Here we go again...

Everyone outside the US knows the good old saying:
"Why has there never been a coup within the United States?"
"Because it's the only country in the world with no US Embassy."
I see the things going on in Tunisia. I see the things going on in Egypt. I saw the things that went on in the former Yugoslavia and in the Caucasus. I saw even more of that in the Middle East. I know from history all the things that went on in South-East Asia, Central and Latin America, Korea, and the Caribbean. So far only Europe, Antarctica, Australia, and sub-Saharan Africa have been more or less safe (although of course most of these places are being occupied by US troops to some extent).
Recently everyone here in America has been on a crazy rampage to promote "democracy" and "stability" in the Middle East - latest targets being Tunisia and Egypt.I recently read an article posted on MEP Daniel Hannan's facebook page (here). As much as I love and admire Mr. Hannan I could not help myself and responded to this article thusly:
Dear Mr.Hannan,
Democracy actually causes instability in regions which reject Western systems. Aside from the fact democracy is bad in principle, it is especially bad in places like Egypt, Tunisia, or the Middle East in general. Usually strong leaders can keep law enforcement functioning while democracy causes extreme factions to gain power (like in modern-day Iraq or Afghanistan - does anyone think those countries' governments wouldn't collapse if foreign troops left right now?). In Western countries democracy is also an affront to human rights unless it allows for secession (anti-state democracy). I am always on the side of Lord Acton on this issue - Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
I wrote this short comment because I sincerely believe in the Rule of Law. Where there is democracy there can be no Rule of Law. The two are mutually exclusive. In a country like Egypt democracy can lead only to the worst of consequences. As moderate and relatively peaceful that country is (largely because of Western influence), democratic initiatives could prove disastrous. After all Muslim majorities are not known for being very tolerant, and such a majority would certainly not be a (to paraphrase Lord Acton once more) benevolent dictatorship. I in no way want to cause offense to Muslims by this comment, but even observing Shi'a-Sunni relations gives some reason for pessimism in this situation.
We already know that in Tunisia it is Mr. Mohamed Ghannouchi who will take over power from the ousted President. Is this a good thing? This guy was Prime Minister under the old regime for many years and didn't seem to have a problem with it. Is he any less corrupt than his predecessor? That is to be seen, but I highly doubt it. I am always a skeptic where democracy is involved because I have as of yet never seen the masses make a right and informed choice when electing an official (sometimes the mob makes a good choice by chance - it just votes for the opposition because the government is so bad). I will make one exception to this rule - before women were allowed to vote socialists had little chance of getting into power (I do not want this to be interpreted as a sexist comment, it is just a fact of life...).

Immanuel Kant wrote back in the 18th Century that "Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty". Democracy is quite an evil institution - as I never fail to point out on this blog. But I also have a question for my great democratic friends, especially fans of universal suffrage: When will children finally be granted the right to vote? You seem to be overlooking this discrimination...

Communists are the Biggest "Investors" and "Developers"!

What has the world come to! Yesterday I ran into an incredibly crazy article in the Polish media written by some guy named Bartosz Turek. Now I realize that all too often I refer to people's ideas as crazy, so let me just offer a brief summary of what things this "housing market expert" wrote. I have to offer an explanation anyway since it involves some recent Polish history.
In the year 1970 a man named Edward Gierek became the First Secretary of the Polish Workers' Party (i.e. the Communist dictators). He stayed in power for 10 years until 1980. In 1981 he was subsequently jailed by the new Communist Military Dictator Wojciech Jaruzelski because the economy of Poland during his reign had nearly collapsed (Comrade Gierek was later released). Gierek was a well known Francophile educated in France (where he was member of the French Communist Party until his deportation to Poland). He was also briefly a member of the Communist Party of Belgium. As we can see, he was a real internationalist and revolutionary (he spent most of his time in France and Belgium organizing strikes for which he was later deported).
So what was the gist of this article I read yesterday? Well, the author praised Mr. Gierek for being the greatest investor and developer of Polish housing industry ever! I assume he was comparing Gierek's policies with what he currently says is failure (because of course it is the responsibility of the government to house everyone, no?). So here are some things he really liked about Gierek's development plan:
1. Gierek's government built 270 thousand apartments per year (it is highlighted that this is more than twice the "poor" 2010 results).
2. The "block" style architecture may not be aesthetically pleasing, but it is durable and efficient. It used latest Communist technology - those nasty concrete panels that everyone associated the former Eastern Block with.
3. Gierek did all this while incurring only $70 billion in debts.
4. The size of the apartments built in "blocks" constructed under Gierek seem to conform with the currently most marketable size of apartment everyone wants in Poland.
Now let me just say, this guy was serious when he wrote this article. Let me now analyze his points one by once with the necessary objections which just jump out at any non-Communist person out there:
1. It is not the government's job to steal money collectively from everyone and then house the entire nation! Whoever thought this could even be achieved is a total imbecile!
2. In response I will just post this picture of the great architecture.

