Hurray!

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

Left-trend in Iceland

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

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

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

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

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

Random thoughts about capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

No more fake ID

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

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

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

Privatize NASA?

Science is fun:

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

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

Its all about the hype

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

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

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

Who owns you?

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

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

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

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

Two approaches - sometimes same result

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

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

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

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

Welfare system - whose welfare?

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

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

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

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

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

Fatties

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

Three things about France

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

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

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

Governments purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My health or public health?

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

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

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

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

There.

To consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those who need to control others

I hope I'm not putting myself in a situation where I wrongly use various terms and expressions according to the reader, since the same words sometimes mean different things in different countries. But here goes!

Two groups of modern, free people have a very deep and sincere need to control others, namely the Leftists and conservatives. When I use these terms I mean:

• Leftists: People in favor of an expanded government operation in cultural and educational affairs, as well as in health-care and welfare. They believe that a forced transfer of money is the key to a just and fair society of chances in life and well-being of all. On the other hand, the Leftist generally have no troubles in moral and ethic affairs.
• Conservatives: Not as keen on running peoples budgets and generally favor a decreased tax-burden and increased privatization. However, they have huge issues with things like homosexuality and want to protect "Christian values" and are unafraid to put the government to use in their attempt to spread out their moral stands.

What those groups don't realize is that they are the same. Yes that's right - Leftists and conservatives are the same. In my mind, there is no difference between the need to control behavior directly by inforcing moral-codes, or indirectly by removing peoples income and in that way shift behavior from one thing to another. Is there any difference? You can stop me from having a baby by either banning me directly to have sex outside of marriage, or indirectly by removing enough money away from me so I can't afford a baby (not that I have anything in my name today except debts, but you know..).

These restrictions affect the personal responsibility of people. Lets take for an example health-care like the Left wants it run: I can smoke and smoke but my medical-bill for my self-inflicted damage will be paid by everyone else (besides the small amounts I paid via tobacco-taxes). I can complain about a cough and throat-irritation and demand expensive drugs to heal me since I've paid taxes already and the health-care should therefore serve me, no matter at what cost.

The controlling groups, the Left and the conservatives (according to my definition) have huge issues with other people. "Other people shouldn't do that or spend on that" they say, showing complete overconfidence in themselves and lack of trust for others. But they are not all that bad. The Left often show tolerance in moral-issues and generally don't mind other peoples religions and sexuality as long as they are peacefull citizens. The conservatives generally don't have huge problems in trusting people with their own income, and maybe put the government-focus on all kinds of programs to help those who can't help themselves after being relieved of the tax-burden (although that's one of the worst things to do to groups that have troubles!).

Gratefully, the combination of the Leftist and the conservative, namely the Fascists and Socialists, have seized to exist as any real power anymore. I'm grateful for that, although my irritation towards those who still need to control others is great.

Cheeky propaganda

There are many ways to convince politicians to raise taxes, expand the government, regulate the economy and interfere more with every day life of people. One way is to pinpoint a very short period of time when some number is high, and use that number when speaking about certain conditions in general. A very popular method to say the least although it is on the boundaries of being called a lie! Lets take an example:

Rather than admit they have been overstating the number of uninsured by a factor of two and make an embarrassing retraction, which might tend to deflate the campaign, Cover the Uninsured Week continues to claim there are 44 million uninsured. The only possible way to explain this is that they take refuge in the CBO's finding that the original, faulty government statistic does happen to be roughly equivalent to the number of Americans who lack insurance at any specific point in time, rather than for the entire year. (#)

In a similar way I could for example say that I have cold coffee in my cup now (later finding out it wasn't really that cold). Does that mean that cold coffee as such is a problem for me? No, because the coffee-machine is not far away, and I normally have hot coffee whenever I want, and it usually stays warm when I'm drinking it (although it doesn't now because I'm writing this post). I could however create the cold-coffee problem because the coffee could get cold at some time and we don't want that ever to happen, do we?

Why is it not such a good thing that noise-making groups like Cover the Uninsured Week use and abuse flawed statistics in order to receive attention from the politicians? Because it might lead to increased government expansion, and in the case of government-run health care systems, that could mean that "having coverage does not always guarantee access" to medical care. Icelanders know that all too well, with long waiting-lists and a financially crippled health-care system (although government-contributions to it are in historical high).

I urge the reader to read the full article and think about it's final words, which more or less apply for all markets:

A better goal would be to restore to America's largely socialized health care system the market processes where producers compete to provide consumers with value, and consumers keep costs down by patronizing efficient producers and avoiding inefficient producers. That patient-centered process has begun with the introduction this year of health savings accounts, and it will do more to provide quality, affordable health care to the masses than a century of Cover the Uninsured Weeks.

Right? Right. I have said it again and I will say it now: Let the government do whatever it wants, as long as it stays out of important things like health-care and education!

In more detail: More reading-material. A few words on information asymmetry and the health-care market.

