Doug Casey: Top 5 Reasons Not to Vote

I will be out for the entire week to flee from the drama and hysteria of the coming Philippine national elections where the results will most likely be what Savoyard philosopher, writer and diplomat Joseph de Maistre once sardonically described as "In a democracy, people get the leaders they deserve" or might I say "be careful of what you wish for"

But before doing so, let me share of the splendid top 5 reasons not to vote as propounded by one of my favorite libertarian philosophers, author and investment guru, Doug Casey. 

While Mr Casey addresses this to US voters, I think this applicable universally.

From Doug Casey (thanks to the International Man) [bold mine]

Democracy is vastly overrated.

It's not like the consensus of a bunch of friends agreeing to see the same movie. Most often, it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule, dressed in a coat and tie. The essence of positive values like personal liberty, wealth, opportunity, fraternity, and equality lies not in democracy, but in free minds and free markets where government becomes trivial. Democracy focuses people's thoughts on politics, not production; on the collective, not on their own lives.

Although democracy is just one way to structure a state, the concept has reached cult status; unassailable as political dogma. It is, as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, "a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion." Most of the founders of America were more concerned with liberty than democracy. Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites.

Democracy can work when everyone concerned knows one another, shares the same values and goals, and abhors any form of coercion. It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups.

But once belief in democracy becomes a political ideology, it's necessarily transformed into majority rule. And, at that point, the majority (or even a plurality, a minority, or an individual) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people.

The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form, where each person votes with his money for what he wants in the marketplace. Only then can every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person. That's the polar opposite of the "economic democracy" of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth.

But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings. "Liberal" is certainly one of them.

The Spectrum of Politics

The terms liberal (left) and conservative (right) define the conventional political spectrum; the terms are floating abstractions with meanings that change with every politician.

In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who believed in free speech, social mobility, limited government, and strict property rights. The term has since been appropriated by those who, although sometimes still believing in limited free speech, always support strong government and weak property rights, and who see everyone as a member of a class or group.

Conservatives have always tended to believe in strong government and nation­alism. Bismarck and Metternich were archetypes. Today's conservatives are some­times seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets, although that is mostly true only when those concepts are perceived to coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism.

Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale, running only from left to right, results in constrained thinking. It is as if science were still attempting to define the elements with air, earth, water, and fire.

Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.

According to the current usage, liberals tend to allow social freedom, but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class them­selves as "middle-of-the-roaders") is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.

But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked or, if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.

A useful chart of the political spectrum would look like this:

A libertarian believes that individuals have a right to do anything that doesn't impinge on the common-law rights of others, namely force or fraud. Libertarians are the human equivalent of the Gamma rat, which bears a little explanation.

Some years ago, scientists experimenting with rats categorized the vast major­ity of their subjects as Beta rats. These are basically followers who get the Alpha rats' leftovers. The Alpha rats establish territories, claim the choicest mates, and generally lord it over the Betas. This pretty well-corresponded with the way the researchers thought the world worked.

But they were surprised to find a third type of rat as well: the Gamma. This creature staked out a territory and chose the pick of the litter for a mate, like the Alpha, but didn't attempt to dominate the Betas. A go-along-get-along rat. A libertarian rat, if you will.

My guess, mixed with a dollop of hope, is that as society becomes more repressive, more Gamma people will tune in to the problem and drop out as a solution. No, they won't turn into middle-aged hippies practicing basket weaving and bead stringing in remote communes. Rather, they will structure their lives so that the government—which is to say taxes, regulations, and inflation—is a non-factor. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted, gave a tax and nobody paid, or imposed a regulation and nobody obeyed it?

Libertarian beliefs have a strong following among Americans, but the Liber­tarian Party has never gained much prominence, possibly because the type of people who might support it have better things to do with their time than vote. And if they believe in voting, they tend to feel they are "wasting" their vote on someone who can't win. But voting is itself another part of the problem.

None of the Above

Until 1992, when many decided not to run, at least 98% of incumbents typically retained office. That is a higher proportion than in the Su­preme Soviet of the defunct USSR, and a lower turnover rate than in Britain's hereditary House of Lords where people lose their seats only by dying.

