Category: Liberty

Liberty Literature: Pictures of a Socialistic Future by Eugen Richter

Although I’m scheduled to be back in Minnesota fairly early today I really didn’t think I’d want to start writing posts immediately upon my return, thus you get one final entry in Liberty Literature. For the final entry in this series (until I decide to start continuing the series later) I have selected Pictures of a Socialistic Future by Eugen Richter. Fortunately for you it’s a short read and can be found for free here.

This book is interesting because it accurately predicted the condition people living in socialist countries would face. Although I’m unsure of the original data this title was published I do know it was translated to English in 1893, before socialism started taking hold in countries like Russia. Pictures of a Socialistic Future is a fictional story about a man who lives in a country who’s government had just been overthrown by socialists. It reads like a diary with our main character expressing the changes he sees. Although he originally strongly supports socialism his attitude towards it changes as conditions become worse and worse.

As I said this book is interesting because it was published before any major socialist governments were founded but accurately predicted what would happen in such countries. Everything is in here including the need to prevent citizens from leaving the country, to reduced output in production, to the absurd things needed to be done in order to make everybody in society “equal.” If you read this book and a book on the history of the Soviet Union you will almost get confused about which book is the fictional title and which is the non-fiction title.

It’s sad that the horrors of socialism were predicted so early and nobody was willing to listen. Had people taken this book to heart hundreds of millions of needless deaths may have been avoided.

How’s That “Free” Healthcare Treating You

When people demand that government get into the healthcare business what they’re really saying is the government knows how to spend our money better than we do. The other problem is when the government is “providing” (they’re not doctors so they aren’t actually providing jack shit) healthcare they get to deem what operations are necessary, not you and not your doctor. Britain, for example, just added several operations to the “non-urgent” list:

Hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and removal of tonsils are among a list of ‘non-urgent’ operations being rationed by the cash strapped NHS in a bid to drive down costs by billions.

Two thirds of England’s Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are now limiting treatments they deem to be of ‘low priority’ in efforts to save over £1million each, an investigation has revealed this week.

On average, PCTs expected to save £1,051,000 through restricting procedures they deemed ‘non-urgent’, of ‘limited clinical value’, ‘low priority’ or ‘cosmetic’.

And just like that those operations are removed from the “free” healthcare list. Let us make no mistake either, these operations weren’t removed because medical researchers have found them to be unnecessary, they were removed to save money. The British government isn’t telling people they are going to pay less taxes for healthcare in return for fewer covered operations either, those in Britain are still going to be gouged for the same amount in taxes but will receive less.

I know how to spend my money better than the government does. If I feel getting my tonsils removed is necessary then it’s necessary and I can get them removed. That is if I had the money… unfortunately the government takes tons of my money in the form of taxes and have legislated free market alternatives for providing healthcare to the poor, like mutual aid societies, out of existence. It’s a typical ploy performed by governments, tell the people they need something, provide that thing, legislate any potential competing sources for that thing out of existence, and make the population more dependent on the government.

What people never seem to realize (even though the lesson has been learned time and time again) is the simple fact that eventually the government runs into a problem of paying for the services they’ve obtained a monopoly on and then start to either increase taxes, reduce quality, or a little of both. There isn’t a single government provided “service” that has ended up working well. Government built roads are full of potholes and constantly shutdown due to construction, more and more operations are added to “non-ungent” lists where governments “provide” healthcare, the fucking water supply keeps getting more and more unneeded chemicals added (why the fuck is fluoride still added after all research demonstrates it doesn’t benefit people in any way), etc. Everything government touches turns to shit and people need to wake up and see that simple fact.

Liberty Literature: Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust by Miron Dolot

If yesterday’s entry for Liberty Literature didn’t make a good cast for liberty maybe you need a first hand telling of atrocities committed under authoritative governments. Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (once again I couldn’t find a legal free copy) is written by a survivor of the Ukrainian famine initiated by the Soviet rule.

The famine was caused by the agricultural collectivization program that was started in the Soviet Union. Collectivization works by having all farmers surrender all of their farming land, livestock, and crops to one central collective farm. Although Soviet propaganda claimed that participation in collective farms was voluntary this book explains that is far from the truth. Although you didn’t have to join collective farms large taxes (so large that it was known farmers couldn’t pay it) were levied if you refused. If you resisted long enough you’d simply be declared an “enemy of the people” and shipped off to a labor camp somewhere in Siberia.

This collectivization process was even more sinister in Ukraine. The Communist Part in Russia wanted to wipe out feels of national identifies which was strong in Ukraine. Although programs had been implemented to reduce Ukrainian nationalism they weren’t successful. Thus the Communist Party decided it would be best to just starve the people in Ukraine and wipe them out.

