The Forgotten Reasons for Advocating Freedom

As I watched the beginning of the Boston Red Sox game, the first baseball game played in Boston since the tragic events of 4/15/2013, I was flabbergasted by the propaganda that was taking place before my eyes. Thousands of people applauding the police who had shut down their city in an attempt to find one unarmed, wounded 19 year old. Thousands of people applauding the martial law that had come to their city. Thousands of people applauding the disintegration of The Bill of Rights and welcoming the armed men who could remove entire families from their homes at gun point without warrant and without, in my humble opinion, just cause. All for one lonely, isolated teen accused, not proven, of doing something evil and already judged guilty by the masses.

The scene was surreal. It reminded me of those other collectivist nations of the past, where the populace lined the streets and joyously applauded as their so called leaders who had brought martial law down upon them paraded by. They welcomed the tyranny. They welcomed the evil. It was only years after the fact, when the truth was able to come out, that humanity understood the suffering that authoritarian collectivism causes. Are we in the United States of America to tread down that same path? Are we to wake up decades later to discover the mistakes we made, or are we to learn from others and forego the suffering they went through? Have we so easily forgotten what our ancestors knew? Is it so easy to disregard what the founding fathers taught us? Will history remember us as those who reached the pinnacle of human potential, or as just another society who forgot history and so repeated it?

Can we remember what it was like before mankind took the first tenuous steps toward a free society? It really wasn't that long ago that royal families ruled all of Europe. They lived in opulence while the common folks lived in squalor. While it is true that there are none alive today that experienced such tyranny, enough people of empathy left record of that time for us to imagine the horrors they saw and suffered through. At first those who would be free agreed to give authority to a few elite for their protection, but soon the elite were protecting them not from outsiders who threatened physical harm, but from those within who questioned the wisdom of the authorities. People feared the authorities because authority wants fear to spread. Authority feeds on fear. Those who question authority aren't a threat to the common folk, they are a threat to the power structure.

We have more to fear from those who would lead us than we do from those who would attack us from without. Those with power over us have more to gain from terrorizing us than the outsider with no influence over our society. When we are frightened we have a tendency to rally around our so called leaders and abdicate our rights without challenge in the vain hope that we will be protected. As this progresses it always ends the same. Secrecy and corruption grow as power is centralized and the ruling elite become greedier and more entrenched in their positions of power.

Freedom for all allows for more transparency. It allows for more accountability. It allows for more personal responsibility, even in the realm of security. It allows for a more open society. It allows for more closely knit communities based on love and trust rather than doubt and fear. In short, the principles of freedom and liberty allow for all that most of us dream about. It even allows for more security, or at least it allows for us all to choose the level of security we wish to have and the level of risk we wish to take. I think that the fear generated by recent events have clouded our thinking and caused us to forget the very things we should be most conscious of, the very things the people of the United States of America should hold most sacred.

We are supposed to be the land of the brave. We are not supposed to tremble and cower in our locked down homes in fear every time some mad bombers show up in our streets, let alone some misguided kids who, from what I've been able to gather from mainstream sources, cooked up some hair-brained scheme. The real terrorists are laughing at us. We are supposed to be a fiercely independent nation of rugged individualists. How did we come to be so dependent on the state for our security? How did we come to be a nation of meekly obedient sheep who so easily defer to the "authorities" whenever some small time troublemaker acts out? The real terrorists are taking advantage of us. We are supposed to be a nation of freedom loving people. How did we come to be a nation of livestock begging to be tyrannized simply because we have discovered that the world can be a dangerous place? How can we give up that which is most precious to us when we are supposedly afraid to lose it? The real terrorists will be happy to take it from us.

