A Little Historical Afterthought – Political satire in the shape of Psalm 23

Mr. Roosevelt is my shepherd,
And I am in want.
He maketh me to lie down on park benches,
He leadeth me beside still factories,
He disturbeth my soul.
He leadeth me in the paths of destitution for his party’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of the Depression,
I anticipate no recovery, for he is with me;
His policies, his diplomacies, they frighten me.
He prepareth a reduction in my income,
And in the presence of mine enemies,
He anointeth my small income with taxes;
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, unemployment, want, and poverty shall follow me all the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in a mortgaged home forever. Amen.

 

I cannot seem find the author or a proper original source for this, although my lazy 5 minutes of looking for one certainly doesn’t mean an author or proper original source cannot be found. If someone knows, please add it in the comments, and proper citation and respect shall be given. This piece has been around since the 1930s, obviously, yet every word still seems to ring true as we live and breath at this very point on this very day. That is exactly the type of political satire and poetry that I personally find both beautiful and historically important, and that is why I wish to share this. Please do the same. Cheers!

Getting Over Smoker’s Guilt: Overcoming the Stigmatizing Propaganda Against Tobacco Users

It’s now more than a year ago since I actively took up the hobby of pipe smoking, after having had much fun and pleasure from smoking cigars for quite some time. It might seem like a counter-cultural act to bring back what some regard as outdated, or just socially contrarian. Today, the majority opinion is that tobacco is a bane of society that has to be purged, by force if need be. Political forces work like ants behind the dark facade of government and bureaucracy to enact regulations, programs and laws that will throw tobacco smokers out on the streets and squeeze tobacco companies and tobacconists out of business.

Daily, we hear campaigns against tobacco smoking, where politicians and activists are actively putting a stigma on the back of everyone who abuses “cancer sticks”. The commercials are many – either you see lungs filled with tar, skin that is gray and weathered, fingers that are yellow and stubby, or rampant warnings lights while the word “cancer” is screaming in your face. The result from all of this is a social engineering of stigma against tobacco users; a government creation of discrimination and hatred. In the view of anti-smoking activists, smoking is an evil that people have every right to call you out on. Public schools will teach kids about the “dangers of tobacco” and urge kids to spread the word to their friends and family members. The victims of this stigma develop smoker’s guilt. They will try to keep their habit hidden, shying away from social settings in order to fulfill their need for some nicotine. They start to hate themselves for doing something thought of as disgusting, yet it’s hard for them to stop it, because they secretly enjoy it.

It’s very disturbing to see just how many who will admit to being a smoker, while doing so with a hint of shame and guilt in their voice. Not all have ambivalent feelings towards their habit, but many do. It seems like mentioning the topic of smoking will depress them, as it reminds them of every time someone has stigmatized them for their habit. One can only imagine how the words chanting in their head from all the anti-smoking activists, politicians, journalists, doctors and scientists makes them hate themselves for being voluntary “slaves” to something they grow to regard as inherently bad – as if being a smoker is a sign of poor character and immorality.

…And the worst thing is, most people think this is okay.

This angers me intensely. Not only is it immoral to impose your own preferences through the power of government, but stigmatization is also a very destructive tool to use in order to force through a political cause. While you may end up with some smokers who quit smoking (although these numbers are anything but impressive after decades of expensive tax-funded anti-smoking campaigns), many of the remaining smokers will develop guilt and depression because of their habit. This will arguably have a much more devastating and immediate effect on the individual than any of the possible health risks from smoking will have, leading to a range of other social problems that aren’t as easy to observe. If anything, it only stands to reason that if “good public health” was the main goal of anti-smoking activists, then active stigmatization is an extremely poor choice of strategy. The reality is that anti-smoking activists are only putting you and your habit down, because they themselves have made the choice of not smoking, and through a collectivist world view find it in their right to force others to make the same choice as well.

There exists, however, an individualistic remedy to overcome this stigmatization and remain proud and happy about what in essence should be a very positive and enjoyable hobby.

I mentioned to begin with that I myself have just over the last few years taken up smoking more and more, despite the ever increasing stigma against tobacco users. Am I simply a counter-cultural social contrarian? No, not at all. Being so would be irrational. None of my motivations for smoking tobacco came from this wish to simply do the opposite of what the wise overlords are telling me to do. My choice came from a complete disregard of any propaganda of the pros and cons of tobacco smoking. It was a completely individual, rational and personal choice, fueled by a lust to enrich my daily life with a joy and hobby that I could experience and enjoy both physically and mentally. For instance, the collection of pipes is a long lasting project, where purchases are made not only for short-term enjoyment, but also long-term fun and interest. As such it has a deeper meaning to it, rather than it just being a meaningless anti-trend statement. There is a great excitement in trying new tobaccos with new flavors, going through the meditating routine of packing your pipe, checking the draw, doing a false light, then a proper light, puff it a few times to get the flavors going, and feel the gentle taste of the smoke roll across the tip of your tongue and through your entire mouth, before attempting to blow smoke rings.

It’s much more than just feeling the buzz from the nicotine. It’s a source for great joy and relaxation. You are able to collect yourself from all the pressure that life put on your shoulders, and just take a little bit of time to experience something different and develop a skill and taste that is completely your own. There is a sense of beauty to all of this, and that beauty is something that can never be brought down by any means of stigma or hatred.

(Image by Pipesmagazine.com)

As such, the stigma that is actively being put on smokers does not affect me.

