Secession: the solution for Ukraine and Iraq
quarta-feira, Novembro 12, 2014
Só quem nunca esteve próximo de gestão de negócios não percebe o quão precária é aquela actividade, a quantidade de contexto que é preciso absorver, o controlo que é preciso exercer, a adaptabillidade necessária para reagir a um mercado sempre em mudança, debater-se com margens reduzidas, longas horas a fazer trabalho de sapa, tomar decisões que podem afundar projectos de vida. O Estado, esse, defende que o caminho a prosperidade é extorquir dinheiro àquela gente honesta, e "investir" em projectos de suposta relevância política -- que os privados pouco sabem, estas decisões populistas sim, é que criam "crescimento". Quem disse que o Socialismo é um Culto da Morte não estava a ser demasiado metafórico.
domingo, Novembro 09, 2014
Catalonian Secession and ‘Pure’ Motives:
It is fitting that the vote be scheduled on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall since that event, of course, began a process that led to the de facto secession of numerous states from what was in practice a Soviet megastate built on a system of client states throughout Eastern Europe. Hungary and Poland, et al were de jure independent states, but we all saw the reality behind that claim in 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Prague.
I wonder, if today’s politicians in Madrid were sitting in their little velvet chairs in 1989, would they have disapproved of the Polish Solidarity vote, which essentially declared Poland to be free of Soviet rule? Or was that a “legal fraud” as the Madrid government calls the Catalonian vote? Most of the Eastern European moves toward independence were “illegal” as far as the Soviet state was concerned. And yet, those unruly law breakers went ahead with them anyway. Those troublemakers.
quinta-feira, Novembro 06, 2014
When Hayek Abandoned Mises:
In 1960, I regarded Hayek's book as one of the most profound books I had ever read. In retrospect, it was the first profound book that I had ever read. I have reread it two times since then, and I still regard it as a profound book. It is also a deeply flawed book. Part I of the book, The Value of Freedom, is a defense the ideal of freedom. Part II, Freedom of the Law, is his attempt to outline the kind of political order that is necessary to sustain freedom. Part III, Freedom in the Welfare State, is probably the most profound defense of conceptual errors in the history of the libertarian movement.
I knew at that point that I was dealing with a defender of the free market social order who had sold out intellectually to the fundamental error of the modern world, namely, the welfare state's programs for the aged ..
This is not a minor issue. The Social Security system, which includes state subsidized medical care for the aged, is by far the most widely accepted institution associated with welfare state economics. More than any other pair of institutions, in every western nation, Social Security and government medicine are guaranteed to bankrupt all national governments. There is no escaping this. There will be a great default. They will abandon the programs which have been promised to the masses as the absolute guarantee provided by the state. Hayek defended these programs in the name of liberty.
It was not just that Hayek was a puzzler in terms of not instantly correlating a new piece of information within an overall perspective. It was that Hayek, at a fundamental level, did not have a general principle of economic or political interpretation which enabled him to classify something as comprehensive and as crucial to the modern welfare state ideology as old age retirement and medical programs funded by the state. If a man cannot not identify these programs as inherently in conflict with the system of ordered liberty, then he lacks a fundamental understanding of how to link his general principles and specific cases.
quarta-feira, Novembro 05, 2014
Querem acabar com os caos das colocações? Eu digo como por José Manuel Fernandes:
O caminho tem de ser outro: passar para as escolas a responsabilidade total por estas contratações. Quem tem competências internas para ter ganho estatuto de autonomia, tem de ter a liberdade, e a competência, para contratar os seus professores e ser responsabilizado por isso. Cada escola deve fazer o seu concurso, com as suas regras, pois as necessidades em Almodôvar não são as mesmas de Boticas ou da ilha do Corvo. Ao Ministério caberá apenas a responsabilidade de facilitar este processo, criando uma plataforma onde os professores possam conhecer as vagas disponíveis e ir a concurso. Mais nada.
A Simple Truth; Computer Climate Models Cannot Work:
IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim that human CO2 is causing global warming. They create the results they are designed to produce.
The acronym GIGO, (Garbage In, Garbage Out) reflects that most working around computer models knew the problem. Some suggest that in climate science, it actually stands for Gospel In, Gospel Out. This is an interesting observation, but underscores a serious conundrum. The Gospel Out results are the IPCC predictions, (projections), and they are consistently wrong. This is no surprise to me, because I have spoken out from the start about the inadequacy of the models. I watched modelers take over and dominate climate conferences as keynote presenters. It was modelers who dominated the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and through them, the IPCC. Society is still enamored of computers, so they attain an aura of accuracy and truth that is unjustified. Pierre Gallois explains,
If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.
