Basic Philosophy

The Young Monarchist/Anarchist: basic presentation of knowledge:





I hope you enjoy it and maybe follow the rest of the series guys!

"Sticks and Stones..."

A lot of what happens in today's world just calls for some intervention from Athena (or whatever other entity embodies reason and wisdom in mythologies). Yesterday I was watching Match of the Day on the BBC and during the highlights of a game I saw one of the players stomp on another's face. In another incident, another player elbowed one of his opponents in the head. Now I'm not one to take sports very seriously, but these two guys didn't even get a card. And they're not going to get any other penalty from the Football Association even after everyone can see this stuff on TV replays. Meanwhile a couple weeks ago the FA handed Luis Suarez an unprecedented eight match ban and £40,000 fine for allegedly calling another player a bad racist name during a game.
Am I the only one who is thinking of the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? I thought all children knew this stuff. But, apparently, adults don't. Nowadays it is considered a great offense to call someone a name, but kicking, beating, and other types of violence are just dandy. The football example is a silly one, of course, but it illustrates the situation as it exists in the wider society. A stupid prejudice like racism is just that - stupid. But we seem to care more about eradicating it than preserving people's rights in their person and property. A racist can't really hurt anyone. He (or she) just talks nonsense. The reason people pay more attention to the words is because they have to have something to distract them from the obvious 'sticks and stones' which beat us down in our everyday lives.
People choose not to see the fact that all services which are provided for them by the state are not 'public' services, but rather 'coercive services'. The naked force behind all government programs is so plain and apparent that we really need a lot of distractions and make a great effort not to see this. What I am worried about though, is the way this double standard of morals is starting to slip into the private realm. Already most people I talk to are nihilists of one kind or another. The football example is quite a good guide in this regard - why are a couple nasty shouts being penalized much harsher than physical violence which could do serious harm to the victim?
Maybe soon in kindergartens across the West we'll be hearing a new version of the rhyme? "Sticks and stones strengthen our bones, but words can really kill us" perhaps?

Death Penalty for Self-Defense

As a lot of people know, I support the death penalty for murder in the current justice system. This does not say much, of course, because I do not support the current justice system as a whole, so there is little reason for me to engage in any debates regarding it. The main reason I don't support the current system could freak out most NeoLiberal minded people: OUR GOVERNMENT TODAY IMPOSES THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ANYTHING, INCLUDING SELF-DEFENSE. So let's take an example.

I am a pacifist living on a nice suburban estate in England. I work hard, and so does my wife. We have to work hard, because we are trying to save enough money for our child to go to the school of our choice so that he can actually get educated, not indoctrinated. In order to pay for the school, we can't afford to forfeit 60% of our income in protection money, so we simply stop paying the local gang. We have not aggressed against anyone in doing so. In fact, we never used force to get anything in our lives - as pacifists we only use force in self-defense. We are therefore able to pay for the school and are happy living as we are. Unfortunately soon letters start flooding in from the protection racket which has a monopoly of "protection" in the neighbourhood. These letters are followed up by "court" documents and phone calls. One day, I am making dinner in the kitchen, while my wife answers the doorbell. I hear screams. I run through the hallway and see two men in strange blue costumes grappling with my wife. It seems obvious that they are kidnappers. Without hesitation I grab a knife and lunge at the attackers. But seeing the knife they immediately pull guns out of the holsters on their waist and open fire...
My wife and I are found dead on our doorstep by our neighbours that evening.

What do you think would happen to you if you stopped paying your taxes? What would happen if you didn't pay a parking ticket? What would happen if you defended yourself and your loved ones against the thugs in blue, who have no right invading your property?
Death is the only ultimate penalty non-anarchists know. And the State is more than happy to dish it out everyday, before our very eyes.

