Better no job than a hard job?

Leftists are opposed to "too much" globalization. They don't want jobs to move from the rich countries to the poor ones because the people in the poor countries will face too hard work conditions when they flock into Western factories to work for double or triple the salary they would get in the fields. Leftists say that the environment will be damaged when factories are built in the poor countries because of lack of regulation, when the fact is that a lack of private property rights on land and water are to blame. Leftists say they worry about the working conditions of the poor in the poor countries, but in reality are simply playing with peoples fear of job-outsourcing with un-foreseen consequences.

An Icelandic Leftist recently wrote in an article that "no-one but the most extreme libertarians say that the people of the Third World should celebrate globalization". Maybe she's right, and in that case I will gladly call myself an "extreme libertarian" (extremely much opposed to being ruled or seeing others ruled, I suppose). I celebrate on the behalf of the people of the Third World who are given the opportunity to compete with the rich countries on an international scale, having a considerable edge on them when it comes to salary-expenses and regulation-costs, but lacking in technology and skills. I hope the Western countries aren't afraid of a little competition, and especially when its result will probably be improved lives of hundreds of millions of people who today are living in conditions similar to those in Europe some 1000 years ago.

Yes, the jobs being created by globalization in the Third World might not be the best of the best on a Western scale. However, they are many times better in both pay and working conditions than those the people of the Third World have to choose from today (if any). That's the plain simple truth and those who fight globalization are fighting against the poor ones of the world being given the free chance of getting a job which will lift them a lot higher in all living conditions. Are Leftists evil or just ignorant when they fight globalization?

We are ruled by terrorists

Spain was one of the countries which supported the invasion of USA and Britain into Iraq in order to capture Saddam Hussein and find his weapons of mass destruction (which he had apparently sold or given away at that time). The general public in Spain opposed the invasion, like the public in many other countries which officially supported it. This Spring the Spanish government lost in election and was replaced by a government run by the Spanish Socialist Party - a party which strongly opposed the invasion from day one. The socialists managed to win because a few days before the elections a bomb was blown up in Madrid, Spain, and many people died. Terrorists managed to scare the public and make them vote against their government. The socialists gained.

What lesson did the Spanish people teach terrorists? The lesson is this: If you want to force people to throw their government, bomb a few of the up.

Are we better off?

Where Leftism fails

Why does Leftism fail when it comes to health care? One reason could be the following facts (source):

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply.

When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken [for example queuing].

If Leftists would learn to understand these facts they might start to realize what is wrong with "free" health care. If they could in the process learn to understand the basics of the free market, and back off a little with their distrust in the human being, we might be seeing some progress in the future!

The Icelandic Left has no cause

Leftists in Iceland have a huge reputation of having no cause what so ever. They say they want to help the poor but oppose everything which could lead to their increased well-being. They want to protect the environment but suggest again and again methods which don't work or have reversed effects. They say they want to ensure everyone access to health-care and education but oppose all steps in that direction which could actually increase the probability of that happening.

But those are just the general Leftists-symptoms which are valid all over the world. What is special about the Icelandic Left is its ability to change its mind with in the period of hours, weeks and months!

The frequently-mentioned media-law in Iceland provide good examples here. Its first version said something about "a company in a market-controlling position" not being able to own more than 5% in a media. The Left said this was to harsh, not speaking in the name of liberty of course but just to say something to stir the public, and demanded at least a 10% part. In the last version of the media-law this ratio was indeed pushed to 10% but then the Left wasn't happy about that either, saying the whole deal is a bad idea (which it is, but for other reasons they use).

More? Two years ago one of the Leftist-politicians got angry with a company for firing his brother. He held a speech at the Icelandic parliament and demanded that laws would be made to split up the company, of course using the argument that it was becoming "too big" for the small Icelandic market. Today, he fights with hands and feet against any law which affects the same company, because it is thought that the CEO of the company shows good will for his political party, or at least some of its leading figures. No-one remembers the speech two years ago. No-one cares if he's speaking completely against himself. Why? Because he's a Leftist and doesn't have to hold up to his words.

Then there's the endless positive talk about government-interference in other countries, neglecting the bad effects of it, and endless negative talk about the power of low taxes and deregulation. The focus is on how many people hold this and this job, and entities such as evolution, development, work-force redistribution and so on are put to side. Economic growth is also of little importance to the Left, although some positiveness is given up when the market is allowed to flourish under strict supervision and when the possibility of taking some freedom back is an easy option.

So the Left stands like a flower in a desert when people try to get some logic or reason in its cause. This seems to be the situation now, and it seems it has always been the situation when it comes to the Left.

And that's about it.

