Two small (seemingly unrelated) quotations

Stern und Drang (about the so-called Stern-report, the latest/hottest of doomsday predictions): "The Review takes the A2 family of scenarios as being the baseline. This is what he bases all of his subsequent calculations upon and he calls it the 'business as usual' model or BAU. Furthermore, he adds to the effects, puts in a few feedbacks that the IPCC certainly doesn't include, extends matters out for a far longer period of time, uses those very low discount rates and......aieee! But it is made very clear indeed in the SRES that A2 is not the baseline, it is not the business as usual case. All forty of the scenarios are equally likely and all forty of them contain no mitigating actions at all. That's actually in their very definitions: so to choose one of them only is, as far as all of the other climate science that's going on, simply wrong."

Have We Outgrown Recessions? (context very clear after reading the following): "Recessions, which are set in motion by a tight monetary stance of the central bank, are about the liquidations of activities that sprang up on the back of the previous loose monetary policies. Rather than paying attention to the so-called strength of real GDP to ascertain where the economy is heading, it will be more helpful to pay attention to the rate of growth of the money supply."

Why Do You Decide?

It truly is a strange stand in politics (and in general) to expect that everyone can agree on something. It is rarely so. Two persons who buy the same toothbrush could perhaps agree that the particular kind of toothbrush is the toothbrush of choice, but perhaps their reasons for it are completely different. One was going for the price, the other for the color. One was thinking about the design of the toothbrush, the other just wanted a blue rubber handle.

The same applies for everything else. Lets say two people want to live in a neighborhood guarded by trained security guards. Does that mean they both want the State's Police force to stand the guard? No. Do they request protection from the same security firm? Maybe and maybe not, and perhaps or perhaps not for the same reasons.

It would be safer to assume that no-one agrees on anything rather than assume that some people agree on something for the same reasons. Indeed, no-one can agree on anything for completely the same reasons. We are individuals, all with our own preferences, budget, taste and whims. No-one can solve our conflicts and expect everyone to be satisfied. This is why we need a free market - in everything! A free market where everyone will simply purchase (or not) what they want, and make producers of services and products compete for our different tastes and preferences.

And for this reason and many others, the State must be abolished. Because we don't agree on the purpose and role of this monopoly industry.

Insane Welfare

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Perhaps that's something to keep in mind the next time we hear a call for more welfare spending.

Neatly said and something to actually keep in mind.

How Collectivism still survives

A nice little observation by Rothbard:

I do not believe it an accident that Karl Marx is considered one of the great hermeneuticians. This century has seen a series of devastating setbacks to Marxism, to its pretensions to "scientific truth," and to its theoretical propositions as well as to its empirical assertions and predictions. If Marxism has been riddled both in theory and in practice, then what can Marxian cultists fall back on? It seems to me that hermeneutics fits very well into an era that we might, following a Marxian gambit about capitalism, call "late Marxism" or Marxism-in-decline. Marxism is not true and is not science, but so what? The hermeneuticians tell us that nothing is objectively true, and therefore that all views and propositions are subjective, relative to the whims and feelings of each individual.

In short, Marxists and other opponents of the successful, wealthy societies in the world cannot resort to reason and logic anymore. They are forced to rely on a kind of "philosophy" that denies truth, facts, correct, wrong, true and false. They must rely on a state of mind that refuses to be wrong - and right! For them, "A" is not necessarily "A" if someone claims that "A" is "B".

I wonder if me claiming I have lots of money actually makes it be so, or if objective, physical reality is still among us somewhere?

Take that, Greenies!

"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!"(source)

An excellent point

Today I sat a lecture with Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe on behalf of the Copenhagen institute. The topic was Private Law society, e.g. a society without a State. In such a society, law is enforced by individuals, private protection agencies and insurance companies (that is our idea today anyway - who knows what individuals in a free society will come up with to produce security and protection?).

As always when this topic comes up, all kinds of questions arise from those who cannot think outside the box (before today, I was more or less one of those).

The following question was raised, which goes something like this: Could not the mafia (or a mafia-like organization) decide to make its area of dominion a mini-State so that no-one else can operate there in the field of protection?

