domingo, março 30, 2014

Rant Liberal do Dia

Esta escumalha não se esconde. É aquela "coerência" que tanto elogiam quando finalmente se tornam "bons comunistas". Interessante é que a maltosa social-democrata tem os mesmos princípios, mas fica-se pelo impessoal* -- "sustentabilidade do sistema social", etc. Que uns sustentem outros que nem conhecem. E quanto mais mecanicamente, e mais eufemísticamente, tudo isto for gerido, melhor. Entre uns e outros, estamos bem entregues.

O comunismo, ou como viver à custa dos filhos dos outros

* palavra mais adequada seria "a-individual", afinal todos eles gostam muito _de_ pessoas, desde que bem organizadinhas em escalões para abate fiscal. Não falam é _das_ pessoas - dos indivíduos. Ao nível individual o grotesco de facto vem ao de cima.

sábado, março 29, 2014

Human Achievement Hour 2014

Circo de irresponsabilidade

Circo de irresponsabilidade por José Manuel Moreira:
Considerando que um excelente jornalista - como Pedro Santos Guerreiro - se mostra incapaz de distinguir teorias sobre o mercado do próprio mercado .. Não podemos estranhar que tantos outros não percebam .. Será que agora já dá para adivinhar porque tantos "falhados" têm tanto crédito no circo mediático?

quinta-feira, março 27, 2014

the evil legacy of Lincoln


The Independents: The Legacy Of Abraham Lincoln - Judge Andrew Napolitano - The Independents

Milk Anarchism

The Anarchism of Milk and Cereal:
What the milk and cereal market needs is more anarchism, not less. Raw milk should be completely legal here as most everywhere else in the world. People should be allowed more choice. It is the same with the regulations and taxes that make entry into the cereal market more expensive than it ought to be. Let there be more brands, more producers, ever more choice.

And yet, let’s return to Julie’s original example of the decision to pour milk. In the end, it is ours and ours alone. There is no force of the state that can successfully enforce a single choice in this area. States aren’t that powerful and they never will be.

So, yes, let us eat cereal, pour milk, and consider the great lessons of this event. It really does illustrate a beautiful anarchy.

Capitalism and Socialism


Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33

Rant Liberal do Dia

Portugal junta-se ao grupo de países da Europa sem restrições de horário no comércio

Algum vislumbre de civilização (as pessoas poderem fazer a sua vida sem proibições imbecis que transformam trabalho honesto num crime) -- num país social-retrógrado (passe a redundância) onde ainda se acha que são receitas para o sucesso:
- ilegalizar empregos remunerados abaixo de um determinado valor administrativo
- senhorios subsidiarem a vida dos inquilinos
- complicar o desemprego, onerar o emprego
- tudo ser muito burocrático, para "garantir" tudo e mais alguma coisa
- roubar a uns para "investir" com outros
- aliás, penalizar a criação de riqueza, subsidiar o seu consumo
- tudo o que é "desejável" ser muito "gratuito"
- "justiça social"
- progressividade (aka gestão dos dinheiros e ânimos do gado contribuinte)
- grotesco favoritismo estatal das elites económicas, sociais e culturais
- dirigismo da coisa privada, e industrialismo estatal
- impostos bom, inferno fiscal bom; fuga ao fisco mau, optimização fiscal mau
- aliás, impostos sobre o rendimento, transferências, levantamentos, consumo, lucros, património, etc - não pagar imposto é que é mau, antipatriótico e nazi
- gastar muito para ficar mais rico
- endividar-se para ter mais liberdade para gastar
- guerra de classes permanente, nevermind a eterna classe político-burocrática
- toda a gente ter voto na matéria
...

segunda-feira, março 24, 2014

Snowden - take back the Internet

rule-of-law hypocrisy

Are libertarians rule-of-law hypocrites?:
The rule of law has always been integral to the American system. It hasn’t always been followed, of course, but as Glenn Greenwald has noted “even when this principle was being violated, its supremacy was also being affirmed: resoundingly and unanimously in the case of the founders.”

