An ideological foundation

The basic difference between those who lean to the Right and those who lean to the Left is politics is, in my opinion, the need to control others. Leftists often use phrases like "design the society", "influence choices", "control the free market" and so on. Rightists more often use phrases like "release from the grip of government", "set people and enterprises free", "increase peoples freedom" and so on (or am I wrong?). I see very little difference in modern-day Leftists and old-fashioned communists and socialists because the basic underlying way of thinking is the same: Control of others and design of society. Some might think that's a big simplification. Doesn't the modern day Leftist celebrate the free market and free choices? Doesn't he share the Rightist's doubts about too much State-control over people and companies? Yes and no, but the theme is still "to control and design".

But there is another fundamental difference between those who lean to the Right and those who lean to the Left in politics, and that's the ideological foundation on which the ideas and opinions stand on. How can it be justified through logic and reason that the State has permission to interfere with people's choices and the free market? I'm not talking about the State's "right" to stop violence, fraud and assaults, but the State's "permission" to transfer money from one to another, to prohibit certain consumption, behavior and choice of lifestyle, and to limit "dangerous" speech and activities. How can the Leftist justify a State-operated, tax-funded welfare system given that free, consenting adults have permission to control their own bodies and property? Or is the condition "given that free, consenting adults have permission to control their own bodies and property" not one which the Leftist is aware of or shows respect for?

I really think the Leftist cannot reasonable argue for his views on the basis of sound logic and reason. I think the Leftist doesn't care about the individual and his unlimited freedom of choice and behavior as such, but more about how to form society into some given frame. The Leftist may say he believes each individual should be able to make his own choices and decide how to run his own life, but in reality this doesn't hold. I think in reality the Leftist doesn't care if he's violating the rights of individuals as long as he has a clear conscience and a goal for his society-shaping.

But maybe logic and reason isn't so important when it comes to politics. The mathematician has to prove each point in his argument by using well-founded, most-likely-absolutely-true axioms and other proven statements and sentences. Maybe politicians are the engineer who "adjusts" the math to reality, allowing some things to float a little from the absolute truth so as to fit the "real world" better. Maybe the tolerance is even greater. Maybe the politician should be allowed to decide, design and manipulate without any concern for the proven, logical points of thinking. That's how I see the Leftist: He only needs to say what he feels, but not what is true or logically right.

Unfortunately, I can't live with that mind-process. I'm not a Leftist.

The obstacle for freedom

I think only one thing stands in the way of Leftism being eliminated once and for all - the inability of many to understand that wishing government-control over one area of society translates into wishing government-control over the whole society. Leftists say they are tolerant when it comes to moral issues, saying for example that homosexuals should be able to get married, adopt and so on, and preaching equality for everyone (economic equality for most part). Leftists even use the word "freedom" when they praise their message!

But while one hand of the Leftist preaches freedom in moral issues, the other hand preaches government-control in economic issues. High taxes on the rich and low on the poor, they say. High taxes on everyone so that education, health care, roads and social security can be offered "for free". High taxes so that money can be given to those who chose to go to school or have children, or both. Strict laws on companies so they don't step on the consumer or offer too low/high/equal prices.

What the Leftist doesn't see is that this need to control the money-flow translates into control of moral issues. By holding the market in the grips of the State, people are held in the grips of the State. A historical proof is the apparently inescapable result of communism in practice, which always starts out as an economic expansion of the State, and always ends up being complete oppression of free will and free speech. As long as individuals aren't given the freedom to use their time, energy, money, common sense and property as they see fit (more or less), then they aren't given the freedom to make moral decisions themselves.

The dots are pretty well connected: Having the need to control the market = having the need to control individuals and their moral behavior, even though the Leftist doesn't realize it himself.

I will refer to this article for more details about the whys and whats about my statements here. Skeptics are advised to read. I note though that I don't consider myself an anarcho-capitalist like the author of the article.

To follow or be followed?

Once again John Ray touches a sensitive nerve in me - that of libertarians in the political mainstream-battle - if they should group up with one of the "big", existing parties (e.g. conservatives), or stand on their own. It's an issue I've mentioned once or twice, but I see a few more words are needed.

