sexta-feira, abril 25, 2014

Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State

Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State

Minimum Wage Laws Increase Poverty

How Minimum Wage Laws Increase Poverty por George Reisman:
Raising the minimum wage is a formula for causing unemployment among the least-skilled members of society. The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them. These are all propositions of elementary economics that you and the President should well know.

It is true that the wages of the workers who keep their jobs will be higher. They will enjoy the benefit of a government-created monopoly that excludes from the market the competition of those unemployed workers who are willing and able to work for less than what the monopolists receive.
Your and the President’s policy is fundamentally anti-labor and anti-poor people.
The standard of living is not raised by arbitrary laws and decrees imposing higher wage rates, but by the rise in the productivity of labor, which increases the supply of goods relative to the supply of labor and thus reduces prices relative to wage rates, and thereby allows prices to rise by less than wages when the quantity of money and volume of spending in the economic system increase.
The principle here is that we need to look to greater economic freedom, not greater government intervention, as the path to economic improvement for everyone, especially the poor.

Razão armada vs. destrambelhice desarmada

Texas Monthly Talks TED NUGENT

What should libertarians do?

What should libertarians do?:
The upshot is that most people have never heard of unplanned, undesigned, or spontaneous order. When they hear libertarians talking about markets unregulated by the state, they can’t digest the idea. How can there be order without a top-down designer or regulator? How can markets regulate themselves? Those are reasonable questions for the economically unschooled. The explicit order they are familiar with is associated with someone’s conscious plan. Asking them to believe we can have order writ large without plan or command is like asking them to believe that if you quickly removed a table, the dishes wouldn’t fall to the floor.

Our job is to teach one of liberalism’s most groundbreaking insights, namely, that societies run themselves without plan or command — when allowed.
Our objective is not merely to find libertarians or to persuade people to hold pure libertarian policy positions. Rather, it is to help people to understand the freedom philosophy so they will be the best possible advocates of liberty. It’s not enough to be able to recite the bottom-line position on any particular matter. We have to understand why that position is the right one. That requires a deep understanding of liberty and society. And that’s why the striving for liberty is a life-long commitment.

How is War Profitable?

How is War Profitable? - Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker

State = Evil

There Is No Such Thing As A Do-Good State:
According to the do-good state argument, one of the state’s purposes is to find good causes that people will not voluntarily support and then to force them to pay for these causes. This purpose is never stated as baldly as this, but it is an accurate characterization.
What is clear about the state, to everyone, is that the state is power. What is not clear among those who fancy the do-good state is that this power does not imply that it can be used systematically to do good or will be used systematically to do good. The opposite is more apt to be the case. As a rule, the state’s power can’t be and won’t be used to do good. As a rule, the masters who run the state won’t be able to identify the good of their subjects, that good being highly individual and varying from person to person. By removing decision rights from the citizens, they will impede economic calculation, prevent adaptation to changing prices and conditions, and undermine learning. Complex processes will be replaced by the simplistic decisions of the state’s operatives. Their prioritization of the many conflicting possibilities will not be resolved and cannot be resolved by reference to the good of the subjects. They will use political and personal calculations. Consequently, the state can not and will not do the good that the do-good state is conceived of as doing by its proponents. Instead, as a rule, it will be a do-bad state.

There is no such thing as an exceptional state, one whose rulers avoid the personal failings of all human beings, who consistently identify what is good and right, and who are capable of bringing it about. The state’s monopoly power has to result in their being selected and operating otherwise than as people who can or will do good. The state’s monopoly power conditions the outcome, which is the state’s being a do-bad state, not a do-good state.

The Road to Serfdom’ at 70

'The Road to Serfdom' at 70
Thomas J. DiLorenzo | David Gordon | Peter G. Klein | Yuri N. Maltsev

Bleeding Libertarianism

Libertarianism: So Thick that it is Unrecognizable:
Professor M-to-the-Zwo is looking at this construct of libertarian theory; he sees that it is not complete – not every single question of life is fully and satisfactorily addressed, at least to his understanding. He stares at it and says “as the structure is not complete, the entire building must be rejected.”

Two thoughts come to mind. First, as I hinted at earlier: for any libertarian thinker to state, categorically, how various issues might be resolved in a libertarian world would be to admit that life can be efficiently centrally planned. Of course, it cannot. Because it cannot, Matt decides to reject the principle.

More fundamentally – and I am saddened, but not surprised, to see that someone so lacking in basic understanding can reach a position of teaching young, impressionable minds – the NAP is a principle. Nothing more.

While the application of the principle is quite clear in most circumstances, in several areas there are libertarians who are still struggling with the appropriate application. In a few cases, I am satisfied that different communities might come to different answers on a few things – each community believing that its answer is consistent with NAP in the context of actual life.

The NAP is a principle; a guiding light, if you will. Mr. Z is suggesting that a principle should be rejected because either a) its application has not been fully worked out in every situation, or b) taken to the extreme, life seems unlivable.

If this is the case, every principle should be rejected.

And perhaps this is the goal of thick, bleeding heart libertarians.

The Obviousness of Anarchy

The Obviousness of Anarchy
The Question | The Creation of Rules Of Law | Uniformity of Rules Of Law | Accessibility of Rules Of Law | Courts | Police | Internalizing Externalities | Public Goods | Conclusion

Rant liberal do dia

25 de Abril sempre! De alguma forma, tenho de odiar pessoalmente todo o fascista, e estar muito grato pessoalmente a todo o abrilista, seja comunista, "democrata", ou liberal -- suponho eu que da mesma forma que devo sentir pessoalmente imensa solidariedade financeira para com gente carenciada que não conheço, ou que devo entrar de luto sempre que desaparece uma "figura nacional", ou que devo identificar-me pessoalmente com jogadores da bola da selecção da FPF. Viva a inteligência emocional, Viva o 25 de Abril!

quinta-feira, abril 24, 2014

The Libertarian Angle: Ukraine and Venezuela

The Libertarian Angle: Ukraine and Venezuela
BÓNUS - The Libertarian Angle: Ukraine

Rant Liberal do Dia

Correcçãozinha - não foi "Portugal" que foi financiar-se a uma taxa implícita simpática. Foi o Estado português. Agora de volta ao trabalho, camponeses, há impostos a serem pagos, e se este ano vocês não produzirem o suficiente para cumprir as metas, para o ano há mais, só para aprenderem. E lembrem-se sempre, se não querem mais umas chicotadas: "o Estado somos todos nós".

quarta-feira, abril 23, 2014

Secessão "ilegal"

Secession and the Law por Butler Shaffer:
While I do not recognize a “social contract” as the origins of the state, I am quite willing to use the statists’ fabrication of such a transaction against them. By their nature, contracts are agreements voluntarily entered into by two or more persons to exchange claims to the ownership of property interests. Courts often refer to this voluntary nature as “mutual assent.” When one is forced, through threat of violence, to part with some property interest – as occurs when a street-mugger takes money from another at gun-point – a crime, not a contract, has taken place.
When we attach ourselves so strongly to an abstraction that our minds have created, that we identify our very being with it; it becomes difficult for us to examine how such an attachment might contribute to the problems ensuing from our actions. To what extent, in other words, does our thinking contribute to the difficulties we experience in our institutionalized world?

Whether we are considering questions in the realm of religion, science, law, or other subjects, we encounter a truth that few people are willing to consider: no system of thought can be self-validating.
It is on the basis of such thinking that politicians, judges, and other statists assert that “secession” is “illegal.” If the Constitution does not specifically provide for this remedy, it does not exist; it is unlawful to pursue it. That such a proposition negates not only the Declaration of Independence, but the “social contract” theory upon which the state depends for bamboozling the public, is conveniently ignored by the statists. Many even go so far as to argue that the Civil War proved the illegality of secession, a conclusion that disregards the American colonials seceding from their then-present British government in a Revolutionary War aided by the ideas and spirit in the Declaration of Independence.

“Secession” .. is, in other words, a philosophical question; one that requires recourse to deeply-held principled beliefs. Just as those nineteenth century libertarians who sought to abolish slavery had to rest their arguments on metasystems of thought that transcended constitutional, statutory, and other formal legal standards; the secession question cannot be answered by the political authorities who control, for their benefit, the coercive machinery that continues to grind down, loot, and destroy those who seek to liberate themselves from its inhumane practices.
Whether mankind is to survive, or bring about its own extinction, will depend largely on the premises that underlie our social organizations. Will they exist as voluntary, cooperative systems through which individuals can mutually achieve their respective interests; or will they continue to function as herd-oriented collectives that allow the few to benefit at the expense of the many? ..

Who Needs Capitalism

Apesar do fail monstruoso aos 1:09:00....

Capitalism: Who Needs It- Yaron Brook

Do You Hate the State?

Do You Hate the State? por Murray N. Rothbard:
I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.
Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.
.. The abolitionist is a “button pusher” who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.
His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.
.. the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Libertarianism vs. the Empire

John Glaser and Scott Horton - Libertarianism vs. the Empire

Upside-Down Narrative

Global Warming’s Upside-Down Narrative por Bjørn Lomborg:
Climate change has been portrayed as a huge catastrophe costing as much as 20% of world GDP, though brave politicians could counter it at a cost of just 1% of GDP. The reality is just the opposite: We now know that the damage cost will be perhaps 2% of world GDP, whereas climate policies can end up costing more than 11% of GDP.
We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.

The solution is to stop applauding politicians who warn of catastrophe and promote poor policies. Instead of subsidizing inefficient solar and wind power with little benefit, we need to invest in long-term green innovation. And we need to give more attention to all of the other problems. This is perhaps less entertaining, but it will do much more good.

The Economics of Ghostbusters

EconPop - The Economics of Ghostbusters

Klaus + Ukraine

The Václav Klaus Institute's public statement on the situation in the Ukraine
The Václav Klaus Institute Public Statement on the Situation in the Ukraine no. 2: Let’s Not Trivialize the Situation by One-Sided Interpretations

The Carefully Organized Separation of Czechoslovakia as an Example How to Peacefully Solve a Nation State Problem:
The Slovaks wanted to be alone. They wanted to have a sovereign state, not to be just part of Czechoslovakia, and the Czechs accepted that they did not have the right to block such an ambition. This was absolutely crucial. We both understood that the split had to be done quickly, friendly and generously, that there had to be simple macro-rules for dividing all kinds of common assets and liabilities, and that we had to do it ourselves, without letting foreigners to quasi-help us, which means to intervene .. what we carried out in Czechoslovakia two decades ago was a voluntary and organized separation.

Let's start a real Ukrainian debate:
After twenty years of independence, Ukraine is a divided country on the threshold of economic bankruptcy. It is home to two nations with different and probably antagonistic visions of the future, two nations growing apart every day. Both these nations look up to the world outside with unrealistic expectations – one to the West, the other to Russia.

terça-feira, abril 22, 2014

Propaganda Nacional-Socialista e Internacional-Socialista

La propaganda de nazis y comunistas era idéntica

No Room for Statism in the Libertarian Tent

No Room for Statism in the Libertarian Tent por Scott Lazarowitz:
.. libertarianism doesn’t involve social activism and doesn’t specifically address racism, sexism, etc., because libertarianism is really just the promotion of liberty, the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership of the individual ..

And in my view, the advocacy of liberty and non-aggression naturally goes with the philosophy of individualism. Individualism goes hand-in-hand with the concept of self-ownership. The individual owns one’s own life, including one’s person, one’s labor and one’s justly-acquired property. This is in contrast to collectivism in which the group or the community shares in ownership rights of the individual, and is a way of life which has been very thoroughly enmeshed with the State.
Those who really want governments and their police forces or militaries to intervene, or for government bureaucrats to impose their will onto the private matters of others, are not libertarians. They are statists, pure and simple.
There is no compromise, no middle ground between statism and libertarianism. “Limited government” is not libertarian and isn’t even possible. In my view, libertarianism has no role for the State, as the State is a territorial monopoly ruler over people who did not consent to its rule. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled is contract-less and not voluntary. In a libertarian society, all relationships, associations and contracts would be voluntary. No coercion. The essence of the State is that its relationship with the people is involuntary. The State is nothing but an apparatus of coercion and aggression.

In contrast to the State, the libertarian society is a civilized society. But what we have now is an incredibly uncivilized society because institutionalized aggression and slavery of the people is exactly what the State is.

And in our current statist society, the institution of the State employs those who are allowed to be above the law which all others, the ruled, must obey. In a libertarian society, however, everyone is equal under the law, and no one may initiate aggression against anyone else, no exceptions.

So, please pardon my stern exclusiveness on this important matter. While there is room in the libertarian “big tent” for “humanitarians” and “brutalists,” there is no room in libertarianism for statism. Those who believe that the above demonstrations of libertarianism are “extreme” and that there still needs to be some form of compulsory State monopoly apparatus ruling over the people, then in my view those advocates should not be referred to as “libertarians” when in actuality they are statists.

domingo, abril 20, 2014

Rant Liberal do Dia

Um erro e uma vergonha:
Instrução estalinista -- um sistema gerido e zelado por políticos, engenheiros sociais, e convivas sentados de cátedra à mesa dos dinheiros "públicos" só pode fabricar descompensadamente vastas brigadas de clones -- funcionários, burocratas, apparatchiks, teóricos sociais, especialistas encartados de pastoreiro da "sociedade", a qual, apesar dos seus iluminados esforços (ou por causa deles) não lhes liga nenhuma, apesar de pagar penosamente a sua existência e perpetuação.

sábado, abril 19, 2014

The Real World Effects Of Unions

Milton Friedman - The Real World Effects Of Unions

Libertarianism: A Brief Introduction

Libertarianism: A Brief Introduction por Christopher Cantwell:
  • What is libertarianism?
  • Libertarianism: A Brief Introduction
  • Libertarianism is the prescription for proper application of force in society
  • How does libertarianism see government?
  • How Does Libertarianism View Government?
  • Imagine you behaved like government?
  • Is Libertarianism Actually Anarchism?
  • What about the US Constitution? What about “limited government”? Isn’t Ron Paul a libertarian?
  • How Does Libertarianism View The US Constitution?
  • What about the Libertarian Party?
  • What does libertarianism say about economics?
  • What rights does libertarianism recognize?
  • Are libertarians conspiracy theorists?
  • Want to find out more about libertarianism?

How the Global Warming Scare Began

How the Global Warming Scare Began

Acabar com a AICEP

E se a AICEP acabasse?:
O Estado e a diplomacia económica deveria centrar a sua actividade na negociação da redução de barreiras ao comércio mundial, na defesa do livre acesso aos mercados e na representação dos interesses portugueses nas instâncias internacionais. E os nossos interesses são os de acolher da mesma forma positiva tanto as exportações como as importações. Só com ambas conseguiremos criar riqueza, aumentar o nível de vida no nosso país e explorar as vantagens comparativas de Portugal.

The Pope, the Constitution, and Economics 101

The Pope, the Constitution, and Economics 101 | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

War against Sin

Jeffrey Tucker’s War against Sin:
Additionally we should note that boorishness is only one of countless human failings. We could also name timidity and cowardice, a lack of generosity, excessive judgmentalism, hedonism and miserabilism and countless others. Therefore, as long we are bringing matters of taste to the forefront why stop at demanding that libertarians privately do not give in to boorishness? What about other libertarians who dress badly, do not give out candy for Halloween or have an atrocious taste in music? What about libertarians who lack the personal courage to rush to the aid of their neighbors in an emergency such as a fire, or others who would never contemplate dedicating a penny to charity? Do we also condemn such libertarians for “missing the bigger point of human liberty” and for not being sufficiently dedicated to human cooperation and their fellow-man? Where does it stop? What human failing, if any, can we as libertarians tolerate, and why some and not the others?

Clearly the answer is that as libertarians we can tolerate any human failing. It is not our goal as libertarians to stamp out human failing. Advocating virtue is the work of priests, gurus and other moralists. Our job is ending systemic oppression and building a system that delivers equal justice to all. Libertarians are not in the business of making judgment calls and deciding the virtue, taste or beauty of actions, but only their justice.

quinta-feira, abril 17, 2014

heinous criminals

Robert Higgs (FB):
To look at these people, you'd hardly suspect that they are the most heinous criminals, that some of them have sent subordinates to murder thousands of innocent men, women, and children; that some have overseen the kidnapping of millions of Americans who have violated no one's just rights; that some have subordinates who routinely bully and threaten sick and dying people by withholding from them medicines, treatments, and medical devices that might save their lives or diminish their suffering; that some oversee subordinates who enforce rules that keep millions of persons out of gainful employment; that some oversee subordinates who extort trillions of dollars from people who have done nothing to deserve such plunder -- and that every one of them lives by receiving extorted money.

To the naked eye, these capi di tutti capi seem to be well-scrubbed, well-dressed, middle-class, inoffensive, and even affable people, as different as anyone can imagine from the thugs who lurk on city street corners menacing passers-by with ominous glares and taunting catcalls. Yet their criminality is many orders of magnitude greater than that of the common urban miscreant. The greatest criminals know how to conceal their true character and, much more important, how to misrepresent -- indeed, to turn upside down -- the nature of their true roles in society.

The State Is Too Dangerous to Tolerate

The State Is Too Dangerous to Tolerate | Robert Higgs


Disband NATO! por jacob g. hornberger:
Deception and double-cross are precisely what NATO did to Russia after the end of the Cold War. They promised Russia that when the Warsaw Pact dissolved, NATO would go by the wayside too. It was a lie. They never intended to dissolve NATO. After all, dissolving NATO might mean no more crises, and everyone knows that crises are an essential prerequisite for the continued existence of the U.S. national-security state.

So, while the Warsaw Pact was disbanding, NATO was expanding … eastward, inexorably absorbing the countries that had formerly been members of the Warsaw Pact. The expansion brought NATO closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Anti-missile systems close to Russia were planned. And then NATO proposed to absorb Georgia and Ukraine, which would place NATO (including Germany) right on Russia’s borders and even place Russia’s longtime military bases in Crimea under NATO jurisdiction.

an Impossible Libertarian Dream

Not Even Achieving an Impossible Libertarian Dream Will Suffice:
Libertarians dream of cutting back the bloated Leviathan under whose weight people now struggle simply to catch their breath—breathing freely being almost beyond imagination. A few of us dream of eliminating the state altogether, however much we recognize the impossibility of doing so. Many more libertarians, however, believe that in propitious circumstances, the state might be slashed substantially.
We want a free society, but not even cutting real federal outlays by half would allow us to attain that goal. Indeed, it would leave us with the amount of real federal outlays the government actually made in 1984; and the Leviathan of 1984 is exactly the one of which I wrote in the original preface of my book Crisis and Leviathan, as follows:
Now, in virtually every dimension, our lives revolve within rigid limits circumscribed by government authorities; we are constrained continually and on all sides by Big Government. Regulations clutter the landscape. Governmental spending equals almost four-tenths of the gross national product.”
In short, just half the federal government’s current real outlays would suffice to sustain what I referred to in the mid-1980s as “that awesome aggregation of forces, programs, and activities we know as Big Government.
.. cutting the government’s real outlays in half is impossible unless some freakishly unlikely event, such as an enormous asteroid’s striking the earth, should occur. The only realistic libertarian goals—the only ones with even a ghost of a chance of attainment—are tantamount to removing a few grains of sand from the beaches of southern California. Not even the realization of my hypothetical “impossible dream” can create a free society; indeed, it can’t even bring us close to such a society. We have come too far; the monstrosity the American people have built is much, much too heavy for them to push off. So far as turning the United States into a free society is concerned, we simply cannot get there from here.

Paraísos fiscais

From Rags to Riches: The Cayman Islands Revolution | Learn Liberty

A escravatura dos tempos modernos

A escravatura dos tempos modernos:
E, no entanto, se substituirmos o protagonista principal desta história pelo Estado tudo passa a ser permitido. É permitido que trabalhemos 6 meses do ano só para pagar o punhado do feudo ao suserano Estado. Estamos proibidos de estipular um valor abaixo daquilo que este decreta. Estamos sujeitos à ampla discricionariedade dos legisladores, dos burocratas e da panóplia de indivíduos cuja vida se resume a impor sobre a vida dos outros. É o “bem comum”, clamam.

quarta-feira, abril 16, 2014

The Truth About Taxes

The Truth About Taxes

incurable fanatics

Lawrence W. Reed:
When someone accuses you of being a "fanatic" because you're passionate about liberty and concerned about the harm its erosion does to real people, cite this:
If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large
William Wilberforce, addressing attacks on his anti-slavery positions in 1816.

sábado, abril 12, 2014

What is Social Justice?

What is Social Justice?

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler and the socialist dream:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
.. His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf ..
The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact. Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?" The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler's right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy.

Recycle Smarter

Recycle Smarter than a Third Grader! | Learn Liberty

Rant Liberal do Dia

Não querem trocar umas ideias sobre o assunto?

Jovem, se és 1) um idealista "útil" 2) simplesmente queres viver à custa de outros 3) um sociopata animalesco -- junta-te a nós: temos lugares no parlamento e nas autarquias, tempo de antena e tratamento fofinho nos media, arruadas e bandeiras, festivais de Verão e bancadas de honra no Campo Pequeno, e foices e martelos para cobrires todo o país de vermelho!


Snowden to EU: No legal means challenge mass surveillance (FULL VIDEO)
Snowden to EU: No legal means challenge mass surveillance (FULL VIDEO)

Salário mínimo, política pulha e canalha

Salário Mínimo = excluir por legislação a gente menos produtiva do mercado de trabalho = política pulha e canalha.

Os ausentes por João Miranda

sexta-feira, abril 11, 2014

Socialism vs Capitalism

David Boaz: "Socialism vs Capitalism"


Cronista Convidado: À Confiança por Pedro Boucherie Mendes:
.. É tempo para avançar e o cimento deve ser outro, o da confiança. Sem grande poesia, só precisamos de menos estado e mais confiança entre nós. Menos leis e regulamentações, menos carimbos e menos impostos e mais apertos de mão, sorrisos e palavras. Mais ambição e mais competição. Menos nivelamento por baixo, menos medo e mais ousadia. Mais bravata e menos cautela e caldo de galinha. Um estado gordo, cheio de dinheiro e ilusão atrai compadrio, arranjinhos, conhecimentos, almocinhos, jantarinhos, iniciativas e eventos. Não é isso que criticamos à boca pequena nos tais destinos do mundo novo? Que há uma elite, um estado que parece dono daquilo e que dificulta as coisas, os negócios e as iniciativas? Cá era igual e essa sombra, mesmo a enfraquecer, ainda nos arrefece. Mas estamos a aquecer.

A dívida, o défice, os buracos nas contas são tão maus que estão prestes a tornar-se indizíveis, mas é objetivo que estamos melhor. É factual. Estamos falidos, foi-se o garantismo do estado, acabaram os financiamentos, enterramos Keynes, mas muitos de nós estão vivos e agora é connosco. Com as pessoas, os indivíduos, entre eles. Uns a puxar pelos outros.

Are People Born Good?

Are People Born Good?


89% of Veneto residents vote for independence from Rome

The Public-Private Role Reversal

Glenn Greenwald: The Public-Private Role Reversal

Secessão - precedentes

O "precedente do Kosovo":
Confesso que me parece díficil perceber o raciocínio que diz que um país proclamar a sua independência sem o reconhecimento do estado soberano não pode ser, mas já pode ser obrigar a tiro o estado soberano a conceder a independência - é um pouco como ser contra o roubo por esticão (agarrar a mala de alguém e desatar a fugir) mas já não ser contra o roubo à mão armada (apontar uma pistola a alguém e dizer "a mala ou levas um tiro").

Libertarian Infighting

Libertarian Infighting

What Libertarianism Is

What Libertarianism Is, and Isn't:
Libertarianism, in other words, in its pure and undiluted form, is intellectually rigorous, morally consistent, and altogether exciting and thrilling. It need not and should not be fused with any extraneous ideology. This can lead only to confusion, and to watering down the central moral claims, and the overall appeal, of the message of liberty.

Resisting the Growth of Governments

Resisting the Growth of Governments (Don Boudreaux)


4 Concepts About the Ukraine Crisis That Shouldn't Be So Hard to Understand:
4. It is possible to believe it's bad that Russia's sticking its snout into its neighbor's affairs and that it would be dumb for the U.S. to intervene to stop it.

Disagree with any of those combinations of views that you want. But don't act as though they're inconceivable. There have been a lot of logical leaps in the debates over the ongoing crisis, particularly—and most dangerously—from the folks who don't seem able to understand #4.

Kirzner on Rothbard & Libertarianism

Kirzner on Rothbard & Libertarianism

Libertarians not nice

Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You por Christopher Cantwell:
10. Ridicule works.
9. If you already have an ideology, we’re actually not terribly concerned with convincing you.
8. We’re not trying to win elections
7. We’ve already had this discussion a hundred times
6. All those “what ifs” you’re so concerned about, they’re called choices.
5. I can’t teach you economics in 140 characters or less
4. We actually are smarter than you
3. Our moral superiority is justified
2. We’re not asking for much
1. You always resort to violence