The choice of battle-ground

How should people with libertarian-views choose their battle-ground? Should they stay within the biggest political party where views of free market promotion and individual freedom have the "most" understanding, or fight on their own terms for their ideals in a way that their voice is unchallenged by endless compromises with those they are supposed to be working with?

Here are a few thoughts from John Ray on the matter, especially aimed at the political scene in the United States. John wants American libertarians to stay within the Republican Party, or at least not run an independent campaign for president or parliament, and fight for libertarian-views by encouraging people to vote for Republicans. John thinks that is the best way to promote the ideals libertarians stand for, so that they can actually come into practice. By running an independent campaign, libertarians only decrease the strength of the Republican Party, therefore increasing the risk of clowns like John Kerry seizing the office of president.

The American president has enormous power, both on international as well as domestic scale. The election of a single powerful president like that has both advantages and disadvantages, of course depending on the nature of the person holding the office. John Ray makes a point that libertarians who vote for a special libertarian candidate increase the risk of a man like John Kerry seizing power, because libertarians votes are primarily votes which the Republican Party would get in the absence of a special libertarian campaign. In the same way the Greens in America are spoiling the harvest for Democrats.

This point I understand very well. However, I am still not convinced that libertarians should try to fight for their opinions within some bigger party which is in a better position to gain control. Libertarians can of course be spoiling the harvest for the big party, but there is another possible consequence of libertarians running their own campaign: They can move the whole political debate further to the Right by standing strong on their views as an independent voice.

This point I believe is enormously important. By being enclosed inside a big political party, libertarians risk being put to the side and their voice completely suffocated in compromises and political bargains with their own team-mates. This has been the case in Iceland. To fight this development in my country, many libertarians decided to split themselves free in order to influence the debate and move it to a more liberal and more open direction. The thought is that by running independently for the Icelandic parliament, the group of free-thinking people can be expanded. The thought is not that the number of Leftists is a constant, but a number that can be decreased with education, debate and discussions.

In a two-party system like in the United States this method could be questioned. Icelanders don't have a president with any power - the multi-party parliament makes the law and the ministers uphold them. A two-party system is more vulnerable to dramatic changes. If a Leftist seizes power the whole country could be facing huge difficulties for a long time. By having a independent presidential candidate, libertarians could indeed be clearing the path for an authoritarian Leftist.

Can't libertarians stand alone?
The question libertarians all over the world ask themselves is this: Should we fight within some large political party and hope our voice will be heard there within, or have a independent voice which people can hear without compromises? Compared to the political scene in Iceland, I don't see how the first option is viable. The Icelandic Independence Party has for decades been the refuse for Icelandic libertarians. For decades it did okay. Of course there are the endless compromises on the political scene, and progress has been slow and it has been fast, depending on circumstances and the men in the front-line. Over the past few years a lot of positive steps have been taken to reduce the government in Iceland and therefore common well-being of Icelanders. Some came with the EEA-contract, and others by the initiative of Davíð Oddsson and the Independence Party.

But Adam and Eve didn't stay long in Paradise. The obvious flaw of operating inside a right-winged conservative party, which carries a wide variety of different opinions, some more fitting in a Leftist-party, became obvious a few years ago, and has since multiplied in strength. The State will not give up its radio-stations and television-station in the present political climate. The State will not release farmers, patients, doctors and teachers the way things are evolving now. The Left has loud voices and some meet a surprising understanding with the public, compared to the sufferings of totalitarianism in the 20th century. This must be fought, and the suffocated voice of libertarianism inside the Icelands only "right"-winged party wont do it. An independent voice is needed or else ...

But is there any hope of libertarians expanding the voice of freedom by working on their own and speaking directly what they want to teach? Some experience exists which gives rise to optimism. In Costa Rica the independent voice of libertarianism has had some success in the local political scene - see Movimiento Libertario. Why can't the same apply for others? Why is it necessary to remain within a stagnant, conservative, slow-moving, compromising political-machine, well tied within the society's structure and extremely reluctant to decrease its own authority when it finally gains power over the government?

I'm not going to speak for other countries and urge libertarians to stay or go from their local, big, right-winged political party, or urge libertarians to vote or not vote or how to vote. In Iceland I see the great need for an independent libertarian running for the parliament, and I'm sure the same goes for many other countries.

What is hard to understand?

What is so hard to understand about the power of State-absence? Why is it hard to understand how regulations are restricting for individuals and companies, how taxes interfere with the free market and all its wonders, and how government-interference creates uncertainties, makes good decisions look bad and bad decisions look good?

