Those that consider themselves to be on the left often clamor to civil rights like freedom of speech. Libertarians alike claim the Constitution guarantees such rights and they can't be impeded on. On a Constitutional claim the 1st Amendment only guarantees such rights to not be infringed upon by the government.
But is there such a thing as a right to speak?
My answer to that is no and by the end of this post I hope my argument gives you reason to believe such a claim.
To start off rights are not something that government can claim to give us. Rights are inherent in us being human beings. Rights are natural things that cannot be granted nor taken, they are inalienable.
The rights WE do have are property rights and only property rights. Property rights also include the right to your own body. No one can steal your property, bring damage upon your property, or destroy your property without first infringing upon your natural rights.
But one could simply assert that your vocal cords are part of your body so being able to speak is simply an extension of your body, which is property, and property rights.
I could just as simply assert that your ability to move your arms would give you the right to hit another person. If this were to be stopped your rights to move your arms, an extension of your body, would be infringed upon.
Although a bit extreme I'll admit but it is the exact same logic used for the "right to speak".
You do have a right to move your body as you wish as long as it does not reach another person and infringes on their rights. So you can't swing at someone and hit them and by the same reasoning the sound your vocal chords make have no right to hit someone else.
So just as you can move your body and not hit someone you can speak but you have no right to be heard unless prior consent is given.
What does this mean though?
It means when not on your own property or another persons property where you have consent to speak you don't have the right to speak. If you say something on someone else's property and they don't want to hear it they can make you leave, if you don't you've infringed on their rights.
It also means as long as you are on your own property or property you have consent to use from another person you can speak as you wish. Anyone within said property can then hear whatever you have to say since they will have been consensually entering that property and can simply leave if they do not wish to hear what you have to way.
This leads to something especially interesting then. You have no "right to speak" unless property rights are recognized 100%. Without these property rights then it simply doesn't exist. If you want to speak freely then you have to respect property rights and all else that are tied to property rights. This means you can only have "freedom of speech" tied with the acceptance that no one can take from yours or anyone else's property. This means you MUST deny the the acceptance of all forms of theft of property which includes all taxes and forced servitude. Essentially you must reject the State if you want to truly speak freely and be a completely free person.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Never compromise on principle, ever.
On our journey to reach a system of complete justice as set forth by natural law which is the basis for self-ownership, we never fail to find bumps along the way. It should be obvious as a pragmatic person that the State isn't quite going to cease overnight, within a year, and probably still not within the next couple of decades. Are we to just sit back and accept that the State will have rule over us? Are we to just sit and wait for the "inevitable" collapse of the State? Should we do nothing now to eliminate the over-reaching hands the State commands over us essentially throughout every moment of our lives?
The simple answer is no.
Probably to the disappointment of other believers in Anarcho-Capitalism I have no problem going through the system that we are forced to partake in.
I would much rather have the individuals that live in our country become so educated on the subject of freedom that we all band together to ignore the State. When you reject to being ruled then there are no such things as rulers.
But we must understand that this is not an idea that screams of efficacy.
What we must understand is that we must use the State apparatus ONLY to reduce the amount of fingers that are clenched around our throats.
We must take away as much of the State as possible.
In this sense we are forced to use the apparatus to become free. But with the use of this apparatus we must consciously make decisions that are going to be the best for not only ourselves but for everyone else as well. From a business point of view you would try to make the best product for consumers that will also bring you profit, so that everyone involved wins and no one loses.
What is our principle that can never be broken though? What is the ideas that we must cherish ever so dearly so that we are not, for even the slightest moment, to stray away from?
These are still the basic axioms of self-ownership and a extension of that the Non Aggression Principle.
So in whichever way you attempt to eliminate the State or simply bring it down as much as possible. Never compromise your principle to meet some kind of end. As Murray Rothbard has said it "Don't compromise for a new tax to eliminate another tax." as you are still expanding the powers of the State. Instead only do what you can to become more free and never choose to become less free in someway in attempt to be more free in another way.
Freedom will win in the end but what will you do to help mitigate the bumps?
The simple answer is no.
Probably to the disappointment of other believers in Anarcho-Capitalism I have no problem going through the system that we are forced to partake in.
