I never though I'd the the one pointing out that evil socialist dictators have rights! Or rather - whatever rights they may or may not have, we cannot be the executioners of them. I am starting to hear more and more talk about assassinating Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi from all directions. The left, the "right", everyone seems to be possessed by some kind of blood lust. The truth is that everyone knows Western states and NATO shouldn't be interfering in Libya. They have neither the right nor the authority to do so. However, they clearly have the necessary power... I guess once again might makes right...
But where do they think they got this right from? Do they have the right to be everyone's jury, judge, and executioner? What did Mr. Gaddafi ever do to us Westerners?! The answer is that he did nothing at all to us. Whatever the man may or may not be guilty of in Libya is not our business. He never invaded Europe or America and yet Europe and America is invading his country. So who is the aggressor here? Clearly there can only be one aggressor - the USA and NATO! I wonder how France would feel if someone didn't like their President, Mr. Sarkozy (which is very possible seeing what an evil man he is), and just decided to assassinate him. I seem to recall a few months back we saw protests and riots in Greece and then in the UK. Does this mean NATO should be after David Cameron's head too? Maybe he needs to be assassinated because, after all, the people in the country he happens to be head of are rioting in opposition to him!
All this shows the plain absurdity of the system we are living under. International law, which was the last respected remnant of Natural Law after the dawn of Statism, has now also been replaced by the might-makes-right doctrine. Moral relativism has permeated every crevice of our lives.
Thursday 31 March 2011
Wednesday 30 March 2011
"Animal Rights" Breach Human Rights - But Be Careful!
Just when you think you find a newspaper blogosphere which is more or less acceptable, this happens. Some people have labeled me as an unofficial lobbyist for the Daily Telegraph and I really don't mind that title. It is by far and wide the only readable newspaper in Britain and very intelligent people (such as Daniel Hannan) are regular bloggers on their site. They usually advocate a conservative state (that is to say a classical liberal, small, Burkean one) and nonintervention abroad in military terms (although there are some exceptions of course). Nonetheless I do find articles like the one linked above - full of advocating all kinds of coercive government interventions into people's personal lives or business initiatives.
Now I will not deny the sentiment behind most of these calls for intervention is noble. Anyone who knows me will understand how important the question of eliminating animal cruelty is to me. I even think the use of animals for food should be reduced to a bare minimum. I find animal cruelty utterly unacceptable and I will never associate myself with anyone who even as much as patronizes a business which engages in such behaviour. But we have to understand that as much as we all love and cherish our animal friends, they have no rights as humans have because they are not persons. In a sense, we are allowed to have animal slaves or hinder animal movement ("liberty"). We are also allowed to eat animals and own them. This is because animals do not posses reason or language. Would anyone in their right mind give animals homesteading rights or property rights?! They cannot even comprehend such rights. On the other hand we can make a normative value judgement here - about sentience and the necessity versus undesirability of pain. Animals have to be treated well not because they have a right to being treated as such, but ethics is more than just determining and enforcing rights. However, only rights are actually enforceable. This means that I cannot and should not be allowed to interfere in the relationship between other people and their animals in any aggressive manner. And this is what the author of the article proposes!
Furthermore he quotes a ridiculous number, 94.5%, as if "numbers make right". I'm pretty sure Herbert Spencer destroyed this argument centuries ago...
We must understand that once we were "animals" also. We still are in a way. Potentiality does not cease to exist once potential has been reached. We must be careful with our treatment of animals because one day we may find ourselves (to paraphrase Orwell) "[looking] from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it [will be] impossible to say which [is] which." And who knows, maybe science will soon teach us a lot more about animals and we'll have many more variables in our ethical equation... Didn't we, foolish white men, at one time equate savages from Africa and the Americas with animals? Lesson learned.
Now I will not deny the sentiment behind most of these calls for intervention is noble. Anyone who knows me will understand how important the question of eliminating animal cruelty is to me. I even think the use of animals for food should be reduced to a bare minimum. I find animal cruelty utterly unacceptable and I will never associate myself with anyone who even as much as patronizes a business which engages in such behaviour. But we have to understand that as much as we all love and cherish our animal friends, they have no rights as humans have because they are not persons. In a sense, we are allowed to have animal slaves or hinder animal movement ("liberty"). We are also allowed to eat animals and own them. This is because animals do not posses reason or language. Would anyone in their right mind give animals homesteading rights or property rights?! They cannot even comprehend such rights. On the other hand we can make a normative value judgement here - about sentience and the necessity versus undesirability of pain. Animals have to be treated well not because they have a right to being treated as such, but ethics is more than just determining and enforcing rights. However, only rights are actually enforceable. This means that I cannot and should not be allowed to interfere in the relationship between other people and their animals in any aggressive manner. And this is what the author of the article proposes!