The overarching goal in anyone’s life should always be to achieve happiness. You only have this one life to experience happiness, so you’d do well in making use of all the tools at your disposal. If you are a smoker suffering from smoker’s guilt, then you are left with two choices: Quit smoking immediately, or changing your mindset and cultivating tobacco smoking as a source for something good in your life, embracing it with pride and conviction. Most tobacco users suffering from smoker’s guilt are likely cigarette smoker. I would like to suggest the following to you:

Rather than trying to quit smoking, how about delving deeper into the world of tobacco and try to make it a fun hobby? Tobacco is very much like beer, wine and spirits – yes, you can abuse it, but you also have a vast source of enjoyment to find inspiration from. It’s all about having the right mindset. You could for instance try a new brand of cigarettes/tobacco each time you buy some more, in order to explore the flavors the tobacco gives. There is no point in being brand loyal in what should be regarded as fun experimentation. Also, the price difference between cheaper brands and more exquisite brands are limited. And even if you’re on a strict budget, there are more than enough possibilities to get you started with, without having to blow away all your money.

I would also suggest you explore the world of tobaccos beyond cigarettes, like cigars and pipe tobacco. These ways of enjoying tobacco have had the pleasure of being cultivated as a part of finer culture for hundreds of years, where purity and taste have been in the main seat all along. Here you will find a whole new range of tastes and experiences, and there are also lots of fascinating things to learn. Pipe smoking, for instance, also adds the fun activity of pipe collecting and caring for your pipes. If you would like to combine tobacco smoking with a relative health benefit, then proper cigar- and pipe smoking is also a fairly good compromise. Regardless what your preferences are, you will certainly find inspirations at your local tobacconist, or at a tobacco store online.

By trying some of these things for yourself, smoking will always be something fresh and interesting. You will learn how different types of tobaccos give you different experiences, and you will find tobaccos and brands that better suit your taste, reshaping your habit into making it about cultivating something good. Most importantly, you will find many like minded individuals on your way. You will feel better about yourself and stand proud and steadfast in the face of those who wish only to bring you down.

As a result, tobacco smoking in itself has many more potential positive effects than negative ones, and perhaps even some unexpected ones, as noted by Bertrand Russel, himself an avid pipe smoker his whole life. The stigmatizing propaganda by the nanny statists is something you should rise above, as overcoming such stigmatization is imperative to a healthy individualistic life. Remember, you only have one life to achieve happiness. There is no time to lose.

As an ending remark, I would like to quote Jeffrey Tucker, who echoes this sentiment in his essay “Bring Back the Breakfast Drink”:

Everyone knows the rule: drink no liquor before noon. How insufferable such advice is! It has caused morning drinkers to hide their habits, deny them when confronted, and otherwise feel like they are doing something wrong or immoral or socially intolerable, a combination which leads to other forms of pathology.

It is time for them to stand up and proclaim themselves and their habit as the noble act it is. All over the world, there exists a grand tradition of including a bit of spirits with one’s breakfast, or at least a bit of beer or wine. How tragic that those who struggle mightily to uphold this practice are reduced to doing so alone, enjoying their pleasure only in the privacy of their own kitchen for fear of inviting public humiliation.

The Dangers of Exclusion and the Evils of Collectivism: Why Individualism Is the Remedy Against Terrorism

On July 22nd, 2011, Norway was struck by an act of terrorism and witnessed an unfathomable slaughter of innocent children and young adults on an island in East Norway. We have all read the news and we have all heard the tales of the evil that was brought upon innocent people that day.

Most people in Norway are still mourning the loss of their dear ones, and the wounded are still fighting to make it through. All our thoughts are with them in these tough times, and the sorrow they endure is something we hope no one will have to endure ever again. That is why we need to learn from what has happened and become stronger because of it. We need to fathom the unfathomable. As we are able to get some sort of distance to it all, and been able to reflect over the tragedy, we do see a glimpse of what the truth is in all of this. A manifesto (basically a cut-and-paste collection of many intellectual and meaningful works and pieces of literature – some of them even very good, others very bad) has been released. The manifesto is a collection of many incoherent ideas and opposing schools of thought, put together in a collectivist and conspiratorial way by one man and his world view.

In this scrap book of thoughts and influences, among the many over-lining topics that he focuses on, there are some parts that show the biggest inconsistencies, and that I feel needs to be brought up. He sees himself as an anti-collectivist, and he also do make some references to very good libertarian, classical liberal and objectivist literature (although it should be noted that he also references a lot of neo-conservative and even some communist and socialist literature, but that’s not the topic now). Does this mean he was a terrorist actually working in the name of individualism, or is he mixing up his terminology, just as he’s mixing up his influences in his creation of his own world view?

I think it’s a distinct quality of collectivism and a collectivist world view that enables a man to fully identify himself with some greater force, and to then feel justified to wage a war between the one force and another. In Anders Behring Breivik’s case, he thinks of himself as part of a pan-European mono-ethnic force that is under attack by Islamic colonists and their Marxist collaborators. He theorizes about a possible civil war between these two forces, and he thinks of himself as a pioneer in this war, and is certain he will be remembered as a hero in the future. Knowing this, you’d have a hard time arguing for him being a true individualist. He is 100% a collectivist by any measure of the word. It makes a lot more sense to me that when he speaks of anti-collectivism, he puts that in context of anti-globalism and anti-multiculturalism – he does not want his own collective sharing anything with other “enemy” collectives under a broader regulatory welfare collective. As such, he does not seem to understand the true meaning of the word, and he most certainly is not an individualist.

