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.

LESSON IN LOGIC

Is anything in the world simpler than understanding logic? Apparently most things are. The sheer amount of people I meet who either do not understand basic logical reasoning or fail to accept its outcomes is staggering. There are very few rules one needs to comprehend and accept in order to consider every logical outcome valid (I am not going to get into a big debate here over David Hume and his interpretation of reasoning). First of all, conditional statements are key, so:

If A, then B.

And from there it's just a tiny step to real deductive reasoning:

If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore: If A, then C.

Simple stuff! Let's use a real life example:

If the US Congress enacts bail-outs, then the Federal Reserve prints money.
If the Federal Reserve prints money, then inflation is created.
Therefore: If the US Congress enacts bail-outs, then inflation is created.

Logic is man's greatest tool. Reason is what separates us from animals. People should know that the best reason to follow such movements as the Austrian School of Economics or Spencer's Social Darwinism is that they are deeply logical. And that which has foundations in correct logic based on good principles is infallible.

As Ayn Rand said: "There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns."
And so I say: where there is logic - there is no need for guns.

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

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

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