New Site

I have a new site at www.insurgocasca.com

On the NonExistence of Natural Rights

Before I begin, it is important to get through the semantics that may arise in the reader's mind before they arrive to the crux of the issue. When I use the word "right" what I mean is that which is inalienable and has been passed down from a higher being. A right is not that which a government allows its citizens to do. Rights can not come from any material being but must come from a source that is immaterial or nonexistent. This factor usually depends on the status of your religion; are you a theist or an atheist? I am an atheist and believe that when I die there will be no deity that will cast judgement upon me, either good or bad, for what I did during my material life.

To those who are theists, or better said believe in a afterlife judge, the concept of rights may be very different. For instance, if I were a Christian I would believe that judgement will be brought down upon me by god in the afterlife for having disobeyed its laws the many times I did. I also may believe that this deity gave its creations certain rights that if infringed upon would be punished. In example, if I were to murder another individual, and if I believed in god, I would suppose that the deity would punish me for the act. This punishment is a necessity for rights to exist. That is, punishment must exist in all instances for rights to exist.

Now, if you were to take an atheists stance on the issue, the afterlife judge would not exist and circumstances change drastically. Lets analyze the following scenario for clues as to why right do not exist in an atheists interpretation of reality. Lets take for instance that there are only two individuals who live on Earth; they are named Rothbard and Mises. Lets also presuppose that they live fairly close to each other. If one day Mises becomes angry that Rothbard because he has been able to harvest more wheat in a certain year, he may decide to commit an act against Rothbard. If Mises acts on this feeling and kills Rothbard there will be no punishment for him. Mises will live out his life either happy of his actions or unhappy but his mood does not change the reality of the situation. Mises will die as naturally as most individuals.

Therefore the right to life, right to ones property, the right to education, the right to due process, et cetera, are nonexistent. These rights are fabrications of humanity and many of them are mutually exclusive such as the right to ones property and the right to education. In order to grant education to all individuals some level of coercion is necessary and as a result the private property of individuals must be seized to serve this supposed greater good. Now, I am not saying that rights both exist and do not exist depending on ones beliefs. What I am saying is that rights do not exist because there is no afterlife. Those theists who believe in an afterlife and god-granted rights are merely delusional.

Lets also tackle the concept that government grants rights. If this were to be true then one would believe that those of Jewish faith in National Socialist Germany did not have a right to live, as Hitler believed. Most individuals would say that this is an extreme case but under the above premises is it really that extreme? This was a government with certain laws and certain beliefs "gave" and "took" rights from select groups. Just as our government did during the times of slavery, we refused to "give" the right of freedom from slavery to the african captives. Now most moral individuals would believe that these groups had a right to their life and liberty but that government was wrong but then I ask, where did this supposed right to life and liberty come from? It is one thing to believe in a set a morals that you believe to expand your happiness, others happiness, and move society in a forward direction but can anyone claim that which is moral is also a right? I think not. There may be some readers that are confused at the points I have made, many may think that I have defended the historical actions of this government or that of National Socialist Germany. This is false, their actions were morally abhorrent. That said, the Jews had no right to life, the slaves had no right to freedom from captivity but on the same premises those governments had no right to do what they did to those groups of individuals. No deity, no afterlife judge has given these "rights" to either government or man. What is accomplished or not accomplished in this world is under influence of one word: force. Man can only accomplish things, goals, actions, et cetera, by the implementation of force.

This leads us into the crux of the argument. Man, in every sense of the word, is a user of force. When one consumes fruits, vegetables, animals, builds houses, swims in the ocean, there is force being used. Man is extracting resources by force from the land and manipulating the status quo of nature to fit his desires. In addition, when a man kills, steals, trades, gives, et cetera, he is doing these actions under some guise of force. In the cases of violent interpersonal interactions, force is more directly noticeable. When a man kills another, force is used upon the victim by the assailant; the same holds for the thief. The situation becomes a little more complex when speaking of peaceful interpersonal interactions. When individual A buys a banana from individual B it is a mutual reduction of force against one another for mutual benefit. Individual A hands money to individual B believe that individual will not leave without handing over the rights of force over the banana. In other words, when something is bought it is simply a peaceful transfer of force, as opposed to a violent transfer in the case of a murder or theft. Now individual B may leave without giving over the banana to individual A, thus having sequestered the others money by use of force. Individual A could then decide to allow the individual B to have the control of the money or A may decide to run after B and retrieve the money by force. Either way, A is either giving the control of the money to B or will take it back by force. In both cases, force is either being used or not being used. It is by using force or not using force that purposeful human action occurs.