An individualist could turn to self-defense and could in such a situation take the life of someone, sure, but an individualist would be completely unable to launch an attack against an imagined class or group of people, in the name of his own imagined class or group of people, because that’s not the way individualists see the world. You can probably find killers in any society (and some more so than in others), and I’m certain there can still be deadly crime in an individualist world. We’re all still human. But only collectivists can be mass-murderers and terrorists, because a collectivist world view is a very distinct quality of a mass-murderer and a terrorist.

Now we can make an attempt on a remedy (which I wasn’t able to see in the middle of this tragedy, but after reading an article by Norwegian blogger Onar “Onarki” Åm it all became very clear and obvious to me, and I was able to structure my own thoughts in this article because of it): Having an open society that is able to include all sorts of opposing, alternative and even extreme opinions. That does NOT mean agreeing with them all, but simply to let them be heard in the public sphere, bring them into the conversation and always meet them with rational and logical arguments. I know us libertarians and classical liberals have a really hard time being heard in the modern socialist power house that is the world today, and some of us have felt how it is to be squeezed out, vilified and stigmatized. This was the content for my Bachelor Thesis in Sociology, Spring 2011 (I focused on people identifying themselves as classical liberals and objectivists), and stigmatization of political minorities is very much a reality, especially in Social Democratic Norway. People who are not among the general majority of political opinions will always experience a stigma that is to some unbearable. If you push them far enough and hate them enough, there will come a time where they will “snap”. This have happened with Islamist terrorists, and this have now happened with a guy in Norway, who have long tried to speak about his distaste for Muslim immigration to Norway and Europe, but has never been heard – not even been talked to. A crusader-fixation was his desperate and twisted way of being heard. It’s like a stigmatized nation getting hold of Nuclear Weapons in order to be taken seriously.

Now, as I mentioned, there is a very good reason why true individualists (like libertarians, classical liberals and objectivists) cannot become terrorists in such a situation of stigmatization that we find ourselves in. Our own opinions and world view inhibit us from thinking in such directions. Individualism makes us morally unable to, and it’s also completely against our own self-interests. We will always continue the long and hard road ahead of us by trying to spread the word of liberty and freedom in peaceful terms, and hope to turn a few over to our side as we go along. We are wired that way, and we would not be individualists if we weren’t wired that way. A collectivist, however (and perhaps also altruistic as such), can see it as both justified and in his own self-interests to take a bunch of lives (and maybe also his own) for his own warped imagery of the greater good. To him, one life does not matter. To him, the unalienable rights of fellow men and women does not exist. All he see is the greater good and people as pawns in a game much greater than themselves. All individualists must reject any such notion, and as such becomes the greatest opposite to acts of terrorism.

It’s certainly a pity that Breivik brings a bad name to good literature on his way into the history books, and it’s just another way for the majority to put a stigma on more minorities through guilt by association, and let me just make it clear that it’s a completely natural answer to such atrocities, but it’s also the wrong answer. More openness, inclusion and debate is the real answer! If we were to believe our Prime Minister here in Norway, this is actually what we’re gonna work for, but if we were to believe all newspapers and many individuals in Norway, we will see a stigma put on the backs of many innocent people in the years to come. I can see that the work for libertarians and classical liberals in Norway will become much harder, as we’re far outside the political majority, but hopefully we will be able to show that we are right in the end. I know I will fight even harder for individualism, liberty and freedom, because I know it’s the real remedy against such atrocities that we have endured, and I do not ever want to see them happen again to anyone.

Here We Go Again! Recession 2.0 = A New Great Depression

A couple of years ago the recession struck and everyone were paralyzed. When I say “everyone”, I of course only mean the mainstream nitwits. There were enough of those who warned about the imminent collapse. It was coming, and sure as hell it did.

It didn’t, of course, end there. The same people who warned us first time around also warned that if central authorities would continue what they were doing, we were sure to face something much worse very soon. Of course the wise overlords in Washington didn’t listen, and the FED has been forking out those dollars like never before. Needless to say, it hasn’t been working, and the day the world would realize this were coming at any time.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that time might be right ahead of us as we speak. People with the Austrian School and people who identify with it are in strong opposition to mainstream economists and the FED, saying the response after the recession was the wrong one, and that we are not at all recovering from the financial crisis. All the measures by Washington merely dulled the pain temporarily, and the phoney recovery will plummet to earth in the near future.

It seems like that near future may very well be very near, indeed. As explained by Goldsilver.com, associated with The Wealth Cycle Principle and Mike Maloney, the decline in the banking sector was setting the stage for the recession. It was an early warning sign that a crash was ahead. Those with a broad and correct understanding of economics saw this pattern fall together with what they see as a system built to fail and warned that we were facing an economic crisis.

Today’s economy is overwhelmingly driven by borrowed money.  Whether it is a home mortgage, car loan or simply a nice dinner put on a credit card, in a credit based economy (like we absolutely have today) this bank credit is what makes the economic wheels turn.  If the banks aren’t doing well enough to loan aggressively, not as many loans are made and the economy slows.  So the banking sector is a very important part of our economy to keep a close eye on.

Apparently, the banking sector is showing the same warning signals as it did many months before the last recession.

Even though the stock market has had a nice bounce, the bank stocks are not keeping up with this stock bounce. Compare the charts above again and notice the bank versus S&P 500 chart has bounced along sideways since summer of 09 and have not confirmed the S&P 500 bounce.  Unless the banks join the party quickly we should be in for another very serious round of stock declines or a crash.

