Double-Standard

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.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (1)

Primitive Society

“A characteristic of a primitive culture is that it regards itself as highly advanced.”

I heard this somewhere and I think it puts nicely the point which we seldom stop to think. If we look into past we can feel superiority to past centuries and generations. They were not as advanced in technology and wisdom and they had more struggle with everyday life as we do today. Still putting into aside the material side of living— are we more developed and better human beings after all?

The outset is different. We look more nicely dressed and cleaner. We have better houses and means of transportation. More knowledge and better working conditions. Sure things are better now than in the past. More drugs, better healthcare and education system, less tyranny and so on. But are we more than a primitive civilization who thinks too high of oneself?

Despite all the great knowledge and wisdom we are still killing people. Others are starving to death and most of the human population on earth is barely coping with the ordinary life. A great minority of people is ruling and possessing most of the power and richness in the world. Most of the wealth seems to be distributed purely by chance. Some happen to live in an area of natural resources or has born to a country with great wealth. Personal talents or own hard work do not guarantee success in live. It is not what you know but who you know, still.

Today people are after beauty, wealth, power and possessions. They get kicks by consuming and thinking about their own happiness and pleasures. The society is build in a way that supports and sometimes encourages individualism and egoism. We encourage and sustain behaviour that can even harm other human beings and more importantly our nature. How many animals are making a mess in their own nest and destroying their own surroundings?

What could be the characteristics of a developed civilization? My answers are as good as yours. Here are some for a starters:

First of all they would not kill each other. Also they would appreciate the environment from which their existence is dependent on. They would try to improve the surroundings and hence leave it in a better shape than they got it from the previous generation. Individuals would not focus on their own good but for the well-being of others. The greatest heroes would be those who help and encourage others to success and achieve in life. Everyone would be recognised by their talents and capabilities and supported in developing those. One would not need to be supervised by a government or collegial entity— everyone would understand the common good and behave accordingly. The focus would be in the positive development of individuals and would concentrate on progress and not on failures and set backs. A behaviour based on pure power or submission in any form would not be tolerated (against animals as well).

The above items have nothing to do with our knowledge, technology or wisdom. They are more related to the very existence and life itself. More information does not necessarily mean that we are developing to the right direction. Or even mean that we are developing at all. More data and details of more issues do not necessarily mean that we have progressed in thinking and in the basic fundamentals. It almost seems that less people are considerate and firmly having their feet on the ground. More accurate description of the surroundings do not count as creative thinking, and that’s what most of our sciences are about. In the school we are taught pieces of information, descriptive details. Seldom anyone is encouraged to raise question and develop own thinking. Our children are not taught anything really useful— how to live and become better as human beings. How could they because their parents don’t know anything better: “Panem et Circenses”.

Tags: , , ,

Comments