Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband internet access a legal right for all citizens.

The legislation, which came into effect Thursday, forces telecom operators to provide a reasonably priced broadband connection with a downstream rate of at least one megabit per second (mbs) to every permanent residence and office, the Finnish government said in a statement.

"From now on a reasonably priced broadband connection will be everyone's basic right in Finland," said Finnish communications minister Suvi Linden. "This is absolutely one of the government's most significant achievements in regional policy and I am proud of it.

"Reasonably priced" ...That sounds like a really solid and objective base for just law...

Think of what is really going on here. Imagine if it were my legal right to force you to provide me a service at whatever price I determine is "reasonable?" You don't have to imagine this if you live in Finland. The Law, better described as the collective force, is being directed by the vast majority of Fins, against a minority group (telecoms). The Law, which is supposed to be an instrument of justice and defense, is perverted into on offensive weapon of plunder.

And the Finnish government is an utter disgrace, promoting this concept as a "significant achievement." It is a digression and perversion of the high concepts of Rule of Law, Individual Rights, and Justice for which generations of men have struggled and died to advance.

What is next? "Reasonably priced" computers? Automobiles and Fuel? Food? Clothing? As soon as the law ceases to be just - where do you draw the line?

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

[...]

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

-The Law, Frederick Bastiat

No toy for you, Junior.

Not if you live in unincorporated Santa Clara County, where the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to ban restaurants from giving away toys with children's meals that exceed set levels of calories, fat, salt and sugar.

The ordinance, which the board passed by a 3-2 vote, is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. The target is the fast-food industry and what critics call its practice of marketing unhealthful food to children and fueling an epidemic of obesity among the young.

"This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes," said the law's author, Supervisor Ken Yeager. "Obviously, toys in and of themselves do not make children obese. But it is unfair to parents and children to use toys to capture the tastes of children when they are young and get them hooked on eating high-sugar, high-fat foods early in life."

$1,000 fine for violations

Representatives for the California Restaurant Association, whose members include chains that opposed the ordinance, have 90 days to offer an alternative to the legislation. Violations under the version the board approved Tuesday would be punishable by fines of as much as $1,000 for each meal sold with a toy.

Yeager said he hopes the law will inspire cities and counties across the country to follow suit like "ripples that create a wave."

The law bans toy giveaways in children's meals that contain more than 485 calories, derive more than 35 percent of their calories from fat or 10 percent from added sweeteners, or have more than 600 mg of sodium. The totals are based on children's health standards set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Of the 151 restaurants in unincorporated Santa Clara County that are covered by the law, a dozen are part of fast-food chains that offer children's meals.

The county was among the first in the nation two years ago to require restaurants to display nutritional values on menus, legislation that has since been adopted by other jurisdictions, said Miguel Marquez, acting county counsel.

Marquez said his office has been contacted by officials from Orange County, Chicago and New York City about Yeager's toys ordinance. In San Francisco on Tuesday, Supervisor Eric Mar asked the city attorney to draft legislation similar to Santa Clara County's law.

"Just as with menu labeling, this is clearly within our authority," Marquez said. "We're on firm legal ground here."

Marquez said enforcement will be the job of county public health inspectors.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-C. S. Lewis

Hot tip for Californians: It's not the marketing and fast food industries -> It's CRAPPY LAZY PARENTS acting by their own free choice to shovel garbage into their children's gaping maws!

And for God's sake Mr. Marquez, stop trying to force your vision and will upon other people.

The Desire to Rule Over Others

This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.

Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing." True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.

My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks — armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."

"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."

Let Us Now Try Liberty

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

-The Law, Frederick Bastiat

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

Quote of the day.

No matter the situation, there will always be That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen. Great article from the Mises Institute:

Conserving conserves nothing

December 22, 2009 5:21 PM by Jim Fedako (Archive)

Maybe it was the holiday spirit. Or maybe it was the impatient line of holiday shoppers anxiously waiting for me to finish paying the cashier. Regardless, I let an economic fallacy slide without comment.

As the cashier was totaling my bill, she asked if she could pack some of my goods in the plastic bag I was holding; a plastic bag that previously held an item I had returned upon entering the store.

"Certainly," I replied.

She then noted with a smile, "Great. I'll reduce your bill by a quarter. You are saving the environment, you know."

I'm certain my sweater could feel the hair on my neck rise. "Saving the environment?" I thought. But before I could respond, and begin a lesson in economics, the holiday spirit, or the line of holiday shoppers growing and waiting, kept me quiet.

In a slower time of the year, I would have noted that I would soon spend the quarter she left in my wallet on an after-dinner mint at a local restaurant. You know what I'm talking about; one of those small, foil-wrapped chocolate mints conveniently placed at the cash register.

My reuse of a plastic bag at the store allowed me to purchase a conglomeration of chocolate, sugar, fat, and foil. So, in the end, was the environment really "saved?"

Were my actions the same as those envisioned by the cashier? Did she really mean for me to consume different resources - something other than plastic? Is that really the end sought by those in the environmentalist movement?

