Archive for July, 2013

Libertarianism and Socialism: Shared Concepts of Two Antagonistic Philosophies

July 21, 2013

One has talked (and is not writing, talking?) long and hard contra the Socialistic Philosophy of government, and taken it to task many times in our essays, but we cannot overlook the affinities, and, yeah, even the agreements of Libertarians and Socialists.

Firstly, Libertarians and virtually all Socialists agree, though they may not even be conscious of the fact, that they both accept the Industrial System as necessary to a viable modern society. There still may be a few Socialists who would like to smash the weaving looms of modern society, and return to a primitive society, where everything was handmade, where we gave up the automobile and returned to the horse, with its concomitant huge increase in futures trading in oat contracts, and crushed all the farm equipment, sending Bucyrus-Erie stock eerily lower, and where we reverted from the computer and the iphone to the letter and the smoke-signal. A return to the pre-Industrial Age would certainly solve the unemployment problem.

However, these primitive Socialists are few in number compared to all the Socialists in the world who just love all the comforts and distractions provided them by the Industrial System. And certainly the Democrats and Republicans—those milquetoast individuals who lack the clear or clouded passionate vision of the Libertarians and Socialists and fall somewhere ‘tween the two, — certainly those Lost Soles wandering away from Truth also accept the modern Industrial System as a given of modern society and their own individual enjoyment.

So virtually everybody agrees on the necessity of the modern Industrial System, and you can see this truth now throughout the world. The psyche of the Indian and the Chinese will soon be identical to the Wyoming Wyomian or the Battersea Londoner. We want our commodities, and we’re not going back to the “good ol’ days” of great-great-grandpa.

The key insight that Libertarians have over Socialists in this area is the necessity for the Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, for the Free-Market to exist in order for this industrial system to exist and thrive. Whenever government intervention or diktat interferes with the Free-Market, the Industrial System suffers because it needs that free-market to thrive. There has been so much wealth built up in America due to the relative freedom of its industrial sector heretofore, especially before the introduction of the income tax, that it has built up a huge capital reserve of this wealth, and government has been able to parasitically suck off that wealth for almost eighty years now, and even before. But as you can see, and as Mises predicted, middle-of-the-road Socialism eventually breaks down the entire economic order, and we can see that in America today very clearly, where things are far worse than thirty years ago, although we could see the emerging problem clearly even then. But the general public of Democrats and Republicans never or rarely see the connection between this middle-Socialism and the final economic breakdown of society, as we’re seeing in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, because of the huge lag-time between Cause and Effect in the economic sphere.

A second affinity between Libertarianism and Socialism is their common view that there is a Ruling Class in society; they just differ on who that ruling class is.

To Libertarians, the Ruling Class are those people who have seized control of the State Apparatus, the Government, and are ruling the rest of Society. In the old days it was the King and the Nobles. Under the Czar, for example, it was the Czar, his family and relations, the other Russian nobles, the military men, the contractors who got the government purchase orders, and the vast bureaucracy, including all the retired bureaucrats drawing lucrative pensions. In North Korea, it is obviously the Illwind Kim family and the top military brass who are the Ruling Class.

In modern America, the Ruling Class are the people in government, both the politicians and the bureaucratic heads, the administrators, and generally the workers, who receive much higher pay and retirement benefits than those in the Free-Market sector. In addition to these, the ruling class includes the government contractors and consultants who do business with the State, as well as the corporations who get farm subsidies, the scientists and specialists working for government scientific departments, the university administrators and professors who draw huge salaries thanks to government subsidies to many favored universities, and of course the thousands of major corporations who benefit from government loans, subsidies, or craftily crafted tax breaks specific to their situations.

Finally, in America, the Ruling Class also includes the millions receiving welfare benefits or checks from the government every month who will go out and religiously vote for those parties or politicians who will guarantee that those benefits and checks will continue to flow. Thus, even many poor people are in the Ruling Class in America, although they might not see themselves that way, or may still complain about how they have been victimized by society, which in one sense is true since that has been a Socialist society essentially since FDR, and such a society crushes the Individual by dissipating his energy in a thousand useless activities that would not exist under a Libertarian government.

To the Socialists, however, the Ruling Class are the Capitalists, the people who pay the wages to the factory workers, even though these workers may have, for the first time in their lives, more money than they ever had before, and can experience the freedom to choose from many consumer products that they obviously feel make their lives more commodious. Few Americans would now use an old Sears Catalog or old newspapers for toilet paper, but in the 1930s and before, it was probably fairly common.

