Last semester I took a sociology class as part of the core curriculum of the university. I tried to be as open minded as possible. The topics covered throughout the semester included sexuality, poverty, social change, technology, consumerism and education. Notable theorists include Foucault, Marx, Comte, Hegel, Nietzsche and Neo-marxists such as Marcuse.
Prior to taking the class, I thought about questions outside of the sphere of economics to be answered. Such as why are Asians more sexually repressed than Westerners and why do we buy crappy products nowadays. Some of these questions were answered, some were not. My suspicion of the course grew the more topics we covered.
We started talking about culture and then about how people don't care about far away tragedies especially if people of a different culture and race are affected. Innocent enough. The sociological analysis on poverty was pretty useless. Poverty fulfills a function in society like assuring the existence of a rich class and doing the grunt work. I thought to myself 'What a useless and misleading statement!' Its like saying 'If there is no evil then there is no good.' But the readings were glossed with big words and long sentences to hide from common sense.
Next was the discussion on Marx which affirmed by presumption that the teacher was Marxist! When I commented about how socialism cannot work, she gave me a condescending look. Now I only had to find out if the course itself was Marxist. I lost a lot of respect for the course after the sexuality discussion. The argument was that we are sexually repressed because the bourgeois want us to be productive. If we are not repressed, they say, then we would not come to work and have sex all day. Sexual repression is an effect of Capitalism. OK, so what about alcohol, cigarette smoking, television, video games, sports. Man can waste his time on so many activities that are less strenuous than sex. The argument that Capitalism causes sexual repression is patently absurd! But this was just the tip of the iceberg.
Subsequent discussions involved theories that violate all common sense and delivered with ambiguous words. Theories like structuration theory which states that 'man is a structure that expresses participation in larger structures by acting his person' or that rationality is really irrational because people are like robots in a capitalist economy and science only validates knowledge that pass the test of rationality and therefore man's creativity is undermined. A very telling theory is one trying to explain the failure of the proletarians to achieve their historical goal of bringing down capitalism. It proves that these so called intellectuals are merely apologists for the state that try to make excuses for the failure of their system.
Modern sociology is just an orgy of pseudo-intellectual blabber, Marxist assumptions and force-packaged concepts. It is just a jungle of floating abstraction supported by vague definitions. Modern sociologists do not see social phenomena for what they really are in the concrete. Instead they look at it from a Marxist standpoint, assuming someone is being exploited in society and it is their job to fix it. For example, a sociologist sees employment as a conflict between the employer and the employee, with the employee being exploited by the rich employer. The non-propagandistic view is that the employee has voluntarily agreed to trade his services for money. The employee values the money more than the corresponding effort that he gives and the employer values the services more than the wage to be paid. Elementary economic theory teaches us that this inequality of valuations makes it possible for both parties to benefit. The political blinds of the sociologists prevent them from seeing this.
The field of sociology is nothing more than a byproduct of the state. The state, which primarily sustains itself by manipulating public opinion, monopolizes the intellectuals to legitimize itself and justify its failures. Same applies to Keynesian economists as well. Intellectuals are indispensable to the state as they justify otherwise unacceptable policies like invading other countries and nationalizing firms by trying to connect it to the 'common good' or 'public welfare'. The result is an ugly perversion of the original science that kills a person's ability to use common sense and intimidates him enough to submit to the alleged wisdom of the statists.
Friday, April 30, 2010
The Poverty of Democracy Part II: Monarchy vs Democracy
Given all the flaws of a democratic form of government, and in the quest to de-legitimize democracy, we must return to a question almost no one today asks, that of whether monarchy is better than democracy. The great Austrian scholar Hans Hermann Hoppe has made the comparison between monarchy and democracy in his book 'Democracy: The God That Failed', and the better system is undoubtedly monarchy. How can this be so? It seems that modern beliefs about democracy fall under the weight of fact and while I do not intend to paint a rosy picture of the 'old world', it was invariably better than what we have today when it comes to popular mindset and culture.
An objective view of history tells us that monarchy was a much more tolerable and limited form of government than democracy. Initially, this sounds absurd, how can the most centralized form of government be more lenient and allow for more liberty than democracy? But the reality is that the monarch's power was checked by tradition and the influence of the Church. If the monarch tries to abuse his power, his close relatives and great men of the realm will oppose him for his own sake through Magna Carta. If the monarch goes to far, he is excommunicated by the Church. The Church acting as a check to the power of the monarch is far more realistic and effective than checks and balances in a democracy. Taxation under monarchy for example was only about 10% whereas democracies take 40-50% of national income. This has to do with the source of revenue of those checks and balances. The Church gains revenue through voluntary donations while checks and balances in a democracy are just other branches of government. Hence, we have a situation of a government self-imposing regulations on itself, which is futile.
A commonly held belief is that a monarch is just a tyrant with a crown. This is not true. A monarch is trained from infancy for his role, respects tradition and the rule of law, with full knowledge that his power is did not come from his own ability. A democrat is the total opposite of this. One becomes a democrat through his ability to rally large crowds to his cause, often using propaganda and deceit. The democrat 'works' his way to the top through politics, assuming the role of savior of the people and is constantly subjected to its whims. Simply put, the difference is that a monarch can be humble while a democrat cannot.
