What is Capitalism?

I often wonder what people think is involved with Capitalism. Why do some hate it so much, while others fight for it with heart and soul? Why has Capitalism lead to so much anger and frustration? Do the opponents of Capitalism have a point? Isn't the system of Capitalism a bad system of greed and unequal distribution of wealth in the world?

In short: No. In short I will state here and now that those who fight against Capitalism are either ignorant or stupid. Does that sound like an arrogant point of view? Allow me to try to explain myself then.

Those who oppose Capitalism oppose a number of other things at the same time, whether they acknowledge it or not. For example, they oppose:

• The freedom to exchange services and products which one has to offer and another needs to have.
• The freedom to participate in volunteer and non-forced exchange of services and products in a harmless way without interference.
• The freedom for individuals to use their capabilities and talents in order to improve their lives, and meanwhile but unintended improve lives of many others.

Of course the opponents of Capitalism will not agree with this list of mine. They will say they want people to have all the freedom in the world, but the government must have a big role in making sure that people have jobs and food on their tables and a high standard of living. Do I have anything against that? No. However, all these things are best insured by allowing Capitalism to work as free as possible. Why can I say that when all this poverty exists? Because I can point to many facts indicating that what is really wrong with Capitalism is the lack of it, or the restrictions put on it in most countries and parts of the world. Why the restrictions when it's so good? Because politicians think they can manipulate free people and the activities of free people, and fail, and then try harder.

Why shouldn't politicians try to make sure in some way that everyone has this and that, and access to this and that, and be left alone to do so? Well, why doesn't Socialism and its bastard-baby, Communism, work? Why hasn't and won't the so-called Third Way work? Because as soon as you try to control the natural process of free exchange of services and products between peaceful induviduals, you might as well throw sand into an engine and expect it to work better. I can name a long list to underline my point, and I will:

• Sweden and Germany took up widespread Capitalism in the years after World War II. They became extremely rich and prospered and became the envy of Europe. However, both were playing a little with a thing called a welfare system, and that turned out to be a bad move. The system expanded and soon swallowed up a huge chunk of the national income. The result is that Sweden and Germany are among the slowest economies in Europe today. They tried to control Capitalism and improve lives, but ended up creating a large burden on future generations, and present generations have to find ways to take up Capitalism again and throwing away their welfare systems, or at least reduce them a lot.
• Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are well-known for their lack of resources, primitive industry a few decades ago, and extremely high national income today. These countries rose from the ground with nothing but the will to communicate and commerce, and enjoy the fruits now. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be the same as in Europe, and now I hear talks about law-enforced minimum wages being suggested in Hong Kong. If these countries start to follow the path of Socialism, they will soon face what Europeans are facing today. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it - right?
• Africa is pretty much a continent of wars, starvation, poverty, abundance of natural resources, wide spreads of green, fertile lands - and lack of Capitalism! Africa has been plagued by government control, ever since Europeans drew the borders of the lands of Africa in the colony-era. Socialistic dictators, sponsored by kind-hearted European Leftists, have fought for lands and powers for decades. Why? All because Capitalism wasn't allowed to flourish under a government focusing on keeping the laws, but not a government obsessed with organizing the way people live and act.

I could name more. South-America, the troubles of North-America today and its success in the 19th century, and so on.

The point is that those who fight against Capitalism can't stand how some people become extremely rich, while others pretty much stay the same. They call it the "income gap", and hate those to are at its higher end. The opponents of Capitalism must learn that those who are rich invest, and those who are poor gain jobs. Under the system of Capitalism, the free flow of money and people insures that the best solution at each time is underway. Under a system of Socialism, the restricted flow of money and people, enforced by law and governments, insures that something else than the best solution is underway.

Different Left and Right

It's often remarkable to see how Left and Right in politics differs between countries. What is considered a left-winged issue in one country may well be a right-winged in another, and the other way around. And I'm not talking about countries in different continents either. I'm talking about countries which in general are based on the same principles of democracy, constitution and free-market society. And what am I talking about? Lets take a striking example: Drug policy.

The Swiss parliament, the House of Representatives, recently voted narrowly against decriminalizing the production and consumption of cannabis for personal use in Swiss. The main promoters of the decriminalizion are Leftist - the centre-left Social Democrats and the Green Party. Strong supporters of the decriminalizion are the Federal Health Office in Swiss, and police officials and teachers. Those against the decriminalizion are the right-winged and centre-rights in Swiss.