Another example I like to conjure in describing this theory of the nonexistence of rights is that of the man and the mansion. Lets take it that there is an individual, lets call him Frank, who lives in mansion in the middle of no where and his neighbor, William, is a very devious person. William has always been envious of Frank's wealth and decided to overrun a portion of Franks mansion and claim it as his for as long as possible. William gathers an arsenal, breaks into a wing of the mansion, sets up the necessary materials to defend the area, and just sits there. Now a few things can occur, either Frank never notices because his mansion is just that big, Frank notices and decides to leave that wing in Williams hands, Frank tries to take back the wing of the mansion by force, or Frank can not or does not desire to take back the wing of the mansion by his own force and calls mercenaries and/or police for aid. In all of these cases you can see that what determines if Frank will have dominion over that section of the mansion is a force that will out due the force provided by his devious neighbor William. Now the reader may claim that Frank still owns that section of the mansion even if William has sequestered it but I ask you, how is that so? Can an individual own something without being able to use force against anyone who tries to take it from them? What I am saying is that ownership is totally dependent on force. William will own that part of the mansion until he is removed by either Frank, his mercenaries, or the police. Now one can argue the William is being morally unjust but morals are simply a value system; morals are an indication of preference in extra-personal and personal actions, not a statement of reality.

Therefore, from these premises comes the following: humanity's is totally dependent on the use or nonuse of force against other humans or nature. Government is nothing but a group of individuals that impose their will on others through the use of force; the same holds with murders, rapists, thieves and all antisocials. Voluntary interaction between individuals is a spoken, written, or assumed mutual agreement to not use force in the acquisition of the other's goods but only in the protection of their own property.

Back In The Game

It has been sometime since I last posted and it mostly has to do with the incredibly busy schedule I've had over these last few months. Hopefully I will be able to make it up to those who still visit my blog. I am working on a project that I have wanted to complete for quite a long time. It is an economics research paper into certain epochs of Cuban history. All the details haven't been laid out yet but the train will be moving along soon. Stay tuned.

Ron Paul 2008!

Austrian Scholars Conference Speech

This is a sneak preview for all those who will attend my session at the 2007 Austrian Scholars Conference

Since the early days of the Vienna school, dating back to Carl Menger, the Austrians have had a devoted connection to methodological individualism and the rejection of historical interpretation of data as a foundation for theory. It was important to understand the inner workings of a market and the importance of the role individual decisions played in the unraveling of the economic system. The use of statistical data, averages, aggregates, and other forms of interpreting economic events has always been shunned by the Austrian school. As a result, the strength of Austrian theory truly lies in its embrace of concepts that capture the heart of the market and a purposeful rejection of statistical methodology which does little more than misdirect the attention of fruitful study. It is this use of averages and aggregates that have brought about some of the most conflicting and foundation-less theories in the field of economics. Keynesianism is notorious for its incredible aggregation of economic data and all the confusion it has brought about for both non-Keynesians and Keynesians alike. Simply stated, the use of averages and aggregates in economic theory do nothing more than develop incorrect doctrines and remove the focus of economics away from individual decision and human action. That said, the embrace of averages and aggregates is not only applicable to non-Austrian economists, but can be found in the writings of Eugen Böhm-Bawerk and even in the early writings of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. More specifically, what I am going to speak about is the past acceptance of the failed concept of the “average period of production.” Before this, however, it is of the utmost importance that some time be spent discussing the period of production and those elements that effect it.