Looking back on the article I wrote on President Obama and the coming ’12 election, I was wondering if the central authorities in Washington would be able to push the coming depression enough ahead of them to secure a victory. Well, the next year will be a very exciting one. Will the markets crash before election day or not? What will the FED do with these glooming warning signals? They were rumored to end QE2 over summer, but how is that even likely when things are starting to take a turn for the worse?

When politicians give us a second recession, one facepalm is not enough.

The false recovery was just that; False. It was doomed from the start, but those who thought “we have to do something” and others who currently think “we have this under control” are all missing the very obvious point: You cannot shape the future by your will alone. You lack the tools to know what’s right at all times. Government can only spend stolen money, and the FED can only print new ones. They know nothing about creating businesses; keeping productivity; meet market demands or dealing with constant government regulations.  What is the ultimate outcome by both these actions? They waste resources and place the burden on those who will inherit the system a few years down the line – ultimately the people, under the pretense of helping them. They can only steal resources, destroy savings and weaken the dollar, all of which are detrimental to economic recovery and the prosperity of the ordinary men and women in America.

What do I think? I think the FED will continue with a QE3 and 4, and it seems like others agree. Gloom and doom is ahead, and there will be more stimulus packages. Will the New New Deal perhaps even nationalize banks and private institutions, as proposed by everyone’s best friend, Paul Krugman? Certainly, if President Obama were to win the next election, I’d say the answer may very well be “yes”. The recession never ended. The depression is upon us. You would do well in securing those silver coins while you still can. If not only securing you current savings, it might even earn you a good deal of money as precious metals shoot towards the sky as everything else fall apart. And it might make life a lot easier too, cause I’ve heard it’s bothersome to fill the backpack with paper money when going to the store to buy a piece of bread. Especially when the price has risen to two backpacks since yesterday. You might want the silver coin at that time; the silver coin that says “1 dollar”, but will end up being worth more than a billion of them if hyperinflation kicks in. Ask some people in Zimbabwe. They can probably testify to that.

Yes, there are exciting times ahead. Exciting, but frightening too. The coming presidential election just got that much more important. Do me a favor, Americans: please vote Ron Paul, will you? Thanks.

Is the Austrian School Getting Tired of Being Right, Yet Not Heard?

Government needs to stop wasting all the € toilet paper in Greece (Image by Neil T via Flickr).

Just watched the news here in Norway about how Greece is asking the European Union for another stimulus package to deal with the bust and economic crisis they suffered a while ago, but as usual they offered no questions or investigations and simply mindlessly reported whatever they’re fed.

So what are people missing here? What is the most fundamental and most important question that “TV2 Nyhetskanalen (The Norwegian TV2 News Channel)” completely failed to ask and examine when reporting this case?

There are probably many great questions they could ask, but I would expect this much: “Why did the first stimulus package fail, and why should it follow that another stimulus can do what the first one obviously couldn’t?”

You cannot print yourself to prosperity and economic growth – not real growth in a sound economy in any case. The greek government had taken grossly advantage of the situtation up until their crisis – with a big majority of the nation on the government’s payroll. They were wasting resources and spending themselves to poverty. Yes, that’s right – simply spending all you have would do that. This applies for both individuals and governments, you know. Their government spent loads of money and warped the economy into a disaster. Upon this crisis the European Union with their central bank shipped a bunch of euros down to the old birthplace of the western civilization. Things seemed to quiet down a little. People thought Greece would do what was necessary to restructure their economy and get back to economic austerity, but as many Austrians and economic know-hows explained early on: This had been a great opportunity to do what is right and get rid of some bad government and start becoming responsible again, but it was wasted and things were just business as usual when Germany and the European Union decided to shoot the greeks up on heroine again and delay their long needed rehab.

Now it seems like the greeks have run out of their shipment of heroine and goes begging to their dealer to cut them some slack and give them some more – promising that they’ll soon get things in order, start producing and give something back. Are we at all surprised? Are Austrian economists getting tired of being vindicated by the cold facts of contemporary history yet again, without anyone else noticing what is flashing red right in front of them?

Quite honestly, I think Greece will whine to the European Union about another stimulus package until the Union will listen and provide them with what they think is the correct way of dealing with problem – surely sending their Union currency into oblivion hand in hand with the US dollar. Greece will probably shut up for a while, but only until they’re back to where they left off. Then it’s back to climbing onto the backs of their productive german friends again.

When will the world finally learn? Germany needs to teach Europe some of that economic german discipline, or else they’ll get dragged into the mud along with all the ignorant drug addicts in Europe.

The Synergy of Libertarianism and Sociology

On a libertarian group on Facebook, someone asked if the teachings of sociology were in opposition to the ideals of libertarianism and free will, where sociology teaches us we base our actions on the input from those around us, and that all our choices are influenced by social interactions and social contexts, and went to ask how libertarians felt about this sociological knowledge.

I felt compelled to answer, and I thought I could supply the same answer here.

Whether or not social interaction and society around us influences us and ultimately limits or shifts our values and effectively guides our choices is pretty much a given. People are social animals.

However, that does not contradict the libertarian ethos of individual rights and personal freedom, and a belief in free will. I hold the non-aggression-principle high, because it’s moral and just. I hold private property rights high, because it’s moral and just. I hold the respect for my fellow Men high, because it’s moral and just. I expect people to respect me, my choices, my personal freedoms and property, because it’s moral and just.