I feel for the people of Boston. I feel for those who lost their lives and limbs and innocence on April 15th. It was a terrible tragedy, a horrible thing to go through, but the reaction was worse. Will we go after those who failed? Will anyone from law enforcement be fired? Will anyone from law enforcement be implicated in the bombing and/or be held accountable for negligence? I doubt it. They never are. Perhaps a more important question is: why do these events always seem to take place when some drill is going on? Maybe it's time to take a look at how these drills are run. Maybe we should try to find out how terrorists seem to know when they're going to happen. In a society with a more open government the answers to these questions would more likely be forthcoming.

We, as a society, seem to have forgotten what it means to be free and independent. We have come to depend on the government power structure so much that we have forgotten what it takes to find our own way in life. We have forgotten the pride one gets from working hard to create a better life for one's self and one's family. We have forgotten the immense personal sense of satisfaction one gets from knowing that what you've accomplished you've accomplished through your own efforts, not through some government largess.

It's time we rediscovered what freedom is about. True freedom brings peace. True freedom brings brotherhood. True freedom brings about security. We have tried giving power to a few elite, and they have failed. We have tried their centralization schemes and they have proved catastrophic. It's time to decentralize. It's time to strip the federal government down to its constitutional size. It's time to demand they obey the law that is the Constitution of the United States. It's time to stop cowering, step out and show that martial law is unnecessary no matter the circumstances. If we don't honor freedom in the face of terrorism, then history will not remember us as a free and independent people, but the people of the future will instead shake their heads and ask how we could not see what was coming and how it was we let the evil grow.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

How Progressives Love and Support Corporations

I don't like to label people. I don't like to speak in generalities. Unfortunately we live in a society where labels and generalities have become quite acceptable, particularly when talking in terms of politics and political beliefs. It is, in my opinion, because of this, at least partially, that we often forget we live in an individualist society. It is among the most unique societies in human history. As part of Westernized culture we have romanticized the idea of freedom, but as Americans we have squandered the ideals of the founding fathers and allowed a tyrannical centralized government and their corporate backers to gain too much power and influence over our personal lives. I believe this is because we as human beings seem to have this tendency toward wanting to collectivize. This likely has something to do with the human desire to be loved and accepted by others. We worry that if we don't share the same customs and beliefs as others that they will not accept us for loving, caring human beings.

Because we live in a world where generalizations are prevalent in the media, how we define the labels we use becomes distorted. For instance, progressives are supposed to hate corporations and love government regulations and intervention in the markets. Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, are supposed to love corporations by hating such government regulations and interventions and loving the idea of smaller government. But the opposite is true. While many progressives would be loathe to admit that they love and support huge corporate entities, in practice they do. In the real world it is actions that matter, not words. It is not so much what you say as what you do that really makes the difference.

Any so called progressive that is reading this is by now likely throwing a fit. Inside his head he is likely fuming as he thinks about how much he hates corporations. His sensibilities are likely quite insulted by my accusation that he loves and supports them. He may well wonder how it is that I can support such an accusation. Well, for one thing, in at least one way they are in complete agreement with one of the most infamous robber barons ever. Like John D. Rockefeller, they hate competition and love monopolies.

Why would I say this? Simple, they hate free markets and at the same time they support the most heinous monopoly of all, the government monopoly on legalized force. They are constantly bashing free market philosophies and blaming them for the economic problems we currently face, but the fact is that there has not been true free markets in this country for a very long time, if indeed there ever were. Government interventions in the markets have been going on since before the founding of the nation, but they've become more egregious in the past few decades with the most offensive intrusion being the introduction of the latest iteration of the central bank, the privately owned Federal Reserve System, a century ago. If anyone is to blame for our current financial fiasco it is big centralized government. They have proven they are either too incompetent, too inept, or too corrupt to trust when it comes to centralized planning of the economy.

Free markets are all about competition. They're all about a free flow of ideas to try to keep as many consumers as happy as possible by providing products and services that are demanded by the consuming public. John D. Rockefeller said that competition is a sin and apparently progressives agree for they seem to think that big government regulation is a better way than competition to keep corporations in check. They seem to think it's better to grant a monopoly on legitimized force to a small group of elites and then have them erect barriers that prevent competition from entering the market in an effort to contain corporate influence rather than eliminating barriers, letting competition bring choice to the marketplace and then letting the consumers decide which products and services they wish to purchase and which they wish to shun. In this manner, progressives and the robber barons are on the same page.

