We Don't Need THAT Education, We Don't Need No State Control

The liberal-conservative (i.e. statist-statist) government in Great Britain has suggested raising tuition fees in British universities to a maximum of £9,000 per year. This has led to mass protests and rioting in London. The protesters say that this will exclude children from poor families from going to university. The solution, as always, is to deregulate.

First of all, we don't need as many people continuing on with higher studies. For a lot of people high school would be more than sufficient. We've ended up in a situation where countries compete with each other about who can have the highest percentage of young people with a university degree (regardless of if it's needed or not), and where more and more career paths require you to have a degree that is completely unnecessary. It's as if they're saying that unless you have a degree, you're not quite as good as everyone else, so you better put yourself in debt and get that piece of paper.

There is no need for people who are not qualified to study to become doctors or engineers. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the way it is. And some educations are simply ridiculously long – you don't need three years at a university to be a journalist, for example (then again, I guess three years is about the time it takes to completely brain-wash someone, so I guess they have a reason).

Completely deregulate the educational system and you will see companies either paying for gifted students to go to college or university, or lending them money in exchange for them working for the company for a couple of years – regardless of how much or how little money their parents have. This will ensure that only the people who are the most gifted end up becoming engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. and that's the way it should be.

How Does The Free Market Handle Recycling?

Recycling, just like everything else on a free market, works according to the deceptively simple law of supply and demand. To understand this we first have to distinguish between finite and infinite resources. Finite resources are resources that we as humans can't make more of. Uranium is one such resource. Timber or water, however, are not finite resources. If we notice that the demand for timber is growing, we can plant more trees, and 50 years from now we can cut them down and repeat the process.

The supply isn't just the amount of a finite resource that we have available at the moment (which is the supply the market sees), but the term “supply” includes all of that resource, even that which we might not have found yet. From time to time there are headlines saying that a drilling company has found a new pocket of natural gas that contains so and so much gas. Before they found it, it was still included in the term supply.

We see therefore that the supply of a finite resource is always decreasing unless we stop using said resource. We can however find ways to use less of a finite resource. In the case of uranium, we might for instance build power plants that are more energy efficient, or find new ways to extract uranium, giving us the opportunity to excavate ore with a lesser percentage of uranium and still make a profit.

Demand, on the other hand, can be increasing, decreasing or remain constant. If the demand decreases faster than the supply does, the price of the resource goes down. If the demand is constant, the price will eventually rise. If the demand is increasing, the price will also increase, and at a faster rate than if the demand was constant.

That is how recycling would work on a free market. Why are we being paid to recycle aluminum cans today? Because making new aluminum is a very costly process, so it's cheaper to recycle old cans. The same thing goes for plastic soda bottles that are made from a plastic called PET. It's cheaper to recycle than to make new plastic. When the supply of oil eventually drops, making plastic more expensive, the same thing will happen with other types of plastic containers and products as well. There simply is no need for a government to tell us what to recycle. But what about littering and pollution, you say? That's a subject for another blog post.

Just A Quick Message To My Readers

Hello guys and gals. I just wanted to make a quick post to let you know that the promised post on recycling and finite resources won't be posted tonight. I've picked up a bug somewhere and I have a terrible fever, so I'm going to bed to try and sleep it off. I'll try to get it posted sometime this weekend.

How Does The Free Market Handle...

I thought I'd start a series of blog posts where I talk about how the free market would handle things that a lot of people mistakenly think you need a State to manage. If any of you readers has a topic you'd like me to cover you can either leave a comment here or send me an e-mail at stateenemy@hushmail.com.

I'll start with a post later tonight on how the free market handles recycling and finite resources.

Dutch Government To The People: Spy On Your Neighbors

In a move fitting the former East German secret police, Dutch politicians have started sending scratch-n-sniff cards smelling of cannabis to 30,000 households in Rotterdam and The Hague, Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (Daily News) reports. On the card is the phone number to a police department. The idea is that the politicians want people to spy on their neighbors. Do you feel a faint smell of cannabis when you pop over to borrow the lawnmower? Just call the police and have them arrested.

The danger, a State-sponsored anti-cannabis organization says, is in part the danger of cannabis use itself (which is a blatant lie; cannabis is the least harmful drug in the world), but also the fire hazard associated with cannabis growing.

