Daniel Hannan

If you have not already seen him, here is Daniel Hannan, MEP for South-East England, taking on Gordan Brown over his recent economic policies... a great speaker making excellent points.

Racial Progress in Europe?

While the NAACP in the US is claiming that banks unfairly targeted black home-buyers with easy credit, a new study conducted in Germany and Eastern Europe has found that fully 5% of German 15 year olds is a neo-Nazi, with larger numbers in the far-right of German politics.

This is why I hate the detractors of America pointing to Europe as an example of racial equality: beneath the clean exterior of European statism, a huge amount of social tension still exists in the continent. In parts of Britain and France, huge numbers of Muslim immigrants live in huge ghettos that the police won't go into, where Islamic violence spreads -almost all Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe are carried out by Muslims who've lived there their whole lives in the countries they hate. In Germany and Eastern Europe, neo-Nazism is on the rise amongst teenagers and young adults, with the accompanying crimes*. In Russia, the situation in Chechnya is all the proof of racial tension in Putin's new USSR.

With racial tensions as bad as they are in Europe, perhaps race relations have in fact improved the most in that most racist of nations, the USA?

*from the article: "Government figures have shown anti-Semitic crimes rose at the end of last year."

How to Lower Petrol Costs!

The price of petrol has gone up again, which in part has led to the rise in prices in other areas, notably food. The left is complaining about how petrol companies are keeping prices sky high, with their profits as proof of that.

But little of the total price of petrol in New Zealand goes to the coffers of oil companies. 50% of NZ's petrol cost is paid in taxes -and the government is getting more than the oil companies! According to a BP report card on NZ fuel costs (courtesy of Sus):

Average breakdown of a NZ litre of 91 Unleaded in April 2005:

03.3% Operating costs, wholesale and retail margins

03.6% International shipping costs

45.8% Crude Oil and refining costs

47.4% Taxes

Similarly, other countries with high petrol taxes also have the highest costs. Petrol in Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, is 2-3 times higher than the cost in the US, where taxes are relatively few.

Want a quick way to cheap fuel? Abolish taxes on fuel.

ACT for America

Some of you who look at my Libertarian and Objectivist links from time to time may have seen a link called "ACT for America". ACT for America is an American organization dedicated to fighting for American values, security and freedom against radical, militant Islamism, which has been increasingly entrenched in American society, since before 9/11. It is founded by America's answer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel.

Brigitte Gabriel was born in Lebanon in 1965 and immigrated to America after the Lebanese Civil War. After immigrating to America, she founded the American Congress for Truth, dedicated to repudiating lies and propaganda about Israel and America's role in the fight against radical Islamism, constantly thrown about in the media.

Gabriel has first hand experience of the violence of radical Islamism in Lebanon. She says:

"I was born in Lebanon and raised as a Christian. When the Lebanese Civil War broke out, our family and our Maronite community came under vicious attack by Islamic extremists. They promised to destroy us, and today the country is nearly all Islamic.

I was nearly killed by a mortar. Our home was destroyed. We lived in a bomb shelter for seven years. Most of my childhood friends were killed. That's how I know about this fight."

On the site, she doesn't just target radical Islamism, she also targets political correctness, which is the philosophy which allows radical Islamism in the West, unabated. She says, quite frankly:

"Political correctness will literally kill us."

She also talks about why radical Islamists are out to destroy the West and its values, how they go out it, and what will the outcome will be if it isn't stopped. She stands up for Western values, and makes it very clear what her organization is about:

"...to be a collective voice for the democratic values of Western Civilization, such as the celebration of life and liberty, as opposed to the authoritarian values of Islamofascism, such as the celebration of death, terror and tyranny."

Brigitte doesn't just oppose Islamism on practical grounds, she opposes it on moral grounds. She doesn't oppose it simply because of terrorist acts, she opposes it because of its hatred towards Western civilisation and values, and its philosophy based on death.

Brigitte Gabriel and her organisation(s) enable America to have what Europe and the UK didn't: a clear and principled voice against radical Islamism.

ACT for America-before it's too late!

Sir Roger's French Medallion

I've heard news today that Sir Roger Douglas, reformer of New Zealand's failing socialist economy during the 1980s, has received a medal from the Brussels-based Turgot Institut (whose mission is to spread classical liberal, enlightenment ideals throughout the French speaking public), for the spreading of liberal ideals throughout the world.

While Sir Roger is not an out-and-out Libertarian, he certainly did a lot to help the country. Needless to say, we'd all be a lot poorer -or living overseas- if he didn't do what he did. He is a man of his convictions -more than I can say for Rodney Hide, I'm afraid.

Congrats, Sir Roger, keep it up.

"Conservative" Pope?

It looks like all the commentators who said, back in 2005, that the current Pope -Benedict XVI- is "very conservative", and that the current Pope would bring the Catholic Church back to tradition, were in fact dead wrong. Instead, this new Pope, unleashing his post-modernist, politically correct side released a series of new sins. And if you think that they'll be better and more up-to-date than the old list, think again.

The list of new sins goes as follows (from the BBC):

1) Environmental pollution. So no nation should get out of poverty, because industrialization involves pollution? Cooking everywhere creates pollution. So should we all starve because of this?

2) Genetic manipulation. Who cares about how many lives can be saved? The Church finds it bad!

3) Accumulating excessive wealth. Regardless of how much you deserve your wealth through production, investments, trade and saving. Exemptions to this sin, however, include the Catholic Church.