Let us not forget that corporations are government entities. The government defines what a corporation is and what the rules are to incorporate. Government allows for limitations to be placed on the liabilities corporations can be held accountable for, hence the LL in LLC. Big government decides the fate of these corporations, not the courts, not the consumers, and agents of big government are going to label their inept friends as "too big to fail" instead of letting the free marketplace do its job and force the inept to fail so that the competent can replace them.

What do the progressives do? Do they demand that incompetent, inept and corrupt government get out of the way so that competent, more innovative, more productive businesses can step in and replace corporations and give the consumer choice? Do they call for power to be removed from centralized federal government and placed in the hands of those who will compete for the trust of the common folk?

No. They call for more laws that increase the powers of the very people who caused the problem in the first place. They don't call for the break up of the cartels and monopolies that are labeled "too big to fail," they just call for better enforcement of regulations and more restrictions. They want to make it more difficult for competition to enter the marketplace. They don't call for the arrests of corrupt politicians who helped create policy that created this mess, they call for more taxation, as if throwing money at a problem involving people who create the money in the first place will do anything to solve the problem. In short, they want to give more money and more power to the elite who already have too much wealth and too much power. They want to grow the power of the central government which then grows the power of the mega corporations. It is a recipe that will lead to an even more spectacular failure than we saw in 2008.

Progressives like to think they're all about progress. It's just a trick of the language, at least when it comes to their policies on business and corporations. Their policies are really quite regressive, but not too many people would want to be labeled a regressive. If you really want to allow the people to have their say, then laws restricting choice need to be repealed. Laws making it difficult to enter the marketplace need to be repealed. The Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, much lauded by so called progressives, needs to be repealed. A freer market where consumers can truly vote with their dollars needs to be established and then one day, hopefully, a truly free market which holds accountable the inept, incompetent and corrupt and exalts the competent and innovative will be allowed to flourish in our nation. Now that would be progress. When that happens we will all surely prosper as the high tide will raise all ships. When that happens the dream of freedom we keep in our hearts will be realized and we will understand why our forebears romanticized it so.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

Innocents Suffer, the Powerful Profit

I have said this before and I will continue to say it, I do not condone violence. I particularly abhor random acts of violence such as the one that occurred in Boston on April 15th, 2013 during the Boston marathon. I say it was a random act of violence because as of this moment, as I write this, no one has taken responsibility for it and no suspects have been arrested nor any reason given for this act. This is only speculation, but I would bet that there's some political agenda or another behind it. For some reason those who seek power over others seem to think that the way to go about gaining such power is through force and coercion.

Since I don't trust what I hear in the mainstream media, I haven't in some time now, I listen a lot to the alternative media. I don't necessarily trust what they have to say either, but I think what they have to say makes a whole lot more sense most of the time than what you hear in the state run corporate media that is supposed to be a free press. But I like to keep an open mind. Right now there are many who are trying to figure out whether this is a false flag event or not. They are trying to examine the facts and see who will benefit from this and what the agenda will be. As of now, the answers are not forthcoming and there is much speculation going on. This has been an unusual situation in that there is no boogeyman to blame as of this moment, no clear agenda to point at.

Usually in these types of bombings, some group or terrorist organization is all too happy to take responsibility for such a heinous act. They want people to know why innocent blood has been shed and so many have to suffer. Not in this case. On that front, information is slow to be leaked to the public. If some terrorist group has taken responsibility, the authorities aren't telling the public.