2012 - The Year of Austerity

2011 was the year that our politicians spent flaying the businessmen of this world in a truly Atlas Shrugged manner. They haven't, of course, done any real harm to all their cronies - the heads of corporations, bank CEO's, and other fascistic parasites who fund the political campaigns. The political action came down against the little guy. Taxes were raised, regulations were tightened, new cartels were created, industries were shamelessly nationalized. We all suffered from the increase and prices which resulted from these policies and from a high inflation tax. But I already sense a change in the wind for 2012. The new politically chic word is AUSTERITY. For the last few years it looked as if our thieving overlords were going to recklessly throw us down into hyperinflation. We have been on this road for quite a while. In 2012, however, there will be a change. Politicians would rather preserve the currency they have established (even in its weak and devalued form). Therefore I think they will begin all kinds of shenanigans in order to fix the system once again. They look likely to put interest rates up in order to preserve the currency. Any interest rate hike will, of course, automatically mean bankruptcy and default for most banks as well as most governments themselves. This is where the shenanigans will come in. I suspect the politicians will introduce some kind of measure which will prevent people collecting money owed them by governments and corporations. They will give some kind of ridiculously long term loans and perhaps 'freeze' debts of some banks so that bank runs are impossible and people cannot collect what is owed them. We have know for a long time that European and American governments are already in default - it is impossible for them to pay their national debts in uninflated money.
The other side of the coin will be a change in attitude. So far since the crisis hit in 2008 we have heard a lot about 'social responsibility' and everyone sharing equally in the suffering of the nation. This rhetoric was used to bully the free capitalists (not to be confused with government cronies like corporations and banks). Now in 2012 I think we will hear a lot more about the little man, the average Joe. The politicians will talk about the virtues of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. With this I suspect we will see cuts in benefits and welfare and well as additional tax hikes for middle and working classes. The state will thusly try to highjack the rhetoric used by anarchists and libertarians. This can be very dangerous because many who flocked to our cause may not leave, seeing as the politicians will now be chanting out slogans.
An important part of this process has already begun. We see that the image of the capitalist is being restored somewhat in the culture and media. Whereas the last few years were all about bashing innocent people who happened to make money, now we see the beginnings of hero-worship mysticism in the private sector. The most prominent example is Steve Jobs. The man is a modern day robber baron (this is what the left would call him). He is our contemporary John D. Rockefeller, our real life Hank Rierden. And yet the public and media seem to favour him. Another sign can be seen in movies. Lately a lot more films have included villains who came straight from the government and its bureaucracy. The upcoming film Iron Lady about Margaret Thatcher (the greatest woman of the 20th Century) seems to be an effort by the leftist-dominated movie industry to portray the Prime Minister as a woman, and not a bloodthirsty exploiter, as most people nowadays seem to characterize her.
So, as always, I advise constant vigilance. There is going to be a lot of new newspeak coming on in 2012. There is going to be more and more exploitation. Let's not get caught up in any possible positive aspects of the change, but keep on fighting the statists by any means possible.

Reflections...

MMXI was another sad year of worldwide depression. The politicians have constantly lied their way into our wallets over and over and over again. By now I can confidently say there is no way back from this. We aren't standing on top of a cliff, we have already fallen off - now it's just the case of who has the best parachute. This is why this depression has hit people who are dependent on others hardest. Personally, as a student, I am still dependent on my parents. So I am an extra weight for their parachutes to carry. Most of my peers and people in my age groups are in the same exact situation. Food and commodity prices have gone up drastically in the past year, and parasticial entities like the Polish government have already promised their slaves more taxes and higher prices for 2012.
As is tradition for The Young Monarchist, tomorrow I will come out with a discussion of the expected situation in 2012, which I actually expect to change quite a bit. For now, as a rather downcast conclusion to 2011, all we can do is turn once more to the wisdom of those before us.

J.R.R. Tolkien's Gandalf gives us hope. People sometimes despair, but that is only because we have that safe Hobbit instinct inside of us.
'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
We must do what we can and try to continue on hoping for some light in the tunnel, however dim or brief it might be at first.

Reaching for the Ring in Our Lives

J.R.R. Tolkien, the greatest anarchist author of the 20th Century, understood the nature of Evil in the realm of human conduct very well. I am, in fact, working on a series of essays describing Tolkien's take on Good and Evil. I have started more work in this area because clearly some of his conclusions are very obvious, and yet people do not understand them even after reading The Lord of the Rings (let alone any of his other great works). Professor Tolkien's masterpiece is not some analogy to the real world (World Wars, the Cold War, or whatever) as many Tolkien-fans would like to believe. The Lord of the Rings delves much deeper into the human psyche than just merely describing external events. Let's ask one simple question: Why does Frodo aim to destroy the Ring, if it is obvious that in the hands of Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, or even Denethor the Ring could be used to utterly defeat The Dark Lord Sauron? The answer is obvious: Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Furthermore, multiple heroes (most notably Galadriel) tell Frodo that anyone willing to use the Ring is implicitly already corrupted by its power, and any use of the Ring will make an individual more corrupted. In the end, anyone who uses the Ring, whether for good or for ill, will become "The Dark Lord". And the One Ring is a symbol of violence and aggression as a means to achieving one's ends. Once any man accepts the maxim that 'the ends justify the means', he has already crossed that line, and can be said to be a slave of the Ring.
And so it is here on Earth. Any time we choose to use violence to fulfil our wants or needs, we have taken up the Ring. And every single time such an act occurs, we become more and more accustomed to it, until it becomes a necessity to use violence in order to achieve our ends. Institutions like the State are only illustrations of how much we are addicted to aggressive power as individuals in our society. People aren't able to use their own good will and ingenuity to get what they want. Slowly but surely, most 'citizens' become grovelling slaves at the feet of Evil. Why did the Orcs follow Sauron? It was for two reasons: they feared him, and they enjoyed what he could do for them (that is, pillage and steal the wealth of others). How is that any different from your average taxpayer or welfare recipient?!

The greatest role model in The Lord of the Rings is the quiet Ranger of Gondor, Faramir. It is through his lips that Tolkien says about the Ring, the symbol of power and violence: "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory."
I wonder if any modern fan of the State, warfare, or taxation ever read this book...