In Iceland it's the other way around. Leftists in Iceland are very keen on banning this and that. The Left in Iceland voted against selling of beer in Iceland in 1989, and the far-left in Iceland is very opposed to allowing anyone except the State to sell beer and wines. No-one dares to mention decriminalizion of any kind of drugs in Iceland. Just the thought of it is considered "extreme right" in Iceland, and no political force will discuss the issue openly except the Libertarian Society of Iceland (wiki). So the political-scale is reversed in Iceland compared to the fellow-European country of Swiss. I find that remarkable.

But I know like many others that the Left-Right is often not an applicable scale in personal affairs. It usually comes down to the economic issues, where the Left wants a big government taxing everything that changes hands, and even properties which don't change hands are taxed, while the Right fights for lower taxes and increased personal responsibility (which, as a result, will improve everything the government handles today and lower costs and increase selection and reduce government-excited poverty and so on).

Experimenting with people

The Law - what a brilliant text! Why wasn't I urged to read it sooner? 200 years old, but as fresh as todays newspaper-articles! No, I take that back. It's fresher!

The author of The Law, Frédéric Bastiat made many points about the socialistic attitude of looking at people like sheep, or a piece of land. Socialists tend to have the attitude of looking at people as materials for social-experiments. They say: "Lets raise taxes and expand government here and here and see what happens." Then they say: "Lets raise taxes and support this artist, this industry and this sheep-farmer and hope for the best." And of course they say: "Lets impose moral-laws upon the ignorant people, so they wont think bad thoughts, or at least not express them to anyone." This is the socialistic attitude of Bastiats time, and its the same today.

It is sometimes amazing to hear a socialists (Leftist) ask if a libertarian state has been tested out somewhere. Then it's not good enough to point to the USA during its 18th and 19th century, where a minimal-state of limited government and individual and economic freedom gave millions of poor, non-skilled immigrants from Europe the chance to create the wealthiest and strongest state in the world in record-time. It's not enough to point to Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan - countries with little or no natural resources but with citizens which enjoy some of the highest living-standards in the world. It's not enough to point out how Germany, Sweden and other European-countries made their fortunes after World War II. It's not enough to give examples.

Also, the logic of justice and fairness do not suffice. Is the free market just and fair? I don't know. Is it fair that some are poor and some are rich? Probably not. Why can't I buy a car but others can buy cars and houses? Hard to say. But does the government have a role when it comes to all of these moral-questions? No. Why not? Because when the government increases one persons income, it reduces someone elses, and asks for no permissions. Much like theft, isn't it? And if we think theft is immoral, it shouldn't make any difference if the thief is Robin the Hood, Uncle Sam or the bum down the road. But the fairness- and justice-logic doesn't work on the Left either.

Bastiat said:

Law is justice. And let it not be said - as it continually is said - that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

The law, the government, or government-agents - those entities are not what define, shape, encourage, inspire or teach individuals. Individuals are more than capable of that themselves. The government should simply protect our rights to act, think, say and do what we want, as long as we don't impose violence and property-damage on to other individuals. Given the law is restricted to that role, we will in future like in the past see magnificent changes in the society of man, improving lives, abolish poverty and hunger, and so on.

200 years ago, many great thinkers sat down and figured out that the government is at its best when its doing the least, focusing on protecting rights and properties of free people. Today, experience has proven this point time and time again, and that plus the arguments of fairness and justice should have eliminated the threats of socialism and Leftism a long time ago. The reason it hasn't is partly unknown to me.

The Law

I know I have a lot to learn about political philosophy, and I know of a lot of books waiting for me to be read. But the list just got thinner. I just read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and I most say: Wonderful! Anyone who can point out reading-material in a similar standard should go ahead - now!

Bastiat predicted many things which today have come, and said many things which still hold valid. Please read his following words:

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

Didn't Bastiat here, like many other free-market liberal philosophers in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, just predict the totalitarianism involved in the communist-states of the 20th century? Where the state owned all production tools and gained them by taking them from the people, and where liberty as a consequence suffered greatly. Where the system of socialism ended in sufferings of millions and kept people poor and hungry for decades. Where endless belief in government-interferance led to the near-end of individualism and the free will of men, or as close as possible to that socialistic goal.