One thing I can say for certain, politicians will use this event to push some agenda or another. If it's some foreign terrorist organization who has done this, they'll push for more war and aggression against whatever nation they feel needs to be suppressed. If it's a domestic terrorist organization, they'll use it as an excuse to ban or tax or otherwise restrict the sale of something, perhaps ammunition or something that can used to make explosives. If it was a lone nutjob, which would be the hardest scenario to figure out, they'll use it to try to take what's left of our privacy and to violate our rights even further than they've already done. They might even use it as an excuse to roll out some kind of new surveillance gizmo, or grid, or program. No matter what, they will try to grow their own power. That seems to be their answer to everything.

Another thing I know for certain, whoever did this harmed innocent people. Events like this never hurt those who might deserve it. Like the wars we wage, bombs don't just target bad people who have caused harm to others, they harm innocents. They cause collateral damage. They harm people who are just trying to go about their day to day business. They harm children who have not even learned to hate yet. They harm women and the elderly. They harm whoever happens to be in the blast zone, no matter how evil or how kind and gentle those people may have been during the course of their lives. Innocent people suffer because someone, somewhere has some agenda to push, some quest for power to pursue.

Initiating violence doesn't work. No matter who initiates it and for what purpose, violence only begets more violence. The innocent suffer while the powerful profit, which is another reason why I often feel events like this are initiated by the powerful. It is they who feel they can gain from such violence. Yet even they have to pay a price. The price they'll pay is their humanity. That is the price for anyone who uses or condones such violence, whether that violence happens in Boston or Damascus, in Europe or in Asia, on the East Coast or in the West Bank. It is the price one pays whether they are initiating such violence for personal reasons, under orders from some terrorist group, or under orders from some state run military. Unfortunately for us, there seems to be far too many people in this world who couldn't care less for their own humanity. Until we learn to put love in front of hate, until we learn to crave peace more than power, and until we learn to respect and honor the choices of others as we would want them to respect and honor the choices we make for ourselves, we will continue to see such tragedies as occurred in Boston on April 15th, 2013.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

Justifying Unjustifiable Authoritarianism

So I just finished reading this op ed piece by one Sarah Conly who decided to step up to the plate and defend busybody mayor Bloomberg and his attempt to ban the sale of large size soft drinks in New York City. She is obviously a well educated person and makes a fairly well thought out argument over why certain freedoms should be curtailed. Well educated, however, does not necessarily mean free thinking, nor does it necessarily translate into wisdom. In fact, after reading Ms. Conly's op/ed piece I would say that she was decidedly against free thought, unless of course that free thought leads one into the arms of the ever coddling state.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Conly is a very loving soul who is quite concerned about her fellow human beings. Her op/ed piece shows that she is quite concerned with the well being of the rest of us who dwell upon the planet with her. Like most defenders of the nanny state she is quick to point out that government laws are there to protect you, and she does so in an eloquent and convincing manner. She also manages to verbally dance around one of the most important aspects of the debate, as do most apologists for government intrusion on your life, and that is the aspect of the morality of using force to change people's behavior.

Force and coercion are the tools government has to get people to comply with their mandates. With that in mind the claim can be made that all laws have the potential to carry with it the death penalty. It would work as an escalation. Man sells large sugary drink. Man is ticketed. Man refuses to pay ticket. A warrant is issued for the man's arrest. Man refuses to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction over him. Police try to force compliance. Man resists. Police kill the man. Whenever a law is passed the question should be asked, "Is this law worth killing people over?"

Some might say this is an extreme example, and they'd be right. Such people would find it very difficult to argue, however, that even though this scenario is extremely unlikely, it is not impossible. Because of its extreme nature, if such an event were to happen the man killed by the police would not be portrayed as someone trying to defend his right to engage in voluntary transactions between two consenting parties, he'd be portrayed as a crazy extremist. But perhaps they're right and I shouldn't use such extreme examples. Perhaps I should take a page from Ms. Conly's book and use examples like comparing banning certain sizes of sugary drinks with preventing someone from crossing a derelict bridge because, you know, those two situations are so similar.

