The Right to Death

Men suffering muscular dystrophy eventually get tied up to the hospital bed for an undetreminate time. Maybe their lifetime. Piergiorgio (not the man in the picture) himself had no means of communication, save by moving his eyelids. The advances in medicine might have given him a chance to walk again, but who is to say when and whether he will have enough money to pay for the treatment. By the time he was assisted in his suicide, he had already spent two years in bed, immobile. Imagine what it must be like lying in bed, paralyzed, while your mind is racing, coming up with new ideas and things to do all the time, and your body refusing to obey, and not even your pinky wants to move. Does it not struck you that in such a position you would, day by day, be going mad inside your head, at first over the frustration of not being able to act on your desires, and then over the fact that you cannot even show your frustration, or grimace it somehow, or communicate it? Would you not begin hating the machines and the people who are keeping you in such a vegetable state? Would you not rather be unplugged? Image from Fiji 2001.

Some days ago, I heard of a news report on an Italian named Piergiorgio Welby, who was suffering from muscular dystrophy and could thus only communicate by moving his eyelids. For this reason, he did not want to continue living. For this reason, the report said, he had to figt to obtain his “right to death”.

The report showed exactly the degree of ignorance of what rights are to an individual. This man did not seek to obtain the right to death, he was seeking to obtain his right to life! Why is that so? To answer this question, I will have to re-examine the very reason people have rights in the first place.

Unlike the mysticist teachings, which say that rights are given to man by a god or gods, individual rights have a rational basis. The concept of rights emerges when one asks the simple question: How are men supposed to live together and to collaborate in harmony? Now, the mysticist will be quick to answer that there is no rational answer to this question, and will rush to introduce his divine insight and how all men will live together and in harmony if they all worship the same god and follow the rules that god gave them; though – let’s face it – the mysticist himself invented the god and the rules. On the contrary, however, there is a rational answer to that question. It is contained within the concept of individual rights.

The right to live states that each individual is free to live his life, and do whatever he deems necessary to keep his life. It states no more and no less. The right to property defines the means by which he may exercise his right to life. It states no more and no less and it is not an expansion of the right to life, nor a factor which limits it to a certain domain. It is only a rational derivative of the right to life. The right to liberty defines the domain in which man is free to utilize his means. It states no more and no less. It is not an expansion nor a limiting factor of the beforementioned rights. It is the rational derivative of the right to life.

It may seem that the right to property and the right to liberty somehow limit the right to life, however they do not. It says that the right to life means one may do whatever he deems necessary to keep his life. The first thing that comes to mind is – does that include killing a man? It does. However, consider the scenario in which it is absolutely necessary to kill a man in order to preserve your own life. The most obvious one is when that man physically assaults you and threatens to kill you. Another might involve him stealing so much from you that you are doomed to starvation. Yet another might involve imprisoning you so that you are not able to get any food for yourself and again your life is threatened. Note that in all of these, your rights are violated. In the first, it is your right to life directly; in the second, it is your right to life again, but through the route of your right to property; in the third again your right to life, through the route of your right to liberty. You can see how deeply interconnected these rights are and that in fact, other rights are derivatives of the right to life and not its limitations.

So how do men collaborate using these rights? Simply by exercising their right to life. People want their lives to be easier, and if this can be done in collaboration with other people, then they will collaborate – and they are free to do so. Most often they will accomplish this by trading. If you move in little steps, from the basic principles laid out here, you will notice how the entire civilized society rests on these principles. If they are correctly interpreted and consistently implemented, the social system that “springs out” is laissez-faire capitalism – at this point the only known moral social system, which, unfortunately, has never existed.

How is this connected to the story of Welby’s “right to death”? Read carefully what the right to life says. It says that each individual is free to live his life. But if he does not want that life, then he can die. The right to life states that implicitly – once you are alive, you can either take it or leave it. If you don’t want to live, then die, no matter how terrible this may sound. But as long as you live, you are free to continue being alive – and interpreted without fallacy, this means at your own expense. The most basic of all choices – to be or not to be – is yours and yours alone!

This is why Piergiorgio Welby did not, in fact, fight for his right to death, but his right to life. By denying him the right to die, we would indirectly be violating this basic choice and making him accept our choice instead, and thus we are violating his right to live (or not live) his life. We are stating then that he must live no matter what kind of life that is – whether in constant agony, or complete paralysis (which is, in essence, only another kind of agony – a psychological one). Normally, however, he is the one to make that call, not us.

