The Limits of Government - helping the poor?

Libertarians and liberals (in the classical meaning of the word) are people who want limited government and unlimited individual freedom (as long as no one else's freedom is being limited). The general idea, based on some experience, extensive logic and many facts, is that a Minimal State is the only fair and just form of state, and that the State's main function is to stop violence, make sure contracts are enforced and protect lives of individuals along with their property...

...and make sure that the poorest in the society are helped with some kind of a security net funded with taxes and operated by the State (either directly administrated by it and funded with taxes, or just the latter).

Or what?
The last statement bothers me. Is it really the State's responsibility to make sure the poorest of the poor have somekind of safety-net? I admit that the thought sounds right, and this is what I've heard from even the most liberal of libertarians (excluding anarcho-capitalists of course). But still the statement bothers me.

The Problem
The State is in an awkward situation when it comes to defining those who need help, and those who don't. Also, the State cannot allow access to tax-collected funds to just any-one who makes a strong enough case and does a good job convincing the social servant of some needs for help. The State must treat everyone equal and that means making general rules which again means putting different individuals with different problems into similar boxes which get similar help.

This is not what the hungry, the sick or the unlucky needs to improve his or her situation. Those who need help need it on individual basis. They need help - not welfare-checks or forced institutionalization. Only private charities and organizations can meet the individual needs of the individual because they don't have to follow a general set of rules which have to treat everyone the same.

The States responsibility
That being said I must say I oppose State-supported welfare-programs, even those only intended for the most poor or the most sick. However, this is not to say I oppose that it is the societies responsibility to make sure no-one dies on the streets from diseases, hunger or whatever it is. I think it's the societies responsibility to take care of those who need help, and show understanding for the individual's individual circumstances!

To the Socialist: Aim on poverty!

A very strong line in the Leftist's ideology is "protection" of this and that. The national socialist wants to "protect" his race from "mixing" with other races. The economic socialist wants to "protect" local jobs from competition in a globalized world. The green socialist wants to "protect" the environment from changes by human activities (usually calling it pollution or destruction).

How are these protections to be implemented? The socialist has tried just about everything which he can use the State for: Tariffs, border control, regulations, special projects of all sizes and shapes, taxes, executions, and God knows what. However, the solution is simple: Increased poverty is the tool which the socialist needs!

What happens when a country is poor? No-one wants to move to it and no-one can afford to leave it so the national socialist should be happy. No jobs exist which can afford to use modern technology to be efficient and competitive so there is very little risk of someone wanting to steal them, and therefore the economic socialist should be happy. The people can't afford cars, electricity or warmed up houses so the need for energy is little. Also, no-one has the money to invest in new powerplants or buildings so disruption of land should be at a minimum. This decreases "pollution" in all its forms, hopefully to the enjoyment of the green socialist.

It seems to be obvious that the socialist has to put poverty at the top of his priority list if he's ever to see his goals fulfilled.

The Non-Promise

Politicians promise. We all know that. They promise more funds to this and that, tougher laws on this and that, lower taxes, more freedom, higher taxes, less freedom, and God knows what. The result is usually a bigger State today than yesterday, a less flexible society and so on. The politician means well in most cases - he wants to make sure he stays in office so his favorite groups of voters can have a brighter future, and fuck the rest.

This approach is completely wrong as far as this author is concerned. The endless flood of promises has many negative effects on the voter. The voter begins to think all problems are the politicians to solve. He begins to think the individual contribution means nothing because the State is so much bigger and stronger. The voter, in short, hands more on more of his independence and initiative over to the State, which is in all respect bad.

Anti-promise
Instead of making a promise of doing something, this author believes a promise of not doing something is a more fruitful approach for the politicians and the society. What happens if the politician promises he will not increase funds to development-aid in Africa? What if the politician promises he will not start State-operated programs meant to cure the obeast, give riches to the poor or free addicts from addiction?

What will happen is that people will understand that it is not the State's job to heal every single disease or change every single out-of-the-normal behavior in the society. The result is increased private-initiative, more generous donations to private charity foundations, more care for the hungry and the tired, and a bigger personal responsibility in a society of humans.

We need politicians who promise not to do things. Everything else is an illusion.