Here's a suggestion, law makers all over the world: make it completely legal to grow, sell, buy and use cannabis, and people won't have to cram ten plants into a closet filled with blankets and a heat lamp.

For now all I have to say is: Dutch growers, I hope you're better at smelling a rat than they are at smelling cannabis.

War Is Peace, Ignorance Is Strength, Freedom Is Restriction?

I'm sorry that I'm beating the proverbial dead Orwellian horse again, but when I read the the New York Times article saying that Obama Presses to Complete Free-Trade Deal With South Korea, I just couldn't help myself.

It's funny how politicians and journalists alike seem to think that “less restrictive” is the same as free. If I chain you to a tree and later decide to exchange the 30' chain with a 300' chain, does that make you free? This is not a free-trade deal at all. True, it is a deal that will lower some tariffs and remove some regulations, so we should still see it as a positive step towards economic freedom, right?

Wrong. Why, you may ask? Because as long as there are trade agreements between nations, no matter how insignificant the restrictions may be, we have morally accepted restrictions on trade as the norm, when the only moral position is that all human interactions should be free and voluntary.

No Charges Against The CIA For Destroying Tapes

Some of you may remember the headlines from early last year: CIA Destroyed 92 Interview Tapes. These tapes contained interviews and “interrogations” with suspected terrorists. At first the CIA claimed that only two tapes had been destroyed, in violation of a 2005 ruling that all evidence regarding the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo should be preserved.

It was soon discovered that it was actually 92 tapes that had conveniently disappeared, some allegedly showing water-boarding, an “interrogation” technique that the Obama administration classified as torture (pretty much the only good thing Obama has done since he was elected).

The Department of Justice has now – after what I'm sure was a long and difficult and thorough investigation (yeah, right) – come to the conclusion that no-one is to be prosecuted for destroying the tapes. The DoJ choosing not to prosecute the CIA? I know, I'm just as shocked as you...

Move Over Snowball And Napoleon, There Are New Pigs In Town

One of my favorite bloggers is Henrik Alexandersson. He's always on point and isn't afraid to speak his mind. But I also hate how fast he is. Whenever I see something in a Swedish newspaper that I feel is worth blogging about, you can be sure that he beat me – and everyone else – to it. However, this is a piece of news that I think might be of interest even to those of you who don't speak Swedish.

Residents in the new Stockholm city district of Royal Seaport will be faced with severe regulations regarding their lifestyle, Stockholm politicians have announced. This would include not only sorting waste and participating in carpools, but also exercising, buying only eco-friendly products  - even socializing with neighbors. They will even tell you what route to take when you go to work, just to make sure you're as eco-friendly as possible.

To ensure you're thinking the right thoughts, they will "offer" courses in "green living". Think about this for a minute. They will force you to carpool and socialize with your neighbors. Even if these courses are voluntary, how many people will have the courage to refuse to attend them? Just as with the public school system this is nothing but a way for the government to make sure their propaganda gets out there.

I am all for privately owned communities of like-minded individuals, but this is the State telling us how to live our lives. Stockholm is a city in desperate need of more housing, and they plan on building 5,000 homes in the Royal Seaport area. With housing in such high demand, we will see people having to choose between having every aspect of their lives controlled by the government's latest whim, or not being able to live in Stockholm.

It's ironic that the district is called Norra Djurgårdsstaden in Swedish. Literally translated it means North Animal Farm City. I would laugh at the obvious Orwellian connection if it weren't for the fact that the Stockholm politicians really do think that we are all equal, some are just more equal than others.

Obama: Liar, Hypocrite, War Criminal

Just a quick post to comment on President Barrack Obama's speech during his visit to India, where he said the following:

The United States seeks security-the security of our country, allies and partners. We seek prosperity-a strong and growing economy in an open international economic system. We seek respect for universal values. And we seek a just and sustainable international order that promotes peace and security by meeting global challenges through stronger global cooperation.

Only if “a just and sustainable international order that promotes peace and security” is a euphemism for American imperialism and going to war to force other countries to conform to your will.

This is the bond we share. It's why we insist that nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

I'm sure you mean nothing except the “War on Terror”. Right, Mr. President? Of the 150,000 killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq, 80% or 120,000, were civilians. Innocent men, women and children.