Copy-cats

One of the loudest arguements for banning this and restricting that in Iceland is that "other countries" have taken this and that road towards contraints and regulation. Of course we have the arguements of "social good" and "nationally beneficial" (or "þjóðhagslega hagkvæmt" as we call it in Icelandic), but the "other countries"-arguement is one of the most abused ones. Lets take an example:

Recently a law-change was proposed in Althing (Icelands parliament) which shifts the criminailty of prostitution from the prostitude to the buyer and the "pimp" (or a third party of some kind). I could of course name an endless number of arguements for why I think prositution shouldn't be considered illegal at all but for now I won't. I just want to say that one of the biggest arguements for this law-changing proposal is that "in Sweden they have taken this path", and more often than not, with apparently "good results", although that is not at all the case unless we evaluate "results" by what we see on the streets. The fact is actually that prostitution has been made an even worse field to operate in in Sweden, and not to mention the neighbouring countries since the poision of unfair laws spread just like freedom spreads welfare and improved living for those who enjoy it.

This "other country"-arguement can of course be used, and is used by others than the Left of course. For my part I have pointed out again and again that the paths Sweden has taken in the operation of health-care and education have lead to seemingly very positive results for patients, doctors, teachers, parents and children, but the Swedes are now privitazing many schools and hospitals and allowing the private sector to educate and cure in greater measure than before. So yes, I have used the "other country"-arguement and will continue to do so.

However, this form of argument has faults like most other kinds of arguements. It shouldn't be used about bad regulations and bad laws. In the case of prostitution, there are few or no laws that protect prostitutions from violence and abuse better than allowing them to operate legally, so that the police and the legal system protects prostitutions like every other citizen. By making this party or that a criminal, there will be consequences which decrease the quality of life for those who didn't do all too well before - namely the men and women who seek to earn money by selling sexual favours. This has been verified a thousand times, but still in countries where noisemakers like left-feminists have strong influence, there continue to be criminal laws against consenting adults in search of sex or sex-related services.

One day the government will pass laws that will restrict you in some way or another, although you know that you are not doing anything wrong and not violating anyones rights. I hope you will start doubting the wisdom of politicians before that, and fight against the government thinking on your behalf as a result. No "other countries"-arguements, or any other, should make you doubt your own integrity.

Two things to point out

For those interested (and Icelandic-speaking), writings of one of Icelands noisiest Leftist who, among others, shares the discussion-section I occasionally write in in the Icelandic newspaper DV.

I would also like to thank two links I've received to this humble little blog: Audda sends me a diss in disguise by finding it "appropriate" to link to me after trashing DV. Bjarni is a hardcore-freedom fighter and should be reason enough for libertarians to learn Icelandic.

Later thoughts: Maybe I shouldn't say that Audda is sending me a diss in disguise since she actually compliments my blog. Sorry 'bout that!

A personal story

For the past few weeks I have been writing once and a while in a newspaper in Iceland, DV, in a special column for discussion. Now it appears I will be writing regularly (every Tuesday) so my nagging voice is at least not tied to the internet.

I asked the editor for some inspiration today and he told me to write on a more personal level. So far I've been pretty focused on general discussion on current affairs, and trying to squeeze in a little libertarian message in a way that doesn't scare of Centrists or Leftists. But more personal? I can do that! Starting now!

I use glasses. I don't see very well. In fact, I see extremely bad. For those who know the language of eye-sight, I have about minus 8-9 on each eye, which basically means I can have no more than about 20-30 cm between my eyes and a book if I'm to read it without glasses. But that's not all. My eyes don't "point" straight, which also has to be corrected with the glasses. Terrible isn't it? I must be desperate for help, right?!

No, actually not. The government does not, by most part, interfere with the rules of the market for eye-wear in Iceland, besides taxing heavily of course. I go to an eye-doctor or some other specialist who can measure eye-sight, take the prescription to an eye-wear store and buy the latest of latest in eye-wear technology at a reasonable price. Well, maybe not the latest of latest, but still pretty advanced stuff compared to the prices. Dozens of eye-wear stores compete in the market, attracting customers with the best of the best at the lowest possible prices, trying to make profits for themselves but at the same time insuring bad-sighted Icelanders good and advanced products for reasonable prices.

Some will now argue that the glasses-buisness is a pretty special one, because there are so many people who need glasses, compared to e.g. those who need hearing-devices (which the government subsidises if you care to stand in a long line). For me, these arguements are bogus to say the least. I don't know how many percent of the population need hearing-devices, but compared to the number of eye-wear stores just in Reykjavik, I'm sure there is a very good marked for quite a few stores with hearing-devices, if only the government would get of the market and stop collecting taxes for hearing-assistance!

Another arguement is that the technology behing hearing-devices is much more complicated than with glasses. Again, I'm not so convinced. Glasses are now stronger and thinner than ever before, repel steam better, don't scratch as easily and are lighter. No-one can tell me there aren't great leaps of technology being taken with eye-wear every year. I'm sure the same goes for hearing-devices, cell-phones and MP3-players. The difference is not the complicated technology, which there already is great demand for. The difference is the bounderies the government puts on the free market when it comes to these things.

That was my personal story. I wish more people could "see" the way I see how the free market helps those who have real and desperate need for some things regarding health and social capabilities. The hell with it if the government destroyes theatres, museums and green valleys, if it would just get out of the buisness of helping those who really need help!

Let us celebrate capitalism on Sunday, June 6th, 2004.