4) Inflicting poverty. If the Pope was an economist, he'd quickly realize that this violates #1. But hey, poverty is good for Catholicism. It keeps people's mysticism about them.

5) Drug trafficking and consumption. Fair enough, but I wonder if the Pope supports the best way to end this sin -legalization.

6) Morally debatable experiments. "Morally debatable" how?

7) Violation of fundamental rights of human nature. Yes, but such as? If the Pope knew what such rights were, he'd be an ardent supporter of Capitalism. Contradicsts #1.

So, he's as politically correct as the worst of the Left. But, politically correct with a religious twist, from a religion that's so old and intolerant of progress that the Pope had no choice but to update. However, he didn't release this list for that reason -he genuinely believes what he says. Don't ask how.

All this is strikingly similar to what the Archbishop of Canterbury said- and he represents the other faction of Christianity. Looks like all the bloodshed in Europe over so many centuries about Catholicism vs. Protestantism really did die in vain.

As was seen on Not PC, the lovely Sus of Sus's Sound-Bite released a far more sensible and rational list of real sins:

"1. Tax. All taxes. Tax is theft, Ben, and a contravention of your boss's seventh commandment.

2. Censorship. All censorship. It is thought control.

3. The EFA. Yes, it's censorship, but it's such a travesty it deserves its own spot.

4. The Greens. Having lost the economic battle when the Soviet Union fell over, they swapped their red cardigans for green ones by playing the environmental card. 21st century frauds.

5. The Do-gooders. Those who have no qualms in telling us all what to do, and always for our own good. You know them: they support all the usual causes and they're invariably white, middle-aged socialists. The worst.

6. AGW. The Global Warming zealots. Those Who Must Not Be Questioned. They are today's reactionaries and every bit as frightening as their counterparts of old.

7. Reality TV and all 20-somethings in the pages of the women's mags. Brainless, mind-numbing and almost impossible to tell one from the other."

It's good to see someone has sense.

Tax News

Some good news from around the world recently, regarding tax rates. Poland is introducing a new flat tax rate of 17%, to be introduced in 2010-2011. Poland will be the latest member to join Eastern Europe's highly successful Flat Tax Club, with nations such as trail-blazing Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and the Czech Republic been responsible for most of Eastern Europe's growth recently.

Iceland and Taiwan are cutting their corporate tax rates. Iceland already has a flat tax of 36% (hardly ideal, admittedly), and is going to drop their corporate tax rate from 18% t0 15% (compare this with the corporate tax rate in the US, which is 39%+). Taiwan's corporate tax rate is going to be cut from 25% to 17.5%.

Although our politicians here in New Zealand, both on the Left and Right, are promising tax cuts for the 2008 election, why don't we follow this promising trend in the world and flatten our tax rates? Flat tax has been incredibly successful in all nations it has been implemented in. When/if we do, Kiwis will finally be deserving of the Tiger status that all our ingenuity, unfortunately, hasn't been able to achieve.

Fidel Castro Resigns...

...and good riddance. The murderous dictator, famous for shooting people trying to escape to the US down in the Gulf of Mexico for shark food, has finally resigned and handed over full power to his brother Raul. Although Raul is no better, let's hope that Cubans will finally start talking out about the third-world conditions they have been suffering for 50 years, and the communist regime there will come to a peaceful end.

In other news, Kosovo has finally declared independence from Serbia. Especially with the Russians ardently against Kosovo's independence, let's see how long this lasts.

Suggestions For America, the UK, and NZ on Crime

In the light of all the recent ugly spates of shootings going on the United States in the moment, I have compiled a list of suggestions for tackling crime, with special regards to violent crime such as murder and rape, where the US easily tops the developed world. The same suggestions also need to be implemented in Britain, where criminals can get away from almost any non-violent crime (and which tops all other nations minus Australia for total crime), and New Zealand, the country with the highest number of sexual assaults, property crimes and gang membership per capita of any country in the world.

End the "War on Poverty". Cancel any new government housing projects, and gradually destroy the old ones. The huge government housing projects in, for instance, New York during the 1960s led to the formerly wealthy neighbourhood of the Bronx, to the North-east of Manhattan, to become one of America's worst neighbourhoods, which helped New York reach over 2,200 murders a year in 1989 (without being much better for 30 years before). By placing these huge behemoth buildings full of poor people indiscriminately around the city (in which crime skyrocketed as opposed to the neighbourhoods these people used to live in), wealthier people moved out, out to the suburbs* -hence, the "white flight" which destroyed many good inner-city neighbourhoods. These new government projects also destroyed many older neighbourhoods in which poor people used to live in, which would've been very lively -and safe- neighbourhoods before people got lumped in together, and crime boomed.

As in New Zealand, the War on Poverty created an "entitlement culture" in which poor people, rather than working for the great American Dream, demanded it. The American Dream was/is about personal responsibility, and pride and rationality in one's self and actions. The "entitlement culture" of the 1960s onwards demanded the results of the American Dream. Then there is the lack of pride in one's self and achievements which led to this "entitlement culture", which led to the destruction of belief in one's self and actions -which led to crime. Like every other time in history, this period of US history when the sacrifice of others was used to justify the sacrifice of one's self had negative consequences, in this case leading to a surge in crime -which is actually one of the better outcomes throughout history.