Star Trek and the Real Future

I recently decided to watch the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture again. As a big fan of sci-fi and the future, I have always enjoyed Star Trek. What really amazes me about this show and many other modern sci-fi TV, is that in its portrayal of the future it totally ignores any potential change in the human mind and therefore in human conduct. What is even more amazing is that this was not actually true of the original Star Trek series. It aired in the 1960, a time of deep social strife when segregation of government-enforced racism were still the norm. And what we saw among the multi-racial crew of the original Starship Enterprise was the total absence of any racial discrimination. The message was clear: In the future such irrational discrmination will not exist. But with later series this character of Star Trek largely disappeared. We saw regular modern people using amazing futuristic technology, but they were still just our normal average Joes. They thought and behaved like we would think of behave in the modern world. In the movie Doctor McCoy makes references to spanking children - something I think will be universally recognized as a type of child abuse within the next few decades. Furthermore, it is easily inferred from the conclusion of the movie that human emotions are something that surpasses and improves on logic. There seems to be a fully accepted premise that the universe can be grasped better using some other sixth sense which has nothing to do with reason and empiricism. In face, Earth is saved by the very existence of human emotions, when the gigantic alien computer which was going to destroy Earth fuses with a human and evolves to become some higher being.
And this is, of course, another symptom of the age-old "fear of machines", which science fiction has been using as an apocalyptic vision scarcely less often than the "fear of alien invasion". Both of these scenarios are highly unrealistic and logically problematic. But let's look at the very nature of man versus machine. People seem to think that machines are some cold and evil things (because they have no emotions and no 'moral standards') which rely purely on mathematics and logic - i.e. a supercomputer is the perfect Benthamite utilitarian. This is not the case, however. Machines are actually made in our image. Human beings use logic and empiricism to get by in their everyday life. All other superstitions are 'emotions' are either reactions to logic and empiricism, or they are ways to explain something that logic cannot yet explain. Machines are kind of like children - they don't create strange explanations to problems they can't solve, they simply ignore those problems as unsolvable. Our computers are not some seperate sort of creation, their programming is based on observations about the real world and it reflects our own brain activity.

All discussions of futuristic scenarions in modern discourse and popular culture are woefully ignorant of the concept of Social Darwinism - the fact that our ideas and knowledge (and therefore conduct) continually evolve towards their best adaptation to our universe. The most powerful aspect of human evolution is the continual shift in our morality and code of conduct. As Herbert Spencer put it: "Evil perpetually tends to disappear." And why is that? Simply because, as common sense dictates and as Spencer rightly observed, "all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions."

Jacques René Chirac - Today's International Political Scapegoat

Yesterday former President of France, Jacques Chirac, was convicted of using public money in order to hire his own cronies and aid in his electiona and re-election efforts. And as this news item came in, I immediately wanted to play the Devil's advocate. I want to defend Monsieur Chirac against these charges, but not by saying that he is not guilty of them - far from it, in fact! I agree that he did use public funds to gain votes and approval. I agree that he gave useless and needless jobs on the public payroll to his friends. But using such arguments to condemn a man in a statist society is pretty much a diluted straw-man. Every single person who has ever held political office is guilty of these charges. Saying that Mr. Chirac is guily of them is like saying that the presence of oxygen is what caused the Great Fire of London in 1666! I can also level additional charges at Jacques Chirac. He has never held a real job (he spent all of his adult life in politics or in the "civil service"). He was a leech on the public purse all his life! So how is this making him look better, you might ask? Well, let's just say these kinds of things can be said about most politicians.
George W. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice to be his Secretary of State, and before her, he favored Colin Powell. President Barack Obama hired Hillary Clinton. So we can see that, just like Chirac, American politicians also give their own "political partners" (this is a euphemism for "cronies") jobs all of the time. And these jobs are also perfectly useless to the ordinary tax-payer. When have I ever thanked Hillary Clinton for anything in my life? She is nothing but another useless leech. And all this is done with public money. One could argue that Mr. Chirac has been very modest in his evil-doing. His budget has always been much smaller than that of the US, and he has led France through a moderately good period of history, unlike Mssrs. Bush and Obama, who collapsed the world economy along with other of their "cronies" such as Geithner, Greenspan, Bernanke... the list is endless. And this applies to every state I know of in the history of the world!
Furthermore, Jacques Chirac cannot be charged with international terrorism, which we can easily charge Mssrs. Bush, Obama, or Sarkozy with. All of the men mentioned endorsed barbaric invasions of places like Iraq or Libya (Mr. Chirac did no such thing). Therefore I infer that Mr. Chirac, though just as guilty of being a leech on his own people as the aforementioned men, is at least not a genocidal maniac.

I must admit, Jacques Chirac was a bad man, but so is anyone who ever enters into or dabbles in democratic politics. In democratic politics the only way to gain and keep power is to exploit a number of the people and use those funds to pay off your own constituency. There is no other way. As the great sage Laozi said "a leader is best when people barely know he exists". So think about it, what leader do you know of less - Bush, Obama, Blair, Sarkozy, or maybe Chirac?