The importance of capital theory in Austrian economics, especially when dealing with the Austrian theory of the business cycle, is undeniable. It is only through constant study and understanding of the workings of the structure of production in a modern economy that the field of economics can begin to understand that true effects of central banking monetary policy. Since the publishing of Principles of Economics in 1871 capital theory has been an integral part of Austrian market theories. All Austrians recall the Mengerian example of the bread industry and the subsequent explanation of higher order and lower order goods. That those goods that are closer to consumption are to be referred as “lower order goods” and that those farther away from the ultimate product are goods of a “higher order.” The need for this distinction lies in the fact that these intermediate goods respond differently to varying occurrences in the market and that there structure is inherently ordinal. In other words, in order to properly contemplate changes in the structure of production, one must acquaint oneself with the differing stages of production and how they interact with one another in order to produce the final output. Alfred Marshall in his Principles, attacked Menger’s use of the terms “higher” and “lower” order, stating that they were too ambiguous and that little of importance could be attached to them. His reasoning was that if a train can be used to transport bread, bread machinery, and parts used to make machinery which, in turn, produce bread, that this train would be at the same time a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order good; this he deemed was a sheer impossibility. The counter-argument here is brought to light when we realize that Marshall was simply looking at the physical nature of the train and not the role the train was playing in the production of the various goods. In all reality, the train can be a good of a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th at the same time, all that is of importance is the role it plays in the creation of final output. In an economy where different processes are going on simultaneous and where there are interactions with all stages of production, it is only natural that some goods play a role in every stage of production. Therefore, what is important is not the physical attributes of any specific economic good but, instead, what must be noted is its contribution to the continuing, simultaneous production processes of the modern economy.

This leads us into the discussion of the period of production and the relevance of such a concept in the analysis of a modern economy. The period of production is simply that time-span which elapses between the raw beginnings of a good and its ultimate consumption. In the case of a knife, one can think of the mining of iron ore, the smelting of the metal, the molding of the iron into a knife, its sale to wholesale and then retail and its final use by the consumer. This entire process is encompassed in the period of production. As changes in certain elements occur, namely the rate of interest, there will be a direct effect on the length of the period of production. As the rate of interest decreases there will be this tendency to shift the period of production outwards, towards a lengthier structure of production. On the other hand, if there is an increase in the rate of interest there will be a shortening of the period of production. In both of these scenarios, market participants had dictated their will through the rate of interest as to how forward-looking entrepreneurs should become in their ventures. The rate of interest, which is governed largely by the time-preference schedule of individuals, will shift according to any changes in the saving patterns of society. If individuals begin to save more and decide to convert theses funds into investments, this will bring about a decrease in the rate of interest. Through higher rates of saving, individuals are indicating to entrepreneurs that they should become more forward-looking and elongate the period of production to accommodate increased future consumption. Vice-versa, if individuals become less thrifty, they will reduce the amount of funds they are willing to lend and, as a consequence, they will increase the rate of interest. In such a scenario, market participants have decided to be less future-oriented and are demanding more current consumption in exchange for less future consumption. This shift in the time-preferences of individuals comes up on the economic accounting books as a reduction in the profit margins of some business ventures and an increase in the profit margins of others. By a simple alteration in originary interest -that is the ratio between future and present consumption decided by social time-preference schedules- economic actors are decreasing the profitability of creating some goods in order to shift resources to the creation of others. It is this alteration in the period of production that manifests the will of market participants. That said, if individuals increase their consumption and reduce the supply of capital, there will be this regression in the overall standard of living and the production process will be said to be less “capitalistic.” As von Mises has taught us, it is only through a constant increase in the amount of funds, up and above the quantity needed to replace existing capital stock, which will elevate the standard of living and further isolate society from a hand-to-mouth existence. It only because of a lengthening of the period of production that society can, in the long-run, increase the standard of living of all individuals. Though a positive analysis of changes in originary interest explain the effects of such an alteration on the capital structure, it is the role of normative analysis to indicate what is best for society.

