Why Should We Tolerate Bad Government?

(From the archives - January 9th, 2006)

If you hired a private security firm to protect your possessions, and they failed to do what they had promised, what would you do? And what if that security firm demanded huge and ever increasing amounts, which they used for purposes that brought no nett benefit to you?

Would you terminate the contract? Would you look for another firm you could trust better? Would you tell your friends about their misconduct? Would you warn people not to deal with them? Or would you just continue paying up, year after year after year, until they have drained you dry?

Suppose, again, that you hired a private security firm to defend you and your freedoms against violent aggressors. Suppose, then, that a violent aggression happened, that took many lives. Suppose, too, that the security firm had culpably failed to act on the warning signals before the attack. And perhaps even, by their deeds, had encouraged the attack?

Would you sue them for negligence? Would you vow to make sure that they are never again allowed to peddle their less-than-worthless wares? Or would you accept them putting more and more restrictions on you, in the name of protecting you against future attacks? Would you accept them killing the very freedoms you had hired them to defend?

If you hired a security firm to protect you, and they did lots of things that weren't in the contract, what would you do? Particularly if a lot of what they did was hostile to you. Like, re-distributing your earned wealth to others? Trying to ruin your career? Draining the economy? Pressing for any busybody agenda that might bring them an excuse for more power over you? Hemming you in with whatever bad regulations they decided to dream up, often supported by arbitrary limits to make it easier to catch you out? Taking away your rights to enjoy the pleasures you have earned? Putting obstacles in the way of your progress? Spying on you? Stopping and searching you on a whim? Treating you like an object or a number, instead of as a human being?

What if, on top of all that, they did things that no civilized human being would ever do – like murdering innocent people, and covering up what had happened? What if they acted like the very criminals they were supposed to be protecting you against?

And what if they tried to excuse their actions with lies and rationalizations? What if they took noble-sounding ideals – like health, safety, security, the environment, fighting poverty – and set them up as idols, fraudulently making them out to be higher causes that overrode your rights as a human being? What if they tried to scare you, or to manipulate you through propaganda, into believing that what they were doing to you was for your own good?

Would you – beyond suing them for damages, of course – press for harsh criminal penalties against them? Would you censure them for their uncivilized acts? Would you reject their lies and dishonesties, and encourage others to do likewise? Or would you stay silent, and accept their felonies, their ruses and their excuses?

If you hired a security firm to defend you, and they tried to arrogate to themselves rights to do things they denied to you – for example, that their operatives may carry guns, but you may not – what would you do?

Would you point out that you are their subscriber, not their subject? That they are supposed to be your servants, not your masters? Would you make it clear that the only right you have delegated to them is a part of your right of self-defence? Or would you kow-tow to them as if they were a superior species to you, and had rights to do things you didn't?

If you hired a security firm to defend you, and they claimed a right to make armed assaults on other security firms and their subscribers, what would you do?

Would you tell them, in no uncertain terms, to concentrate solely on what they are supposed to be doing – defending you and your fellow subscribers? Or would you encourage and support their assaults, with the deaths and maimings of innocent people they would cause?

If all the security firms in your area got together and formed one huge, lawless cartel, how would you view them? If they purported to compete and to offer you a choice, but in reality were all just part of the same cartel, offering no choice at all, what would you do?

Would you reject their charades? Would you refuse to take part in any scheme that gave them an illusion of legitimacy? Or would you dutifully express a preference for one or another of them? Would you put it on the record that you are satisfied with what the cartel have done and are doing to you? Would you signal your approval of their aggressions, thefts and frauds against innocent people? And would you ask for more of the same?

Do not today's political governments do all these bad things to us? You bet they do. And more. So, I make explicit the question: Why should we tolerate bad government? And I give you my answer. We shouldn't.

More generally, why should we tolerate bad politics? Why should we tolerate a system that is so corrupt, that it cannot produce any government that is anything other than bad? A system that, far from rewarding bullies, thieves and fraudsters with the criminal punishment they deserve, elevates them to positions of power? A system that, far from delivering to human beings the peace, freedom, prosperity and justice we deserve, instead fans wars and conflicts, harasses us, impoverishes us and treats us as less than human?

