The Predictables

Warning: This post is basically a long list of incoherent thoughts with no real conclusions.

Being predictable in politics is a two-edged sword with pros and cons. A pro is that being predictable usually means being consistent with oneself. The socialist is more or less always against privatization, liberalization and deregulation and is therefore both predictable and consistent with himself and his political ideology. The libertarian is more or less always against nationalization, authoritarianism and State-enforced discrimination and therefore has the same traits. A con is that the very predictable one isn't as exciting in elections - he can't give out the flashy statements or vague promises because he plans on following his own line of thinking.

Those between socialism and libertarianism can go either way on any issue - they are therefore not predictable but does it mean they are not consistent with themselves?

Let's take an example: The pharmaceutical industry. It is a huge industry which plays an extremely important role in any society. Everyone needs medicine at some point in their lives, and some need more than others. The pharmaceutical industry is, in some way, "trusted" to seek cures for the most deadliest and crippling diseases man knows. However there's a catch. Some diseases don't have a "target group" big enough to sustain a profitable development of a medicine. What to do?

The Leftist (being the one who denies being a socialist but despises everything which libertarians say) claims the State has a role in "making sure" medicine is development and subsidised for those with the rare and deadly/crippling diseases. The Leftist claims the pharmaceutical industry "waists" valuable funds on advertisements and propaganda and on "welfare diseases" such as obesity and erection-problems. The State, however, makes sure the funds are used "where they are needed" - on R&D and effective (State-run) distribution (*). However, the Leftist doesn't deny that there is real need for the private enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry. Private companies work hard on making good products in a highly competitive market where time, quality and the lowest possible costs are key factors. Only the pure-grown socialist says otherwise. Do we have inconsistency?

But what about the libertarian? He would claim that a big part of the high costs of developing medicine is the State's own fault because the State sets extremely high standards before a medicine can be used by patients in need. Years and even decades can go by before a medicine can leave the laboratory and go into the hands of patients. Also, the libertarian claims that no market is small enough. How big is the market for the £450,000 Ferrari Enzo for example? The mere size of the market tells very little about someones will to satisfy it.

With that myth out of the way there's still the question of who should pay? Not all patients have money, and many long-term sick patients are actually poor. Perhaps there the Leftist could make a valid point and say that the State should pay the bill, even though it has nothing to do with the R&D and let alone the marketing and distribution. The State could hold auctions where pharmaceutical companies compete for a prize for coming up with the best medicine for the lowest price. But this method has the flaw of putting the decision of what to send to development into hands of politicians, thereby turning an illness into a project in lobby ism and a competition of what group of patients can put the most public pressure on their government.

Also, aren't companies always striving to make something which is the best, the cheapest and has high quality? The State can offer nothing new except fresh tax-money most likely removed from the hands of those who need medicine!

The libertarian would say that the free market is the best tool to solve the problem - the State should keep regulations to a minimum and trust that patients and pharmaceutical companies can work together on solving the problems at hand. If it's a question about who should pay the bill there are charity funds, the general public, private companies seeking a positive image and the pharmaceutical companies themselves in search of experience and know-how who could all contribute. Experience shows that when the State no longer claims it taxes in the name of charity and social aid, or claims its contributions to charity institutions will not increase while taxes are being decreased, people increase contributions to private charity funds by the tens of percents and even more. Also, when the State deregulates and leaves more choices up to the free market the whole social mechanism gains speed to everyone's advantage. In short: The market and the free individuals that form it are better suited to find the solutions needed than politicians.

And finally to the question: Is the Leftist being inconsistent when he promotes State-interference and the existence of the free enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry? It seems the free market can be "trusted" when it comes to satisfying the needs of the masses. Painkillers, allergy-pills, hemorrhoids-creams, influence-vaccinations, various cancer-medicine, HIV- and AIDS-repressing medicine and so on are all provided by the free market, despite State-interference, extremely harsh regulations (even for drugs for dying patients with no alternatives) and the typical excessive taxation and sky-high monitoring costs. However, the Leftist seems to think that the future need of medicine can not be met unless the State pours tax-money into the pharmaceutical industry - or the parts which the government controls (State-run universities for example). This is typical scepticism coming from the Left, and, I would say, a clear sign of inconsistency.

