Markets Protect Consumers...

...even black markets. Putting a giant gaping hole in the "drug money funds terrorism" theory of the National Ad Council, drug lords in Columbia turned down an offer from Osama bin Laden to buy millions of dollars of cocaine with the intent to poison it and sell it to the US. The coke dealers realized that doing so would destroy their market as consumers lost confidence in the quality of cocaine.

If even cocaine dealers work to protect their customers, why again do "consumer rights" advocates insist that we need thousands of pages of federal regulations to keep consumers safe?

Jacob vs. The Government

I was standing in a line in the business licensing office at City Hall today. The guy in front of me had it really rough. He had paid for a license to sell alcohol back in November but the city hadn’t given him his permit yet. He had called the lady in charge of liquor licenses numerous times and at various times of the day but kept getting her voice mail. He asked if she were in, the man behind the counter replied that she was at lunch. It was 2:30 PM.

In the meantime, cops had issued him several tickets for not having a license.

“It’s the lack of a profit motive”, I said, “They have no incentive to serve their customers.”

As he stormed out of the office he muttered “Good luck” to the rest of us standing in line.

I wondered why a businessman should need a permit at all.

---

I thought it would be a great idea to sell flowers on the street in downtown Atlanta. At lunchtime and rush hour the area called “five points” is booming. People are everywhere. If I could sell 10 flowers an hour I’d be making profit at a rate of $20/hr, which would be a pretty decent living.

I think I can sell a lot more than 10 flowers in an hour.

I found out from the internet that I need a “public vendor” license in order to be able to sell items on city streets. Undaunted, I went down to City Hall to obtain one. The person sitting behind the desk in the permits and licensing office told me that they were no longer issuing public vendor licenses while the ordinance is being rewritten.

In short: you can't open a business without a license and they aren't giving out any licenses.

City Hall expects that the City Council will finish rewriting the ordinance by late August or so, but there’s no guarantee. They’ll finish rewriting it when they finish rewriting it. After all, they aren’t in business to earn a profit. Whether or not they serve their customers, they still get their customers’ money through various taxes.

I'd be willing to bet that a rich man looking to rent out a few floors in a skyscraper wouldn't be given such a runaround. Too often "pro-business" means pro-BIG business. If the city government wanted to help the economy of Atlanta then they should be enabling small business, not obstructing it.

The City Council is also mulling a ban on panhandling. I wonder if they're working on a 10-step plan to put more people on public welfare.

---

I applied for my first credit card. My bank approved me for a credit line of $2500. I make about $15,000 a year waiting tables; I am budgeted down to my last dollar. When an unfortunate event occurs, such as my car breaking, it hits me hard. I might not have the money necessary to pay for it at all, even though I have a stream of income to borrow against. A credit card would help me get past the difficulty and amortize the cost over several months.

The fraud department at the card issuing company called me a few days ago. They can’t send my card to my new address because of a federal regulation. Despite the fact that I am able to give them my Social Security number, my mother’s maiden name, and the name of all the other credit cards I’ve ever applied for, they still can’t send the credit card to the address I asked them to without some proof of residence. As I am not the primary leaseholder at my new apartment, I have no proof of residence to give them.

Fortunately, they can send it to my parents’ house because they have a record of my residence there. My parents will in turn ship it to me. I only hope nothing bad happens to me or my car in the meantime while I’m waiting for the card to travel its roundabout route.

Thank you, federal government, for protecting me. From…um…something I’m sure.

Recruiting

I would love to have a few more Buddhist/Libertarian writers to go in on a group blog with me. Check out my posts on the connection between libertarianism and Buddhism, a Buddhist view of forgiveness, and blind patriotism to get a feel for what I'm looking for.

Peace.

Rooting for the Home Team

When people judge the actions of the men who run their country’s government they use a different moral standard than they use for the rest of humanity. In America, the actions of men who work under the red, white, and blue banner are allowed to bypass the moral filter that each citizen developed in childhood.

