Newspeak New Year

The Year of Our Lord MMX was a very special year. Since I have inherited the Tolkienist habit of naming years, I decided to call this year the "Year of Newspeak". This is because of the absolutely staggering amount of strange language I have seen appearing in the last 12 months. Granted, the trend of creating Newspeak has existed for many years now. I will also grant that I am hypersensitive to this as any fan of the late George Carlin would be. I do, however, see that people in today's world mostly take Newspeak at its face value. People are totally unsuspicious of the ruling class. Back in the day nobles used to oppose kings, and merchants oppose the nobles. In communist regimes the public never believed a word that came out of the mouths of their oppressors. But here and now, in the Western world, this tendency of suspicion is gone. The politicians are, of course, very happy at this! Indeed they promote it! The latest campaign slogan for the Polish President (this is the post Soviet/EU apparatchik who actually got elected, Mr. Komorowski) was "Zgoda Buduje" i.e. "Unity Builds". Builds what, might I ask? A machine of corruption, exploitation, and crony capitalism? I don't want that kind of building going on anywhere...
In honor of this great trend I now present some real 2010 classics:
- Quantitative Easing - Printing Money. This phenomenon originated in the US Federal Reserve. Whenever the Fed wants to print money to buy up excess mortgage debt or US government bonds, or to "create liquidity" they engage in "quantitative easing". In order to do this Mr. Bernanke orders billions of dollars (which did not exist before in any way, shape, or form, and are not backed by any tangible assets) to be printed or electronically transferred to the banks in question.
- Liquidity - People being able to buy stuff. Usually this means the ability of people to shift goods and services by purchasing them; it is a term which defines potential asset shifts without excess transaction costs. Nowadays it is the ability of people to fork out money which they don't have and buy a lot of things they don't need in order to "drive the economy".
- Investing - People spending money. Nowadays deflation prevents so-called "investing" because it causes people to save. This is exactly flipping the economic theory upside down. People who spend cause interest rates to go up and thus make investments harder to finance. People who save make the interest rates go down thus allowing investing to take place. A classic 180 degree Newspeak switch!
And then there is the all-time classic which I have talked about extensively on this blog:
- Freedom - Having the right to do exactly what the government says you should do. This one is pretty self-explanatory. Crazy TSA airport searches, wiretaps in homes, tracking devices on cars, assassinations of own citizens by governments. All done in the name of new freedom.

Maybe 2010 should really be called the real 1984? Remember those words in that great novel, where Orwell writes "Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
He was onto something, wasn't he?

Legality vs. Morality

Is going against the law wrong? I have heard this question many times. Sometimes when I state some of my theories people say: "But that might include doing something against the law! And that can't be right!". This is, of course, a bunch of nonsense. Legality of something has nothing to do with making it right or wrong. It only determines what acts the goons hired by the governing gang will punish you for. The government seeks to legislate morality upon us just as it has been for the past three thousand years. The problem is that nowadays the government has its nose in practically everything and can therefore exercise a much bigger level of control than it could back in the year 1000. So when is going against the law right? Well, whenever the law is immoral you have the right not to follow it. The only problem is having to deal with the possible unjust punishment (so I would not advise anyone to do anything clearly against the law...). The more important question here seems to be: When is the law ever moral? Back in the 1700's in the USA slavery existed. It was legal, but clearly it was immoral! In Soviet Russia Stalin's purges were legal, but were they moral? Or how about Nazi persecution of Jews? Legal AND moral, or legal BUT NOT moral? As James Madison said, men aren't angels! And legislation is, sadly, written by men. We must therefore find morality which is beyond the mere musings of mankind. Justice must be objective, not made up. Luckily it just happens that natural law does exists. It is out there to be discovered by our reason, not our opinions or experiences. Morality is a dispassionate judge for all things. It is never changing and eternal. It is universal like any law of physics. Arbitrary laws based on opinion are illegitimate whether enforced by one man (a despot) or a lot of them (a democracy).

It just so happens that a few days ago we celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ. Christ himself became a victim of arbitrary illegitimate law; he was one of the two great Western philosophical giants to die by democracy (the other being Socrates). And it was he himself who said "Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". The problem appears when the blind, in their self-righteous rage which killed Jesus, force us all into servitude and slavery in the name of "Legality".

Mr. Lukashenko!

Today I watched a Polish news report about yesterdays events in Belarus. Thousands of people took to the streets there to demonstrate against lack of democracy and the rigged election in which, for the fifth time in a row, Alexander Lukashenko was victorious. The protesters proceeded to their protesting (with a bit of additional vandalism here and there) until they were completely pacified by the state militia. During the said news report I heard very interesting language used. Mr. Lukashenko was reffered to as "the last dictator in Europe" and his militia's actions were called a "pogrom". His government was also called a "regime". Following this there were a number of interviews with Polish and EU observers of the elections who said it was a farce or (the less radical ones) that it was undemocratic and there was a lack of good will from the establishment. Mr. Paweł Poncyljusz (a Polish Parliament deputy for whom I have a lot of respect) also said that the process was "uneuropean".
Now as this was said I actually started listening to the report. "Uneuropean" and "undemocratic" are compliments after all. As terrible as Lukashenko is, at least he scored a plus on those two fronts.
What exactly is this man's problem then? He is a dictator, that is certain, but I don't think there is anyone naive enough to believe he could lose this election even if it was fully democratic (just as Hitler or Stalin would not have lost in the 1930's). He is a devout leftist, however (just like the aforementioned duo)! There is a huge statue of Lenin in front of his government headquarters. And, sadly, a leftist dictator is just as bad as a democratic one...
There is one thing though that Mr. Lukashenko is doing right. Namely, he is maintaining his country's independence. If democracy really worked there Belarus would have long ago voted itself to be united with Russia. Furthermore, he is protecting Belarus from "Europe". The EU is a state which bribes other states to join it. In essence, it is a fisherman with some bait and a very sharp hook. Mr. Lukashenko is being roundly condemned for not biting on it! Surely it's a better option to be ruled by him than by the likes of Danny Cohn-Bendit, Dany le Rouge. Protecting any independence is good because localism is always good, no matter what level it is on. I can assure the people of Belarus that if they have such a hard time changing their own political scene they will have a much tougher job in the EU where they would be an insignificant minority with no voice or power. Sure, they could have their demonstrations. But would anybody listen? And even if someone did hear them, one of the Commissars of the EU Politburo would punish them by taking away necessary funding. Wait, who was it who invented such tactics of withholding resources as punishment? Oh yes, Trotsky and Stalin!

Justice dealt by States...

If there is one thing in this world people should be afraid of, it's making states angry at them. States are nameless in their attack, they are never punished. How can someone punish the USSR for the crimes commited by Stalin? But Stalin committed all his crimes in an official capacity as the USSR! With collective punishment out of the question there is little individuals can do. Heads of state rarely get tried for their atrocities. I don't see any chance of G.W. Bush going on trial for killing civillians in Iraq or Afghanistan...
This is why I feel so very sorry for Mr. Julian Assange - a modern day hero. This man spends his time trying to make us all aware of the terrible things our states are up to. And, no wonder, the states don't like it. Mr. Assange was recently released after being arrested and detained on bogus rape charges. Of course in Sweden the law is so amazing that one can get charged with rape for, here it comes, unwelcome staring at a woman. But let's not look into absurdities of a socialist-democrat law system.
States have used this weapon for many hundreds of years. If someone does something they don't like they smear his image with some terrible charges (which are totally unrelated to the actual thing they hate him for) such as rape or vandalism or sabotage. This is well known, especially in the history of Soviet Russia. Obviously they also try to make people's lives hell. Mr. Assange had his Swiss bank accounts blocked - something that Swiss banks refused to do even for terrorists and mercenaries. Apparently the US and EU governments hate Mr. Assange more than any terror threat.
We all know how states respect their own laws. Does anybody here remember what they did to Adolf Eichmann? The Israelis kidnapped the guy all the way from Argentina and staged a nice little show trial after which they executed him! And what happened after that? The international community applauded them! Granted Mr. Eichmann was a Nazi crminal, but I guess it turns out laws and justice are two completely different things even to the people who are supposed to be writing just laws... I also seem to remember that within my lifetime the great General Augusto Pinochet was imprisoned illegally by the Red terrorist gang (i.e. Labour Party) in the United Kingdom.

