Two Great News!

Two pieces of great news have come my way the last couple of days!

First, and foremost, I was accepted to the Students For Liberty's Liberty Fund Conference in Vienna, with the title Institutions of Liberty, an event taking place in late-October. I am honoured to form part of such a reputable event. The topic is displayed below:

"The 'Institutions of Liberty' conference seeks to address the relationship between freedom, markets, and culture in both a narrow and broad sense. While competitive markets lead to wealthier societies with superior opportunities for individuals to employ their talents and labor, questions remain for many regarding the proper cultural and moral underpinnings of markets."

This forms right in line with the Deirdre McCloskey serie starting with Bourgeois Virtue, where she argues that markets and capitalism not only makes us better off materially - but also spiritually. Since I'm currently reading her mesmerizing works, I'm obviously very keen on discussing these things with bright freedom-minded students.

The excitement and happiness over this opportunity had hardly faded when a second piece of amazing news came my way. I was accepted into the editorial staff of the Swedish Liberal Think Tank Frihetssmedjan to write articles on liberalism and freedom. I am still excited over this possibility, and probably aim to contribute a few pieces a week. My initial piece on Scottish Independence seemed to be have been well-received.

I am really looking forward to contributing to Frihetssmedjan and the liberal ideological discussions it poses.

Altogether, these two pieces of news are simply brilliant. We'll see how things move from here.

These are exciting times, indeed!

Election Time!

Today, Sweden elect its new masters, and as the Economist gladly pointed out they're looking to overturn what made it comparatively less worse-off than other European countries.

My point: There's no difference, sweethearts.

The Number of Numbers

Since the Centre-Right government Reinfeldt was elected in 2006, 140bn SEK (~£12 bn) of tax-reductions have been made. (Roughly about 10% of then yearly public revenue - and because of economic growth, total public receipts have since then increased by some 29%, while inflation is up only 10% essentially making the tax-reductions irrelevant, but who's counting?)

In 2006 the total Tax Revenue out of GDP was 48,3%. That means, out of a total economy of £100, 48,3p was payed in taxes to the government.

In 2013 the total Tax Revenue out of GDP was 44,5%. That means, out of a total economy of £100, 44,5p was payed in taxes to the government.

Sweden used to be World Champion in taxing its economy; we've now been demoted a few steps, which is causing the Socialist-/Feminist wave ("WE WANT FIRST PLACE!"). Nonetheless, The opposition accepts most of these tax-reductions, saying "you can't keep changing entire tax systems every 4-years". That is, in the oppositions' suggestions of what to do, Tax Revenue would likely be somewhere around tops 46% of GDP. Election is between 44,5% or 46%.

HUGE difference, obviously... (*insert Ironic laugh*).

My Point Again: There is negligible differences between political parties in Sweden. 

The ruling class loots your income, regulates your life and steals your property nontheless.

More reading here: Sagan om Inflytandet. ENJOY Election Day.

Most Views - and some nice videos!

Hi, everyone!

I'm currently in Vienna, enjoying sunshine and praising the busts and names of Menger and Böhm-Bawerk at the University.

Meanwhile, here's the most popular posts since I started blogging - as well as some nice inspirational videos!:)

Have a look at the Keynes vs Hayek rap video below, for a quick 7m rap version of economic disputes since the 1930s.

Enjoy!

#1: University Unions on Strike Again
#2: Feminist Economics
#3: A Word on UK Immigration
#4: Socialists' Objections
#5: Swedish Union presents its demands: Citizens' fee + Increase all taxes


But my personal favourite is probably this one, very useful for most contemporary debaters, politicians and ideologues: You are Entitled to your own Opinion - Not your own Facts.

_____________

Occupy and Tea Party - Two sides of the same coin?

This morning I watched an hour-long interview with Chicago School Economist Luigi Zingales, where he discusses 'Crony Capitalism' and makes an interesting comparison between the Tea Party-libertarians and the Occupy-Leftists.

The full interview can be found here.

