Quote of the Day: Gene Selection: Society is built on mutually beneficial co-operation

At his blog, businessman, science journalist and author Matt Ridley discusses the political implication of Gene Selection versus Group Selection:

“Group selection” has always been portrayed as a more politically correct idea, implying that there is an evolutionary tendency to general altruism in people. Gene selection has generally seemed to be more of a right-wing idea, in which individuals are at the mercy of the harsh calculus of the genes.

Actually, this folk understanding is about as misleading as it can be. Society is not built on one-sided altruism but on mutually beneficial co-operation.

Nearly all the kind things people do in the world are done in the name of enlightened self-interest. Think of the people who sold you coffee, drove your train, even wrote your newspaper today. They were paid to do so but they did things for you (and you for them). Likewise, gene selection clearly drives the evolution of a co-operative instinct in the human breast, and not just towards close kin.

It can even drive a tendency to defend fellow members of the group if the survival of the group helps to perpetuate the genes. But group selection is a theory of competition between groups, and that is generally known by another name in human affairs. We call it war. If group selection were to work properly, war would mean the total annihilation of the enemy by the victorious group.

No Middle of the Road between Capitalism and Socialism and between Individualism and Collectivism

In the past I have pointed out why there can be no compromise between capitalism and socialism. This is for the simple reason that every bargain or accommodation for interventionism of various flavors leads to MORE socialism than LESS. Problems that emerges from each intervention would incite for more intervention which eventually leads to total government control. In the political context, "it’s never enough!"

This is specially pronounced during crisis. Austrian economist Robert Higgs calls this the “ratchet effect”. As per FEE.org (bold mine)

The problem in governance that arises when government intervention increases during crises such as wars, natural disasters, or economic depressions.  After the crisis government meets resistance in reversing the intervention, creating a situation where government intervention rarely returns to pre-crisis levels, which lead to a constant ratcheting up effect in growth of government intervention over time.

Expect an explosion of interventions in the coming crisis.

Yet interventionist transitions has almost always been a slippery slope process. Such transition can be seen in two ways. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained: (bold mine)

There are two methods available for the transformation of capitalism into socialism. One is to expropriate all farms, plants, and shops and to operate them by a bureaucratic apparatus as departments of the government. The whole of society, says Lenin, becomes "one office and one factory, with equal work and equal pay,"  the whole economy will be organized "like the postal sytem."  The second method is the method of the Hindenburg plan, the originally German pattern of the welfare state and of planning. It forces every firm and every individual to comply strictly with the orders issued by the government's central board of production management. Such was the intention of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 which the resistance of business frustrated and the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. Such is the idea implied in the endeavors to substitute planning for private enterprise…

The middle-of-the-road policy is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments.

Yet it is not just in the realm of economics but in metaethics too. The great free market champion Ayn Rand said the same: There is no middle of the road between individualism and collectivism.

From Ms Rand’s Textbook of Americanism (fee.org) [bold mine]

The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means.

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate — not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose." 

Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as "semi-inalienable" and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights who may violate them at his discretion. Who? Why, society — that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the Collective. Who decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit that you are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You are not fooling anyone but yourself. 

Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as "the middle of the road." Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going into opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror and destruction. The choice is yours to make. 

The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the world is not due to any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people who oppose them actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a principle is accepted, it is not the man who is half-hearted about it, but the man who is whole-hearted that's going to win; not the man who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is most consistent. If you enter a race, saying: "I only intend to run the first ten yards," the man who says: "I'll run to the finish line," is going to beat you. When you say: "I only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit," the Communist or Fascist who says "I'm going to destroy all human rights" will beat you and win. You've opened the way for him.

By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and evasion, men have now fallen into a Collectivist trap on the question of whether a dictatorship is proper or not. Most people give lip-service to denunciations of dictatorship. But very few take a clear-cut stand and recognize dictatorship for what it is: an absolute evil in any form, by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose whatsoever.

