Idealism vs. realism

Libertarians are often confused when it comes to politics. Should they fight for liberty in its ideologically purest form or practice politics as "realists", only focusing on those issues which can realistically be changed in today's political climate?

My favorite response to thoughts like these is as follows, in a quote by an anti-slavery fighter in times when slavery was considered the norm:

“Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.” /William Lloyd Garrison

This quote can be found in the great book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard (p. 18).

Wealth in the United States and Europe

It seems that more and more Americans are looking up to Europe. They want to take of the social democracy of high taxes and an extensive welfare system that so many European countries are famous for having.

Well I say: Wait a minute! Because social democracy is not a policy of wealth creation and rising standards of living. It is mostly about distribution of wealth that in the process becomes smaller and smaller.

This article should shed some light on the situation. The richest European country, by far, would only be the fifth richest state in the United States. The second richest country would be number 15. The poorest American state even beats countries like Italy, South-Korea, New Zealand, Japan and Spain.

When I tell this to people (here in Denmark), the reply is often great amazement or a blatant refusal or some vague excuse about having a better life. A better life for what? Of course money is not everything but as far as I can see, people want good houses, good food, good clothes and opportunities to treat their family with presents, vacations and nice things. People love their Apple-phone but don't like that Apple generates profit. People enjoy to ride in their affordable, safe, fuel-efficient car filled with nice extras but despise global competition which made their creation possible.

Europe has been lagging behind for many years and is not a model to be followed. Neither is the United States on their path to never-ending wars, welfare expansion and spending of borrowed money. But at least the United States could turn their heads to others for models before its too late.

More borders can mean more freedom

While borders can often work to inhibit the movement of goods and human beings, they can also offer opportunities for greater freedom by limiting the power and reach of existing states.

What a splendid point! We Need More Borders and More States says Ryan McMaken. Anarchism and Radical Decentralization Are the Same Thing is another message from the same author. I could not agree more. The following passage is from the American Declaration of Independance: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ...

I agree. Let us abolish government. We don't even have to institute a new one. 

Taking a lot of time off affects your salary

Those who have read and understood economics know that people get paid according to their value creating abilities on the free market. This means that working people ask for pay raises or change jobs until they have obtained their free market "price" so to speak.

It follows that women or men who work fewer hours than others in order to stay more at home with their children get a lower salary than others. Their careers are quite simply shorter in number of hours used to build up value creating abilities and experience. This can be backed up by data, but really it should just be self-evident.

This baffles many. People say in a state of shock that everyone should get equal pay for "equal work", usually referring to the so-called wage gap between women who have children and others, such as non-married, childless men and women.

A good understanding of economics can clear ones mind when following the public debate on different topics. It will for example teach you that nobody wants to pay you for taking more time off than others.

Socialism in a nutshell

The following is taken from the Facebook-page of the FEE president Lawrence W. Reed, and I find it brilliant:

My take on socialism is this: Socialism only seems to work when you don't fully implement it, when you keep enough capitalism around to pay socialism's bills, at least for a time. It's the difference between milking the cow and killing it. Socialism has no theory of wealth creation; it's just a destructive, envy-driven fantasy about redistributing it after something else (and somebody else) creates it first.

I might just as well post two of my other two favorite comments on a similar topic:

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
- Margraet Thatcher

And:

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
- Frederic Bastiat

Anything to add?

Left, right and the libertarian middle

We often talk about "left" and "right" in politics (or "liberal"-"conservative").

Some say that these terms are obsolete as they don't capture the reality of political discourse. Say someone is for higher taxes, more welfare but despises politicians. Is he to the left or to the right? Say someone wants lower taxes but restrictions on some private matters via government control. Is he to the right or left?

There is however a way to reconcile the terms of "left" and "right" by applying the concepts to a different degree of scepticism towards government control and meddling. Those who adore the State are those furthest to the left. Those who want a completely voluntary society are furthest to the right.

This will obviously place National-Socialists (nazis), Communists and other State-fans furthest to the left. Next to those are the left-liberals, social-democrats and other traditional leftists. In the middle we have most people - sceptical towards the State in some issues but more open to State-interference in others.

Furthers to the right are the libertarians who want to abolish the State and live in a completely voluntary society where each man is the full owner of his own body and the property belonging to it.

Another way to look at the left-right scale is by placing the libertarians in the middle. Those to the right lean towards state interference in social matters but a low degree of State-control of the economy. Those to the left lean towards government meddling in the economy but prefer the absence of the state in social issues. They meet somewhere near the middle with the libertarians who don't want any State-intervention.

I believe "left" and "right" are useful concepts but in order to be so, they must be understood in relation to the State as an entity that we either tolerate or not, or tolerate to a certain degree.