Morbror för andra gången

Igår morse blev min syster mamma för andra gången, den här gången till en dotter. Sedan tidigare har hon en son. Jag är en stolt morbror till bägge två, och om du läser det här, syster yster, så säger jag...
stort grattis!

Nyårslöfte

Snart nytt år, och dags för ett nyårslöfte.

Jag lovar härmed att inte flytta till Sverige under 2007. Om jag bryter detta löfte måste jag gå mellan Karlstad och Kristinehamn på Finlands nationaldag, den 6 december.

Schwäääärje!!!

Jag har varit i Sveariket sedan den 22 december, och följande livsviktiga saker har jag hunnit med:

druckit svensk öl (Norrlands guld)
ätit en svensk kroghamburgare - godast i världen
ätit potatismos och köttbullar-med bostongurka - givetvis också godast i världen
ätit svenska dillchips

Allting verkar handla om mat... men svensk mat är ju bäst i världen, det vet ju alla! *ler*

Government and fear

Governments control people through fear. This seems to be a basic truth about ruling people. It is easy to control scared people. Just offer them security, and they will accept any measures taken, in its name.

Let's start with a look at the Israeli-Palestinianconflict. I am strongly against the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. I strongly agree with those who call the Israeli policies "state terrorism". I do not, however, unlike many critics of Israel, hold this against Israeli Jews, or Jews in general.

There is no fundamental difference between Jews and other human beings. Jews respond in the same way as other people do. The problem in Israel is neither the Jews nor the Arabs. The problems are fear, terror,surveillance and control. Most Israeli Jews are afraid of Palestinians, and of Palestinian terror. This fear is large created, and supported, by the Israeli government and its so-called anti-terrorism measures.

Anti-terrorism measures actually work against their(supposed) goals. Common anti-terrorism measures are surveillance (tapping of telephones, reading E-Mails,text messages, etc) and limitation of the freedoms of movement, press, association and speech. These measures are per se government terrorizing the population.

Israeli anti-terrorism measures cause reactions fromboth Jews and Arabs. The Arabs, or Palestinians, are discriminated against by the Israeli government. They are not allowed to move freely. They are denied their freedom of association. Their houses are bulldozed down by the Israeli army. They are tortured and thrown in jail. The Palestinians learn to fear and hate the state of Israel, and since Israel is a self-declared"Jewish state", they learn to fear and hate Jews, too, just like Israeli Jews learn to fear and hate Palestinians.

What I stated about Jews above is true about Arabs, too. There is no fundamental difference between Arabs and other human beings.

If we leave Israel, and look elsewhere, we can look at Iran. Iran is practically a theocracy, where the government decides what can and cannot be printed, said or expressed. The Iranian people is constantly threatened to be bombed by the U.S. and Israeli governments, and the president of Iran is using the fear to achieve his own goals, and to make the people obedient. The Iranian president is pointing at Israel and America, and through the common Iranian's fear of these countries, they are controlled. It would not be hard to argue that the external threat from the U.S.and Israeli governments keeps the Iranian president in power. When people feel threatened, they often side with the leader. This happened when Clinton bombed Serbia. The support for Milosevic skyrocketed, because the Serbs felt threatened.

Now, let's look at America, the so-called land of thefree. 9/11 was the best thing that could happen for the U.S. government. I do not think that the U.S.government were behind it, but it was the best thing that could happen for a controlling and power-hungry government. When Twin Towers fell apart, President Bush got, and seized, the opportunity he needed. He could, and did, use this to spread fear in America,and gain support to attack and conquer Afghanistan andIraq.

Not only has president Bush used the fear of terror asan excuse for his imperialist agenda abroad, but also to increase government control of the American people. He started with Patriot Act, and continued by abolishing Habeas Corpus. The U.S. government has pressed charges against reporters, allegedly for exposing war secrets, and has thus de facto abolished the freedom of press.