Moreover, these workers make possible the consumer products that the Socialist uses and likes just as much as the Libertarian. It seems contradictory for them to say, “Yes, we like all these products that the exploitative, wicked, industrial factory system makes possible, but we also want to “liberate” these workers from there drudgery.” And if they “liberated” them to the extent that nobody had any incentive to work at dull jobs, then their “bourgeois comforts” would quickly disappear. Did you notice how the Communist in “Reds” had to have her Chase&Sanborn coffee, and how Stalin and Castro were addicted to tobacco? Food could have been grown in place of all the coffee and tobacco Communists and Socialists have consumed since the start of their movement, and saved many from starvation. Masses of grain and potatoes could have gone into food feeding masses of Human Beings, instead of going into all the beer and vodka that German and Russian Socialists have drunk since the start of the Communist-Socialist project.

So Libertarians and Communists or Socialists agree that there is a Ruling Class in Society, they just differ radically as to who that Ruling Class is.

Another aspect of Socialism that is also embraced by Libertarianism is the essentially Libertarian quality of Democracy as a revolt against Monarchy or one-man rule or Totalitarianism. That everybody should get to decide equally on major decisions that affect large chucks of society is obviously much fairer than that one lunatic should get to make the decisions and all are forced at gunpoint to obey him.

However, despite its Libertarian quality, Democracy was soon seen to quickly decay into Mob Rule through Government, with Tyranny in the name of “the People” replacing Tyranny in the name of the King. This could only be corrected by a Bill of Rights for all Individuals, which would protect the minority and the Individual against the depredations of Society at large.

That struggle for the Bill of Rights is still being fought in America, 237 years after Jefferson wrote it down, and encapsulated in that document the essence of his studies of the Classical Liberals, or Libertarians, who came before him.

And so, both Libertarians and Socialists look favorably on Democracy as a reaction to Authoritarian Dictatorship or Monarchy, and as a process for electing people to public office. The Libertarians just also insists on a Bill of Rights, and say that Democracy without a Bill of Rights can and most probably will be just as tyrannical, if not more so, than Monarchy.

Finally, besides Libertarians, Socialists seem to be the only political group that has a passionate desire to radically change the world and society. Most Democrats and Republicans want things to roll on pretty much as they are now, with a little tinkering or reform to smooth out the thousand-and-one-insults to the psyche that psychic flesh is heir to in America. And Socialists have changed the societies they have taken over radically, though almost invariably to the worsement of their peoples, save for perhaps Yugoslavia under Tito when he backtracked and started his program of de-stateification, or a move back towards Free-Markets.

So while Libertarians and Socialists differ fundamentally over principles of political and economic theory, and individual rights, they do agree on a whole list of issues, and that should not be forgotten while they are ripping each other apart, politically speaking.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

They Call It Democracy: The Great American Myth

July 12, 2013

Listen to any speech of the Democratic Donkey and you will probably hear them braying out a lot of hot air about “Democracy”, and how “our Democracy” is so wonderful. People who criticise “Democracy” are labelled as Fascists, although Fascists like Hitler attacked “Democracy” too.

But do we have Democracy in America? Silverwolf is always hearing people say we do, but how can that be?

First off, let us say that we do not object to Democracy in the sense of Democratic elections picking elected officials, and deciding ballot measures. Of course, we should have majority rule; of course, the people should vote and 50.01% or more should decide the elections; but only in a Democratic Republic or a pure Democracy with a Constitution and Bill of Rights similar to ours, which institutionalizes the basic tenents of Classical Liberalism, now called Libertarianism, which were developed by many European thinkers during the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, and synthesized by Jefferson into the American Constitution. Without such a Bill of Rights, Democracy does indeed lead to mob rule, and the tyranny of the majority over a minority, or even over just one individual (as in the case of the innocent person who is convicted of a capital crime and executed — he is in effect and in fact murdered by those individuals in society who support the death penalty and vote for it, or serve on juries that impose it. Indeed, if justice were truly to be done under our own current law, every time an innocent individual is executed, all the people who voted for the death penalty should logically also be executed based on their own pro-death penalty view of the law).

But to return to the question of whether we have Democracy in America, and should we have it, let us ask you this: Would you want to be up on a murder charge of which you were innocent when the sentence for your particular crime was the Death Penalty before a jury that only needed a simple majority to send you to the gurney or the gallows? If you believe in Democracy, then why should not a simple majority of seven to five send you to the death chamber? Why doesn’t the Democratic Party “fight” for the right of juries to put people to death by a simple majority?

Then there is voting itself. If you believe in Democracy, it seems to Silverwolf you’d have to believe that at an election it should require a majority of all the registered voters, whether they vote or not, to pass a measure or elect a politician. Would that not be true Democracy, since majority rule means a majority of the eligible voters, not just those who vote?

But even that is not accurate enough, for why should it be confined solely to registered voters. If you were a true Democrat who believed in the “Rule of the People”, then you would require all the people to vote or decide an issue, not just the ones who mailed in the ballot, or just the registered voters, but all people in society over 18, and not suffering from such dementia that they could not read the ballot (illiterates could have the measures read to them by election officials, who could also show them where to fill in the little oval circles).