I believe the technical term for this type of structure is "concrete shit".
3. Ahhh, those uninflated dollar numbers pop up not just in the US but everywhere! The author of the article should have known that $70 billion in the 1970's is some serious money right now. By the way, Poland is still paying this debt off! As of 2010 we still owe $118million to Japan (to be payed off by 2014) and $350million to the London Club (to be payed off by 2024). Does 50 years of debt seem like a fair price to pay for the deeds of one man?
4. So Mr. Gierek 40 years ago predicted 2010 market trends better than builders in 2009? Wow, maybe I don't give him enough credit...

Now I will not lie, I am thankful for the work of Comrade Gierek (pictured above on the right while "advancing Polish national interest"). After all Gierek is the one responsible for the utter bankruptcy of the Polish Communist state! He is the reason why in the 1980's martial law had to be instated (to prevent food riots) and price controls had to be put in place to keep the people from starving to death. On the whole I'm very thankful for him destroying the Commies from within. He was, of course, an evil dictator, but at least a very self-destructive one. What I cannot understand and never will, is why now, in 2011, people have started to look upon this guy with nostalgia and continually praise his work. Even the supposedly "conservative" candidate in the last Presidential elections, Jarosław Kaczyński, called him a Polish patriot...

Sorry Americans! (Damn you, Europe!)

I think I need to apologize to some people. Not because I was wrong or said something inappropriate, but because my priorities weren't straight. For the past couple weeks I've been relentlessly bashing the modern version of the USA and its current power structures. I don't take back anything I've said, but I must say maybe I overstated the issues. America is still the best place to be for libertarians.
What I realized is that since I live here now, I haven't been following the European news as closely. Europe, of course, is the new USSR (as the great Daniel Hannan recently pointed out here), not the United States. The recent Davos economic summit of European leaders snapped me out of my "America-centered-mindset". I read about the summit and watched many news reports about it before coming to the conclusion that European leftists are just the same as their American counterparts, if not worse. Yes, it is possible to be worse than Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Gore. How, a principled American libertarian might ask? Well, American politicians are populists above everything. And the American people still have the American mindset (although it is starting to weaken...). Liberty and rights are still cherished here, even when they are not precisely defined and not actually understood. For example when Mr. Obama realized that the American people are starting to hear the message about deregulation he actually spoke about it positively. He did the same with regard to tax cuts stimulating job growth. He completely flip-flopped 180 degrees on both these issues because if he had not done so he would have been digging his own political grave.
In Europe things are completely different. There politicians are completely not accountable to any constituency. The EU is ruled by 27 Commissars (yes, they are called the same as in the Soviet Union) who form a sizable Politburo. The EU Parliament then just gives the Politburo credibility. No matter how the people vote, these stooges will remain in power. Furthermore, the EU does not even respect the votes of its members - we all remember that when Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty they were forced to re-vote on the issue again. I have never seen such an incident in all of the history of democracy; it was a farce plain and simple.
On top of all this was Mr. Sarkozy's Davos speech. He showed how militant European leaders really are (a real modern Robespierre!). In an aggressive speech he completely rejected any opposition to the Euro. He denounced "speculators" and said things like "We will never - you hear me, never - let the Euro collapse" (he spoke of himself and German Chancellor Angela Merkel). He also said that "The disappearance of the euro would be so cataclysmic that we cannot even toy with the idea". Sounds totalitarian to me. Destruction of all other local currencies is imminent, I'm afraid. Let's hope Britain holds out with the pound, at least!

That crazy maniac, Maximilien Robespierre, once said this: "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs."
Remind you of anyone? I would say maybe... Nicolas Sarkozy?

Sputnik Is Back! - "Investing" in Education and Green Energy

I must say when President Barack Obama was giving his State of the Union Address I saw it for what it really was - a Soviet-style speech made to concur with the party line and a load of propaganda. I especially loved how the President used language in order to hide his real intentions. There were many populist applause phrases (when the entire Congress clapped and cheered for no apparent reason) which mentioned "efficiency", "fairness", and "liberty". But much more important were some of the places where the President mentioned his actual plans for the future. Here are a few observations:
1. Newspeak has arrived! Back in December I wrote that one of the main trends in this new year was going to be more use of Orwellian style Newspeak by the government and people associated with the current power structures. In fact President Obama used one word which I explicitly predicted will be one of the most used euphemisms of 2011 - "investment" (my prediction, here). By investment he meant, of course, them spending our money.
2. It was clear to me that the President's main goal, as always, is to micromanage the US economy. He seemed envious of China (describing their education system as better than the American) and yet he did not seem to understand that what currently gives China the upper hand in the market is the liberalization of the Chinese economy. The extra freedom Chinese citizens have is a big help to them when they have to compete against over-regulated over-taxed American businesses.
3. I am very worried about the President's promises to mess up the energy sector. "Green energy" handouts to government cronies seem imminent, further fueled by the fact that the President seems sure he can put 80% of the US on renewable energy by a year in which he will be out of office for some 20 years! In other words, he is claiming to be a seer (tarot or crystal ball I wonder...).
4. I am also worried about further meddling in the education system. I once wrote about crazy socialists in England who wanted to extend school days and eliminate holidays (basically stealing children from their families - here). I am very afraid some kind of like educational reform might take place in the US - the President was adamant about the fact that it is education systems which are advantageous to China and India (I have never heard such an absurdity).
People really seem to think Sputnik-like initiatives will save America. It is just the opposite.
The greatest US statesman of modern times, the Honorable Ron Paul, once summarized the current US situation in both accurate and eloquent terms by saying the following: "A government out of control, unrestrained by the constitution, the rule of law or morality. Bickering over petty politics as we descend into chaos. The philosophy that destroys us is not even defined. We have broken from reality a psychotic nation. Ignorance with a pretence of knowledge replacing wisdom... We are now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people’s money. Exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars spent on a failed welfare-warfare system. An epidemic of cronyism."