The Left is obsessed with learning nothing from history and ignoring all good logic. They fight against international free trade. Why? Because it might mean they lose control over their local job markets and undermine their authority to design and shape society into their ideal picture. Why do Leftists predict catastrophes when humanity uses a lot of this resource and a little of another resource? Because they have no knowledge of the free market, and how prices, supplies and demand work (or at least refuse to apply this knowledge in the real world). Why do Leftists insist on keeping resources in the hands of the government? Because they don't see the big picture when it comes to responsibility and profit-seeking - something that the free market understands very well.

When it comes down to it, Leftism is basically obsessed with ideas that don't rely on logic or experience. Most of the criticism on the free market is based on examples which again are mostly bad because of government interference and not the lack thereof. This I have said again and again and I will say it again and again. This was written in the 18th century by promoters of Laissez faire and has repeated it ever since. History has taught Leftist at best that some government interference is bad, and that some free market ideas are basically better for the general public than a lack of them. Bad ideas like Communism have been swept away and others will meet their end, but unfortunately new ones are continually being bred in the hoax-laboratories of the Left.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. I can understand those who doubt the free market when they hear of private companies polluting air, water and land because its not always obvious that the reason is in most cases a lack of responsibility and private property-rights. I can understand many worrying about the poor and their access to health care, housing and general good living because its not always obvious that the State is in most cases to blame for its continuous promises of providing for the needy in exchange for brutal tax burdens on the public. But in general I don't understand doubts about free trade, the power of the private enterprise and the lack of politicians to control humans like a farmer controls its sheep. I seriously lack the understanding.

Lesson of the day: Ignore the French

French employees of a German car components plant have voted nearly unanimously to work an extra hour each week, the first such vote in French history. (#)

Why would anyone want to add hours to their working week and not ask for higher salaries? Answer: When the government forces companies and employees to negotiate on certain terms. The law-binding 35 hour work-week in France has proven that people want to control their hours and consider what is good for their employer - even when it means more hours at work! A remarkable discovery for sociologists, isn't it?

The Icelandic media law

The government in Iceland decided to withdraw the so-called media law today (icelandreview.com). Their opponents cheer and say that because they wanted some other kind of media laws than those the government was trying to impose, and now since the government has withdrawn their version of a media law, then the opponents have won the battle. Ridiculous of course but typical.

But does that mean that the Icelandic media market has finally got its break from politicians? No. "Everyone agrees that some kind of media law is necessary", they say. "Everyone knows that although these laws were bad, some other laws are inevitable", they also say. In short: The Icelandic media market shouldn't celebrate its freedom from political interference just yet!

Why do we need laws for the media? They say that the risk exists that 'one man' will own 'all the media in the country/in the area', meaning of course that the public is likely to be brainwashed with propaganda which one man or one (non-governmental) power-block controls. Personally, I think that's absurd. In Iceland there is one 'big' media company owned mostly by companies where one man, Jón Ásgeir, is very influential. This company owns a few radio- and TV-stations and two newspapers. Together they add up to be the majority of all media in Iceland, with the second biggest one being RÚV - the government media company. Are Icelanders not in risk of being brainwashed by Jón Ásgeir? Isn't he killing of bad news about him and his companies and promoting the positive about himself by manipulating his medias? Aren't Icelanders sucking up everything he has to say?
- When people say there is 'great need' to impose media laws in Iceland, they are answering: Yes.
- If not, they are saying: No, Icelanders have a mind of their own.
I think Icelanders have a mind of their own. Icelanders aren't vulnerable to brainwashing, although believers of the great power of the State say so. Already when the ownership of one of the newspapers in Iceland became a hot debate, skeptics rose up everywhere, saying that news coming from this newspaper should be taken with care since it's most likely owned by a man with large interests in many big companies and would try to protect them from negative talk. Still there is talks about imposing laws to invoke skepticism, or better yet, eliminate the need to doubt the news depending on its source! I don't get it. Do Icelanders doubt the news, or don't they? Do they need babysitting and watching over like small children, or can they take care of themselves and think for themselves?

I hope Iceland will never have special laws about the media like they have with a lot of other things. I hope people are trusted to think for themselves, and that the government focuses on those who impose violence and don't hold up to their contracts. That's all.

How Leftism is wrong

Left-winged people in politics are a very curious group. They mean well. They want people to feel good and have nice, rich and full lives. They want compassion and they care for the weakest ones in the society. However, all the methods they want to use to achieve their goals are bad and don't work.

Perhaps the most important difference between those to the Left and those to the Right is the belief in the State and its powers to 'shape' and mold people so that a certain kind of society can be formed. Left-wingers actually use words like 'shape' and 'form' when they talk about the function of the State! And that is were they fail. I don't think anyone will find a successful way to shape people and at the same time be free of revolutions, large number of fugitives and massacres in order to keep the peace.