Unlike some European monarchies, where laws could be changed on the mere whim of some dictatorial—or even insane—ruler with absolute power, our founders sought to design what John Adams called, “a government of laws and not of men.”

And while the results certainly weren’t perfect, the goal was admirable: To guard liberty by building our government on impartial law, not the caprice of one person.

But what do you do when enforcing the rule of law could be bad for liberty?
- See more at: http://rare.us/story/are-libertarians-rule-of-law-hypocrites/#sthash.rCO1O4GN.dpuf

Citação Liberal do Dia

Government provides nothing, except the threat of more government. The result is the slow and steady low loss of freedom for all of us.

the Irrelevance of Constitutions

Crimean Secession and the Irrelevance of Ukraine's Constitution por Jacob Sullum:
All constitutions—including our own, as Lysander Spooner pointed out—have similar legitimacy problems. They can nevertheless be useful as restraints on government power and protections against the tyranny of the majority. But it makes no sense to cite one of these documents as a reason to accept a particular government's dominion over a particular territory.

Obama also claims to be "standing up for the principle of state sovereignty." But that principle is little more than deference to the status quo, including the territorial claims of the most brutal and oppressive regimes on earth. And although such deference may help maintain order and discourage war, it tends to fall by the wayside when it proves inconvenient (in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, for example).

In this case, Russia, which controlled Crimea from 1783 until Nikita Khrushchev arbitrarily assigned it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954, could argue that reversing the transfer upholds the principle of state sovereignty, even as it respects democracy and the right to self-determination. We like all of those things, right?

Is Inequality Fair?


Is Inequality Fair?

Against the Basic Income Guarantee

Against the Basic Income Guarantee:
In the context of this argument, they are quite literally claiming that if the state violates someones rights, the state must make restitution to the victim, even if “making restitution” was predicated on the state violating someone else’s rights in order to do so. Zwolinski’s pitiful attempt to appeal to the standard libertarian idea of what constitutes justice is a complete perversion of the principle in question. If Person A violates the rights of Person B, Rothbardians argue that A owes B restitution in proportion to the offense committed. However, the means by which the restitution is paid is of the utmost importance. Person A does not then have license to steal property from Person C to pay Person B. This would simply be an additional crime committed by A. The Basic Income Guarantee would necessarily have to be paid out of funds obtained through taxation (i.e. theft) and would be an illegitimate act, piling injustice upon injustice upon injustice. No matter what violations have been perpetrated by the state in the past, there can be no justification for continuous and perpetual invasions of the rights of third parties to make restitution for those crimes. True restitution would mean an end to the crimes of the state, and the most egregious perpetrators being compelled to work off their debts as determined by a free competing court system.

domingo, março 16, 2014

Electoral Mafia Wars


Truth in Media "End Partisanship"

facts about immigration I see

Immigration: My Eyes Work Fine por Bryan Caplan:
Critics of my open borders advocacy often accuse me of intellectual blindness, of living in a fantasy world of my own creation. So rather than rehash any of my arguments or review the academic evidence yet again, I'm going to celebrate Open Borders Day by listing the facts about immigration I see with my own two eyes.

the Troops


Thank the Troops for What?

Rant Liberal do Dia

Em várias questões políticas, há toda uma confusão entre princípios e gestão. Por exemplo na questão da Crimeia. Esqueça-se a Crimeia, falemos de princípios. Ninguém tem o direito de ditar a vida de outros, logo não devem ser russos ou ucranianos a decidir sobre a Crimeia. O que se segue -- incluindo a definição do que são povos, fronteiras, decisores, processos --, é coisa confusa, mas o princípio da secessão política existe. Deve poder XXX seceder? Sim. Deve XXX seceder? Ora, isso é uma pergunta diferente -- mas é uma pergunta de gestão política. Até se pode concluir que o mundo está bem como está. Mas um mundo onde o princípio existe é diferente de um mundo onde o princípio é suprimido, ou convenientemente suplantado quando não encaixa numa "narrativa".

All the way

“I could not comprehend the justice of that law, or that religion, which upholds or recognizes the principle of slavery;”
Solomon Northup


#eleutheromania

Let Crimea Go!