Perhaps the most important distinction between a monarchy and a democracy is the mindset of the public and it is a phenomenon that is gravely ignored. Values that shaped monarchical societies were vastly different from those that shape democratic societies. The ideas that paved the way for democracy during the French revolution, equality, fraternity, and liberty must be carefully assessed lest society falls into chaos. Yes, popular sentiment was a reaction against growing abuse of a royal government, a cry for freedom. But what concept of freedom did the progenitors of democracy really have? Not a good one. Apparently, freedom for the democrats includes subsumes the ideal of equality and achieving so entails that everybody have the ability to enter into government. Whereas before people only paid attention to their own work, own personal concerns, they could now participate in the activities of a 'country'. They are sold into lies about 'the common good', 'public welfare', 'will of the majority' and so on. The fixation about the power of voting overshadows the fact that people were far better off without mass politics. Images of utopia fill the minds of the public. Life can be improved if only the right person were put in office. Personal responsibility is transferred to the politician and an entitlement mentality develops.
This must be contrasted with the popular mindset under monarchy. A hereditary monarchy eliminates grand ambitions of ordinary people climbing to the top of the political ladder. A monarch, unlike a politician, does not promise the amelioration of poverty or free education. People under a monarchical system do not dream about utopia, they do not develop the ambition of saving the world by handing over the fruits of their labor to the government. In short, democracy creates a political dimension in people's lives.
As the policies of democrats fail, effects of propaganda wear off and people are further impoverished, the state will provoke conflict among different groups by transferring the blame of failed policies or making new accusations. This creates new demand for more government intervention that will, in turn, fail. This process goes on until the people cannot imagine life without some kind of government service and views all social ills can be solved by the state. Augmenting this process of politicization are government schools made to indoctrinate and further the violence of the system. Political promises, engendering high expectations in the public, coupled with government schooling, promote the idea that society is something mechanical to be tinkered with. Everything, from education to health care to employment are viewed as rights to be given by the state. As more of human life become dependent on the state, its services are viewed to be indispensable. A popular mindset that results from humans being constantly provoked, deceived, and humiliated will in desperation be apathetic and confused. Those who are successfully indoctrinated by the state become professional state worshippers and work in the mainstream media networks or in academia. The driver for all this violence is that democratic leaders do not hold power for long and are subject to the whims of the masses and thus has to drain as much of the treasury as he can to pay the special interests and satiate moralistic demands. The monarch does not have this problem and his power is perfectly safe leaving the people alone.
A unique feature of democratic government is that the line separating the victims from the parasites is blurred. In monarchy there is a clear distinction and knowledge that the king has power to steal one's property. Democratic governments are not acknowledged as parasitic entities, they are even identified with the people. But to sustain this illusion requires expensive and socially poisonous mechanisms. Monopolization of the mint and the academy occurs. Monopolization of the mint by creating a central bank enables the state to print and borrow money instead of raising already high taxes. Monopolization of the academy enslaves the minds of children and turns them into unthinking, state-worshipping sheep.
Like most collectivist ideologies, and because ideal of equality is upheld, democratic governments always redistribute wealth. Professor Hoppe discusses the retarding effects of which in one of his essays:
"All redistribution, regardless of the criterion on which it is based, involves 'taking' from the original owners and/or producers (the 'havers' of something) and 'giving' to non-owners and non-producers (the 'non-havers' of something). The incentive to be an original owner or producer of the thing in question is reduced, and the incentive to be a non-owner and non-producer is raised. Accordingly, as a result of subsidizing individuals because they are poor, there will be more poverty. In subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment will be created. Supporting single mothers out of tax funds will lead to an increase in single motherhood, 'illegitimacy', and divorce. In outlawing child labor, income is transferred from families with children to childless persons (as a result of the legal restriction on the supply of labor, wage rates will rise). Accordingly, the birthrate will fall. On the other hand, by subsidizing the education of children, the opposite effect is created. Income is transferred from the childless and those with few children to those with many children. As a result the birthrate will increase. Yet then the value of children will again fall, and birthrates will decline as a result of the so-called Social Security System, for in subsidizing retirees (the old) out of taxes imposed on current income earners (the young), the institution of a family – the intergenerational bond between parents, grandparents, and children – is systematically weakened. The old need no longer rely on the assistance of their children if they have made no provision for their own old age, and the young (with typically less accumulated wealth) must support the old (with typically more accumulated wealth) rather than the other way around, as is typical within families. Parents' wish for children, and children's wish for parents will decline, family breakups and dysfunctional families will increase, and provisionary action – saving and capital formation – will fall, while consumption rises."
The same applies to crime, addiction, homosexuality, gender and animals. The economics of incentives are universal. Hoppe writes:
"In subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally 'challenged' through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation. By forcing non-criminals, including the victims of crime, to pay for the imprisonment of criminals (rather than making criminals compensate their victims and pay the full cost of their own apprehension and incarceration), crime will increase. By forcing businessmen, through 'affirmative action' ('non-discrimination') programs, to employ more women, homosexuals, blacks, or other 'minorities' than they would like to, there will be more employed minorities, and fewer employers and fewer male, heterosexual, and white employment. By compelling private land owners to subsidize ('protect') 'endangered species' residing on their land through environmental legislation, there will be more and better-off animals, and fewer and worse-off humans."
Finally, the conclusion that democracy is worse than monarchy can be drawn simply from the premise that kings assume the role of owners whereas democrats assume the role of temporary caretakers of the state. Hoppe writes:
"Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly "owner" – the prince or king – being replaced by temporary and interchangeable – monopoly "caretakers" – presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock."