The political system in the United States has, like all systems which grow old and large, become moribund and corrupt.

The conventional wisdom holds a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy. But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility. It could be people saying, "I won't be fooled again, and I won't lend power to them."

Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored. As H.L. Mencken observed, every election amounts to no more than an advance auction on stolen goods, a process few would support if they saw its true nature.

Protesters in the 1960s had their flaws, but they were quite correct when they said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." If politics is the problem, what is the solution? I have an answer that may appeal to you.

The first step in solving the problem is to stop actively encouraging it.

Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting. There are at least five reasons many people do not vote:

1 Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn't participate in them, even indirectly.

2 Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in another government computer database.

3 Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.

4 Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.

5 Your vote doesn't count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That's entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.

Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely "unpatriotic"; that is certainly not my intention. But, unfortunately, America isn't the place it once was, either. The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers.

The founding ideas of the country, which were highly libertarian, have been thoroughly distorted. What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution.

This sorry, scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of joining the process, "working within the system" and "making your voice heard," to ensure that "the bad guys" don't get in. They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices.

This argument compels many sincere people, who otherwise wouldn't dream of coercing their neighbors, to take part in the political process. But it only feeds power to people in politics and government, validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process.

Of course, everybody involved gets something out of it, psychologically if not monetarily. Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who cannot find satisfaction within themselves.

We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler's giant rallies but figure what goes on here, today, is different. Well, it's never quite the same. But the mindless sloganeering, the cult of the personality, and a certainty of the masses that "their" candidate will kiss their personal lives and make them better are identical.

And even if the favored candidate doesn't help them, then at least he'll keep others from getting too much. Politics is the institutionalization of envy, a vice which proclaims "You've got something I want, and if I can't get one, I'll take yours. And if I can't have yours, I'll destroy it so you can't have it either." Participating in politics is an act of ethical bankruptcy.

The key to getting "rubes" (i.e., voters) to vote and "marks" (i.e., contribu­tors) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful, yet decisive. Vapid, venal party hacks can be shaped, like Silly Putty, into salable candidates. People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either "the man" or "the ideas." But few "ideas" are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right buttons. Voting for "the man" doesn't help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed, posed, and rehearsed than any actor.

This is probably more true today than it's ever been since elections are now won on television, and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies. It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts. People with really "new ideas" wouldn't dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas can't be explained in 60 seconds.

I'm not intimating, incidentally, that people disinvolve themselves from their communities, social groups, or other voluntary organizations; just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society. But the political process, or government, is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it. Government is a dead hand on society.

Walter Williams: Self Ownership is the Foundation of Freedom

The great economist Walter Williams explains the ethics of private property: (courtesy of lewrockwell.com) [bold added]

My initial premise, when looking at all human issues, is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are your private property. If you agree with that premise, then certain human actions are moral and others immoral. The reason murder is immoral is that it violates private property. Similarly, rape and theft are immoral, for them, too, violate private property. Most Americans will agree that murder and rape violate people’s property rights and are hence immoral. But there may not be so much agreement about theft. Let’s look at it.

Theft is when a person’s property is taken from him — through stealth, force, intimidation, threats or coercion — and given to another to whom it does not belong. If a person took your property — even to help another person who is in need — it would be called theft. Suppose three people agreed to that taking. Would it be deemed theft? What if 100,000 or several hundred million people agreed to do so? Would that be deemed theft? Another way to ask these questions is: Does a consensus establish morality?

Self-ownership can offer solutions to many seemingly moral/ethical dilemmas. One is the sale of human organs. There is a severe shortage of organs for transplantation. Most people in need of an organdie or become very ill while they await an organ donation. Many more organs would become available if there were a market for them. Through the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, Congress has made organ sales illegal. Congress clearly has the power to prevent organ sales, but does it have a right? The answer to that question comes by asking: Who owns your organs? One test of ownership is whether you have the right to sell something. In the case of organs, if it is Congress that owns our organs, then we have no right to sell them. That would be stealing from Congress.

