Friday, August 29, 2008

A Tale of Two Libertarian Zions

I love Micronations.

From the BjornSocialist Republic, which comprises of a rock, to the Crown Dependancy of Forvik, which recently split from the UK and EU...they are all great. All micronations have a libertarian bent, and are ripe for study.

Two micronations fascinate me the most, and they happen to be the most famous ones: Sealand and Christiania.

The
Principality of Sealand, located off the coast of Sussex, England, is a former military installation that has been siezed by former British Major Paddy Roy Bates. It survived a military coup in 1978 and a disasterous fire. However it has also succeeded in recieving several de facto recognitions of its sovereignty. For instance, the Netherlands and Germany sent diplomats to Sealand to negotiate the release of their citizens after the coup was quelled.



Christiania, a small neighbourhood of Copenhagen is a semi-autonomous, self-governing community with anarcho-communist leanings. The community transformed a disused military barracks into a flurishing community - despite several disputes with the State of Denmark.

Christiania is built on the principle that "every individual has a responsibility for his/her own life and his/her home". Despite its obvious leftist leanings, Christiania has retained many of the property rights intrinsic to the capitalist world.

Now...both micronations are aspiring not to demolish the state, but to create a new one. Sealand is locked in a struggle to be recognised as a sovereign entity. Christiania has repelled many State invasions by the Danish police, confirming the rule that the group who governs is the group that is better at using force and fraud.

The problem with micronations is that they are, quite frankly, too small to be anything other than a running gag for larger nations. Take Forvik for instance. No income tax. Great. No corporation tax. Wonderful. So where are all the eager industrialists and entrepreneurs?

Also, libertarian zions are self-defeating. They still have to rely on the State (and other States) and all its peripheries to survive. If these free societies bore the full brunt of their secession they would hardly last a day.

Free societies would also have to pay taxes on whatever goods and services they use. They are still strenghening the State.

So Libertarian Zionism isn't the way to go, at least, for now.


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Here's One I Prepared Earlier

I made this myself on a dreary afternoon. It's a spoof of those American "this is your brain on drugs" commercials. I think it's awesome!

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Usain Bolt, Equality, Mises and Socialism

Ludwig von Mises begins his epic Human Action with the statement: "humans act".

All action has a meaning and a purpose.

Elsewhere, Mises states that humans aim to exchange their current predicament for a more favourable one.

So through Action, we constantly try to make ourselves better off.

This is why Usain Bolt trained for years - he was looking for a way out of his impoverished Jamaica. He has won 3 gold medals in the process. This is why children in the
favelas of Brazil emulate Ronaldinho - they are trying to escape from their poverty.

Many socialists think that "material equality" is a universally desired goal. But they don't realise this concept is fundamentally flawed.

If we are all to have "equal material wealth", then what incentive is there to practice, to invest in education, to acquire skills, to work. Why should we
act at all? The productive people don't work as the fruits of their labour will be taken away from them. The poor don't bother working either, as the government will provide for them.

The result? We are all equal. Equally poor. Everyone lives in ghettoes under socialism. The ideology can only collapse in on itself.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Spotlight on Discrimination

The other day I tried to join a female-only gymnasium. I was refused permission to use their facilities. I suspect my member got in the way of me becoming a member. I tried to blow off steam at a gay nightclub, but I was refused entry for not being a homosexual. Annoyed, I strolled to the nearby pub where I was refused admittance because I was under the age of 22. I argued with the bouncer until he let me in. When inside I tried to chat up this hot black girl. She refused my advances, claiming "she only goes out with black guys".

Over the course of my day I could easily be discriminated on the basis of my gender, sexuality, age and colour. The question is: should this be illegal?

My answer is: no. Here's why...

First off, 'discimination' is not a dirty word. 'Discrimination' in the economic sense merely means 'to choose between rival alternatives'. There is nothing bad about discrimination
per se. We do it all the time. Walter Block points this out in his pithy book Defending the Undefendable.

Secondly, discrimination of any kind is not a 'crime'. It is not a violation of person, property or a breach of contract. In fact,
discrimination is merely a refusal to trade with certain people.

Thirdly, the right not to be discriminated against does not exist. The only right that does exist is the right to own your person and your property. That is, property rights. I don't have the right to hang around people who don't like my opinions, my sexuality or my colour.






Let's say, hypothetically that I own a pub. Only people that I select can enter my pub. If someone who I do not approve enters my establishment they are violating my property rights - trespassing.

I also hate redheaded people, or as I call 'em, "carrot heads".

I constantly refuse redheaded people into my establishment. And that's fine. Nobody has a right to be in my pub unless I say so. Frequenting my pub is a
privilige not a right. This is the confusion in which many of us get caught up.

Let's further analyse the scenario. Refusing one redhead will have eaten into my profits for the evening. Redheads might tell their friends to not drink at my pub. I may be labelled the town racist. A label that's difficult to shake off. My discrimination might cost me my pub.