As has been discussed, it is correct and proper to speak of a shortening or an elongation of the structure of production with respect to changes in various factors, including but not limited to changes, originary interest. That said, all discussions of a period of production are not as fruitful. For instance, the Böhm-Bawerkian concept of the “average period of production” does little in properly expressing the extent and length of the structure of production. The average period of production was developed by Böhm-Bawerk as an alternative to what he saw as the absolute period of production. This “absolute” period of production was the estimation of a structure of production that dated back centuries, if not millennia. From the first achievements of primitive peoples to the technological advances of modern-day scientists, it can all be encompassed in an absolute period of production. The idea is that because of the early discoveries of primitive societies and efforts of ancient peoples, modern economic processes can exist. Böhm-Bawerk uses the example of a boy who “whittles a willow whistle with his pocket knife” and is enjoying the ultimate good of a production process whose initial stages can be dated back centuries in the past when the first hole was dug to make the iron mine. It was then that the iron collected from the ancient mine was molded, given its final touches and eventually sold to the boy. Even though this may seem correct, there are many fundamental problems with this approach to calculating the period of production. In general, the idea that a period of production can be traced into the past is nonsensical. As Ludwig von Mises writes in Human Action, “acting man does not look at his condition with the eyes of an historian” and that as a consequence “the length of time expended in the past for the production of capital goods available today does not count all.” In other words, economic actors value capital goods -and all goods for that matter- on account of how they can best satisfy their immediate or more remote wants. The value placed on capital goods is totally dependent on the originary interest of modern-day market participants and thus, any discussion of previous laboring is not applicable. Though modern-day capital stock has grown to such an extent, much due to the past saving of previous generations, this capital stock can immediately be withered away if a change in the time-preferences of individuals wills it so and consumers are driven to “consume” part of their capital stock. Therefore, it is important to understand that the period of production does not begin thousands of years in the past but instead, how Professor de Soto notes, “the first stage of production begins precisely at the moment the entrepreneur conceives of the final stage in the process (a consumer good or a capital good).”

In an attempt to distance himself from the unattractive “absolute” period of production, Böhm-Bawerk sought to develop an alternative method of reaching a more proper period of production. As a consequence, Böhm-Bawerk developed the “average period of production” which takes a weighted arithmetic mean of all investment periods in an effort to illustrate the intensity of “roundaboutness” in any given economy. By using this average, Böhm-Bawerk believed that it was much simpler to understand the extent of a society’s capital stock and the sophistication of an economy’s productive structure. Any lengthening of the structure of production would come about as a positive shift of the average period of production and vice-versa with respect to a shortening of the structure of production. The problem with this approach was correctly summed up in a 1902 submission to the Quarterly Journal of Economics by Frank Albert Fetter in which he notes that Böhm-Bawerk’s average period of production commits a serious fallacy, namely the fallacy of averages. The average period of production fails because it indicates that the average length of time of the totality of the production process found in an economy has a direct connection to the extent of an economy’s output. As Fetter shows, some different industries have differing maturities with respect their production inputs. If capital is moved around so that it will increase the overall yield of an economy, it may decrease the average period of production. Under such a scenario, the average would have decreased indicating a decrease in economic output but in all reality output has been increased due to this negative shift in the average period of production.

Hayek also had his qualms with the concept of an average period of production. In part, his writing The Pure Theory of Capital had to do with his detachment from the average period of production. Hayek wrote that “while Böhm-Bawerk was fundamentally right, his exposition in terms of an average period of production was so oversimplified as to mislead in application.” Hayek argued that because of the nature of the average period of production, only when all capital goods are homogenous will there be a definite connection between the quantity of capital and the overall level of output. If different capital goods were weighted in value, this weighing process would have to factor in the rate of interest, something the average period of production does not include. Hayek also notes a point given by Knut Wicksell in his Lectures on Political Economy where he uses the existence of compounding interest as a counter to the average period of production. Because of compounding interest, the matured value of any production process is directly dependent on the rate of interest and not only simple interest. Hayek understood that the market is made up of complex phenomena and to assume homogenous capital or simple interest is quite unrealistic. Therefore, it must be concluded that, as Hayek puts it, “the amount of waiting involved in a particular investment is not simply proportional to the length of the investment period and the value of the input invested, but is dependent also on the rate of interest.” In addition, the mere fact that the implementation of different inputs in different ways at varying rates of interest will produce distinctly different averages makes the whole attempt of arriving at such an average pointless.