In all fairness the example is not her own. Ms. Conly uses an example proffered by John Stuart Mill way back in 1859, then proceeds to disagree with him. I think the point that Ms. Conly was making, though in not so many words, is that the government creates law to keep you safe. They make laws to protect you from yourself. But this hardly works. One needs to ask the question, when does it become necessary for someone to protect us from the protectors? Let's examine the example of the bridge a little closer. She states earlier in the article that we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and apparently she thinks the way to do this is to pass laws against doing foolish stuff. With this in mind I ask, what would be the purpose of passing a law making it illegal to cross the bridge?

Ah, this would be an easy question to answer. The purpose would be to prevent people from trying to cross the bridge so that they don't fall into the river and perhaps injure or kill themselves. How do we make certain people adhere to this law? Well, let's hire men to guard or patrol the bridge and if someone tries to cross they'll tell them, "No, you can't cross this bridge." We can even arm these men so they look official and intimidating. What if, for some strange reason, the people don't want listen and decide to cross anyway? Perhaps its the best way to get to the other side despite the danger. Then those people will get citations with court dates and fines. What if they throw the citations away and still decide to try to cross despite all that? Even though it remains dangerous to do so? Well, then the guards can shoot them. After all, we have to keep people safe from their own foolish actions.

Did this law accomplish its purpose? Was its purpose truly to stop the people from crossing, or was something else at work here? Were those passing the laws maybe more interested in collecting money? Were they more interested in controlling people's behavior? Is there a better way to stop people from crossing dangerous bridges than using the force and coercion of the state?

I didn't even bother to talk about how that law doesn't prevent people from going down the embankment and trying to ford the river, even though that might be more dangerous due to strong currents, nor did I examine the various reasons one might want to cross the river. The point I'm trying to make is that force and coercion aren't always the best ways to prevent people from doing something they might want to do. In the case of crossing the bridge a sign making people aware of the danger and pointing out safer areas to cross should be sufficient. In the case of large servings of soda, perhaps some kind of public service announcement or education effort paid for by concerned citizens, such as Ms. Conly, could be a better solution than an outright ban on certain sizes of soft drinks. Perhaps the mayor himself could afford to pay for such a campaign, I understand he is quite wealthy. If he is so concerned, perhaps he should show it by voluntarily contributing his own money to such a worthy cause rather than using tax dollars to enforce a law. In either case, I do believe the individual should be left to determine for himself the level of risk he wants to take.

Ms. Conly goes on to cite studies on cognitive bias and then seems to fail to understand that she suffers from the same malady as the rest of us. I understand that my cognitive bias causes me to believe that freedom is the answer no matter the question. It seems to me that Ms. Conly has a cognitive bias that favors one size fits all state solutions known as laws. She mentions the status quo bias and then supports the status quo of political power. It also seems to me that perhaps she suffers from something I would call a propaganda bias in that she accepts the statist propaganda (i.e. for the greater good, majority rules, for the public welfare) without question. She cites cost/benefit analyses and the fact that government has the resources to use such methods as a justification for using force to get us to behave in certain manners. I say such methods have been abused in the past, are being abused in the present and will continue to be abused into the future so long as people in power can benefit from such abuse.

Going back to the beginning of her article, Ms. Conly asks "So, why is this (the ban on large sized "sugary drinks") such a big deal?" Because it should be a big deal. There needs to be a line drawn where people start to say that we need to be protected against those who wish to be the protectors. Apparently this is that line. A more appropriate question in my mind is "Why are people like Ms. Conly making such a big deal about the blowback this has caused?" Also, why is it that collectivists will happily use the ideas of democracy and majority rule when most everyone agrees with their policy proposals, but will suddenly balk at those concepts and claim to know better than the rest of us when their policy proposals are challenged by the majority or sometimes even a significant minority?