Conclusion:
The transition from monarchy to democracy made humanity worse off. Monarchs or kings are, contrary to popular belief, not the same as tyrants. In fact, the background and sociological development of a tyrant, a life in politics, is very much different from how kings are brought up. Social institutions like the Church and tradition offer a more practical check on the kings power than those present in democracies. Some monarchs have even given up their thrones rather than hurt their subjects. The popular mindset of a people under a monarchical system is humbler and individualistic, as opposed to the ambition and vanity engendered in the culture of people under democratic states. This results from the added dimension of politics into the life of the citizenry. A culture of vanity and ambition is not so hard to predict in a system where leaders are chosen through a popularity contest. Sustaining the illusion of identity with the state, that what is good for the state is good for me, is very expensive and entails wasteful and oppressive programs such as fiat money, central banking and government schooling. Redistributive schemes under a system of democracy taxes responsible, productive and honest citizens and subsidizes the reckless, corrupt and lazy. Democratic leaders, assuming the role of temporary caretakers, do not own the state but only the its use. Hence, the capital value of the resource will be continuously diminished just as a renter of a bike will be more careless with the bike and extract as much pleasure as he can from it. Democracy is a ruthless and immoral system that promotes social retardation and economic stagnation. It is based on the ideal of egalitarianism which can never be accomplished and tantamount to the growth of state-worship and progression into a total state.
Sources:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/articles/coulombe/monfaq.html
An objective view of history tells us that monarchy was a much more tolerable and limited form of government than democracy. Initially, this sounds absurd, how can the most centralized form of government be more lenient and allow for more liberty than democracy? But the reality is that the monarch's power was checked by tradition and the influence of the Church. If the monarch tries to abuse his power, his close relatives and great men of the realm will oppose him for his own sake through Magna Carta. If the monarch goes to far, he is excommunicated by the Church. The Church acting as a check to the power of the monarch is far more realistic and effective than checks and balances in a democracy. Taxation under monarchy for example was only about 10% whereas democracies take 40-50% of national income. This has to do with the source of revenue of those checks and balances. The Church gains revenue through voluntary donations while checks and balances in a democracy are just other branches of government. Hence, we have a situation of a government self-imposing regulations on itself, which is futile.
A commonly held belief is that a monarch is just a tyrant with a crown. This is not true. A monarch is trained from infancy for his role, respects tradition and the rule of law, with full knowledge that his power is did not come from his own ability. A democrat is the total opposite of this. One becomes a democrat through his ability to rally large crowds to his cause, often using propaganda and deceit. The democrat 'works' his way to the top through politics, assuming the role of savior of the people and is constantly subjected to its whims. Simply put, the difference is that a monarch can be humble while a democrat cannot.
Perhaps the most important distinction between a monarchy and a democracy is the mindset of the public and it is a phenomenon that is gravely ignored. Values that shaped monarchical societies were vastly different from those that shape democratic societies. The ideas that paved the way for democracy during the French revolution, equality, fraternity, and liberty must be carefully assessed lest society falls into chaos. Yes, popular sentiment was a reaction against growing abuse of a royal government, a cry for freedom. But what concept of freedom did the progenitors of democracy really have? Not a good one. Apparently, freedom for the democrats includes subsumes the ideal of equality and achieving so entails that everybody have the ability to enter into government. Whereas before people only paid attention to their own work, own personal concerns, they could now participate in the activities of a 'country'. They are sold into lies about 'the common good', 'public welfare', 'will of the majority' and so on. The fixation about the power of voting overshadows the fact that people were far better off without mass politics. Images of utopia fill the minds of the public. Life can be improved if only the right person were put in office. Personal responsibility is transferred to the politician and an entitlement mentality develops.
This must be contrasted with the popular mindset under monarchy. A hereditary monarchy eliminates grand ambitions of ordinary people climbing to the top of the political ladder. A monarch, unlike a politician, does not promise the amelioration of poverty or free education. People under a monarchical system do not dream about utopia, they do not develop the ambition of saving the world by handing over the fruits of their labor to the government. In short, democracy creates a political dimension in people's lives.
As the policies of democrats fail, effects of propaganda wear off and people are further impoverished, the state will provoke conflict among different groups by transferring the blame of failed policies or making new accusations. This creates new demand for more government intervention that will, in turn, fail. This process goes on until the people cannot imagine life without some kind of government service and views all social ills can be solved by the state. Augmenting this process of politicization are government schools made to indoctrinate and further the violence of the system. Political promises, engendering high expectations in the public, coupled with government schooling, promote the idea that society is something mechanical to be tinkered with. Everything, from education to health care to employment are viewed as rights to be given by the state. As more of human life become dependent on the state, its services are viewed to be indispensable. A popular mindset that results from humans being constantly provoked, deceived, and humiliated will in desperation be apathetic and confused. Those who are successfully indoctrinated by the state become professional state worshippers and work in the mainstream media networks or in academia. The driver for all this violence is that democratic leaders do not hold power for long and are subject to the whims of the masses and thus has to drain as much of the treasury as he can to pay the special interests and satiate moralistic demands. The monarch does not have this problem and his power is perfectly safe leaving the people alone.
A unique feature of democratic government is that the line separating the victims from the parasites is blurred. In monarchy there is a clear distinction and knowledge that the king has power to steal one's property. Democratic governments are not acknowledged as parasitic entities, they are even identified with the people. But to sustain this illusion requires expensive and socially poisonous mechanisms. Monopolization of the mint and the academy occurs. Monopolization of the mint by creating a central bank enables the state to print and borrow money instead of raising already high taxes. Monopolization of the academy enslaves the minds of children and turns them into unthinking, state-worshipping sheep.