It was, therefore, correct of the doctor to assist his suicide, as he was unable to do this himself. But the reasons they offered are petty at best. They chose not to stand behind the principles laid out here and instead they hid behind the cloaks of refused medical care. Welby had refused to be treated and the doctors used this as an excuse to unplug him, while they had better principles to invoke, and these principles are individual rights, namely the right to life. It is a sad thing when good deeds are done in such a way, by invoking lesser principles at the expense of greater ones. It would have been by far more delivering if the doctor who unplugged Welby from the instruments which kept him alive, said “I did it because Welby had the right to live – and he chose not to practice it.” This would have shown clearly that he was not ashamed or afraid of it, and it would have shown that he is certain that he had done the right thing. Stating your principles always does that.

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.

Borat

Regardless of Borat being a movie of bad taste, or even the fact that it has been filmed in a bizarre way (apparently, Borat lied to people he interviewed about what the material is going to be used for), banning it is like not allowing a man to speak his mind. People on the videos might sue and even win, and the courts might even decide to withdraw the movie from the market (even thought it’s a bit late for that). But to ban the movie altogether on the basis that it is bad, is to ban free speech. Image by Tostie14, some rights reserved.

If you thought that there is no censorship in today’s world, think again. Borat, the movie of really bad taste which I doubt you have not heard of, is being banned in countries such as Russia and the United Arab Emirates. Both the Russians and the Arabs hide under the culprit and say that they’ve banned it because it’s very offensive to some ethnic groups and other “blahblahs”.

Now, the movie of really bad taste, such as Borat, is generally not worth watching. But, as always, it is the choice of the individual whether or not to watch it. Russia and UAE have violated this principle. They declared that they will choose for the individuals that live in these countries. They declared they will not only censor the movie, but ban it altogether. First of all, what they are doing is wrong. Any censorship, no matter how stupid a thing being censored, is wrong. People have the right to free speech in any form – by speaking, by writing, by filming movies, etc. It is not a matter of what kind of culture resides in which area of the globe, it is a matter of life and death. Exchange of ideas, however poor in taste, is always a matter of life and death. What is really the difference between censoring a bad idea and censoring the best one, except that if you want to censor the best one, you have to keep it secret nowadays? None at all!

Insults towards ethnic groups and religions (Russia), or the movie being gross, vile and extremely ridiculous (UAE) is not reason enough to deny us free exchange of ideas – any ideas. Censoring and banning bad ideas (or movies for that matter) today, fuels the daring of various governments of the future to censor anything and everything on whatever basis they desire. Today the basis is insults and bad taste. Tomorrow it will be disregard for the current cultural norms, which might as well say that a man should not attempt to seek freedom for himself, or to explore the Solar System, or achieve any kind of scientific advancement. Make no mistake, the basis of such anti-conceptual philosophies is already being created, and not with pen and paper. Just take a look at the environmentalists who wish to stop all industry on the grounds that it is destroying the environment, while at the same time contradicting themselves that scientific advancement is necessary, but they do not see that industry generates exactly this kind of advancement; then there are the fighters for “animal rights” who literally destroy scientific advancement, particularly in the field of medicine, on the grounds of “cruelty towards animals”. Just as the grounds of Borat being insulting and of bad taste is not grounds enough to ban and censor it, the grounds of environmentalists and “animal rights” fighters are not grounds enough to stop human advancement.

The point is – just as Russia and UAE today are using beforementioned grounds to censor Borat, any country in nearer or farther future may use any established false grounds (such as that of environmentalists and “animal rights” fighters) to ban or censor anything else. Their success in banning something today gives them wind in the back for whatever bans they wish to impose in the future. Thus, all the fuss about lawsuits against Sacha Baron Cohen and his fictional Kazakh reporter Borat Sagdiyev, and about censorship, lies on grounds by far deeper and by far viler than simply “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” being a movie of bad taste.

Says who?

When people do not listen to what is being said but rather to who says it, anything goes! Hitler was probably the world’s worst criminal and tyrant, yet what he said was obeyed – not because it made sense and was good, but because he said it. And millions of people were killed because of it. Image from this site.

A dominant idea, but implicit (not the one people would often admit adhering to) today, is that things matter more depending on who says them, rather than what is being said. I will take the recent events in Hungary as an example. I’m sure that a random Hungarian person said more than once that the Hungarian people are being lied to by their government, or at least that their government is not fulfilling the promises it gave prior to elections. But who cares about a random Hungarian, right? He doesn’t know anything.

A day or two later, here comes a Hungarian prime minister, stating both things on national TV. And the whole Hungary suddenly rises to its feet and starts demolishing (see 7th paragraph in my Wild Capitalism does not exist! post). Of course, a random Hungarian does not get the opportunity to be on TV every day, but that doesn’t really matter. If only 0,1% of all Hungarians shared the same opinion, there would be 1000 of them, which is quite enough to spread the idea and eventually start a revolt. But the opinions of random individuals on matters that are not their primary concern are suppressed and the rest 10 million would not see the truth even if it was screaming into their face.

