Introduction to Objectivism, by Leonard Peikoff
domingo, março 15, 2015
Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."
The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.
Da ditadura fiscal à miséria moral de André Azevedo Alves:
.. o problema central neste caso é a dimensão do Estado e a sua voracidade fiscal, que assume com preocupante frequência contornos para-totalitários. Ter um Estado que vive muito acima das possibilidades do país acarreta a imposição de uma carga fiscal muito acima das possibilidades dos contribuintes. A busca incessante do aparelho de Estado por mais recursos implica por sua vez uma brutal e crescente assimetria de poder entre a máquina fiscal e o cidadão comum.
Assim, a Autoridade Tributária (uma designação que em si mesma é já todo um programa…) que impõe prazos e obrigações declaratórias aos cidadãos é a mesma entidade que frequentemente não cumpre prazos e falha nas notificações. Acresce que, por via do alegado “combate à evasão” (o tal que supostamente propiciaria baixas de impostos que ainda ninguém viu), o ónus da prova está hoje cada vez mais invertido, de tal forma que em muitos casos, na prática, é já o cidadão que tem de provar a sua inocência face à máquina fiscal.
Não sairemos deste perigoso caminho enquanto não percebermos que a verdadeira miséria moral é termos políticos que ao mesmo tempo que aumentam o peso do Estado e o seu poder para interferir nos mais diversos sectores da sociedade se manifestam publicamente preocupados com a corrupção ..
.. O que é realmente grave é que todos contribuíram, à sua maneira, para construir e manter um sistema que se assemelha cada vez mais a uma ditadura fiscal em que todos os cidadãos são culpados até prova em contrário.
Sorry, Nigel Farage, Judeo-Christian nationalism is no answer to failed multiculturalism:
While Farage is correct to point out that state-sponsored multiculturalism creates an array of tensions and potential problems, he is completely wrong to suggest that using the power of the state to create a “Judeo-Christian” monoculture is the correct solution. Instead, Farage should recognise that it’s a mistake to think that governments can or should deliberately promote any sort of culture at all.
As the past few decades have shown, state-sponsored multiculturalism is not the proper or helpful role of Western, democratic governments. Policies of this kind have created a rift in British society, causing the progressive values of minority protection and egalitarianism to collide with the classical liberal values of free speech, choice, and toleration.
The best thing that Britain can do is take a step back from the culture wars and recognize that civil society should take the lead in answering what culture should look like.
sábado, março 14, 2015
Five Lessons Learned from the Scottish Referendum:
Lesson 1: Global Elites Greatly Fear Secession and Decentralization
Lesson 2: Secession Movements Will Demand a Vote
Lesson 3: American Ideas about Secession Are Unsophisticated and Parochial
Lesson 4: Secession is a good way to bargain
Lesson 5: Centralization is Unnecessary for Economic Success
Some British newspapers have declared that “the dream is over” for Scottish independence. That seems hardly likely, unless by “over,” the newspapers mean “over for the next few years.” Europe-wide, the drive for more regional independence and autonomy will only continue to grow as economies stagnate, and as elites from Brussels or Rome or Madrid continue to maintain that they know best. Eventually, the promises of the centralizers will fall on very deaf ears.
The Libertarian Case Against Public Schools:
The libertarian case is a simple one. Libertarians oppose public schools because they are government schools. It doesn’t matter if none of the evils of public schools mentioned above even exist. It is simply not the proper role of government to educate children. Neither is it the proper role of government to force Americans to pay for the education of their children in a public school or to pay for the education of the children of other Americans. It is an illegitimate purpose of government to have anything to do with the education of anyone’s children. It is the responsibility of parents to educate their children. How they choose to do that is entirely up to them, but public schooling shouldn’t even be an option.
For all the liberty lovers out there who feel powerless and their efforts meaningless, I remind them of the wonder, the awe inspiring power of human cooperation and spontaneous order..
Despite the best efforts of the greatest libertarian thinkers of the 20th century, the state has remained unyielding in its domination .. Now what are we gonna do with it? .. I implore you to channel your inner Ludwig von Mises and repeat his famous quote “Tu Ne Cede Malis,” meaning “Do Not Give in to Evil.” If we want to gain any ground against statism we need to remember three things:
1. Remain Stoic ..
2. Be Positive ..
3. Have Fun ..
This is Pizzatarianism. You see, pizza is the most libertarian of all foods. Pizza, like human freedom, has no limitations ..
Pizza is the epitome of the human creative spirit. It represents the utmost ingenuity, personalization, and individualism of people. Each pizza is a person’s own little utopia. They choose whatever kind of pizza they want, regardless of what others are doing. You don’t need to be told what to get on your pizza. There are no top down orders when it comes to making your own pizza. The kitchen of a pizza place is the home of spontaneous order. It’s where people come together to engage in voluntary cooperation and choose exactly what the want on their pizza without rules or dictates about what they can order. And, just like the magic of a free society, the pizza place becomes a place where people make their own choices about their own pizza without reverence for authority.