Like most collectivist ideologies, and because ideal of equality is upheld, democratic governments always redistribute wealth. Professor Hoppe discusses the retarding effects of which in one of his essays:
"All redistribution, regardless of the criterion on which it is based, involves 'taking' from the original owners and/or producers (the 'havers' of something) and 'giving' to non-owners and non-producers (the 'non-havers' of something). The incentive to be an original owner or producer of the thing in question is reduced, and the incentive to be a non-owner and non-producer is raised. Accordingly, as a result of subsidizing individuals because they are poor, there will be more poverty. In subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment will be created. Supporting single mothers out of tax funds will lead to an increase in single motherhood, 'illegitimacy', and divorce. In outlawing child labor, income is transferred from families with children to childless persons (as a result of the legal restriction on the supply of labor, wage rates will rise). Accordingly, the birthrate will fall. On the other hand, by subsidizing the education of children, the opposite effect is created. Income is transferred from the childless and those with few children to those with many children. As a result the birthrate will increase. Yet then the value of children will again fall, and birthrates will decline as a result of the so-called Social Security System, for in subsidizing retirees (the old) out of taxes imposed on current income earners (the young), the institution of a family – the intergenerational bond between parents, grandparents, and children – is systematically weakened. The old need no longer rely on the assistance of their children if they have made no provision for their own old age, and the young (with typically less accumulated wealth) must support the old (with typically more accumulated wealth) rather than the other way around, as is typical within families. Parents' wish for children, and children's wish for parents will decline, family breakups and dysfunctional families will increase, and provisionary action – saving and capital formation – will fall, while consumption rises."
The same applies to crime, addiction, homosexuality, gender and animals. The economics of incentives are universal. Hoppe writes:
"In subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally 'challenged' through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation. By forcing non-criminals, including the victims of crime, to pay for the imprisonment of criminals (rather than making criminals compensate their victims and pay the full cost of their own apprehension and incarceration), crime will increase. By forcing businessmen, through 'affirmative action' ('non-discrimination') programs, to employ more women, homosexuals, blacks, or other 'minorities' than they would like to, there will be more employed minorities, and fewer employers and fewer male, heterosexual, and white employment. By compelling private land owners to subsidize ('protect') 'endangered species' residing on their land through environmental legislation, there will be more and better-off animals, and fewer and worse-off humans."
Finally, the conclusion that democracy is worse than monarchy can be drawn simply from the premise that kings assume the role of owners whereas democrats assume the role of temporary caretakers of the state. Hoppe writes:
"Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly "owner" – the prince or king – being replaced by temporary and interchangeable – monopoly "caretakers" – presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock."
Conclusion:
The transition from monarchy to democracy made humanity worse off. Monarchs or kings are, contrary to popular belief, not the same as tyrants. In fact, the background and sociological development of a tyrant, a life in politics, is very much different from how kings are brought up. Social institutions like the Church and tradition offer a more practical check on the kings power than those present in democracies. Some monarchs have even given up their thrones rather than hurt their subjects. The popular mindset of a people under a monarchical system is humbler and individualistic, as opposed to the ambition and vanity engendered in the culture of people under democratic states. This results from the added dimension of politics into the life of the citizenry. A culture of vanity and ambition is not so hard to predict in a system where leaders are chosen through a popularity contest. Sustaining the illusion of identity with the state, that what is good for the state is good for me, is very expensive and entails wasteful and oppressive programs such as fiat money, central banking and government schooling. Redistributive schemes under a system of democracy taxes responsible, productive and honest citizens and subsidizes the reckless, corrupt and lazy. Democratic leaders, assuming the role of temporary caretakers, do not own the state but only the its use. Hence, the capital value of the resource will be continuously diminished just as a renter of a bike will be more careless with the bike and extract as much pleasure as he can from it. Democracy is a ruthless and immoral system that promotes social retardation and economic stagnation. It is based on the ideal of egalitarianism which can never be accomplished and tantamount to the growth of state-worship and progression into a total state.
Sources:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/articles/coulombe/monfaq.html
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Agrarian Reform VS. Property and Civilization
An issue that attracts much concern and controversy among the public in the Philippines is Land Reform. Like most post-colonial nations, the Philippines suffers gross inequality of land ownership which originates from the feudalistic system set up by Western colonizers. Descendants of the colonizers, powerful families that are usually politically connected, now own large swaths of agricultural land tilled by the descendants of the peasants who were violently expropriated of the same land.
In an attempt to alleviate this injustice, leftists of all stripes call upon the ever reliant state. They create legislation that forcefully redistributes land from the haves to the have-nots, a move not uncommon to socialists. Groups under the Communist Party of the Philippines broker a bill that treats all landowners like criminals and takes their land title with little or any restitution. Social democrats, on the other hand, want something less radical. Opinion may differ when it comes to details; the size of landholdings required to be eligible for the program, or the compensation given to the landowner being expropriated. No matter which political group you ask, the consensus among them is clearly in support of legislation the bare minimum of which is to redistribute land from landowners to peasants without the consent of the former. A one-size-fits-all plan of government aggression applied to all who own more than a certain amount of land.
To the average Filipino news viewer, it would seem noble to support such cause. The average news viewer will support such program knowing that the peasants working for the landowners are the descendants of the real owners prior to colonial rule. Another probable motivation for supporting land reform is the appeal of 'equality', 'justice' and 'democracy' as cunningly promoted by the leftists since anything that is called 'democratic' these days suddenly become the height of morality. No doubt exists as to the problem of land theft and illegitimate ownership. The solutions, however, leave much to debate but are glossed over by blind political sentimentality and egalitarian motivations.
The original owners of the lands now concentrated in a few hands are most likely untraceable, but this does not give an excuse for politicians to target every large landholding just to alleviate an injustice done decades ago. Doing so will create more injustice by antagonizing formerly good relationships between land owners and workers. And workers definitely do not own land just because they are working on the land. It must be proven that property violation was done unto them or their ancestors. In other words, due process of law must be respected. Of course in this country the law is manipulated in favor of the elites. With that being the case, agrarian reform runs the risk of doing injustice to real owners while making illegitimate, politically-connected landlords escape.
It is important not to conflate land tenancy of a worker with the relationship of a lord and his serf. Tenancy comes about because of a voluntary trade between the lessee and the lessor. The landowner trades money in exchange for the services of the peasant farmer. The peasant farmer eventually builds a house near or at the land and becomes a lessee of the land. He does for the convenience of being near to his workplace. Tenancy may go on for several years but this does not in any way transfer ownership of the land from the lessor to the lessee. The tenancy was a manifestation of a voluntary trade. Hence, the landowner cannot be involuntarily obligated to give his land to the peasant farmer. In fact, the landowner should be complimented for not exercising his right to end the contractual relationship and leaving the peasant farmer without a job.
The leftists argue that land reform is necessary because the mass of the peasant farmers are poor and the landowners are usually very rich. With this argument put forth, the motivations behind land reform become clear. Land reform becomes not about fixing the problem of land theft, for this could easily and properly be done on a case to case basis through the court system, but addresses the problem of inequality. A legal problem is now turned into a political problem. But the argument from equality is very problematic as well. For one, agriculture is only one sector of the economy. There are Filipinos who are equally poor or even poorer in other areas. What are we to do with them? Two, if peasant farmers deserve the land of the landowners because they are the tillers, in other words, the ones who are productive, if that is the criterion accepted for legitimate ownership, then hired drivers should also own the car of their employer. Henri Sy's assets should be owned by SM mall employees. A domestic helper should have ownership over the house and the family who previously owned it should be kicked out. However absurd this is, it is the logical conclusion to the principles of equality. Equality is the ideological basis for the total state.
There exists both legitimate and illegitimate ownership of land in the Philippines. Illegitimate land should be solved on a case to case basis legally through the court system. Due process of law should be respected and applied. Both victims and illegitimate owners should be properly identified before appropriation of legal titles. Land reform does not respect the due process of law but is merely something to sell to the ignorant masses. The legislation is not concerned about legitimacy of property but of equality of property ownership. Hence, legitimate landowners are compromised and their rights violated. Violation of property rights are expected of legislation created by political groups whose ideology advocates the abolition of all property. Property which is privately owned and is the foundation of civilization. That said, land reform must be strongly opposed on moral grounds.
In an attempt to alleviate this injustice, leftists of all stripes call upon the ever reliant state. They create legislation that forcefully redistributes land from the haves to the have-nots, a move not uncommon to socialists. Groups under the Communist Party of the Philippines broker a bill that treats all landowners like criminals and takes their land title with little or any restitution. Social democrats, on the other hand, want something less radical. Opinion may differ when it comes to details; the size of landholdings required to be eligible for the program, or the compensation given to the landowner being expropriated. No matter which political group you ask, the consensus among them is clearly in support of legislation the bare minimum of which is to redistribute land from landowners to peasants without the consent of the former. A one-size-fits-all plan of government aggression applied to all who own more than a certain amount of land.
To the average Filipino news viewer, it would seem noble to support such cause. The average news viewer will support such program knowing that the peasants working for the landowners are the descendants of the real owners prior to colonial rule. Another probable motivation for supporting land reform is the appeal of 'equality', 'justice' and 'democracy' as cunningly promoted by the leftists since anything that is called 'democratic' these days suddenly become the height of morality. No doubt exists as to the problem of land theft and illegitimate ownership. The solutions, however, leave much to debate but are glossed over by blind political sentimentality and egalitarian motivations.
The original owners of the lands now concentrated in a few hands are most likely untraceable, but this does not give an excuse for politicians to target every large landholding just to alleviate an injustice done decades ago. Doing so will create more injustice by antagonizing formerly good relationships between land owners and workers. And workers definitely do not own land just because they are working on the land. It must be proven that property violation was done unto them or their ancestors. In other words, due process of law must be respected. Of course in this country the law is manipulated in favor of the elites. With that being the case, agrarian reform runs the risk of doing injustice to real owners while making illegitimate, politically-connected landlords escape.
It is important not to conflate land tenancy of a worker with the relationship of a lord and his serf. Tenancy comes about because of a voluntary trade between the lessee and the lessor. The landowner trades money in exchange for the services of the peasant farmer. The peasant farmer eventually builds a house near or at the land and becomes a lessee of the land. He does for the convenience of being near to his workplace. Tenancy may go on for several years but this does not in any way transfer ownership of the land from the lessor to the lessee. The tenancy was a manifestation of a voluntary trade. Hence, the landowner cannot be involuntarily obligated to give his land to the peasant farmer. In fact, the landowner should be complimented for not exercising his right to end the contractual relationship and leaving the peasant farmer without a job.
The leftists argue that land reform is necessary because the mass of the peasant farmers are poor and the landowners are usually very rich. With this argument put forth, the motivations behind land reform become clear. Land reform becomes not about fixing the problem of land theft, for this could easily and properly be done on a case to case basis through the court system, but addresses the problem of inequality. A legal problem is now turned into a political problem. But the argument from equality is very problematic as well. For one, agriculture is only one sector of the economy. There are Filipinos who are equally poor or even poorer in other areas. What are we to do with them? Two, if peasant farmers deserve the land of the landowners because they are the tillers, in other words, the ones who are productive, if that is the criterion accepted for legitimate ownership, then hired drivers should also own the car of their employer. Henri Sy's assets should be owned by SM mall employees. A domestic helper should have ownership over the house and the family who previously owned it should be kicked out. However absurd this is, it is the logical conclusion to the principles of equality. Equality is the ideological basis for the total state.
There exists both legitimate and illegitimate ownership of land in the Philippines. Illegitimate land should be solved on a case to case basis legally through the court system. Due process of law should be respected and applied. Both victims and illegitimate owners should be properly identified before appropriation of legal titles. Land reform does not respect the due process of law but is merely something to sell to the ignorant masses. The legislation is not concerned about legitimacy of property but of equality of property ownership. Hence, legitimate landowners are compromised and their rights violated. Violation of property rights are expected of legislation created by political groups whose ideology advocates the abolition of all property. Property which is privately owned and is the foundation of civilization. That said, land reform must be strongly opposed on moral grounds.
Common Sense Guide to Understanding Economics
1. Government intervention always has unintended consequences. What government gives to you, it must take from you first through taxation.
2. Apply situation to simple island economy
3. Economy is just people, property and transactions. Think of it in these terms and not in terms of nations or governments. Think in concretes, not in abstracts.
4. Prosperity is a function of productivity
5. Productivity requires division of labor, capital accumulation, and entrepreneurship. All these can only take place in a market economy.
6. Remember that money is just paper used as medium of exchange. Taxation only takes paper from you, it is spending which transfers actual resources and is therefore destructive.
7. Trade happens because of inequality of valuation of the traded good
8. Price is the objective expression of subjective valuations and allows for economic calculation or the allocation of resources to their most productive use.
9. Profit lets you know what makes sense to produce in society. Private enterprise does good mainly because it wants your money. State subsidization of private firms will make it less accountable to the consumer.
10. Capitalists do not and cannot consume all their wealth, what is not consumed by them is then invested back into the economy to benefit the general public. Capitalists, then, do not gain at the expense of others.
11. Labor is the ultimate resource and demand for it is inexhaustible, supply of labor balances against supply of firms resulting in the market wage rate.
12. International trade is no different from trade within nations and consequently no different from trade among small communities and households. Restricting trade among households would compel a family to grow their own food, manufacture their own clothes, dig wells, among other things. It would give a lot of jobs to family members but everyone would be poor.
2. Apply situation to simple island economy
3. Economy is just people, property and transactions. Think of it in these terms and not in terms of nations or governments. Think in concretes, not in abstracts.
4. Prosperity is a function of productivity
5. Productivity requires division of labor, capital accumulation, and entrepreneurship. All these can only take place in a market economy.
6. Remember that money is just paper used as medium of exchange. Taxation only takes paper from you, it is spending which transfers actual resources and is therefore destructive.
7. Trade happens because of inequality of valuation of the traded good
8. Price is the objective expression of subjective valuations and allows for economic calculation or the allocation of resources to their most productive use.
9. Profit lets you know what makes sense to produce in society. Private enterprise does good mainly because it wants your money. State subsidization of private firms will make it less accountable to the consumer.
10. Capitalists do not and cannot consume all their wealth, what is not consumed by them is then invested back into the economy to benefit the general public. Capitalists, then, do not gain at the expense of others.
11. Labor is the ultimate resource and demand for it is inexhaustible, supply of labor balances against supply of firms resulting in the market wage rate.
12. International trade is no different from trade within nations and consequently no different from trade among small communities and households. Restricting trade among households would compel a family to grow their own food, manufacture their own clothes, dig wells, among other things. It would give a lot of jobs to family members but everyone would be poor.
Common Sense Guide to Politics and Government
Government
The maxim that one must adopt to understand the mechanism of government is that it functions through the initiation of violence, or more commonly known as taxation. Since the logic of a statist system is that of violence, it is intrinsically immoral.
Government actions are political. They are influenced by pressure groups and lobbyists and those who wish to gain at the expense of the taxpayer.
Government cannot provide the for the common good for there is no such thing. Even if there were a common good, there is no accurate way to decipher it nor is it possible to manufacture a policy for the common good. Government only provides the common bad as it is a tool used by the powerful to externalize their costs to the public.
Nothing ever changes in government except state growth and inevitable collapse(recessions). Government budgets always grow as new demand for it is created by the failure of previous government intervention.
Politicians
Politicians are salesmen that sell false promises and hopes to ignorant voters. It surprises me that socialists dislike corporate advertising but are so drawn into the advertising in political campaigns which are infinitely more dishonest than commercial advertising.
Politicians have more incentive to do bad since they are not accountable for their own mistakes. Hence the saying, 'politics brings out the worst in people'.
Politicians are generally of the upper class. Philippine legislators have an average net worth of 10 million pesos and claim to be the champion of the poor.
Politicians view society as something to be manipulated and tinkered with. Therefore, the occupation of politician is inherently opposed to the free market. Compensation of politicians' come from taxation so they don't care about private property.
Politicians get to high office by demagoguery, good looks, deception and bribes. Using this set of talents as a means of getting into high office was justified centuries ago by Machiavelli, and unleashed the modern criminal state.
Politicians(and politics in general) elicit an attitude of barbarism in the masses. They elicit in them feelings of indignity towards a targeted group, usually the rich, and promotes an attitude of instant gratification. In this view, politicians actually stimulate and feed off of the inner hate and frustration of the masses. A frustration not of the victimized group, but really of previous political promises that have come asunder.
The maxim that one must adopt to understand the mechanism of government is that it functions through the initiation of violence, or more commonly known as taxation. Since the logic of a statist system is that of violence, it is intrinsically immoral.
Government actions are political. They are influenced by pressure groups and lobbyists and those who wish to gain at the expense of the taxpayer.
Government cannot provide the for the common good for there is no such thing. Even if there were a common good, there is no accurate way to decipher it nor is it possible to manufacture a policy for the common good. Government only provides the common bad as it is a tool used by the powerful to externalize their costs to the public.
