So another year begins.
Satan and his Bitches have not buggered off and so this means we lovers of Truth, Justice, and Freedom must Recommit ourselves to the righteous causes and carry on the fight against the lies and Evil oppressions they spawn.
So My brave friends, let us remember our brothers and sisters in the Jails of our petty tyranny.
Let us rise again to speak boldly against the wicked lies that damn our loved ones souls and keep them under the dragons wing.
May God give me a greater portion of wisdom, grace, and self-control…. to be a better servant… a better soldier…. a better son.
Amen.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
Ask yourselves… is this the world you desire to bequeath to your children and their children?
Not I.
The Battlefront is on all sides.
To Arms!
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Protestant Christian.
Dispensationalist.
1611 Bible believer.
Libertarian.
If you don’t agree that property rights are restrictions on freedom—if you think instead, for example, that property rights are a prerequisite of freedom—then either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’ve been reading too much Rand, or, at any rate, you’re using the word ‘freedom’ in a particular sense of the word that’s packed with presuppositions—and freedom might as well be just another word for nothing left to lose because with our differing conceptions of freedom now in play we’re all ready, set, go to miscommunicate spectacularly.
Other people’s property rights are restrictions on your freedom, and your property rights are restrictions on other people’s freedom. Is this not obvious from the textbook definition of property?
Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. … The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy.
As wrong as it sounds on the face of it, libertarians are actually all in favour of giving up a little freedom in order to gain … what? Property rights, that’s what. Your freedom ends (where my property rights begin). Property rights are restrictions on freedom.
Ownership is the central concept in political philosophy. Every political ism (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.) is defined by its theory of property rights. Every political ism says what belongs to whom, and who belongs to what. So it’s important to think about this topic until you actually get it.
Thomas Hobbes is the founding father of modern political philosophy. In a Hobbesian state of nature, everyone is perfectly free. And life is total shit. Why? Because
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
To extricate ourselves from such a dire circumstance as perfect freedom, we need to (hopefully) agree on a few rules (and abide by them and enforce them). The first and most obvious one (subject to caveats later, but we’ll get to that) is the non-initiation of (physical) force. The NIOF principle. My freedom ends where your nose begins. And vice versa.
Voila! with this one simple rule, we have property rights, in the form of self-ownership. Your ownership of your body, your property rights in your body, are restrictions on other people’s freedom to do what they please with your body. With this one simple rule, the NIOF priniple, in place, you now own your body because you remain free to do as you like with your body, but no one else is now free to do as they like with your body.
The general point here is that all property rights correspond to a set of restrictions on the freedoms of non-owners. Property rights in tangible goods mean that owners of said goods are free to determine the use of such goods, and no one else is. Get your hands off my stuff! Intellectual property rights mean that owners of ideas can copy them, but no one else can. You wouldn’t download a bear!
Thus the central question of political philosophy is, what property rights should people have? Or, what restrictions on people’s freedoms should there be? And these amount to exactly the same question.
Still awake?
This post is the first in a new series about property rights. And in it I want to take a look at the issue of land ownership. This is topical because the issue of land ownership is closely tied to the issue of national borders. Should we allow unrestricted “open borders” or should we control border traffic to a greater or lesser extent?
Did you notice my equivocation on the central question of political philosophy? I said above that
Every political ism (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.) is defined by its theory of property rights. It says what belongs to whom, and who belongs to what.
but I also said above that
the central question of political philosophy is, what property rights should people have?
What property rights do people have? Is one question. What property rights should people have? Is another question. And why should people have those particular property rights and not others is another question altogether. It is mandatory pedantry to point out that these are three separate questions. If we confound these three distinctly different questions then we’re all ready, set, go to miscommunicate spectacularly.
Notice how loose-talking Lew mixes it up.
In order to … reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. … Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything.
Rockwell is quite wrong in what he actually says. Certainly we can say that public property is owned by the government. Firstly, does government have property rights in government-owned land? Yes, government-owned land is owned by the government! But, secondly, should government have property rights in what is currently government-owned land? Rockwell says no, government may not legitimately own anything. I won’t argue with that. Thirdly, why may government not legitimately own anything?
To be clear, the central question of political philosophy as such is the second of these questions. What property rights should people have? Or, what restrictions on people’s freedoms should there be? As noted already, these amount to exactly the same question. But I think it’s more instructive to focus on the question’s second formulation. So now let’s get down to business and ask it with respect to land ownership.
Comatose yet?
With respect to land use, what restrictions on people’s freedoms should there be? Exactly what forms of land ownership are available in the fabled land of Anarcho-Libertopia? And what is their justification?
I’m only going to point in the general direction of beginning to answer these questions. Suffice it to say, I have a nuanced view. The idea that there should be restrictions on land ownership, or even that people shouldn’t be allowed to own land at all, isn’t new. For example, geolibertarianism is a Georgist school of thought within libertarianism. The New Mutualists are their anarchist counterparts. So I’m in very good company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKLFY770f_w
So now let’s look at what Lew Rockwell says to discredit himself. How low does he go?
Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.
When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position.
What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.
The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. … I cannot simply go wherever I like.
Rockwell totally plumbs it.
He gets it totally wrong. True libertarians absolutely do believe in freedom of movement as an abstract principle. We’re freedom-fighters and we believe in freedom! Derp.
Land ownership is a restriction on people’s freedom of movement. Any such restrictions on people simply going wherever they like must be justified.
The problem with unrestricted land ownership is that by buying up all the land surrounding someone’s else’s slice of heaven you can effectively lay seige to that person, cut off their vital supply lines, and kill them. Only a moral monster would give the green light to, let alone actively encourage and enforce, a system that allowed such perverse and depraved outcomes. Sadly, we in the West (that is to say, our governments) have shown ourselves to be exactly this depraved, by turning away refugees at our national borders, condemning them to take their chances back in their homelands from which they were already fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children.