The short story:

There's "Crony Capitalism" around, especially in the US. Rent-seeking that involves personal favours or relationship to the political power is too profitable, almost/often more profitable than the actual work business do.

The Leftist see this as an inherent problem and want to remake the system, overthrow the system; such an approach normally involves large chunks of regulation, nationalisation, bonus/bail-out limits etc. Essentially, "Crony Capitalism is bad - let's remake the system, turning it 'good'".

The Tea Party/Libertarians also see Crony Capitalism as a large problem. The answer: reduce public and state power, making political connections less important, reducing incentives for lobbying.

Question is. In what state would corruption, nepotism and crony capitalism be more likely to occur? In a large state with lots of power, or in a small minimum state with very little influence over business matter?

Quite obvious.

Response to Josh:

Hi, Josh and everyone else!

Finally I've time enough to get through a bunch of questions Josh asked me about a week ago, in my post on libertarian ethics. He made several claims and had a few relevant questions I'd like to address. So, here's an overview and a brief elaboration on each topic.


On Moral
Josh claimed that 'moral' was misplaced as far as philosophical terms are concerned, on the grounds that "sense deep down" does not form a logically coherent argument. I am inclined to agree, but then again, what is moral if not a deeply rooted sense or conviction of what is virtuous/desireable etc? Put into context, what's stopping me from robbing my neighbour's house is not only the cost and consequence I might have to pay if the police catches me; there's something else, there's a conviction within me that stealing is inherantly wrong, and that I want to live my life according to different standards. Perhaps that's not the exact definition of 'moral' from a philosofical perspective, but that's my understanding. Feel free to correct me.

Distinction between 'force' and 'violence' 
In Josh's comment, he includes into the concept of 'force' other types of influence over people, such as persuasive, economic or intellectual. My answer is simple: such concepts are catagorically differt influences. The three of them involve a use of the agent's mind, letting him ponder advantages or disadvantages with, ultimatly leaving the choice down to rational considerations; that is, the way everything in humankind works, when we buy, consume or take up a work. When violence (or threat of violence) is introduced, that natural process in human brain is put on hold. Under the assumption that a human being prefer any scenario where he/she lives to any scenario where he/she dies, there's no barganing, there's no reasoning involved when violence is introduced. That's the essential difference between the two catagories of "force".

Now, I know whole bunch of socialist that will object that the very same conditions apply for people choosing to take up a job (that is, some kind of economical force) because if they don't, they starve and ultimatly also die. This, altough being a close alegory, carries a vital difference; that force/limit/condition is set by nature, inherent in our existence and something we cannot overlook or remove. Violence, on the other hand, is introduced by human action and is by no means a necessity for human survival.

If you'd want to walk the other concepts, persuasive and intellectual 'force', you'll end up in a confusing debate where everything eventually turns into a persuasive force (your parents, religion, legal system, cultural traditions etc), thus refraining from personal choice or freedom to form your own life. I fundamentally refrain from such a claim, but that's beside the point. Simply, the only way Josh can be accurate in his reasoning regarding this point is to refrain from all personal choice.


On the topic of Best Interest
As part of the above mentioned argument, Josh involved the concept of 'best interest'. How are such interests to be determined, especially if not by the agent himself, as Josh's reasoning requires him to? Is there any kind of divine, omniscient creature/body that could inform us about such interests? Not really. Unless you make what economists call "interpersonal utility comparisons", you cannot determine the "best interest" of other people. I'd argue that such comparisons are impossible, thus reaching the point where the best agent for your own interest always is your personal being.


Property Rights
Somehow it seems that at the bottom of whatever libertarian approach I take on a particular issue, I find property rights. I believe that's because property rights are the most essential - and arguably the only - feature we come into this world with, involved in every transaction between people. Unless you want to argue that the purpose of humankind as a whole is to be decided by some kind of divine authority who controls everything, you'd have to admit property right over our own self; the blood flowing in the body I call mine, is rightfully mine, the bodyparts connected to it aswell. Hence, the mind I use for every simple or hard task is mine to control, use, advance and enter agreement with others with.

Josh's argument here is that property right "have forced someone else not to have access to it". That's a fallacy for several reasons. First, as seen above, what my blood, mind or body is does not limit the property rights of other people's minds, bodies or blood. Secondly, when inventors invent object x, have they done so at the expense of other people who didn't invent x? If I carve a bow out of a tree, make some arrows and this invention renders me a better hunter (thus allowing me to survive to a larger extent), was this made at the expense of all those who didn't invent such an instrument? No, not at all. Hence we conclude that because my mind is my property, whatever my mind creates is also my property, free to trade with whomever I want for whatever end I find worthwhile. From that, property rights for most things can be established. That moves us to the next issue; enforcing them:


Property Rights, Enforcement and Thrid party 

"And how are private property laws to be enforced without the use or threat of force? Also, how do they resolve the conflict of two people's rights (where the two cannot come to agreement) without the initiation of violence, if not through a third party who has been designated as arbitrator?"

To resolve the conflict of property rights and costs involved in whatever transaction, you wouldn't have to go further than the simplest insurance disagreement on, say a car crash, or even regular disagreement between corporations. Because legal actions are costly in terms of money, time and effort, both parties prefer solutions that can be reached without such measures. Especially in contacts between insurance companies; they are very well aware that such conflicts will arise in the future, and court costs for every single transactions simply does not make sense. What's the bottom line here? Parties involved have strong incentives to solve issues of property rights without the involvement of courts. Thus, there's no need for external force to resolve most conflicts.

I'm currantly reading an interesting piece on just this issue, The Not So Wild Wild West, about property rights among whites and Indians in the Great Plains during the 19th century (You can find it at the Uni Library). Before reading it, I had the view that some kind of third party external force was required to maintain order. The author argues that this was not the case in the first 50 years of contact between Indians on the Great Plains and white settlers; property rights evolved on its own, they were respected by both sides and within groups, and trade flourished where Indians for example traded pieces of land for exotic good carried by the Whites. On the contrary, wars and violent conflicts between whites and Indians didn't occur until basically after the American Civil War, when the US had a standing army performing the role of a "third party". Why was this? Essentially because violence is always a negative zero-sum game, not in the interest of either party, while trade creates benefits for both parties. When the US standing army was present, however, the cost of warfare was moved from individual settles to the US government, thus reducing the transaction cost for such measure on behalf of the individual settler, making violence a viable option.

Also, property rights were upheld by mutual respects and voluntary cooperation between and within associations/tribes.

My bottom line with this is that external third party might very well be the cause of violence rather then a protector from it.


Libertarian, Minarchist and Anarcho-Capitalist Approach

This a bit of a grey zone, and I suppose Josh has a point that I perhaps mixed the concepts in my initial post. Originally, the libertarian approach involves a small state for certain ends (such as courts, police or Military; a minarchist argues the minimal state concievable (normally State involves some element of Nightwatch State, but generally not all of them) while Anarcho-Capitalist approach refrains from any kind of state. I've also heard people arguing that Libertarianism would be some kind of category including minarchist and anarcism approaches. Tricky.

I have to admit that my understanding and reasoning between these concepts varies. They all have valid points and I'm not entirly sure which one I prefer. In this sense, I'd agree with Josh, when he argues that my initial post is more inclined towards anarcho-capitalism than towards libertarianism.


The Idea of a Social Contract

Josh argues that since I'm part of a society, I implicitly agreed to the rules set up by such society. If I'm not mistaking, that idea comes originally from Rousseau, though I'd argue to refute it entirely on the follow grounds:
For contracts to be of any value, there has to be internal and external elements; that is, someone/-thing is included in the contract, and if not applying to some conditions, they are excluded. This normally involves a choice on the part of the individual. A contract (may it be letting, selling goods, taking up employment etc) may be broken, and I can choose to walk away from such a contract. That's the core of it. For such a contract to exist within a society, there must be the option of opting out of it, that is leave and not live under the conditions such a contract puts forward. Does that exist?
Simply, no. The moment I leave the domains of UK State, I enter some other State. While within those states there are no options for me to leave the conditions, refrain from state benefit and not paying taxes etc. There simply is not a choice, thus you cannot argue the case of a social contract. 

