The idiocy of American Nationalism and the Corrupt Philippine Police and Military

It’s disgusting to see so many people praising the US government for its assassination of Osama bin Laden. Turning on Fox News reveals that national delusion is at an all time high in the US with footage of the ignorant American sheep waving the American flag in celebration of their government’s act of murder.

The enemy is not some bearded men carrying AK-47s living in caves in some backwater country. The real enemy of the American people is its government, which draws awesome power from the Federal Reserve System. Empires are always destroyed from the inside, when its people become infantilized and made dependent on the government, when the specter of total fiscal and monetary socialism looms on the horizon.

Here in the Philippines the government is propping up security measures to ward off possible retaliation from Muslim elements connected to Bin Laden. As a result, more money will go to the most corrupt bureaucracies in the Philippines, namely the police and military. The Philippines shouldn’t even be in this mess if its government did not enter into entangling alliances with the US government.

Here is a blog post in LewRockwell.com that says a lot about this stupid propaganda.

Every time the US waves the bloody shirt of Osama, it has a purpose. Obama has been drastically weakened in recent months, and the US has been hurt by murdering Gadaffi’s family members. The mass-killing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. is not going well. The economy is a wreck. Dollar debasement is speeding up. Gasoline prices are high. So…tah-dah…the body of Osama bin Laden for our edification and distraction. It may even be true. Certainly the CIA will assure us that its DNA test proves it.

UPDATE from Darien Sumner:

In re: Osama bin Laden’s death, here are the first three things that went through my mind:

1) Congratulations to the United States government on spending only ten years and a few trillion dollars to kill one old man.

2) This means we get all of our liberties back now, right? And our money? And the thousands of lives lost?

3) Ah, now the Libyan war is beginning to make a lot more sense from a political standpoint. The government needed a new bogeyman to chase.

Marc Faber on Democracy

Economist Marc Faber appeared on CNBC to talk about financial markets. But along the way he launched into a devastating analysis of class relations in a democracy. Here is my paraphrasing of Marc Faber,



It’s a question of entitlements. The majority of people are not very well to do. They want entitlements so they can work less. The people who have money and work hard are outnumbered by the poor people. The rich are very few in number so they have no vote. One way to get back at masses is to print money and outsource production, say to China. So you disenfranchise the working class and your asset prices increase dramatically. If you are affluent you have the same vote as somebody who was born illegitimate and poor. More than half of American children are born illegitimate and most of them are poor and they have the same vote as someone who is affluent. So the well to-do people will cheat the system as well.



It reminds me of what I wrote about democracy more than a year ago. Democracy according to Bertrand de Jouvenel "because of its centralizing, pattern-making, absolutist drive, can easily become an incubator of tyranny". Democratic society undergoes four stages before it becomes totalitarian.

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.

But such an analysis is not new. Frederic Bastiat observed the inherent problem with democracy as early as in the 19th century. He called it legal plunder or the perversion of the law by turning it into a means of taking another’s property. A major contributing factor to the decline of civilization in a democracy is the corruption of the wealthy class. As government and political pull are increasingly being used to gain wealth, traditional bourgeoisie values of hard work, frugality and bravery are replaced with opportunism, deception and bribery. The result is that wealth is no longer a symbol of virtue but of vice. There is also the issue of inheritance where the poor look at the rich as undeserving due to inherited wealth. But if an inheritor is really undeserving of his inheritance, then that inheritance would quickly dissipate on consumption and frivolous activity. It is only in a statist society where the inheritor uses political pull to pass legislation creating barriers to entry in order to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the consumer.

Capitalism starving the Philippine Left of new recruits

I rejoiced when I read this article today. Facebook has afforded the disgruntled Filipino youth an alternative, and dare I say more productive, way of venting out frustration at politics than joining the communists. It is a sick irony that more poverty creates more demand for socialism. Far leftist groups have more recruits when the voices of the marginalized in society are not heard by the government. But it is unfortunate since the government is philosophically similar to the communists. They all think in terms of egalitarianism and 'from each according to his ability' philosophy. The far left, then, only serve an emotional purpose for the marginalized when what they really need is an understanding of 'why' they are poor and marginalized. The last thing the Filipino poor need is a decrepit ideology which has failed too many times to count. Socialism is mankind's greatest failure, an attempt to play god, a misunderstanding of what it means to be human. The fact that the leftists now resort to indoctrinating the children of the elite rather than propagandizing the masses shows utter hypocrisy in the stubborn attempt to redeem leftist falsehood. Socialism has broken many eggs but has never made any omelets. Those who stick to it in the face of mountains of evidence are slaves to false idealism and are unable to live in this world.

In contrast, capitalism has provided a way to satiate the urge of the marginalized to be heard. The Philippine government might have severely hampered the life-giving market process through inflation, taxes, licenses and regulations, but capitalism has still managed to deliver the goods in the unregulated sector of cyberspace. The most unproductive in society cannot find employment because of the economic ignorance of politicians in legislating minimum wage levels. They are curtailed from having a good education because of tax-funded 'public' education. But whereas before such conditions encourage extremism and anti-social behavior, now facebook is there to provide an avenue for communication and entertainment. Capitalism has filled in the social gap through peaceful means, and on top of all the bureaucracy and wealth destroying government programs. In comparison, the socialists have to expend so much effort taking over the government and dispensing of the bourgeoisie. And only then can progress be possible, they say.