Hoppe's answer was brilliant and goes something like this: Are we afraid to give up the State because there is a theoretical risk of a mini-State arising? Then why not give up the State to begin with?

This answer should more or less eliminates all what if-questions about the anarcho-capitalist ideology of a State-free society. If people accept the argumentation that declares that no State can be justified, then the next step should be clear: Drop the State altogether, because the worst thing that could happen is for a State to arise again! Don't refuse the cure because you might get sick again. A lesson learned now.

Education: Free and Compulsory - Mises Institute: "Savagery is uniformity. The principal distinctions are sex, age, size, and strength. Savages … think alike or not at all, and converse therefore in monosyllables. There is scarcely any variety, only a horde of men, women, and children. The next higher stage, which is called barbarism, is marked by increased variety of functions. There is some division of labor, some interchange of thought, better leadership, more intellectual and aesthetic cultivation. The highest stage, which is called civilization, shows the greatest degree of specialization. Distinct functions become more numerous. Mechanical, — commercial, educational, scientific, political, and artistic occupations multiply. The rudimentary societies are characterized by the likeness of equality; the developed societies are marked by the unlikeness of inequality or variety. As we go down, monotony; as we go up, variety. As we go down, persons are more alike; as we go up, persons are more unlike, it certainly seems … as though [the] approach to equality is decline towards the conditions of savagery, and as though variety is an advance towards higher civilization…."

Production must come before consumption

The Left doesn't get many things right. Sometimes it's the complex things the Left misunderstands, for example the effects of taxation on society, the importance of free trade for growth and the effects of excess money printing by the State. But it's not only the complex things the Left doesn't understand. For example, the Left does not in any way understand that production must come before consumption.

The reason the Left is in the dark when it comes to this is that the Left is focused on the division and manipulation of present wealth, and completely ignores the fact that wealth must first be created before it can be divided.

A Leftist will often say that he wants to improve society or the lives of the poor by removing wealth from its rightful owners and hand it out to others. How does the Leftist expect wealth to be created when the creators of wealth continually get robbed? How does the Leftist think that wealth can increase when the sources of wealth are continually being drained of incentives and liberty? Clearly, none of this concerns the Leftist. He will focus on present wealth and its distribution among different groups of individuals (for example, those likely to vote for the Left), and demand that rightful owners give up their property to satisfy the grand visions of the Leftist, where nobody earns according ability, but according to whims of society-shapers.

What if Freedom and Justice wouldn't work so well?

We know that Liberty is not only the only justifiable state of things, but also a very practical state (the far most practical for those who don't have politicians as friends and business-partners). No State can be justified without violence (which again can't be justified if we admit the self-ownership of individuals). No coercion and aggressive attacks against individuals and their non-aggressive communities can be justified. No tax is justifiable. No forceful legislation can be justified. No non-aggressive actions of individuals can be outlawed.

But justifying is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you also need examples, especially when trying to convince the masses of the ideal of Liberty. Thankfully, examples are in plenty. Empirical data, flawed that it is, is overwhelming when it comes to show how Liberty is superior to the State and its applications. Free economies blossom while socialist economies fade into stagnation and decay. Taxes decrease wealth and prevent individuals from earning their way up in standard of living and well-being. Regulations hurt companies and growth and create unemployment and result in relatively lower incomes (average income can be high or on the rise in a socialist economy, but only compared to its own previous norms).

However, when it all comes down to it it's not about the number of examples and empirical proof. It's about Liberty and it's friend, Justice. It's about supporting a free society of free individuals and fighting for its creation (re-creation in relative terms). Because what if Liberty would create poverty and aggression? What if Liberty would have the same effects socialism has on society? Of course it could never, but a thought-experiment is perhaps worth the while. Would we sacrifice Justice and Liberty if they created poverty and aggression? We haven't when it comes to socialism, but would we in the case of Liberty?

In the end all the statistics and data doesn't matter when choosing right from wrong. Thankfully, Liberty and Justice have all the evidence on their side (besides the logic of course), but that is the wrong focus to put on things (although a very practical when arguing with the Left).