I'd like to end this article with a look at what is known as one of the world's most peaceful regions, Scandinavia. In my native country Sweden, which hasn't been involved in any wars since the Swedish army forced Norway to join Sweden in a union in 1814, the government has now decided to start to use tapping of telephones, "to fight crime". Once again, the government is using fear (in this case, fear of criminals) to control the people, and in my present home country, Norway, strong forces want to establisha DNA index of convicted criminals. Again, governmentis using fear to gain control. The proposed DNA index is supposed to contain DNA from every convicted criminal, no matter if the conviction is murder, rape or a speeding ticket. I fear how this could be used.

Although Norway, unlike Sweden, is a NATO country, and has troops in Afghanistan, I do not fear Islamic terror. I do not feel threatened by al-Qaeda or their likes. I feel threatened by government, which is theworst terrorist organization there is.

En vettig fackföreningskvinna

Den norska ön Svalbard är i det närmaste en libertariansk utopi. Ön har en platt skatt på 12%, som tidigare var 8%. Ett stort steg i fel riktning, förvisso, vilket påpekades i samband med skattehöjningen av fackföreningsledaren Anita Johansen i Longyearbyen (Svalbards huvudort).

Något så oskandinaviskt som en fackföreningsordförande som är störd över ökade skatter! Hör bara här: "Vi har et veldig bra samfunn her oppe, men det er skjøre mekanismer som styrer det. Jeg tror at Stortinget med dette har gått for langt".

Läs mer här.

Hjälten i Tromsø

Rema-köpmannen Roar Olsen i Tromsø, i norra Norge, har denna vecka öppet dygnet runt, och bränner öppettids-skylten. I det här landet, där butikerna håller söndagsstängt (läs: tvingas hålla söndagsstängt) så är initiativ som detta mycket välkomna!

Roar Olsen är hjälten i Tromsø. Läs mer på Liberaleren.

Svenskt näringsliv

Libertarian in room 101 frågar sig om Svenskt näringsliv har spelat ut sin roll, och argumenterar förnuftigt om vad som är felet med Svenskt näringsliv: Svenskt näringsliv har blivit en fackförening för storföretag, snarare än ett språkrör för innovation och företagande. Läs mer här.

On fairness

Fairness is an important, although extremely difficult, subject. One reson for this is that life is not, and cannot, be fair. To a certain degree, fairness is an important and noble goal, but if that goal is pursued too far, the quest for fairness will destroy other, important goals in society.

Most people (me included) feel attracted to the idea of equal opportunity and equal access to the opportunities. Socialists and libertarians agree here. The problem, however, is that life is not fair. This is easily seen when talking of economics: it is not fair that a member of the Rockefeller, the Kennedy, the Hilton or the Bush family is born to wealth. On the other hand, there are more aspects of fairness than just the question of inherited wealth and trust funds. Just like you inherit a family fortune, you inherit talent. It is not a coincidence that Linn Ullman is a full-time writer (in Norway). Her father is, after all, the Swedish film maker Ingmar Bergman. Just like the Italian actress Isabella Rosselini is the daughter of the Swedish actress Ingrid Bergman (not related to Ingmar, however), and just think of the acting family Douglas (Kirk and Michael). This is common everywhere in society: gifted parents have gifted children. This is clearly unfair, but to try to stop gifted people to pursue greatness would be insane. It would make society, i.e. all of us, worse off.

How about gifted people, born in a poor environment? I am convinced that a free society, i.e. a free market, will both allow and help them to pursue their goals. If nothing else, it is a question of economics. A gifted but poor youngster will be able to get a loan to pursue his or her dreams. This is not an act of charity from the money-lender. There are strong incentives to invest in talent.

