For the last couple years I have been consistently voting in Polish elections for Mr. Janusz Korwin-Mikke and his political party. I also participate often in discussions on his blog and website forums and donate money to his cause. Why do I do this, despite the fact he usually gets no more than 2-3% of the vote? Because I consider him a principled man and, importantly, I agree with most of what he says. He is a highly conservative Monarchist who treats socialism and democracy (which, as we all know, are really two sides of the same coin) with contempt. He does not care about modern political correctness which is no more than a gag. He also played an important role in the early days of the Third Polish Republic by trying (sadly unsuccessfully) to kick more Commies and criminals out of government and secret service positions. And, most importantly, he is the only clear advocate of an unmolested free market in today's Poland. Mr. Korwin-Mikke believes in the "state" only as far as it is the King's private property - which I have advocated on multiple occasions as just (if not ideal). From this principle, however, stems one which I completely disagree with. Seeing how a modern libertarian revolution must be staged I have always called for complete privatization of everything we can get our socialist overlords to privatize. Mr. Korwin-Mikke supports this. I don't think, however, that he supports the privatization of LAND. He wants land to be just turned over to a ruling sovereign. Now seeing what his views are on secession (he points out that he would send would-be secessionists to labor camps) I can't not write the following:
Shame on You, Mr. Korwin-Mikke! Powinno byc Panu wstyd!
Now I don't know what he would say to my criticisms, but I do know that most of his supporters who are Misesians or Rothbardians (as I am) felt deeply insulted by the following article which featured a while ago on his blog: Autonomia Śląska? I pewna polit-brednia ("Autonomy for Silesia? Surely Political-Nonsense"). He states that Silesia has no right of secession and would have no such right if it was part of a Kingdom of Poland. Now does this mean that in a Kingdom nobody has any private property except for the King? This would certainly seem to be the case. But what we want to establish is not a country where all people simply the King's tenents! What I would advocate, in order to defend the social-darwinistic element that must exist in society, is a system where where all people have full property rights in their land and they only contract the King (in a way similar to the feudal lord/vassal relationship) to defend their property or provide other services. This way the King would not feel secure enough to treat the people living on his property as serfs or slaves, as he could possibly do under absolute Monarchy (although as history shows, this is extremely unlikely as it has rarely happened).
What does everyone else think about this, I wonder? I am suggesting here an Anarcho-Capitalist social order within a more-or-less feudal framework where everyone has full property rights and, what follows, full RIGHTS OF SECESSION. This seems to solve the quandry of actually eliminating the state from the state... so to speak. And I think such a system would definitely promote the highest levels of efficiency and utility as opposed to Leftist versions where cooperatives and commons eliminate the Darwinistic aspect and cause waste.
Sunday 31 July 2011
Friday 29 July 2011
Who is Dumber - Socialists or Debt Rating Agencies?
I am starting to doubt that the last nation on Earth which I thought can think logically is capable of doing so... In America democracy never really functioned as a Europeans style social-democracy, up to now it has been more of a fancy oligarchy. Politicians come from families of politicians just as bakers come from families of bakers. Recently, however, it seems that even this "natural aristocracy" is really just as full of low-lives as the rest of the populace - or, as Plato would say, they really have bronze souls. But at least there is still some gold and silver mixed in with the base metals in that country! There seems to be a slim chance for my dream to come true, i.e. for the Americans to finally stop socialism and not raise the debt ceiling. The world's most powerful socialist, President Obama, is trying to have it otherwise though. Luckily, however, his arguments are the weakest I've heard in a long time. To put it bluntly - he is not making sense at all.
Let's use one example which all socialists (and fascists) have used to greatest effect in the past: scaring people into doing what they want them to do. Mr. Obama said that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the USA might lose its excellent AAA credit rating. Now let's think about this for a moment... He is suggesting that America should borrow money (i.e. grow its debt) in order to pay off interest on previous debt. In what way would this kind of move be good economic policy? And how can an entity which borrows more money in order to pay off previous debts still have a AAA rating in the first place!?
I seem to remember that Americans were recently ranting how terrible and lazy the Greeks are for having such huge debt levels and having to be bailed out. Newsflash - America is in pretty much the same position! And Americans are not that lazy (that is one thing which is certain about Greeks and, in fact, most Europeans), which means the high debt levels must be due to something else. I suggest self-important socialistic politicians and their greedy corporate cronies. Do we really want to give those people more money?
Americans should pay more attention to the greats in the elites of their past (before the bronze was mixed into the gold). Thomas Jefferson famously wrote of public debt: "I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."
Is Mr. Obama really a greater authority than the author of the Declaration of Independence?
Let's use one example which all socialists (and fascists) have used to greatest effect in the past: scaring people into doing what they want them to do. Mr. Obama said that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the USA might lose its excellent AAA credit rating. Now let's think about this for a moment... He is suggesting that America should borrow money (i.e. grow its debt) in order to pay off interest on previous debt. In what way would this kind of move be good economic policy? And how can an entity which borrows more money in order to pay off previous debts still have a AAA rating in the first place!?
