quinta-feira, janeiro 15, 2015

Last Stop Anarchy!


Last Stop Anarchy!

Take Back the Word “Liberal"

Take Back the Word “Liberal”
The other advantage to using the word liberalism properly is that it provides an opportunity to bring up names like Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, plus the more modern tradition with Rand, Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek, plus the tens of thousands of people who long for liberty today in academia, business, punditry, and public life generally. Just using the old term in its proper way provides an opportunity for enlightenment.
It’s true that liberalism of the old school had its problems. I have my own issues with the positions of the old liberals, and they include a general naïveté over democracy, too great a tolerance for the mythical “night-watchman state,” and some latent affection for colonialism.
The more important point is that genuine liberalism has continued to learn and grow and now finds a more consistent embodiment in what is often but awkwardly called libertarianism or market anarchism, both of which are rightly considered an extension of the old liberal intellectual project.

Free Speech and Government


Andrew Napolitano - Free Speech and Government

Minarchist maxarchism

Larken Rose:
I've decided to become a maxarchist. I want the maximum amount of authoritarian control possible. Of course, we have to allow SOME freedom, or no wealth will be produced and we will all starve. But I want to push that limit, having as much extortion and state violence as possible, allowing only the minimal amount of freedom that will keep the human race alive. You might ask, how does that differ from the Republican and Democratic parties? Well, apparently they want to get there slowly, and I want to get all the way there right now! No point doing it piecemeal! If we're going to do it, let's be quick about it! If elected, I promise to tax and regulate everyone and everything as much as possible, as soon as possible! Who's with me?! VOTE MAXARCHIST!!

Other than just being silly, there is almost a point here. The term "minarchist" doesn't actually mean anything. EVERY statist can claim to be a minarchist, as long as he says that what HE wants "government" to do is "necessary." He might think the "necessary" minimum is 90% of the way to totalitarianism, and you might think it's 1% of the way there. But if you advocate a ruling class at all, there is no actual PRINCIPLE separating you. In short, those who wear the label "minarchist" do so because they want THEIR advocacy of authoritarian domination to look nicer than that of other statists. But if you're not an anarchist, then by definition, you are a statist. The fact that you want a more permissive slavemaster to own and control me does NOT mean you advocate freedom. And it does not mean you are "on my side."

Cops Are Cowards


Cops Are Cowards

Rant Liberal do Dia

Há um conceito que infeliz, infalível, e obviamente muita esquerdalha supostamente economicamente literada não capicha - oportunidade. Uma empresa pública dar "lucro" (esquecedo toda a contabilidade criativa, e previlégios regulatórios, etc etc) não é de todo argumento para não se privatizar. Nem é razão privatizar-se só porque dão prejuízo. Para além de todos os argumentos paralelos (incluindo morais), a gestão de qualquer empresa com maior ou menor presença do Estado é sempre envenenada pelos incentivos perversos causados pelo Estado. Uma empresa "pública" que dê "lucro" não deixa de estar a destruir valor - dito de outra forma, em mãos capazes produziria _mais_.

quarta-feira, janeiro 14, 2015

Conservative Sellout of Capitalism


Ayn Rand - Conservative Sellout of Capitalism

Simplistic Nonsense of Global Warming "Science"

On the futility of climate models: ‘simplistic nonsense’:
.. If a system is not dominated by a few major feedback factors, it ain’t stable. And if it has a regions of stability then perturbing it outside those regions will result in gross instability, and the system will be short lived.

Climate has been in real terms amazingly stable. For millions of years. It has maintained an average of about 282 degrees absolute +- about 5 degrees since forever.

So called ‘Climate science’ relies on net positive feedback to create alarmist views – and that positive feedback is nothing to do with CO2 allegedly: on the contrary it is a temperature change amplifier pure and simple.

If such a feedback existed, any driver of temperature, from a minor change in the suns output, to a volcanic eruption must inevitably trigger massive temperature changes. But it simply never has. Or we wouldn’t be here to spout such nonsense.
The miracle of AGW is that all this has been simply tossed aside, or considered some kind of constant, or a multiplier of the only driver in town, CO2.