Capitalism works even without an intellectual vanguard. The universities and schools are stacked with leftists of all sorts trying to pound the common sense out of young peoples' brains. But their irrational ideology is most of the time pushed aside as untenable, because let's face it, who could honestly take the stance business, that institution which we acquire our daily meals, is a harm to society. Business provide goods, services, allow labor to be integrated into the structure of production. How can an institution which we depend on to live, simultaneously be a great evil in the world? In fact, capitalism not only provide the means for material satisfaction but opportunities for spiritual satisfaction as well, as the high levels of social production in capitalism allow more time to go to Church or on a noble advocacy. The fact that capitalism delivers even without or with little of an intellectual vanguard is a source of hope. No words better express my sentiments than that of Ludwig von Mises in saying,

"Neither economic thinking nor historical experience suggest that any other social system could be as beneficial to the masses as capitalism. The results speak for themselves. The market economy needs no apologists and propagandists. It can apply to itself the words of Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph in St. Paul's: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice(If you seek his monument, look around)"

It is a sort of a joke that 'social' networking has weakened the growth of the socialists. They must all be seething in their self-righteous rage in the mountains. And we are all better for it!

A la carte democracy advocacy

I got this from Ryan Faulk

One thing I find when arguing with pro-democracy ideologues is how they’re allowed to be a la carte, while I’m forced to defend every thing that comes about in a market.

Bailouts? Wars? Retarded “regulations”? The FCC “regulating” the internet? Taxation and inflation taking up 43% of GDP? Kids learning in a month online what they took a year to learn in the obsolete state schools?

See, don’t bother blaming those things on democracy. We just didn’t vote for the right things or have the right guys in office! It’s not democracy that has failed, oh perish the thought. Something as big and old and that we have known since childhood as being the manifestation of goodness as democracy can’t be to blame.

So I advocate a total market, and then some people will point out some mean things that happened. Now almost always it’s some myth, involved state intervention (like with the state giving the robber barons land grants - essentially monopolies - and then the resulting monopolies being blamed on the market), or ignores context - like working conditions in early industrialization not being humane by modern standards.

But all that notwithstanding, NEVER am I allowed to say, “Oh, well those were just the wrong businessmen. See, I’m for having nice angelic businessmen. The key is to get the right capitalists at the head of large firms.” No, I have to either defend the market as it stands or explain why X problem is not a result of a market.

Democracy pushers are allowed to make arguments from fantasy, and I’m supposed to argue not against the reality of democracy but against this hypothetical where whoever I’m debating against got their way in elections.

The problem is that most people don’t even know that they’re doing this. They don’t recognize that they’re advocating democracy anymore than a fish realizes it’s in water. And so each individual has their little a la carte proposal, and when I come in advocating a total market, they treat my idea like it’s just another democratic hypothetical, not as a paradigm alternative to democracy itself.

Burying the RH bill

Introduction

After reading the comments of this blog post criticizing the hero of the pro-RH bill (reproductive health bill) movement, I was disappointed at closed-mindedness of the commenters in denouncing an opinion which they most likely have never heard. It is my observation that RH bill supporters pride themselves in thinking independently and practically about social issues, particularly such issues as overpopulation and its relationship with poverty in the Philippines. But after reading the comments, it seems like RH bill supporters’ ardor in activism is based on feelings of self-importance rather than reason and experience. Their opposition to the Catholic Church is similar in nature to that of the atheists. That is, they like to sound as if reason in on their side just because the opposition's views are founded on religious doctrine or theological propositions (which is even ridiculous since theology involves complex reasoning much beyond the grasp of your average pro-RH bill dolt).

If this is true about RH bill supporters, then it makes no sense arguing with them at all since their main motivation is not truth but a shallow and false sense of satisfaction and worth that comes from a naive view of the world. Carlos Celdran fans think of themselves as 'progressive' in opposing what is stereotyped as and old and inflexible institution, the Catholic Church. But if there are RH bill supporters who actually care about truth and morality then it is advised that they continue reading.

Taking Your Naive Assumption

In arguing for or against something, it is always better to have fewer assumptions than more. So I will not anymore make the case that overpopulation is a myth, I will rather borrow the assumption of my opponents that overpopulation really exists and contributes to poverty in the Philippines. Then I will argue that the RH bill should be rejected even with this assumption.

So if indeed the way to solve poverty, according to 'progressives', is to curb population growth then clearly the solution is to provide condoms and such contraceptive items to the public. It does not follow, however, that the government should provide such items. Indeed, economic theory shows that the government is the worst agency to use when solving social problems. What RH bill supporters commit is the red herring fallacy. It is defined as introducing facts or arguments that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

What is being debated is the issue of 'overpopulation as the cause of poverty and how to solve it'. But RH bill supporters center the debate around the RH bill without considering possible alternatives. That is why opposition to the RH bill is immediately branded as either a religious dogmatist, apathetic, or ignorant. The belief is that without the RH bill then RH (reproductive health) services would not be provided at all. Again, no non-government alternative is even thought of.

To illustrate my point is a made-up dialogue between two persons standing in line for bread during the time of the Soviet Union.

Yago: I'm hungry. Why can't this line move faster?
Vlad: We're all hungry, but we won't be able to eat if we don't wait.
Yago: This system is so inefficient!
Vlad: Hey, we have to be thankful. I heard that in a capitalist society, the government doesn't even provide the bread. Can you imagine how worse it would be?