From here, observes Carson from his vantage point on the moral high ground
Rockwell continues to elaborate on an argument whose basic assumptions are — I say without equivocation — mind-numbingly stupid.
As both Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock argued, the land of the entire world will never be universally privately appropriated by legitimate means. The only way in which every single parcel of land can come under private ownership is through what Oppenheimer called “political appropriation” and Nock called “law-made property.” And it’s no coincidence, as both of them argued, that universal appropriation of the land is a prerequisite for economic exploitation. Only when people are cut off from the possibility of homesteading and subsisting on previously vacant land, and employers are thereby protected against competition from the possibility of self-employment, is it possible to force people to accept employment on whatever disadvantageous terms the property owners see fit to offer.
That says something right there about the kind of people whose wet dream is an entire world without an unowned place to stand on, without some property owner’s permission.
Today the Rothbard-Hoppe-Rockwell kind of people that Carson rightly vilifies for their despotism in the guise of libertarian purity call themselves ancaps. And they’re fair game. You can read the rest of Carson’s demolition of Rockwell’s “wretched turd of an article” here.
So what forms of land ownership (restrictions on other people’s movements) should we allow?
In the first chapter of the Book of Job, God convenes a meeting with his angels, and Satan shows up.
The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” (NIV)
Satan freely roams the earth, going back and forth on it. How should we restrict Satan’s movements? Because no one wants Satan trampling all over their cabbages. But we don’t want to restrict anyone’s freedom of movement unnecessarily. So where do we draw the right lines when it comes to restricting land use? And how do we justify drawing the particular lines that we determine we should?
Well, as I said, I’m only going to point in the general direction of beginning to answer these questions. But let’s go right back to Hobbes and his state of nature, and ask why we would restrict our own and anyone’s freedoms at all?
It’s so that we can have a place for industry, and the fruit thereof. It’s so that we can enjoy culture of the earth, navigation, the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, commodious building, instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, knowledge of the face of the earth, account of time, arts, letters, and society. Without continual fear and danger of violent death.
In short, we justify having property rights (restrictions on our freedoms) on consequentialist grounds. We allow such property rights as we do for the greater good of the greater number in society.
That’s my conclusion and I don’t like it much either. I welcome your comments. 🙂
“Drinking alcohol in moderation does not make you an addict…. doesn’t make you a bad christian, and being a Christian does not mean you have to be a boring weird freaky person that doesn’t have fun anymore.. how about this…. I’m DONE with religion and STUPID RULES that some one other than Jesus’thought up for my own good!’
How about this… come and see Jesus…. He’ll tell me how to live my life…. that’s enough…SCREW the rest!!!!
The following post rings true to my own opinion about us Kiwi ought to be proud of our British heritage… so Politically incorrect these days because of the lies of the treaty grievance industry and socialist re-write of history….
yet the Truth remains that Missionaries and Pioneers brought the best values and skills to found the greatness of our country.
We have reaped the pragmatic and moral benefits those Enlightened Protestant generations bequeathed to us…
Tim Wikiriwhi
Bible believing Protestant Christian Libertarian. *
Sourced from ‘Hands off the NZ Flag’…
Our Flag bears the stars that blaze at night
In our southern skies of blue.
And that little old Flag in the corner,
That’s part of our heritage too.
It’s for the English, the Scots and the Irish
Who travelled to the ends of the earth.
The traders, the schemers, the doers and dreamers
Who gave modern New Zealand birth.
And those who are seeking to change it,
They don’t seem to understand
It’s the Flag of our law and our language
Not the flag of a faraway land.
There are plenty of people who’ll tell you
That when Europe was plunged into night
That little old flag in the corner
Was their symbol of freedom and light.
It doesn’t mean we owe allegiance
To a forgotten imperial dream
We’ve the stars to show where we’re going
And the old Flag to show where we’ve been.
Auckland Council v Penny Bright: $104,000 legal bill in rates debt battle… NZ Herald.
Auckland Council has racked up more than $100,000 on lawyers in an ongoing battle with activist Penny Bright over $33,372 in unpaid rates and penalties.
The council has hired Simpson Grierson senior litigation partner William Akel to fight a defamation claim by Ms Bright against council chief executive Stephen Town.
Ms Bright has filed a claim for damages of $350,000 against Mr Town for comments he made in a media release last year about taking court action to recover unpaid rates on her house in School Rd, Kingsland.
The release said Ms Bright had made “wild and inaccurate accusations” about the council and its probity as the basis for not paying her fair share for the running of the city.
Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show the council has incurred legal costs of $6416 and “significant” in-house costs to ratepayers for trying to recover Ms Bright’s unpaid rates, which are now owing since 2007.
Read more >>>here<<<.
Anyone who knows my work knows I am passionate about trying to reduce Council Meddling, and spending, and have stood for council many times on these very issues.
If the above story was happening to anyone else *But Penny*, I would support them in their stand.
Rates rapistry is evil, and Resistance is Heroic *UNLESS* you are a Socialist like Penny who thinks Governments and councils should do everything, and give away ‘free stuff’ all the time!
Well Socialism Costs Bigggggggg Buck$! and where does that Loot come from to pay for all these Big ideas?
FROM TAXES AND RATES!
So Penny is one of these HYPOCRITES who want the government to do everything… yet does not want to *PAY* for her Ideas…
She is suffering at the hands of *A BEAST OF HER OWN POLITICAL CONSTRUCTION*….. Ironic…. and typical that she is oblivious that it is her own nutbar politics that are now chomping down on her on the Butt.
…And costing/raising her neighbors rates in the process to pay for her hypocrisy.
