Focus on Life™

Why is politics often associated with corruption, dishonesty, and shallowness? You may be surprised to notice that there is a common denominator underneath that we have often forgotten or just haven’t bothered to think about at all.

Franz Oppenheimer once described the only two ways to work in a society. The first is based on voluntary cooperation among people where everyone is dependent on the contribution of others for creating a greater wealth in the society. This is called the economic means. You are cooperating with other people and exchanging the products and goods based on your own free will and judgement. Those concepts (i.e. products and services) will be successful that many people individually decide to favour by using them. In other words the society is ever changing and finding new ways to satisfy each individual’s needs and wants. People are trusted with the responsibility to choose for themselves and to let them to decide and know what works for them in increasing their personal happiness. Or actually there is no one to “trust” the people their choice but each individual is aware that everyone is responsible for their own life and they are the only ones who can make the right choices for them. Therefore there is no ‘people’ but only persons that are acting together by free will of choice and are aware of their responsibility for everyone else as well. Society works only when everyone contributes something positive and creative, no matter how little that is—destructive behaviour provides only havoc. If everyone is just taking, soon there is very little to take from.

The only way any society will flourish is that there are people who are producing goods and services that are innovative and demanded by other people. Production enables the wealth and sophistication in any high culture. However, people will not create or produce if they are not able to trust that they are sufficiently compensated for their efforts. In addition they need to be assured that the circumstances in the society are not expected to change in a manner that jeopardized their work that often may require significant amount of resources for extended periods of time, even years, to finish the production. New innovations and creative solutions require free will and a joy of creation. Seldom anyone bothers to go for great lengths of trouble if they are not appreciated or, even worse, if they are brutally being used or stolen of their efforts.

Oppenheimer’s second way is called the political means. This concept cannot work if nothing has been produced. It is relaying and based on other people’s efforts and work. In other words it does not produce anything new and thus increase the wealth of the society but focuses on distributing the existing wealth by arbitrary decisions. And how do those people that are working and creating things that are demanded by other people allow this to happen? They do not—they are forced by violence or a threat of violence to subdue. There is a proper word for this type of behaviour and it is called stealing. In the economic means there is no problem of distribution since people cooperate voluntarily and agree upon the terms how to trade and utilise products and services between themselves. Just visit your local supermarket and buy an apple. You did not force the supermarket to give you the apple nor did they force you to buy it, and even better—there is no third party telling you what to do or not to do. Only thieves have a problem of distribution of confiscated goods. And since the objects are already alienated from their rightful owners there are infinite amount of ways to divide the stolen wealth, and none of them any more rightful than any other and all of them are just arbitrary decisions made by third parties that have no credit for the wealth in the first place. If you approve to take by force in the first place you have very little saying about your noble or great causes for justifying your actions: you steal or you do not—there is no middle ground and a thief is a thief no matter the cause.

And what has all this to do with politics? Everything, the whole discussion in politics is about from whom to steal by force and how and to whom to share the confiscated wealth. A crime is no less crime if you use a middleman to do your dirty job. And ‘legalisation’ of stealing is no less stealing—it’s only legal stealing. The only difference between organised crime and legal stealing is that only the latter is protected by a greater use of power and force in the society. The basic idea of brutal use of force is still the same dating back thousands of years in history; only the tools and the camouflage are different. The modern lexicon is based on terms like taxation, rules and regulations, laws, and executive orders. They all are just different names for forcing people to unilateral transactions that they would not do voluntarily. Only the political means is a zero-sum game since there is only so much of confiscated wealth in any given moment. The economic means is based on freedom of choice where people are cooperating voluntarily. And implicitly it also means that both parties are willing to interact with each other and thus are content with the outcomes as well: you are happy with your fresh apple and the supermarket is happy with the amount of money you exchanged the apple for.

Next time you hear terms like trade tariffs, subsidies, welfare benefits, taxation laws or any other favourite sweet talk of the politicians see the real game underneath and ask yourself: who is forced to act/non-act and who are the ones to gain from this? Nowadays stealing is a fine art and therefore there are many ways to conduct the job. Inflation is one of them but surely not the only game in town. Many of the legislations are based on the principal where someone is restricted of access to some part of the market or to act freely among any other member of the society. For example, governments are masters of creating monopolies or oligopolies for some members of the society and forcing all the rest to interact with those specially selected members only. Often, protectionism is labelled as something beneficial: consumer protection laws, safety and health laws, approval processes and licenses, and so on. Special interest privileges delivered by your favourite politician: someone will gain and someone else will lose. Surely enough there are still those that have needs and are happy to receive more without giving anything back. They vote for politicians to solve their problems. This is the formula of politics—it is based on violence.

Equality means that both parties are in the same level, respected and treated according to the same standards. This is the theory, but in practise we seldom face it in reality. Unfortunately we have created this system ourselves and thus are responsible of the results as well. We are living among double standards.

Some rules and principals are necessary to coordinate and enable voluntary cooperation between people. Predefined terms direct what is tolerated and what is not. If everyone is aware of the rules later no one can get excused of ignorance. But this is only half of the issue. The rest is based on the fact that everybody is treated in a similar manner and according to those predetermined terms. Today our societies are not working this way.

We have created an artificial system that is above the level of individuals. In practise we have made people a sub-class to a system that everybody is forced to subdue. Sadly enough this system is run and abused by the very same people. There is no one to blame but us. Still we feel helpless and little against this monstrous structure. It is inhuman, not responsible to any single individual, and disregards any personal circumstances. We call it the common or public good. It goes over any person or group of people. Public good is more important than the individual members of the society that are supposed to be part of and create this concept called ‘greater good’.

When faced with this ‘public good’ an individual can be considered sacrificial or ‘a liability’ that can be destroyed mentally, financially, or even physically. Collateral damage is a term used in other ‘public good’ missions. Nevertheless they are similar situations were individuals are insignificant in respect to some greater thought-forms or concepts facilitated by some others members of the human family. In our age ideas and ideologies are used as vehicles to rule and manipulate other members of the society.

This conceptual structure we have created is above any individual. In practise it means that an individual is alienated from her rights to self-defence, freedom, and equality among other members of the society. How can you make sure that you are treated fairly if you don’t have any practical means to make sure and follow-up your case as well? A very simple example is taxation laws. Tax authorities are not accountable to people or any individual. They are part of the structure that is above the people. They get their power and force from the very persons that tolerate and maintain the organisation in existence. Still these authorities are not responsible of their actions. There is no objective third party that can assess and mediate the disputes or matters at hand. International and domestic voluntary cooperation sectors have found ways to handle and resolute dispute and argument situations in a fair and objective manner. Chambers of Commerce offer business mediation (arbitration) services that are swift, final, and respected by both parties. And most of all they are selected by the parties themselves and thus trusted as well. None of this is available for individual members of the society. We are forced to subdue to the rules and laws of the stronger party that is not accountable to any single individual or party.

To make matters even worse it is worthwhile to consider the amount of members of our societies that are directly dependent of these arbitrary structures in form of a salary or employment. How objective do you regard the people that are paid by the public sector? Do you think that they are making decisions that are against their own or the organisation’s survival instinct? Seldom you see public organisations admitting their wrongdoings or making exceptions for any individual. They are not countable for their ‘customers’—they do not need to be—they are getting paid by taxes that are collected by force. Only voluntary cooperation is dependent on the other party, otherwise there would be no cooperation. Coercion is one-way communication that is based on violence or a threat of violence. Just think about it—how objective is any party that is using force as the final (or even as the first) argument? And on top of this you don’t have any choice.

Expecting to gain more than one is willing to put on the table is foolhardy. Forcing others to comply with it is stealing. The motives vary from jealousy, low self-esteem, laziness to greediness and everything between. In any case the idea is to get away with the scheme without being exposed. Current politics is based on this principal.

Voluntary cooperation between people does not need regulations and control. They are required to force something in place and to keep something out. Special privileges are based on structures where the gains are separated from the liabilities and the responsibilities—a free ride. The formula often works so that everybody pays (in form of coerced payments) and some selected few reap the benefits. There are also fancier names for all this: tariffs, tolls, trade restrictions, subsidies, protective laws and directives, sales and energy taxes, and so on. They are all too important to be left for the grown-up adults to decide upon themselves and be responsible of their actions and choices.

Our monetary system is based on the same principal. The current legal tender is nothing but a dictum that is backed by the government’s threat of using violence against its citizens. The only difference between you printing your own notes and the government is the amount of force you’re lacking. Currently the money system is based solely on the amount of money in circulation. Its value is dependent on its volume. Otherwise the paper (or digital) nominations are entirely useless. And the best part is that the government having the monopoly decides when and how much more money it will issue. This is stealing as well. Another name for it is inflation. And don’t get fooled by the consumer indexes or any other official measures of inflation. The sole source of inflation is the increase in the monetary base. Period. The rest is only a matter of time for the ripple effect to penetrate the entire economy and to adjust the prices for the new volume of money in form of price changes.

Government does not produce anything. It needs the politicians to steal from you. They can do it either by collecting more taxes or inflating the currency. The latter is easier and less disruptive for the public to accept. The end result is the same. Everybody pays and only a few gains. In the case of inflation those closest to the new money in circulation benefit the most in form of getting services and goods still with old (low) prices and in the reverse those are hurt the most that need to buy things with the new (high) prices but are not able to raise their own prices accordingly. The economy does not need controls and politicians, but your government and the beneficiaries of its special privileges need. Just follow the money.

Free competition is very disturbing for some. It’s ruthless for those that do not serve the society. And how do we know this? The law of the market is very simple. You vote by your free choice—those that serve you the best you favour and support, and the rest need to cope without you. This continuous change forces everyone to serve the interest of their customers with the utmost care. Unfortunately the political control over the markets is so dominating nowadays that basically everything is controlled and regulated by the government.

