Terrorism

Clinton sat in the White House for 8 years. Half a year after he left office, terrorists flew airplanes in the towers of the World Trade Center. George W. Bush is left with cleaning up the mess Clinton created. Why is then George W. Bush getting the blame?

Outsourcing = good

European have been taught a new "bad" word: Outsourcing! Its meaning is supposed to be the following:

A big, greedy company wants to resign all its innocent, hard-working employers and move their jobs to a country where filthy poor people are willing to do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

I see this propaganda hit me very hard in Denmark, with headlines like "Companies outsourcing for the wrong reasons" and "Job-loss expected in the coming years". A very subtle but clear message is being sent - the local workers should continue to do work which others can do for a lower cost, because moving the jobs out of the country will hurt families and force people to adjust to a changing environment.

Why is it that the obvious lessons of history don't sink in? Europeans should understand better than inhabitants of any other continent that outsourcing means (in most cases) a higher standard of living for all those who come near it. Essentials shrink in price, innovation and technology speeds ahead, the work force uses its strength and capabilities better, and the list goes on and on. Outsourcing is not only a good thing - it is necessary to give a bigger part of humanity a chance to live longer and have better lives. If I at some point in my life loose my job to a guy in India, which can do the same job for a fraction of the cost, will that give me any rights to demand government actions and protections and insist that me having a certain job is the best thing for everyone? No. It simply gives me the right to find something else to do - something that can stand a little competition without calling for panic and red flags.

Danish engineers and university-graduates are very worried about their jobs in the global market. High voices demand increased contributions from tax-payers to the school-system, and all kinds of special programs are created to try to fit Denmark into a new globalized landscape (except perhaps the "special program" of setting the market more free). The propaganda will go on. The lessons of history will be put to side. When will we learn?

Is the State incapable of doing anything?

Many have asked me, knowing that I call myself a libertarian, if I think "everything" should be moved out of the hands of the State? Can't the State do anything according to my philosophy? Isn't everything the State does done badly?

Of course I have to answer with a no - the State can do this and that. Many who also call themselves libertarians think the State should run the police and the court-system, and even say that no-one else can do that in a fair and just way. I tend to agree with this, but I'm not sure if I can say that that's the only thing the State can do and should do.

How can we compare the State with the private sector? The price is a factor - an important one but not the only one. The less something costs, the fewer hours of work it took for the user/buyer to have the means to acquire/enjoy. Another factor is quality, the third might be the satisfaction of the staff in a certain sector, and the fourth of course the satisfaction of the users/buyers.

Historically, the private sector completely destroys the State in every way in every comparison. The staff and users are happier in the free market, the prices are lower, and the quality stands no comparison. It hardly matters what examples are taken - health-care, factory-operation, supervision, manufacturing and so and so on - if the State has something in its hands, and therefore doesn't allow the free market and the free consumer to shape, encourage, punish or reward in an environment of competition and free, unforced choices, then deterioration is the result. Patients are no longer given the best service for the most favorable price. Students are not shaped by the needs of the market with the help of the flexibility of the free enterprise. Drivers must use roads they hardly fit on, and non-drivers are forced to pay for roads they don't use. Money ( = time, energy and health of working people) is moved from one to another without any permissions being given, and it doesn't take a specialist to figure out that only thieves and criminals share that activity with the State.

The State can do a few things. It might be able to run the road-system if its a question of having roads which are okay and keep the standard there. The State is very well suited to distribute money between artists, and keep alive artforms which no-one is willing to pay for voluntarily any more. The State can do certain functions well if they are extremely well defined - the police and court-system fit that description since the law is written and no way around them. However, the State has never and will never run a health care, school system or anything that has to do with food production or distribution in a way that doesn't allow for very drastic improvements. In those areas I will not tolerate the low standards the State is so famous for in all its other activities.

What is my answer then? Can't the State do anything? Does everything have to be privatized and sold to parties on the free market? The answer is: In fields we can live with low standards and not the best of services I think the State will do a very fine job. In fields which touch our health, our freedom, essential products and services and our comfort I think we should keep the State as far away as possible.

Denmark

I´ve moved to Denmark. Those who wish to call can do so via +45 2824 6896. Those who wish to mail can do so via geirag [@] frelsi.com. For now this page will be very scarcely updated, but with time I hope I can change that.