This is very dangerous. There have been many horrible acts in human history that should never be repeated. However, if we fail to apply the moral lessons learned from history to our own government then we allow long dead horrors to resurface in the world- even as we scream with indignation at the smallest human rights abuses occurring in other countries.

This phenomenon does not occur entirely by chance. It is to the government’s benefit to operate outside of moral constraints. This allows them to use whatever means necessary to further their own ends.

Government exploits the senses of nationalism and patriotism to persuade an unwitting populace to blindly follow its direction. For example, there are few people that are capable of killing a fellow human being without remorse. However, there are many who are able to kill “the enemy” without losing sleep at night. A campaign of dehumanization, often accomplished through the careful use of euphemistic labels (such as “terrorist”), is a universal precursor to a government’s war. Otherwise it could never recruit hundreds of thousands of willing killers to its cause.

At the same time the government works to dehumanize its enemies it conducts a campaign of superhumanization for itself. The American government trumpets:

“I am the embodiment of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison! I am the spirit and essence of freedom incarnate! Whatever I do, I do for freedom. When I take your civil rights, I do it for greater freedom in the future. When I occupy third world countries and slaughter their defenseless citizens, I do it for freedom. When I enslave Americans’ descendants to mountains of debt, I do it for freedom.”

In America the sense of patriotism is particularly strong. Many Americans view their country’s history as a blameless, shining example of what a country should be. Each life sacrificed in America’s wars, willingly or otherwise, was a life sacrificed for lady liberty. After all, does not she herself stand on America’s shoreline, holding a torch aloft to illuminate this noble land of liberty as an example for others?

Never do most Americans think the truth: that the men who run their government have always been normal men: selfish, short-sighted, and flawed. The same actions decried as “despicable” when committed by foreigners are championed as “heroic” when done by US government agents.

I recently got into an argument because I condemned the actions of Harry Truman. As President of the United States, Harry Truman ordered the deployment of two atomic bombs on civilian targets. Thousands of men, women, and children were incinerated instantly, turned into organic ash where they stood. They were the lucky ones. Thousands more suffered slow deaths at the hands of radiation poisoning.

My view is the direct opposite of what they teach in government run schools. They teach that Truman’s action was a heroic choice that saved many American lives. With a similar line of reasoning, a friend of mine argued that the massacre of civilians during war may be justified if the reward is high enough. He hesitated to make a judgment in the particular case of Harry Truman’s wartime actions. According to him, the good of saving American troops at least partially offset the evil of incinerating Japanese homes and families, making it a morally nuanced situation.

Other men have used logic similar to Truman’s supporters to justify attacking civilian targets. However, I don’t think my American friends would hesitate to condemn their actions because they don’t bat for the home team.

For example, the name “Osama bin Laden” has taken its place among Hitler and Satan in the pantheon of evil. The reason? He thinks the freedom of the Arab world from Western imperial influences is important enough to sacrifice civilian lives. We might call him the Harry Truman of the Middle East.

As most Americans condemn bin Laden for putting civilians in harm’s way, so too do I condemn Truman. If bin Laden is a “terrorist”, then so is Truman. In fact, Truman’s actions are more indefensible because eventual victory was available through conventional military means. For bin Laden, direct military action, against the most feared armed force in all of history, is out of the question.

Some people might wonder why I harp on a long-gone episode in American history. It's because we still have yet to give that episode the proper moral judgement. Americans have not yet looked at Truman's holocaust and said "Never again!", the way we have at the massacres caused by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Saddam. Americans will not permit the suffering of the innocent except when it is caused by our own government.

We Americans have a perverse and dangerous view of our place in the world. Until we realize that our civilians are not worth more than other countries' civilians and that our leaders do not operate within a sacred halo that allows them to turn ugly sins into holy acts, America will continue to be a source of great global suffering.

Personal Note

Every time I have to do business with City Hall, I become more of an anarchist.