Self-Ownership, can it be questioned?

I own my own body. I therefore rule it. I decide how my faculties shall be employed and I make all decisions concerning my person and personal possessions. This sounds pretty self-evident to me. But there are some people (sadly 99% of the population consists of such people) who argue otherwise. They say we are not self-owners because they want control. They want to decide what we put into our bodies. They want to decide how we use our bodies. They are tyrants, pure and simple.
As a libertarian (progressing from the classical conservative-liberal tradition of Blackstone, Spencer, and Acton) I know self-ownership to be the only possible rule applicable to humanity as a whole and to individual people. There are two ways one could tackle the problem of proving self-ownership - either by proving it directly and axiomatically (the Hoppeian way) or by disproving all other possibilities (the Rothbardian way). So here I am going to offer the simple versions of the two arguments:
Rothbard claims there are three ways a person can exist in society:
(1) Everyone owns their own body
(2) Some people own the bodies of the rest of the people.
(3) Everyone owns the bodies of everyone.
He then proves only option (1) is functional and universal. Option (3) is impossible because in order to act a person would need to receive the approval of every one of his owners, i.e. every other person in the world. And every other person would need the permission of other people in order to give permission to the first person. Thus action under such a system is impossible and all people would die. Option (2) on the other case (an oligarchic slave/master dichotomy) is impossible because it is not universal. Every scientific Law has to be universal in order to work. Thus by creating a law which distinguishes between two types of people (remember, our aim was to create a law which applies to ALL people) we have to make arbitrary decisions on who is the master and who is the slave. Thus option (1) is the only Law which is both universal AND functional.
Professor Hoppe's proof, however, is even more decisive:
He says that it is impossible to even argue about self-ownership. After all, if you do not own yourself, you cannot argue! You cannot open your own mouth or think with your own brain! Thus saying "I am not a self-owner" is a contradiction - you are not allowed to speak if you are not a self-owner. By speaking you contradict what you are saying!

Why would I present this basic, yet obscure proof on my blog? After all everyone from the time of John Locke has accepted it as true... But it is crucial to understand it. Everyone who believes in liberty must be able to stand his ground against all kinds of evil people who try to usurp his rights. And as Murray Rothbard eloquently wrote, all our rights come initially from the notion of self-ownership: "If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use. In short, to sustain his human right."

Dear Rob Letter - An Emancipation Proclamation of Children

Dear Rob,

Thank you for the great correspondence! Maybe one day this stuff will be worth publishing!
But... Even if you were correct - which you are not - how "stupid" would the consequences of your theory be if used for adults? Imagine the Nazis actually having the right to do what they did! Now that is what I would call crazy. If you tried to be consistent with your theory you would get much worse results than those I am proposing for this small problem with children. And no matter what you say, violence is violence.
If I wanted to be precise I would call you an "ageist", i.e. you think just because people are in a certain age group they are inferior to other people. This is the same superstition which existed in regard to Blacks and Asians ("racism") or women ("sexism"). Any such beliefs are strictly irrational on all levels. People may have different abilities and faculties, but they all have the same rights. I know some 10 year olds who are more reasonable than many 50 year olds. I am therefore calling for the emancipation of children from their perpetual slavery and suffering under this system of discrimination which you and most other people in the world are supporting. You can call my ideas of non-violence "stupid", but I call all your ideas of sanctioned aggression "evil".

Furthermore I do believe the greatest proclamation of Classical Liberalism was the famous American Declaration of Independence. And if you read it you will realize that it does not sanction "your" government and any government, only a certain type of government. Quoting from the Declaration: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". Well I say this government has become destructive to my ends and I have THE RIGHT to abolish it. All I need to do is to reject the current and establish a new government. And anyone who tries to stop me is going against classical liberalism - that person is a tyrant. King George III was an abusive Monarch thus the Jeffersonians had a revolution, though he tried to prevent it. Nobody doubts this revolution was anything but moral. Liberals like Locke and Jefferson originated it, and conservatives like Burke and Acton endorsed it. Libertarianism today is just a contiuation of the classical liberal tradition (Rothbard's ideas naturally evolved from those of his mentor Mises).

I do not want you to take any of this as a personal insult - I know you to be a person with good intentions at heart. But as Milton Friedman(a statist classical liberal!) famous stated: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results." Thus I do not judge you by the intentions of your ideas (which I fully believe are good), but by their results (the abuses and violence they entail).

All is not as it SHOULD be...