My values and choices beyond this can easily be affected by others, because that’s part of what I am. But that does not belittle my own free will. If anything it underlines its strength. If we defined by our humanity would not have complete authority of our selves as individuals, then we would not have the option of breaking free of evil influences if that was all that surrounded us. We must have the opportunity to choose our influences and social contexts, or else we most certainly would perish. Because of this, the fact that we are influenced by those around us and those who brought us up proves to me the strength of our own free will.

What of the poor souls who were surrounded by nothing but lies, but still could see the deceptions that had been fed to them? They are numerous throughout history, and we have much to thank them for. They gave us the Age of Enlightenment, they gave us liberty and capitalism, and once and for all proved that we can choose a free life. Somewhere along the way we may have lost it, but the words of liberty spread across the world like never before and will never be forgotten. If people had no individual preferences or ability to choose for themselves, then such ideas could not spread.

So to sum it up: We are influenced by others, because we’re social animals – and that’s the study of sociology, but we have reason and free will which enable us to choose among those influences, because we’re human – and that’s the study of philosophy.

I know all too well that the field of sociology is made up by collectivist thinkers; marxists, socialists, social democrat-leaning liberals and statists. There is a religious belief in the good of authoritarian rule – as long as it is the rule for good. The way I see it, all the social injustice and problems of society that sociologists do well in identifying and try to fight against are attributed to state authority and a lack of respect for freedom and private property. They wish to use the same authority to do good, and blatantly ignore the fact that you cannot do good with evil. A belief in the system of government authority over economic and social questions will doom us into never finding the right answer, and that is the bane of sociologists today.

There does exist a call for a field of sociology that develops a different understanding of the State, that can be based in the libertarian and objectivist philosophies. The problems of society are the symptoms of the disease of government, and the best sociologists are the ones who make the proper diagnosis.

The Exploitation of the Proletariat

There is a common misconception when it comes to the elite’s exploitation of the working class. We normally think of it as the rich; owners of capital, the capitalists; the bourgeoisie, stepping on the little man. Marxist theory is interesting in its own sense, although I can’t say I hold a sliver of respect for marxists, but it can indeed be said to have a slight supernatural tone to it, as there are elements in marxist thought you cannot truly account for. A weakness in a lot of macro-sociology is exactly this — you can never know everything you need to know to make a proper theory of society. That is not to say it isn’t fruitful to advance our understanding of society. I may be biased to think this, as I enjoy sociology a lot, but I honestly think sociology has a lot of great knowledge to offer us, and that a sociological view point is an important element in understanding human interaction and how society functions.

But that is not the topic I wish to discuss here. As the topic implies, what I would like to talk about is simply the exploitation of the working class – or rather: ordinary people.

Many people – and indeed marxists – tend to refer to capitalism as some sort of evil force that tears down the fabric of society; something we need to overcome and put behind us. We are supposed to make the world a better place, where capitalists cannot exploit the ordinary man. And who are these capitalists? Business owners, CEOs, people in high positions in the corporate structure. Perhaps owners of smaller and middle sized companies as well? Those earning more than $200’000 a year? There are a lot of class theory and standards that will claim to identify these persons, but certainly, they are mostly private business owners who have people working under them.

Having identified the capitalists, try to “taste” the words “exploitation of the working class”. These business owners are exploiting the ordinary workers. We are made to think that business owners are evil, and that workers are good and innocent.

Yes, workers are good and indeed mostly innocent as well, although some would say that ignorance does not equal innocence, but I feel that this is a somewhat negative way of putting it, as it seems to imply that most people are stupid or cynically ignoring to seek knowledge. Ignorance often means that you are kept away from knowing. Not necessarily intentionally by anyone, but it simply means that you will never hear about the things that you are ignorant about, ’cause how can you know what to look for if you don’t even know it exists? Either way, society needs workers. We all do. Most of us will always have to be workers, or else we will not be able to fulfill the basic materialistic needs we have in society. And exactly because society need workers, we – ordinary people – will always be ignorant of who the exploiters are.

Who are the exploiters? Are they the business owners of the world; the corporate fat cats that will do everything to squeeze the world for another drop of oil to have an even more decadent life style? The sentence “exploitation of the working class” implies this when it goes on to identify the exploiters as the bourgeoisie. This has become common knowledge of sorts.

But is this true? Answer these questions: Who would create jobs if it were not for business owners? Could we create jobs out of thin air? If there weren’t any entrepreneurs around to come up with business opportunities to cash in on, who could really come up with new jobs that people could fill? No one. And if we wouldn’t have any jobs to fill, how the heck would we be able to survive? How could we enjoy this piece of technology that you’re reading this with, if it weren’t for entrepreneurs and business owners? It would be impossible to truly imagine how this could even have come about if it weren’t exactly for those richer of us who placed resources into the field where they would see opportunities to make a profit and create sustainable jobs.

So are they exploiting people? You could make the argument that you are not allowed to keep what you create, and that a job contract is a contract where you are selling your work undervalued, because what you produce is worth more – or else the company wouldn’t make a profit, and that you aren’t given any of the spoils of your hard work. This, however, ignores the broader picture. You are indeed given the right amount of fruits for your labor. To be able to keep up the whole corporate structure, you will always have to sell the product for more than what it cost to produce it, and profits are made so that they can create sustainable jobs and expand their companies. If the company couldn’t do this, you wouldn’t have a job, and no salary, and there would be no labor to enjoy the fruits of. Business owners are the saviors of society. Their eye for opportunities keep up the lifestyle of the ordinary men and women, and the prospect for profit is the only incentive that keeps them looking. Without a profit, no creation of jobs. It’s that simple. The bourgeoisie exploitations of the proletariat is a myth. It simply is not the case.

