It is not often that we are reminded of the evils of Socialism. This is because the media often ignores those countries around the world that still practice such government. It has also been a long time since super power countries of the world were socialistic. Because of this we see many individuals still pursuing the goal of socialism and if not that far many individuals calling for government to be more strict on individual liberties. I think it was due time that we be given a glimpse of the true colors of what socialism brings and the newest installment of The Dark Knight has done exactly that.
Aside from Bane's purely evil plot of the destruction of Gotham he has done exactly what is necessary to install a socialistic State.
It is not even necessary to start with bringing down a democratic State like Bane does when he takes over the city.
Socialism aims at destroying the class hierarchy that is "so ever apparent" in a capitalist society. But a very distinctive attribute of socialism is missed by those who wish to destroy class hierarchy. It's the very attribute that in order to destroy the class hierarchy of the bourgeois and the proletariat you MUST install a new hierarchy. The new hierarchy that has to be implemented is that of the new State and the rest of the people.
The bourgeois and the proletariat of the capitalist society are replaced with the bourgeois and the proletariat of the socialist society. The new bourgeois are those that are part of the State and enforce the rules on everyone else. They are better off than the bourgeois of the capitalist society because they are in control of the resources not by market forces but by the forces of a gun. The new proletariat are those that must live under the threat of a gun. They are worse off than the proletariat of the capitalist society because instead of being to better themselves through market forces they must stay exactly where they are at the point of a gun.
Bane insures that this happens by taking over Gotham and setting up martial law. Live as free people he says as long as you follow his rules, if you don't you are killed. Bane's men are the bourgeois who can live parasitically off the proletariat they now control. The proletariat that are in celebration of living in the wealth of others could only do so for a short period of time because after they have used up the resources of others they will be as poor as those they have thrown into the streets. Bane uses guns and force to set up the socialist State which must be done to give rise to such a State. Without the use of guns a socialist state could never exist because they have to be used to stop man from attempting to better himself as he has always done with the use of his productive abilities.
So you see socialism doesn't bring about the destruction of class hierarchy it only replaces that hierarchy with a more dangerous form of hierarchy.
But rejoice not those who are believers in the democratic State because this very same hierarchy is existent still. Those who are connected to the State and those who are not. Those who reap the benefits through the use of force from those who cannot and choose not to use force. It seems to me that the choice is obvious but when will others see this choice?
When they open their eyes.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Peaceful Parenting, Peaceful World
When it comes to most libertarians it is easy to acknowledge that we, in general, dislike those who believe they have some kind of authority over us. We generally don't want other people telling us what to do and how to live our lives. We often say that we just want to be left alone so that we as individuals can best choose our path, regardless if it is a good path or not.
Most people would agree with this, libertarian or not, but the subject of individuality and no authority often becomes mute when the issue is raising children. Most of my friends are completely shocked when I mention that I have zero intentions of spanking my children as discipline. They usually say that this type of discipline is effective and necessary. It might very well be effective but is it necessary for raising well behaved children? I believe the answer is no.
Now I'll be the first to admit that my experience is very limited in this regard since I have no children of my own. I also have trouble following my own rules at times. I don't think this detracts from the message though.
As rampant is the problem of children who don't listen, constantly misbehave, and even hit others it is usually said it's the lack of a good spanking these days. Back in the day when you got out of hand it wasn't taboo to get a good whack to be set straight. But is this the only way to get children to be good?
Even if it was is it justified in a libertarian mindset? Again I think the answer is no.
What exactly are you doing when you decide to discipline your children in such ways? In my mind you're doing exactly the opposite of what your true beliefs are. Even those who are not libertarians it is acknowledged that initiating violence is wrong and a peaceful world is usually wanted.
How can you possibly try to teach your children that violence is bad with the very use of violence? How can you teach your children that they are individuals and no person has a higher power of them other than themselves when you use power over them?
People wonder why the use of violence is so prevalent in our society. As children we are raised knowing violence can stop bad behavior. We know that someone can claim higher power than ourselves over us. So it follows that later in life the use of violence is not that big of a deal.