A great many people now enter into an obscene kind of bargaining about differences between "a good dictatorship" and a "bad dictatorship," about motives, causes, or reasons that make dictatorship proper. For the question: "Do you want dictatorship?" the Collectivists have substituted the question: "What kind of dictatorship do you want?" They can afford to let you argue from then on; they have won their point. 

A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if it's "for a bad motive," but quite all right and even desirable if it's "for a good motive." Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider themselves "humanitarians") claim that concentration camps and torture chambers are evil when used "selfishly," "for the sake of one race," as Hitler did, but quite noble when used "unselfishly," "for the sake of the masses," as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider themselves hard-boiled "realists") claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when used "inefficiently," as in Russia, but quite practical when used "efficiently," as in Germany.

(And just as an example of where the wrong principle will lead you in practice, observe that the "humanitarians," who are so concerned with relieving the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia, a state of misery for a whole population such as no masses have ever had to endure anywhere in history. And the hard-boiled "realists," who are so boastfully eager to be practical, endorse, in Germany, the spectacle of a devastated country in total ruin, the end result of an "efficient" dictatorship.)

When you argue about what is a "good" or a "bad" dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship. You have accepted a premise of total evil — of your right to enslave others for the sake of what you think is good. From then on, it's only a question of who will run the Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on what is a "good" cause for brutality and what is a "bad" one. Your particular pet definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.

Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you invite all men to do the same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like your particular "good motive," they have no choice but to rush to beat you to it and establish their own kind for their own "good motive," to enslave you before you enslave them. A "good dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms.

The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men? The issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not? 

There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a dictatorship can be justified by "a good motive" or "an unselfish motive." All the brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind — through centuries of slow climbing out of savagery — has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now taken refuge under a "social" cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear is: "Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of the masses." Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds.

Do not ever consider Collectivists as "sincere but deluded idealists." The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not "idealistic," no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.

So Capitalism-Individualism (freedom) are diametric opposites to collectivism-socialism (slavery). This hasn't been a false choice. Real life developments reveal such dynamic at work.

Simon Black of the Sovereign Man tacitly expounds on the consequences of the Middle of the Road policies in the US via his article “America isn’t Communist, It’s only 70% communist” (bold mine)

Within his 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx outlined a list of ten short-term demands. These, he thought, would be the precursor to the ideal stateless, classless communist society.

Ironically in today’s world, Marx’s demands look pretty much mainstream.

That is because nearly every single item on the list has been implemented to varying degrees in the United States.

Think that couldn’t be possible in the Land of the Free? Just take a look.

Topping Marx’s list is the abolition of private property.

True, private property exists, but only until the state wants to take it. With its powers of eminent domain, the government can and does confiscate people’s property when it wants for public use.

Your property isn’t unconditionally yours. Just think of property taxes, for example.

If it’s actually YOUR private property, then why would you need to pay tax on it? And why do they have the authority to take it from you if you don’t pay?

Likewise, while we haven’t seen the complete abolition of inheritance (another Marx demand), the government can take up to 40% of your estate when you die.

So ultimately your estate is not your own. You don’t get to control what happens to your wealth and possessions when you die. It’s just a matter of proportion.

Marx also demanded the centralization of transportation and communication. Check, and check.

Try broadcasting over the airwaves in the Land of the Free without a license and special permission.

Practically the entire electromagnetic spectrum is tightly controlled by the state, centralized by a handful of government agencies.

Same with the network of roads and highways. Because, after all, without government, who would build the roads…

Another point of Marx is state-guided agricultural production and combination of agriculture and manufacturing.

And the Land of the Free does not disappoint. Though its activities may not be as prominent in the news, the US Department of Agriculture is easily one of the busiest government departments.

With a budget of $146 billion a year, and much more for subsidies, USDA tirelessly works to dictate every major and miniscule activity in the sector.

Next on the list, is equal liability of all to labor. If you have at any point wondered, as I have, why politicians are always pushing jobs for the sake of jobs, rather than value and wealth creation—now you know why.