Furthermore, in a society where everyone is allowed to own property, there is nothing stopping redheads opening their own redhead pubs where they can drink all the
ginger beer they like.

In econospeak, they can
capture the redhead drinkers market. Unless the government creates barriers to market entry, through say, strict licencing laws or a restriction to own property.

This is how the market acts as a wonderful anti-racism mechanism.

Finally, anti-discrimination laws are enforced arbitrarily. Consider these three scenarios:

1. I choose to date within my own race, because it is superior.
2. I choose not to shop in Asian food shops because they are an inferior race.
3. I refuse to serve black people in my store because I think they are inferior.

In all scenarios I am discriminating on the basis of race, that is, I am a racist. But only in the last scenario am I branded a criminal.

This is why we should adopt a strange idea. Perhaps we should change the definition of 'racism' to 'the belief that humanity is separated by race'.

That's what I've done.



The Killers

I am exhausted after seeing Bloc Party and The Killers last night at Marlay Park.

I reeked of mud and sweat, and I believe someone chucked a cup full of piss at me during the gig.

Nevertheless, I will muster the energy to write up another blog post as 'Europe is Doomed' been recently plugged by the Irish Liberty Forum blog.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Are The French Really That Lazy?

What does your typical frenchman look like?

He might be short and dark-haired. He may be wearing a
beret and holding his baguette. He probably reeks of garlic and cheese. He's sipping a glass of red as he sits by the Seine.

But I certainly can't imagine him working! Or can I?

According to many OECD productivity reports, the French are consistently one of the most productive nations in the West. The French 'output per hour worked' is identical to their American counterparts. All of this is good news, no?

Well I don't think so.


The first thing I thought when I saw the data was: so what?
France has a brutal tax regime - a mean tax rate of about 50% - meaning that about half of all productive activity is funnelled away from the productive people, and given to the unproductive, the unemployed and the state. France may be a productive nation of workers, but any benefits are quickly removed by the iron fist of government. Productivity in this case doesn't translate into higher quality of life.

Secondly, a quick glance at France's unemployment figures will tell you more about France's labour force than any other statistic. An unemployment rate of about 7.5% does not a happy country make. Many measures, like the minimum wage for instance, ensure unproductive workers don't get jobs in the first place.

An enormous public sector doesn't help the situation either.

Finally, something must be said about France's infamous 35-hour working week. Under the law, no Frenchman can work more than 35 hours in a single week.
This is an example of the
Lump of Labour Fallacy. The reasoning behind it is that it forces employers to hire more employees, thus reducing unemployment. This assumes that there is a fixed amount of work to be done. This is the fallacy. There isn't a fixed 'lump' of work to be done. It would be fair to assume that French people desire an infinite number of goods, services and croissants, so the amount of work that can be done is also infinite.

A 35-hour workweek ensures that desire for croissants, baguettes and cheese goes unfulfilled.

Are The French Really That Lazy? The answer: both yes, and no.




Monday, August 18, 2008

The Broken Window Fallacy

I've been in university for two years now, however not one of my lecturers have ever discussed the Broken Window Fallacy, one of the most important and most simple tid-bits of economics.

The idea was developed by Frederic Bastiat and elucidated in Henry Hazlitt's timeless Economics in One Lesson. In fact, the broken window fallacy is the One Lesson.

THE LESSON:

"A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor."

Therein lies the fallacy. What we see is all the economic activity derived from the destruction of property. But we do not see all the useful products that would have been produced had it not occured. The baker could have bought a new machine that makes bread more easily. The glazier could have made a window for a new home owner. But we don't see this happening...because it was never allowed to happen.

This is why there is always at least one economist who stupidly points out that natural disaters or
terrorist attacks have positive effects on the economy, as the rebuilding effort will put people into employment. The logical conclusion is that we should tear down existing buildings, flood our cities and wage wars to cure any economic ills.

Peculiar thinking indeed.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Property Rights: Going, Going, Gone.

The right to own property stems from your right to own yourself. You come to own anything you 'mix your labour with', as Locke put it. Positive law has enshrined it many important documents, for instance the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 17
  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property
This is all well and good, until you continue reading...

Article 25
  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment...
Article 26
  1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages...
Articles 25 and 26 violate Article 17. If education shall be free, then the only way for this to happen is if teachers work for nothing at the whims of students (slavery), of if people are arbitrarilty deprived of their property to pay for education.

The European Union has solved this conumdrum in its Charter of Fundamental Rights:

Article 17
  1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest [...] The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
See what they did there? Notice the phrases "public interest" and "general interest". I would have thought letting individuals keeps their property was in the general interest. I guess I'm wrong. Of course it will be governments to decide what is the public interest, and what arbitrary payment is consistent with the common good.

The way things are going, it won't be long before we see this in print:
  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property
  3. The right to own property shall be reserved to government, and shall be used as it sees fit

Friday, August 15, 2008

Flatmate Economics - Dirty Dishes

There are two things that bug me about living with other people.

1. Dirty dishes pile up in the sink
2. We try to hold out for as long as possible without buying toilet paper

When my flatmates return from their summer breaks I plan to institute an intense property rights allocation. We will divide the dishes and cutlery evenly among us and a small section of kitchen space shall be alloted to each of us.

Use of a kitchen counter without the owner's permission will be a crime, punished by a small 'fine'. This may take the form of cleaning. If someone uses my dishes without my permission will be punished by cleaning them. Or cooking for me. Penalties will escalate for repeat offenders.

As for toilet paper, each flatmate should have his own rolls. It would be great if they were kept hidden to prevent theft. I'll never be caught with my pants down in the loo ever again!

This is just an obvious solution to me. Forgive me if I sound like a crockery fascist.

Of course the lesson here is that allocating property rights, not removing them, is the only way for us to combat the Tragedy of the Commons situations that plague the world today.

Ferris Bueller and Banking Bailouts

Money and banking are boring.

They are the most incomprehensible parts of any macroeconomics textbook. I beleive the banking system can be made more fun using an example from the brilliant film Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

In the movie, Ferris "borrows" a Ferrari from his best friend's father. He takes it for a drive and then parks it at a garage. The valet is a wily one, and he decides to take the car out for a spin. We see the valet tearing through the city streets as if he hasn't got a care in the world. Luckily he decides not to steal the Ferrari and he returns it Bueller at the garage.

Put simply, the garage is the bank. The valet is the banker.
Ferris Bueller is a depositor at the bank.
The valet happens to be a borrower at the bank as well.
The Ferrari is money.


The garage is only required to store a fraction of the cars it takes care of. This is called "fractional reserve banking". It lends the rest to people who want to drive them in the meantime.

If the car is returned by the end of the day then all is well. Ferris can go home. If however the Ferrari is not returned, Ferris is royally screwed.

This is why it is not a good idea to lend cars to bad drivers.

Now let's say that the government is going to provide as many cars as the garage may need, that is, it is willing to bail out a failing garage. This incentivises lending cars to poor drivers. It doesn't matter if cars crash all over the place, there is always a steady flow of new Ferraris from the government.

That is the problem with government bailouts of Northern Rock (UK) and Fannie/Freddie (USA). Government bailouts allow banks to stay in business whether they act responsibly or not.



Thursday, August 14, 2008

Slavery in Europe - Conscription

"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."

- Article V, Part 2, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union


Europe has a rich history of slave labour exploitation. From the slavery in democratic Athens to today’s modern variety, Europeans have always been forced into involuntary servitude.

Below is a map of Europe. The countries in green are the ones which still facilitate compulsary military service. Many of these countries are in the European Union. If you live in these countries, Article V of the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not apply to you.



All of the above countries require the most valuable people in the labour force, young males, to serve in the military for between 6 and 12 months, with the exception of Russia and Belarus (12-18 months).


Almost all of these nations have a conscientious objection rule or a minimum health standard. If the conscript is given permission, he may choose to participate in civil service instead of the military. This is still slavery. Giving a man a choice between the army or the civil service is like giving a negro the choice between picking cotton or picking corn.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Ireland’s New Drinking Laws

The Intoxicating Liquor Bill of 2008 came into force on the 30th of July across Ireland. The Bill is intended to implement "some important reforms of the licensing laws and public order legislation to address the adverse consequences of alcohol abuse in our society. The measures proposed are a balanced response to problems caused by excessive alcohol consumption and binge drinking."

A full description of the Bill’s effects can be found at the Department of Justice website.

The part of the Bill which irritates me most is the early closing times of night-clubs and off-licences. Night-clubs must now close at 2:30. No alcohol may be sold at supermarkets or off-licences after 22:00.

The first thing that strikes me about the new closing times is that it is clearly theft.

If I wish to have an enjoyable time at a night-club, and the night-club owner is willing to accomodate me, then we are both better off if we trade. Any government action restricting our voluntary action makes BOTH me and the proprietor WORSE OFF.

Similarly, if I wish to purchase alcohol at an off-licence, and the shopkeeper is willing to sell alcohol to me, then any restriction on our exchange makes us both poorer.

Secondly, the Intoxicating Liquor Bill is a violation of property rights. If I own a business then I am the one who decides its opening hours. Not the government.

Lastly, the effects of the Bill will be disasterous. Instead of a slow and steady outpouring of patrons from venues, there will be many drunk, rowdy and irate people kicked out from pubs and clubs out onto the streets. I don’t look forward to the scenes on Dublin streets at all.

The new drinking laws should be viewed with scorn, not just because of their effects but because they remove many rights from the citizenry.

Welcome to 20000miles' blog!

Welcome to 20000miles' blog!

This is a blog about politics and economics from a European perspective.

Anybody who is interested in the persuit of liberty is invited to read, comment or criticise.