People often use the term "should". One says something "should be this way" and another disagrees and says it "should be that way". I engage in this myself quite a lot. So how do we know whether something (or someone) is as it should be? Easily - by analysing the thing (person) itself. Everyone does this many times when making decisions (often without realizing it). For example, to find out the effect minimum wage laws or rent control laws have on the economy and people's behavioural patterns we do not look at an economy which has minimum wage (ex. USA today) and compare it to ancient China (no minimum wage). What we need is something else - a logical way to determine effects of things without actually doing them. This process is called deduction. We take what we already know about human behaviour and we apply the said thing to them. Minimum wage means that employers will have to pay their employees the same wage as now or, if they were paying them less than the new minimum wage, they will have to increase the salaries. From this we know that, ceteris paribus, unemployment levels will either stay the same or increase. This is a rational law. It would be irrational to think that employers will start hiring more people if they now have to pay them more. Such employers would go out of business very quickly and thus the law would reassert itself (and reason). But this still does not answer the question of "should there be a minimum wage?". The answer is - if you want to increase unemployment, you should pass such laws. If you want to decrease unemployment, you should abolish such laws. "Should" is a word that we usually apply to means. In order to achieve a goal A we should proceed with course B. But before we can assert this we must know why we should aim for goal A. Should implies not only the pragmatic (first sense), but also the ethical (second sense). In the first we can always clearly determine the answer, in the second it takes a lot more effort. And this second question is the one we have to ask first! Or, if I may use this word, this is the question we should be asking. Why should we be asking it? That's another matter...
Everyone knows what I stand for, what I think the world should be like, but let me clearly define it here:
I stand for freedom.
I stand for reason.
I stand for life.
Those things, in that order!

People often ask me why they should listen to me. Why they should care about philosophy at all. What does it achieve? How do strange musings about human nature help us? Ayn Rand once answered this beautifully. And here is that initial premise of all knowledge and things - why we should study philosophy: "In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is – i.e. he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts – i.e. he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."
Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Militarist Bug

People love the army. This is the simple truth. No matter what political tradition they come from they always tend to support the military of their nation. For example here in the USA even the people who are against aggressive American wars in the Middle East support the troops! They wish them good luck, welcome them home when they do arrive back, etc. I once witnessed a very strange event at an airport where a number of military personnel (all dressed in their uniforms) just arrived back in the US from some foreign country. When they walked in through customs all the random people who happened to be in the airport at the time just applauded them for no apparent reason. Maybe somebody will explain this to me one day... but I just don't know how such people think.
Now I may not be a pacifist, but I certainly know who the aggressors are. And the army are the aggressors. We really need to show some backbone and confront these people. I know they have all the guns and a good PR agency (the entire government), but we must stand up for what is right. Herbert Spencer gave us a great example back in his days. When commenting on the British invasion of Afghanistan (parallels?) he said about the soldiers that "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves." This is the attitude we should have about the soldiers in our armies (well except for the Swiss who have no such problem).
And there is an even more important aspect to army worship than the glorification of murder. That is, also in the Spencerian tradition, the permeating effect that such worship has on the entire society. Society can only be organized in two ways - the industrial (liberal and voluntary relations) or military (controlled and relations based on status). The militant model lends itself to hierarchical structures and thus the use of socialist means. It creates an atmosphere in which the common man accepts his inferiority to the wise overlord who is, after all, above him on the ladder. But I would add it is also a greedy society - everyone is willing to fight for his place on that ladder to the death. Why do we have such conflict today with the Democrats and Republicans in the US, for example? It is clearly because some people know that when the Republicans are elected their lives will be utterly destroyed and, vice versa, some people know the same about the Democrats. Militant society produces destructive forces, legitimizes aggression (both is execution and legislation), and brainwashed people into accepting the system. The army is all about acting decisively, civilized relations are all about restraint. We must reject that Machiavellian notion of militant society and protest any and every abuse of power.

Tragically I cannot make others understand this crucial concept - the evil of the military society (also known as a fascist society). All that remains for me to do is repeat that helpless shout of Cicero - "O tempora, o mores!"

Books Everyone Must Read, Part 2

In the second installment of of my book recommendation series: Immanuel Kant's greatest work Critique of Pure Reason. This is the most important and revolutionary treatise in the history of all epistemology. My own philosophical interests focus very much on Kantian reason theory (besides my obvious interest in political philosophy). This is because all knowledge is based on the theory of knowledge. What is real or unreal? What exists? What can human knowledge encompass? What can we really discover or even be able to possibly think about? These questions are answered by Kant. For the first time in history this great philosopher introduces the concept of synthetic a priori statements which are now the basis of all human knowledge. For myself I must say I was at first very skeptical of Kant's theories. It took me a while to get used to the notion of perfectly sound and valid analytic a priori arguments being rejected outright. But clearly this is the case - as Kant explains. To many people such abstract notions as the foundations of knowledge may seem unnecessary or "far off", but the reality is different. In order to really know anything we must first know what our knowledge is based upon. In the Critique of Pure Reason and some later works Kant explains just this. He says that the principle of contradiction is not enough to make a statement about the real world. It is only enough to make a valid logical point in the analytic sense. In many ways (although I am not an expert on Kant's work) I think this is the most important of his books. Often Kantian Ethics or such topics get emphasized, but we should all know that this man's greatest contribution to today's world was his revolutionary theory of knowledge. Not to mention that Kant does assert that Natural Rights and Law are supreme in the ethical sphere!

