How the state makes us less wealthy

Per Bylund and Michael S. Rozeff writes about how the state makes us less wealthy, through "invisible destruction", on LRC.

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.

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.

Institutionalised force

I define a state as an organization which claims a monopoly of the use of force, of legislation, of inner and outer defense (police and military), and of taxation, over a given territorial area. The usual defense for the state, as opposed to anarchy, goes something like this: "Without a state, there will be chaos. Society will fall apart, and biker gangs and other criminals will be the new rulers".

Let's stick to the facts. Government, in its better forms, is what you have in countries like Denmark and New Zeeland. In its worse forms, government is what you have in countries like the Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Anarchy, i.e. stateless society, has succesfully been practised in Iceland and the American West, and less succesfully in Somalia (which I still find preferrable over Cambodia).

Actually, I sincerely believe that the state increases the amount of force in society. The reason for this is that government and its institutions provides a power structure for power freaks and others with attitude problems. I doubt that my readers are surpriced by my claim that many police and military officers are aggressive and violent, and that many bureaucrats are rud. I believe this aggression, violence and rudeness from government is made easier (for government) by the lack of competition in those areas which have been monopolized by government.

The reason for this is that government can externalise its costs to the tax-payers. The tax-payers do not pay taxes voluntarily. They pay because government forces them to do so. In a stateless society, it is reasonable to suppose that protection will be offered by private defense agencier (PDAs). I cannot predict human action in detail, since human action to an extent is unpredictable. It is not, however, completely unpredictable. Conscious beings, e.g. humen, respond to incentives, and since firms (such as PDAs) are run by humen, firms too respond to incentives.

A PDA cannot externalise its costs the same way as a government does, because the PDA's revenues are paid by customers. A PDA cannot force its customers to hire them. A PDA which engages in harassments of innocent people or warfare will have to charge its customers more. I do not believe that most people are willing to pay more without getting something in return, and thus a PDA which involves itself in destructive action (i.e. harassment and/or warfare) will be out-competed by PDAs which stays out of that.

It should also not be forgotten that governments can be corrupted, much easier than a PDA is corrupted. It is a fact that both local and national governments are corrupted, and there are examples of this in my hometown of Oslo, Norway, as well as of mafia influence of (previous?) Italian governments and the Enron scandal in the US. The incentives for governments not to be corrupted are non-existent or small, since the tax-payers are not allowed to stop paying taxes or to withhold taxes from government.

In the case of a PDA, the situation is different, because a PDA operates on a free market. If a PDA is corrupted, it will lose customers. When it loses customers, it loses revenues, and it will then be less attractive to investors as well as to "corruptors". These facts point to a simple conclusion: a stateless society, where defense is provided by PDAs, will not be a corrupted, violent and chaotic society, but a peaceful and prosperous one.

War is the health of the state

It is sometimes said that "war is the health of the state". I think few statements are as true as this one. First of all, war means that the state increases its control of the economy. The economy turns into a war economy, i.e. less market and more state socialism.

Second, war means that any critizing of the government (or worse, of the state as an institution) can be smeared as "unpatriotic". This creates a greater acceptance for decreased freedom.

Except the terrible fact that people get killed during a war (including non-combattants), many other things tend to happen during wars, too. Free speech is usually an early victim of war.

Rule of law is another early victim. A few examples from the so-called "land of the free" (USA): Guantanamo bay and now, Bush has abolished habeas corpus. Supposedly, this would not effect American citizens (like this would make things better).

So, why is a peaceful activist captured, without trial or hearing, and tortured, for campaigning against eminent domain?

War is the health of the state. But it means misery for everyone else.

The question I cannot solve

Why are (classical) liberals so fond of the state? Why do they think that the worst killing machine (I would say it is in the nature of the state to kill, steal and oppress) could be used for good? How can you claim to defend freedom, and call for coercion?

I do not understand.

What constitutes the industrial state

Big government, big business and big labor.

Another example of how government benefits big business at the expense of small business

There was an article in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, last monday (30 October) about how the Norwegian food authority, Mattilsynet, in three days last week closed 7 (out 0f 28 controlled) restaurants in Oslo.

No one has been hurt by these restaurants, and yet, Mattilsynet can close them from one minute to the next, and command the guests to leave the restaurant.

