Anarchy & Religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the first amendment to the constitution.  The amendment was thought necessary because when the convention was convened, the basic law a mess.  When asked what form of government was established, Franklin replied “a republic, if you can keep it...”

Immediately Hamilton and others had begun to strangle baby freedom  in the crib, So in alarm the Bill of Rights passed in 1791 in defense of freedom.  I would argue it did no good.

But it is instructive that freedom of religion is the first of four freedoms addressed in the first amendment.

The problem with the european model that was to be corrected by the american model was after the struggle between divine right of kings and divine right of pope ended with the divine right of the state, if the state was Lutheran, you were lutheran.  If Catholic, you were catholic.  if you disagreed,  life would be dicey.

That was to end in USA.  But If there is no state in which to invest a common set of standards, then whencesoever does one derive a common standard?

The deists, many of whom had a romantic understanding of eastern religion, arrived at the idea that since all religions had a common ethical foundation, then freedom of religion would provide that very common set of standards. And for those who fail to appreciate ghost stories, rational thought also brings one to the same conclusion:  lying stealing killing and so on are wrong, and to be spurned.  We could have unity by embracing diversity.

The anarchists detest hierarchy...  to be sure, hierarchy is to be spurned, since submitting to false authority denies the rest of us the good of your freedom and the creativity inhibited by submission to false authority.   

The worst kind of false authority is master over slave.  WE can arrive at slavery as a good by rational means, and slavery is forbidden in revelation (thou shalt not steal, the truth shall set you free, and to be a follower of Jesus you must give away all things, and the rich lad undoubtedly had slaves.)

We have noted that slavery has been a feature of all cultures and societies since the dawn of man.  It took 1800 years before some people began to think of eliminating it, as an imperative in light or revelation.

Similarly, it may take another 1800 years before those same Christians begin to think of eliminating the state, as an imperative in light of revelation.

In the meantime, the laity must get busy.  We abhor false hierarchy, which is immediately discerned by whether or not the organization is voluntary.  Obligatory submission is slavery lite, and to be abhorred.

There is government in skiing, and government in international letters off credit, and in the law merchant, all emerging from practice and none in relation to the state.  

It is a simple matter of fact that in life the important matters are not under the purview of the state: love, food, taste and friends. And when anarchists get together to play baseball, someone emerges as a leader, the rules of the game are obeyed, and government occurs.   This happens at all place and all times, only to be interfered with by state action.  The key is voluntary association.  

Being rational beings, anarchists are very suspicious of the claims of the religious.

But we cannot expect people to refuse to respond to the religion to which they are called in deference to a lower order activity, such as the state.  Especially those who recognize their weakness and in their pain draw liberally from the opiate of the masses.  To deny anyone to self-medicate is to place oneself in authority and defy the voluntary principle.

The american adventure in achieving unity by embracing diversity yields the result of no state, yet a common ethical foundation.   

Anarchy assures people are free to act on their conscience.  Even the rational will agree the conscience is a pupil, not a tutor, and it is like a compass which must be calibrated before it can offer correct direction.  Religion may propose standards, but like the state never Impose. the largest religion in the world, Catholicism, is a purely voluntary organization, as is Islam, Buddhism Hindus and so on.  States are not voluntary, and back their demands with violence.

A popular controversy is “gay marriage”    Setting aside the fact it crowds out the space where thinking people would ask “Is this war in Afghanistan just?” the “gay marriage “ debate is over state definitions, and being obligated to behave according to “public policy”  that flows therefrom.  With freedom of religion, each religion would define marriage for its members, making the state pronouncements on “gay marriage’ as impertinent as Jewish pronouncements on “goy marriage.”

As with all human endeavor, the cop in society is all the rest of society.  We cannot, in good conscience allow our power and will aggregated by the state in order that it fight our battles for us.  That "getting the king to fight our battles for us" is the end sought in 1 Samuel 8.  That leaves us with the involuntary servitude and submission, something abhorred in religion and reason.

The “cop” in life is all other members of a community, and their sanctions can run from rebuke to excommunication.  That may seem ineffective in the context of religion, but a killer will find his life short in anarchy.  With the state, the killer is kept alive and a constant threat.

Emma Goldman said society gets the criminals it deserves.  Too true. especially when it votes them into office.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Anarchy & Innovation - More Better Cheaper Faster

Sitting in traffic is a good time to reflect on state monopoly and provision. Time was when making a long distance call, you get a person cut in and say "I am sorry, all circuits are busy."  Comedian Lily Tomlin built a career on making fun of the the telephone lady in the 1960s, a character we all knew all too well.  We suffered under the theory, taught in law and economics schools, which the state ordered all patterns and practices, that there was such a thing as a natural monopoly, and the role of the state was to be the beneficial umpire between competing factions for access to the monopoly.

Then came the challenge from MCI, and eventually the US Supreme Court decided that the nonsense was to end, and we got deregulation of telephones, the connection of telephones to computers, and then the internet.  WE were denied the good of all that as far back as the 1950s because of nonsense state suppression of free markets.  So now we have more better cheaper faster research and communication.

And exact analogy to telecommunications is transportation.  If we were to eliminate the nonsense theory that there is a natural monopoly on roads, when it comes to transportation, we'd get more better cheaper faster.  Just like in telephones, we'd get more options for transport, it would be better transport, it would be cheaper, and faster.

