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.

Wine

Norwegians drink more wine. The consumption of wine in Norway has increased from 31 million liters in 1995 to 61 million liters in 2005. On the average, this means that every adult in Norway drank 38 bottles of wine last year.

Is this a problem? Not necessarily. It depends on how this wine is consumed.

However, the Norwegian authority AKAN demands higher prices, less bars and less wine comments in the media. This would supposedly make Norwegians drink less wine.

What is this about? Raising children? Sadly, no. This is about making it harder for adults to get themselves a glass of wine. I must've missed something. When did government become my substitute parent, and when did I become a child?

The problem with unions in Sweden and Norway

Let me first say that I am not against unions or collective bargaining. Economically, collective bargaining may or may not be beneficial to the workers. That depends on each case.

Just like the 19th century libertarian French economist, the brilliant Frédèric Bastiat, I think workers should be allowed to organize themselves. Of course, employers should be free not to hire union members, just like workers should be free not to work for employers who does not allow unions, and unions should be allowed to organize peaceful boycots against companies who does not allow unions.

I have no problems with unions qua unions. I do have problems, however, with coercion. That is why I have problems with today's Swedish and Norwegian unions (I here mainly think of the large ones, such as the Swedish LO and TCO, and the Norwegian LO).

What I'm speaking of is the fact that "Big Labor", the large unions, have in practice became a part of the state (you could say this about "Big Business", too, but that is not the subject of this post). Instead of keeping to their proper function -negotiating about wages and other working conditions with employers- those unions have allied themselves with the Swedish Social democratic worker's party and the Norwegian Labor party. Since those parties have been important in Sweden and Norway, especially in Sweden, where the Social democrats have been in power 61 of the last 70 years, they have been able to effect the legislation in those countries.

The unions didn't get this for free, of course. In both Sweden and Norway, LO has turned into a part of the Social democratic election machine, and I don't doubt that the Social democrats of both countries have LO to thank for getting votes from so many workers (although their number have been decreasing with the slow death of the industrial society).

I started this post with saying that I have nothing against unions or collective bargaining, and now I'm repeating that statement. What I see as the proper function of a union is to negotiate about wages and working conditions (which undoubtedly are necessary functions at least in some cases) with employers.

Take the unemployment benefits in Sweden. Unemployment benefits are received from something called an "a-kassa". There are many different "a-kassa"s, but almost all of them belong to different unions. To be able to get unemployment benefits, you have to be a member of an a-kassa. In theory, you can be a member of an a-kassa without being a member of the union it belongs to, but in practice, that means the union will put your request at the bottom of the pile of papers.

It doesn't end there. The a-kassa is said to be an insurance, however, it doesn't work live any sane insurance, since it's financed by the state (90% of it is financed by the state of Sweden), i.e. the tax-payers.

My problem with the unions of Sweden and Norway is that they are a part of the state apparatus.

No more Norwegians in Afghanistan

Norway is a NATO country, and it (Norway) has recently been asked by said organization to send more troups to Afghanistan. However, one of the three parties in the Norwegian government, Sosialistisk Venstreparti (the Socialist Left Party) is traditionally a NATO-sceptic party, and now (seemingly because of this party's opposition) the Norwegian government has turned down the NATO demands. They are not sending more troups to Afghanistan. This is good. Now I'd like the government to call home all Norwegian military from abroad, and leave NATO.

Qui Bono? (latin: Who benefits?)

Who benefits from the state?

A usual defense of the state goes something like this: managed correctly, the state is a good. It protects the poor, the homeless, the sick, the mentally insane, etc, from the rich, the ruthless, the evildoers.

There is a problem with this analysis. First of all, compare this defense with reality. In reality, there are poor, homeless, sick and mentally insane people not taken care of in rich "decent" countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany and the United States. Rich corporations receive protection from governments against cheaper competition. EU, Japan and US subsidies to their farmers is a good example.

On one hand, EU is subsidizing Danish sugar producers (who actually don't produce, they just cost a lot of money). EU is, at the same time, heavily taxing (through customs rules) sugar from the Caribbean, making sure Caribbean sugar grovers cannot compete with European ones. Is this helping the poor? But, alright, maybe the Danish sugar "producers" are poor Danes, and therefore need government assistance?

No. They are not. In my old home town, the town sold land way below market price to IKEA, when they decided to establish themselves there. This is common in Sweden. Big corporations, like IKEA, Volvo, etc, are allowed to buy land cheap (sometimes they get it for free, in exchange for "creating jobs"), and at the same time, small businesses are harassed by the taxation agency, and are not getting a brake. The Scandinavian welfare state is subsidizing big business at the expense of small business, and EU is subsidizing EU farmers at the expense of third world farmers.

The state is giving to rich, at the expense of the poor. It may seem confusing, since there are progressive taxes (and I am not fond of them), making "the rich" pay more than "the poor" in taxes.

However, by hampering competition in the job market, government is holding wages down. This point may be more important in countries like the US and the UK than in Sweden and Norway (if I have understood the situation correctly).

There is a simple reason why government always benefits the rich (at least in the long run). The rich have more money, and easier access to government. Outright bribes may not be that common (at least not in Scandinavia, although that happens to), but my previous examples with IKEA, Volvo, etc, is a good example, when local government is benefitting the rich (big corporation) at the expense of the poor (small firm).

The only solution to this problem is to abolish government.