Conserving conserves nothing is an outrageous claim, but it is true nonetheless. Oh, sure, by reducing my consumption, I am conserving certain scarce resources - that is the seen. However, as Hazlett and Bastiat showed years ago, the seen never tells the whole story. And, many times, the story it does tell is simply not true.

To get to the truth of my claim, we have to scratch beyond the surface. So, let us begin our Hazlettian and Bastiatian journey from the seen toward the unseen, and a better understanding of the economics of conservation.

First, we must define conservation. [1] As commonly used today, conservation refers to actions that reduce the use of certain resources for the purpose of protecting the environment. So, in this view, I conserve when, for the sake of protecting the environment, I travel by bicycle instead of by car. It then follows that I am not conserving when I choose to ride my bike as a benefit in itself. For my actions to be considered conserving, I have to be acting with the environment in mind. Or so the current definition goes.

I can reduce my consumption of a certain resource in order to satisfy a number of ends. For example: I can reduce out of a belief that, by doing so, I am protecting the environment; I can reduce due to a change in my valuation or preferences; I can reduce in order to save for future use; or, I can reduce as a result of government interventions.

In all cases, the result is the same: nothing is conserved. [2]

Let's analyze the result of my supposed conservation effort at the store? As noted above, if I simply redirect my quarter to another purchase, I am not conserving the environment, so to speak. While it is true that I am reducing my use of certain resources, it is also true that my new purchase results in the increased use of other resources. The unseen negates the seen.

What if I had flipped the quarter into the trash can on the way out of the store? Or dropped it in a piggybank at home? In either case, the market would have read my action as a change in preference for money over other goods. The value of money would change ever so slightly and the resources that I left unused would be purchased by some other consumer or producer. My abstention would result in their consumption - and nothing would have been conserved (or, more correctly, some resources might be conserved, but at the expense of others).

What if government had taxed that quarter away? Well, the same applies as above. Government could have spent its ill-gotten gain on monuments to itself, using scarce resources in the process. Or it could have destroyed the quarter, and the value of money would have changed in the market. Again, nothing would be conserved.

So there is nothing about the reuse of the plastic bag and the reward of a quarter which causes a reduction in the use of scarce resources -- in the aggregate, of course. And this holds every time I reduce my consumption of some good. I either consume some other good or change my preference for money. But nothing gets conserved.

Are there other ways to reduce consumption of a scarce resource? Absolutely. If folks in the environmentalist movement want to conserve (say) oil, they can purchase oil fields with all of those quarters returned at the checkout line. And they can leave the oil in the ground for as long as they own the land.

Certainly, by doing so, they will conserve oil. Nevertheless, they must also recognize that oil left in the ground will likely be offset by an increased use of other resources, with nothing being conserved in the end.

You may think, "That's a sad tale. If there is no way to conserve, then we have no future."

Such an argument is pure question begging. What makes conservation - as currently defined - a necessary means to a future? And what is that future, anyway?

There is hope. A truly free market would efficiently and effectively utilize scarce resources - conserve - through time. A free market and requisite property rights are the solution. They are our only hope, our only means to a brighter future.

I suggest that environmentalists redirect their efforts from so-called conservation to efforts that strengthen property rights and build freer markets. By doing so, they will be able to rest more easily knowing that the market will conserve resources efficiently and effectively. And then their means will be the same as our means, all leading to an end desired by most of us: a better world for ourselves and our children.

Note:

1. I am only looking at conservation as used by environmentalists - the three R's of recycle, reduce, and reuse. I am not considering conservation as defined by conservationists -- protecting certain plants, species, and habitats. Of course, strong property rights can protect those as well.

2. It is true that under full-blown socialism, with vast numbers of starving men, women and children lying down in the fields awaiting a quick dust to dust ending, fewer resources would be used - conservation would occur. However, with the exception of all but a few of the most-ardent environmentalists, no one desires such a dystopian world.

My appeal to the environmental movement is the same: Promote things that are true and actually make economic sense, not collectivism. That is all I ask.

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Gentlemen:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your -- what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice -- your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us ^[1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product -- coal, iron, wheat, or textiles -- comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

 

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

Notes:

^[1] A reference to Britain's reputation as a foggy island.

Could have been written yesterday.

Sure, LEDs are a great new energy-saving technology. The problem is, they're no match for a Midwestern winter. That's what the town of West Bend, Wis. learned when they installed LED traffic signals. LEDs don't generate heat, which is normally a selling point. It's not so appealing when you're trying to keep traffic signals snow-free, and the ostensibly green move has caused at least one accident.

The irony of this is so rich. Goal: Attempt to save energy, perhaps fight global warming -> Result: New lights to require additional energy using warmers to keep from freezing...

...That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - China, India and other developing nations boycotted U.N. climate talks Monday, bringing negotiations to a halt with their demand that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

The move disrupted the 192-nation conference and forced the cancellation of formal working groups, delaying the frantic work of negotiators trying to resolve technical issues before the arrival of more than 110 world leaders later this week.

The developing countries want to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which imposed penalties on rich nations if they did not comply with its strict emissions limits but made no such binding demands on developing nations.

Redistribution of wealth - aka. Legal Plunder.

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

-The few plunder the many.
-Everybody plunders everybody.
-Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).

-Frederic Bastiat, The Law