The Berlin Wall Fell 20 Years Ago
Almost every political regime is based on violence and fear, we can just compare which one use violence more and which one less. Communism unfortunately chose violence, fear, restriction and totality in the first place of its own doctrine. For long 40 years the people in Easter Europe had been hearing that in the west capitalism exploited common people, yet when the Iron Curtain ended everyone wanted to go to West.
It was not about democracy as it was mainly a huge step for liberty, the liberty is unfortunately again under attack from many sources, but I am an optimist and I believe that freedom will be here with us another 20 years. Freedom prevails!
Internet Access as a Legal Right?
Your neighbour just came to a small visit, he noticed your internet connection and realized “I want that too”. Yes he can choose some internet provider, he can find ideal speed/price ratio for him and apply for a connection. But that’s outdated, at least in Finland it is. Finland has become first country in the world having internet access as a legal right.
So instead of choosing an internet provider he will use his “right to the internet” and government makes the rest. I bet they will tax you, using your money for that connection, but it really doesn’t matter, doesn’t it?
CNN says that it is view shared by the United Nations, I think it is great. Dear United Nations what about my right to space flight, right to car, right to an island in pacific?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3rd says:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
So stop taking people’s money, their property, product of their work their supplies which serves as instrument of personal security. Where are you going to take all the money from? I have not noticed that the Finnish government or the UN would be profitable institutions.
Murray Rothbard in his book the Ethics of Liberty with a reference to Franz Oppenheimer says:
There are only two means to the acquisition of wealth. One is the method of production, generally followed by voluntary exchange of such products: this is what Oppenheimer called the economic means. The other method is the unilateral
seizure of the products of another: the expropriation of another man's property by violence. This predatory method of getting wealth Oppenheimer aptly termed the political mean
Welcome in the world when violence is used for a “good” purpose, everyone needs the Internet!
Hard Irish Yes For Europe
Opinions change, this has been the core idea of the Irish referendum about the Treaty of Lisbon. The Irish once said no, but because it was politically incorrect they’ve made a new referendum next year. That’s the democracy of the 21st century – vote as long until it passes.
I love free move across the whole Europe, I love possibility to work anywhere in Europe without any limitation, but this is not the European Union, it is The Schengen Agreement. The European Union was created in order to ease economic cooperation across the European countries, but it has changed, it want to centralize and control Europe now.
I don’t want to pay another “European” bureaucrats in Brussels or Strasbourg, when I see all the bureaucrats here in my country I am really enough satisfied with them. I really don’t need to know how does the real banana looks like according to the EU. I really don’t need those 11 pages of articles just for banana market.
all the days they work on the banana formula there
The Irish referendum was probably the last chance how to stop them and how to stop centralization of Europe. Yes the Czech and the Polish president haven’t signed it yet, but they will as they are under heavy pressure from local governments.
But maybe the really really last change will be the British Conservative party which promised to make a referendum in Britain, unfortunately I don’t think it will change something. Decision has already been made, we do(not) need that treaty.
A Lesson On Freedom Of Association From New Zealand
Yesterday, Sir Roger Douglas had a speech about the Education Amendment Bill in the New Zealand Parliament. He greatly argued that in a free society an individual is free of association on all levels, including military service, labour unions or compulsory education.
The goal of a free society is to minimize violence, that’s why all forced associations must be abolished or at least very limited regardless how glorious their usefulness sounds.
By the way I’ve been quite surprised by huge money waste in this student associations on public universities, especially when New Zealand is ranked by Transparency International on the second best place in corruption and transparency level in the world.
He got it right
“They stole students money … They stole your money”
I cannot imagine how huge amounts are being wasted in different countries. I wish there were more politicians like Sir Roger Douglas.
We Can Work Without an Elected Government
A recent lesson from the Czech Republic shows that the republic can work without an elected government . What else, it can work even better.
On 24 March 2009, during the Czech presidency of the European Union, Topolánek's cabinet did not gain confidence in a parliamentary vote of no confidence this resulted in creation of new caretaker government and after 4 months they have made even better job than previous elected governments.
The reason for this is simple, they do not have to make political correct decisions. All around the globe governments are increasing their debts, accepting economical packages in order to boost the economy, or saving failed companies. But caretaker government said clear no, the debt was to high so we had to make savings. The result was that every resort had to cut their budgets for 10 – 20%. That means everything – education, healthcare, military, …
Can you imagine some political party to make such a decision? When constant making of new debts caused the crisis, those populist governments are still making new debts but not in the Czech Republic simply because there are no great “economy savers” politicians in office.
Once again I was thinking about the “Lottery Democracy”, a system where are representatives not elected, but drawn in a lottery. Of course even in this system would still exist a corruption, but we would be free from populism at all and with some bonuses from good economic output we could also greatly motivate our "leaders”.
Reminds me that after all Socrates was obviously right, 2500 years ago.
How Is Bill Maher Wrong Or Actually Right?