The purpose and use of the tax-system

Taxes are something most of us look very differently at. They are usually a certain rate of our income and on prices of things we buy and sell. The purpose of taxes is to fund the State and its agencies and institutions. The State does not have to ask individuals and companies for permission before they are taxed, much like a thief doesn't ask before he steals. However, taxes are a legal theft.

But what are those agencies and institutions the taxes are funding? There is the police and the legal system, the parliament, in many cases a health care system, in many cases a school system, in many cases some welfare system, and so on. Taxes are ear-market to fund these and related functions of the State. That's all very well, although I am very much opposed to the State being in charge of many of the institutions and agencies it has in it clutches today (in Iceland).

But there are other taxes - taxes which have nothing to do with the legal system, the welfare system and so on. What taxes are those? Extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco besides the taxes put on other products. Extra taxes on gasoline and cars. Extra taxes on those who earn more than a certain amount a year. Extra customs on imported agricultural products.

In one word: Government babysitting and brainwashing of grown, free and sane individuals.

Why do we tolerate this State-control of what we should eat, drink and put into our bodies? The only valid argument is the cost-factor: People who eat and drink unhealthy quickly become an extra-baggage on the publicly run health care system, and therefore its justifiable to try to keep people away from something which leads to the unhealthiness. These arguments are valid because the State handles the health care system. I don't want the State to do that, but as long as it does these arguments hold. In the same way it can be a valid argument for high taxes on cars and gasoline that the government is trying to reduce the usage of public, State-owned roads. I don't want the State to own all the road-system but as long as it does this argument holds.

But then there are the classic Leftist-arguments that high taxes on "luxury"-items and "polluting"-items are necessary to guide people from wrong to right (according to the Leftists themselves). A nice side-product from the guiding-taxation is of course the money which are handed to Leftist-politicians to spend on their favorite group of voters. Leftists don't even make attempts to associate taxation with logic - their goal is simply to enforce their own taste of what is good and bad on others, and never think they have to ask for permission. Their noble cause doesn't need such boring formalities.

This usage of the tax-system is completely intolerable in my eyes. What business is it to others what I spend on? Why does the government subsidize milk but overtax wine? Is it in the name of good health and good science? No. It's in the name of control and supervision of adults. I will accept taxation to fund the operation of the institutions and agencies the State holds in it grips today, hoping that gradually the State will privatize and sell off and reduce its role in society as a functioning member (in stead becoming a guardian of law and order). I will never accept taxes which are aimed on a certain, pre-determined lifestyle. Leftists, Fascists, Communists and Socialists should mind their own business in their choice of lifestyle.

Better no job than a hard job?

Leftists are opposed to "too much" globalization. They don't want jobs to move from the rich countries to the poor ones because the people in the poor countries will face too hard work conditions when they flock into Western factories to work for double or triple the salary they would get in the fields. Leftists say that the environment will be damaged when factories are built in the poor countries because of lack of regulation, when the fact is that a lack of private property rights on land and water are to blame. Leftists say they worry about the working conditions of the poor in the poor countries, but in reality are simply playing with peoples fear of job-outsourcing with un-foreseen consequences.

An Icelandic Leftist recently wrote in an article that "no-one but the most extreme libertarians say that the people of the Third World should celebrate globalization". Maybe she's right, and in that case I will gladly call myself an "extreme libertarian" (extremely much opposed to being ruled or seeing others ruled, I suppose). I celebrate on the behalf of the people of the Third World who are given the opportunity to compete with the rich countries on an international scale, having a considerable edge on them when it comes to salary-expenses and regulation-costs, but lacking in technology and skills. I hope the Western countries aren't afraid of a little competition, and especially when its result will probably be improved lives of hundreds of millions of people who today are living in conditions similar to those in Europe some 1000 years ago.

Yes, the jobs being created by globalization in the Third World might not be the best of the best on a Western scale. However, they are many times better in both pay and working conditions than those the people of the Third World have to choose from today (if any). That's the plain simple truth and those who fight globalization are fighting against the poor ones of the world being given the free chance of getting a job which will lift them a lot higher in all living conditions. Are Leftists evil or just ignorant when they fight globalization?