Let Crimea Go!:
As the US and its European allies rally around the Ukrainian coup leaders and denounce the Crimean referendum, we have yet another opportunity to stand in awe of Washington’s limitless supply of arrogance. Meeting with the new "Prime Minister" of Ukraine – who achieved his high office by unleashing mobs on the duly elected government – President Barack Obama averred Washington would be "forced to apply a cost" unless the Crimean vote is called off.

So here is the United States, the alleged champion of "democracy," hailing a decidedly undemocratic coup, honoring one of the coup leaders with an appearance at the White House, and railing against the decision of the democratically elected Parliament of Crimea to let the people vote on their own future.

quarta-feira, março 12, 2014

The gender wage gap myth


The gender wage gap is a myth

rules

Governed by Rules, Not Men por Walter E. Williams:
What kind of rules should govern our lives? I’d argue that the best rules are those that we’d be satisfied with if our very worst enemy were in charge of decision-making. The foundation for such rules was laid out by my mother. Let’s look at it.

.. Mom finally became fed up with the sibling hassles. She didn’t admonish me to be more caring, fair, sensitive and considerate. She just made a rule: Whoever cuts the cake (pie, bread, meat, etc.) allows the other the first selection. With that new rule in place, you can bet that when either my sister or I divided food, it was divided equally.
Billions of dollars and billions of hours are spent campaigning for this or that candidate in our national elections. You can bet that people are not making those expenditures so that politicians will uphold and defend the Constitution; they’re looking for favors .. government has abandoned its referee and night watchman function and gotten into the business of determining winners and losers. Unfortunately, for our nation, that’s what most Americans want.

Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” Our Bill of Rights is an explicit recognition of the Founding Fathers’ distrust of Congress. Just look at its language, with phrases such as “Congress shall not abridge,” “shall not infringe,” “shall not deny,” “disparage” and “violate.” If the framers did not believe that Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have used such language. If, after we die, we see anything like the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we’ll know that we’re in hell. To demand such protections in heaven would be the same as saying we can’t trust God.

The Bigger the Government...


The Bigger the Government...

Against Libertarian Diversity

Mais festival de grotescos homens-de-palha, mas ilustrativo das "forças" dentro do movimento liberal - Against Libertarian Brutalism por Jeffrey Tucker:
Why should we favor human liberty over a social order ruled by power? In providing the answer, I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.

The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.

We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty.

But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate.
ADENDA: What Explains the Brutalism Uproar?

o falso ídolo da estatolatria

& Everytime we object to a thing being suppressed by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its not being done at all.


Bastiat

Individualism & the Family

Pese os homens-de-palha... Why Individualism Needs the Family por Lauren Hall:
Libertarians need the family because without it their theory is incomplete, a sliver of the human condition and a caricature of the real value of liberty as a principle. I’ve argued elsewhere for what I call a “social individualism,” or the recognition that humans are fundamentally social creatures and that individualism only makes sense within a social context. This kind of individualism is not a capitulation to those who believe that all rights are social rights. It is, instead, a recognition of the richness of human life and of the incredibly diverse interests and desires that comprise all human lives. Individualism is valuable because it highlights the importance of each individual, independent of the social milieu. But for individuals to remain important, they must also be understood within the social network of family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and all of the other people for whom that individual has value, meaning, and worth. The failure of libertarians (despite some notable exceptions) to acknowledge and wrestle with the difficult questions the family poses weakens the theory and makes it less persuasive to the mothers, fathers, daughters and sons who grapple each day with how to be individuals in a profoundly social world.

Buying Obamacoffee


What If Buying Coffee Was Like Buying ObamaCare ????