There are several blank-out mechanisms at work here. A blank-out mechanism is a mechanism which is most often implicit in some people, and by means of it, they avoid seing the problem in hopes that it would magically go away. One of them can be summarized by the words “You are not qualified to make such a judgment, so keep your mouth shut.” Explicitly, this means that one cannot make moral judgments on matters which he is not an expert in, and suggests that the one using a blank-out mechanism is willing to be rude or even violent in order to blank-out on something.

Another mechanism could be summarized by “Yes, but we are little people, what can we do?” In the face of the government, as well as in the face of things they do not know much about, many people cower and shrink when they even think of disagreeing. This blank-out mechanism works in exactly the same way. One suggests that he’d rather keep quiet and obedient than boldly stand up for his rights, or whatever moral principle is jeopardized.

There are other blank-out mechanisms, but these are the most important ones. But this is not all. Clearly, when the Hungarian prime minister declard that his government lies, everyone dropped their cloaks and went out on the street and began a revolt. How is it that suddenly everyone is emboldened by it? First of all, whoever you are, you are not likely to react positively when you are told by the person you trust that he is lying to you. The masses are expected to place trust in their government, and when this government declares that their people are lied to, it is also expected that a vast majority will not like it. This very fact, that their opinion resonates with that of millions of other people, emboldens them to revolt. Thus it is not a matter of bravery; it is a matter of being a second-hander – a person of a borrowed soul.

Even at this point, there are blank-out mechanisms at work, only now the thing being blanked-out on is different. The blanking out shifted to the past – to the fact that there existed a time at which people ignored the fact which they are now revolting against; to the fact that there were certain individuals who knew the truth before it could no longer be ignored. The very thought of such a time fuels the revolt; and the very thought of such individuals can spark violence.

To go deeper towards the essence of the matter the fact that people believe things because of who says them, rather than what is being said, is because they tend to blank-out. Blanking out is a form of non-thought; it is a response to something which would require some intellectual effort to resolve. For example, if a stranger told someone that their partner does not love them, they would most likely refuse to believe it, despite everything (and this is not an uncommon thing – it is hard not to notice women covered in bruises who say that their husbands beat them because they love them, or refuse to admit that they beat them at all). Whether or not to believe this stranger is a choice made only by making an effort to think about what has been said. To accept his statement on faith is wrong because you may be risking a happy relationship; to dismiss it on the basis of a simple consideration such as “Who is this man? I don’t know him, so why should I trust him?” is once again wrong because an unhappy relationship is a waste of life.

The solution to most of man’s problem is thought. But before any serious thinking can be done, one must identify the problem as it is, without evasion. Only when a problem is identified can it be considered, thought through, and solved. Image from this site.

The correct course of action is to think for yourself. Start from things that are most obvious – if you are often sad or bored while in your partner’s company, you probably do not love each other; if your partner is hurting you, the relationship is potentially dangerous to your life, so snap out of it. Try to look at your relationship from all aspects, for as long as you like, in order to decide. This is not to mean that such behavior must be triggered by random people who may tell you whatever they please; honest people analyze their daily life constantly, without being pointed to their errors by others. By doing so, they are more than prepared to answer anybody that they are either right or wrong – that is, if they are honest to themselves.

Be careful, though, because people often pride themselves with how much they think, when what they do in fact, is evade. Consider a fat person who wants to lose weight. The evasion might go like this: Why am I fat? It’s not because I eat too much, it’s because the fat just sticks onto me. It’s a disease. I have to see a doctor about it. After seing a doctor, here’s more evasion: The doctor said I eat too much. But it’s not my fault! What can I do when those McDonald’s hamburgers are so tasty? It’s their fault I’m fat. I wouldn’t be fat if there was no McDonald’s.

The point is that the evader never dares to blame himself for anything. First, he blames a disease, and having a disease cannot be his fault in most cases. Second, he blames McDonald’s. Third, he might blame his mother; or his boss for making him sit in the office the whole day… In the mind of an evader, his problems are never his fault. In fact, they are. If one is fat, it is because he eats too much; if one lives in a total mess, it is because he didn’t clean it up; if he got fired, it was because he didn’t work hard enough. He who doesn’t realize this will always go about solving his problems in all the wrong ways (filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s never got anyone to lose his weight, and suing a tobacco company never got anyone off nicotine).

In order to hear what is being said, rather than caring more about who is saying it, one must be honest to himself. Otherwise he cannot trust himself, thus he must trust others, and that he will do on whim. Even when the truth implies that you will have to change something in your life, it is better to accept it. Honesty is the best policy in long term, because it brings you that much closer to solving your problems. The Hungarian people had the problem of not wanting to accept the fact that they are lied to by their government. Now that the truth is out in the open, they burn, demolish and protest. That is the only thing that can come from dishonesty.

