In Capitalism, people who create, produce and own things are able to buy, sell, trade or barter with other people in the marketplace.
In a Free Market, anyone is able to bring their offering to the marketplace. If it is a competing item with what someone else offers, both parties must up their game, offer better in the form of quality, quantity, service, support, etc... in order to continue being present and profitable in the market.
In Crony Capitalism, competitors use their relationships and connections with bureaucrats to use laws and regulations to prevent and remove competition instead of having to up their game.
It is a misconception that a Free marketplace is unethical as decried by socialists and others more interested in privilege and entitlement. The free market corrects itself over time. It need not be a limited or restricted market by disallowing potential competitors and new vendors from participating.
In fact, by allowing for open and free competition , producers and vendors become more creative. They become more innovative and motivated to continue improving upon their original offering.
Some suggest that disallowing a market presence to "outsiders" that local economies are protected and supported. Others suggest that by disallowing access to those using unethical and poor quality, service and practices, it creates a more "fair" marketplace.
Truth be told, regulations on a marketplace tend to stifle competition, make vendors lazy and de-motivate creators and vendors.
Regulations do not keep producers and vendors ethical. Government cannot legislate morality or ethical behavior. Consumers and buyers in a Free marketplace take their ethics with them. By making it clear that the buyer will not negotiate with a producer or vendor engaged in what the buyers see as unethical practices, vendors have to either change or risk being unprofitable and unsustainable in the marketplace.
The market "corrects" for unethical behavior because buyers demanding ethical practices will enforce it, not a government or bureaucracy.
The only regulatory action necessary in Free Market is that which prevents or interrupts harmful practices, materials or things otherwise known or most likely to cause actual harm via use, production, contractual or deceptive marketing.
Free Market Capitalism offers opportunity for anyone to is willing to take acceptable risks for themselves and attain what they choose to achieve. Whether it is status, wealth, or anything else.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Monday, May 15, 2017
The hidden "I" in Libertarian
I'm seeing a lot of things posted online by people referring to themselves as "Libertarians". A lot of calling out of others, heavy handed criticisms and outright verbal attacks.
There are some people who love to push the line of liberty, especially as related to the first amendment. I also note how frequently these criticisms and verbal attacks focus on groups of people and generalities.
My fellow libertarians, those who concentrate on individual application of libertarian philosophy, I ask you to consider a few things before engaging in vitriolic character assassination.
Being a person focused on libertarian philosophy, our objective is to first and foremost focus on how libertarian principles are able to be applied by ourself. I am much more concerned with how I am able to be and do with myself in my life before I get involved with how others go about their own ways.
Before I go off on another person, especially for what they do as part of a group, I want to get an idea of what they as a person, an individual, are dealing with.
It's easy to say, "All politicians are crooks.", or "All soldiers are jack-booted thugs." That does such a huge injustice to the individuals represented in those associations though. I do not believe"all" politicians are crooks. I do not believe "all" soldiers are thugs, jack-booted or otherwise.
If I am going make it public that I am libertarian, then it behooves me to understand the other individuals around me. Not just by their associations, but by their own individual thoughts and actions.
We risk, in being hasty to demonize and call out those we disagree with, losing sight of the individual themself. What is their situation? Are they being coerced, misguided, oblivious, etc...?
We don't know until we talk to each individual. It's easy to get caught up in gross characterizations. As libertarian minded people, we are obliged to consider each individual first.
Lashing out at other people without considering their individual positions only puts people on the immediate defensive. It's hard enough to carry on meaningful and respectful discourse as it is. Putting people on the defensive makes it nearly impossible.
It's fine to be critical. It's fine to call out injustice and wrongdoing. It ill serves us to make things personal and hide behind libertarianism as though it makes all things right. Being libertarian does not mean we can be offensive with some moral superiority stick shoved up our ass.
Everyone is an individual. Everyone has the natural right to be seen and treated as an individual. These are the things that I want and know. It's only reasonable that every other person says "I want", "I think", "I feel", etc... and has the right to be recognized as an individual.
I don't come down on politicians. I criticize that person who is a politician. I don't call out military service people or veterans. I call out a person who is a military service person or veteran.
There is a difference and it is well worth the effort to respect others individuality as we want our own individuality respected.
There are some people who love to push the line of liberty, especially as related to the first amendment. I also note how frequently these criticisms and verbal attacks focus on groups of people and generalities.
My fellow libertarians, those who concentrate on individual application of libertarian philosophy, I ask you to consider a few things before engaging in vitriolic character assassination.
Being a person focused on libertarian philosophy, our objective is to first and foremost focus on how libertarian principles are able to be applied by ourself. I am much more concerned with how I am able to be and do with myself in my life before I get involved with how others go about their own ways.
Before I go off on another person, especially for what they do as part of a group, I want to get an idea of what they as a person, an individual, are dealing with.
It's easy to say, "All politicians are crooks.", or "All soldiers are jack-booted thugs." That does such a huge injustice to the individuals represented in those associations though. I do not believe"all" politicians are crooks. I do not believe "all" soldiers are thugs, jack-booted or otherwise.
If I am going make it public that I am libertarian, then it behooves me to understand the other individuals around me. Not just by their associations, but by their own individual thoughts and actions.
We risk, in being hasty to demonize and call out those we disagree with, losing sight of the individual themself. What is their situation? Are they being coerced, misguided, oblivious, etc...?
We don't know until we talk to each individual. It's easy to get caught up in gross characterizations. As libertarian minded people, we are obliged to consider each individual first.
Lashing out at other people without considering their individual positions only puts people on the immediate defensive. It's hard enough to carry on meaningful and respectful discourse as it is. Putting people on the defensive makes it nearly impossible.
It's fine to be critical. It's fine to call out injustice and wrongdoing. It ill serves us to make things personal and hide behind libertarianism as though it makes all things right. Being libertarian does not mean we can be offensive with some moral superiority stick shoved up our ass.
Everyone is an individual. Everyone has the natural right to be seen and treated as an individual. These are the things that I want and know. It's only reasonable that every other person says "I want", "I think", "I feel", etc... and has the right to be recognized as an individual.
I don't come down on politicians. I criticize that person who is a politician. I don't call out military service people or veterans. I call out a person who is a military service person or veteran.
There is a difference and it is well worth the effort to respect others individuality as we want our own individuality respected.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
The Co-op vs Socialism
A co-op or cooperative is a voluntary association of people working together with a profit motive.
For example, a few local gardeners and small scale producers with chickens, cows, bees, etc... want to sell their products in a marketplace but none has the means to do so individually.
By forming a co-op, they can work together to combine all their products, share responsibilities and work, and share profits among themselves. The end result being that a need was met by voluntary collaboration as opposed to assuming risks too great for any one of the members or no one getting anything worthwhile by trying to do it all on their own.
In a co-op, there is often a financial shared investment and a labor investment as well. Co-ops are often known for the flexibility off working with "sweat equity" to allow those with less financial resources to contribute more labor or product in exchange for the value of the financial investment.
Some key concepts expressed in the co-op a the fact that it's voluntary and that it has a profit motive. That sets it apart from socialist endeavors immediately. Socialist setups are almost always mandatory participation or start voluntary and end up mandatory. The main reason is related to the not having a profit motive.
Without a profit motive for each individual participating, the incentive to fully vest oneself in the effort is limited if not lacking. History has time and again given us examples in which when given the opportunity, most people only do as little as necessary to claim their portion of the guaranteed return.
Risk and reward work together as incentives. Reward is obvious. Do the task, achieve the result. Risk is the potential. Risk not only allows for the possibility of no reward, but to tentatively relate the investment to the reward. Greater investment usually results in greater reward. However, there is a possibility that even with investigator money or sweat, the reward will no happen or will not be commensurate.
Rick influences us to invest more effort to get more reward. It also pushes us to invest more creativity and planning so that if the probability of losses become too great, it only can we work harder and/or invest more money but adapt and modify as well.
Without risk, we lose so much of all of that. We indeed may as well be automatons without risk. Socialism eliminates or dramatically reduces risk. It ensures a set minimum reward which is also all to often the only reward able to be achieved.
For example, a few local gardeners and small scale producers with chickens, cows, bees, etc... want to sell their products in a marketplace but none has the means to do so individually.
By forming a co-op, they can work together to combine all their products, share responsibilities and work, and share profits among themselves. The end result being that a need was met by voluntary collaboration as opposed to assuming risks too great for any one of the members or no one getting anything worthwhile by trying to do it all on their own.
In a co-op, there is often a financial shared investment and a labor investment as well. Co-ops are often known for the flexibility off working with "sweat equity" to allow those with less financial resources to contribute more labor or product in exchange for the value of the financial investment.
Some key concepts expressed in the co-op a the fact that it's voluntary and that it has a profit motive. That sets it apart from socialist endeavors immediately. Socialist setups are almost always mandatory participation or start voluntary and end up mandatory. The main reason is related to the not having a profit motive.
Without a profit motive for each individual participating, the incentive to fully vest oneself in the effort is limited if not lacking. History has time and again given us examples in which when given the opportunity, most people only do as little as necessary to claim their portion of the guaranteed return.
Risk and reward work together as incentives. Reward is obvious. Do the task, achieve the result. Risk is the potential. Risk not only allows for the possibility of no reward, but to tentatively relate the investment to the reward. Greater investment usually results in greater reward. However, there is a possibility that even with investigator money or sweat, the reward will no happen or will not be commensurate.
Rick influences us to invest more effort to get more reward. It also pushes us to invest more creativity and planning so that if the probability of losses become too great, it only can we work harder and/or invest more money but adapt and modify as well.
Without risk, we lose so much of all of that. We indeed may as well be automatons without risk. Socialism eliminates or dramatically reduces risk. It ensures a set minimum reward which is also all to often the only reward able to be achieved.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Inherent rights vs Induced rights
Inherent rights are those which every individual is born with. They are often referred to as inalienable and bestowed upon us by a creator source or as part of reasonable observable natural conditions. Regardless of the source of these inalienable rights, they are inherent as we begin our individual lives.
Induced rights are those created by societal incursion into individual's lives.In situations where due to societal impacts, perceived rights become expected. For example, a society makes a law mandating that everyone must purchase something. There is an Induced right to access or assisted access to that purchase.
Healthcare services have become increasingly seen as an Induced right. The government continues to make specific demands on what and how to treat certain medical issues. By doing so, there are those who insist that an Induced right to medical services now exists.
That condition only exists though because of enacted rules or laws forcing expenditure of assets and other resources related to the issue. Remove the compelling laws and you no longer have a need for the induced compliance.
This is perhaps most observable in medication and access to it. The government has decided to tell people what appropriate medicine is and isn't. Government has also taken actions to compell and coerce people into what and how to access medicines. Government has created a situation that creates dependencies.
However, speaking for myself, I have in my history been able to provide most of my own medical care. I have stitched myself or had a friend do it. I have treated wounds, burns and other concerns of various degrees satisfactorily.
I only have needed to access doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals in situations beyond my individual ability to diagnose and treat myself. Every time that happens, I am confronted by regulatory coercion to inhibit access to necessary treatment and medicine that leaves me without access or being forced to go into debt or beg assistance to comply.
The answer is not to create an Induced right to access. It is to remove that which creates the bottleneck so to speak. Change or remove the laws and regulations that create bottleneck dependencies.
Laws and regulations were made to create them, laws and regulations can be changed or removed to eliminate those same dependencies. Demanding an Induced right is not the answer, it only makes the original problem bigger.
You'll note that physicians and pharmacists are people providing a service. In the U.S. people cannot be coerced or compelled into providing services and products against their will.
Making access to medical and pharmaceutical services an Induced right essentially forces those people to provide services and products against their will and potentially at a loss. That is a form of slavery. It is illegal and immoral. It is not the answer.
The answer is not to create need for Induced rights to begin with.
Induced rights are those created by societal incursion into individual's lives.In situations where due to societal impacts, perceived rights become expected. For example, a society makes a law mandating that everyone must purchase something. There is an Induced right to access or assisted access to that purchase.
Healthcare services have become increasingly seen as an Induced right. The government continues to make specific demands on what and how to treat certain medical issues. By doing so, there are those who insist that an Induced right to medical services now exists.
That condition only exists though because of enacted rules or laws forcing expenditure of assets and other resources related to the issue. Remove the compelling laws and you no longer have a need for the induced compliance.
This is perhaps most observable in medication and access to it. The government has decided to tell people what appropriate medicine is and isn't. Government has also taken actions to compell and coerce people into what and how to access medicines. Government has created a situation that creates dependencies.
However, speaking for myself, I have in my history been able to provide most of my own medical care. I have stitched myself or had a friend do it. I have treated wounds, burns and other concerns of various degrees satisfactorily.
I only have needed to access doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals in situations beyond my individual ability to diagnose and treat myself. Every time that happens, I am confronted by regulatory coercion to inhibit access to necessary treatment and medicine that leaves me without access or being forced to go into debt or beg assistance to comply.
The answer is not to create an Induced right to access. It is to remove that which creates the bottleneck so to speak. Change or remove the laws and regulations that create bottleneck dependencies.
Laws and regulations were made to create them, laws and regulations can be changed or removed to eliminate those same dependencies. Demanding an Induced right is not the answer, it only makes the original problem bigger.
You'll note that physicians and pharmacists are people providing a service. In the U.S. people cannot be coerced or compelled into providing services and products against their will.
Making access to medical and pharmaceutical services an Induced right essentially forces those people to provide services and products against their will and potentially at a loss. That is a form of slavery. It is illegal and immoral. It is not the answer.
The answer is not to create need for Induced rights to begin with.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
The Entitlement Trap
For the most part, libertarian minded people see life as that no one owes you a damn thing. We come into this world as one person with inherent natural, God given rights. The only thing we are owed and owe to others, if anything, is to not infringe on any individual's inherent rights.
But no. There are a number of "truths" of the human condition. One of those is that we easily and often allow petty emotions and selfish concerns take over our thinking. That is what entitlement thinking really is, selfish and petty feelings.
What lies behind entitlement thinking? Greed, envy, and laziness, among others. These petty feelings make us confused and think things aren't "fair" and that if it seems like"everyone" has something we want, especially those we perceive as better off and what we are wanting is something we consider valuable, we think those things are somehow owed to us.
There's nothing new or even anything wrong with wanting more and better things. It's part of how we improve our lot in life. Those desires motivate us and give us goals to reach for.
What is wrong is thinking that we are owed those things we want and are yet unable to obtain ourselves. When we convince ourselves and try to convince others that these things should be "free" or provided to us by someone or some entity.
A truth of life... Life is not "fair". It never had been, it never will be nor is it even possible. No one owes us anything but for that which we have earned.
For me, I look at the world with no expectations of being given anything. When I am given anything, I find myself very grateful and appreciative for it. I do not expect it though.
I'm a libertarian minded person, I also have a strong appreciation for the founding documents of the U.S. particularly the Declaration of Independence. Our country is like no other country in the world because in that Declaration, it was established that our reason for being a separate and distinct country is to create a society based upon the individual as a sovereign being that is not owned or secondary to the collective.
The Declaration sets forth that our society exists as a free association of individuals. The government intended and established to recognize the sovereignty of each individual and to ensure that the collective does not determine the outcomes for individuals.
The Constitution spells out a specifically limited government to ensure a basis for states within the union to ensure that essential and basic recognition then make of their place what they will given those constitutional foundations.
Entitlement thinking has no place in a society established upon those founding documents. We are a place where we are owed nothing but the respect of our inherent rights and what we earn.
So many people are so far disassociated from that concept as to effectively be living somewhere else. We are not owed healthcare services. We are owed only the inherent right to care for our health as an act of maintaining and sustaining our right to life. Not the same things at all.
We are not owed an income. We are only owed the ability to make our own decisions and choices of what to do with our lives, our means of sustaining ourselves.
In other words, what we are owed is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less.
But no. There are a number of "truths" of the human condition. One of those is that we easily and often allow petty emotions and selfish concerns take over our thinking. That is what entitlement thinking really is, selfish and petty feelings.
What lies behind entitlement thinking? Greed, envy, and laziness, among others. These petty feelings make us confused and think things aren't "fair" and that if it seems like"everyone" has something we want, especially those we perceive as better off and what we are wanting is something we consider valuable, we think those things are somehow owed to us.
There's nothing new or even anything wrong with wanting more and better things. It's part of how we improve our lot in life. Those desires motivate us and give us goals to reach for.
What is wrong is thinking that we are owed those things we want and are yet unable to obtain ourselves. When we convince ourselves and try to convince others that these things should be "free" or provided to us by someone or some entity.
A truth of life... Life is not "fair". It never had been, it never will be nor is it even possible. No one owes us anything but for that which we have earned.
For me, I look at the world with no expectations of being given anything. When I am given anything, I find myself very grateful and appreciative for it. I do not expect it though.
I'm a libertarian minded person, I also have a strong appreciation for the founding documents of the U.S. particularly the Declaration of Independence. Our country is like no other country in the world because in that Declaration, it was established that our reason for being a separate and distinct country is to create a society based upon the individual as a sovereign being that is not owned or secondary to the collective.
The Declaration sets forth that our society exists as a free association of individuals. The government intended and established to recognize the sovereignty of each individual and to ensure that the collective does not determine the outcomes for individuals.
The Constitution spells out a specifically limited government to ensure a basis for states within the union to ensure that essential and basic recognition then make of their place what they will given those constitutional foundations.
Entitlement thinking has no place in a society established upon those founding documents. We are a place where we are owed nothing but the respect of our inherent rights and what we earn.
So many people are so far disassociated from that concept as to effectively be living somewhere else. We are not owed healthcare services. We are owed only the inherent right to care for our health as an act of maintaining and sustaining our right to life. Not the same things at all.
We are not owed an income. We are only owed the ability to make our own decisions and choices of what to do with our lives, our means of sustaining ourselves.
In other words, what we are owed is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)