The Great Quandary

The right's harsh criticism of Obama's "citizen of the world" ideology misses the mark. If partisan reactionary blindness did not create knee-jerk aversion to talk of global co-operation and peaceful co-existence, even the right would have to concede the world would be better off if we could just "get along". How this is accomplished is the great quandary.

When respect for property rights is almost non-existent in most of the world and becoming weaker in the US,  there is no foundation to build a peaceful co-operation among people of the world. The idea of nation-state is so ingrained that property is subsumed under the control of states battling for control of as much resource-rich property as possible.

Even if many people cannot afford to own land, they are better off in a country where people are free to own property and the rights to property are protected. When people own property they have an incentive to take care to privately manage their property for the greatest use and enjoyment. People who live in countries where property is owned mainly by the state become fodder used by the state to maximize the benefits to the state -- there is no connection between property and individuals.

When people who have no connection to property except as citizens of the state that doles out the benefits of property as it sees fit, then nationalistic zeal is stengthened and citizens are dependent on the success of the state to maximize the benefits of property, so that wars to gain more resource rich land are seen as the lifeblood for benefits to citizens. Individual efforts in free countries where there are property-ownership rights to peacefully and contractually maximize the benefits of property give way to group efforts to acquire more land to meet population growth and overcome the inefficient management of resources through state control. Free market signals among countless transactions and individual decisions to maximize benenfits of property allow for a greater efficiency of use than state-controlled decisions for land and resource use where no market signals guide the use and politics usually rule. Resources are squandered in socialistic schemes whereby the state drains the resources to take care of a growing population that has no incentive or no power to individally maximize the use of land and resources.

As long as countries fail to implement free market solutions to their population growth problems, and continue to rely on failed socialist schemes that squander resources through inefficiency (and enrichment of the tryants), states will war with states for the limited land and resources on the earth. If Obama is serious about his "citizen of the world" ideology, then he should be preaching the virtues of capitalism. We do need a world where individuals can own property and use the property efficiently for their benefit so that everyone can not only be citizens of the world but free to be property-owners of the world, free to contract with others in peace and co-operation, whereby no one can forcibly take what is owned by another.

The right should support Obama's dream of co-operation and we should all move toward ownership and contracts rather than troops and missiles. This is my bit of futuristic-optimism for today, now carry on with realism.

Russia vs Georgia: from symptoms to fundamentals

I have been following the online debate regarding the Russia/Georgia situation. Of course, there are those who blame Bush, the US, oil companies and mindless US wind-up dolls. Then there are those who blame Russia and say that Russia bullied Geogia into a response then took advantage of the response. Some say Ossetia wants to be Russian and break ties with Georgia - others say that Russian dominance in the region makes the slaves praise the master -- that really they just want to be left alone in peace.

I haven't heard any commentary about the chaos, such as we are witnessing, caused by government control. Control and lack of freeedom breeds resentment and it creates conflicts when land and resources are involved. The biggest, strongest gang controls it all -- Contractual agreements are meaningless and force rules.

In the meantime there is war, destruction and chaos. Under a free enterprise system, rule of law and contracts in a competitive system would govern outcomes. In regions ruled by gangs, the most powerful gang governs and the people are left with what is given them with few choices, if any, in the matters. They may be left with rubble and dead family members as Greg's photo on Bloodhound so vividly portrays, but not much else except perhaps membership in the winning gang.

This is what happens when governments battle governments for control of people, land and resources. This is what happens when there is no freedom. This is what happens when socialism advances to its predictable end. People are left powerless over the results of warring gangs. Is Saakashvili just as guilty as Putin? Practically, if given a choice where you absolutely had to choose between being governed by the likes of Saakashvili or the likes of Putin, which would you choose?

The problem is no one can come out of these situations pure, no matter how good their intentions, so even if Saakashvili has as good intentions as one can have in chaos and the aftermath of years of tyranical control, he will still make decisions which can only harm innocent individuals -- individuals play no part in that world. The situation and system they are caught in violates the principle of individuality and only gangs can survive and claim victory. Individual rights and freedoms are lost.

If, indeed, Saakashvili is fighting for a future where individual rights and freedoms are a reality, then it is a valiant and courageous fight. If he is only attempting to establish a lesser form of benevolent control, partnering with other sympathetic governments for control of land and resources, then it won't matter - it's futile.