Nothing ever changes in government except state growth and inevitable collapse(recessions). Government budgets always grow as new demand for it is created by the failure of previous government intervention.
Politicians
Politicians are salesmen that sell false promises and hopes to ignorant voters. It surprises me that socialists dislike corporate advertising but are so drawn into the advertising in political campaigns which are infinitely more dishonest than commercial advertising.
Politicians have more incentive to do bad since they are not accountable for their own mistakes. Hence the saying, 'politics brings out the worst in people'.
Politicians are generally of the upper class. Philippine legislators have an average net worth of 10 million pesos and claim to be the champion of the poor.
Politicians view society as something to be manipulated and tinkered with. Therefore, the occupation of politician is inherently opposed to the free market. Compensation of politicians' come from taxation so they don't care about private property.
Politicians get to high office by demagoguery, good looks, deception and bribes. Using this set of talents as a means of getting into high office was justified centuries ago by Machiavelli, and unleashed the modern criminal state.
Politicians(and politics in general) elicit an attitude of barbarism in the masses. They elicit in them feelings of indignity towards a targeted group, usually the rich, and promotes an attitude of instant gratification. In this view, politicians actually stimulate and feed off of the inner hate and frustration of the masses. A frustration not of the victimized group, but really of previous political promises that have come asunder.
The Poverty of Democracy: Part I
Of all the politically correct terms used in everyday discussion, one can easily find that democracy sits on top of that list. Democracy is something we are taught to like. Modern political science courses are centered around the ideal of democracy as the best form of government. The argument in favor of democracy seems to be so airtight, even indisputable. After all, democracy is the rule of the people, and the only alternative of which is rule by a monarch(which is equated with tyrant). And who in the world wants that? What are you, some kind of medieval royalist?
To criticize democracy is treated as sacrilegious, giving the impression of not being on the side of the people. That is why modern detractors are looked upon with scoffing condescension and quickly dismissed as elitist, apathetic, or ignorant. As a result, skeptics are shunned and their arguments are not taken seriously. That is where the heart of the problem lies. For if the ideal of democracy is the epitome of freedom then freedom of speech should be respected. No matter how airtight the argument for democracy is, it not does exempt it from criticism. If anything, the fact that democracy now assumes the qualities of a religion demands serious evaluation.
Most view it as 'rule of the people', but it is really mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. A system wherein 51% of the people oppress the 49%. In practice, it is nothing but minority rule, the minorities being the lobbyists and special interest groups. The masses simply do not have control over what their 'elected' officials do after they get elected. During elections, it's all lies and hypocrisy, nothing but a popularity contest. Elections divide people on issues and pit them against each other. Once the elections are over, in typical political fashion, the winner somehow takes the role of instrument of the people's will, like finally electing someone into office makes all those warring political groups agree on every issue. Assuming that elected officials have the consent of the people is a dangerous assumption. Almost anything that the politician does is justified, after all, the people consented to it with their votes. So it doesn't matter if we allow the government to violate our privacy(Patriot Act), invade other countries(Iraq), or accrue enormous debt. We owe it to ourselves!
Since majority rule is equated with right rule, then it doesn't matter who wins because the winner is elected by the majority and the majority is right. Many political science students I know share this absurd belief. Because of this, democracy promotes moral relativism. Popular political philosopher Hannah Arendt observed that totalitarian governments exhibited a 'banality of evil'. Little did she know that the 'banality of evil' present in totalitarian regimes is cultivated by the system of democracy.
Faith in the 'wise' majority is nothing more than that, faith. Evidence clearly suggests that the most democratic elections(the ones with the largest majority) choose the worst presidents. Erap Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, and Manny Villar(if he wins). As shocking as it is, Adolf Hitler was a democratic leader. Hitler became chancellor legally. Mao Tse Tsung rose to power because of the support of millions of farmers. If history is any guide, the worst leaders are the most democratic. Of course once the majority elected official starts ruining the country they are called undemocratic.
No major philosopher has ever viewed democracy as anything more than soft communism. Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Aristotle, Aquinas, Stuart Mill, the founding fathers of America loathed democracy and believed it to be more bloody, while it exists, than monarchy or aristocracy. As Benjamin Franklin popularly said, in an answer to a question about America's form of government, "a republic Ma'am if you can keep it". Only problem is they couldn't keep it. The United States of America was never intended to be a democracy but a constitutional republic. The founding fathers knew that democracy is an inherently unstable transition to oligarchy. The argument can be made in four statements:
1. In a democracy, the poor outnumber the rich so they vote to take away the property of the rich through policies like progressive taxation.
2. The rich, formerly gaining wealth through honest means, are encouraged to lobby and bribe politicians to protect their wealth. Honest entrepreneurs are placed at a permanent disadvantage while those with the skills of bribery and deception at an advantage.
3. The poor are further impoverished and dehumanized by the endless conflict in politics. While those who remain rich are those with very good political connections and are more likely parasites than producers (which makes the masses blame capitalism even more)
4. The political class conflict of rich versus poor wipe out the middle class, whom are entrepreneurial or high skilled workers, and thus the oligarchy is realized.
In a democracy, there is always a manufactured class conflict to keep the political machine running. The masses have to be incited and provoked so politicians' policies can be justified and their power strengthened. Politics creates what Jose Ortega y Gasset calls the mass-man, livestock for the state. The mass-man does not have independent thought, but a product of the state propaganda apparatus. A mentality of going(or voting) with the crowd is engendered and what left of independent thought and action is eroded. All democracies today are undergoing the same process. Democracy, is most destructive, governing large geographical areas. India, the largest democracy in the world, has less than half the per capita GDP of China and is politically unstable precisely because India is a democracy and China is not. The destructive effects of democracy, however, are restrained in states of small geographical areas like Switzerland. Rousseau, the great preacher of equality, believed democracy only works in states covering small territories because people will vote on their feet. Rousseau would find the current arrangement rather idiotic.
