terça-feira, março 27, 2012

Kill Obamacare

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins!

Fear and Personal Responsibility

Fear and Personal Responsibility:
Look at the things we have done to ourselves out of fear. Fear of growing old and sick has caused society to hold a gun to each others’ heads in order to force our children to fund our retirement and old age healthcare. Fear of death has caused us to create death on such grand scales that it nearly defies our ability to comprehend it. The base emotion that drives the thought that creates all war is fear. If we were not afraid of dying, if we were not afraid of not having enough, if we were not afraid of personal responsibility, there would be no reason to kill and destroy, there would be no reason to invade and occupy, there would be no reason to loot and steal.
People often say their concern for others is what causes them to demand the protections of the state or to take up arms. They say things such as, “how would the poor children get an education without the state!” I would argue that if people truly had such great concern for others they would be far more worried about what would happen to those who do not fork over their wealth under a system of taxation. It is not possible to have concern for others yet hold a gun to other people’s heads in order to rob them of their property so it can be put to a use that YOU approve of.

If you loved your neighbor as yourself, throwing him in a cage because he didn’t cough up his earnings would be repugnant to you. If you loved your children as you love yourself, forcing them to pay for your retirement through social security would be repugnant to you. Having true concern for others means advocating and doing that which creates a state of less suffering for all others at all times. If you are truly concerned that poor children might not receive an education without the state, then the logical way to prevent this is to become a teacher of poor children yourself.

Kony 2012 (2)

No seguimento de Kony 2012,

KONY 2012 is a Pro-War Propaganda film...

Like a campaign commercial, Kony 2012 provides rhetoric in lieu of substance, appeals to emotion instead of reason, and frames partisan decisions in the language of universality and collective purpose. The anti-LRA position is shown to flow naturally from a New-Agey celebration of Web 2.0 interconnectedness. The case against Kony is presented as right and natural because Russell has a cute preschool-age son—who is himself pressed into service as the film's audience representative and Socratic straight man. A very specific call for an offensive by U.S. troops is given equal weight with an effort to get good sound bites from George Clooney, Bono, and Taylor Swift.
A Guide to Joseph Kony and the Backlash Against Invisible Children:
Perhaps most galling, "Kony 2012" completely fails to mention the brutality of the nations who fight against the L.R.A. Recently elected to his fourth term, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has been in power for over 25 years. Human Rights Watch claims the Museveni administration engages in severe human rights abuses, like illegal detention, torture, even extrajudicial killings (like another president). Visiting northern Uganda, Museveni even vowed he would defeat the L.R.A. in "just one week." That was in 2003. Even more alarming, Museveni has been accused of kidnapping children and turning them into child soldiers, using the same tactics as the L.R.A.

Meanwhile, the Central African Republic (CAR) has been labelled "beyond a failed state" by The Economist, and is plagued by rebellions, rampant kidnapping, and brutal counterinsurgency tactics. One former leader of CAR was even accused of cannibalism. In addition, over 5.4 million have been killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1996, even though Congo's war officially ended in 2003. Clearly, none of these nations can be considered a hero or the "good guys" against Kony.

Yet the United States has been coordinating with these nations.

Corporations + Government

the world's easiest economics quiz

Planeamento central urbano

Houston, a lenda do urbanismo de mercado:
Quem estudou em uma faculdade de arquitetura, onde quer que seja, já viu a imagem ao lado: um ângulo sinistro do centro de Houston, a maior cidade do Texas, nos EUA. Percebe-se automaticamente a quantidade absurda de estacionamentos em uma das regiões mais valorizadas na cidade.
É definitivamente uma história motivadora, e faz com que os jovens alunos se entusiasmem para planejar suas cidades de forma sustentável. Mas, infelizmente, ela é falsa.
.. a imagem que vemos na sala de aula de urbanismo é apenas uma pequena parcela de uma cidade extremamente dispersa, onde a maioria dos habitantes não tem outra opção de moradia senão isolados nos subúrbios e dependendo do automóvel para cumprirem suas rotinas. Após esta não tão breve pesquisa histórica e legal, parece-me claro que a causa disso não é a falta de regulação, mas sim um resultado um tanto óbvio das regulações que foram implementadas pelo existente e muito atuante Departamento de Planejamento de Houston.

The history of Watermelonism

James Delingpole & The history of Watermelonism from Mises Institute of Canada on Vimeo.

racismo progressista

Geraldo's Point por Thomas Sowell:
There is no point in dressing like a hoodlum when you are not a hoodlum, even though that has become a fashion for some minority youths, including the teenager who was shot and killed in a confrontation in Florida. I don't know the whole story of that tragedy, any more than those who are making loud noises in the media do, but that is something that we have trials for.

People have a right to dress any way they want to, but exercising that right is something that requires common sense, and common sense is something that parents should have, even if their children don't always have it.
Race hustlers who hype paranoia and belligerence are doing no favor to minority youngsters. There is no way to know how many of these youngsters' confrontations with the police or others in authority have been needlessly aggravated by the steady drumbeat of racial hype they have been bombarded with by race hustlers.
Profiling por Walter E. Williams:
.. there's a larger issue that few people understand or have the courage to acknowledge, namely that black and young has become synonymous with crime and, hence, suspicion. To make that connection does not make one a racist. Let's look at it.

Twelve years ago, a black Washington, D.C., commissioner warned cabbies, most of whom were black, against picking up dangerous-looking passengers. She described "dangerous-looking" as a "young black guy ... with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes." She also warned cabbies to stay away from low-income black neighborhoods. Did that make the D.C. commissioner a racist?