But can't we shape a little here and a little there and just be careful of not shaping too much too fast? Isn't it okay to ban positive talk about tobacco, ban negative talk about colored people, have mandatory seat-belt use in cars and take about half of what people earn and try to make sure everyone has everything? Isn't it okay to use the State like that?
No!
It simply doesn't matter what kind of shaping is done - the State should not have anything to do with people besides securing their safety and properties! I haven't seen any good logic for any different role for the State. The State was originally created to oppress people, and unless the State is restricted to protecting people from violence and theft it is still an oppressor. Leftism is by heart an oppressive ideology and should be treated with the same disgust as national socialism and fascism.

But what about the poor and the sick? Doesn't the State have a role in helping them? I would say not. I have not seen anything which supports the idea that poor people and sick people will be worse off in a free society of volunteer help and free donations. The present system of bureaucracy, long waiting, undersupply of doctors and cut-downs on an ever more expensive medical care is probably the worst thing to offer patients. This is especially true for the poorest ones who rely on the government for medical care by pushing all free charity out of the way with high taxes and heavy regulations.

Not only does the State have no role when it comes to helping the poor and the sick - by trying to help the poor and the sick the State actually makes things worse!

Thankfully the 'world' has been learning for the last few decades and is now moving slowly towards more freedom and stronger restrictions on government interference (for example with international war-crime courts, international law, international free-trade negotiations, and so on). Leftism has never been more to the Right! But we shouldn't stop now. We must continue to fight Leftism and do whatever possible to prevent famines (Leftists hate technology-improvements in agriculture), wars (Leftists think that only the bad guys should have armies and weapons of mass destruction), poverty (Leftists think that only the rich should enjoy free trade and others should settle for charity and loans without conditions to dictators ) and racism (Leftists believe in restrictions on borders so that the local job supply isn't 'threatened' by 'cheap labor', thereby exciting hate and ignorance). In short, by exterminating Leftism we move closer to a free world of prosperity and well-being.

What if there was not State?

I've often wondered what would happen if the State would disappear one day. Would we miss it? Would we turn into out-of-control anarchist monsters and start killing each other and robbing? I think not. I don't think it would take long until men came together and build up somekind of frame around society to protect human lives and properties and arrange somekind of law enforcement and court-system. Just like happened when the United States of America were formed.

Leftists tend to think of the State as a tool to shape society with, rather than looking at it as an instrument to protect our rights to live and prosper on our own terms. Leftists don't accept the fact that the State is made by men to protect men. They prefer looking at the State as a super-human which rules over other men. Bad way of thinking if you ask me.

In Iceland there are now talks of taking up a somekind of  "sugar tax" which would affect the prices of goods which are considered "unhealthy". Of course, having a centralized, government-operated health care system does involve somekind of manipulation of people's diets and lifestyles because men are sheep and have little or no personal responsibility. Or that's the Leftist-dream anyway. Alcohol-taxes, tobacco-taxes and now a sugar-tax - all aimed on pushing people from unhealthy lifestyles into the healthy ones. Men are sheep. But the sugar-tax is above all a very describing tendency of politicians to try to shape society into a certain image - mold people like clay and harvest their work and time to spend on some social experiments. This is not unusual - it's typical. Leftists, conservatives and others who want to rule over men cannot grasp the thought of men being free in spirit and have minds of their own.

So what if there was not State? Wouldn't we do just fine? Are we men or are we sheep?

Leftist = national socialism

Is being a Leftist in any significant way different from being a national socialist (a.k.a. 'nazi')? I don't think so. Reasons are obvious: Both the Leftist and national socialist believe in the power of the State to order and control the citizens in order to "create" somekind of society (although the modern Leftist and the national socialist have different ideas of what this design should be). Both the Leftist and national socialist want to "protect" and "reserve" something which they control, for example the local job supply, the local skin color or whatever it is - they are protectionists. Very striking resemblances I think.

But why is it that "the extreme right" is considered to be something like national socialism? Well, that and libertarianism. "The extreme right" is pretty far from being right and we know that. Historically however, its very convenient for the Left to support the myth of the "extreme right". It hides the resemblance the Left has with national socialism and all its historical catastrophes.

Free trade: Good. Socialism: Bad.

A strange title in this entry, isn't it? Maybe not. Maybe its simple message needs to be told as often as possible. Maybe we still live in times of socialism and protectionism which needs to be exterminated as fast as possible. But lets cut to the chase..

International free trade has been a subject of big debates since the 17th century (or even sooner). Right-winged liberals fight for it, socialists and others of that kind fight against it. A lot has been tried out when it comes to free trade. We have tried open borders, closed ones and everything in between. Experience has taught us that free trade is good - it lifts up living standards, undoes poverty, decreases the threats of war and terrorism, and insures stability in the political field. Organizations like the European Union and NAFTA were originally established on the idea that free trade leads to good and protectionism to bad. Experience, historical facts and right-winged economic theory all combines into supporting the notion that free trade is fundamentally good for all that enjoy it.