Can Justice combine with Reality?

The State is an entity of force and legalized violence. It cannot be justified without justifying violence and coercion, and that cannot be done if we admit the self-ownership of every man over his own body (only by denying such self-ownership can a person be logically consistent when justifying the State; no further details about that offered at this point).

So given that a person owns his or hers own body, how are we to accept the presence of the State? And if we don't, does it make sense in reality? Isn't State coercion necessary to keep the peace among individuals and groups of them?

One approach is to say: I don't accept the State as a justifiable entity, but I don't imagine we can live without it.

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified. (#)

Personally, I think is a short-cut to a peace of mind. If the State can't be justified, but we can't live without it or imagine we can achieve its absence, then there must be a flaw in the argumentation (if libertarianism is so logically consistent and correct, why would it not win in the long run?). But there is no flaw in the argumentation (given acceptance of the individual exclusive ownership of his own body), so the proposal that anarchy won't work is simply wrong.

And when it comes to achieving it, we must not forget that a few hundred years ago everyone was considered a property of kings and queens and everything else was considered unthinkable. How would modern times look like if all hope of improvements were considered impractical and impossible to achieve in the minds of early libertarians philosophers?

Another approach to "tackle" the problem of Justice versus Reality is to accept the argumentation for a no-State society as logically consistent, but deny its consequences and simply accept the State as a necessary practicality. Any injustice can be "argumented" for by using this kind of reasoning. The State could for example hire men to purposely cause car-crashes because that would force people to use seat-belts, which is a very practical thing to do. Violence is then used as a tool to force people to protect itself from it. Un-justifiable State is then used to show the practical necessity of the State. This is a ridicule.

The only consistent policy is to deny the presence of the State and go head-on with those who wish to uphold it. The practicality of this action is immense. We remove dictators and violent men from the streets without hesitations, and don't have any problems with dealing with the resulting relative freedom from violence. The same applies for the violence of State-coercion.

Difference in acceptance

We are so used to an incompetent State that we are more or less willing to accept whatever it does or does not do for us and to us. No-one really blames the State for its incompetence. It's simply accepted as a natural phenomenon.

A different story can be told about people's tolerance for private companies. People expect service and products at the wave of a hand. This is of course a very natural demand and the foundation for private companies to build increased productivity and service improvements on. Those who fail to meet the consumer's demands fade away into bankruptcy. Others blossom.

People accept a waiting period of months for an operation at a State-run hospital or a piece of paper from the local authorities and know there is nothing to do about it. High taxes have been paid, services have been promised, but no-one expects a reasonable waiting period or expedient service (let alone quality service at a reasonable price). But when it comes to ordering an internet-connection or the services from a bank the coin is flipped. All wait is too long. Any delay is met with angry phone calls to customer services. All price hikes are given skeptical response.

Violence is clearly acceptable when the State does the beating.

How about that?

The relative freedom of the computer industry has led to an explosion of innovativeness and productivity. The same freedom in the energy industry will lead to the same result. (#)

A bold statement, but that doesn't make it false. Those industries that have had the least government-monitoring have historically been those industries that have prospered (or swiftly perished when they were no longer needed). This is no coincidence. When a politician shows interest in something it usually means that this something is in great jeopardy (at least when it comes to innovativeness and productivity).

Adam Smith turns Austrian

Here is a nice little observation usually expected in the writings of the Austrian School:

As many economists and philosophers have tried to point out, what people actually want is best discovered by observing what they actually do.

However, this is written on the Adam Smith Institute Blog, and that is refreshing.

Sometimes, attempts are made to avoid the necessary focus on the individual when it comes to preferences and choices. Adam Smith made many such attempts, he being a statist in number of aspects. We shouldn't be fooled by the arguments of the statists when they address their individual readers. The individual has preferences, makes choices and seeks to fulfil his needs. No other point can be legitimately made.

Greenies should love the free market

At present I am living in a relatively socialist country, namely Denmark. Sure enough, Denmark is a free-market economy where the government is put to place with a strict constitution and where the State is forced to take small steps to decrease individual freedom. Taxes are high and regulations many, but the free market is alive and doing well thanks to bounds put on the government.