As Stalin's right hand man, Vyacheslav Molotov, used to say: "Show me a man and I will find you the paragragh by which to convict him." States can always find something against a person they don't like. And if they don't have anything they will just falsify evidence or torture people to get it. Why else would people like Mikhail Khodorkovsky (stuck in a Siberian labor camp for 22 years because he dared to sponsor an opponent of Mr. Vladimir Putin) be sitting in jails?

Supporting Useless "Monarchs"

Lately in the UK people have been getting more and more angry at the Windsor posse. Now, being a Monarchist I have come under some heavy fire on this issue. After all considering the tax hikes, benefit cuts, and now the ever so loud university tuition increases in the UK, being part of the royal family is starting to look like a sweet deal. A bunch of pampered celebs are getting supported directly by taxpayer money! I mean at least the bankers have to cheat and steal for their money - the Windsors do literally nothing! How can anyone support such intolerable actions? Well, I certainly don't. I have stated many times before that even though I have great respect for the Queen and her family because of their rich tradition and heritage, they are pretty much parasites in my mind. Everyone knows that they no longer are Monarchs in anything but name. PM's and MP's are the real rulers of the United "Kingdom" and the citizens are its real owners. And I say, in a fully capitalist and Darwinist way, useless parts must be subjected to the forces of nature so that they are eliminated. If the Monarchs were real Monarchs I would fully support their rights. If the Monarchs were respectable and didn't cause people offence I would support their usefulness. But when they have neither, what is there to support? Taxpayers should no longer have the obligation of paying their royal family's salary. I'm sure the Monarchy could support itself from voluntary donations. That would at the very least diffuse its image as a parasitic phenomenon.

Heinlein wrote that "A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright." Again a fiction author seems to know more about the real world than all the intellectuals of this planet...

Libertarianism and Children

Children and children's rights under a libertarian system have been the most troubling theoretical problem for me over the last couple years. No libertarian theorist has addressed this issue in an acceptable way. Most just dismiss it as trivial or take up pragmatic argumentation which is in itself unlibertarian. Murray Rothbard devotes a chapter of his Ethics of Liberty to it, but even there I do not find all the answers I seek. According to my conclusions children should be treated in the exact same way adults are, otherwise some libertarian axiom is contradicted. If we restrict children's freedom we immediately equate them with slaves. That would set a terrible precedent for other situations where it would suddenly become acceptable to enslave people for pragmatic reasons.
I find myself, as on most other issues, siding exactly with the position of the great Herbert Spencer. As he wrote in Social Statics (the most important book ever written), "Those commonly-observed facts, that the enslavement of woman is invariably associated with a low type of social life, and that conversely, her elevation towards an equality with man uniformly accompanies progress, were cited in part proof that the subjection of female to male is essentially wrong. If now, instead of women we read children, similar facts may be cited, and a similar deduction may be drawn."
Spencer is correct in that progress in society can only be measured by the level of coercion exercised within it - the less coercion, the more the progress. Thus it is right to treat children as if they were just a human being, without applying special categories to them. After all, age is just a category. Similar ones have been applied to the sexes or races in the past. However, I don't think I need to mention the repercussions of such an attitude turning into policy. There is clearly something wrong with children being able to act as adults. In such a case a child could sign a contract which would make him a slave while he is 3 years old and doesn't know how to read yet! The only other option I see is treating children as incapacitated citizens (as if they were mentally ill or something such) until they reach a certain age or level of ability. These standards would have to be set by individuals or communities on a local basis.
I am always willing to listen to proposals on this issue!

Theology needs more Logic!

Attending a Catholic University has its benefits. One of them is being surrounded by very intelligent people who are willing to engage in 'larger than life' debates about hugely important issues. I spend my days discussing metaphysics, ethics, political theory, economics and, very often, theology. Theology is, as far as I can tell, a branch of philosophy which limits itself to the study of God and the world as a relation to God. Most people, however, seem to think of theology as something very separate from philosophy. There is also an important repercussion to this branch having broken itself from the philosophy tree. Philosophy itself is actually a very exact art, akin to mathematics. Slight mistakes here and there can lead to utterly disastrous results. This is because both mathematics and philosophy, as conceptual creations of the mind, have the same roots. They are rooted in the process of logic. As I said, theology has broken somewhat with this tradition. Theologians often say things which simply cannot be true.
For example, let us consider a very basic tenant of the Christian faith which seems perfectly fine until it is examined with thorough logic. Namely - God is omniscient and omnipotent. I myself never considered this to be a conflicting or wrong statement, until reading the following passage in Ludwig von Mises' Human Action:
"Are omnipotence and omniscience compatible? Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined. If there is omniscience, omnipotence is inconceivable. Impotence to change anything in the predetermined course of events would restrict the power of any agent."
The logic is clear as day, an omnipotent being cannot be omniscient and vice versa! But theologians place quite a bit of their other reasoning on this contradiction-in-terms being true. There are countless examples of such mistakes throughout theological arguments. I would not single theology out so much from other branches of philosophy if not for the fact that it claims itself to be so key. Theologians can rarely see beyond the tip of their own nose. Sadly, most people follow their teachings as if they were sheep. People never question anything with regard to theology out of fear of being branded as disbelievers. But belief is by all means a most overestimated virtue...

I Love the USA, I Hate the CFSA

Why do I love the Tea Party? Why do I support Ron Paul? The answer is simple. As much as despise all states, the United States of America is probably one of the greatest modern states (or, more accurately, it is a union of states). Greatest in terms of safeguarding people's liberty. And as everybody knows, liberty is life. Before I became an anarcho-libertarian and lover of Monarchy I was thoroughly a classical liberal. The USA was founded upon those liberal ideals I always cherished. In particular I name John Locke and Thomas Jefferson as my early liberal influences. The Constitution of the United States is one I have always considered the best in the history of the modern world (with maybe an exception for the Constitution of the Confederate States of America - no general welfare clause and a ban on public works in that one!).
People ask me why I moved to America if I criticize this place so much. The answer is the same as Benjamin Franklin's was so many years ago: "Where liberty dwells, there is my country". The USA have been an example to many people across the globe and it was only once they centralized and adopted old style European parliamentary style politics that the whole thing started heading downhill. What are the main problems? The ones I write about every day on this blog: imperialist foreign policy, destruction of the free market, and legislating morality. The appearance of these three phenomena (mainly advanced under Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and F.Roosevelt) actually changed the USA from a safe haven to a destructive state as any other, or even worse because of its tremendous military and economic power. What exists now is the USA just in name, in reality it is the CFSA - The Centralist Fascist State of America. It is Fascist and it is a single State, not a Union. Oh and yes, it happens to be in America (propaganda has as of yet not been able to change geographical settings).

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now I wish the government of the United States really followed that law - that highest morality! A constitutional state has failed, America proves it, but hope is still left in liberty. America is the land of liberty and nobody, not even them most aggressive government, can take that away.

Anarchist Violence... Good Strategy?