Here's a quote especially appropriate today, although it's from the 19th century:

A Confusion of Terms

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

I strongly recommend that everyone reads The Law and not only learns very good points about socialistic attitudes, but first and foremost the attitudes of a man who wants individuals to be free from all violence and force, as long as they don't use violence and force on others. An ideology called by the Leftists in Iceland, "nýfrjálshyggja" (neo-libertarianism, strangely enough), and has lived and will live as long as totalitarians, authoritarians, Leftists, social-democrats, Greenies or any other types of socialists walk this planet.

Get the kids out!

Something big seems to be on the horizon regarding the public school-system in the United States:

The largest Protestant denomination in America---Southern Baptists, with 16 million members---will be voting next week on a resolution calling on their members to remove their children from government schools!

Now how about that? The voice of educational freedom is no longer a small, weak libertarian one sitting in some corner. People seem to be fed up and now a mass-movement has risen to free kids from the public school-system. More on http://www.GetTheKidsOut.org. This movement of Southern Baptists is a religious one of course, but their cause applies for every group in society where there are children and parents who seek for a good education. Isn't that simply everyone? I would think so. But it has to start somewhere, and a religious based freedom-fight is just as good as any other.

The government and the agitators of government-run social programs, like the education and health care system, mean well. They simply want "equality" and "fairness" and believe, with some degree of honesty, that government-action is necessary to achieve that (and of course I mean government-transfer of funds from one person to another without asking anyone for a permission first). They are, in my humble opinion, dead-wrong. Actually, they couldn't be more wrong! Government-run programs are in fact like badly run companies in almost any respect, except for the part of going bankrupt. They don't have to show good outcomes, and they can always demand more funds from their "customers" (taxpayers) without having anything to show for it. Then why be stubborn and still demand even more government-expansion?

I support the Southern Baptists and others who are trying to escape Big Brother and bring better future for their children. In general, I support all those who want to be free from the web of "common values", and start to live their own lives individually. People have compassion, and people generally just want to live in happiness and freedom. If we let them do so, then there will be more energy and efforts for those who are left behind and really and genuinely need help. We don't need the government to achieve that. We simply don't.

One ring to bind them all..

What unites Leftists? What keeps them going? What is their drive? Do Leftists change with time, or change at all, or do all those new names they make for themselves simply not make any difference? Is there any difference between Leftists like Hitler and Stalin and, say, Michael Moore and John Kerry? If someone says there is difference I would be very happy to hear about it. I don't think there is, but maybe my mind can be changed.

Leftists are a very broad group of people, just like those to the Right of course. Leftists call themselves Greenies, Social-democrats, liberals (in USA), feminists, radicals (in Iceland anyway) and then of course there are those who say they don't want to label themselves anything, not join any political organization or club, but are in fact very hard Leftists in heart, although they pretend they are neutral and above the daily disputes.

All of these different kinds of the same sub-specie: the Leftist, have one thing in common: They want to control! Yes, that's right. No matter what they call them-selves, or even if they don't call themselves anything at all. They have this common need to get as deep as possible into peoples lives, jobs and hobbies and regulate, manipulate, guide, force and of course, tax! They don't like or trust the free market and don't listen to any reason in that respect. They don't trust individuals to handle their own properties well enough to escape regulation and taxation. They want to ban smoking, overcharge alcohol and force people to pay to government-run pension-funds. They want pollution to kill, but not by increasing it to the levels needed so it could kill, but by forcing the world-economy to spend so much money to prevent so little pollution, that no money is left to spare for those who might need it for drinking water and food.

A shortage of free-market capitalism, if you will, is the Leftist drive. A shortage of freedom - that's the Leftists drive! Too much freedom will generate too much prosperity for Leftists to thrive in, or at least make the damage they create of lesser extent. Big Leftist-names like Stalin and Hitler were men who made it to high offices with almost unlimited powers to control every detail of society. In short, the Leftist dream! The results? Millions of dead bodies after thousands of special-interest government programs, designed to achieve some common goal of success and progress, but resulted in the destruction of lives, wealth and resources. A true Leftist-utopia as a result of a fertile ground for Leftist-growth.

To destroy fertility for Leftist-growth, those to the Right need to fight for freedom and capitalism and generate prosperity so abundantly that no Leftist will ever make it to the top of the government-structure. And if it is to happen, like it did in Iceland a few years ago, the Left must be fought with full force and no surrender! Never underestimate the Leftist-need to govern others. Don't let the Leftists new-age names for himself fool you. He is simply an offspring of the same ideologies that drove Stalin and Hitler to insanity and massacres!

