Freedom Thoughts

And my vote goes to....

2009-09-11T23:52:00.000+02:00

Lots of people have a hard time figuring who to vote for. It's a hard decision, right? Deciding between parties which seem to have some issues you agree with and some you don't.

The idea of transfering power from the politicians to the people seems to be even more scary to a lot of people than handing it over to the politicians, the two main reasons seem to be:

1) Fear that individuals aren't able to cope with the freedom

2) Fear that too much power being concentrated on few people's hand

The answer to 1) is pretty simple: the less responsibility you need to take, the less you take. The more you suffer the consequences from your action, the more responsibility you take. To appeal for man's feebleness is nothing new, the church has been doing it for centuries, and now socialists are doing the same.

The anwer to 2) is simple as well if you think about it. If we asume big companies and corporations are the main concern, we have to ask - how do they accumulate power? If you think about it, they have no legal power to control people, they can't use physical force, nor can they force anybody into buying their product. They are 100 % dependant on mutual benifit and agreement.

What happens is you vote for them in the markedplace every time you buy their product. Much the same you vote for a politician. The only difference being that companies don't make laws, they don't force you to do whatever the majority wants you to. Using your money to vote for a company doesn't force anybody else into anything, it's a volunteerly signed contract between you and the company for mutual benifit.

If people stop agreeing with them, they go bankrupt. Even the really big ones. The marked isn't static, people's needs are changing with time. The Fortune 500 list, the 500 best earning companies in the US, was first published in 1957. In 2003, only 25 % of the original 500 companies were still intact. The rest - 75 % !! - had gone bankrupt, merged or split, or simply vanished.

So do they really have "power" over you, or is it the other way around?

Who did you vote for today?

Majoritet og minoritet (Norwegian election)

2009-09-09T21:33:00.000+02:00

Det er snart tid for stortingsvalg, og det som skjer frem mot valget er som følger: de ulike partiene lover ulike goder og "premier" hvis mange nok stemmer på dem, partiene har sine ulike målgrupper - og dermed ulike saker de prioriterer å fronte for å godgjøre flest mulig i denne målgruppen på bekostning av de andre i befolkningen (slik må det nødvendigvis være, penger som blir brukt på støtte til religiøse organisasjoner kan ikke SAMTIDIG brukes på helse - man må altså prioritere ulike områder på bekostning av andre områder).

Hva slags pressgrupper i befolkningen man ønsker å gjøre til lags avhenger av stemmepotensialet, jo flere personer man samler til et minste felles multiplum, jo større grunnlag for å høste mange stemmer. Det var dette Hitler gjorde på 30-tallet i den tid med enorm arbeidsledighet, økonomisk krise, frustrasjon, politikerforakt og manglende vilje til samarbeid hos de moderate - jødene ble gjennom en konspirasjon utpekt som syndebukker i og med at de hadde ledende stillinger innen bankvesen og finans - ikke ulikt hvordan mange gir marked og børser skylden for finanskrisen i dag. Dette er demokratiets verste eksempel på hvordan utilitarisme kan føre til enorm urett mot individer og mot hele befolkningsgrupper. Også i Norge har det vært grove eksempel på overtramp mot individer og befolkningsgrupper - tatere ble sterilisert og lobotomert helt frem til loven ble fjernet først i 1977. Fra 1941 til 1974 er det antatt at rundt 2500 psykiatriske pasienter og tatere ble lobotomert. Og omtrent like mange ble tvangssterilisert fra 1934 til 1977.

Og dette er demokrati i et nøtteskall, partiene lover bort goder, de lover å opprette lover og reguleringer som majoriteten ønsker. Dette må absolutt alle i befolkningen rette seg etter, også den minoritet som ikke ønsket disse reguleringene, og de som ikke gjør det blir satt i fengsel.

Så jo mer partiene lover å regulere, og jo flere goder de ønsker å dele ut, jo mer går dette på bekostning av det enkeltes individs mulighet til å regulere sitt eget liv og bruke penger på de godene de selv ønsker. Penger kan som kjent ikke brukes to ganger, enten disponerer du de selv, eller så disponerer noen andre dem. For til syvende og sist - hvem vet best hva du ønsker å gjøre med ditt liv og dine penger? Deg selv eller politikerene?

