Production must come before consumption

The Left doesn't get many things right. Sometimes it's the complex things the Left misunderstands, for example the effects of taxation on society, the importance of free trade for growth and the effects of excess money printing by the State. But it's not only the complex things the Left doesn't understand. For example, the Left does not in any way understand that production must come before consumption.

The reason the Left is in the dark when it comes to this is that the Left is focused on the division and manipulation of present wealth, and completely ignores the fact that wealth must first be created before it can be divided.

A Leftist will often say that he wants to improve society or the lives of the poor by removing wealth from its rightful owners and hand it out to others. How does the Leftist expect wealth to be created when the creators of wealth continually get robbed? How does the Leftist think that wealth can increase when the sources of wealth are continually being drained of incentives and liberty? Clearly, none of this concerns the Leftist. He will focus on present wealth and its distribution among different groups of individuals (for example, those likely to vote for the Left), and demand that rightful owners give up their property to satisfy the grand visions of the Leftist, where nobody earns according ability, but according to whims of society-shapers.

What if Freedom and Justice wouldn't work so well?

We know that Liberty is not only the only justifiable state of things, but also a very practical state (the far most practical for those who don't have politicians as friends and business-partners). No State can be justified without violence (which again can't be justified if we admit the self-ownership of individuals). No coercion and aggressive attacks against individuals and their non-aggressive communities can be justified. No tax is justifiable. No forceful legislation can be justified. No non-aggressive actions of individuals can be outlawed.

But justifying is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you also need examples, especially when trying to convince the masses of the ideal of Liberty. Thankfully, examples are in plenty. Empirical data, flawed that it is, is overwhelming when it comes to show how Liberty is superior to the State and its applications. Free economies blossom while socialist economies fade into stagnation and decay. Taxes decrease wealth and prevent individuals from earning their way up in standard of living and well-being. Regulations hurt companies and growth and create unemployment and result in relatively lower incomes (average income can be high or on the rise in a socialist economy, but only compared to its own previous norms).

However, when it all comes down to it it's not about the number of examples and empirical proof. It's about Liberty and it's friend, Justice. It's about supporting a free society of free individuals and fighting for its creation (re-creation in relative terms). Because what if Liberty would create poverty and aggression? What if Liberty would have the same effects socialism has on society? Of course it could never, but a thought-experiment is perhaps worth the while. Would we sacrifice Justice and Liberty if they created poverty and aggression? We haven't when it comes to socialism, but would we in the case of Liberty?

In the end all the statistics and data doesn't matter when choosing right from wrong. Thankfully, Liberty and Justice have all the evidence on their side (besides the logic of course), but that is the wrong focus to put on things (although a very practical when arguing with the Left).

Can Justice combine with Reality?

The State is an entity of force and legalized violence. It cannot be justified without justifying violence and coercion, and that cannot be done if we admit the self-ownership of every man over his own body (only by denying such self-ownership can a person be logically consistent when justifying the State; no further details about that offered at this point).

So given that a person owns his or hers own body, how are we to accept the presence of the State? And if we don't, does it make sense in reality? Isn't State coercion necessary to keep the peace among individuals and groups of them?

One approach is to say: I don't accept the State as a justifiable entity, but I don't imagine we can live without it.

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified. (#)

Personally, I think is a short-cut to a peace of mind. If the State can't be justified, but we can't live without it or imagine we can achieve its absence, then there must be a flaw in the argumentation (if libertarianism is so logically consistent and correct, why would it not win in the long run?). But there is no flaw in the argumentation (given acceptance of the individual exclusive ownership of his own body), so the proposal that anarchy won't work is simply wrong.

And when it comes to achieving it, we must not forget that a few hundred years ago everyone was considered a property of kings and queens and everything else was considered unthinkable. How would modern times look like if all hope of improvements were considered impractical and impossible to achieve in the minds of early libertarians philosophers?

Another approach to "tackle" the problem of Justice versus Reality is to accept the argumentation for a no-State society as logically consistent, but deny its consequences and simply accept the State as a necessary practicality. Any injustice can be "argumented" for by using this kind of reasoning. The State could for example hire men to purposely cause car-crashes because that would force people to use seat-belts, which is a very practical thing to do. Violence is then used as a tool to force people to protect itself from it. Un-justifiable State is then used to show the practical necessity of the State. This is a ridicule.

