The Unfree Market

As an opposite to the Free Market of the Right, the Unfree Market is the core of the Leftist's political battle. The Unfree Market represents collectivism and government control over people and companies.

Historically, the Unfree Market has done more harm than most of the wars and diseases of the 20th century. Still it's being preached but of course with other phrases. To name one, the modern spokesman of the Unfree Market says that preaching government control over large proportions of the incomes of people and companies does not mean limited individual freedom. This, of course, is absurd because a particular action cannot have many different decisions behind it. A dollar can only be spent once and if the earner of the dollar doesn't agree with the State on how the dollar spent he might face jail time and other punishments. If an individual wants to say "fuck" and the State doesn't want anyone to say "fuck", the individual looses. When the State expands, the individual shrinks.

The Unfree Market also has other specifications than decreased freedom for individuals and their companies, such as giving individuals the feeling they are not the masters of their own destiny and not responsible for the decisions they make which result in the actions they take. Smoking, fatty and unhealthy diets, over-spending, stress, drug-usage and foul language become "social" problems. Rather than helping those who want to help to focus on those who need help and bring them together with those who seek help, everyone is made to believe they need help. The individual becomes a statistic that needs increased funding and/or more institutions.

The thought "free market" means individuals freely doing business with each other, or freely communicating, or freely exchanging something (money, goods, advice, hugs) for something else (stocks, gifts, recommendations, kisses) or sometimes something for nothing - and everyone participates as long as no-one harms anyone else with force (and if they do, the police shows up). Those who fight against the free market by promoting taxes, border-barriers, regulations and State-controlled moral-codes fight free co-existence of free humans and exchange it with canals for everyone to follow.

The Unfree Market is a terrible thing. Lets keep it in the history-books.

FAQ #3

Question: Private property rights are considered one of the basis of modern societies - the State needs to have a strong case to tamper with properties of free individuals. Why is it so? Shouldn't all property be evenly distributed and in common hands rather than tied to the individual? Wouldn't that ensure a more fair and prosperous society?

Answer: The case of private property does not seem to be a simple one, although few question its legitimacy anymore. Some say private property rights exists because individuals have a right to live. Others say that since property is created by labor of individuals and with the use of the individual's time and energy and thoughts, the right to private property equals the right to be free and not owned by anyone. There has even been said that private property rights are natural to the human being, and should therefore be respected.

The opposite view is that no-one should be able to claim something for its own since humans live in societies with other humans and should therefore accept their role as masks in a net rather than individuals in a community. The socialist questions private property rights for weak reasons and for the purpose of being able to redistribute wealth according to his whims and whishes.

But whatever the philosophical justification for private property rights the reality is that societies which don't respect the right of the individual to own something for himself remain poor and underdeveloped while others prosper.

FAQ-entries are intended to explain the myths of Leftism in short, simple language. Any comments on them or suggestions regarding them are welcomed.

FAQ #2

Question: Isn't the common good for the general public more important than the private good for an individual? Aren't the general public's interests more important than the individuals?

Answer: The answer is no for at least two reasons (or the same reason approached from two angles). (1) When trying to enforce some supposed general interests, the individual's interests are generally being sacrificed, and since the general public is nothing else than a collection of individuals, the general interests are being damaged by being focused on. (2) When the individual's interests are not put first and protected by all means, the individual will cease to seek his own private goals in life or work, and thereby his potentials are not being maximized, and therefore his contribution to the society is lessened, making the general public more poor in all economic and social aspects.

FAQ-entries are intended to explain the myths of Leftism in short, simple language. Any comments on them or suggestions regarding them are welcomed.

FAQ #1

Question: Why is a private buisness more efficient than a public one? Why does the private sector outperform the public sector?

Answer: Unefficient private companies go bankrupt in the free market. If a company in the private sector performs badly, overprices for a service or goods or fails to please its customers, it will be punished with bankrupcy. The public sector faces no such threat because it will always have access to funds via taxes and law-enforced fees.

FAQ-entries are intended to explain the myths of Leftism in short, simple language. Any comments on them or suggestions regarding them are welcomed.

The move towards Right

About a century ago the political landscape was a clear battle between the socialists and the libertarians/liberals. One demanded a total State-control and -ownership, the other increased individual liberty and decreased State-interference. The libertarians won. Western countries put together constitutions which more or less had the only purpose of tieing down the hands of the State and making sure people had protected human and property rights in a democratic system. The countries which took this path overran every other country in success, wealth, peace and harmony. This is the short version of the history of the 20th century.

What has happened since? The Left sees that socialism doesn't work. Government-owned and -run health care, educational and welfare systems expand rapidly in costs and decrease in quality. The solution at first is to pump more money into the bottomless pits and see what happens. Nothing happens of course so the next solution is to read about the ideas of the Right and change them into something which sounds like its from the Left. Lets take an example:

The European welfare system is on the verge of collapse in every respect. Social security runs at a huge deficit in the big "welfare" states of Europe. Jobs are not being created. The economy is stagnating. More and more people retire or are "unemployed" while fewer and fewer bring in the bacon. What to do?