Penny Bright is standing for Auckland mayor in the 2010 local body elections. She provided this statement:
“Thank God when the Nazis invaded France – the French Resistance didn’t just wring their hands and say “Oh well – it’s too late – we can’t do anything.”
Thoughout New Zealand towns and cities, are historically significant marble monuments dedicated to those who left in their khakhi uniforms and never came home.
Is that why 12,500 ANZACs died in Northern France and Belgium?
So the income stream from operating and managing OUR key public infrastructural water services, transport and rubbish collection could be taken over by French multinational company Veolia – without OUR consent?
Without a shot being fired – this Auckland ‘$UPERCITY is a blatant corporate raid, aimed at seizing control and privatising over $28 billion worth of Auckland regional public assets.
This has been another Rogernomic$ blitzkreig, pushed by big business, in order to run the Auckland region, ‘like a business, by business, for business’.
How business will take over is through the corporate ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ (CCO) model, into which 75% of Auckland regional rates will be paid, run by boards of unelected business appointees, over which the public have no direct control.
The other Mayoral candidates who support – or are not opposed to the CCO model – therefore support this corporate takeover.
The corporate agenda is to ‘commercialise, corporatise – then PRIVATISE these public assets through long-term leases via Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). Although the infrastructure may remain in public ownership – the income stream from operating and managing the asset will flow (usually overseas) into the banks of private shareholders.
The aim of the $upercity is to replace thousands of private ‘piggy in the middle’ snouts with fewer but bigger multinational snouts – into a bigger public trough.
This political battle isn’t between ‘left’ and ‘right’.
It’s between the corporates and the public, and those who serve their interests. ”
Sorry Penny…. It is about ‘Left and Right’ and you are a communist who does not want to pay her share…. its as simple as that.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian Independent.
Update 5-10-18.
It is with some sadness that I read of her passing.
In such times Politics should be set aside… She sure was a Battler!
RIP.
Ex Mayor of Auckland John Banks visits Penny in Hospital.
Whistle while you work!
A short guide to work ethics and work culture for employers and employees
by Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.
Why Read This?
I chose my title because a mental picture speaks a thousand words. It encapsulates my reasons for writing this booklet. Primarily this book is about being happy about working and being in business.
I seek to guide employees as to why work is a great good, and teach them the right ethics to help them move forward and gain self-esteem.
I seek to challenge employers to foster happy, safe and profitable work environments so as to maximise the bang they get for their buck.
I want to expose the folly of the “Us vs Them” conception of employment relations and prove the contrary is true. That is, there is a unity of interest and common goals on both sides of the equation!
While I have no time for politically correct nonsense, I intend to show good employment relations are a win-win scenario, and explode the Marxist fallacies regarding profit as the exploitation of the worker. I criticise common faults in both sides of the employment contract and prescribe remedies for these common ailments.
I hope to do this with economy of words so that this booklet can be mass-produced at low cost. It is therefore not exhaustive but has the essentials, and ought to be sufficient to stimulate further study and discussion. Avoiding “dumbing down”, this booklet is about the simple truths that I think are sadly neglected and in dire need of promotion.
So read on!
The Dignity of Work.
As a man who has been in the work force for almost 25 years, and spent a few on the dole, I speak from experience that working is infinitely better than being on welfare!
The notion that “Dole-ies have it sweet” is plain stupidity! This attitude reveals a poor grasp of the virtues of being productive and self-reliant. Welfare is a trap. It is soul destroying, and often leads to crime and self destruction, whereas there is a wellspring of self esteem awaiting the honest worker when he understands that work is honorable and good.
Self-esteem brings happiness and despite what many think, working for wages can be the foundation of great wealth if the worker learns how to live on less than he earns, and how to make his savings work for him.
“It takes two to tango”.
Employment relations are a joint venture, and thus only achieve optimum results when both sides of the deal fulfill their obligations with equal aspirations to strive for excellence. If one side lets the team down the result will be less than optimal.
Work culture and work ethic.
I have worked in many different jobs and come across all sorts of people and work cultures. Some better than others. What amazes me is how so many workers walk around miserable carrying a chip on their shoulder. Workers must always remember that they are at work by their own free will choice and can leave any time they like. They are not slaves forced to work by their employers!
They are free to work in this particular job or to seek employment elsewhere. It is not the workers’ place to grumble about employer expectations. Workers must always appreciate that an employer has a lot invested in his company, and has the right to expect quality performance from their workforce.
On the other hand many employers actually stifle the potential of their work force in displays of petty vanity! Condescending bigotry is commonplace amongst self-absorbed employers and in extreme cases are the “Gordon Ramsays like the infamous TV series “Hell’s Kitchen”. Putting it bluntly “What bastards!”
I do not knock his striving for excellence, which is praiseworthy. I seek here to expose his terrible people skills and hellish work culture. Much of his behavior must be for the benefit of viewer amusement, yet serves as an excellent case study. Whilst being a crappy employer may not be a crime, it is always stupid and deserves ridicule. Employers ought never to forget that they hold the well-being of their workers in their hands and it is immoral to disrespect this trust that has been invested in their leadership and enterprise. An employment contract demands respect from both parties.
The Dynamics of Freedom.
It ought to be obvious that in a free society, intelligent workers who have self-esteem will not tolerate being looked down upon as lower-caste human beings. They will exercise their liberty and judgment and seek employment where they are respected and valued. It ought to be self evident to employers that such behavior will drive away intelligent workers at the first opportunity and leave the employer with only those who have no personal drive or self respect. I ask what sort of perverse ego desires to command such un-aspiring servitude?