Convergence to libertarianism

The biggest left-winged political party in Denmark is the Social democrats. It's an old party - at least over a 100 years old - and has experienced a lot of changes in the political landscape. At first it preached democratic socialism - a system newer tried out yet but still lives in the minds of some people. The party wanted to nationalize the means of production in the society. It wanted socialism in all its horrible beauty.

Time went by and the Iron-curtain fell. Texts about nationalization and State-owned means of production were removed from the manuscripts of the party. The party gets into government and implements old-fashioned methods to revive the economy. When the local economy collapsed in the international bubble-burst of 2000-2001 the party was out of government and could blame the conservatives then in charge.

When the Social democrats lost their second election this year their leader resigned - a leader with a red past and a fear for the new, globalized world of free competition and cooperation across the globe. Instead a young, "liberal" woman became the leader. This young woman had only been in office for 2 weeks when the ultra-Left began to call her liberal and a leaner to the Right. She has said she is willing to look into social-reforms of the soon-bankrupt welfare-system and hasn't promised any tax-increases yet.

Looking at the whole picture the trend is clear: The Social democrats have moved from Marxism to conservatism, and the process goes on towards liberalism - even libertarianism. It can probably never be expected that a party like the Social democrats fully appreciates the values of the Right, but it's moving there nice and slowly. The same can be said about its sister-parties in all of Scandinavia.

Politics converge to libertarianism with time. Ain't that a beauty?

Makes no sense

The newest "hot topic" among the European Left now is the European Union's support to agriculture in Europe. The Left, rightly, says that the support to European agriculture undermines agriculture in the developing countries - it gives European farmers and unfair advantage over the poor peasants in Africa and South-America and maintains poverty where poverty is the most. All of this is true and everyone, including the Left, should join in fighting State-supported agriculture. This has been a battle which the Right has had to fight alone for decades but now the Left joins in and that can only be positive.

The EU's agricultural program is being used by the Left to fight against the new European constitution. Now comes a strange part: Another issue being used to fight the constitution is it's emphasis on increased liberalization and privitization in the EU member states. This makes no sense. Removing State-support to agriculture and thereby giving farmers of the developing countries a better chance to enter European markets is a clear case of liberalization - it liberates farmers from the State and replaces support, regulations and tariffs with market-laws and competition on level grounds. The Left must realize this. Still it fights the constitution based on its emphasis on liberalization!

This makes no sense.

Bush pleases the Left, right?

Everyone knows G. W. Bush's method to implement democracy, peace and prosperity in the Middle-East: First, he removes the dictators. Second, he pumps billions of dollars into big "reconstruction programs" like building of roads and telecommunications-networks. Third, he holds elections.

The second part we all know: It's Keynesian economics, shortly describable as extensive State-action to push for economic growth. This should please the Left very much. The Left is all for State-initiative in every field, and especially when it comes to promoting growth and employment. However, the American and European Left is not happy with Bush - not in his own country nor in the Middle-East. He's being called a war-monger and accused of butting in where he's not needed. This makes no sense but that's I guess how Leftist-propaganda usually appears to me.

History and Milton Friedman teach us that economic freedom paves the way for political freedom. How about using the lessons of history next time we give advice to the leaders of the world?

2 Questions - 1 Answer

Q1: What markets have the toughest competition, the fastest technological evolution and the fastest price-decreases on the latest breakthroughs?

Q2: What markets evolve and move so fast that governments haven't, so far, been able to regulate them to any extent above other markets (e.g. with competition-laws), tax them with special "monitoring" and "supervision" taxes or stop them from moving back and forth across boarders and regions in search of the best and cheapest workers, resources and raw materials?

The answer: The markets of internet, mobile phones and computers.

Coincidences, or is the connection between market-efficiency and State-interference simply this clear?

Ironic

It is ironic to think that modern-day socialists say they are "against war" when Karl Marx and other philosophers of socialism welcomed them to a large extent. Marx himself said for example:

The redeeming feature of war is that it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgment upon social systems that have outlived their vitality. (#)

Libertarians on the other hand have always looked at wars as State-managed destruction of lives and property and continue to do so while Leftists change their opinion on wars and other State-abuse as the winds change direction.

Actually, Leftists are for most of the historical incentives of war though they no longer agitate wars as such. Examples: Trade-tariffs, "class war"-propaganda, State-controlled moral codes, nationalistic glorification, and more. Is there any fundamental difference in preaching the plague directly, or simply providing favorable conditions for the bacteria to grow in, later to be released upon all who come near?

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?