One suggestion for a solution for some of those problems: Privatize services the State now provides but continue funding them with taxes (as a first step).

For the Leftist this would seem like an awful idea (because it mean less State). However, the Leftist knows in his heart its a good one. I know the Leftist knows that because Leftists have been privatizing wildly all over Europe for the past few years. But how?

The Leftist can't say privatize. He could say outsourcing or contracting. Still not a good idea. He could go through multinational institutions like the European Union, fight for increased privatization and liberalization on a super-state level, and thereby always have the excuse of saying the whole privatization-deal is forced in from above. Brilliant!

The important thing is that the Left is moving towards the Right. Good things result from that. Maybe we will one day realize the libertarian-society of Star Trek where collectiveness is nothing but a few cubes of Borgs in the distance?

Note to self

Is there a book which explains, in accessible language, why Leftism is wrong and Rightism is right? Has someone gathered, in one place, the arguments for why a free market society is the best framework to insure decreased poverty, improved environment, longer and healthier lives and continuous progress for all human welfare? Has the book Why Leftism is Wrong been written?

The political debate is full of nonsense, non-logic used as logic, myths, and false statements. Some, I admit, come from the Right. Most, however, don't. Where's the easy-reading book which will change the world?

Political experience is useless without a justification

The basic difference between a person who is wrong and a person who is right is the logical justification of a particular action/statement. If person A states that he is right because he has tried action X with success but has no other arguments to offer, and person B says he is right because logic L say so but no experience has been gained, then who is right? My take on it: Person A, if his logic is sound, no matter what action X person A refers to, given he has no sound logic to back up his case.

My point of view can be protested in many ways. One might for example say that relying only on logic shows a lack of reality. If it could be justified that people over 70 years of age should be put to permanent sleep, would I then fight for that point of view? What if it turns out that it is justifiable to kill fat chicks - am I then a spokesmen of such actions? The answer: Yes. However I have no worries of such things being justifiable. In fact, being able to do whatever I want as long as I hurt no others while being under the protection of a minimal state of law-enforcement and a court-system - all sound logic suggest that this is the only permissible political reality.

Relying only on experience is not only unwise, but dangerous. The Leftist could say: "My goal is to fight poverty and unequal distribution of wealth, and I don't care what the logical reasons are against the actions I chose to take, as long as I can reach my goal." He could also say: "My goal is to rid the world free of black people, and I don't care what the logical reasons are against the actions I chose to take, as long as I can reach my goal." In both cases the logical justifications are put to side in order to reach some goal. In both cases the statements could be followed up by: "The actions I took worked well to reach my goal. Those who shared my goal are now happy, and I don't care about any logic and reason pointed against my goal."

Examples of actions which can't be justified, but "work well": Concentration-camps to reduce the number of certain minority groups, public executions of petty-thieves to scare people away from crimes, smoking-ban in private property to reduce (suggested) health-damages, excessive taxation in order to reduce the wealth of the rich and increase the wealth of the poor, state-implemented racial discrimination to give racists a good feeling about their own race, etc.

Most evils of the world origin in minds of individuals who let go of the logical justification of their actions and rely only on their feelings and past experiences regarding various issues. However, having experience to back-up logically sound actions/decisions is nothing but good. At least that's my take on it, being a self-acclaimed libertarian, having both the logic and experience on my side.

Freedom: Fair, just and effective!

Freedom is not only the most just and fair goal of all political activity, but also the solution to most of humans problems. Poverty, crimes, social injustice, famine and diseases are problems for which freedom is the most effective solution. This, above all, is the lesson to be learned from all political experiments of recent times. But how can that be? How can a simple catchy word like "freedom" be so powerful?

Worldwide, the most straight-forward freedom to implement is economic freedom. The only thing a state can ask another state to do is to negotiate over trade-issues. One state cannot force another to change internal laws or improve human rights. That would be interfering and sovereign states should be free from involuntarily interference from outside. Free-trade agreements on the other hand are relatively easy to implement since they don't pose a direct threat against ruling governments. However, as free trade lifts living-standards and decreases poverty, people start to act against unfair governments. In China, for example, the communists have been forced to recognize private property rights, improve human rights and face accusations regarding environmental-issues, all resulting in China finally applying for membership in the World Trade Organization with all the obligations that comes with. So economic freedom, innocent by itself, pushes for reforms from inside states, thus tackling problems like poverty, human rights and social issues in general.

This is not a surprising result and has in fact been predicted by liberal-writers throughout the last three centuries or so. Political philosophers, many of whom would be called libertarians or liberals today, have reasoned for freedom as the only fair and just ambition in politics. The empirical results confirm their thoughts. Thus, freedom reasoned for on analytical basis has turned out to work in the "real world" too. Few remain to dispute that.

To the socialist

Companies, the "rich" and profits from sales of natural resources like oil and gas, are the sources of money that should pay for the State and government-programs, according to the Leftist. In exchange, the "poor" should more or less be free from taxes, the Leftist says. The "rich" are especially targeted as those who should pay for the common services. This is always thought to be "fair" by the Leftist, because those who have "enough" money already are morally obligated to contribute more than others, and not just in monetary-value (like they do already) but also proportionally.