The only consistent policy is to deny the presence of the State and go head-on with those who wish to uphold it. The practicality of this action is immense. We remove dictators and violent men from the streets without hesitations, and don't have any problems with dealing with the resulting relative freedom from violence. The same applies for the violence of State-coercion.

Difference in acceptance

We are so used to an incompetent State that we are more or less willing to accept whatever it does or does not do for us and to us. No-one really blames the State for its incompetence. It's simply accepted as a natural phenomenon.

A different story can be told about people's tolerance for private companies. People expect service and products at the wave of a hand. This is of course a very natural demand and the foundation for private companies to build increased productivity and service improvements on. Those who fail to meet the consumer's demands fade away into bankruptcy. Others blossom.

People accept a waiting period of months for an operation at a State-run hospital or a piece of paper from the local authorities and know there is nothing to do about it. High taxes have been paid, services have been promised, but no-one expects a reasonable waiting period or expedient service (let alone quality service at a reasonable price). But when it comes to ordering an internet-connection or the services from a bank the coin is flipped. All wait is too long. Any delay is met with angry phone calls to customer services. All price hikes are given skeptical response.

Violence is clearly acceptable when the State does the beating.

How about that?

The relative freedom of the computer industry has led to an explosion of innovativeness and productivity. The same freedom in the energy industry will lead to the same result. (#)

A bold statement, but that doesn't make it false. Those industries that have had the least government-monitoring have historically been those industries that have prospered (or swiftly perished when they were no longer needed). This is no coincidence. When a politician shows interest in something it usually means that this something is in great jeopardy (at least when it comes to innovativeness and productivity).

Adam Smith turns Austrian

Here is a nice little observation usually expected in the writings of the Austrian School:

As many economists and philosophers have tried to point out, what people actually want is best discovered by observing what they actually do.

However, this is written on the Adam Smith Institute Blog, and that is refreshing.

Sometimes, attempts are made to avoid the necessary focus on the individual when it comes to preferences and choices. Adam Smith made many such attempts, he being a statist in number of aspects. We shouldn't be fooled by the arguments of the statists when they address their individual readers. The individual has preferences, makes choices and seeks to fulfil his needs. No other point can be legitimately made.

Greenies should love the free market

At present I am living in a relatively socialist country, namely Denmark. Sure enough, Denmark is a free-market economy where the government is put to place with a strict constitution and where the State is forced to take small steps to decrease individual freedom. Taxes are high and regulations many, but the free market is alive and doing well thanks to bounds put on the government.

A trendy thing among generally well-doing Danish city-people is buying "organic" food (food grown without use of artificial fertilizers, for example when growing grass or raising livestock). Organic food is expensive, but many Danish people buy it anyway. As a consequence, when demand is in place, supply comes flowing. Even the cheapest of supermarkets now present organic food-products on their shelves and compete in price with the more exclusive higher-priced stores that focus on the organic buying consumers.

This is what happens in a free market when there is demand for something. A couple of decades ago, organic food was hard to find and almost impossible to afford. Only the rich, well-to-do former-hippies could buy it. Now it is easy to find and easier to buy. The free market has supplied the anti-free market Leftist creed with the products of their choice for an affordable price.

The Greenies should, but don't, learn from this. If they only want organic food, they can simply buy organic food. If they want people to live in straw-houses and cut down on energy consumption, they can simply build straw-houses and use less energy. If they want the public schools to receive more funds, they can simply transfer money to the public school system. Their problems first become real problems when they ask the State to increase taxes and multiply regulations so that their will can be forced upon everyone else.

How would the market for organic food look like today if the State had actively moved into the subsizidition and production of organic food? Economic growth would have suffered, the average guy would have been made poorer, the market would have shrunken and organic food would have been less in supply and higher in price. The Greenies should really start to appreciate the free market! In the name of anti-free marketers wishes!

Is high quality not a market product?

Ludwig von Mises is (or was) one of the greatest minds of our known existence. I don't disagree with the man in any areas. Everything he has written and I have read makes perfect sense to me. So far, with only one exception.