How is a society to function when controlled by minds which doubt all past achievements of the free market of free people, glorify all past failures of collectivism and base decisions on feelings and political pressure instead of reason, logic and experience?

(*) I think most people are familiar with the State's efficiency when it comes to using money well, but that's a whole different discussion not made here.

All about the money?

Sometimes the poorly-informed Leftist says libertarians are "all about the money" because they tend to oppose excessive taxation and increased State-expansion (even though the State is merely blowing up its welfare-system and distributing money to various groups of voters with some issues). The Leftist forgets that it's usually him who is demanding "more money" for this and that "underfunded x-system" (where x could stand for health-care, education or welfare). The Leftist hardly says a word without demanding more money. The Rightist rarely uses this approach - he does't say the health-care system needs less money, nor the education-system or the system which provides help to the needy. The Rightist simply points out that there is no justification for the State to forcibly take money from one person and give it to another (minus excessive administration-costs of course).

The private property of a person is an extension of his self-ownership (be it money, a house, a car or a cheer). The Leftist should comes to terms with his inner demons and simply admit his disbelief in the individual's natural right to own himself. Then the Leftist would free himself from uncomfortable philosophical conflicts with taxation versus individual freedom - whoever preaches one thing cannot support the other without logical errors in his way of thinking.

Libertarian campaign

It happened in Costa Rica, USA and New Zealand in 1994. It happened in Iceland in 2002. It happened in Denmark in 2005. Libertarians are increasingly figuring out that they must have a name for themselves in the public debate to get the voice of liberty in the air. The conservative parties of the West have changed into machines of State-controlled moral codes, strict foreigner-policies and a limited will to reduce the scale of the State. The old Leftists have actually gained an ally in the conservatives in most of the big issues. We risk loosing the West to the Left. A free, unsuppressed voice of liberty must move us away from that direction.

Of course there are the technicalities of the matter:

• Does and independent libertarian party in the two-party system of USA undermine the Republican Party and therefore do more harm than good? That might be. Maybe American libertarians should focus more on the states rather than fight on federal grounds.
• Can libertarians become big enough to influence the politics, or do they simply undermine the big conservative-parties? The popular voice of liberty will either make libertarian-parties big, or push the conservatives more into the direction of liberty. Either way the libertarians win.
• Isn't the unsheltered libertarian-message generally unpopular with the public, for example the libertarian stand on drugs, guns and privatization? Perhaps, yes, when it comes to the whole package. However, when serving as a voice in the debate, these issues are rarely a matter of hot debate. Libertarians are generally in the role of fighting State-expansion, attacks on personal freedom and tax-increases. Libertarians have a bigger job in pushing Leftists-myths out of the way than they have in gaining a lot of seats in parliaments. Libertarians rarely dream of becoming the "biggest" party even though they do well in elections (like in Costa Rica), but they need to stand alone if the voice of liberty isn't to be suffocated by the conservatives.

The list goes on. Libertarians in general can no longer afford to dwell within the big conservative-parties. That seems to be the case. Sure, libertarians might be "stealing" votes from the conservatives, increasing the risk of a Leftist-coalition seizing power. However, the voice of liberty does have the effects of increasing the Right so that the libertarians and conservativese have more votes to share.

Communism: A State-enforced slavery

Everyone has heard or read the following sentence:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

It's one of the best descriptions of communism I have heard, and I'm sure many agree. Some think it's "a beautiful thought", and then add, "but humans are too selfish to be able to work according to it". But is that why it doesn't work? If humans were more giving and loving would it then work? Would it work and would it make us happy?

In short: No. Slaves work according to their ability (or else face punishment or even death from their master). They receive just what they need - minimum food and clothes and a place to sleep. Karl Marx was in fact describing the lives of slaves throughout human history. Slavery is evil. Communism is evil along with all its socialistic roots.

A dangerous way of thinking: "I feel that..."

