Who is an adult in a "democratic" world...

Most people would say that a person becomes an adult at the moment they become responsible for their own decisions and actions. Their parents are no longer liable - it is the person who bears all consequences. I agree with this definition. However, it seems that in democratic countries that is not the case. I will use the example of the USA because it is the best known democracy and also because I happen to be personally effected by the laws of this country. One of the most blatantly ridiculous laws I have spotted on this matter is the drinking age law (a very frustrating law I might add - to a person who in Europe has long been considered an adult). Apparently when it comes to drinking in the USA everyone becomes an adult at age 21. This, however, makes no sense. Isn't the voting age 18? This means that a person is allowed responsibility of ruling over other people before he/she is given the right to rule their own body! I think people should be appalled at this clear lack of logic. Either the drinking age should be lowered or the voting age raised. Also - what about the age of consent? Or the age legal marriage can be performed at? Why are all these different? Once an adult is an adult he should be able to do as he wishes with his own time, money, body, or everything and anything that is in his possession. I understand that in different countries, societies, or cultures, this age could be different (or it doesn't have to be a particular age - in some societies a person became an adult once they proved their worth through some trial). What all this really proves is that none of us are adults, whether out age is 1 or 101. Our responsibilities and rights are all purely subjective and can change at any given moment. Democracy can just take them away from us all or from a certain group. In these cases age groups are being discriminated against. As I said many times before on this blog - eliminate state-organized discrimination and there will be no discrimination left in the world at all!

Bailouts - For Everyone!

I have yet to come up with any better way of subsidizing idiocy and recklessness than so-called "bailouts". Recently the most powerful Red in the world, President Obama, has announced plans to start bailing out individual homeowners who are behind in their mortgage repayments as long as they meet certain conditions. Namely, their mortgage needs to amount to more than the value of their house and they have to be unemployed. I have never heard of a more ludicrous idea! Subsidizing three hugely negative behaviours (staying unemployed and collecting welfare, lowering property values, and borrowing against your house without being able to afford it) in one move! The administration also makes a couple incredibly foolish assumptions while proposing this bailout. One is that "people would rather work than not work". I think that kind of statement needs no comment. It is the exact opposite of the universally accepted law of the disutility of labor. People prefer leisure to work! This is why most people enjoy their weekends and public holidays. This is reminiscent of the theories of Marx or Engels who were sure that the "new socialist man" would enjoy work and therefore productivity under a socialist system wouldn't fall, but increase... Of course these $50,000 give-aways Obama is proposing will not only distort the market and reward foolishness, but also hurt frugal citizens who don't have credit issues. Many people did not get sucked into the easy loan trap and saved their money. They spent within their means and maintained their properties while scrupulously paying off their mortgages. These people will now be taxed and their savings will be diminished through inflation. Their portion of the national debt will rise, something their children will have to face as much as the children of the idiots ("idiots" is probably the mildest term for people who took out zero-down adjustable rate mortgages and immediately started taking out extra loans against their new property...).
The European Union, meanwhile, is doing no better. Let us take the example of the recent Greece bailout. Right after the financial crisis hit in 2008 Ireland suffered a huge economic recession. Immediately tough steps were taken. Paychecks to all government staff were cut. Some staff were laid off. Entitlements (such as unemployment benefits) were severely reduced or even eliminated. During this time the Greek government did none of these things. They continued spending like drunken sailors and getting further into debt with no regard for the future. And now, after their final collapse, Ireland is one of the nations paying off the Greeks! And to no small sum - at least 800 billion euro in the first instance!
As my guru, the great Herbert Spencer, said: "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools."
Peter Schiff had it right all along and he gets it right again here. The Dollar, Obama's Plans, the Lunacy of Politics...

How Political Correctness Rules Our Lives

Language is very important; it is the means which humans use to convey ideas to one another. With that in mind some people ask me why I am so against constricting language within the rules of political correctness. After all words can mean different things and it is important not to misrepresent something or offend someone by accident. Well here is my reason. Politically correct language is full of pointless euphemisms and alterations which not only make it painstakingly difficult to understand but also very difficult to actually use. Some people are politically incorrect because they do not have the intellectual capacity to be politically correct! And some people actually don't know that certain words are considered "tabu" and they get in trouble for it! Also, political correctness makes the language soft and completely non-aggressive. And everyone knows, the language makes the people as much as the people make the language. Why else would regimes throughout history take such care to relabel and redefine so many words! In school these days children don't play tag - they play "circle of friends"! And no more tug of war - it's "tug of peace" now!
The reason I write on this subject is because I have recently heard one of Agatha Christie's great books has been renamed a number of times for political correctness reasons! First published as Ten Little Niggers in 1939 it was later re-christened Ten Little Indians and then finally And Then There Were None. The main rhyme in the novel is of course now known as Ten Little Soldiers... In our times not only are racist weirdoes not allowed to talk how they wish, but the same gag is also placed on the world's greatest minds...

And this really brings to mind a quote from the immortal (he wouldn't use that word!) George Carlin: There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those words in and of themselves. They're only words. It's the context that counts. It's the user. It's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. The words are innocent. I get tired of people talking about bad words and bad language. It's the context that makes them good or bad.
Of course in Agatha Christie's Britain there was nothing wrong with the word now referred to as "the N word", just like not long ago there was nothing wrong with the word "Indian". But times have changed...