When skimming through the book to quickly find a Kantian quote worth mentioning in this post I read the following eloquent passage: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". This is the essence of all synthetic a priori including praxeology (also known as Austrian theory). Denying synthetic axiomatic statements would be foolish. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason should be included in every curriculum of basic economics... In the human sciences one cannot be a David Hume, but neither can one be an Aristotle.

Homo homini lupus est?

The title of this post is the essence of the famous Hobbesian myth. Thomas Hobbes was someone I would call a founder of modern statism. Before Hobbes no such thing as the state existed. Indeed Hobbes was inspired by crazy theories of people like Plato and Machiavelli - but their utopias (thank God Almighty!) never came to exist before Hobbes got his hands on them. Hobbes argued that in the state of nature the lives of men are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Men could not, he said, function at all without the threat of a master's whip. What differentiated Hobbes from the likes of Plato was that unlike Plato's famous Republic (which was also a utilitarian society of masters and slaves like the modern state is), the Hobbesian society was based on the consent of the governed. The people supposedly came together and, from the bottom up, placed themselves into the shackles of the state. It was not a top-down tyranny, but a self-imposed one. It was also, the main crux of Hobbes's theory, entirely necessary for these shackled to exist. The Hobbesian myth is, of course, absurd. We all know people can cooperate without force and coercion. In fact had Hobbes been correct how would people have come together to agree to create the state? They wouldn't have! After all people can't cooperate or agree without the state looking over their shoulder, can they? I noticed today in my philosophy class that many people were completely incensed at the idea of Plato's "noble lie". Plato argued that the simple people need to be told that the republic is for their own good and was founded together for their benefit. But he did admit this was a lie. And yet when I mentioned that the same is going on now (noble lie = Hobbesian myth) there were a few laughs around the classroom. I can only assume this would have also taken place in Plato's Republic. People would laugh at others who pointed out the noble lie...
Hobbes's lie was of course picked up by later philosophers. John Locke incorporated this monstrosity into the liberal worldview. From then on no political philosophy was spared this falsehood. It is up to us to change that!

Thomas Paine was one of those flawed liberals who subscribed to the theories of Hobbesian myth and to some extent to fallacious democratic principles. And yet even he - not knowing he was contradicting his own political philosophy! - wrote that "Human nature is not of itself vicious". Indeed it is not. And that really is something when you realize it's coming from a former pirate!

Life in the Face of Adversity

Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists face constant moral/verbal assault by "selfless" neoliberals and "protective" neocons. It is very difficult to live under under such conditions and not become discouraged. The opposition, of course, does not make any sense and never use any logical arguments. They use faulty economics and arbitrary moral statements to try to paint us as evil, greedy, or selfish. This can be difficult to endure. Being continuously treated in such a way might lead to self-doubt. Some people I know who agree with me have long been avoiding any political topics. They no longer fight for our cause; they have been silenced by the masses of intellectual terrorists.
It is much easier to bear any such attacks when we understand that all our opponents are just simpletons. They have deeply flawed personalities and cannot use that faculty which makes them most human - reason. They are in essence animalistic and their thinking simplistic. They think pragmatically and can't comprehend abstract concepts of morality or ethics. The great Friedrich Nietzsche characterizes such people within his field of "slavish morality". He writes of these slaves that according to them: "the good man is the safe man", "slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility", and, most insightfully, "everywhere that slave- morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words 'good' and 'stupid'". We need to realize that we bear the banner of truth through a field of lies.

We must take here to heart the words of Lord Tennyson:
My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.
And strengthen our pure hearts against evil!

What's not to Love about Monarchy?

What is the best aspect of Monarchy? What is its single best feature? This is a very easy question. The best part of any Monarchist order is its respect for private property rights. In a Monarchy the King tends to enforce private property rights while in a Democracy or Republic it is the public property rights that are strengthened over time. Private property rights are (as I have maintained all along) the only rights man has. The right to life or the right of free speech are actually Private Property Rights (i.e. a man owns his own body, no one else having the right to do so). A Monarchy is, strictly speaking, either absolute or feudal. I support the latter, but the former is still highly superior to the world order we have today. Why? Same answer: Because Kings tended to explain their power through private property rights and it was exceedingly difficult for them to abuse the population. Any undermining of his subjects' property rights would erode the Monarch's claim to his own! In an absolute Monarchy the King was the owner of the entire landmass (much like in today's system) and the people were his tenants. In essence he was a landlord and they were renting his land. This meant many things. It meant, for instance, that the King could rarely legislate without the consent of the people. A landlord today has no right to unilaterally change the contract with the man who rents his house, so it was with even the (so-called) absolute Kings. Today, of course, we have legislative tyranny. The government does not wait for our permission to abuse our rights, it simply does so. Most of what democratic states do would have cost an absolute Monarch his head. Just think of the taxation situation. Even the most efficient absolute Monarch, the last Kaiser of the German Empire Friedrich Wilhelm von Preußen (known as Wilhelm II), was only able to collect taxes amounting to just over 10% of GDP in times of war. Meanwhile today's democracy collects nearly 50% or over 50% of GDP all the time! This is theft pure and simple (because supposedly we have private property... but just try refusing the taxman). The King was not payed taxes as we have today, he was paid small fees. Most of the population did not pay at all.