That’s exactly what was attempted and it was largely successful. This book actually becomes incredibly difficult to read at the end as it describe the sheer number of dead bodies that were littered about Dolot’s village towards the ending years of the famine. Dolot also explains many of the tricks the Communist Party used to break the will of the independent farmers of Ukraine and make them bow to the will of the state. Although the book is a bit graphic (what book about a holocaust wouldn’t be?) it explains very well the tyranny experienced by those living in the Soviet Union.

Liberty Literature: Death by Government by R. J. Rummel

The second book on my recommended liberty list is Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Sadly, unlike The Ethics of Liberty, this title isn’t available for free but can be purchased on Amazon (this isn’t an affiliate link by the way). R. J. Rummel is a retired professor from the University of Hawaii who has been studying what he defines as democide. Democide, as defined by Rummel, is “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.”

This book, above all others I’ve read, makes the best case for liberty. The hypothesis Rummel has come to over his years of research is that the more authoritarian and tyrannical a government is the more people they murder. Death by Government demonstrates this fact by presenting the number of democide victims under many governments of this century. This book includes information on Cambodia, Soviet Russia, and even the United States.

If you’re a statist by the conclusion of this book you either have no ability to comprehend written material or are truly a sadistic bastard.

See What Lack of Regulations Get You

The personal electronics industry is considered to be one of the less regulated industries in the United States. While the government continues to meddle with emission requirements on automobiles, keeping monopoly control over wireless spectrum, and requires it’s sign off on every single item they randomly label as a drug they don’t do a hell of a lot in regulating personal electronics devices.

The fruits of less regulations can be seen by many aspects of personal electronics. Our electronics are becoming every smaller, more powerful, and an ever increasing number of devices are being made available for our purchasing pleasure. Another benefit is the fact that our devices are getting cheaper by the day. You know that super fast video card you purchased today for $400.00? In a few months it’ll be old business and the price will drop to $200.00. For those of us who don’t care about the latest and greatest in video cards we’ll be able to nab a perfectly serviceable card for half the price. For those who want the bleeding edge in graphics technology it’s there for the taking.

And for those who want an entire terabyte of data in their laptop they can have it for roughly $100.00. Don’t worry, I’m not shilling for Newegg on here since they don’t pay me to but I thought it was rather awesome that laptop drives with 1TB of capacity have dropped to the $100.00 range so quickly. Ever increasing capabilities for an ever decreasing price is a side-effect of less government regulation and should be celebrated by all. Just imagine what could be done for other markets if the government would simply pull its fingers out and let us, the consumers, decide on what should and shouldn’t be implemented.

Liberty Literature: The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

Today marks the first day of my vacation at Defcon. I’m not dump enough to access a network of any kind while at Defcon so I’ve pre-written some posts for your enjoyment. You’re not going to get my usual smart ass remarks about the news of the day but you will get something of value. Every day of my vacation will doing a segment which I’m calling Liberty Literature. Liberty Literature is where I recommend books that I’ve read dealing with the broad topic of liberty.

Personal liberty is a very important topic to me and many gunnies. It’s not because we’re selfish, wanting a liberty based society is the least selfish thing anybody could want. Instead of asking the government to use its monopoly on the use of violence to make others comply with our demands we advocate everybody be allowed to make their own choices in life. It would be great if more people came to this realization which is why I’m posting books that have greatly shaped my political views.

I’m going to start with the book that has influenced my political and ethical views more than any other, The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. A free (legally) copy of it can be found here.

The Ethics of Liberty explains the very concept of liberty itself. Starting from the use of reason and natural law to explain every person’s right to self-ownership Rothbard expands and explains how the right to self and property are absolute. Further he explains how a completely voluntary society could work including how a free market would make it possible. This book is an eye opener and I highly recommend everybody read it.

Many topics are covered in this title including criminality and punishment, the rights of children, lifeboat situations, and the theory of contracts.

Libertarianism Isn’t Selfish, Statism Is

If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a statist say libertarians are selfish I’d have, well not that much, but that’s not because I never hear that statement it’s because the Federal Reserve has devalued our currency to the point of being almost worthless.

Anyways, as I was saying it’s a common misconception that libertarians are selfish. Unfortunately for statists their accusation is far from the truth, in fact the exact opposite is true. Statists are terribly selfish people who use the government’s monopoly on violence for force everybody in society to comply with the statist’s desires. They want the government to pass laws banning firearms, they want laws that prohibit drinking or using other substances they don’t like, they want laws banning swearing in public places, they want laws telling connecting adults what they can do in their bedroom, and the list goes on. They want these laws that control the actions of others and they want the government to use their monopoly on violence to enforce these laws.

