Imprudent citizens should pay for their rescue missions

The Regional Parliament of the Basque region in Spain has passed a new Taxation Act which charges the cost of rescue missions on whomever takes part in sports in a imprudent fashion. The main Spanish political parties, PSOE and PP, voted in favour of this clause, already in place in Cantabria and Cataluña, as they indicate it will foster a "responsible citizen". The parties opposing this clause claim that the activities considered "extreme sports" were chosen arbitrarily and that the general taxation already fund these rescue missions.

I advocated this rule earlier this year when discussing the rescue missions of Spanish fishermen and mountaineers. At the time some people considered my idea outlandish, ruthless, and heartless. This is a typical response to lots of my libertarian ideas, even though some of them become mainstream later on and then none of those naysayers say anything about it.

Let's remember what I wrote back in April 18th, 2011:

Should there actually be one, the "contract of the taxpayer with the State" should not include a clause like the following one: "The State shall make every effort to save the life of those citizens who put themselves in danger for private interests."

Such contract should include the following [clause]: "Any citizens who put themselves in danger (eg., mountain climbing, working in Lybia) should cover the costs of their rescue if not on a mission ordered by the State".

This latter clause simply follows one of the basic rules that should govern human societies: "benefits and risks must be borne by the same person or entity". Otherwise we are socialising the risks (everyone pays for rescue missions of private adventures) whilst privatising the benefits (the adventurer doesn't share the profits with the taxpayers). This basic rule would induce everyone to perform a correct benefit/risk assessment and would prevent countless opportunities for injustice.

Love and Freedom.

En castellano:

En caso de que realmente sea necesario que exista, el "contrato del contribuyente con el Estado" no debería incluir una cláusula del tipo: "El Estado debe hacer todo lo posible para salvar la vida de los ciudadanos que se ponen en peligro por intereses privados"
Tal contrato deberá incluir lo siguiente: "Aquellos ciudadanos que se pongan en peligro [por ejemplo, montañismo, trabajando en Libia...] deberán cubrir los costos de su rescate si no era una misión ordenada por el Estado".

Esta última cláusula simplemente expone una de las reglas básicas que deben regir las sociedades humanas: "Los beneficios y los riesgos relacionados deben ser recibidos por la misma persona o entidad". De lo contrario estamos socializando los riesgos [todo el mundo paga las misiones de rescate de las aventuras privadas], mientras que privatizamos los beneficios [el aventurero no comparte los beneficios con los contribuyentes]. Esta norma básica induciría a todos a realizar una correcta evaluación de la relación beneficio/riesgo y evitaría un sinfín de oportunidades para la injusticia.

Amor y Libertad.

Facebook discussion on the BBC

Borjabrela: The only way ahead with the BBC (and any other state-funded media) is scrapping the TV licence, thank her for her services and wish her a better life.

STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION.

RandomSpaniard: Done. My email to these guys: "I write to inform you that I live in the year 2011 Anno Domini and was not aware there was a Common Era.
I will not be paying my TV licence until the BBC returns to the same time dimension I live in. The ...See more
Less dramatic than it sounds, given we don't own a TV or pay the licence anyway.

Borjabrela: Excellent!

Labour-leaning colleague: I wish there was a dislike button, as having travelled in other countries I thank god we have the BBC every time I flick a TV on switch. The state/establishment bias on the BBC is no worse than the corporate bias of the commercial media and it has been the the commercial media that has used wholesale mysogny, xenophobia and scientific illiteracy to debauch our culture these past forty years.

Borjabrela: I don't pay for the corporate bias of the commercial media. I pay for the bias of the BBC. You like the BBC, you pay for it. I don't like the BBC, I should not be made pay for it. Period.

Labour-leaning colleague: The BBC is democratically accountable: this sometimes means the wishes of the majority(those who want a counterweight in the form of state funded media) sometimes outweigh the minority (those who would not pay for it). The BBC is a good thing for society and we know this because people keep voting for it. All you have to do to get rid of it is elect a party with its removal on their manifesto. This democratic accountability is in stark contrast to the corporate media, where whilst I have never bought a Murdoch paper, the minority that do are considered sufficiently powerful to corrupt the political and law enforcement fabric of this country - something which directly affects me as a non-purchaser.

RandomSpaniard: LLC, nobody has ever been given a choice on the BBC so stop fantasising about democratic accountability. All the main parties have colluded to keep it place and not give voters a choice.

Labour-leaning colleague: They haven't colluded. If there was a strong move in public opinion against it you can bet it would appear on a manifesto. The conservatives in particular despise it - Thatcher hated the BBC, but recognised it would have been electoral suicide to touch it. Even when the establishment does feel brave enough to move against public opinion and attack the BBC (Hutton report) or after the tv faking scandals of a few years ago people still love the BBC. It is one of the core British institutions and a huge part of the nation's intellectual and cultural life.

Borjabrela: LLC, "democratically accountable" are two words used by authoritarian people who want to force unwilling individuals to fund their wishes (just like you). The same way that the fact that Hitler and Franco won polls didn't make them any more "democratic". What is "democratic" by the way? It is one of those words manipulated by socialists/authoritarians to deceive the population. Any time anyone uses the "democratic" argument is discredited in my opinion in the same way that you claim any time anyone uses the "nazi" argument is discredited.

Also I don't need a strong move in public opinion against the BBC for me to deem the BBC a despicable attack to my liberty and therefore for me to consider retaliation actions. The same way that the strong move in some countries to chop female gonads doesn't make this practice any more acceptable in my opinion. STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION still beholds.

It happens that individuals who are against the State are less organised and have less will to use the resorts of power offered by the State (ie., libertarians don't hold a grip in any political party like the unions do) or the mass-manipulation methods (like the liberals do with the BBC). This causes a bias in favour of the state in the governing elite. This does not indicate that my opinion is less valid.

Finally, it makes me laugh that socialist/authoritarians usually use the argument of "evil corporativism influencing the government and hence people's lives" against anti-statist individual-freedom advocates. Don't you guys realise that the main issues in that sentence are: 1, there is a government which can be used as a channel to dominate people's lives, so the solution is to limit government's power; and 2, corporativism is the result of no freedom of competition usually endorsed by the governments. People in power both in government and business collude, but it happens that Tesco/Times can't send me to prison whereas the government would send me to prison/fine me if I don't pay the BBC licence.

Love and Freedom.

MBA at LBS: Lesson 1

Hello again dear readers!

 

Lots of things have happened since I last wrote to you. For instance, I was accepted to the MBAs of both Insead and London Business School. After a lengthy, careful thought process I chose to join the London Business School. And so here I am, sharing the next two years with other 400+ ambitious potential leaders.

 

The first lesson from the MBA reinforces an idea I already had: Whereas one of the most difficult things to achieve is to convince someone to change their mind in one-to-one  conversations, convincing many people by using techniques of mass persuasion is among the easiest ones.

 

In our Understanding General Management module we discussed two cases: Honda and Apple. We all know that it is very hard to persuade someone in a one-to-one conversation that Honda is better than Yamaha or that Macs are better than PCs if they already had a predetermined view. The first report of each case conveyed a positive view of the company, which seemed to explain its success; during the debates that followed most people seemed to believe this report and voiced very positive opinions on the leaders of these companies (Soichiro Honda and Steve Jobs).

 

However, the second report of each case portrayed a more realistic, even slightly negative version of the story to explain the success of the company. Suddenly, almost everyone changed their mind, bought in the last version and suggested they always knew the first version was not realistic and expressed their concerns about the qualities of the company leaders.

 

It looks like MBA candidates are no better than the average citizen.

 

Love and Freedom.