How to get it wrong

The year is 2005. The Communist Manifesto was first published 157 years ago (on the 21st of this month). Since then we've had Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao and many other good-hearted souls testing out the theories of Marx and Engels with well-known results. Still, despite all the cruel lessons of humanity, and in a rich, well-developed country like Denmark, socialists clean up 10% of the votes in free elections! How can this be?

Socialistic theory is interesting (I think!). It is a theory of how to shape society into some given form, for example that of an equal distribution of wealth (leading to no wealth existing at all, but that's another story). Socialists are willing to do a lot before they realize that humans are not pieces of clay, and some never realize this.

But is it all that wrong? Don't humanshapers (socialists) sometimes get it right? Yes, and that is a part of their remarkable success in an industrialized country in the 21st century - they sometimes get it right. But that's about it. When they get it right they usually mess it up with something wrong. I have an example.

The following text is taken from the Danish Socialistisk Folkeparti (SF) and roughly translated into English:

As far as SF is concerned, it's not a question of having free trade or not - but on what conditions we should have free trade. Today it's the rich countries which can export without limits to the poor ones. On the other hand, many obstacles hinder the poor countries from exporting to the rich ones. The European Union, for example, puts the special-interests of the European sugar-factories above the lives and well-being of the poor sugar-farms in the Third World.

Following this text is a statement saying that SF wants the agricultural-policy of the European Union dismembered. The text starts out good I would say. The rest is not so good:

There is need for playing-rules that serve the public and especially the poor's interests - for example in the form of environmental-demands, worker's rights [if I understand the Danish correctly] and a stop of weapons-trade. Also, there might be a need to give the poor countries possibilities to enforce customs and other trade-barriers for certain products to enable them to protect their home-marked. And there is need to remove tax-exceptions, make demands regarding pension-savings and other savings as well as limiting currency-speculations, for example via the so-called Tobin-tax

This is where the whole text goes wrong. The first part shows how even socialists learn, and that they have learned that free trade creates wealth and long lives. The second part shows that Marx and Engels might as well have written the text, giving its lack of historical understanding (along with every other form of lack of understanding there is!). A few notes:

• The Tobin-tax cannot be exercised, and its only purpose would be to slow down the market with all the difficulties/disasters that creates.
• Trade-barriers are the enemy of the poor - not the friend. Those countries who have removed barriers prosper. Others build up industries that cannot compete on the market, and will therefore always have to be protected unless they are to go bankrupt and again lead to great poverty.
• Demanding regulations on environment and worker's rights is not a good first-step for poor countries to take. How can a poor country compete with the Western world by being tied up with regulations that took 100 years for Europeans to adjust to in small steps? Perhaps someone thinks that the poor countries should also take 100 years to build up?

I understand how someone would want to control others and shape them according to a certain image. However, I will never understand anyone who thinks it's okay!

Unconnected dots

Elections in Denmark will be held on the 8th of February, and they have now become a ruling topic in the public debate. Denmark has many strange "leftovers" in their political spectrum, which most other states have shaken off a long time ago. One is the national-socialist Fremskridtsparti, and the two "normal"-socialist parties Socialistisk Folkeparti and Enhedslisten. All-together they account for about 10% of the Danish vote - a remarkable number in the beginning of the 21st century!

The appreciation for socialism has a few negative effects on the debate. For the last two weeks I have heard politicians protest tax-cuts because people just spend their money on trips to other countries and luxury items. This was considered a valid point in a serious debate! Tax-cuts are also protested on the grounds of increasing the income-gap between those who have jobs and those who don't. Seriously! This goes on and on. Danish people swallow these idiotic "arguments" and as a result the whole political spectrum is pulled to the left, with all the damages that does.

Another effect of the appreciation for socialism is a lack of understanding of how an economy in a capitalistic state works. Denmark, like many other countries in Western-Europe, is plagued by high unemployment. The Danish don't understand this. There are plenty of meaningful jobs which have to do be done, right? Yes, but they are not being done for a few reasons. To name a few:

• 'Bistand': Social welfare for those who can't or won't work for some reason, for longer or shorter time.
• 'Dagpenge': Social welfare for those who loose their jobs and (really) can't find another.
• 'Kontanthjælp': Social welfare for those who need money for longer or shorter time. If a person receives 'kontanthjælp' for longer than a certain period of time then a little work is required to "earn" the welfare-check.

The Danish "welfare" system is filled with open treasures for those who can't work, and those who don't feel like working. Also, Denmark taxes companies brutally, and being a member of the European Union, regulates them brutally as well.

But the Danish people don't connect these dots. They don't see why jobs aren't flowing over Denmark. They don't want to hear about any restrictions on social welfare, and all talk about tax-cuts on companies and individuals is blown out of the debate as fast as it comes up. Maybe Denmark needs to hear a little story about a little island in the north which did well in shaking of socialism, unemployment and economic stagnation?

