The Magic of Government

It seems the State is a magical instrument that, simply by existing, magically can do all sorts of things that would otherwise not be possible to do (especially not in a way that is deemed acceptable to the majority of people). To explain I must first define the State (or Government) and then give a few examples.

The State is an entity that holds an exclusive right to exert violence and coercion upon free individuals and their companies and organizations. In Leftist-jargon this means that the State must shape the society of men into some form or another, for example that of equal income or equal access to everything found "basic" in human existence, regardless of everything else.

And what happens once you have the institution of State? First of all, everyone now has access to doctors and hospitals. No free and volunteer work of man can provide that. Only men who can use force to move money, time and energy from one individual to another can figure out how to help the poor and needy to get healing when sick or medicine when feeling bad.

Another magical effect of being paid with money collected with force is the ability to plan and construct roads, residential areas and utility service (such as water, electricity and telephone networks). No institution or company that relies on volunteer payments and employs private companies can provide these products of the magically skilled public officials. It seems you have to be paid with stolen money to organize roads and lay pipelines in the ground.

Also, when you receive stolen money as salary you seem to gain the emotions and skills that qualify you to settle disputes and protect people from fraud and violence. Only public officials can govern over police, courts and lay the framework of day-to-day interaction between free individuals and their companies. This is truly magical.

And last but not least, when you receive your salary from an institution of legalized violence and coercion you are the only one who has the brains and the balls to decide what people must learn to sustain their existence in society of man. Education must be organized and funded by means of public officials, since private companies and the individuals in their service don't have the magic touch it takes to provide education that is any good. And the younger the students, the bigger the need for public officials to be the sole decision-makers and organizers.

There is much to say about the good and bad sides of the institution of State, but the magic effects of its coercive nature are truly remarkable!

Economics of taxation

The effects of taxation? Here's a description:

The price that invariably must be paid for taxation, and for every increase in taxation, is a coercively lowered productivity that in turn reduces the standard of living in terms of valuable assets provided for future consumption. Every act of taxation necessarily exerts a push away from more highly capitalized, more productive production processes in the direction of a hand-to-mouth-existence. (#)

Knowing that a thief will rob you every time you earn a penny might encourage you to work more and harder so that the effects of the robbery don't affect the total income as much. However, this kind of incentive to work is in no way a positive one. Or sure, if you are an employer that does not get robbed of the extra hours your employee puts into your business as a result of the constant thefts. Perhaps the Left is secretly giving employers free labor by encouraging taxation? How ironic would that be?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The good people at the Mises Institute are finally putting a little more of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's brilliant libertarian argumentation into the spot-light (buy a book). A short quote:

The state is also not in the same way constrained by competition as is a productive firm. Unlike such a firm, the state must not keep its cost of operation at a minimum but can operate at above-minimum costs because it is able to shift its higher costs onto competitors by taxing or regulating their behavior. Thus, the size of the state also cannot be considered as constrained by cost competition. Insofar as it grows, it does so in spite of the fact that it is not cost-efficient.

Despite all of the masterpieces of Mises, Rothbard and other libertarian writers, few have made such a focused effort to build up the ethics of liberty by strict use of undeniable logic/fact as have Hans-Hermann Hoppe (like, e.g. Mises's "man acts"). Men really have to deny the self-ownership of man to deny the logics of Mr. Hoppe, and today that is not a fashionable thing to deny. Not even for hardcore-socialists.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is perhaps the most important, living libertarian thinker, or who else could that be? Important of course meaning: Can teach modern libertarians more, better and sounder than any other can.

Osama bin Laden is DEAD!

When will Western media stop swallowing down all those little "tapes" that are supposed to contain messages from Osama bin Laden? Osama hasn't been seen since Afghanistan and anyone can fake a voice. Why isn't he declared dead and the tapes disregarded as forgery?