One last thing I must speak about that I have discussed in my paper is a critique given by Sir John R. Hicks in his work on capital theory, titled Value and Capital. In his literature, Sir Hicks attacks Böhm-Bawerk’s average period of production as being fundamentally incorrect. Though the average period of production is faulty, Sir Hicks’ reasons for the incorrectness of the concept is theoretically unsound. Sir Hicks believes that Böhm-Bawerk was wrong in stating that the average period of production could be discussed in terms of a period of time (e.g. 5.6 years, 2.5 years, etc.) and that in order to properly make use of the concept, it must be stripped of its time-based nature. Sir Hicks writes that “once the Austrian theory is put behind us, the only important thing which emerges is the general conclusion....that changes in the rate of interest affect the ‘tilt’ or crescendo of the production plan.” John Hicks disagreement with the average period of production was not due to the illegitimacy of discussing the structure of production in terms of a single average but, instead, that this average was in terms of a time-interval. To Sir Hicks, simply discussing a shift in the crescendo or height of the average period of production was sufficient and that referring to a period of time is pointless. What is important to note is that the use of an average in discussing periods of production is what is fundamentally wrong and not simply its time dimension. As analyzed, the problem inherent in the average period of production is due to what Frank Fetter saw as the “fallacy of averages.” Sir Hicks published a book later in his life titled Capital and Time: A Neo-Austrian Theory in which he again discusses, yet much more briefly, the average period of production and does not claim to reject any of his previously stated arguments.

In sum, it is necessary and proper for any economic school of thought to develop a correct theory of capital and understand how various different elements may effect the structure of production. For the Austrian school, Böhm-Bawerk laid the foundation for the brilliant expositions of capital theory found in Hayek’s The Pure Theory of Capital and Mises’ Human Action. Though Böhm-Bawerk’s refutations of various incorrect interest theories and his deduction of time-preference as a determinant of capital value are to be forever remembered, there were some concepts present in Capital and Interest that has, still to this day, had a negative influence on what Rothbard believed was capital theory in its “real form.”

Chavez: The Inflationator

Chavez, in all his infinite wisdom, has discovered a method of curbing inflation in Venezuela and Latin America in general. The elected Fidelista has decided to strip the bolivar of three zeros, thus converting a 1,000 bolivar note into a 1 bolivar note and so on with the rest of the denominations. As ridiculous as it sounds, this is an attempt by dictator Chavez to end the strong presence of inflation in Venezuela. Economists and bankers disapprove of the plan saying that businesses will most likely increase prices in the process of rounding up their inventories to meet the new bolivar specifications.

Being an Austrian, this is one of the funniest articles I have read. Its incredible that people still believe that central banking and inflation are independent of one another. If Chavez really wanted to end inflation in his country, strengthen its economy and currency, then all he would need to do is abolish the central bank and allow a free market in money. That said, communists and free markets obviously don't go together. Communists, like Chavez, love price-fixing, and interest-rate/inflation targeting is no different. Individuals tend to think that price controls on commodities and goods are harmful but apparently the same doesn't apply the financial sector. We have come along way in the field of economics to still believe in central planning, central banking, and financial-market price-fixing.

We'll see where Chavez and his cronies go. It seems that Venezuela will be the Cuba of the 21st century and the Venezuelan people will have egg on their face.

The CPI and Government's House of Mirrors

The Consumer Price Index (or CPI) was first released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1919 and has been published every month since. It uses a statistical measurement of market prices to capture inflationary trends in select markets. The Bureau of Labor Statistics believes that by observing changes in the prices of a wide variety of goods over a period of time, inflationary tendencies can be accurately tracked. Therefore, the CPI aims to measure the rate of inflation every month and what effect this is having on the prices of certain goods.

The CPI is, generally, pretty straight forward but there are different types of indexes. The CPI-W (or CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) seeks to calculate the rate of change in the prices of goods that clerical or wage earners consume. The CPI-U (or CPI for All Urban Consumers) observes the rate of price changes for goods that are purchased by all urban consumers. The reason a certain CPI is cited over another depends on what the statistic will be used for. Laborers and wage earners tend to use the CPI-W to calculate the needed percentage increase in wages so that their salaries can keep up with inflation. The CPI-U is primarily used to understand the effect of inflation on the average consumer in an urban setting. For most intents and purposes, the CPI-U is what is primarily used when discussing inflation and positive changes in the general price level.

There is yet another CPI and it is called the "core" CPI. The core CPI also tries to measure changes in prices of goods and services that urban consumers purchase. The main difference between the core CPI and the CPI-U is that the core CPI discriminates against certain "volatile" products. "Volatile" products are consumption goods that are said to have very "unstable prices" and would subsequently bring about unwanted sporadic movements in the CPI if not otherwise removed. As a result, the core CPI usually excludes commodities such as food products and energy goods which are said to experience sudden seasonal changes in price.