But but but, there is a difference between electrons and people.  Yes, there is a difference, but in scale not kind.  We've worked out ways of moving phenomenal amounts of data down the information superhighway.

Yes, we can scale up to moving phenomenal amounts of people, by moving ahead to mag lev and whatever else may come forth in a relatively free market.  Computers can work out the mass of people desiring to get from one place to another, stadia can be built in the woods instead of inner cities, driverless trucks can be making deliveries at odd hours, innovations as inconceivable as the internet was at the advent of telephone deregulation are as latent in deregulation of the roads and transportation.

The Seattle area must have some of the worst people involved in state provision of roads because we have some of the worst traffic in the country.  And by election fraud, these people have been given another billion plus to replace an eight lane highway with a two lane tunnel.  Smart thinking.  The traffic across Lake Washington is very bad, so the Republican called for twelve lane highway, and the democrats compromised at eight.    In a free market we would get more for less, we'd be taking down bridges because we'd always be moving more people faster with less.  Only a state would call traffic jams "rush hour."  Instead of solving the problem by more slower roads, the free market would speed the traffic up, mag lev at 400 miles per hour instead of 200 miles per hour when traffic warranted it.

Now these kinds of changes and inventions and innovation, similar to what we say with the internet, would command fantastic resources and make for unimaginable wealth, depending on the system that introduced it.  In capitalism, the wealth would be concentrated on a few, in a free market it would the  widening of goods and services and those who had access to them.

But the nature of the state is to create shortages and manage people by wait times. One palpable benefit of concentrated wealth is no wait times.  The billionaire with the private jet. The people in the commanding heights have no interest in seeing such advancements because they would rather rule over ruins than serve others as just another artist.  What fun is power if everyone has access to private jets?

The City of Seattle obligated taxpayers to build and pay for a 1880s technology trolley car for Paul Allen, at a cost of about $43 million a mile, plus some $25 million landlords kicked in for their toy.  In China, they built a mag lev system, using German Technology, at a cost of $63 million a mile, all in.

So for roughly the same money, we could have 2001 technology, plus fantastic new cutting edge technological innovations.

In a free market the innovators compete on design and introduce the new idea in response to experienced problems.  Here is the first Apple computer.

wikipedia

Over time, such innovations, through constant market feedback and iterations, become ubiquitous, we get more better cheaper faster.  Here is the Apple computer, today.

Apple

I noticed this first working in small import companies, where the owner explicated how the markets work.  If you look at the USA in decline, and China on the rise, USA building toy trolleys for the individually wealthy at the expense of the workers, while Communist China builds mag lev, and then the fact that Hong Kong is under the aegis of the Communist party, one must begin to reckon that net net consumers are better of under communism than capitalism.  Now that is a false dilemma, since free markets are better than both, but between the two, the communist system seems to yield better results.

Doctors will complain that the use of technology has made the cost of medicine rise.    Only in a heavily state regulated environment does technology make costs rise.  Technology normally makes costs fall.

And by the way, for those who can read Chinese, here is a poster for one of the campaigns Chairman launched.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Anarchy and Wealth

The only force capable of preserving a thing is the force that created it.  With this in mind, let's see if we can figure out where wealth comes from.

There are two definitions of wealth, both refer to the personal, but one definition regards an individual and the other in regards to a person in an economy, or a communal definition of wealth.  The definition of wealth in regards to the individual relates to property, money, goods and services that individual commands.  The other definition is in regards to the access to goods and services a member of a community can afford.  For the individual, property is for subsistence and the means of production.

In this secondary definition, wealth is when a free market and its division of labor gives us both constant innovation in goods and services, plus the natural commodification which results in more better cheaper faster production of the most popular introductions.  We see this process to some degree when phones were unregulated to a certain degree, and the combination of phones and computers gave us the astonishing computer revolution with the internet.  If we had a similar unregulation in medicine we'd see similar advances, and our economy recover.  But that is another point made her many times before.  Cancer cures, OTC, $29.95.

People may identify themselves in terms of a unit in the sense of individual, a family, or a cooperative of some sort.  What property they have may be shared among each group, or combined in some way.

Generally when we think of wealth, our minds drift to Rockefeller, Buffett and Gates, and not to the idea of an individual's access to goods and services.  These people certainly have exceptional wealth, since the wealth at their disposal, in terms of money, property, goods and services is in excess of the natural law definition of what you earned by mixing your labor with natural resources, your property no more than the total product of individual labor, or in the case of a family or a coop, of all members.

People might object, isn't Microsoft just a big co-op?  No, the legal fiction is a corporation is a person and a co-op is a membership organization.  What's the difference?

Let's look at REI, a coop, formed in 1938 by a group of mountain climbers.  None of the founders are in management roles.  End of year 2011 REI had member equity of $581,000 and 11.6 million members, or roughly equity of about 5 cents a member.  People are generally happy with the products, and all members are owners and any customer may become a member.  REI has no lobbyists, gets no tax breaks, no subsidies, indeed paid taxes at the personal rate of 35%.  Plus it pays out a rebate each year of about 10% to its members.  REI members are the single most effective recruiter of members.

REI sells camping equipment that you can take or leave.

Microsoft has quite wealthy owners (in one sense), frustrated customers (start me up - you make a grown man cry...), subsidies, most customers are not owners, (most owners are not customers) tax exemptions, massive lobbying, perpetual lawsuits, and spins off breathtaking individual wealth.  For a very few.  And for those few, it is well worth preserving.  Microsoft pays actors to say "I'm a PC."