Hundreds of years ago, at a time of strong anti-monarchical sentiment, nobody would have ever known that replacing monarchy with democracy would result in today's size of bureaucracy, economic regulation, and rates of taxation.
Democracy definitely is an egregious form of government. But if we cannot find a viable alternative, it is futile to go against the tide. Democracy could well be, as Churchill noted, the worst form of government except for all those other forms. Part II will compare the social arrangements of monarchy and democracy. Which is better between the two? And if there exists a social order superior to both monarchy and democracy. Professor Hoppe in his revolutionary book "Democracy: The God That Failed" has made this comparison. I shall give my humble remarks of his work in Part II.
To criticize democracy is treated as sacrilegious, giving the impression of not being on the side of the people. That is why modern detractors are looked upon with scoffing condescension and quickly dismissed as elitist, apathetic, or ignorant. As a result, skeptics are shunned and their arguments are not taken seriously. That is where the heart of the problem lies. For if the ideal of democracy is the epitome of freedom then freedom of speech should be respected. No matter how airtight the argument for democracy is, it not does exempt it from criticism. If anything, the fact that democracy now assumes the qualities of a religion demands serious evaluation.
Most view it as 'rule of the people', but it is really mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. A system wherein 51% of the people oppress the 49%. In practice, it is nothing but minority rule, the minorities being the lobbyists and special interest groups. The masses simply do not have control over what their 'elected' officials do after they get elected. During elections, it's all lies and hypocrisy, nothing but a popularity contest. Elections divide people on issues and pit them against each other. Once the elections are over, in typical political fashion, the winner somehow takes the role of instrument of the people's will, like finally electing someone into office makes all those warring political groups agree on every issue. Assuming that elected officials have the consent of the people is a dangerous assumption. Almost anything that the politician does is justified, after all, the people consented to it with their votes. So it doesn't matter if we allow the government to violate our privacy(Patriot Act), invade other countries(Iraq), or accrue enormous debt. We owe it to ourselves!
Since majority rule is equated with right rule, then it doesn't matter who wins because the winner is elected by the majority and the majority is right. Many political science students I know share this absurd belief. Because of this, democracy promotes moral relativism. Popular political philosopher Hannah Arendt observed that totalitarian governments exhibited a 'banality of evil'. Little did she know that the 'banality of evil' present in totalitarian regimes is cultivated by the system of democracy.
Faith in the 'wise' majority is nothing more than that, faith. Evidence clearly suggests that the most democratic elections(the ones with the largest majority) choose the worst presidents. Erap Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, and Manny Villar(if he wins). As shocking as it is, Adolf Hitler was a democratic leader. Hitler became chancellor legally. Mao Tse Tsung rose to power because of the support of millions of farmers. If history is any guide, the worst leaders are the most democratic. Of course once the majority elected official starts ruining the country they are called undemocratic.
No major philosopher has ever viewed democracy as anything more than soft communism. Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Aristotle, Aquinas, Stuart Mill, the founding fathers of America loathed democracy and believed it to be more bloody, while it exists, than monarchy or aristocracy. As Benjamin Franklin popularly said, in an answer to a question about America's form of government, "a republic Ma'am if you can keep it". Only problem is they couldn't keep it. The United States of America was never intended to be a democracy but a constitutional republic. The founding fathers knew that democracy is an inherently unstable transition to oligarchy. The argument can be made in four statements:
1. In a democracy, the poor outnumber the rich so they vote to take away the property of the rich through policies like progressive taxation.
2. The rich, formerly gaining wealth through honest means, are encouraged to lobby and bribe politicians to protect their wealth. Honest entrepreneurs are placed at a permanent disadvantage while those with the skills of bribery and deception at an advantage.
3. The poor are further impoverished and dehumanized by the endless conflict in politics. While those who remain rich are those with very good political connections and are more likely parasites than producers (which makes the masses blame capitalism even more)
4. The political class conflict of rich versus poor wipe out the middle class, whom are entrepreneurial or high skilled workers, and thus the oligarchy is realized.
In a democracy, there is always a manufactured class conflict to keep the political machine running. The masses have to be incited and provoked so politicians' policies can be justified and their power strengthened. Politics creates what Jose Ortega y Gasset calls the mass-man, livestock for the state. The mass-man does not have independent thought, but a product of the state propaganda apparatus. A mentality of going(or voting) with the crowd is engendered and what left of independent thought and action is eroded. All democracies today are undergoing the same process. Democracy, is most destructive, governing large geographical areas. India, the largest democracy in the world, has less than half the per capita GDP of China and is politically unstable precisely because India is a democracy and China is not. The destructive effects of democracy, however, are restrained in states of small geographical areas like Switzerland. Rousseau, the great preacher of equality, believed democracy only works in states covering small territories because people will vote on their feet. Rousseau would find the current arrangement rather idiotic.
Hundreds of years ago, at a time of strong anti-monarchical sentiment, nobody would have ever known that replacing monarchy with democracy would result in today's size of bureaucracy, economic regulation, and rates of taxation.
Democracy definitely is an egregious form of government. But if we cannot find a viable alternative, it is futile to go against the tide. Democracy could well be, as Churchill noted, the worst form of government except for all those other forms. Part II will compare the social arrangements of monarchy and democracy. Which is better between the two? And if there exists a social order superior to both monarchy and democracy. Professor Hoppe in his revolutionary book "Democracy: The God That Failed" has made this comparison. I shall give my humble remarks of his work in Part II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)