Mises writes:

One of the great problems of capitalistic civilization is how to make high quality achievements possible in a social environment in which the "regular fellow" is supreme.

How is this a problem? It is basic knowledge that in a rich society (thereby capitalistic), more people can afford more expensive luxury than in a poor society. The higher arts are a form of luxury. Therefore, the "normal" individual in a capitalistic society is relatively rich and can afford to buy more expensive products AND arts than the one stuck in socialism and other forms of economically destructive systems.

Mises's worries might be explained by the fact that relatively fewer will indulge in the higher classic arts compared to the normal when mass-production takes over from the historically more common home-craftsman-ship. But relativity is a false measurement for popularity. Ask a 1000 persons about their favorite book and only a percent or so will say the same title. But that doesn't mean there is a lack of taste among the masses. It only means the competition for the "best" is hard, and that a massive number of excellent books is competing for the title.

Social contract, or theft?

Leftists sometimes "argue" for taxation by using the term "social contract". Democracy gets the same treatment.

But here's a nice little quote that puts things in perspective:

Suppose five robbers break into the home of a family of four. As the robbers are about to leave with the owners’ possessions, the owners object, on the grounds of private property rights. The criminals, being of a philosophical bent, are willing to engage in dialogue with their victims. Under the influence of Pipes, they are willing to hold a democratic referendum on the issue of whether or not it is justified for them to "take" the family’s household goods. The vote proves conclusive: five in favor (the thieves) and four against (the family members.) Would it make any difference if thereupon the gang stated that it was their intention to distribute their ill-gotten gains to the poor, and thus their motives were "benevolent"? Not at all. Theft is theft, and there need be no benevolence to it at all. (#)

I guess the "social contract" and democracy theory would say this: The family memebers in question happened to be in the same geographical are as the thieves, and have the bad luck of storing their the property in this area. When a number of voters greater than that of the property owners invaded the property, all discussions about who owns what and why came down to a vote, and like with democracy the winner takes all. Is that fair or just or just plain theft?

A few good reads on climate changes and related issues

"The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has just put the polar bear on the endangered species list because it is supposedly "facing extinction" -- mainly, it claims, as a result of global warming. But statistics show the polar bear is not facing extinction, not by a long shot."
The Bear Facts (TCS Daily)

"The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media."
Global Warming: The Other Side of the Story (Capitalism Magazine)

"In the end, a relentless campaign to extend political control over the world’s energy use is likely to fail, in part because, even if severe climate change is in our future, most people intuitively recognize that rhetoric about “the end of civilization as we know it” is inconsistent with human experience. Our distant ancestors survived an ice age with little more than animal skins, crude tools, and open fire pits. For all the talk of science and progress, the global-warming alarmists betray an astonishing lack of confidence in human creativity and resiliency. It’s almost as if the scientific community had abandoned the idea of evolution."
Acclimatizing: How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming (AEI)

Red or green, or does it matter?

I can't resist posting this beautiful paragraph. Seperation of it into smaller sections is mine:

"In my judgment, the "green" movement of the environmentalists is merely the old "red" movement of the communists and socialists shorn of its veneer of science. The only difference I see between the greens and the reds is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as "exploitation" and "monopoly." The greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer and global warming.

Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.

In my view, environmentalism and ecology are nothing but the intellectual death rattle of socialism in the West, the final convulsion of a movement that only a few decades ago eagerly looked forward to the results of paralyzing the actions of individuals by means of "social engineering" and now seeks to paralyze the actions of individuals by means of prohibiting engineering of any kind.

The greens, I think, may be a cut below the reds, if that is possible."
- George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

Dissection of: Unions

Unions are probably one of the most over-estimated inventions ever. They are credited for improved working conditions, for higher wages of workers and a general rise in living standards. The fact is that the opposite is true. Living standards, higher wages of workers and improved working conditions are not the result of the hard work of unions, but something that has been accomplished despite the presence of unions. A simple dissection of unions now follows:

Unions gather workers of a particular company, industry - even country - together as a single negotiator of salaries and benefits. In most cases they use force - sometimes politicians and their law and police - to force employers to raise wages and benefits for a large number of workers.