Nothing short of a revolution for freedom and individual rights and a free market will have any lasting effect -- the chaos and war and intrigue will continue, gang fighting gang for control. This is the real problem, the failure of government control over the rights and freedoms of individuals. Some cynics say that people in these regions can't handle liberty, rights and a free market, that they freely choose the control of a country like Russia. This may be true in the sense that years of control has damaged (or never developed) their wills and caused mental models of powerlessness to prevent the vision of freedom, but given liberty I'm sure they would adjust in time and enjoy the freedoms (although limited more and more) we enjoy as we sit at our comfortable desks and pontificate on these issues.

In Iran, for instance, there has been plenty of evidence of a restless young population that desires freedom. The big, fundamental battle, as it has always been, is between dictatorial control and individual rights and freedoms, the rest is cynical reduction and piddling with symptoms. If I had to make a choice? Saakashvili.

Deja vu all over again

It's amazing after history proved how duped the leading intellectuals were by Stalin and Trotsky in the 20th century that today in 2008 a different set is being duped all over again.

Surely smart people can't be that dumb.

Mikheil Saakashvili - heroes still live

To understand the deep meaning of freedom, follow Mikheil Saakashvili.

He is a man of courage in a world of sniveling compromisers and tyrants.

Will the real naive utopia please stand up

One of the ways the libertarian spirit is doused with cold water and reduced to a teenage impulse is to haughtily sneer at the naive utopia that such a simple minded call for freedom attempts to actualize. They say it is immature and doesn't take into account the real world necessities of control and order and compassion. Man, don't you know there are people starving, that the rich and powerful left to their own devices would take over the world and use the poor for fodder? Don't you know that the world would be raped, polluted and stripped to a desert if industry had its evil, capitalistic ways?

Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all, yet the statist mindset, in all it's complex, mature authoritarianism, falls for (or tries to sell) the greatest utopian scheme of all -- that government regulation can help the poor and protect the environment, and that partial regulation can be granted while still claiming to be a free nation. The most naive utopian mindset may be the one that claims government will limit its control to only the areas created by necessity.

This might be possible if we had not all been trained to distrust capitalism, that it is but a necessary evil to get things done, and the moral among us must control it. That's not capitalism, that's a mixture of free enterprise, socialism and fascism. Whatever you want to call it, don't call it capitalism. Also, there is no longer any validity to saying capitalism had it's chance centuries ago and failed -- this has been disproven by more than one free-thinker. From the beginning there has been control over "capitalism" -- we've always had a mixed economy with the desire (and the actuality) to control capitalism becoming stronger over time -- with brief periods of the libertarian spirit weilding influence. 

Where do people get their disdain for capitalism? Through education and the image-makers mainly. While semi-capitalism went to work and struggled under the weight of regulatory chains, the image-makers sold the world a bill of goods that government would rationally manipulate to redistribute wealth in the name of justice.

The libertarian spirit is not dead and its voice continues to speak to free-thinkers around the world. I will take one subject and propose a better way (it's not new or original but needs to be kept alive) -- the subject of poverty and welfare. Government efforts have worsened the problem by creating state-dependents who claim and have been given a right to welfare. You could phase out all welfare programs over a period of 10-15 years by turning it over to private charity and lowering taxes realtive to what's being spent through wasteful government programs.

What would happen? Competing charity organizations would emerge and the best would rise to the top and prevail. Donors would demand that they be run efficiently and private donor-oversight would ensure efficiency. The best that prevail would demand that charity be given according to need, and that actions are taken to end the charity as soon as it's not needed. The best, most efficient charities would work with industry to devise methods to train the unemployed and underemployed to fit into a more advanced marketplace. Those who are chronic malingerers would be cut off at some point and this goes to the heart of the problem. It's not the truly needy who are the problem and who have bloated the government programs, it's the ones who can escape the programs but choose to ride it because the system allows the free ride. Anyone who doesn't believe this happens on a large scale doesn't know real life and has spent too much time in ivory towers. I grew up in poverty, I know better.

As for the truly needy in society, private charities would be flush with funds to help them. Once the Americn people are challenged to donate and have the money from reduced taxes to do so, charities will have all they need to take care of those who can't care for themselves. But even in these cases, family financial situations will be assessed to determine the real supplemental needs. Those who are going through temporary hardship will be assisted until they are on their feet -- but they will be expected to get on their feet.

Private charities and society at large will work out the details though innovation -- the most important thing to consider is the change in attitude, focus and delivery. Government agencies who have an incentive to increase "need" in order to ensure their growth and survival would be abolished in favor of competing private companies who have to answer to donors regarding efficiency and performance.

For those who say the private sector would be heartless and ungiving, ask yourself if you would give or not if the problem was given back to you to voluntarily solve or ignore. This country has a big heart and we have trusted government to solve the problem of poverty and hardship -- it can't. Trusting government to limit itself is the real naive utopia.

Here is a good article: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html