Anarchists are in essence the most non-violent and peaceful individuals. Anarchy helps promote cooperation and aggressive people end up on the losing end of every deal (they would die out pretty quickly under real anarcho-capitalism...). However, we still have the question of what to do about today. Now we are being oppressed by large scale gangs known as "States" or "Countries" who cartelize weaponry and have a monopoly on the use of violence. We are not even allowed to employ self-defense against these groups. They steal, murder, and plunder us with impunity. In all honesty anyone would agree the use of force for self-defense in such situations of horrific abuse is perfectly legitimate. The use of violence, however legitimate under these circumstances, might not be advisable though. You cannot attack a herd of lions armed with nothing by your own fingernails. I am with Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this issue. He compares the current situation we are in to a confrontation with violent and aggressive criminals. Going against them is a must - we must prevent them from exploiting and killing us as much as possible (it is within our interest). However, being open about it through violence can't lead to a bettering of our conditions. We all know that gangs love to use certain people as examples to scare others. If some of us went out to shoot some IRS officials, we would most likely be either killed ourselves or imprisoned. Of course any violence that took place would be blamed on us, the people who are trying to defend themselves from oppression. Therefore we must use our brains a bit and think about real life. We cannot challenge the might of the state, but we can get away with opposing it to some degree. If a robber comes to my house and ask for my money it might not be advisable for me to refuse flatly, but it might be good to try to conceal as much of my wealth from him as possible (without him noticing of course!). Everyone must try to balance carefully their opposition with their life. After all the statists come to you and say just that, like good old highwaymen: "Your money or your life!"

"If a thousand were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood." - Henry David Thoreau
We must oppose the state in all it does by all means necessary, but please my friends, let's not all end up in jail! What good would that do us?

"Bush Tax Cuts"

I have heard some crazy statements made about the tax cuts which were instituted by Congress under President Bush. I want to clear up some of the confusion around this policy.
First of all there have been allegation that, quote: "Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place will increase the deficit by" and here people throw around a random figure of between $3.5 and $4 trillion. In what universe and with what logic does a statement like this make sense? Let's use an analogy. If I have a barrel of water and a constant stream or water pouring into it, it would overflow. However, the barrel has a giant hole in the bottom which keeps water flowing out very quickly. Now - if I make the inflow of water less, is the barrel going to be emptier because I did so? Yes. But is the cause of the barrel being emptier the water inflow? No! The cause is the outflow. People who receive tax cuts are not robbing the government, it is precisely the opposite - the government is stealing less of their property. It is the government spending that is increasing the deficit, not the people not paying more in taxes.
Secondly a bunch of lefties have been saying that the tax cuts "increase inequality" because now "rich folks" pay less money into the common pot. Well let me say that rich people already pay most of the taxes. In fact, the richest 10% of the population pays 71% of the income taxes. How is it fair that working or lower-middle class people steal money from richer people? But when have the Commies ever recognized people's right to their own earnings? I might add Marx based his whole theory on the fact that people do not get paid for their labour in a just way, the capitalists take some of it away. Well why is it more right for the government to take it away than the capitalist? Somehow I never get an answer to this question.
Also there are those people who say tax cuts will slow economic recovery! Curiously, those people are either from the government, or related to the government. We all know their type of genius - Timothy Geithner for example. If anybody still trusts these bozos, good luck to them! I prefer to follow good old logic, which tells us that if people keep and save money, the economic recovery will happen faster. In fact without the government taxing and monetary policy there would be no crisis, so let's just keep the guys who caused the problem out of deciding what our solution should be.

As Daniel Webster said: "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy."
So should we limit it (through tax cuts at least!) or not?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and State Warfare

A lot of libertarians are very harsh in the criticism of Harry S. Truman and the US decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 before the end of World War II. I am no less critical - in an 8th grade social studies essay I equated Truman with Stalin (quite a bold statement for a 14 year old to make). The tragedy of the bombings is mostly attributed to the evil of Truman, American aggression, and racism. Few people, however, emphasize the role of the State as an entity as the culprit here. By State I mean just what it is - the conceptual being encompassing some landmass and ruling over a certain population through government. So why would the existence of the state make it justifiable or at least rational for Mr. Truman to order the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians? The answer lies in democracy and the rule of common ownership. In a democracy all people own the state (at least that is the theory). Therefore in theory all people are responsible for the state's actions. They are also required to participate in maintenance of the state. Individuals in a democratic state are simply feeder units of the state itself - they have no individuality in political matters. This is especially true in foreign affairs and wars. Thus when Mr. Truman was bombing the people of Hiroshima he was bombing people who were supplying the hostile Japanese government with means of resisting American troops. Furthermore, he was bombing people who approved of the Japanese government's actions! In the same way all these Japanese were responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor (nb. a military base), all Americans were responsible for the atomic bombings. At the very least all the ones who voted for Harry Truman. Total war exists only in the statist system. Wiping out entire populations makes sense if those populations are supplying your opponent with the means to resist you.
This concept is best explained by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his undeniable masterpiece Democracy The God That Failed. He contrasts the tendency for total war in collectivist societies of states with tendencies for war being restricted to few casualties (even among the troops) in feudal and monarchical societies.
I for one totally distance myself from any politicians in my homeland of Poland. I in no way feel responsible for their actions. The President of Poland is not my President. I want it to be clear (and on public record) that this man, Mr. Bronisław Komorowski, does not have my approval and does not have my consent to speak in my name. Same goes for current Prime Minister Donald Tusk. In case they try to commit some crime (of lesser proportions than Hiroshima I would hope) I feel this post should absolve me.

Fascist America 2 - The Culture

People still don't seem to believe the USA is fascist. It is. In my last post on this topic I described (briefly) the economic aspect of fascism and how America conforms to it in 100% of cases. But what about the people? Are Americans really fascist? Surely they are the ones who fought against fascism in World War II! This is, of course, a historical myth. Americans in the 1920's and 1930's admired fascism very much. Most newspapers praised Mussolini, as did prominent politicians including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. American Christians overwhelmingly supported Mussolini in his support of Franco in the Spanish Civil War (I will have to write another post someday about Franco and his supposed "fascism").
But what about Americans today? For that we would have to create a list of traits characterizing fascist society (I will use Mussolini's Italy which is the only Fascist state ever to exist):
1. Militarism
2. Extreme Patriotism/Nationalism
3. Anti-Communism
4. Anti-Capitalism
5. Egalitarianism and Equality (between citizens of the State, not internationally)
Now let's look at the United States today. Do Americans and their Government possess these characteristics?
1. Americans culture is extremely militaristic. While living here for the last several months I have heard people make many statements like "soldiers are the ultimate professionals" and are "morally flawless". Saying something against the army and its mercenaries seems to be heresy (this, of course, is not true of private protection forces the US government sometimes hires). The rhetoric of politicians is also doubtlessly militaristic. In Fascist Italy Mussolini announced "Battle for Grain" and "Battle for Land", in the United States politicians wage "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty". Back in high school we put a lot of emphasis on analyzing language used when studying Fascist Italy. Can the same not be applied to the US? I won't even discuss the staggering percentage of cars that I see on the road with some form of ribbons supporting the army, the troops, or veterans.
2. People in America are the most patriotic people I know. They have all kinds of new age brainwashing techniques like the "pledge of allegiance" in schools, they sing their national anthem at every sporting event (no matter how minor or unrelated to America) and they put their flags everywhere. Whatever people's political views they claim to be heirs of "American ideals" and will do anything to prove themselves American. They also project their values onto everyone in the whole entire world ("American way or the highway"). Again there is no tolerance for dissenters (non-patriots).
3. This one is pretty self explanatory. I have never met a communist in America nor anyone who would admit to communist leanings (even in cases where they are obviously Marxist or collectivist).
4. Capitalism has become the new punching bag of the US. Conservatives and Liberals alike want to strangle it in some way by control or protectionism. It was the same in Mussolini's Italy. Free market and some form of private property existed much like in the USA today. The rhetoric was as it is here - that capitalism is productive and anti-communist, but needs to be closely monitored and controlled because of greedy people. It is never described as good, only as pragmatic.
5. This is also redundant to explain. With all the ludicrous affirmative action and gender equality laws I'm surprised the Catholic Church has not yet condemned the United States. It had of course condemned Mussolini for masculinization of women in Fascist Italy. And where are women more masculine than in the US today?! Even state prisons have quotas on how many guards need to be women! At least Mussolini had the sense to keep women out of the armed forces (for the most part).

With this evidence before you, you can now make up your mind!