Oil oil oil, but what about actual gasoline prices?

The mainstream media and the politicians always discuss oil price and how high it has been. A lot of culprits are blamed for those increases. The two main ones: OPEC and "Big Multinational Companies", by which they usually mean Exxon, Shell, etc. The argument, of course, always centers around the idea of gasoline prices increasing at the pump - people feel that kind of pressure on their wallet. However, nobody seems to notice the government's role in all this. While driving around the United States for the last month or so, I realized that fuel here is 3 times cheaper than in the UK! How is this possible?! Does OPEC not set high prices for Americans? Does so-called "Big Business" only exploit Europeans? Of course not! Every informed person knows that in the UK over 70% of gasoline cost is pure government tax. The sad thing is that the media and politicians have managed to dupe everyone into thinking external sources are responsible for internal misdeeds. This is true of most national and international problems where politicians usually throw around collective blame and shout about "capitalism", "dictators", "undemocratic regimes", "monopolies", "corporate greed", "big business"... the list is endless. What we need to understand is that these people are liars. They need to find an enemy so that everyone unites behind them and ticks the right box on the next ballot.

As usual, I end with a great quote. This time by proud English novelist Mary Ann Evans: "An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry."
Couldn't have said it better myself! However not all elections need to be thus; today was the Republican Primary Day in Connecticut. I was really cheering on true conservative Peter Schiff through that entire race...

Three Cheers for Mr.Cameron! (The Young Monarchist is Back!)

Back in March I wrote about the British public debt and the need to reduce it drastically. Now we see that something is finally being done about it. PM David Cameron is getting rid of 40% of government employees (wow!). Finally it seems the breakthrough long known in medicine has reached the political economy sphere. If someone is sick, it is no reason to put leeches onto them. In fact, removing the leaches might do the organism a world of good. Any economy burdened by too many governmental leeches will fail. These people do nothing productive whatsoever; instead they take useful capital away from the private sector and relocate it (usually poorly) to wherever they want. From what I understand most Brits accept this until they themselves are affected directly or unless they are commies (readers of the Morning Star, etc.). Sadly this process is not taking place in the United States where socialists have control of both Congress and the White House. But again - congratulations to the Conservatives! At their victory I was worried that Thatcherism might be a thing of the past, but I see it has still retained enough potency to bring some sense into Tory reform.

I know the blog has been silent for over a month now. This was due to my move to America where I went on various awesome road trips and had a lot of other things on my mind. This month I making up for it; touring America can be very intellectually stimulating!

Right to "Stuff" Disproved

Recently the government of Finland has proudly announced that in their country access to the internet has become a right of every citizen, which will be satisfied and guarded by the government itself. This is just another scheme from the list of rights to "stuff" - material possessions guaranteed to everyone for no reason whatsoever. It follows on from the "right" to education, medical care, state pension, and such other things.
It is clear from my freedom position that wealth redistribution (and that is exactly what all these schemes are all about) is wrong and morally indefensible. However, there is also another aspect of the rights to material possessions which makes them totally illogical. Let's take a look at this inconsistency:
1. We know that human rights are universal - every human being has exactly the same rights. We are all born with them and when they are taken away a moral wrong is committed.
2. If human rights are universal, then they must pertain to each individual human being or group of human beings. If they are applicable to a million people, then they must also be applicable to a thousand people, or a hundred, or ten, or just a single person.
3. And here is where the "right to stuff" breaks down. If only a single person exists and he cannot provide himself with medical care or access to the internet, does this mean he has breached his own human rights? Or does it mean that a single person has no human rights at all? In that case, is it enough to just cart someone off into the middle of uninhabited Siberia in order to take away that person's rights? Maybe the Gulag was ethical after all!
Now that we know this is a truly absurd notion, we can actually see what human rights really are; they are attributes that are applicable in all conditions of human existence. A single person isolated from society still possesses them as much as he would if he was living in the middle of a bustling metropolis. There are no special rights that people gain by belonging to society - this would mean that the society (or more precisely, the government which orders the society around) somehow bestows rights on individuals. In the primitive ages of the past, when slavery and such were allowed by both government and public opinion, human rights were still being broken. Opinion does not form them, they are part of natural law - the law of God.

Another lecture about abortions...

Today I was once again "lectured" about abortions (by a person of very inferior intellect, I might add). I have already previously written an absolutely huge blog entry on this subject (here), so I will not go into details about my viewpoint. On the subject of abortions - as with any subject concerning the rights of life, liberty, or property - there can be no grey area. Something is either wrong or right, not partially right and partially wrong. In a choice between two evils we are obliged to choose no evil, i.e. not make a choice. There can only be two viewpoints (good/evil or right/wrong, whichever you prefer) in the case of abortion. They are pro-abortion (against right to life) and pro-life (defending the right to life). Today, however, I was told repeatedly that there is some mysterious third option known as "pro-choice". As far as I'm concerned, "pro-choice" is really in the category of pro-abortion, since it allows abortions to take place. I just think people use it as a euphemism; after all "choice" sounds better than "abortion", it is a positive, not a negative. We must not fall into this language trap. The "choice" here is the choice between life and death and if death is chosen, the right to life is broken.

On another, less serious note: today Finland became the first country in the world where access to the Internet is a right! But more on this tomorrow.