A trendy thing among generally well-doing Danish city-people is buying "organic" food (food grown without use of artificial fertilizers, for example when growing grass or raising livestock). Organic food is expensive, but many Danish people buy it anyway. As a consequence, when demand is in place, supply comes flowing. Even the cheapest of supermarkets now present organic food-products on their shelves and compete in price with the more exclusive higher-priced stores that focus on the organic buying consumers.

This is what happens in a free market when there is demand for something. A couple of decades ago, organic food was hard to find and almost impossible to afford. Only the rich, well-to-do former-hippies could buy it. Now it is easy to find and easier to buy. The free market has supplied the anti-free market Leftist creed with the products of their choice for an affordable price.

The Greenies should, but don't, learn from this. If they only want organic food, they can simply buy organic food. If they want people to live in straw-houses and cut down on energy consumption, they can simply build straw-houses and use less energy. If they want the public schools to receive more funds, they can simply transfer money to the public school system. Their problems first become real problems when they ask the State to increase taxes and multiply regulations so that their will can be forced upon everyone else.

How would the market for organic food look like today if the State had actively moved into the subsizidition and production of organic food? Economic growth would have suffered, the average guy would have been made poorer, the market would have shrunken and organic food would have been less in supply and higher in price. The Greenies should really start to appreciate the free market! In the name of anti-free marketers wishes!

Is high quality not a market product?

Ludwig von Mises is (or was) one of the greatest minds of our known existence. I don't disagree with the man in any areas. Everything he has written and I have read makes perfect sense to me. So far, with only one exception.

Mises writes:

One of the great problems of capitalistic civilization is how to make high quality achievements possible in a social environment in which the "regular fellow" is supreme.

How is this a problem? It is basic knowledge that in a rich society (thereby capitalistic), more people can afford more expensive luxury than in a poor society. The higher arts are a form of luxury. Therefore, the "normal" individual in a capitalistic society is relatively rich and can afford to buy more expensive products AND arts than the one stuck in socialism and other forms of economically destructive systems.

Mises's worries might be explained by the fact that relatively fewer will indulge in the higher classic arts compared to the normal when mass-production takes over from the historically more common home-craftsman-ship. But relativity is a false measurement for popularity. Ask a 1000 persons about their favorite book and only a percent or so will say the same title. But that doesn't mean there is a lack of taste among the masses. It only means the competition for the "best" is hard, and that a massive number of excellent books is competing for the title.

Social contract, or theft?

Leftists sometimes "argue" for taxation by using the term "social contract". Democracy gets the same treatment.

But here's a nice little quote that puts things in perspective:

Suppose five robbers break into the home of a family of four. As the robbers are about to leave with the owners’ possessions, the owners object, on the grounds of private property rights. The criminals, being of a philosophical bent, are willing to engage in dialogue with their victims. Under the influence of Pipes, they are willing to hold a democratic referendum on the issue of whether or not it is justified for them to "take" the family’s household goods. The vote proves conclusive: five in favor (the thieves) and four against (the family members.) Would it make any difference if thereupon the gang stated that it was their intention to distribute their ill-gotten gains to the poor, and thus their motives were "benevolent"? Not at all. Theft is theft, and there need be no benevolence to it at all. (#)

I guess the "social contract" and democracy theory would say this: The family memebers in question happened to be in the same geographical are as the thieves, and have the bad luck of storing their the property in this area. When a number of voters greater than that of the property owners invaded the property, all discussions about who owns what and why came down to a vote, and like with democracy the winner takes all. Is that fair or just or just plain theft?

A few good reads on climate changes and related issues

"The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has just put the polar bear on the endangered species list because it is supposedly "facing extinction" -- mainly, it claims, as a result of global warming. But statistics show the polar bear is not facing extinction, not by a long shot."
The Bear Facts (TCS Daily)

"The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media."
Global Warming: The Other Side of the Story (Capitalism Magazine)

"In the end, a relentless campaign to extend political control over the world’s energy use is likely to fail, in part because, even if severe climate change is in our future, most people intuitively recognize that rhetoric about “the end of civilization as we know it” is inconsistent with human experience. Our distant ancestors survived an ice age with little more than animal skins, crude tools, and open fire pits. For all the talk of science and progress, the global-warming alarmists betray an astonishing lack of confidence in human creativity and resiliency. It’s almost as if the scientific community had abandoned the idea of evolution."
Acclimatizing: How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming (AEI)

Red or green, or does it matter?