Perhaps Cox and Forkum explain it best. Western media sells by beating up on the West and adoring the poor, passionate, haunted terrorists of the Middle-East. Hippocratic Western media like never seen before. How would Western media today cover an event like World Wars 2? "Innocent citizens of Berlin bombed by vicious British bombers" or "American troops show brutality against poorly manned SS-troops on the Western front" I suppose.

Bookmarks @ TCS

TCS Daily - A Consensus About Consensus. Related: Climate Science: In Need of Due Diligence.

The End Is Not Nigh?.

Two must-reads from the Mises Institue

I must point out two must-read essays I have recently come upon on the fantastic site Mises.org. Both deal with favorites of the Left - one is on welfare economics, and the other on environmentalism.

Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics, by Murray N. Rothbard is a harsh criticism of the Leftist's welfare term and general way of thinking about society, utility and even economics. Also, and perhaps more importantly, Rothbard offers solutions to our problems when dealing with welfare.

The Toxicity of Environmentalism, by George Reisman (website: Capitalism.net), is, for most part, a strong criticism of the "modern" socialism/anti-capitalism movement, frequently called the environmental movement. A must-read to really understand the debate in our society between the friends of man and prosperity and the friends of death and destruction. There is no need to go into more details with that here. Just read the essay!

The warming of the Left

Is there a small chance that the Leftist-Green is giving up on the global-warming issue? Perhaps so. Here it states that,

the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

Well, I guess global warming is on automatic now and nothing to do about it. I guess we can just all continue with our lives, live in warm houses, buy iPods, drive, travel and use refrigerators. Or is this just another scare-tactic from the Left?

The Leftist-faith in some science but not other is quite stunning. Or as one put it:

The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even to bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one - not even the staunchest supporters of science and technology - had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them is forecast the weather — for the next one hundred years!

Perhaps the best thing to do is ignore the Leftist-Green altogether, both in speech and in funding. They have been wrong until now, and they continue to get it wrong. They seek power of tax-funds and free economies, and the global warming taking place is taking place with or without human assistancence, and is well within control for humans to deal with.

War and statism - friends forever

The love for the almighty "protecting", "just" and "democratic" (in some sense) State is a well known voice in modern politics. The State must provide, support, equalize, distribute and protect. The State must uphold the law, take care of the sick and the needy and show an example. The State must keep the individual from damaging himself with cigarettes, alcohol, racism and excessive spending. And above all; the State must keep the peace. But at what expense?

Without given any consideration for the monetary requirements of the just and all-knowing State, this love for the State has had, and will continue to have, enormous negative effects on all human society. The State created the atom bomb to protect and keep the peace. The State has nationalized the health care and educational system to simplify the amount of service and knowledge people seek for. The State provides us with general guidelines for, in most cases, normally non-violent actions. But at what expense?

The expense is: War, death and destruction.

When the governments of Europe and Asia, during World War 2, decided to push their own citizens into war with citizens of neighboring countries (and well outside that), the power of the State became clear. Economies of free trade and peace were turned into economies of war, many of the institutions of the free market were nationalized "for the sake of the war". By sending your citizens to the slaughterhouse you create a false demand for doctors and nurses - hence nationalizing the health care system becomes a must (never to be returned to the free market again). By sending young men to the battlefield you create an abnormal market for education, thereby creating the need to nationalize, and gradually minimize, the education system. Governments invent atom bombs, Tomahawks, battleships and bombers in the name of peace and protection - investments doomed on the free market but deemed necessary by the State to fulfill its own needs when it comes to protection of its citizens.

And this isn't just an old story from the 20th century. Today the front has been pushed even further, now reaching to the very individual, who can be a terrorist or pervert, both in need of surveillance and random arrests now and again. The "war on terrorism" is perhaps not the war of ground-forces and airborne fighters, but its real just the same, run by the State, run for the State.

Statism and war go hand in hand. Ask Bill Gates if he's willing to use some of his billions to create a new weapon of mass destruction. Even if he'd agree with the need for massive protection and massive strike-power against possible enemies, I doubt he'll go along, or even make the effort to gather his fellow billioneers together to sponsor the project. Why kill your possible customers? Only the State values such a possibility.