People make political decisions based on their political nature (or that's my theory anyway). Either it's the need to control, or the will to set free. John Ray says:

Libertarians have always opposed conservatives on issues of sexual morality and Leftists on issues of economic regulation so libertarians have always had to make a choice if they wish to do more than spend all their time talking to one-another.

True for most part. Libertarians have a big job fighting for freedom on all fronts, but no job when it comes to compromising with the Left on economic-issues and the conservatives on moral issues. The problem is that this fight sometimes means that libertarians can't win votes on their own. Whether or not libertarians should run independently is another story, in part discussed by me here.

For my part I have a big challenge voting for non-libertarian politicians, and I tend to think I have to vote to minimize the damage from politicians rather than voting according to my personal beliefs. In that respect I have always ended on voting for "the big right-party" because it is the only one which shows some understanding for economics. A policy that (more or less) focuses on material well-being rather than spiritual tends to lead to increased social freedom and moral tolerance. That's why a vote to the right will "cover more basis" than a vote to the left. Besides, in Europe the whole political spectrum seems to have gotten the age-old libertarian point that no government has the right to control people's sexual activities, personal decisions and moral standpoints. A big reason for that is the economic success of Europeans, or so I see it.

Whether or not libertarians should run independently or not is a complex issue. In Iceland the political landscape seems fairly well suited that. However, if libertarians run independently they should have the goal of decreasing the total vote of the left, rather than fight too much for existing right-votes with other existing, right-winged parties.

The blame-game must go on

Everyone knows about the terrible things going on in and around the Indian Ocean these days. Truly a catastrophic situation which I feel terrible about. However, without trying to take the issue lightly, I can't escape one thought: How are Leftists planning on blaming global warming for the horrible things going on, like they usually do when natural disasters occur?

The Christian Right?

The other day I heard a man talking about politics in the United States, and in that respect he divided the political spectrum into "the liberal left" and "the Christian right". How might that be? What has the Left to do with being liberal, and how come the Right is associated with Christianity?

A part of the answer is the political landscape in America. Those calling themselves "liberal" in America are more often than not those who are willing to allow homosexuals to live together, and want as much as possible in the hands of the state. Those calling themselves "conservatives" (or to the right) are more often than not those who are reluctant to grant homosexuals the right to live together, but show understanding towards allowing the private enterprise to prosper without the state butting in all the time. (I am only speaking very roughly and not literally about the political landscape in America - counterexamples of my examples are easy to find).

So there we have it - the Christian Right and the liberal Left. But something doesn't add up. Those who want the state to grow in power economically, Leftists, are those who want the state to stay out of peoples private lives (excluding John Kerry and other canons in the Democratic Party). Those who want the state to grow in power socially, Rightist, are those who want the state to stay out of the market. Does this add up? In this formulation we have two groups of people, each wanting the state to strengthen in one area and weaken in another, and still we call them Leftists and Rightists! No, this won't do.

The fact of the matter is that those who want the state to gain power and increase control are one group, and those who want the opposite are another. Since Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Social Democratism and other inventions of the Left are generally associated with state-control and limited market-laws, we shall call those who want the state to control either people or markets Leftists, and the others Rightists. This would mean that when it comes to the mainstream politics, Americans only have Leftists with different views on exacly what the state should have a stranglehold on, but not whether or not it should have any kind of stranglehold.

The word "liberal" is nothing which suits the American Left. The word "Christian" or "conservative" is nothing which fits to the American Right.

EU: Good or bad?

A friend of mine wondered the other day whether the European Union (EU) is a good or bad thing. Roughly he said:

That peace remains within Europe and human rights are generally respected. People not being killed in state-run concentration-camps and private property rights are sacred as far as that goes. That no wars are in Europe anymore and so on. Acid not being pored on people as punishment in Turkey, and more.

Or how much bureaucracy the EU stands for, which costs people loads of money each month and prevents tax-cuts etc.

Is the EU good or bad? Are the pluses bigger than the minuses? In my opinion: Yes.