Ms. Conly is an associate professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, a prestigious private college located in Maine. She wrote a book entitled "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism." She is not only for the daddy state, she wrote a book on it. I don't know why so many academics seem to favor state solutions to societal problems, solutions that have so often failed throughout all of history. I can only put forth conjecture. Perhaps they've lost faith in humanity. Perhaps they honestly believe that an academic, scientific elite should make the decisions for everyone. Perhaps they see themselves as part of this ruling elite class and don't want to lose the power and privileges they perceive they have. Perhaps they don't see their education as just a higher level of training, but believe that because they are so educated they are indeed more intelligent and better than the rest of us. Perhaps it has something to do with how the institutions that pay their salaries are funded. I'm really not sure. I'm just kind of thinking out loud and giving anyone who cares to chew on it food for thought.

Ms. Conly does have one thing right, this is not about soda. And it's not about health. It's not even about public welfare or the greater good. It's about control. It always has been. It's about freedom versus tyranny. It's about a small cadre of elitists pushing the envelope and always trying to see just how far they can go, just how much they can micromanage our lives. It's my hope that not only did they find that limit, but that common folk realize this is what the elitists have been doing all along and begin to take back their freedoms by forcing the repeal of other prohibitions and restrictions that have stifled our ability to produce for ourselves and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

There's an even larger question at stake here. Mostly, this is about who owns whom. Do I own my own body, or does the state? Do I have the right to do with my body as I please, or does the state have some claim on it as if I'm their property? It's ironic that Ms. Conly is associated with an historical college that has a reputation for its anti slavery past and yet writes opinions in favor of a more subtle form of slavery to the state. When I speak of freedom, I am being an abolitionist. When she speaks about coercive paternalism she is being an enslaving authoritarian, no matter how eloquently she might make her arguments and how reasonable they may sound.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation. While Ms. Conly has an institution to support her and her work, I do not. I can only humbly ask for your voluntary donations as I try to respond to statist propaganda.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

How Free Market Competition Presents a More Cooperative System

The image of the robber baron has been burned into the psyche of the American consciousness. When one thinks about capitalism or free markets, this is the image that comes to the forefront of most people's minds. This image has helped create the misconception that capitalism and free markets have come to create the financial mess that the world finds itself in. The truth is that government and their attempts to regulate markets is what created the robber baron in the first place. They would have never been able to reach the pinnacles they reached without the levers of power that government provides.

There's a difference between a good businessman and an elitist "capitalist" robber baron who claims to be a businessman. A good businessman will provide an excellent product or service which he will constantly be trying to improve upon in order to keep his customers happy and satisfied. An elitist "capitalist" robber baron will try to eliminate all competition so that anyone wanting the product or service he provides (usually through the form of some soulless corporation) will have to be forced to purchase it through his corporation no matter how poor the quality. He is not interested in keeping his customers happy or satisfied because his goal is to create a system where they have no alternative vendors to buy from. He is only interested in keeping his "shareholders" happy and satisfied as an excuse to implement anti humanitarian policies and not be held responsible either in the marketplace or in his own conscience, if he has one.

I put the word capitalist above in quotes because that's what most schools would teach, that these robber barons of the past were capitalists. A capitalist is someone who invests his own capital (money or wealth) in some venture or business in order to make a profit. The robber barons of old, the Rockefellers for instance, didn't get their monopolies through investing their own capital in business per se, however, they invested in government and government power so that laws and regulations could be created that would help eliminate competition. This is done by creating regulations that only the very wealthy corporations can afford to pay for hence preventing most competition from even entering the market in the first place, thus limiting consumer choice.

I think there's a bigger problem in that in a free market the consumer needs to be well informed. This is a problem because it seems to me that most people don't care to be informed about the most basic things regarding consumption and the economy, let alone being well informed about the things he's consuming and how the economy he takes part in works. It seems to me that too many modern day common folk just want the politicians to make the economic decisions for them which gives away their power to someone else. They shouldn't be surprised when such people do a poor job or abuse that power or make decisions based on what benefits them personally rather than what benefits the public at large.

