CHICAGO, IL

by A.B. Dada
—
In response to an article posted at Slashdot, I wrote the following:

I’ve always hated doomsday scenarios because they completely ignore what the market (that’s billions of individuals looking to better themselves regardless of what government says is good and evil) has provided us over the years. Everything that doomsdayers say is evil is part of the market giving us better lives — engines, industrialization replacing human labor, commoditization of common goods and needs, etc.

They say “CO2 will kill us all” and I say the market may provide us a better life because of a rougher environment. We’ve seen science fiction talk about living in bubble/dome cities, but why would this be bad? Can you imagine what life would be like if we did have better control over our local environments? Would a bubbled city offer a better life for millions in the upper north, people who deal with more winter than summer? Would we see better air scrubbers providing better air? Would we see better control over irrigation and drought?

Who knows. I know that I trust that out of the billions of humans today we’ll find a few who can find the utility and invention needed to create tomorrow’s world. I don’t like to think of us living in vaults because that “invention” is based on yesterday’s technology. Yesterday’s technology came out of need created by the time before yesterday. Tomorrow’s technology will come out of need we face today. Don’t sell the future short, especially considering how far we’ve come in the past 1000 years, 200 years, 100 years, 50 years and 10 years. Humanity is not going to go away, it will just find ways to make life better no matter what seems to happen to the world around us.

Does that mean we should ignore “the environment” or “the poor” or the other big words? Absolutely not. What we need to do is consider the local system rather than the global system — the local system that we can make better. We also need to consider who is the worst polluter, the worst destroyer of human ingenuity and invention, the worst murderer of future geniuses and the worst controller/waster of our resources and expansion — that would be the State in each case. The State wastes a huge portion of oil on warmongering and control; it wastes a huge portion of useful labor in maintaining that control; it wastes opportunities by overregulating industries based on yesterday’s problems rather than tomorrow’s needs; it wastes a huge portion of resources by attempting to prevent change and by creating weapons and items to instill fear in the residents and “the enemy.”

It is those who are against what the State does that are giving us the most opportunity; the anti-State inventor who finds ways around the controls and regulations that actually make our lives worse in the future. The State has no desire to make your life better — it only wants to maintain and increase control over your life. Yet there are billions of people out there, and it is the individuals who look to meet current and future needs that make your life better. They have to, because if they don’t, you won’t buy from them — you won’t sustain their attempt to make their lives better by providing for what you want and need. No regulation and no use of force can do that.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.
—
A.B. Dada is the founder and editor of the Global Unanimocracy Network. He lives in the Chicago, IL region where he works as an business relations consultant and incubator entrepreneur. E-mail A.B. Dada with news links or comments on this report.

CHICAGO, IL

by A.B. Dada
—
An article at US News and World Report about the love affair between Fidel Castro and Naty Revuelta is a great read — and reminds us that everyone is just a person. There are no “madmen” who can control the world, there are no global terrorists who can be the sole fault of any attack. Every individual in power is backed by thousands, if not millions, who support them being there. This is true of terrorists and dictators in Third World countries, but it is more true of terrorists and dictators in First World countries like the U.S. and the U.K. Just because more people support a dictator does not mean that democracy is good.

Fidel Castro is now two weeks short of his 80th birthday as emergency surgery to correct gastrointestinal bleeding leads him to cede control of Cuba to his brother, Raúl Castro. This is the first time in 47 years that he has given up control of the country to someone else. Raúl is 75 years old and is the defense minister of Cuba and has made no statement of his own regarding the situation. A statement supposedly released by Castro was released saying that Castro is in good shape after the surgery and is resting, asking that the country put off celebrating his 80th birthday until December 2, which will mark the 50th anniversary of Cuba’s Revolutionary Armed Forces.

Most Americans look at Castro as a great evil dictator, but I see markable resemblences between his wielding of power and the power which has been taken by the US Federal body. Castro has promoted the following that is very similar to where the US is heading:

• Federal funded Social Security
• Federally funded education
• Federal wealth “equalization” through taxation
• Terrorist treatment — revocation of due process, no right to an attorney, no juries, secret courts and trials (military tribunals)
• Massive federal budget dedicated to military “defense”

I won’t be shocked when Fidel finally dies and control over the nation is transferred to another “democratically” elected candidate with no real competition based on outrageous regulations regarding who can get on a ballot. This feels no different to what happens in the US — whoever you vote for, it is always for one of two parties that just want to make their power stronger and pass it on to more of the same. Sure, some third parties are “allowed” on the ballot, but their financial capacity is hampered by excessive campaign finance laws that prefer the incumbent and their major party competitor. When Bush leaves office, he’ll leave to his successor a government that is bigger than it was when he took office, just as Clinton did for Bush, and just as Bush I did for Clinton. We can follow this process back to Lincoln — every President takes office with more power than the previous President did. When Mark Warner grabs the baton from G.W. Bush, he’ll be more powerful than Bush was, and he’ll have more State-created problems to try to annihilate with more State power.

Don’t be surprised that the next person you vote for is no better than the previous, unless you vote for yourself so we can show the powers that be that they can never do what is best for real individuals who just want to work hard and save for the future. Castro? Bush? Clinton? Warner? They’re all the same — they just want power, no matter how they’re elected to get it, no matter what reasons they give for why they’re worthy of the title and rank and power.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.

—
A.B. Dada is the founder and editor of the Global Unanimocracy Network. He lives in the Chicago, IL region where he works as an business relations consultant and incubator entrepreneur. E-mail A.B. Dada with news links or comments on this report.