Om man ønsker å gjennomføre en sak som vil være til stor disfavør for et mindretall vil dette altså være fullt mulig dersom mange nok støtter å gjennomføre denne saken. Det interessante er at politikere gjerne står på barrikaden for å støtte "minoriteter" i alskens sammenhenger, mens de samtidig vedtar saker som kraftig reduserer individets, den minste og svakest tenkelige minoritet, sin rett til å bestemme over eget liv.

Om du ønsker å si nei til politisk prostitusjon, kjøp av stemmer fra politiske pressgrupper, og virkelig støtte minoriteter, stem da på det parti som i minst mulig grad ønsker å overføre makten fra deg til maktkåte politikere.

I wish upon a star

2009-09-08T21:37:00.000+02:00

Wishing something to happen and making it happen are to quite different things.

Politicians can state their intentions to make something happen, but intensions and actions aren't the same. You can wish someone "Merry Christmas", but in order to make it happen you can give them a gift, make a Christmas visit, send a Christmas card, bake them cookies or a number of other things.

So when politicians state intentions, it't by no means a guarantee that something actually will be done. And if anything indeed IS done, it's by no means a guarantee that it will work.

If you have kids and tell them that you want them to contribute more at domestic work, you're not guaranteed that they will do it. If you promise them an attractive reward, like money, you give them an INCENTIVE to do it. Thus increasing the chance of it happening.

So when a politician is speaking, pay close attention to what he or she is really saying, does it imply incentives to actually make it happen, or is he really just wishing you a Merry Christmas?

Black Box taxes

2009-09-08T20:46:00.000+02:00

Soon election in Norway and politicians are promising everything and their grandmother to the people to get votes.

The most peculiar about this is how they are promising "free stuff" - like free dental health care in this election, and free hot school lunch in the last election. As most have learned through their life, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

But still people seem to thing government can somehow create wealth - they put taxes into a black box, and get stuff for free out off the box! The problem is that the only thing the politicians can do, is promise to give people back what they've paid in the first place! If they promise more - YOU pay more for it, not the politicians.

So now you have to pay for the actual service AND a bureaucracy to run it. And in NO sectors have state services been able to compete with companies competing with each others on the free marked, neither in terms of efficiency nor quality. Why should health be any different?

The health service in Norway has been hailed as fantastic by for example fiction film maker Michael Moore. The facts, however, are that Norway spend about twice as much as Sweden on health service (we spend 32.000 NKR pr. capita pr. ano) , and still have the same waiting times as the 80'es when we spent half. 220.000 people are waiting in the public health service, and the avarage waiting time for an operation is 105 days!

So the politicians can't create wealth, they can't make the system more efficient. They can, however, choose to raise taxes to increase capasity, or they can choose to refuse to pay - hence the long waiting times in Norway.

It's time for the voters to start thinking outside of the black box.

The morality of taxes

2009-09-08T19:46:00.000+02:00

Why do we pay taxes?

Politicians usually argue taxes are necessary to found the "welfare state", make sure we have access to infrastructure, military defence, legal system, police, health system, education and a lot of other more or less arbitrary services. The second argument is to distribute wealth - Robin Hood-style.

What happens if you refuse to pay?

You're put in jail, and your money will be collected by force nevertheless. If anybody doubt this - try.

The moral injustice?

You own your body, your possessions, estate etc. This is necessary in order for anybody to care to work more than just providing enough to just keep alive. You use your body, your time, and mix with your possessions (or somebody elses possessions if you have an employer) to create your product - which could be material or intellectual. If anybody could just take this product from you at any time, why would you care producing anything? So the state provide a legal frame to ensure an incentive to produce. So if somebody steals from you, they're put in jail.

But, hey, wait, taxes work just the opposite. You're actually put in jail for refusing to give up your earnings just becouse the politicians say so - and most people even agree to this system to a certain degree. Taxes are often defended and criticized on an utilitarian basis, but seldom on a moral basis. And if they are defended on a moral basis, it's often in account of the "poor". Meaning the people earing less than some other people, and that we must redistribute wealth to counter this. Like they have a right to your earnings - a right to your property, your estate and ultimately your body.

Do we want to go that way? I'm sure some leftist would disagree if it was decided that ugly guys struggling to get laid would somehow be granted a right to sex. Being good-looking, after all, gives you more sex the same way being smarter gives you higher earnings. And why should we redistribute income, and not sex - after all, income is not only talent, but it's studied for and worked for, good looks are to a huge degree given by nature. What injustice!

So,

what's the difference? Why should the rich be the slaves of the poor any more than the good-looking should be the slaves of the ugly and socially impaired sex-strugglers?