More globalization

What are the problems of the world? Poverty, starvation, diseases, ignorance, wars and pollution and general disrespect for the environment. How can these problems be solved? The answer is relatively straight-forward: Increased globalization. I know why.

Poverty decreases with increased globalization. In pure economic-terms, more globalization means more trade, and more trade means more wealth being generated, and more wealth has the tendency to lift the most-poor fastest up the scale of living. A country X being 10 times richer than country Y means that the poorest in country X are 10 times richer than the poorest in country Y (this has been showed empirically many times). The tiniest increase in income for the poorest can make a huge difference. A huge increase in income more often than not makes little or no difference for those who are already rich. Therefore it is a battle against poverty which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Starvation and diseases are common companions of poverty. Therefore it is a battle against starvation and diseases which is involved in the battle for increased globalization. Also the environment cleans up when people can afford to have other things then the next meal on their mind. A good, clean environment is a very demanded luxary as soon as the basics of living are satisfied.

Ignorance gives rise to phenomenon like racism, sexism and general prejudism. Sometimes this leads to (civil) wars, but mostly it means limitations for free individuals who want to move around the world and work, study or hang out. Increased globalization attacks ignorance at its core, by breaking down borders and barriers and encouraging hard-working individuals and growth-seeking companies to travel around the world in search of the best conditions. Who thinks of skinny little Buddha-monks when thinking about India? Some do, but others are now beginning to think of able programmers who threaten to suck up all computer-related jobs in Europe if Europeans slack of.

Companies care only about one color: The color of money. Employers care only about one specification: The capability to work. Race, gender and religion plays no role in either case. Therefore it is a battle against ignorance which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Wars come in two, very different shapes: Those companies fight in order to attract customers and investors, and those governments fight in order to increase their power or ego. Companies gain nothing from slaughtering their customers. Governments can gain immensely from slaughtering their neighboring country's citizens (though never economically). Since the biggest states of Europe joined hands with free-trade agreements after World War 2, Europe hasn't seen a war (excluding the parts of Europe which had the bad luck of getting the communism-flu). Communist-China and 'capitalist'-USA fight trade-wars now, and no lives get lost in the process. Those areas on the planet which do have wars don't have free-trade agreements with their neighbors. By rushing the world as fast as possible into an almost unlimited globalization (elimination of trade-barriers, relaxation of regulations, etc), we rush into world peace. Therefore it is a battle against wars which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

The environment is a hot topic today. It's not because the environment is becoming filthier or worse than before. It's because people are afraid of the possibility of man taking the final, drastic step which tumbles the Earth's atmosphere over and pushes us into endless floods and hurricanes, and maybe even an ice-age. But fear or not the question remains: How can we protect the environment in an effective way? The answer: Increased globalization. But not just any globalization. We need a globalization based on private property-rights, and capitalism. Oil costs money. When Earth's oil-reserves become to small, oil-prices will rise enough to force people into using less. Property costs money. Therefore a destruction of a, say, forest via acid-rain gives rise to law-suites against those who polluted (given that the forest is in private ownership). A natural reserve filled with rare and exotic animals is bound to stay protected and taken-care-of while in private-hands. Everything else would mean a decrease in value, and only governments allow their property to intentionally drop in value.

There is always the problem of deciding what does what to whom, when and where. Is a car in Copenhagen destroying the wild-life in Canada? But those are small issues compared to the big picture: Those who destroy property must compensate or suffer the consequences. It makes no difference whether the property is a tree or a car. The law protects private property, and a court-system figures out who (most likely) made the damage. If some "pollution" doesn't bother anyone, no-one will prosecute!

The main-goal is to spread out globalization which will make those who damage property suffer the consequences. The acid-rains of Eastern-Europe during the Soviet-era should not be allowed to repeat themselves. Therefore it is a battle for a better environment which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Lets face it: Since globalization began to take of, everything it touches has been doing better. Those who hate America and McDonalds can easily verify that and still continue to hate America and McDonalds.

A small summary of my views

The following is a simple, simplified, small list of my views on various issues. It is to be taken seriously, but it should also be known that it contains no explanations or arguments.

• Private property is more feasible than public property (whatever that is). Objects or things in private ownership are more valuable than objects or things in State-ownership for all thinkable reasons, materialwise and otherwise.
• Individuals own their own bodies and can rightfully do whatever they want with them, as long as they harm no other bodies (against their will). No governmental or public agency may justifiable decrease the span of this self-ownership.
• Centralized organization of a society of men cannot be carried out successfully. Never.
• The free market in an environment of well protected human rights and private property rights will maximize the welfare of men when it's as free from government interference as possible. No other entity will do better then the free market when it comes to improving and lengthening lives of all individuals.

Any questions?

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?