To know that the above is true we don't need to look far. Just find the origins of liberty and property as we think of them today. Probably the best definition of property comes from that immense work of beauty, the Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone (who is widely cited by many from Herbert Spencer to the US Supreme Court) is the founder of rights are we know them today. As he wrote: "...the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." That is our most important right. The only one we really need. This is why all socialists (whether the hardcore communist variety or the parasitic democrats) are our enemies everywhere and anywhere because they are the enemies of civilization and humanity itself.

Good Old Democracy

Democracy (Greek "demokratia" - "rule of the people") is a very vague term. Today in schools the state propaganda machine defines it as a system in which majority rule is applied and which creates freedom and equality. This definition is false for too many reasons to count (for one, liberty is contrary to egalitarianism). Still, democracy based on this false definition has many followers. And many of these democratic demagogues take the time to research my opinions before or after they debate me on the issue of government(NB. I greatly respect people who are willing to actually go through the task of research and finding information rather than just blabbering and shouting). Such people often get back to me with snide remarks about two men who I consider to be some of my greatest philosophical mentors - Herbert Spencer and Ludwig von Mises - being in favor of democracy. This is a basic error. Indeed Spencer and Mises thought democracy preferable to monarchy, but that is only because they had a very different definition of democracy. For them it was not something vague and associated with freedom and equality and majority rule. Rather it was, as Mises put it "the right of self-determination both of individuals and of nations". This means that "rule of the people" was interpreted differently by liberal philosophers. Rather than meaning "everybody rules" as is accepted today, democracy used to mean "everybody rules themselves and themselves alone". This is what liberal democracy was really about. This is the principle on which the United States were founded. Herbert Spencer wrote about this most eloquently when establishing his Right to Ignore the State. Secession was the most important and deeply fundamental aspect of liberal democracy as defined by Mises, Spencer, or Jefferson. This principle, cited in the Declaration of Independence, was only quenched and eliminated from the definition of democracy after the War to Prevent Southern Secession in the 1850's. Unfortunately the greatest liberal democracy which ever existed, those Jeffersonian United States, killed itself soon after its foundation...

I think Mises described his views best when writing about liberalism in Man, Economy, and State - "It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them." This is what liberal democracy was really supposed to embody. The democracy we have today is mob rule, a dictatorial democracy. Sadly liberal democracy always degenerates thus, which is why we must oppose this doctrine at ever corner.

US Debt Debate

There is a big debate currently going on (especially in libertarian circles) about the newly sworn in US Congress voting on the debt ceiling issue. The US government has actually budgeted itself in such a way that they expected the Congress to raise the debt ceiling again before April. It is obvious that the government will be given the money. Even the real conservative (do not confuse with neo-con) Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has stated the debt will be increased. I rather doubt more than a few people will vote against it. Certainly all the Democrats and most Republicans will support the debt increase. But is this prudent?
We must remember this increase is not the first and most likely not the last. The USA has by now acquired $14.3 trillion of public debt. That is an enormous number. In fact, it is equivalent to around $47,000 per man, woman, and child! And we must not forget private debt which is up to $38 trillion (a lot of this is, sadly, guaranteed by the government in one way or another). Now overall that comes to over $170,000 per person! Let me add that currently, as well as for the last 70 years, the US government has been borrowing money to be able to pay interest on previous debts. That is like me taking out a bank loan in order to pay off my monthly credit card card increases...
The only reason the government is able to service this debt at all is because it has a sugar-daddy in the Federal Reserve who keeps the interest rates nice and low. I think, in all honesty, that the US Congress should vote against raising the debt ceiling. I know this might cause a government collapse - but this is exactly what this country needs. The Fed would then be forced to monetize all government debt. That would lead to a dollar collapse and most likely hyperinflation. This, however, is necessary. The entire financial and government system in the US has to be restructured. Pushing the time of default away is just going to make things worse. Monetizing a larger about of debt will just cause more inflation. I know this is entirely unrealistic - the American government will keep borrowing to uphold its welfare and warfare states. But this is not the way to go forward. A crisis is coming and it's better to handle it sooner than later.

Morality Is Definite and Precise

Can there be a grey area when it comes to justice? Can someone be neither right nor wrong? Can the existentialist individualism be extrapolated to include groups of people? Quite a few people now have labeled me a radical for having no ability to compromise on any issues. What they don't realize is that these are questions of morality, and one cannot compromise in ethics. I have never in fact heard of any philosopher who compromised on his theory of ethics.
Such questions as mentioned above are therefore, in essence, very foolish. My morality is very simple. But, just to be sure, let's provide a clear proof and explanation of why it is so in the form of a logical argument based on the following premises:
1. All individual actions of a person must be either moral or immoral.
2. All aggression is immoral.
3. Aggression is defined as an attack on property to which the attacker has no right.
Firstly, the notion of an act being both moral and immoral or neither of those is excruciatingly silly. All human acts are within the scope of the study of ethics (that is the whole point of ethics - it is universal). All acts are therefore put into two categories: moral and immoral (that is how all ethical systems work). In my case, I classify acts of aggression as immoral and all consensual acts as moral. If someone disagrees with that premise (i.e. they suggest that aggression can be moral or consensual acts immoral) then all the power of logic cannot help me persuade them. It is difficult to prove that aggression is immoral. I assume this stance because I feel it is wrong. However I also realize the fact that all reasonable beings refrain from aggression wherever possible may constitute some proof of me being correct.
Secondly, what about acts being partially wrong? I have been given the example of Milton Friedman. His classical liberal philosophy is inherently flawed, but can it be moral? After all be partially agrees with anarcho-libertarians on some topics. Let me answer this by giving a simpler example. Can murder be partially moral? Is a person who kills one person more moral than a person who kills fifty? How about a thief? If a thief steals my wallet is he more moral than a thief who steals my wallet and then bashes me over the head? Certainly in pragmatic terms there is a difference. I would rather have my wallet stolen than have it stolen and be punched. The case is the same in this microcosm as in political reality. I would rather live under Friedman's liberalism than Castro's socialism. This does not mean that Friedman's philosophy is moral, just as it did not mean that the guy who only stole my wallet without beating my up was moral! A thief is still a thief! Of course everyone prefers to have less stolen from them, but it would be better if no theft took place at all. In supporting Friedman over Castro I would not be supporting the moral candidate, only the gentler one.
People who are confused about this mix up the ethical sphere with the pragmatic sphere. For instance in today's USA the government confiscates around 50% of people's income in taxes. This means that they are enslaved for 50% of their time. Of course in pragmatic terms it is better to be a slave for 50% than 100% (and it would be even better to be a slave for 5% or 1%!), but in moral terms a slave is still a slave. And yes, all immoral things are evil. We have to minimise evil wherever possible.
NB. It is easier to distinguish ethical questions from pragmatic ones by checking to which of these two categories of questions the query applies: (1) How something should be? (ethical), or (2) How something would be? (pragmatic). For example, theft should not occur at all, but in the future I will vote for Rand Paul because that will minimize theft.

Inflation for 8 year olds!

I remember the first time I wondered what inflation is. I was about 8 and heard the word on the news. Afterwards I asked my father about it (sufficient to say he is a scientist, not an economics expert). I don't remember exactly what he told me, but what my little child mind understood is that there are some bad men someplace falsifying and creating fake money. I literally used to think that if the inflation rate is, say, 5%, this means that 5% of all the money people use is fake money printed by some thief in his basement. I didn't really give that much thought; inflation is not the most important thing for children. By the time I was 13 I was sure my definition was wrong and economics is so complicated I would never know what inflation is. But now at age 20, after a period of interest in economics (especially the Austrian school), I realize I may have been right. Now, I know inflation is not exactly false money, it is perfectly legal tender. However, there is more than just a grain of truth in my 8 year old assertions. Inflation is indeed a bunch of shady characters creating money. Of course they don't do it in the basement and in secret, they do it in the Central Bank and they do it openly. And that is what makes this whole process very strange. Of course I know liberals (i.e. Keynesians) would say I'm "prejudiced against inflation" because at a young age I received the impression it was bad. But now I'm an adult, I'm thinking about this rationally, and I still think it is wrong for some rich Yale/Harvard blokes to lower the value of my savings while enriching themselves (Bernanke is printing another $600Billion!). In fact it was easier to accept when I used to imagine it being done by some tattooed guys wearing ski masks in a badly-lit basement or garage.
When I was 8 I thought the government would get these guys. Then I realized "these guys" are the government...

I don't quote the great Ludwig von Mises nearly often enough. And he described inflation very well from an economic perspective when he said that "Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money without a corresponding increase in the demand for money, i.e., for cash holdings". This is exactly right. There is no demand for larger cash holdings - this is shown by the cash holdings losing value when its supply increases. The only "demand" in this case is the demand of greedy politicians and their banker cronies.

We need Revisionists!

I remember how much I hated Historical Revisionism back in my high school days. They flipped everything upside down! And in most cases modern revisionists are indeed bad people. Just think of the multitude of views people hold which justify Stalin's foreign policy as "defensive"... And all the people who praise industrialization as an accomplishment of communist regimes! These are, sadly, the only revisionist views taught in our schools today. However, I am very unsatisfied with the orthodox versions of historical interpretation as well. One thing I oppose there is the arbitrary division of brutal totalitarian leaders and strong authoritarian rulers. Everyone who knows me knows that I am a great admirer of Thomas DiLorenzo and his revisionism in American history. The same is true for Thomas E. Woods, another American historian.
So what history would I like revisited? Well, pretty much all of it! Historians up to now have been following their pro-statist and pro-democratic agenda to please their leaders. In other words, there really is a immense group of court historians of democratic regimes (nb. it is these modern democrats that always decry court historians as terrible propagandists of the ancien régime).
So let's look at one example: Generalissimo Francisco Franco. He is the victim of many prejudices of today's court historians. Firstly, he is all too often labled a "fascist". This is not surprising - pretty much every opponent of democracy is today called a fascist for no apparent reason while the real ideological fascists (as I have explained on this blog) are mostly today's western leaders. In fact, Franco did use the national-syndicalist Falange in order to aid him in his fight against radical hordes of murderous communists. Then, promptly, he went on to imprison most of the Falange leaders (after all they were dangerous fascists!). Fraco was an authoritarian ruler, but not a fascist. The most apt description of Mr. Franco would probably be "a fierce anti-Communist dictator". Secondly, Gen. Franco is often equated with the likes of Hitler (because Hitler supported his side during the Spanish Civil War) and Stalin (because he persecuted political opponents). On the Hitler support issue, we really need some revisionism. Hitler in fact despised Franco. At one point he went as far as to say it was a mistake to support him and that he should have supported the Reds! Why did Hitler say this? Because Franco did not kill the King and he did not eliminate Catholicism from Spain. In this Hitler also decried Mussolini while praising Stalin for being more efficient (Stalin supported the Reds all along... and he did a good job eliminating the Church and the Tsar!). On the issue of persecution of opponents, the criticism against Gen. Franco has merit. It is doubtless that he killed many innocent people. However, it is also doubtless that of the people he had killed (less than 50,000 by all accounts) an enormous majority were communists (i.e. aggressive human leeches). I also reject any comparison of Franco to Stalin who was killing 12,000 a day back in the USSR at this time.
There can be no doubt Francisco Franco was the best option for Spain at the time. Any state is evil and bad. His was an authoritarian and nationalist regime. But certainly he cannot be placed in the same category as people who killed countless thousands (including US Presidents like Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, or LBJ). I do not admire dictators, but we need some revisionists here to set the record straight and expose the democratic leaders for who they really are, instead of just demonizing great men.

