Nationalized oil, worldwide, on the rise

"As we go forward, the benefits of higher oil prices will go more toward the national oil companies and away from the major oil companies." (source)

It seems that governments worldwide are squeezing "free" companies like Exxon and Chevron out of their fields, and bringing in their own national giants. This is bad news. In countries like Venezuela and Saudi-Arabia, all major oil fields are in the hands of government-owned companies. Their performance reflects this: Old equipment, reduced innovation and falling productivity are their symptoms.

If Exxon, Chevron, France's Total and others of this type are forced out of the game, the game will become less competitive, and its results will suffer the consequence.

Tired of driving? No worries. Soon enough you won't be able to, despite billions of barrels of oil beneath your feet, unattainable due to lack of competence by the oil industry.

A Minister-Free Health Care System

Also, "public" does not inevitably mean "state". Swiss health care is extremely decentralized. Switzerland does not have any Ministry of Health. Every canton and every self-governing administration unit is in charge of its own regulation, hospital accreditation, and funding. Thus, there are 26 slightly different systems in a country with a population of 7 million. A statist bureaucrat will immediately think of the chaos that must reign there. But an economist sees a different phenomenon: competition.

I like Swiss attitude towards the State, health-care and market solutions contra centralized state problems.

Burn that oil and worry not!

"The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming." Source.

Socialism disguised as "man made global warming" is quickly loosing all scientific credibility, thanks to scientists like John R. Christy and others.

Of course, when Earth's climate once again changes its temperature-trend from warming to cooling, the Socialists will simply switch their agenda from trying to "cool" the Earth to trying to "warm" it. When that happens it will be fun to read reports like these, and one more time point out that Socialism has no scientific basis.

Does man regulate the Earth's climate?

I just found a very interesting site (by accident), and present two quotes from it about the climate and its warming (which some still stubbornly declare is man-made):

In 2004 a group of UNIS geology students found an ancient polar bear jawbone at Svalbard. Now it turns out that this find could confirm that polar bear as a species has already survived one interglacial period, bringing hope that the first and foremost Arctic symbol can – in fact – also survive the current warming climate.

Second quote:

The greatest problem for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that they fail to agree on what will happen to the world itself, he told the audience at UNIS. – The planet is itself taking part in the global warming, as the tundra regions emit more CO2 because of increasing temperatures. This is a non-stoppable process from one stable state of the Earth to another stable state; from a cooler climate to a warmer climate, like the ones in the past, Lovelock said.

Both quotes from the website of the University Centre in Svalbard.

What can we learn from this? First of all, polar bears can adapt to changes in the climate's temperature. Second, perhaps there is such a thing as a self-regulating mechanism in Earth's atmosphere, which adjusts when for example volcanoes erupt, leaves rotten and men drive cars fueled by oil.

Doomsday prophesies and socialism are therefore not requested at this time!

Why are we forced to read poems, but not study economics?

In school (as children), most of us are forced to read poems, learn how to play some musical instrument, know the names of the main rivers and towns in our country, learn the basics in a foreign language or two and read famous novels and books.

Very few of us are forced to study the basic principles of economics while the State is in control of our education and forces us to attend school. We must choose to study economics at later stages if we are interested.

This strikes me as weird. As members of society, we are constantly being bombarded with terms like "inflation", "interest rates", "consumption", "taxes", "employment" etc. All of these terms are a part of economics in one way or another. All of them influence our choices and understanding them is necessary to make rational decisions.

For example, I would not recommend anyone using his or her vote with complete absence of basic understanding in economics.

My theory is that the State, on purpose, does not force economics down our naive throats (like it does with poems and geography) because too much and widespread understanding in economics would greatly tie the hands of the State in its relentless inflationary, irresponsible tax-financed governance of our lives.

Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?

So answers Murray N. Rothbard:

Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

I must say that I am not happy with this answer. It's a boring wishy-washy ansewer and doesn't say any more than no answer at all! In my mind, I am a libertarian, and would say yes to the question. However, I would add that those on the left wing that call themselves anarchists are in fact not. They are confused socialists - promoters of violence and all-around State tyranny! Therefore, I agree with Rothbard when he said:

If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.

As I oppose the notion of "limited government" just like any other forms of government, I am an anarchist. That's that!