Condoms and contraceptive items are just like bread or any other good, they are most efficiently provided under the conditions of economic freedom. Private firms always outperform government when it comes to quality, cost and safety. Projects are usually twice as expensive when done by the government than by private firms because the latter is subject to profits and losses.

Government is not a productive entity and operates by taking (by force) money from some to give to others. So it is not actually the government that provides reproductive health products and services but a contractor of the government, a formerly private firm. The extent to which a private firm earns its revenues from the government (really the taxpayers since the government has no money) is the extent that it is not a private firm and is part of the government and therefore becomes a parasite itself on productive activity.

So the RH bill is not really about the ‘people’ but about the wishes of certain moneyed interests to become a monopoly provider of ‘reproductive health’ in order to shield itself from market competition. After all the shameful government failures we have witnessed in the past, it is imperative to consider a way of looking at the government that is different from what is taught in high school civics class. As I have said before, the government is the worst agency to use when trying to solve social problems.

Some might object by saying that private firms, as they function right now, do not cater to the poor or that the poor are not educated about such things or are too poor to buy condoms and contraceptive items. Notice the absurdity in saying that the poor cannot afford condoms when those who make this claim have seen that the poor are able to feed children. But regardless, if curbing population growth via reproductive health is really so important then for more reason we should not use the government because we know that many people are willing to fund it voluntarily. It makes no sense to force people into paying for what they already deem as important. A likely explanation for such behavior is a fear that the ‘people’ are actually not on one’s side and a desire to impose one’s values on others.

Now here lies the hypocrisy of the RH bill movement. They spend a huge amount of time and energy protesting against the Church and pushing for reproductive health services through political means but I see no voluntary collective action to distribute condoms to the poor. I only see political bickering and smug preaching of an economically illiterate position. The only way to test if a person really wants something is to make him spend his own money (the rewards of productive use of time and effort) on a venture he believes in. Effort should not be spent on trying to influence the government to impose one’s values on others (taxpayers) but on persuasion and voluntary measures such as fundraising.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that there is simply no distribution of goods in a predominantly market society like the Philippines. Only in a socialist state does a bigger population mean less resources distributed per person. Only in a socialist society is population a problem. The cognitive dissonance observed in our automatic thinking that resources are distributed (or that one man's gain is another man's loss) can be explained by sociobiology. The advocate of the RH bill must choose between capitalism and socialism before his judgments about population become even relevant. But that's another matter altogether.

Here are examples of statements by RH bill supporters along with my commentary.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Obviously you are not a woman. I wonder if you even have a mother, a sister or a grandmother. A daughter perhaps? Reproductive health is everything that makes a woman -- her vagina, her ovaries, her breasts.

Red herring fallacy, you assume that I am against reproductive health just because I am against the RH bill. One can be against the RH bill precisely because of the desire to slow down population growth by promoting reproductive health practices.

And by the way, if you don't believe in this how about sponsoring at least ten poor children in Payatas and send them all the way from grade school to college. Walk the talk.

Again, you commit the red herring fallacy. But aside from that you are a hypocrite. If you really believe in stopping overpopulation then you go to Payatas to distribute condoms to the poor. If you are tactless enough not to feel guilty of minding others’ sex life no one will stop you.

RH bill supporters also hold false philosophical views

Can you even imagine if your mother had 12 other children and you did not even finish high school because your parents can not afford it? You would even be probably wearing a toothless smile by the time you are fourteen because your parents can not afford dental and medical attention

That would be a sad state of affairs but then I do not assume that the government or society has the obligation to take care of me. The world is not perfect (although the notion of perfect is questionable) and we are all born under unequal circumstances. Trying to change the rules of nature cannot work because man is unable to go outside his relationship with reality. New rules entail rule-makers who are subject to the very rules they are trying to change. More importantly, real freedom is not about the quantity of choices but the quality. One can be born physically weak, ugly and dull but can end up a very happy person by realizing his full potential. Leftism is a dangerous ideology which propagates collectivized ethics and a victim mentality that prevent man from standing up on his own two feet and realizing that only he can improve his lot in the world.

The government provides free education. The Church does not. They even charge the most exorbitant fees and are the most expensive schools in this country.

No. Government is a parasite on the productive class. It is the government which charges exorbitant fees (taxes) for mediocre education. Catholic schools train the youth to become upstanding individuals with moral integrity. Catholic organizations used to do a lot more charity work for the poor and sick but that relied on patrons’ capital accumulation which has been discouraged by taxes and inflation.

Conclusion

We reject the RH bill even if we take the false assumption that a lower population equates to better economic conditions. We reject it on the basis that statist solutions to social problems are worse than voluntary ones.

Changing the Mainstream Concept of the Political

The word politics comes off to the anti-statist as a dirty word. The word connotes power, matters of state, control, running peoples’ lives, property expropriation. Rothbard equated politics with economic violence. Hence, consistent libertarians, adhering to the principle of peaceful relations among men, are fundamentally opposed to anything political. Radical libertarians are predisposed to despise the political and attack the views of those who follow it.

The Left and mainstream political thought, on the other hand, views politics in a very different way. Politics is human affairs, it is consensus building, it is communication. In other words, the Left ascribes to the word politics qualities that are the very opposite to what anti-statists ascribe to it. This semantic divide creates needless antagonism between the two camps. Libertarians can be more successful in airing their views if they borrow the word ‘politics’ and use it in a positive way.

Now to be sure, there is a good reason the libertarian does not have a positive view of politics. Politics is associated with the state to the point where the two concepts are interchangeable. The libertarian, recognizing that the state is really a form of organized crime, rejects this association. It is therefore the leftist, in his failure to grasp the criminal nature of the state, who is at fault.

It would certainly be wise to borrow the word politics and use it against the state. That way, libertarians can utilize the many positive connotations that come with a word which is familiar and dear to mainstream political thinkers. If it could be proven that politics, in the true, classical sense, is to be found in the market, then accusations of the market as being an anti-social force would lose teeth.

The Ancient Greeks were the first to define politics as social interaction, matters of human relations and consensus building. Plato talks of the polis, or the just city. The furtherance of justice is the goal of politics. In defining the just city, Plato speaks of the division of labor.

The Polis, Society, and Division of Labor in Book II of Plato’s Republic

Here I quote passages from Book II of The Republic where the ideal polis is presented. Plato recognizes the fact that humans cooperate not out of loving feelings for one another but because of the selfish need.

Socrates: Well, then, a city, as I believe comes into being because each of us isn’t self-sufficient but is in need of much. Do you believe there’s another beginning to the founding of a city?

Adeimantus: None at all

Plato emphasizes the value of specialization in one job. This conclusion comes from accepting the natural diversity and inequality of man.

Socrates: Now, what about this? Must each one of them put his work at the disposition of all in common --- for example, must the farmer, one man, provide food for four and spend four times as much time and labor in the provision of food and then give it in common to the others; or must he neglect them and produce a fourth part of the food in a fourth part of the time and use the other three parts for the provision of a house, clothing, and shoes, not taking the trouble to share with others, but minding his own business for himself?

Adeimantus: Perhaps, Socrates, the latter is easier than the former.

Socrates: It wouldn’t be strange, by Zeus! I myself also had the thought when you spoke that, in the first place, each of us is naturally not quite like anyone else, but rather differs in his nature; different men are apt for the accomplishment of different jobs. Isn’t that your opinion?

Adeimantus: It is.

Socrates: And, what about this? Who would do a finer job, one man practicing many arts, or one man one art?

Adeimantus: One man, one art

Plato blasts protectionism.

Socrates: And further, just to be found the city itself in the sort of place where there will be no need of imports is pretty nearly impossible.

Adeimantus: Yes, it is impossible.

Plato even realizes the radical idea that people undertake risks to fill other people’s needs. In explaining the emergence of tradesmen, he is presenting the idea of entrepreneurship and the beauty of spontaneous market order.

Socrates: Now, if the agent comes empty-handed, bringing nothing needed by those from whom they take what they themselves need, he’ll go away empty handed, won’t he?

Adeimantus: It seems to me.

Socrates: Then they must produce at home not only enough for themselves but also the sort of thing and in the quantity needed by these others of whom they have in need.

Adeimantus: Yes, they must.

Socrates: If the farmer or any other craftsman brings what he has produced to the market, and he doesn’t arrive at the same time as those who need what he has to exchange, will he sit in the market idle, his craft unattended?

Adeimantus: Not at all, there are men who see this situation and set themselves to this service... They must stay there in the market and exchange things for money with all those who need to sell something and exchange, for money again, with all those who need to buy something.

Socrates: This need, then, produces tradesmen in our city....

Socrates: Then has our city grown to completeness, Adeimantus?

Adeimantus: Perhaps.

Politics during the time of the Ancient Greeks was about human interaction and as we have seen from the text of The Republic itself, the division of labor and trade---- otherwise known as the market ---- is the central element in the polis.



A New Perspective of Politics

In order to revive and refine the classical definition of the polis as the market, we must understand a fact that collectivists try to suppress --- society is composed of individuals. The individual must be once again thrust to the center of political discourse, for the workings of society can only be understood in terms of the actions of individual men. The collectivist must work on the assumption that the individual is irrelevant. He must assume that all individuals are the same --- in other words ---- there is no individual, only an individual unit. Society, for the collectivist, has pronounced its collective will and wishes its leaders to act. By making such assumptions, they become the spokespersons of the masses and are justified in grandiose schemes to improve humanity. Politics is thus transformed into statism. Everybody is forced to participate. This arrangement makes no room for individual action, preferences and ultimately, freedom.

Take for example education. Why are so many people complaining about education? It is because everybody’s interests are pitted against one another by the state. People want different methods and content for education. Yet, there can only be one type of education. If I want to change the educational system, I have to convince 51% of the electorate of my idea before it can get implemented. This is not the same with goods in the private sector. If I want to have a mango, I go to the market and buy one. The only politics that exists in that arrangement is between me and the seller of the mango. We both benefit from this arrangement, no third person loses. Now imagine if I know of a cure for cancer but need funding and help in order to develop it. I then go and try to convince investors to risk their money for my project. I also call up medical professionals to ask if they are interested in becoming partners in my undertaking. Politics now exists between more than two persons. Realize that both investors and medical partners are involved for their own profit (or possible loss), yet the benefactors are the whole of humanity.

This is the beauty when we drop our leftist assumptions about human equality. How, again, is human inequality present here? The arrangement of the investors, inventor and partners are only among themselves, others are excluded because they do not have the desire nor the ability to undertake such a task. This is what we mean by inequality. And it is from social acceptance of this reality, and its ethical-economic implication of private property rights, that all of human achievement, creativity, and progress has come about.