Monarchy and Crisis

In my last post I referenced His Highness Louis XV, the King of France and Navarre. Most opponents of my Monarchist views love to talk about the House of Bourbon and how it brought about the horrible conditions in France. They say this is absolutely proof of the terror and destruction Monarchies can unleash upon their own people. What they don't realize is that I also love to talk about those poor Capetians who ruled France. Why? Because their history shows us what happens when a Monarch brings about unfavorable conditions for the populace living on his private property. It proves that very important thesis, that "a bad Monarchy will inevitably bring about its own destruction". This, of course, applies to any system of government based on arbitrary rule, democracy included. So why would I advocate Monarchy over democracy? The answer is very simple! In a Monarchy when the King is a bad one, he is usually swiftly eliminated. He is killed either by unhappy plebeians, unhappy nobles, or unhappy members of his own dynasty. I would say that offers any ruler a strong incentive to act as he/she is supposed to act. In all the years of my studies of history I have never found any mention of a financial crisis under a normal system of law (a Monarchy, feudal system, or an anarchy). Meanwhile the last few hundred years (filled with dictatorships, "constitutional monarchies", and democracies) have been marred by countless financial debacles and problems of a grand scale previously unknown to mankind. A King would have been held accountable for any such problems. Therefore he knew better than to interfere with the basic rights of his subjects. Most medieval Kings, who are now portrayed as primitives of all sorts, had specialized (usually Jewish) financial advisers who overlooked all economic matters and kept the King's attention elsewhere. This was especially true in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
And what about our "great" democracy? No personal responsibility of rulers. No incentive to act morally or honorably. Nothing preventing crisis after crisis after crisis all in a gigantic cesspool of corruption...
I therefore call upon all those people who are "practical". At least for the pragmatic reason of preventing crises, please endorse Monarchy! For once you democrats, be human!

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day." Il Duce himself said this once. And if anyone doubts that in single-ruler states the leader is always held accountable for his actions, I encourage people to read about his fate...

2011 - Realistic Predictions

Two things are certain about 2011. It will be a much worse year than 2010, and a much better year than 2012. Other than that it is difficult to get into specifics. However there are some things which I can say about the future with relative certainty. Here is a list of a few basics:
1. Commodity prices will go up. I predict most useful commodity prices (i.e. prices of raw resources like cotton, wheat, or oil) will go up by 50-100% in 2011. This is due mostly to grandiose inflation, but also to trends like hoarding goods and less international trade. Gold and other precious metals will also go up, probably at least 30%. All this depends on how soon China begins to dump US debt.
2. US bond prices will fall (might collapse!). If China does begin to dump US debt in Europe (as indicators have been showing) and diversifying into the Euro or if China allows its currency to appreciate in value we will see a collapse in US government bond prices of an unprecedented proportion.
3. The curtailing of liberties will continue. I expect all "War on Terror" measures to increase due to government scare tactics. I wouldn't be surprised if soon there will be a complete ban on bringing any liquids at all onto airplanes or some crazy luggage inspections and even more personal screenings in all public places.
All these "good things" will of course lead to other things like increased crime rates and public unrest. But I'm sure out overlords will feel that's a small price to pay for their domination over us.
In an extreme assessment, of course, this year could be the year of the collapse of the Euro and the Dollar. This is quite possible, but I think not probable. More likely that this will happen in 2012 or 2013. I have observed that governments go to incredible lengths in order to save themselves and saving the Dollar and the Euro is key to a lot of governments. Maybe gold confiscation a la Roosevelt is on its way?

But who worries about such petty things as life, liberty, and property! Why don't we follow those who shout boldly "Après nous, le déluge!" and run on to hack at windmills! Our leaders just need to remember whose mouth those words came out of. His Highness Louis XV didn't end up doing too well in the end... So maybe instead of attacking climate change and the glass ceiling our leaders could please turn to the real problem at hand?