The Leftist will be born for undetermined future, and perhaps not extinct until we reach the level of freedom, technology and prosperity like described in Star Trek and other libertarian future visions, where the "the Collective" of the Borgs is not the friend, but the ultimate enemy. I will probably not live to see that happen, but I will do my best to speed things up. Meanwhile, I hope everyone will realize what drives the Leftist, and why it's bad and needs to be fought.

Hurray!

Icelanders just got themselves a dictator! Hurray! I don't think this has happened in Europe for a few decades now so it's certainly a time to celebrate.

Left-trend in Iceland

I am the last person on Earth to compare Leftists with Nazis, but I can almost imagine now how it must have felt being a Jew in Germany when Hitler was rising to power and little by little was slicing basic human rights of certain ethnic-groups in his country. I'm not saying that Leftists and Hitler have anything in common, and I would never want to compare what Hitler did to what Leftist propose, but I might be feeling a little similar to a subject under Hitlers command when the Left speaks in Iceland nowadays.

For the first time in Iceland's history since the country becoming independent in 1944, the president of Iceland has now refused to sign laws (so that they become binding) because they would affect his biggest sponsors in his presidential-race a few years ago. He hold a powerless office, except for the possibility of refusing to sign laws in some "special" circumstances. Over the years the tradition has become that the presidential-office in Iceland has remained silent about daily-disputes in politics, and the general idea (even in the mind of the present president of Iceland before he went to office) that the office has more of a symbolic status, rather than a political one. This has now changed. Some think it's good - others think it's bad.

The president doesn't have to follow any guidelines regarding his refusal of laws which have already been agreed. Leftists don't want to hear one word about changing this fact. They want a president who can, for his own reasons, refuse new laws according to his own personal opinions, like has happened now. Reminds a little of a certain form of government we don't really want to have, doesn't it? Why would anyone choose to hand one man a veto-power over all proposed laws? The supporters of democracy, or what?

But the Left-trend in Iceland doesn't end with the celebration of semi-dictatorship in Icelands government-structure. Now the Leftists are talking about smoking-bans in Icelands restaurants and pubs. Like the tourist-industry in Iceland hasn't got enough on its mind as it is? But this is what Icelanders are pretty good at. We propose legislation from Sweden which creates even more sufferings for prostitutes because it sounded cool in Sweden. However, we don't want to auction out the operation of Icelands hospitals and schools like the Swedes! We take up a smoking-ban which Ireland and now Norway has implemented, but we don't slice taxes like the good people of Ireland. We seem to pick up the worst aspects of each country and make our own. That's Icelands Left for you. Not even original in their liberty-cutting prosecutions against ordinary people!

There is an undeniable Left-swing in Iceland now. Thankfully, it is mostly regarding social issues which are easy to avoid. Illegal smoking-clubs, underground-prostitution, cursing and talking nicely about tobacco without government-agents being present. Pretty easy. Illegal money-transfers, black market with necessities, tax-cheating. Harder.

Random thoughts about capitalism

Today is International Capitalism Day, celebrated in over 190 cities world-wide. Why capitalism? Answer here but I have a few thoughts of my own.

Capitalism is not some blind belief in some distant money-making machine. Actually, it doesn't have that much to do about money! It is a system which has proven better for more people than any other system man-kind has invented, but it's not prefect. It will not make sure that everyone is happy. Some people feel bad, others cannot afford to pay their bills. There are still people living on the street where the ideals of capitalism are respected, and depression, sicknesses and general misery do exist in great abundance even when all material needs have been met. So shouldn't we try to find another system to replace capitalism with, instead of celebrating capitalism?

Yes and no. All the problems I just mentioned exist, whether we have capitalism or socialism. However, where there is capitalism, we have the least of the problems man-kind has had to deal with from the beginning of time, and in such a way that there is no comparison! Capitalism provides most people with good, long lives, and gives them the opportunities to help those extremely few ones who get, in some way, "left behind" in society. In a capitalistic society, those who need help are the exceptions. In other societies, they are the general rule.

