Capitalist Party Blog

Below is an op-ed from the excellent journal, The Objective Standard. I agree with it 100%.

HA

Op-ed from The Objective Standard

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

by Craig Biddle

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die� campaign:

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble� savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods�; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment�) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic� value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

***

Craig Biddle is the editor and publisher of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He can be contacted at cbiddle@theobjectivestandard.com.

We encourage you to forward this op-ed to anyone you think might be interested. If you wish to be removed from the list for TOS mailings, enter your email address here and click “remove.�

Copyright © 2008 by The Objective Standard. All rights reserved.

Tax is up. Again. The government is taking more of our money. This happens every year, (Budget 2002) and it seems unstoppable.

Does it matter? Only if you care for your own life and freedom. If you care little for yourself and your liberty then you should stop complaining and be grateful that a strong leadership takes the burden on its shoulders of deciding how your life should be run.

But if you do care about what happens to you and those you love, then you must act on that basis. As you know, the government, despite its speeches, is against you. It stops you acting in your own interests by forcibly taking your money through taxation, and controlling your actions and time through regulation. It does this in the name of ’stability’, ’society’, ‘the environment’, ‘the poor’, ‘children’. Somehow, everyone else is entitled to government ‘help’, but not you.

This is the ethical doctrine of altruism - otherism - applied to politics. It has underlain our system of ‘democracy’ for centuries, and it will go on until it is replaced. But how can that ever happen? What is the alternative to altruism?

Selfishness, or rational self-interest - proudly declaring that you have a right to your own life as a human being rather than as a chattel to others, that you can and should live for your own sake, without sacrificing yourself to others nor sacrificing others to yourself. Men can live in harmony, and in fact can only live full, productive lives, in a society that respects the right of everyone to choose how they spend their time, and the product of their labour i.e. their wages.

Today’s government does not do this. It takes selfishness to be the ultimate vice, and punishes every act we take to benefit our own lives. Hence the budget was primarily aimed at taking money from those who earn the most - those who have acted the most selfishly.

As has been widely pointed out, ‘Green’ taxes do not actually stop climate change, because giving your money to the government does not affect the CO2 in the atmosphere. It simply enlarges the government coffers, and more important, it punishes those who are ‘greedy’ enough to want a car, a house, or a plastic bag. The same goes for the selfish act of drinking or smoking. These activities are clearly for the enjoyment of the consumer and so, under altruism, they must be punished severely.

This budget has been hard on what it sees as Vice - namely driving, shopping and relaxing. But these activities do not actually harm anyone (ecological catastrophe mongering should be ignored). Under a rational, self-interested view of human life, they are not vices. It is today’s government that is the worst perpetrator of vice in this country, by punishing the innocent - those who dare to live for their own values and try to improve their lives.

If you agree with this analysis, what can you actually do to stop the Budget of Vice recurring? Firstly, gain a full understanding of a proper system of ethics that will allow you to defend your self in arguments with altruists.
Ayn Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness is a good place to start. Without some sound arguments, you will always be defeated, as the Conservatives are, by people who accuse you of being selfish, as if that was an argument in itself.

Secondly, spread your ideas in any manner you can, through discussion, letters to the press and MPs and on the Internet. The only reason the current system carries on is that no one puts up any serious arguments against it. Nationalism and Socialism are bankrupt and know it, leaving the Greens, with their anti-man hysteria to set the agenda of all parties.

Thirdly, consider a Budget Day Strike. Down tools on the day the Chancellor declares his intention to control us by showing your own free will, and refusing to work.

Henry Afton

Why does nobody clamour for lower taxes in hard economic times? Surely it’s clear from the 20th Century that high taxation leads to stagnation? Tax clearly has a huge effect on business. In fact a major reason for booming house prices is the opportunity of large tax free capital gains - which are not permitted on the stock market.

Tax obviously leaves businesses with less money to spend on producing goods. The money doesn’t of course disappear - it’s just put into the hands of people who couldn’t earn it themselves i.e. not those who are the most productive, and is also watered down by paying bureaucrats to move it from A to B. The net result is less goods produced.

The reason tax-lowering is evaded is moral - no one, apart from Objectivists, has a moral argument to defend selfishness, and so no one can make the case that they have a right to their own money.

After this financial fiasco, in which innocent taxpayers are being forced to pay for a private company’s mistakes, and after the recent loss of millions of personal records by the HMRC - who still thinks the government should be in charge of our lives?

These two catastrophe’s show exactly why

government must be limited

. (See The Proper Role of Govt. ).

It also shows how pointless regulations are: the FSA which regulates banks, didn’t prevent Northern Rock behaving so riskily, and instead gave investors a false sense of security; and the Data Protection Act, which tells businesses how to safely manage personal data, was completely ignored by the government.

Regulations stop people thinking for themselves. They are no substitute for individuals thinking and taking responsibility for their actions. Instead, government regulation steps in, nullifies the minds of those involved, and then the government - which made the decisions - takes responsibility. But what if it can’t actually do anything? What if it can’t make risky investments safe and what if it does allow a junior employee to send unencrypted private information through the post? Reality won’t budge.

This is the whole pattern of modern government: take away personal responsibility (national insurance, health, income tax, pensions, regulation, child benefit …..) and then when it all goes wrong, shrug and maybe apologise. Too bad for the ruined retirements, bodies, bank accounts, and businesses. But “Sorry” doesn’t cut it. This government must be excoriated, thrown out of office, and a new system of government set in its place - one that limits the damage a government can do.