People have the right to take chances with their own lives. People do not have a right to take chances with the lives of others. That is why laws that mandate that cars have brakes are consistent with liberty and seat belt laws are not. You might say, “Aha, Williams, we’ve got you there because if you don’t wear a seatbelt and you have an accident and turn into a vegetable, society is burdened with taking care of you!” That’s not a problem of liberty. It’s a problem of socialism. Nobody should be forced to take care of me for any reason. If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives. When I was a rebellious teenager, my mother frequently told me, “As long as you’re living in my house and I’m paying the bills, you’re going to do as I say.” That kind of thinking is OK for children, but not for emancipated adults.

I have only touched the surface of ideas of self-ownership. The immorality associated with violation of the principle of self-ownership lies at the root of problems that could lead to our doom as a great nation. In fiscal 2015, total government spending — federal, state and local — was about $6.41 trillion. That’s about 36 percent of our gross domestic product. The federal government spent $3.69 trillion. At least two-thirds of that spending can be described as the government’s taking the property of one American and giving it to another. That’s our moral tragedy: We’ve become a nation of people endeavoring to live at the expense of others — in a word, a nation of thieves.

This applies universally and not just to the Americans.

Quote of the Day: The Real Problem is Government

Libertarian, anarcho capitalist and savvy investor Doug Casey at the International Man expounds on the roots of society's malaise: the government (bold mine)

The essence of something is what makes the thing what it is. But surprisingly little study of government has been done by ontologists (who study the first principles of things) or epistemologists (those who study the nature of human knowledge). The study of government almost never concerns itself with whether government should be, but only with how and what it should be. The existence of government is accepted without question.

What is the essence of government? After you cut through the rhetoric, the doublethink, and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force…and the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient. Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, "The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun." There is no voluntarism about obeying laws. The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, seldom given with any enthusiasm.

A person's attitude about government offers an excellent insight into his character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another; they offer a practical insight into how he views humanity at large and himself in particular.

There are only two ways people can relate in any given situation: voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism, but government is viewed as somehow exempt. It's widely believed that a group has prerogatives and rights unavailable to individuals. But if that is true, then the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – or, for that matter, any group from a lynch mob to a government – all have rights that individuals do not. In fact, all these groups believe they have a right to initiate the use of force when they find it expedient. To the extent that they can get away with it, they all act like governments.

You might object that the important difference between the KKK, IRA, PLO, a simple mob and a government is that they aren't "official" or "legal."

Apart from common law concepts, legality is arbitrary. Once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between "laws" of governments and the "ad hoc" proceedings of an informal assemblage such as a mob, or of a more formal group like the KKK, boils down to the force the group can muster to impose its will on others. The laws of Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. are now widely recognized as criminal fantasies that gained reality on a grand scale. But at the time those regimes had power, they were treated with the respect granted to any legal system. Governments become legal or official by gaining power. The fact that every government was founded on gross illegalities – war or revolt – against its predecessor is rarely an issue.

Force is the essence of government. But the possession of a monopoly on force almost inevitably requires a territory, and maintaining control of territory is considered the test of a "successful" government. Would any "terrorist" organization be more "legitimate" if it had its own country? Absolutely. Would it be any less vicious or predatory by that fact? No, just as most governments today (the ex-communist countries and the kleptocracies of the Third World being the best examples) demonstrate. Governments can be much more dangerous than the mobs that give them birth. The Jacobin regime of the French Revolution is a prime example.

Quote of the Day: Liberalism is No religion, No World View, No Party of Special Interests

Liberalism is no religion, no world view, no party of special interests. It is no religion because it demands neither faith nor devotion, because there is nothing mystical about it, and because it has no dogmas. It is no world view because it does not try to explain the cosmos and because it says nothing and does not seek to say anything about the meaning and purpose of human existence. It is no party of special interests because it does not provide or seek to provide any special advantage whatsoever to any individual or any group. It is something entirely different. It is an ideology, a doctrine of the mutual relationship among the members of society and, at the same time, the application of this doctrine to the conduct of men in actual society. It promises nothing that exceeds what can be accomplished in society and through society. It seeks to give men only one thing, the peaceful, undisturbed development of material well-being for all, in order thereby to shield them from the external causes of pain and suffering as far as it lies within the power of social institutions to do so at all. To diminish suffering, to increase happiness: that is its aim.

No sect and no political party has believed that it could afford to forgo advancing its cause by appealing to men's senses. Rhetorical bombast, music and song resound, banners wave, flowers and colors serve as symbols, and the leaders seek to attach their followers to their own person. Liberalism has nothing to do with all this. It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory.

This is from the great Austrian Economist Ludwig von Mises, excerpted from Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition, published at the Mises Institute Wire

For Many Greeks, Taxes have been seen as Theft…

…and thus massive tax avoidance and the huge informal economy.

The Wall Street Journal explains: (bold mine)

Of all the challenges Greece has faced in recent years, prodding its citizens to pay their taxes has been one of the most difficult.

At the end of 2014, Greeks owed their government about €76 billion ($86 billion) in unpaid taxes accrued over decades, though mostly since 2009. The government says most of that has been lost to insolvency and only €9 billion can be recovered.

Billions more in taxes are owed on never-reported revenue from Greece’s vast underground economy, which was estimated before the crisis to equal more than a quarter of the country’s gross domestic product.

The International Monetary Fund and Greece’s other creditors have argued for years that the country’s debt crisis could be largely resolved if the government just cracked down on tax evasion. Tax debts in Greece equal about 90% of annual tax revenue, the highest shortfall among industrialized nations, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Greece’s new government, scrambling to secure more short-term funding, agreed on Tuesday to make tax collection a top priority on a long list of measures. Yet previous governments have made similar promises, only to fall short.

Tax rates in Greece are broadly in line with those elsewhere in Europe. But Greeks have a widespread aversion to paying what they owe the state, an attitude often blamed on cultural and historical forces.

During the country’s centuries long occupation by the Ottomans, avoiding taxes was a sign of patriotism. Today, that distrust is focused on the government, which many Greeks see as corrupt, inefficient and unreliable.

“Greeks consider taxes as theft,” said Aristides Hatzis, an associate professor of law and economics at the University of Athens. “Normally taxes are considered the price you have to pay for a just state, but this is not accepted by the Greek mentality.”

The above article manifests of rich political economic insights.

 

One, the typical approach by political agents in addressing economic disorders has mainly been to focus on superficiality or the immediacy—in particular “could be largely resolved if the government just cracked down on tax evasion”. 

Political solutions that fail to understand the incentives guiding the average Greeks has been the reason why tax policies continue to falter.

Two, just to be sure that non-payment of taxes hasn’t been the reason why Greeks have been struggling…

Nominal government spending based on tradingeconomics.com and Eurostat data

The above represents Greek’s government spending relative to GDP

Greece’s government debt relative to GDP (tradingeconomics and Eurostat)

Greece and Europe’s welfare state in % of GDP based on OECD data

As one can see in the above, the controversial “austerity” exists only in the mindset of the statist occult. The Greek government continues to spend at a rate more than the statistical economy and thus the ballooning debt which consequently translates to heightened economic burden on the Greek society.

Three, Greece’s (and the Eurozone’s) boom bust cycle have only exposed on the chink in the armor of Greece’s big government.

The dilemma facing Greece today exemplifies the paragon of radical changes in fiscal conditions when the bust phase of the boom cycle emerges.

This can be seen from the article: (bold mine) 

The reason isn’t just political, but economic. The country’s depression has already pushed many small businesses to the brink of collapse. Forcing them to pay more in taxes would put even more out of business—and more Greeks out of work.

“The Greek economy would collapse if the government were to force these people to pay taxes,” one senior government official said.

So the above data shows why many Greeks see their government as “corrupt, inefficient and unreliable” for them to “consider taxes as theft”

It doesn’t require a libertarian of the Rothbardian persuasion to see how taxes are theft. 

All it takes is for one to see with two eyes the real nature of how governments operates. This has been best described in the article as “corrupt, inefficient and unreliable”. 

Nonetheless here is the dean of Austrian Economics, the great Murray N. Rothbard on taxes. (For A New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto, p.30 )

Take, for example, the institution of taxation, which statists have claimed is in some sense really “voluntary.” Anyone who truly believes in the “voluntary” nature of taxation is invited to refuse to pay taxes and to see what then happens to him. If we analyze taxation, we find that, among all the persons and institutions in society, only the government acquires its revenues through coercive violence. Everyone else in society acquires income either through voluntary gift (lodge, charitable society, chess club) or through the sale of goods or services voluntarily purchased by consumers. If anyone but the government proceeded to “tax,” this would clearly be considered coercion and thinly disguised banditry. Yet the mystical trappings of “sovereignty” have so veiled the process that only libertarians are prepared to call taxation what it is: legalized and organized theft on a grand scale.

For the Greeks, the logical solution would seem as to dramatically pare down government spending and taxes or real austerity. These should ease tax burdens on the entrepreneurs or the productive agents that would allow them to channel resources to productive means. This should entail real economic growth.

In doing so, the informal economy should flourish and grow for the latter to integrate with the formal economy voluntarily.

But it’s not just taxes, there is the exigency to incentivize entrepreneurial activities via liberalization from excessive politicization of economic activities, specifically regulations, mandates, controls and all other politically erected anti-competition obstacles favoring entrenched interests. 

Importantly, the Greeks should embrace sound money by preventing the government from tinkering with interest rates, and the currency via the central bank and allow real competition in both the currency and the banking system.

Of course, given the size of the debt burden, debt that had benefited politicians and cronies of the past, such debt has to be defaulted on. Creditors who took the risk in financing the previous government excesses should pay their dues.

But of course, parasites would not want to end their privileges so this will hardly be the route taken. 

Politicians will continue to sell free lunch politics in order to get elected and stay the course. 

So after winning on such populist platform, the Tsipras government’s sellout to the Troika and the Eurogroup reinforces this dynamic

But since Greek’s problem has been about economics, the solution will always be about economics. Yet political solutions that fails to address the real (and not statistical) economic issues will have inevitable economic consequences.

I am reminded by this gem from author and professor Thomas Sowell:

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

Yet my ideal solution is the Rothbard solution; end organized theft.

Swiss Politics: The Birth of a Libertarian Party UP!, “Unabhängige Partei”

Global financial strategist George Dorgan of the SNBCHF blog writes: (bold original)

On June 18th, 2014, the new radical libertarian party UP!, “Unabhängige Partei”, Independent Party was founded, a party that is independent of the state, independent of the prevailing corporatism and collectivism, independent of the new Big Brother System that is built to preserve the feudal power of existing collectives.

UP! is neither left nor right. It is simply radically libertarian.

UP! wants

-A radical dismantling of the power of the state

-Less and more simple taxes

-Stronger tax competition and therefore an abolishment of the inter-cantonal fiscal equalisation scheme

-Reduction of debt

-Reduction of public services, of social security systems and of the public redistribution

-A gradual replacement of the public pension system (AHV)  

Neutral Switzerland without restrictions on immigration and trade 

-An independent and neutral Switzerland

-A Swiss entry in EU or NATO are no option.

-Abolishment of foreign aid, that wastes resources, but an unilateral introduction of free trade

-Free migration (without access to social security systems)

-Privatisation of the asylum system   

Self-determined life 

-Legalisation of all drugs

-No infantilizing of the individual: Against curfews, against bans on gambling, on advertising, on “killer games”, on alcohol in public places

-Easier access to euthanasia

-Abolishment of the universal military conscription No taxes for the promotion of culture   

UP’s current campaigns are:

-Abolishment of TV license fees - No Billag

-Against the Big Brother State, against the BÜPF - www.buepf.ch.

Good luck to the “UP Schweiz”!

Mises Institute’s Jeff Deist: Memorial Day and the Meaning of Freedom

I’ve noticed that almost everyone believes in freedom, except that  their understanding of freedom has been arbitrary: they believe freedom for themselves but not freedom for the others. And so the foundation for the intense competition for the use of social policies to achieve unilateral freedom--via coercion.

In celebration of Memorial Day in the US, Mises Institute’s Jeff Deist explains in brevity the real meaning of Freedom. From Mises Blog (italics original, bold mine)

Memorial Day provides the political class countless opportunities to ruin an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable holiday weekend.  Like clockwork, local congressmen, mayors, city council members, et al. materialize at parades, picnics, and churches to give speeches about “freedom.”

But what does freedom really mean?

Just as we should repudiate Junk English in economics, we should demand precision when it comes to the language of political posturing! In other words, we should insist that politicians use defined terms (I’m not holding my breath).

In essence, freedom is the absence of state coercion. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

Dr. Ron Paul explains this coercive reality behind those invoking freedom while advocating state action:

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

Taking this definition a step further, Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes a free society as the absence of aggression against one’s body and property:

A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard similarly defined freedom as the “absence of invasion by another man of any man’s person or property” (italics in original).

This encapsulates the critical libertarian concept of negative liberty, as opposed to the view of positive liberty in the form of mastery over one’s person and surroundings generally favored by “progressives.”

This definition of freedom is fundamental.  It means free people should be able to use their minds, bodies, and talents to advance their well-being (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) as they see fit.  It does not mean they can demand freedom from material want, or scarcity, or illness, or unhappiness, or unpleasantness generally.  It does not mean anyone owes them housing, medical care, food, or a “living wage.” It means, in sum, the freedom to be left alone.  And this is precisely what the political class of all stripes cannot abide.

Real freedom applies to everyone.

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.

Lew Rockwell: What Libertarianism is and isn’t

From the founder and chairman of Mises Institute Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr. at the LewRockwell.com (bold mine)

Libertarianism is concerned with the use of violence in society. That is all. It is not anything else. It is not feminism. It is not egalitarianism (except in a functional sense: everyone equally lacks the authority to aggress against anyone else). It has nothing to say about aesthetics. It has nothing to say about race or nationality. It has nothing to do with left-wing campaigns against “white privilege,” unless that privilege is state-supplied.

Let me repeat: the only “privilege” that matters to a libertarian qua libertarian is the kind that comes from the barrel of the state’s gun. Disagree with this statement if you like, but in that case you will have to substitute some word other than libertarian to describe your philosophy.

Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism. Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians. We have seen enough of our words twisted and appropriated by others. We do not mean to let them have libertarian.

As Rothbard put it:

“There are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.

Libertarians are unsuited to the thought-control business. It’s difficult enough trying to persuade people to adopt views dramatically opposed to what they have been taught throughout their lives. If we can persuade them of the nonaggression principle, we should be delighted. There is no need to complicate things by arbitrarily imposing a slate of regime-approved opinions on top of the core teaching of our philosophy.

Libertarianism is a beautiful and elegant edifice of thought and practice. It begins with and logically builds upon the principle of self-ownership. In the society it calls for, no one may initiate physical force against anyone else. What this says about the libertarian’s view of moral enormities ranging from slavery to war should be obvious, but the libertarian commitment to freedom extends well beyond the clear and obvious scourges of mankind.

Our position is not merely that the state is a moral evil, but that human liberty is a tremendous moral good. Human beings ought to interact with each other on the basis of reason – their distinguishing characteristic – rather than with hangmen and guns. And when they do so, the results, by a welcome happenstance, are rising living standards, an explosion in creativity and technological advance, and peace. Even in the world’s partially capitalist societies, hundreds of millions if not billions of people have been liberated from the miserable, soul-crushing conditions of hand-to-mouth existence in exchange for far more meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Libertarianism, in other words, in its pure and undiluted form, is intellectually rigorous, morally consistent, and altogether exciting and thrilling. It need not and should not be fused with any extraneous ideology. This can lead only to confusion, and to watering down the central moral claims, and the overall appeal, of the message of liberty.

Cheers!

Quote of the Day: Defense of Liberty Must Emphasize on Principle versus Expediency

What must be developed is a case for freedom that starts with a better demonstration and defense of the nature of man in the world and what is necessary for his survival and improvement. In an age in which religion has lost it hold and appeal for many, such a defense of freedom must have its basis in reason, logic and objective reality.

Central to such a new defense of liberty must be its emphasis on principle versus expediency; that freedom is a tightly woven tapestry of principles that when compromised “at the margin” between individual liberty and political paternalism has the risk of incremental loses of freedom that cumulatively run the danger of an unplanned but no less serious “road to serfdom.”