And I give you my answer again: We shouldn't.

Ah, you may say, I agree with you. But what can we do about it? How do we change things, so governments work for good people, not against us?

For today, I leave answering that question, dear reader, as an exercise for you.

But What If It Isn't True?

(I found this one in the Rhymer's archives. It comes from June 2009 - pre-Climategate. But, with a certain gab-fest coming up in Paris, it's very relevant today.)

They tell us there’s global warming,
They tell us that we’re to blame.
They tell us to cut emissions,
They want us to give up wealth.
But, power is habit-forming,
And lies are a route to fame.
So, why should we trust Green visions?
They don’t care about our health.

We all have already suffered,
Bad green laws, and taxes too.
They’re taking away our birthright!
They don’t want us to be free.
Yet one thought comes through, unbuffered:
“But what if it isn’t true?”
Of course it ain’t. So, be forthright,
And speak truth and honesty.

How to Identify the Humanity Haters

(Another one from the archives - October 4th, 2005. Almost exactly 10 years ago.)

Sixty-six and some million years ago, dinosaurs ruled the planet. Some of them, like tyrannosaurs, were big and violent. Others were big, slow-moving herbivores. Whichever way, they had dominion over the Earth.

Then came a change. Whether it was a change in the global climate, or an asteroid hit, or something else, we do not know. But the dinosaurs died out. And smaller, more dynamic species suddenly found the world more encouraging. So they began to thrive.

Today, I think, we are in a weirdly similar situation. Big political states, with their institutional violence, theft and fraud, rule the world. Big vested interests, quangos, pressure groups and mass media have power too. Meanwhile, big, staid companies lobby for favours. The small – the individual and the small company – are not respected at all. Today's political system is not helpful or encouraging to us human beings.

But there is change in the air. There's a Renaissance coming. Whether it will happen by change in the mental climate, or by some event which moves large numbers of people suddenly to understand what is going on, or some other way, I do not know. But…

Today, I'm going to identify the dinosaurs. But no, that's not quite accurate. I'm going to identify the humanity haters, that today form the backbones of the tyrannosaur states and other big dinosaur organizations. And I'm going to contrast them with the good guys.

To do that, I must begin with some very general comments about how human beings should relate to each other. First, it is wrong to be malicious, aggressive or dishonest towards others. This is reflected in the institution we call criminal law. Those that maliciously cause harm, or use aggression or fraud against civilized people, deserve not only to be made to compensate their victims, but to suffer punishment in addition.

Second, if we damage others through negligence or irresponsibility, we have an obligation to compensate them. This is what civil law is about. It is about restitution for damage or for nuisances.

Third, we should trade with others. We should offer what we can to others, as long as they provide us with what we see as equivalent value in return. There's a long-standing human institution which supports this, too. It's called the free market.

Fourth, we should try to create as much value as we can. In particular, we must make every possible effort to put in more than we take out. There's supposed to be a human institution to support this as well. It's the system by which individuals' rewards, over the long run, are in proportion to how much good they do. An imperfect version of it used to be called laissez-faire capitalism.

Fifth and last, we should be benevolent towards our fellows – that is to say, those who meet their obligations towards us. We should respect them as individuals. We should respect their rights. We should never intentionally let ourselves become a drain on them. And we should do what we can to help our fellows if they are in need through no fault of their own.

Civilized human beings measure up to these basic human obligations, or at least strive to do so. There are, however some that fail to make the effort to meet these obligations. They may, for example, fail even to try to be productive or constructive. They may be a drain on or a nuisance to us. They may violate our human rights. They may be aggressive, malicious or dishonest. Or they may want to pervert law and justice to their own ends. These are not our fellows; they are our enemies. They are humanity haters.

Within the tyrannosaur states and the large dinosaur organizations, you can find many different subspecies of humanity haters. I will describe some of them for you.

First on the list are the Bullies. If you think of the humanity haters as like a soccer team, then the Bullies are the strikers. I don't need to tell you what Bullies do; look in the dictionary. But it's worth noting that there are two types of Bullies, active and passive. The Bully (Active) is the shock troop, while the Bully (Passive) helps him and eggs him on.