Truman's Holocaust

An interesting interview with a scientist that opposed Truman's holocaust:

Q: Would most other nations, including Russia, have done the same thing we did, confronted with the same opportunity to use the bomb?

A: Look, answering this question would be pure speculation. I can say this, however: By and large, governments are guided by considerations of expediency rather than by moral considerations. And this, I think, is a universal law of how governments act.

Prior to the war I had the illusion that up to a point the American Government was different. This illusion was gone after Hiroshima.

Perhaps you remember that in 1939 President Roosevelt warned the belligerents against using bombs against the inhabited cities, and this I thought was perfectly fitting and natural.

Then, during the war, without any explanation, we began to use incendiary bombs against the cities of Japan. This was disturbing to me and it was disturbing many of my friends.

Q: Was that the end of the illusion?

A Yes, this was the end of the illusion. But, you see, there was still a difference between using incendiary bombs and using the new force of nature for purposes of destruction. There was still a further step taken here - atomic energy was something new.

I thought it would be very bad to set a precedent for using atomic energy for purposes of destruction. And I think that having done so we have greatly affected the postwar history.

Q: Would a United States Government today, confronted with the same set of choices and approximately the same degree of military intelligence, reach a different decision as to using the first A-bomb?

A: I think it depends on the person of the President. Truman did not understand what was involved. You can see that from the language he used. Truman announced the bombing of Hiroshima while he was at sea coming back from Potsdam, and his announcement contained the phrase - I quote from the New York "Times" of August 7, 1945: "We have spent 2 billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history - and won."

To put the atomic bomb in terms of having gambled 2 billion dollars and having "won" offended my sense of proportions, and I concluded at that time that Truman did not understand at all what was involved.

London Fallout

I agree.

To Forgive

There’s a rock band that has a song entitled “To Forgive is to Suffer”. I think many people share this view of forgiveness. They view it as an act of generosity, accepting harm to one’s self to bestow a gift upon the offender.

But that is not true. When we forgive, we do not do it for the other person alone. We also do it for ourselves. Forgiveness allows us to let go of our anger and to live peacefully.

Anger is a destructive and painful emotion. In Buddhism, it is considered one of the “three poisons”. When someone hurts us, our anger ignites like a flame. If we stay angry, the flame burns higher and higher. It can color our world and haunt moments that should be joyful with negative emotions. Also, keeping the fire burning inside us makes us much more likely to react with anger in other situations.

Sometimes we think that by making the other person suffer, we will relieve our own suffering. This is an ignorant and dangerous point of view. When we strike back at a person out of anger, we cause anger to arise also in him. The fire is spread to more people, growing hotter and causing greater suffering. Anger can very quickly become self-perpetuating.

True forgiveness is like a bucket of cool water. It ceases the suffering caused by a thoughtless act and begins the process of healing. However, more than a decision to forgive is necessary if we are to pursue this course. True forgiveness takes practice and skill.

The first step in forgiveness is to summon a calm heart. When we are hurt, we cannot make good decisions. Our breath is uncontrolled, our eyes water, and our view of the world is severely distorted. The information received by our brains is tainted by our powerful emotions. If we act in this state, it is likely that we will act out of anger and pain.

Breathing meditation can help us reach a state of calm. The breath is the key to the soul. By taking control of our breath we can also seize control of our wild, racing thoughts and emotions. When you are upset, breathe slowly and carefully. I like to use the following mantra when I do this:

Breathing in I recognize my anger
Breathing out I release my anger

This mantra is very powerful and versatile. I have also used it to calm nervousness and fear. Notice the language used. “Release” is a non-confrontational verb. If we view our effort to get rid of our anger as a war or struggle, then it is likely that we will become angry at ourselves if we fail at first. That doesn’t help anything!

Although we have now reached a state of calm, we are not ready to forgive. Someone has committed a hurtful act, and although we are not allowing that knowledge to effect us emotionally, the seed of anger is still sitting in our mind, ready to burst out at another moment.