So why am I preaching these obvious facts? Hasn't humanity clearly learned its lesson once and for all? No, I'm afraid not. Socialism still prevails - even within Western countries today! David Boaz discussed that a little in an article where he fights protectionistic views in America which preach "dangers" and "woes" in relation with free trade. David has a few words of wisdom for Leftists, nationalists and others who criticize international free trade:

But trade is not a zero-sum game. Everybody wins when more goods are produced. The story of economic progress is the tendency toward increasing specialization and division of labor. When new market participants can produce wheat more cheaply, established wheat producers can move on to other tasks, generally higher-value-added production. If Americans can purchase wheat cheaper than we can make it, then we can turn our labors to software, financial services, engineering, entertainment, computer chips, medical instruments, telecommunications equipment, chemicals, and so on.

Also:

When two parties trade, each expects to gain. It doesn't matter whether they live in different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations. I don't worry about my balance of trade with the grocer, and the grocer doesn't worry about his balance of trade with the car dealer. And it's the same with international trade. Why would we expect countries to import and export the same amount of any product, whether wheat, shoes, computers, or movies?

Unfortunately David is not just repeating age-old facts to a crowd that knows them all too well. He seems to be speaking to a crowd which actually thinks free trade is a bad thing! Western unions and their politicians and supporters (Leftists) are still a noisy and annoying crowd which quite simply is wrong and needs to be stuffed with facts, logic, theory and historical data if we are ever to hope it will learn its lesson.

Many issues in politics are open for discussion. However, critics of free trade can never have anything to say which can hold against facts and logic. Critics of free trade have to go with their bullshit elsewhere than into a discussion based on common sense and historical knowledge. So much's for sure.

The Icelandic Left

Since Davíð Oddsson became prime minister in Iceland in 1991 many things have changed. The government has sold its phone company, its banks and many of its factories and in some scale liberalized the school-system, the financial market and so on, and some tax-reliefs have been made. A lot of work is still ahead for the believers of free enterprise and free market society, but many steps have been taken in the positive direction (and others in the negative one, but lets leave that out for now). In short it can be said that these steps towards market solutions have turned out extremely well for both people and companies, and no indications have come up that the government should increase its operation again where it has let go.

But how is it to be a Leftist when things turn out like this? How is it to be a Leftist in a country where the government has decreased its role in many fields with these very positive results? Well, two approaches have been made:

• To say that the government has gone far enough in its liberalization and should stop now. However, the government should not take steps backwards since things have gone so smoothly. What has been done has turned out good, but no more steps should be taken since those will be disastrous.
• Privitize a little more, and see how it goes, but do it very slowly. Actually so slowly that it can hardly be done! Take very small and slow steps but with great caution. In practice so small and slow that they can't really be taken, but at least are open for discussion.

I imagine its the same in all other countries with right-winged governments.

I'm glad I discovered early in my life that the government is not the key to common welfare and high living-standards. The more I read from the Right and the Left the more I'm convinced that my instincts were right from the start and that both logic and experience go hand in hand in underlining my beliefs. When I at one point thought the government should restrict drug-supply and fund a welfare-system I just had to gather reading-material and watch the news to see the approach which works. When I at one point thought the government should run the school-system I only had to compare the government and the free enterprise to change my views. The list is endless and always makes my opinions swing further towards a belief of a free and open market of limited government and increased self-control of people and companies. If I at some point was a little to the left on various issues, those have quickly changed.

I can only imagine that the situation is similar for a large number of individuals in search of their political beliefs. Icelanders have for the past 15 years or so seen more of the power of free enterprise than many other nations, and I hope the process will continue until we can finally hope for a free society.

Political views versus religion

I have strong political views on many things and weaker on others. I like to think my political views in most cases combine what is fair and just and what has worked and will most likely continue to work. I believe it is fair and just to let people make most decisions regarding themselves by themselves, and few or no decisions regarding others. I believe each man owns himself and his properties by himself and should honor the same right regarding others. This is fair and just. When it comes to experience I think it has turned out that a system of limited government, free trade and as much personal freedom as possible creates the highest standard of living for most people, and the few that get "left behind" are easy exceptions which are easily dealt with with free contributions and volunteered help of kind-hearted individuals. In short: I believe I am preaching what is both fair and just, and has showed is the method best capable of providing good and long lives for most people.

So what's the deal? Am I doing something wrong by having strong opinions on the aspects of free trade and limited government? Am I just a brainwashed believer of some words of wisdom I read in books I've been told to read? Are my political opinions in any way different from those religions people have when it comes to their religion? For example, the Bible says Jesus died and rose back from the dead, and therefore that's my belief. Is this my take on what I think about the power of free trade?

