Are People Stupid? Or are they just hypocrites...?

While on holiday in Poland I had a most curious conversation about zoning rules in our capital, Warsaw. Being a supporter of full-fledged freedom I am, of course, totally against any zoning laws or any other laws abridging the rights of people to do whatever they wish with their private property. The people I spoke to, however, were "fully" supportive of zoning. I say "fully" because they supported it only as long as it pertained to other people - not themselves. First I heard them complain loudly about how housing developers should be banned from building 4-storey high apartment blocks near areas which are for "small, single-family homes" because it ruins the landscape. A few minutes later, however, the conversation turned to a piece of property owned within Warsaw city limits by one of the speakers. Suddenly I was told that scandalously he is banned from building anything taller than 4-stories high on his plot of land! This makes his land less valuable and he is unable to sell it! Am I the only person (sadly...) who finds anything strange in this standpoint? Apparently justice really depends on the viewpoint - it is something subjective, not objective. This notion could not be more wrong. Justice is always objective. For a real definition of what is just, my earlier entry about the Law of Equal Liberty should suffice (read it here). This entry might be about democracy as a system in itself, but it certainly also includes all laws made in a democratic (i.e. mob-rule) way. Zoning laws are just one example of how individual rights of property are violated by the state which has vowed to uphold them.

Bans on... Everything!

The "Liberal" establishment across the globe is constantly trying to curtail our individual freedoms. The explanation they usually offer when they pass another ban is "it's good for society, and you are bad for opposing it". I assume the next step is to start sending opposition to jail... However, it is possible to quickly prove that the Liberal argument is incohesive and lacks something any good proof needs - logic. I have lately been listening to some nuts talking about why prostitution is banned and why it is evil and ruining out society. Now certainly, I do not condone prostitution. But I also do not condone, for example, chewing tobacco, and yet we all know it is (still) legal. On the other hand I do not condone theft, and taxes are the essence of legality. So, as we see, my opinion of something does not have a bearing on it being legal or not. Prostitution is just an activity which all sides agree to prior to the start. This is exactly the same "consenting adults" argument which Liberals have used to make homosexuality legal, as it should be (whether people condone it or not). Thus we have just made the perfectly logical case for legalizing prostitution, and legalizing all acts that consenting adults want to engage in within the confines of their private property. There is no logical way to refute this, therefore legislators opposed to any such practice have to resort to "pragmatic" or, as the great Herbert Spencer terms it, "expedient" argumentation. Let's stay on the example of prostitution.
The "Liberals" say that it:
1. Hurts women (treating their bodies like property)
2. That most individuals engaged in prostitution don't have a choice (they do it to support a drug habit)
3. That it fosters crime (for example, human trafficking).
First let me say that none of these points actually refute the statement that consenting adults may engage in whatever they want on their own property. Secondly, we can prove all the above statements wrong or inconsequential:
1. A person's body is their property. If it was not, then others would be in control of it, and they clearly are not. Also, if a woman is engaged in prostitution, it clearly doesn't bother her that her body is viewed as such, or even if it does bother her she still prefers the gratification (money) over the bad feeling.
2. Just because someone is addicted to any substance does not mean they have lost their free will. They can at any point choose to quit using drugs, which would solve the problem. And if people who are on drugs are no longer responsible for their actions, why are they allowed to vote?
3. Any crime needs to be punished and ferreted out. There is crime in the form of tobacco smuggling, or counterfeiting money - this does not mean we should outlaw tobacco and money. It is expedient to point out that government-run central banks are the biggest counterfeiters of money.

Just to get my point across better, I will now make the argument for banning dogs as pets in homes:
1. Dogs can be dangerous to children and other human from outside the household they are raised in.
2. Dogs foster crime (there are illegal dog fight gangs and gangsters often use attack dogs as weapons - see here)
3. Dogs cause a unhealthy atmosphere to develop in the community (most people care about their dog more than the life of another human being) and can cause accidents (dogs often cause traffic incidents by jumping out onto a busy road)

I think I have presented my case quite well. Let's hope none of the "Liberal" gang takes it up...

The Homo-lobby are a bunch of nuts...