A small thought experiment

An undeniable principle of all human existence is: Humans act. This is the basic principle of Ludwig von Mises' book Human Action, and no-one can deny it (thus acting, thus proving the point).

But since humans act, they must prefer one action against another. Only the insane act randomly. People eat when hungry, dress when going out, piss when need to, sleep when tired.

Since humans choose certain action as opposed to other, they must seek actions that satisfy them in some respect. Only the insane work on purpose to destroy their own existence. Even the sickest junky chooses actions that benefit his position (most likely actions that acquire him drugs). In general people choose beneficial actions.

Since humans act to benefits, they don't act so as to reduce their benefits. Violence is a non-beneficial action since it could spur revengeful actions against oneself. Theft too, is non-beneficial, since it could have the same consequences. Peaceful, non-violent behavior is, in general and for most humans, not only a question of good morality, but also of a strong self-beneficial action that minimizes the chances of being beaten up or robbed (that being non-beneficial).

And since humans act for their increased benefit, a force that requires them to act in a different way is non-beneficial for humans, and thus non-preferred by them.

And since force is non-preferred by humans, then forcing them to change their behavior, consumption, their non-violent (=beneficial) behavior, and tell humans to reduce their property so that another entity can take control of it is non-preferred. If this other entity is indeed going to use or spend the value of the property on the same products/services that the original owner was going to (on his behalf), then this moving of property rends itself useless and meaningless.

But by forcing humans to give up property, and then spend the value of the property on something else than the original owners were going to, a non-preferred action has taken place.

And this in all simply translates into the fact that taxes are not only non-preferred, but also non-beneficial to humans

How to avoid this logical error? Abolish taxes, and accept a society of humans living without violence and each seeking to improve his life.

The hypocrisy of a socialist hero

"Capitalism has destroyed the ecological equilibrium of the earth. It is now or never!"
-Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela, January 2006

Government spending [in Venezuela] rose 38 percent during the first 10 months of 2005, spurring a 9.4 percent economic expansion last year. A surge in oil exports to a record $48 billion last year funded the increase in spending in Venezuela, the world's fifth- largest crude exporter. (#)

Fuck the public

Is there traffic congestion? Ban all cars! Water shortage? Drink less water! Postal deficit? Cut mail deliveries to one a day! Crime in urban areas? Impose curfews! No private supplier could long stay in business if he thus reacted to the wishes of customers? But when government is the supplier, instead of being guided by what the customer wants, it directs him to do with less or do without. While the motto of private enterprise is 'the customer is always right,' the slogan of government is 'the public be damned!' -Murray N. Rothbard (#)

Oh, how true! Related message.

The Scandinavian indoctrination

As a current resident of Danmark, I found the following quote from a resident of Sweden very amusing:

The real problem is, nobody gives you the other side of the argument in an academic environment where the government has forced environmentalism and radical leftwing feminism into every education. Students are offered free food and free ecological wine from the government controlled alcohol distributor Systembolaget (a state monopoly controlled by the wife of the Prime Minister) while they watch ridiculous science fiction movies. This is the Swedish version of the indoctrination I saw as a young boy in an Iranian school named after a suicide bomber. Being forced to shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" in the school yard is at least an open form of propaganda. The Swedish version allows you to drink wine, feel intellectual and perhaps even win a printer, but is not much less biased. (#)

It is really amazing to think that the countries most successful in the free market capitalist society foster one of the strongest (and, of course, richest) anti-capitalist' movements in the world. Students are one of the hardest hit groups, being "teached" that the world is about to perish and that America is a cooking pot of evil.

The same story told above can be said about Danmark (although alcohol not locked up behind government-doors). The newspapers do never cast doubts on the global-warming doomsday-alerts. A typical sentence in a paper could be something like this: To figth the man-made global warming, that threatens to change the Earth's climate drastically, this and this government action has now been put into works.., and people are taking it in. Fast.