It would seem counter intuitive that a free market based on competition would result in a more cooperative system, but that is because most people don't stop to consider that they are part of the system, along with all other consumers who wish to partake in the modern marketplace. The need for them to become well informed translates into an ability to judge a product based on more than just its price. Unfortunately most do not seem willing or able to judge past price and perhaps quality and to seek out information on things like the conditions the production workers endure to make the product, the environmental effects the product might create, the contribution to community the producer makes, long term health effects the product might have, and other more ethereal details on how a certain product might be good or bad for humanity in general. People only seem worried about whether they want something or not and how much it will cost. Corporations love a less educated consumer because then all they have to worry about is cost, more or less.

A free market, when operating properly, would let the world of ideas come to fruition and elevate humanity to its highest potential. This would work by allowing the consumer the ability to chose with his money which competitor is the best. For instance, let's take the idea of a widget. In the marketplace, company A claims to have the best widgets at the cheapest cost on the planet. Just about anyone who uses widgets wants to buy their widgets from company A. But Joe Public has what he considers a better idea on how to produce widgets and bring them to market. He goes about using his own capital and perhaps borrowing from some friends and family to create company B and begins competing with company A in the widget industry.

Perhaps the widgets company B produces are equal in quality, but they cost a little more. They are made, however, in a way that has much less impact on the environment in a facility that treats workers with fairness and respect. It would be up to company B and the consumers who felt these were important issues to get the word out. It would be up to the consumers to decide what was more important and how much they were willing to support company B's principles. In this way, everyone has their say in the marketplace. In this way, everyone decides which ideas prosper and flourish and which ones wither on the vine and die. In this way, everyone's vote counts.

There are those who would argue with these ideas. They would claim that people are too stupid, or lazy, or apathetic to make such decisions. To these people I have a couple of things to say. First, do you really have such disdain for your fellow human beings that you would judge them so harshly? On what basis? Are you prepared to be so judged yourself? Perhaps you're making this judgment about people you don't even know not based on reason, or even emotion, but based on what you know about yourself.

The second thing I'd like to say is perhaps that's because of the government owned education system. We are all imperfect human beings and have a tendency to behave in ways we've been trained to behave in. Unfortunately many of us seem to think that once our formal education has ended we are no longer learning. Perhaps if we wish to build a freer society where people take more responsibility for themselves and for their community, we should start by training the children to be free thinking individuals rather than mindless consumers. Perhaps we should all realize that we should spend our entire life learning, whether we're attending school or not, and strive to become free thinking individuals rather than mindless consumers. It's a shame that we have little choice in how our children are educated because so much of our income is taken through property taxes that hardly anyone has the means to send their children to any school other than public school. Are you truly surprised when public schools indoctrinate children to empower the system rather than training them to empower themselves? It is this government system where the training to compete truly begins, and often children are trained that competing against authority is futile.

The alternative to free markets is what we have today. It is less choice for the individual. It is the individual having less to say about what is important. It is those in charge having more power to make decisions for you instead of you having the power to decide for yourself what's important and what isn't. It is a seepage from the marketplace of products and services into one's personal life and the marketplace of ideas. It is a growing tyranny that starts in a seemingly benign manner and quickly mutates into horrors we as human beings seem to have to keep revisiting from time to time for some strange reason. It is, as always, the empowerment of a wealthy elite who seem to harbor dangerous world domination fantasies. Do you truly wish to see these people continue to steer us all down the path they've chosen? If so, then just go along with the status quo, put your head down and continue to go along to get along.

Remember, change begins within. If you wish to see change in the world, it is important to first create that change in yourself. As a consumer, you have a great deal of power. Do not allow that power to be taken from you. Insist that you be allowed to make your own choices. And when the powers that be become determined to make laws limiting your choice and therefore your power, insist upon denying consent. We are many and they are few. Don't be afraid to stand up and be counted. Let them know that you know. Just as they need your cooperation in order to rule over you, the free market needs your cooperation in order for you to rule over yourself.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti