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.

The Economics of 'Under the Dome'

I have this love-hatred relationship to TV-Series. I _LOVE_ watching them, but once I do I sort of can't stop. Last, a few months ago, I experienced this with House of Cards. I got curious about it, thought I'd watch the first episode to check it out - and ended up spending the next 36hs rushing through both seasons.

So, most of the time I stay away. Freaking addiction.

But last night I got at it again. Under The Dome caught me by surprise, so I rushed through the first episodes. Woke up with one thing on my mind: Watch it. Simply Addictive.

What did strike me while watching it were the libertarian themes in it. Or rather, the economics of it. A small town is suddenly sealed off from the rest of the world. That means all production and consumption lines are disrupted, seeing as how we trade extensively with one another. Early on, a few things happen that really jumps out at me.

• One of the first anti-government quote from a main character is:
  
  • -"So you don't think the Government did this?"  
  • -"No"
  • -"Why not?"
  • -"'cause it's working"
• Scarcity becomes prevalent; things run out, such as water, insulin for diabetics, gasoline, propane etc. 
• One character, in the face of such scarcity alludes to the role Money plays in society beyond pieces of green paper, saying "I'll provide you with money. Or battery, or propane, or whatever counts as money these days". Brilliant!
• When property rights are no longer respected, things turn ugly. 

Most interesting, though, is what happens with society's wealth - and income. I realize that you could easily make different interpretations about this, seeing as how people turned violent in face of scarcity, how they started looting stores, hitting killing and even raping each other as the few Police Officers lose control ("See what happens without a law enforcement!", or "Look, stupid capitalists. We should all cooperate instead of competing!"). I see that. 

Nevertheless, the society is cut off; there's essentially no more production (apart from the weird farmer character, I suppose). Society starts consuming the resources it has, quickly running out of insulin, anti-biotics, water, propane. The value of things change dramatically. Capital-consumption is prevalent. Society at large becomes way poorer. Wealth is gradually reduced - while income essentially cease to exist. 

The most fascinating thing though, is how there's essentially no more production. Chester's Mill is no longer producing much but disagreement, violence and conflict - none of which are edible, quench your thirst or help diabetics stay alive. Loads of things have to be re-arranged, in terms of producing the most basic goods - and the palpable notion that the wealth in our current societies depend on division of labour, heavy specialization and extensive trade. But when "society" suddenly becomes a few hundred people, the wealth and income possibilities of all is dramatically reduced. 

Fascinating stuff!

"Stop calling me Socialist! I'm actually a Social Liberal"

Hey, everyone!

If you're new to this blog, you might not have realized that I tend to refer to my political opponents or non-AnCap people as "Socialists", "Leftists", "Statists" or other adequate names. It is, however, a feature that makes people unconfortable to say the least; perhaps 'upset' and 'frustrated' are better ways to coin it. From time to time, I'm also told off by some "proper marxists" that I'm misusing the term, that the ones I'm calling socialists really are not - thus, I must be mistaking in my view of socialism.

There are many aspects of Marx's writing, many ideas prevalent in Engels' work and tons of more throughout history since their time. I could focus on Marxism, the Method, relations of Power, or Alienation to define Marxism. But I'll stick with a common theme for now.

If asked to define Socialism in a few words, what you'll most likely get is something like below:

"[...] based on the collective ownership of the means of production". 

Not everything, not the essence, but neither an unreasonable description of Socialism.

Now, Socialists and Marxists have since the time of Marx always struggled with definitions, clear-cut lines. They were constantly fighting between themselves over who's actually part of the Proletariat, who's a capitalist and who isn't. The 19th century French Socialists, refusing women to enter the workforce is a great example. Independent artists, painters and so on, seemed to upset the entire dichotomy of "Workers vs Capitalists", as they were neither exploited workers nor exploiting capitalists.

The Marxist story always falls apart once you start disaggregating their claims and ask for clear-cut definitions.

Let's return to the means of production. What is a "mean of production"?
Superficially, a marxist might tell you that any machine, raw material, labour etc that capitalists use in their exploitation of labour, i.e their production constitute 'mean of production'. The problem arises when you realize that anything can be used in production; if I'm running a Taxi Company, my cars become means of production; If I'm having a restaurant forks, plate and glasses become means of production; if I'm selling newly-picked strawberries to commuters, the table where I have the strawberries become a mean of production.

So here's the scale that confuses Socialists, Social Democrats, Social Liberals, modern-day Liberal, Conservatives and the rest of the lot:

They all argue for some collective ownership of the means of production. 

Socialists say: 100% (sometimes, though, they allow people to have personal belongings)
Social Democrats say: mje, maybe 50% taxation + heavy regulations of labour relations
Social Liberals say: Perhaps 30%, enough to help the poor and sustain a Welfare State
Liberals say: Whenever market failures arise (pollution, insurance, central banks, the poor)
Conservatives: Military, police, courts, immigration and all things related to moral virtue!

My point here:
Collective ownership of the means of production is not cathegorically different in one ideology compared to the others; it is quantitatively different. It's only a question of HOW MUCH collective ownership they'd want.

From that point of view, anyone but a proper AnCap is rightfully deemed a socialist. They all want collective ownership of the means of production - albeit to a different degree, but nevertheless collective ownership of the means of production.

_____________


Tomorrow, I'm off to Vienna for a few days, so LibertarianUni will be silent for a bit. Will post some favourite posts and videos on the blog. Enjoy!

I, Extremist!