Ethics of Power in The Lord of the Rings

Certain friends of mine have told me I make J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy writings sound like some kind of religious prophecy. I actually find this to be a compliment because that is exactly what I intend! I have always said that The Lord of the Rings was my first Bible. It is one of the four great works that changed my life (albeit at age 10). I was challenged to find ten quotes in The Lord of the Rings which are philosophically and morally significant. This is not a challenge at all, I can point to at least fifty or sixty such quotes. But the most powerful ones have all revolved around the subject of power and power destroying good. Even when used for good power will produce evil in the end. Tolkien really understood this. I do not know if he consciously brought in so many references on the topic into his writing, but they are certainly there. And there are few writers as eloquent and wonderful in their writing as Tolkien. The two best quotations are probably from my two favourite characters in LOTR:

"I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."

"Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

We must understand that the fabled One Ring is a symbol of ultimate power. Power is always evil, never good. As I wrote several posts ago, we cannot employ power and coercion for good, only for bad. But do we really need Faramir or Gandalf to tell us this?!

"Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it." - Frank Herbert. Fantasy and sci fi authors really do get it right!

Why Monarchism?

People ask me sometimes: Aren't you an extreme libertarian? How is anarchism compatible with this whole monarchist mumbo-jumbo? Aren't you being hypocritical?
My answer is: Well, not really! I happen to think everyone can decide what system they want to live under - which is why I am philosophically an anarcho-libertarian. But personally I would love to live in a monarchy! Not a constitutional one of course, but a private property (feudal) one. And I would like to have a say in how this monarchy originates. It wouldn't matter that much who became King, but I would nonetheless prefer it to be someone normal. If someone told me that Alabama was seceding from the USA and Llewellyn H. Rockwell was to be the King of the new state, I would move there tomorrow without the slightest hesitation and seek citizenship immediately (another fact is that, of course, Mr. Lew Rockwell would not be a person who would agree to such an arrangement). But the good thing about monarchy is that it does not require a "good" King to function well. Most liberals and socialists, who I hate with a passion, would make great Kings! This is because most liberals, democrats, and socialists are actually very materialistic and greedy (unlike what their media persona would indicate). Surveys have long shown that conservatives and other free-marketers give many more times in charity per person than the liberal gang. Thus Mr. Gordon Brown, who was an atrocious Prime Minister, might have made quite a good absolute monarch. He robbed the UK consistently during his tenure as PM precisely because he was greedy for power, money, and praise. Now, if he was a monarch, his greed would be the exact thing that would restrain him from robbing the people. Because by robbing the people a monarch robs himself! What an interesting paradox! This is particularly the reason I favour monarchy as a personal choice for me (a Feudal-style monarchy of course). That and the cultural advantage. Who ever heard of an ill-mannered King or an ill-mannered Court?

I have often wondered why I was ever inclined so much to the right - in the direction of Monarchy, Individualism, and Voluntarism. The answer is now clear to me. It was the works of J.R.R. Tolkien that first set me on this path. Reading his Fantasy was really influential on my young mind. The values portrayed therein are fundamental to my understanding of the world. And Professor Tolkien himself wrote: "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy."

Seperate, but Equal - Bad?

I would like to propose a new manifesto! I think all leftists will agree with me on this subject!

Dear Democratic People's Governments of the United States of America and European Union,

It has come to my attention that rampant government controlled discrimination still exists throughout our modern democratic societies. Last night I went to the cinema and there had a small popcorn, a packet of Skittles, and a large Coca-Cola. Following the completion of the showing of my film, I felt a sudden need to use the lavatory. When I was directed towards these public amenities I realized (to my horror!) that there were two doors behind which nearly identical rooms were located. One was marked with a little circle and the other with a triangle. When asked about this phenomenon I was told it was not indeed a fata morgana, but a consciously created separation meant to segregate men from women. When I enquired further I was told this was the norm throughout the entire western world. I do not condone such procedures. In my own home (and homes of my family members as well as homes of every person I associate with in a friendly manner) such a system would be thought of as distasteful. I also believe this system exists in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States of America which prohibited any such practice based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as in public places. I expect some kind of Congressional and European Parliament procedures to address this issue soon.

Best regards,

A Concerned Citizen

What is Evil?

My last post got a few anti-libertarian comments - I can't really say much in reply to them. Either a person believes violence and aggression is wrong or not. Experience has shown that the latter leads to Hitlerite and Stalinist regimes which is something I clearly do not want. I don't consider people who believe in such violent methods as worth having discourse with - they just have to be ignored and stopped wherever possible. We must defend ourselves from barbarism, not engage in discussion and compromise with it. Cum recte vivis, ne cures verba malorum!
I also notice there is another important issue which must be discussed. What is freedom? Can there be freedom in regard to human interaction? Can we be free from bodily wants and needs? Can all compulsion be eliminated?
When answering these question we will get three groups of answers. Those three different answers are given by:
1) Libertarians/Right Anarchists who will say that only aggression is the enemy of freedom and all other voluntary transactions are legitimate.
2) Communists/Left Anarchists who will say that market transactions are compulsion and thus illegitimate.
3) Other people who have no moral convictions and are always saying either one or the other.
And here again we come back to the first question - is aggression the defining characteristic of good and evil? I would say that it is. With no aggression present I do not see how anyone can say any evil is taking place. In this I take the exact opposite stance from St.Augustine. Evil is not the absence of good, rather, good is the absence of evil. Now it must be pointed out that 90% of the world's population does not agree with this (I assume that only around 10% subscribe to answers #1 and #2). According to most people good and evil are some sort of metaphysical entities which actually exist out there somewhere and fly around possessing us. Hitler was possessed by the evil and Mother Teresa by the good. This is a very pragmatic view. Using this I can just say that anybody is good or anybody is evil depending on how I view them. There is no definite category of good or evil. It is all vague and made up. But I think that when I describe it this way everyone can see how stupid and superstitious this view really is.

People who espouse such opinions must be educated and shown how wrong they really are. Evil is the positive - it acts, and good is the negative - it does not act. Thus Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was able to say: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Fighting evil always entails commiting evil. And how can one fight fire with fire?

Anarchists of All Kinds

As I said many times before, I prefer not to call myself an anarchist unless I'm in a friendly crowd. My anarchism is not of a typical kind (if there can be such a thing as a "typical" anarchist). I am not a revolutionary Lefty. My anarchist feelings come rather from an aversion to state-compulsion and aggression of any kind (in this way I am a Libertarian anarchist) and from my ardent uncompromising individualism. Nonetheless I am aware that most people who label themselves anarchists nowadays are various shades of Red. After all even evil monsters like Marx and Lenin said they have anarchist aims (which proved to be one of history's greatest lies). Here in the US I have a hard time finding anarchists of any mold, however! Back in England I belonged to a little anarchist clique where I was the only right winger and where people looked at me funny, but at least we all had similar conversation topics. I even managed to convert some of them from pure Communism into something more "pink and vague". In the US the term anarchist seems to be tabu (which is why I always call myself a Libertarian). I would really like to see a stronger movement of anti-government radicals emerge here. After all some of the very founders of the anarchist movement were Americans! Look at Henry David Thoreau, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Murray Rothbard on the Right side! And how about Johann Most, Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, and Noam Chomsky on the Left! It is arguable whether socialist anarchism is anarchism at all, I have not read enough to be a reliable source on this matter, but let us all at least acknowledge that anti-statism should be promoted across the spectrum. If more and more people acknowledge the evil of the state maybe we can finally get some meaningful dialogue started - just as I did among my anarchist friends back in Britain. Once this anti-statist common premise is established the rest will be just using logic and rhetoric - the arts of persuasion.

In a strict sense the anarchist Lefties and I are not enemies on this, we believe in the same principle - the principle of freedom for all. As Benjamin Tucker said: "Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else." This is why I will never condemn any voluntary activity, be it socialist or Left as they come. I might not approve of it for myself, but who am I to tell others how to act? If I did that, I would become the very thing I oppose!
If we all work for freedom together, we will achieve it.

