Fatal Errors of today’s prevalent Philosophies 2

Selfishness is immoral and unethical. Today, this is preached virtually everywhere. You hear it at Church, you are taught about it by your parents, you see it in the movies, spoken directly by its heroes or embedded deeply into their lines, you read about it in books, and you are told so by the radio commentators. It is so deeply rooted into our culture that it is not even brought into question – it is automatically assumed that everyone agrees with it. Even the world’s most selfish people – and here I expect to hear a near unanimous approval when I say that it’s the businessmen (except from the businessmen themselves, and I salute the exceptions) – will preach against selfishness out of passionate conviction that selflessness and sacrifice is the way to go. It is, however, imperative to change this deeply rooted conviction by speaking the words that need to be spoken. Selfishness is moral. Selfishness is ethical.

Let’s see what we are taught about selfishness. I was raised as Christian and so I had my share of religious education back when I was a kid. What do preachers who give religious education tell kids? Kid’s stories. One of the stories went thus: A kid buys himself a bag of candies. He is then approached by his friends and is asked to share some of the candies. However, the kid is then called selfish because he decides not to share and keep all the candies for himself. His friends abandon him for his “selfishness” and he is left all alone with his candies. He eats them all and then decides to play with his friends. However, his former friends don’t want him any more, because he would not share the candy with them. And so the kid is all alone. This is a story carefully crafted for the ears of the children. It is an attack at something that’s called “selfishness” in the story. It doesn’t really matter what selfishness really is; what matters is that it has been denounced. But, a clever ruse has been played against the children who listen to the story – much too clever to be noticed by young children, and is rarely, if ever, questioned by adults. From the above story, what do children learn about selfishness? They learn that selfishness means keeping everything for oneself. They learn that it is the opposite of sharing. However, this is incorrect. While the word – selfishness – remained the same, it’s meaning has been twisted. A selfish man is not the man who claims everything as his own and keeps them for himself. A selfish man is the man who claims as his own the things he’s earned and these things he keeps for his own sake. I’m not sure whether you understand the subtle difference between “keeps [...] for himself” and “keeps for his own sake”, so I shall clarify. The former means what you probably already know – to keep for the sole purpose of consuming on one’s own, without sharing with others. But the latter means to keep in order to improve one’s life, by means of any action that was done with the use of the thing that was kept.

There are many ways in which one man can improve his life, and also many ways do make it worse. One may wish to improve his social life. This he could do by meeting new people, doing someone he already knows small favors, taking them out for a drink, merely talking to them in a friendly manner, etc. All of these actions can have profoundly selfish motives, as great pleasure in life can be derived from having close friends. Take the kid from the story – it is the perfect example of this. The kid is left without friends in the end, and has nobody to play with. He is sad because of that, because he is denied the pleasure of playing a game with his friends. To this kid, and undoubtedly to most of the children in the world, a game with their friends is a high value. However, kids aren’t always clear about what they want more, but as adults we can tell that a little candy is by far a lesser value.

What is selfishness in regard to values? Selfishness is a a pursuit of a higher value. Given a choice, a selfish person would choose that which is more valuable to him, and remember, values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep. A higher value is the one which one desires or needs more than some other. A selfish person will, thus, take into account if keeping a value would mean the loss of another value, because this affects his “balance” in the end. If keeping a lesser value (such as candy) means the loss of a greater value (friends), then a selfish person chooses friends, and shares the candy. Therefore, the kid from the story was in fact selfless, because his actions resulted in a loss of value (whereas a selfish one acts so as to gain value). Of course, children cannot understand these kinds of implications, so if a kid from the story was truly selfish, then he woud eventually learn his mistake and apologize to his friends, and perhaps get some candy to share with them next time. That’s in fact, how I would end the story if I was to explain “selfishness” to anyone.