The self-pity of intellectuals

Not only do the so-called intellectuals despise the very society that supports their comfortable, coffee-drinking, suburban lifestyles, but they also suffer from great self-pity (perhaps for the same reasons?). I recent argument for a State-funded university education has recently reached my ears (from the mouth of a Leftist university student, of course): The cost of sacrifice for the university-attending student is underestimated by economists, and should be considered a reason to protect the hard-pressed student from participating in the cost of his or her own education.

I have seldom heard such nonsense before!

What about the sacrifice of the worker who has to pay x% of his salaries to taxes instead of y% (smaller than x%), making his working hours longer, his pay-check smaller and hence clothes, housing, food and spare-time less in quality and quantity? What about the benefits of having a university degree? Better and more pleasant jobs, higher wages, more respect, and so on and so on. Why even bother to attend a university if it is such a sacrifice that it must be put on non-university attending people as a financial burden and a kind of punishment for even having a paying job!

This is the height of the Leftist intellectual arrogance. I hope I will never hear anything like this again.

Is private property justifiable?

Is private property just something made up by men and defended by libertarians, in order to suppress the working man and allow the cruel and greedy capitalist to prosper? Is private property just an instrument made by man and upheld by man, and not really justifiable with logic and reason?

Of course not. There are many brilliant logic for private property, and none against it that hold. One can be found here, and is a new one in the eyes of this author. The following is a quote:

Because rights in one’s own body have been established, property rights may be established by building on this base. This may be done by pointing out that rights in one’s body are meaningless without property rights, and vice-versa. This can be illustrated by the following example. Imagine that A, a thief, admits that there are rights to selfownership, but that there is no right to property. But if this is true, we can easily execute A simply by depriving him of external property, namely food, air, and/or space in which to exist or move. Clearly, the denial of a person’s property through the use of force can physically harm his body just as direct invasion of the borders of his body can. The physical, bodily damage can be done fairly directly, for example by snatching every piece of food out of a person’s hands (why not, if there are no property rights?) until he dies. Or it can be done somewhat more indirectly, by infringing upon a person’s ability to control and use the external world, which is essential to survival. Such property-deprivation could continue until A ’s body is severely damaged, implying that physical retaliation in response to a property crime is permissible, or until A objected to such treatment, thereby granting the existence of property rights (for this can be the only grounds for his objection to being denied property). Just as one can aggress against another with one’s body (e.g., one’s fist) or external property (a club or gun), so one’s self-ownership rights can be aggressed against by affecting his property and external environment.

So, sure, private property can be looked upon as a mere instrument of man, but then the same must apply for food, clothes and general survival. Survival is surely an instrument of man and can be removed or disposed of. Sounds like that which happened in the planes of Ukraine during Soviet Union supervision of one of the most fertile areas in the world.

A few thougths in Icelandic

Síðan ég las bókina Atlas Shrugged hef ég byrjað að líta töluvert öðruvísi á margt í kringum mig, og ég segi stundum að bókin hafi breytt heimsmynd minni eins og hún leggur sig. Sérstaklega finnst mér að hugarfar Hank Rearden í fyrrihluta bókarinnar sé ríkjandi hjá mér, en því má lýsa nokkurn veginn svona:

Ég get yfirleitt tekið á mig aukavinnu ef það hjálpar öðrum sem getur/geta það ekki. Ég get alveg séð á eftir krónu hér og krónu þar, því miðað þá miklu hjálp sem krónan veitir öðrum þá skerðir hún ekki mína möguleika það mikið (ómælanlegt, tilfinningalegt mat). Þetta tvennt ásamt töluverðri þolinmæði gerir það að verkum að ég er ansi opinn fyrir "árásum" þeirra sem þurfa eitthvað (aðstoð, pening, hjálp).