American Fascism

Americans fail to acknowledge the fact they no longer live in a Republic. They live in a sort of Fascist Federation. Fascism is the merger of state and corporation powers. I don't think anyone would dispute that the US is being run by corporate interests in Washington who form a permanent elite with the 'revolving door' keeping them and their cronies in power. Big banks, big-pharma, the military industrial complex - we live and breathe to support these guys. They really do not live to serve us, as they claim to do. The corporate welfare state that emerged after the 2008 mortgage crisis proves this. The average taxpayer bailed out Warren Buffett! That man is supposed to be good at business, not good at stealing our money! But we no longer consider this procedure stealing. It has become part of the legitimate political process. The government keep the big corporations running and they give the average Joe a job. Average Joe then pays the government obscenely high taxes and, voilà, these go right back into the pockets of his employers. We are being milked like cows. Mussolini at least had the decency to not lie about doing it. He wanted to create the new Fascist man. And the American elites keep telling us how "the American dream" is still possible and how we are all "free". At the same time they implement welfare programs which make the New Deal and the Great Society seem like toys in a sandbox opposed to an amusement park. Ronald Reagan once said: "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'" And now it's still going on, just to a more extreme extent! I mean look at other characteristics of Fascism - militarism, imperialism, authoritarianism... All of these are abundant in America today. Soldiers are the most respected professionals in the country. The US invades everyone they don't like (or at least impose sanctions and embargoes). They have troops stationed in most countries of every continent. Mussolini, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan - none of these guys got even close to what Americans have achieved in terms of Empire-building.

And even if we don't believe Mussolini, who was the father of Fascism, on what Fascism is, we have to at least trust our own patriots and idols. I seem to remember Benjamin Franklin once said: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." So, since everyone is voting themselves (i.e. in reality the corporations) money all the time now - the Republic is finished. And what system do we have here now? Democracy? Fascism? National Socialism? Someone would have to work pretty hard to convince me it's not one of those three (or all of them fused!).

Inflation - Continued...

I think everyone who read yesterday's blog entry now realizes it is actually the Government policy in general and the Federal Reserve in particular which is really causing the inflation. The so-called deflation we have now is just a contraction of the previously artificially expanded money supply. That expansion was actually inflation. Now the market is naturally purging itself of the inflation. Adam Smith's invisible hand is much more powerful than Mr. Bernanke or Mr. Greenspan could combat.
Now we can look at what the Fed wants its policy to do and what it's actually doing. Well, again using common sense and not econo-babble, what happens when you make more of something (in this case money...)? Its value drops! Supply and demand! So the Fed is actually achieving the reduction of the value of all dollar monetary assets in the United States and abroad (hear this Arab/OPEC countries!). It is, in effect, creating a process by which everyone wants to get rid of dollars. And how do you get rid of dollars? You buy things with them. And this, supposedly, is improving the economy. Unrestrained spending not backed at all by production or any commodity money value.
Again let's visit Mr.Smith. Mr.Smith has $500 in his bank account which he was planning to save for hard times. However, he realizes that the Federal Reserve is increasing the money supply and his money is going to drop in value. He can observe this without knowing anything about the Fed or its actions. All he needs to do is look at the fact prices are visibly rising in the stores (as they have been for the past 100 years). Now Mr.Smith is inclined to spend his money as fast as possible instead of saving it! After all his $500 might buy him and TV today and tomorrow it might not be enough for a radio... who knows? All is uncertain when Mr.Bernanke is at the helm! We are all Mr.Smiths. We all spend as quickly as possible. Fed policy discourages savings. And that drives market interest rates way up. So the Fed has to lower its own interest rates to near zero levels in order to allow for any investment to occur. And this vicious cycle continues... on and on and on. As I wrote earlier this month - the Fed are serial-bubble-blowers. This term, coined by Peter Schiff, has definitely become one of my personal favourites.

"The value of a currency depends on the volume of production standing behind it. Falling production weakens, rising production strengthens it. Money is only a matter of paper production. The real task is to increase production to the extent that money is increased." By no means are these words by German Führer Adolf Hitler about money ideally true. However, he seems to understand much more about the economics of money than Mr.Bernanke or Mr.Krugman. Fiat money is indeed just a matter of paper production. We need more viable production to back it. If not, the gold standard is the only option. In the long run the Commodity Standard is the only viable option!).

Inflation - What is It and how It works (Mr.Smith's Sad Story...)

A lot of people are wondering why the Federal Reserve plans to pump another extra $600Billion into the ailing US economy. Even the New World Order Commissars at the IMF and the World Bank are saying it's a bit crazy. So why are they doing it? Well, the Fed's claim is explained right here. To summarize:
1. The recession is supposedly leading to deflation.
2. Deflation is evil.
3. We must create illusory wealth to be lent out to stimulate new spending.
4. New spending will get the economy moving in an upward spiral again.
Okay, I honestly don't know how these people can fit so many fallacies into one policy. Now, let's be clear on this, I never took an economics class in my life. I am not an expert here. All I do is use common sense, a commodity largely undervalued in today's world. H.L. Mencken once wrote "I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible to any public office of trust or profit in the Republic. But I do not repine, for I am a subject of it only by force of arms."
I know this inflation/deflation topic is a huge one, so I will try to limit it to basics and expand in some later post. After all, all four of the premises stated above (and in which our intellectuals believe) are false. So let's now use some common sense and apply it to the theories of those who "hold offices in the Republic"...
So what exactly happened over the course of the real estate bubble, while it was getting pumped by the government and the Fed? I previously touched on it here, but now I'll explain it using the example of one house belonging to one man.
Let's say Mr.Smith bought a house in the year 2000 (right after the Fed started subsidizing housing in the post tech-stock bubble era) for $200,000. Interest rates are at a low 4-5%. Money from the Fed is practically guaranteed to all banks who want it because of the low rates they would have to pay when getting it, so Mr.Smith easily gets a mortgage. He then realizes (miraculously!) that his house is appreciating in value because investment in the subsidized housing industry is growing so much. Mr.Smith then takes our all sorts of loans against the value of his house and lives off of them as if they were a salary. Heck, he might as well! The prices are doubling every year! But wait a second, if Mr.Smith started with $200,000 and he now has $400,000, what does this mean? It means one of two things, either (a) his house actually doubled in value, or (b) the liquidity frenzy and mania of malinvestment created the illusion of his house being worth so much money and it is actually still worth around $200,000. But he has already taken out another mortgage and so owes banks $400,000. He thinks the scenario (a) is true, and the bank is willing to gamble that it is so (after all, with money being so cheap because of the interest rate, it is only too easy to attempt this sort of investment in Mr.Smith's house). But, alas, 2008 has come around. Mr.Smith has by now taken out something like $600,000 on his property and lived happily until one day some guy somewhere realized that in reality Mr.Smith's house is only worth around $200,000. And hey, the bank still wants its money back from Mr.Smith. Scenario (b) was actually true! Now Mr.Smith cannot take out any more loans! And, what is more, it doesn't even occur to him to pay his current loans back. Why pay off the $600,000 to keep living in a house worth $200,000? So he simply stops making payments. Now the bank seizes Mr.Smith's house (he goes off to live in cheap rental housing) and must auction it off to reclaim some of its lost money. Sadly the house only fetches $150,000 at auction, so the bank just made a colossal loss of $450,000 (600-150=450)!
Let's go back to the Fed and their definition of deflation. They claim that this money which just disappeared off the markets (450,000 in asset value) is deflation of some kind. In reality, however, this value never existed! The "losses" of money supply are losses of people who made bad market decisions. Under a capitalist system this is perfectly acceptable.
Sadly Mr.Bernanke is not a capitalist...

Greatest Prime Minister Ever?