Yet, there does indeed exist an exploitation of workers today. More properly put: it is an exploitation of all of us, even corporate fat cats. There aren’t many that knows how to avoid the exploitations, although it can be done to a certain point, but we all fall victim to it one way or another. And who are the exploiters?

The State.

Consider this: What can government create and offer society? Are public sector jobs sustainable? From where does the state collect its income? If you think about these questions and try to answer them, you will see a pattern emerging, and one simple conclusion arise. The government cannot create anything. It can only take resources from the productive sector of the economy and place it in the unproductive sector of the economy. What you’re left with are “meaningless” resource-moving jobs that only survive on taxes and public support – not on profit, productivity or sustainability, and all government has to offer are the same taxes in return to the public in shape of different types of cushy benefits. Taxes it had collected from society through theft in the first place.

If you truly think that government is beneficial to the economy when it takes 40% of what the private sector earns and spends it on things we (and I mean all of us) wouldn’t voluntarily otherwise ask for, how much more beneficial would it be to tax 60%, 80% or even 99%? I assume it must follow that at 99% it would be extremely beneficial? Of course not. No one thinks this. But at the same time, not very many seems to see the connection that 40% taxes means there are 40% fewer resources left to be put into creating productive and sustainable jobs and innovations. Indeed, the public sector only lives at the mercy of the private sector. If there were no business owners and entrepreneurs to create new jobs, there would be no jobs to tax for the public sector, which means there would be no government. But would the people in the public sector be without jobs? Of course not. The private sector always seeks to grow. If it could keep the 40% that government steals, it would be able to create more jobs from these resources; and they would always do it in a much more productive and more sustainable way than government ever could. That is why in a free market society there would always be too few unemployed, because our wants are always greater than our needs, and we will create as much as we possibly could and it would never be enough, always becoming richer and always creating new jobs on the way. It should be clear at this point who the exploiters are and who aren’t.

But no matter who you think are the exploiters of the society, there can only be one type of people at the very top, and whoever controls government will always be these people, and they will enact that control in their own self interest. Herein lies the danger, because they want power; that’s why they’re there, and the power they have is over all of us. The State is the master exploiter of society, and workers and business owners are all slaves that are forced to “give” away part of the fruits of their labor, in order to not have all of their fruits taken away from them. 40% taxation equals 40% state-run slavery.

It is therefore in the government’s best interest to scapegoat business owners as the exploiters, when it is indeed government that do all the exploitation. Now of course, that is not to say that our leaders and regulators are willfully and intentionally doing bad things against everyone. They believe they do good, and I would even say they have their best intentions at heart for all of us. They aren’t intentionally misleading people and creating a big charade that we blindly take part of. It is important to understand that it is the system itself that make this the natural outcome. It is tempting to think of the system as its own consciousness, but you shouldn’t. Society is nothing but the individuals that make up the system, after all. It is more accurate to think that the system traps us in a special set of incentives that makes all of society self-delusional. We will not be able to see that the system is at fault, unless we are educated about it, but if people aren’t aware of the true problem, how will they be able to seek the knowledge? It is not easy to break out of the bubble, because we are all players in the system; a system of government control over economic and social questions. Like brainwashed people on the inside of a twisted cult, we are all ignoring the one and only obvious conclusion: the source of all our pains and worries is the system of government itself, and the system is what creates incentives for us to fight each other, rather than peacefully cooperating to better our lives.

What do I think? The only true solution for peaceful human cooperation is true capitalism – the voluntary exchange of goods and services. In the words of Milton Friedman:

“The free market system (…) is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”

Indeed, the ones who keep us from total exploitation; the ones that try their best to set us free, are the capitalists, and people everywhere should embrace capitalism as our best bet to obtain and secure freedom, prosperity and peace.

And So the Race Starts Picking Up Heat

Republicans are slowly lining up trying take jabs at President Obama lately,  shaping themselves into probable candidates for the upcoming primary elections. A couple of weeks ago, the CPAC straw poll released their numbers on possible contenders, revealing Congressman Ron Paul as the definite winner a second year in a row. It’s quite evident that the Congressman is likely to be cheered on by supporters to take part of the race, regardless of his plans to do so or not.

But it is the person coming in second in the CPAC 2011 straw poll, Mitt Romney, who is the first to kick off the field of potential candidates before the upcoming primaries. From an awkward campaign in 2008, Mitt Romney seems to have revised his platform before a new election season starts, sharping his pencils on attacking what for the first time in decades will be an election almost exclusively based on the topic of the economy. It will surely be the only topic worth talking about for the next two years. The wars in the middle east will not matter, the immigration issue will not matter, American relationships with China, Russia and Europe will not matter. Domestic fiscal policy is where all the debate will all be at, and Mitt Romney has realized this as well. The former businessman and Governor of Massachusetts is already starting to front himself as the only viable candidate to take on President Obama, performing the rhetoric of ethos to a tee.

Former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney (Image from Wikipedia).