Furthermore he quotes a ridiculous number, 94.5%, as if "numbers make right". I'm pretty sure Herbert Spencer destroyed this argument centuries ago...
We must understand that once we were "animals" also. We still are in a way. Potentiality does not cease to exist once potential has been reached. We must be careful with our treatment of animals because one day we may find ourselves (to paraphrase Orwell) "[looking] from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it [will be] impossible to say which [is] which." And who knows, maybe science will soon teach us a lot more about animals and we'll have many more variables in our ethical equation... Didn't we, foolish white men, at one time equate savages from Africa and the Americas with animals? Lesson learned.
Tuesday 29 March 2011
The Glass Half Full - Are there ANY positive aspects of Marx?
I am currently studying Karl Marx and his henchman (or boss, as can be argued) Engels in philosophy class. Needless to say he is presented to the class as a God. I don't think anyone in the entire class except for myself has raised any objections to historicism as a bogus methodology. But who am I to criticize people, if they want to believe in unicorns and hobgoblins, I have no right to stop them. Nonetheless I wanted to write a little piece here about the positive aspects of Marxism (yes, there are some!). Every man gets equal treatment on this blog, but this might surprise some people seeing as so far the only epithets I've applied to Marx have been "liar" and "evil" (or a combination thereof). What I would argue, however, is that Marx reaches more or less the right conclusions despite his erroneous base (historicism). He describes the progression of human civilization rather decently as well.
I do like the way Marx sees the state as jut another instrument of exploitation and a cause of economic inefficiency (although in many ways I do not believe this was genuine on his part as in the short term he argued for tyranny of the proletariat in the form of a state). He also wrote that the ruling classes exploited other groups - which is true. This can be especially seen in his early societal stages such as slavery and feudalism where I think it is pretty clear to everyone that exploitation is going on. The slavemaster exploits the slave and the feudal lord exploits the serf who homesteaded his own land (this is different from allodial feudalism which I have written in praise of). I also believe that such situations are prone to create a revolutionary class, as Marx writes. After all, once the exploited realize what is happening and are able to unite in sufficient force, they will rebel against their oppressors. Thus the slaves rebel against the masters and the serfs and burghers rebel against the feudal nobles. It is only natural that at some stage the citizens of the state will rebel against its machinery and ruling elite (this is in the future, of course).I do actually also follow Marx's reasoning when it comes to "communism" being a final stage of development in humanity. In this Marx is consistent, I believe, with Herbert Spencer and Jesus Christ. His description of communism, however, is rather faulty. Not only that, it also involves "unnatural man" - Marx himself writes that communism will be achieved by a new "socialist man".
The problem here is that Marx takes his analysis too far. Instead of sticking to actual descriptive fact (which he is not a master of, but is at least decent at) he continues delving deeper into some strange future scenario where common modern rules of reason are not followed. He denounces capitalism as exploitative despite the fact there is clear evidence that it is not - both parties to a capitalist trade benefit ex ante, not just the "exploiter". Thus there is no reason to think that in a pure free market organized society exploitation exists at all.
In any case I still believe that because of Marx's utter lack of epistemological consistency and covert evil motives the term "Marxist" can still be used as a pejorative by us libertarians. Nonetheless, please everyone, don't spill the baby out with the bathwater!
I do like the way Marx sees the state as jut another instrument of exploitation and a cause of economic inefficiency (although in many ways I do not believe this was genuine on his part as in the short term he argued for tyranny of the proletariat in the form of a state). He also wrote that the ruling classes exploited other groups - which is true. This can be especially seen in his early societal stages such as slavery and feudalism where I think it is pretty clear to everyone that exploitation is going on. The slavemaster exploits the slave and the feudal lord exploits the serf who homesteaded his own land (this is different from allodial feudalism which I have written in praise of). I also believe that such situations are prone to create a revolutionary class, as Marx writes. After all, once the exploited realize what is happening and are able to unite in sufficient force, they will rebel against their oppressors. Thus the slaves rebel against the masters and the serfs and burghers rebel against the feudal nobles. It is only natural that at some stage the citizens of the state will rebel against its machinery and ruling elite (this is in the future, of course).I do actually also follow Marx's reasoning when it comes to "communism" being a final stage of development in humanity. In this Marx is consistent, I believe, with Herbert Spencer and Jesus Christ. His description of communism, however, is rather faulty. Not only that, it also involves "unnatural man" - Marx himself writes that communism will be achieved by a new "socialist man".