This is a difficult question indeed! Many inspirational individuals held the post of British PM over the last centuries. They lived and worked in different times under different circumstances and different conditions. But it is easy to tell who are the worst. The ones who inherited the country great and left it in absolute shambles. There are a few men like that and, unsurprisingly, they were all Lefties! Despite the fact this cannot be challenged (all the Lefties bankrupted the United Kingdom over and over again) the intellectual class remain aloof. In the lastest University of Leeds poll of British intellectuals who are affiliated with the study of British politics/history, all the bad guys came out right on top. Back in 2004 as well as now in 2010 the poll found that in the 20th Century the greatest PM was Clement Attlee. Yes, Clement Attlee, the biggest socialist to ever rule Britain. Just once more for emphasis - the intellectuals chose Clement Attlee! What lunatic would do such a thing! The man is known chiefly for bankrupting the country through enormous entitlement reform, Keynesian devaluation of the Pound Sterling, rampant nationalization of all major industries and services, and creation of the National Health Service. All the worst policies and reforms in 20th Century Britain took place under this guy's nose, and they picked him as #1! I cannot think of a worse PM in all of British history! But - we all know how intellectual intellectuals really are... And where was the Iron Lady Thatcher, undoubtedly the greatest PM of the 20th Century, if not the greatest world leader of that century? A distant 4th behind the likes of Tony Blair...
Looking at the lists of greatest PM's reminds me somewhat of looking at lists of greatest US Presidents. Just as Attlee, Blair, and Lloyd George feature highly on British lists, so do Lincoln, F.D.Roosevelt, and T.Roosevelt on the American ones.
Just for the purpose of expressing my own personal opinion, here is my own ranking of the top 5 British PM's of all time:

1. William Ewart Gladstone
2. Margaret Thatcher
3. Robert Peel
4. Charles Watson-Wentworth
5. Arthur Wellesley

"Serial-Bubble-Blowers"

This is one of the best epithets I've ever heard about the Federal Reserve bankers! I give fill credit to Peter Schiff (as always!) for this one! Just to clarify the upcoming analysis - the op-ed by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke can be found here. In the op-ed the man practically admits that the Fed's goal is to blow up another fictitious asset bubble, this time in stocks. May I just remind everyone that the current crisis prompted by the collapse of the real estate bubble wouldn't have happened if nobody inflated this bubble in the first place. And may I also remind everyone that the real estate bubble was only created to offset the depression after the last stock market bubble burst in the late 1990's. So now the magicians at the Fed hope to created the mother of all bubbles on top of the last two. Indeed if they succeed (which I doubt) the ensuing recession after that bubble pops will probably mean the end of the world economy as we know it. For that type of policy the Fed definitely deserve the epithet of serial-bubble-blowers. It is difficult for businessmen to resist this free credit. Chairman Bernanke has now freely admitted he hopes to create inflation and trick everyone into believing in false asset prices. Let me just quote from the op-ed itself: "And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion." If this isn't pure Keynesyanism I don't know what is! He wants people to spend their illusory wealth on real consumer goods! What this means is that he thinks of himself as a magician or, better, a GOD. Mr. Bernanke can create wealth out of thin air by pressing a few buttons! Federal Reserve credit is not real wealth. Creation of wealth requires production of it. And production precedes consumption. Chairman Bernanke wants us to sell our fake wealth to other countries in return for consumer goods. I really don't understand why other countries put up with this policy! Even Adolf Hitler, a radical socialist, understood that money has to be backed by production.

But why should we care about the laws of economics? Why should we care about the very fundamentals of human existence? Why should we think of the future? After all, didn't our hero, Lord Keynes, say "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." Keynes was a twisted evil man, and his charm tends to rub of on followers, as in case of all ideological movements. I am like Spencer and Bernanke is like Keynes.

Where do Commies get these ideas from?!

Today I read some interesting news from the heartland of communism on earth (no, not the White House). Apparently some Europeans Union Politburo members are considering putting in place some sort of all-encompassing minimum wage in the EU which would be equivalent to 60% of the average salary. The Eurocratic Lefties do not understand basic economics; this in not news to me. What is new is the extent to which this is true. These people want to commit three terrible economic crimes here:
1) The minimum wage in itself is a crime which breaks human rights. It interferes with voluntary transactions and causes massive increases i unemployment levels anywhere it is instituted. Also, a common minimum wage policy surely disregards the rights of individual nations within the EU. I thought we were supposed to be sovereign on domestic policy, eh?
2) Sixty percent. Where did they come up with this figure, I do not know. It's sufficient to say that if this is implemented a lot of people making below that 60% will lose their jobs. That will raise the average even further (and probably be hailed as a success by the Comrades and Commissars among the Bolsheviks). Will this mean that after recalculation the minimum wage will be raised even more and even more people will lose their jobs and have to survive on either welfare or die? I don't know. What I do know is that if they keep this up we will start seeing a trend of emigration from EU countries to Russia and China. Already most of the higher earning entrepreneurs have moved into Asia or some Arab countries.
3) This terrible policy will harm poorer EU countries in a disproportionate way. It has been calculated that in my dear Poland wages will have to go up by an average of 25-30% to comply with the new law! This is clearly not achievable. Therefore I expect that countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic Countries will see unemployment figures of around 25% (for once not because of crazy policy by local politicians!) and they will suffer massive emigration. Not to mention that this law is meant to make it more attractive for emigrants from these countries who currently live in Western Europe to come back and seek jobs at home. The exact opposite effect is bound to occur!
For those of you curious about this 'great' new plan - there is a good english article written from the Commie perspective available here.

The Fed is screwing us again!

Price of gold at over $1400 per ounce! The predictions of all the Austrian economists came true (every single one of them thought the dollar would drop down that low before the end of 2010). When will the masses (yes, I use this socialist word for those who do not deserve to be called individuals) finally start listening to people like Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, or the Ludwig von Mises Institute? Just to clarify the situation - strong gold means a weak dollar. I wouldn't be surprised if the dollar lost value against the consumer price index as well. And why is this happening right now? Because the US Federal Reserve announced they will buy up another $600 billion worth of government debt. People who hold the dollar are not stupid. They see the supply of their assets rise on the world market thereby reducing the value of their own holdings. So, they get out of the dollar. The safest asset has always been gold, since other currencies can also diminish in value. On that note, I wouldn't be surprised if the dollar lost value against pretty much all currencies like the Euro and Swiss Frank and, to a lesser extend, other currencies pegged to the US Dollar.
Needless to say this is terrible news for the American people. Their currency is falling fast with little hope for recovery. They can buy less and less with their money. Individuals with large cash holdings (savings perhaps) or on set incomes (pension, Social Security, etc.) will see huge loses. And the government will in theory have to pay this debt off too, using tax dollars which will need to be collected (of course these future tax dollars will be worth less than the borrowed dollars, but this doesn't change the fact every American will need to pay them). The Fed is continuing to debase a currency which is now already worth only a small fraction (0.03) of what it was worth when the Federal Reserve was created.
Luckily I personally do not have any US dollar cash holdings to speak of (but some of my family members do!). It worries me that the great and proud American people are being drawn into the same pit as the Zimbabweans under Mugabe...

All who love America and Freedom should take up the cry "End the Fed!" with greats like Representative Ron Paul.