In some cities, such as St. Louis, black pizza deliverers have complained about having to deliver pizzas to certain black neighborhoods, including neighborhoods in which they live. Are they racists? The Rev. Jesse Jackson once remarked, "There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery – (and) then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Does that make the reverend a racist?
According to the Uniform Crime Report for 2009, among people 18 or younger, blacks were charged with 58 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 67 percent of robberies, 42 percent of aggravated assaults and 43 percent of auto thefts. As for murder, more than 90 percent of the time, their victims were black. These statistics, showing a strong interconnection among race, youth and crime, are a far better explanation for racial profiling and suspicion than simple racism.
God would never racially profile, because he knows everything, including who is a criminal or terrorist. We humans are not gods; therefore, we must often base our decisions on guesses and hunches. It turns out that easily observed physical characteristics, such as race, are highly interconnected with other characteristics less easily observed.

domingo, março 25, 2012

How Housing Policy Caused the Financial Crisis

How Housing Policy Caused the Financial Crisis

the elimination of discomfort

America in Reverse:
In the years leading up to the economic crash of 2008, the federal government did a lot of things to allegedly “make the economy and society better.” Instead, we got the crash. Does government get the blame for even some of this? No way.

Since 2008, Americans have empowered their government to do even more things, more than at any time in our history. Government has completely taken over the practice of medicine, and just about taken over the mortgage and banking industries. Despite these changes, nothing is better, and in many respects things are worse. One real-life, concrete indication of this is that 30 and 35 year old grown ups must live with their parents.
There are things in these statistics for both social conservatives and socialist liberals to cheer. More young people living at home means more demand for handouts. These include socialized medicine, ObamaCare, unemployment benefits, and untold multiple trillions in other goodies yet to come. Adults living at home with their parents means they are more dependent. More dependent people means more “need” by government authorities to be needed. Parents who resent having their grown children live with them will demand more government help, as well. Need and dependence are everywhere. The liberal left is in heaven.
We wonder why nothing changes. The people we elect to power have no incentive to change things. Neither side has an incentive to liberate the American people from the inhibitions and restraint of government power. Government intervention in the economy has led to a slow-growth/no-growth economy. If you simply listen to what these politicians say about their respective opinions and policies, you will understand that they’re not interested in letting people be free. It’s government they want to set free, to trample on our liberties (economic and personal) even more than they already have.

Too many Americans now define freedom as the elimination of discomfort.

sábado, março 24, 2012

Música Liberal do Dia

"F--- the I.R.S." by CUTTING EDGE

Hating the State and Loving Liberty

Hating the State and Loving Liberty:
Libertarians have a number of public relations problems. Some are the result of people not understanding our ideas. Others, however, are our own fault: We sometimes fail to express our ideas clearly or attractively. In particular, we have a habit of emphasizing what we’re against rather than what we’re for.

It’s the difference between coming across as “hating the State” and as “loving liberty.” I’m not suggesting that people who talk about how much they hate the State really don’t love liberty. Nor am I suggesting that those who talk about loving liberty are too easy on all the bad stuff the State does. What I do want to argue is that in many cases libertarian ideas are better presented as forwarding liberty rather than as opposing the harm government can cause.

How the Government Makes You Fat

How the Government Makes You Fat - The Great Sugar Shakedown

Economics in One Lesson

Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson:
It is a particularly useful first book for anyone who has spent the last few years in a foggy miasma of Keynesian or Monetarist economics, which together form the state-sponsored mainstream of most economics schools, mainly because they award the state a sacred role in controlling all of the major levers of economic power ..
As you progress through Hazlitt’s book, these kinds of ‘in extremis’ questions start enabling us to see through the fog of statist fallacies surrounding and supporting the warfare/welfare state beloved of the Keynesian/Monetarist nexus, virtually all of whose members suck at the teat of the state, in one form or another ..
And this leads us to a secondary beauty of Hazlitt. Not only does he shatter the socialist economic nostrums of his own time, he enables you to take apart the socialist economic nostrums of our time.

For instance, his explanation above of ratcheting government destruction of the motivation to create initial wealth takes us straight towards the infamous Laffer curve.
What Laffer and all the other non-Hazlitt-reading government worshippers fail to see, despite it being plainly in their face, is that the overall wealth in society generated is now half of what it otherwise would have been, even according to their own insights.
And this is just one application of what Hazlitt makes possible, if you start to think with his methodology. His method is timeless and his illumination is stunning.

Tax Code Favors Renewables

CBO Debunks Myth That Tax Code Favors Oil Over Renewables:

the smartest men in the entire universe

“I’m Smarter than Everyone Else” — The political "disease.":
“It’s a sickness,” said a friend of mine who until recently was an elected official in our city. “It sets in after you’re elected the first time, or maybe even when you’re running for office.” That sickness is “thinking you’re smarter than everyone else.”
.. the arrogance of claiming to know (after just asking potential competitors!) which investments are good and which ones are bad .. the councilman seems to believe that it’s his place to determine what investments entrepreneurs should make .. laws — as I’ve seen over the past several years — can also be tools for politicians to impose their “plans” and values on others. Because free exchange is the backbone of economic growth, and what people exchange are really property rights, hampering those rights are necessarily counterproductive to growth and prosperity.
The symptoms come in many shapes and styles, but the “I’m smarter than everyone else” disease is a result of disrespect for individual freedom and private property rights combined with an overconfidence in one’s own knowledge of what is best for everyone else. America became the wealthiest place on earth because it was also the most free place on earth. The “I’m smarter than everyone else” sickness — found at all levels of government — is antagonistic to individual freedom and a threat to future prosperity for everyone.

money-printing fiscal crimes

Bloom calls for fiscal crimes tribunal to deal with money-printing central banking scam

money-printing is like ’global warming’

Why money-printing is like 'global warming' por James Delingpole:
..why should climate sceptics also be sceptical of money-printing, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and gold and silver market manipulation? It's a question Jo has pondered too.
If you wonder how corruption in climate science could be connected, look no further than Climate Money. Without the printing presses running flat out at the Fed, which politicians would have had the luxury of glorious schemes to control the weather? How could they hand out grants to send, say, aquariums on tour to warn of impending storms? Underneath it all, if large financial institutions were not looking forward to a brand-spanking-new $2 Trillion market to trade carbon, who would have found millions to install 70 foot Carbon-Clocks, 50 page science reports and to donate and push into “green” education campaigns? Funny money makes for funny decisions. Shame no one is laughing.