Between minimum wage laws and the constant stream of legislation that promises jobs for all, it is clear that politicians have wholly internalized this Marxian ideal.

Now, you might think that this is just a fluke, just a coincidence that some US policies resemble what’s on Marx’s list of demands.

But then you see these demands, which have not only been fully implemented in the US already, but are thoroughly entrenched in the national psyche:

First, there’s free education for all children, to enable the uniformity of thought. Check.

Then there’s a heavy progressive income tax. Yep, I’m pretty sure you’re familiar with this one, which has actually become so mainstream, that to have any system other than this would be considered revolutionary. Check.

Third, is the confiscation of the property of emigrants (expatriates) and rebels.

Between the IRS bullying of political opposition groups and the imposition of exit taxes for those that renounce their citizenship, the United States is firmly set up to discourage dissent and escape. Check.

And last but not least, the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank. Check.

Remember, Karl Marx thought central banking was a great idea—the same guy who thought that individual success and private property were evil.

Think about that the next time the Federal Reserve comes up with a plan to help businesses and fix the economy.

So now you know, America isn’t communist. It’s only about 70% communist. No reason to worry.

Slippery slope indeed.

Quote of the Day: On Chinese Tennis Star Li Na’s Individualist Influence

Li has been a trailblazer not only in athletics, but also in the way she has managed her own career. In 2008, she famously split from China’s state-run sports system, selected her own coach, set her own schedules and (gasp) revealed a tattoo of a rose on her chest that she had previously hidden. 

As a child, she came up through China’s Soviet-style athletic factory, starting with badminton. In those days, the government required its elite athletes to hand over more than half their pretax income, including endorsement earnings, for their entire careers. But six years ago, Li was among a few athletes to lobby for more freedom. Instead of giving 65% of her income back to the China Tennis Association and other local authorities, Li paid back less than 12% under new rules. She has also donated much of her prize money to charities and is widely adored—particularly by China’s younger generation—with about 23 million followers on a Chinese social media site. Compare that to Serena Williams’s roughly 4.3 million followers on Twitter.

The reforms in Chinese sports have been radical, not only for Li’s career and influence, but also for China. Decades ago during the Cultural Revolution, successful athletes could be accused of “trophy mania,” meaning they had committed the crime of promoting individual achievement.

Things are a bit different now—although Li has made headlines for actually not thanking her homeland in speeches, and promoting individualism, rather than merely “bringing glory to the state.” Her entrepreneurial spirit is now mirrored by millions of Chinese who are able to start their own companies and create innovative products and services. While Li’s tennis future may be uncertain, her impact on Chinese society is clear.

(bold mine, italics original)

This eye opening observation is from Patricia Huang of Matthews Asian Fund on the the world’s currently third ranked female Chinese tennis star Li Na's influences.

It is not clear if Ms Li has read or even heard of novelist-philosopher Ms Ayn Rand who popularly advocated the moral basis for individualism, but for Ms. Li to discover the invaluable virtues of individualism which she may have spread to her millions of followers could be seen as one MAJOR positive development for the Chinese society and for global peace. 

For more people to appreciate the values of individual freedom means to erode the pernicious influences of populist friction causing redistributive politics while at the same time provide a boost to a free society (economic freedom and civil liberties).

May Ms. Li Na’s tribe multiply!

Guest Post: Wendy McElroy on the Power of the Powerless

One of my favorite anarchist, Wendy McElroy writes a stirring and inspirational piece on how to live the truth and reclaim individual freedom.

Thanks to Janice Matthews and the Daily Bell for the permission to republish. (bold mine, italics original)

In the sixth century BC, the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu identified the world's biggest problem. Individuals viewed themselves as powerless. The burden of impotence made them resent others and fear life, which, in turn, led them to seek power through controlling others. The quest was not an expression of authority, but one of aggression. Lao Tzu rooted most of social problems in the individual's sense of paralysis.