However, we are not all as wealthy as Paris Hilton, or as gifted as Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Einstein, Jerry Seinfeld or Eddie Murphy. But at the same time, it seems to be a general rule, that the freer the system, the more opportunities for everyone, and the better off is the poor people. A poor Norwegian has a higher standard of living than even a rich Bangladeshean or Zimbabwean. This is clearly not fair, but to redistribute wealth through force from Norwegians to Zimbabweans will not have positive effects. Redistribution is completely negative: it penalizes hard work and kills initiatives. It teaches those who get their wealth confiscated to produce less, and it teaches those who receive the wealth to rely on charity, and thus, they too will produce less.

This is not only true when speaking of Norwegians and Zimbabweans, but it is also true when speaking of forced redistribution from one Norwegian to another. Whether we are speaking of governmental foreign aid, or the functions of the welfare state, the effects are basically the same, and just as negative.

I believe there is a basic truth about fairness: it is a noble goal, but it must be handled very carefully. Otherwise, the quest for fairness will harm society, and hurt everyone, including those it was supposed to help.

Bodströmsamhället blir till Asksamhället

Det går inte att lita på staten. Nu vill regeringen införa både buggning och datalagring. Om detta rapporterar bloggregeringen. Läs mer här.

Death by government

Walter Block et al are writing about more deaths by government, on LRC. Read it here.

Free trade means solidarity

Protectionism is a disease. It is often advocated in
the name of solidarity, and almost always by special
interests who wants protection against competition.
Look at Sweden: the Swedish government has recently
proposed that labor immigration from non-European
countries should be allowed. The largest union in
Sweden, LO (the Swedish Trade Union Confederation), is
against it. They fear that this will drive wages down,
and are thus demonstrating their lack of economic
knowledge.

Or look at Sweden's neighboring country Norway: food
is expensive in Norway. It's the most expensive
country in Europe, and Oslo is sometimes declared the
most expensive city in the world. Yet, Norwegian
farmers are subsidized. Also, the Norwegian government
are putting heavy duties on imported food. This is, of
course, driving prices up, since it decreases
competition. This means that Norwegian consumers buy
overpriced food, and, in addition to this, they pay
taxes to subsidize Norwegian agriculture. When someone
publicly opposes these policies, e.g. on TV shows or
in newspapers, they get smeared by the Norwegian
farmers's movement. Those people, we are told, want to
put hundreds of thousands of people working in
Norwegian agriculture and in sectors depending on
agriculture, out of their jobs. Again, complete
ignorance of how economy works is demonstrated by a
special interest group. I prefer to say like the
Swedish economist Eli Heckscher (1879-1952): "Either
an industry is profitable, and then it does not need
subsidies, or it is not profitable, and then it does
not deserve subsidies".

Those examples above, of restrictions on labor
immigration in Sweden (hopefully to be abolished), and
of subsidies and duties in Norway, and the cheers
these policies get from economically ignorant special
interests, are just two out of many. Half of the
budget of the European Union goes to EU's common
agricultural policy (CAP), i.e. to subsidies, and,
just like Norway (which is not an EU member), the EU,
too, restricts import of food with heavy duties. At
the same time, because of EU subsidies, food produced
in EU countries is sold at an artificially low price
in Africa, and thus driving African farmers out of
business.

All of this is done in the name of solidarity.
However, the only winners in this process are the
European farmers, while both European
consumers/tax-payers and African farmers lose. Those
who defend protectionism in the name of solidarity
ought to be clear about that protectionist policies
turn most people, producers and consumers, into
losers. This is not only a question of dollars, or
euros. For many poor, African farmers, it is a matter
of life and death.

Meanwhile, western governments have for decades been
feeding authoritarian dictatorships in the third
world. Huge amounts of foreign aid have been pocketed
by the ruling classes of third world countries, while
the average third world inhabitant has stayed just as
poor as before. This, too, was done in the name of
solidarity.