If real people had to earn real money, investment bankers would need to make real decisions, scientists would have to find real evidence, and politicians would have to come up with real reasons.
Exactly, Jo. Welcome to the Austrian School – the only economic education worth having right now.


32. Doublethink

Vulture socialism

Vulture Capitalism — The real evil bankers are the government cronies. por John Stossel:
“Greed” means you want more for yourself. Fine. If you obtain it legally, without force or privilege—say, by buying a business and making it more efficient, or shifting resources to where consumers prefer them—that is a good thing. “Creative destruction” makes America richer.
America is richer today because those workers lost their jobs, because money once paid them is put to better use. In addition, most of those workers found new jobs where their skills better served consumers. Some even say they were glad that they were fired, because now they are more productive, and being productive makes people happy.
Michael Moore says, “Capitalism has no moral core.”

Is that right? Since the word “capitalism” is ambiguous, the answer depends on what we mean. If it’s crony capitalism -- well, yeah. It stinks. Handouts to Solyndra and special deals for Goldman Sachs and GM are not capitalism. That’s “crapitalism.”

Many people hate banks, private-equity firms and mortgage brokers. In light of the last few years, this isn’t totally unjustified. I resent the bankers who got rich by taking foolish risks and then, when they failed, got bailed out with our tax money.

I guess I shouldn’t blame bankers. I should blame the politicians. They gave our tax money away. If someone offered me money to cover my losses, I’d take it, too.

Ron Paul @ North Dakota

Ron Paul Speaks before North Dakota Caucus

Andrew Breitbart

Andrew didn't fall for the notion that, somehow, it's impolite to call the Left on their bullshit; And neither should you:
Andrew Breitbart:
“Why is it that the left is allowed to throw around the dangerous accusation of racism without any evidence as a means to malign half the country, yet if I want to use the word ‘socialist’ I have to go to the D.N.C. and get a notary public to sign it for me?”
Ed Driscoll quotes Jonah Goldberg on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:
One thing that he [Andrew Breitbart] and Bill [Buckley] shared was this basic contempt for the premise that the mainstream liberal elite institutions in the United States are in a position to judge and adjudicate the worth of conservatives. That they are in a position to judge our souls. That if we disagree with liberals, that proves that we are somehow wanting or lacking in compassion; lacking in humanity. That is a fundamental thing that enraged Andrew, this idea that if you disagreed about public policy, if you disagreed about how to organize society, that proved you were a racist. That proved you were a fascist. That proved you were a homophobe. It was the fundamental bad faith of the leading liberal institutions that controlled the commanding heights of this culture that infuriated him. And he refused, at the most basic level, to give them that authority over him or his ideas, and that is was fueled his Righteous Indignation, as his book title called it.
This is why, from the very beginning of when I started to blog, I have always said the basic message to pass is to point out that self-declared position of liberals' morality and authority in as clear as possible a way.
At National Review Online, former Breitbart colleague Michael Walsh describes Andrew as “the Right’s Achilles:”
There was no combat in which [Andrew Breitbart] would not engage, no battle — however small — he would not join with glee, and no outcome acceptable except total victory. His unexpected death last night at the young age of 43 is not the end of his crusade, but its beginning.

Blending Hayek and Rothbard

Mere Libertarianism | Prof Daniel B Klein

F.A. Hayek

F.A. Hayek Died 20 Years Ago Today:
Reason: Of your bestselling The Road to Serfdom, John Maynard Keynes wrote: "In my opinion it is a grand book.... Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement." Why would Keynes say this about a volume that was deeply critical of the Keynesian viewpoint?

Hayek: Because he believed that he was fundamentally still a classical English liberal and wasn't quite aware of how far he had moved away from it. His basic ideas were still those of individual freedom. He did not think systematically enough to see the conflicts. He was, in a sense, corrupted by political necessity. His famous phrase about, "in the long run we're all dead," is a verv good illustration of being constrained by what is now politically possible. He stopped thinking about what, in the long run, is desirable. For that reason, I think it will turn out that he will not be a maker of long-run opinion, and his ideas were of a fashion which, fortunately, is now passing away.
Reason: Are you optimistic about the future of freedom?

Hayek: Yes. A qualified optimism. I think there is an intellectual reversion on the way, and there is a good chance it may come in time before the movement in the opposite direction becomes irreversible. I am more optimistic than I was 20 years ago, when nearly all the leaders of opinion wanted to move in the socialist direction. This has particularly changed in the younger generation. So, if the change comes in time, there still is hope.
BÓNUS: Twenty Years without Hayek

eco-fascismo em acção

Sackett v. EPA: How One Couple's Battle Against the Feds Might Protect Your Land

BÓNUS: Historic Supreme Court ruling allows the Sacketts to
fight EPA takeover of their land

Libertarianism Does Not Equal Selfishness

Sheldon Richman on Why Libertarianism Does Not Equal Selfishness:
Libertarianism and one of its pillars, free-market economics, get an unfair rap for its alleged preoccupation with the pursuit of wealth. It’s unfair because, while wealth and economic growth are important, the philosophy is about much more: human flourishing through freedom and its natural product, social cooperation.

One source of confusion is the undoubted libertarian interest in economics .. Economics is thought by many to be concerned exclusively with the individual’s selfish pursuit of maximum wealth, or material goods. Other pursuits are thought to be beyond economics. Libertarians see economics as essential to understanding the world. Therefore libertarianism must largely be about the individual’s selfish pursuit of wealth, or material goods.
Economic analysis .. is not confined to the pursuit of material goods, much less to self-interest, or “selfishness.” (Not that there’s anything wrong with pursuing self-interest.) In a world of scarce resources and limited time, everyone must make choices at every turn, striving to achieve more important ends, subjectively determined, before less important ends, determined to minimize costs (money and otherwise) so that more of his or her most important ends can be obtained. This was as true for Mother Teresa as it is for Donald Trump.

At the center of libertarianism and free-market economics, then, lies not wealth but liberty—the freedom of people to cooperate in the pursuit of diverse values, some “self-regarding,” some not. Wealth is merely one part of a much larger story. Critics will have to find another line of attack.

Libertarians and Liberty

Walter E. Williams on Libertarians and Liberty

The Big Hoax

The Big Hoax por Thomas Sowell:
There have been many frauds of historic proportions -- for example, the financial pyramid scheme for which Charles Ponzi was sent to prison in the 1920s, and for which Franklin D. Roosevelt was praised in the 1930s, when he called it Social Security ..

But the biggest hoax of the past two generations is still going strong -- namely, the hoax that statistical differences in outcomes for different groups are due to the way other people treat those groups.
Too many of the intelligentsia -- both black and white -- jump on the statistical bandwagon, and see statistical differences as proof of maltreatment, not only in schools but in jobs, in mortgage lending and in many other things.

Some act as if their role is to protect the image of blacks by blaming their problems on whites. But the truth is far more important than racial image.
If we don't have the truth, we don't have anything to start with and build on. A big start toward the truth would be getting rid of the kinds of statistical hoaxes being promoted by Secretary of Education Duncan and Attorney General Holder.

sexta-feira, março 23, 2012

Politicians are Sociopaths

Seven Signs of a Sociopath — Our politicians exhibit all of them:
There are seven characteristics I can think of that define a sociopath, although I’m sure the list could be extended.
  • Sociopaths completely lack a conscience or any capacity for real regret about hurting people. Although they pretend the opposite.
  • Sociopaths put their own desires and wants on a totally different level from those of other people. Their wants are incommensurate. They truly believe their ends justify their means. Although they pretend the opposite.
  • Sociopaths consider themselves superior to everyone else, because they aren’t burdened by the emotions and ethics others have – they’re above all that. They’re arrogant. Although they pretend the opposite.
  • Sociopaths never accept the slightest responsibility for anything that goes wrong, even though they’re responsible for almost everything that goes wrong. You’ll never hear a sincere apology from them.
  • Sociopaths have a lopsided notion of property rights. What’s theirs is theirs, and what’s yours is theirs too. They therefore defend currency inflation and taxation as good things.
  • Sociopaths usually pick the wrong target to attack. If they lose their wallet, they kick the dog. If 16 Saudis fly planes into buildings, they attack Afghanistan.
  • Sociopaths traffic in disturbing news, they love to pass on destructive rumors and they’ll falsify information to damage others.

Intervenção de AMN (12)

Na continuação de Intervenção de AMN (11),

Os estudantes têm de ter mais informação sobre os cursos superiores

A esquerda tem medo da liberdade de escolha dos alunos

The White Savior Industrial Complex

The White Savior Industrial Complex:
  1. From Sachs to Kristof to Invisible Children to TED, the fastest growth industry in the US is the White Savior Industrial Complex.
  2. The white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, founds charities in the afternoon, and receives awards in the evening.
  3. The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.
  4. This world exists simply to satisfy the needs—including, importantly, the sentimental needs—of white people and Oprah.
  5. The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.
  6. Feverish worry over that awful African warlord. But close to 1.5 million Iraqis died from an American war of choice. Worry about that.
  7. I deeply respect American sentimentality, the way one respects a wounded hippo. You must keep an eye on it, for you know it is deadly.
.. Africa serves as a backdrop for white fantasies of conquest and heroism. From the colonial project to Out of Africa to The Constant Gardener and Kony 2012, Africa has provided a space onto which white egos can conveniently be projected. It is a liberated space in which the usual rules do not apply: a nobody from America or Europe can go to Africa and become a godlike savior or, at the very least, have his or her emotional needs satisfied. Many have done it under the banner of "making a difference." ..
How, for example, could a well-meaning American "help" a place like Uganda today? It begins, I believe, with some humility with regards to the people in those places. It begins with some respect for the agency of the people of Uganda in their own lives. A great deal of work had been done, and continues to be done, by Ugandans to improve their own country, and ignorant comments (I've seen many) about how "we have to save them because they can't save themselves" can't change that fact.

Kony 2012

- Kony2012 Flops in Uganda (UPDATE)
- Uganda says Kony 2012 campaign misinforms
- Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of 'Kony 2012'
- Kony 2012: what's the real story?

Kony 2012 - Humanitarians with Guillotines?

Secrets KONY 2012 Is Desperate to Hide

quinta-feira, março 22, 2012

Objectivism and The State

Objectivism and The State - An Open Letter to Ayn Rand por Roy A. Childs, Jr.:
The purpose of this letter is to convert you to free market anarchism. As far as I can determine, no one has ever pointed out to you in detail the errors in your political philosophy. That is my intention here .. you are wrong. I suggest that your political philosophy cannot be maintained without contradiction, that, in fact, you are advocating the maintenance of an institution – the state – which is a moral evil ..
It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone; that a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government; that the very concept of limited government is an unsuccessful attempt to integrate two mutually contradictory elements: statism and voluntarism. Hence, if this can be shown, epistemological clarity and moral consistency demands the rejection of the institution of government totally, resulting in free market anarchism, or a purely voluntary society.
.. statism exists whenever there is a government which initiates force. The degree of statism, once the government has done so, is all that is in question. Once the principle of the initiation of force has been accepted, we have granted the premise of statists of all breeds, and the rest, as you have said so eloquently, is just a matter of time.
Suffice it to say that all of your arguments against free market anarchism are invalid; and hence, you are under the moral obligation, since it has been shown that government cannot exist without initiating force, to adopt it. Questions of how competing courts could function are technical questions, not specifically moral ones ..
This is the only alternative to continuing centuries of statism, with all quibbling only over the degree of the evil we will tolerate. I believe that evils should not be tolerated – period. There are only two alternatives, in reality: political rule, or archy .. and anarchy, which is the absence of the initiation of force, the absence of political rule, the absence of the state. We shall replace the state with the free market, and men shall for the fist time in their history be able to walk and live without fear of destruction being unleashed upon them at any moment .. We shall replace statism with voluntarism: a society wherein all man's relationships with others are voluntary and uncoerced. Where men are free to act according to their rational self-interest ..
Let us walk forward into the sunlight, Miss Rand. You belong with us.