Note that I’m not here inverting our moral code. I’m just being consistent. If selfishness means pursuing a higher value, then a selfish person is the one I described and that’s so by mere implication. But you might say, that we don’t need to change terms now, that we’re used to saying that the person I described here is selfless, and that it’s all just how we decide to call the concept. In fact, that’s not true, because this inversion in terms is today not just a mistake. It is a mistake which is abused by many to scare people into not being consistently selfish, because resurrecting selfishness from the darker pages of our philosophies implies resurrecting pride, individualism, integrity, productivity, etc. as well as redefining courage and other virtues. Certain institutions today are so inherently collectivist that they cannot handle individualism, or even personal freedoms in their true form. For these institutions to work you need to preserve your double standard of living for your sake when you’re left alone, but paying your due to the collective as well. I’m not talking only by Church here; luckily, Church now survives by voluntary donations. This is also about taxes which you pay to the state/country, and that includes people you mainly don’t even know, don’t care about, or even hate. Naturally, with the compromised philosophical background, most people feel like paying their taxes is what makes them citizens of a country. I won’t get into the discussion why that view is incorrect. What I’m appealing to, however, is how far they are willing to go. Today, for an average businessman in Croatia, nearly 80% of the money he’s earned ends up as tax, as paid health care, pensions, etc. Now a new tax has been proposed, and many don’t seem to mind. Slowly the state is taking more and more money from its citizens claiming it’s their duty to give it to them. To bring back selfishness means to undermine that system; it means to say – no, my “duty” is to myself and my own, and therefore, you need to find other ways to finance yourself; it means to at the very least start criticizing the way the governments invest our money, and ultimately to decide to withdraw that money. The governments can’t have that. They’d rather go with the ethics of duty and selflessness.

To be continued…

The EU shows its true, evil face

This is it. The masks are off now. But very few remain who dare to see what was hidden behind them.

The European Union had confirmed the fine of 497 million euros to Microsoft for the alleged abuse of its monopoly. Microsoft is now forced to reveal its software secrets to the competition. The lawyers see this as a great victory and others claim that it “creates a level playing field”. Level for whom? For everyone? It doesn’t seem to be level for Microsoft.

But what is Microsoft really being punished for? Did they steal something; or have they defrauded anyone? No, the Commission is clear on this, Microsoft is being punished for asserting itself on the market. Putting it more explicitly, Microsoft is being punished for offering us free Web browsers, free media players, free updates and security fixes, etc. It is not being punished because they are evil, but because their operating systems run 90% of the world’s computers, and because with these operating systems users get truckloads of free stuff, such as what I mentioned above; it is being punished because it saves its users the trouble of downloading all those tools, or having to buy it for additional money; in other words, Microsoft is being punished because it is so good.

Microsoft is, among other things, being forced to distribute its operating system without some of these tools. Now just think about this for a minute. Let’s say you get your new computer delivered at home. So, now you want to watch a video on it. But hey, there’s no Media Player installed. You couldn’t afford it. But there are free players on-line; the Internet is virtually crawling with them. So you try to find it, but hey again – your browser’s not there! Haven’t they used to install those for free? In any case, you don’t have it, so you have to get it from your friend or buy a next issue of some software magazine which you’re probably not interested in reading, just to get your free copy.

So yo do that, and now you’re connected. You type the search terms into whatever search engine you use and it spews out hundreds of thousands results. And you click the link, you download the software, you install it. Suddenly, your computer seems to behave oddly. Curiously enough, the program you downloaded doesn’t seem to play videos, and there’s an odd looking porno ad rotating on it constantly. You think it might be a virus – but you can’t know, because you don’t have any anti-virus protection. At some point, you remember, Windows had a firewall of its own. Now it doesn’t. So you go and download your brand new anti-virus and a firewall. These too can be found free, but you think to yourself that you might just end up with another virus, so you buy yourself something just to make sure. Besides, it’s a known brand, say Norton.

Norton finds your virus, isolates it, but recommends also that you download Microsoft’s security patches. But when you go and do that, you realize you can’t. And then it hits you that Microsoft was once forbidden to further distribute free patches for its operating system, because they make their software more competitive on the market than when it was first launched; thus, Microsoft has to charge their users for these fixes, so as to make people more “motivated” to buy lesser software from other companies.

Well, the story may go on and on. What does this mean for the end user? More and more trouble. The story may be a bit exaggerated – that’s clearly not the situation that will arise directly from this verdict, but it is a precedent that opens the doors to such a future. But what is at the root of such a verdict? They claim it creates “level playing field” and that it “restores conditions for fair competition”. The question is again – for whom? Whoever it is, this decision, being a precedent, will most certainly level the field – into market statism.