With that said, our new understanding of politics must be that it is dynamic and spontaneous. We must stand aback, suspend our value judgments, and learn to appreciate the individual as he interacts with other individuals. Society is composed of individuals. There are tasks which require politics between only two individuals, and there are tasks which require politics among thousands. The important thing is that we understand that human relations are always changing. There is in the course of human affairs no certainty, no fixed arrangement. Politics is only possible if individuals have the freedom not to engage in it.


Remarks on Philosopher-Kings and Political Framework in Plato’s Republic

Plato conceived of the philosopher-kings as having to live a communal lifestyle in order for them to rule the city well. He outlined what might be considered a rather totalitarian program for the polis, advocating such things as eugenics to control the genetic quality of the citizenship and propaganda to control the mass culture. The philsopher-kings must not have any ties to family for the citizenship is their family. Their happiness must be the welfare of the constituents.

Such details do not refute our new conception of politics. Book II of The Republic clearly established that the city was complete when individuals cooperate under the division of labor. It is only because Glaucon thought it not enough and demanded a more sophisticated city. He was not satisfied with a system of political self-determination. It is from this demand that the dialogue continues and the philosopher-kings are invented to impose personal preference on how society should be organized.

Source: The Republic of Plato. Translated by Allan Bloom

Statist Superstition

The typical statist believes:

- that government can suddenly change for the better despite deeply embedded financial interests
- that government is our friend and can give us free stuff that only the state can produce
- that 'we' are really the government and we don't have to worry about abuse since 'we' can change it the next election
- that government bureaucrats carry within them both the tacit knowledge and calculative ability necessary to allocate resources to their best uses
- that taxation is what we pay for to live in a civilized society (why not raise taxes more so we be more civilized?)
- that we have no natural rights which stem from our creator but only those signed into law by high-powered strangers
- that individuals can be greedy and evil and have to be monitored but once they enter into government they suddenly turn into virtuous and selfless men
- that politics is a sane and necessary part of society and NOT a brutal circus activity
- that politicians are NOT psychotherapeautically suspect
- that political campaigns can be worthwhile to pay attention to and are NOT the longest running bullshit marathon in history
- that congressmen, whose average net worth is 30 M (in 2001) actually gives a shit about the poor
- that politicians can be honest when an insignificant percentage of campaign promises in the history of politics were actually fulfilled
- that political parties reflect the differing opinions and ideologies of the populace instead of advocating a fundamentally statist agenda
- that the system that we live in is moral
- that the Philippines is a capitalist country instead of a statist one
- that democracy is the best form of government
- that voting works
- that capitalism is evil

Jueteng, Rural Banks, Politics

http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100916-292703/Rural-bank-group-denies-laundering-money-for-jueteng-operators

The topic of the inquirer article in the link is about jueteng money being transacted by rural banks. According to Vicente Mendoza, Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines(RBAP) executive director,

“Rural banks are at the forefront of countryside development and it is not our desire to be used in jueteng activities. Rural Banks strictly comply with BSP [Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas], PDIC [Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp.], and AMLA [Anti-Money Laundering Council] regulations,”

The first issue here is the ability of rural banks to help poor people in the countryside. Rural banks are mandated to offer financial services to those whom are not served by larger banks. Given this, it would make no sense to restrict the rural banks from having a larger pool of loanable funds. By not allowing jueteng money to be deposited in rural banks through the ‘anti-money laundering’ laws, development in the countryside is forestalled.

Secondly, there is really no rational basis for such ‘anti-money laundering’ laws to exist. Even taking the assumption that government has the right to stop gambling activities of its choosing, such laws will not help to stop jueteng operations. It will only create uncertainty for the subscribers of jueteng, mostly poor people, and might even empower the black market by creating a demand in it for the handling of such winnings. Then there’s the moral problem, for ‘anti-money laundering’ laws are a heinous attack on privacy. Giving the government the power to monitor commercial transactions means giving it the power to investigate your work and even your home. Such a loose framework for the state to work on opens so many opportunities for the predatory state to abuse its power.

Lastly, jueteng as a gambling activity is in no way fundamentally different from all other gambling activities, and its voluntary status makes it immoral for the government to control or abolish it. Regardless of personal reservations upon the matter, jueteng is beneficial to those who have voluntarily subscribed to it. To quote the great one Ludwig von Mises,

“Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented.”

There are also unintended consequences in criminalizing jueteng. Like all other commodities or activities with high demand, a government ban on such activity would create a black market where violence is included in the medium of transaction. Barbarism is introduced and norms of practices of civil commerce like contracts, arbitration and knowledge sharing are removed. Government prohibitionism is a war against man’s ability to choose and since it undermines economic freedom, it is also a war against prosperity.

But then there’s the political dimension to all of this. The reason why jueteng will not be legalized, at least in the near future, is because the Philippine police and politically-connected rascals and mafia lords will not be able cartelize the profitable game. They get so much in bribes and in payoffs in keeping this game illegal and hence will fight to keep it illegal. It is no surprise that Noynoy is lenient on discussing the topic. This issue is just another reminder of the sad reality of politics and why nothing ever changes in government except when it is in the government’s interest.