quarta-feira, março 21, 2012

Your State

Your State Superhero

Smash Capitalism and You Destroy Civilization

Smash Capitalism and You Destroy Civilization:
.. The twentieth century was a long (and bloody) debate about alternative modes of social organization. Even in its present corrupted and cronyized form, “modern capitalism”—which Deirdre McCloskey defines loosely as “private property and unfettered exchange”—is a goose that lays golden eggs, and not merely for the super-rich. If you disagree, ask yourself how many of those claiming to speak for “the 99%” have smart phones, which Louis XIV couldn’t have bought for all the gold in France. The problems the Occupiers blame on “capitalism” were not caused by “private property and unfettered exchange.” They were caused by institutionalized interference with “private property and unfettered exchange.”
.. It has been said that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. We would do well to study the intellectual, political, social, and economic history that made Mises write with such urgency and passion lest we be doomed to repeat it. Tragically, that’s exactly what will happen if those who urge us to “smash capitalism” and “abolish private property” get their wish.

Robbing you

I'm Allowed to Rob You!

Libertad y sexualidad

Libertad y sexualidad:
Una de las ventajas de la postura libertaria arriba mencionada consiste en que es, por un lado, más consciente de la provisionalidadde todo estudio científico acerca de fenómenos infinitamente complejos como son los biológicos y los sociales; por el otro, presenta la evidencia histórica de que solamente la sociedad abierta puede albergar a cada vez más número de seres humanos, ofrecerles un marco de relaciones donde la mayoría encuentre prosperidad y en el que las diversas opciones vitales, consustanciales al aumento de población y a la creciente complejidad social, tengan cabida.

Los apoyos científicos en contra de los homosexuales y de la homosexualidad son ejercicios de puro constructivismo social, mera coacción para ordenar la conducta de unos individuos según las preferenciasde otros. Ni existe ni existirá posibilidad alguna de condenar médica ni socialmente la homosexualidad sobre bases científicas y todo intento de hacerlo se precipita en la más pura manipulación.

La supervivencia de una especie tan compleja como la humana en continuo crecimiento depende tanto de asegurar la reproducción como la convivencia y la libre determinación de lazos sociales. Es lo único que se puede asegurar al respecto. Es por eso que se precisa apoyar desde el axioma libertario toda práctica sexual entre individuos que consienten.

superstar Paul @ Leno

Ron Paul - Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno 03/20/12

Science and Libertarianism

Column: What science, libertarianism have in common:
.. libertarian philosophy in general — tackles government policy the same way a researcher tackles an experiment.
.. The scientific enterprise rests on simple premises: Scientists should have the freedom to investigate whatever they choose. The universe is ultimately knowable and logical. The business of science should be to promote reality, not ideology. This formula has proved successful.

Similarly, the seductive allure of libertarianism relies on its simple assumptions: People should be as free as possible. Our laws should reflect reality. Government policies should be analyzed using logic, not ideology. There are no grand appeals to shaping the world in America's image, no quixotic promotion of economic equality and no obsession over the moral character of the nation.

In a nutshell, scientists and libertarians deal with the world the way it is, rather than the way they want it to be ..

segunda-feira, março 19, 2012

In Defense of Drug Use

Jacob Sullum: In Defense of Drug Use

Libertarians & Politics

What Should Libertarians do About Politics?:
“Liberty” is not the ideology of an interest group; it is the baseline of the human experience. But encroachments on liberty will inevitably manufacture interest groups that seek out compromises in order to preserve liberty in limited areas.
As more and more areas of life are politicized .. We move so far away from the baseline of liberty that political mobilization is required in nearly every area of our lives: to marry who we want to marry, to get the medical treatment that may save our life or relieve our constant pain, to choose a health-care plan that does not violate our conscience, or even to drink raw milk. In the process, the struggle to preserve the baseline of the human dignity—human liberty—are sub-divided into battles over the mundane—such as the freedom for children to start a lemonade stand. This is how the fight for human dignity is trivialized and advocates for liberty are balkanized. This is how politics takes over the fight for liberty.
The fight for liberty has both a short and a long game and, just like football, both should be part of the strategy. But, unlike other political persuasions, focusing too much on the short game actually undermines some of our core principles: that there should be little or no political involvement in certain areas of life. Above all else, libertarians should have long memories that can point out how political concessions of the past paved the way for crises in the present, and we should also be able to show that we made this argument in the past, but no one listened to us. Otherwise, if our past is filled with political concessions, then our message will be substantially weakened, if not totally lost.

The Machinery of Freedom (2)

No seguimento de The Machinery of Freedom,

Exploring Liberty: The Machinery of Freedom

authentic republicanism

Ron Paul’s caucus strategy is authentic republicanism:
.. The reason that the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.

That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.
The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy.

Ron Paul vs the Fed

Financial Services Hearing Highlights Feb 29 2012 - Dr. Ron Paul Unmatched Intellect - EndTheFed!

BÓNUS: Ron Paul to Bernanke: "Do you do your own grocery shopping?"

Starbucks & Economic Progress

How Starbucks Made My Friday and Taught Me About Economic Progress:
.. Someone I don’t know who invented a little plug for my coffee has made me appreciably better off. That’s more than can be said for just about any politician.

Further, we do well to remember what economists like Friedrich Hayek and others have emphasized about “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The social problem is to coordinate the knowledge about preferences and possibilities dispersed across billions of minds. Such knowledge cannot be known by a single person, and as Hayek and others have argued, markets are necessary if such knowledge is to be harnessed and transmitted through coherent signals.