But the European Union has evolved a lot since its founding after World War II. Originally it was a free-trade union between the biggest economies in Europe, and as such grew into tighter and tighter relations on the whole political spectrum. Today the EU has become a huge block of red tape and regulations and the economy of Europe as a whole has as a result grown to an almost complete standstill. The free trade, which eliminated wars and resulted in great increase of wealth, respect for human rights and clear protection of the private property right, has evolved into a superstate of regulations and restrictions with regards to relations outside Europe and flexibility within Europe, and an ever-increasing reluctance to give back freedom which has been tied into institutions and state-supervision.

I have no doubts about the peace-keeping role of the EU, and the EU itself forces its member-states to do many good things they would otherwise not do, or do only when they have no other choices (e.g. liberate various markets from state-monopoly, and suppress customs and trade-barriers within the member-states). However, if the trend of state-merger continues I fear that the EU will crumble from within, having forced one too many regulation down the throat of its members. There are limits to how much a single, centralized government can do for hundreds of millions of people, especially when it continues to remove power from local authorities to the global one. History teaches us that when a superpower of bureaucracy grows too much in ambition, power and size, it will eventually disintegrate from within, splitting up into blocks or collapse totally into its elements. I hope this won't happen to the EU since some of its members have a great tendency to fights its neighbors, but the risk is there.

Why doesn't the EU aim on looking more like the World Trade Organization, which only holds limited power over its member-states, and has no interest in making detailed plans for individuals - instead focusing on keeping governments on track when it comes to freedom of trade and respect for private property rights and human rights?

False logic

Being an Icelander living in Denmark has opened my mind for many new things. A few of them are:

• Compared to Danish people, Icelanders are surprisingly aware of the power of private enterprise.
• Compared to people with basic history-knowledge, Danish people are surprisingly ignorant.
• Compared to a nation of rich, hardworking people, the Danish are surprisingly willing to hand the state problems to solve, thereby increasing the damage of the problems.
• Compared to how much Danish people enjoy the fruits of free competition in the free market, they are surprisingly willing to monopolize systems of e.g. health care and education by leaving them in the hands of the state.

This list is only to name a few of my surprises with the Danish people. They are hardcore-capitalists in most classical meanings of the word: They are vicious consumers and punish overprising and lack of quality without hesitation. They are naggers to the bone, making everything around them sound like the worst in the world, and criticize bad management and bad choices until ears drop off. However, they are also very willing to push problems out of their way by pointing at politicians and blame them for what is wrong. As a result, many problems (and "problems") are sucked into the state's supervision, and it's then when the nagging starts for real.

Denmark is a rich country filled with well-educated, hard-working, creative people who strive to improve their lives in every sense of the word. Danish people enjoy the fruits of the free market more than inhabitants of many other states, and Denmark is a magnet for those who enjoy the very best of what a free society has to offer. But they have a socialistic bone in them which tells them that some things are best left in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and public officials, and as a result the Danish people are worse off than they could be. The newspapers are filled with left-oriented slogans and analyses, and it seems that the Right in Denmark (or 'de borgerlige liberals' like they call themselves to avoid comparison with national socialists) is careful of keeping its mouth very shut in the public discussion, hoping that people's common sense outwins the Leftist-anger. Sad and risky, to say the least.

But maybe I've just been focusing on seeing the bad for the last few months. Last week the idea was dropped that the best "family policy" for Denmark would be to lower taxes, thereby giving parents more flexibility to live of a single or one and a half income instead of two today, and this week it was suggested that the state should give up state-support in the housing-sector in exchange for more freedom and flexibility (which then would give more people better chances of finding appropriate, affordable housing). Maybe are some things okay in this country of pseudo-socialistic capitalism.

A lesson not learned

A friend of mine once asked: "Isn't old-fashion and out of date to fight against communism?" I was wearing a button which said "Communism kills", and for him it seemed weird - the communism being dead and all that.

Unfortunately, it isn't so. In my latest post on this website I said a few words about my Left-Right theory, which is that generally all people can be divided into two simple categories, depending on what they believe in in politics. In my opinion there is no fundamental difference between today's "social democrats", "greenies", "liberals" (in the American meaning of the word), and so on. The mentality is still the same as with the communists in the beginning of the 20th century: The state can organize the society, and then we can see what is left to be "free". My way of thinking is the opposite - everything should be left free from government interference, except perhaps very few and special tasks (one, for example, being law-enforcement and protection of the private property right).