A Lesson in Basic Maths

The media has been in an uproar about David Cameron's move not to contribute any more British money to Euro bailouts and his dissatisfaction with new EU financial regulations. Mr. Cameron's stance is, of course, courageous and should be praised as much as a politician can be praised. Sadly, however, his veto will mean nothing in the long run. The Eurocrats have already declared that the new regulation will go into effect whether Britain wants it or not. The dictatorship from Brussels is out of hiding - they have gone public with their new Sovietesque ambitions. The British people do have a right to be offended by such actions on the part of the EU Commission. And the mainstream media has been harping on about this for the last couple days. But there is one item on this agenda which nobody has mentioned. Namely - the question of basic mathematics.
When the Eurozone is being bailed out, who is paying for it? The EU member states are paying. But where in the world are they getting this money from?! I was introduced to the concept of negative numbers back in first grade, and ever since then math has come in handy in my life on numerous occasions. So let's examine the financial situation of the EU member states. We can easily find on Wikipedia that every single European Union country in grossly indebted. This means that the overall balance sheet ends with a big "-" negative sign down on the bottom. And yet we are told these states will now pay into some Eurozone bailout fund! How in the world does that work?! A first grader can tell you that it is impossible to magically turn a negative sign into a positive sign! If that was allowed, the rules of mathematics would be null and void, and I should go find all my previous teachers and demand my record be changed so that I got a 100% correct score on every single math test I ever took in my life. Are our politicians really that badly educated? I guess public schools are to blame...

Not for the first time will I quote the following lines from Jefferson, for he said, and rightly so, that "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."

Good Job Dave!

I would like to take a second to congratulate Mr. David Cameron for not bowing down to our EU overlords. Mr. Sarkozy seemed a bit angry at the British PM, and whatever makes our modern day "Robespierre-wanna-be" angry makes me distinctly happy. The EU has gone far enough in increasing its blatantly dictatorial powers over the financial and fiscal policies of the member states as well as their respective banking sectors. So, one again, thumbs up Prime Minister!

I also want to explain why I haven't been posting or commenting as regualarly as I'd like. I am very busy at the moment with all kinda of university issues, and I have also been working on a much bigger and more ambitious project which I hope to announce soon.

Real props to Amnesty International this time! Arrest Bush!

At one time I was quite an active member of Amnesty International. I visited their London headquarters on numerous occasions to attend talks and work within the organization. For numerous reasons (which I will not go into), however, I am no longer an Amnesty contributor. Amnesty International is the most famous organization that champions "political and social human rights", whatever those are. I have great respect for them wherever they publicize incidents to do with abridging freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and I am fully behind any of their initiatives which condemn political leaders for war crimes, torture, and holding political prisoners. This is why I was very happy a few days ago when international headlines reported that Amnesty prompted certain African states to take action and arrest former US President George W. Bush while he is on a visit to those countries. George Bush is indeed a world famous war criminal (responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths in the Middle-East, especially Afghanistan and Iraq) and arms trafficker (he authorizes the sale of arms to other states, such as Israel - which is responsible for countless atrocious attacks against civilians). Mr. Bush is also quite famous for allowing the use of torture against not only POW's, but also civilians who had been kidnapped in US-occupied territories in the Middle-East. These prisoners are kept in concentration camps such as the infamous Guantanamo Bay. All these actions suggest Bush hearkens back to an ancient tradition well practiced in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, while using methods developed by virtuosos of evil such as Ivan the Terrible (who, by the way, shared Bush's vehement religious fanaticism and anointed himself 'God's chosen').
Mr. Bush certainly deserves to be tried for all his crimes against humanity, which are far more numerous and grandiose than anything Saddam Hussein, Osama bin-Laden, or the aforementioned Russian Tsar could have dreamed of. There is, of course, no chance of this ever happening. State officials the world over have full immunity from any action they take when in office. US Presidents are particularly invulnerable because they are protected by the largest and most aggressive military force this planet has ever seen.
In case this assessment of George Bush might seem a bit harsh to some people, especially Americans, I really would like to refer you to an expertly presented video by Stefan Molyneux – here – in which he presents the real toll of President Bush’s actions on the Iraqi people.

And I will finish with a telling quote from a man who although usually confused on his philosophy, can be a powerful orator and often have the right idea (and whose ideas I have praised on this blog before). Noam Chomsky said that "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
If this is true of anyone, it is true of George W. Bush.

Racism, Nationalism, Sports... It's Just a Game!