_________

I probably forgot some elements of these questions, but I'm fairly certain this is long enough for most people to opt out of reading it, anyways. Further questions will hence have to be dealt with in other posts. 

Addressing the comments I had on the Immigration Post

So I got a few objections to my post on UK Immigration the other day, and I'd like to address them in a more structured manner than just plainly answering in the comment field.

Here we go:

Short answer: you're not making sense, any of you.

"1You're comparing Isa to a criminal in prison, saying that even if the laws are wrong, someone who's not complying with them should not be released. You realise he's not a criminal, right? He hasn't broken any laws, and he's not in prison - he's in an immigration detention centre, a place where the UKBA can send any asylum seeker at any point in the asylum process at their own discretion."  - Kit's comment here.

1) Isa's asylum application has been denied, that is, he was deemed not to fill the criteria needed to get british citizenship. Without a citizenship or a visa, he is then not allowed on British soil, thus as far as the law is concerned, yes, he is a criminal to be removed from this country. I don't particularly agree with those laws, but nevertheless by being here without a visa/citizenship he violates them, thus making him a criminal. You can't argue with that.

"2. You're completely trivialising the whole concept of hunger strikes - you realise he's not the first person to refuse food as a form of protest, don't you? Do you think it would have been acceptable for the government to just let the hunger-striking suffragettes die because "they made a choice not to eat"? Hunger striking is a legitimate form of protest and the detention centre's decision to ignore it and let him die is a hugely unethical thing to do." Kit's comment here.

2) Right, so you're mixing apples and pears here. Whether or not he's the first person to refuse food, or if such protests are "legitimate" ways of protesting is beside the point. The detention centre has no responsibility to act according to some ethics where certain actions would result in certain effects. Hunger striking is a personal choice, a protest anyone is allowed to participate in, but it does not change any moral aspects of this debate. Such actions carries consequences, something Isa's fully aware of. What if we'd carry such an idea further? What you're essentially saying is that because hunger is a legitimate form of protest (wait, who's even to determine what ways to protest are legitimate and what ways are not?), he is to be released from whatever law he's found not to comply with. If that is the case, I believe we'd have quite some hunger strikes going on in British prisons, and you'd have a hard time distinguishing Isa's right to be released over theirs.

"3. No-one is "blaming" Virgin Airlines for taking him as a passenger - Virgin are being petitioned because they have the ability to refuse to accept him as a passenger. If you had been involved in any anti-deportation campaigns before, you would know that this was a very valid and useful method of helping people at risk of deportation. Yes, there are other airlines the UKBA could put him with, but because his flight is booked THIS WEDNESDAY on a Virgin flight, their refusal to take him would mean new removal arrangements would have to be made with a different airline, buying him extra time in this country. Other airlines would then also be more likely to refuse to take him if they knew that Virgin had already refused." Kit's comment here.

Thanks for reducing my experiences in earlier campaigns, and no, such measures have had very little success from what I've seen.
Two things. First, yes you are "blaming" Virgin Airlines, trying to "lobby" them and persuading them to on ethical grounds obstain from providing a service the British State pays them to do. Second, why would other airlines refuse? If indeed you would create large enough a public demand/critique against moving him, there'd be other airlines or transport methods that would comply. That's how choice works in a voluntarily-based market. Your only valid point here is that enough protest could possibly buy him some marginal amount of time. Question is, is the effort and time you invest in that tiny amount of time worth the tradeoff? No improvements have been made to its actual cause, and British Immigration laws will produce more Isas in the future, thus making your actions rather futile. Beside, you have very little hope of actually save Isa from deportation - only prolong it, as you yourself admitted.

"Also, I'm pretty sure he's been declared medically unfit for detention, which means the government are breaking their own laws by keeping him prisoner. He actually is seriously ill, even above and beyond his hunger strikes - he has a range of other, preceding conditions including severe depression. 
Trust me when I say we ARE fighting the state on these issues, but allowing companies to do disgusting things just because the state is ultimately to blame is like allowing someone to shoot people just because they didn't make the gun!" Katie's comment here.