Microsoft sells software you are rather obliged to use since the government and big business generally use it.

But people will object, those fellows were simply the most clever, played by the rules, rules we all agree to, and created wealth for many others as well.  Capitalism at its best.

Not quite, the rules are set by power brokers, lobbyists, judges, etc, and are much admired by those who benefit by them, which means all those in the commanding heights, and all those whose sense of entitlement assures they too are not only able to ascend such heights, but very much expect to.  And then there is too the minions who attend to the status quo, and have no desire to see their portion of the landscape change.  Finally, there are those third party rent-seekers who take taxpayer money to enforce agreements between Microsoft and its customers and vendors, and also such items and IPR.

How do corporations create wealth?   By conforming to the patterns and practices established in capitalism, the Microsoft players have done very well by the state.  Did the owners of Microsoft create their wealth, or did the state?  In the particular case of Microsoft, state regulated "IPR," state specification of Microsoft on computers (and the growth of government and Microsoft correlates almost perfectly), and the 1994 Justice Department settlement, in which Microsoft agreed change its marketing practices (and slam the door on anyone else competing the way Microsoft did, or as we say, shutting the barn door after the horses are out) are three ways Microsoft depended on the state for its concentration of wealth.  Exceptional wealth is always the result of state intervention in the economy.

So lets compare Microsoft and REI.  Microsoft and the exceptional wealth in the sense of the individual, is assured in perpetuity, sustained by the creator of the wealth, the state.   And REI, well, wait.  There is no exceptional wealth at REI, only the other kind, the communal wealth.  The professional managers are paid reasonable market rates, and the equity holders each have a slice worth 5 cents.  With shareholder equity that would disgrace a Pink Sheet listing, REI is one of the soundest outfits in USA. To be sound, 75 years old, and 5 cent equity is a tribute to excellent management and the value, or wealth finely matched to member consumption.

With Microsoft, the state created the wealth and the state sustains it.  With REI the members created the wealth and the members sustain. it.    With Microsoft it is wealth in that sense individual sense.  With REI it is wealth is the secondary sense, access to goods and services universally affordable.

At both coops and corporations, management can fire employees. But here is one more profound difference: at PCC and REI, the customers/employees can fire the managers, and do.

If we were to eliminate the state, the wealth of those associated with Microsoft would evaporate given that those who "own" it now simply would not have the perspicacity to work it. It would be "adversely possessed" away.  Those whose individual wealth from Microsoft was within their means to mix their own labor, the vast majority, would be able to keep their portion.  If we were to eliminate the state today, tomorrow REI would still be selling ice axes to mountain climbers.  Microsoft would evaporate for lack of state support. The state is the force which created Microsoft, people are the force that assures REI's continuance. The only force capable of preserving Microsoft is the force of the state.

It is not envy to ask why we pay taxes to support patterns and practices in law to maintian a state that maintains the individual wealth of some individuals.  We are not advocating the transfer of wealth, at least not by the state.  Only by natural law.  Let everyone keep what they have.  Just don't make us pay for you to keep it.  All we are saying is, is give free a chance. Instead of sitting on exceptional wealth, come out and play. We already know we need no state to enjoy private property commensurate with our abilities and wealth in the communal sense, as in affordable camping equipment at REI and cancer cures, $29.95 over the counter.

The economy we have now has fallen apart, and we see the powers that be and their facade, the state, have many tricks yet to deploy.  Repudiating govt union pension liability is rather early in the options available.

It would not hurt our economy anything if the state were to put a 100% wealth tax on what it creates, that is, corporate wealth, and the individuals who derive their wealth from corporations. Let the corporations pay their "employees" ever more, and watch it taxed at the personal rate.  Let the stockholders watch management gut the company for paychecks.  To whom will they turn in plaint?  For all their talent, let them pursue self-employment, like the rest of us.

The Gates family is a heavy supporter of inheritance tax which dispossesses family property directed at subsistence and means of production.  Vast resources are directed at strategies aimed at circumventing these laws by small businesses.  At the same time, the Gates family and Microsoft has armies of lawyers to assure the the Gates wealth, in the individual sense, is in Foundations that assure the wealth is expendable on Gates whims but untouchable by the State and unavailable for the competitive market.

Sitting on vast individual wealth, we are denied the good of the competition of very talented people.  This is the real cost of capitalism, not what Joseph Stiglitz has to say.  The state is the force that created such vast individual and exceptional wealth.  We are denied the free market and internet-style innovation in such fields as medicine because of the state and the laws and patterns and practices it enforces.

We see in spite of the state what communal wealth would like like in the individual efforts of persons and co-ops.  The most revolutionary thing a person can do is start a business.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

The Tactic Of Paying In RenMinBi Yuan

A Chinese website with a business dimension is noting the rise of Chinese exporters requesting payment in Yuan (most deals with China worldwide are denominated in dollars.)

"We believe that some deals were settled in yuan, which is good for Chinese exporters to avoid exchange-rate risk," Liu said. 

In my book I explain that the importer runs the risk of currency fluctuation, so we make the payment in whatever currency the seller (exporter) names.  Then we manage the risk no with forex contracts, but with the double tactic of frequent minimum order and competing on design, not price.  With this we may find we lose money on one deal in a year due to currency fluctuation, but there are so many transactions in a year that we are safe.  The last time I lost money on one transaction in a year was 1985 when the Yen went squirrely in April and I took a 10% loss on a deal.