I would much rather have the individuals that live in our country become so educated on the subject of freedom that we all band together to ignore the State. When you reject to being ruled then there are no such things as rulers.
But we must understand that this is not an idea that screams of efficacy.
What we must understand is that we must use the State apparatus ONLY to reduce the amount of fingers that are clenched around our throats.
We must take away as much of the State as possible.
In this sense we are forced to use the apparatus to become free. But with the use of this apparatus we must consciously make decisions that are going to be the best for not only ourselves but for everyone else as well. From a business point of view you would try to make the best product for consumers that will also bring you profit, so that everyone involved wins and no one loses.
What is our principle that can never be broken though? What is the ideas that we must cherish ever so dearly so that we are not, for even the slightest moment, to stray away from?
These are still the basic axioms of self-ownership and a extension of that the Non Aggression Principle.
So in whichever way you attempt to eliminate the State or simply bring it down as much as possible. Never compromise your principle to meet some kind of end. As Murray Rothbard has said it "Don't compromise for a new tax to eliminate another tax." as you are still expanding the powers of the State. Instead only do what you can to become more free and never choose to become less free in someway in attempt to be more free in another way.
Freedom will win in the end but what will you do to help mitigate the bumps?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
QE3, easy money brings a hard future.
At the request of a fellow liberty activist I was asked to make a comment or two on QE3 (Quantitative Easing 3) that has just happened within the last few weeks. I will spare this post from being a completely technical post because 1)I'm not an expert in the field and most importantly 2)The experts have already tackled this from the technical standpoint. Murray Rothbard has destroyed the quantitative easing policy and a good article can be found here which will go more in depth than this post.
What exactly is Quantitative Easing and why is this one labeled 3?
In the case of the most recent QE policy for the U.S is the buying of assets, mortgage backed securities, from private banks by the printing of dollars to the tune of 40$ billion a month.1 It's labeled 3 because this has been the "3rd" QE since I believe 2008.
What is the intended purpose of QE3?
The Federal Reserve, the private company that has a monopoly on our money supply, believes that this easy money policy can be used to stimulate an economy that is in need of a little boost. By injecting money into the system their is more of an incentive to spend money now as consumers because we see lower interest rates than that which naturally occur in the free market. The Fed believes by doing this we can avoid dipping into recessions and have an ever growing economy.
What is the unintended consequences of QE3?
I like to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt and say they are truly trying to help people but just don't see the fallacy in their economic policy. How true this is I can't say because there's a big incentive for quantitative easing in the realm of purely making money for the politically connected.
As the Fed trots along claiming to be helping the middle class and the poor by using QE3 to create jobs it doesn't realize that the exact opposite occurs; the Fed is destroying the middle class.
Two implications of QE3 can be seen very easily. The first is that the Fed buys these securities from private companies like Goldman Sachs. The second is that the money supply of our dollars is obviously increased.
It then becomes more obvious what is happening. Only those private companies that are politically connected like Goldman Sachs get money while others do not. This is because government in general cannot allocate resources with any objective measure and can only do so arbitrarily, so usually only those that have friends get the help.
On the other hand the other easy implication to see is that using basic supply and demand economics as the supply of our dollar has risen the value of each dollar has to drop holding all other things equal. This can be seen as the inflation of our dollar which is NOT a naturally occurring phenomena in a free market; actually the exact opposite typically happens we see the value of our money steadily increase as prices drop.
But what does this all really mean to people and the economy?
Well to really understand what happens we must first take a look into what happens in a free market economy where no central banking system exists.
When the Fed decides to "stimulate" the economy with QE the response is for a lower interest rate than the actual market interest rate.
When, in a free market, the interest rate begins to drop this is a result of an individuals time preference to spending. Instead of spending at the present they wish to save money to spend at a future time. As a result banks wanting people to start spending see this saving of money and the market response is to lower interest rates. This becomes a signal to businesses and entrepreneurs that an increase of savings has occurred. As the interest rates drop these businesses see prior unprofitable ventures to become profitable and decide to invest in capital. Since actual savings have occurred these business will make profits by best serving consumers with previous capital investments and it's a win win for all involved. But this is only possible with the actual savings people have done.
When a central banking system, like the Fed, gets involved and artificially lowers interest rates what happens? Well businesses see the same signals as they do when saving occurs so they begin their investment in capital.