The problem here is that Marx takes his analysis too far. Instead of sticking to actual descriptive fact (which he is not a master of, but is at least decent at) he continues delving deeper into some strange future scenario where common modern rules of reason are not followed. He denounces capitalism as exploitative despite the fact there is clear evidence that it is not - both parties to a capitalist trade benefit ex ante, not just the "exploiter". Thus there is no reason to think that in a pure free market organized society exploitation exists at all.
In any case I still believe that because of Marx's utter lack of epistemological consistency and covert evil motives the term "Marxist" can still be used as a pejorative by us libertarians. Nonetheless, please everyone, don't spill the baby out with the bathwater!
Sunday 27 March 2011
Libya is Proof of New World Order
I never thought I will find myself feeling sorry for Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, but I really do. Particularly because I usually follow the rule of thumb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In recent days the only country which has shown some backbone (although only temporarily) has been Turkey, which vetoed NATO's original interventions in the SOVEREIGN North African State of Libya. I guess this is just more proof that sovereignty of states is nothing of consequence. It is not respected and totally ignored whenever the United States happens to not like the regime in that country. Personally I do not like Mr. Gaddafi, he is a megalomaniac socialist crackpot - but I feel sympathy even for a nasty bulldog when it is being beaten. Poland has, as usual, been acting like the USA's lapdog, as has the entire EU and the entire NATO! This is starting to get ridiculous. At this stage I believe the official American Empire should be created, we might as well end the charade and show the people what kind of world they really live in.
People say "democracies never fight wars against one another". At this point we know this is untrue - only "democracies within the American Empire do not fight one another". The Americans and the European fatcats need their serfs to remain peaceful. After all, peaceful and cooperative serfs produce more stuff to be taxed on.
Going back to Libya. Today Mr. Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, said that we all have a moral duty to defend the Libyans against whom Mr. Gaddafi has led out his armies. Now I am sure Mr. Buzek wouldn't be saying this if violent mobs started ransacking his area near Brussels and protesting against the Belgian government or the EU. Certainly at that point he would have said what Mr. Gaddafi is saying now - "These people are crazy! Bring out the guns!".
Such obvious hypocrisy as has been shown by Western governments over the last 50 years or so is no different from the double standard applied in colonial days of the 16th Century! I find this a shameful breach of not only bogus "state's rights", but clearly human rights and basic ethical principles such as the Golden Rule!
John T. Flynn once put it this way: "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." Since he wrote this back in the 1940's the American imperialism has only increased in strength and brutality. As I wrote in previous posts, I find it difficult to desert the US and her glorious freedoms, but I watch these freedoms evaporating everyday. If one thought a woman in her 20's was beautiful, is he still bound to think the same when she is 60 years old?! I think not... I think America ought to think of a trip to the fountain of youth!
People say "democracies never fight wars against one another". At this point we know this is untrue - only "democracies within the American Empire do not fight one another". The Americans and the European fatcats need their serfs to remain peaceful. After all, peaceful and cooperative serfs produce more stuff to be taxed on.
Going back to Libya. Today Mr. Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, said that we all have a moral duty to defend the Libyans against whom Mr. Gaddafi has led out his armies. Now I am sure Mr. Buzek wouldn't be saying this if violent mobs started ransacking his area near Brussels and protesting against the Belgian government or the EU. Certainly at that point he would have said what Mr. Gaddafi is saying now - "These people are crazy! Bring out the guns!".
Such obvious hypocrisy as has been shown by Western governments over the last 50 years or so is no different from the double standard applied in colonial days of the 16th Century! I find this a shameful breach of not only bogus "state's rights", but clearly human rights and basic ethical principles such as the Golden Rule!
John T. Flynn once put it this way: "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." Since he wrote this back in the 1940's the American imperialism has only increased in strength and brutality. As I wrote in previous posts, I find it difficult to desert the US and her glorious freedoms, but I watch these freedoms evaporating everyday. If one thought a woman in her 20's was beautiful, is he still bound to think the same when she is 60 years old?! I think not... I think America ought to think of a trip to the fountain of youth!