There are, of course, many examples of former third
world countries that have turned around and became
wealthy nations. The so-called Tiger economies in east
Asia are wonderful examples of this. However,
countries like Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and South
Korea did not grow rich because of tariffs or by
receiving foreign aid, but by adopting free trade
policies. The Swedish globalization advocate, Johan
Norberg, compares South Korea with Zambia in his book
"In defense of global capitalism". In the 1960's,
South Korea and Zambia were equally poor. Forty years
later, South Korea is a rich country, while Zambia is
still desperately poor. Zambia adopted, like many
other African countries, protectionist policies. For
this, they were cheered by the intellectual elite of
the west. South Korea adopted free trade policies.

Real solidarity should be about improving the living
standards of the poor. This is best done through a
free market. Under free trade, third world farmers
would be allowed to compete with European farmers, and
thus earn a living. European consumers would get
cheaper food. European farmers unable or unwilling to
compete would have to find something else to do.
However, since European consumers would spend less on
food, they would afford to demand more goods and
services, which would create jobs in other industries.
This would also increase living standards in Europe,
since formerly subsidized European farmers would be
having productive jobs instead of subsidized.

Free trade would increase wealth in Africa and Europe.
With free trade, we get a win-win situation. What can
be more solidaric than that?

Hasjbruk inget problem

VG rapporterte den 14 desember om hasjbruket i Oslo. Ifølge artikkelen har halvparten av de unge i Oslo brukt hasj i løpet av det siste året. Artikkelen siterer sosiologiprofessor Willy Pedersen ved Universitetet i Oslo.

Han sier at "Mange av kjøperne er urbane og ansett som vellykkede personer. De finnes i alle yrkesgrupper og er alt fra advokater, håndverkere, lærere og studenter". Hvis det er som professoren sier, da skjønner jeg ikke hva problemet er?

Det eneste jeg skjønner er at den norske stats hasjforbud ikke er legitimt blant store grupper i samfunnet. Når skal politikerne skjønne dette, og legalisere hasj?

Pinochet e död

Bent Johan Mosfjell har några sansade kommentarer kring ex-diktator Augusto Pinochet, och sättet han kom till makten på.

Läs mer här.

Statskyrkan består i Norge

Minerva skriver om hur norska LO:s ordförande Gerd-Liv Valla har avgjort statskyrkofrågan i Norge. Ur artikeln:

"LO-leder Gerd-Liv Valla offentliggjorde i dag sitt syn på statskirken. Ikke overraskende konkluderte hun med at ”vi”, dvs. Valla, fremdeles må ha kontrollen: ”Det er også gjennom den at vi som stat fortsatt har rett til å utnevne biskoper”. L’état, c’est moi."

Det innebär att Arbeiderpartiet röstar för bevarad statskyrka i Stortinget, och det kommer Senterpartiet också att göra. Då kan de lugnt låta det tredje regeringspartiet, Sosialistisk Venstre, rösta emot statskyrka, väl medvetna om att SV inte får någon majoritet för detta.

Man kunde önska att de borgerliga partierna i Norge röstar emot statskyrka, men jag tvivlar. Statskyrkan blir kvar. Norge stannar i samma sällskap som Saudi-Arabien och Iran.

Läs artikeln här.

The greatest movie I have ever seen

I have finally watched V for Vendetta. It is, without doubt, the best movie I have ever seen. It may very well be the best movie I ever see.

This movie shows what government can do to people, and how government can rule by fear. It shows how government deceives (or tries to deceive) people, and it shows the brutality and stupidity of government.

V for Vendetta, based on a DC graphic novel by Alan Moore, shows how ideas can change the world. I do not wish to reveal too much of the plot, but I can say this: the movie shows us where we are heading, in a time of patriot acts, Guantanamo Bay, increasing surveillance, and a seemingly never-ending "war on terror", and this in the so-called "free world"... the movie is, sadly enough, prophetic.

Six degrees of separation

Have you ever tried six degrees of separation? A few examples here.

Today's quote

"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds." -- John Perry Barlow

More quotes here.