But the good-old fashion communists are still not extinct. In Denmark, a street-paper/internet-magazine called Socialistisk Standpunkt is published by some self-acclaimed marxists, and sold and I couldn't believe my own eyes when I read the following:

Hvis en kommende regering af arbejderpartier skal gøre noget reelt ved beskæftigelsen, må den have kontrol, dvs. ejerskab, over de væsentligste dele af økonomien. Gennem en demokratisk planlægning af økonomien kan man sætte en virkelig plan for velfærd og arbejde i gang, og man kan gennemføre den første betingelse for et rigtigt opgør med arbejdsløsheden: en drastisk nedsættelse af arbejdstiden med fuld løn- og personalekompensation.

There you have it - the state should own in order to control and organize. Regrettable, this thought-process is more widespread than many thinks, and it seems that all the theoretical and empirical data from the last 200 years hasn't made a dent in the unsatisfying belief in government-control over individuals and their companies/organizations.

Actually, the quote here above included the world "nationalize" in the print-version. I thought I would never see that word again in writings about the future.

What are you in politics?

A question I hear from time to time is "what" I am in politics, and sometimes whether I'm a libertarian or even an anarchist! I have a hard time answering questions like these. I could call myself a liberal right-winger, but then I might be liberal in the USA-meaning of the word (statist and fond of increased government) and a right-winger in the European meaning of the word (national socialist). What I would be meaning is that I couldn't care less about social matters and what people do and don't do = liberal, and that I think the less there is of the state, the better = right-winged.

I could also call myself a libertarian. However, that isn't as straight forward as one might think. Some people confuse libertarianism with liberalism, and better yet - neoliberalism. If I'm not mistaken then neoliberalism is at its best in the USA, where the ruling "class" of the US-state believes in a relatively free economy, but wants a stranglehold on the American social-behavior. I'm not one of those.

It might be complicated to roll around in the definition-flood of the political spectrum. But maybe it's not. Maybe it's enough to divide the political spectrum into two poles - Left and Right - and do little else. Why so? Because I think people in general only have two approaches when it comes to politics and social thoughts, and everything else is derived from that.

1. Right: The general thought that society should more or less be left by itself, without government interference. This holds for economic and social affairs. Private property right is the foundation. Freedom to trade, communicate, do business, make contracts and so on. The state should only busy itself with protecting the freedom to do whatever, and government-run companies and institutions are the exception, but not the general rule.
2. Left: The general thought that society should be organized as much as possible, and that elected or self-acclaimed leaders can do that with the right tools and a right state of mind. Government-ownership is the foundation, and all of which has any value, or could have any value, should be left to the government to take care of. The state should run most institutions and companies, but a free market might be allowed to operate in exceptional cases or in cases where the government doesn't think something is worth the effort to control.

What derives from this are two constantly fighting poles, each one trying to push the other. We see for example what is happening for the Left in the United States: The health-care system is increasingly moving into the hands of the state, where it's to be organized by politicians. We see what has happened in Europe a long time ago: The state has/does most of which has to do with health-care, education, traffic, pension-plans and natural resources. Looking at it from the other side, the Right has also had its winnings. The World Trade Organization, the European Union and other multinational institutions have forbidden many government-actions which were taken for granted in previous times, such as state-support of selected industries, trade-barriers and harm to peoples personal property.

It can be seen that when the Left is strong, the state gets more and more "important" projects to take control of, or makes them up and "solves" by itself. Likewise, when the Right is on the move, the state is given stronger and stronger restrictions to roll over people, companies and the free market in general.

I'm to the Right. I'm not sure I need to say more.

Global warming = global propaganda

Last night a refreshing documentary was shown on one of Denmarks government television-stations, DR1. The documentary was about global warming, and had the amusing title, "Dommedag aflyst", or "Judgment Day cancelled" in English.

In short the documentary ass-kicked those who claim the Earth is warming up because of human activities. It was shown that it might be warming up, but then at most about a tenth of a degree over the last 25 years. In comparison, some claim that mans activities could increase the worlds temperature of about 6 degrees.

Also it was shown that the Earth has a solid system of stabilizing its temperature, using rain, clouds, evaporation, ice-formation, to name a few examples. It was even reasoned that if the Earths temperature would rise, say 10 degrees Celsius, it would actually increase the ice on the Antartica, thus lowering the ocean levels globally.

But are Danish people happy about hearing something else than constant propaganda about the need for Kyoto, need to reduce the usage of this and that, and not to mention the need for more taxes to fund these and that special government projects aimed on "saving" the environment?

I would say no and point to these discussion, out of which the following text is roughly translated:

This with the C02 not warming up the planet is completely wrong in my opinion. C02 grabs, along with H20, various wave-frequencies of infrared light, that is it catches the suns energy, which it then moves on to other molecules in the air, which then can warm up the atmosphere. It is true that water is the biggest greenhouse-gas, but many small springs can make up a large river. So if we burn all those coals and gases we have on the planet, we will significantly increase the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, which then will warm up the atmosphere.

The author of this text must have been on the toilet when last nights documentary showed that C02 itself is a very weak measurement of the potential global warming we might possible see in the future, if we burn up "all" the coals and gases in the world. Shouldn't we stop volcanoes from erupting also, since they are a huge producer of C02 in the atmosphere?

Globalization = global elimination of poverty

John Ray with an excellent link, and a quote which I will now borrow:

We're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent. Best of all, the poorer nations are leading the way. Some rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, are doing well, but the developing world is leading this economic surge. Developing countries are seeing their economies expand by 6.1 percent this year - an unprecedented rate - and, even if you take China, India and Russia out of the equation, developing world growth is still around 5 percent... This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia..... What explains all this good news? The short answer is this thing we call globalization. Over the past decades, many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging.

Hurray for globalization!

Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering. (#)

Indeed.

The problem-solving state

Problems surround us all the time. Generally they can be divided into two categories: Those that individuals can solve themselves or in free partnership with other individuals, and those that require outside assistance to be solved.

Most problems fall into the first category. When a person feels sick, there are the options of staying home, visit a doctor or simply push on as long as health allows. When a person has financial problems there are the options of taking a loan, work more, ask for a pay-raise, switch jobs, spend less or sell property. Generally speaking: Most problems require no outside solutions.

Problems which need outside assistance to be solved are for example crimes. The police investigates crimes, courts solve disputes, the army fights off hostile invasions and the politicians lay frameworks for people and companies to act within. The problems which require outside solutions - or should I say outside interference - are few but important.

But the philosophical truth of this basic way of thinking is unfortunately not the reality in which we live today. For some reason the state (of all institutions) has taken the part of the problem-solving mechanism in the society. The consequence is plain and simple: Now everyone needs outside help of some kind. A few examples:

• Those who have children automatically need help with supporting themselves, paying for schools and babysitting.
• Those who happen to reach a certain age need financial support.
• Those who seek higher education need support from those who don't and those who have already finished their education.
• Those who owe money need support with the interests.

The list is much longer but the pattern is clear: The state has expanded its authority into that of making almost everyone in need of help, and everyone else the exceptions.

This problem-solving addiction of politicians and the state is itself dangerous. It undermines peoples way of thinking for themselves. It undermines free partnership when problems come up. Now everything is thrown at government officials and made to stand in line with all other problems. Those who dare to object to this centralization of problem-solving in society (like me) get reputations of being cruel and selfish. What about the poor? What about the elderly? Don't I want poor people to have education and access to health care? I do. However, catch-phrases like these don't suffice to explain why the state needs to have its fingers in education and health care. They just don't.

Life is not about money, and complaining about high taxes and extensive government simply because it costs taxpayers money is not my style. However, free choice is more often than not tied together with money. We choose to see a movie in exchange for money, thereby electing according to our choice. We choose to change grocery-stores, for example to lower the food-bill, and thereby elect limited selection in exchange for cheaper food. Consumers put companies out of business by choosing the competitors - using money as their vote. Voters are not so free when they dislike their childrens education in state-schools, or their doctors attitude in the state-hospital.

The problem is not the state itself, because the state is indeed very important in our society. The problem is the problem-solving state and its seemingly unlimited lust for more problems to solve.