Consider this idea of competition as a flat panel. You have certain areas on that panel, each representing a company. The size of an area represents how much of the market each company holds. It seems that the idea of leveling the playing field means that each of these areas is of the same size. Let it be so. Now, consider that one of these companies has hired a genius in its field, who invents a completely new kind of product or service that the company he works for can sell, and which can also have great success on the market. Normally, this genius will want to receive additional payment for such an invention, but in this game called the “level playing field” he simply can’t do that. By laws he must give his secret for free to all the companies on the board – otherwise his own company, or the company he works for, will start taking up more and more space on the panel as more and more users will want this new, brilliant product.

What do the laws of this so-called fair play do to this man? They say “No, you can’t have the fruits of your labor; you must selflessly share with others because the ‘playing field’ must be ‘level’.” In other words, the genius of this man is stifled; he is being told to conform to the majority.

Precedents such as this, as is clear, enslave man and that which is best within him – his rational thought, his creativity, his desire to improve his life and to live it to the best of his ability.

The lawyers are overjoyed by the verdict; they are overjoyed by the fact that they can attack the good of man in this perverted way. This is what I mean when I say that the masks are off. The goal of the looters who brought this about isn’t to help anyone. By the above scenario, which is bound to happen if such terrible trend of punishing the good continues, their goal is to destroy the achievers, in this case Microsoft, and by consequence, whether they are aware of it or not, make the lives more difficult for everyone. They have won the precedent which allows them to regroup, organize and make further, even viler attacks on that which is best in man.

Let’s take another look at what this decision really means. They say that stopping Microsoft from distributing its own free software with its own operating systems will create more choices on the market. What exactly does this mean? It means absolutely nothing. There already is a wide variety of software on the Internet which does exactly the same thing that Microsoft’s products do, so the users have plenty options to begin with. Oh, but, the story continues, it’s not just about having a choice, it’s also about making one. Microsoft is actually being punished for allegedly making that choice for many people by offering them their product for free.

Pardon me if I’m wrong, but are the majority of people mindless drones who make do with whatever is shoved into their lives? That’s what the above suggests – that people are unable to make their own choice about what software they are going to use for whatever purpose; that they are unable to see the drawbacks and the benefits of one piece of software and the other; that they are not able to judge for themselves which of these two programs are better for what they will use the software; and ultimately that they are not able to make choices in order to improve their lives. Instead, it suggests, they take what they get and keep quiet about it, so the courts must step in to speak on their behalf.

It is true – Windows Media Player covers the needs of video and music playing for most people, and it even has some neat other tools. And it is true that people, once they have this particular player, will not seek anything else – because they are satisfied. But is this what Microsoft is being punished – for making its customers satisfied? If that’s it, then we’re back at punishing the good for being the good. Is Microsoft being punished for going to great lengths to satisfy its customers? Then it’s the story of punishing the good for wanting to be better. Or is it being punished for offering a bundle of products, all virtually for free, which seem to be good enough for a vast majority of people? Then the verdict is a punishment of the good for trying to be the best.

Whatever it is, there is no escaping the fact that with this decision, the Commission, and the European Union has shown its true face; the face mingled with the raging hatred of man and the best within him; the face of the looter and that of the destroyer of values. This is a small victory for them, but it is also a foothold. They’ve come this far today; but who knows how far they will dare to go tomorrow.

For all these reasons, I am denouncing this decision and I am calling upon everyone with the slightest light of love for man and life, to do the same. Not because of Microsoft, or because you feel like it, but because you know that the verdict is all wrong – that it is an attack on the best within man; an attack on the achievers, not the looters; and because it is an attack staged by the looters.

The response to a letter sent to ExxonMobil

When I received an e-mail from The Ayn Rand Institute, claiming that two American senators, John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe have sent a letter to ExxonMobil, “urging” the company to end the funding of groups and individuals who reject the idea of global warming, my first response was a gasp and a question “What?”

First of all, I was surprised, and I mean positively, that there is in fact a company which funds such things. I’m coming from a country where “large corporations” do not even endeavor into funding projects with better than good success probability, let alone things which are not expected to bring any foreseeable profit at all. These “large corporations” in Croatia are technically owned by the government, although the people who speak in their name usually take the blame for all the wrong-doings and non-doings of that company.

