The Pope, the Mafia and the Government

Leave a comment

Pope Francis, the poverty-obsessed pontiff who seems to be unable to do anything other than advocate measures that will increase it, recently turned his attention towards mafia violence. In doing so he does not seem to have become aware of the fact that replacing the word “mafia” with “government” would turn reports of his recent outcry into what reads like a piece of libertarian literature. Indeed had he just changed this one, tiny word and shifted his entire focus to the real root cause of evil in the world today the present author would be embracing the Pope as his new libertarian hero and be preparing for his conversion to Catholicism.

In the following extract from BBC News, let us try this very thing – substituting the word “government” for the word “mafia” and the word “politician” for the word “gangster” – and see what we get.

Pope Francis has launched a stinging attack on the government, warning politicians that they will go to hell unless they repent and stop doing evil.

“Blood-stained money, blood-stained power, you can’t bring it with you to your next life. Repent,” he said.

He was speaking at a prayer vigil for relatives of those killed by the government.

The Pope has spoken out frequently about the evils of corruption and wrote a booklet on the subject in 2005 when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

The meeting near Rome on Friday – organised by a citizens’ group called Libera – was aimed at demonstrating the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to organised crime, rejecting historic ties with government bosses claiming to be good Catholics.

The Pope told told Italy’s mobsters to relinquish their ‘blood-stained money’ which ‘cannot be taken into paradise’.

The meeting was an attempt to draw a line under the church’s historic ties with government dons claiming to be God-fearing Roman Catholics

The vigil was filled with those who have suffered at the hands of the government, including people whose family members and loved ones had been killed.

As the names of those murdered were read out, the Pope listened, deep in sombre thought, says the BBC’s Alan Johnston in Rome.

After expressing solidarity with the 842 people at the vigil, he said that he could not leave the service without addressing those not present: The “protagonists” of government violence.

“This life that you live now won’t give you pleasure. It won’t give you joy or happiness,” he said.

“There’s still time to not end up in hell, which is what awaits you if you continue on this path.”

Our correspondent says there is a long list of brave priests in Italy who have stood up to the government, and some have paid with lives.

But he says that the wider Church has been accused of not doing enough to confront the politicians.

Anti-government activists hope that the Pope’s words are a signal that he is on their side.

Is it nothing short of astonishing that, to libertarians at least, this report should be so easily fitted to suit government? According to Rudolph Rummel’s research, government has killed an estimated 170 million people during peace time. Isn’t government the true evil hierarchy of organised crime, the institution that kills, maims, steals, on such a colossal scale that it might be perhaps a bit more worthy of the Pope’s attention than the mafia? Isn’t government the ultimate protection racket, demanding tribute from its victims in order to provide them with security, while half of the time encouraging the very acts (terrorism, political violence) against which we need defending? And as awful as mafia violence is, most of the activities in which crime families are involved are simply serving the public goods and services that the government outlaws – namely, gambling, drugs and prostitution. As they cannot compete openly and legitimately in order to supply these provisions they have to settle their disputes by turf wars and violence, as well as greasing the wheels with corruption by bringing public officials onto their payrolls. None of this would exist were it not for government.

We can, of course, never expect an arch-statist such as the Pope – who seemed content to serve as Archbishop of the capital of his country while it was systematically laid to waste by its government – to turn his attention to government in this way unless he has a very sharp and potent but unlikely “Saul on the road to Damascus” experience. Indeed, the very week after he attended the vigil for relatives of those killed by mafia violence, he received the arch crime boss of them all – President of the United States, Barack Obama – at the Vatican. Let’s end with the Guardian’s description of Obama’s arrival in Rome – readers can decide for themselves whether this sounds more like a bringer of peace and harmony; or like a crime lord terrified of assassination:

Obama had arrived at the Vatican in a cavalcade of more than 50 vehicles. Several were packed with men dressed in black and, disconcertingly, wearing masks. It was not immediately clear if they were Italian special forces attempting to confuse potential terrorists or American secret service agents trying to hide the effects of a more than usually gruesome hangover.

A White House correspondent who was travelling with Obama tweeted that the huge, bulletproof presidential limousine – which is nicknamed The Beast – was too big to get through the gates of the Vatican.

View the video version of this post.

Advertisements

Anti-War and Anti-State

Leave a comment

The furore over the recent attempt of the UK government to commit military force in Syria in concert with the US government revealed a widespread popular opposition to war that appears to span the entire political spectrum. Indeed, libertarians must admit that the ideological left, with its anti-imperialist and anti-war profiteering motive, has often been a louder voice in castigating the warmongers and interventionists in conflicts past and present.