Saturday 19 March 2011
Terrorist Attack on Libya as "figurative" Wife-Beating
Today the USA and France illegally bombarded the sovereign nation of Libya for no apparent reason. I guess I feel the responsibility to address this issue falls on my shoulders seeing as the mainstream media is militaristic and imperialist in the extreme. I seem to remember that since day one Americans proclaimed "9/11" to be a tragedy. And yet they continue to unleash mass death and destruction on everyone else with no remorse. As a longtime defender of the USA I am very disturbed by this turn of events. Outside of America the USA is hailed as an evil imperialist power which is responsible for radicalizing many elements of Muslim societies as well as, most importantly, killing millions of civilians over the last couple decades. Nobody likes a bully, and the USA is the world's biggest bully. In Europe I always find myself trying to defend the big bully because "he is a nice person" - i.e. the USA is internally liberal and used to be a bastion of freedom on Earth. But increasingly I find myself sounding like the woman who defends her abusive husband. "He's really a good person, he can change, he wasn't always like this..." is what we hear from all these poor women. And this is exactly what I sound like when I speak about the US.
Events like these in Libya bring me close to breaking point. The bully keeps pushing others around, beating them indiscriminately, and yet I am still on his side. At one point this has got to stop...
Furthermore, after acting like this why do Americans get offended by world leaders like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro saying it like they see it and calling America an imperialist power? Clearly America is an imperialist power. What no one seems to remember is that all empires collapse.
Isn't it a commonly accepted conclusion that, as Issac Asimov said, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"?
Events like these in Libya bring me close to breaking point. The bully keeps pushing others around, beating them indiscriminately, and yet I am still on his side. At one point this has got to stop...
Furthermore, after acting like this why do Americans get offended by world leaders like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro saying it like they see it and calling America an imperialist power? Clearly America is an imperialist power. What no one seems to remember is that all empires collapse.
Isn't it a commonly accepted conclusion that, as Issac Asimov said, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"?
Friday 11 March 2011
1 Year Anniversary!
Today the Young Monarchist blog celebrates its first anniversary! It has been exactly twelve months since, on that fateful day, I wrote the post about annoyingly politically correct people who focus on "-isms" way too much.
I think this is a great time to reiterate the aims behind this blog's existence and the values it is means to portray:
1. Freedom for all - The peoples of this world need to throw off the yolk of state-slavery and gain the ability to determine who they really are and want to be.
2. Personal responsibility - This might seem like a very conservative value, but it is crucial. We need to learn self-reliance in order for individualism to prevail against the collective.
3. Honor in life - Honor is the highest value a man can espouse. It entails honesty, integrity, and truthfulness to one's ideals. In today's culture and world it has all but disappeared. Honor is something forgotten which needs to be revived.
4. Perseverance and unity - Libertarians, Anarchists, and other peoples who condemn aggression as the highest evil (such as Pacifists and many Christians or Individualists) everywhere need to unite their efforts in combating the evil regimes and show our respect for one another, if not because of our moral disagreements, at least because of our shared goal.
5. And last but not least - just plain pointing out the faults of the current evil system. Showing its inconsistencies, its absurdities, its lies, and its inefficiencies...
And make no mistakes about it: If we work together and spread the word, we will achieve our goal. It is not beyond the power of humanity to throw off our shackles.
As always I want to make sure everyone participates in this effort (perseverance and unity!), so if anyone has any comments, questions, or wants me to discuss a certain topic - feel free to drop me an email or leave a message!
During our struggle we must never lose sight of our humanity and togetherness. Because as was written in the Psalms: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"
I think this is a great time to reiterate the aims behind this blog's existence and the values it is means to portray:
1. Freedom for all - The peoples of this world need to throw off the yolk of state-slavery and gain the ability to determine who they really are and want to be.
2. Personal responsibility - This might seem like a very conservative value, but it is crucial. We need to learn self-reliance in order for individualism to prevail against the collective.
3. Honor in life - Honor is the highest value a man can espouse. It entails honesty, integrity, and truthfulness to one's ideals. In today's culture and world it has all but disappeared. Honor is something forgotten which needs to be revived.