Social Units - Protecting "Your Own Kind"

Back in the early recession days Gordon Brown was one of those famous for saying "British Jobs for British Workers". Of course in his EU speeches he highlighted the exact opposite, but who expects politicians not to be hypocrites? I have thought about this a great deal and - after initially ridiculing Mr.Brown for his ludicrous economic policy - I decided I owe him somewhat of an apology. His economic policy is still lunacy, and his views are still tragically wrong and morally unacceptable. All socialism is guilty of both economic and moral idiocy. But there is something in this argument of localism and nationalism. From a logical point of view it is indefensible, and therefore I have to go against my better nature to argue this point, and yet I feel there are some things which can be achieved through focused voluntary cooperation on a small scale. Think of your community as an extended family. Think of your people as an extension of that. Now, with each of these steps the closeness and sense of belonging fades considerably. In fact, even within the family some people don't feel entirely at home. This is perfectly natural - the smallest building block of society is individuals, not families.
Certainly, you will say, consciously supporting localist initiatives and businesses is within the scope of a sort of 'local socialism' or 'protectionism'. I have two objections to this:
1) Socialism and protectionism are not evil things if they are participated in voluntarily. I have never ever said that voluntary socialism or communism like the kibbutz is wrong. People can join whatever form of society is right for them. I only oppose people thrusting their ideology on others. So, in essence, voluntary socialism is not really socialism. It is just indiscriminate support for your fellow man no matter the circumstances you or he/she is in. It is the sharing of wealth as if wealth was a public good. In a voluntary setting this is 100% legitimate. Many religious communities such as the Amish, some Christian Anarchists, and the aforementioned kibbutz, live this way.
2) At the smallest level we all live in what you might call a 'socialist' community. This is because the smallest social unit is the family (the isolated individual cannot be a social unit). In the family children do not produce for themselves. They consume 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. That is, a little girl is not productive at all, but her parents let her consume the resources she needs to survive and grow. One might call this a capitalist relationship - the parent do get something in return, a good feeling of fulfilling responsibility and the joy of parenthood as well as potential security for old age. However, I would argue that even if it is an exchange, it is surely an unconscious one in 99% of circumstances. Especially in the primitive ages, man did not think to have children in order to enjoy them or gain goods from them. Having children is, like living in a socialist system, instinctual. This is why it is so difficult to fight socialism, it is somewhat natural and instinctive.

Acting for "Future Generations"

There is some kind of silly cult of 'the future' and 'the children'. I guess that is where the saying 'children are our future' comes from. We must save the children (No Child Left Behind!) and protect their future welfare. An important part of this for the liberal establishment is preservation of the environment and the planet - whatever that means.
Now the question to ask here is: why should we act this way? What do we owe to 'future generations'?
Personally, I couldn't care less about future generations. As I wrote in my post about social responsibility (here) I have no interest in acting on behalf of people to whom I owe nothing. Where, may I ask all these neo-libs and neo-cons, is the quid pro quo in me working for future generations? Are they going to pay me back somehow? Is a kid born 20 years after my death going to reciprocate my services in some way? How is this behaviour to my advantage? Again I emphasize - as long as I want to help (I will surely want to help my own children one day), I should be allowed to help. But I cannot be forced to help people who I do not want to help! Most public education and environmental protection programs are just about that. I should be forced to pay money for crazy plans like Cap and Trade in order for someone 100 years from now to reap the benefit? Over my dead body!
Secondly, there is an important thing the Lefties are overlooking. Their own actions are actually making the living standards of future generations decline. The crazy left (and neo-cons are definitely leftists) drive deficits and debt up so constantly making our children indebted before they are even born! They reduce future living standards (future consumption) in favor of current living standard (current consumption). And not only that! They also tax us to death making investment in the future nearly impossible. If I have to pay 50% taxes, I don't have enough money left to improve my house or my business, things future generations will at some point be using. Socialists focus on capital destruction instead of capital creation.

Following on from last night's elections I want to congratulate all the winners (especially all the Tea Party people!). Many times, of course, the voters chose wrong. I was hoping villains like Barney Frank might have to leave their cushy Washington posts. I am very pleased with the performances of real Tea Partiers like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Let's hope they do some good. I just wish the likes of Peter Schiff were there with them...

Flat Taxes Cannot Be Fair

Most decent people I know argue against progressive taxes. Every normal person can see progressive taxes are grossly unfair and make no sense whatsoever economically. They are just a simple way for the Lefties to punish the successful for being successful. And the astronomically rich can get around this anyway (Steve Jobs has a $1 annual salary from his company, Apple). The policy is harshest on small business owners, people who make between $200,000 and $1,000,000 a year. These people make enough money to be taxed in the most cruel way, but are not rich enough to contribute the trillions the government is spending. They do not earn millions and are being prevented from expanding and growing their business. Progressive taxes also induce malinvestments and lower incentives to save.
Now - what is a proposed solution to this obvious problem? According to most people I know - a flat tax! A flat tax would be 'fair'. It would mean everyone pays the same proportion of their income to the government for 'the greater good of all'. However, this attitude puzzles me considerably. In a country where the flat tax is 10%, if one person makes $10,000 and another $100,000, then the first will pay just $1000 in taxes while the latter will have to fork over $10,000! This is clearly not 'everyone pulling their own weight' as flat tax promoters argue, but rather another way of redistributing wealth. Both the richer and the poorer person receive the same services from the government, so why should one be forced to pay more for them? When I go to McDonald's no one asks me how much money I make. A cheeseburger costs me $1 whether I'm a poor farm labourer or a Wall Street CEO. So why should government services cost the Wall Street CEO more? They shouldn't! Government needs to be restructured so that taxes are replaced by fees. Fees people can opt out of paying if the wish. Everyone paying a public education fee is being robbed of their money unless they have children in public schools (in which case they are robbing everyone who doesn't). Everyone who doesn't smoke is being robbed by the government who gives their tax money to tobacco growers. The list of abuses is endless.
How about we just get rid of this entire sick machinery of exploitation and return to normalcy, the days when democracy and 'the people' didn't rule over us as tyrants.

John Adams was right when he said that democracy is the most bloody system of government and that it cannot last. It cannot last because "...it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide". And how exactly does a political system murder itself? To put it simply - by taxing itself to death.

So much for Socialism being 'humane'...

What is the main criticism people level at us, the good old capitalists? Well, for starters, we are supposedly just purely bad people. We selfishly want to exploit others in this dog-eat-dog world of ours. The weak who are not useful to us should perish - they are unnecessary and only a burden. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what characterizes capitalist society. Selfish motives might very well propel most of the relationships involved, after all, as Adam Smith described, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". But people prosper under this system. The amount of labor allotted to each individual over the years has fallen dramatically. We are living in a richer, more healthy society. Charity has always blossomed under such conditions. It is no accident that the largest average per capita amount given to charity was present in the hay day of the capital of capitalism - 18th Century United States. Today, however, it is the socialists and social-democrats ('liberals' in the US) who claim to be representatives of the good. Capitalism is evil and must be replaced by mixed economy (a type of economic fascism) or outright socialism. Their policies lead the the exact opposite effects that capitalist ones do. Charitable contributions plunge (after all welfare and such things are now entitlements). Productivity is lowered which means, ceteris paribus, the amount of hours people work is increased. In fact socialism is the system which claims to give people the opportunity to improve and grow, not just work all the time. The exact opposite is true. People in a real socialist society are forced to work. Most theorists of modern socialism have repeatedly stated that those who are useless and do not work must be eliminated. I thought that was the criticism these people's successors are levelling at capitalism? The greatest inspiration for today's many powerful socialists and economic fascists was probably Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (a.k.a. Comrade Lenin), a mass murderer and revolutionary. The Democratic Party of the United States in many ways resembles in structure and policy the old Leninist ideals of centralization and unlimited powers of the democratic majority. Let me just remind these deluded individuals that the motto of their great hero was "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". And what is the incentive to work in a country with 100% tax rates? If not a carrot, then a stick must be used. Work or die. That is the socialist creed. I still fail to see the difference between this system and simple slavery.

Speaking of socialism and evil men, I have to mention George Bernard Shaw. He once said: "I, who said forty years ago that we should have had Socialism already but for the Socialists, am quite willing to drop the name if dropping it will help me to get the thing." From this we might learn that 'they' are out there and 'they' have many names. They are men with no virtue and no honor, only a lust for power. Maybe dear old Mr.McCarthy wasn't wrong back in the 1950's? Who can blame a man for being paranoid when he is surrounded by evil men who here call themselves socialists, there democrats, elsewhere liberals, or social-democrats, or greens, or nationalists, or internationalists, or even (what nerve they have!) conservatives.