Nevertheless it must be emphasised that if one is to be truly anti-war then that commitment alone is, regrettably, not sufficient. For war is always propagated by states, between states and for the benefit of states. Libertarians often point out that “war is the health of the state”, permitting the government to suspend the status quo and enact all manner of heinous oppression and control that would be unthinkable in a time of peace, measures that, curiously, do not disappear as soon as the alleged enemy is vanquished. But as much as it is true that war feeds the state so too does the state feed war, not only siphoning off resources from the productive sector towards the creation of bombs and missiles, but, crucially, the very desire to create a bigger state makes war more likely. Many anti-war activists of the left have no problem with government metastasising to whatever size in economic and social matters, creating alleged “fairness” and “equality” and whatever other emotive but elusive goals happen to sound most appealing. The aims may be innocently honourable enough but it is ridiculous to think that the means of the state can ever be used peacefully, let alone to believe that a large state can be the promoter and preserver of peace. There are three key reasons for this.

First, the state always means conflict. The precise means at the states disposal, the only means that it can use – violence – results in the constant diversion of scarce resources away from the ends of their owners and towards the ends of others. The state is effectively engaged in a constant war on its own citizens, forever plundering and pillaging them to fund their lavish lifestyles and to line the pockets of their friends under the guise of wasteful socioeconomic programmes. Foreign war, fundamentally, is no different and every motivation for it ultimately reduces to a battle over resources. It is therefore somewhat bizarre that anti-war activists are content to allow a government to war against its own citizens but, for some reason, as soon it comes to doing the same against foreign nations then all hell breaks loose. However correct this latter reaction may be, not only is it hypocritical but it is also dangerously naïve to expect the state to restrict itself to peace and harmony abroad when it will never even do so at home. Nazi Germany, for example, was met with such ambivalent dithering in the interwar period precisely because its ideology – big government control and intervention – was of no particular distinction from that which prevailed everywhere else at the time. The only difference was that it was prepared to take this ideology to its logical end, additionally piling on racial dogmas and nationalistic overtones that resulted in crimes which, however horrific and unforgettable, obscures the basic similarity between Hitler and, say, Roosevelt.

Secondly, big states attract the attention of control freaks and the greedy. The more money that is stashed in the government and can be leeched away by bloodsuckers and parasites then the more alluring it becomes to try and take a slice of that pie – and once that slice is taken, how wonderful it would be to take another slice, and then another after that! Finally when government intervention naturally starts to stifle productivity and there are no more pies left to be eaten, the siren song of war becomes ever sweeter to governments and their sponsors, not only as a distraction from their own economic mismanagement but as a way forward to secure a flow of resources from abroard and to tighten their grip on the domestic citizenry through lasting wartime or “emergency” measures. Neither must we forget that there is, among the political class, an alluring quality to being a wartime leader or “warrior”. Seeing off an alleged terrible enemy and apparently saving one’s people from invasion (although it doesn’t even need to get this far) is judged as being more heroic and worthy of the highest honours and decorations whereas creating “mere” peace and prosperity is apparently rather dull and uninspiring. Indeed, the most highly rated leaders all made their mark during wartime or were at least warmongering – Lincoln during the War between the States, Roosevelt and Churchill during World War II, and Reagan and Thatcher during the Cold War, for instance. Only when a conflict is so obviously pointless, futile and/or unjustified – such as those in Vietnam and Iraq – does this strategy backfire, as it did upon Johnson, Nixon and the younger Bush.

Finally, the degree of government intervention necessary to create alleged social or economic ends have only been met during a legacy of wartime control. The New Deal, for example, was modelled upon the wartime regime of Woodrow Wilson; World War II on the New Deal; and the post-war “Great Society”, the fight against poverty and the Civil Rights era all came after these wartime regimes were firmly in place. The citizenry have to be “united” (or worn down) by something such as war before they can ever begin to accept the degree of interference necessary to promote big government measures during peacetime. Ironically, therefore, a lot of the cravings of the anti-war left are reliant upon war if they ever have the hope of seeing the light of day.

In sum, therefore, to be anti-war but pro-state is the epitome of all dangerously ill-informed and contradictory positions, giving birth to the very thing it seeks to destroy. Rather, to be anti-war one must also be thoroughly and unreservedly anti-state, recognising this evil entity for precisely what it is – perpetual and endless conflict and violence. Only when we are well and truly rid of this scourge will there ever be a chance for peace.

View the video version of this post.

Politicians and Entrepreneurs

Leave a comment

When perusing much public discourse concerning those in government and those who, say, are businessmen and entrepreneurs, one of the more striking aspects is how their economic roles and motivations are viewed as the complete opposite for what they really are.

Even though their achievements may, from time to time, be lauded, the businessman, entrepreneur or capitalist is almost universally despised for what appear to be his motives of greed, selfishness and exploitation. Central to this is the profit-motive, a factor that seems to receive exclusive attention at the expense of any other. Yes, it is true that people are in business to make money and usually as much of it as possible. But this completely overlooks the fact that no businessman is in a position to force anyone to contribute to his income. He can only gain a return on his investment if he is able to accurately devote the scarce resources available to the most highly valued ends of consumers. Even if he has no charitable motivation or any emotive feeling towards the people whom he serves, at the very least he is required to have a superior empathetic understanding of their tastes and desires. If he fails in this regard then the result is not a bumper profit but an eye-watering loss. All transactions, therefore, between businesses, their customers and their employees are entirely voluntary. People enter voluntary transactions because they expect to be better off as a result of them. Nobody is therefore put into a worse position through his interaction with a business, or at least they expect not be.

Counter this with the view of the politician. Reading the list of supposed motivations for government office one would think that only those with an angelic disposition need apply. Not only are they expected to be selfless and altruistic, thinking only of their “people” and of their “nation”, they are also supposed to be utterly devoid of any kind of personal ambition. Asked whether he/she has any eye for high office, one is normally retorted with the rhetoric of “public service” and the apparent fact that the budding statesman is just there to “do his job”.  In short, the implication is that government employment produces universally good and wonderful things that apparently require some kind of sacrifice for which there is very little reward. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government receives its revenue from taxation, and taxes are paid compulsorily. Whereas the entrepreneur has to risk the entirety of his wealth in order to persuade his consumers that what he produces is worthwhile spending their money on, a politician faces no such restraint. They can charge as much as they like, deliver services that are despicably dire and command a personal income that far exceeds what they would be able to obtain in the free market. Furthermore, because the funds for all of their boondoggles have been levied by the threat of force, there is a very real loss experienced by the taxpayers, even if the resulting service is relatively “good”. For none of them would need to be forced to pay up if the government’s ends where truly what they most highly desired to do with their money. Whereas an entrepreneur makes everyone – himself and his customers – better off, the politician only makes himself and the recipients of his tax loot better off. Those who have been forced to pay are left substantially worse off.

These fallacious views have played themselves out recently in the whole debacle of corporate tax avoidance. Few overlook the fact that the likes of Amazon and Starbucks rake in large revenues (if not apparent accounting profits) that somehow requires them to “give something back” to “society”. Yet what is forgotten is that they have only been able to obtain these revenues and profits through voluntary exchange because they have created employment and served the needs of customers by providing them with products that they want to buy. Yet for some reason we think it is just to charge them for this “privilege” of serving our needs. Further, is there not something incongruous about the whole rhetoric of “giving back”? I want a coffee so I go to Starbucks; I give them money, they give me coffee; they have already given in the form of a product that meets my needs. If Starbucks has to “give back” then why don’t I have to “give back” their coffee? Why am I, through the route of taxation, effectively allowed to renege on my side of the bargain?

A similarly related fallacy is that anyone who “owns resources” (i.e. land and capital goods) effectively just has to sit back and earn a perpetual income by virtue of this ownership. Although space precludes a detailed examination of the economics, a net return can only be earned from such ownership if the good is directed to a use more highly valued than that anticipated by other entrepreneurs. Failure to do this will simply result in losses. Try telling the owners of Woolworths, HMV or Blockbuster that ownership of resources is a path to perpetual wealth and income. If anything, it is the government that yields a perpetual income from resources. For it can confiscate anything it wants by force, and display zero entrepreneurial talent with its use by spending it on any wasteful project it deems desirable to itself and its cronies. The only say we have in the matter is an “election” between approved and screened candidates once every four to five years.

Whenever one is presented, therefore, with an opinion on the characters of businessmen on the one hand and of politicians on the other it is best to assume that the stated characteristics should be reversed.

View the video version of this post.

Politicians in the UK

Leave a comment

When comparing the US with the UK (and, more broadly, Europe) it is often remarked that the latter is more social democratic or “left-leaning” than the former which still, at least, has managed to preserve more of the capitalist spirit of free enterprise and self-reliance. To a great extent this is true and certainly Britain seems to be crippled more by the weight of the state on its shoulders than is its ally across the Atlantic.

Nevertheless there is one aspect of British attitude that is more conducive to liberty than the American attitude – that the British have absolutely no love whatsoever of politicians. Even before the scandal over parliamentary expenses a few years ago, it would be very unlikely that a British politician would draw a rally for the sake of being who he is, unlike the crowds that accumulate for American presidential candidates, for example. Just a typical glance at BBC News “Have your Say” facility will reveal that politicians are viewed as lying, self-serving crooks and this opinion comes from all sides of the political spectrum.

It may not amount to much, of course, but, optimistically, it might well be the start of the identification of the “political” or the “tax-eating” class as distinguished from the “tax-paying” class – that there is a parasitic class of persons that sponges, scrounges and plunders from the remainder. Such an identification is vital if one is to understand that true nature of the state and its participants, that it seeks only to benefit itself and provides no benefit at all to those on whom it leeches. A weakening of the grip of the state cannot be achieved unless and until it is firmly identified as being, like oil and water, separate and apart from the populace and not part of it. The idea that “we are all the Government” must be firmly rejected.

However, it also seems to be the case that people still, generally, perceive that the problem with Government is the specific people in charge rather than the institution itself. Not until there is a realisation that whoever populates the Government is irrelevant and that they will all behave in the same way (with one or two exceptions that tend to confirm the rule) will there be much hope of wrestling the UK free from the power of the State. Pro-liberty minded UK citizens should concentrate their efforts in this direction.

View the video version of this post.