Afleiðingin er meðal annars sú að í marga, marga mánuði eftir að ég og ákveðin manneskja af kvenkyni breyttum formlegri stöðu okkar á milli hef ég verið að gefa pening hér og pening þar til að hjálpa, aðstoða og bjarga. Oft er um "neyð" að ræða þar sem hún er búin að eyða öllum peningum sínum, maxa yfirdrátt sinn og lofa sér í hitt og þetta sem kostar pening og er rosalega mikilvægt og nauðsynlegt fyrir hana og hennar framtíð og drauma, og á svo allt í einu ekki fyrir mat og hvað þá lofuðum útgjöldum.

Maður getur nú ekki látið neinn svelta er það? Og hvað munar mig um þessa upphæð og þessa miðað við hvað henni munar mikið um aðstoðina?

Ég hef fengið skammir frá þeim sem ég hef sagt frá þessu, og verðskuldaðar skammir ef ég má bæta því við. Á endanum þýðir lítið annað en að segja við grátandi andlit að nú hætti þetta kropp og að sjálfsábyrgð sé orðin ákaflega aðkallandi hjá manneskjunni.

Hvað ef ég svo segi að ég neiti að gefa betlandi heimilisleysingjum á götunni? Nei, þá er ég orðinn vondikallinn sem neitar að hjálpa þeim sem minna mega sín. En gilda aðrar reglur um mann sem býr á götunni í hinu svokallaða velferðarkerfi sem er þéttofið af skattgreiddri aðstoð, hjálp, ráðgjöf, húsaskjóli, námskeiðum, meðferðum, atvinnu og almennum stuðningi? Nei, og heldur ekki í fjarveru alls þessa þar sem bara væri um sjálfviljuga aðstoð í boði sjálfboðaliða og fólks sem fær laun frá frjálsum framlögum (sumsé, aðstoð sem er ekki fjármögnuð með sköttum og unnin af opinberum starfsmönnum).

Í vinnunni er þetta svolítið öðruvísi. Ég er (eða ætti ef ekki væri fyrir blogg í lok hádegispásu að ræða) að vinna örlítið verkefni fyrir eina á vinnustaðnum sem er í svolitlum vandræðum með andlegt jafnvægi. Hér er ég a.m.k. spurður ef ég geti bætt á mig til að aðstoða annan. Ég játa því yfirleitt og raunar alltaf hingað til, því ég get (a.m.k. núna) og vil (yfirleitt) hjálpa til.

"The Rearden-syndrom" er merkilegt og ruglingslegt fyrirbæri og banvæn blanda samviskubits, umburðarlyndis þegar það á ekki að vera til staðar og almennrar hjálpsemi sem á yfirleitt að vera til staðar en þó alls ekki alltaf.

Difference in nature or in degree?

I have huge doubts about the existence of the State. However, I have grown up with having a State. My reason and my experiences and habits have a conflict about the State. Logically, the State is always a violator of the individual liberty. Historically, the State has taken upon its arms many functions in society that have rarely been given freedom since. Roles such as the Educator, the Doctor, the Priest and the Road-builder are more often than not played by the State. The Policeman and the Judge are roles even libertarians want the State to keep, even though everything else is set free.

But as complicated the debate is, the whole thing pretty much boils down to one thought: Is there a difference in nature or in degree by having many individuals, and many states/state institutions?

An example: I have to take a shit. I must do this alone (or have a nurse on a payroll). Every individual goes to the toilet alone. This is accepted. No-one, not even the biggest statist, pictures the State as having a role in the individuals' toilet trips.

Now lets jump over to law-enforcement. Almost everyone casts the State in this role, and exclusively so (give or take a few private security firms). But how come I don't even get the option of protecting myself? Most people prefer going to the toilet alone, but a few need help or want help. Most people prefer to have an agency or firm to protect their property and bodies, but a few want to do so without help. Why the huge separation of state-participation from one action or choice to another? Why the State's almost complete absence from one area of actions, and the complete monopoly for others?

I don't think the difference is logical. Taking a shit is a natural thing no-one can do without. Being protected from violence and theft is another one. Having a monopoly of the individual on one area and the State's on another has, I think, to do with nothing but habit. The difference is in degree, not nature.

A straight forward solution to the logical error of the different degree of State-participation: Abolish the State.