Raise your children so that they know initiating violence is always the wrong choice. (Self-defense is not initiating violence it is instead responding to the initiation of violence.) We can't possibly have a world with peace without teaching that peace is the answer.
How do you go about disciplining bad behavior then? Children do not act out because we want to discipline them, it seems that in their learning environment they are merely trying to find out what they can do. This is definitely something I do not have an answer to since I don't have children of my own. I found this short post to be something I'd like to follow in the future.
I'd like to add something I've thought about and something I might try as well in the future. It seems as us capitalists we realize that certain actions lead to reward and others to failures, and some actions have a risk that lead to an uncertain future. This is something I'd like to teach my children. Learning from an early age that doing good isn't good for me as a parent but good for the child. It seems to me that it would follow later in life with grades and the like that they can find out that good grades and such are good for them, not necessarily just because I want to see good grades as a parent, but because they're conscious choices that lead to better outcomes.
Why not allow for a profit loss incentive for children? It would help them understand that their choices have consequences, some good some bad. I don't connect this with bribing your children for goodies though.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that will be for me to find out and adapt my situation for the better of my future children.
We can't have peace when we teach violence and we won't have violence when we teach peace.
Most people would agree with this, libertarian or not, but the subject of individuality and no authority often becomes mute when the issue is raising children. Most of my friends are completely shocked when I mention that I have zero intentions of spanking my children as discipline. They usually say that this type of discipline is effective and necessary. It might very well be effective but is it necessary for raising well behaved children? I believe the answer is no.
Now I'll be the first to admit that my experience is very limited in this regard since I have no children of my own. I also have trouble following my own rules at times. I don't think this detracts from the message though.
As rampant is the problem of children who don't listen, constantly misbehave, and even hit others it is usually said it's the lack of a good spanking these days. Back in the day when you got out of hand it wasn't taboo to get a good whack to be set straight. But is this the only way to get children to be good?
Even if it was is it justified in a libertarian mindset? Again I think the answer is no.
What exactly are you doing when you decide to discipline your children in such ways? In my mind you're doing exactly the opposite of what your true beliefs are. Even those who are not libertarians it is acknowledged that initiating violence is wrong and a peaceful world is usually wanted.
How can you possibly try to teach your children that violence is bad with the very use of violence? How can you teach your children that they are individuals and no person has a higher power of them other than themselves when you use power over them?
People wonder why the use of violence is so prevalent in our society. As children we are raised knowing violence can stop bad behavior. We know that someone can claim higher power than ourselves over us. So it follows that later in life the use of violence is not that big of a deal.
Raise your children so that they know initiating violence is always the wrong choice. (Self-defense is not initiating violence it is instead responding to the initiation of violence.) We can't possibly have a world with peace without teaching that peace is the answer.
How do you go about disciplining bad behavior then? Children do not act out because we want to discipline them, it seems that in their learning environment they are merely trying to find out what they can do. This is definitely something I do not have an answer to since I don't have children of my own. I found this short post to be something I'd like to follow in the future.
I'd like to add something I've thought about and something I might try as well in the future. It seems as us capitalists we realize that certain actions lead to reward and others to failures, and some actions have a risk that lead to an uncertain future. This is something I'd like to teach my children. Learning from an early age that doing good isn't good for me as a parent but good for the child. It seems to me that it would follow later in life with grades and the like that they can find out that good grades and such are good for them, not necessarily just because I want to see good grades as a parent, but because they're conscious choices that lead to better outcomes.
Why not allow for a profit loss incentive for children? It would help them understand that their choices have consequences, some good some bad. I don't connect this with bribing your children for goodies though.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that will be for me to find out and adapt my situation for the better of my future children.
We can't have peace when we teach violence and we won't have violence when we teach peace.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Why Regulations Are Bad For Everyone.
