Two Cents

    Two Cents – Everything-Voluntary.com

  • On Fixing Shitholes

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    There’s a point being made that people who live in so-called shithole countries should stay and fix those countries instead of relocating to a better one. This is terrible advice for several reasons: 1) nobody has an obligation to make their country of origin better; 2) your highest priority should be the safety and prosperity of yourselves and your loved ones, and if that means immigrating, do it; 3) attempting to stay and fix a shithole country is statistically a fool’s errand, as it’s in incredibly difficult for a person to effect any meaningful change in the desired direction; and 4) some who are making this point are doing so as to not encourage foreigners to come to their country and exploit their public benefits, a challenging problem to be sure, but if it were truly a simple thing to stay and fix a shithole country, it would be just as simple for us First-Worlders to fix our public benefits problem. It’s a uniquely terrible advice giver to expect anyone to stay and suffer their shithole country and foolishly try to fix it. Nobody should suffer a shithole country. Come to the First World if you please, any way you can. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Borders

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    The moment a group of people who call themselves “government” enforce their arbitrary border around their supposed jurisdiction is the moment they begin central planning who may live where and who may trade with who. Any libertarian versed in economics can tell you the likely disastrous effects of centrally planning the economic decisions of others. Among other problems is that which is described by Ludwig von Mises when he argued and showed that central planning intervention begets more intervention. The Welfare State is one such central planning intervention, and the problem of immigrants exploiting their new home’s Welfare State seemingly requires yet more central planning intervention. Should libertarians be cheerleading the central planning of arbitrary borders and Welfare State management? Or should libertarians be educating others on the disastrous and inhumane effects of central planning any economic decision made by other people, and calling for its abolition? If you’re going to be loud on policy as a libertarian, please for the love of your liberty do not pretend that your advocacy for central planning is anything less than giving your arsenal to the enemy and begging them to use it wisely. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Bootlickers II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Like their threat-forwarding cousins, those who attack ideas outside of the political status quo are another type of bootlicker. It’s been said that within any given population, 90% prefer the status quo, and 10% are the thinkers and innovators. This would be no less true for the politico-economic realm. Few people try to imagine ways that society could be truly better off than they are today. Even fewer are those who imagine better ways to do things that don’t involve politics. This minority of minorities puts their hopes and dreams into implementing new ideas to better satisfy people’s wants and needs, only to be attacked by government busybodies wielding red-tape guns. Those who ally with these violent busybodies against thinkers and innovators not only lick their boots, but gleefully eat the shit off the bottom, too. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Constitutions

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I learned early on in my journey toward voluntaryism that “constitutional limits” were a temporary hurdle at best and totally invisible at worst in “chaining” down the state authority-expanding actions of opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats. It was obvious to me during my Constitutionalist phase that how these people should go about expanding their [supposed] authority was not via interpretation or re-interpretation of the Constitution (or straight up ignoring), but by amending the Constitution to say exactly what they wanted it to say. If an article, clause, or section of the Constitution or it’s later Amendments were less than perfectly clear, then the default position should be to protect life, liberty, and property, not to embolden and license the agendas of expansionist politicians and bureaucrats. There’s an amendment process for a reason. But alas, what use are strictures and limits to those who seek authority over other people to begin with? Humanity was conquered along time ago, and though the forms and rituals change throughout time, the facts do not: the people who call themselves “government” have assumed jurisdiction over other people arbitrarily and coercively, constitutions notwithstanding. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Pedophiles