But it is not enough to simply apply capitalistic approaches on selected parts of society and expect it to give a reasonable outcome. For that we have many examples. Swedish people took up capitalism and received great wealth and a high standard of living as a result. However, during the last few decades, they have neglected capitalistic ideals and fallen behind as a consequence. Just now they are realizing the power of individual enterprise and have started to back off a little with the government intrusion on freedom. Sweden is a good lesson to keep in mind for those who imagine that selective capitalism could work. It doesn't. This was predicted almost a century ago and has come true. A full-on embrace of capitalism is what societies need to enjoy good lives of their citizens.

The world's inequality is due to capitalism. Not to capitalism making certain groups poor, but to its making its practitioners wealthy. The uneven distribution of wealth in the world is due to the uneven distribution of capitalism. (#)

This is the lesson we should have learned a long time ago, and should therefore celebrate capitalism in its broadest scale. Lives will improve as a result.

No more fake ID

When Michael Moore released his "documentary" Bowling for Columbine, I was told it was a great movie which really "explained" the number of murders in America, and "showed" how Americans are little more than gun-crazy, irresponsible nuts. I was told that what this "documentary" said was true and based on "facts" and "observations". Michael Moore had, for just a second, a reputation of being an observer who showed things in some kind of true light so people would understand them.

Well, we all know what has happened since. Michael Moore has no more of this reputation, if he ever did have it. Now it is common knowledge that Michael Moore is doing his own thing to spread out his own personal views, regardless of what is fact or fiction. And that's good. No more false expectations and belief that what he's saying is some kind of fact-check of reality. Now people simply know that if they want anti-USA anti-Bush anti-capitalism anti-Western civilization, they go see a Michael Moore-movie (for example his latest one). Doesn't matter if it's for fun or for real. His agenda is out and that's good. He's a funny guy who can preach his personal views in a very rewarding way, and although I don't share many of his opinions, I still think that's good. The Leftist need someone like him to keep their face, although it's a rather chubby one for an anti-capitalist (that was below belt, I know. Sorry!).

It all comes down to this: Is there such a thing as a completely neutral story-teller? Can a person ever leave his or her points of view out of some discussion about controversial matters? I do not believe so, and I have a hard time keeping a straight face when some Leftist claim they have Michael Moore, Joseph Stiglitz and others like that on their side to "tell it the way it is". Who are they kidding?

Privatize NASA?

Science is fun:

So when the X-prize is won - almost certainly later this year - it will demonstrate that the technology needed to get into space is no longer the preserve of big-budget governmental projects, but is within the grasp of private companies with the right expertise and finances. (#)

Follow-up story here. Perhaps the United States should consider privatizing NASA soon, since it has proven itself to be more costly and less efficient than most other government-enterprises in the history of mankind - excluding maybe the European welfare- and pension-system.

Its all about the hype

A brilliant quote by Bjorn Lomborg, via Counterblast via The Australian:

For the cost of implementing Kyoto in just one year, we could permanently provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet. Yet it is unlikely that Emmerich [IMDB] will cast Brad Pitt [IMDB] creating sewerage systems in Kenya for his next glamorous movie. Nor is he likely to tell us the tale of governments investing in malarial vaccines or global conferences removing trade barriers.

But hey, who cares about facts when you can cash in Leftist-votes?

Who owns you?

Why did we create the State and why did we create governments? Was it because we felt the need to be ruled after throwing down our kings and queens? Did we feel like we had to have "something" in order not to have anarchy, and that "something" then overgrew us, or did we have a purpose for creating governments?

I think we had a purpose, although the purpose differs a lot between countries. The founders of the United States of America has a very clear purpose: To have a government that protects human rights and private property, agrees on some basic laws for society, and runs court-systems. Americans did just terrific with a limited government like this. Lives of millions of people fast became longer and better and what used to be a country of poor, un-skilled immigrant-peasants from Europe turned into the most powerful economy in the world. But of course with a couple of World Wars in the 20th century things began to spiral down a little, but all the same Americans showed a very good example of the power of limited governments with clear objectives.

In Europe men took a little different path. We had kings and nobles that ruled us with fear and force and as such, made us stay poor peasants for hundreds of years. In the end we managed to break out the chains and form democracies and decided that we should have the freedom to speak and write what we want, pretty much do what we want with some limitations, and tied governments hands down with constitutions.