Again we come back to the criteria for which someone is allowed to stay in this country. Both of you are arguing that medically unfit people are to be deemed in a less severe manner because of this condition. I don't know the details of the UK Asylum process in this aspect, and you're welcome to enlighten me. I can, on the other had, object to the logic of such claim. The idea of an Asylum process is to only allow citizenship to those who are found complying with certain criteria, that is to filter some other people out of it. If there then is outside pressure (and the Home Office somehow unlikely would take that into consideration) that some criteria (medical condition) is more important than others, that would mean the proccess is somewhat undermined. Not a complete waste of time, I'd say, but it is based on the assumption that such a proccess is justified to begin with and that it only has to be mended where it fails. I refuse such an assumption, whereas you, by arguing medical condition, actually comply with it.

Katie says that we ARE fighting the state. I'd love to see where and how. All I see is some socialist-based critique against companies for performing services the State payed them for. That's not very "fighting the state", is it? Besides, you analogy is halting; shooting someone is an aggression against someone, while making a gun is not. That is, if we'd follow your analogy considering it correct, that'd mean the State (for making the gun/deciding to deport) is innocent and the Companies (for shooting/actually deporting) are to blame.

Frankly, it's the other way around. Virgin airlines provide a service that is usefull and demanded by lots of people; quickly transporting someone or something from one place to another. That is and can be used for a variety of reasons (just like a gun); their action is not inherently "evil" or unethical. Whereas the State's actually is. Deporting someone cannot be morally justified, and it's here the actual unethical action occurs.

___

So, thanks for your comments, but yes I do have a fairly good idea about this issue and I still suggest you to reallocate time and efforts towards the real enemy; the state and it's laws about limiting people's movement within whatever territory it claims to belong to it.

A word on UK Immigration Debate

Good evening!

In this blog I have never been very polite to my ideological opponents. That's not the purpose. Here and here, for example, I have been outright offensive to those whom I see deserve it. Arguably even for logical reasons. Often the inspiration for such posts has come from anger over inconsistencies or logical fallacies in my opponent's reasoning or arguments, without consideration for just whom I might hurt.

Tonight, I'm writing about a few friends of mine. After all, perhaps I don't even want them to see it. What will they think of me?

But for some reason I can't resist. Ok, enough apologies. Here we go.

Tonight's topic is immigration. Let me just first remind any reader of this blog that I am a libertarian; I don't recognize the state's power to decide who's allowed to live within a certain geografical area; the state has no property right to my land, and thus no saying in who happen to be there. I particularly don't accept the deportations done by UK and other countries, and I can feel the anger bursting inside of me whenever I see the letters "FRONTEX", or hear about anti-immigration laws. In fact, one of the reasons to why I became a libertarian in the first place was because I favoured free migration. Bottom line: remember, I'm a libertarian, and I favour free migration.

Having that said, I have quite a large issue with the entire Isa Muaza thing. For the last few days my friends have filled my facebook feed with links about the issue, urging me to take part in a petition for his freedom, demonstrating against the Home Office or against Virgin Airline for transporting him.

So, the guy refused eating some months back, in protest of the Asylum system and the way he's been treated. Now this action has rendered him seriously week, on the brink of dying. And the petition and demonstrations demands his freedom on medical grounds; simply, he is very ill, and holding him in custody is inhuman. Thus the anger towards the Detention Centre for holding him, Virgin Airlines for transporting him, and the Home Office for refusing to give him citizenship (if my understanding of the issue is correct).

Ok, we have a few things here. First, the UK Asylum system is riddiculous for several reasons. The way migrants are treated within it is absolutely preposterous. And I share as much anger over it as any of my friends or the NGOs involved in this matter. BUT. A person not complying with the laws of a country, (however faulty the laws) cannot and shall not be released on medical grounds. Put to the test, asking for his release becomes quite eerie. Should that apply to other violators of the law aswell? Abuse, robbery, theft? Released because their health is weak? Lack of logical coherence there.