The War on Poverty was also the time in American, -arguably world- history when the most money was poured solely for the purpose of defeating poverty -perhaps only rivaled by the New Deal. However, consider the effects on America's economy and its poorest people had that costly trillion dollar investment not happened. Consider instead, the employment of millions of America's poor, instead of having those same people commit crimes like armed robbery to pay for drugs, alcohol, women and gambling -with true values, such as family, work and self-esteem coming last. Consider how much better America's manufacturing industry would have fared, and how smoother the transition to a service-sector economy would have been, if the American government didn't spend that money, and thus Detroit could have survived better. Also, it should be considered that during Clinton's welfare reforms, putting limits on welfare, crime in the US dropped dramatically, and the murder rate was sliced in half.

Note that many African-Americans and African American families were moving up, economically, until this time despite segregation. The end of this trend, as well as events that affected African Americans as a whole, is one of the reasons for race riots and racist attacks and crime during the 1960s and following decades.

Slash regulations on employment, business transactions and business regulations. Many poor people are unskilled workers, who have very little chance of getting what most people in developed countries would call a "decent job". But even a very cheap, dangerous job is better than not being employed at all -and business regulations, such as, most infamously, the minimum wage, destroy employment, by cutting out all workers from the economic ladder who produce less value per hour than the minimum wage demands you be paid. Because of this, studies in the US have stated that 100,000 people are out of work when the minimum wages goes up, even by a few cents. Cutting off the bottom of the economic ladder doesn't magically make them all richer. If so, we should theoretically raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 dollars.

Regulations on who a business can hire, and safety regulations, also cut off the poorest from entering the workforce. This is because such regulations, like the aforementioned minimum wage, require that a worker has to produce above the total net cost of the regulations, as well as other costs and wages. If a business is forced to have certain regulations in place, an unskilled worker has less chance of entering the workforce, because he can't produce as much as his skilled colleagues, and can't cover the cost of his employment. Obviously, an unskilled worker may need to sacrifice safety for wages, or wages for safety, depending on what he needs and values. But keep in mind that he can still choose his employer, and that creates competition even amongst him and his future employers, because he's now part of the labour market.

Other regulations that prevent unskilled workers entering the workforce are the affirmative action and equal employment laws. Because all businesses, regardless of wealth, have to obey this law, a company may have to forgo the employment of an unskilled man because they're forced, to hire a woman, regardless of her skills, to meet their requirements. And because there's no objective way to determine whether a company hires on the basis of race or productivity under such laws, more productive people will have to forgo employment, because a person of different gender/race is needed, regardless of how productive the two prospective employees may be.

When someone is out of work for a long period of time, even if it is because of genetic qualities that can't be controlled as discussed above, the lack of respect for the self -and others- disappears, and someone with no such respect won't spend the money he does have to properly improve his situation -he only acts on the expediency of the moment, which leads to drug violence, gang violence and impulsive actions, regardless of the consequences.

Get back to the traditional punishment-and-restitution system of imprisonment. Let the prisoners know that what they did was WRONG. The softening of the jail system, in both America and other parts of the world such as Britain and New Zealand, led to a massive surge in all crime types of crime -ranging from theft to terrorism- in the 1960s onward. Beforehand, America's murder rate in 1960 was at half of what it was in 1934, and would be very low today if that trend continued, and the same applies to NZ and Britain. Why did the murder rate soar so dramatically during the 1960s?

One of the main reasons, as well as the ones already stated, is that the jail system, instead of the traditional and effective system of punishment-and-restitution that characterized jail systems in all three countries and made Britain revered as a very safe place, was replaced by a system where crime was never quite your fault, and prisoners had the luxury of not needing to know what is was that they did wrong -which is a deep philosophical issue. Restitution was replaced by rehabilitation, -except how can you be "rehabilitated" if you don't know what you did wrong. Rehabilitation, without restitution, is useless, and it is one reason why 80% of American jailbirds are repeat offenders. The process of correction begins with knowing what one did wrong, and setting out to rectify it. But as recent events have shown, it's impossible to have the latter without the former. To be thrown in jail for murder, without a proper moral understanding of what murder is and why it's wrong, is to be unable for the moral consequences of committing murder, no matter how many times it's committed. Not to mention, it's very easy to get past rehab by simply lying your way through, and concealing your trues thoughts and feelings of it. This philosophy on criminals, which spurred from the relativism of the time, Removed any need to know why murder is wrong, and thus got people thoroughly annoyed when they were thrown in jail for reasons they don't know. Thus, prison riots.

Observe the hopelessness and worthlessness of those committing crimes. To commit a crime is fundamentally an act of self-hate; it is the clearest expression of the belief of worthlessness of one's self, and the lowing of one's self to the level of an animal, that he must destroy the values of other people, which are also his means of living rationally -to harness values- and that no one should be above his level. To commit a crime is to declare that one's self is lower than an animal, and that his values that he finds in other people, plus their own values, are worthless, and that no one else, all being equal, is above him. Of course, the scope of this expression ranges from the smallest theft to the largest murder.

Observe the irrational mentality of a serial killer. He is a man without hope and self-esteem, a man who puts self-doubt, neglect and abuse above any value. A man with such a low esteem of himself, and can't find values in oneself, also can't find values in another man; he is alien to the concept of rationality and self-esteem He sets out on a process of self-destruction, mixing together the worst elements of society to form a concoction fully expressive with his view of humanity. First, he may turn to drugs, than to guns and destructive concepts (such as with the Columbine High Murderers), and then to murder. With this mentality, he has no idea why murder is considered wrong, but he is displaying it.

This is in contrast to a productive man, and his pursuit of values. A productive man may not be as rich as the man above, poverty doesn't necessarily equate crime; but instead, the productive man is able to pursue his rational values, which moves him up in the world, and his self-esteem -and as thus, the way he treats others- increases. This isn't a possible concept to the man who seeks out on self-destruction, unless the remnants of rationality that he locked up can see the world he created for himself, and set out to change it.

(One place where the destructive mentality sets in is at school, as I've discussed, but that's a whole different story.)

Promote gun ownership amongst law-abiding people. American gun-haters yearn for a place where they can escape to, free of guns. Luckily for them, such a place exists in America; it's called Washington, DC. Similarly, they should hate any place where everyone has a gun; such a place exists, it's called Switzerland.

A gun by itself, can't murder people; it needs to fall into the hands of the irrational to do that. But observe that, as any murder case shows, irrational men don't abide by the law - if guns are banned, they'll happily buy a gun off the black market, or smuggle one in. If a gun is what he wants as his murder weapon, a gun's what he gets. Only rational men abide by the law, which serves to disarm innocent civilians in a murder. He could carry a less lethal weapon around with him, such as a knife, but throwing a knife at a man 10 metres away will likely do nothing.

In Edwardian London, the crime rate was only a tiny fraction of what it is today; similarly, it was common that, if a crime was committed, for a policeman to use a civilian's gun to stop a criminal. A murder was really, really big news, and the fact that everyone owned a gun was a good thing, and so it was. A similar case exists in Switzerland, and there, they get their guns free of charge from the military!

Contrast Edwardian London, or Switzerland, to Washington, DC. Soon after the city's gun ban went into effect, the murder rate skyrocketed, and to watch crime as it took place on the street was common. Even though Washington has come a long way in combating crime, the murder rate is still spiked. The result was that murderers still got their guns, and civilians had to get them from out-of-state or the black market, possibly resulting in jail time. Many similar laws are in place in America's most dangerous cities, which keep crime high in the ghetto, no matter how far other neighbourhoods have come.

As a final point on guns in America, observe that less than 1/4 of Americans actually own a gun.

Finally, DON'T become Europe. Somehow, pointing to the more peaceful (even though this is only half the truth) societies in Europe seems to justify the Left's position on crime. In fact, Europe, even with less violent crime than the US, actually has more property crime and fraud, in which Germany is King. Also, go into, for instance, a poor Parisian suburb -most of whom are just as bad as their counterparts in US cities. Although I don't have proof to say so, a lot of the difference in crime can probably be put down to differences in what is a homicide, and differing views on violent crime.

Even if the differences can largely be explained by difference in reporting, there's still the fact that Europe had to endure division, two world wars, and near complete destruction at the hands of the Nazis in the 20th Century. America never had to endure such destruction, and there were few lessons to be learnt in the World Wars, compared to what Europe endured. Perhaps having this lesson shoved down their throats in the World Wars is the reason why European societies seem to be peacefully, compared to the US.

But if all else fails, Europe was just as, if not more, peaceful during its years of laissez faire before the events of the 20th Century came along.
____________

Those are the six issues America (and the UK and NZ) have to tackle if they want to cut crime permanently, and as it happens. To combat crime, the "entitlement culture" and culture of hopelessness in the ghettos need to be replaced by the self-esteem and rational thinking of the original immigrants, from the statist regimes of Europe. Gun ownership should be promoted among law-abiding citizens, and imprisonment should be based on the old system of punishment and restitution. To build self-esteem, productivity is needed amongst the poorest people of society, and to do that, regulations on business, employment and trade need to be scrapped. Only with these reforms, can the US, the UK and NZ go back to the level of safety before the 1960s, when most of the reforms and legislation that raised crime levels were introduced.

Slavery -Essay For School

Slavery -By Callum McPetrie

Slavery was an institution as old as humanity itself. It meant the ownership of one person by another, meaning that the slave was legal property. Often, the slave had to work constantly in bad conditions, and it was their owner who decided everything about their life. Although some owners were kind to their slaves, and gave them a certain amount of control over their lives, this was not often the case, especially in the early 19th Century when mercantilism, which propped up colonies around the world by the European powers, was in charge.

A History of Slavery

Slavery had been around for a very long time before then. Slavery was a commonplace institution in Egypt, where the pyramids were built off slave labour, and Ancient Rome, where people of conquered regions were made slaves (in fact, the word “slave” is said to have come from the word “Slav”, which was the race of people Romans made slaves most often). Slavery was also commonplace throughout the East, in China and the Indian sub-continent.

In the Dark Ages in Europe, and to a lesser extent Britain, slavery was replaced by serfdom. Serfs were similar to slaves in many ways. The Serf was tied down to a certain area of land, and worked in similar conditions to slaves who also worked on farms. Serfdom was a consequence of the feudal economic system in Europe at the time. It relied entirely upon agricultural output, so serfdom was considered inevitable. Life as a serf wasn’t easy, and many rebellions broke out because of it. Russia was the last country to abolish serfdom, which came about in 1860 under Tsar Alexander II. In most countries, however, it was abolished hundreds of years earlier.

In the 15th Century, Europe was on the rise again. As a result of the new mercantilist economic and foreign affairs policies in European countries, Europe looked for new land on which to build colonies, which led to explorers of the time like Columbus, who discovered the Americas in 1492 and carried many slaves on his ship, and Magellan. Mercantilism and colonization first became popular in Portugal, which started the slave trade, and Spain, before spreading to Britain, Holland and France.

In order to make mercantilism profitable, slavery was reinstitutionalized. Slaves were brought from Africa, both to Europe and its colonies, especially the Americas. Both the slave trade and work as a slave were brutal, and incredibly dangerous. Many slaves in the colonies did the same things that serfs did, which was to work on the land. Slaves, however, did far more dangerous work, usually on cotton plantations.

Enlightenment, Economics and Abolition

But in the 18th Century, the tide was turning against slavery. The Enlightenment was at its height, which produced many great minds dedicated to the principal of individual rights and freedom –which stood in direct opposition to the principles of slavery. Mercantilism was being attacked by the economists of the day, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who promoted capitalism –the economic system that logically followed from Enlightenment principles. As well as these men, many people opposed slavery on moral grounds, such as William Wilberforce. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, the great debate of the time wasn’t capitalism vs. socialism; it was capitalism vs. mercantilism and the aristocracy, opposed to change -and pro-slavery. The latter included many of the English writers of the time, such as Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens. Because of the economists’ opposition to slavery, the writers called economics “the dismal science” –a modern phrase that came from the pro-slavery conservatives of the time.

Two countries took the lead in the crusade against slavery: the (northern) United States, which was very new at the time, and Britain. The northern American states became some of the first places in the world to abolish slavery outright, and the founding fathers were planning to put a clause in the US Constitution to abolish slavery, which was rejected by the south. It took a long, gruesome civil war to get the southern American states to also abolish slavery. It should be noted here that the south was agricultural, and because of this slavery was commonplace, and the south was worse off than the north.

Britain, led by William Wilberforce and influenced by the great economists of the time, abolished the slave trade in 1807. This came at great expense to the government, which happened to be fighting in the Napoleonic wars at the time, and outlawed slavery outright in her empire some thirty years later –the first country in Europe to do so.

Abolishing slavery came at great expense to Britain. But over time, their investment was paid off. Slavery prevented slaves from using their talents to the best of their ability, instead consigning them to brutal physical work. After the abolition, slaves were somewhat freer to use their talents to the best of their ability, which greatly helped the slaves and the economy as a whole. It was on this premise that the economists advocated the abolition of slavery.

Other European countries abolished slavery soon afterwards. In France, the French Revolution of 1789 helped towards this, but France soon found itself in the dictatorial grip of Napoleon. It took another revolution, that of 1848, which also took place in Austria-Hungary and Prussia to properly set things straight.

The Effects Today

Slavery affected, and continues to affect, many people in a bad way. This is why decolonization was widespread after WWII. Slavery is outlawed everywhere, except in shady countries in Africa such as Sudan, where people still own slaves.

Slavery had the effect of dividing people into races, an effect which is still felt today, although not as greatly as it used to be felt. This led most importantly to the civil rights movement in America, where race riots were common in the 1960s and 1970s. Many societies still have a degree of racial division that can trace its roots back to slavery in the mercantilist era, and some of the problems associated with race today. Even so, the average African-American has as high a per capita GDP as the average Swede –which is 1/3 lower than the total American average.

In Europe, division of races is an increasingly large problem, which occasionally breaks out in riots in France. Germany and Switzerland also have similar divisions, which are manifest in their laws, especially immigration from North Africa. Immigration is a larger problem in Europe than the US, as immigrants tend to put money into the country in the US in the form of productivity, and take money out in Europe, usually in the form of welfare benefits.

Conclusion

Slavery was a horrid institution in human society, and considered normal for most of human history. It took a revolution of thinking in the 1700s to change this, and revolutionary economics, based on man’s mind as his highest asset, not the hands he slaves with.

Modern slavery came about as a consequence of mercantilism. Although it could be argued that mercantilism has its benefits, its costs were far greater. Mercantilism was also a system of government intervention, not of free markets. The move to the free market was one of the reasons slavery was abolished.

It was the great and courageous minds of the day that had slavery abolished. For that and for other reasons, we have to thank those minds for the prosperity enjoyed in Western nations today.

Nebraska Mall Shooting

Another day, another shooting. Or so it seems.

Hmmm - America is getting knee-deep in shootings and wars, Europe is going down the socialist road to oblivion, South America has a revolution every other month, and Russia is caught in the grips of a fascist government. Most of Asia is still dirt poor, the Middle East is trapped in the Middle Ages, and Africa...says enough. The only places which seems to be making progress towards a rational society and politics is Eastern Europe, and the richest societies of Asia. Here in NZ? It's obvious enough!

With regards to Chinese development: Most Chinese are still poor. The richest and most developed places in China are the Special Economic Zones, where almost complete Capitalism abounds under the eye of a watchful government. Apart from that, the areas that are the richest always have the most private industry, and foreign investment.

White House Surrenders

US President George W Bush has been pleading to Lefties around the world, putting an image out that "we're with you!", for the obvious reasons (GWB isn't the most liked man in the world) instead of putting a rational thought in about the issue.

George Bush hosted a big international conference with delegates from most parts of the world turning up to hear his call of surrender, and even said that industrial society is the cause of AGW. Still, it's not enough for the controlling UN and Europe, despite setting aims to cut carbon emissons to half the present day levels by 2050, which was suggested by the Japanese. How that is meant to work in sync with development in the Third World, I don't know. Maybe they can just keep on starving for another century?