But, as lawyer Christian Aubert in the restaurant business association Bedre Uteliv says, "This has undoubtedly something to do with which position you have got in society" and he adds that Gilde (a big Norwegian meat producer) did not have to close during the e-coli scandal, in spite of the fact that a child died in that scandal.

This is another example of how government benefits big business at the expense of small business.

Mind control

According to feminist theory, kids are socialized into gender roles. Kids are easy to shape, and they learn what it means to be a boy or a girl (they also learn that heterosexuality is the norm). I've started to accept these theories lately.

A thought struck me, on another subject, that I've often thought about, and that I actually think is related to this. The same way kids are socialized into boys (men) and girls (women), we are socialized into statists, in government-run or government-controlled schools.

The late Albert Jay Nock, author of "Our Enemy the State", wrote that the modern man believes in the state, the same way his medieval ancestor believed in the catholic church. To question the state is as unthinkable as it was for medieval Europeans to question the church. Only a few thinkers will question the state. Everyone else just accepts it, like we accept bad weather.

There is a simple reason. In the middle ages, the catholic church controlled the minds. Everyone had to go to church on Sundays (except Jews). All information came from the church. All education was monopolized by the catholic church.

With the reformation, the catholic church lost a part of the continent. But take Sweden, my native country. The education that was offered was offered by the Lutheran church. The church still controlled the minds, and everyone had to go to church on Sundays, and so on.

With increasing democracy, education was put under the state, instead of under the church. This meant that the state got to decide the curriculum, and what was to be taught. The state now shaped the minds of innocent children.

This turned people into statists. They were no longer fanatic christians, instead, they were fanatic statists. They were unable to question government.

That's where we are today. Because although government no longer have an exclusive monopoly of running schools in Sweden, all schools have to be run within the limits of the curriculum, decided by government. This is still forced upon small children (and since schooling is mandatory in Sweden, to not send your loved ones away to the government indoctrination center is illegal).

The worst murderer in history

Government is the worst murderer in history (and it still is). Red China killed millions of its own citizens. So did the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia, to mention a few. Previous US governments killed hundreds of thousands of native Americans. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds. The Turkish republic slaughtered a million Armenians, and thousands of Kurds. The Mugabe regime of Zimbabwe has so far killed thousands of people. The Chilean government of Pinochet, and the Spanish government of Franco killed thousands of people.

It's not only history. The US government, and its allies, is killing Iraqis and Afghans today. Israel is killing Palestinians. The list of governments killing (not to mention other wrongdoings by different regimes) can go on and on, almost forever.

When I discussed this with a former colleague, he said something like "The state isn't killing people. Persons who belong to the state kill people". This is a common counter-argument against anarchism's claim that government kills. I've heard it many times, and I'm going to hear it many times.

I propose that you change the sentence above. Exclude the word "state" and insert the word "mafia" in its place. If you claim that the mafia isn't killing people, nobody takes you seriously. But somehow, you'll get taken seriously when you claim that states aren't killing.

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.

Libertarianism=Anarchism

Which are the libertarian principles? The word libertarianism comes from the the English word liberty. Principled libertarianism is usually based on the Lockean trinity of rights: the right to life, liberty and property, and many libertarians also refer to the non-aggression principle (NAP), which means that you are not allowed to initiate use of force against others. You are, however, according to the NAP, allowed to use force to defend yourself and others, and in case of restitution.

Which are the anarchist principles? The word anarchism comes from the ancient Greek words an arkos, which means "no ruler". From what I understand, the basic anarchist principles are that no force and no fraud should be allowed.

Both libertarian and anarchist principles leads to the same conclusion: the right of individuals to make agreements, based on their own free will.

The effects of this simple conclusion are not easily understood, neither by those who call themselves anarchist, nor by those who call themselves libertarians. Many anarchists fail to understand that the right to make agreements means that there will capitalistic forms of production in an anarchy, i.e. firms, bosses and employees. At the same time, many libertarians fail to see that said right means that the state is an illegal institution that must be abolished, and that without state regulations of the market, there would be more competition from small firms against bigger corporations, more competition for labor, and that that in turn would drive wages up.

The way I see it, libertarians must be anarchists, and anarchists must be libertarians.