In Poland (and pretty much everywhere else) there is a very agitating and thoroughly annoying group of people who call themselves "gays". They have taken to parading on the streets with rainbow flags while wearing obscene clothing and shout a lot about something called "gay rights". Supposedly they have less rights than us, the normal people. Now I have been saying for as long as I can remember that there are no such things as "gay rights", "black rights", "women's rights", "immigrant's rights" or anything of the sort. There are only human rights - everyone has them. These gays want, among lots of other things, the right to be registered as married couples with all the benefits that entails and the right to adopt children, etc, etc. For one thing, I would gladly switch places with these idiots. Government registration of marriages is about one thing: control. I do not like to be controlled. Therefore I propose to the Polish legislature the following: Create state marriage for homosexuals, and don't register state marriages for heterosexuals! That way I don't have to pay the bureaucrats fees when I actually get married, and I can only have a nice Church ceremony - which to me is how marriage really works. Plus the government isn't looking in on me every second to see if I pay the right taxes and how I behave toward my partner. What I will not stand for, however, is "gays" taking my money (through taxes) for their harebrained schemes.
Some of these include:
1. Teaching children in public schools that "gays" are great and there is nothing wrong with their behaviour.
2. Making people hire "gays" or else have the state sue the employers for discrimination.
3. Handing out all kinds of leaflets and magazines propagating their perversion.
Let me just make a quick comment for each of these to show how ridiculous the claims are:
1. "Gays" say that teaching children that "gays" are normal is free of indoctrination and full of tolerance. I say exactly the opposite. If someone is teaching my child (luckily I do not yet have this problem) that "gays" are good then they are indoctrinating my child into their own point of view. Also, it is apparent that "gays" are not very tolerant of Christians just because they disapprove of their ways.
2. I have written a million times (and will continue to do so) that what someone does with their own private property is their business alone. If I want to hire only heterosexuals or, in fact, only homosexuals, I have a full right to do so!
3. If homosexuals are going to start popularizing their own "way to love" what will come next? Will we have a "Oral-love" lobby after the "Homo-love" lobby? Or a pedophile lobby? After all, as the "gays" say - we are all just different, but really the same!
All in all, I am getting very sick of these raving lunatics who say that they need some special treatment just because they're homosexual. Unfortunately I think this is just the beginning. It is part of the EU agenda to "educate" (ie. indoctrinate) all out children to think the way the government thinks. The Polish "gays" are looking forward to a couple of big victories in Strasbourg.
I was never a homophobe, but after the treatment I'm getting, I feel something is about to snap.

Corporations use force to exploit me? Give me a break!

A lot of people don't seem to understand what a "corporation" really is. Inspired by lunatics like Michael Moore, the general opinion is that these are some kind of blood-sucking entities through which white guys in expensive suits exploit everything and everyone around then (their employees, customers, and "the environment"). This is, of course, completely false. Corporations are not evil monsters. A quick definition of a corporation would be that it is "a legal entity established by a group of like-minded people so that they may more efficiently and effectively invest their resources". Shareholders own corporations, just the same as my local butcher owns his small business. There is little difference between them aside from the scope of operations of each. There is, however, another nasty myth about corporations - that they engage in some sort of greedy exploitation. Let's tackle this misconception with simple logic. Some misinformed individuals claim that "corporations" (here I am using their socialist terminology - "corporations" are evil monsters, not people) exploit their own employees by forcing them to work for low wages. This is plainly false. Each employee has a contract to which he agrees beforehand - which states his wages and working hours. If he was being exploited, he would not agree to sign the contract and would find other work. In a capitalist market economy each party to a contractual agreement or trade benefits ex ante. When both parties agree they both acknowledge that the contract (in this case the employee selling his labour and the employer buying it) is beneficial to them. Not just to the corporation! So there is no exploitation present at all.
Usually at this stage of my explanation the commies (at least those that can follow logical argument) play what they think is their "trump card". Namely, they present me with the following scenario: What if a corporation lowers or cuts their employees wages after the contract has been signed, or changes their working hours and conditions? The answer is simple: If one side breaks the contract the other side is released from its responsibilities and may be entitled to compensation. So if the corporation lowers a person's wages he can simply walk away! If he chooses not to leave despite worse conditions he obviously still judges the employment to be a benefit to him, and if there is a willingly-accepted benefit there can be no exploitation. Again - all parties to the contract benefit.
Corporations earn profits and money by pleasing people and working to satisfy the needs of both their emplyees (through wages and good conditions) and customers (through providing a satisfactory product at a low price).

To quote the great Ayn Rand: "Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value... The businessman's tool is values."
As a meaningful contrast let's read her opinion on government action: "...political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction... the bureaucrat's tool is fear."
Which is really force, the former or the latter?