Once again, no rational thought has come out from this tide of feel-good environmentalism.

American Medical Costs, and Who's Really at Fault

Three days ago, a man hurled his ill wife from his balcony, it has been said, because he couldn't afford to pay her high medical bills. Unsurprisingly, the left has been ranting on about it being a failure of America's free-market medical system. But not's what at fault here is not the American free-market system, but instead government meddling not just in America but also in other parts of the world.

It is without a doubt that America has very high prices attached to healthcare. Obviously, new drugs and medicines are expensive business, so drug companies have to go international to survive. However, in Europe the government artificially lowers prices of medicine so it (supposedly) can be provided cheap to all people. Because of this, in order to make a profit and keep investments in new drugs steady, drug companies have to raise prices on the American consumer. It is Europe's fault, not the the free-market system of America, that medicine is such a burden to people. If America were to implement the same price controls of Europe, there wouldn't be many drugs to keep people alive much longer.

American healthcare isn't exactly socialized, but it isn't exactly free-market either. Instead, it is a third-party system, where insurance is taken out to cover medical costs. Management and bureaucracy is a major part of American hospitals, as well as excessive regulation by the American government. For instance, everyone in the emergency room has to be treated, whether it is a sore thumb or fractured lung that they've got.

Americans are infamous as notorious suers (I once heard a story about someone suing McDonald's about their happy meals not being happy). Many American doctors are terrified of being sued with almost anything these days. Therefore, American GPs and hospitals have to take very high precautions against things going wrong, and this inevitably raises prices through the roof.

The solution is as basic as always, and that is to let medical providers compete on a truly free market, where you don't have excessive pricing for healthcare nor a die-while-you-wait universal healthcare system. Slash bureaucracy and let families and doctors take charge of medical care, because, quite frankly, universal healthcare is a failure everywhere. It only seems to be working in Europe because the prices are the problems of Americans, like the sorry women who got thrown from her balcony. And for peak's sake, do not sue for anything and everything under the sun.

Simply Beyond Words

I might have to change my view on the Libertarian non-aggression principle after 600 Swiss leftist idiots (and that really is a polite way to put them) stripped themselves down to nothing in front of the Aletsch glacier in Switzerland in a campaign against climate change, somehow trying, as PC puts it, "attempting to move mountains full of ice by means of just their genitalia and their convictions".

Put simply, the whole thing is an appeal to emotion as opposed to reason. If looked into properly, anyone who participated in this event would rightfully be a laughing stock for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, the all-too-large majority of humanity today and throughout history are completely ignorant of the hell on Earth environmentalism wishes to bring down on us, and many teenage and young adult idiots have no sense of reason at all (reason generally kicks in late, at about thirty). The only exceptions I can think of in NZ are all in the Libertarianz party, or are supporters.

Perhaps one thing that libertarians and objectivists have yet to touch on about the environmental movement is the fact that most environmentalists, especially the high-up ones, do absolutely nothing to protect the actual environment. It is instead about making the general public feel guilty about their actions, and from that point "giving in" to the movement.

All to reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. But, of course, "real communism hasn't been tried" (This is a very common argument amongst members of the left. Yet strangely no one mentions the environmental catastrophe the USSR went through before break-up).

News story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/18/2008810.htm

Philosophical Leftist Theft

What has the Left stolen from us that has had the greatest impact? Is it the tax money that recently helped to terribly abuse a child? Is it the production that's been lost from leftist regulations from preventing people and businesses from be innovative and creative? Or is it the theft of higher standards of living from the third world by means of enviro-commie-ism and "fair trade" policies?

No, none of those thefts, as heartless as can be, were the biggest theft of the modern left. The biggest theft, in fact, was the theft of words.

Words, especially adjectives, are important because they can stir up a crowd, or silence the majority (think of words like "sustainable", as opposed to what many people now think of AGW). They are the way by which we communicate our thoughts and ideas, and rationalize them. Anyone who's read Orwell's 1984 will know what the true philosophical consequences of words, catch phrases, quotes, etc can have.

Anyway, back onto the point, there are certain lefty words which, properly, don't belong to them and their opinions. Of the words I'll post, all of them have been turned on their heads, and don't anymore mean what they're supposed to.

First Leftist word-theft: Progressive. Put simply, how are many policies that are openly advocated by leftist leaders possibly be coined as progressive? How can policies that at times openly advocate the return of the world to third-world living conditions and forcing people to give up what's properly theirs ever be called progressive? Even some of the more moderate leftist policies are far from "progressive".

Libertarian policies are truly progressive; Libertarians advocate policies which are designed to advance the world when it comes to development and society in general, not, at the least, stall it. (RMA?)

Second Leftist word-theft: Welfare. Consider this: on the constitution, rather than saying "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Welfare", Thomas Jefferson could've written "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Welfare". If we use the term properly (aka, not applying to the Welfare State), it could be said that the West have achieved the best welfare of anywhere in the world.

Nowadays, the term simply applies to the welfare state. Despite the fact that the welfare state has actually proven itself to be much, much different. If used properly, the Capitalist societies of today could be called "the ultimate welfare states!"

Third Leftist word-theft: Fair trade. How is trade "fair" if you put a tariff on what the Third World (!) imports into any country? How is trade "fair" if it is simply punitive government protection of a First-World country's industries, despite the fact that they already have a quality of life incredible to people in the Third World? How is trade "fair" is it delays a country's development one decade?