Recently Mr. Sepp Blatter, head or FIFA, stated that racist incidents during games should just be shrugged off by the players. They should just 'shake hands', he said, and all will be well. Because it's just a game after all. Here is a report with the part of the interview which started this controversy. People as high up as the British PM David Cameron have condemned Mr. Blatter for his statement and many have called for his resignation. Now I fully agree that FIFA is a strange corporation-type structure which seems corrupt in many ways. But there is certainly some truth in Mr. Blatter's words. Namely, SPORTS ARE JUST A GAME. I myself am a passionate sports fan, but I would not presume to ever say that sports are of any importance in the world. Sports are fun to play, fun to watch, and it can be fun to support a team or player. But what I see in the so-called 'world or sports' is just madness. Why are there racist incidents in the first place? Because someone is crazy enough about sports to abuse someone else racially over being a supporter or player of another team! This is a fanaticism bordering on that we see all the time with nationalism and patriotism - two concepts I have widely condemned on this blog.
Sports fanatics have a lot in common with nationalistic patriots and religious zealots. I tend to think people who hold a sports team as an actual value in their lives are somewhat deranged. I certainly support a team and am a loyal supporter, but I do not have any negative feelings toward supporters of other teams. I do not have any violent urges to abuse others over their own sports preferences. True, when my team loses I feel a bit bummed, and when it wins I feel happy, but none of my feelings are ever 'over the top'. But it is not so with the average raging sports fan. All this gets even more conflated when we talk about National Sports Teams. There irrational national pride mixes with sports fanaticism and creates a truly frightening combination.
In America this sports fanaticism is introduced more or less by forcable indoctrination through the school system. Each individual is pretty much destined to support the team of their local high school and then college. Nobody really seems to realize how totally out of proportion our response to simple sports has become. Colleges and universities invest millions in sports despite this having no educational value whatsoever. This is done, I assume, to breed loyalty among the student population. Young people, especially nowadays, are very susceptible to outside influence because they seem to be a bunch of nihilists (this is an empirical statement I am making after quite a few years of observation in a number of countries where I have lived). Nihilists with no principles always need some higher ideal to hang on to and give their life meaning. And those ideals are proposed by people who are all too eager to control and exploit the unknowing: States, Patriots, Relgious sects, or Secular sects (which I consider mainstream sports to be).

George Orwell wrote that "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting." I think we need to think about this. Sports are just a game people! And let's leave it at that.

Creepy Poppy Day - Spencer is right, as always

The "British people" (i.e. the tax serfs of the UK government) have been celebrating the memory of their military dead (i.e. the government's cannon fodder), especially those who died in recent interventions in the Middle East (i.e. genocidal expeditions of Mr. Tony Blair). To be honest I have had enough of seeing people all wearing poppy flowers on all their clothes, cars, and other property. I guess the poppy has a similar function to the ribbon in the USA. In that both are symbollic ways of glorifying mass murder. Maybe it is something about being raised in a Polish family, I don't know, but I have a thourough disgust for war. Even warlike rhetoric sickens me. I have no respect for any soldiers who died on missions in the Middle East in recent years. They were guns-for-hire who lost their gamble. And if these wars consisted of states fighting states, I may have a neutral stance here. After all, why would I favor one mafia ahead of another? But currently all I see is state (i.e. mafia) armies (i.e. groups of goons) attacking innocent civilian populations. Furthermore, the American government has created concentration camps (we don't know how many in total, but one of them is actually official - Guantanamo) where Afghani goat-herds are being kept and tortured for months and years at a time. The people who freed the Nazi extermination camps after World War II are now establishing similar facilities themselves (maybe not designed for mass murder, but certainly designed for kidnapping, torture, and sometimes probably assassinations).
Just because a man puts on a silly uniform does not mean he is not required to abide by the basic rules of ethics. Green or blue clothes do not entitle you or me to shoot, kill, kidnap, murder, enslave, steal, rape, pillage, or occupy. But the government seems to think it does. Maybe someone should show up at Tony Blair's house wearing green-yellow camo and show him what waterboarding feels like?

To all British citizens I raise this appeal: Think carefully before you put on that poppy. Remember the millions of dead men, women, and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. And remember what probably the greatest British citizen ever, Herbert Spencer, once said of British soldiers who took part in the British-Afghan War in the 19th Century: "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."