Socialistic capitalism

I would like to think there is such a thing as a "socialistic capitalism". It appears in the heads of people who live in capitalist states, but believe they are living in a socialistic state. An easy example is Denmark. Danish people complain and complain about the lack of state-support to children, older people, students, artists, average working people, users of the public transport-system, consumers, families with children, loners, unemployed people and so on. At the same time Danish people are hard consumers, changing shops, banks, insurance-companies, phone-companies and whatever there is as soon as they dislike prices or services.

In other words - they beg for more state-interferance, but at the same time exploit there freedom in the free market, without connecting the dots.

What dots? Well, the dot which says that freedom generally means prosperity in every sense of the word, and the dot that freedom is best achieved by the absense of the state.

Taxes

A well known, but never told too-often, story about the harm of taxes is the following:

Man A can fix a car in 1 hour. However, it takes him 4 hours to paint a room.
Man B can paint a room 1 hour, but it takes him 4 hours to fix a car.

A logical consequence of this difference in skills is that Man A hires Man B to paint his room, and that Man B hires Man A to fix his car. Then both save 3 hours of work, which they then use on whatever else they want (for example work more or simply relax).

But what happens if we throw in elements like licence-fees, taxes on work and materials and other of that kind? One consequence could be that it will take Man A too many hours to work in order to afford the price of hireing Man B. Man A will have to pay taxes of his own earnings and then pay Man B which again has to pay taxes of his own earnings. In Denmark (which has high taxes on everything which changes hands or is done at all) it takes the average man 5 hours to work for 1 hour of hired help.

What does that translate into then? It translates into a system where people spend a lot of time doing things they are not good at, and thereby doing less of the things they are good at.

Who benefits from that?

Global crises of democracy

USA wants to "spread out" democracy. Europeans say the same thing, but suggest different methods. To put it very roughly, it could be said that two methods are in the debate:

1. Drive dictators out of power by using force and sanctions (USA).
2. Use sanctions, political pressure and discussions and hope that the dictators go away (Europe).

To say it short - I dislike both methods.

What rigth has one state (or groupe of states) to impose policies upon others? Did the UN, for example, have any right to interfere with Saddam Husseins Kurdish-massacres by limiting trade to Iraq? Does the UN have any right to interfere with Sudan, where millions of people are potentially being wiped off the face of the planet? Do Americans and Europeans have any right to pressure the communists in China to lay a little of their un-humane treatment of their own subjects?

Its a complicated matter. If Gaddafi, Castro and other brutal, facist/socialist dictators are allowed to participate in the society of free nations, isn't some kind of recognition of their power to torture and oppress innocent civilians? I would say yes. However, by blocking out dictator-ruled states from the global venue I think bad becomes worse. As an example: Communist Cuba. However, by doing nothing, bad might become better. As an example: Communist China.

China is big and powerful, and has been as long as anyone can remember. Americans have never dared to threaten China in any serious way, knowing that the Chinese could fight back and even shoot weapons of mass destruction at anyone who moves a muscle. Still China is ruled by commnuists, just like Iraq was ruled by a facist, Cuba is by a socialist, and North-Korea is by a maniac. Chinas force has enabled it to be left alone under communistic rule for decades, and allowed it to trade with other nations in the global market, although Chinese human-rights are in the dumpster.

The results of this tolerance towards socialism? Fantastic!

• China has entered the WTO, thereby admitting that globaliztion and capitalism are the path for the future.
• Private property rights have found their way into Chinas political structure.
• A middle-class is forming in China, and fast! Free trade formed a middle-class in Europe a couple of hundred years ago, and that middle-class gradually demanded more and more rights and self-control from their kings and queens. The same is happening in China. A middle-class in China will undermine the communists (and hopefully peacefully).

This short list is probably a lot longer in reality. By simply doing nothing about the brutal dictatorship of Chinese communists, the global market has created a foundation on which a peaceful overturn of socialism can take place.

But the moral question is still remaining: How can we just sit back and watch dictators slaughter their subjects, and do nothing about it? Can we allow another Saddam Hussein to tramp on the UN for 10 years while he slowly wipes out the enemies of his state? Can we watch while the communists of North-Korea slowly starve their subjects to death? Can we hear news about the genocides in Darfur without feeling the need for action (American or European-style above-mentioned)?

Those questions I cannot answer. But I know what patience does in the long run, if its followed up with abundance of free trade. Something to think about, or what?

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.