- The greatest form of charity is to gainfully employ another, or purchase the useful produces of his labour, for if he can live of the fruits of his labour, he need never beg again.
- A lesser form of charity is to give another a gift or a business loan, for the purchase of plant, frontage or any other capital necessary or any training necessary in seeking gainful employment, for if he can live of the fruits of his labour, he need never beg again.
- A lesser form of charity is to give another in a time of need a gift in generous spirit, and with no obligation, for we all stumble at times, and need the help of another to get back on our feet.
- A still lesser form of charity is to give to a trusted organisation for a specific purpose, for whilst they may misuse it, you may not give again.
- A still lesser form of charity is to give unwillingly – either in mean spirit or on obligation – for a gift in mean spirit is no kind of gift at all.
- A still lesser form of charity is to support another entirely through charity with no obligations, for such encourages irresponsibility and dulls the spirit.
- It is no kind of charity at all to compel another to give through manipulation or coercion, no matter how worthy the cause.
With apologies to Maimonides.
That woman had quite a literary gift. This is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged:
Filed under: Libertarianism, Philosophy, Views | Tags: ayn rand, creativity, leachers, men of mind, moochers, rand, state, the fountainhead
Filed under: Philosophy, Views | Tags: advertising, agorism, anarcho-capitalism, market anarchism, obscenity
In discussions with Statists, regulation of advertising is commonly raised as an objection to market anarchism. The argument goes that false advertising used to be a serious problem, but thanks to ex ante regulation, companies are prevented from using advertising which is obscene or misleading.
On the face of it, this is a serious problem. Suppose landowners used ex ante regulations to control advertising on their property. When property holdings are large, this is a reasonable proposition; in the case of a for-profit metropolitan company for instance, it is entirely reasonable that consumers be aware of the company’s advertising policy. However when passing through unfamiliar property, or when holdings are small, how can a consumer be expected to know the constraints placed on the truthfulness of advertising? Indeed, this very problem is still largely unsolved on the great unregulated Internet.
The reader should be familiar with that staple of market anarchist theory, the Private Defence Agency; both police and armed forces, an Agency protects their subscribers’ personal and private property, as well as enforcing their contracts, settling disagreements between subscribers in an arbitration court and then enforcing the decisions. When a dispute arises between the customers of two different PDAs, a pre-agreed arbitration court, or one nominated by the two disputers is used, with both PDAs agreeing to abide by it’s decisions.
The solution to the problem of false advertising is clear then: if a company believes that the claims they use in their advertising would stand up in a court of law, they place the logo of their PDA subtly on the advert, signalling that it is not just an advert, but an open contract between them and whoever buys their product or uses their services.
The problem of obscenity in advertising is much harder one, because people have no right not to be offended. I think this can satisfactorily be left to civil society, to ensure that most places enforce minimum standards of conduct and behaviour.
If there ever were two concepts so hopelessly confused it is selfishness and self-interest. Many say: “Oh you Libertarians, you believe everyone’s so completely selfish; they’d stab their own granny for two dollars.” Let us read again that oft-quoted passage of our favourite free marketeer (emphasis mine):
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
So it is not selfishness Smith speaks of, but something he calls self-interest. What is this “self-interest” and why is it different to selfishness? I propose: self-interest is man’s natural expression of his evolutionary imperative. Selfishness is an unnatural expression of man’s evolutionary imperative.
Think about it: for homo sapiens sapiens to develop as a species, we each have a duty to ourselves and our family to insure the continuity of our genetic material; somewhere along the line someone learned that co-operation and mutual exchange helped everyone and impoverished no-one, so all across the planet parents teach their children the same maxim: theft is bad, murder is bad.
This is self-interest: Looking after yourself, your family, and your tribe. Fastening your own oxygen mask before helping your neighbour with theirs. Getting the women and children into the life-rafts first.
Selfishness is taking the self-love to such an extreme that you impair your own ability to reproduce — stealing from your neighbour so you can be full even though it leaves him hungry. Fastening your oxygen mask, then keeping your neighbour’s as well, just in case.
Self-interest is what makes the collective voluntary exchange we call the “market” work. Self-interested individuals help others happily and willingly: but family first, then friends, then neighbours. Selfish people do not help others (although they may be quite happy to force others to).
So when a Libertarian says “everyone is self-interested,” it’s not a criticism. Self-interest is fastening your own oxygen mask, before helping your neighbour with theirs.
Filed under: Libertarianism, Philosophy, Views | Tags: capitalism, democracy, public choice, the free market
In an ideal democracy, every individual has a direct and unrestrained voice in all decisions made that affect them. Ideally the policies affected by their vote also affect as few others as possible, so their votes are not diluted. The Scottish parliament for instance is a good thing democratically as it grants Scottish people a voice in issues that affect only Scotland, and devolves the scope of many policy areas, so the interests of the Scots are not diluted by the interests of the English, the Irish, the Cornish or the Welsh.
By that same token you could argue it best to devolve further. So that people’s voices on transport, health and education were only diluted by those in their county. Wiltshire could have a low income tax rate, but a completely privatised school system, whilst in Gloucstershire, private schools are illegal. Both counties have the school system their constituents want, and neither affects the other.
However, there are still people in each country having the decisions of the majority forced upon them. The only democratic thing to do is to devolve further, to the level of the individual. Each individual’s voice is alone, undiluted. They get only the services they ask for, the government they want, without affecting anyone else.
Oh wait, there’s a word for when each person selects the product they want from a number of competing alternatives.
The Free Market.
Filed under: Philosophy, Views | Tags: a thousand nations, atn, nationbuilding, seasteading, secession
So, you’re fabulously wealthy and want to change the world? Well the world is a very very big thing; history has a lot of intertia. You must either be like Hari Seldon in Isaac Asimov’s seminal work “Foundation” and pick the precise time and place to push, or you must be like Genghis Khan and push really really hard.
Under the Montevideo convention a nation state requires four things: a territory, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states, and a people. This guide aims to show you how to ethically, easily and most of all profitably assemble those three things and found a minarchist nation state. Continue reading