Using Children to Illustrate Morality

I have been arguing for a long time now that our morality that we use and reference in everyday life should not be any different than that morality which we teach to children. I have recently also heard this said by Anarchist philosopher Stefan Molyneux. He is one of the few people who seem to understand that there is a deeply disturbing double-standard in our ethics. Namely, we apply different ethical standards to our interactions in the private sphere and in the so-called public sphere. So here are some sample scenarios where we can clearly see this as illustrated by children.
Scenario 1: When a child plays in a common play area with other children in the park, they all bring their own individual toys. They can then share the toys, trade them, or just play with their own toys excluding those of other children. If a little boy really wants the toy of another kid, the parents can encourage him to ask the other child to let him play with it or borrow it. They certainly will not take the toy from the child to whom it belongs and give it to their own kid. And they will not instruct their child that it is okay to steal the toys of other children. This applies even if the other child has many more toys than our own child. Just because the other kid has more toys and doesn't want to share them is not a valid reason to steal them and encourage our child to take them. If I heard any parent behave in such a way, I would be outraged.
And yet this is precisely what happens when the State takes money from the rich and gives to the poor. The people with more "toys" are robbed just because they have more stuff. We do not look at why some have more, or why the poor have less. All we do is redistribute the goods. This is a fundamental inconsistency.
Scenario 2: This scenario is from my own family. When I was a little boy, my parents didn't have a lot of money and couldn't buy me that much stuff. What they did though is give me a little bit of money once in a while which I could save up and maybe buy myself some nice toy sometime down the road. They did the same for my sisters. As a child I often tended to be somewhat hedonistic, as all children essentially are until they learn otherwise. I would sometimes spend my money on ice cream and candy, and didn't save up enough to buy nice toys. My sisters, though younger, caught onto this earlier. They gave up the candy in order to buy some cool stuff which lasted. I can't say I was pleased about this - after all they now had toys and I had zilch. But this did not cause my parents to take my sisters' toys and redistribute them between all three of us! Instead, my parents told me I should have saved my money, and that is what I did from that day forward. So, once again, why is this so different from what we see the State doing?! The State takes from those who save and feeds hedonistic habits among other members of the population. I have seen this happen with my own eyes! In the UK now, for example, there are more than 300,000 households where neither of the parents has ever held a job. And these households produce a lot of children, you can be sure of that!
Will the welfare moms and dads in those households teach their children that stealing on the playground is wrong? If so, they should be aware they are shamelessly doing the same thing. Except, as adults, they should know better.

Just dump the “Euro”

I want to chip in with a few obvious observations on the recent mania involving the Euro-currency, the Euro-zone, and Euro-bail-outs for Greece and (possibly) Italy. As a rule, whenever I see the prefix “euro” before any word, I identify it as Newspeak for something. The word “euro” always sounds nice and positive to us Europeans because we love the Old World. My eyesight is not blurred by this bias, however, because I am also a huge fan of the New World. Whatever you might say about America, it is the only place on Earth where an ambitious experiment of freedom was at least attempted. So when I watched the old propaganda news (on the BBC, of course) last night, I couldn’t stop myself from laughing at all the silly observations journalists, politicians, and other experts were making with regard to the Euro-crisis. The Euro-currency is about to collapse. There is talk about kicking Greece or several other states out of the Euro-zone in order to save it, but this will be avoided at all costs by the Euro-crats in Brussels and Berlin. Why? Because doing so would be admitting defeat for the European Union project. It would seem that Europe was not ready for a common currency and common economic planning after all. And another thing that this crisis is doing also worries the Brussels crowd – there is visible animosity arising inside some nation states towards others. Many Germans (the people who contributed somewhat to dire situations in other states by controlling the Euro) are claiming that the Greeks are ungrateful and refuse to give the Achaeans any more money. Two bail-outs should be enough. The Greeks, meanwhile, are starting to feel tired of the name-calling and want the Germans to stop running their lives. I am starting to think the only thing that could change this political climate is some silly distraction. Maybe Mr. Silvio Berlusconi should start thinking about finding another teen lover or throwing another Bacchanalian orgy for former heads-of-state in one of his private mansions. Distracting the Euro-citizenry might score him a few points with other Euro-crats and will certainly boost his rating among the Italian Don Juan constituency.
But, in all seriousness, all reasonable people know that this is all a futile game. The Euro is doomed. The only way to save it would be to raise interest rates and no Euro-zone country can afford that at the moment. Even Germany would have to declare bankruptcy if interest went up another 10% or so, and we all know that Italy, Ireland, or Portugal can only take afford another 1% at most. All states have essentially defaulted on their debt already; it will never be paid or paid in hyper-inflated toilet paper money. This is true for European states and the United States as well.

So I say let’s just dump the Euro already. Joseph Goebbels once said that "If you repeat a lie enough times it will become the truth". Repetition of falsehoods is indoctrination. And if all this Euro-stuff is one thing, it is un-European. Europe is beautiful because it is diverse. A single unified Continental state you say? I say let a thousand Liechtensteins and San Marinos bloom.

Prenatal Debt Slavery – Get on it Vatican!