Second, I was surprised, and this time negatively, that the senators of a supposedly free nation would interfere with the workings of a company. To make things straight, I think that rational persuasion is a proper tool of spreading an idea to other people. Any other method is a violation of other people’s rights. I did not know whether the method in the letter was rational persuasion, but it seemed odd to me that two senators would ask such a thing of a company, particularly because I flinch every time I hear the name of a government official and the name of a corporation mentioned in the same sentence. My rule of thumb tells me that in such cases it’s about the government interfering with private businesses, and I am very much against that.

In order to find out what this was all about, I have googled the key terms and names mentioned in an e-mail from ARI and found the text of the letter in question. What I discovered is that the letter did not give any rational argument for why ExxonMobil should stop funding the groups it funds. Instead, the letter appeals to ExxonMobil’s “sense of stewardship of [its] corporate citizenship” in order to “end it’s dangerous support of the ‘deniers’” because “[it has] made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.”

The sentiments expressed by that appeal are nonsensical at best. In effect, they state that the decisions of one American corporation have incapacitated the US government to properly execute its (primarily foreign) policies. It states that these policies are now somehow rendered less moral because of it. Where are they rendered less moral? The letter gives an answer to that too. “[...] climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil [...] has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally.”

Now, I am convinced that the government’s first duty is to its citizens. The proper government is required to protect it’s citizens’ rights no matter what, in both domestic and foreign issues, and these rights include the right to free speech. The only way, therefore, for the US to keep their “stature” internationally is to consistently practice this principle. It is ExxonMobil’s right to fund whatever organization, group, or individual it deems appropriate, regardless of the validity of the ideas they uphold. Therefore, it is not ExxonMobil who is jeopardizing the moral clarity of the US – it is the senators!

Not only do they ask of ExxonMobil to stop doing what it has the right to do, they also “[...] believe ExxonMobil should take steps to improve the public debate”, and they “[...] recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it”. They claim “[...] ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history.” And certainly the most unspeakable, “[... they] believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world’s largest carbon emitters [...] devoted at least some of the money [...] to global remediation efforts.” In other words they claim that there would be a benefit to the United States if ExxonMobil shot both its feet – make public their business secrets and begin funding that which might eventually make them obsolete.

As if this isn’t too much already, the letter also states “[...] ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years.” It is well known what is going on between the tobacco companies and the governments in the world, as well as in America. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, and tobacco companies are sued through and through and probably will be until every dime is squeezed out of them, because apparently it is their fault that people consume their products (while in fact it is the other way around – tobacco companies exist because there is a market for their products). This gives the senators’ letter a bitter taste of demand and threat, rather than request – it effectively says “You do what we ask, or else…” The e-mail I received from ARI identifies the analogy with the tobacco industry as a “thinly veiled threat.”

Finally, I will not even go into the debate of whether or not the environmentalists are correct. In this discussion, which is about rights, this is not relevant. People are free to believe that which is wrong, as well as that which is correct, no matter who they are, or what they represent. The senators are opposing this moral principle and consequently they themselves blur that moral clarity which the US needs in its policies. For this reason, ExxonMobil, as well as every person who holds his freedom dear, must acknowledge that the letter is a violation of ExxonMobil’s right to free speech, for no government may claim the right to tell its citizens what ideas to embrace by issuing threats. Only then can we speak of US’ moral clarity.

Wild Capitalism does not exist!

Ayn Rand, founder of the philosophy of Objectivism, proponent of Laissez-faire Capitalism. It is normal for her critics to promptly forget some part of her philosophy in order to criticize another, especially if the criticism is negative. Image from this site.

Out of curiosity, I’ve searched one of the croatian Internet portals of what it “knows” about the known author Ayn Rand, founder of the philosophy of Objectivism and the person who built upon the philosophy of reason (started by Aristotle). Search engine spat out an article entitled: “Pitt and Jolie will act in a movie anthem to wild capitalism?” I was not surprised that Ayn’s name was connected with capitalism, for she was a strong proponent of laissez-faire capitalism.

The name “laissez-faire” comes from french “Laissez nous faire,” which means “Let us alone.” It was a response of one of the french businessmen named Legendre to a finance minister who asked him what he can do for them. However, I was interested how one could connect this fictitious concept of “wild” capitalsim with the name of Ayn Rand.

There was no explanation, which means the adjective “wild” was arbitrarily added to what Ayn Rand fought for.