But government usually finds a way of expanding, and soon it became clear that constitutions wouldn't do the trick. They can be boycotted and changed and their words interpreted in many different ways, thereby creating space for the government to expand. And now I feel the circle is complete: It is not us anymore who have a government to protect our rights and freedoms, like they were natural and in need of protection. Now it is us who seek permissions from the government to speak and have freedoms, like they are given to us by some generous power from above.
"May I smoke in my own restaurant?"
"May I speak badly of differently colored people?"
"May I hire a man instead of a women for this job, although fewer women do similar jobs?"
"May I live my life the way I seem fit?"
We are once again the peasants, and we have lost sight of the original purpose of our governments and replaced them with the old roles of kings and queens. Strangely enough though, this is called "democracy". Isn't that plain simply wrong?

Two approaches - sometimes same result

Leftists, conservatives and libertarians more often than not have different goals in their battles. Leftists generally want the State to regulate everything, tax everything and govern most things. Although many Leftists tend to show compassion for, for example, homosexuality and even cannabis-usage, they still have great need to control peoples income and therefore time and efforts. Conservatives have more understanding for peoples need to control their own finances, but sometimes tend to impose moral codes on everyone, but not with every ones consent. Libertarians of course understand that true freedom means both moral and financial freedom, and that people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't enforce violence upon anyone.

But sometimes these groups share goals, although they use different methods of achieving them. Lets take for an example the so-called media-laws which have now been imposed in Iceland, and I have discussed on this website once or twice. Almost all political parties, except those holding power in Althing (Icelands parliament) agree that those laws are bad. They will impose restrictions on media-ownership and work against their own designated goal of increasing the variety in Icelands media-market. But how come all the different groups of libertarians, Leftists and conservatives can share a common goal like this? Well, the reason is this: Different arguments - same goal.

Of course libertarians oppose these laws for idealistic reasons - the market can function just fine without special regulations for this and that, and the consumer is in the end the one who decides who lives and who dies on the market. Conservatives, or the few of them who oppose the law, say that the laws have a too broad scale, and should be reduced to something less and more general (the laws will only affect one media-company in Iceland now - a company which the prime minister of Iceland isn't too happy about). The Leftists? Well, the Leftists only want some other laws than this one, but have not once said exactly what is implied in that.

But all in all a number of very different groups can agree on something, but each on his own terms. Even freedom-fighters like libertarians sometimes have to join authoritarians like Leftists to fight against some government action. When it comes down to it though, the Left will never do things for the right reasons as long as they stay to the left, although they sometimes hit the right note when it comes to picking their battles.

Welfare system - whose welfare?

The expansion of the so-called "welfare system" in Western countries is a remarkable phenomena and really a good example of how things should not evolve. This system is designed to do what? Yes, help those who for some reason can't help themselves, whether it's for a short period (the unemployed, the temporary ill or the mentally down) or a long period (the critically ill, the mentally challenged or the permanently handicapped). This, of course, has been a function which people have carried out without government interference for a long time. The Red Cross was founded by kind-hearted people and funded by kind-hearted people. Charity-hospitals have existed since hospitals in general have existed. Volunteer-work to help those who need help plays an important role in many peoples lives in many countries. We buy lottery-tickets and donate money on regular basis to support some good cause. But why all this government getting in the way?

Before Word War I and II, governments in Western countries were more or less small and had very limited but important jobs of protecting human rights and upholding the law. But with many years of bad economic-control and a number of hugely expensive wars, this changed. This is especially true for World War II which more or less crippled most of the major-economies in the world. Here is a little summary in that respect. Governments found themselves with destroyed markets and had to take some action. Some, like Germany, followed the guidance of free-market promoters like Hayek and Mises and quickly recovered. Free-trade alliances were formed between "friendly" countries during the Cold War and created large wealth and huge prosperity, while others hung on to socialistic means and showed good results in the short run, but devastating ones in the long-run. We all remember the Soviet Union don't we?

But although the free-market was given space to create prosperity and longer and better lives, most countries made the mistake of holding on to their "temporary" welfare-systems, and those systems continued to grow and continue still. The result is that countries like Sweden, which started out good, have now declined in huge steps, and even in Sweden the socialists have been forced to swallow their pride and privatize many of the governments functions to allow for some forward-movement.

Now the situation is that the public welfare-system in most Western countries is in fewest cases helping those who really need help. Do we want to help people educate themselves, have good health, get good jobs and stand on their own feet? Yes, I would think so. But does that happen by allowing the government to hold most of the major functions in society in its grips? No. Not at all. But why is that the case then? It's because what started out as a small-scale temporary means of getting back on track after years of devastating wars and failed government-economic control has now resulted in an over-grown ever-thirsty government blackhole which sucks in the time and energy of everyone, so that everyone is in need of help.