The article mentions most trade show deals are denominated in dollars.  With China growing in the last 30 years, a yuan peg to the dollar served China as a constant which assisted in planning.  Here again China used our foolish policies, in this case in the form of having a central bank, against us in a slick jiujitsu move.

This article signals the Chinese are reconsidering the peg, which means exporters will be asking for deals denominated in Yuan.  Back in the 1970s all trade show deals were in yuan (indeed my book shows some such contracts from then) with Hong Kong transhipping and re-invoicing in another currency.

What this means is back to the future, and you already know what to do.  It also means you have an advantage in China, because you will readily say "yes" when the Chinese propose you pay in RMBY.

The article notes the request to be paid in yuan is not well received worldwide.  It is an uphill battle for Chinese exporters.  Your willingness will put you ahead.

You can go further and explain how you manage it.  What you explain will be carried up the food chain, with you cited, which is good for your reputation in China where you are trading.

But there is one more aspect.  This may occasion the return of the letter of credit in payment.  Understand something:  If denominated in Yuan, the Chinese company will get full profits, with no hit from exchange rates. The factory has other orders too, in dollars.  If the orders denominated in dollars, over time, due to currency fluctuations, are decreasing in profitability, then the Chinese will be eager to fulfill those orders first to book the dollars and convert to yuan.  Since they will make full mark on the yuan order, it is better to delay that one, that is to say, your order.

Paying with credit cards, more and more common over the last decade, has no provision to enforcing a shipping deadline.  Letters of credit most certainly do.  So your side tactic is to effect payment by letter of credit, which has harsh shipping deadline requirements.  You are safe from delay.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Another Importgenius Drawback

An associate asks me to comment on an email he received from a law firm, whose name I'll leave out...

PIERS, Import Genius, Panjiva, Datamyne, Zepol, Trade Navigator, etc.  These data-mining and global intelligence companies are selling your company's importing data (everything on your shipping bill of lading) to your customers and competitors.  These companies are excellent resources for keeping tabs on your competitors, but your shipping information is also being compromised.  Real-time, sensitive information about your company and its shipments (like who and where you are buying form and through which ports) is monitored, sifted through, and repackaged for sale to subscribers.  

Fortunately, our law firm knows how to force CBP to keep your confidential information away from prying eyes.

My associate asks if this is possible.  The answer is "of course," and I show how in my classes.  It is simple.  In the "to order" box of the bill of lading, simply require your supplier to name the customsbroker.  That is who shows up as the importer in all of the trade data.  No tracing anything to you by the freely available trade data.

All importers know they will end up in the data.  Some care.  The ones who care do the above.  No doubt that is what the law firm is selling, that tactic.  That comes in my book or class, or free on my blog.  I wonder what the law firms is charging for that one piece of information.

In any event, as I have explained elsewhere on this blog, trade data mining is overblown, and the information used for the errant purposes is dicey anyway.  There is probably better money in specificity than in universality of trade data mining.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

"Clean Business" China Campaign

The Chinese have their own version of the BBC, a worldwide radio program which broadcasts in English and has a website to boot.  A current article laments some shortfalls in the market economy.

"Business ethics and the spirit of contract are the foundations of the market economy. However, a string of food safety scandals across the country has dominated headlines in recent years. It requires a review and self-examination by Chinese enterprises. The cost caused by lower legal compliance is very high for an enterprise," Wu said, adding that poor performance in legal compliance reflected the fact that Chinese entrepreneurs need to improve their sense of responsibility toward their employees, their customers and society as a whole.

We have the same problem with safety issues in the USA market, especially in medicine.  While ethics and contracts are foundational, what is the genesis of each?  It is in serving the customer.

It does not serve a customer to be in doubt as to the quality of the goods on offer.  China is experimenting with clean markets, with one effort being amazon.com and yelp-style internet feedback systems.  This will do more than any state regulation to achieve the goals of clean business in China.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Understanding Wisconsin and Your Pension

You do understand that the election in Wisc is not about whether or not the teachers get cheated out of their pensions.  That has been decided.  They will.  It is all about demonstrating to the world that teachers getting cheated out of their pensions is a done deal.  The message the markets get is USA is stronger financially because USA has cheated the teachers out of their pensions.  That liability is gone from the balance sheet. The powers that be are more creditworthy.


These pensions were never sustainable, it was clear back in the 1970s and it was clear politicians were just buying votes with promises, so anyone "out of a pension" is really out nothing but a bad idea.  


Of course this current iteration is just a few marginal percent of the pensions, but the message is clear, there is no limit to how much can be trimmed.


The response is to vote for unregulation and for freedom so people can make the economy grow so life is easier.

Now, the result will be across the USA, leftists and so on wills see Obama did nothing about this.  To whom can they turn?  Why......  Hillary 2012!


And Hillary will benefit as the economy benefits by teachers getting screwed out of their pensions.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Anarchy and Hong Kong

The anarchy website asks “does Hong Kong show the potentials of free market capitalism” and answers “no.”  The myth of Hong Kong's laissez-faire regime "has been disproved in academic debates more than a decade ago."  Well there you have it.  Academics say the myth is disproved.  End of discussion.  

“Given the general lack of laissez-faire capitalism in the world, examples to show its benefits are few and far between.”

Wow.  Where to start?  The world is overwhelmed with examples of what people would call laissez faire capitalism.  And they are all bad by any definition, since they include “capitalist” by definition. There are no net benefits to laissez faire capitalism, so few and far between is too generous.  If by laissez faire one means free markets, then Hong Kong is exemplary to be sure.  But exemplary of what?

Hong Kong shows -

1.  Capitalism is evil.

2. Free markets work, and they are antiseptic.

3. How free markets check capitalism.

4. Communism permits freedom to a degree never matched by capitalism.

5. That which governs least governs best.

The site notes Milton Freidman praised Hong Kong.  How come Milton Freidman is a judge of anything...?  So what if Freidman praised Hong Kong? That  doesn't mean anything.  Friedman praised freedom, did he advance freedom?

Rockefeller set up the University of Chicago. At the University of Chicago, Coase and Friedman labored together, in its school of law and economics. If Milton Freidman knew anything, Chile, would be exemplary.  The CIA gave the Chicago school a vicious puppet as leader and a carte blanche to set up a utopian society according to the “Chicago boys” aka the monetarist school.  it worked out pretty good.  For some.  For those murdered, including the legally elected socialist, not so good.  The Chicago crew got a whole country to test out its theories on, and we cannot know if socialism is better than capitalism in this case, cause the murdered the socialists.  

The Chile experiment is what Satan calls “policy laundering.”  A bad idea is taken to another country, tried out, “proven” it works, and then brought back home, ready for prime time.  Since Chile has been on USA life support since 1973, we can have no objective means of judging the experiment.  But “success” it was, as far as policy laundering.  The Chicago boys rose to new heights.

So while Friedman may admire Hong Kong, he has no theory to replicate it, nor even understand it.  The Chicago school of economics version of capitalism requires murder, overthrowing governments and subsidies.  Then it works to some degree.  The republicans are big believers in the Chicago school, and Obama has signed on, or at least is doing as he is told.

Now the anarchists argue the “aha” of Hong Kong is there are no property ownership (something they mostly deplore, with the exception of Spooner, who I quoted yesterday, and a few others.) referring to the fact that there was never private ownership of the real estate, per se.

And to say there is none is a tad misleading.  Since 1997 handover, the Chinese Communist State owns all of Hong Kong, except for St. John's Cathedral and its lands.  Well, Stalin left an Orthodox Church operating in Moscow.  Communists like to hedge their bets.

Prior to 1997, the history was Hong Kong Island was ceded in perpetuity to the UK in recompense for losses endured in the Opium War, a token grant of a watering hole.  It wasn’t until about 50 years later that the UK got  a 99 year lease on Kowloon and the new territories, which is what we call Hong Kong today.  So we are talking about an Island that the UK owned, and the mass of land that the UK leased from China.  Yes, there was no ability really to “own” private real estate, although some did, because the UK auctioned off property and subleases, which in any event never amounted ot more than 5% of modern Hong Kong.  Or in other words, 95% of Hong Kong is still undeveloped.  And the highest concentration of people in the world.  Which makes you wander about “overpopulation” talk, but that is another discussion.  (Singapore is free and independent, and there too only about 5% of the land is developed and the govt owns the land.  Maybe it's a Chinese thing.)

So there was never really any need or point in private ownership of land in Hong Kong, and in any case with the communist takeover it is out of the question, although China is letting Hong Kong continue its gig until 2047, when Hong Kong will take over China and Taiwan.

Britain gave up its ownership of Hong Kong Island in 1997 to China since it is rather worthless without Kowloon, except for the CofE cathedral, likely because its relations with Rome are a template the Chinese Communist leaders find admirable.

So real state ownership is sui generis, not indicative of anything. on the Kowloon peninsula, and all makes for unusual circumstances.

Any example extent has problems.  To make a case about anarchy, we need to look in spite of “government ownership of the land (Hong Kong is a communist enterprise)”  how does anarchy do in Hong Kong.  Very well, by all measures.

Yes money is issued by private companies. And mass transit is owned by private companies.  Yes, the govt is huge investor, but they have to put their fully funded pension dollar somewhere.  So why not in mass transit companies, a safe bet.  

There is no place on earth where free markets are extant.  What is good in Hong Kong is the vast majority of human interaction is free market.  What is wicked in Hong Kong is small and state provisioned.

And if you’ve never been to Hong Kong, one probably ought not try to dig it.  The anarchists missed the fact that, until the Communists took over, within the relative free markets of Hong Kong, there was ALSO a 100 plus year continuous total anarchy experiment called Kowloon city.  No need to guess how things would work, or surmise we need A New Man or some certain elements dead, Kowloon City was anarchy in action, no state, no defended borders, quite profitable, peaceful, and too short lived.

Like all free places, Kowloon City was accidental.  When China leased Kowloon to Hong Kong, the China maintained a garrison (Kowloon City) for purposes of some security. When the Qing fell in1911, Kowloon City was abandoned, although still Qing property.  It was a stateless zone.  It began populating with people who preferred to live stateless.  When the communists took over in 1949, Taiwan claimed it as theirs.  Sticky business, what.  So the british just took a hands off policy, as in “it’s not ours.”  By some legal fiction is belong to Taiwan, located in Hong Kong, which had a 99 year lease payable to the Red Chinese.  Accidental, in the theological sense.  Unique in history and place.