As Friedrich Hayek argued, minor or marginal “exceptions” to advance seemingly “good causes” through government regulation, redistribution, or planning, always threaten to become a slippery slope:

“The preservation of a free system is so difficult precisely because it requires a constant rejection of measures which appear to be required to secure particular results, on no stronger grounds than that they conflict with a general rule [of non-government intervention], and frequently without our knowing what will be the costs of not observing the rule in the particular instance. A successful defense of freedom must therefore be dogmatic and make no concessions to expediency, even where it is not possible to show that, besides the known beneficial effects, some particular harmful result would also follow from its infringement. Freedom will prevail only if it is accepted as a general principle whose application to particular instances requires no justification. It is thus a misunderstanding to blame classical liberalism for having been too doctrinaire. Its defect was not that it adhered too stubbornly to principles, but rather that it lacked principles sufficiently definite to provide clear guidance . . .

“People will not refrain from those restrictions on individual liberty that appear to them the simplest and most direct remedy of a recognized evil, if there does not prevail a strong belief in definite principles. The loss of such belief and the preference for expediency is no part the result of the fact that we no longer have any principles that can be rationally defended.”

As Hayek argued on another occasion, if the cause of liberty is to prevail once again, it is necessary for friends of freedom to not be afraid of being radical in their case for classical liberalism – even “utopian” in a right meaning of the term. To once more make it a shining and attractive ideal to imagine a world of free men who are no longer slaves to others, whether they be monarchs or majorities.

It would be a world of sovereign individuals who respect each other, who treat each other with dignity and who view each other as an end in himself, rather than one of those pawns to be moved and sacrificed on that chessboard of society to serve the ends of another who presumes to impose coercive control over his fellow human beings.

This is an excerpt from a speech by American libertarian author and Northwood University economics professor Dr. Richard Ebeling published at the Northwood Blog (hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Quote of the Day: Gandhi was no (liberartian) saint

Politicians and bureaucrats are corrupt, driven by baser instincts. They make money for themselves and for their families. Gandhi’s ambition was limited to becoming a saint, often at the cost of his family. Being corrupt is bad enough, but what kind of warped thinking does it require to be corrupt and still not use it materially for the self and the family, while providing a cover for others to rape and plunder? Gandhi’s character should inspire an utter cringe.

Gandhi was a loony. He could never evolve beyond sex and vegetarianism. His understanding of religion was more of a dogma than an appreciation for deeper things in life. He attempted to do some basic experiments though not of the kind too different from what a five year old child does when playing with round stones or water. He drank his own urine, which had no rational medicinal basis even in those days

So difficult it was for Gandhi to understand his sexuality that even at his old age, he shared his bed with different young women, his disciples, calling this “nature cure”. He did this to practice his control on “brahmacharya” (celibacy). In Gandhi’s view experiment of sleeping naked with women helped him in contemplating upon social problems. He involved his 19-year old niece in his experiments. Another was the 16-year old wife of Gandhi’s great-nephew. There were many others, at least some of them married. Most likely, he did not have sex with these women. In what Gandhi did, the women ended up being guinea pigs of his human experiments and faced humiliation in a deeply conservative society.

Were Gandhi not looking for sainthood, he would have been more kind with his family. He would not have fought the English. He would have spread the message of freedom he learnt in England. He would have used the English to liberate the Indian society from its very deep-rooted dogmas. He would have listened to Tagore. Alas, “freedom” for him and for the top people in India’s “freedom movement” was more of a socialist construct heavily influenced by personal political motivations. Very likely, Gandhi did not even understand what Tagore meant.

Gandhi was no saint. In fact, I feel ashamed writing about someone who was a common human from the masses, with simplistic beliefs and conduct. His mistakes and sins were nothing unusual in the ever-contradictory and hypocritical cesspool that Indian society exists in. He was not to be one, but it was the accidents of the history that gave him a position of a saint. He was not responsible for killing anyone. If he did, he did not consciously mean to. His work might have and indeed did cause a lot of pain, but that was not really his mistake, for he did not have the foresight to look much further in life, not too unlike someone who does a 9-to-5 job and cannot think beyond his evening beer to understand the consequences of his actions. He deserves no place in history and certainly not in the libertarian philosophy, either as a hero or as a villain.

This interesting quote is from Jayant Bhandari writing at the Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada.

No Financial-Stock Market Commentary

I will spend my weekend away from the computer to be with my family to celebrate a special day. This also seems an opportune time to get some relief…

from the Johari window of libertarianism…

So there will be no financial stock market commentary this weekend.

Thanks for your patronage.

Have a great weekend.

Video: Murray Rothbard: The Government is not Us

As excerpted from the Murray N. Rothbard's "For A New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto" p.60-64.

From the Liberty Pen (hat tip Bob Wenzel)

UK’s Blossoming Libertarian Movement?; The Clash of Generations

The libertarian movement seems to be blossoming among English youths.

The Economist observes:

Polls show that the young are more relaxed than others about drugs, sex, alcohol, euthanasia and non-traditional family structures. They dislike immigration, but not as strongly as do their elders. And they are becoming ever more liberal. The BSA has tracked attitudes for three decades. It shows that the young are now far more tolerant of homosexuality, for example, than were previous generations at the same age.

Experimenters with new technologies, fashions and ideas, young people in Britain and elsewhere have long tweaked established social institutions. But their iconoclasm goes further than this. Young Britons are classical liberals: as well as prizing social freedom, they believe in low taxes, limited welfare and personal responsibility. In America they would be called libertarians.

Here is where it gets interesting:

More than two-thirds of people born before 1939 consider the welfare state “one of Britain’s proudest achievements”. Less than one-third of those born after 1979 say the same. According to the BSA, members of Generation Y are not just half as likely as older people to consider it the state’s responsibility to cover the costs of residential care in old age. They are also more likely to take such a hard-hearted view than were members of the famously jaded Generation X (born between 1966 and 1979) at the same stage of life.

The above shows of the intensifying generational conflict brought about by the welfare state.

People “born before 1939” have been the primary beneficiaries of UK’s welfare programs which originated during the 1906-1914 Liberal Welfare Reforms era.  In a Ponzi scheme, they represent the initial investors whose "return" “are “paid out of the investments of new entrants”.  

The new entrants in today’s Ponzi-welfare programs are the young generation, who plays the role of funding the entitlements of the Liberal Welfare generation, which has been intermediated by UK’s welfare state. 

The fragile state of UK’s fiscal conditions reveals that welfare expenditures account for the 25.9% of GDP according to the Wikipedia.org.  This has substantially contributed to the UK’s deteriorating debt conditions now at 90% of GDP. The above chart reveals of the breakdown of UK’s government spending budget

Given the increasing burden from entitlements which has been shouldered by today’s youths, welfare programs are getting to be less appreciated. The wider the generation gap, the more likely resistance on welfare policies.

Add to this globalization and the deepening of the information age,  the rise of UK classical liberals would seem like a natural outgrowth

Yet should libertarian politics deepen, this will likely worsen generational conflict at the risks of triggering social upheaval. Parasites will struggle to resist from losing their hosts.

Nonetheless UK classical liberal-libertarians seem as gaining significant grounds in terms of politics. 

The UK’s Independence Party (UKIP) said to be a democratic libertarian party headed by Nigel Farage may win next year’s European Parliament elections.

From Daily Mail

David Cameron expects the UK Independence Party to win next year’s European Parliament elections despite his pledge to hold an in/out referendum on Europe.

A senior Conservative source said it was now taken as a ‘reasonable assumption’ in Downing Street that UKIP would top the poll next May – sparking a fresh round of Tory bloodletting on Europe just 12 months before the General Election.

The UKIP also performed strongly in the latest local elections.

From the Telegraph:

Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, was jubilant after it emerged that one in four voters supported Ukip in the elections in 35 councils in England and Wales.

The rise of the party cost the Conservatives three local authorities, although Ukip did not win control of any councils.

So the rising politics of decentralization or the renaissance of classical liberalism likewise chimes with the deepening of the information age.

Incidentally, in the latest protest against the Turkish government, this headline seem to herald the spreading of classical liberal-libertarian movement across the world (hat tip Cato’s David Boaz)

Protesters are young, libertarian and furious at Turkish PM, says survey