Every once so often the 'Extremist' comes to town!

You've all met him. He's this horrible, somewhat politically awkward person who refuses to conform to a slim worldview given by the politically correct, the media and the Government. It's somewhat dubious as to what he actually believes, but everyone else agrees that generally, whatever he says can safely be disregarded because we all know he's an extremist!

Now, what's so bad with being extreme? And what does it even mean? To have ideas somewhat outside of a tiny-weenie political space of opinions currently in charge of most countries, doesn't seem too bad. I mean, diversity and all.

I'll have a look at some things I believe, and we'll establish whether or not that's extreme.

I believe...

- ...theft is wrong
- ...initiating violence is wrong
- ...using threats of violence against other people is wrong
- ...fraudulent behaviour is wrong
- ...that individuals can make decisions about their own lives
- ...that individuals can make decisions about what to eat or what substances to put into their bodies!

Apparently, if you agree to any of this, you're also an extremist! We, the club of extremists, salute you!

___________________________

Some examples of theft: income taxes, VATs, bank robbery, pickpocketing.

Some examples of initiating violence: U.S Interventions in foreign countries, assault, rape, police violence.

Some examples of threats: Tax Agencies ("if you don't pay, we throw you in jail"), Government Police force, a horse's head on your pillow, promises to hurt/kill someone.

Some examples of fraudulent behaviour: paper money*, artificial credit expansion, central banks, Bernard Madoff, Ponzi Schemes, mails-to-your-inbox-telling-you-you've-just-won-$1million

Some examples of individual decision-making: what to construct, what sexual services to sell, where to live, whom to marry (including sex of that person), what salary you offer your potential employees.

Some examples of substances and food: raw milk, non-FDA-approved drugs, marihuana, smoothies or fruits.

*with no claims/not 100% claim to real money or underlying asset. 

[One of] The Inherent Contradiction(s) of the Left

Welcome back to a fresh start! My apologies for not keeping this blog up to date - there will be changes to this.

Today I'd like to show you a very interesting feature of the lefties' reasoning.

Let's start off with the all-too-familiar political discussion about rape and/or abortion.

Leftists, rightly in my opinion, say that the woman's right to her body is inalienable. If she doesn't want Person A to do Action X to her body, she is in her right to decline Person A from performing such an action. Should Person A however proceed against her will, he is considered to aggress against her, violating her right to her body, thus can be sentenced to whatever punishment is appropriate for Person A's crime. So far so good.

I did some tiny amounts of research among friends, facebook and the Swedish Socialist party to see what they'd say. I asked where this right comes from, what's the rationale behind it? Surprisingly, most answers were along libertarian lines: She owns her body, she decides what to do with it (and some allusions to the UN, saying the same thing). Also, some allusions to freedom (="if she didn't, there'd be no freedom").

But to be precise, it is not simply a right to someone's body, it also entails what happens in that body and what the body is doing, as my friends rightly pointed out. This is illustrated by the abortion example, where Leftists also are generally quite good. If a fetus growths within a woman, she has the rightful decision about what to do with such a fetus - abort pregnancy if she chooses, continue if she'd prefer to - and nobody else can rightfully decide for her, against her will.
Point: The inalienable right to your body also extends to decisions about what's going on with that body and what that body does.

Similarly, Person A in our example above, with an equally inalienable right to his body, is responsible for the actions this body might engage in. In this case, aggressing against our woman, for which he must bear the punishment.
Point: Person A, in control of his body, made a decision to violate someone else's inalienable right and has to bear the consequences.

This is all non-controversial stuff, even for Leftists.

It gets interesting when you continue this rationale. If you are responsible for the consequences of your action, if you are in control of your body and if your right to that body (and the actions coming from it) are inalienable, what happens when the action involves agreement with another person? Person A now exchanges his labour for payment by Person B, in accordance with their mutual agreement. The rationale still applies; Person A is responsible for the consequences of his actions (loss of leisure, monetary gain), and Person B is equally responsible for the consequences of his actions (monetary loss, gained access to extra labour).

This is where Leftists lose it. All of a sudden, such relationships are to be regulated by Unions, protected by State institutions and overseen by third parties, the Lefties say. Not to mention that it is generally looked upon as exploitation, in accordance with Marx's incorrect value theory of labour. This, however, was not present in our first example where the woman's right to her body was inalienable - not subject to regulation, oversight or state intervention. When that very same woman decides to engage her body in a different activity - trade, offering her labour services in exchange for monetary gains - this inalienable right the Leftists spoke of is nowhere to be seen. Despite the fact that the essense of the transactions, the features of the participants have not changed a bit: she is still in control, her body is still inalienable and she can still rightfully make whatever decision she wants to.

The Point of an inalienable right is that it is inalienable. That means it cannot be violated. It is incoherent to arbitrarily apply such an inalienable right only sometimes (=whenever it serves your own purposes), but not at other times (=when you'd rather that other values took precedence).

Furthermore, if the rationale behind pro-choice and illegalized rape is that the woman has inalienable rights to her body, it follows that compulsory union actions, state institutions, state intervention in trade or employment etc, neither can be in a position to violate those rights.

Essentially, the Lefties' position is incoherent when it argues for state intervention in trade or voluntary employment AND simultaneously to protect women's inalienable rights over their bodies. One has to go.

Solution: either Leftists stop calling for state intervention (at which point they probably cease to be Leftists), or they refrain from protecting women's inalienable rights to their bodies.

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.