Behind the striking pair, there is the Killjoy. I don't need to say much about what Killjoys do, either. But there's something definitely wrong with those that want to deny others their earned pleasures.

Playing a little deeper, there is the Guilt-tripper. Guilt-trippers are those that try to make us feel guilty for just about anything. If we drive to work rather than walking or taking public transport, for example, or if we don't give lots of money to charity. You have to wonder, though, why are Guilt-trippers so obsessed with guilt? What are they hiding?

Predominantly on the right side of the midfield, is the Meddler. Meddlers like to force us to live the way they want us to, without regard for our individuality. They love to snoop, to intrude, to interfere, to restrict. Regulation for regulation's sake is their favourite pursuit.

Predominantly on the left is the Envier. Enviers hate success, most of all when it has been honestly earned. They hate excellence. And they share the Killjoys' hatred of anything fun.

Behind the Meddler is the Waster. Wasters like huge projects that consume enormous amounts of our resources, without delivering us corresponding benefits, or indeed any benefits at all. They just love wasting our wealth, particularly when some of it finds its way to them.

On the other flank is the Thief. What Thieves love to do is steal and re-distribute our wealth, to finance the schemes of the Bullies, Enviers, Wasters and the other humanity haters.

In central defence are the Obstructor and the Stop-the-Worlder. Obstructors love to put obstacles in people's way, to make our lives more difficult than they need be. Stop-the-Worlders are even more extreme. They hate change. They hate dynamism. They hate progress. The enviro movement, for example, is full of Stop-the-Worlders.

Last, I introduce their captain and goalkeeper – the Rationalizer. All humanity haters are, to some extent, Rationalizers. All mainstream politicians, in particular, are Rationalizers. They claim to care about us; they try to avoid openly showing their hatred for us. They try to make out that whatever it is they are doing to us is for a good cause. For example, health, safety, security, sustainability, improving the environment, fighting crime, helping the needy, eliminating poverty.

But once you start to see these rationalizations for what they are, it becomes increasingly easy to reject them. When you hear a policy proposed that is claimed to be a benefit to people, ask yourself two questions. One, is this an objective benefit to me as an individual? And two, is it a benefit to honest, productive, civilized human beings in general? If the answer to either question is No, you have caught a Rationalizer in the act. You have identified a humanity hater.

And, if you wonder why just about everything today's political governments do seems to be, as one wag put it, "spending a lot of our money while tightening the screws of tyranny a little bit further,” you need wonder no longer. It's because they're a bunch of wasters and bullies. And rationalizers too, of course.

Ask yourself: Who needs the humanity haters? Who needs bullies? Who needs killjoys or guilt-trippers? Who needs meddlers, enviers, wasters, thieves, obstructors or stop-the-worlders? Who needs rationalizers? Why don't we just dump the dinosaurs? Why don't we just reject and ostracize those that don't even try to meet basic human standards like peacefulness, honesty, economic productivity and respect for justice and human rights?

Well, one problem is that a lot of people are still fooled by their rationalizations. So we still have work to do before we can simply shrug them off our shoulders. We have to persuade good people – eventually, very many good people – to see the humanity haters for what they are.

Another problem is that those that hate us have guns, and we don't. But that probably will not matter. Tyrannosaurs had lots of teeth; but that didn't help them. Nor, I believe, can weapons ensure the survival of the tyrannosaur state or the other dinosaurs that depend on it. A dynamic as big as what is happening today – in essence, a re-evaluation of the human condition, the rise of a bottom-up, individualist view of life in opposition to the old top-down, collectivist view – will not be deflected by a few million bullies or by their bullets.

In the meantime, let's do what we can to amuse. In describing the humanity haters, I used the analogy of a soccer team. So let's see what kind of team we could put up against them.

We might have the Lover of Honesty, to outwit the rationalizer. The Lover of Peace and our captain, the Lover of Justice, to defend against the bullies. The Lover of Freedom to tackle the meddler. The Lover of Happiness to mark the killjoy. The Lover of Dynamism and the Lover of Progress, to run at the obstructor and the stop-the-worlder. The Lover of Success, to repel the envier. The Lover of Earned Prosperity, to neutralize the thief. The Lover of Self-esteem to dispossess the guilt-tripper. And the Lover of Competence to run rings round the waster.

