The Evil of Appeasement

Today, 6 August 2009, marks 64 years since the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Unfortunately, the West has failed to learn the lessons of Hiroshima. Leftists everywhere use it to demonstrate the horrors of war, and talk about how great world peace would be - one of the school notices today was entitled "Pray for World Peace".

Indeed, as Ayn Rand points out, war is a terrible thing. It has taken the lives of many millions of people just over the last century, and left countless more in mourning. But what the leftists refuse to recognize is that the root of war lies in something worse than war: in statism and tyranny. When a government has declared war upon its own citizens, it is never long until the surrounding nations are next. This is the way a tyranny works: it constantly needs victims.

And this is exactly what happened in World War II. The Third Reich and Japanese Empire brought war to an unprecedented new scale throughout the world. Trying to turn a blind eye to the devastation, it took until a direct attack on American soil itself for the US to enter the war. Even then, it took the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show the Japanese the evil of the philosophy that had grasped their nation.

What this represents, as well as military appeasement, is a far greater philosophical appeasement of tyranny; after all, military force is no use without proper philosophical backing; without the forces acting for good knowing that they're acting for good. Chamberlain's pragmatism is what allowed Hitler's Germany to take over so much of Europe so quickly. Because the ideals of the Western enlightenment were thrown into jeopardy after the First World War, for several years Germany and Japan were able to spread their Empires almost without interference, whereas before the British Empire would've intervened.

One of mankind's greatest follies is the persistent belief that evil is omnipotent; that humans are born sinners and man's natural state is that of a barbarian; that evil will always be here to stay. But evil runs at the sight of good -at forces who know that they are fighting for what's right.* Unfortunately, on August 6 1945, it took an atomic bomb to instill that message in the Japanese.

If anything, the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't a lesson about peace, they were a lesson about the evil of appeasement.
_________

*By this, I don't mean some fanatical suicide bomber. I mean a man who has genuine positive beliefs about his philosophy, not someone who kills out of fear from an eternal Hell or the frustration of emotions without a basis in reason.

School's Out

As of today, the school year has ended for High Schools and Colleges all over the country, with Primaries and Intermediates finishing now or next week. Some kids will be out around the towns and cities, but most of them will be at home.

Just today, an article appeared in the Dominion Post warning that New Zealand's "She'll be right" attitude (what attitude? it died out years ago when, mysteriously, crime was on the rise) is to blame for fatal accidents where youths are the victims. However, would it be better to condemn those kids to a life of fear of the outside world?

While it is true that parents can take a worthy role in the education of their children about the outside world, a child must learn about it for himself. Children, more so than the rest of us, have an intrinsic desire to explore and learn about the world around them, and to have fun doing so. Education through experience best helps a child to learn about the world around them. How does preventing them from experiencing the outside world help their development?

Once again, the politically-correct cotton-wool culture of modern day New Zealand is at work, trying to protect their child -and intervening in the lives of other people's children- from the culture of self-loathing and hopelessness that they created, by changing New Zealand culture from one of self-reliance to complete reliance on others.

Perhaps removing politically correct cotton-wool culture from every facet of a child's life may help us rebuild that culture and allow our children to discover the world around them, and to build their own ideas of right and wrong, rather than having those ideas forced down their throats by a politically-correct clique.

Quite Something!

It's not too often you come across something quite like this, from friday's Dominion Post:

"Wrenched away from their homelands; required to learn a whole new language; subjected to grotesque racial stereotyping and often outright verbal and physical abuse; these children, backed by their families, have never wavered in their quest for academic, sporting and cultural excellence.

Who is served by belittling, or condemning, the distinctions conferred upon these children? Who is served by an ideology that refuses to recognise that crucial aspect of the human spirit which refuses to accept the brute statistical reality that many are called but few are chosen?"

So, who said that? Milton Friedman? Ronald Reagan? Ayn Rand? No; those were the words of Chris Trotter -yes, that's right, Chris Trotter- on Friday.

A rather remarkable change of heart for a man who said that "All my life I have given thought only to those with no hope of receiving the glittering prizes. Even when (very occasionally) I received one myself, I could not help feeling that tug of guilt; that blush of embarrassment at being distinguished from my peers." His upcoming columns may be rather interesting!