True forgiveness comes from understanding. Once we understand the person who is hurting us, we can find a reason for releasing any desire we might have to be angry with him.

The next step involves meditating deeply on the other person and trying to understand their actions. When we are angry, we suffer. When another person behaves violently towards us or insults us, he is also suffering. Understanding his suffering is the key to releasing our anger permanently.

As an example, when I think of murderers, rapists, and other violent people, I know that they are very selfish people with a narrow view of life. I know that they can never enjoy the finer things in life, such as loving human relationships. Their selfishness and anger will prevent this. They will hate their families, hate their work, and despise their “friends” when they are not all drunk together. They seek happiness by hurting other people, but they only fall deeper and deeper into misery. I do not feel anger towards such people, but pity. If I could do one thing to such people, I would not want to punish them or hurt them. Instead I would change their hearts so that they could see the great suffering they were causing in themselves and others. Then they could learn to act with compassion towards their fellow beings.

I don’t think that anyone would want to experience the life of Hitler. He was a man driven by anger and a lust for power. He despised other human beings. He must have suffered greatly. He could never find the joy that comes from recognizing the great beauty found in all mankind. Any friends he had must have loved his power and not his being. Given the choice, I would rather experience the life of one of Hitler’s victims than of Hitler himself. At least then I would be able to enjoy the beauty inside of me, even in the darkest situations. Hitler’s victims still had the opportunity to have found some joy in their too-short lives. Hitler did not have that luxury.

In the more mundane and common situations, a friend of us might cause us pain through a thoughtless action. The important thing to remember is that she is still the same wonderful person that you became friends with. When we bring to mind her good qualities, we will realize that her happiness and our happiness is much more important than holding onto our righteous anger. The best way to ensure your happiness is to forgive and continue enjoying the wonderful presence of your friend.

If we have already reacted with anger towards a friend that has harmed us, it can be very difficult to take the first step. We must swallow our pride. They did the original wrong, but we have made the situation must more difficult. The first thing we should do is apologize to them for our wrongly-directed anger.

I had a friend that hurt me. I did not speak to him for several years. I condemned him. However, he was a very good person outside of those few moments when he hurt me, and he did not deserve the condemnation I gave him. I wrote something similar to this to him:

“I am sorry. I was very wrong to be so angry with you. You hurt me, but you are still a wonderful person and a great friend. I should have never harmed our friendship. Please forgive me for acting so harshly.”

I did not suffer from doing this. Instead, I am very happy.

When you are capable of doing that, you have become a holy person. You are making small miracles happen in your relationships. You are very powerful.

Your friend might still be angry with you. She may react to your peaceful words with angry words. You have been thinking about reconciling with her for some time, but she has not had the same length of time to think about it. This can be hard to endure, especially if she caused the original harm. To reconcile with a person that you have already been angry with takes more than a bucket full of peace, it takes an ocean. You will have to be prepared. You will have to meditate. You will have to breathe mindfully. You must become an ocean of peace. Only then can you overcome the great raging fire that you have built.

I will end with a koan that my roommate Robbie (a very peaceful man) once told me.

There was once a famous monk and Zen master that practiced in a monastery in feudal Japan. One day, he was summoned by a great general.

“I send many of my enemies to the afterlife in every battle, yet I am ignorant of it. Tell me, monk: do you know the nature of heaven and hell?” said the general.

“Yes”, replied the monk.

“Describe to me what they are like”, said the general.

“You are too ignorant to comprehend it”, said the monk.

At that, the great general became very angry. His nostrils flared and his face turned red. He unsheathed his sword and prepared to execute the monk on the spot.

“Impudent monk! I am going to kill you!” screamed the general.

“Stop!” said the monk. “That is hell.”

The general paused for a moment, dumbfounded. He dropped his sword and fell to his knees, covering his face with his hands.

“I am sorry, monk. You are a truly wise teacher. Can you forgive me for the awful act I almost committed?” said the general.