The employers respond to the extra expenses by reducing the number of available jobs, changing the way they attract new workers (from offering different wages and benefits to different individuals, to offering the same base-level package for all), and hold back on all increase in benefits and wage during times of huge profits, knowing that they will only have to pay up when the next strike is threatened.

This reduces the overall competition among employers for new employees and reduces the number of available jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive (good) employees have to change jobs or ask for higher wages on an individual basis.

The reduced number of jobs, reduced competition among employers for employees and among employees for available jobs boils down to one thing: Fewer opportunities at a higher price. This will not harm those who are protected behind law-protected unions, but everyone else will hurt, and society as a whole will suffer the greatest loss with a (relative) reduction in productivity and less flexibility in all areas.

Unions today have mostly lost their status in the free societies. That is why they now turn their eyes towards the developing world, asking for "fair trade" instead of free trade, and pressure politicians and ask consumers to punish those employers who employ people but don't follow the guidelines suggested by rich Western union leaders.

What is a crime?

I recently had an interesting discussion about what should be considered a crime and what not. Lies - should they be illegal? I say no. What about fraud? I say yes. There is a significant difference in nature between a lie and fraud. If I call myself the most attractive, well-spoken man in the world, I could be telling a lie, and sure enough that would be easy to prove to some chosen jury of 12 people. But I have committed no crime. If I tell everyone my neighbor is a child-molester I have committed no crime although I could not back up my case with evidence. At best I have injured my own reputation among those who heard my accusations, asked for evidence and received none.

A thought worthy quote:

If I take but a single cent of a man's property, without his consent, the act is a crime. But if two men, who are compos mentis, possessed of reasonable discretion to judge of the nature and probable results of their act, sit down together, and each voluntarily stakes his money against the money of another, on the turn of a die, and one of them loses his whole estate (however large that may be), it is no crime, but only a vice. (#)

If there is any role for man-made laws, created by a man-made State, then it is to protect individuals from physical attacks and theft or manipulation of their physical property. A lie does not fall within these borders. A moral or ethical code of law has no place within the State-apparatus. If I tell you that a house is safe and you move into it without any further checking of its structural capacity, and the house falls to the ground one week later, I committed no crime. But if I bribe a house-inspector to give the house the thumbs up, and sell the house on the notion that it has been checked for faults against collapse, then the simple lie turns into fraud, and a crime has emerged. Yes, even if the house does stay up.

Gold

This is a wonderful little lecture by Walter Block, "Mr. Libertarian". The lecture is about the free-market gold standard, as opposed to the State-run central banking system, and makes a convincing case for the gold standard (or silver, for that matter).

State-supervised central banking is the "norm" in our minds, but a norm that should be disposed of. Central banking is a State-instrument to enable the State to spend more money than it can collect with taxes, creating inflation and sending wrong signals to borrowers and lenders of money (details on that issue). The sooner this can be made clear, the better.

Morally legalized theft

The following words are from this memo by Rothbard (some quotation marks omitted to clarify the text outside its full context):

Here is one example of centralized governmental operation: Paul wants some of Peter's property. For morel as well as legal reasons, Paul is unable personally to accomplish this desire. Paul therefore persuades the government to tax Peter in order to provide funds with which the government pays Paul a 'subsidy.' Paul now has what he wanted. His conscience is clear and he has proceeded 'according to law'.

The fact that there are millions of Pauls and Peters involved in such transactions does not change their essential and common characteristic. The Pauls have simply engaged the government to do for them that which they were unable to do for themselves. Had the Pauls done this individually and directly without the help of the government each of them would have been subject to fine and imprisonment. Furthermore, ninety-five percent of the Paula would have refused to do the job because the moral conscience of each Paul wou1d have hurt him if he did. However, where government does it for them, there is no prosecution and no pain in anybody's conscience. This encourages the unfortunate impression that by using the ballot instead of a blackjack we may take whatever we please to take from our neighbors.

What would happen to them in a free society?

An un-countable number of organizations fight the State every day to gain rights, funds or protection. These organizations are as diverse as they are many, and each of them has an agenda that must be sold to the politicians, for example those fighting for gay-rights, labor protection, gender equality, farm subsidies, abolishment of racial discrimination and so on and so forth. But what would happen to these organizations in a free society? The answer is short: They would shrink or disappear completely.

