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. 

On Unions again - Some Objections

Sometimes I get objections that have so many different issues intertwined. Not to say that socialists are always this way, but I tend to run into socialists that argues using so many different statements and topic at once, that whatever comes out is a mish-mash of rhetorically well-sounding rubbish. Unfortunately.

Anyways, I had a friend of mine replying this to my post on Union Strikes the other day:

"This makes me genuinely angry. Some things can't be left to the market. Your definition of employment lacks one very important point: stability. We have to, as a society, compensate some things so that humans are viewed as humans, and not commodities. You would never pay for librarians if there was a volountary cost, yet we all agree that they are an important institution for culture and education.

Do you have any idea how many people have died for the right to organize unions? How much the opportunity to strike has changed the working and living conditions of workers everywhere? When you are a craftsman or local farmer or whatever, your customer is your employer, and you have leverage by your self. But in a post-industrial world, most workers have very little power over their bosses. That's a necessary trade off for effectivity. Unions is the only leverage most workers have. The government allows strikes as a guarantee of stability. There are certain jobs that nobody would ever train for if there wasn't the opportunity to organize. In your ideal world, everyone would be a farmer, we'd have no culture and the world would only support a fraction as many people as there are today."

Here are my replies. I tried to be brief, but failed. I'll work on that. 

1) Some things can’t be left to the market you say. Like what? And why is that? If the market is more efficient than the state in providing shoes, massage, food or homes that people desire, why would the state suddenly be a much better actor in healthcare or education? I’m still to find any area where the state outperforms a free market, essentially in any respect.

2) Humans, commodities and stability. I’m not sure what stability has to do with it, but everything IS a commodity (or rather a service), whether you like it or not. Only thing is, in socialist Sweden we made sure some of these services are provided free of charge for the user, under the communist dogma that everyone deserves x according to y. In no way does a view of services mean humans are less humans. We are the carries, providers, recievers, producers etc of these services, essential to the process.

3) Librarians. First, not everyone agree librarians are important institution for education/culture. Libraries, knowledge and books might be, but hardly librarians. Besides, in a free market, if people would demand libraries in their current forms, that would be provided. I don’t know about you, but I’d be willing to pay quite substantial amounts to have a properly-working library accessible to me.

4) People dying for Union Rights. Ok, you made this argument in the sense that BECAUSE people died for something, it is worth preserving. I strongly disagree; people have died for all kinds of things (anti-gay, rallying against women entering the work force, stopping migrants etc), and none of that means it’s a good thing. What I DO think you were trying to say was that because loads of people valued the rights to unionize so much as they actually died for them and because they perceived that to help them in the past (and the present), we should be thankful for their sacrifice. I disagree in that regards as well. Unionized workers cannot produce better salaries in any other way than creating employment for others. The working conditions in the past were indeed improved, but not because the Unions demanded it and fought for it, but because it made economic sense for business to change. What kinds of jobs are you arguing ‘nobody would train for’ if not for Unions? In a free market services are values and provided according to what people are willing to give up for them. In a sense, there CANNOT be such jobs, because employers would raise wages/conditions until people accepted them, thus leveling out the “nobody” part of it.

5) Leverage against employer. The only leverage workers have is quiting. Provide your services to someone who values them differently. If whatever demand you’re making is a sensible one, the employer could see to that, and improve. If not, you'd have to value if whatever inconvenience is worth whatever difference another employer would provide. If it is, your option is leaving. No need to Unions, no need for strikes, no need for messing around waving signs and pretending you're fighting for something. You're wasting and destroying resources. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Right, in my world everyone would be a farmer. Not quite. How did the world move from such a society in the 1700s to a countless times more affluent one today? Unions? State interventions? Hardly. Free markets, trade, globalization, business. In my world, defined as a free market without state regulations or interventions, we’d likely see similar improvements. 

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.

Socialists' Objections

Today I though I was going to assert some socialist claims I've had experienced over the last few weeks.

And I'm making this a monthly report. Every month I'll gather objections, responses, attempts of counterarguments, insults and charges that I have had pointed at me (or seen in debates/media) - predominantly in regards to libertarianism. To be honest, the amount of horrible statements people (in my experience often on the left-flank) can come up with, really fascinates me. I think my favourites in terms of insults would be the ones attacking me as a person, or perhaps the ones trying to tell me what I really, deep down, actually think. That's funny!

Ok, so the objections will be taken from different sources (facebook, real-life arguments, texts, academic discussions etc) and as far as possible within context. If the comment was made in a different language than English, they'll be translated as best as I can. In regards to anonymity I'm still undecided. Maybe I'll include the source at some point, maybe not.

We'll see. You can expect comments and ideas that'll blow your mind, make you laugh hysterically or yawn at humanity. Entertainment promised!

All 'Socialists' Objection' can be found here.