Leftist Politics and Hacienda Luisita

Recently there have been talks of a compromise deal between the peasants and the legal owners of Hacienda Lusita. As it turns out, the peasants prefer stock distribution options over ownership of the physical land itself. Meanwhile, leftists all around are astounded at the peasants' decision. They just cannot fathom that the peasants would simply compromise in fighting for land that was worth blood fighting for. In other words, the leftists cannot believe that the peasants' wishes are actually different from THEIR wishes and THEIR politics.

The peasants of Hacienda Luisita just want to live in peace just like they were before the leftists came in and radicalized them, inflated their minds with grand ambitions and sinister anticapitalist sentiment. The peasants involved in Hacienda Luisita were content in earning an income by tilling a land not their own. Of course, the leftists do not understand this, for when they look at the poor peasants all they can think of is how 'exploited' they are. Society is an arena of conflict where the rich are always exploiting the poor, males are always exploiting females, whites are always exploiting the blacks, etc. In doing this they are the ones perpetuating the tension which they zealously seek to alleviate. Nitpicking and minding other peoples' business is what the left is all about. One can just imagine how self-righteous and arrogant they are to identify themselves with peasants in Hacienda Luisita and recommend politics as the solution to a 'problem' that the peasants never knew they had.

I hope the Hacienda Luisita compromise deal will be an rude awakening for leftists in the Philippines. I hope they become embarrassed in thinking that they know better than the people who actually have substantial interest in the matter. I hope they become sorry for the anguish and suffering that they have rendered unto the Hacienda Luisita farmers.

And yes, they have done harm to the peasants. Agrarian reform has done much more harm than good to the people it is designed to help. Make no mistake about it!

What are these harms done?

1. Politically-charged murders of peasants by hired assassins of the landowners
2. Mass conversion of agricultural land to industrial and residential land
3. Stagnant agricultural sector due to no additional capital investment for fear of land expropriation

But aren't I being too extreme in blaming leftist politicians and activists for something not intended by them? No! Political actions have unintended consequences.
Whether intended or not, and even if harm to the peasants was indirectly caused by leftist politics, those three enumerated above would never have happened without Marxist relgiosity infecting innocent farmers. Intentions don't matter, results do. Land reform activists and politicians should be jailed for what they have done!

The More Fundamental Issue Behind the Manila Hostage Tragedy

What happened on August 23, 2010 near the Quirino Grandstand was just the most pronounced illustration of government incompetence, thuggery and cowardice seen in a long time. To think that the bus hijacker in this case, Rolando Mendoza, was a former police and awarded as one of the top ten policemen at that, is just mind-boggling and says a lot about the Philippine government in general.

Every aspect of the tragedy from negotiations to the assault to the media to the actions (or inaction) of the president was just an epic failure and deserving of a national face palm.

The main motivation of Mendoza's hijacking of the bus centered around government in the first place. Mendoza together with other killbots in the Philippine National Police were making a lot of money out of extortion in artificial checkpoints. Mendoza felt threatened when he learned about a chef named Christian Kalaw and other victims of extortion told the authorities. So like a typical thug he went to Mr. Kalaw and falsely accused him of illegal parking and taking drugs. The indignant Kalaw demanded a drug test so the state thugs took him to the public hospital where they beat him up and made him swallow shabu before letting him take the drug test. Kalaw was jailed and only released after his fried gave P20,000 to the police.

A year later and after many dismissed proceedings, Mendoza was finally removed from his position by the Ombudsman, but was removed without due process and without his retirement benefits.

These events led to the bus hijacking on August 23, 2010. It is important to note that the hostage tragedy was the result of government 'blowback' from its own operations. First, the government for the longest time has tolerated having thugs in the police force even though corruption and brutality in the PNP is common knowledge. Second, the government acted irresponsibly by releasing this highly trained and well-armed criminal into the open, and released him hungry, that is, without retirement benefits. When you find a criminal you put the criminal in jail, you don't just relieve him of his duties. I guess it works differently in government. The quote below is taken from a respectable blog named 'Dona Victorina'.

"Before this hostage taking, I remember asking my friend in the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) why these rogue policemen were being kept on the force (they were first suspended and even considered being shipped to Mindanao). He told me it was better to keep them within the police where their actions can be “controlled.” If they are no longer policemen then, he said, they will be more uncontrollable as criminals."

And my guess is right. We cannot overemphasize the blame that the government deserves for this.

Let us now move on to the blunders of the government in handling this tragedy that it itself created.

1. The brother of the hostage-taker, Gregorio Mendoza, was denied his first request to talk to the hijacker.

2. The media televised the actions taken by the authorities in response to the crime, and gave Mendoza a tactical advantage since the bus had a television in place.

3. Mendoza's brother was shown to be arrested (and harassed) by the police on national television which made Mendoza shoot people on the bus out of fury.

4. The authorities did not acquiesce, at least partially and superficially, to the demands of Mendoza which made the struggle last for eleven hours.

5. The president, the proud protector and servant of the people, could not be contacted by Hong Kong officials and ,as if quite leisurely, delegated the task to local authorities.

The result is nine people dead (including the perpetrator) and national shame. The communists in Mindanao must have gotten a kick out of watching this event unfold on television.

Of course the likelihood of these crimes happening would be very low if people were allowed their natural right to protect themselves. That is, if they could be allowed to bear arms. Without gun control, thugs like Mendoza would think twice before entering a busload of potential gun-carriers.

But no, we have to rely on the police for our safety because guns placed in private hands runs the risk of increased crime and immorality. Only the police are responsible and wise enough to carry guns. Well apparently this thesis has been proven totally wrong by recent events.

The bus tragedy maybe represents a new high for governmental failure but the lesson that it teaches is not new: government does not work. Which is why I am still dumbfounded by leftists advocating socialist health care and socialist education in spite of all its failures in more basic tasks like defense and road building. If the government cannot do its most basic task of protecting the people, how can it do more difficult tasks.

How can the police protect society from crime and immorality if the police is itself the most criminal agency of government?

A more fundamental question would be 'what causes crime and immorality in the first place?' The answer: increased politicization of society causes crime and immorality to flourish. You expect this to happen when the power gap between the ordinary citizen and the police is so big that the police can get away with false accusations and torture . You expect this to happen when you create the largest bureaucracy in the form of the PNP. You expect this to happen when citizens are dependent sheeple living in a dream who think social change can happen by electing a new president.


Sources:

http://donavictorina.blogspot.com/2010/08/uncontrollable-criminals-in-pnp.html

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100824-288458/Bloodbath_at_Rizal_Park

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100825-288632/TIMELINE-11-Hours-of-Madness

My Heated Debate with a Statist

Statist: free market fixes everything always! not into religious dogma thanks. my beliefs don't require faith

Me: What do you believe in then? Politicians who can solve every social problem by signing a law and shooting/imprisoning people who don't comply? Government programs that require taxing you more, printing more money, enslaving your children through debt? Hoping that we can finally get the 'right' guy into office to work for us? Spending more money on programs that already have bloated bureaucracies. And you accuse me of taking my beliefs on faith?!? WTF!

Statist: gross assumption alert. believing in corrupt corporatist & political figures is not the same as believing in the capacity of people in general and society to make good eventually.

Me: I believe in people. I believe in people free to own and trade property. Free to contract, associate and disassociate, to keep the fruits of their labor. It is absurd to think that in order for people to make good we have to elect people to steal from us to spend on things that benefit the 'common good'. If you believe in people doing good then why does your system need to initiate force(taxation) to accomplish its goals????

Statist: i believe in electing ppl to steal from us? where do u get this stuff? when you're done building straw men, and just so u understand, believing that the free market is equivalent to some kind of natural force that always comes good in the end is to not believe in people per se, but in the system. That you'd be unaware of the implications of your own position is amusing

Me: Yes, taxation is robbery and liberty IS the natural position of man. Most of the social problems in the world today are the result of forced collectivization of resources and redistribution of wealth. And I never said free market always comes good in the end but am firmly convinced that it can produce the most humane society. I'm assuming your a social democrat. I was like that before until I realized how naive it is. I suggest you learn and be open minded before making accusations.

Me: Saying that I believe in a system rather than people is a fallacious attempt of evading the issue. I am sure you don't even know what your talking about when you say 'implications of the system'. You probably mean free market exploits the poor, pollutes the environment, produces bad body odor, etc. I heard all of it. Its what statists do when they run out of arguments and that typically happens rather fast. Only a free market libertarian position is logical and complies with reality.

Statist: You have no idea what position I hold since all that I have told u is that the free market most certainly does not solve all, and I'm glad u admitted as much, since it does undermine your earlier assertion of: "The best regulation is through competition". Anti-regulation = faith in the free market to do the right thing. A collection of self serving corporate heads spout this nonsense then the little man laps it up. Get the little man to fight against his best interests! Keep going

Statist: "Only a free market libertarian position is logical and complies with reality" - what if u are deluded? you gave faith in people's adherence to the profit motive eventually working out well for people and the environment. It's faith, since a heavy stack of evidence points to the contrary. It's funny that I should be having this debate with someone who's just seen the god-damn documentary. It's like when Bush goes to Ivy league school and his obstinacy protects his ignorance. Bravo

Me: Ok now you stopped giving arguments. Typical statist, you can't win through logic so they insult people. Did you know that it wasn't the 'proletariat' who first espoused socialism? It was a small group of intellectuals who were ignorant of economics. You better learn some Austrian/free market economics soon, its for your own good. Especially if you live in the US or places like Greece.

Me: "It's faith, since a heavy stack of evidence points to the contrary"

I'm guessing you think of the (current) depression or poverty of third world countries as 'heavy stack of evidence'. Again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about if you think this.

Me: "It's funny that I should be having this debate with someone who's just seen the god-damn documentary"

Seeing the documentary made me realize how hopeless social democracy is. The 'ordinary man' will never be able to control government, only those with political connections(corporations) will. The ordinary man will never get laws administered the way he wants it administered. The government passes a flood of legislation every year that serve the special interests. Socdem is hopeless.