As it has turned out over the past few decades in Western politics, it seems that the biggest part of the modern politician's job is to discuss banning or not banning of this and that. The free speech has again and again met restrictions in the name of "public health", "public interest" and such phenomenons. The self-ownership of individuals over their own bodies has been cast away long ago, more often than not in the name of "public"-this and that. All good reason and logic, all concrete political philosophy, and all good sense says that this shouldn't be the case. How is it that we cannot own ourselves and not say what we want without a State interfering? Is it because bad words are violence like bullets? Is it because someone has built a concrete case stating that no-one is himself and everyone is everyone and therefore no-one can harm him/herself because then it's a matter of the general public? No - no such case has been built. The reason the individual is increasingly being swallowed up by the State is the "I feel"-logic (IF-logic).

The IF-logic can be seen in use all around. It's not real logic - Hitler used it to "justify" his actions, and so did Stalin, Pol Pot and other well known celebrities of the far-Left, and who wants to justify their actions today? However, the IF-logic has been allowed to reach the status of being enough to support banning of this and that. A few examples from various debates:
Should be ban public smoking? Yes, because I feel it's uncomfortable to breathe in second hand smoke in other people's private houses, and I don't feel like convincing my one smoking friend of going to a smoke-free cafe with our six, mutual non-smoking friends.
Should we ban certain kinds of sex between consenting adults, for example that which comes to be because money exchanges hands? Yes, because I feel that no-one should sink so low as to having to sell their own bodies to make a living, even though there would be police all around to catch those who abuse and use violence and oppression. I feel I couldn't imagine doing anything like that myself.
Should we force companies into hiring more women in executive-positions if there are proportionally few women in such positions? Yes, because I feel that men and women should be equal - not just when it comes to the law but also when it comes to wages, job-division and other measurable units.

The IF-logic should in reality be nothing more than a casual sentence to be used when arguing with the girlfriend about the color of the bed-sheets, or the quality of Sylvester Stallone as an actor. In politics the feelings can of course be there (and should be to a large extent), but without sound logic they should merely be looked at as a weak reminder of the person's inner desires. Never should one person's feeling govern another person's actions, and that's exactly what happens when the IF-logic is deemed sufficient as a case for new laws and regulations.

The question that won't be answered

The following question will never be answered by a Leftist because a Leftist doesn't have a convincing answer:

The industrial-revolution sprang out in Europe at a time when the continent was ruled by kings and queens. The kings and queens realized that if they were to gain economically from the new-born industries they would have to allow some kind of economic freedom. Free trade was encouraged by many (in many degrees) and great wealth was created unlike any before. Many citizens made vast fortunes and a middle-class formed in most countries of Western-Europe.

The newborn middle-class was in an awkward situation. It had the wealth, and it had the control over its own destiny in more ways than ever before. However, it didn't have any political influence. This had to be changed and little by little the kings and queens gave in (because it's harder to challenge a wealthy middle-class than poor peasants). One thing lead to another and before anyone knew most countries of Western Europe has democracies, freedom of speech/religion, freedom of press and so on. The economical freedom gave birth to the political one.

Today the same thing is happening in China: The communists started out by giving in to some economic freedom. Growth increased and more freedom was given. A middle-class appeared and with that pressure increased on the government to increase political freedom. Now the communists have admitted the existence of private property rights, are starting to respect human rights and all odds point to the fall of the Chinese communism within a few years.

Kings, queens and communists don't increase economic freedom to deliberately undermine their own power. They simply want to profit from the wealth of free trade. However, the economic freedom paves the way to private property rights, democracy and increased political power of the people. Since free democracies don't fight each other it might also be said that economical freedom strengthens peace and prosperity.

The Leftists needs to answer this: Isn't the best and fastest way to improve human lives to support free trade, capitalism and economic freedom in its broadest sense? Isn't the Right the key to peace on Earth and well-doing of all people?

The Unfree Market

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ #3

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ #2

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

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

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

FAQ #1

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

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

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

The move towards Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note to self

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

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

Political experience is useless without a justification

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom: Fair, just and effective!

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

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

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

To the socialist

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

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

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

The Leftist-unionist

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

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

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

Three questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Leftist's money-obsession

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

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

Leftism keeps the poor poor

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

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

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

How to get it wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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