Contradiction 101: “Public Property”

The general belief is that public property is owned by the people. This belief isn’t only uncritical but also uneconomical. If you think that the belief is still economical or rational then how do you define “people” and their “public” ownership of the property? Also, what percentage do the “people” respectively own “public” property? How much is it unfair to share in the whole ownership structure?

These questions cannot be conclusively answered because public property isn’t embodied with the rational calculation of prices, incentives, liberty and ownership. If you’re not an “economist” (government’s bootlicker), you would surely gibe at my assertions.

Public property is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing called “public”, first of all. What you see around is rational individuals who are driven by the principle of self-interest. You, as an individual, are also driven by your self interest axiom, to read this blog. No one is compelling you. Even if you’re forced to read this blog, you’re still driven by your self-interest policy to obey the command. This proves that there’s nothing called “collective interest” because groups cannot think or reason.

Only individuals can.

Since public property is a generalization, it is to be commonly understood that individuals own the property because ownership gives the individuals a sense of freedom and rights.

Since public property possesses a “common” title, its’ users don’t have rational incentives to take care of it. That’s why public property ends up getting mismanaged or crooked.

What would you prefer to take care of, your private property or collective property? The former gives you the right and freedom to nurture it because private property’s nature is dependent upon your responsibility, whereas the latter does not have any incentive to look after it.

To make the case easier, would you prefer a private swimming pool or a public pool?

Of course, you would dislike the quality of a public pool because you don’t own it to nurture it. This doesn’t mean that we need more government interventionism or supervision. We need more private property rights so that the government (“owner” of public property) does not resort to infringe your personal property or possession. Continue reading “Contradiction 101: “Public Property””

Economic Harmonies: Chapter Four Review – The Expediency of Exchange

The Expediency of Exchange, Its Evolution, Efforts Behind Facilitating and Extending It, and The Wall of Popular Restrictions That It Is Up Against, Then and Now

By Scott Albright

The evolution of exchange, of voluntary trade, has advanced so far beyond the depths of what we can imagine and we take it for granted all too often. When you see clearly how an increased population allows for a larger and more dynamic workforce, and that advances in science and technological innovations in capital investments that can perform more complex services and utilities emerge in the market, the range of your ability to exchange is immeasurable, providing that exchange is voluntary. As Bastiat so concisely put it, “the capital savings due to exchange surpass one’s imagination.”[1]

Ultimately, the effects of an extended division of labor with in sourced labor or outsourced production are essentially the same as capital investment/machinery used in production in that they all free up labor to be available for newer wants, talents to fulfill desires of goods and services of a higher order. This was first discussed in chapter two of the Harmonies but the quotes most noteworthy in chapter four, summing up it’s main principles and thesis are:

“In the state of isolation, our wants exceed our productive capacities.  In society, our productive capacities exceed our wants.”[2]

“There are two great incontrovertible truths. The first is: The better man exploits the forces of Nature, the better he provides himself with all that he needs. …

…The second truth is: The resources of Nature are unequally distributed over the earth.”[3]

What is so plain and clear at the individual level is often so heavily disputed at the larger and national level. When we think of how hardly no individual household attempts to produce all that they consume and that this would be too impoverishing to try, the plain as day in every way of life’s details show us the basics of economic principles that make textbook econ look like featherbedding to protect salaries of the tenured at our universities today!

When Marco Rubio campaigned for president last year, he advocated a continuation of import quotas on sugar so that a relatively few number of U.S. farmers would be protected from international competition. This is the typical status quo of most politicians but why not better exploit the forces of nature to render the benefits more accessible to all. We don’t produce “ice at the equator and sugar at the poles” (p.70) so to speak, and although that would be an extreme case of economic isolationist production or definitely not exploiting the forces of nature with sensible applications of our faculties where they are more conducive to richer results, what Rubio and others are proposing with these import quotas do restrict our ability to consume, on better terms, produce that grows more abundantly in climates more favorable to their gratuitous flourishing.

It’s a very lopsided argument without any logical consistency. Continue reading “Economic Harmonies: Chapter Four Review – The Expediency of Exchange”

Treason by Elected Officials: the Minimum Wage

By Gene Balfour

The proposed Minimum Wage Law increases in various US jurisdictions is an act of aggression against businesses and willing workers. It is also an act of treason by elected officials against the very citizens who entrusted them to protect their well-being.
Here is the analysis to prove my claims.

Individual property rights includes 4 components which we all possess: our BODY, MIND, EFFORTS and the ASSETS we acquire through the application of the first three.

Employment is a form of trade – an economic exchange between two willing parties.

Property and Exchange

The terms of employment are based on each employee’s (party #1) willingness to apply his or her body (skills), mind (knowledge), and effort (productivity) to meet the goals set by the employer to fulfill the expectations defined by the job description and responsibilities thereof. The employer (party #2) agrees to pay each employee from assets that have been earned by the business owners which constitutes their legal property. As part of this arrangement, the employer also makes available other assets to the workers including a work place, equipment, co-workers/teammates/management, intellectual property and, of course, paying customers who make the entire enterprise viable.

Hiring a new worker is no different than any other business investment, regardless of its nature – equipment, energy, services or labour. The business expects a return on investment (ROI) or else they will not invest. Some jobs provide a lower ROI than others due to their low skill/knowledge requirements and the wages for these jobs reflect this reality. Overqualified workers will not apply for these jobs knowing that other jobs can leverage their skills and knowledge at a higher pay level. Under-qualified workers will need more training and time to become productive at the ROI levels expected by the employer. All employers seek the best candidates for each job and usually choose the person who is not overqualified and too expensive or so under-qualified as to require too much time and effort to meet expected performance goals.

When governments enact laws like the Minimum Wage Level, the business case for hiring new workers is taken out of the hands of the employer and potential workers. This is a violation of the property rights of both and is actually harmful to both parties. Like medical doctors who swear an oath to “do no harm” to their patients, is it too much to ask our political and government leaders to abide by the same oath?

Gene Balfour
Professional recruiter for 35 years
Fenelon Falls, ON

A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy

WARNING:  Before you implement the pieces of advice, it is necessary for you to have a nuke or else it is not easy to declare yourself as a legal thug who is going to constitutionally take care of everything at the expense of everyone else except yourself.

Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.

To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.

Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.

Professional Victim

By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments.

Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that. Continue reading “A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy”

3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time

Different people possess different opinions, definitions and comprehensions about politics. Many individuals continue to [vociferously] express and discourse their stagnant views and loud perspectives about politics, respectively. They “feel good” about what they say, no matter how incoherent their statements are. They wouldn’t mind shunning others’ “political opinion” without realising that the inherent quality of any political debate is cyclically poor.

What matters to them is their own “political ego” and nothing else.

But, it isn’t my business to decide the best political opinion, statement or scientist because ‘politics is inherently a waste of time, energy, mind and wealth’.

Read the following reasons to know why, and figure them out at your discretion without feeling guilty, low and manipulated: Continue reading “3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time”

Vedic Anarchism

Once upon a time in India, voluntaryist societies existed. A voluntaristic society is that community where people transact, socialise and trade without fearing any coercion, hierarchy and taxtortion. In such a liberal society, people live tranquilly, responsibly and rationally because it empowers the cultural scope of spontaneous order and catallactic actions of all the participants or members. In today’s scenario, excluding the black markets, it is very rare to spot such open, free and transparent societies. Thanks to the government.

I am not an Indologist but I live in India. In this article, I do not intend to divulge the marketing skills of my authorship but helping my international amigos to know the features of Vedic anarchism. To begin with, the Vedas are a large body of knowledge texts originating in the ancient Indian subcontinent.

The Vedas are ancient Sanskrit texts of Hinduism. Above: A page from the Atharvaveda.

Composed in the Sanskrit language, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeya, which means “not of a man, superhuman” and “impersonal, authorless”. Vedic anarchism period existed in Bhaarat (India) between 4000 BC – 500 BC. But, in today’s time, in India as elsewhere, the anarchist thought is widely misunderstood. As Bhagat Singh (1907–1931), one of the few Indian revolutionaries who had explicit anarchist leanings, put it:

The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.”

Vedic anarchism is a fearless trek into the unknown. Since it throws out the imposed normative ideals of other political philosophies, Vedic anarchism prescribes complete sacrifice of the ego of a politically-driven mind. It forebodes the usual prescriptions and solutions for society’s ills and trusts the forces of cooperative effort, mutual respect, and mutualism will do better. It’s the respect for the limits of human reason, the fallibility of human power, the unlikely, but unsurpassed, power of unconscious design, the appreciation of innovation and progress brought about by forces completely out of our control and, above all, humility – the recognition of one’s own mistakes, flaws, ignorance, and inability to know the unknown. Continue reading “Vedic Anarchism”

Diet Coke of Fascism

There’s a self-proclaimed intellectual tribe which believes in a contradictory premise and that is “removing 80% of the tumor solves the cancer, while the remaining 20% should be left intact”.

It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.

When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).

For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.

Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.

I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.

Drink in the hypocrisy of minarchism

What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies? Continue reading “Diet Coke of Fascism”

Misunderstanding Anarchism

It is fashionable to misunderstand the theory, character, principles and applications of anarchism, in the age of alt-internet. Due to this, anarchism is considered as a ‘ludicrous illusion’ whereas government (the idea so mandatory that violence can civilise people without their consent) is considered to be the best gift of reality.

Misunderstanding anarchism is also an auxiliary activity of the mainstream media, public schools, bureaucrats, politicians, and the ignorant populace.

Their imagination isn’t only limited to the belief that ‘government is a magical institution’ but it also extended to the practice that everyone else should also survive within the limits of their perspectives.  If you attempt to reason or discourse with them then they will ensure that you’re ashamed and defamed.

Thus, the burden of proof is not on the anarchists to prove “why freedom is vital” but on the pro-slavery advocates to prove “why people should be forced to live in a system of organised chaos (government)”. 

Worse, some who call themselves “anarchists” don’t even know the meaning of the term. These people fall, in general, into three classes:

1) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the society with collectivism spirit, wherein “anarchists” should not be allowed to reap fruits from their own labor,

2) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the ‘welfare policies of Stalin’ with the ‘welfare policies of Mao’, and

3) advocating that the state should be abolished and then replacing the society with ‘Trump’.

Therefore, it is also necessary to save anarchism from such “anarchists”. Continue reading “Misunderstanding Anarchism”

The Libertarian Party has Strayed from Founding Principles

By Tyler Leonhardt

The Libertarian Party is a waste, an absolute cesspool of nonsense.

Instead of promoting what should be the most consistent ideology in politics (the opposition to violence against peaceful people), they sit and argue over whether they should be Republican Lite or Democrat Lite, or in other words anti-tax liberals or pro-pot conservatives.

We are not “socially accepting and fiscally responsible”. We do not fight for any particular race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or miscellaneous.

Rather, we fight against the encroaching power of the state, and the rest fall into line. We do not promote or disparage culture or values, or encourage opinions or beliefs. That is for the realm of the family and social organizations. A religious organization has just as much right to state their views an individual. But we do not fight for religion any more than we fight for homosexuality. Rather we fight for the rights of the religious and the homosexual.

We fight for freedom of association and freedom of property. Continue reading “The Libertarian Party has Strayed from Founding Principles”

Hoppe on Coase

Excerpt from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s lecture:  Law and Economics

From 40:40 through 47:54:

Now I come to, as I said, to the Chicago view.  Which is, as you will see, is a very different approach, and a very dangerous approach at that.  And I want to explain that, in using an example, when I talk about Chicago Law and Economics tradition, I have in particular in mind Ronald Coase and Richard Posner, two of the most, Coase by far the most prominent man in this field and Posner his aut latos.

And I want to use an example that Coase gives of a conflict.  I want to explain how this is solved, so to speak, in the traditional way and how he will solve it instead.

The problem is, that did he describes, is something like; goes something like this:

There is a railroad that emits sparks and the sparks burn down the wheat of an adjacent farm, and the question is now:  who is liable for the damage? Should the railroad be punished or should the farmer be forced to accept the sort of thing and so forth?

Now how does the Austrian, the traditional approach solve this problem?

For them the question is who was there first and who came later.

If the farmer was there first and had, so to speak, spark-free wheat and then the railroad was built afterwards and then the sparks burn down the wheat, then of course the railroad would be held liable would have to stop it or would have to pay compensation to the farmer.

Otherwise if the railroad was there first and emitted sparks, and then the farmer built his wheat field right next to this railroad track, then the decision would be after all the farmer acquired property that was “sparked” instead of spark-free and he has no claim against the railroad owner.  If he wants to have his environment spark-free, would now have to pay the railroad to stop it.

So depending on whom was there first, the case would be decided either in favor of the farmer or in in favor of in favor of the railroad.  It depends, so to speak, who was there first and who has acquired what type of easement.

Now this is not the way Coase would solve this problem.  And I read you what Coase says how to deal with this problem he says:

It is wrong to think of the farmer and the railroad as either right or wrong, as aggressor or victim.  The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B, and what has to be decided is how should we restrain A?  But this is wrong.

We are dealing with a problem of reciprocal nature.

To avoid the harm to B, would be to inflict harm on A; the real question that has to be decided is:  should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A?  The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.

Now I want to translate that into some sort of slightly absurd example to show to you, in a very drastic way, what an outrageous position this is.  I slightly rephrase Coase’s words here, just to use a slightly different example.  So let’s say we have the case where person A is raping person B , and according to Coase we would not simply have to restrain A, the rapist, rather and now I quote him from the previous quote:

Rather, we are dealing with a problem with reciprocal nature.

In preventing A from raping B, harm is inflicted on A because he can no longer rape freely.  The real question is:  should A be allowed to rape B or should B be allowed to prohibit A from raping him?  The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.

Now you might think isn’t that easy to determine what the more serious harm is, but again this is not that easy either.  Imagine the following scenario:

So A the rapist has been incarcerated for a long time.  For 20 years, he hasn’t seen a woman in 20 years.   Then B, on the other hand, is a professional prostitute.  She is in the business of the sort of stuff.   Now A rapes the professional prostitute.  Now the question is is more harm done to A by preventing him from raping the prostitute, or is more harm done to the prostitute by letting A rape her?

Now the question is obviously a difficult one, right?  You see the perversity of this of this type of thinking.  We might well come to the conclusion that the rape was perfectly alright, because after all, more harm would be done to A if he would be prevented from going on with his activity.