I know that today is popular to support Obama as a symbol of change and hope compared to his not so famous predecessor. I personally did not like Bush, but it does not create any need for me to fall in love with Obama. However one of the most famous supporter of Obama is Bill Maher. I know Bill has some great points like his support to legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, but his economic thinking doesn’t attract me at all.
In one episode of his talk show he suggested that the fear “the USA is going to be socialistic” is wrong, comparing assets held by private companies and the government from bailout. Check the video on facebook.
I don’t know whether those numbers are correct or not, but M. Barofsky suggested that the limit for bailout is incredibly huge – 23,7 trillion dollars. Yes the limit won’t be reached at all and so far the USA spent just 2 trillions. But compare bailout to big American historical events.
Bill is paradoxically right, the USA is not going to be socialistic country, it already is. When government orders for what you can buy products, for what you can sell products. When it taxes more than 30% of your income and when it is going to order how you should care about your health. What it is if not socialism? I guess we should rewrite capitalism on wikipedia.
Religious Roots of Liberty
Today I have read an interesting article about roots of freedom in religions, as the article had been written by a reverend, you rightly assume that the idea of freedom is to originate in Abrahamic religions, especially in its Judeo/Christian branch.
Well I don’t want to criticize his points in a much deep way, just if we want to see some monument in Palestine from the times of Israelites what about Solomon's Temple?
In fact we should not be surprised by the fact that some parts of our political philosophy might originate in religions, they are actually first attempts of people to understand the essence of life – philosophy. Ayn Rand said in an interview for Playboy:
You must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.
Yes Religions stand behind the first ethical and sociological values and we also can find in them similarities to philosophy of liberty. But classical liberalism should not be used as “propaganda” for confirmation of truthfulness of each religion.
Liberal Hindu or Buddhist can find reason for liberty in his religion texts, Chinese liberal fighting against oppressive communist government will use his books of Taoism and Muslims are today convinced that the European Renaissance has been imported to Europe due to Islamic philosophers like Ibn Rushd and that founder of liberal economics is Ibn Khaldun.
Whether or not we should also realize how has been religions effectively fighting against human liberty, in response to Rev. Edmund A. Opitz:
Collectivist regimes, in the nature of things, must be profoundly irreligious, even to the extent of pressing a corrupted religion into service to shore up tyranny. via Mises.com
No they don’t, irreligious regimes based on the human reason and proclaiming liberty can be put into practice as easily as religious regimes. As well basics of religious and irreligious regimes (faith and reason) can be easily stolen and used as an instrument of oppression.
Contribution to classical liberalism should not be associated to any particular religion group, but to few individuals who by their thoughts gave to the humanity a chance to prosper. The forefather of classical liberalism John Locke in fact opposed the classical Christian philosophy valid at that time.
In the end I will quote Steven Weinberg, a theoretical physicist challenging the classical idea that Christianity played a huge role in abolishment of slavery:
Where religion did make a difference, it was more in support of slavery than in opposition to it. Arguments from scripture were used in Parliament to defend the slave trade. Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God’s will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. see the whole great piece here
It is not about any religion it is about basic realization of violence and injustice.
Demoncracy, Who Will Protect Us Against Anarchy of Government
So far I’ve heard that without a state the world would be place full of anarchy and injustice. But who will protect us against the anarchy of government which has the monopoly on violence?
 |
|
is 1 against 100 enough democratic |
If you remember Nazi Germany, I bet that majority wanted to expel Jews then, but was that kosher?
One should be clear when the society stop being understood as the voluntary interaction of sovereign individuals but instead of as the collective thinking organism (brotherhood) then we are very close to a situation that larger, stronger, bigger part of that society starts discriminating weaker part.
Rights must be equal to all the people, and often argument if someone doesn’t like that we have special laws against him he can leave our country. But we often forgets on one main fact – private property is created voluntary but the state is enforced! Therefore it is an aggression and isn’t the main reason of law to prevent aggression?
Aggression is anything which interfere ownership rights of individuals. Beginning by body ending by the property gained in voluntary exchange or by homestead principle only then is not committed any aggression! Idea that we will ban for example abortions is then an aggression, because an owner of a woman body is the women herself, therefore she can decide what she want to do with her own property.
I guess that anyone would not like if others dictated him, do not sunbathe, or you cannot marry this one or this one, but that is exactly what’s going on when we forbids abortion or homosexuality. We use force to prevent voluntary usage (exchange) of legally owned property (kids call it theft).
My freedom ends there where I am not willing to accept intervention of others.
You maybe have heard our state our laws, but if you accept your laws just because you are strong enough to enforce them on some area, then you should accept anyone who is same strong or stronger to enforce his laws on your land. Only then it makes a sense of non-aggression and as long as you are aggressive do not forget that I can defend myself.
Motto
Recent Posts
- There Is No Special Islamic Finance Finally Confirmed
- The Berlin Wall Fell 20 Years Ago
- Michael Moore and Ron Paul about Capitalism
- Internet Access as a Legal Right?
Archives
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (4)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (3)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (7)
Atheist Blogroll