Michael Hammer summarizes it as follows,
It is important to remember that the model output is completely and exclusively determined by the information encapsulated in the input equations. The computer contributes no checking, no additional information and no greater certainty in the output. It only contributes computational speed.
It is a good article, but misses the most important point of all, namely that a model is only as good as the structure on which it is built, the weather records.
The models are built on data, which either doesn’t exist, or is by all measures inadequate.
Immigration and Libertarianism por Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
.. Left-libertarians are typically ardent advocates in particular of a policy of ‘free and non-discriminatory’ immigration ..
But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant ..
.. From the fact that government property is illegitimate because it is based on prior expropriations, it does not follow that it is un-owned and free-for-all. It has been funded through local, regional, national or federal tax payments, and it is the payers of these taxes, then, and no one else, who are the legitimate owners of all public property. They cannot exercise their right – that right has been arrogated by the State – but they are the legitimate owners.
In a world where all places are privately owned, the immigration problem vanishes. There exists no right to immigration. There only exists the right to trade, buy or rent various places. Yet what about immigration in the real world with public property administered by local, regional or central State-governments?
First off: What would immigration policies be like if the State would, as it is supposed to do, act as a trustee of the taxpayer-owners’ public property? What about immigration if the State acted like the manager of the community property jointly owned and funded by the members of a housing association or gated community?
Why, then, one might ask, does the State not adopt the left-libertarian “free” immigration policy and grasp the opportunity offered by the predictable crisis to further strengthen its own power? ..
.. In contrast to left-libertarians, the ruling elites are still realistic enough to recognize that besides great opportunities for State growth, the predictable crisis would also entail some incalculable risk and could lead to social upheavals of such proportions that they themselves may be swept out of power and be replaced by other, ‘foreign’ elites. Accordingly, the ruling elites proceed only gradually .. because it helps the State not just to stay on its present divide et impera course but to proceed on it at an accelerated pace.
Contrary to their own anti-statist pronouncements and pretensions, then, the peculiar left-libertarian victimology .. actually turns out to be a recipe for the further growth of State power. The cultural Marxists know this, and that is the reason why they adopted the very same victimology. The left-libertarians do apparently not know this and are thus the cultural Marxists’ useful idiots on their march toward totalitarian social control.
Brittany Maynard – Suicide Advocate Who Walked The Walk:
When assisted suicide is made illegal, it of course doesn’t prevent a person from ending their own life. It only makes the process more frightening, lonely, and potentially tragic. I personally find it hysterical that in my home state of New Hampshire, I am welcome to carry a handgun without a permit, which nobody could realistically stop me from using to evacuate my skull. If I were to get a suicide pill from a doctor on the other hand, we’d both be facing prosecution.
The former option makes a horrific mess, a loud noise, risks others being injured by a passing bullet or skull fragments, rules out an open casket, and could even leave me still living with severe brain damage, a burden to my family and society.
In the latter option, the only risk, is the State.
The State has no regard for life, as it is itself a death cult. The State will end your life without your consent simply for being disobedient. Surely they care not if you die willingly. It is not their veneration for life, but their lust for suffering that inspires these laws.
Voting as a Moral Wrong por Aaron Ross Powell:
When we vote, we aren’t just deciding for ourselves. We’re attempting to decide for others, too. We’re not just expressing a preference (“I prefer traditional taxis to ride sharing services.”), but also expressing a desire to see that preference made, through the application of violence or the threat of violence, the law of the land. We’re saying our opinions are so informed, correct, and important that we’re willing to have men with guns make our fellow Americans obey them, even if our fellow Americans also believe their own opinions are informed, correct, and important.Almost every politician with his or her name on the ballot—and certainly every politician with much of a chance of winning office at the state or national level—will use that power to engage in political acts via the state that clearly lack moral legitimacy. That’s because he or she will use government to enforce preferences instead of limiting the state to that narrow role there’s even a chance of justifying morally.
If you cast a vote today, there’s a pretty high chance that in morally significant ways you’re acting just like those friends mugging the old man. You may think there are good reasons for doing this, that a world where you vote for violations of basic human dignity and autonomy will be more livable—happier, freer, wealthier, more equal—than one where you don’t. But you’re still party to countless immoralities. You’re still expressing approval as politicians fail to live up to basic moral standards—and as they do so in your name.
quinta-feira, Setembro 25, 2014
H. L. Mencken famously said that “every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” By now, however, I am no longer ashamed, because I do not identify with the government under which I live. Rather, I view it as a criminal organization that without provocation has chosen to make war on my just rights—not only mine, of course, but everyone's. Although this vile enterprise is my problem, because it robs and bullies me relentlessly and without mercy, it is not my responsibility: the nail is not the hammer.