I can't resist posting this beautiful paragraph. Seperation of it into smaller sections is mine:

"In my judgment, the "green" movement of the environmentalists is merely the old "red" movement of the communists and socialists shorn of its veneer of science. The only difference I see between the greens and the reds is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as "exploitation" and "monopoly." The greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer and global warming.

Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.

In my view, environmentalism and ecology are nothing but the intellectual death rattle of socialism in the West, the final convulsion of a movement that only a few decades ago eagerly looked forward to the results of paralyzing the actions of individuals by means of "social engineering" and now seeks to paralyze the actions of individuals by means of prohibiting engineering of any kind.

The greens, I think, may be a cut below the reds, if that is possible."
- George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

Dissection of: Unions

Unions are probably one of the most over-estimated inventions ever. They are credited for improved working conditions, for higher wages of workers and a general rise in living standards. The fact is that the opposite is true. Living standards, higher wages of workers and improved working conditions are not the result of the hard work of unions, but something that has been accomplished despite the presence of unions. A simple dissection of unions now follows:

Unions gather workers of a particular company, industry - even country - together as a single negotiator of salaries and benefits. In most cases they use force - sometimes politicians and their law and police - to force employers to raise wages and benefits for a large number of workers.

The employers respond to the extra expenses by reducing the number of available jobs, changing the way they attract new workers (from offering different wages and benefits to different individuals, to offering the same base-level package for all), and hold back on all increase in benefits and wage during times of huge profits, knowing that they will only have to pay up when the next strike is threatened.

This reduces the overall competition among employers for new employees and reduces the number of available jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive (good) employees have to change jobs or ask for higher wages on an individual basis.

The reduced number of jobs, reduced competition among employers for employees and among employees for available jobs boils down to one thing: Fewer opportunities at a higher price. This will not harm those who are protected behind law-protected unions, but everyone else will hurt, and society as a whole will suffer the greatest loss with a (relative) reduction in productivity and less flexibility in all areas.

Unions today have mostly lost their status in the free societies. That is why they now turn their eyes towards the developing world, asking for "fair trade" instead of free trade, and pressure politicians and ask consumers to punish those employers who employ people but don't follow the guidelines suggested by rich Western union leaders.

What is a crime?

I recently had an interesting discussion about what should be considered a crime and what not. Lies - should they be illegal? I say no. What about fraud? I say yes. There is a significant difference in nature between a lie and fraud. If I call myself the most attractive, well-spoken man in the world, I could be telling a lie, and sure enough that would be easy to prove to some chosen jury of 12 people. But I have committed no crime. If I tell everyone my neighbor is a child-molester I have committed no crime although I could not back up my case with evidence. At best I have injured my own reputation among those who heard my accusations, asked for evidence and received none.

A thought worthy quote:

If I take but a single cent of a man's property, without his consent, the act is a crime. But if two men, who are compos mentis, possessed of reasonable discretion to judge of the nature and probable results of their act, sit down together, and each voluntarily stakes his money against the money of another, on the turn of a die, and one of them loses his whole estate (however large that may be), it is no crime, but only a vice. (#)

If there is any role for man-made laws, created by a man-made State, then it is to protect individuals from physical attacks and theft or manipulation of their physical property. A lie does not fall within these borders. A moral or ethical code of law has no place within the State-apparatus. If I tell you that a house is safe and you move into it without any further checking of its structural capacity, and the house falls to the ground one week later, I committed no crime. But if I bribe a house-inspector to give the house the thumbs up, and sell the house on the notion that it has been checked for faults against collapse, then the simple lie turns into fraud, and a crime has emerged. Yes, even if the house does stay up.