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    It’s probably one of the most controversial feelings to hold, but I feel it must be said: there are few groups of people I hold as much pity for than pedophiles. Think about it. To be a pedophile, the kind of person who has a sexual preference for small children, is to grow up abused, and then to add insult to injury, to be prohibited by society from experiencing their sexual preference. Just imagine if society forbade you from your sexual preference. For me, that’s women. To be severely punished for acting on my sexual preference, or to engage in intense sexual repression, would be a prison of the worst kind. I don’t believe that my sexual preference is a choice. It came about in some way, and it’s here to stay. Pedophiles are victimized twice, and that really sucks for them. It’s one of the greatest tragedies of humanity, methinks. So what’s the solution? Beyond ending the abuse of children, I don’t know. Once that sexual preference exists, what can we as (I hope) compassionate people do about it? I truly don’t know. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Pushing Boundaries II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    It is my belief, based on historical review, that progress is primarily advanced by culture and technology, with government policy lagging behind. And how does culture and technology advance progress? By individuals pushing against the moral and political boundaries that have been erected before them. Progress doesn’t happens through political action before it’s happened in hearts and minds. And once something has taken ahold of hearts and minds, it’s inevitable that government policy gets changed. A more effective vote for progress than at the ballot box, is for each individual to identify the undesirable boundaries erected before them, and take direct action pushing against them. Courage may be required. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Charity

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I have never felt any particular pull toward giving money to charity. I used to pay tithes and give offerings to the Mormon Church, but that was out of a sense of religious obligation. I have given and will give money to nonprofit organizations like the Mises and Libertas institutes, but I don’t consider that charity. I don’t give money to beggars and panhandlers, and I don’t give money to relief funds. Why not? I’m not entirely sure. Partly, I don’t believe that money given to charity is always spent in the most helpful ways. But the bigger reason for my abstention from charitable giving is simply that I don’t believe other people deserve my hard-earned money more than me and my family do. I am incredibly wealthy by world standards, but upper-lower class by American standards. I don’t have expendable income. Perhaps if I were a millionaire, I’d feel differently. But I’m not, nor do I ever expect to be. I much prefer trade and exchange. If I think you could use some money, I’ll offer you a job to earn it, and respect you more when you accept. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Sweatshops

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    A very simple thought experiment should demonstrate the absurdity in the belief that so-called “sweatshops” are evil. Imagine for a moment the likely outcome of any given sweatshop, anywhere in the world, being closed down. Every worker in that sweatshop would immediately be unemployed and looking for new work. At some point, no doubt, they will find another job, but will it be as good as the one they just had? Not likely. Had the sweatshop not been meeting their needs as well as alternatives, they would have sooner or later left the sweatshop for greener pastures. That greener pastures were not available is compelling evidence to conclude that sweatshops are not evil, but good. Without wealthier countries willing and able to “exploit” poorer workers by offering jobs in sweatshops, those workers would never have the opportunity to “trade up” their lot in life, and cumulatively grow their economies out of poverty over time and toward First World status. Decrying sweatshops is the true evil. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Privilege Binarism

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    It may just be my perception, but it seems that social justice warrior and gender feminist types engage in, quite ironically, privilege binarism. According to them, there are two types of people, white heterosexual cisgender men (WHCM), and everyone else. The former is mostly privileged, the latter is mostly not. Nevermind that most WHCM have never held political or economic power, nor have they exercised aggression against non-WHCM to any degree that would constitute political or economic privilege. Most WHCM have been just as much victimized by institutional aggression a la schooling and the state as non-WHCM. Most WHCM are doing their best to be productive, hard-working, decent human beings, all the while being duped and coerced from a very young age into politico-religious fervor. When you fail to “problematize” the effects of institutional and parental aggression on not only WHCM, but on everyone, then you fail to see the fundamental problem of privilege: authority. If your first and loudest complaints are not made against unjust and illicit governance structure (the state) and violent parenting practices, then you are totally failing as a warrior for social justice and equality. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Euphemism

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    One of the most unfortunate components of language is euphemism. The creation and use of euphemism seems mostly a dastardly act, to fool others into agreeing with something which should be held in contempt. George Orwell called it “newspeak” in his book, 1984. Inflicting pain through violence on children is morally outrageous, but “spanking” is not. Devaluing people’s hard-earned savings through counterfeiting is scandalous, but “central banking” is not. Others assuming coercive power to decide the course of your life and property offends the sensibilities of civilized people, but “democracy” does not. Lying is shameful, but using euphemisms is the mark of social grace. I can’t recall who said it, but I agree: the first step toward wisdom is destroying euphemism. Have you been fooled? And that’s today’s two cents.

More from “Two Cents”