In short: No. In a little longer version: I do not have opinions which I can't back up with both logic and facts. A strong part of my views are based on reasons of logic and fairness, but another part, and perhaps a more important one in many peoples minds, is based on experience of human kind with various forms of government and interference with peoples freedom and property. I state with 100% certainty that a very limited government which focuses on protecting people from violence and from hurting others and their property is the "system" which is best fitted to give good and long lives to the vast part of humanity. Those who don't exceed in this system can easily be helped by others. This I back up with reasons of logic, fairness and of course - experience!

Why free trade?

Leftists don't like free trade. They have a number of reasons for their dislike, for example:

• When jobs are competed for on an international scale, low-skilled manufacturing jobs often move to poorer countries, thereby decreasing power of local unions often controlled by the Left. All other reasons of the Left to fight free trade worldwide are derived from this reason.
• In an environment of free trade, some individuals can accumulate enormous wealth but others do not. The so-called "income gap" between the richest and the poorest then seems to widen, and that by itself is considered bad by the Left.
• When poor countries increasingly industrialize their economies, natural resources are used in a greater scale. This holds for both Europe during its industrial revolution, and will happen every time a country opens up to the rest of the world. Leftists often pretend they have some special care for the environment, for example compared to free-marketers, and fight free trade on those terms.
• Work conditions in factories outside the richest Western countries are often lesser than those in the rich countries. Even factories producing the same products differ a lot in working conditions, depending on the regulation and laws in the country they are in. Leftists often look at that as some kind of symbol of negative effects of free trade, and imagine that having no jobs in factories instead, or fewer jobs in a little better conditions, are a better option for the poor of the world.

I could go through all these Leftist-arguements against free trade but I won't unless asked to. I have another point to make here.

Since 9/11 the debate worldwide has more or less handled one thing: Terrorism. We all want to be safe, right? We don't want our houses to be bombed away by men who hate us, our religion, our way of life and our sins against some god or another, right? I imagine no-one likes terrorism and terrorists. But how to fight it? Shall we do like the Left says and obey every demand made by catholic, Islamic, Christian or just generally deranged terrorist makes on us, do what the most crazy ones would like us to do, and hope everything turns out well? Do we really have to give up our way of life, our freedom, our views and our politics to make everything neutral and therefore happy in some sense? It would decrease terrorism I imagine, and no-one would have any reasons to hold a grudge against anyone else, but I'm not so sure that's the way to go.

So what is best? Here are a few thoughts on that, which combine the very precious free-trade with the so-called war on terrorism. Lets quote:

But free trade should not be seen merely as a bargaining chip. Free trade is a good, contributing to better living standards for all peoples. Unfortunately, the very forms of beneficial voluntary person-to-person contact that are instrumental in defeating terrorism, and that are celebrated by the free-market trade, private investment, tourism, cultural exchange – have come to a near standstill. Reversing these trends should be a primary objective in the campaign against terrorism.

So I say: Away with soldiers, bombs, Leftists, politicians, threats, embargoes and other instruments and tools of governments to shape the world in their image. Free trade goes a long way in eliminating conflicts, ignorance and the need to go to arms to fight for causes. Leftists who oppose it should realize this as soon as possible and therefore take part in making the world a better, free-er and safer place. Right now they contribute to the opposite.

What is Capitalism?

I often wonder what people think is involved with Capitalism. Why do some hate it so much, while others fight for it with heart and soul? Why has Capitalism lead to so much anger and frustration? Do the opponents of Capitalism have a point? Isn't the system of Capitalism a bad system of greed and unequal distribution of wealth in the world?

In short: No. In short I will state here and now that those who fight against Capitalism are either ignorant or stupid. Does that sound like an arrogant point of view? Allow me to try to explain myself then.

Those who oppose Capitalism oppose a number of other things at the same time, whether they acknowledge it or not. For example, they oppose:

• The freedom to exchange services and products which one has to offer and another needs to have.
• The freedom to participate in volunteer and non-forced exchange of services and products in a harmless way without interference.
• The freedom for individuals to use their capabilities and talents in order to improve their lives, and meanwhile but unintended improve lives of many others.

Of course the opponents of Capitalism will not agree with this list of mine. They will say they want people to have all the freedom in the world, but the government must have a big role in making sure that people have jobs and food on their tables and a high standard of living. Do I have anything against that? No. However, all these things are best insured by allowing Capitalism to work as free as possible. Why can I say that when all this poverty exists? Because I can point to many facts indicating that what is really wrong with Capitalism is the lack of it, or the restrictions put on it in most countries and parts of the world. Why the restrictions when it's so good? Because politicians think they can manipulate free people and the activities of free people, and fail, and then try harder.

Why shouldn't politicians try to make sure in some way that everyone has this and that, and access to this and that, and be left alone to do so? Well, why doesn't Socialism and its bastard-baby, Communism, work? Why hasn't and won't the so-called Third Way work? Because as soon as you try to control the natural process of free exchange of services and products between peaceful induviduals, you might as well throw sand into an engine and expect it to work better. I can name a long list to underline my point, and I will:

• Sweden and Germany took up widespread Capitalism in the years after World War II. They became extremely rich and prospered and became the envy of Europe. However, both were playing a little with a thing called a welfare system, and that turned out to be a bad move. The system expanded and soon swallowed up a huge chunk of the national income. The result is that Sweden and Germany are among the slowest economies in Europe today. They tried to control Capitalism and improve lives, but ended up creating a large burden on future generations, and present generations have to find ways to take up Capitalism again and throwing away their welfare systems, or at least reduce them a lot.
• Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are well-known for their lack of resources, primitive industry a few decades ago, and extremely high national income today. These countries rose from the ground with nothing but the will to communicate and commerce, and enjoy the fruits now. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be the same as in Europe, and now I hear talks about law-enforced minimum wages being suggested in Hong Kong. If these countries start to follow the path of Socialism, they will soon face what Europeans are facing today. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it - right?
• Africa is pretty much a continent of wars, starvation, poverty, abundance of natural resources, wide spreads of green, fertile lands - and lack of Capitalism! Africa has been plagued by government control, ever since Europeans drew the borders of the lands of Africa in the colony-era. Socialistic dictators, sponsored by kind-hearted European Leftists, have fought for lands and powers for decades. Why? All because Capitalism wasn't allowed to flourish under a government focusing on keeping the laws, but not a government obsessed with organizing the way people live and act.

I could name more. South-America, the troubles of North-America today and its success in the 19th century, and so on.

The point is that those who fight against Capitalism can't stand how some people become extremely rich, while others pretty much stay the same. They call it the "income gap", and hate those to are at its higher end. The opponents of Capitalism must learn that those who are rich invest, and those who are poor gain jobs. Under the system of Capitalism, the free flow of money and people insures that the best solution at each time is underway. Under a system of Socialism, the restricted flow of money and people, enforced by law and governments, insures that something else than the best solution is underway.

Different Left and Right

It's often remarkable to see how Left and Right in politics differs between countries. What is considered a left-winged issue in one country may well be a right-winged in another, and the other way around. And I'm not talking about countries in different continents either. I'm talking about countries which in general are based on the same principles of democracy, constitution and free-market society. And what am I talking about? Lets take a striking example: Drug policy.

The Swiss parliament, the House of Representatives, recently voted narrowly against decriminalizing the production and consumption of cannabis for personal use in Swiss. The main promoters of the decriminalizion are Leftist - the centre-left Social Democrats and the Green Party. Strong supporters of the decriminalizion are the Federal Health Office in Swiss, and police officials and teachers. Those against the decriminalizion are the right-winged and centre-rights in Swiss.

In Iceland it's the other way around. Leftists in Iceland are very keen on banning this and that. The Left in Iceland voted against selling of beer in Iceland in 1989, and the far-left in Iceland is very opposed to allowing anyone except the State to sell beer and wines. No-one dares to mention decriminalizion of any kind of drugs in Iceland. Just the thought of it is considered "extreme right" in Iceland, and no political force will discuss the issue openly except the Libertarian Society of Iceland (wiki). So the political-scale is reversed in Iceland compared to the fellow-European country of Swiss. I find that remarkable.

But I know like many others that the Left-Right is often not an applicable scale in personal affairs. It usually comes down to the economic issues, where the Left wants a big government taxing everything that changes hands, and even properties which don't change hands are taxed, while the Right fights for lower taxes and increased personal responsibility (which, as a result, will improve everything the government handles today and lower costs and increase selection and reduce government-excited poverty and so on).

Experimenting with people

The Law - what a brilliant text! Why wasn't I urged to read it sooner? 200 years old, but as fresh as todays newspaper-articles! No, I take that back. It's fresher!

The author of The Law, Frédéric Bastiat made many points about the socialistic attitude of looking at people like sheep, or a piece of land. Socialists tend to have the attitude of looking at people as materials for social-experiments. They say: "Lets raise taxes and expand government here and here and see what happens." Then they say: "Lets raise taxes and support this artist, this industry and this sheep-farmer and hope for the best." And of course they say: "Lets impose moral-laws upon the ignorant people, so they wont think bad thoughts, or at least not express them to anyone." This is the socialistic attitude of Bastiats time, and its the same today.

It is sometimes amazing to hear a socialists (Leftist) ask if a libertarian state has been tested out somewhere. Then it's not good enough to point to the USA during its 18th and 19th century, where a minimal-state of limited government and individual and economic freedom gave millions of poor, non-skilled immigrants from Europe the chance to create the wealthiest and strongest state in the world in record-time. It's not enough to point to Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan - countries with little or no natural resources but with citizens which enjoy some of the highest living-standards in the world. It's not enough to point out how Germany, Sweden and other European-countries made their fortunes after World War II. It's not enough to give examples.

Also, the logic of justice and fairness do not suffice. Is the free market just and fair? I don't know. Is it fair that some are poor and some are rich? Probably not. Why can't I buy a car but others can buy cars and houses? Hard to say. But does the government have a role when it comes to all of these moral-questions? No. Why not? Because when the government increases one persons income, it reduces someone elses, and asks for no permissions. Much like theft, isn't it? And if we think theft is immoral, it shouldn't make any difference if the thief is Robin the Hood, Uncle Sam or the bum down the road. But the fairness- and justice-logic doesn't work on the Left either.

Bastiat said:

Law is justice. And let it not be said - as it continually is said - that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

The law, the government, or government-agents - those entities are not what define, shape, encourage, inspire or teach individuals. Individuals are more than capable of that themselves. The government should simply protect our rights to act, think, say and do what we want, as long as we don't impose violence and property-damage on to other individuals. Given the law is restricted to that role, we will in future like in the past see magnificent changes in the society of man, improving lives, abolish poverty and hunger, and so on.

200 years ago, many great thinkers sat down and figured out that the government is at its best when its doing the least, focusing on protecting rights and properties of free people. Today, experience has proven this point time and time again, and that plus the arguments of fairness and justice should have eliminated the threats of socialism and Leftism a long time ago. The reason it hasn't is partly unknown to me.

The Law

I know I have a lot to learn about political philosophy, and I know of a lot of books waiting for me to be read. But the list just got thinner. I just read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and I most say: Wonderful! Anyone who can point out reading-material in a similar standard should go ahead - now!

Bastiat predicted many things which today have come, and said many things which still hold valid. Please read his following words:

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

Didn't Bastiat here, like many other free-market liberal philosophers in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, just predict the totalitarianism involved in the communist-states of the 20th century? Where the state owned all production tools and gained them by taking them from the people, and where liberty as a consequence suffered greatly. Where the system of socialism ended in sufferings of millions and kept people poor and hungry for decades. Where endless belief in government-interferance led to the near-end of individualism and the free will of men, or as close as possible to that socialistic goal.

Here's a quote especially appropriate today, although it's from the 19th century:

A Confusion of Terms

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

I strongly recommend that everyone reads The Law and not only learns very good points about socialistic attitudes, but first and foremost the attitudes of a man who wants individuals to be free from all violence and force, as long as they don't use violence and force on others. An ideology called by the Leftists in Iceland, "nýfrjálshyggja" (neo-libertarianism, strangely enough), and has lived and will live as long as totalitarians, authoritarians, Leftists, social-democrats, Greenies or any other types of socialists walk this planet.

Get the kids out!

Something big seems to be on the horizon regarding the public school-system in the United States:

The largest Protestant denomination in America---Southern Baptists, with 16 million members---will be voting next week on a resolution calling on their members to remove their children from government schools!

Now how about that? The voice of educational freedom is no longer a small, weak libertarian one sitting in some corner. People seem to be fed up and now a mass-movement has risen to free kids from the public school-system. More on http://www.GetTheKidsOut.org. This movement of Southern Baptists is a religious one of course, but their cause applies for every group in society where there are children and parents who seek for a good education. Isn't that simply everyone? I would think so. But it has to start somewhere, and a religious based freedom-fight is just as good as any other.

The government and the agitators of government-run social programs, like the education and health care system, mean well. They simply want "equality" and "fairness" and believe, with some degree of honesty, that government-action is necessary to achieve that (and of course I mean government-transfer of funds from one person to another without asking anyone for a permission first). They are, in my humble opinion, dead-wrong. Actually, they couldn't be more wrong! Government-run programs are in fact like badly run companies in almost any respect, except for the part of going bankrupt. They don't have to show good outcomes, and they can always demand more funds from their "customers" (taxpayers) without having anything to show for it. Then why be stubborn and still demand even more government-expansion?

I support the Southern Baptists and others who are trying to escape Big Brother and bring better future for their children. In general, I support all those who want to be free from the web of "common values", and start to live their own lives individually. People have compassion, and people generally just want to live in happiness and freedom. If we let them do so, then there will be more energy and efforts for those who are left behind and really and genuinely need help. We don't need the government to achieve that. We simply don't.