I think that might be quite a game of football.

A Conquest

The Rhymer once wrote a sonnet about a woman he loved. Ah, those were the days. But here it is.

I run my hands along her curves. I feel
A subtle sinuosity; complex, but real.
I put my arms around her waist, and hold
A warm, sweet, beautiful sixteen-year-old.
I hold her tight; I take a comfy rest,
As I enjoy the softness of her breast.
I hold her tighter; my nose finds afresh
The subtle perfume of young female flesh.
Next, my desire is for the perfect kiss;
Her lips are quite impossible to miss.
I lure her to my car’s back seat; that done,
We ride to a hotel, and have some fun.
But afterwards, I think: Why was I blind?
I didn’t bother to explore her mind.

How to Re-claim the Law

(From the archives - March 30th, 2005)

The end of law, wrote John Locke, is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

Bad laws, said Edmund Burke a century later, are the worst sort of tyranny.

The villains that masquerade as government in Britain today do not seem to have learned from either of these sages. For they pile on us bad law after bad law. Their laws are so many and complicated that no-one can possibly know them all, let alone obey them all. In a legislative frenzy, they have invented hundreds of new "crimes.” They hem us about with ever more arbitrary regulations. They persecute whoever is the politically incorrect flavour of the month, for example fox-hunters, smokers or car drivers. They give police more and more powers to interfere in our lives. They want to force on us ID cards and DNA tests. And they prescribe severe fines and penalties for anyone who steps even slightly out of line.

The philosophy of today's laws seems to be that we are too weak and too wanton to govern our own lives. That we are not fit to take responsibility for our actions. That we need to be protected against our own foibles. That we need to be ordered about at every turn.

That we are also to be held strictly liable for any damage (real or presumed) we might be accused of causing, even if we are not in any way malicious, irresponsible or negligent. That it doesn't matter how much cost laws impose on us. And that it's OK for law makers and enforcers to treat innocent people as if we were criminals.

Worse yet is what these villains have done and are doing to law in the wider sense. They undermine the presumption of innocence. They threaten traditional safeguards like jury trial and double jeopardy. They agitate for indefinite detention or house arrest without trial. They claim such measures would only be used against terrorists, but who but a fool would believe them?

Meanwhile, they not only continue but expand their favourite pastime of "legally" draining us of our earned wealth. So putting all of us, however much we honestly earn, in danger of being left destitute in our old age. Much of what they take, they waste. And some they actively use against us. They use our own earned wealth as fuel for the leviathan through which they rule over us and try to impose their wills on us. Preserving and enlarging freedom? Pull the other one.

We need to re-claim the law. We need to make law and government work for good people, not against us. How might we do that? I invite you to consider how, when the lovers of tyranny have been removed from power, we might go about cutting law down to its proper size and function. I am thinking, here, in the context of English law. But I suspect that many of the reforms I suggest will have their counterparts in other systems of law.

The first step in re-claiming the law, I think, must be a negative one. That is, to quickly un-do the worst excesses of what the politicians and their cronies have done to us. I can see no better way to do this than simply to choose a past date, all laws made after which are to be repealed with immediate effect. If I were asked to pick such a date, I would suggest 1st April 1992. That would eliminate all laws made by New Labour, and all laws made by the Tories in their last term of office up to 1997.

I am well aware that this would mean – among much else – tearing up the European constitution and the Kyoto protocol, along with hundreds or thousands of European directives. But so what? They are political frauds. Couldn't the inhabitants of England survive – indeed, prosper – without them? It is law we need, not politics.

The second step in re-claiming the law is a specialist one. It is to distil the centuries of experience, which underlie English law, into a new, simplified law code. How this might be done is a good question. We might entrust the task to a single very eminent professor of law. Or to a committee of such greybeards. Or to several individuals or teams, working in free competition to produce the best code of law possible.

Without pre-judging this question, I think I can give some pointers as to what that law-book might be like.

First, how big will it be? I think it must be small. I suggest 100 pages at the maximum – under 40,000 words. So that anyone who wants to can carry a copy of it around, and refer to it whenever they feel the need.