After all, essentially, the government are the men with guns. If you think in those terms whenever you hear of a government plan, it should give you pause. For example, ‘the men with guns today announced they would safeguard the financial system’. (How? Hold up the banks with bullets?) Or, ‘The men with guns today announced they would save everyone’s life and make them live longer’. (How? By pumping people full of lead so they’re so stiff they can’t keel over?).

Our lives are not safe in the hands of the men with guns. We need them - but only for a specific purpose - to retaliate against the stealers of life, liberty and property - nothing else.

Ayn Rand is the progenitor of modern capitalist ideas including a whole philosophy, called Objectivism, that backs it up. You can find a lexicon and FAQ on her ideas at Ayn Rand Lexicon.

The reason tax is so high is that the government provides so many things, including law and order, education, street cleaning, train tracks, food regulation, car regulation, border control, healthcare, unemployment insurance, charity, foreign aid, armed forces, planning regulation, pensions, roads, telecoms franchises and national parks. But is the list right? Should the government do all these things? If there is no limit to what they do, then haven’t we obtained communism, where the state runs everything?

So what is the proper purpose of government? What are its proper limits?

This question can be tackled in two ways. Firstly, one can ask of all the above things, which cannot be done by a non-government organisation or even individual. And secondly, one can ask why we need a government at all. Today, I will tackle the first.

Can a non-government organisation or individual provide law and order? No. That’s the definition of anarchy.
Can it provide education? Yes. Witness private schools and home schooling.
Can it provide street cleaning? Yes. Anyone can use a broom.
Can it provide train tracks? Yes. They were all built by private enterprise
Can it provide food regulation? Yes. There are many private standards bodies.
And so on.

This leaves a very small list that only the government does: law and order and the armed forces. This is because only these activities require the one distinctive attribute a government has: a legal monopoly on the use of force in a geographic area.

By undertaking other activities, the government is using its force (the only thing it has by its nature), to interfere with the activities of its citizens. Usually the purpose is to win favour with certain voters or to fulfil the requirements of some phony dogma such as nationalism, socialism or environmentalism. Whatever their motives, the government who undertakes these extra activities, and the people who back it, must be made aware that they are the aggressors, who, trusted with the power of retribution and justice, have betrayed it and used power to control the innocent.

If government consisted of only the police, the courts and the armed services, taxes would be miniscule and would not have to be collected by force. For how a capitalist state would be funded see FAQ

Today Reform published figures showing that the IPOD generation are heavily burdened by taxation. The result is debt, poverty and anxiety. Why should they suffer like this?

We are born free. Who would say that a baby has a duty to sacrifice its life to the state? To spend the precious hours of its life working for no reward other than to fulfil the wishes and purses of its political masters? Only the most evil Nazi or Communist. And yet as the baby grows up, somehow this duty is acquired. How? Where does it come from? When and why do we lose our freedom and become slaves? Why should our own money be robbed from us and our actions be curtailed by state regulation?

There is no logical answer. Some will say that we have a duty to society? Where does that come from? Thin air.

In contrast, I say we have a ‘duty’ to ourselves - to live the fullest lives we can, for our own sake, free to aim for our highest ambitions, and free from the thinly veiled force that underlies taxation and regulation. That ‘duty’ to ourselves comes from that fact that we are alive, and our very existence as rational human beings requires it.

Let no one tell you that you must do what the state says, because it represents society and you owe your life to society. That is a lie. You owe your life to the free choices you make and the rewards you earn as a result. No one can breath for you, or live for you and so no one can or should try and make you live for them.

To the IPODS who are Insecure, Pressurised, Over-taxed, and Debt-ridden: it doesn’t have to be this way - learn that you have a right to your own life and why, spread those ideas, and one day the Capitalist Party will give you back your freedom by eliminating taxation, and regulation.

What a charade we were treated to the other week - both main parties pretending that they were in favour of cutting taxes. They wanted to show they cared about our impoverishment and that perhaps the state did take a bit too much from our wallets. What lies. They cared only for headlines that might get them more votes and so more power.

Here’s why - both parties were not reducing the tax burden on principle, they were simply going to readjust who pays for it. The Tories said they’d tax non-domiciled foreigners (who can’t vote). And Labour were going to adjust the ceiling of inheritance tax, while being sure to soak the rich (whose votes don’t matter if they are relatively small in number). Both parties are nakedly pursuing power over principles.

Why don’t they just stop evading on tax issues - our taxes and our votes give them power and they will do and say anything in order to win both.

This is the ugly unsaid truth. Well, why not bring it into the open by calling their bluff? Let’s call for a radical reform of the political system: No vote, No tax and vice versa. Surely there should be no taxation without representation? So what if we decide we don’t want to be represented?

Let’s see how many people would rather have a vote than keep their own money!

I bet you very few.

Several people have suggested I write a blog that puts forward the radical case for capitalism that I have discussed with them personally. So here it is. I hope to leave registration open for comments, but if the Leftists/Greens/Tories/Religionists start abusing my property - as they are wont to do - I shall bring in restrictions. ‘Freedom of Speech’ laws don’t currently mandate that I provide a free platform for my opponents. However, since we all have to pay for the BBC’s propaganda, and since today’s politicians have also written laws that force us to pay for their party machines, don’t be surprised if that changes.

Welcome to the world of Capitalism

- how the world could be and should be. A world where the individual reasoning mind is held as sacrosanct. And where the resulting freedom and prosperity will put past societys’ achievements in the shade.