The core CPI is not used as often anymore and has been overshadowed by the Federal Reserve preferred "core Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index" (or core PCE) that is published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The core PCE uses data on personal consumption expenditures -calculated by the National Income and Product Accounts- to arrive at the rate of inflation. The core PCE also leaves out "volatile" food and energy prices. The difference between the core PCE and the core CPI is in method and not necessarily what basket of goods is chosen.

The Austrian school position on indexes such as the CPI and the PCE is best understood via business cycle theory and the effects of monetary inflationary policies. First of all, the CPI is an average of the changes in price of particular goods and services that consumers enjoy purchasing. When mainstream economists and politicians obtain at the rate of inflation put out by the CPI, they use it as a yardstick with which to measure the price changes of all goods. If there is a good that is increasing in price quicker than the CPI then it must mean that there is some non-inflationary explanation for the occurrence.

In all reality, inflation is not a positive change in the general price level but an increase in the money supply. When the Federal Reserve prints out money, certain industries get the newly-printed money first. This "new money" is then used by the industry workers to purchase the certain goods and services that they desire. Austrian business cycle theory holds that the prices of those goods that come in contact with the "new money" first will rise first and a chain reaction will then occur with almost all prices throughout the economy. It would be too complex to get into a discussion here as to why these prices rise and in what manner they rise but the idea is that increases in the income of wage earners -propagated by Federal Reserve inflationary policy- increases the monetary demand for certain goods and also tends to increase the real demand. Sometimes, inflationary spending is concentrated in one or two industries. This results in what has come to be called economic "bubbles" or isolated pockets of inflationary price movements.

In addition, the use of such measurements as the CPI tends to steer the public's focus away from the idea that inflation could be anything other than a general increase in prices. It is because of CPI indexes that individuals have come to think of inflation as a positive movement of the prices of goods and not an increase in the quantity of money brought on by Federal Reserve Open Market Operations. In other words, the CPI informs people that the cause of a rise in prices is, well, a rise in prices. The CPI hides the idea that inflation can be independently measured from an increase in prices.

What has been discussed is more of a normative economic analysis of CPI as opposed to a positive economic analysis yet there are many economists who also have problems with the way the CPI is actually calculated.

So there you have it. The CPI and the PCE are just two more ways government gets away with the crimes it's committing.

Libertarianism: Beyond Left and Right

It seems that the time has come for me to briefly explain the libertarian philosophy and set it aside from the modern “right” versus “left” construct. The concept of “right” versus “left” is one that is highly skewed and does not address the vast differences in the philosophy of individuals on either extreme. In fact, there are many people that fit into neither "right" nor "left." For instance, an individual who adores capitalism and believes that individuals should be able to consume marijuana at their own risk does not fit into the conventional "left" versus "right" construct; this individual displays elements of both philosophies. Can it be that this person is confused or is it that we have a false understanding of the make-up and determination of political orientations? The answer is: most likely the latter and libertarianism provides the proof. Libertarianism does not see the political atmosphere as simply “right” versus “left,” healthcare spending versus war spending, trees versus guns, socialism versus capitalism, etc. but instead libertarians view the make-up of ideologies as a spread between anarchism and totalitarianism.

On one end of the spectrum there are statists and on the other end there are anarchists. One group favors a government that intervenes in all human affairs -both economic and social- while the other believes that no government has the right to dictate actions between individuals, regardless of the circumstance. Such extremist groups exist but more common are variations of either side. Libertarians tend to think that "rightists" and "leftists" are actually one in the same, namely, statists. We believe that the true emphasis is not how government spends the money of the people but that it is in fact spending it at all. We do not necessarily care in what direction government is growing larger but instead that it is growing at all. It is nothing short of an exercise in ignorance to label a libertarian a "leftist" or a "rightist" for true libertarians find very few fundamental agreements with either sect.

As a result of this interpretation of political ideologies, libertarians would tend more to the anarchist side of the political spectrum. That said, an overwhelming majority of libertarians are not anarchists and believe that government, as much of an inefficient force as it maybe, is necessary to carry out certain tasks such as maintaining a military, police force, and a court system. It is not that libertarians favor anarchy over any other type of extreme political orientation but instead it is anarchy that most resembles the minimalist government libertarians tend to drift towards.

In essence, libertarianism is the philosophy that the individual knows what is best for their life and that they know how they must conduct themselves so as to reach their goals. Libertarians are champions of capitalism in that they understand that human productivity is engaged through the profit and loss mechanism. Capitalism is what naturally arises by way of profitable human interactions and it is the logical result of individuals trying to maximize their utilities. Libertarians see socialism as a destructive system that ruins the productive mechanisms of free human interaction and trade. It is socialism (government ownership of the means of production) and fascism (government ownership of the direction and totality of output) that rob the people of their natural productive abilities. These governmental institutions try to mimic an economic system that can only exist outside of central planning. Only when there is an absence of central planning and business regulations can capitalist productivity reach it's crescendo.

Individuals also tend to believe that fascism and socialism are diametrically opposed; this can not be further from the truth. In reality, socialism and fascism are ideological cousins and variations of the same line of thought. Both systems are embrace certain aspects of central planning and both try to forcefully manipulate the social and economic normalities of the citizenry. These institutions also seek to control their economies or the output of their economics and as a consequence force society to accept the lifestyles of another group of individuals.

One will find that there are strong black markets in societies that are or were under the grip of socialism or fascism. This is a result of their respective governments banning certain economic transactions and criminalizing select "anti-social" behaviors. For instance, the United States Federal Government has been immersed in a drug war since Franklin D. Roosevelt and as a result has spent billions of dollars fighting the use of drugs in the United States and abroad. Though the government can attack the supply side of the drug community all it wants, the demand side will never recede. In fact, many will argue that the demand for drugs has increased significantly because of the existence of the drug war and the "taboo" nature of illegal drugs in modern social circles. Before the drug war, crack-cocaine never existed but a few years after Richard Nixon increased funding for the drug war, crack-cocaine was introduced as a cheaper version of cocaine. In essence, because the drug war had run the price of cocaine through the roof, the black market sought new ways to deliver to their clients the same effects but at a cheaper (both in quality and price) rate. The market for heroine also changed dramatically since the inception of the drug war. A drug that used to be diluted is now incredibly pure and has caused -as a result of its increasing purity- a number of overdoses. People believe that whenever an individual overdoses on heroine or cocaine it is because of the inherent properties of the drug itself yet this is not the reality of the situation. If heroine and cocaine were legal, the market would regulate it's purity down to a level that minimized overdosing.

Many individuals also believe that libertarians are "doves" and that they fear or are inherently against war; again, this is also false. The mainstream libertarian opinion of war is that in certain incredibly rare cases, war is necessary. That said, we are also against "jumping-the-gun" and understand that war is not only incredibly costly in terms of dollars but also in terms of lives. Many times wars wipe out an entire generation of individuals and not at a profit either. All wars have a certain direct cost but few see the indirect costs of the war. For instance, everyone speaks of the billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq but few add-in the lost lifetime productivity of those killed in the conflict. Libertarians understand that not all countries or individuals are moral and just, this is why we believe very strongly in the right to bear arms as a method of self protection. At the same time, we believe that only true threats should be engaged and that there have been very few instances in the history of the United States that serious threats have arisen overseas. With respect to certain tragic events such as 9/11, libertarians would see such occurrences as the logical conclusion of an overgrown government. Aside from the negative effects our government has had in the middle east during the entirety of the 20th century, the government has severely limited the second amendment rights of it's citizens. On 9/11, thousands of people were murdered by terrorists with simple box cutters. If individuals were able to carry guns -as allow in the second amendment-the events of 9/11 would have never occurred. Those terrorists wouldn't have been able to even mention that the planes were being hijacked before a passanger stood up and shot them.

It would be impossible to explain the totality of libertarian thought within the constraints of a single essay. That said, what all individuals must understand is that libertarianism can not be comprehended using the "right" versus "left" false dichotomy but must be understood using the "no-government" versus "totalitarianism" spectrum. Libertarianism is the only philosophy that aims at preserving individual liberty, laissez-faire capitalism, and confronting all threats with a sound heart and mind. Therefore, a libertarian would state that they are the most anti-communist of all political ideologies and that many of those non-libertarian individuals that label themselves as anti-communist are out-of-touch with the reality and that they themselves practice variations of the same ideology they supposedly despise. As Ayn Rand once said when asked to explain her philosophy while standing on one foot:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.