Kowloon City hd a bad reputation, but that is largely because it had no PR.  A blond English woman could move in free of fear, and did for 20 years.  

It was totally voluntary society.  Anyone could leave, and in fact many worked outside the city.  But no officials from the outside were allowed in.  No cops.

It was not allowed to expand out to accommodate all the people who wanted to live in anarchy, so it built up.  Straight up.  When I first saw Bladerunner, the city Ridley Scott portrayed looked very familiar. And it accommodated the extreme of humanity in one place.  No need for a New Man, no need for enlightened child rearing procedures, just raw freedom.

This is a better thing to note about Hong Kong, and to study, with a view to what really happens when people are free. We have to rely on histories now, because before China would take over Hong Kong, it required Kowloon City be leveled. It is now a lovely park.

The century long experiment in anarchy came to and end, by state decree.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

The Greek Non-Problem

Tales of pending woe are being pushed out over state press to terrify the people to stick with capitalism.  Now it's export guarantee companies pulling out of the Greek market!  On no, we are nearing the end.  Vote for more socialism.  Note how very similar the two articles are.

The Greeks invented the credit check, and if your company is credit worthy, you don't need no stinking import-export payment insurance.  There is also the letter of credit.  This "crisis" is bogus.

Yes, Greece is on the wrong track.  No, more of the same will not help.  No, more socialism will not help.

The solution for Greece is the same for Iceland.  Repudiate the debts.  Unregulate the economy. Return to free markets.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Lawyers Hail State Harm To Small Businesses

The state has picked a winner by requiring windfarm equipment importers to put up a huge bond in anticipation of USA making anti-China tariffs large and discouraging.

The preliminary finding in favor of the WTTC “is undeniably a positive event,” said attorney and Wiley Rein Partner Dan Pickard. “This determination by the Department of Commerce is now going to trigger a deposit requirement for anybody importing wind towers from China.”


These things are usually installed by small businesses which will not get the work.  The funny thing is, the USA companies, all heavily subsidized by the state, are asking for Chinese companies to be punished, because they are all heavily subsidized by the state.

So we all pay higher prices while welfare queens battle it out.  A free market is a better way.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Anarchy & Property Rights

I’ve given quick definitions of anarchy before, if only to guide people away form the “bomb-thrower” image the name conjures up, and toward a right definition and thus an appreciation for an idea one might otherwise miss.. 

Here is a website that does dismiss the bombthrower image, and explicates the views of very many writers on anarchy.

Although this site is generally very good, it seems to cover some aspect from different points of view, and they have Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Chomsky among many others.  In some ways it gets some elements wrong, but maybe that is just being comprehensive in reporting.  I’ll break this into several critiques.

What happens in capitalism is by means of usury always and rents sometimes is exploiters aggregate enough money and power to buy the commanding heights and establish patterns and practices in laws that ever aggregate more power unto themselves.  Just so.  Given this, the bugaboo for socialists is property, rents, profits (which I'll deal with later.)

I think there are some elements that must be in place when discussing an alternative in patterns and practices to what we have now, what generally call capitalism.  If one is to suggest an alternative, it must be something working right now, or is well documented as to having worked at some point.  It must not require a new man, or some men being eliminated.  And it must no require force or fraud.  With that in mind, let’s look at property under anarchy.  Here is a definition:

This is also the case with individualist anarchists whose defence of certain forms of property did stop them criticising key aspects of capitalist property rights. As Jeremy Jennings notes, the "point to stress is that all anarchists, and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege." He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of individual labour." ["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 132] 

This definition is not so much prescriptive, as descriptive.  It is the line at which the community will defend your ownership, because it is the line at which your ownership benefits the community.  Your home, your workshop, what land and resources you have mixed with your labor, is defended by the community because it benefits them that you "own" them.  Your restaurant makes a mean corned beef and cabbage.  You are loved enough to where you are secure in your property.

Rents are an interesting problem.  Say I develop a business renting sailboats on a sunny day. Most days people do not want a sailboat, on sunny days they do.  Few people want to own a sailboat.  So they are happy to rent one on a sunny day.  In this way the community will back a sailboat owner of 200 boats who rents them out on a sunny day.

Now take a landlord with 1000 units.  He is not renting to “frictional” homeless, people who are in transition and just want a place for a few months, or an inn, he is building long term housing, renting it and aggregating power slowly but surely.  

Now some people stop paying rent.  The begin to adversely possess his property.  Since there is no state, there are no laws against people not paying rent, and this fellow cannot depend on you and I to pay for a sheriff to help this landlord with his problem.

So the landlord appeals directly to you and me:  help me evict this person who has not paid rent.  You and I consider the aggregate wealth of this landlord, and should we decide we are uninterested in his plight, the landlord will lose his excess ‘wealth” by adverse possession, a means we have alive and well in our law presently.  Presto land reform, ongoing, incremental, constant.  The build up of exceptional wealth and exploitative power is checked in natural law.

Well how will we ever get the economies of scale to get the mass purchasing power of “big biz” commodities?  People will combine their private property to create co-ops.  It will be impossible for one person to own 1000 coffee shops, because he cannot possibly mix his labor with 1000 stores, but it will be possible for there to be 1000 coffees shops, or a co-op with several hundred owners.