Second of all, he wasn't taken ill suddenly by some mysterious disease; he refused food for political reasons, knowing what consequenses that might bring. That is, he made a choice, fully aware of what that choice eventually would lead to.

Thirdly, a petition for Virgin Airlines "not to be involved in this clear violation of the most basic of human rights.". A regular company, providing a service the State believe is necessary and payed for by taxmoney (that is, stolen money). And my friends put the blame on the company? Seriously. First the state robs you of your property in order to pay for whatever ends they find suitable, secondly they use that money to deport migrants. And you accuse the company? The obvious culprit, the blame, the bad guy, in this case is the State. Times two. Squared. Times a million.

Besides, what would happen if Virgin Airlines magically decided not to provide that service? I could name countless other airlines that would. Putting up petitions for those too? Every single one of them? Are you really willing to spend all that time, effort and resources trying to stop companies of performing the service the Bad Guy demanded? It would be like accusing the Shopkeeper for selling a pack of cigaretts to the Bank Robber, and then running around town trying to stop EVERY shopkeeper from selling anything that could be used in a robbery. Even in the highly unlikely event that it'd work, there are other non-aircraft ways to transport people. That is, we're all wasting our time with such efforts.

Come on people, I share your anger over the Asylum system, but you're completly missing the target here. The companies performing whatever service the State pays them to perform are not the Bad Guys. I do believe you are aware of this, but for some reason forgot about it.

 As the Hunger Games have it; Remember who the real enemy is . Now, let's stop wasting our time on accusing companies, making pointless petitions and instaed blame the State for what it's doing.

Libertarian ethics apply to all!

This morning I found a contemporary writer completely new to me. Sheldon Richman, vice-president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. In a blog post a few days ago, he describes the case that the essence of Libertarianism contains judgements held by all. We'll have a look on that!

If so is the case, he argues, it would be a lot easier for other people to grasp the libertarian viewpoint if they already agreed with its fundamentals! Conclusion: let's prove that they DO agree with libertarian viewpoint.

He writes:

Libertarians believe that the initiation of force is wrong. So do the overwhelming majority of nonlibertarians. They, too, think it is wrong to commit offenses against person and property. I don’t believe they abstain merely because they fear the consequences (retaliation, prosecution, fines, jail, lack of economic growth). They abstain because they sense deep down that it is wrong, unjust, improper. In other words, even if they never articulate it, they believe that other individuals are ends in themselves and not merely means to other people’s [the] ends. They believe in the dignity of individuals. As a result, they perceive and respect the moral space around others. - One Moral Standard for All

Q: If most people agree with Libertarians that force, violence or threat of violence is wrong, what sets libertarians apart from non-libertarians?

A: Libertarians are consistent in applying this ethic. Non-libertarians are not.

Solution: The State. Non-libertarians tend to rely on the institution of State for certain responsibilities (in a declining scale from everything in a communist view to nothing in an anarchist view). Non-libertarians, essentially, say that initiation of force indeed is wrong, but when the Institution of State initiates force, that is morally acceptable. Why? Because we voted for a government with certain responsibilities, i.e majority contracted certain rights to be performed by third party institution.

The fallacy in this argument is the following. If I don't have the right to initiate force against other people, and they don't have the right to initiate force against other people, HOW can we delegate such right to a third party? We simply cannot. Non-rights cannot be delegated, because non of us had them to begin with.

Put in a deductive reasoning scheme the idea would be something like this:

          P1:          Initiation of force is morally injustified
          P2:          Contradictions cannot exist 
=          No initiation of force can be morally justified.

That is, to be successful/coherent in their reasoning, non-libertarians have to refute either the initiation of force or the existence of logic.

Unfortunately, they chose denying logic.

Disabled people in a libertarian society

In some earlier post I promised to write about disabled people in a libertarian society.

To begin with, the historical background would be useful.