Second, what will it contain? I think it will have two main parts. One on basic or non-criminal law, one on criminal law. Both will be concerned with principles, rather than with institutions.

The first part will set a framework for the resolution of disputes, and for mechanisms to compensate people who have been treated unreasonably. It will cover personal-law matters, like wills and marriages. It will include the essence of commercial and contract law, and of property law. It will cover torts, and restitution for objective damage caused, whether physical, financial, to the lifestyle or to the reputation.

I think it will also return to centre stage the idea of the reasonable man (and woman). It will reject strict liability. No-one will be liable to compensate unless they have been, in some way, irresponsible, negligent or malicious. Accidents, of course, will happen; but provided those involved have behaved reasonably, compensation for accidents will be a matter for insurance, not for law.

The criminal-law part, I expect, will begin with a list and description of fundamental crimes. Among such crimes might be: Murder. Assault, aggressive violence. Invasion of the home. Invasion of privacy. Theft, in all its forms. Malicious damage to property. Malicious obstruction. Fraud, malicious deception. Bullying or threatening behaviour. Molesting children. Knowingly aiding and abetting others' crimes.

All criminal acts – with two exceptions I will come to – will have something in common. That is to say, crime requires a mental state as well as an action. Criminal law will take account of the centuries-old idea of mens rea; no-one is guilty unless his mind is guilty. Otherwise put, no act can be a crime unless it is done with malicious intent, or such recklessness that a reasonable person would not contemplate doing it.

There are, I think, two exceptions, which lie in the borderland between non-criminal and criminal law. One is manslaughter. Because it does not involve mens rea, manslaughter should not strictly be a crime. However, because of the severity of its effects, traditional wisdom – rightly, I think – demands that it should be treated as if it were a crime.

The second exception is contempt of court, or failure to observe a judgement. This provides the escalation procedure, from penalties based on restitution, to criminal penalties, which may include punishment as well as restitution.

The law-book will not lay down specific penalties for specific offences. That, after all, is one of the things judges are for. However, it will set out the principle that the punishment for crime must always, taking account of the circumstances, be in proportion to the crime.

It will also specify the grounds on which criminal judgements should be based. For example, that a suspect must be presumed innocent until proved guilty. That any accusation must be tried without undue delay. That the accused is entitled to a full and fair hearing. That all judgements must be objective and impartial. That individuals may only be penalized if they are culpable beyond reasonable doubt. That it is better that ten guilty go free, than that one innocent is wrongly punished.

The third step is to correct the institutions, which implement the rule of law. I will base my suggestions on the Enlightenment model of government, in which powers are separated into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.

Of course, political government today has more branches than just the Enlightenment ones. There is the Uncompetitive, providing generally low-quality services that aren't what we want. There is the Politically Corrective (also known as the Meddle Class), providing cushy bureaucrat jobs for those that like to use good-sounding ideals, like racial equality or health and safety, to interfere in people's lives – from a height. And there is the Kleptocracy, that drains us of our wealth to keep the political shebang going. Since none of these branches has anything to do with the kind of law that benefits good people, I will only say; the Uncompetitive has got to get competitive, and the others have got to go. So I will concentrate on the three valid branches of government: judiciary, executive, legislative.

The judiciary are today, so it appears, the least corrupt of the three. Therefore, they will suffer the least pruning. Indeed, they will be more important under the new system than the old. Nevertheless, any judge that makes judgements on grounds of political policy, rather than objective justice, must go. No more Judge Jeffreys!

The executive – enforcers of law, including the police – are another matter. While the best of them do a reasonable job, there are too many that seem to like enforcing bad laws. Too many of them like to pounce on anyone who is or might be breaking some arbitrary regulation that wasn't there just a few years ago. Those that were tasked with preserving and enlarging freedom, but failed in that task, will be pruned as they deserve.

It is, however, in the legislative that the worst problems lie. Indeed, the very existence of the Uncompetitive, the Meddle Class and the Kleptocracy is all the fault of the legislative, and those that greased their palms.

It is tempting to think that we might be able to get away without having lawmakers at all; that our law-book could suffice for ever. I think, though, that this view is short-sighted. The law has to be able to evolve to meet new situations.