I am a life member of PCC and REI, both co-ops, and I would be a member of group health if it offered medical care, but since it has signed on to the capitalist definition of medicine, I don't thing there is anything within its walls that could benefit me more than the alternatives widely avaialble.  Credit unions have been regulated into corruption.  But in spite of the disease of capitalism that permeates our economy, we see clear working examples of businesses big enough, without exploitation, to serve our needs.  All of the members of REI own REI,  All of the members of PCC own PCC.  both are voluntary organizations.  A natural elite rises to lead the org, and the rest of us just ruminate on our organic groat cakes and wash it down wih kefir.

We see within capitalism anarchy is already in place.  We just need to clear away the wreckage and let a more natural economy arise.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Breathless Vatican Reporting

Scandals!  Rocking! Vatican!

During his weekend trip to Milan, the pope has made no reference to the affair, which began in January 2011 when an Italian television show first aired leaked documents alleging cronyism and corruption in the Vatican.


Probably because it is of little concern, inasmuch it is of little import.

The pope made no mention of the leaks scandal but spoke of the damage to family life that modern society can inflict.


Maybe the pope talks about things that matter.

"The one-sided logic of sheer utility and maximum profit are not conducive to harmonious development, to the good of the family or to building a more just society" he said.


Just so, and anarchy would be the way.

And another headline tells us a missing girl was kidnapped for Vatican-associated sex parties...  with absolutely no evidence.  This is how the state press goes after you if you are anti-war.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Making Money Without Intellectual Property Wrongs

Free markets neither make saints of people, nor require a “new man” be developed in order for free markets to work.  Free markets assume people are people, and govern themselves by declining oxygen to those who would exploit others.  It is the way before the brigands, the state, and how the world operates anyway.  You have an edge when you realize this.

In his autobiography, Frank Zappa complained of how “intellectual property rights” resulted in he being ripped off.  A record pressing outfit would take an order for 2000 albums from the company that managed Zappa’s “intellectual property rights.”  The record presser is told to press 4000, with the balance used as currency for all sorts of benefits. Zappa's royalties were half what they should be.  So you need lawyers to get a contract, then lawyers to sue for breach of contract.  Another version is when a record presser gets and order for 5000 and the record presser might earn $1 an album, the record company gets $3.00 from the stores for overhead (including Zappa’s 50 cent royalty) and profit, and the retailer gets say $6.00.

Well, the record pressing company actually presses 6000 copies, and 1000 at $2.00 each go to Vinny who has some stores he owns where he sells them for $6 too.  The record presser and Vinny both do better by cutting the record label out of the deal.  The alternative is a pressing company gets ahold of pirated master plates and presses extra on the sly.  Either way, with intellectual property rights and its rationale as a sinecure for lawyers and not a benefit to artists, we end up with this kind of “black market” activity.  (In the free trade “black” means good, with the state “black” mean bad.)  But the essence of this activity is really the more rational and just way to do business, we we’ll see below.

But the present system of “intellectual property rights” is designed to maintain this chaotic milieu.  If “intellectual property rights,” an oxymoron if ever there was one, was properly labelled, artists would object.  And because of this “cheating” mentioned above by market actors, we taxpayers have to fork over money to pay the state to protect Bill Gates’ assets and “intellectual property rights.”  We are taxed to fund chaos.

We see a better way in free markets.  An artist comes to a presser and says I need 1000 copies for my market, what is my price?  The presser says $1.00 each.  The artist says very good, and sell all you want to anyone else for $1.05 each, and the 5 cents extra on all of the others you sell is mine.  In this way the artist makes money on the market the artist knows, and makes a nickel on each record made for the market someone else knows.  Everyone is retail at about $2.50, with little room to cheat. Of course there is no money for pointless overhead, such as under this system, there are no outrageous expenses (lawyer fees etc) to warrant going around this arrangement.

In time, artists may begin to have the presser be the distributor too, we we see with Amazon.com and Createspace.com.

It is an example of social conditioning that people ask “Why would the presser do this?”  “How would you verify this?”  People are socially conditioned to believe in a false dilemma: the state, or chaos.  Both questions have one answer:  because the presser wants more business.  In a free market, it is reputation, not contract that matters.    Breaking contracts may hurt your reputation, but it is reputation that makes or breaks you.  The presser wants more business.  The presser wants the most business, and the biggest artists.  For the presser to “cheat” on his word, in the village that is the music industry, would ruin his reputation.

As we scan our economic landscape, we see Monsanto, Shell, zombie banks, cafe shooters, out of control education costs, autos of whimsical reliability, brutal health care, all protected by contracts.  We are obliged to work with people we’d rather not, but have no choice, due largely to “intellectual property law.”  If we had freedom of association, and not obligation under asymmetrical contracts, we would not have these odious provisioners of limited value.  We’d have competition in goods and services based on reputation.

We do not know about these alternatives in USA because we have a government controlled press and no free markets.  In places where free markets exist, these kinds of arrangements are common.  And that is why such places as Hong Kong, although with a more diverse population than the United States and far less resources, polyglot and competing private companies issuing the currency, Hong Kong has a higher per capita income than its former master, the UK, and equal to USA without USA’s resources.  Today only communism allows such freedom, capitalism has no version of Hong Kong.  Very strange, but there you have it.