Only small minded vanity cannot stand intelligence in others and instead of seeing independent thinking staff as an asset, they consider it a threat instead. What hope do these narcissists have of competing in the free-market with their apathetic workforce, against inspirational rivals who attract and retain smart working, driven thinkers into their enterprises? It is self-evident that the wise employer whilst setting high standards and refusing to ‘suffer fools’, will create a work environment where workers feel valued and virtue is rewarded.
When to Quit Evil Employment.
While I cannot deny Ramsay’s success, I can but wonder how much more successful he would be if he practiced better people skills, and also how many potentially great chefs he has destroyed and driven out of the industry. I have seen workers near suicide due to allowing their virtues to be taken advantage of by unworthy self-absorbed employers. I recommend all workers to escape tyrannical employers before their spirit is broken and they are driven to depression. I say, if you have good work ethics, you will always find employment. Don’t let ‘little Hitlers’ prosper from your efforts while crushing your esteem and values. Have faith in yourself and leave these hell holes in your dust!
The Pitfalls of Bad Employer Reputation vs. the Economic Advantages of Good Employer Reputation.
Employers who refuse to modify their pigheaded ways soon get a reputation as tyrants and apart from rare exceptions will begin to struggle to attract quality workers and so their businesses suffer losses (i.e. skill shortages, detached workers etc) that otherwise would have been avoided if they were decent bosses. They must offer higher wages to get staff, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
Ultimately not even higher wages will be enough to retain quality workers with self respect. Because of their own folly these foolish bosses end up paying higher wages for less valuable staff and must spend an additional sum on training because of their high staff turn over. This surely is a road to bankruptcy!
The wise employer who respects his staff will have lower staff turnover and consequently lower training expenses and get greater value from the training spend.
All this proves that being a respectful and responsible employer is good business. Such businesses attract quality staff like a magnet! With lower staff turnover, they end up with a highly skilled work force at minimum cost and thus their competitiveness and profits go up. Higher profits make it possible to pay higher wages without seriously harming your competitive advantage, and so you will attract even more quality staff. It is possible for such excellent businesses to have queues of highly skilled workers busting themselves to be a part of your team!
Trouble Attracting and Retaining Good Staff is an Indicator of the Need to Change Management Style and Company Work Culture.
I hope any gruff employers who have trouble retaining staff, can see the advantages I am expounding, get a grip on their egos and modify their behavior accordingly. I write these words not to poke fun, but in the hope that they may cast a light into the shadows, help turn around staff troubles, and lead struggling enterprises into the blue.
It is all too easy when times are tough to take your frustrations out on your staff. I hope my words expose the self-destructive nature of this folly and show that in tough times the best thing an employer can do is ensure his workers feel respected.
Most of the best policies to get optimal value from your staff don’t cost a dime
Applying the simple rule of “doing unto others as you would have done unto you” will pay big dividends and help you not only to survive tough times, but to prosper. By this I mean such simple things as saying “hello” in the mornings and “thank you” at night. Showing your concern for individual staff members’ safety and well-being. Employing smart middle management who are good-natured, courteous, and take a personal interest in those under their direction. All friendships must be subordinate to fairness when dealing with disputes between workers, and thereby maintained by respect. While duties ought to be delegated by merit, personal favoritism ought to have no place in the company.
Innovation and Progress Through Staff Input.
A wise boss will listen to his employees’ suggestions regarding tasks and operations. As staff are ‘at the coal face’, they can be a vital source of information on how to reduce costs, improve safety, product quality and customer service.
“We have always done it this way” is a stagnant philosophy. Staff that make suggestions are thinkers who are utilising their minds. Implementation of their good suggestions encourages them to take ownership of that part of the process and their general performance. This stimulates them to reliability as it gives them a sense of importance in the day-to-day operations. An employer who continually stifles good ideas will make his employees feel they are not appreciated, are wasting their time putting effort into the company, and are not important in its operation. This leads to Absenteeism with complete resignation not far behind. Enthusiastic workers must also never forget who is boss, and that they have the right to reject ideas they don’t like.
How Wage Prices are Determined by the Free market.
One common source of discontent among workers is the Marxist lie that profit is made by the exploitation of the workers. Any employer who operates his business by this same notion will not maintain an optimum workforce for long when the economy is strong and workers are in demand. The primary factor in determining the value of work is the law of supply and demand.
How the Law of Supply and Demand Sets Limits to Wages.
Competition in the marketplace sets limits to the value of products and services thereby setting ultimate limits to the price payable for the labor required to produce goods and services. For industry to remain viable it is impossible to raise wages above a certain cost without innovative changes to how the company functions. This includes such things as automation, improved administration efficiency, etc. At the end of the day an unprofitable company is a dead duck and everyone looses. Innovations that improve efficiency may make some staff redundant, however, it is not greed that is the motivation, but the necessity of keeping ahead of the competition in the market place. This is essential if the company is going to continue to function at all! Profit is not only good as it keeps the company viable, it is necessary to guarantee job security for the maximum number of employees possible.
How the Law of Supply and Demand Increases the Value of Labour.
While we have seen that the law of supply and demand sets limits to what employers can afford to pay and the need sometimes to restructure, it also is responsible for competition in the labour market, giving every worker the opportunity to maximise his wages by working for companies that offer the most money for their work. This being so it is essential that workers learn not just specific skills pertaining to certain industries. The wise worker will, through the desire for self-improvement, always be learning universal skills and developing work ethics that are sought after across the spectrum of the labour market. As an economy grows so too does the demand for labour, and so wages rise as employers vie to attract and retain staff. Just as it is true that the best employer skills in retaining staff are free, so too the best skills that make a worker attractive across the employment spectrum are also free. Qualities such as being punctual, honest, and reliable. Being a worker who is willing to learn new skills and pay attention to what their employer requires. Being someone who takes ownership of the amount and quality of his work, rather than being a slacker who is full of excuses for under-achievement. Such things as being methodical and yet innovative and always being health and safety conscious.
In so doing this makes you attractive to a greater portion of free enterprise than is the case with limited specific skills and poor work ethics. In terms of the law of supply and demand, this means an employer must be prepared to pay the maximum he can squeeze out of the value of his enterprise to retain his best staff as they will move on to greener pastures if they can do better elsewhere.
The Competition of Production/ Services with Other Forms of Investment.
A third essential factor governed by the law of supply and demand at the heart of capitalism is that money is invested into whatever area promises the best security and potential capital gain. Productive industries are in competition with such things as the stock market, bank interest, property investments etc. What this means is that investors will pull money out of poor earning or insecure investments and move it into areas that offer greater rewards. This is the ultimate reason any productive enterprise must produce a good profit so as to keep its financial backing and attract further investment for development and growth.
How Profit is Shared Between Workers and Employers.
If you have followed my arguments above you ought to be able to see that it is the dynamics of the marketplace that must be contended with if a company is to remain viable. It ought to also be apparent that employers need to keep their staff happy and to pay them the highest wages affordable and so the profit margin must be in balance with wages.
Why workers and unions must forsake draconian Marxism.
I cannot finish this booklet without pointing out that the principles above show the utter absurdity of the Marxist “Us against Them” mentality. It also shows the absurdity of making unrealistic wage-rise demands. It exposes calls for regulation of the market as an attempt to unbalance its free flowing dynamics so as to extort a greater share than would be justly allotted by its un-impinged self-regulation. Regulation is the road to economic depression as it hog-ties industry to foolish restrictions.
If a union seeks to truly help its members it ought to train them in work ethics and encourage them to self-betterment. It ought to engage in wage negotiations in an intelligent manner, and argue its position from reason, showing the employer that it is well aware of the factors of the marketplace and the balance between wages and profits. Unions ought to have the best interests of their members at heart, and so realise that unrealistic demands endanger the job security of their members and the viability of the company. Unions ought also to promote meritocracy in wage negotiations over blanket collective deals. By doing so they will get the highest wages for their most worthy clients and set up a culture within the workforce to strive to be the best workers they can be to earn the highest rewards. In this way the Union-employer relationship can be rescued from the Marxist state of war, and become one of mutual understanding and objectives.
Keeping Drugs and Alcohol out of the Workplace.
No exposition on work ethics and culture is complete without addressing the problem of alcohol and drugs. The definition of stupidity is to keep repeating the same actions and yet expect different results! In a nutshell drug-testing does not keep drugs out of work places any more that it does out of prisons. The only effect drug testing will have is stop many workers with good skills and work ethics from seeking employment in your company, if they enjoy a party pill or joint after work or on the weekends.
The best places I have observed are under employers that state “No drink or drugs on the job!” yet also have the policy that what a worker does in his spare time is his own business as long as it does not effect his work. This shows that the employer respects the privacy of his workers and yet sets a standard for safety and performance on the job. It also shows that while he is not playing God over them, he expects them to respect his governance over them during their working hours and thereby sets the correct dynamics for controlling drugs and alcohol on the job.
This will be far more effective than drug testing job applicants and random drug testing which is a policy of mis-trust. It also serves to remove a barrier that hinders many good honest workers from joining the company. Should an employee be suspected of drinking or taking drugs on the job, then a drug test is the proper course of action. Workers ought to understand being drunk or stoned on the job is the equivalent of theft, and any injury caused to others while intoxicated is no accident but the equivalent of assault! Intoxicated workers ought to be immediately dismissed and the reason for dismissal put in their work record. The moral of the story is work time is for working. Employers ought to judge workers by performance not by personal prejudice.
The Ethics of Self-responsibility vs. Strong-arm Policing.
Do not delude your selves. Alcohol is a powerful drug and it is irrational to treat other drugs differently. Growing social problems with drugs and alcohol are due to the loss of ethical self-responsibility (many illustrated in this booklet). Draconian police measures will never substitute personal ethics. They have always failed and will continue to fail as they do not address the fundamentals of human behavior.
Industry and the Environment.
Waste is unprofitable! The profit motive is the strongest reason to reduce waste. And secondly, (all other things being equal), discerning customers will always prefer the most environmentally friendly products over their more dangerous counterparts. It is therefore smart business to run a clean company that always looks for ways to environmentally improve its operations and products.
Respecting the Property of Fellow Workers and Company.
Respecting the property of others is a universal ethic. Do you like it when your valuables are stolen or destroyed? Obviously only a hypocrite can take pleasure in possession of stolen property or have no conscience when they loose or damage the property of others. You cannot expect to be trusted with the property of others in the future if you have proven untrustworthy of it in the past, and this is true not only when you borrow gear from fellow workers but also company property. Workers who prove their trustworthiness with small items of low value are most likely to end up in positions of trust over items and duties of high value. When I am asked if I’ll lend a tool to a work colleague I say “sure”, “but only if you treat them with the same respect as you would if they were your own”. I will not lend gear to someone I do not trust. Promptly return all borrowed items.
Damage to company property reduces their ability to raise wages.
Criminal Reform and a Fresh start (It’s never too late!)
All of the ethics written in this booklet will work for anyone!
I hope ex-cons reading this will grasp the fact that if they start to live by the virtues of work and free enterprise they can leave their criminal past behind them, and become good, honest, and valuable members of society. An ex-con can truly be reformed if he desires to “turn over a new leaf” and embrace self-reliance. All it takes is the commitment to live honestly by your own efforts. It is truly heroic to break free from old evils and make such a transition. You cannot expect it to be easy, yet you can expect to discover a new self-esteem and liberty from the darkness of the underworld. You can become someone your family, friends, and employers can be proud of!
The Value of Basic, Repetitious, or Dirty Work.
You might be an ex-con who has made the life-saving decision to forsake crime and live by your own efforts, or a teenager who has just started part-time work sweeping floors, or a trainee cleaning parts in a workshop. When an unproven worker starts out in the workforce with limited skills how you go about your duties can be much more important than what your duties actually are. All the values and work ethics of this booklet apply to every task from the most simple to the most complex, and like trust with property, trust with responsibility grows as you prove your trustworthiness and pay increases in proportion. Stories of self made millionaires and CEOs who have worked their way ‘from the floor up’ are common place.
“ If it’s worth doing, It’s worth doing well!”.
It does not matter if the job earns $2 dollars an hour or $200 dollars an hour. The worker who is punctual, honest, reliable, well mannered, and strives to achieve the best results ought to be proud of himself and is worthy of full praise. In fact many dirty or ‘boring’ jobs can take more character and self-discipline to do well than other jobs that have more “glory” or “kudos”. Employers ought to take special care to show appreciation for their workers who do tasks that are less than glorious. The wise employer will recognise that workers who perform well in dirty or trying circumstances are showing high character and the potential to get difficult jobs done. These people ought to be financially rewarded for their fortitude and seriously considered for upskilling and redeployment in key positions as theirs skills develop. Tough or mundane work can truly sort the wheat of human character from the chaff!
Personal Grooming and Hygiene.
“Cleanliness is next to godliness”. The importance and power of this proverb cannot be overestimated. So many workers handicap their chances of promotion due to untidiness. This laziness shows poor grasp of the importance of presentation in the business world. Poor personal hygiene is a grievous safety hazard to everyone and is inexcusable. It is unacceptable to turn up for work stinking like a pair of rugby socks, spitting and picking scabs, or when ill with communicable diseases like the flu.
Employers should consider providing their work force with clothing that is safe and tidy. This will eliminate excuses and immediately improve your company image.
An all too common cause of worker discontent is substandard washroom and toilet facilities and poor sanitation and house- keeping. Neglect to ensure adequate facilities is a shocking indictment of mismanagement and lack of concern for worker health and safety. Upgrading poor facilities will greatly improve worker morale and make your company a better place to work. The choice of cleaning staff must be scrupulous, not delegated to apathetic cretins! Clean facilities are an essential obligation and just as a worker ought to set high standards for personal grooming and hygiene without need of reprimand, so too a company ought not to need health department regulations to dictate the maintenance of decent facilities for their work force. Offering minimal sick leave is not clever negotiation in remuneration packages but shortsighted and ill conceived.
The Progress of Mankind and Society.
While the above testimony is very brief, it holds within its scope the dynamics of progress. Not only the place of technical progress but also the seeds of economic growth and improvement of quality of life.
Reasons for Whistling While You Work.
The knowledge that you are a productive worker with good ethics and are at work by your own free will, and are appreciated by your employers ought to give you a positive view of your circumstances and instill an optimistic outlook. You ought to spread optimism around rather than condescending pessimism.
The Virtue of Honest Work and Enterprise.
These arguments bear testimony to the virtues of running meritocracies with honorable work cultures and also the benefits of improving work ethics. It creates a culture of intelligence over ‘sloggery’, and promotes a mutually beneficial relationship of trust and respect. The virtuous businessman and the virtuous worker both have reason to be proud of who they are and how they go about getting their incomes.
Public Servants and Officials.
All state employees from the Prime minister on down must never forget they are the servants of the public and not their masters.
Public servant must remember they are employed by the people of the country, not the politicians in government.
It is your duty to be always accommodating in your dealings and minimize the impact of government impositions on the people you serve
When government action violates the rights of any citizen it is committing a crime.
. You must always put the rights of the people ahead of any rapacious political agenda.
THE END.
Did You Get This Booklet From Your Employer?
If so be happy! They are recognising their responsibility to care for your interests, and promote a good work culture of meritocracy (meaning they are trying to create a workplace where good workers are rewarded financially and with job security.)
Did You Get This Booklet From Your Union ?
If so be happy! They are trying to show you they have your best interests at heart and that the best way they can negotiate higher wages and better conditions for you is by teaching you the right ethics, attitude and maximising your productivity!
Endorsements…. Do you have any positive comments regarding my booklet?
I would appreciate comments from any one whether worker, employer, teacher, police, etc.
Please contact me, and I will add it to this back cover!
Want copies of this pamphlet for your workforce? Personalise this booklet for your company or union.
Contact me!
Tim Wikiriwhi: twikiriwhi@yahoo.co.nz
Phone: 07 849-8323
Mobile : 027- 663-0331
Tim Wikiriwhi is an Independent Libertarian, a Dispensational Christian, The father of two teenage children, and a self employed contract engineer by trade. He is the author of several booklets on ethics including Racial Equality Before the Law, The Defense of Free Trade, and Opposition to State Encroachments on Individual Liberty and Private Property Rights. He has stood for Parliament and Mayor of Hamilton City . He promotes limited government, free market capitalism, and individualist self-reliance. He believes good ideas don’t require legislation as good sense makes good sense!
* I recommend reading ‘The Richest man in Babylon’ by George S Clason and
‘The Puritan Gift’ by The Hopper Brothers.
CEO WENT UNDERCOVER ON A EMPLOYEE WHO'S HOMELESS WITH 3 KIDS! AFTER SEEING HER WORK ETHIC WHAT HE DOES FOR HER MIGHT MAKE YOU CRY! MUST SEE! MUST SHARE! FAITH IN HUMANITY RESTORED! CLICK LIKE ON MY PAGE FOR MORE VIDEOS!#DoneGotemmm #FollowCJayGa #share
Kiwis pledging to open their homes to Refugees>>>Here<<<
Please Help the Red Cross!>>>> Check this out <<<<
***********************************************************************************
Today, I am ashamed to be a New Zealander…. thank’s for that John Key.
Not even the image of children washing up on beaches is enough to crack the Tungsten shell around some peoples hearts, and move them to ignore their selfish fears for the sake of innocent lives.
I admit that regarding the fact that New Zealand ought to open it’s doors to some portion of the flood of Syrian Refugees displaced by war, and atrocities our ‘great shepherd’ running this Socialist sheep station is in a tuff position.
Not only would opening our door run a high risk of allowing dangerous terrorists to creep in and reek monumental evils here… not only would a large influx of Muslims have dire consequences for the future of our democracy, a simplistic *socialist* view of economics is that we ourselves are already struggling to maintain 1st world standards of living… with mounting debts.
Are not our own growing numbers of poor and needy more than sufficient?
… after all ought not charity to begin at home?
Only a fool will not properly weigh these factors.
Still I say most of these problems above are generated by the Sheepish philosophies which underpin our crappy socialist islands.
Fear trumps reason.
Our rising debts, and levels of poverty may be squarely be laid at the feet of our Inept Political helmsmen of recent generations… whose medlings not only hobble our industries, heap up tax burdens, and reward sloth and political shystery, they also pander to a nasty and callous xenophobia which simply wants to ‘blame Great Satan America’ and change the TV channel when confronted with such horrific images.
Thus every one who has voted for this type of welfare state must bear some of the burden for John Keys decisions.
Not I! This blog post is written as the beginning of my personal effort to move our parliament into getting at least 10 000 of these Syrian Refugees over the great divide… and into our homes.
*Hang on Tim! Are you not being a hypocrite here?
How can you… as a Libertarian join the chorus for extending welfare to foreigners, when you have spent years condemning welfare for our own”?
It’s simple…. I’m not asking for more welfare-ism.
I’m asking to be allowed to extend a charitable hand… you see welfare is not charity… it’s anti-charity… it’s Heartless … Stone cold.
While shallow minds see welfare as helping the poor… they dont see that it first generates poverty.
Shallow minds believe welfare is humanitarian… yet it allows them to sear their consciences to the desperate outside our gates.
*Hang on Tim* I’ve read Ayn Rand… Libertarians actually think selfishness is a virtue!
What have you to say to that!
Only that Ayn Rand is not a Libertarian but a stain on our good name, and has done more to undermine our movement than any socialist argument ever could.
Regrettably she has attracted the worst types of haters and narcissists into this honorable movement, and caused our name to stink.
Libertarianism is in reality the last vanguard for true charity against the corrosive actions of Nanny State, which atrophies the Spirit of charity and self reliance.
It has become commonplace in Western socialist democracies like ours to pass laws against voluntary charities helping, housing, and feeding the homeless.
How many more Children have drowned while I sit in my comfortable chair typing this?
*Hang on Tim* lets say we allow you… and those whom think like you to transport some of these Syrians here, and let them live in your house…. what about the strain of our hospitals… what sort of conditions will they endure under your roof?
And of course if you put them to work cooking and cleaning… they must get minimum wages and conditions!
*I say* just look at those challenges you present, and how every one of them is a *socialist anti-charity construct*… obstacles getting in the way of compassionate people willing to make sacrifices for the sake of their fellow man.
These are daunting objections… like a row of neighbors preventing me from helping out… and I despise them all for it.
I say just let us help!
I say there ought to be enough volunteers in this country to surmount these sorts of troubles
To those of you who really care…. let’s rise up and at least try and save some!
My rave above is written in the hope that by exposing the evils and fears which are preventing New Zealand accepting more refugees… I can stimulate stronger convictions and bravery to overcome them… and ultimately… lets get rid of our Welfare state… for Justice, and the children’s sake.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
The Statue of Liberty stands in judgement!
Western Nations like America have forsaken freedom and lost their way!
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
^^^ THAT EVIL is one of the chief reasons why I don’t attend church… they are filled with Snakes,Hypocrites, and Chumps who go to church to feel superior to the rest of humanity.
*You wont find Salvation* in such places as Satan Rules there… not Christ.
Am I being harsh?
Perhaps.
I have never set foot in the place… they may have Good intentions yet they are unintentionally paving the road to hell.
There are few enemies of Humanity with bloodier hands than Religious tyranny and persecution of infidels…(including Atheist tyrannies)
This is an age of Apostasy.
Nowhere in this age of grace are we Christians told *to compel* righteousness.
It’s a simple truth… yet sadly one that has become absolutely alien to a great portion of so-called Protestants.
To please God in this present age all our good works must spring from the heart… not from compulsions or fear of the human magistrates…or fear of hell.
Not to be able to make this simple distinction is a testament to gross ignorance on the part of so-called Christians and is the chief reason they have been involved in atrocities throughout the centuries… all under the Guise of ‘Piety’ and the common good.
Legalist Christians cause the gospel and name of Christ to stink among the very souls Christ came to save!
You are Pharisees and know not the Grace of God.
Christianity is the salt of the Earth *because it converts souls*… not because of Zealous legislation’s.
You want Society to become more Godly?
Get out there and Preach the Gospel of Grace!
Teach God’s love and forgiveness to sinners…. Don’t Persecute them… and feel all Righteous about it.
Satan appears as an Angel of Light, and his Wolves appear as Sheep… Ministers ‘of Righteousness’.