I think it is very important to have discussion over the role regulations should have in our lives. It seems that we are content with whatever the major government regulation agencies do and ultimately rule on. It seems that most people don't think twice about the implications of having government regulators and exactly what and why they regulate. I don't have a problem with standards that should be followed by private companies but I do have a problem with "standards" forced by the government on private companies. Standards are good but regulations set forth by government agencies are bad for everyone, and I hope to show you why.
Government agencies like the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and many others that enforce regulations on the environment, food, drugs, saftey, minimum wage laws, work age laws, and so many others seem to have our interest at heart, or so they say. But what exactly does this do to the market or to the consumers? Does it actually help consumers or does it hurt them?
Again I'll mention that I do want standards when it comes to these very things, just not at the point of a gun.
When we typically talk about regulations our brain is instantly hard wired into believing they're good and are to protect us. Discussion otherwise is usually looked down upon.
We don't typically talk about how these certain regulations come to be. We don't talk about who is behind the creation of these regulations. We don't talk about the incentive these people have in creating these regulations. We don't talk about how you're ultimately hurt with these regulations.
It comes down to one simple idea, so simple it is easy to let is pass our eyes. This is why you see those lobbying for new regulations are directly connected to large corporations. As a large corporation who has millions if not billions of dollars that can be used to pay for the costs of regulations it doesn't matter if they come into law. The idea is then that since these large corporations can already pay for them it is easier to snuff out competition through enforcing regulations than it is to actually compete with them in the market.
Smaller companies who don't have millions to throw away can therefor not even bring their products to the market. A product that could be much safer for you, much healthier for you, and much cheaper to you.
This is why large pharm-corporations lobby for tight regulations on new drugs entering the market, they can afford to throw away resources while emerging companies can't. This is why large food corporations want to enforce strict "health" regulations because again they can afford to throw away those resources while other can't.
Government backed regulations is nothing short of a method used to protect monopoly privileges, something those who want regulations are so much against.
On top of that the larger corporations are able to bribe regulators while smaller companies can't. They can get away with breaking the law while others would go to jail.
So many times we've heard of good products that work for certain things can't make it to the market when current products do nothing for those things. They can't make it because they're not up to "code". They can't make it because the large corporations know if they do they will not be able to compete in a fair market so they cheat to get their way.
For those Constitutional people out there these federal agencies shouldn't even exist. The Federal government has no right restricting entry into the market place, that's if you believe what's in the Constitution.
So how exactly do we provide for good standards when it comes to food, drugs, the environment, and the like without the government?
It's simple and as usual comes down to protecting private property rights. On one hand it is bad business to make bad products in a society that protects property rights. If a company releases food or a drug that ends up killing people there are heavy repercussions. And we know food and drugs protected by regulations still kill people, so you pay them with taxes to set regulations and continue to pay them when they've failed.
Now assuming this wouldn't be enough to keep those pesky evil companies at bay then a hole in the market has just been created. Private companies could now emerge to set certain standards. Through competition companies with the most attractive standards will be utilized for their well recognized seal of approval. Companies that make food and drugs, and other stuff, would want their products to have this seal of approval because consumers want to see it. Any mischievousness in the process will likely be found and publicized quickly forever tarnishing the respect of the company making the product, the standards company, or both depending on who was at fault.
This can't happen you say? We already have private companies like Consumer Reports who does this very thing. Why do they even exist though since we have federal agencies supposedly doing what they're doing? Because the federal agencies fail at doing it and are still backed by tax payer dollars further diminishing their want to provide a good service, while private companies have incentive to do as well as possible to stay afloat in the market.
Now that we know standards can quickly be made without the need of government we can talk about restriction of entry into the market. Without the government backed agencies all companies can enter the market with their products if consumers want them. It would be up to the consumers to decide what they want to buy and not federal agencies forcing consumers to buy the products their buddies have lobbied for. It always comes down to the individual. Do you believe the individuals should have the right to decide what they want? If you don't then you've justified to its fullest extent a complete totalitarian government telling you not only what you should buy or not buy but what to do in every aspect of your life. This is not the freedom I believe in and I doubt it is the freedom you believe in.