Because Steve Jobs was a brilliant free market thinker, he sorted out the problem of online downloads while the legal profession was using federal laws to sue 14 year old girls and unwed mothers.   The lawyers actually dusted off a provision in the law which had not been used in our entire 220 year history: if an end user has a copy, they too can be prosecuted.  What is it about scaring 14 year old girls (ooops, sorry, 12 year old girls) that so attracts intellectual property lawyers?

Jobs cared not a whit for intellectual property rights, except to the end that their tedious existence is something one must play against (and certainly, Jobs too has an army of IP lawyers, to counter all the other armies of IP lawyers.  When a second lawyer moves to a small town, legal billings soar, peaceable people become enemies, families atomize.)

Jobs solved the problem both the customers and artists were experiencing: downloading a clean version of a song, easily and quickly, as a free market transaction. When I go to iTunes to buy a song, I am paying 99 cents for the convenience of buying a song to play on my machine, which I bought from Apple, because it makes all of the benefits of the internet very easy to access.

The fact that itunes gives some money to the song “owners” is of no concern to me, I am just happy with the system that delivers me this convenience.   The system they developed and own costs something, but here again, it is worth 99 cents a pop to me. Jobs pays artists so he can have something on offer to download.  I pay Jobs because he offers what I want at a price that I am willing to pay.  While RealNetworks puzzled over the role of intellectual property rights and how to game the system by parking disgraced politicians for government contract money, Jobs was designing what was needed, without a thought of IPR.

The internet has introduced nothing new to our lives.  It has only made communication and research easier, faster and cheaper. That is a difference in scale, not kind. We had communication and research before the internet. The expansion of scale is huge, but if you think it has done anything else, stop and reflect.  Billions have been wasted by people who have a hypothesis that the internet is more than that, and they proceed to destruction without first testing the hypothesis, which costs nothing to do.  Especially now that we have the internet.

The reason I make this point is what Jobs did is nothing new.   He just applied what he already knew about free markets to something that was nothing new, communication and research, the internet.  While the venal lawyers representing artists and their “intellectual property rights” where negotiating “royalty payments” Jobs was negotiating a price at which artists would flock to him with their work.  Intellectual property rights or no: no songs, no ipod sales.

On the other hand, intellectual property rights or no: best artists, more ipod sales.  With the internet, all artists do better by going to Apple iTunes (and now books, etc.)  While the lawyers bill for fantastical sums to the artists for providing completely illusory services, Jobs is making countless unknowns rich and famous.  Lawyers depending on the argument post hoc ergo propter hoc.  The sun rose because the cock crowed.  Maybe, just maybe, artists would have gotten the same deal from Jobs without the lawyers.  

Well, we know this is possible, because it happens all the time.  Countless artists work directly with Apple, no lawyers needed.  And they get the same deal, without the billings.  Both Prince and publishing's version of Prince, Seth Godin, have abandoned traditional publishing and IPR model, although they game it, as we are all obliged to do.

Let’s pick something else to whimsically name “intellectual property rights.”  Let say color falls into that legal boundary.  Let’s say the people who think up new colors (there are such people) can patent such things.  Then we’d need companies contracted to control the distribution of the colors.  Home Depot and other companies would have to pay a royalty for using the color.    Not only would this be more paperwork for Home Depot, the color distributor too would need a staff to process all of the billings on color.  The end-user is paying for all of this.  Plus, tax revenue would flow to the state employees who are tasked with enforcing “intellectual property rights,” because with this pointless overhead, some people would cheat to get to a more rational price in a black market. Nice!

No, there is no patent regime for thinking up color.  But color is extremely important in so many ways.  In every art supply store there is a display for Pantone Color Matching System.  With color so important, and a free market in color, some people make money solving the problem of achieving reliable color in production, without any intellectual property laws. And, while in the USA markets of limited freedom we have mere displays of color options in stores, in Hong Kong there are entire stores devoted just to color.

While a store devoted to color thrives in a Hong Kong, we in USA instead get war.  It is a choice we have made.  In the United Soviets of America WalMart thrives, in Hong Kong it failed spectacularly, no amount of money could sustain it.  In relatively free markets businesses built on exploitation fail for lack of oxygen.  Progressives claim to love color and art, and spurn Walmart.  But progressives would never permit free markets, or do without regulators.  For the support of the progressives, we have Walmart and war.  Any change and they would lose their sinecure.  As long as NPR is touting the Occupy Movement, they have their easy listening.

We are socially conditioned ot accept this madness. Steve Jobs had no use for intellectual property rights, but he understood the lethal violence the state brings on those who refuse to submit.  There is no need to die for freedom.    Simply look at how the game is played, and adjust accordingly.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Grilling From A Progressive

Papa don't take no mess!

On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:35 AM, A.M. A. wrote:

A vein I try to avoid as much as possible....the bourgeoisie, guilds, etc., arose during and after the demise of feudalism, yes?  

***Rose again, like they did so many times before.  History did not start with Marx, although he thinks so.***

So, what makes you think the new rulers of the manor are going to tolerate your free market..har,har,har...self-employment shenanigans...

***They never have, they never will.  I am not working for them...***

especially when all your money is on their chip.

***I am not sure what this means..  money comes from state action?***

 Cover this one for me.  

***When I understand the question better...***

So....how do you want your martini?  Or...run that by me again...your dad did WHAT to you?

***Neither shaken nor stirred...   Papa beat the hell out of us...! (It's live and James overwhelms the technicians...)***

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post