Left but Really Right
segunda-feira, novembro 23, 2015
Vaclav Klaus: the West’s lies about Russia are monstrous:
Listen to Klaus in full flow on the absurdities of the EU and it’s hard to think why any sane individual — on left or right — would want their country to stay in it. ‘A few days ago I studied the names of the EU commissioners under Mr Juncker, and their portfolios. We in my country say that 16 is already too high for having meaningful portfolios. But the EU now has 28, more than in any country in our part of the world. If you look at the names of those portfolios, I really don’t believe my eyes. The former Estonian prime minister is a commissioner for digital markets. As an economist I really don’t know what the term “digital markets” means. Plus there is another, a German politician, Günther Oettinger, who is the commissioner for “digital economy and society”. We would laugh in the communist era to have such names for the members of our cabinet. I can’t imagine what these commissioners are doing.’
Four Ways to Build a Free Society:
What can we do to fight back against government? We all understand the problem, but what is the solution? What can we do in the current environment to help build a more sane and libertarian world? And how can we find some measure of freedom in our lives today, to live more freely in our lifetimes? When libertarians talk about what must be done, the discussion tends to revolve around four common strategy options. None of them are mutually exclusive necessarily and there can be plenty of overlap between them.
1. The Political Option - The first, we’ll call the political option, or to borrow a tired phrase, “working within the system.” .. The argument goes something like this: government, and the political process that surrounds it, are inevitable in the real world. Therefore libertarians must not stand idly on the sidelines while politicians inexorably steal our freedoms. Instead we must organize and become active politically, under the banner of a third party vehicle like the Libertarian Party or by working within the Republican Party, because whether we want to involve ourselves with politics, politics involves itself with us.
2. Strategic Withdrawal - A second approach libertarians often consider might be loosely termed strategic withdrawal. You may have heard of the “Benedict option” being discussed by Catholics unhappy with the direction of the Church and the broader culture. Ayn Rand fans talk about “going Galt,” in reference to the strike by the productive class that takes place in Atlas Shrugged .. This approach involves separating, withdrawing, or segregating in some way from the larger society and political landscape. It asserts that the current environment is largely hopeless for libertarians politically and culturally, and therefore attempting to play the game where the rules are so heavily slanted in favor of the state is foolish.
3. Hearts and Minds - A third tactic that libertarians often advocate we might call “winning hearts and minds.” This approach is multi-pronged, involving education, academia, traditional and social media, religion, books and articles, literature, and even pop culture. Hearts and minds is why we hold conferences like this. The hearts and minds strategy is all about education, persuasion, and marketing, at every level ..
4. Resistance - Of course another strategy often discussed among libertarians involves simple resistance to the state, whether open or covert. This tactic contemplates actions like civil disobedience, tax protests, evading or ignoring regulations, and engaging in agorism and black markets .. It also contemplates the use of technological advances to advance freedom.
domingo, novembro 22, 2015
There’s No Such Thing as a Political Problem Solver:
Progress doesn’t occur by commanding and controlling. It is an emergent phenomenon.
We are supporting the use of force to compel productivity when we believe that “problem-solving” political leaders drive progress. Human energy is exhausted when it is compelled. Those who are capable of creating value for others are prevented from doing so.
Every day, ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs pursue opportunities. No one controls the myriad decentralized decisions and actions that, along the way, solve problems. We don’t need “problem solvers” to tell us the “winning plan.” We need planners and “problem solvers” to stay out of our way.
sábado, novembro 14, 2015
Ron Paul - Will Migrant Crisis Kill EU? - With Guest Nigel Farage
I sometimes hear people say that governments are good at only one thing. I disagree. Governments are good at a variety of things, including the following:
1. Killing large numbers of people by aerial bombardments.
2. Killing large numbers of people by artillery bombardments.
3. Killing large numbers of people by small-arms fire.
4. Killing large numbers of people by cutting off their food supplies and causing them to starve.
5. Killing large numbers of people by destroying their homes, commercial distribution systems, sanitation facilities, and transport systems, along with other property.
6. Killing large numbers of people by embargoes and other trade restrictions that prevent essential medicines and other goods from reaching them.
7. Extorting enormous amounts of money from the people to whom it rightfully belongs.
8. Confiscating a variety of real estate and other forms of wealth from the people to whom those properties rightfully belong.