When all you know is linear systems analysis everything looks like a linear system perturbed by an external driver.
The point finally is this: To an engineer, climate science as the IPCC have it is simplistic nonsense. There are far far better models available, to explain climate change based on the complexity of water interactions with temperature. Unfortunately they are far too complex even for the biggest of computers to be much use in simulating climate. And have no political value anyway, since they will essentially say ‘Climate changes irrespective of human activity, over 100 thousand year major cycles, and within that its simply unpredictable noise due to many factors none of which we have any control over’

Friedrich Hayek and the Future of Liberty


Friedrich Hayek and the Future of Liberty

O Papa anticapitalista

The Pope’s Mistaken Moral Calculus On Global Warming:
None of the disasters asserted by climate alarmists to result from global warming has come to pass. Hurricane numbers are down, deaths from natural disasters have declined, sea ice is on the rise, and crop production is increasing. Climate models have yet to be validated, missing the lull in temperature rise for the past 18 years and the declining rates of sea-level rise for the past decade. Instead, the gap between temperatures projected by climate models and temperature observed in reality grows yearly.
The pope would do well to question the sources of his information and to recognize his efforts should be focused on alleviating the poverty and suffering of billions of people in the world today. The best policy to accomplish that goal would be alleviating energy poverty worldwide.
I plan to ignore the Pope and its science panel, as many are likely to do given their track record on getting science wrong in almost every case where science and religion have collided through history.
The Great Pause lengthens again:
Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all .. This month’s RSS .. temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 2 months to 18 years 3 months.

Zambia


Johan Norberg - Economic Liberty In Zambia

Charlie

Rejecting Collectivist Narratives about Terrorism:
Government is by nature collectivist. By abstracting from individuals and their choices and actions, it sidesteps the very valid moral criticisms that would be made against what it does, if it were viewed at an individual level. An individual person cannot use force to fund his social, economic, or moral goals, but “The Government” can. An individual cannot destroy a perceived yet unproven threat, but “The Government” does so, calling it preemptive war. Individuals are expected to make accusations public and provide an argument before retaliating against alleged criminals, but for “The Government”, the mere accusation of wrongdoing is enough to justify violent action in the minds of the public.

This kind of fuzzy thinking prevents people from understanding the historical causes for problems like modern terrorism .. Thus, the picture of the world painted in the popular mind is that of The West versus Terrorism, or versus Radical Islam. And that picture exists when viewed from the other side. It is tempting to attribute France’s commitment to free speech, including speech that may be offensive to religious persons, to the Charlie Hebdo attack, but it is the collectivist identification of The West as “the Great Satan” by Islamic extremists that has drawn their violent intent to Western people.
It would be naïve to believe that rejecting collectivism in the way we think about the East vs. West struggle will bring that struggle to a quick and neat end. But it is a necessary first step. So let us be committed to cutting that kind of language out of our discussions of events such as the recent tragedy. Are there systemic or cultural issues at work within Islamic communities that drive such violence? Certainly. And are there systemic or cultural issues that permit Western thought to excuse the constant meddling of Western governments in the Middle East? Absolutely. But we must remember that such issues are the accumulation of individual decisions and actions.
.. We must be more sophisticated, more precise, and ultimately, more realistic than that. Individual people chose to accept the collectivist narrative that excused the violence that was committed. That goes for the Charlie Hebdo attack, for every terrorist attack preceding it, and for the actions of Western politicians that gave birth to modern terrorism. We must be dedicated to the rejection and refutation of that narrative.

quinta-feira, janeiro 01, 2015

Politics is sociopathic

'Tis the Season for Politics to Make Us Worse:
But it’s not “their” fault; it’s politics’ fault—specifically, the politicization of more and more important and irreconcilable values. America is a deeply divided nation of clashing values partially because politics has made us this way. No matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on, it’s time to stop hating the players and start hating the game.
This is your brain on politics, and these are the people that an overly politicized world creates. And it’s inevitable if politics continues to take over more of our deepest, most divergent values.

Classical liberal and libertarian principles are about providing an operating system for free and diverse people to thrive cooperatively rather than combatively, creating a Minecraft for human ingenuity and flourishing rather than a Call of Duty fight to the death. Limiting the scope of political decision-making creates a type of mutual disarmament—“I won’t try to control your education or health care if you don’t try to control mine.”

Minimal government has virtues beyond lower debt, less crowded prisons, and less militarized police. It might even save your family.
Why political arguments ruin family holiday parties:
I would add that the structure of political decision-making also gives most people strong incentives to be ignorant about political issues, and illogical and biased in their evaluation of the information they do know. Because the chance that your vote will make a difference to the outcome of an election is so small, there is little motivation to either acquire knowledge about competing policy options, or to give fair consideration to viewpoints opposed to your own.
The unpleasant and unedifying political arguments at many holiday parties are just one small manifestation of a decision-making system where a combination of zero-sum conflicts and incentives for ignorance and irrational thinking lead most voters to do a poor job of evaluating opposing views on the issues before them.

That does not by itself prove that we should radically diminish the role of government in society. But it does strengthen the case for limiting and decentralizing government government power relative to what we might support in a world where voters do a better job of reasoning about political issues.

Inequality


David Friedman on Inequality

on Government

Paródia ou não...

Ron Swanson on Government and Being a Man

Rape Culture


Wendy McElroy - Fallacy of the Rape Culture

domingo, dezembro 28, 2014

Feminism: Socialism in Panties


Karen Straughan - Feminism: Socialism in Panties @NHLF14

Rant Liberal do Dia

O Churchill terá dito "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Ora, na era das caixas de comentários abertos do Youtube e do Facebook -- não propriamente conhecidos por grande profundidade intelectual ou cívica --, impressiona como é que ainda haja quem defenda a dita "democracia". Dizem que é muito bonito "a palavra ao povo", mas na prática o povão tem voto em matérias sérias da vida de outros. Em alguns aspectos, esta gentalha, esta matilha de fanfarrões, têm mais peso na minha vida do que eu próprio. (E a malta "normal" que alinha no sistema, idem). Os "representantes" que elegem, por artes mágicas de "legitimidade democrática" passam a ser os meus representantes, e a deter poder sobre mim. Quando em situações sociais eu não escolheria conviver nem com uns, nem com outros.

terça-feira, dezembro 23, 2014

A Internet está segura com o Estado


Net Neutrality, Obama and Oatmeal (Berin Szoka)

Rant Liberal do Dia

Ainda há dias estava a passar os olhos pelas minhas prateleiras, fantasiando que um dia levarei para o 'exílio' tanto os livros que ainda não li, assim como os que são referência. Ali algures estava o livro do Compromisso Portugal -- que não cai em nenhuma daquelas categorias. Ainda em lembro da minha estupefacção (isto de ser-se crédulo dá azo a incredulidades) quando depois de vários diagnósticos acertados, os redactores lançam-se numa defesa apaixonada do "Estado Forte".

Entenda-se, um "Estado" mais "forte" que o existente. O qual pintam como anafado onde não interessava, mas fraco em áreas fundamentais em que -- por artes mágicas -- a política, a burocracia, a fossa moral do estatismo, e o cancro organizacional que dá pelo nome de socialismo... passaria a funcionar. Como Medina Carreira criticava ontem, basta a "mudança de mentalidades" salvítica que já vem da Fundação. A lógica é que em funções fundamentais da Economia/Sociedade devemos querer o sistema de gestão "mais péssimo" inventado pelo Homem, e com a força do pensamento mágico esse sistema funcionará.

São os liberais que temos - ou os que merecemos. If they had their way, teríamos um "Estado (mais) Forte", regulador, garante da paz social, e de outros pregões socialistas, capaz de "intervir" providencial, preventiva e correctivamente sobre os problemas mais complexos do país, um gestor exemplar do gado cidadão, e claro sempre perfeitamente respeitador das liberdades individuais. Aliás todo este programa muito eficiente nada tem que ver com estatismo.