The snare he lays is Self-righteous Hypocritical Piety… Gross judgmentalism … Vicious hatred where their ought to be compassion… a Spirit of persecution… a lack of faith in the power of the Gospel…. and Gross mis-handling of the scriptures…
Sadly the Bible teaches that in the end times the Church will dive into apostasy…. The Salt looses it’s savor … and the world gets ready to embrace the tyranny of the White Horse Rider…
And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (KJV)
It is both a political right and an epistemic duty to change one’s mind. Well, I’ve been thinking. And I’ve changed my mind. I no longer think that Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless. Nor do I any longer think that anarchy is the unrule of the godless. That’s not anarchy, that’s totalitarian chaos. Anarchy is libertopian order and the only moral system of government.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (KJV)
Here’s the first question for conservative Christians. Do you think that the Founding Fathers of the United States received to themselves damnation?
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. (KJV)
Note that to render means to give back.
Here’s the second question for conservative Christians. What belongings of Caesar’s did those whom Jesus addressed have in their possession that they could return?
I hereby declare that I am a governing authority. Send me your money.
A Christian anarchist is … one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world.
I don’t know the history of the word ‘libertarian’, who first coined it, or what it originally meant. But today there are at least three senses of the word. In a broad sense, a libertarian is someone who advocates more freedom and less government. In a narrower Randian sense, a libertarian is a minarchist. Someone who asserts that the legitimate role of the state is restricted to maintaining law and order, administering justice, and defending the realm. In the increasingly common modern-day sense a libertarian is a selfish asshole.
I’m still a libertarian in the broad sense, but no longer call myself such, because of the modern-day sense of the word. We owe its rise to Ayn Rand and her followers and to the liberal left who seize upon such opportunities as are provided by libertarians promoting “the virtue of selfishness” to tar us all with the same Objectivist brush. Its the very same statists whose successful attempts to perniciously redefine the word ‘liberal’ meant that we had to relinquish that particular label in favour of ‘libertarian’ but now that label too has become more trouble than its worth for true freedom fighters. Rand herself was adept at pernicious redefinition (it’s a key ingredient of her philosophical fiction) and we are now reaping the grim rewards of her linguicidal legacy.
Am I still a minarchist? No. (But I’m still a monarchist. Thy kingdom come.)
There’s a universal human tendency to latch on to appealing doctrines and dogmas, often at an early age, and then to fall prey to confirmation bias. We all do this, and typically we spend the rest of our lives with blinkers on, rehearsing and attending to information that supports our own settled opinions. And we give succour to inner demons who prowl around our minds like roaring lions looking for anomalous data points to devour. A typical example is that of a child who is raised by overbearing parents in a puritanical Christian household and who in adolescence is introduced to Ayn Rand’s novels and fictional philosophy. No doubt such is a liberating catharsis. But theirs is a sad fate. They throw out the baby Jesus with the religious bathwater of their parents but lose none of their parents’ zealotry which they take up in service of a seductive but ungodly cause, personal liberty that knows no master but the self. Most tragic of all, however, is the ongoing damage that the mistress of pain inflicts on their already injured minds. Rand both corrupts the soul and rots the brain. Objectivists and other assorted new atheists delude themselves that they are freethinkers yet the truth is that they have shaken of the shackles off their religious upbringings only to straight away submit to mental slavery in a different guise.
The mind of a true freethinker knows no bounds. At will it soars the celestial heavens of human cognition or traverses the valley of the shadow of brain death unscathed. What the mind of a true freethinker does not do is roam only throughout the earth, going back and forth over the same old ground, expecting to revise its worldview according the same old data every time. That’s insanity.
All of which is by means of getting around to saying that I’ve recently reviewed my political belief system and found minarchism wanting. The unexamined belief is not worth believing. Have you ever stopped to question your fundamental minarchist tenets? Minarchists assert that the state should have a legalised monopoly on violence and that it is good and proper that the citizenry should subject themselves to the authority of a gang of armed thugs whose ostensible duty it is to protect us from criminal aggression. But wait. Isn’t that the job of private security companies? How much protection is the state supposed to afford us anyway? Our tax dollars already pay for signs chiding us to lock our vehicles whilst blaming the victims of car thefts for the consequences of their own laxity. Shouldn’t the state extend this protection to subsidising deadlocks for our front and back doors? State agents could install them at the same time as the (soon-to-be if not already) mandatory insulation in our ceilings and wall cavities, while Nanny checks to makes sure we’ve shut all the windows before we go out.
Here’s what surely amounts to a strong case for anarchism as the only moral system of government. Ayn Rand hated it. She had this to say about the Libertarian Party of her day.
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.
Very well, then. Let’s take it from there. A weird absurdity called “competing governments”? It’s what the world has now and has had since the dawn of civilisation. A number of different governments in the same geographical area? Yes, that’s how the habitable surface of the planet has always been carved up. Nor can one call it a floating abstraction? No, let’s call it God’s green earth, a glorious gemstone floating in space. Cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately? Third rock from the sun.
Rand’s objection to anarchism amounts to no more than a description of the state of global politics. Terra firma is today divided up into a relatively small number of nation states, all controlled by governments that oppress the citizenry to a greater or, thankfully, lesser extent.
Why shouldn’t every citizen be free to “shop” and to patronise whatever government he chooses? Standard libertarian thinking is that borders should be open to peaceful people. So why don’t we have open borders globally? Because, as Rand rightly observes, forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer!
Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. It would mean anarchy. Which is what the world has now. Except that size does matter. Anarchists support there being a relatively huge number of nation states. Fragments of what used to be. The only limit to the number of nation states on the planet being the number of sovereign individuals.
Now consider what it is that Rand inadvertently (yeah right) is actually advocating. She’s advocating a single, monopolistic world government. That tyrannises the entire world, erasing all and any borders for inmates of what is now a prison planet to flee across. Welcome to Ayn Rand’s new world order.
Ask yourself what no competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. It would have to mean one world government, a statist hell on earth, and one head of state. And all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour would now be his.