We are ruled by terrorists

Spain was one of the countries which supported the invasion of USA and Britain into Iraq in order to capture Saddam Hussein and find his weapons of mass destruction (which he had apparently sold or given away at that time). The general public in Spain opposed the invasion, like the public in many other countries which officially supported it. This Spring the Spanish government lost in election and was replaced by a government run by the Spanish Socialist Party - a party which strongly opposed the invasion from day one. The socialists managed to win because a few days before the elections a bomb was blown up in Madrid, Spain, and many people died. Terrorists managed to scare the public and make them vote against their government. The socialists gained.

What lesson did the Spanish people teach terrorists? The lesson is this: If you want to force people to throw their government, bomb a few of the up.

Are we better off?

Where Leftism fails

Why does Leftism fail when it comes to health care? One reason could be the following facts (source):

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply.

When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken [for example queuing].

If Leftists would learn to understand these facts they might start to realize what is wrong with "free" health care. If they could in the process learn to understand the basics of the free market, and back off a little with their distrust in the human being, we might be seeing some progress in the future!

The Icelandic Left has no cause

Leftists in Iceland have a huge reputation of having no cause what so ever. They say they want to help the poor but oppose everything which could lead to their increased well-being. They want to protect the environment but suggest again and again methods which don't work or have reversed effects. They say they want to ensure everyone access to health-care and education but oppose all steps in that direction which could actually increase the probability of that happening.

But those are just the general Leftists-symptoms which are valid all over the world. What is special about the Icelandic Left is its ability to change its mind with in the period of hours, weeks and months!

The frequently-mentioned media-law in Iceland provide good examples here. Its first version said something about "a company in a market-controlling position" not being able to own more than 5% in a media. The Left said this was to harsh, not speaking in the name of liberty of course but just to say something to stir the public, and demanded at least a 10% part. In the last version of the media-law this ratio was indeed pushed to 10% but then the Left wasn't happy about that either, saying the whole deal is a bad idea (which it is, but for other reasons they use).

More? Two years ago one of the Leftist-politicians got angry with a company for firing his brother. He held a speech at the Icelandic parliament and demanded that laws would be made to split up the company, of course using the argument that it was becoming "too big" for the small Icelandic market. Today, he fights with hands and feet against any law which affects the same company, because it is thought that the CEO of the company shows good will for his political party, or at least some of its leading figures. No-one remembers the speech two years ago. No-one cares if he's speaking completely against himself. Why? Because he's a Leftist and doesn't have to hold up to his words.

Then there's the endless positive talk about government-interference in other countries, neglecting the bad effects of it, and endless negative talk about the power of low taxes and deregulation. The focus is on how many people hold this and this job, and entities such as evolution, development, work-force redistribution and so on are put to side. Economic growth is also of little importance to the Left, although some positiveness is given up when the market is allowed to flourish under strict supervision and when the possibility of taking some freedom back is an easy option.

So the Left stands like a flower in a desert when people try to get some logic or reason in its cause. This seems to be the situation now, and it seems it has always been the situation when it comes to the Left.

And that's about it.

The choice of battle-ground

How should people with libertarian-views choose their battle-ground? Should they stay within the biggest political party where views of free market promotion and individual freedom have the "most" understanding, or fight on their own terms for their ideals in a way that their voice is unchallenged by endless compromises with those they are supposed to be working with?

Here are a few thoughts from John Ray on the matter, especially aimed at the political scene in the United States. John wants American libertarians to stay within the Republican Party, or at least not run an independent campaign for president or parliament, and fight for libertarian-views by encouraging people to vote for Republicans. John thinks that is the best way to promote the ideals libertarians stand for, so that they can actually come into practice. By running an independent campaign, libertarians only decrease the strength of the Republican Party, therefore increasing the risk of clowns like John Kerry seizing the office of president.

The American president has enormous power, both on international as well as domestic scale. The election of a single powerful president like that has both advantages and disadvantages, of course depending on the nature of the person holding the office. John Ray makes a point that libertarians who vote for a special libertarian candidate increase the risk of a man like John Kerry seizing power, because libertarians votes are primarily votes which the Republican Party would get in the absence of a special libertarian campaign. In the same way the Greens in America are spoiling the harvest for Democrats.

This point I understand very well. However, I am still not convinced that libertarians should try to fight for their opinions within some bigger party which is in a better position to gain control. Libertarians can of course be spoiling the harvest for the big party, but there is another possible consequence of libertarians running their own campaign: They can move the whole political debate further to the Right by standing strong on their views as an independent voice.

This point I believe is enormously important. By being enclosed inside a big political party, libertarians risk being put to the side and their voice completely suffocated in compromises and political bargains with their own team-mates. This has been the case in Iceland. To fight this development in my country, many libertarians decided to split themselves free in order to influence the debate and move it to a more liberal and more open direction. The thought is that by running independently for the Icelandic parliament, the group of free-thinking people can be expanded. The thought is not that the number of Leftists is a constant, but a number that can be decreased with education, debate and discussions.

In a two-party system like in the United States this method could be questioned. Icelanders don't have a president with any power - the multi-party parliament makes the law and the ministers uphold them. A two-party system is more vulnerable to dramatic changes. If a Leftist seizes power the whole country could be facing huge difficulties for a long time. By having a independent presidential candidate, libertarians could indeed be clearing the path for an authoritarian Leftist.

Can't libertarians stand alone?
The question libertarians all over the world ask themselves is this: Should we fight within some large political party and hope our voice will be heard there within, or have a independent voice which people can hear without compromises? Compared to the political scene in Iceland, I don't see how the first option is viable. The Icelandic Independence Party has for decades been the refuse for Icelandic libertarians. For decades it did okay. Of course there are the endless compromises on the political scene, and progress has been slow and it has been fast, depending on circumstances and the men in the front-line. Over the past few years a lot of positive steps have been taken to reduce the government in Iceland and therefore common well-being of Icelanders. Some came with the EEA-contract, and others by the initiative of Davíð Oddsson and the Independence Party.

But Adam and Eve didn't stay long in Paradise. The obvious flaw of operating inside a right-winged conservative party, which carries a wide variety of different opinions, some more fitting in a Leftist-party, became obvious a few years ago, and has since multiplied in strength. The State will not give up its radio-stations and television-station in the present political climate. The State will not release farmers, patients, doctors and teachers the way things are evolving now. The Left has loud voices and some meet a surprising understanding with the public, compared to the sufferings of totalitarianism in the 20th century. This must be fought, and the suffocated voice of libertarianism inside the Icelands only "right"-winged party wont do it. An independent voice is needed or else ...

But is there any hope of libertarians expanding the voice of freedom by working on their own and speaking directly what they want to teach? Some experience exists which gives rise to optimism. In Costa Rica the independent voice of libertarianism has had some success in the local political scene - see Movimiento Libertario. Why can't the same apply for others? Why is it necessary to remain within a stagnant, conservative, slow-moving, compromising political-machine, well tied within the society's structure and extremely reluctant to decrease its own authority when it finally gains power over the government?

I'm not going to speak for other countries and urge libertarians to stay or go from their local, big, right-winged political party, or urge libertarians to vote or not vote or how to vote. In Iceland I see the great need for an independent libertarian running for the parliament, and I'm sure the same goes for many other countries.

What is hard to understand?

What is so hard to understand about the power of State-absence? Why is it hard to understand how regulations are restricting for individuals and companies, how taxes interfere with the free market and all its wonders, and how government-interference creates uncertainties, makes good decisions look bad and bad decisions look good?

The Left is obsessed with learning nothing from history and ignoring all good logic. They fight against international free trade. Why? Because it might mean they lose control over their local job markets and undermine their authority to design and shape society into their ideal picture. Why do Leftists predict catastrophes when humanity uses a lot of this resource and a little of another resource? Because they have no knowledge of the free market, and how prices, supplies and demand work (or at least refuse to apply this knowledge in the real world). Why do Leftists insist on keeping resources in the hands of the government? Because they don't see the big picture when it comes to responsibility and profit-seeking - something that the free market understands very well.

When it comes down to it, Leftism is basically obsessed with ideas that don't rely on logic or experience. Most of the criticism on the free market is based on examples which again are mostly bad because of government interference and not the lack thereof. This I have said again and again and I will say it again and again. This was written in the 18th century by promoters of Laissez faire and has repeated it ever since. History has taught Leftist at best that some government interference is bad, and that some free market ideas are basically better for the general public than a lack of them. Bad ideas like Communism have been swept away and others will meet their end, but unfortunately new ones are continually being bred in the hoax-laboratories of the Left.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. I can understand those who doubt the free market when they hear of private companies polluting air, water and land because its not always obvious that the reason is in most cases a lack of responsibility and private property-rights. I can understand many worrying about the poor and their access to health care, housing and general good living because its not always obvious that the State is in most cases to blame for its continuous promises of providing for the needy in exchange for brutal tax burdens on the public. But in general I don't understand doubts about free trade, the power of the private enterprise and the lack of politicians to control humans like a farmer controls its sheep. I seriously lack the understanding.

Lesson of the day: Ignore the French

French employees of a German car components plant have voted nearly unanimously to work an extra hour each week, the first such vote in French history. (#)

Why would anyone want to add hours to their working week and not ask for higher salaries? Answer: When the government forces companies and employees to negotiate on certain terms. The law-binding 35 hour work-week in France has proven that people want to control their hours and consider what is good for their employer - even when it means more hours at work! A remarkable discovery for sociologists, isn't it?

The Icelandic media law

The government in Iceland decided to withdraw the so-called media law today (icelandreview.com). Their opponents cheer and say that because they wanted some other kind of media laws than those the government was trying to impose, and now since the government has withdrawn their version of a media law, then the opponents have won the battle. Ridiculous of course but typical.

But does that mean that the Icelandic media market has finally got its break from politicians? No. "Everyone agrees that some kind of media law is necessary", they say. "Everyone knows that although these laws were bad, some other laws are inevitable", they also say. In short: The Icelandic media market shouldn't celebrate its freedom from political interference just yet!

Why do we need laws for the media? They say that the risk exists that 'one man' will own 'all the media in the country/in the area', meaning of course that the public is likely to be brainwashed with propaganda which one man or one (non-governmental) power-block controls. Personally, I think that's absurd. In Iceland there is one 'big' media company owned mostly by companies where one man, Jón Ásgeir, is very influential. This company owns a few radio- and TV-stations and two newspapers. Together they add up to be the majority of all media in Iceland, with the second biggest one being RÚV - the government media company. Are Icelanders not in risk of being brainwashed by Jón Ásgeir? Isn't he killing of bad news about him and his companies and promoting the positive about himself by manipulating his medias? Aren't Icelanders sucking up everything he has to say?
- When people say there is 'great need' to impose media laws in Iceland, they are answering: Yes.
- If not, they are saying: No, Icelanders have a mind of their own.
I think Icelanders have a mind of their own. Icelanders aren't vulnerable to brainwashing, although believers of the great power of the State say so. Already when the ownership of one of the newspapers in Iceland became a hot debate, skeptics rose up everywhere, saying that news coming from this newspaper should be taken with care since it's most likely owned by a man with large interests in many big companies and would try to protect them from negative talk. Still there is talks about imposing laws to invoke skepticism, or better yet, eliminate the need to doubt the news depending on its source! I don't get it. Do Icelanders doubt the news, or don't they? Do they need babysitting and watching over like small children, or can they take care of themselves and think for themselves?

I hope Iceland will never have special laws about the media like they have with a lot of other things. I hope people are trusted to think for themselves, and that the government focuses on those who impose violence and don't hold up to their contracts. That's all.

How Leftism is wrong

Left-winged people in politics are a very curious group. They mean well. They want people to feel good and have nice, rich and full lives. They want compassion and they care for the weakest ones in the society. However, all the methods they want to use to achieve their goals are bad and don't work.

Perhaps the most important difference between those to the Left and those to the Right is the belief in the State and its powers to 'shape' and mold people so that a certain kind of society can be formed. Left-wingers actually use words like 'shape' and 'form' when they talk about the function of the State! And that is were they fail. I don't think anyone will find a successful way to shape people and at the same time be free of revolutions, large number of fugitives and massacres in order to keep the peace.

But can't we shape a little here and a little there and just be careful of not shaping too much too fast? Isn't it okay to ban positive talk about tobacco, ban negative talk about colored people, have mandatory seat-belt use in cars and take about half of what people earn and try to make sure everyone has everything? Isn't it okay to use the State like that?
No!
It simply doesn't matter what kind of shaping is done - the State should not have anything to do with people besides securing their safety and properties! I haven't seen any good logic for any different role for the State. The State was originally created to oppress people, and unless the State is restricted to protecting people from violence and theft it is still an oppressor. Leftism is by heart an oppressive ideology and should be treated with the same disgust as national socialism and fascism.

But what about the poor and the sick? Doesn't the State have a role in helping them? I would say not. I have not seen anything which supports the idea that poor people and sick people will be worse off in a free society of volunteer help and free donations. The present system of bureaucracy, long waiting, undersupply of doctors and cut-downs on an ever more expensive medical care is probably the worst thing to offer patients. This is especially true for the poorest ones who rely on the government for medical care by pushing all free charity out of the way with high taxes and heavy regulations.

Not only does the State have no role when it comes to helping the poor and the sick - by trying to help the poor and the sick the State actually makes things worse!

Thankfully the 'world' has been learning for the last few decades and is now moving slowly towards more freedom and stronger restrictions on government interference (for example with international war-crime courts, international law, international free-trade negotiations, and so on). Leftism has never been more to the Right! But we shouldn't stop now. We must continue to fight Leftism and do whatever possible to prevent famines (Leftists hate technology-improvements in agriculture), wars (Leftists think that only the bad guys should have armies and weapons of mass destruction), poverty (Leftists think that only the rich should enjoy free trade and others should settle for charity and loans without conditions to dictators ) and racism (Leftists believe in restrictions on borders so that the local job supply isn't 'threatened' by 'cheap labor', thereby exciting hate and ignorance). In short, by exterminating Leftism we move closer to a free world of prosperity and well-being.

What if there was not State?

I've often wondered what would happen if the State would disappear one day. Would we miss it? Would we turn into out-of-control anarchist monsters and start killing each other and robbing? I think not. I don't think it would take long until men came together and build up somekind of frame around society to protect human lives and properties and arrange somekind of law enforcement and court-system. Just like happened when the United States of America were formed.

Leftists tend to think of the State as a tool to shape society with, rather than looking at it as an instrument to protect our rights to live and prosper on our own terms. Leftists don't accept the fact that the State is made by men to protect men. They prefer looking at the State as a super-human which rules over other men. Bad way of thinking if you ask me.

In Iceland there are now talks of taking up a somekind of  "sugar tax" which would affect the prices of goods which are considered "unhealthy". Of course, having a centralized, government-operated health care system does involve somekind of manipulation of people's diets and lifestyles because men are sheep and have little or no personal responsibility. Or that's the Leftist-dream anyway. Alcohol-taxes, tobacco-taxes and now a sugar-tax - all aimed on pushing people from unhealthy lifestyles into the healthy ones. Men are sheep. But the sugar-tax is above all a very describing tendency of politicians to try to shape society into a certain image - mold people like clay and harvest their work and time to spend on some social experiments. This is not unusual - it's typical. Leftists, conservatives and others who want to rule over men cannot grasp the thought of men being free in spirit and have minds of their own.

So what if there was not State? Wouldn't we do just fine? Are we men or are we sheep?

Leftist = national socialism

Is being a Leftist in any significant way different from being a national socialist (a.k.a. 'nazi')? I don't think so. Reasons are obvious: Both the Leftist and national socialist believe in the power of the State to order and control the citizens in order to "create" somekind of society (although the modern Leftist and the national socialist have different ideas of what this design should be). Both the Leftist and national socialist want to "protect" and "reserve" something which they control, for example the local job supply, the local skin color or whatever it is - they are protectionists. Very striking resemblances I think.

But why is it that "the extreme right" is considered to be something like national socialism? Well, that and libertarianism. "The extreme right" is pretty far from being right and we know that. Historically however, its very convenient for the Left to support the myth of the "extreme right". It hides the resemblance the Left has with national socialism and all its historical catastrophes.

Free trade: Good. Socialism: Bad.

A strange title in this entry, isn't it? Maybe not. Maybe its simple message needs to be told as often as possible. Maybe we still live in times of socialism and protectionism which needs to be exterminated as fast as possible. But lets cut to the chase..

International free trade has been a subject of big debates since the 17th century (or even sooner). Right-winged liberals fight for it, socialists and others of that kind fight against it. A lot has been tried out when it comes to free trade. We have tried open borders, closed ones and everything in between. Experience has taught us that free trade is good - it lifts up living standards, undoes poverty, decreases the threats of war and terrorism, and insures stability in the political field. Organizations like the European Union and NAFTA were originally established on the idea that free trade leads to good and protectionism to bad. Experience, historical facts and right-winged economic theory all combines into supporting the notion that free trade is fundamentally good for all that enjoy it.

So why am I preaching these obvious facts? Hasn't humanity clearly learned its lesson once and for all? No, I'm afraid not. Socialism still prevails - even within Western countries today! David Boaz discussed that a little in an article where he fights protectionistic views in America which preach "dangers" and "woes" in relation with free trade. David has a few words of wisdom for Leftists, nationalists and others who criticize international free trade:

But trade is not a zero-sum game. Everybody wins when more goods are produced. The story of economic progress is the tendency toward increasing specialization and division of labor. When new market participants can produce wheat more cheaply, established wheat producers can move on to other tasks, generally higher-value-added production. If Americans can purchase wheat cheaper than we can make it, then we can turn our labors to software, financial services, engineering, entertainment, computer chips, medical instruments, telecommunications equipment, chemicals, and so on.

Also:

When two parties trade, each expects to gain. It doesn't matter whether they live in different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations. I don't worry about my balance of trade with the grocer, and the grocer doesn't worry about his balance of trade with the car dealer. And it's the same with international trade. Why would we expect countries to import and export the same amount of any product, whether wheat, shoes, computers, or movies?

Unfortunately David is not just repeating age-old facts to a crowd that knows them all too well. He seems to be speaking to a crowd which actually thinks free trade is a bad thing! Western unions and their politicians and supporters (Leftists) are still a noisy and annoying crowd which quite simply is wrong and needs to be stuffed with facts, logic, theory and historical data if we are ever to hope it will learn its lesson.

Many issues in politics are open for discussion. However, critics of free trade can never have anything to say which can hold against facts and logic. Critics of free trade have to go with their bullshit elsewhere than into a discussion based on common sense and historical knowledge. So much's for sure.

The Icelandic Left

Since Davíð Oddsson became prime minister in Iceland in 1991 many things have changed. The government has sold its phone company, its banks and many of its factories and in some scale liberalized the school-system, the financial market and so on, and some tax-reliefs have been made. A lot of work is still ahead for the believers of free enterprise and free market society, but many steps have been taken in the positive direction (and others in the negative one, but lets leave that out for now). In short it can be said that these steps towards market solutions have turned out extremely well for both people and companies, and no indications have come up that the government should increase its operation again where it has let go.

But how is it to be a Leftist when things turn out like this? How is it to be a Leftist in a country where the government has decreased its role in many fields with these very positive results? Well, two approaches have been made:

• To say that the government has gone far enough in its liberalization and should stop now. However, the government should not take steps backwards since things have gone so smoothly. What has been done has turned out good, but no more steps should be taken since those will be disastrous.
• Privitize a little more, and see how it goes, but do it very slowly. Actually so slowly that it can hardly be done! Take very small and slow steps but with great caution. In practice so small and slow that they can't really be taken, but at least are open for discussion.

I imagine its the same in all other countries with right-winged governments.

I'm glad I discovered early in my life that the government is not the key to common welfare and high living-standards. The more I read from the Right and the Left the more I'm convinced that my instincts were right from the start and that both logic and experience go hand in hand in underlining my beliefs. When I at one point thought the government should restrict drug-supply and fund a welfare-system I just had to gather reading-material and watch the news to see the approach which works. When I at one point thought the government should run the school-system I only had to compare the government and the free enterprise to change my views. The list is endless and always makes my opinions swing further towards a belief of a free and open market of limited government and increased self-control of people and companies. If I at some point was a little to the left on various issues, those have quickly changed.

I can only imagine that the situation is similar for a large number of individuals in search of their political beliefs. Icelanders have for the past 15 years or so seen more of the power of free enterprise than many other nations, and I hope the process will continue until we can finally hope for a free society.

Political views versus religion

I have strong political views on many things and weaker on others. I like to think my political views in most cases combine what is fair and just and what has worked and will most likely continue to work. I believe it is fair and just to let people make most decisions regarding themselves by themselves, and few or no decisions regarding others. I believe each man owns himself and his properties by himself and should honor the same right regarding others. This is fair and just. When it comes to experience I think it has turned out that a system of limited government, free trade and as much personal freedom as possible creates the highest standard of living for most people, and the few that get "left behind" are easy exceptions which are easily dealt with with free contributions and volunteered help of kind-hearted individuals. In short: I believe I am preaching what is both fair and just, and has showed is the method best capable of providing good and long lives for most people.

So what's the deal? Am I doing something wrong by having strong opinions on the aspects of free trade and limited government? Am I just a brainwashed believer of some words of wisdom I read in books I've been told to read? Are my political opinions in any way different from those religions people have when it comes to their religion? For example, the Bible says Jesus died and rose back from the dead, and therefore that's my belief. Is this my take on what I think about the power of free trade?

In short: No. In a little longer version: I do not have opinions which I can't back up with both logic and facts. A strong part of my views are based on reasons of logic and fairness, but another part, and perhaps a more important one in many peoples minds, is based on experience of human kind with various forms of government and interference with peoples freedom and property. I state with 100% certainty that a very limited government which focuses on protecting people from violence and from hurting others and their property is the "system" which is best fitted to give good and long lives to the vast part of humanity. Those who don't exceed in this system can easily be helped by others. This I back up with reasons of logic, fairness and of course - experience!

Why free trade?

Leftists don't like free trade. They have a number of reasons for their dislike, for example:

• When jobs are competed for on an international scale, low-skilled manufacturing jobs often move to poorer countries, thereby decreasing power of local unions often controlled by the Left. All other reasons of the Left to fight free trade worldwide are derived from this reason.
• In an environment of free trade, some individuals can accumulate enormous wealth but others do not. The so-called "income gap" between the richest and the poorest then seems to widen, and that by itself is considered bad by the Left.
• When poor countries increasingly industrialize their economies, natural resources are used in a greater scale. This holds for both Europe during its industrial revolution, and will happen every time a country opens up to the rest of the world. Leftists often pretend they have some special care for the environment, for example compared to free-marketers, and fight free trade on those terms.
• Work conditions in factories outside the richest Western countries are often lesser than those in the rich countries. Even factories producing the same products differ a lot in working conditions, depending on the regulation and laws in the country they are in. Leftists often look at that as some kind of symbol of negative effects of free trade, and imagine that having no jobs in factories instead, or fewer jobs in a little better conditions, are a better option for the poor of the world.

I could go through all these Leftist-arguements against free trade but I won't unless asked to. I have another point to make here.

Since 9/11 the debate worldwide has more or less handled one thing: Terrorism. We all want to be safe, right? We don't want our houses to be bombed away by men who hate us, our religion, our way of life and our sins against some god or another, right? I imagine no-one likes terrorism and terrorists. But how to fight it? Shall we do like the Left says and obey every demand made by catholic, Islamic, Christian or just generally deranged terrorist makes on us, do what the most crazy ones would like us to do, and hope everything turns out well? Do we really have to give up our way of life, our freedom, our views and our politics to make everything neutral and therefore happy in some sense? It would decrease terrorism I imagine, and no-one would have any reasons to hold a grudge against anyone else, but I'm not so sure that's the way to go.

So what is best? Here are a few thoughts on that, which combine the very precious free-trade with the so-called war on terrorism. Lets quote:

But free trade should not be seen merely as a bargaining chip. Free trade is a good, contributing to better living standards for all peoples. Unfortunately, the very forms of beneficial voluntary person-to-person contact that are instrumental in defeating terrorism, and that are celebrated by the free-market trade, private investment, tourism, cultural exchange – have come to a near standstill. Reversing these trends should be a primary objective in the campaign against terrorism.

So I say: Away with soldiers, bombs, Leftists, politicians, threats, embargoes and other instruments and tools of governments to shape the world in their image. Free trade goes a long way in eliminating conflicts, ignorance and the need to go to arms to fight for causes. Leftists who oppose it should realize this as soon as possible and therefore take part in making the world a better, free-er and safer place. Right now they contribute to the opposite.