The situation is bad. It's bad for those who really need help, and it's bad for those who are forced to hand such a large share of their income to the government that they become needy of help. Every day we are told that the government needs to fund this and support that. We should ignore such lies, and better yet, demand that the government does less and focuses on doing well what it does now. That's the only welfare most of us need - the welfare of being left alone until proven in need for something else.

Fatties

It seems a little e-mail I wrote to Radley Balko after reading his article on obesity and public health received his attention and, like often happens when small islands in the middle of nowhere are discussed, led to some thoughts about porn and how few Icelanders are. Both is true of course - Icelanders have porn and there aren't so many of us. But the thought of Iceland in the minds of libertarians and other right-winged liberals should rather be about private-property rights of fishing quotas and well, Bjork. Is that really all we have going for us in Iceland? That and Lazy Town of course.

Three things about France

The following is a list of three facts about France, in three currencies:

• "The French public health insurance scheme is heading for a $15.5 billion deficit this year, threatening to bankrupt the system." (#)
• The social security system in France "has an annual deficit of 11 billion euros". (#)
• "[T]he 35-hour [working] week ha[s] lumbered the [French] state with £10 billion a year in additional social charges and [...] demoralised millions of workers." (#)

If the French can teach us anything then it's the fact that whatever seems like a perfectly good government-operation and -regulation is in fact a death-sentance for future generation's life savings and standard of living. I hope more people won't have to suffer to establish that fact even better.

Governments purpose

Some people wrongly accuse the advocates of libertarianism and related ideologies of being in favor of anarchism, and in general, of being anarchists. But this is wrong of course. Although both fight for limited government in the sense of wanting it limited from its size today, the two ideologies, libertarianism and anarchism, have a very different view on what the "end goal" should be. A short explanation now follows, which of course is biased since I am a human being with opinions and views:

Not all people are good and nice, and not all people care for other people. Some are selfish and violent, and some have a strong need to hurt others just like others have a strong need to heal and help. But most people just want to exceed on their own, live a peaceful life and do their own thing without posing violence to others. For the rare exceptions, there is generally a need for some law-enforcement and of course a court-system to clear disputes and decide a fair retribution when rights have been violated, be it government run or privately run.

Anarchists think a little different. They deny the need for law-enforcement besides a civilian-run one of course, and I don't think they are in favor of a court-system run by the state. I think they want some kind of citizen-councils to come together when something needs to be decided by the public, and be dissolved when the issue has been cleared out. But enough about that (since I'm on very weak ice when talking about the very broad term of "anarchism") ...

What most Leftists and many conservatives say is that libertarians want a very weak government which practically has no role in human society. That is wrong, and this is what makes people confuse libertarianism with anarchism. What libertarians want is a very strong government but with the very limited but important role of protecting people properties and rights. Not a complete definitions but close enough.

But don't we need to make some arrangements to prevent corporations to take everything over and force the public to buy stuff it doesn't need for the price they don't want to pay? No. The very strong government will maintain a free-market environment - no corporations set the law no matter how powerful they are. Corporations can only maintain their size by pleasing the consumer, but while they do so they will face no government action, such as "anti-trust"-laws or "competition-laws", which always come down to anti-trusting the consumer and reducing competition when it comes to pleasing the consumer.

But doesn't the government need to protect the environment? No. Where private property-rights have been clearly defined, and protected by law, there will be no such thing as pollution without the explicit agreement with the owner of land/soil. This is obvious of course. Where is pollution the biggest problem? Is it not in countries where big corporations have been able to grow strong without government action? No. Pollution is not the same in all countries which have heavy-industry inside their borders, for example. Pollution is the greatest problem in the lands of collective ownership of land, like in the former states of the Soviet-union, and many countries which have governments who have listened to socialist-propaganda about environmental-protection. Simply upholding a strong protection of well defined private property-rights is the environmental-protection which we need, and little other.