But, to prevent today's legislative anarchy being repeated, the powers of the legislature must be strongly circumscribed. Except in clear case of emergency, I think meetings of the legislature should be restricted to – at maximum – two weeks each year. And that no-one should be allowed to be a member for more than – say – five years. By abolishing career politics, I think these two small changes alone would bring enormous benefits.

Here are some of the rules I think lawmakers of the future should be made to keep to. One, no law may be made with intent to harm any individual or group, or to treat anyone worse than they treat others. Two, no law may demean people by taking away their right to make and be responsible for their own decisions. Three, any proposed law must be shown to have benefits outweighing its costs, before it can come into force. These benefits must be objectively measurable. Four, every new law must be reviewed at least every year, to check that the benefits are exceeding the costs. And any law failing this test must be struck down immediately. Five, the law-book must never exceed 100 pages or 40,000 words. If lawmakers want to bring in a new law, and the law-book is full, they must take out an old one to make room for it.

Furthermore, I can see no reason to do away with traditions when there is nothing obviously better to replace them. Therefore, jury trial should be retained. If a case is too complicated for a jury to understand, it should not be brought. The double jeopardy rule, too, should stand.

And government must be seen for what it is – at best, a necessary evil. Government must never again be allowed to become a drain on, or a danger to, good people. It must never again violate any individual's fundamental rights, such as liberty or property, except in punishment for a crime of which that individual has been convicted, or to hold an individual for a short period prior to trial. (And, if they are found not guilty, they should be compensated for what was done to them). So safeguards against wrongful arrest, and provisions for compensating innocent people who suffer harm at the hands of government, should not be emasculated, but strengthened.

The fourth and final step in re-claiming the law is to bring justice to those concerned. To compensate those who have been harmed by bad laws, and to punish, with appropriate severity, those that have perverted the law.

All government officials that ever bullied innocent human beings must make redress to their victims. And those that stole our earned wealth must be brought to account. The wealth which was stolen, and wasted or used against us, must be repaid, together with interest and damages, to its rightful owners – those who fairly, honestly earned it.

What of those that perverted the law? Edmund Burke was right when he said that bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. Those that lobbied for bad laws, those that polluted the mental climate to try to drum up support for bad laws, and those that made bad laws, are far worse than mere criminals. And when enough good people come to realize this – and that time, I think, is not so far off now – there will be quite a backlash.

When the Revolution (or is it the Renaissance?) comes, I don't think the prospects are going to be too rosy for those with a political record.

What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters?

To be sung (in case anyone asks) to the tune of “What shall we do with the drunken sailor”.

What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters,
What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters,
What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters,
When they’re brought to justice?

1. Stop them polluting our mental atmosphere,

2. Call them nasty names like “reality deniers,”

3. Make them pay back the green taxes they’ve stolen,

4. Stop them driving and stop them flying,

5. Stop them using energy, turn off their heating,

6. Make them wear muzzles to sequester their emissions,

7. Send them to Yamal and let them freeze.

Riches and Poverty

(Neil's Note: Three more brief sections from "Honest Common Sense.")

Riches

The “rich” get a lot of sneers directed at them. Like “the 1 per cent,” “fat cats,” “idle,” or “uncaring.” Which raises the question: which, if any, rich individuals deserve such censures?

I prefer to separate the question into two. First, how do people become rich, and which of the methods of becoming rich are sneerworthy? And second, when people have control of riches and thus economic power, how do they use their power, and which of those uses deserve scorn?

As to the first question, I see, broadly, seven ways to get rich. First, earning it through honest business in the market. Second, getting it through canny investment. Third, luck – say, inheriting Daddy’s honestly earned millions, or winning a big lottery prize. Fourth, parasitism. That is, while not actually being violent or fraudulent, sucking wealth from the system like a parasite. For example, through commodity speculation, or through asset-stripping of companies.

Fifth, scheming – that is, gaming the system to your own advantage. For example, accepting subsidies, or lobbying for advantages or to harm your competitors. Sixth, the criminal means – such as theft, fraud and intimidation, as practiced by organizations like the Mafia. And last, the political means – which I’ll here characterize as the criminal means plus a false claim of legitimacy. Taxation and currency inflation are good examples of the last category.

