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.