any of the just property-owners that we have been discussing in this volume. And this means that the moral status of contracts with the State, promises to it and by it, differs radically as well. It means, for example, that no one is morally required to obey the State (except insofar as the State simply affirms the right of just private property against aggression). For, as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property.

This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, "stealing" from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, "homesteading" property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society — a positive good.

Of course this text cannot be understood correctly outside its full context, so I urge everyone to read the full context and understand it correctly!

The 'right' to secede

Free Tibet! is a common slogan heard today from sympathetic Westerners asking China to let Tibet become an independent State. Plans to "make" the Kosovo region an independent State are well underway, despite protests from the region's current ruler, Serbia, and Russia. Taiwan wants independence from China, and has supporters from all over the world for that cause.

But how about taking this development to its logical conclusion:

But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual? Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.

So yes indeed - free Tibet, Kosovo and Taiwan! But please, be logically consistent and don't try to stop anyone or anything from seceding from anything, even though States are more often than not unhappy about losing their taxpayers and citizens into the hands of freedom and liberty.

Radical Libertarianism

The Case for Radical Idealism is a very inspiring article, of course written by Murray N. Rothbard.

Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he under­cuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

The lesson is this: If you are a libertarian, you want to abolish all State activities, including taxes and restrictions on liberty. If you are a libertarian, you want this to happen as fast as physically possible. "Gradual" changes are usually so gradual that the State will have found new projects for itself as soon at it gives up something. "Gradualism" is no way to reach the libertarian free society, and therefore not something the libertarian should adopt.

Should we lower the interest rate?

One of the big constant headaches of financial advisers is whether interest rates will be lowered or raised by the Federal Reserve Bank (or a related institute in any given country). If inflation is on the rise, the interest rate will be raised. If consumer spending is slow (and inflation is low), the interest rate will be lowered.

This of course is government manipulation of the market. Governments have monopolized their currencies and are in general not all to happy about "private money" such as the Liberty Dollar. Governments monopolize currencies because it gives them, in plain language, more money to spend. They back their currencies up with their power to tax. They encourage "loose" money (low interest rates) when the economy is lagging, and "tight" money when there is "too much" action in the economy.

But what does this has to do with our every day lives? Here's the reason why:

An increase in money supply resulting from loose monetary policy benefits the earlier receivers of money. With more money in their possession they have more resources at their disposal. As a result of the increase in the pool of resources of the earlier recipients of money, their cost of funding has fallen — this enables them to lower interest rates. Borrowers who previously had to pay a higher interest rate will find the lower interest rate more appealing, all other things being equal. In short, the lowering of interest rates will enable the lender to lend out a greater amount of money at his disposal.

As time goes by, loose monetary policy undermines real wealth formation — this is manifested by a general increase in prices of goods and services. Because of the erosion in real wealth formation, the cost of lending has increased (fewer ends can now be accommodated with fewer resources—leads to a higher marginal end). Borrowers discover that with a general increase in prices they require more money. All this puts upward pressure on interest rates.