The problem should be obvious now. No savings has actually occurred to purchase whatever the investment was used for. As a direct result of this monetary policy resources have been allocated incorrectly and both the businesses and customer loses. When this starts happening companies start going under because no one is purchasing the goods they made with the false signals and a recession begins.
What should be even more emphasized besides the fact that easy money leads to hard future by the means of a recession is the fact of who actually wins with this policy. The ones that win are those that FIRST get the money, Goldman Sachs, because the value of that money has not been reflected in the market as a drop yet. So when they spend that money it has a higher value than when it gets to the middle class and the lower class who has to deal with a highly inflated piece of paper. This policy enriches the super rich at the expense of destroying the middle class through inflation.
1Big Wall Street Banks already complaining QE3 is not enough
What exactly is Quantitative Easing and why is this one labeled 3?
In the case of the most recent QE policy for the U.S is the buying of assets, mortgage backed securities, from private banks by the printing of dollars to the tune of 40$ billion a month.1 It's labeled 3 because this has been the "3rd" QE since I believe 2008.
What is the intended purpose of QE3?
The Federal Reserve, the private company that has a monopoly on our money supply, believes that this easy money policy can be used to stimulate an economy that is in need of a little boost. By injecting money into the system their is more of an incentive to spend money now as consumers because we see lower interest rates than that which naturally occur in the free market. The Fed believes by doing this we can avoid dipping into recessions and have an ever growing economy.
What is the unintended consequences of QE3?
I like to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt and say they are truly trying to help people but just don't see the fallacy in their economic policy. How true this is I can't say because there's a big incentive for quantitative easing in the realm of purely making money for the politically connected.
As the Fed trots along claiming to be helping the middle class and the poor by using QE3 to create jobs it doesn't realize that the exact opposite occurs; the Fed is destroying the middle class.
Two implications of QE3 can be seen very easily. The first is that the Fed buys these securities from private companies like Goldman Sachs. The second is that the money supply of our dollars is obviously increased.
It then becomes more obvious what is happening. Only those private companies that are politically connected like Goldman Sachs get money while others do not. This is because government in general cannot allocate resources with any objective measure and can only do so arbitrarily, so usually only those that have friends get the help.
On the other hand the other easy implication to see is that using basic supply and demand economics as the supply of our dollar has risen the value of each dollar has to drop holding all other things equal. This can be seen as the inflation of our dollar which is NOT a naturally occurring phenomena in a free market; actually the exact opposite typically happens we see the value of our money steadily increase as prices drop.
But what does this all really mean to people and the economy?
Well to really understand what happens we must first take a look into what happens in a free market economy where no central banking system exists.
When the Fed decides to "stimulate" the economy with QE the response is for a lower interest rate than the actual market interest rate.
When, in a free market, the interest rate begins to drop this is a result of an individuals time preference to spending. Instead of spending at the present they wish to save money to spend at a future time. As a result banks wanting people to start spending see this saving of money and the market response is to lower interest rates. This becomes a signal to businesses and entrepreneurs that an increase of savings has occurred. As the interest rates drop these businesses see prior unprofitable ventures to become profitable and decide to invest in capital. Since actual savings have occurred these business will make profits by best serving consumers with previous capital investments and it's a win win for all involved. But this is only possible with the actual savings people have done.
When a central banking system, like the Fed, gets involved and artificially lowers interest rates what happens? Well businesses see the same signals as they do when saving occurs so they begin their investment in capital.
The problem should be obvious now. No savings has actually occurred to purchase whatever the investment was used for. As a direct result of this monetary policy resources have been allocated incorrectly and both the businesses and customer loses. When this starts happening companies start going under because no one is purchasing the goods they made with the false signals and a recession begins.
What should be even more emphasized besides the fact that easy money leads to hard future by the means of a recession is the fact of who actually wins with this policy. The ones that win are those that FIRST get the money, Goldman Sachs, because the value of that money has not been reflected in the market as a drop yet. So when they spend that money it has a higher value than when it gets to the middle class and the lower class who has to deal with a highly inflated piece of paper. This policy enriches the super rich at the expense of destroying the middle class through inflation.
1Big Wall Street Banks already complaining QE3 is not enough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)