In today’s world we still have one seemingly possible way of becoming a slave. Eliminating the current situation of tax serfdom has to be our priority, of course, but it is no reason for neglecting other terrible side-effects of state action. One such effect is debt slavery. And the debt slavery which results directly from state action is the enslavement of the young and the unborn – people who are not allowed to make decisions for themselves. If I decide to make myself a debt slave, so be it. I may deserve it. But forcing someone else to become such a slave is another thing entirely. The state borrows money and uses its future income (in the form of IOU’s) as collateral. This means that responsibility for money spent today is deferred onto people who will have to pay it off in the future. Children being born with into debt are essentially forced to pay for the folly of their ancestors. In private relations such a scheme would be unacceptable. I cannot buy a car by giving the car dealer a piece of paper which says that in twenty years my son will pay for it. Not only does it sound ridiculous, it is also deeply immoral. Some people have told me that I am not correct and that the current situation is more akin to when a parent dies and leaves his child a house with a mortgage on it. But this is not right either. Firstly, when a parent buys a house I don’t think he/she expects that the child will have to pay for it. It is more of an accident that the parent died before he was able to pay the whole thing off. Furthermore, an inheritor of a property with a mortgage can choose to not pay it and forfeit the property to the lender. Our children will not be able to do that with the state (at least not legally). And lastly, what we are leaving our children here is analogous to me leaving a useless wooden shack with no plumbing to my children only for them to find out that there is a million dollar mortgage on it – an amount that is multiple times the value of the shack. No reasonable human being would be expected to take such a deal; forfeiting the property would be a much better idea. The children are not obliged to pay off my debts because they did not voluntarily accept responsibility for them. This is all very clear.
There is also another moral argument to be made here, and another opportunity presents itself for me to lobby the Catholic Church, of which I am now a former member but still a great fan. So, if Catholics are so against abortion, which they claim to be, why don’t they oppose taking away other rights of the unborn? The right to life is important, but the right to life is not really anything other than the right to upkeep our bodily functions and our body is also part of our property. After all, what use is the right to life if the life we live is that of slavish servitude and dependence? The right of private property is an important part of the Catholic tradition. Therefore I think the Pope should condemn all public debts as stealing from the unborn, an action equivalent to abortion.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "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."

The Catholic Church is Weak and Corrupt

I see more and more people within the libertarian community expressing the view that religion is dangerous and that churches are instruments of evil. While this is to some extent correct, I would like to calm everyone down. Until relatively recently I considered myself a member of the Catholic Church. I also notice that it is the Catholic Church which gets attacked most often by libertarians (despite the fact the Catholic Church is actually the most libertarian of all churches). And the reason I left the Church was not that it was forcing people into anything or doing unlibertarian things. In fact, my reason was precisely the opposite. The Catholic Church hierarchy is not doing what it should be doing. It is not condemning evil people for doing evil things and it is not expressing or enforcing its views. Being a libertarian I am a strong believer in the power of ostracism, and I think we should all exercise that power. The Church should, in my opinion, be more consistent. It's positions on many issues are jumbled and incoherent. Furthermore, Church members (especially the clergy) are not doing what I think they should be doing - pointing our evil. We have lots of Catholics who seem to agree with some Church doctrines and completely ignore others. I personally know Catholics in the United States who vote for pro-choice political candidates or socialists of all kinds. These people are not not good Catholics and they should be condemned for what they are doing. But the Church refuses to do so. Today's Catholic intellectuals represent a pathetic mockery of their Scholastic predecessors.
I do not know if this situation is the result of the times - maybe religion as a whole is becoming outdated and is in its death throes? Nobody looks as majestic on their death bed as they did in the days of their youth (with the possible exception of King Elessar). Or maybe the reason is the same as the one in government - too many cushy beaurocratic jobs and the double-standard in judging behaviour. Either way, the Church needs urgent reform which I doubt will take place. Religion, just like the political sphere of life, has to be dismantled down to the personal and private level, where individuals will have control.

Is Abp. Rowan Williams really a Christian?

Since moving back to America, I have observed quite a few people wearing all kinds of small items (usually bracelets) with the letters "WWJD" on them. I found out this abbreviation stands for "What would Jesus do?". It is a way of reminding people who claim to be Christian about the importance of their religion in making everyday decisions. You are faced with a problem and you ask yourself - what would Jesus do? Now I'm pretty sure members of the clergy shouldn't need little bracelets to be able to think like this, they are supposed to be thinking about Jesus all the time anyway. So I was very surprised the other day when I heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spoke out in support of the Occupy Movement protesters who argue for higher taxes on the rich and on the finance industry. I don't really know why he would support such a thing, any economist worth his salt knows this kind of motion will cripple the industry, increase intrest rates and prices across the board, and drive jobs overseas. But there is also an important moral question here (which has nothing to do with the Archbishop's apparent ignorance of basic economics).
Namely, the question is: What would Jesus do?
Now I was raised Catholic and I've read the New Testament quite a few times - and nowhere in there did I see any reference to Jesus telling people they should take the property of others in the name of justice. And this is exactly what the new tax would do. In fact, even its proponents acknowledge this. They call the tax the "Robin Hood Tax", and we all know that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor (after taking a certain comfortable provision for himself, of course). Abp. Williams should be able to explain to me how he can defend stealing. Thou shalt not steal was still in the Decalogue the last time I checked. Maybe the Archbishop needs to order a little "WWJD" bracelet for himself.
Jesus was a great man, and his followers, Christians, built a great civilization. Christians are generous and they respect human rights, such as the right of property. Christians do not coerce others and they have a respect for the Law (The Law as Frederick Bastiat defined it). This is why their civilization grew so great, it was peaceful and prosperous when compared to other cultures on this Earth. Jesus told others to give their property to the deserving poor - he did not instruct anyone to steal in order to support themselves or others who had less material wealth. Jesus was the patron of beggars, not of robbers. I hope all Christians who still claim to be faithful to him remember this one day.