In conclusion, it is unimportant who says what – what is important is how honest you are. If you are honest, you will have no problem discerning the truth from falsehood and thus you will turn from listening to people, to listening to words.

Blizzard is not guilty for World of Warcraft addicts!

A video about one of the WoW addicts. According to joystiq it is these kind of “news” that cause the violence. But, whose fault is it that people become addicts? Is it Blizzard? Or the game itself? Or is it someone else’s fault?

If a parent of a fat child decided to file a lawsuit against a baker who makes such tasty bread, and a butcher who sells meat, because his kid is addicted to these, that would at least be considered silly. But when such a parent decides to sue McDonald’s, even though the principle is the same, the act is praised in the media.

Similarly, if a parent of a child who plays chess a lot sues the maker of a chessboard, it would be considered silly. But when a parent of a child who is addicted to World of Warcraft decides to sue Blizzard, then he meets with the approval of psychologists and mass media and the so-called intellectuals. Nonetheless, these people are too dumb to realize that the principle is the same in all of the above cases – or better said, the same principle is being violated.

World of Warcraft is probably Blizzard’s greatest success. It is played by roughly 4 million people worldwide. Not only are these people willing to pay for the game itself, but also the monthly subscription required so that they may play on-line – the only way it can be played anyway.

As with anything, people can exaggerate in playing this game. They often do. According to the video, 40% of them exaggerate. These people are mostly kids. There are some pathological cases that lose their jobs over it and such. But mostly, they are kids. In the video, we see the mother of a 16 year old crying and sobbing over how much her kid plays this game. In the news, we se parents suing Blizzard because so many people get addicted to the game. A gifted child, the video says, killed himself because he wanted to see the heroes of World of Warcraft in the afterlife. His parents are suing too.

In this scenario, there are many things that have gone wrong. First of all, there are no grounds on which to sue Blizzard. Blizzard has created a great game and as such should be praised, not condemned. There are 2,4 million players that are happy this game exists. They have spent their free time on this game, rather than all of it, and have had lots of fun. On the other side, there are the troublesome ones – the 1,6 million who have no life and all they ever do is play World of Warcraft. They are the ones whose mothers are sobbing over, who lose a job to a game, who play for 36 hours straight and then, naturally, flip. Clearly, the problem is not the game – for there are 2,4 million people who live happy lives with it. The problem is not Blizzard either, unless one would consider success a problem. The problem is, as it always is – failure. The problem are those 1,6 million failures who have naught to do with their lives but play games. And if within those 1,6 million failures there are mainly kids, then the problem are their parents too.

The first barrier to those parents is that they would not admit it that they are the problem. They cry and sob and they blame Blizzard, but they take absolutely no action to make such insanity stop. For crying out loud, people, when your kid is playing WoW too much, why don’t you simply unplug the router? If the game is really what the 16-year-old from the video says – like going out with friends, only over the Internet – then unplugging the router would be the equivalent of grounding a kid that spends too much time in the disco. An appropriate further action would be selling the computer and reducing your kid’s allowance. Forbid him to go out of his room. Stop paying internet bills. Take away his plastic cards and hide your own. Don’t pay his monthly subscription to the game. There are a million ways to prevent your kid from playing World of Warcraft, and that is not by suing Blizzard. Furthermore, admit to yourself that, since your kid got addicted to a game, you haven’t shown him that there are better things in life, i.e. you’ve been a lousy parent. Especially if he dares to say that playing a game is his own choice. If it truly is, then I suppose your kid is also the one earning and paying for it?

And finally, there are parents who are suing Blizzard because their kid killed himself over World of Warcraft because he wanted to see his heroes in the afterlife – who planted the stupid idea of an afterife in that kid’s head in the first place? Why didn’t those parents start actively raising their child, rather than let him go with whatever stream caught him? And now they still blank-out on the fact that it’s their own fault for what happened to their child and instead of rethinking their error, they are making another one – suing Blizzard.

The principle is always the same – if you have a problem, then it is your problem. Suing somebody because you have a problem won’t help you solve it. Also, there is no such thing as “Internet addiction.” It’s fiction invented by those who wouldn’t admit themselves they have a problem. There are millions upon millions of people who use the Internet every day, and they do it with moderation. Only drugs cause addiction, not Internet – because if the Internet caused addiction, then every person with a modem would be an addict.  In short, the so-called addicts are misusing the Internet – or World of Warcraft – or whatever other thing they are said to be addicted to. By the same principle, a chair would be misused if you sat in it 24 hours a day. These things were not meant to be raped with use, they were meant to help you. The fact that this overuse happens, shows that people who overuse them – rather than owning things – are being owned by things.

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.