And what about tax measures? How can it be Democracy when it requires a 60% majority to pass certain tax and bond issues? A pure Democrat would say that has no place in a Democracy, but again, he gleefully overlooks the total populace who did not vote in the election, and claims to speak for them. Nor does he seem to mind that 20-25% of the voting registered voters can impose a tax on a whole specific class of individuals (usually property owners) in the name of Democracy, when obviously a majority of the People did not vote for the measure. In a true Democracy, a majority of Everyone (excluding children) would have had to vote on the issue, and since in actual fact only 20% of the People actually voted for the measure, the Democracy touters are obviously lying when they accept such elections as valid examples of Democracy.

Then again there are the glaring Congressional anti-Democratic requirements that it take 60% of one house or the other to override a Presidential veto, or shut up a filibusterer? How does that square with our beloved “majority rule”?

No, we do not have a Democracy in America, nor even a Democratic Republic any more. About all we have is majority rule at the elcctions, and with electronic voting instead of the old infallible paper ballots, not even that is a sure thing.

No, we don’t hate Democracy with a Bill of Rights, but we know from history that Democracy without the Bill of Rights soon leads inevitably to mob rule and the exploitation of the minority.

And since the Bill of Rights is actually, in a profound and deep sense, a defense of private property Rights (i.e., you can’t have a free press without the Right to privately own a printing press and newsprint, or free speech without the Right to rent a private hall), any Democratic Socialist society or highly collectivized society, such as EU Europe, will eventually lead to a complete breakdown of the monetary and social system, as we are currently witnessing in Europe — a development of Socialism that has taken 50 years to putrify into the current mess. Europe is the classical example of how democratic socialism always leads to “the tragedy of the commons”, that is, the overuse of underpriced social services at the expense of producers in the private sector. Eventually it ruins the “public grazing lands, the commons” for all so that none can graze there.

So next time you hear the Democratic Donkey politicians, or even their government-school brainwashed children, spout out about how grand “our Democracy” is, throw some of the above contradictions in their faces, and know you are either talking to a very ignorant fellow indeed, or else a habitual liar.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The Only Welfare Program Necessary: Silverwolf’s Destitution Camps

July 6, 2013

In a recent post of Silverwolf, he posited the seeming dilemma between Free-Market Libertarian Capitalism, which would have no government welfare, having it handled solely by charities, but in a society that was so generally wealthy and sulf-sufficient that few had to go to charity organizations, — this Capitalism as contrasted with Socialism, where those Individuals who had and earned capital would have it taken by force by a group or gang, acting through the government, to spend it on what the gang considered welfare programs. One  philosophy might lead to a man or child starving to death on the street (and did before the 19th century Industrial Revolution in the West, and modern times in India), though it guarantees in theory that no violence will be done to anyone without government coming to his aid and prosecuting the perpetrators, including government perpetrators. This is the Jeffersonian-Libertarian philosophy of the America of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The other Ideology, that of the Socialist, whether Democratic or Totalitarian, leads to a society where violence is permissible against the Individual (i.e. taxation and the threat of jail or bankruptcy if non-compliant with that taxation, i.e. coercion, which ultimately boils down, as Mao pointed out, to the barrel of a gun. ) Socialists permit violence against property in the name of promoting a just, peaceful society. That is a contradiction they not only don’t want to answer, but even gleefully endorse: Damn right we’re going to loot the rich to feed our poor brethren. Violence is what the rich deserve!

So between the “callous indifference” of those who refuse to commit violence unless attacked, and the “brotherly love” of those who would commit violence against others at gunpoint, there seems to be no meeting of the twain.

Silverwolf’s solution would be to follow the Free-Market Capitalist, Jeffersonian-Libertarian, Philosophy while maintaining, at least in a long interim of say ten years, a series of government-administered “Destitution Camps” across America.

These camps would provide succor to any American Citizen who found themselves completely broke, totally skint, down to the last nickel. Here, in these camps, they would find nutritious vegan food — whole grains, beans, fresh vegetables and fruits — without anything deleterious to the health being added to it (for example, salt), a basic change of clothing, and cot space or bunk space in a tent or barracks-building, etc. These would provide the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and sanitation. Inhabitants could choose to work off the cost of their keep by working at something useful in the camp, thus saving the government the cost of hiring workers to do these essential chores, and thus sparing the inhabitant from the dependent feeling that he was getting something for nothing. Depending on the current level of government debt (i.e. was it shrinking or growing, and at what pace?) there might even be an opportunity for people to work for profit on useful government infrastructure improvements and safety, for example, clearing roadside vegetation by hand instead of with pesticides in fire-prone rural-residential areas. This work might accrue them $10/day in savings, and when the person had accrued $3,000 or so, they would be ejected from the destitution camp, since they now had a few months living expenses in the outside world, and could try to make their own way. However, no inhabitant would be forced to work, although we can well imagine the effect on his social interaction with his chums if all nine of them went off to work to help keep up the camp, and he just sat around all day examining his navel (not so easy to do, try it).