The Starbucks coffee plug is another drop in what the economist Donald J. Boudreaux calls “the prosperity pool,” and it illustrates a more fundamental truth about the process of capitalist innovation. It’s a process of experimentation that allows people to identify (through trial and error) an array of goods and services that make people better off. To borrow from Joseph Schumpeter, the capitalist achievement does not consist of better baubles for plutocrats. It consists of a countless array of innovations that benefit the rest of us.

Does Government Spending Create Economic Growth?

Does Government Spending Create Economic Growth?

Complex Societies Need Simple Laws

Complex Societies Need Simple Laws:
Big-government advocates will say that as society grows more complex, laws must multiply to keep up. The opposite is true. It is precisely because society is unfathomably complex that laws must be kept simple. No legislature can possibly prescribe rules for the complex network of uncountable transactions and acts of cooperation that take place every day. Not only is the knowledge that would be required to make such a regulatory regime work unavailable to the planners, it doesn’t actually exist, because people don’t know what they will want or do until they confront alternatives in the real world. Any attempt to manage a modern society is more like a bull in a darkened china shop than a finely tuned machine. No wonder the schemes of politicians go awry.

Why The Future Is Better Than You Think

Why The Future Is Better Than You Think

the correct size and proper function of the state

What is the correct size and proper function of the state?:
For a long time I considered myself a classical liberal – as did Ludwig von Mises who inspired much of my work. I no longer think that this position is logically consistent. The classical liberal position, although advocating a much smaller state than today’s political consensus, still assigns too many powers to the state ..
While such a minimal state – a pure protector of life and property of its citizens, an enforcer of laws and a provider of courts to facilitate the resolution of conflicts and the further development of the laws – would be a much better guarantor of individual liberty and of peaceful cooperation than today’s heavily interventionist, constantly meddling and increasingly authoritarian state, and while most libertarians today would be happy to see a return to this classical liberal vision of the minimal state, even this concept is still flawed for as long as the organization that calls itself a state claims to have a territorial monopoly on providing protection and security services and a monopoly of ultimate decision making in its territory (this is in fact a very good definition of the state by Hans-Hermann Hoppe).

If the state not only uses legal force to protect life and property of its citizens but if the state, as all states presently do, uses force to stop citizens from voluntarily exiting the state’s framework and establishing or joining different and competing arrangements on its territory, then we will have to also reject this minimal state on the basis of the analysis above.

Jesus: Copying is not Theft


Privatize National Defense

To End War, Privatize National Defense:
Once you have this vision of an entirely privatized nation in your head, I now want you to come up with reasons explaining why another nation state would attack us. I also want you to think about what they would specifically attack.

Would China invade us and bomb Google’s headquarters? Would Russia march an army down Main Street and blow up Intel’s production facilities? Would the Cuban military assault Disney World? Why would another nation invade us and what would they gain?
Moving on to the waste that is produced under a state system, it is impossible for any government to know how much national defense is actually necessary. Should the government spend a million or a trillion on defense? It’s impossible for any coercively funded government to rationally determine this figure. The only way this figure can be rationally arrived at is for the public to set the spending through voluntary markets.
.. if you don’t pay and you resist the confiscation of your wages, you will end up dead. The coercive funding of a national defense force is tantamount to the American state waging a violent war against its own population to ensure its own survival. If the purpose of a national defense force is the protection of property rights, then clearly it is oxymoronic to argue that the defense of property rights must entail the destruction of property rights.

School Reform

Milton & Rose Friedman's Legacy of School Reform


Muito gostam os políticos e os politólogos de falar de "confiança". Já farta.

Mas o que é objectivo é que no mundo real ninguém fala de "confiança" (o que mostra bem o quão distante está a política da realidade). Nem mesmo no bullshit consultês se fala de "confiança". "Ai e tal os nossos níveis de confiança estão altos, vamos investir"? A sério?

Os agentes económicos (das famílias aos grandes grupos) precisam é de
1) menos política (e respectivos custos) na sua actividade;
2) previsibilidade.

Mas o que consiste na criação da dita "confiança" dos políticos?
- Primeiro, na negação de tudo o que é problema;
- Segundo, na adopção de qualquer medida simbólica -- e cara de preferência -- independentemente da sua eficiência ou eficácia;
- Terceiro, na recusa em assumir medidas correctivas;
- Quarto, na mais cobarde e orwelliana gestão de expectativas.

Exactamente o contrário do que precisa a sociedade para funcionar e reagir a tempos difíceis - relembremos, provocados pelo esbulho e esbanjamento da política estatal.

A política e o mundo real gerem-se por filosofias diametralmente opostas. É como tentar reconfortar alguém com um desgosto amoroso usando lógica fria; ou fazer contabilidade categorizando as entradas de acordo com as cartas do tarot.

É lógico que as pessoas percam a confiança num sistema que não as compreende, que as rouba para depois gastar em alucinações perdulárias, e que ainda faz fausto em queixar-se de misticismos como "confiança". E é tragicamente lógico que o Estado, políticos e burocratas, nestas circunstâncias, mais perturbem e mais ocultem, e cada vez menos percebam que não são solução -- são eles próprios o problema.

A Closer Look At Discrimination (2)

Na continuação de A Closer Look At Discrimination,

Thomas Sowell - Race And Gender Gaps

- The Fairness Fraud

Citação Liberal do Dia

Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?
Walter Williams

Self-Esteem and Libertarianism

Nathaniel Branden on Self-Esteem and Libertarianism

Fair trade

Let's get the facts straight on 'fairtrade':
During an interview on the BBC last week, at the start of ‘Fairtrade Fortnight’, I made a number of arguments against ‘fairtrade’ .. Below I list these arguments and defend them.
  • Fairtrade locks poor people into agriculture, producing the same crops
  • Fairtrade is not effective, as only 5% of the price of a product we buy trickles back to farmers in developing countries
  • Fairtrade doesn’t make people better off, but forces them into less efficient farming

  • Fairtrade doesn’t target the poorest, the majority of beneficiaries are in countries like Mexico

  • Farmers must pay $2-4,000 to get certified, so only the richer ones can afford to join

Atlas Shrugged: Part II

Atlas Shrugged: Part II Greenlighted, In Theaters Next Fall

sábado, março 17, 2012

Global Warming e Ciência Social

Global Warming Is about Social Science Too por Steven Horwitz:
To help clarify what’s at stake, I offer a list of questions that are (or should be) at the center of the debate over anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming ..