I seem to remember that Americans were recently ranting how terrible and lazy the Greeks are for having such huge debt levels and having to be bailed out. Newsflash - America is in pretty much the same position! And Americans are not that lazy (that is one thing which is certain about Greeks and, in fact, most Europeans), which means the high debt levels must be due to something else. I suggest self-important socialistic politicians and their greedy corporate cronies. Do we really want to give those people more money?
Americans should pay more attention to the greats in the elites of their past (before the bronze was mixed into the gold). Thomas Jefferson famously wrote of public debt: "I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."
Is Mr. Obama really a greater authority than the author of the Declaration of Independence?
Wednesday 27 July 2011
Stalin Still Lives?
The question above might seem rather strange - could good old Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (AKA Uncle Joe, AKA Joseph Stalin) physically be alive? Well, no. But his spirit is flying high these days especially in the EU. A couple days ago I went to the official opening of the Polish National Football Stadium in Warsaw - a truly magnificent structure. It's the new National Stadium in Poland and is to host games at the Euro 2012 tournament. So why do I bring up the beautiful new stadium and Stalin in the same paragraph? Because when I arrived there the first thing I thought about was the Stalinesque nature of the whole project (the Euro 2012 organization in Poland/Ukraine and the construction of the stadium itself). The thing cost Polish taxpayers (yes, even those who couldn't give a damn about football) 1 569 370 000 Polish Zloty. That is just over 41 Zloty per person. The opening day was quite an occasion, I had to stand in line with a friend for a while before we got in to see the inside of the still unfinished structure. It seems the whole of Warsaw came to see the stadium, there were literally tens of thousands of people that came. All the children were waving around little flags and everyone was marching along and taking photos. The organizers were bragging how much money they saved on building the stadium. I think I was the only person there thinking about how grotesque the whole situation was. It reminded me of some pictures of the opening of the 1955 Stadium in Warsaw which was termed "a gift from Stalin to the Polish people". Ironically this new stadium is built where the old one was demolished just a couple years back - exactly on top of it. But this one is the gift of the Prime Minister and of the EU, not of Stalin. Isn't a famous characteristic ascribed to Communism and Fascism by historians precisely the construction of huge and unnecessary monuments to impress the people and the world? I learned this in high school - but I guess in today's schools most of what is taught is Euro-socialist and Fascist propaganda... Either way my friend who came with me (a stereotypical product of the Polish education system) seemed highly impressed with the stadium and looked at me in a funny way when I mentioned the Stalinist aspects.
Am I the only one who appreciates the irony?
Am I the only one who appreciates the irony?
Mr. Breivik and Social Problems
The crazy “right-wing” fellow who killed over 80 people in and around Oslo last friday gathered a lot of attention in Europe – Thank God. Finally we have a reaction to all kinds of topics: appropriate punishments, death penalty, law, penal systems, etc. I'll never know why it takes a man like Anders Breivik to get people to talk about these things. And even some of the talking that is taking place seems rather strange to me.
All the Lefty media in Poland is trasmitting a constant echo of cries about “social responsibility” of course – I’ve heard it argued that the massacres committed by Breivik were really the fault of his father (who was long absent in his life) and the local government (who did not reach out to the lonely man). I was actually surprised, however, when during a Polish "TVN" interview one of these NeoLiberal "law experts" (the interviewer addressed her with the title “professor”) actually said something that was half-true! She said that Breivik acted radically because he was a lonely man and had nothing to lose. I think that is a key phrase here. I believe this is correct, but for completely different reasons than the NeoLib who apparently accidentally stumbled upon this truth.
It has been quite obvious to me for a while now (I'm very surprised there are not more of these maniacs out there massacring people) that most people who are unhappy with the EU and any other authoritarian groups (such as “State governments” in general) have no options of self-defense at all. The only reason, in my opinion, that they haven't started committing violent crimes en masse is that they fear that which they have to lose. People fear for their lives and their families. A man like Breivik is one in a million precisely because he did not care about forfitting his life and he had no family to look after. He was a lonely isolated unit. I can say with certainty that there are many people out there who are just as unhappy with our governments (and not for lunatic-reasons, but for good reasons!) as Mr. Breivik. But they are afraid to lose things he wasn't afraid to lose.
Another argument which I heard is that local governments need to be more responsive to people's needs and take care of people like Mr. Breivik who are lonely and need a hand. Clearly this is gibberish. People who say such things do not understand the nature of government - i.e. its socialistic properties. All government is by definition a kind of socialism and there is no system known to man which creates more gray, sad, poor, and lonely people than socialism. When everyone is treated as just another unit (as the government looks at people) how can anyone be shown any care or attention beyond a simple hand-shake? It is too much socialism that is the problem, not too litte of it. Under a system like anarcho-capitalism where control over their own private property is the only power people would have life would be completely different. Families and other bonds (tribal, fraternal, paternal, etc.) would be much stronger because people would be dependent on cooperating with one another. This is exactly the opposite of what we see under socialism where people can, if they wish, become independent of their families and instead become dependent on the state welfare apparatus. Disintegration of the extended family and all other bonds has been a characteristic feature of the welfare state.