How about the poor and the children? The oldest cliche of the Left is to say that a huge government is necessary to help the poor and help the children. This is wrong. In free economies fewer people are poor than in socialist-economies, the poor are richer, the poor are poorer for a shorter period of time and the poor have more options of earning themselves up the income-ladder. This the Left wants to exchange for a system where the poor remain poor, but remain it in such a way that they wont really have to break out of poverty and, in fact, can hardly break out of poverty! Government expansion harms first those who have low income and great difficulties with putting out money for this government program or that, although it is meant to help those who need help. Historically, those who enjoy the fruits of "unlimited" capitalism are those who have worked their way fastest out of poverty and, in given time, become among the richest.

What about markets with market failures? Doesn't the government need to regulate them? This has never worked out to be an argument which holds. What markets are we talking about? Well, mostly people mean the markets of health-care, both the healing part and the insurance part. One popular term to use is information asymmetry and even use it with a tone which indicates that no other arguments are needed! I mean, doesn't the doctor know more about healing than the patient being healed? Can't the doctor overprice the patient and heal him badly without the patient being any wiser? Won't insurance companies find themselves mostly stuck with patients that are all very sick, because the healthy people won't see the point of insuring themselves?

This is actually the core and essence of the case against market-run health-care systems. Everyone agrees that the most poor will probably need help with paying the medical-bills, and also poor students and so on, but that is no case against the market, since privately provided help is abundant where the government stays out of financing (because less taxes mean people generally give more to charity and related operation). But the information asymmetry? Well, that's no good is it? In short, the case of that argument is also a weak one, and the reader should simply ask himself how much he knows about his future car-crashes before he buys insurance for the car, or how much he knows about fires coming up in his house in the future, and how the insurance companies attract buyers who generally drive pretty damage-free and have good fire-protection gadgets in their homes. (Hints: Bonuses, discounts and refunds.)

But you forget the poor people in other countries! We need government to provide them with help! Do we? How about just not restricting them with customs and excessive regulation and let them trade with what they have, and become rich the same say we did! Experience shows:

• Free trade gives rise to wealth.
• When a certain part of the people have the means to become rich, they tend to lift the living-standards for others in their society, and therefore allow even more people to participate in wealth-generation.
• When people start to enjoy the wealth of capitalism, they tend to demand more freedom in social matters and political ones as well.
• Results: Capitalism encourages freedom and democracy

This has been found true for many societies, if not almost every one! So to the original question - to help the poor in poor countries, we need to give them free trade, but not free aid, and capitalism instead of socialism (unrestricted aid and loads of trade-restrictions) and fascism (give aid which ends up in the hands of corrupted politicians).

A system of private property rights and well protected civil rights, or libertarianism and related ideologies, is the system of choice. Don't confuse it with something else. Thank you very much.

My health or public health?

I simply can't resist posting this on my site:

The best way to alleviate the obesity "public health" crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there anyway. It's difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans.

That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with one's health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn't belong to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own retirement, we're less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a cold.

We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices. (#)

There.

To consider

One of my all-time favorite quotations is a one by the German priest Martin Niemöller, which fell into the hands of the Nazis when speaking a little too freely in their opinion.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

These words still have a very strong message for modern-people in "free" countries. Every single day the government tries to restrict our freedom in this way and that, and every time we don't bother too much to protest because it's not really affecting us. Or is it?

I live in Iceland. I can pretty much say whatever I want, but there are exceptions. Recently a man was found guilty on criminal charges because he spoke a little "too" freely about black people in Africa. He said they were lazy. He became a criminal. But there's more: I can't speak publicly about tobacco in Iceland, except to warn against its harmful effects. Not a bad law? I mean, tobacco is un-healthy isn't it? And of course black people in Africa are not lazy, right? Well, that is completely besides the point. The Earth is round, but what has that to do with the law, and not with free speech?

Whenever we accept freedom-restrictions like the ones I mentioned, we put the taste of blood in the mouths of those who feel the great need to use the government to control this and that. I've heard of all kinds of ridiculous suggestions made by such blood-needing people. Some simply want to ban fast-food restaurants near schools because kids are getting fatter. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Others claim that the government should forever and ever be the only seller and distributor of alcohol and tobacco. I mean, isn't it un-healthy for us anyway? Still others now say that the media should not under any circumstances be owned by "too few" individuals or companies. Exactly what that means seems to be a more of a debate that the "fact" that there is need for those laws. And of course the list is endless. The taste of blood has been passed out, and not the cannibals of freedom seek fresh pray to extend their lives with.

Someone once made the very good point to state that God himself only seemed to need 10 commandments to ensure a civil society of honest and hard-working people. Why do we then need so many more?