9. Imprisoning millions of persons, many of whom have violated no one's natural rights.
10. Widely dispensing lies, propaganda, and disinformation of various sorts.
11. Despoiling the physical environment on a grand scale.
12. Creating enormously dangerous weapons and other materials that present a continuous risk of catastrophe to the whole human race.
13. Employing huge numbers of bureaucrats, cops, soldiers, and other lackeys to carry out tasks of no genuine value -- indeed, for the most part of negative value.
14. Spying on hundreds of millions of people for no reason other than to facilitate the government's social control.
15. Harassing people and making many people's lives unpleasant for no good reason.
Moreover, the foregoing items are only a few of the many things that governments are good at doing, although a critic might insist that all these things are but particular forms of one single overarching thing: the destruction of life, liberty, wealth, and happiness.
Because the federal government does not actually fail; indeed, it succeeds on an almost unimaginable scale. It is by far the most successful criminal organization in the world's history, and it proceeds only from one towering success to another. The key to understanding this conclusion is to understand the government's actual intention and, above all, to recognize that it does not seek to promote the general public interest.
If its goals were the ones it claims to pursue, in accordance with longstanding classical liberal defenses of the state as an indispensable protector of people's rights to life, liberty, and property, it would not do most of what it is doing. More fundamentally, it would not begin its operations by extorting and stealing the resources it requires to carry out its activities, thereby burning down the village it purports to save at the very outset.
No one writes a well-documented forty-page analysis of why the James Gang failed to promote the general public interest. Such an analysis would evoke only ridicule and laughter. If the James Gang raked in a lot of loot from its robberies of trains and banks, notwithstanding killing many innocent people along the way, it considered itself successful. Those who constitute the upper echelon of the federal government employ exactly the same criterion when they assess their success. If they did not do so, they would act completely differently from how they are now acting, which is how they have always acted.
You don't expect bears to leave the forest and seek out a public restroom when they feel the need for a bowel movement. Likewise you should not expect a criminal organization to promote peace, private property rights, and justice.
por Hans Hermann Hoppe (PDF):
It is frequently maintained that “free trade” belongs to “free immigration” as “protectionism” does to “restricted immigration.” That is, the claim is made that while it is not impossible that someone might combine protectionism with free immigration, or free trade with restricted immigration, these positions are intellectually inconsistent, and thus erroneous ..
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken.
By demonstrating that free trade is inconsistent with (unconditionally or conditionally) free immigration, and that free trade requires instead that migration be subject to the condition of being invited and contractual, it is our hope to contribute to more enlightened future policies in this area.
quarta-feira, novembro 11, 2015
Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now:
In a free market, firms would be smaller and less hierarchical, more local and more numerous (and many would probably be employee-owned); prices would be lower and wages higher; and corporate power would be in shambles. Small wonder that big business, despite often paying lip service to free market ideals, tends to systematically oppose them in practice.
However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners’ desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
segunda-feira, novembro 09, 2015
If you love death and destruction, oppression and suffering, injustice and violence, repression and torture, helplessness and despair, perpetual conflict and bloodshed, then teach your children to respect “authority,” and teach them that obedience is a virtue.
If, on the other hand, you value peaceful coexistence, compassion and cooperation, freedom and justice, then teach your children the principles of self-ownership, teach them to respect the rights of every human being, and teach them to recognize and reject the belief in “authority” for what it is: the most irrational, self-contradictory, anti-human, evil, destructive and dangerous superstition the world has ever known.
There’s No Escaping Competition:
In a system where competition takes place through offering money to acquire resources, we get the emergence of prices, which serve as both the incentive for ongoing production and the information about what to produce. When buyers compete with buyers to acquire a good and thereby bid up the price, it tells existing and prospective producers that this good is more valuable and that they should produce more of it. Similar competitive bidding for the inputs into a production process informs other producers about what should and should not be used to make various goods and services.
Competition through money prices connects the competition over the distribution of goods with the production of goods in a way that no other form of competition does. In this way, market competition benefits not just the direct parties to the competition but all of us by encouraging the ongoing production of goods in ways that economize on resources.
Scarcity is a defining characteristic of the human condition, and scarcity means there will be competition over who gets what. Market capitalism has the great advantage of channeling that competition through the price system, which not only ensures an ongoing supply of goods but also encourages their efficient production.
We may not be in heaven, but the peaceful and socially beneficial competition of the market is downright heavenly compared to the alternatives.