Libertarians on the other hand want everybody to live a life free of coercion. We want the government to get out of our bedrooms, gun safes, liquor cabinets, and everything else they’ve put their fingers in. It is the belief of libertarians that everybody should be free to do as they please so long as they’re not hurting anybody else or anybody’s property. If you want to drink a bottle of whiskey, smoke a joint, and go have sex with three other people all of whom are the same gender as you then by all means go for it. It’s your life to do with as you please and we’re not going to demand that the government use violence to prevent you from pursuing what makes you happy. Even if I don’t approve of something that doesn’t give me the right to demand violence be used on those who do enjoy that thing.

While statists want violence used against everybody to make them comply with their selfish ideals libertarians detest the use of violence. How can anybody think wanting to give everybody the right to do with their life as they please selfish?

Another Example of Regulations Harming the Producers of Society

I’m usually not one to pull out Ayn Rand (I far prefer the likes of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc.) but I’m also a fan of calling a spade and spade so I’m willing to say with confidence that the following is a situation right out of Atlas Shrugged.

Terry Douglas is the owner of two coal mines (you know, that material most of our power plants required) and obtained a permit to open a third one. These permits aren’t cheap, coming it at roughly $250,000, but a quarter of a million dollars simply isn’t enough flesh for the government so they decided it would be great to go after him for some more money. Well it sounds as if Mr. Douglas has finally had enough and may simply call it quits:

Here is a transcription of what he said that I oh so cleverly borrowed from the linked article:

Nearly every day without fail… men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just… you know… what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.

Of course many people will crucify Mr. Douglas because they believe environmental laws should be upheld at any cost. The problem is many of the environmental laws are bullshit created simply so the government can extract more money from those who actually produce goods that people want. On top of that we wouldn’t even need all these environmental regulations is our country simply recognized property rights as absolute.

Think about it for a moment, if a coal mine discharged a pollutant onto another person’s property that person could sue for damages. As it sits now if such an event occurs the government steps in, fines the polluter (or lets them off depending on how much the polluter has contributed to our political Leviathan), and perhaps gives the property owner a little bit of money if they’re feeling generous. The Gulf oil spill would have been devastating to British Petroleum (BP) had the owners of the shorelines covered in oil been allowed to directly sue BP. Instead our government decreed a maximum liability oil companies are responsible for paying which let BP get off with destroying a lot of property with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

If Mr. Douglas damages another person’s property then let that person take legal action. If no damage is occurring Mr. Douglas shouldn’t be punished by our government in the form of fines, taxes, and regulations. It’s honestly that simple.

I’d also like to bring up a side note that’s relevant to this story, which are complains some people make against mine owners. Mine owners are generally not well liked, even if their product is, and accusations are constantly made that these mine owners are skimping on safety and health related concerns. Mr. Douglas points out why that really isn’t the case:

When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.

This is why business owners are the evil barons they’re often made out to be. It’s in the owner’s best interest to ensure his workers are safe and healthy. Not only do you face potential lawsuits against those you’ve wronged but you also have to hire and train all new personnel. The longer a person works a job the more experience they generally obtain which makes them more valuable to have around.

I expect to see more situations like Mr. Douglas’s where the government makes owning a business all but impossible by piling on pointless environmental regulations. If property rights were properly observed in this country we wouldn’t need all of these expensive regulations. Eliminating these unnecessary regulations would make doing business cheaper and likely cause a reduction in the amount of environmental damage since the consequences wouldn’t be easily bypassed by giving the right people a large campaign contribution.

They’re Not Even Pretending to Be Representatives Anymore

I know that our “representatives” on Capitol Hill aren’t representing us in any way but at least they used to pay lip service to their title. For some time though these politicians have been getting more and more blatant about the fact that they view themselves as our rules, not our “representatives.” This becomes obvious when issues arise making it difficult for the government to grasp even more power.

Take the debt ceiling for instance, our government needs to be able to rack up the credit card some more in order to expand even further into our lives. As it sits the government’s credit limit is quickly approaching and no more money can be borrowed unless the government gives itself a credit extension. When you get to give yourself credit extensions they’re easy to obtain but sometimes you have to pretend it’s difficult. Right now there is a political pissing contest between those who want to rack up the credit card some more and those who are trying to salvage what they can of the American economy by reducing our ever increasing debt.

Well those who want to increase the credit limit have hit upon a plan, establish a 12 member “super” congress that would have the full authority to raise the debt ceiling:

The ongoing battle between the House, Senate, and President over the upcoming debt crisis has led establishment Congressmen in the Senate to propose the creation of a Super Congress to create and pass legislation allowing for the raising of the debt ceiling. Led by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, and proposed on July 24th during the weekend debt ceiling meetings, this new bi-partisan gang of 12 would unconstitutionally allow for laws to be passed solely by the group, and bypassing what they consider the majority of ‘regular’ members of Congress.

George W. Bush is often incorrectly quoted as saying the Constitution is just a “goddamned piece of paper.” Although it’s highly unlikely that he actually said that the bitch of the thing is that the quote is accurate.

I know a lot of people get very upset when you mention that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some writing on it. What I’m talking about in this case is the physical document itself, divorced from the ideals and rules that are described in the document. Physically the Constitution is a mere piece of paper with writing on it that declares a foundation for the federal government. As with any piece of paper the Constitution is unable to enforce any ideas that are written upon it.

Although the Constitution never mentions that the federal government has the authority to establish a 12 person “super” congress some people on Capitol Hill are seriously considering it. The Constitution also never authorizes executive orders, social security, public education, the highway infrastructure, or any of the other federally run government programs not outlined in the Constitution itself. What the Constitution does say in the Tenth Amendment is, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus if the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant the federal government powers they’re not supposed to have it. Yet they exercise verboten powers all of the time and nothing happens. Why? Because the Constitution is a piece of paper. The important parts, the ideas and laws set forth, are easily ignored because a piece of paper can’t enforce what is written upon it. That enforcement is up to people, and the people we’ve put in charge of doing that are disregarding their supposed duty.

Instead of performing their job of upholding the laws of the United States our “representatives” have decided it’s their duty to rule over us with an iron fist. They’ve decided this because unchecked power attracts megalomaniacs. The power to rule has been left unchecked in the United States because people no longer oppose blatant abuses of this power. The majority of the people in this country just sit idly by without raising a fuss and continue to re-elect those who keep grabbing for more.

The people of this country were supposed to be the teeth of the Constitution. If those who were sent to Washington D.C. abused their power the people who elected them were supposed to either recall the offender or prevent him from going back come next election cycle. The people of this country were supposed to use their power of jury nullification to toss out laws that were blatantly unconstitutional or otherwise bad.

When shit like this “super” congress come to light nobody puts up a fuss. As soon as this news became public there should have been angry letters and phone calls going to those supporting this idea with the threat of recall made absolutely clear. Instead the silence of the majority has lead to the creation of Leviathan, a monster created by power hunger madmen who conclude to increase the authority they wield of the people.

The reason I’m such a strong supporter of Ron Paul for president is because he’s one of the few politicians who not only promotes the idea of individual liberty but also votes based on those ideas. We need to get a man like that in the White House to keep the House and Senate in check. We need somebody who will like at a power play like this “super” congress and say “No way in Hell!” The guy sitting in the Oval Office should be liberal (using the definition of given, used, or occurring in generous amounts) with the use of veto powers.

To summarize what I’ve said to those not looking to actually read a long-form post, this shit needs to end. I’ve lost all belief that any government can be good but I still believe that it can be better than despotism. People need to look at news like this “super” congress and get pissed off. The people on Capital Hill are trying to control more and more of our lives and we need to say enough is enough. We have a chance at this by working to make Ron Paul is the Republican nominee and then electing him into the White House. With him in the White House there will at least be one check in the federal government working on our side and ensuring shit like this “super” congress doesn’t get through for four years (hopefully eight).

Increasing Taxes and Increasing Revenue are Not Synonymous

The thieves at the Minnesota State Capitol have apparently made an agreement to increase the deficit on the budget meaning the state shutdown is over. Like most agreements this one has left everybody wanting. What really galls me though is the fact that those angry about the lack of tax increases keep referring to it as a revenue increase. Calling taxation revenue is one of the biggest misnomers out there.

Think about it, if a thug on the street puts a gun to your head and takes your money do we say the thug has increased his revenue? No, we say he has stolen money. Revenue implies money that has been obtained through voluntary exchange. Taxation is not voluntary exchange but theft. Mark Dayton wasn’t looking to increase the state’s revenue he was looking to steal more money from Minnesota citizens.

Thus we shouldn’t say that the budget agreement included a lack of increasing the state’s revenue, we should be saying the budget agreement included the state stealing less money from us.

And before anybody bring it up I do realize I spend a lot of time ranting about this subject. It’s not because I think the verbiage is all that important, it’s because I want to point out the double standard most people have. When a private individuals uses violence to take from another we call that individual a thief whereas when a government uses violence to take from many people we call it taxation and legitimize it. Whether you believe the ends of taxation justify the means is debatable but saying taxation isn’t a form of theft is flat out lying.