But you don't trust private companies without federal regulations to make quality products? Fine, but if you don't then how can you trust the men large corporations employ to set forth those very regulations you want?
You can't.
Government agencies like the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and many others that enforce regulations on the environment, food, drugs, saftey, minimum wage laws, work age laws, and so many others seem to have our interest at heart, or so they say. But what exactly does this do to the market or to the consumers? Does it actually help consumers or does it hurt them?
Again I'll mention that I do want standards when it comes to these very things, just not at the point of a gun.
When we typically talk about regulations our brain is instantly hard wired into believing they're good and are to protect us. Discussion otherwise is usually looked down upon.
We don't typically talk about how these certain regulations come to be. We don't talk about who is behind the creation of these regulations. We don't talk about the incentive these people have in creating these regulations. We don't talk about how you're ultimately hurt with these regulations.
It comes down to one simple idea, so simple it is easy to let is pass our eyes. This is why you see those lobbying for new regulations are directly connected to large corporations. As a large corporation who has millions if not billions of dollars that can be used to pay for the costs of regulations it doesn't matter if they come into law. The idea is then that since these large corporations can already pay for them it is easier to snuff out competition through enforcing regulations than it is to actually compete with them in the market.
Smaller companies who don't have millions to throw away can therefor not even bring their products to the market. A product that could be much safer for you, much healthier for you, and much cheaper to you.
This is why large pharm-corporations lobby for tight regulations on new drugs entering the market, they can afford to throw away resources while emerging companies can't. This is why large food corporations want to enforce strict "health" regulations because again they can afford to throw away those resources while other can't.
Government backed regulations is nothing short of a method used to protect monopoly privileges, something those who want regulations are so much against.
On top of that the larger corporations are able to bribe regulators while smaller companies can't. They can get away with breaking the law while others would go to jail.
So many times we've heard of good products that work for certain things can't make it to the market when current products do nothing for those things. They can't make it because they're not up to "code". They can't make it because the large corporations know if they do they will not be able to compete in a fair market so they cheat to get their way.
For those Constitutional people out there these federal agencies shouldn't even exist. The Federal government has no right restricting entry into the market place, that's if you believe what's in the Constitution.
So how exactly do we provide for good standards when it comes to food, drugs, the environment, and the like without the government?
It's simple and as usual comes down to protecting private property rights. On one hand it is bad business to make bad products in a society that protects property rights. If a company releases food or a drug that ends up killing people there are heavy repercussions. And we know food and drugs protected by regulations still kill people, so you pay them with taxes to set regulations and continue to pay them when they've failed.
Now assuming this wouldn't be enough to keep those pesky evil companies at bay then a hole in the market has just been created. Private companies could now emerge to set certain standards. Through competition companies with the most attractive standards will be utilized for their well recognized seal of approval. Companies that make food and drugs, and other stuff, would want their products to have this seal of approval because consumers want to see it. Any mischievousness in the process will likely be found and publicized quickly forever tarnishing the respect of the company making the product, the standards company, or both depending on who was at fault.
This can't happen you say? We already have private companies like Consumer Reports who does this very thing. Why do they even exist though since we have federal agencies supposedly doing what they're doing? Because the federal agencies fail at doing it and are still backed by tax payer dollars further diminishing their want to provide a good service, while private companies have incentive to do as well as possible to stay afloat in the market.
Now that we know standards can quickly be made without the need of government we can talk about restriction of entry into the market. Without the government backed agencies all companies can enter the market with their products if consumers want them. It would be up to the consumers to decide what they want to buy and not federal agencies forcing consumers to buy the products their buddies have lobbied for. It always comes down to the individual. Do you believe the individuals should have the right to decide what they want? If you don't then you've justified to its fullest extent a complete totalitarian government telling you not only what you should buy or not buy but what to do in every aspect of your life. This is not the freedom I believe in and I doubt it is the freedom you believe in.
But you don't trust private companies without federal regulations to make quality products? Fine, but if you don't then how can you trust the men large corporations employ to set forth those very regulations you want?
You can't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)