Remember too that in our Libertarian-Capitalist society, business permits would be outlawed, and anyone could set up a vendor’s stall in publicly allotted market places, or on private property in contract with the owner. Vending would become a widespread occupation for many, and provide them with a living, but of course it is currently banned across the length and breadth of so-called Capitalist America, in her grandscale hypocrisy.

So vending and the elimination of all minimum wage laws would mean that many who would now have to resort to these camps under our current Fascistic mamma-Socialistic society, could find their way to self-sufficiency under a Libertarian-Capitalist society through vending and odd-jobbing.

But how would you fund these camps, Silverwolf? Aren’t you just back in the coercion camp of extracting taxes for what you, Silverwolf, arrogantly project as your own marvellous vision of the perfect society?

Well, not quite, because there would be no coercion involved in this taxation scheme, at least, no coercion of those who refuse to collaborate with coercion, and coercion of the deadliest kind.

Firstly, Silverwolf would ask for a “voluntary tax” to fund these camps. Since Americans under a Silverwolf government would be paying no income tax at all, and no social security or medicare deductions either if they had opted out of these programs, as they would have the Right to do under a Libertarian government, — because of these facts alone they would be far richer, and might feel or believe that they should give to this government destitution fund a small portion of what they used to be forced to pay for welfare costs under the old income tax, back in the wicked old days under the Democrats and Republicans. Hindu’s would no longer be robbed and have their religious principles desecrated by the Socialists in forcing them to pay for meat for the obese under the food stamp program. Muslims and Jews would no longer have to provide food stamps to be spent on dead pigs, nor would Atheists or Vegetarians be forced to pay for Hallal or Kosher meat. And Socialists could fulfill their dream of giving their neighbors something for nothing, just because they exist as human beings. Given the number of people in the Democratic Party and other parties, and in the major organized religions, that espouse their love for their fellow Americans and their belief in brotherly love, you’d expect that the coffers to fund these Destitution Camps would be overflowing.

But say the “voluntary tax” brought in nothing because the people had grown completely callous and stingy, and, even with no income tax, they still wouln’t contribute a red cent to Silverwolf’s pie-in-the-sky Destitution Camps, or contributed in such short measure so that the camps got some donations, but not enough to prevent them “slipping into the Red” as the Communists say? Then what, Silverwolf?

Then Silverwolf would propose to Congress a 1% excise tax on imports from countries that did not substantially comply with the Classical Liberal principles of Jefferson found in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or with regimes that did have such constitutions but were generally conceded not to protect the rights those constitutions guaranteed. In other words, the world’s dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, or regimes that had wide-spread human rights abuses without any legal retribution taken against the perpetrators, especially government perpetrators.

Also regimes that treated certain animals in certain cruel and inhumane ways.

So, for example, Red Chinese imports would get “hit” with a 1% excise tax that the consumer would pay when he purchased the product, mainly because of its massive Human Rights Crimes, but also for crimes against animals, like dogs, cats and bears. Japan would get it for their whale hunting, but not for any human rights abuses. Western Democracies would be exempted, except for Canada, due to its clubbing and live-skinning of baby seal pups in front of their mothers. Short that Cannuck Buck!

The excise tax would also apply to countries, like South Korea, that ate dogs, and let them be treated and murdered in the most bestial and sadistic manner.

And since Red China and Seal-clubbing Socialist Canada are the U.S.A.’s two-largest trading partners, Silverwolf’s anti-Fascist excise tax on products from these two putrid countries would easily fund these Destitution Camps.

People who did not want to pay the excise tax could avoid it by buying the same product that was made in Red China or Canada, from Taiwan or Lichtenstein instead, so there would be no coercion involved in the paying of the tax. The only infringement is on that of the consumer who was willing to collaborate with these murdering, torturing regimes by buying their products. The Moral Libertarian will not be dirtying his hands with the blood of Chinese dissidents or Labradorian seal pups, when he buys his baseball cap made in the Netherlands instead of Sinjiang, or his condoms made in the Falklands instead of Alberta ( the recent floods prove that those made in Calgary leak).

Anyway, Silverwolf believes his Destitution Camp scheme would be the only welfare program necessary in America, except for a few possible programs like care of orphans or those in iron lungs, or those suffering from severe dementia, although in our envisioned prosperous Free-Market society, such programs would almost certainly be funded and run effectively by private charities, nurtured by the largesse of wealthy Individuals.

Silverwolf’s Destitution Camps: the only welfare program necessary in America.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf