Focus on Life™

How can you set-up a society like ours in case you want to repeat the current model from scratch? The instructions are very simple but do not expect people free willingly to align with your system.

Give people an illusion of control but take away their power. Centralise decision-making power away from local level where it would be most useful, effective, and also transparent. The further away and more consolidated the power the easier it is to make decisions that impact and possibly harm a large amount of people, and at the same time make people feel powerless and not capable of being in control and in charge of their own matters.

Release people from their own responsibility and tell them what they can and cannot do. This can be practiced by the powers and centralisation put in place. Most of the people are just relieved if the can obey rules and have a false sense of security where someone else is thinking and protecting their lives—in essence from themselves and their choices.

Control key resources. One of the most effective ways of control is to secure a permanent and exclusive privilege to be in charge of the means for indirect exchange. This instrument allows to manipulate, allocate, and define the direction of the society. One of the benefits of the monopoly is the right to create claims for resources without contributing anything back to the society. Using as a means of exchange something intangible or practically worthless in other usage enables to fabricate money out of thin air. This is very useful way to reallocate wealth in society.

Remove individuals’ means to protect themselves. Practical way to make people passive is to offer them physical protection and in return they are not allowed to use any other means to protect and seek justice. By monopolising justice it is possible to use the system’s resources against the very people it is supposed to protect. There is no objectivity and equality anymore when the asymmetry has been put in place: a private party against the system that is in practise defining its own rules and using coercion as a final means to execute it.

Make people dependent on your system. Create programs and schemes that distribute resources among the members of the public so that the system is acting as a middleman. Offering goods and services for ‘free’ or based on some arbitrary criteria remove the individual’s incentives to excel and support oneself. Direct employment by the system is the most natural way to tie people and resources as an integral part of the system. The more extensive the distribution of wealth the larger the impact and more integrated the system becomes to the society. One of the most effective ways to create dependence is taxation and other schemes that confiscate the financial resources from individuals. In some cases it is enough to keep intact the ‘ownership’ (or the claim for the resources) but centralise the control of the assets, for example by forced savings to dedicated funds.

Create a closed system that keeps people busy and turns them against each other. Imposed fear and lack are ways to produce an atmosphere of rivalry and controversy. Artificial lack can be fabricated by using a monetary system that has an inherit fault in it: there is never enough money to settle all accounts. This forces people to fight for resources and to protect their existing wealth by producing more economic activity out of scarce and limited resources. In short, perpetual growth is needed to keep the system going. By (re)distribution of resources via the system as stated above emphasises the fear once people are made dependent and passive for the ‘benefits’ given to them. They will turn against each other in order to protect their personal sources of dependency.

Remove personal responsibility and liability. In order to make the system work seamlessly it is beneficial to introduce a double-standard moral code where the system is not accountable for its actions in the same manner as individuals are, would they conduct the same deed. This enables central decision-making by selected members of the society without them being personally liable of the consequences of their actions. The system itself starts to live outside of its own rules and principals but is still run by the members of the society. People can only blame themselves—they have carried out all the actions.

Keep away from the limelight. At the end of the day it is not necessary to be a public figure and still influence the system. There are always people available that are willing to do the dirty work, and they can be replaced. Special privileges can be bought and the system manipulated when you have the financial resources for it. Some members of the society have a greater incentive to seek benefits for themselves and for their own advancement than to protect and cooperate with their fellow citizens. They are more than happy to make the decisions that harm the environment, people, pollute the planet, and destroy the future of the society. And in most of the cases they are not even aware of the consequences and do their acts in good faith or out of ignorance. The urge to tell others what they are supposed to do and save people from themselves appeals to many. And after all—who’s there to blame in a system like this?

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.

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

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.

In our personal life we assume to be treated fair and just. We assume to have the right for things we have earned and thus achieved by our own effort. We are not claming the unearned. This is what we call justice. Everybody takes care of their own business and respect others’ similar rights as well.

A breach of this right we call a theft or stealing. We say it is immoral to take from another person what that person has earned by his own effort and action without violating other persons’ rights (i.e. not gained by force from someone else). We do not consider it fair to steal from one person and give it to the other even though the person who carried out the theft did not benefit himself by the action and it was done only for the purpose of helping someone else in a great ‘need’. A theft is a theft, full stop.

Our society has assumed a system where people have voluntarily given up some of their individual rights and granted a monopoly of those rights for a structure called government. The government is entitled to use physical violence and force against its people. This legalised right of violence (or a threat of it) has been given up by the people and granted for the government. Thus individuals have no right to use force against each other and all interaction between people are based on negotiations and voluntary agreements. The government is assumed the role of an arbitrator who is commissioned to make sure that each individuals’ personal rights are not violated by any other private entity (i.e. person or institution).

But because everything is done by us, the people, the government as well is nothing but a few persons acting on behalf of every individual with their mandate (i.e. with their permission by recognising the authority). So simply the government is only an abstract concept that we are accustomed to have in our everyday life. In other words the government is the total sum of all the individuals in its sphere of influence. In itself it is nothing—it has no opinions or values. It only acts by some people who are presenting the rest of the population. Therefore words like ‘public good, public opinion, moral right and so on’ are just plain meaningless and hollow without any substance. Public opinion or good by whose standards, values and decided by whom?

Our current society uses this concept called government as a vehicle to gain special rights and privileges by the cost of everyone else. The government’s authorised status as a monopolised violence machine makes its position entirely different to any other entity or person in our society. No one else can force people to obey under its will. It doesn’t really matter whether this is done by taxation, legislation or any other means as long as individuals have no negative rights (i.e. to say no and refuse to cooperate).

So, where is this double standard? Just look around you, and in the news. Every day media is full of persons, interest groups, and institutions that are asking for some favours, subsides, more money, restrictions etc. from the government in the name of the public good or whatever the ‘great cause’. They claim to get something they have not earned themselves from the government. In another words they are after violating someone else’s rights and using them for a particular purpose either directly benefiting themselves or some other third parties. Unearned gains from the ‘society’ and at the cost of someone else.

How does the government deal with these wishes and needs? Itself it does not produce anything. It is entirely useless. It can only redistribute and take from someone who has produced something already. In another words it uses its monopoly of violence to obtain what it wants. It steals by force. Keep that in mind when you hear next time that someone has a right for something; by violating who’s rights and at who’s expense?

“If you could write one law that would help the country the most what would that be?” asked Walter Williams some decades ago from Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek over dinner. Hayek replied: “Very simple: You should have a law that Congress cannot do for one American what it does not do for all Americans.” And continued by explaining that if Congress pays some people not to raise pigs or grow wheat, they ought to pay every American not to raise pigs or grow wheat.

The economy is based on the productivity of us, the people. If we are taken off the equitation, nothing gets done either. We live by our efforts and abilities. Everything in our society is based on the efforts of someone, and his or her capabilities. If you need bread you get it from someone who has produced it. Nothing is created out of thin air. We are dependent on each other, and our intellectual capabilities. Some are having more brainpower than others but nevertheless we all are in the same boat. All the work is needed; otherwise the system would not function. If there is no bread how to get the rest done?

There are only two basic ways to work: voluntarily or by force. The first is based on freedom and the second on fear and threat of violence. You can enslave people to work manually (i.e. mechanically) but it seldom works for tasks requiring innovation and creativity. Intellect cannot be forced—it is an act based on voluntary free choice. Therefore any society will first lose the efforts of its most capable and able, its prime motor—the future potential. This minority does not make much noise about itself. It acts like any individual who knows one’s worth and value. They merely walk away and find a place where they are appreciated or simply just stop creating altogether. Why bother and for what?