What is today known as wild capitalism, for one, is no capitalism at all. What is referred to as “wild capitalism” is, in fact, a slow disintegration of all social systems and a collapse towards complete anarchy. If it can be called a social system, then it is one where all or most men who have political influence try to take as much money as possible for themselves, with no regard for ethics and the long term consequences. The reason they can do that is because they are the ones making laws which suit them.

In true capitalism, political influence is an unknown term. Economy is not meddled in by politicians (which is the true meaning of “Laissez nous faire!”). This means that in an ideal laissez-faire capitalism there are no taxes – the government is compact and efficient because it is being financed by means of voluntary taxes (nobody is forced to pay them), conflicts solved at court and by organizing its own lottery. Its mission, contrary to the popular idea that the task of politicians is to build up the economy of a country, is the protection of the rights of individual from bullies, both domestic and foreign. American economy was built, strenghtened and fortified by businessmen – individuals, not politics – and today’s politicians are dismantling it. Thus, capitalist govenment consists only of the police, the courts and the army – there are no ministries and countless ministers and government offices throughout the land which hand out various blessings (for example, so that an individual may build something on his own land).

Since it is financed by voluntary taxes, it is the government’s imperative to be quick and efficient in its work. It means that courts must be quick in solving their cases, and the enemies threatenning to destroy the country must be subdued as soon as possible, and by endangering as few of its own men as possible. Such a government has no time to suck up to the world as the american government is doing today in regard to the war on Middle East. Its primary goal is to protect its own citizens. As such, it pays off to certain individuals to pay voluntary tax to his country’s government, purely for his own protection.

The government itself is controlled by the people it governs. The principle of the democratic elections might be changed a bit, but that is still largely a theoretical discussion as a government like it never existed. But, while in such a society people try to choose the most efficient government, today in reality people choose the government which gives more promises. If these promises are not fulfilled, then the people go out on streets and demolish and protest, while an inefficient government of laissez-faire is punished by witholding the voluntary donations, which makes a larger source of such government’s financing. This means that the government will have to step down or it will have to start taking its job seriously.

This is the kind of capitalism Ayn Rand was talking about. How similar is this to what is today known as wild capitalism? How similar is it to that instance when the politicians sit on their comfortable chairs at the top of the nation and decide whom to prosecute next for the crimes they will invent; or when they decide whom to secure the monopoly and whom to destroy and remove from the market by means of their political influence; or when they couldn’t care less that the courts do not function at all, as long as they have something which fills their pockets; or when they do not care that the people they govern go through Scylla and Charybdis only to get the permit to build a home on their own land, on their own property and with their own money; or when it does not matter that they suffocate their citizens with ever increasing taxes; or when they hypocritically give fictitious rights to various groups of people, at the expense of those who will never enjoy these rights and they are forced to pay them no matter what? How much do you think the basic principles of laissez-faire (and these are the individual rights) support what people call wild capitalism? Not at all!

Fort Knox is believed to be the instrument which stabilized American economy, while in fact it plunged it in a constant state of flux, and caused the great depression which started in 1929. Photo by Kevyn Jacobs.

Capitalism is being blamed for many alleged evils in the history of mankind. I will only mention one, and this is child labor. Capitalism, contrary to the common belief, is not guilty for it. Children worked because they brought much needed income to their families. They sought work at the request of their own parents and not by being forced to work by the employer (which is a story that many cartoons today are trying to sell to children who watch them). In fact, it was capitalism that created conditions which made it possible for children to stop working! Capitalism shortened the workday from more than 15 hours to a mere 8, and created greater efficiency and brought larger paychecks. If you take a look at history, particularly American history, you will see that most of the companies which today are blamed for the greatest evils of capitalism, in fact had some significant political influence. In laissez-faire this does not happen. An example of this are the great four and their Central Pacific Railroad.

Therefore, wild capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing does not exist. It would be closer to the truth to say that it is socialism, which cannot be sustained as such, and just as well as this so-called wild capitalism, it sinks towards anarchy slowly but steadily. You might even hear politicians talking about wild capitalism and how they condemn it in public and how wild capitalism is our grim reality. However, none of them will try and do something about it, or it will take a really really long time. The reason is simple – they profit from it. In capitalism, there is no such thing. Political influence and corruption are plagues brought to us by communism and socialism, and the only way to deal with them is to introduce the rule of law, not of men. And when speaking of the rule of law, then we speak of the laws protecting individual rights, thus I am speaking of capitalism.