Statist: it made u realise how hopeless representative democracy is. read up about direct democracy and how many of the problems associated with electing dictators every 4 years would disappear

Statist: u need to stop assuming and then attacking an assumption that u yourself made up. Examples of how prioritising profits over people leads to injustice: Sweat shop labourers who get paid 13c an hour to make products sold for hundreds of dollars, wage slavery, massey energy mine where umpteen miners died due to cost saving measures that excluded safety measures, Cost saving measures at BP lead to destruction of natural habitat, Monsanto selling modified crop seeds that self destruct

Statist: Pharmaceutical companies investing R&D resources in profitable but needless avenues such as male hereditary baldness, rather than curing preventable life threatening diseases in Africa. Automotive industry fought the inception of seat belt regulation on the basis that it would eat into their profit margins, Military industrial complex /war for profit, Profit incentive to dump waste product into oceans rather than pay for waste management, ConAgra selling tainted beef (lower cost)

Me: Direct democracy is what the US has in electing the president and what we have here in the Philippines. If there is one thing you learn in high school it is that the crap always rises to the top when it comes to popularity contests. Democracy is a popularity contest. You need good looks, oratory, deception, bribery to get to the top. Just google Barack Obama if you don't believe me.

Me: Sweat shop laborers earn twice what they get paid in local businesses. Miners went into that job VOLUNTARILY and knew the risks. Who are you to deny them that choice by threatening the company with fees leading them to close shop. You think BP wanted oil spill to happen? BP is biggest loser in that issue yet people like you want to pounce on them and make them pay fines in addition to damages and commercial losses. Oil spills happen due to human IMPERFECTION.

Me: Monsanto gets massive amounts of government subsidies and so does big pharma. They take advantage of unfair IP regulation. I applaud automotive industry for fighting against seatbelt regulation. Who are you to force people to wear seatbelt. MICmplex is funded by government and therefore part of government. ConAgra should pay for damages if US government respected property rights. So far you have conflated horrible things to be a byproduct of capitalism....

Me: continuation.. which is why you are against it, and understandably so. But again, you have proven that you do not believe in people, you think people are stupid by not allowing them to make choices. Sweatshop workers, miners VOLUNTARILY made that choice because they think it is better than the alternatives. You think you know better so you deny them that choice, therefore you are the one who doesn't believe in people. Labor groups in Bangladesh already acknowledge that w/o sweatshops...

Me: continuation.. young girls have no choice but become prostitutes. They do it because w/o the money, their family will starve. Americans, especially the middle class, take for granted their prosperity as a given, not knowing their ancestors had to go through that hardship. But now you know, so why do you deny these poor countries the first steps toward prosperity? I assure you there is nothing the state can do to ease this process and make it faster.

Me: REMINDER: I do not support the large corporations presented in the documentary. I am just saying that being against these corporations means you are actually FOR capitalism since they would not have these advantages(gov't franchises, subsidies, land concessions, IP laws) without government blessings. The difference between you and me is that you solve problems by adding a flood of legislation to counter the previous flood of legislation instead of repealing the legislation favoring evil.

Statist: capitalism prioritises the profit margin above people + environment. I wish u could absorb that which has been shown over and over. Sweatshop labourers could lead a more dignified existence with subsistence farming than working for 13c an hour creating things the company sells for hundreds of dollars. It's an imbalance and you don't want to see it. BP wanted to cut costs on safety measures and keep all their oil. They couldn't do both but they tried and now people + environment pay

Statist: i can't believe u tried to justify the corporate fight against seatbelts. u must really wish harm upon people rather than do harm upon your own insidious ideology. U said i don't trust people earlier, nothing could be further from the truth, since I don't trust individuals within corporations who try to externalise the cost of everything they do making the rest of us pick up the tab

Statist: The USA is ideologically a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Look to dictionary definitions. The reality however is that of corporatism.

Me: "Sweatshop labourers could lead a more dignified existence with subsistence farming". Just like I said, you think you know better than the sweatshop laborer.
"BP wanted to cut costs...and now people + environment pay " BP's oil is their property, they have the right to do what they want with it, and no, BP is biggest loser in the oil spill and you pounce on them just because you can. Sorry, but I get the impression you are one of those rich college students who is ignorant of economics

Me: Your right . America's founders intended it to be a republic but then socialist thought took over the universities and spouted lies about how democracy is the best system. So US now is practically a direct democracy. I only wish you be open minded about free market economics and stop immediately condemning people as exploiters. Do you really think I like to watch sweatshop workers? People aren't as bad as you think they are you know.

Me: The documentary actually tries to be objective. It presents the facts and doesn't try to lean on any side. The question is why did it lead you to the conclusion that corporations = capitalism so therefore capitalism =sucks? I think that's a very important question and I believe it's because you have been indoctrinated in the schools by leftist professors. Try to question authority once in awhile, you might learn something valuable. And I don't mean to offend, I want productive discussion

Statist: lol @ your continued insistence on usa being a direct democracy. lol @ your asking me to google Obama. lol @ endorsing the car industry fight against seat belts, lol @ suggesting the sweatshop worker made a valid choice in choosing to be subjugated when they're often children, lol @ "you have been indoctrinated in the schools by leftist professors" when i studied comp' science @ uni. lol @ suggesting BP's negligence didn't cause the spill. i'm not banging my head on the wall anymore

Me: Given up so early? I actually thought you had more to offer after that previous detailed response you gave. This just confirms my belief that you are an ignorant kid who prefers to point fingers. It is soooo easy to blame people as evil or greedy but hard to actually think rationally and independent of the leftist school system.


Me: Go on BOZ11, keep condemning the people who make available the stuff that you consume everyday. They who produce the gas that run your car, produce food you eat, water you drink, clothes you wear, appliances you use. Go ask the government to tax and regulate them, so that they will go bankrupt. And then YOU try to take their place and produce things. You think your so smart eh? You have the moral right to take their property eh? Well, think again cause your wrong!

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.