1. Is the planet getting warmer?
2. If it’s getting warmer, is that warming caused by humans? ..
3. If it’s getting warmer, by what magnitude? ..
All these questions are presumably matters of science .. Let’s assume the planet is in fact warming and that humans are the reason.

4. What are the costs of global warming? ..
5. What are the benefits of global warming? ..
6. Do the benefits outweigh the costs or do the costs outweigh the benefits? ..
7. If the costs outweigh the benefits, what sorts of policies are appropriate? ..
8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of global warming? ..
.. people who take that position and back it up with good arguments should not be called “deniers.” They are not denying the science; they are questioning its implications. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial – denial of the relevance of social science.

sexta-feira, março 16, 2012

Jeffrey Tucker vs The Fed

Jeffrey Tucker makes the Case Against the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel

Hitler ended the Great Depression

Playboy Interview: Paul Krugman:
PLAYBOY: Arcade Fire delivers hope, but Wall Street failed us. The Rubin crowd failed us. Greenspan failed us. Who are the nonmusical heroes we can look forward to? Who’s going to save the United States of America?

KRUGMAN: Heroes who could be in a position to move stuff any time soon, I don’t see. The fact is the Great Depression ended largely thanks to a guy named Adolf Hitler. He created a human catastrophe, which also led to a lot of government spending. As you know, I’m famous for worrying about space aliens. It looks like it has to be some forcing event. Obviously you don’t operate on that basis, so what people like me will do is keep hammering on this stuff and hopefully it will eventually break through. The safety net has been enough to avoid mass suffering, to muffle it. People are exhausting their savings. This is where you start to wonder how much individuals really do matter. Maybe there is somebody on the political scene who will emerge. I don’t know where that comes from. But the big lesson I’ve taken from 10 years of punditry is that the story is never over. Who knows where we might be in four or five years?

Tides of Political Thought

Milton Friedman on Tides of Political Thought in Modern History

In this 1999 video from an International Society for Individual Liberty conference in Costa Rica, economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman delivers a live lecture to the audience through a teleconferencing system. Friedman speaks about various "tides" of economic and political ideas throughout the modern era, beginning with the lassiez-faire influence of the Adam Smith tide in the 1700s, progressing through the Fabian tide of big government authoritarianism during the greater portion of the 20th century, and concluding with the contemporaneous Hayek tide and the resurgence of classical liberal ideas following the collapse of some of the world's largest and most restrictive authoritarian states.

Trotsky, Stalin y Lenin: el Bueno, el Malo y el Feo

Trotsky, Stalin y Lenin: el Bueno, el Malo y el Feo:
Toda revolución tiene su mitología. La de la rusa se construyó sobre tres grandes caracteres: Trotsky, el Bueno; Stalin, el Malo, y Lenin, el Feo. Los tres son falsos y no permiten entender la verdadera dinámica que llevó a la creación del primer Estado totalitario.
Lev Davídovich Bronstein, alias Trotsky .. Se supone que el Bueno, luchador, soñador, profeta y mártir, fue bueno, es decir, humano, generoso, opuesto a cualquier violencia excesiva, amigo del pueblo, etc. Veamos cómo hablaba el Bueno en defensa de la guillotina, un poco antes de tomar el poder ..
Sin embargo, a los asesinos románticos se los perdona e idealiza, especialmente si han muerto por sus ideales. Lo que fascina en Trotsky, como en el Che Guevara, es su desenfadada convicción de estar haciendo el bien, liberando a la Humanidad de todo mal habido y por haber. Pero es justamente eso lo que los torna tan peligrosos: su finalidad deslumbrante los lleva a usar cualquier medio, a sacrificar masivamente a los seres humanos de carne y hueso para redimir a la Humanidad.
.. fueron innumerables los progres, para no hablar de los comunistas, que estuvieron dispuestos a alabar a Stalin a sabiendas del coste terrible de su dictadura. Tal vez no conocían la extensión exacta de la barbarie, pero eso no era lo importante. Imbuidos de la misma visión de la historia que inspiraba a Stalin, veían la violencia ejercida como un costo necesario de la obra de liberación de la humanidad ..
Pero Stalin no era más perverso que Trotsky, Lenin o Marx. Todos ellos eran profetas de un mismo ideal que lleva ínsito el afán genocida en su propósito de arrasarlo todo para cambiarlo todo, en su proyecto de crear un hombre nuevo, para lo que se requiere la destrucción del hombre realmente existente.
Nos queda el Feo, Lenin .. Quien dictó esta orden y llevó Rusia a la hecatombe de los años 1918-1922, con sus nueve millones de muertos en combates, represiones, hambrunas y epidemias, podía, sin embargo, tal como los verdugos del Holocausto, dormir tranquilo y satisfecho, ya que creía estar ejerciendo, con las palabras usadas por Hitler para definir el nazismo, la "voluntad de crear la Humanidad de nuevo".


What’s the Difference between a Libertarian, a Supply-Sider, a Keynesian, and an IMF Bureaucrat?:

Semáforos monetários

The Parable of the Broken Traffic Lights:
Suppose on some sunny afternoon in a large city somewhere in the western world, a man discovers on awaking from a two-hour nap that several hundred car accidents had occurred in the city while he slept .. As his brain slowly awakens, he stumbles across the likely culprit: Something must be wrong with the traffic lights .. Soon it hits him: It’s not that the traffic lights were not functioning at all, but rather they were all green ..
Our man begins to watch the coverage of the accidents on TV, where breathless commentators are blaming the crashes on the irrational and reckless behavior of drivers. He thinks: “That’s not fair. They did not act irrationally; they simply responded reasonably to a signal whose meaning they’ve long understood.” .. in this case that the cross-traffic has stopped, even the most rational, cautious drivers will get into accidents at intersections ..
.. it was the reality of the post-2001 boom that generated the financial crisis and Great Recession. The Austrian economist Israel Kirzner has long used traffic lights as an analogy for prices ..
When the central bank intervenes, however, it turns all the lights green .. This, like traffic patterns with broken signals, is not sustainable and will eventually lead to the economic equivalent of car crashes: the onset of a recession as this discoordination is revealed.
.. The next time a friend blames the boom and bust on irrational investors, you might recall our protagonist’s city and say: “The irrationality, dear friend, is not in our markets but in our government, that is, the central bank.”