Pizzatarianism is the idea that we should have fun while fighting for freedom. It’s the idea that liberty not just includes, but requires, fun .. Remember it and remember how fucking amazing human liberty really is.
sexta-feira, março 13, 2015
We Can Predict The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage (Março 2014):
So that’s what we would expect from this rise in the Seattle minimum wage to $15 an hour. Some rise in unemployment. A much larger rise in high school graduate unemployment relative to the general unemployment rate. And a significant reduction in the job related benefits that workers receive.More Seattle restaurants close doors as $15 minimum wage approaches (Março 2015):
Restaurant owners, expecting to operate on thinner margins, have tried to adapt in several ways including “higher menu prices, cheaper, lower-quality ingredients, reduced opening times, and cutting work hours and firing workers,” .. when these strategies are not enough, businesses close, “workers lose their jobs and the neighborhood loses a prized amenity.”
“ .. fewer people will be able to afford to dine out, and as a result there will be fewer great restaurants to enjoy. People probably won’t notice when some restaurant workers lose their jobs, but as prices rise and some neighborhood businesses close, the quality of life in urban Seattle will become a little bit poorer.”
quinta-feira, fevereiro 26, 2015
O Estado somos nós? por José Manuel Moreira:
.. dois sentidos muito diferentes do termo Estado. Um, que designa a sociedade organizada, com governo autónomo, em que nós somos todos membros do Estado: o Estado somos nós. E outro, como diria B. de Jouvenel, que denota o aparelho que governa a sociedade. Aqui os seus membros são os que partilham do Poder: o poder são eles. Ora a esperteza destes, que vivem da gestão e controlo dos interesses instalados, foi conseguir deslocar o sentido da palavra de modo que o Estado, em vez de significar o aparelho que comanda a Sociedade, passasse a traduzir a ideia de que a Sociedade se comanda a si mesma. Uma fraude intelectual inconsciente que levou a que o aparelho governamental, de expressão da Sociedade, se transformasse em máquina estatal com poderes e interesses próprios. Truque feito, antes, em nome de um Estado de bem-estar, e agora em defesa do bem-estar de um Estado cada vez mais capturado por uma oligarquia que se afirma como dona disto: num para si tudo e para os outros o rigor da lei.
Regulate the Dating Market:
The United States government has wisely chosen to regulate most other aspects of life, from what wage you are allowed to work for to what medicines a patient is allowed to buy over the counter. Voluntary interactions are all well and good, but the bottom line is that people have to be protected from themselves. The trade-off between liberty and security exists not only in privacy and foreign policy: we must strike a similar balance in the arena of love.
I propose the creation of a new government organization, the Committee to Assure Romantic Equity (CARE), to bring an end to the current Wild West of romance. Three powerful sets of regulations would bring much-needed stability to the chaos of dating.
Just as professionals — from hair-braiders to interior decorators — must be licensed, so too the government must step in to license daters.
It is self-evident by now that free markets aren’t qualified to distribute scarce natural resources. Unregulated capitalism causes intense inequality .. To remedy this situation, every man and woman should be forced to submit to CARE the number of dates he or she has planned each week.
Each man or woman preparing to let a partner go should have to fill out several forms showing due cause. No one should have to fear being dumped for trifling reasons
The Net Neutrality Scam:
The natural outcome will be more “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors.
quinta-feira, fevereiro 19, 2015
How Truly Free Markets Help the Poor:
Everywhere the government intervenes to “help” we find not more choice, but less. Not more jobs, but fewer. Do you want to start up your own taxi service by driving people around? Forget about it if you have not obtained all the applicable (and costly) government licenses. Do you want to rent out your converted garage to tenants for cash? Too bad. Zoning laws don’t allow it. Do you want to get a job at five bucks per hour for your teenage son who has no skills? Sorry, that’s illegal too. Do you need a loan, but you’re a high risk borrower? Get lost. We’d have to charge you a high interest rate. That’s usury, and it’s not allowed.
We’re told every day that the only solution to poverty is more government power, more government regulation, more central planning, bigger deficits, and less freedom.
The true solution, however, is better described by a left-wing slogan: “Legalize Poverty.” The left usually says this when homeless people are being thrown off government property, but it’s better applied to the many types of free enterprise that are placed out of reach to the poor by government edicts. So many low-income workers must turn to black markets and low-wage semi-legal work because that’s all that’s open to them. It’s simply illegal for them to find entry-level work in mainstream enterprises, keep all of their meager wages, or start up small enterprises. Needless to say, these assaults on free markets help no one but the government agents paid to enforce them.
Whenever the government makes a power grab, people automatically expect everyone who opposes it to know exactly how the problem will be solved without government intervention. This can make for a rather busy study schedule for those of us who oppose government on principle. Government inserts itself into every aspect of the economy, whether it is medicine, or Internet, or food, or sex. It is rare to find some aspect of our lives over which the government doesn’t want to have some say in what happens. By the standard of statists, you would have to be an expert on damn near everything to make an argument against government as an institution, and that’s just plain ridiculous.
I don’t need to be a doctor to tell you that the State is inefficient, malicious, and irresponsible. I don’t need to be an IT professional to tell you that the State will ruin the Internet with net neutrality. I don’t need to be an expert on sexuality to tell you that the government has no place in our bedrooms. I don’t need to be a nutritionist to tell you that government shouldn’t be telling us what to eat. All I need to know is that the system of incentives provided by the State, an institution that claims the authority to violently force people to do things they would not otherwise do, creates an environment for victimization, and little else.
So if somebody were to tell me “We need XYZ government policy or the human race will cease to exist” part of the reason I would choose the extinction of the human race, is because I know with certainty I’m just calling a bluff. If anything is going to put the survival of humanity at risk, it is the State itself.