Capitalism in a free market society

I must strongly recommend this essay to every free-thinking individual. Its theme is capitalism and its popularity in a free market (capitalistic) society (or rather lack thereof). How come people can live in a wealthy, capitalist society and still look fondly at socialism and its offspring? Read and find out.

The Over-consuming Capitalist

We live in the age of consumerism, where new products meet new needs in new ways every day. We have computers with Internet-access, mobile telephones, iPods, mp3-players in trendy city-cars or four-wheel driving monster-jeeps, bleached hair, leather-jackets, flashy espresso-machines, flat-screen plasma televisions and so on and so on. We are drowning in money-spending options in almost every field and suffocating in consumption of things and stuff that has nothing to do with basic survival, and thank god for that!

But the hyper-consumption and variety of options has its limits. We can, on the average, not chose too many ways of medical treatment, education or ways of helping the poor and helpless. The government has taken the role of supervisor over our health, education and basic upbringing. The result is that no-one complains over "too many hospitals" or "too much education" or "too few people to help". In the areas of State-control, the general rule is a lack of options, as opposed to hyper-consumption on the free market.

And isn't that worth thinking about?

Stay home and don't work!

Europe has an immigrant-problem. The problem can be summarized as follows: Invite millions and millions of people to live in your country. Pay them so much social-welfare that they don't even think about entering the job-market. Lock them up in special ghettoes so they wont have any relations to the natives. Stamp on their religion and show them that they are not the norm in the country they live in. Raise a few generations like this. Then you have a problem.

The French riots are not a shocking event. They are the social-democratic immigrant-policy in action. They are one more step in French's downfall as an economic power in the world. They are the results from 50 years of European Leftism.

The constant fight against personal liberty

Decades and, in some cases, centuries ago, most Western nations drew themselves constitutions that stated clearly what the State can and cannot do. These fundamental rules were the fruits of hard work of countless thinkers, built upon the foundations of the individual freedom to act and speak in the manner he sees fit, as long as he harms no others freedom to do the same. The foundations of freedom to act, work, speak and own where the boundaries drawn for the State to respect, and never to cross.

These new rules of State-bounding worked like a charm, giving birth to the most prosperous and wealthiest countries in the world, where freedom to act was own was respected, and the natural and productive behaviour of free individuals flourished. Of course the Left never gave completely up, and Statists have always existed despite clear evidence that the State is the sand in the industrial-motor fuelled by human productiveness. Every attack upon the foundations of free constitutions has been made - from the freedom to act to the freedom to own (although, an attack on one is always - in logical understanding - an attack upon the other). The 20th century witnessed most of the disastrous results of such attacks, giving birth to horrors ranging from Hitler's Third Reich to the Swedish welfare-model. Every submission to the Statist's views leads, in one way or another, to human sufferings, less production, less wealth, lower living-standards and fewer opportunities to create valuable property where worthless raw-materials were before. Although the death-toll of each Statist's scheme varies greatly, the long-term effects turn out to be the same: The suffocating breath of Socialism killing off life and free initiatives wherever it's carried.

The modern schemes of Statists to seize control over human society have been adjusted to modern times. The welfare-model has recently seen its decline go into full swing, and desperately socialized countries such as Germany, Sweden and Denmark have begun to see the need to shake of the authoritarian ghost. Schools and hospitals are again being released to the free market, taxes world-wide have begun to sink, the free enterprise along with its twin - the private property right - are breaking down the walls of the toughest Communist states (China, Vietnam). Globalisation and the world-wide free market are freeing millions of individuals from the poverty-claws of Statism. Economic freedom measures higher and higher, year by year. The trend is in the positive direction, and desperate fighters of socialism, anti-globalisation, reduced personal freedom and private ownership and other such remnants of the old-school Left don't shut up, but their time is out.

The constant fight against liberty continues, but so must the battle for liberty. It took blood, sweat and tears to provide the Western world with constitutions of freedom to act, speak and own. It must never be left up for grabs for the Statists to destroy.