This might have worked a few years ago when the world was pretty much fixed - when moving across borders was hard and free flow of money was restricted. However, today, in an every-increasing globalized world, how does the Leftist expect a State to create a system which punishes those who rise in pay above the average, and still finance its programs of welfare-checks and socialized health and education? Isn't it so that what drove the Soviet-union into bankruptcy, and is driving more or less every Western "welfare"-state into ruin, is exactly the fact that richness isn't being created?

Usually we forget that when an economy becomes richer, the poorest in it become richer as well. An economy which earns (in some respect) a value of 10 has poor people 10-times poorer than those in an economy which produces 100. Empirical data shows this again and again. The exceptions are few and usually tied with oil-profits or socialist-governments. Will the Left ever learn or is that just fantasy?

The Leftist-unionist

A representative from my work-place's union approached me the other day, asking me if I wasn't going to join the union. I said no. This union, Fagligt Fælles Forbund (or simply 3F), is active in Danish politics and buys whole-page commercials in newspapers to try to move votes to the Left. The union has forgotten that unions used to be about pressing wages up and worker's rights into a positive direction. This one simply wants to have a government to the Left. Since unions became "accepted" in the Western world, they have had to find new ways of being controversial, and pushing for a certain pattern of votes is certainly a way to achieve that. Therefore I want nothing to do with it, although they had a lot to do with the wages and "benefits" I get in my workplace.

In my conversation with the unionist I discovered a major controversy in the Leftist-mind. The unionist said that workers need to "stick together" against their employer because the employer is always trying to increase the worker's load without fair compensation. The worker should always be alert and not be pushed over by his employer. That is why a union is necessary, the unionist said, because it activates the workers if the employer goes too far.

My question is this: Why is it that a unionist and a Leftist realizes this about his employer, but completely ignores it when it comes to the State? Actually, the Leftist-unionist is for a bigger State and therefore increased State-interference with the worker's life and budget. This is remarkable. The State is always trying to squeeze in more regulations and taxes and hopes it can do so in steps small enough for anyone to notice. The worker has its union to "protect" him against his employer. Does the normal, law-abiding, working citizen have anything similar when it comes to the State, besides a few noise-making right-winged groups of libertarians and freedom-fighters?

Three questions

Question 1: How come socialists and other modern offspring of them build their whole political existence on economic equality? Isn't there more to life than money?

The question is simple but I haven't seen an answer so far that didn't fill up books.

Question 2: How can it be, in the light of the horrible experience men have with trying to force on a certain distribution of wealth/freedom, that people still lean to the Left? Is it simply so that economic equality must be enforced because that's simply the right thing to do? Is it so that people can't be trusted to build a free society without some pre- or post-demands on how wealth, freedom and opportunities distribute among individuals?

I have never seen or heard of a politician succeeding in enforcing a certain pattern upon a society without horrible consequences. Must we try again and again? When will the Left prove itself wrong if the whole 20th century didn't do the trick?

Question 3: How is it possible to separate between personal freedom and economic freedom? If I choose to spend my time on work, how is someone taking a part of my earnings away without asking me first not an attack on my personal freedom?

Socialists say they have no objections when it comes to free people choosing their own lifestyles, words and activities. Still they want to remove a part of one man's fruits of labor and hand over to someone else, and not call it a restriction on personal freedom!

The Leftist's money-obsession

Being to the Left in politics usually involves a very strong focus on one issue: Money. That's all the Leftist thinks about. How should these people's money be moved from here to here, and how much? How can we spend it so as to make sure we get elected again? Where can money be taken from one or another to sponsor this and that program? Who will object the least if we take some money from him or give him less than before of other people's money? The core thought of people - like me - to the Right, justice, is only a small irritation in the Leftist's mind. That money and property is actually the fruits of efforts and labor is not important to the Leftist. That removing a percentage of income/property without permission is equal to partial slavery is ignored by the Leftist.

Leftists only flourish in free, capitalistic societies where free trade and good business creates all the nice taxmoney they want to spend. Their success depends on them being unsuccessful in carrying out their ideas. Hopefully the lessons from the first half of the 20th century will keep us away from socialism for ever, be it national socialism or any other form of it.

Leftism keeps the poor poor

How does Leftism keep the poor poor? There are many reasons why, and here are a few:

1. Leftists want the State to hand out generous contributions to those who don't have jobs. Governments which follow this policy usually deal with sky-high unemployment. It's that simple.
2. Leftists demand all kinds of regulations for the poor countries of the world, similar to those the rich countries have today. They want to "save" the environment with regulations, "help" the workers with regulations and "level" the ground on which countries compete on the world market. This, in short, keeps the poor, underdeveloped countries out of the loop in which the rich countries deal.
3. Leftists want companies and "rich" people to carry up the tax-burden, while the "poor" people are given all kinds of financial benefits and handouts. This, in short, stops everyone from seeking increased wealth, and hinders companies from performing well, which again puts a stop to the creation of new jobs, higher-paid jobs, innovation, price-drops on common products, and so on.

I would more than welcome any additions to this short list, because in reality its endless (or as long as the issues Leftists make proposals for).

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.