4. Perseverance and unity - Libertarians, Anarchists, and other peoples who condemn aggression as the highest evil (such as Pacifists and many Christians or Individualists) everywhere need to unite their efforts in combating the evil regimes and show our respect for one another, if not because of our moral disagreements, at least because of our shared goal.
5. And last but not least - just plain pointing out the faults of the current evil system. Showing its inconsistencies, its absurdities, its lies, and its inefficiencies...
And make no mistakes about it: If we work together and spread the word, we will achieve our goal. It is not beyond the power of humanity to throw off our shackles.
As always I want to make sure everyone participates in this effort (perseverance and unity!), so if anyone has any comments, questions, or wants me to discuss a certain topic - feel free to drop me an email or leave a message!
During our struggle we must never lose sight of our humanity and togetherness. Because as was written in the Psalms: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"
Thursday 3 March 2011
Secularism is a Religion
This blog post is dedicated to the British Conservative Party, particularly Messrs. Daniel Hannan and David Cameron.
I recently read this passionate article by journalist and Telegraph blogger Cristina Odone. It tells the shocking tale of a loving couple being denied permission to act as foster parents for children because of their Christian views. The exact reason? Owen and Eunice Johns (the couple in question) opposed homosexuality on religious grounds. Now it did not seem to matter to the High Court that they had already successfully raised 15 (FIFTEEN) foster children. It seems to me raising this many children is an example of Christian charity, wouldn't you say? I particularly like the way the author of the article points out the clear hypocrisy of the judges and other government officials who still spend their days swearing on the Bible and invoking God here, there, and everywhere.
But all this is just a way of introducing my main subject: Secularism as a religion. Having no more religious idol to worship secularists turn to the only one authority they all seem to recognize: The State. This terrible phenomenon is called "Statolatry". To them the State is Almighty. It is supposed to deliver all and has a right to all. Questioning its power or existence is just utterly ridiculous. How could a world exist without the state? How would we all live without the state? Aren't all these statements above what could be said by Christians in the Dark Ages, if you replaced the word 'state' with the word 'God'? Clearly this is a form religion. In fact I would claim that the largest religion in the world in not Christianity - it is Statolatry. Nobody even questions the state, it just 'IS'. The entire philosophy of the state can therefore be labeled as a type of theology. I have previously written on this blog (here and here) that Christian theology is often illogical and inconsistent because it is based on simple beliefs in something strangely unprovable. Theologians assume that God exists before they make their argument - his existence is a basic premise. The same is true for very many political philosophers ("State Theologians"). They either assume that the state must exist or that the state is always beneficial (without presenting evidence or deductive proofs). If you want to find who these fools are, look mostly at modern so-called political scientists (whose profession has nothing whatsoever to do with science). A good example is Francis Fukuyama - the great NeoCon theorist.
There are many other characteristics that Statolatry shares with other religions. It has its rituals (those funny things Congressmen do at the start of session), ceremonies (parades and such), temples (LINCOLN MONUMENT!), priests (with special robes and outfits if you look at the judges), and many other things in common with conventional religion.
And most of all, it is INTOLERANT, ENCOURAGES DEPENDENCY, and PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM.
Galileo once wrote to a certain Duchess the following words: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
I fully agree with Mr. Galilei and for that same reason I reject Statolatry and the State!
I recently read this passionate article by journalist and Telegraph blogger Cristina Odone. It tells the shocking tale of a loving couple being denied permission to act as foster parents for children because of their Christian views. The exact reason? Owen and Eunice Johns (the couple in question) opposed homosexuality on religious grounds. Now it did not seem to matter to the High Court that they had already successfully raised 15 (FIFTEEN) foster children. It seems to me raising this many children is an example of Christian charity, wouldn't you say? I particularly like the way the author of the article points out the clear hypocrisy of the judges and other government officials who still spend their days swearing on the Bible and invoking God here, there, and everywhere.
But all this is just a way of introducing my main subject: Secularism as a religion. Having no more religious idol to worship secularists turn to the only one authority they all seem to recognize: The State. This terrible phenomenon is called "Statolatry". To them the State is Almighty. It is supposed to deliver all and has a right to all. Questioning its power or existence is just utterly ridiculous. How could a world exist without the state? How would we all live without the state? Aren't all these statements above what could be said by Christians in the Dark Ages, if you replaced the word 'state' with the word 'God'? Clearly this is a form religion. In fact I would claim that the largest religion in the world in not Christianity - it is Statolatry. Nobody even questions the state, it just 'IS'. The entire philosophy of the state can therefore be labeled as a type of theology. I have previously written on this blog (here and here) that Christian theology is often illogical and inconsistent because it is based on simple beliefs in something strangely unprovable. Theologians assume that God exists before they make their argument - his existence is a basic premise. The same is true for very many political philosophers ("State Theologians"). They either assume that the state must exist or that the state is always beneficial (without presenting evidence or deductive proofs). If you want to find who these fools are, look mostly at modern so-called political scientists (whose profession has nothing whatsoever to do with science). A good example is Francis Fukuyama - the great NeoCon theorist.
There are many other characteristics that Statolatry shares with other religions. It has its rituals (those funny things Congressmen do at the start of session), ceremonies (parades and such), temples (LINCOLN MONUMENT!), priests (with special robes and outfits if you look at the judges), and many other things in common with conventional religion.
And most of all, it is INTOLERANT, ENCOURAGES DEPENDENCY, and PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM.
Galileo once wrote to a certain Duchess the following words: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
I fully agree with Mr. Galilei and for that same reason I reject Statolatry and the State!
The Logic Behind the Fed
Whenever I read any publications by Big Government bureaus I can't help but notice how plainly stupid most of the materials are. Recently I was going through some archives on the New York Federal Reserve website in order to find some data and while I was on there I also looked up what the NY Fed had to say about itself in the history section of the site. It was, of course, a bunch of propaganda and mumbo-jumbo (which sounded like something out of a sleazy middle-school text book). Here is a particularly ridiculous example:
Almost anybody would agree this sounds very sleazy and pompous, but is it really ridiculous or stupid? Of course it is! In order to prove my point I can simply replace banking with any other examples of a normal market industry - the popcorn makers industry, for example:
I don't think people understand there there is absolutely no difference between individual industries in the economy. If anything, money is (slightly) more important than popcorn and should therefore be left to the efficient market! Any monopoly is bad - that's just how the world works. And the last sentence of the above paragraph is the most stupid statement I have heard anyone make in regard to economic goods "bank notes, issued by the individual banks, varied widely in reliability". Hey blockheads, didn't anybody tell you this is called competition?! It makes things better, not worse! I see Federal Reserve economists need to take a basic economics course - might I suggest reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson?
A man who understood economics like no other to this day, Ludwig von Mises, pointed out that "the sharper the competition, the better it serves its social function to improve economic production". Competition is the greatest natural process by which advancement of any kind is produced! Monopoly is nothing but stagnation! I thought we had all established that as true ever since Mr. Charles Darwin's theory was accepted as true?
"For the next quarter century, [after the veto of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836] America's central banking was carried on by a myriad of state-chartered banks with no federal regulation. The difficulties brought about by this lack of a central banking authority hurt the stability of the American economy. There were often violent fluctuations in the volume of bank notes issued by banks and in the amount of demand deposits that the banks held. Bank notes, issued by the individual banks, varied widely in reliability."
Almost anybody would agree this sounds very sleazy and pompous, but is it really ridiculous or stupid? Of course it is! In order to prove my point I can simply replace banking with any other examples of a normal market industry - the popcorn makers industry, for example:
"For the next quarter century, America's popcorn making was carried on by a myriad of state-chartered companies with no federal regulation. The difficulties brought about by this lack of a central popcorn authority hurt the stability of the American economy. There were often violent fluctuations in the volume of popcorn produced by makers and in the amount of corn deposits that the factories held. Popcorn, issued by the individual makers, varied widely in reliability."
I don't think people understand there there is absolutely no difference between individual industries in the economy. If anything, money is (slightly) more important than popcorn and should therefore be left to the efficient market! Any monopoly is bad - that's just how the world works. And the last sentence of the above paragraph is the most stupid statement I have heard anyone make in regard to economic goods "bank notes, issued by the individual banks, varied widely in reliability". Hey blockheads, didn't anybody tell you this is called competition?! It makes things better, not worse! I see Federal Reserve economists need to take a basic economics course - might I suggest reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson?
A man who understood economics like no other to this day, Ludwig von Mises, pointed out that "the sharper the competition, the better it serves its social function to improve economic production". Competition is the greatest natural process by which advancement of any kind is produced! Monopoly is nothing but stagnation! I thought we had all established that as true ever since Mr. Charles Darwin's theory was accepted as true?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)