This is not a hard riddle to solve. The free society cares for one thing and one thing only: The freedom to use ones own body and property as ones sees fit. This will usually translate into a search for an increase in ones own physical well-being and/or an increase in ones property and material wealth. Companies want growth and higher profits, and if that means hiring a black or homosexual man, a man in a wheel-cheer or a man with a vagina then so be it, as long as the hired individual is a profitable employee.

The scenery today is somewhat different from that of a free society. A number of laws offer protection and privileges to certain groups relative to others. If a female employee becomes pregnant, she will drop out of work for several months but still receive pay. If a black man is hired and then fired, the company could face expensive law-suits and other expenses as a result. If a homosexual individual gets a job and finds out he didn't do as good in the salary-discussion as the next non-homosexual man, he will file a lawsuit and claim damages without much effort. The whole spectrum of "anti-discrimination" laws and "equal pay for same job-titles" propaganda has shifted the focus away from the individuals in question and towards some vague definitions of minority groups that have homogeneous individuals among them, apparently with the same needs, desires and talent.

The fact of the matter is that discrimination takes place, but in nature not on the basis of gender, race or number of legs. Discrimination takes place whenever two compete for something. The one who gets the job will usually be the one who can convince his would-be employer that he is the one for the job because of skills, talent, education or ability to work overtime and during weekends. If a statistic shows that one group, on the average, receives higher pay than another, it should not be taken as a reason to make new laws. It should encourage those who think they are under-paid to convince their employer of exactly that, and that is all.

Special-interest organizations in a free society would find better things to do with their time than sue the State and demand laws that apply for all individuals, regardless of individual preferences, talent, wants and needs.

Labor unions

A small quote to honor this day of the working man:

Labor unions do not even know how to raise real wages. All they are concerned with is raising the money wages and protecting the jobs of the members of their particular union. Since labor unions do not control the quantity of money or volume of spending in the economic system, the only way that they can raise the money wages of their members is by artificially reducing the supply of labor in their field. But the effect of this is to correspondingly increase the supply of labor and reduce wage rates in other fields. In other words the success of any given union is obtained at the expense of the loss of wage earners in the rest of the economic system. And the losses necessarily outweigh the gains, because an essential aspect of the process is workers being forced into jobs requiring less skill and ability than the jobs from which they are expelled. (#)

The French protests are the ultimate culmination of the power of the labor unions. All law protecting strikes and union power should be abolished immediately. No-one would miss them in the not-so-long long-run. No-one.

A good point, based on a misunderstanding

Sometimes the Left hits the spot, but normally it happens for the wrong reasons. Logic and reason don't bring out the logical and reasonable from the Left. Slogans and misunderstanding does - sometimes.

An Icelandic Leftist-site, Murinn.is, is the star of the Icelandic Leftist-weblogs. Today, an attempt is made to disregard the whole free market-philosophy because some supporters of the free market talk about investments as something that the nation or country does, rather than an individual or certain groups of them.

If economists really believed in the invisible hand, they would never advise any man on the issue of economics, let alone practice economy-management. It hardly suits the idea about the laws of the jungle to practice while being subject to constant interference and social healing in order to maintain economic growth [..] instead of letting the laws work [uninterrupted] and watch their course.

The point is valid - there is of course no such thing as the "nation" investing, buying and selling. Individuals buy and sell, and pointing that out is only good.

But of course the valid point is not sprung from a solid ground of logic and reason. The author claims the "laws of the jungle" are what identifies the free market, and that just like David Attenborough watches lions eat zebras, free market economists should simply sit by and watch the rich eat the poor (or I assume that's to be read between the lines).

The free market is not the laws of the jungle. On thee contrary,

The truth is that economic competition is the very opposite of competition in the animal kingdom. First of all, it is not a competition in the grabbing off of scarce nature-given supplies, as it is in the animal kingdom. Rather, it is a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth. Unlike the lions in the jungle, who must compete for a limited supply of nature-given necessities, such as zebras and other game animals, which they have no power to enlarge, competition among business firms is competition in the creation of new and improved products and more efficient methods of production. ...

As the result of its basic nature, so far from being a process of survival of the fittest, economic competition is the foundation of the survival of practically everyone, including those who from a purely biological point of view are not at all very "fit."...