Free to choose

I have recently watched the late Milton Friedman's classical TV series "Free to choose". I enjoyed it. Friedman discusses basic but important subjects. Although there were no real news for me there, I consider Friedman a good teacher, and he gives convincing examples of his theories in action, in the US, Hong Kong, Japan, the UK, and eastern Europe. He shows the importance of incentives, and what happens when they are allowed to work through a free market, and also what happens when they are not allowed to work, because of government regulations of the market. One point I really liked was that the so-called third way, between capitalism and socialism, could only work (i.e. not lead to misery in the short run) in countries that had first experienced laissez-faire or almost laissez-faire capitalism, and he gives us the examples of the UK and Sweden. No country has ever been able to go from state socialism (central planning) to the third way. Being a Swede, I second that opinion.

I strongly recommend "Free to choose". Not only did I enjoy the shows, I also enjoyed the introductions by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Steve Allen and David Friedman, and I enjoyed the discussions where Milton Friedman discussed with those who agreed with him, e.g. Gary Becker and Thomas Sowell, and with those who did not agree with him, e.g. James Gailbraith.

Watch it!

Cruel, right?

Financial Times has an article today about unemployment benefit cuts in Sweden. The leader of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, LO, Wanja Lundby-Wedin explains the cruelty of cutting unemployment benefits:

The union leader said an ordinary worker gets a salary of Skr17,000 a month. If this worker is unemployed, he or she will receive about Skr11,000. "They will be forced to take a job," she said.

Read it here.

Footnote: 17000 Skr=2457.71 US$, 11000 Skr=1590.28 US$.

Dagens citat

"For det andre så tror jeg på konkurranse foran monopol. Jeg foretrekker privat fremfor offentlig. Høyre-folk har følgende logikk. Privat er bedre enn offentlig. Skole og sykehus er veldig viktig. Derfor må skole og sykehus være offentlig. Det logiske ville jo være å overlate de viktigste oppgavene til de som kan utføre dem best, altså til private. Liberalister har samme logikk som Høyre-folk. Privat er bedre enn offentlig. Beskyttelse av rettigheter er det viktigste. Derfor må politi, forsvar og rettsvesen være offentlig. Nei, derfor må disse oppgavene overlates til private."
Bent Johan Mosfjell, i en intervju med Liberaleren.

Läs intervjun här.

Fler citat här.

Storebror ser dig.

Per Bylund skriver i Kvällsposten om det svenska övervakningssamhället, näst värst i EU, endast slaget av Storbritannien. Läs mer här.

Allmännyttan fall för EU

Statsstödet till den svenska allmännyttan bryter mot EU:s regler. Det är slutsatsen i en analys från det internationella ratingföretaget Standard & Poors. Om EU-kommissionen kommer till samma slutsats måste Sverige acceptera en riktning mot mer marknadsbaserade hyror samtidigt som allmännyttans hyresledande roll försvinner. Detta rapporterar SvD.

Jag har sagt det förut, och jag säger det igen. Inför marknadshyror i Sverige nu!

Ett litet men viktigt steg i rätt riktning

Sveriges regering har beslutat att föreslå att arbetskraftinvandring från icke-europeiska länder skall tillåtas, och LO får ingenting att säga till om. Det är bra. Mera sådant, tack!

Free to choose

I checked my P.O. Box today at Grefsen post office in Oslo. I usually do that on Fridays. I had received a package from Civita, containing five DVD's of Milton Friedman's Free to choose-series. I will enjoy it!

Kulturpolitik

Per Bylund skriver på Moderskeppet om Sveriges kulturministers, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth, senaste groda. Hon deltog i en radiointervju på svenska P1 imorse, och sade bland annat: "Det finns ett behov av fria pengar".

Fria pengar? Var skall de komma ifrån? Och varför skall just konstnärer som inte producerar alster som säljer på marknaden ges pengar av skattebetalarna? Jag arbetar för mina pengar, och vore tacksam om andra också gjorde det. Kulturarbetarna i Sverige skulle må bra av att fråntagas sina privilegier.

Läs mer här.