"Fair trade" policies were implemented to protect third-world workers and suppposedly guarantee them a reasonable standard of living. Instead, what it's doing is in fact restricting the flow of capital into the third world country. This means that production can't be as efficient as under a proper free market, and infrastructure can't develop-at least for a long time-as well. Because "fair trade" policies restrict what can be sold, they also restrict production, and a Third World country's chance to have a decent standard of living.

'Nuff said there.

Fourth (and arguably most important) Leftist word-theft: Liberal. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, all (many extreme) liberals. Why should we compare these great people to a random hippie drunkard on the street under the term "liberal"?

"Liberal" was once a truly grand word. Although in Europe its meaning has stayed intact, thanks primarily to Socialist Swine FDR (and it should be noted that Europe got out of the Great Depression much earlier than America!) using the term for his own self-promotion it has well and truly far from its real meaning in America. "Liberal" was a term to describe the great ideas of the great thinkers of the enlightenment. Not the Socialist ideals portrayed by FDR. It's only one of the many reasons I hate FDR. He pulled off the greatest word theft of all time.

Expect more word-thefts as Political Corrections continues us on the path to oblivion.

Stupid Putin

I've never liked the Neo-Nazi Tzar of Russia known as Vladimir Putin, but he's just reached a new low. After reacting the way he's done, it's little wonder why America needs a "shield"!

He claims that America is building its shield to protect the West from the Russians. Although it would be a good idea to use this shield in case Russia did attack, the shield's primary purpose is instead to protect the West from the rogue states and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. The planned shield, which is in fact a number of missiles located around Eastern Europe, was ruffling very few feathers internationally until Putin started complaining.

The main reason, I believe, for Putin's outrage is to get the media attention he's been craving for. He's used the incident as a platform to attack other nations, namely, Britain, about the Litvinenko controversy and Britain's allowing of Berezovsky, the president's main rival, to stay and work in Britain.

Putin has been threatening European nations since the whole ordeal started, and is using very little in the way of diplomacy. He's an uncompromising dictator who will revert back to Soviet methods to achieve his ends. 74 years of communism, 16 years of supposedly "democratic" rule, and the Tzars have never left.

Essay on Taxes

The following is my entry into the ACT on Campus Essay Competition 2007. I'm not betraying the far better Libertarianz, but instead this is an opportunity to get known in politics, and better my skills in writing.

Why a Low, Flat Tax Rate is Ideal for New Zealand
By Callum McPetrie

In this day and age, the government has a firm grip on many parts of our lives. We see government in healthcare, education, welfare, and a whole lot of other activities, which means that the government has been taking an increasing interest in our wallets, too. But what happens when the government digs its hand-or its foot, according to some Capitalist economists-into our money? Is the money used for better, or worse? And how is this government intervention affecting our economy?

First, lets look at some countries with very different tax systems, and what the outcome has been.

Case Study: Estonia

Estonia is a nation of 1.4 million people located on the Baltic coast south of Finland and east of Sweden. Like its neighbours Latvia and Lithuania, the nation was a part of the USSR until 1991, when it gained independence after the “Singing Revolution”.

After the Soviet break-up, the outlook for Estonia was very grim. Inflation was at 1000%, the economy was downsizing at 30% every year and 92% of trade was with Russia. The conditions Estonia was facing were worse than those during the Great Depression!

During these fateful years, a young man called Mart Laar became the Estonian Prime Minister. He was very inexperienced and had only read one book on economics-“Free to Choose”, by Milton Friedman. Despite some forecasts of 30% unemployment if the flat-tax reforms Laar proposed became a reality, Estonia soon had new, flat-tax system. The economy boomed. Growth at higher percentages than those of the Asian tigers was realised. Businesses flooded into Estonia, and the country benefited immensely under its new system.

Only 16 years on, and Estonia is now the ideal model for post-Soviet countries. It is a very high-tech country that has been dubbed “the Silicon Valley of the Baltics”. Over 80% of taxes are now done online, and within 5-20 minutes. The tax rate is currently at 22%, but will be lowered to 20% by 2009 and to 18% by 2011. All around the Internet and in publications over the world, people are raving about the success that Estonia has been enjoying. Several other Eastern European nations, inspired by Estonia’s success, have now adopted their own flat-tax systems.

Case Study: France

In contrast to booming Estonia, France is one of the most Socialist countries in Europe. Government spending and revenue accounts for over 60% of GDP. The top tax rate is 49% (although this will be lowered thanks to President Sarkozy), and that is for people who earn just 48,000 Euros a year! If you earn over 8,383 Euros you get taxed at 19%. Over 14,754 Euros per year, and the rate is 28%. 23,889 and 38,869 Euros will land you a 37% and 43% tax rate, respectively.

It is because of these crushing tax rates, along with all the other Socialist intrusions into the French economy, that men and women from all over France are now crossing the border to work. Every day, thousands of Parisians commute to London, in the more Capitalist UK, for jobs there. The French economy has been stagnating for years and there is much to be shown for it. Over half of French households live on less than 2,000 US dollars a month. Many French businesses have been outsourcing jobs away for years; the unemployment rate has not been below 8% since 1984. In the Pas-de-Calais, the region with the most beneficiaries per capita in France, the unemployment rate is 13%.

What of the Nordic States?

The Nordic States have high tax rates, just as high, in most cases, as France (although it should be noted that Sweden elected a Conservative Prime Minister last year). The Nordic States also have large welfare states. So why are they remaining competitive?

Sweden, the country I’ll look at here, was in 1850 poorer than the Congo is today. Yet during the period between 1850-1900, Sweden became one of the richest countries in the world thanks to trade with Britain. Sweden’s economy was unremarkable until the 1970s, when the country started introducing higher tax rates and more labour market protections, and the country dropped from 4th to 14th richest country in the world. Because of this, Sweden had a sluggish economy not dissimilar to the French economy today. In the 1980s and 90s Sweden cut a good deals of taxes (there is no current inheritance tax and gift tax) and regulations. Another reason why Sweden and other Nordic States aren’t suffering is because of the fact that many people who invest in the country live outside of it. Despite the fact that Sweden does not have a government instituted minimum wage, unions keep it at about 65% of the median wage, which is barring many immigrants from poorer countries from entering the workforce. If this continues, combined with less Swedish innovation in future times, it could pose a serious problem. Many skilled immigrants that come to Sweden in search of jobs leave soon after, which is also an issue facing Sweden in the future.

How a Flat, Low Tax Rate would Work in New Zealand

New Zealanders are well known across the world for their entrepreneurial spirit and hard-working attitude (which the current Labour government has all but destroyed). New Zealand is an isolated country, which means that because overseas products cost more to import, our industries could stay more competitive under a low, flat tax rate and provide more jobs. NZers would be free to produce more, meaning the country’s quality of life would rise.

A flattened, lowered tax rate would mean less money spent on government services. However, this is more than made up for by the extra productivity caused by lower taxes. People would be free to invest, meaning more wealth is created and more money is poured into businesses, and jobs are created. Because of the decreased government burden in people’s wallets, more citizens could afford to use more efficient private services.

Many opponents of flat, low taxes say that they unfairly benefit the rich. Under the type of tax system I am discussing, the rich would have a lot more money in their pockets. But the opponents of flat, low taxes fail to realise that the majority of the rich man’s money goes is invested in his business-to make more money. More jobs would be created this way. Because of the decreased government intervention, more people could afford to run their own businesses, and as thus there would be more competition in the labour market, so workers could have a decent say about their working conditions without resorting to unions.

That is why I support a flattened, lowered tax rate for all New Zealanders.

Sources:

http://allez-francais.com/lib/pe120402.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18127494/

http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/76.htm

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Estonia

The Free Radical No.74, Page 09, “Why Does Sweden Work?” by Johan Norberg

New Direction for France?

Now that Sarkozy finally won the French election, will France finally start moving away from the rather depressing state that I've described below, or it will start flourishing under a new-found free-market luster?

Only time will tell.

Lastly, is anyone surprised at the (albeit small) riots they've had over there after hearing of their new President. Good ol' France.

Socialism making France Poorer

All across France, men and women who've lived and worked in France all their lives are looking for jobs in other countries. These people aren't your average Joe Riff-raff; they're well-to-do men and women looking to escape the stagnant French economy.

Many of these people are now working across the English Channel in London, which looks especially attractive with its growing economy and expanding job opportunities.

So why do people in a country with one of the highest number of worker-regulations in the world look for jobs in a somewhat more capitalist market? The answer is simple: that's where the jobs are going.

Many French businesses are relocating to China, as, like it seen by businesses all around the world, is a haven for businesses. The French economy and quality of life have a lot to thank socialism for; a generation ago, France was easily one of the top-ten richest countries in the world a few decades back, and now it's at No. 17. More than 50% of households in the country live on less than $1,990 a month; that adds up to all those households living on less than $23,880 a year. Far more capitalistic America's average GNP per person per year is more than twice that number.

The French unemployment rate has not been below the high rate of 8% since 1984. Millions in France spend the best part of forever finding a job. One Frenchman said "In France you either search eternally for a job, or you stay eternally in a job". He also said "In France, most young people want to become civil servants. Can you imagine?” I shudder to think.

In the parts of French cities where the commieblock reigns supreme (and now would be a good time to say that many Parisian suburbs are hideously ugly thanks to them) up to half of all young adults (people in their late teens and twenties) are unemployed. Don't forget the riots in 2005.

In Calais, the city with the highest percentage of people under a welfare benefit, unemployment rates in the city and the surrouding region are at a staggering 13%! The public debt is at a truly disgraceful 66% of GDP.

Approximately 2,200,000 Frenchmen live overseas. Half of them don't plan on returning to France until retirement, and half are under the age of 35.

Job Creation is the most important issue on French minds in the current election (which Sarkozy is winning, thankfully). Unless something serious is done about this, France could be experiencing a far poorer future than present.

France to Vote

The French election has officially started.

Nicolas Sarkozy (right winger) is ahead of the Socialist Serogene Royal. A campaign ban came into effect yesterday, preventing any more French political material to be published until all the votes are in. The 12 candidates are anticipating their results.

The tiny French overseas territories of St Pierre and Miquelon kicked off the event, off Canada's east coast, home to only 5,000 votes between them. Other French islands such as Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana have also voted.

In France, polls opened at 8am (French time) and closed at 8pm, also French time. The top two candidates go into the second round, when the French vote again. The reason behind having a second round is so that one candidate will get over 50% of the vote.

After Sarkozy and Royal, the runner-up is Francois Bayrou, followed by the 78-year old Nationalistic Jean-Marie Le Pen.