Furthermore, as Ricardo and von Mises have shown, because of the law of comparative advantage there is room for all in the competition of a capitalist society, including those whose productive abilities are modest in every respect.

It would seem strange to believe otherwise. Those who oppose the free market and follow the doctrine of wealth-distribution act very much in accordance with the laws of the jungle. Wealth that is created by one and, with State-coercion, is distributed to another tends to shrink with time. This is no mystery or hidden secret. But the Left will continue to distribute until all wealth runs out, just like a fox (giving the opportunity) will continue to kill chicken until there is no more (although the fox will have the good sense to bury his gain for harder times).

So yes, economists should renew their knowledge in the Austrian-style economics and discuss the different acts of different parties on the free market from an individual perspective. Nations don't buy or sell. Individuals do, although they usually carry passports that state some nationality or another of its holder.

The warming of a debate

A clever remark about the debate of global warming:

In an age where many of us believe that science has all the answers, while others believe that religion has all the answers, a clever mixture of science and religion can be very powerful. (#)

Greenie Watch gets the credit for the hat tip.

And why this extreme passion around the issue of (possible) human-induced effects on the Earth's climate? It has been demonstrated that fighting the real or imagined human-induced climate changes is not only an extremely expensive and impoverishing act, but also as close to hopeless as possible. Put in another perspective, by fighting climate change by punishing humans for their lifestyles will create poverty (or stop enrichment) and change nothing for the Earth's climate. And since this is the case (and the Warmers don't refute this as much as they try to create panic), why not use the resources on something a little more constructive? Drilling holes for water and pumping money into the HIV- and malaria-campaign are obvious examples. Why not shift the focus from something vague and mysterious to something that kills people every day? Why this passion for the climate change-debate?

One could present a theory to explain this complete lack of perspective: By fighting malaria, thirst and hunger, one does not gain political influence in the rich West. The Red Cross and Amnesty International don't promote politicians. The institutes promoting the human cruelty towards Earth's climate do. The Warmers can beg for money and influence to "prove" that humanity is sending humanity into the Global Warm-age (or Ice-age, depending on the decade we look at). The politicians can say that they understand that "action" is needed, and "action" does, of course, mean increased tax-funding to those who shout the loudest.

But of course this is just a theory. Who knows why global warming, out of all the real or unreal problems of the world, receives this attention, let alone political attention.

A necessary reminder

The Third Industrial Revolution is a nice little article about the changes that will increasingly come about with the (ever-going) globalization-process. Things are put into perspective in language that could even be fit for the average newspaper-reader (who seldom wants to see the big picture and is more obsessed with who writes, rather than what is written). Two quotes about the same phenomena - wages versus productivity, or, job-creation versus job-protection:

Moreover, the New Deal and Fair Deal introduced labor legislation that hastened the expansion of the service industry. It enabled and encouraged industrial labor unions to raise the cost of labor above its productivity, which has given rise to an unnatural economic phenomenon: mass unemployment. Unemployed factory labor has been seeking productive employment in the service industry ever since; it functions like a large net, legal and illegal, that can put all willing labor to productive use.

The forces of political intervention, in order to shield and benefit labor, are likely to increase labor costs, which invariably causes unemployment. After all, every penny of labor cost that exceeds labor productivity is bound to create unemployment.

This is saying it in human language that even the Left can understand (or can it ever?).

The French protests clarify the picture. Last fall, thousands of desperate immigrant-descendant young people filled the streets of France, protesting an impossible unemployment-rate that hits those the hardest who have the least skills, training and experience (in short, young immigrants). This spring, thousands of well-educated native-French people are protesting a decreased law-enforced job-protection. Two sides of the same coin. Both sides are unhappy. The rulers loose votes on both events. Artificial job-security, and its partner in crime - huge unemployment, fight with car-torching and violence. Who's the villain? Hardly Villepin.

A friendly reminder to the Left:

If A thinks that the "impersonal market" is not paying him enough, he is really saying that individuals B, C, and D are not willing to pay him as much as he would like to receive. The "market" is individuals acting. Similarly, if B thinks that the "market" is not paying A enough, B is perfectly free to step in and supply the difference. (#)

And wouldn't that be a peaceful solution to the "injustice" of free trade and capitalism?