The $8 billion iPod

A propósito de SPA preocupada com o número de falências na área da restauração,
O Conselho de Administração da SPA encara com a maior preocupação os números agora revelados que apontam para um aumento da ordem dos 60% a 70% dos estabelecimentos de restauração que encerraram as portas nos meses de Janeiro e Fevereiro de 2012, tendo este aumento como referência comparativa a situação de 2011. Este agravamento deve-se, sobretudo, ao aumento do IVA da restauração.

Estes números representam, além de um significativo agravamento das condições de vida da população portuguesa, uma inevitável redução das cobranças a efectuar na área da Execução Pública, sector vital para a estabilidade financeira da SPA e naturalmente para os autores.
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod
The music industry lobby group, the Recording Industry Association of America, is notorious for claiming enormous sums in economic losses, and has had a hit or miss record trying to defend such claims in court. In one case, a court rejected the RIAA’s calculations, stating,
Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison’s invention of the phonograph in 1877

Trade Promotes Peace

Does Trade Promote Peace?

Libertarianism is here to stay

Libertarianism is here to stay:
Libertarian philosophy places an emphasis on means rather than ends. It renews the ideals of classical liberalism by stressing that the government doesn’t know the goal of human existence, and it shouldn’t tell individuals how to lead their lives. Instead, this philosophy seeks to ensure the health of the system that is best suited to individuals seeking whatever ends they see fit: the free and voluntary exchange of unimpeded commerce.
We need to get away from the idea that we can impose our own morality upon others and that the government is the arena for this to happen. This, more than anything else, is what threatens to tear this country apart, when we derive so much economic benefit from being a big, diverse, unified nation. Morality is the domain of individuals and communities – not the government.

Dr. Paul’s views stem from a primarily economic viewpoint, but there are important philosophical dimensions to libertarianism as well. It is the difference between trying to codify every aspect of life to make it safe and fair and trying to embrace the freedom of the unknown future that has made America such a wonderful and ennobling place to live. It is the idea that government exists to perpetuate life and liberty, not to define the form liberty takes.

It requires a tremendous leap of faith to resist the urge to meddle in the economy, but the momentous lesson of Austrian economics, borne out of countless disasters of the 20th century, is that the more governments try to direct economies towards a certain end, the more they destroy the very mechanisms by which prosperity and agency are generated: voluntary exchange.

sábado, março 03, 2012

Keynesians know your limits!

Women know your limits!

Public Schools Must Be Abolished

Santorum And Harvard Anarchist Agree: Public Schools Must Be Abolished:
To appreciate how people could be so willfully blind as to permit such a ubiquitous malevolent presence as slavery, one needs only to look at American public schools. The analogy between public schooling and slavery is presented solely to demonstrate that both are socially destructive institutions that are sustained by the belief that oppression, when it is even acknowledged, is necessary and beneficial ..
Learned helplessness is a vital feature and takes place very early when children discover that they will never be permitted to follow their passions. This is axiomatic due to the inexorably rigid curriculum, structure, and design that must accompany processing large numbers of students. Every aspect of student life is controlled, including their surroundings, what they can do, how they can act, and what and how they may think. Public school students are under constant surveillance. Hallways and classrooms are monitored. Permission must be obtained to talk, leave the classroom, and even to use the bathroom. Lockers, backpacks, and persons are routinely searched. In many schools, police patrol the building and grounds. 95% of those police carry firearms. Break times are generally shorter than what prisoners of war are required to receive under the terms of the Third Geneva Convention. In fact, public schools consistently violate Articles 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 38, 51, 52, 53, and 99, which govern discipline, labor demands, personal effects, general health and well being, diet, and exposure to humiliation. It is remarkable that parents voluntarily subject their children to conditions that would be considered war crimes if their children were enemy combatants.
The general philosophy of public schools is that civil rights are at odds with learning. Fear, humiliation, and degradation are routinely seen as indispensable educational tools. Because schooling numerous children at the same time requires submission and conformity, social efficiency must always dictate and be the final arbiter in all decisions involving public school administration.

Consequently, obedience to authority emerges as the most important lesson that any student will learn ..
The insistence that alternatives to public schooling must be presented in any discussion that attacks public schooling is a diversionary tactic that need not be entertained. Abolition of slavery was not postponed until there was a clear vision for how to integrate millions of former slaves into society ..

Gerrymandering (5)

Na continuação de Gerrymandering (4),

Gerrymandering Explained

The Fairness Fraud

The 'Fairness' Fraud por Thomas Sowell:
.. How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more "fair" for others?

Even if additional tax revenue all went to poor single mothers – which it will not – the multiple problems of children raised by poor single mothers would not be cured by throwing money at them. Indeed, the skyrocketing of unwed motherhood began when government welfare programs began throwing money at teenage girls who got pregnant.

Children born and raised without fathers are a major problem to society and to themselves. There is nothing "fair" about increasing the number of such children.
To ask whether life is fair – either here and now, or at any time or place around the world, over the past several thousand years – is to ask a question whose answer is obvious. Life has seldom been within shouting distance of fair, in the sense of even approximately equal prospects of success.
Countries whose politicians have been able to squander ever larger amounts of a nation's resources have not only failed to make the world more fair, the concentration of more resources and power in these politicians' hands has led to results that were often counterproductive at best, and bloodily catastrophic at worst.