Full revelation at the Dominion Post.

Recent Murders Backfire of Collectivism

No one in New Zealand is pleased with the recent spate of murders across the country recently, with 10 so far in this month. Even less encouraging, is in which age group most murderers and murder victims come under.

Take the recent murder of 22 year old Krishna Naidu recently in a dairy in south Auckland. That was committed by a 16 year old, who stabbed and killed the dairy employee after producing a knife. He was tackled by a civilian after acting suspiciously after the murder, and had been arrested when the police arrived at the scene.

18 year old Michael Hutching was found floating dead down the isolated Clutha River earlier this month, in a mattress weighted down by wrought iron bars, but was stabbed before being thrown in the river. The accused murderers (a middle-aged couple) also facescharges for raping a 15 year old girl less than a fortnight before the time of the murder.

A 15 year old was killed by a 50 year old for tagging a fence in Manurewa, the same suburb of Auckland where the stabbing of Krishna Naidu took place, which was the suburb's second murder in two days.

Most shocking of all, a 14 year old (!) -that's my age- has been accused with a recent murder of a 24 year old man in Tokoroa two days ago. New Zealand's youngest murderer, who murdered a pizza deliverer when he was just 12 back in 2001, has had his parole delayed. Even so, he's only serving a seven year jail sentence.

But surely, the 10 murders this month are hardly normal, and hardly representative of New Zealand life?

You may want to think again. We live in a PC, cotton-wool society where no one is ever responsible for their actions, good or bad. Murder someone? It's society's fault. Accomplish something? Society's responsible. This kind of collectivist philosophy, which provides a philosophical incentive to lie, cheat, steal and murder, is the result of over 200 years of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy.

Back several decades ago, murders were a rarity in New Zealand, and everywhere. If you committed a murder, you were given a long jail sentence without parole, and you did the time right through. It was your fault, you paid. These days, if you murder, you're back out on the street within a few years, and the jails are full with people doing time for victimless crime -all the while, making NZ all the more dangerous.

A perfect example of exactly how far this is entrenched in New Zealand society are the recent absurdities surrounding Graehme Burton. Arrested for murder in the early 90s and thrown into jail, he terrorized prisoners and guards, and had his parole hearing in 2006. Terrorfied to speak up, he succeeded with his parole hearing and was out to murder innocent New Zealanders again. The result was the death of a man and the injury of two others above the hills of Lower Hutt.

Now, he's rightfully on trial again. But here's the story: the investigation into the murder makes a costly legal mistake, wasting $18,000 dollars in legal fees. So who pays the bills? The murderer? Hell no! Instead, the wife of the murdered man has to pick up the cost, adding to the terrible distress she will undoubtedly be feeling.

Who gets the sanction? The murderer, a man of pure evil- at the expense of the victim. Forget about Hank Rearden's sanction of the victim -this is the exact opposite. The sanction of the murderer.

So how does a society operate on these premises? You're seeing it in New Zealand. A society of crime is the natural result from a society that philosophically treats murder as indifferent, as something that's part of human nature, of the metaphysically given and not for man to change. Logically, a society with this underlying Kantian collectivist philosophy will naturally lead to the lack of self esteem and respect of its participants. And this leads to crime and murder. After all, how can a man with no respect for himself and his achievements possibly have respect for others and their achievements?

The Holidays -But Political Correctness Still Abounds

For the workforce and the productive elements of society, normal schedules have resumed now that Christmas and the New Year have came around. But New Zealand's children are still at home, away from school until early February. Safe and sound from political correctness until then? Perhaps not.

Instead, we are bombarded with messages of drownings, sunburn, car crashes and general chicanery during this otherwise peaceful time of the year. We hear news of the rate of drowning going up. But is that not to be expected? January and February are the warming time of the year here in New Zealand. With all these kids out of school for 6-8 weeks, and the proximity of water for most Kiwis, the drowning rate will inevitably go up -kids still like to have fun on the water, which isn't a bad thing. Summer is out there to enjoy, not to fret over. Common sense should be the primary concern here -which is lacking, thanks to the very political correctness worrying over these deaths which it caused, for that reason.

And although political correctness isn't particularly to blame, the reporting of sharks in our waters isn't helping, despite the fact that the chances of getting mauled by a shark are extremely low.

More political correctness about the evilness of the summer holiday comes from ads. One ad, for instance (from an organization whose name escapes me), states the obvious that:

"Sunburn early in life may lead to melanoma later in life."

Which is ultimately true, but the ad leads on to say:

"Never let your child go sunburnt."

How, exactly? I don't condemn the actions of parents who take measures to keep their child(ren) safe from sunburn (providing it doesn't prevent them from enjoying their summer in the sun). But not even our best SPF 30+ treatments work incredibly well to protect against sunburn, and it's inevitable that a child spending his holiday in the sun will get sunburnt now and then. What should we do instead? Keep them locked up indoors to become fat? Then the same crowd will be whinging and moaning about a problem they started. Sunburn is a fact of summer, I'm afraid. Common sense is of use here, again.

But when all else fails, there's always the fact that we are killing each other on the roads, with all the car crashes around this time of year. Unsurprisingly, as people get away from civilization for peace and quiet, the majority of accidents shifts onto rural highways. Also, try to drive more than 30kms around Auckland any time of the working week. As people get away to vacation and to visit friends, family and the like, they use their cars. With all these people on the move, accidents will undoubtedly occur.

There have also been accidents caused by tour buses and tourists visiting New Zealand. Once, again, it's the summer, the nicest time to visit New Zealand, and it's the time most tourists are here -and who can blame them?

The Summer Holiday should be free of political correctness, as schools are shut down. So, to compensate, we instead hear about drowning, road deaths, sunburn, and about how dangerous summer is to our children. Summer is a time to enjoy life, free from the stresses of work, government and the pace of civilization. New Zealand is a great place to holiday. Of course, accidents will happen and things will go wrong -it's a fact of life. But common sense is severely lacking in today's society, and it's the basic lack of common sense which leads to many ruined holidays. Shroud the people -especially the young- with a cloak of political correctness and perceived safety, and bad things will inevitable occur when it goes away, when it can't help you. The more cautions placed on a potentially dangerous item or activity, the less cautious people will be around it. The best thing about freedom is that it forces people to think on their feet and to be sensible, and to weigh up potential risks from their activities. Take that basic common sense away, replace it with political correctness, and people start dying.

But if we take that cloak away and people are forced to think on their feet, who falsely gets the blame for the lack of ability do to so?

Hitler and Islamofascism

Hitler was one of the most murderous tyrants of world history. He set off a great war that killed countless millions of people, killed innocent men and women on an incredible scale, and was the centrepiece of a philosophy -fascism- that still today continues to slaughter innocent men and women. A form of this tyranny and terror beyond words is the system that exists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine.

The similarities that exist in these countries are very similar to those of Nazi Germany:

Murderous tyrants and fanatic supporters: Hitler slaughtered millions in his day. Evil men such as Ahmedinejad still hang gays in Iran, and then boast in America about there being no gays in Iran! Another example is the recent lashing of a Saudi women for being in a car with men not related to her- and then raping her! Or the "death to Denmark, death to America" placards and riots that ensued after a brave Dane dared to publish portrays of Mohammed in a magazine. 9/11, and the Madrid and later London bombings. It all hails back to an era when Nazi supports burnt down the shops, homes and livelihoods of Jews, Poles, or anyone Hilter didn't like. And the constant excuses for carrying out murderous actions.

Evil philosophies: Islam isn't a "religion of peace" (this will be discussed later). Fascism was, and continues to be, an extreme form of statism, in which all power is given to a select few in the state. It is built on Nietzsche's concept of the superman. The Islamofascist philosophy of radical Islamists is merely an Islamic twist on normal fascism. The same goes with Ahmedinejad's theocracy in Iran, which is a cross between middle ages theocracy and modern Islamofascism. As seen in the example given above, Saudi Arabia is the same.

Islam is a religion. As has been said on SOLO (and this goes for all religions), it is a "stinking superstition". Although the adjective "stinking" can certainly be used to mean events happening under Islam's name as we speak, the "superstition" part applies to all religions. Because religion - belief in what may be true to guide us in life - is in direct contrast to knowing what is true, to guide our life on this Earth. Islam, in its current post-enlightened state (the Islamic "enlightenment" of the Middle Ages was achieved by men acting in their self-interest to advance their life on Earth) resembles Christianity during the Middle Ages. Or the worship of Hitler during WWII.

Pragmatic Supporters: The great majority of Muslims, both in the West and in the Middle East, are good people. The problem with these people - and admittedly there are some people who do speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion - are pragmatists. They live their lives, follow their religion, and don't think twice about Islamofascism. The same was true with the Germans in under Hitler. Although it's hard for Muslims to speak out against a regime that terrorizes them, and the same was true with the Germans, what annoys me is the lack of speaking out by free Muslims, in the West. Instead, they're too preoccupied with yelling about Mohammed cartoons, or refuting claims like mine that Islam can lead (and often will lead) to evil regimes and tyrants.

It's this pragmatism that refutes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. If that were so, there would've been demonstrations all over the world in response to 9/11, and Ahmedinejad would've been long overthrown. It wasn't until after WWII that the Germans saw Hitler's evil. Under a true "religion of peace", that wouldn't be the case just over the horizon.

Western Appeasement: I'm not one of those people who believes in going and blowing up Iran now. But then again, Hitler hadn't invaded anyone until what, 1937? Just two years before WWII started.

However, what was disgusting during WWII was the West's complete inability to do anything. Even when he started invading, no one was smart enough to stand up to his reign of terror until Churchill came around. America didn't enter the war until it got bombed itself. This appeasement allowed Hitler to take half of Europe in weeks. There should be no such appeasement toward today's Islamofascist regimes, and if they do attempt to invade, the West should be on it in minutes.

And the other part of Western appeasement is the PC attitude towards it all. The West should have no fear in denouncing Islam and Islamic regimes, for what they have created where they have been tried. And if anyone's offended... too bad! Free speech includes the right to be offended!

It's these four things that have contributed to the barbarism committed under Islam in the Middle East today. And unless these issues are dealt with in a consistent, objective manner, things will only get worse.

Feel-Good Environmentalism

The majority of the Environmentalists, despite the real underlying motives of the movement (specifically, the end of industrial civilization and in some cases man itself), are not actually anti-man and anti-industrialism per se. One of the main reasons why Environmentalism is so popular, but is rarely discussed in political circles, is that it is a feel-good system.

The reason for the whole feel-goodism of Environmentalism is that people are falsely made to believe that the movement is actually something good. For many young university ideologues, for instance, what could be better than going out and saving the whales?

But the feel-good Environmentalists fail to see beyond that. They think that, because it feels good, it must be good, even though basic knowledge teaches us otherwise. Drugs, for instance, feel good, but the effects are not necessarily so. To a serial killer, murder can also feel good-but murder is hardly a good thing. This is what many Leftists fail to realize-and, as thus, set the scene for tyranny and hardship. The best example of Leftist feel-goodism leading to such an outcome would be Cuba. Even today, Leftists ignore Cuba's problems, instead just blaming them on-and what else would you expect-the US embargo (despite the fact that Cuba trades with every other nation).

The feel-good aspect of Environmentalism comes from the fact that Environmentalism, like the whole of the Left in general, is about appealing to emotion rather than reason. This is why so many Leftist revolutionaries are young and extremely idealistic. They are immune to the ugly reality that lies beyond all the "I'm saving the environment!" nonsense. Once again, these young Environmentalists think that because it feels good, it must be good. And I suppose that's why so many young people take drugs.

This indoctrination, combined with the utter failure to look at Environmentalism rationally before joining up (most people do so because it's "the thing" or an act of rebellion) is similar to the tactics used in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. What could be cooler than joining in a revolution against the evil Capitalists?

Objectivism and Libertarianism use the opposite appeal. Instead, they appeal to reason. Instead of getting idiotic teenagers to rebel against the evil Capitalists, they get those teenagers-me, for example (despite the fact that I'm not an idiot)-to look at the improvements by the West in living standards during the past two centuries, and to look at the underlying philosophy behind those increases. It's obvious which system caused those increases.

Finally, after 110 million dead under Communism, far more under Socialism, and the other collectivist and statist terrors throughout history, the lesson is getting through. From the Forbes Magazine article Atlas Shrugs Again:

"Today's left doesn't have anything positive to offer to young people. When they were socialists, there was at least something they were fighting for, and they believed in a right and a wrong. Today's leftist agenda is negative and nihilistic--focused on stopping industrialization, capitalism and even Western civilization. But young people want positive values. That's why religion is so strong today, because many view it as the only thing that promises a brighter future."

What Yaron Brook at the ARI doesn't say is that the reason the Left paints such a nihilistic portrait of the future is why Environmentalism is so strong. To any random man on the street, it's about doing your part for the Environment. So what he says, albeit true for a lot of the Left, doesn't apply to feel-good Environmentalism. To most young people, especially considering the Leftism that is feed into you almost daily at school, it's about saving the environment-not about ending Western Civilization. Feel-good Environmentalism is responsible for the irrational Environmentalist witchhunts, and for the "live Earth" concerts and protests every other day, but that's a completely different story.

If we are to succeed in bringing down Environmentalism and the reality of it-not what most people think it is, we need to target the feel-goodism that has made it so successful.

Common Fallacies about Capitalism

It's not often we meet Socialists who can debate about economics in a rational way and without referring to the Utopia that they want. But for all you who need a bit of a primer for debating with them, I've made a list of common arguments you may hear from the Socialists about Capitalism (and Globalization) and how to combat those arguments in an effective way, which will leave them with something to think about. These are the top ten arguments (and what to do about them) you'll hear:

10) Capitalism encourages Racism.
This is a very common misconception. Capitalism favours people on their productivity. This is true throughout the entire market. In a Capitalist economy, it doesn't matter who owns the house-be it a Communist, Nationalist, Mexican, Asian, Gay, Lesbian-but what condition the house is in. Similarly, a business hires people on the basis of their productivity. Racism becomes a waste of money in a Capitalist society. Productivity, not race, sexual orientation, political beliefs or gender matters in the Free Market.

9) The Market fails to provide essential services like Healthcare and Education. It also fails to provide welfare for poorer citizens.
Many people wonder why the healthcare and education services in almost every country in the world range from bad to abysmal. Here in New Zealand, the government reports surplusses of up to $7,000,000,000 yet much of our school system is underfunded and the healthcare system is in a huge mess. It is true that private schools and hospitals are expensive. But that's because there is no-or at least a small amount of- competition, so the owners can keep their prices high. But in the competitive free market, schools will be suject to the law of supply and demand, so consumers can and will choose the best school for their children to attend. Schools will have to lower their costs whilst raising their quality to attract customers. To keep quality high, schools will employ only the best teachers, and keep them happy-and productive-with generous wages and benefits. As with all workers, there will a market for teachers, a lot greater than today's market.

Socialists point to the American healthcare system as proof that a free market in healthcare doesn't work. The problem is that America's system isn't a free market. It is a third-party system (aka, employers more often than not have to provide discounted insurance) and is strangled with regulations. Americans are infamous for litigation, which further raises prices. The healthcare system in America is far from being a free market.

As for welfare, in a free market welfare is supplied vountarily by private charities. These are a far better alternative to government-provided welfare because these charities have genuine compassion for the people they're helping. And as I'll discuss, Capitalism increases wealth for all people by increasing production.

8) In a Free Market, the poor keep getting poorer, as machines introduced will keep lower-paid workers out of jobs.

As machines keep getting more advanced, workers don't get out of work, but instead work in different sectors of the economy-this is a natural process in the transition from an agrarian to industrial and then from an industrial to a service-sector economy. The transition is beneficial to workers in the fact that most service-sector jobs are a lot cleaner than industrial-sector jobs. It also means that instead of working manually to produce, we can instead make ultra efficient changes in the way we produce-for instance, by inventing machines that do jobs faster than humans, that can be hugely beneficial to a society. The machines mean that workers can instead do other, less dangerous tasks while production still stays at a high level. Notice how unemployment rates in the Western world aren't too different than what they were, say, 100 years ago.

7) In a Capitalist society, businesses will just employ who works for the lowest pay. The Market will also keep wages as low as possible.
In a free market, businesses will not employ who works for the least money, but instead they'll employ who they feel is the best value for money. This is the reason why IT businesses are outsourcing not to sub-Saharan Africa, but to India, where the IT workers are the best value for money. Workers are an investment. Companies will always seek out the workers who provide the most "bang for your buck"-so if that means paying them $100,000 a year, the business will likely do so. This is also why, in a free market, wages and productivity ultimately go hand-in-hand. Any outside attempt to artificially raise wages will end up raising the unemployment level, as they cut out the less productive workers.

An often ignored fact about treatment of workers under Capitalism is that Capitalism provides competition in the labour market. In the high-growth economy that Capitalism creates (because the incentive to start a business is so much greater), workers have a variety of options they can work for. Companies have to compete for these workers, and as thus need to make the incentive to work for them all the more greater. No one is forced to work for anyone, so workers need to agree to work for a company, in order for that company to employ them.

In the ideal Capitalist society, the employer and the worker would decide together what conditions the worker would work under, his pay, his benefits, etc. This automatically gives the worker an upper hand when deciding what he wants out of a job.

6) The market is responsible for the creation of monopolies.
In a Free Market, there is only one way to become a large company and/or monopoly: to offer products superior to that of the competition. If the monopoly continues to offer better products as it did when competition was around, no harm is done. But if a monopoly raises it's prices and/or lowers the quality of it's products, the monopoly has just left the door wide open to competitors to offer better products. Competitors, attracted by the potential for greater profits, will then enter the market with better products, and consumers will start buying from the new business. The monopoly will either better the quality of its products to stay a monopoly, or try and buy every new market entrant out-not an easy task considering the profits that can be made by offering products better than those of the monopoly.

As for markets being the reason corporations are "big and scary" to many Leftists, that's hardly an effect of the market, but instead of government intervention into the market-which will be discussed later.

5) Market Forces are the reason behind many of today's Wars.
The Free Market is not responsible for today's wars-governments are. The Market is based on a policy of non-coercion. Instead, the Market will seek out the most peaceful road to prosperity, as no one likes to be caught in the crossfire of war. Pursuing a policy of free trade with other nations is how the market handles foreign economic issues. The Free Market, not war, brings prosperity and freedom to nations. After all, how many wars are there today between nations that have a policy of free trade towards one another?

4) Capitalism causes Inequality, between person and person, country and country. Because of this, Capitalism also causes Isolationism in societies.
Although it is true that under Capitalism you have ultra-rich people like Bill Gates and John D Rockefeller, Capitalism doesn't create nearly as bad inequalities as it may seem. The good majority of people in the Capitalistic societies of today are Middle Class. When arguing about inequality, many Socialists point out to the percentage of Americans currently living below the poverty line (12%) as proof that Capitalism makes the world a more unequal place. In reality, only 1/3 of the people below the poverty line in the States stay there for more than two years. 2/3 are in "temporary poverty", meaning that they stay in poverty for less than two years. In fact, the median time below the poverty line in America for people in "temporary poverty" is only four months.

Contrary to Socialist rhetoric, the ultra-rich contribute to making the world a more equal place. For instance, if Steve Jobs of Apple Computers invests $1,000,000 towards expanding his company in India by employing 1,000 more people, he has just put those 1,000 people on more equal terms with the rest of the world, by providing them with an income they can use to raise their standard of living.

Capitalism does not cause isolationism, as man is free to do whatever he wishes to and with other people-providing he doesn't commit an act of force or fraud. A man can gain huge values living with his peers, such as knowledge, trade and mediation. Capitalism doesn't force people to be isolated. In a Capitalist society, living alone from other people only works to man's detriment.

3) As businesses in a Capitalist society only care about profits, they'll willingly destroy the environment if it means more profits.
This argument ignores the basic institution of a free market, that being property rights. Property rights give people incentives to protect their property from pollution, as it'd be in the owner's best interests to keep their property in tip-top condition when selling time comes around. It also makes you seem respectable to other people, which is many cases is incentive enough to look after your property. In a Capitalist society, older, more polluting technology is less productive and more prone to faults than newer, cleaner technology, meaning that, over the course of industrialization, many countries will actually become cleaner than what they were before, as man can become more independent of the environment. For instance, (Capitalistic) America is regrowing it's forests. To most Socialists, this should be unthinkable considering the American impact on the environment. But it's happening, because businesses don't need to rely on forests for resources as much as they did 50-100 years ago anymore.

Under Capitalism, Property Rights coupled with continuing development ensure the cleanliness of the environment. We have now seen from history the huge impact on the environment when Property Rights have been removed. The USSR was going through an environmental crisis just before it decipitated.

2) In a Free Market, Government always favours big Business more than the "little guy". Government essentially "gets into bed" with big Business.
Corporate Welfare is not a thing of the Free Market. Instead, it is an error of the government. The Free Market doesn't give any exemptions to big businesses from the law as under a Free Market, the same laws are applied to everyone. Capitalism states that no one can commit an act of coercion against another, and that applies to big business just as much as everyone else. As, under Capitalism, economy and state are separated, corporate welfare and governments favouring corporations are a sign of government intervention in the economy, not an effect of the Free Market.

1) Capitalism is based on Greed. It is just about profits, profits, profits. Even if everyone but a small elite get left behind, that won't matter in the mind of the Greedy Capitalist.
One thing is correct here; Capitalism is indeed built on self-interest. But here's where it differs from all the other socio-economic systems in history: Capitalism bans all acts of force and fraud against other people. You can not, therefore, go out and steal your car from someone else. In a Capitalist society, you have to produce to get ahead of everyone else and pursue your self-interest. Voluntary trade is also an option, but ultimately won't get you ahead as in a society with a standard of value, aka money (bartering is useless because material values change from person to person, and makes economic calculation impossible), your overall net worth can't increase by merely trading-unless you rip your trading partner off by selling above the market rate. Production is the only way to increase wealth.

So, in order to increase wealth, the Capitalist must produce. The problem is that while his mind can lead to production on a massive scale, his own two hands can't accomplish much. He must employ other people to work for him, and as we already know people must agree to work for him, in order to work for him. Once this is done, production is greatly increased. But still, this is relatively minor compared to machines, which I've already gone over. The production brought about by the "greedy" Capitalist leads to tremendous creation of wealth-which disperses itself, as people voluntarily buy his products-the fruits of his labour. Money will then go into production, and then voluntarily disperse itself again in the form of products.

So yes, Capitalism is built on greed. But Capitalism uses greed to hugely increase the quality of life anywhere in the world wherever, whenever it has been tried.

Naivety in a Nutshell

Like many people across New Zealand, I watched the article on 60 Minutes about the boy who spent several weeks in intensive care thanks to BZP*.

Nobody's going to doubt that drugs can do bad things to all different types of people, but we should face the facts. The rate of drug usage in this country isn't going to automatically go down with a simple ban on BZP. Instead, it just drives usage underground. Instead of being controlled by the free market, the drugs are controlled by the gangs in this country, who are already extremely notorious. And drug usage becomes more of a "Ooh, this is a bad thing to do-lets do it!" taboo with New Zealand's children. Even if BZP had already been banned, the teenager affected in the article would've still gotten his hands on BZP, one way or another. I fight the War on the War on Drugs on the principle that banning things doesn't make them go away-it just makes them go underground. Ultimately, it's an adults choice what to put into their bodies-with them taking the full consequences of that decision.

Anybody who thinks otherwise-that banning drugs makes them go away- is a very naive person. I shouldn't need to provide examples, as anybody with a modicum of sense knows what they are.

*It was, in fact, the boy's own choice what he put into his body, and now he has to pay the price.

What's in a name?

Ahhh, our names. The greatest benchmark of our individuality invented.

So, what made names so great? What began as a simple "identifier" of different people has today blossomed into the single greatest symbol of individuality. After all, numbers can identify someone. Why not use them?

As a matter of fact, they've already been tried. Mao used them during his reign of terror in China, mostly for the peasants. The system didn't work. They destroyed any sense of individuality, and any sense of self-pride (communist nations have a tendency to do so). Human moral declined. After all, you were merely a "number". Not a human, a statistic.

It is because of the individuality that comes in our names that we have a sense of self pride. The name is the best word to desribe ourselves, because it encompasses all our achievements and puts them all in one word.

Therefore, names are the grandest benchmarks of individuality ever invented.

"Survival of the Fittest", and how it doesn't apply to humans

"Survival of the fittest" is one of the most important and most controversial theories of human development ever thought up. Indeed, it has been used to explain how many animals have evolved certain characteristics, like why giraffes have long necks and elephants have such size, among other things. The following post is an essay on how, thanks to a combination of two things, those two things being choice and reason, "survival of the fittest" has not applied to humans for at least 20,000 years now.

PART I

I'm going to start by saying that choice is by no means a uniquely human concept. Animals also have the ability to make choices. A dog, for instance, can make the choice as to where it sleeps for the night, when it eats it's breakfast, or where it goes toilet. What seperates humans, though, is through reason which is a uniquely human concept, we have the ability to make far greater choices on a far more advanced scale. Whereas a dog can choose where it sleeps, humans can choose to travel in space.

Sometimes, we make bad choices. We sometimes do bad things and we sometimes screw things up. This is where consequences and therefore learning from our mistakes of the past come into the scene. If we lounge around as children when we're meant to do homework and don't get it handed in on time, we will probably get told off by the teacher. In the workplace, the consequences are much greater. If we don't get work the boss wants us to do back to him in time, we might get demoted. Keep it up, and we may get fired.

No one likes being fired. The consequences can be dire, especially if you're living below the poverty line. Indeed, many poor people feel terrible when they lose their jobs. This is understandable. But what we're seeing in many Western nations throughout the world today is that less and less poor people seem to actually care. The welfare state has put responsibility on an increasingly stressed middle-class. But that's another story.

Because of the rather terrible consequences of losing a job, the irresponsible employee would, if he were to get back on his feet and get another job, need to learn from his past mistakes. Learning-and reason which is discussed in part II-is man's unique way of bettering himself if he is to adapt to changing situations throughout the world, such as the economic boom in China.

Learning from consequences from making mistakes is not forced upon us. It is a choice. Therefore, it is man's choice to learn from those consequences and adapt to new situations. It is his choice to survive.

Choices and consequences, put together, are the core principles of Libertarianism.

PART II

Part II is about how the concept of reason has influenced human choices and "survival of the fittest". Reason, unlike choices and the consequences thereof is a uniquely human concept, and is why, physical differences aside, humans have the ability to make far more advanced choices and plans than animals can.

Reason is the limits in which humans do our activities, make plans and make choices. In this sense, we must have a reason adequate do justify our activities, plans and choices. We have to reason with ourselves and other people everyday. Beacuse we have to reason with other people, as long as we have a system of choices and consequences, we need to be sensible about our choices and keep them within the human bounds of reason.

The other important use of reason is to prevent us from making bad choices we made in the past again. We saw the consequences of our bad decisions. Reason tells us that making such choices again is only going to be to our detriment.
__________________________________________________________________

Choice is the decisions we make. Consequence is the price we pay for making bad choices. Learning from the consequences tells us never to make such choices again. Reason prevents us from making them.

These concepts are the uniguely human way of bettering ourselves and adapting to new situations. This system is not entirely foolproof. It may take many months or years for us to know how this system works. These concepts, on a far larger scale than what applies to animals, are man's means of survival on this world.

Because of that, "survival of the fittest" is rendered unnecessary by humans. We use this system to make better choices about, for instance, inventions-which relies hugely on this process-to benefit all. We don't require "survival of the fittest" because of choices, consequences, learning from the consequences and reason we can be independent of nature.