The Abortion Debate: Midwives And Conscience

Nurses, midwives and doctors should not be forced to perform abortions if it goes against their conscience, so says Eva Johnsson and six other politicians and members of Parliament for the Swedish Christian Democrats in an article published on the Newsmill website. I agree with her, but the solution is not to make new laws regulating the health care industry. This isn't even a question of morals or ethics; it's a question of contractual obligation.

If you took the job knowing that you would be expected to perform or assist in abortions, and you did not object, you have no right to refuse. Well, of course you have the right to refuse, but if you do, your employer should likewise have the right to fire you, since your refusal constitutes a breach of contract. As always, the solution is to deregulate.

By deregulating the health care industry there would be the option for those who oppose abortion to open and run their own clinics and hospitals where such procedures are prohibited, a solution that should please both Johnsson et al. as well as those of us who feel that abortion should be an option, albeit the very last one.

Did The Meek Already Inherit The Earth?

Michigan just got a little less free. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission has banned dozens of alcoholic beverages that combined caffeine and alcohol. One such beverage, the Four Loko, contained the equivalent of three or four cups of coffee and four beers. The reason for banning it? “Experts” have warned that the caffeine masks the effect of the alcohol, which according to them makes it difficult for young people to realize just how intoxicated they are.

This is just another example of the nanny State wanting to tell us what's good for us and what's not. And if we don't listen to their suggestions – legislate. Just a few days ago we saw the same thing in San Francisco, where the Board of Supervisors voted to prohibit fast food restaurants offering free toys with high-calorie, high fat meals. Fast food restaurants will only be allowed to give away toys with meals that contain fewer than 600 calories (including the drink) and has a fat content less than 35%.

No-one wants young adults to drink too much or kids to become obese from eating too much, but what happened to personal responsibility? If you're old enough to legally drink in the United States you've been old enough to die for your country for about three years. Is the Michigan Liquor Control Commission saying that a person who is deemed mature enough to join the army is too immature to decide for himself if he wants to drink an alcoholic beverage that contains caffeine? Is the San Francisco Board of Supervisors saying that parents are too stupid to know what's good for their kids?

It sure seems that way. Whatever happened to “Don't Tread On Me” and “Live Free Or Die”? Something tells me that if Benjamin Franklin had been told he couldn't smoke because it was bad for him, he would have told the law-makers where they could shove his pipe.

Queen of Covert Surveillance Upset Over Covert Surveillance

Following the revelation earlier this week that the U.S. had for more than a decade systematically monitored Norwegian citizens they considered to be potential security risks, it has now been revealed that they have also spied on Swedish residents. Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle and pictured left, said the U.S. activities in Sweden and Norway "seem to be similar" and that "it seems as though we haven't been fully informed and that's not good."

You're quite right, Minister Ask. But whatever the U.S. did or did not do, they limited their monitoring to specific persons of interest. Ask and her cronies fully supported the FRA law, a Swedish law that authorizes the State to wiretap – without a warrant, mind you – all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses the borders of Sweden.

Every single person that lives in Sweden and uses the Internet is being monitored, all the time. Every time you do a search on Google or buy something from Amazon or watch a video on YouTube, or make another blogpost on Blogger, you are being treated by the Swedish government the way the U.S. government treated people they deemed to be threats to national security. To me, that speaks volumes of how little respect Minister Ask and her friends really have for our civil liberties.

Small Scale Counterfeiting: Bad - Big Scale Counterfeiting: Good

When federal agents busted a counterfeiting operation in Detroit recently, they found that the counterfeiters weren't using any sophisticated equipment at all, just a standard Lexmark printer and plain paper. According to the article on the Detroit Free Press website, new technology has made counterfeiting easier than ever. "If you're able to put a piece of paper in a copy machine and push a button, that's pretty much all it takes," Special Agent Scott Vogel said.

I can't help but think that people are now only doing what the Federal Reserve has been doing since the dollar was taken off the gold standard. The only difference is that when the Fed floods the market with billions or trillions of dollars that aren't even worth the paper they're printed on, no one goes to prison. They become Time Magazine's Person of the Year.

Rand Paul: Dr. Maybe

Following Rand Paul's election to Senator for Kentucky I have seen libertarians and anarcho-capitalists alike rejoice over the fact that someone who is devoted to true liberty gets elected. I can not join the celebration, since I don't see Dr. Paul in that light. I fear that he not only lacks the ideological backbone that has made his father, congressman Dr. Ron Paul, such a beacon of hope in these dark times, but also that in many ways his views are impossible to reconcile with a true love of liberty.

Take his views on abortion. A controversial issue, and I can understand the position of those who are opposed to abortion in general. Paul, however, is opposed to abortion in all cases, including when the woman – or child – is the victim of rape or incest. He has stated that he will support “any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion,” including “a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.”

This would make abortion murder under federal law and no state could pass legislation saying that abortion is legal in that particular state. Not only is this a tremendous expansion of the federal government's power over the states but it also says that a woman's body is the property of the federal government from the point of fertilization until she gives birth.

If this legislation would be passed, a woman saying that she is going to abort the fetus growing inside her would be guilty of threatening murder just as much as she would be if she told someone she was going to shoot them in the head, and the police would be forced to arrest her and keep her locked up and either restrained or drugged until she gives birth.

Paul's position becomes even more illogical when he says that he supports the use of the morning-after pill – a pill that irritates the lining of the uterus so the fertilized egg is rejected after passing through the fallopian tube to the uterus. If Paul truly believes that life begins at conception, and that the termination of any human life is murder, then he advocates murder.

But Paul's views are incompatible with the libertarian or anarcho-capitalist view on many more issues.

Paul supports the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" on the Guantanamo military base and thinks that “terrorists” should be prosecuted in military tribunals instead of regular courts. He doesn't want to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. He claims to be against the PATRIOT Act, but also says he won't do anything to repeal it, and he is against gay marriage.

Believing that the federal government has the right to reward or punish someone with tax or other benefits depending on the gender of the person they have chosen to spend their life with is not compatible with a love for liberty. Rand Paul is a deeply religious Conservative, not a libertarian.

Even more disturbing is Rand's flip-flopping. In 2009 he pledged not to accept contributions from any politician who voted for a federal bailout of the banking industry. He said this in response to Secretary of State Trey Grayson attending a fund-raiser hosted by a senator who voted to save bankrupt banks with the taxpayers' money. Yet in June 2010 Paul himself attended a $1,000-a-person fundraiser hosted by the very same senator, attended by senators who voted for the federal bailout.

If he can so easily flip-flop on an issue that he claims was the one issue that made him decide to run for senate, then how can we expect him to be principled on any other issue? How long will it take before the lure of power becomes stronger than his principles on other issues as well?

The Terrorism of the State

It has been said that the greatest threat to our liberty is that of global terrorism. I would agree, but with a serious reservation. When we think of terrorism, we usually think of Muslim fanatics, Central-American death squads or maybe radical animal-rights activists. However, groups like these can never be a threat to our liberty as a whole, since they only have the support of a very small part of the population, a minority that is unlikely to grow so large as to pose a serious threat.

These groups are of course a serious threat to the individual, and should be treated as such, but for a terrorist group to ever pose a serious threat to liberty itself, they have to gain the support of a large portion of the population – although it could be argued that the actions of al-Qaeda on 9/11 caused panicking American politicians, lacking a serious devotion to liberty, to do more harm to liberty in the United States than any terrorist organization could ever do on its own.

What then is terrorism? For an act to be an act of terror, there are four criteria that must all be fulfilled – the act must be violent, it must be designed to cause fear, it must be perpetrated for an ideological purpose and it must deliberately and willfully target civilians.

Keeping this definition in mind, let us examine the State. In order to do that, we must first make sure there are no misconceptions. The State is not the same as society. Society is a social network of individuals freely associating with each other; the State is, in the words of leftist anarchist Murray Bookchin, the professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, and to preempt the control of society from the people.

Remembering the definitions of terrorism and the State, let us examine one act that all States perpetrate – the collection of taxes from its citizens. Could this act fulfill the criteria of a terrorist act?

Is it a violent act? Yes, it is. By definition, when something is taken from you without your permission, that is an act of violence.

Is it designed to cause fear? Yes, it is. If you refuse to pay taxes, the IRS will confiscate your property and/or put you in prison.

Is it perpetrated for an ideological purpose? Yes, it is. Taxes are most often collected under the guise of providing us with some service that the State thinks we need, and which they believe we are unable to provide for ourselves. More often than not taxes are also collected to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots by taking money from one group and giving to another.

Does is deliberately and willfully target civilians? Yes, it does.

In this light, what is the State if not a terrorist organization, and the most dangerous of all, since its terror is accepted by virtually everyone as being not only just, but virtuous?