In addition, ‘public’ services do not need to listen to the customer. They get their money by stealing from you so they could not care less. The prime motive of any organisation is its self-survival no matter whether it is a ‘public’ or private entity. The only difference is that only the free market based organisation needs to be humble in front of the customer. It relies on the voluntary cooperation and interaction among its customers. It cannot survive without the customer in the long run. Organisations (even private) that rely on coercion are in a different position. They get something for nothing. Actually they are the healthier the more they gain stolen goods. No wonder lobbying and politics is the biggest business in town. That’s where the money is made in our ‘modern’ society. Everybody pays, only a few gains, and the overall society goes down the drain. Looting is never a long-term plan—someone needs to produce before it can be stolen. Currently it is more lucrative to steal than to create. How do you see the odds?

Don’t’ get deceived by the looks or even by the words, observe the underlying reality and the deeds. We are not living in freedom—actually we might never have. Only the forms of suppression and abuse have been changing along the centuries, sometimes with a figurehead and more recently only with symbolical representatives.

Oxford American Dictionary defines tyranny as “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control”. The last definition already includes democracy provided that one is considering the issue from an individual’s perspective. Democracy is a system where a certain selection of the population is giving their power to a few elected representatives that use the power of force to apply their rules to the whole population. It is worthwhile to notice that not everybody in the population is even entitled to vote.

The much-embraced democratic process is only a form of tyranny where majority is entitled to enforce the minority under its regime. And what is the smallest minority? An individual. This system assumes a lot. It believes that it has the moral right and the obligation to suppress and use violence or threat of violence to force its decisions to the people under its regime. In other words freedom of expression and diversity are not allowed and individuals are sacrificed for the cause defined by someone else. Everybody is forced to do as they are told to do without any choice. Coercion is not cooperation, it is brutal and arrogant point of view that assumes and regards the right to tell others what they are supposed to do. Democracy tells us how we are allowed to live and carry out our lives. And if we do not fit to the predefined paradigm we are forced to underwrite the values, beliefs, and assumptions decided by the democratic process.

And like any system it is only as good as the people using it. It is fruitful to try to find an area of life into which this coercive process has yet not penetrated in our societies. Our freedom has been narrowed done to a very few choices, sometimes to plain one. Choice belongs to freedom but it also means that the one who makes the decisions is also responsible of one’s actions. Freedom is only valued by those who can appreciate it. It seems that we do not have many representatives of freedom left in this planet. It is easier to do what someone else has thought to be good for us and just follow the pattern no matter whether we speak about education, health, economy, arts, science, or any other area of the society.

Freedom expects a lot from us. Acceptance, tolerance, and the respect for others are among the qualities that are only nurtured under freedom. These are not so much tested when you agree with someone but when you do not. If you see something different from your own perspective, are you trying to suppress, deny and convert it to the traditional point of view or let it have its way provided that it is not violating your own rights to self-expression?

Voluntary cooperation is a friend of freedom. Coercion belongs to the category of violence. All this boils down to a basic question: are individuals trusted to live their lives without someone else’s forced intervention? Apparently still today we are living in a huge kindergarten.

There are only net tax payers and net receivers in any given society where government coercion is practised. See why, explained by Murray Rothbard.

Go and check this out The U.S. vs. John Lennon. A well-made documentary that shows the other side of John Lennon that focused on social and political issues. The official web-site.

“The intrusion of politics into the field of economics is simply an evidence of human ignorance or arrogance, and is as fatuous as an attempt to control the rise and fall of tides. Since the beginning of political institutions, there have been attempts to fix wages, control prices, and create capital, all resulting in failure.”

Frank Chodorov from The Rise and Fall of Society.

Read the first chapter.

Chapter 6: The Humanity of Trade.

An interesting article about Jean-Baptiste Say by Amadeus Gabriel:

Thus, society could work without government management if people carried out their business and let other people carry out their business at the same time. Say underlines his position by giving some historical examples. Writing in 1819, he observes that at times during the previous thirty years, France had found itself in a situation in which all the authorities were suddenly halted. In these critical moments, no government was at all existent. And what does Say observe? During these periods, the essential functions of the social body could not have been carried out in a better way: everything worked, better than would have normally been the case. Say states that the worst occurred in times when people were too much governed.

“Too many people living in democracies are lulled into believing that they are free because they have the right to vote and elections are held periodically. If you take conscription for military service as an example, I think you would find that if it was proclaimed by a sole monarch, the people would revolt and disobey. However, in a democracy, when the politicians vote for it, the people comply and still think they are free.”

In the twentieth century 170 million people were killed by governments. It’s the bloodiest century in all history. Read an excerpt from A Century of War by John V. Denson.

Try to imagine a system of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property rights. If you cannot do so, then you must agree that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

Read the famous essay of Frédéric Bastiat.