“And that is heaven”, said the monk.

My Hero

Never get into an argument with Radley Balko. You'll lose.

The Notebook

I've started a notebook where I write down a thought that I want to keep in mind each day. The act of writing down a phrase feels important enough that I usually do end up being mindful of it. Some of them are quotes, some of them are personal goals. So far, it reads:

-Peace in every step

-This is my one, wonderful life

-I will show compassion to every human being

-There is no way to peace, peace is the way

- I will cherish the joy in every moment

-I will find love for myself

-All I love is impermanent

-Be the change you wish to see in the world

-Feel great, act great

-There is beauty everywhere

FAF!

Fafnir discusses The Plan.

Enlightened Liberty

Vietnamese peace advocate and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh uses the phrase “peace in every step” to describe his philosophy of activism. Similarly, another monk once said, “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.”

The meaning of these men is clear. Their ultimate goal is peace and brotherhood among the citizens of the Earth. It can only be realized through the path of empathy. It cannot be achieved through violence, anger, or war.

Thich Nhat Hanh’s weapons are his pen and his voice. His arsenal consists of kind, peaceful words and actions. He never condemns anyone, even those who dropped firebombs on the villages of his homeland. He implores his listeners to think of people on the other side of the conflict as brothers and sisters. He fights against the poisonous dehumanization that always accompanies armed conflict.

During the Vietnam War, a community of monks received word that there was a group of civilians caught in a combat zone. The monks leapt into action. They did not rush in to save the civilians with guns, armor, napalm, or helicopters. Rather they walked in a line with a large Buddhist flag held in front of them. Upon seeing the flag and the robes of the monks, the soldiers refrained from firing. The monks surrounded the civilians and led them out of the danger zone. The operation was not without casualties, as stray bullets injured a number of monks. But in the end, the monks were successful in saving the civilians.

That is “peace in every step”. That is true compassion.

A Buddhist might explain the idea of “peace in every step” with the doctrine of karma. Anger is one of the three great poisons. When a person is angry, it generates negative karma which will cause even more negativity to enter the world. Peace, an object of beauty, cannot be the fruit of violent action.

A non-Buddhist might note that when we act angrily towards people they become defensive and hostile. When we begin to view others as our enemies we cause our views to become reality. Violence does not beget understanding.

We cannot force people to be peaceful. We cannot force people to be compassionate. The means and the ends are antithetical.

In light of these beliefs, I find it strange that many engaged Buddhists adhere to the political philosophy of socialism. Some have even run for office with various socialist-leaning Green Parties. As with all harmful actions, the reason behind this is ignorance. Libertarianism has a very small following, so most Buddhists probably have not had contact with its teachings. However, libertarianism’s critique of socialism is unanswerable and much in tune with the Buddhist worldview.

The problem with socialism is that it attempts to use force of arms to engineer utopia. When a person refuses to pay taxes it is not a group of Buddhist monks that go to his door, imploring him to give of his wealth to aid the suffering in society. Rather, a person who does not pay his taxes will find armed men at his door that will cart him away to prison and take his possessions away to auction.

When a Buddhist votes for socialism, when he attempts to carry out compassion through the offices of the state, he is not practicing “peace in every step”. He is encouraging brutality. In this way, the goals of well-meaning and peaceful men are thwarted.

In that the state must use coercion to stay in existence, in that the state’s very definition is “legitimate” coercion, the state is an inherently anti-Buddhist institution.

All of the state’s social programs fail the litmus test of “peace in every step”. If a person is harming himself with addictive, mind-altering substances, the state shackles him and takes him away from his family to spend decades in a prison cell. That is not the way of compassion, that is not the way of peace.

If more Buddhists were exposed to libertarianism, I feel certain that they would find much in common between the two philosophies. Libertarians teach the doctrine of “non-aggression”, namely that no one should use force against his brother except in self-defense. This is similar to the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence. Both are very different from the socialist doctrine of “equality at any price”.