It is clear then that the greatest proponents of a system that is falling apart will defend themselves from capitalism by telling lies about it. The saddest thing is that many of today’s intellectuals are incapable of seing through these lies, so then they write articles such as I found, where laissez-faire is said to be the same as the greatest fraud of the proponents of socialism. It is said to be the same as something that doesn’t and couldn’t even exist; as something that is contradictory in its essence – wild capitalism.

The Three Branches of Politics

The Courtroom. A place where disputes are settled in a civilized manner, and the truth is determined by the process of reasoning and detailed analysis. Image from this site.

A country with a healthy political system does not exist today. But what is a healthy political system? Is it the one that works, or the one that people don’t want to violate, or is it something else?

What is the function of a government? The government is supposed to uphold the principle of individual rights by protecting them. Since there is only one means of violating this principle, and this is by force, this means that the government must protect its citizens from force. The only means to do so is by force. Therefore, the government must have an exclusive monopoly on the usage of force.

By what means should a government exert this protective force? Let’s dissect force to get to this answer. There is something called initiation of force. This is always bad because utilizing force against a human being is a violation of his rights. Then there is retaliatory force. After force has been initiated, the damaged party uses retaliatory force against the initiator. Something similar to retaliatory force is self-defense. However, self-defense is not neccessarily force – in certain occasions one can talk his way out of trouble.

The government may use these types of force to protect against criminals and invaders. It can, of course, protect to the extent to which it can apply such force. The best government then is exactly the one which invests everything it has in force and the means to apply it.

To build an efficient government, let’s first look at where it will have to apply force. But the first principle to look at is that the government must never be the initiator of force. Therefore, it can only use force against those who have already initiated it.

There can be citizens of a country which apply force against other citizens. This is where a part of the government can interfere. Actually, it’s two branches of the government which may interfere here: the police and the courts; the police catches the criminal, the courts determine whether or not he really is the criminal. There are cases where the courts will not be necessary. For example, if the criminal is shot during the chase or as he threatens to kill one of the policemen. The courts may then, in fact, examine the policeman who shot the alleged criminal in order to determine whether the shooting was justified.

Another kind of an initiator of force is a foreign invader. If with anything, the anals of history are filled with wars. How does the government protect from foreign invaders? By means of the army. Countries with strongest armies thus have the most means by which to protect their citizens. As with all other branches of a government, so must a government not use its military to initiate force – both against its own citizens, or against the citizens of other countries.

These are the basics of how a government should be construed. Functions of individual branches of the government are only superficially described here, and are a topic for further discussions.

Basic constructs of Laissez-Faire

Every social system rests on some kinds of principles. The topic of this post is to show what these principles are in Laissez-Faire and how they give rise to the three branches of a Capitalist government. The metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical justification for these principles is beyond it. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that it is exactly these branches of philosophy which show why only Capitalist principles are moral.

Liberty is indigenous to capitalism. No social system has ever shown as much respect for individual rights as did capitalism in the 19th century in America. However, today this liberty is being stifled as the government forces ever more controls on a once-free market. Image from this site.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism rests on the principle of individual freedom. Freedom is practiced by practicing individual rights, which are the right to life, liberty, and property. Each individual, no matter what his profession, his job, his IQ, his ethnic origin, etc. is, has these rights and is thus free to act in accordance with them. Important to note is the fact that in order to practice one’s right one has to act. It is today’s common misconception (which is why I’m even bringing this up), that one’s right to life means that others must sustain his life no matter what the costs. This misconception doesn’t work in any way; it fails both logically, and socially. Logically because the very definition of rights entails that they sanction actions of an individual, and socially because there is only one way in a society to enforce such a vulgarity – by force. This very force is then the undoing of what individual rights stand for – freedom; everyone becomes a slave.

All social systems, whether they are moral or not, regard certain conduct as unacceptable. The virtue of Laissez-Faire is that unacceptable behavior is only that which is immoral. However, Laissez-Faire government will not tend to punish all that is immoral, rather a smaller subset of all possible immoral actions. For example, robbing a bank is both immoral and punishable by Laissez-Faire law. However, knowingly investing into a lost cause, while immoral, it is not punishable; neither is thrashing your own property; or endangering your own life for no apparent reason. This suggests that there is a line that is drawn somewhere, which distinguishes punishable immoral actions from those that are immoral, but not punishable.

This line is defined simply. Laissez-Faire Capitalism does not accept, and punishes that conduct which is a violation of the principle of individual rights.

This could be a working definition of punishable conduct in any social system, however there is a difference. All social systems can, at least in theory, sustain themselves by consistently practicing the principles on which they rest. The difference is that the principles behind Laissez-Faire are the only principles of a social system that can be practiced consistently. Consistent practice of Communist, Socialist or other system’s principles inevitably leads to collapse of these systems (I will not here go into details why, but there are good examples of it in human history). Even today, there is the European Union, which is collapsing unto itself; you can see it in Germany, for example. The social system they have, with all the social “benefits” to those without job, and with the unemployment rate as high as it is, it is all but clear that such a social system cannot be practiced. But alas, I am no expert in politics! I’m sure that a person more versed in this field will find even more finer points which will support my story.

Land Ownership as it should be

The Sears Tower of Chicago. Capitalism has already shown its beauty in many aspects of human life. The most spectacular one is architecture. Its buildings have long defined the skylines of the world’s most beautiful cities. This is because people are free to build on their own land, and ideally there are no government enforced restrictions. Image from Wikimedia Commons (author unknown).

Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights. These rights are rights to life, liberty and property. Consistent practice of these rights, taking into account the fact that each and every one individual has them, leads to Capitalism. Capitalism, therefore, is the only moral social system. However, I will not discuss how or why right now. Read the works of Ayn Rand for this. For this discussion in particular, I recommend Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Since in a Capitalist system no control over a privately owned land is exercised and it is necessary for some record to exist of whom the land belonged to and at what period of time, I have come up with the following system. The historical archives may be held privately by libraries*. This is appropriate, as the government may not be able to, in a Capitalist system, finance maintenance of such archives. Current information on who owns the land now is directly accessible to the government, in form of trade agreements between individuals.

The government’s function is to uphold individual rights. Therefore, they must be able to protect the property of the individual, should the need arise.

To start somewhere, let’s say that a certain patch of land is not privately owned. The government can issue a land deed on this patch of land. They cannot sell the land, however, as land is not a man-made product. The metaphysically given cannot be sold. They can, however, set the terms on which they are willing to issue this land deed. For example, they may request of the potential owner to build a farm there, to build a recreational center, or whatever else they wish. As long as the deed is not issued, this patch of land is not owned. This means that it is open for everyone.

Creating a man-made value, such as growing crops for example, on an unowned land is allowed if the land deed to this land does not exist. If it exists, it is also allowed, but it is a risk to create value there, as the deed could be issued at which point the land becomes privately owned. Should there be no deed for a patch of land, but there is man-made value created on it, the land should then be owned by whoever created this value. Thus, the government cannot issue a deed for the land, if someone already lives there, or has created some other value upon it, except if it is given to the man who created this value.

If the deed has been created, but it wasn’t issued within 6 months from its creation, it must be destroyed. This is due to the fact that the government may set unrealistic terms under which they will issue the deed. Also, if the deed was issued and within the time predicted by government’s terms no value was created on the land, the deed must be revoked by the government and issued to another owner. The previous owner can then be penalized according to the terms which were set at the time when the deed was issued to him. The government can, but doesn’t have to, also issue deeds without obligating the future owner to create value there.

A land with the potential – what do you want to do with it? Use it for farming purposes? Build a road; a home; an airport; a skyscraper? Under Laissez-Faire Capitalism, all of these – and much more – are your options. Image from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Any individual may seek from the government to be given the deed for a certain patch of unowned land where no value has been created by others. In such case he may already have created value on this land, or plans to, which is why he sets the terms of what the land will be used for.

Only one land deed can exist for a certain patch of land. Should forgery of the deed occur, historical archives should be consulted, as well as the government records of when a land deed was created and first issued.

Once the land is privately owned, it is someone’s property. It means that, unless there were prior arrangements with the government, the owner may sell it or utilize it in some way. The owner of the land may, without intrusion of the government, build anything he wants within the boundaries of his patch of land. Government regulation of “private” property under Capitalism is a no-no, for it undermines the principles on which Capitalism rests, and these principles are individual rights.

Another thing which is possible is that one person owns two adjacent patches of land. In this case he may treat them as one single patch, and freely build a single structure that spans throughout both of them.