With the second question, there is a wrinkle. All of us wield, as individuals, an economic power in proportion to our own wealth. But some – in fact, a small minority – have far more economic power than everyone else, because they also control the spending of organizational budgets. And most are governmental or corporate bosses.

Whether personal or organizational, I see three main ways in which economic power can be used. First, constructively – such as investing in new, innovative businesses or in good, truthful science. Second, neutrally – for example, for your own pleasure and the pleasure of your loved ones or friends. And third, negatively – such as a company screwing its suppliers into dependence, or a government making wars or growing its bureaucracies.

Taking into account all these matters, dear reader, I leave as an exercise for you the following question: Of those who practise the various ways of acquiring and of using wealth, which deserve censure? Or, alternatively: At which of the ‘rich’ should we bitch?

Poverty – Causes

The opposite of rich is poor. Many, many people in the world are poor. A lot of them are very poor. And many more, while not destitute or near it, are far poorer than they deserve to be.

There are many different reasons why individuals are, or become, poor. But all these reasons can, I think, be put into one of four categories. One, lack of access to the free market. Two, lack of ability to create wealth. Three, lack of just reward. And four, debt.

Lack of access to the free market can be due to a variety of causes. For example: Wars or political oppression. Regulatory burden, such as business licensing. Putting people in prison, who aren’t any real danger to anyone else. Tariffs, prohibitions or sanctions. Anti-business culture. Or minimum wage legislation, which prevents people not yet skilled enough to earn the minimum wage from getting jobs at all.

It’s sobering to realize that most, if not all, of these causes of lack of access to the free market come from the acts and attitudes of political governments.

The causes of lack of ability to create wealth divide, for the most part, into two types. First, things which are the individual’s own fault; for example, if they’re too lazy or too dishonest to make the effort to use Oppenheimer’s economic means. And second, things which are no-one’s fault, like illness or disability.

Lack of just reward can sometimes be caused by exploitation of the individual, for example by criminals or by family members. But more commonly, it’s caused by political action, such as taxation or currency inflation. Or by a dishonest, unstable banking and financial system – check out Cyprus. Or by lack of respect for property rights.

Lastly, debt is sometimes a self-caused source of poverty, such as when individuals have spent on credit beyond their means. But debt for individuals can also be caused by others. For example, by overblown legal damages, such as maintenance payments after a divorce. Or by a rapacious state that tries to force its debts on to individual citizens.

Poverty – Solutions

To look for solutions to poverty, I’ll re-arrange the causes of poverty, as above, under three headings. First, things which are the individual’s own fault. Second, things which are someone else’s fault. And third, things which are no-one’s fault.

If an individual’s poverty is caused by that individual’s own fault, the remedy is in the individual’s own hands. No more need be said than: get earning, and if you’re still in debt, pull yourself out of it.

If, however, individuals are poor through someone else’s fault, then it must be the responsibility of those at fault to fix the problem. And those at fault, almost always, are the political class and their cronies.

So, why not help the economy to become sustainable, by taking away the unearned privileges of those responsible for others’ poverty – such as politicians, bureaucrats and corporatists? Why not simply replace redistributory taxes, bureaucracies, regulations and anti-business culture by justice, competition in a fully free market, pro-business culture, property rights and a stable, honest financial system?

That would go a long way towards eliminating poverty among civil human beings, no? And wouldn’t winding up morally and financially bankrupt political states, and distributing their assets among those they taxed and other genuine creditors, help a lot as well?

Furthermore, the Law of Restitution should apply. Those that denied access for the poor to the free market, or supported or benefited from unjust and dishonest institutions or policies, should be made to compensate those they harmed, and if appropriate punished for their crimes too.

In the last case, where individuals’ poverty is no-one’s fault, then it’s appropriate to set up schemes of insurance or mutual aid. Such schemes existed in the 19th century, for example the friendly societies. But they were elbowed out by welfare states. In a totally free market, re-vitalization of such schemes should be enough to ensure that no-one is poor through no fault of their own. But even so, charity is always available as a final back-stop.