To quote the Jesus himself: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21).
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is often a great virtue (when not taken to extremes). But sacrificing others for the sake of the poor is akin to human sacrifice, something Jesus would never be able to condone - he was a pacifist.

I can't believe I'm protecting Traveller Gypsies...

So the big news story in the UK recently is the eviction, by the County Council, of Irish gypsy travellers from Dale Farm in Essex. The whole operation will cost over £17 million (and this is a conservative estimate). Now in my whole life so far, I have never said a positive word about these gypsies. They are widely known as the lowest lowlives in England (sorry for the generalization, but that's just how it is). Some of their hobbies include: beating people up, robbing people, stealing people's cars and blowing them up, and, recently, keeping and selling slaves. The one positive thing I can say is that their children don't go to government schools (on the down side, the children don't go to any school at all and spend their time vandalizing local communities). But here in Dale Farm I have to stand up for the rights of the poor gypsies. And I don't mean any 'human rights' of decency or whatever the lefties have been going on about for the last couple days. I mean their private property rights!
I have always said that government land - land owned by any organ of the government, whether national or local - is illegitimately owned. No homesteading process took place when the state acquired that land. In England it can be argued that some property is owned by the Queen and the Royal Family, but the Shire Councils have no long-standing history of ownership or homesteading in any area (as far as I know). Now these gypsies simply found an empty field and settled there with their families. They didn't harm anyone in the process, nor did they steal anyone's property. No one was living there or using the land. Now, many years later, they are being forced out.
I would like to remind the Her Majesty's Government that this state (the UK) is supposed to be founded on Liberal principles as explained by the likes of John Locke or Lord Blackstone. The travellers may not the be the best of people and the police may have reasons to go after them, but that is to be done on an individual basis. The police have no right to evict the gypsies from legitimately homesteaded property. Homesteading is a principle I have envoked many times on this blog, and I will continue to do so. It is the process upon which all property rights are based. If the Council wants to evict the settlers, they have to present proof that the land was being used and occuped by some of their agents who 'mixed their labour' with the land before the travellers built their homes.

So, as Locke wrote about Man: "The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
Who was the one mixing his labour with the land in this case? I can't be exactly sure, but on the face of it all I see is a settlemend being torn down by aggressors...

Best US Presidents Ever!

At one time I picked (in response to a horrible leftist survey) my five favourite Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I picked liberal politicians who preserved liberty and the rule of law against protectionism, militarism, socialism, or intolerance.
Now it's time for the United States, where that most famous and influential office is that of the President (or at least that's how it was before the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve took office...). Of course I don't know if these men are actually the best - we will never know that in practical terms because we don't know what others might have done in their place. But on rhetoric and action, I believe these five are my favourite US Presidents:
5.Martin Van Buren
Why Van Buren? He tackled an economic crisis with free-market reform, such as lowering government spending and taxes. Although he was the first President to be born am American citizen, he was, in my humble opinion, the last of the true liberal generation in the US. He also tried to participate in the setting up of a Third Party (the Free Soil Party, which campaigned for liberal issues such as curtailing slavery and advancing free markets).
4.Andrew Jackson
Vetoed the Second Bank of the United States - need I say more?
3.Thomas Jefferson
Probably the greatest Founding Father and the man whose writings introduced me to classical liberalism back in my teen years. The author of the Declaration of Independence. His only mistake was that awful change in the Holy Triad of Liberalism - why in the world did he change 'property' to 'the pursuit of happiness'? And he really can't go higher on the list - despite being a great visionary and philosopher, he wasn't really a good politician.
2.Ronald Reagan
The greatest American in recent decades. Grover Norquist thinks he is the greatest American President, and that is quite an endorsement in my book. He resurrected the Libertarian Republican tradition and made it a force to be reckoned with (at least in rhetoric). Nowadays you can hardly find a Republican who takes an anti-Reagan line and doesn't support small government (although as we know, most Republicans say one thing and do the opposite). President Reagan managed to get his Goldwater roots firmly planted into the Republican political scene, and we are reaping the fruits of that now with the Ron Paul Revolution. And he lowered taxes - always a plus.

1.Calvin Coolidge
President Coolidge is a little-known man. In fact, barely anyone who was educated in public schools even knows he existed! And for me that is one of the best indicators about a politician. It means he did not pursue glory - personal or national. In fact, Coolidge was known as "Silent Cal" - the quiet guy who never spoke up, but his votes and actions spoke for him. Coolidge is the only Libertarian to be President in the 20th Century. He worked tirelessly to lower taxes and prevented government bureaus such as the ICC from regulating the US economy. In an act of defiance against majority opinion, Coolidge heroically vetoed all bills which included subsidies - most famously those for the farming industry. He championed civil rights and equal rights in America for Blacks and Catholics decades before this issue really came to a head. He kept out of any foreign alliances or interventions. I can hardly think of a better portrait of a President. After the end of his Presidency, Coolidge retired from politics and lived out the rest of his life quietly and in peace.
Let's end with a quote from President Calvin Coolidge: "I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form."