Focus on Life™

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?

A society is decaying when it is interested in only of the effects and not in the causes. What happens when the ‘needs’ are of most importance and the ways to satisfy them are despised? A moral decline.

Who does not have any needs? We all do. Newspapers are full of ‘needs’ to be fulfilled. They are very urgent and thus must be satisfied at any cost. But whose needs are more important than anyone else’s?  Why should others fulfil someone else’s needs? In short, what is the justification for the underlying assumption that everybody else except the person itself should be responsible for satisfying one’s own needs? This is to say that it is fine and noble to receive without one’s own effort and let the others even work for it. To close the circle the ones who are working for the ‘needs’ of others are morally despised by the others because they are making an effort and thus at least are getting something done. They are called selfish and greedy. It is socially acceptable to receive benefits in due cause solely because one needs them but it is low and almost criminal to mind one’s own business and stand firmly on one’s own two feet. Their needs are of no importance since they are capable of taking care of themselves. Thus it is OK to discriminate against the ones with capabilities and virtue—“they have it all” as it is often said. It is the ones who do not have are more important exactly because they lack something. And because they have deficiencies their ‘needs’ have to be fulfilled. In another words, ability and hard work are less valued than ignorance and vices. Not doing and trying are achievement themselves whereas making an effort and working for one’s success are self-evident and of no importance whatsoever—they are sacrificial.

It is socially acceptable to care for others’ well-being, often even in general terms without being able to define the others specifically (i.e. ‘public good’, welfare of the state, general good or welfare), and to do something that is non-profit and thus ‘not selfish’. This means that everyone minds everyone else’s business but no one is allowed to mind one’s own. A socially acceptable and morally just society is one where no one is selfish and thus not focusing at all for one’s own needs and well being. In addition, it is socially acceptable to receive if one has needs but if everyone is just to receive from where is it all then coming from? And how can the others know exactly what are the most important needs for everybody else? Or is it so that there is a more general standard which defines what others are supposed to need and in what proportions? Or is it just called the welfare state and democracy by majority rule?