It all started with a change of idea of government's responsibilities in society. In other countries, similar events took place, transferring the responsibility for certain tasks from the individuals to the State. In the UK this happened through the Factory Acts of 1833, where the first step towards state intervention in the workplace took place. Through these series of acts, the amount of hours children were allowed to work in factories was gradually reduced. Although such changes might not have had large effects on overall life, it is widely regarded as a watershed; the first time a UK Government took responsibility for the "well-being" of its citizens. From that on, through countless of acts in different areas such as the school reforms, liberal reforms in late 19th century, old age pensions, national insurance, the modern post-war Welfare State emerged, with features of redistributions and NHS recognizable to most UK citizens of today.

A fascinating development in many aspects. Simultaneously, the idea of freedom, self-reliance, providing for oneself, one's family and those one cares about became less recognized as a task for the individual. We more or less forgot values of the past and relied to a larger extent on the state (that is, other people's money) for a bunch of crucial services.

What we need now is another revolution, another watershed like the one in early 19th century. We need to grasp the idea that WE are in charge of our lives. WE are responsible for the our well-being and the well-being of those we care about. And the means to which we could accomplish this is naturally different; some might chose to hire someone to look after their children, other might want to spend time with their parents in the latter stages of life, some might dedicate their entire careers at taking care of other people, starting voluntary organisation that provide such care or businesses in a marketplace. Financed through voluntary interaction, donations or market-based solution. Non-coercive, voluntary, consistent with the libertarian ideas.

I actually wanted to tell you the story when I first realized that such a way was plausible, even desirable. My mother and I had been visiting my 95-year-old great-grandmother. An amazing woman, whose lifestory I have wanted to write an extensive piece about for quite some time. Her eyes have given up long ago. She is severely limited in her communication, she is very depressed, cries a lot and calls for the Lord to take her away. She stays at a home for elderly people where she is been treated fairly well, I suppose - and has so been for the last 10-15 years.

Visiting her is often not a joyful experience, but it always brings me fascination over her life - and raises questions about our relation to our elderly. Why do we put them away like that, visit them once a month to talk about nothing for half an hour and then leave, feeling that we upheld some social duty?

So I asked my mother about it, and she told me that she'd much rather take care of granny herself. Much, much rather would she have her live in our house, mum being able to take care of her, support her and actually spend time with her in our own home.

- Why don't you?, I asked, curiously. What's stopping you?
- I can't afford it, she said, the household needs two incomes.

Essentially, if our household had an even larger income, or if tax levels would come down sufficiantly, her desire of spending time with granny at home might be a real option. In the Welfare State of today, taxes naturally fund a lot of different things, from elderly care to schools and road constructions. But what if those areas wouldn't be the responsibility of the State? And that we'd be accustumed to pay for the services we use, rather than arbitrarily pay for all services somebody else deem crucial for a State to perform?

In a society where the responsible of taking care of the elderly isn't alienated, recognised as somebody else's task and payed for by a tax-funded government, individuals can actually make that kind of decision themselves. Now the financial incentives distort such options. It would come down to money and percieved value - just like any other market transaction. At some point I suppose my mum would quit her job, rely on 1 income only and take care of her elderly relative. It could also be done through hiring somebody for those hours when my mother is at work, or through a voluntary society, a church association or helpful neighbours. The possibilities are endless - but it seems we've all forgot about them.

Ok, so I was gonna answer the topic of disabled people and ended up telling you a story of my great-grandmother. Not heads on, but the same ideas applies for disabled people. We don't need a tax-funded government to take care of our loved one. We can do that ourselves.

Socialists' Objections: October

Right!

Here we go with last month's report in terms of objections, insults and other non-founded arguments to why libertarianism is evil, capitalism is awful and I, as an advocate of both is obnoxious in every way.

OBJECTION #1

"I really hope that one day you'd change your view on the value of other people. Otherwise I fear that you will live a very, very lonely life. Nobody wants to be around someone that only cares about themselves and doesn't have any understanding of other people."

That sounds like a valid claim for an overall hateful person. What did I do to provoke this effect? Am I really guilty for such severe charges?

Found in a facebook debate, I had been explaining the idea of self-interest as Yaron Brooks interpret Ayn Rand. That is, that we all pursue our self-interests, strive for more personal satisfaction, through illustrations of what's going on in the market place; a farmer sells me a litre of milk for 1£ because he prefers 1£ to a litre of milk (his satisfaction goes up with the trade). I buy the litre of milk, because I prefer 1 litre of milk to £1 (my satisfaction goes up). Also I had expressed my wish not to pay taxes for what the government does.

For some reason, that played out as a "you-hate-all-non-white/wealthy/males-and-what-about-the-disabled-you-horrible-prick" kind of argument. Deep down I suppose they're fair accussations, and I'll come back to the topic of disabled people in a free, libertarian society.

We pursue that which gives us highest satisfaction. As satisfaction differs between people (and over time within same person), the outcome will necessarily be different. That difference is what creates a value of trade, a way of getting something I value at the expense of something I value less. That is what self-interest is about, and it doesn't make anyone an awful person. Nobody is hating disabled people, and admitting to ideas of pursuing self-interest does not make people ruthless, cold, unfeeling etc. It's a way of describing market activities. No more, no less.

OBJECTION #2

"Without taxes we wouldn't have anything. No infrastructure, no schools, no health care. Basically nothing!"

Right, after explaining that taxes essentially and for all intents and purposes are a violation of property rights (namely, theft), a commenter laughed and explained to me all the beautiful things tax-funded, public services provide. As if I for some reasoned had missed out on state interference throughout my life.

All of those examples above are build and made because they're demanded by individuals. Not because we have taxation. There's a proper misuse of causality here. Furthermore, if nobody in a welfare society would want any schools, few (or any?) politicians would decide to spend tax money on such things. They are in existence because we demand the goods or services they provide. In a libertarian society (without, or with a very limited state only) that demand would still exists - and will be satisfied accordingly. Through trade or voluntary effors of individuals who pursue their self-interest. Also, the statement assumes that such things can only exist under a tax-funded government. Nonsense, such activities are perfectly able to be held by private individuals, enterprises or voluntary societies. Ye, I think I made my point now.

OBJECTION #3

"You cannot be taken seriously. You are so obsessed with your money that you'd rather see people succumb without the social protection, before paying taxes."

Ok, so this is a typical example of where someone else is trying to tell me about my opinions. Again, libertarianism has very little to do with obsession about money or preference to someone's death. It has to do with justice; a government, at the point of a gun, can never justify stealing property from private induviduals, whatever the cause, however noble the cause might seem, as the statement implies.

And, as oppossed to general leftist ideas, libertarians normally refuse to believe that people merely 'succumb without social protection'. A society without an interventionist state will have other ways of organisation social protection, ways set up voluntarily by acting individuals. History has given us examples of workers' societies, where medical care was at the centre of cooperation. Solutions can be arranged through business on a free market. Charitable societies can freely devote themselves to such issues, should they wish to.

There's no reason to believe that people would 'succumb' without a state-based social protection.

Welcome to Libertarian Uni!

Hey!

Welcome to the Libertarian Uni blog!

As a first entry I'd like to describe what will be the future of this blog. I am a libertarian writer, originally from the country held as 'the Heaven of Welfare', and I am strongly opposed to socialism. Travelling and languages marvel me, if such personal desires are interesting enough. I study Economics and Economic history at the University of Glasgow and I'm fairly new to the UK life. Fascinating in many ways!

Enough mumbo-jumbo. This is a blog about libertarianism. It involves some economics, most likely influenced by the Austrian School of Economics to which I belong, and a whole lot of socialist 'welfare state' ideas. It came about a few weeks ago, when I had been bumping into socialist anti-capitalism ideas, calls for the government to do this or that, media articles about rent controls, regulations and overall student ideas.

After certain events, I found that I needed to channel the reactions I had from such experiences. Upset Facebook-posts only go so far. All in all, this is how I channel the everyday socialist, interventionist and plainly weird ideas University Life gives me.

Enjoy!