The extraordinary power of the individual can be declared in many ways.

The Power of Living in Truth

In 1978, a 42-year-old Czech playwright named Vaclav Havel (1936-2011) made an observation similar to that of Lao Tzu. He wrote what became one of the most influential essays in the Cold War era: The Power of the Powerless. It was published in samizdat form; that is, it was reproduced by hand and distributed from individual to individual to avoid censorship.

The Power of the Powerless was written in the wake of the "Prague Spring" (1968) during which Czechoslovakia liberalized freedom of speech and freedom of travel. The Soviet Union responded with brutal force that crushed the flicker of liberty. Havel was targeted for his prominent role in the reach for Czech independence. Arrested and imprisoned, he achieved an epiphany: the most powerful weapon against guns was the truth. The Power of the Powerless was a blistering attack on the communist regime. It was also a call for individuals to understand their own power not merely when they dissent but also when they comply with a system that is a lie. 

Havel illustrated the impact of compliance – denying the truth – by pointing to "the manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop" who places a "Workers of the world, unite!" poster among his onions and carrots. He does so because not placing it would make him appear disloyal to the regime. "He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life." Thus, the grocer and others who obey without question "must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system." The strength of communism or any oppressive regime rests upon the obedience of individuals.

Havel argued that individuals have "within themselves the power to remedy their own powerlessness" simply by living the truth. If the grocer realized that the slogan was actually saying, "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient," he would be ashamed to display it. By realizing the meaning of their actions, people are led toward "living in truth," which is the source of freedom. The truth need not be screamed from a rooftop; it can be manifested in small daily acts through which the individual reclaims his own power, such as the 'act' of not posting a sign. The individual must defy unreality and refuse to be complicit in a delusion. Havel observed, "The principle here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth."

Havel concluded by asking, "the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if, on the contrary, it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it around us and within us, and kept us from developing it?"

The Difference One Individual Can Make

Chiune Sugihara expressed another way in which an individual can express his own power. Sugihara exercised what is called "positional power." That's the impact a person possesses due to his position in an organization.

During World War II, Sugihara (1900-1986) served as Vice-Consul at the Japanese Consulate in Lithuania. Japan and Germany were allies. The Japanese government issued visas only to those who had gone through an immigration process and had sufficient funds. Few Jews qualified, especially since the Japanese Foreign Ministry required everyone who received a visa to be cleared for a third destination that ensured they would leave Japan.

Against orders from his superiors and against German interests, Sugihara acted on his own initiative. In July 1940, he began to grant ten-day visas that sidestepped the requirement of a third destination by listing one of two obscure venues that did not require their own visas for entry. He negotiated with officials in the Soviet Union to allow Jews to travel through their territory at five times the normal price of a ticket on the Trans-Siberian Railway. He reportedly spent 18 to 20 hours a day arranging visas; his wife assisted him with the paperwork. For 29 days, Sugihara issued the documents that meant life. In September 1940, when the Japanese Consulate was closed and Sugihara was forced to leave, he reportedly threw blank sheets of paper with the consulate seal and his signature out of a train window to a gathered crowd of people still appealing for visas. He gave the consul stamp itself to a refugee who used it to save more Jews.

Estimates on the number of visas issued by Sugihara vary but 6,000 is the most common number. Since families often traveled on a visa granted to a "head of household," the number of lives saved is even more difficult to assess. The Simon Wiesenthal Center believes that about 40,000 descendants of the refugees he saved owe their existence to him.

In 1985, the state of Israel rewarded Sugihara with the title of Righteous Among Nations. The title honors those who risked their lives to save Jews from the Holocaust.

What is Necessary to Assume Your Power

Sugihara claimed his power by acting on his conscience rather than on orders. When asked why he risked so much to help strangers, Sugihara responded: "They were human beings and they needed help. I'm glad I found the strength to make the decision to give it to them. I may have to disobey my government, but if I don't I would be disobeying God." That was the truth within Sugihara.

It was the truth Havel believed every human being should live. Anyone who did so is profoundly free because he has "shattered the world of appearances.... He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth."

Anyone who dissents by living the the truth is a fundamental threat to the state because a lie cannot coexist with what is true. Anyone who dissents and claims his own power denies the state "in principle and threatens it in its entirety." That is why speaking out against the state is "suppressed more severely than anything else."

What is required to live the truth? First, an individual must realize that truth does not come from outside as an ideology or from other people; it exists within as a realization that comes from experience, reason, and a sense of humanity. Second, freedom rests on a recognition of the inextinguishable dignity of every individual. Third, it requires courage. Each person must stand up and claim their own power even if it is expressed in seemingly small ways. Because there is no such thing as a small step toward freedom. The first step, however small, is the one that matters most .

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step--Lao Tzu

Quote of the Day: Individual Freedom versus Democracy

The democratic process allows people certain freedoms. People do not have freedom to start with. But because people are allowed certain freedoms by the collective process, they think they are free by the individual freedom process of free association. This is not so. That it is not so is evident by the fact that the collective decision-making process takes away freedoms and gives freedoms; and the individual has no say over this except through the voting process. The other road to confusion is historical. The system used to be one of relatively large individual freedom and the scope of collective decision-making was limited constitutionally and by habit, custom and practice. The mythology grew up that the system was one of individual freedom, since voting played so small a role in decisions being made. As time passed and the democratic collectivism became entrenched, people kept right on thinking they had the system of individual freedom, which by then was long gone. And since they possessed a number of what are called personal freedoms still allowed by the collective they thought they still had individual freedom. But they didn’t because the collective had amassed so much power to make laws that any of these freedoms was at the will of the elected representatives, not individual freedoms arising from a system of free association.

To understand the actual system we live by, we cannot start with the set of our observed freedoms and then infer the system’s type. We can’t do this because under both systems, there may be a substantial amount of freedom left in individual hands. Instead, we have to inquire as to the origins of what freedoms we have, that is, the kind of legal system we have, who has the ultimate decision rights, who decides on the freedoms and whether or not we have freedom of association. Freedom of association distinguishes the system of individual freedom from a collective system like democracy or any comparable system of state. If freedoms are decided by individuals, that is not the same as their being decided by voting, which is a collective process. In addition, voting is by citizens many of whom are involuntarily bound into a state, so that the process itself, not only its outcomes, is collective and forcible.

This is from retired finance and economic professor Michael S. Rozeff at the LewRockwell.com

Quote of the Day: Tenets of Individualism

Metaphysically, individualism holds that the person is unique, not a sample of the mass, owing his peculiar composition and his allegiance to his Creator, not his environment. Because of his origin and existence, he is endowed with inalienable rights, which it is the duty of all others to respect, even as it is his duty to respect theirs; among these rights are life, liberty, and property. Following from this premise, society has no warrant for invading these rights, even under the pretext of improving his circumstances; and government can render him no service other than that of protecting him against his fellow man in the enjoyment of these rights. In the field of economics (with which libertarians are rightly concerned because it is there that government begins its infringement), the government has no competence; and the best it can do is to maintain a condition of order, so that the individual may carry on his business with the assurance that he will keep what he produces. That is all.

This is from libertarian editor and author Frank Chodorov at the Mises Institute
 

Bonus quote from the same article regarding the difference between self interest and selfishness... 

But self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest will impel the manufacturer to improve upon his output so as to attract trade, while selfishness will prompt him to seek the special privileges and state favor that in the end destroy the very system of economic freedom on which he depends. The worker who tries to improve his lot by rendering better service could hardly be called selfish; the description rather fits the worker who demands that he be paid for not working. The subsidy seeker is selfish, and so is every citizen who uses the law to enrich himself at the expense of other citizens.

Quote of the Day: Human freedom means freedom for everyone

When freedom is subjectively defined by each individual, it is reduced to a meaningless abstract.  The only way freedom can be rationally viewed is in its pure, no‑compromise form:  human freedom — the freedom of each individual to do as he pleases, so long as he does not commit aggression against others.

Politicians love to talk about freedom, even while telling us how they intend to further enslave us.  They do this by manufacturing “rights” out of thin air.  The problem is that all artificially created rights are anti-freedom, because in order to fulfill one person’s rights (read, desires), another person’s rights must be violated.  That is precisely what is meant by the infamous statement, “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more.”

The reality is that those who harbor such twisted thinking are actually opposed to freedom.  Often, they are individuals who are unable to achieve success in a free society, thus they yearn for an external force (government) to “level the playing field” and equalize results.  These are the people whose votes the liberal fascists in Washington have cleverly locked up.

True freedom means freedom for the “poor,” freedom for the “rich,” freedom for the “weak,” and freedom for the “strong.”  Human freedom means freedom for everyone.

This is from entrepreneur, motivational speaker and self help author Robert Ringer at his Voice of Sanity website

Quote of the Day: The Fiction of the Mass of the People

Representative government cannot express the will of the mass of the people, because there is no mass of the people; The People is a fiction, like The State. You cannot get a Will of the Mass, even among a dozen persons who all want to go on a picnic. The only human mass with a common will is a mob, and that will is a temporary insanity. In actual fact, the population of a country is a multitude of diverse human beings with an infinite variety of purposes and desires and fluctuating wills. 

In a republic, a majority of the population from time to time decides what a candidate for public office shall have the use of The State’s police power. From time to time, an action of a majority can alter the methods by which men get power, the extent of that power, or the terms upon which they are allowed to keep it. But a majority does not govern; it cannot govern; it acts as a check on its governors. Any government of multitudes of men, anywhere, at any time, must be a man, or few men, in power. There is no way to escape from that fact. 

This is from American author, journalist and libertarian Rose Wilder Lane in her essay Credo (1936) So goes the local populist media concept of the "madlang people"

Quote of the Day: The Right of the Individual’s Happiness

Now let me point out to you that we have not arrived simply at an abstract result, but that this question of liberty as against force will be found to enter into all the great questions of the day. It is the only one real and permanent dividing line between opinions. Whatever party names we may give ourselves, this is the question always waiting for an answer, Do you believe in force and authority, or do you believe in liberty? Hesitations, inconsistencies there may be—men shading off from each side into that third party which in critical and decisive times has become a proverb of weakness—but the two great masses of the thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters of authority, believers in liberty.

What, then, is the creed of liberty, and to what, in accepting it, are we committed? We have seen that there exists a great primary right that as men are placed here for happiness (we need not dispute as to the meaning of the term), so each man must be held to be the judge of his own happiness. No man, or body of men, has the right to wrest this judgment away from their fellow man. It is impossible to deny this, for no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over himself. He cannot possess the right to direct the happiness of another man, unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: and if we grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former right. Indeed to deny this right, or to abridge anything from it, is to reduce the moral world to complete disorder. Deny this right and you have no foundation left for rights of any kind—for justice, political freedom, or political equality—you have established the reign of force, and whatever gloss of civilization you may place over it, you have brought men once more to the “good old plan” on which our fathers stood.

(bold emphasis added) 

This excellent quote is from philosopher and individualist Auberon Edward Herbert in The Widest Possible Liberty written in January 1, 1885

Quote of the Day: The Folly of Institutional Worship

The individual is king, and all these other things exist for the service of the king. It is a mere superstition to worship any institution, as an institution, and not to judge it by its effects upon the character and the interests of men. It is here that socialist and Catholic make the same grand mistake. They exalt the organization, which is in truth as mere dust under our feet; they debase the man, for whose sake the organization and all other earthly things exist. They posit a priori the claims of the external organization as supreme and transcending all profit and loss account, and they call upon men to sacrifice a large part of their higher nature for the sake of this organization. They both of them sacrifice man, the king, to the mere dead instrument that exists for man’s service.

(bold mine)

This excerpt is from writer, theorist, and 19th century individualist Auberon Edward Herbert in a splendid rejoinder against socialist J. A. Hobson in 1899. (libertarianism.org)

Lenten Thoughts for the Day: My Salute to Holy Week Entrepreneurs

Celebrating the Lenten tradition does not eliminate human needs and wants.

So while some entrepreneurs take these as opportunities to benefit financially, in reality, the main beneficiaries are the consuming public especially when many, if not most, people elect to spend time away from work. Life becomes a lot more convenient for the most of us.

Thus I salute entrepreneurs who elect to tradeoff leisure time to open shop when most businesses are closed. This is an example of ethical self-interest which extrapolates into public good.

In the words of investing guru Doug Casey

It's in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people

And the provision of public service through trade is, in effect, loving and servicing one's neighbors, clues of which can be found in the Bible.

From Galatians 5:13-14

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Doug Casey on the Morality of Selfishness

Investing guru Doug Casey on the morality of selfishness and money

let me say one more thing about the issue of selfishness – the virtue of selfishness – and the vice of altruism. Ayn Rand might never forgive me for saying this, but if you take the two concepts – ethical self-interest and concern for others – to their logical conclusions, they actually are the same. It's in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people – that's how Apple became the giant company it is. Conversely, it is not altruistic to help other people. I want all the people around me to be strong and successful. It makes life better and easier for me if they're all doing well. So it's selfish, not altruistic, when I help them.

Read the rest here

Rotarian Ludwig Von Mises' Message To Fellow Rotarians: The Principle Of Solidarity

I am pleased to discover that Dr. Ludwig von Mises was a Rotarian.

And in one of Rotary's tabloid, Dr. von Mises wrote about the principle of solidarity, a message I hope to share with fellow Rotarians.

From Dr. Ludwig von Mises (emphasis added)

"Service" is the device of the Rotarian.

In no sphere of human activity can this principle find an application on a larger scale than in economics. Human society being based on a division of labor, the work of individuals is of necessity piecework only. Every human being performs one task only and his activity is limited to a narrow field. Unaided by the work of others he cannot exist.

The manner in which every individual arranges his life presupposes the activity of other members of society in occupations which harmoniously complement his own work and vice versa. If we consciously specialize in one kind of activity, we can do so only because we count upon other individuals being ready to serve us just as we are prepared to serve them. It is here that the great principle of solidarity, which govern society, comes into play.

The principle of solidarity, however, does not lose its force at the frontiers of a country. Economic solidarity does not unite compatriots only, but it ties together all peoples. The European feeds on, and clothes himself in, the products which America, Asia, Africa, and Australia supply, giving in exchange the fruits of his industrial efforts. The present standard of life of all nations is based on the enormous increase of productivity of human work which has been made possible only by an international division of labor...

To recognize the need for solidarity in economic life and to affirm it by conscious action is service in the sense in which a Rotarian uses the word.

Multiple Intelligence And Human Freedom

Marketing guru Seth Godin makes another fantastic insight about the multiple intelligence of the individual which he calls ironically calls multiple dumbness.

``About twenty five years ago, Howard Gardner taught us his theory of multiple intelligences. He described the fact that there's not just one kind of intelligence, in fact there are at least seven (1 Bodily-kinesthetic, 2 Interpersonal, 3 Verbal-linguistic, 4 Logical-mathematical, 5 Intrapersonal, 6 Visual-spatial, 7 Musical, 8 Naturalistic). This makes perfect sense—people are good at different things." (emphasis added)

In other words, dumbness or intelligence depends on the relative comparison of traits, as no person can claim a monopoly or absolute superiority in all traits.

And such uniqueness makes man superior and complimentary, which highlights the case for human freedom.

Quoting Murray N. Rothbard from Inequality,

``If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own. It is the fact of each person's uniqueness, the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable, that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society." (bold emphasis added)