But is ethos a good measurement for a trustworthy and strong candidate? Generally, voters tend to like a character that is able to talk himself/herself up as the right person to the task, while still being able to appeal to the emotions of voters. But that says nothing about how much you can trust a politician, or how certain you can be that he or she will do what they said during their campaign. A trustworthy politician is the one who appeal to the logic and reason in voters, and has the track record to back that up. Mitt Romney showed none of these traits in his 2008 bid, and neither has he done so while warming up this year. I’ve seen that many people on forums and Facebook groups seem to like his aggressive take on President Obama and the economy, and while it can be said to be promising, can we really trust his words? Is he truly the right man for the job?

Sure, Romney may sound good right now before he is confronted on the issues, but even if he were to answer satisfactory on everything the media would throw at him, I don’t think he will stay true to his words one single bit. There’s nothing in his character that puts him apart from any other ordinary politician, and that’s just the way it is with flip-flopping self-hyping politicians. G. W. Bush had a lot of great things to say back in ’99-’00 too, but he ended up screwing people over and changing his policies immediately after getting into office. President Obama, like all presidents before him (except Bush’s second bid for the presidency) promised to bring change to Washington, but he has arguably brought nothing but more of the same. With this in mind, how can you trust a person that for some reason has been working for the past 2 years with an intent to seem more electable? What has Romney to show for that makes him a trustworthy candidate that offers a real alternative to what is already there? Nothing. It’s a charade.

People everywhere need to start electing trustworthy politicians – those who walk the walk. And for Republicans, this does not mean Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or most of the other would-be-candidates that people throw around at this point. They are all sheep in wolf clothing. You might think I have that backwards, but no, that’s exactly what I mean. America doesn’t need another pretend-wolf president that will simply follow the norms of the sheeple in Washington. America should seek a lonesome wolf – one who walks the walk, stands firm on his principles, has worked to spread the message of freedom to people for years, and has the track record to back up his will to do what is necessary, and not get consumed by the usual political games of Washington. You all know who I’m talking about.

Related Articles

• Mitt Romney: ‘Obamacare Is Bad Law’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Romney takes direct hit against Obama (cbsnews.com)

The Future For Education

Everybody usually agree that education is important to give our kids. This is why many countries fund public schools in order to give every kid, both rich and poor, the ability to educate themselves and increase the prosperity of their country. Private schooling is often seen as an elite business that only the rich can have. While this may have been the case 150 years ago, it’s not true any longer. Exactly because everybody agrees that education is important for our kids, there would exist a market for educating all of them at an affordable price. Education doesn’t have to be expensive. It can be done cheap, and still be of high quality and perfected to the individual.

The weakness of public schooling is that it’s one single model – one size fits them all. The gifted children are being dragged down by the less gifted children, and those with learning problems cannot keep up with the rest of the class and find education frustrating. This leads to lazy children without discipline who end up not learning very much. I still remember the days at school, and the single most notable thing I remember from those days were how crowded, rowdy and undisciplined it all was. I would try to sit and soak up whatever I could of what the teacher said, trying to make the hours at school worthwhile, while ignoring those who obviously wouldn’t care, but it’s not that easy for everyone, and it’s hardly a cost-effective system.

I grew up in Norway, and before going to University I went through 12 years (9 years primary and 3 years high school) of education in what is called “likhetsskolen” in Norwegian. “The equality school”, or perhaps even “the egalitarian school” – not necessarily equal in rights and value, but equal in skills and abilities. All who are of the same age are crammed into the same classroom of up to about 30 kids, regardless of abilities. You know the drill. The teachers do not wield with discipline or structure, and the result is thereafter. To be honest, it’s chaos – perhaps only beat by American urban public schools in low-income neighborhoods. So I believe I know a thing or two about how dreadful the experiences of a public school system can be.

It’s unsustainable. It’s a waste of time, money and effort. Teachers are taught bad methods and aren’t given authority or challenges. Needless to say, the same is the case for the kids. It simply cannot go on any longer.

What do I think? If we cannot get people to understand that we need to create a free market in education, we need to change the system from within to save what possible future there is for our kids in the public schooling system. We need to individualize and reorganize. I think the future for education lies in open source education material and individualized education with one child – one computer. While you may think buying a bunch of computers will be expensive and impossible, try to think about how far we’ve actually already come in the wasteful public school system with computer labs and even laptops for children? Taking that into consideration, think about how extremely much you could save if no schools would have to buy another text book. Imagine the savings. How would they get their material? Digital! With the great progress in computer technology as of late, and after I learned about Curikki, I immediately understood what the future is. Why do we for instance reproduce old textbooks in maths and reading that have been the same for a hundred years? Why do we print them up in endless amounts and buy new books each and every year? Why are there so many different books created that aim to do the exact same thing? It’s wasteful. How can it be different? Easy solution: Create open source material available on the Internet. Create software for computers that can limit all its functions to educational purposes and have each kid sit in their own “bubbles” in front of the computer and do math, science, history, social sciences etc at their own level. The whole class doesn’t have to do the same thing at the same time. They can progress through the curriculum on an individual basis, with teachers and assistants going around helping the kids. No longer do you have to divide the year into semesters. Kids can learn at their own pace. Why should we stop a kid from excelling two levels in one year if they are able to and want to? They can strive for success and to get high scores, without the teacher having to “tone down the competitiveness” in “respect” for the less gifted children. With this kids can theoretically compare their scores to test scores from all over the world, if they so wish, and teachers can keep track of them digitally and give feedback to the kids and their parents whenever they please.