Let me also add that Mr. Breivik was in no way right-wing. For my description of the "far right" see one of my earlier blogs.
Let me just finish here with something that most people would regard just as radical as Mr. Breivik. The great Ludwig von Mises wrote the following: "In fact, however, the supporters of the welfare state are utterly anti-social and intolerant zealots. For their ideology tacitly implies that the government will exactly execute what they themselves deem right and beneficial. They entirely disregard the possibility that there could arise disagreement with regard to the question of what is right and expedient and what is not. They advocate enlightened despotism, but they are convinced that the enlightened despot will in every detail comply with their own opinion concerning the measures to be adopted. They favour planning, but what they have in mind is exclusively their own plan, not those of other people. They want to exterminate all opponents, that is, all those who disagree with them. They are utterly intolerant and are not prepared to allow any discussion. Every advocate of the welfare state and of planning is a potential dictator. What he plans is to deprive all other men of all their rights, and to establish his own and his friends' unrestricted omnipotence. He refuses to convince his fellow-citizens. He prefers to "liquidate" them. He scorns the "bourgeois" society that worships law and legal procedure. He himself worships violence and bloodshed."
I think every welfare state supporter is Mr. Breivik's equal in one regard or another. Think about it, my European friends.
All the Lefty media in Poland is trasmitting a constant echo of cries about “social responsibility” of course – I’ve heard it argued that the massacres committed by Breivik were really the fault of his father (who was long absent in his life) and the local government (who did not reach out to the lonely man). I was actually surprised, however, when during a Polish "TVN" interview one of these NeoLiberal "law experts" (the interviewer addressed her with the title “professor”) actually said something that was half-true! She said that Breivik acted radically because he was a lonely man and had nothing to lose. I think that is a key phrase here. I believe this is correct, but for completely different reasons than the NeoLib who apparently accidentally stumbled upon this truth.
It has been quite obvious to me for a while now (I'm very surprised there are not more of these maniacs out there massacring people) that most people who are unhappy with the EU and any other authoritarian groups (such as “State governments” in general) have no options of self-defense at all. The only reason, in my opinion, that they haven't started committing violent crimes en masse is that they fear that which they have to lose. People fear for their lives and their families. A man like Breivik is one in a million precisely because he did not care about forfitting his life and he had no family to look after. He was a lonely isolated unit. I can say with certainty that there are many people out there who are just as unhappy with our governments (and not for lunatic-reasons, but for good reasons!) as Mr. Breivik. But they are afraid to lose things he wasn't afraid to lose.
Another argument which I heard is that local governments need to be more responsive to people's needs and take care of people like Mr. Breivik who are lonely and need a hand. Clearly this is gibberish. People who say such things do not understand the nature of government - i.e. its socialistic properties. All government is by definition a kind of socialism and there is no system known to man which creates more gray, sad, poor, and lonely people than socialism. When everyone is treated as just another unit (as the government looks at people) how can anyone be shown any care or attention beyond a simple hand-shake? It is too much socialism that is the problem, not too litte of it. Under a system like anarcho-capitalism where control over their own private property is the only power people would have life would be completely different. Families and other bonds (tribal, fraternal, paternal, etc.) would be much stronger because people would be dependent on cooperating with one another. This is exactly the opposite of what we see under socialism where people can, if they wish, become independent of their families and instead become dependent on the state welfare apparatus. Disintegration of the extended family and all other bonds has been a characteristic feature of the welfare state.
Let me also add that Mr. Breivik was in no way right-wing. For my description of the "far right" see one of my earlier blogs.
Let me just finish here with something that most people would regard just as radical as Mr. Breivik. The great Ludwig von Mises wrote the following: "In fact, however, the supporters of the welfare state are utterly anti-social and intolerant zealots. For their ideology tacitly implies that the government will exactly execute what they themselves deem right and beneficial. They entirely disregard the possibility that there could arise disagreement with regard to the question of what is right and expedient and what is not. They advocate enlightened despotism, but they are convinced that the enlightened despot will in every detail comply with their own opinion concerning the measures to be adopted. They favour planning, but what they have in mind is exclusively their own plan, not those of other people. They want to exterminate all opponents, that is, all those who disagree with them. They are utterly intolerant and are not prepared to allow any discussion. Every advocate of the welfare state and of planning is a potential dictator. What he plans is to deprive all other men of all their rights, and to establish his own and his friends' unrestricted omnipotence. He refuses to convince his fellow-citizens. He prefers to "liquidate" them. He scorns the "bourgeois" society that worships law and legal procedure. He himself worships violence and bloodshed."
I think every welfare state supporter is Mr. Breivik's equal in one regard or another. Think about it, my European friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)