Selling the deed, and thus the land, should always be done with a contract. The contract must state who sells the land and to whom it is sold. Every contract in a Capitalist system is protected by the government. Should issues arise between the two parties, they will then be settled in court. Another thing that the contract must state is what is being sold. Certain value may have been created on the land, so the contract will state whether this value too will be sold and which part of it. A copy of the contract should be sent to the government, which will later pass it on into the historical archives.

What is important to note here is that the government under Capitalism isn’t a nuisance you have to pay to get rid of, thus in effect destroying value, but instead is the perpetrator of the creation of value. They have no power to damage any one individual in any way. Their job is protection, and initially, the distribution of unowned land – but only to the individuals who are willing to create value there. The government will not force you to gather consents, and you do not have to seek permits to build. Building irresponsibly under Capitalism is dealt with in another fashion, not through regulation.

* So it was conceived at the time of writing. Not really the happiest solution, as there may be no privately owned libraries which would want to hold such archives. Better is that such archives are held by the government.

Land Ownership as it is

Croatian government tells its citizens who wish to build on their own land how many stories they may build, how large a building has to be, and many other details concerning the design of the building itself. These requirements drastically increase the cost of construction and maintenance, so it wouldn’t surprise me if people started living in shacks such as this in order to cut costs. Image from this site.

One of the most horrible things that could happen to you in Croatia is that you buy land from someone and then it turns out not to be his. This, however, need not happen through intentional fraud, but because the local government office doesn’t have the papers describing the history of who owned the land some hundred years ago, to whom it was passed on or sold, and who owns it now. In other words, government has made criminals of other people, and if you want to keep their paperwork up-to-date, be prepared to spend more cash. Very often, doing their paperwork costs you more than the land you bought.

Another atrocity you must endure when owning land in Croatia is that all you can do there legally is mow the grass. If you want to build something there, you must be prepared to spend additional $10000 at least. Moreover, you will run into lazy bureaucrats who won’t move a finger to do anything unless they see more cash (read: unless they are bribed). However, getting them off your back is least of your worries; that is if you carry a suitcase filled with cash. What you then need are consents from various companies, like Gas Company, Phone Company, power and water distributing companies. Apparently you need these because it would be most unfortunate for you if one of these refused to give you their services once you’ve built your home. It indeed would be most unfortunate, but who in the world builds a home or any kind of bigger building without making the necessary preparations by himself? The thing I want to point out here is that you are committing a crime if you start building before you have these papers, and you will be fined as the local government office sees fit. Most likely, they’ll tear down whatever you built.

The most ridiculous thing you need to do before you start building, however, is gathering consents of your neighbors. Yes, you must go to their houses, knock on their doors and ask them “Could you please allow me to build a house next to you, on my own land?”

Trying to build a home in Croatia feels like throwing your money away, as you waste most of it moving the bureaucrats out of your way. Image from this site.

Interestingly, you can collect all of these consents only after your house has been designed by an architect, so if you don’t get them, you’ve wasted your money on an architect. You could try buying land someplace else and use the same project, but if you’re an architect, or if you have at least read The Fountainhead, you will know that this is impossible without making some changes to the design or spatial plan, or both, in which case you will need to spend additional money on an architect.

Even when you’ve collected all these papers, the story with government regulation isn’t over. Law in my country dictates that you must leave 4 meters of space from the bounds of your land, 5 if building next to the road. Furthermore, you can’t build skyscrapers. Well, you can technically, but a skyscraper in our country is a 20 story building, which is utter nonsense. If you want to build something else afterwards on the same patch of land, you must go through the entire process of getting a permit all over again.

What makes things worst of all is that bureaucrats who work in government offices are often corrupted, lazy, and one of the following is true: either they don’t know their job, or they intentionally send you for the necessary documents one by one. They will never tell you what the entire process of getting a permit looks like, or what it should look like when in accordance with law, but instead they give you bits and pieces and see if you can put them together. They are a nuisance and they cost you money, as it is the taxpayers who earn them salaries, not their clients.

In other words, building something in Croatia is a horror story you don’t want to find yourself in the middle of. My advice is for you to stay away. Companies have already gone bankrupt because of negligence of bureaucrats working in local government offices, and honestly, the only way you can currently achieve some end is by bribing them.