Modern Marxism in Disguise

Everyone knows that the most basic premise of Marxist theory is the assumption that class struggle exists and two groups of people emerge from it: the exploiters and the exploited. In classical Marxist dogma these were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat - striving against one another. In modern times this has already been recognized as pure idiocy (yes, this is the technical term for Marx's theories) by anyone who has a functional brain. The evil Marxists, however, have not given up yet. They know the theories of their idol (whom Yuri Maltsev aptly called 'a genius of evil') don't hold water, so they have to apply them to all sort of different phenomena and hope they stick somewhere. Usually this is done when at least two groups are said to 'antagonize' each other. The two most common applications of Marxist theory today are the theory of racial struggle and gender struggle. Apparently the races hate each other and so do the genders. Believe it or not, most people in the neo-liberal movement in America today (what is called the social-democratic movement in Europe) have more in common with Robert Mugabe than they do with the old idealist of liberty such as the American Founding Fathers. There is an easy litmus test by which we can tell socialists (Marxists) from normal members of society. Socialists will always emphasize some sort of struggle or threat and where non exists, they will just make one up. This has not changed from the time of Marx and Engels, through Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, to today's inheritors of this Marxist legacy. It is only the focus that has changed. Isn't it curious how the liberals are always the ones to point out racial, economic, or gender disparities within groups? Race, socioeconomic status, or gender questions are not something Classical liberals or today's libertarians concern themselves with. Talking about race issues is actually a way to perpetuate them because it causes people to notice the most minute and silly details in such relations. There can be no doubt there is less racism today than there was one hundred years ago, but if we listened to 'them' we would think today's world is inhabited by racists and poor discriminated groups. I do not buy into such rhetoric because I consider myself as having progressed beyond them. Let primitives discuss what they will, but us, the natural aristocrats, should keep at an arm's length at least. Propaganda will always be propaganda and Newspeak will always be Newspeak, but giving these people power will only let them implement their sick schemes into society. Marxist will always be racists and let's let them be so, as long as they stay out of our hair.

Let's ignore them, stand up for ourselves, and say as loudly and proudly as John Randolph once said: "I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."

Books Everyone Must Read, Part 1

Everyone who knows me knows most of the great works that influenced my thoughts throughout the years. When I look back, I think it all started with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. It is difficult to list all the books I've read since then! There are some, however, which few people have even heard of. The first of these I would like to mention is George Santayana's The Life of Reason. It is probably impossible to do justice to this monumental treatise here, so I just recommend that everyone read it for themselves. Santayana is one of the most insightful men I have ever encountered in philosophy and ethics. I particularly admire his aim of showing that an objective form of morality (though more on a philosophical than practical level) exists. Through well supported theory of ethics he comes to some very good conclusions about the falsehood of democracy and danger of overly patriotic societies. In this regard reading Santayana was almost like reading Mises or Rothbard, though the man certainly attacked the issues from a different perspective and did not spend as much time on pure theory. Nonetheless Santayana's great work, as its title suggests, is extremely logical and therefore somewhat of a 'must read' for people who admire reason as the greatest virtue. It is not merely about society and government either - that is only a subset of the entire philosophy. Other topics discussed are love, family, morals, and the essence of 'the good' and of humanity itself. It is rather difficult to find such a comprehensive treatise on morality anywhere else.
And, above all else, The Life of Reason is simply a great read. I have seen few books written so beautifully and with such eloquence. Sufficient to say many of our modern cliche terms such as "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" come from Santayana's writing.

The most powerful, though less know, quote which I can mention here is "Happiness is the only sanction of life; where happiness fails, existence remains a mad and lamentable experiment." This is why, after reading The Life of Reason, I became deeply interested in more radical forms or individualism and Epicureanism.

Women Engineers? Really?

The university I attend has a great engineering school, one of the best in the country. A lot of the student there happen to be women. I found this very strange (not even for the reasons which I highlighted in my first ever blog post - here). Why would a woman want to be an engineer? It is a career totally and utterly unsuited for her. This does not mean she is unsuited for becoming an engineer, it simply means that a career in engineering or other technical professions does not fit well into an average woman's life. The average woman has children. Raising children takes time. This means that taking off a few years might be necessary for mothers. Now in technical professions such as engineering or computer science this is impossible to execute. Sometimes even a few months are all that's necessary to fall behind. Incredible advances are made daily in these disciplines. Therefore it is clearly impossible to take a couple years off to raise a child under such circumstances. Women who study engineering are either making a choice not to have a child, to doom their child to childcare, or to have a really pointless education which they will never use once they start having kids. However I noticed most women don't even realize this is true - they simply never think of it. So how can someone who can't even anticipate such simple problems be intelligent enough to become an engineer? This makes no sense... Wouldn't it be more natural for a woman to take on a job in one of the more 'family-friendly' professions? Why do women do most teaching and administrative jobs? It is not only because they are more suited for them in terms of personality, but also because these jobs suit an average woman's lifestyle. A primary school teacher can take 2-3 years off for raising her own child and then go back to teaching kids their ABC's or basic math.
I in no way intend to make this a condemnation of women who study engineering. However, I want to say that it is not always good to follow the feminist/socialist agenda of saying that women are identical to men. They are not. Comparing men to women is like comparing apples to oranges. They might both be round fruits, but which is better? It is impossible to say! One can be better for something while the other better for something else. It is the same with men and women. The basic economic law of Division of Labor applies to the sexes as much as it applies to individual people who have different faculties or resources.

To discribe my observations it is best to use this quotation from Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband: "Women have a wonderful instinct about things. They can discover everything except the obvious." A society of women engineers? Really? Isn't there something obviously strange about this?

Can Man Ultimately Evolve Into "The Good"?

The key to understanding Social Darwinism has always been grasping the concept of the interrelation between social and biological evolution. I base my understanding of such matters on Herbert Spencer's vision (although such a vision would more properly be called Social Lamarckism). Social Darwinism is not a moral system per se; it cannot tell us what exactly to do under certain circumstances and how we should act. Rather, it i a concept which describes a process inherent in all living things. Namely: That which is in use (being necessary) will grow and enlarge while that which is not in use (being unnecessary) will decline and disappear. Thus, for instance, in a biological sense, humans do not have gills. When our ancestors left their aquatic environment they used these organs less and less until they vanished completely. The same process takes place with regard to societal functions of man. Aggression is a necessary impulse in primitive human societies because it was required for survival in a primal sense. Aggressive individuals were more likely to be able to take what they need and eliminate opponents. They were the ones that produced the most offspring. The 'might makes right' standard of the primitive state of nature required humans to live this way. However, according to Spencer, society and cooperation are based on the lack of aggression. Therefore to be well suited for society humans must curb their aggressive impulses. Overly-aggressive individuals will not be welcome and will die childless - excluded from society. Non-aggression will therefore be favored in a moral sense as well as in a biological sense (the non-aggressive people will now have the upper hand and be able to pass on their superior genetic material). The final product of this process will be the "perfect man".
Now here is where I differ from the great Mr.Spencer:
Firstly - I do not believe we can ever determine what the perfect man will be like. Will he be a non-aggressive altruist for whom causing pain brings pain and doing good bring pleasure as Spencer claims? I am afraid that sounds overly Utopian and, may I say, Marxist!
Secondly, Mr.Spencer bases his claims on that sad and evil beast UTILITARIANISM. This strange and terrible concept has devoured many great minds and twisted them into thinking that which is right is that which 'brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number'. I can never subscribe to such views.
On the whole, however, Spencer is right! Social Evolution is a process whether we like it or not! I do not disagree with Spencer about his conclusions either (I am simply not sure it is possible to prove the 'perfect man' claim). Every Christian bone in my body believes his conclusions are right. But this is, again, just a belief - not rooted in fact or empirically provable. Logic (of which Spencer is a great champion) may, however, point us in the right direction. Maybe man can become good, maybe man can end up existing "in God's image"? We'll never know...

And regarding my last post - the Clintons seem to have a very peculiarly tight relationship with Kosovo. Why else would the citizens of that 'state' erect a statue of the most pathetic US President of the 20th Century?