Social activity and friendships are still made in between classes, and you could have special team projects to teach social skills and team work, where the teacher could mix and match kids of different abilities and levels, by seeing how they do on the computers. Different kids have different skills, so different projects would have different teams, avoiding the problem of creating “cliques”. All they know is that they can excel in their own work at their own pace. You avoid the complete “class distinction” that the left is so overly afraid of, and you still get the skill level matching that the right is so obsessed with. In the end, kids are taught at an individual level with efficient and cost-effective methods, and teachers can be given authority and get back in control of their classes. Education can be made fun for each kid. If some kids need special programs, there are endless possibilities of letting them get this, since those who manage and enjoy the individual digital program will still get what they need – fun challenges in an orderly context.

What might have been a problem before is now very easy, especially when it comes to primary education. Of course, the best solutions will always come from the free market marketplace of ideas, and nothing can substitute the great value and success a private school system would bring, not to mention it’s the only choice that is right, since the nature of a public school system is intrinsically immoral and unjust. We deserve and have the right to a free market school system. … But what we deserve and what we have are often two different things. So we need to deal with what we’re being limited to, and there are a lot that can be done in terms of reforming current systems, and liberalizing the children, freeing up wasteful spending and getting rid of ineffective methods. An individual based digital school is something people should fight for. Coupled with a voucher system, the road from this and to achieving a completely private school system would be remarkably small. Of course, what I’ve talked about here may actually not succeed. I cannot know before I’ve tried, and in a public sphere everyone must try. That is the downside. I would be very glad to see if people have specific examples of private schools that run just like this. I’m sure it probably exists in America, and I’m also sure they have had great success with it. I just don’t know about it, so please let me know in the comment section.

I also understand that what I imagine would be harder to realize the higher level you get. In advanced math it’s harder to standardize grading methods, and long individual study papers still need a lot of manpower to get through. But in academia I’m sure the digital world of books will take completely over in just a matter of a few years. No longer will students have to waste money on a whole bunch of books every year. All books will be released digitally, and endless amounts of resources can be spared. Finally I can see the digital age in education creeping in on us, and it’s not a day too soon!

Related Articles

• The Future of Computer and Internet Use in Schools (education.com)
• Why Passion Is a Gift (psychologytoday.com)
• Gifted Programs Go on Block as Schools Must Do With Less (nytimes.com)

The Peculiar Practice of Taxing Public Worker Income

With the demonstrations by public sector trade union workers going on across America, there are several thoughts on the topic that have popped into my mind as of late. While the topic of Wisconsin’s public trade union workers is tempting, it’s not my concern right now.  What caught my attention today is the connection between public sector jobs and income taxation. There are many things you can say about income taxes, and there are many things you can say about public sector jobs. The first is immoral, unjust and disruptive to the productive sector of the economy. The latter is where the taxes are inevitably spent. While a discussion on whether or not taxes should exist or whether or not we need public sector jobs is a fair discussion, we’ll leave that for later.

For now, please think about the following question: Why do people in the public sector pay income taxes?

A silly question, you might think. You may also say it’s obviously easier and also fair not to distinguish between private and public sector jobs when taxing people. That is, however, besides the point. What is the economic benefit of having all people employed in the public sector paying taxes? The endless amounts of administration that goes into keeping the system up is already profound, but the waste of collecting taxes from people payed 100% from previously collected taxes is at best a big drain of resources. If those employed in the public sector payed no taxes, there would be less administration going into collecting taxes from these people. Much less paper work and less public sector jobs needed to be filled.

I think all taxation on income should be abolished for everyone, especially for those working in the private sector, but as it stands, the paradox of taxing public sector income baffles me. Why not just pay people in the public sector what they get after tax and not tax them at all? And should these people have tax deductible expenses they today could get back, why not just give these expenses as a bonuses on their salaries if necessary? I don’t like the concept of tax credits – it only creates extra layers of bureaucracy that dabbles in social engineering, but since it already exists, giving bonuses would virtually have the same effect as today’s system. There is to me two very good reasons to why this would make sense to do. First, the administrative costs you’d save by not having to pay attention to taxing public sector employees. Second, if people were given a tax relief, this would only apply to private sector jobs, giving only private sector employees more money in their own pockets. Public sector jobs would never be affected by tax reliefs and this would result in them having received a permanent pay cut. It would also lessen the apparent numbers that make up the excuse by government for receiving smaller tax revenues to use in their spending. Perhaps this would also add another inhibition to increase spending (obviously not the case, since deficit spending rules supreme, but still…). The actual revenues of government would also not be affected, since the only resources they have at hand are what they take from the productive sector of the economy. As mentioned, whatever public sector employees earn is what has already been taxed. There are no real “losses to revenue”, only savings in administrative costs, which should result in more tax cuts for the private sector.

Downsides? Harder to rally public sector employees to the cause of electing politicians that wishes to cut taxes. You would likely also create an even more polarized population dividing the private vs the public sector into more distinct political factions than they are today. Those working in the public sector wouldn’t think twice about raising taxes for their political goals, as higher taxes wouldn’t concern them. The possible good things about these downsides? The enemy is easier to spot and the private sector would be willing to stand more united against government oppression. If supporters of the public sector wished to increase taxes, they would not be able to hide behind the mask of “altruistically suffering from the same taxation”. They would more directly become enemies of the private sector, and unable to portray themselves as servicemen for it. There would be a deadlock between political factions, and raising taxes could become far more unpopular than it is today…

… Or it wouldn’t worry people too much after all. Who knows? It will never become a reality, but I find it a peculiar phenomenon, and the “what if” fascinates me.