Rant Liberal do Dia

Uma das características que distingue VPV de muitos outros comentadores profissionais e especialistas - incluindo a maior parte da populaça - é o seu cinismo. Não se mete com calimerices "mas mas não é assim que a Política deve ser!". (sim, deve escrever-se "Política" com P grande, a malta platónica gosta de ser Pirosa). Se o sistema partidário está infestado de medíocres a debitar mediocridades, o problema não é não ser "o que devia ser", o problema é ser o que é. Se não fossem estes os medíocres, seriam outros. (os políticos, não so platónicos, se bem que...) Podia ser diferente, mas "sonhos" -- de misse e de catedrático -- todos temos. E a causa -- o dito sistema que os atrai, treina, promove, sustenta, e um dia esquece ou eleva a eminências pardas -- não é não ser "o que devia ser", é ser o que é. Pode ser uma evidência, ou memória selectiva, ou selecção de memória, ou mero desconsolo auto-imposto, ... que o os políticos sejam "piores" e não se debate política. E que a suposta virtude do "serviço público" esteja a desaparecer. Mas que se espera de um sistema que profissionalizou a gestão impessoal da vida e recursos dos outros? Que fizesse multiplicar o "capital cívico" na sociedade?

Deus nos proteja

Bitcoin hipos


U.S. Senator Wants To Ban Bitcoin? Hypocrisy?

decência

A Freak Show Called Generosity por Theodore Dalrymple:
I dislike even more the attempt to drum the population up into enthusiasm for the Paralympics. To me it smacks of quasi-totalitarian propaganda. An atmosphere has been created in which to admit that one finds the spectacle distasteful is to be guilty of a hate crime, an accusation that nowadays can be hurled at almost anyone who wants to preserve public taste and decorum. The spectacle itself seems to me designed to allow one the illicit pleasure of the freak show while enjoying self-congratulation at one’s own generosity of spirit. I prefer less ostentatious, less orchestrated demonstrations of human decency.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights.

terça-feira, março 11, 2014

the Monstruous Brother State


Christopher Soghoian: Government surveillance — this is just the beginning

"maldito" capitalismo de Estado

por José Manuel Moreira:
Mises costumava dizer que é necessário distinguir entre capitalismo puro e capitalismo intervencionado. Em ambos existe propriedade privada, mas enquanto no primeiro há lugar para a concorrência privada entre empresários, no segundo a concorrência concentra-se no âmbito político, ou na ideia de obter uma série de privilégios da parte do Estado para evitar justamente a concorrência económica. No primeiro, reina a soberania do consumidor.

No segundo predomina o clientelismo, as regulações e os subsídios. É este "maldito" capitalismo de Estado de desperdício, conhecido também como "terceira via" ou neomercantilismo, que está em apuros.

The Truth About Abraham Lincoln


The Truth About Abraham Lincoln

Government Illegitimacy

What Makes A Government Legitimate?:
Here is the very simple truth of the matter. A government is not a “legitimate” thing. A government exists by nothing other than its ability to violently subjugate the people it intends to subjugate, and its means to kill anyone who threatens said ability. The only reason I cannot write my own constitution, hold my own elections, establish my own presidency, form my own military, gain UN recognition, hire my own well paid lawyers, and do all the other things that a sovereign nation does, is because I lack force of arms to do so. If I tried, I would be mercilessly gunned down by armed men waving American flags. If I had said force of arms, this message would be printed on letterhead reading “From the office of the Emperor of Ancapistan”.

The Psychology of Money


Bitcoin: The Psychology of Money - Stefan Molyneux speaks at the Texas Bitcoin Conference

Rant Liberal do Dia

Gotta love statists!... Cá vai uma grande novela cheia de personagens hiper-coloridas, super-controversas e mega-divertidas -- a Europa, a Rússia, a Crimeia, os EUA, a China, a NATO -- episódios supreendentes -- a Primavera Árabe, a Guerra Fria, a Revolução Laranja --, e um argumento de cortar a respiração. Não perca uma trama repleta de problemas de identidade, orgulhos feridos, auto-estimas destroçadas, gritos de desespero! Antropormorfismo mais realista, só em obras de fantasia fantástica, fábulas ou mitologia antiga! E filmes Disney e tribos do Indiana Jones. Aqui e ali, fala-se em alguns "líderes", pecadilho perdoável face ao poder figurativo de tão inesquecíveis alegorias como são as Nações, as Federações, os Continentes! Leitura obrigatória para quem queira perceber o modo operático/religioso como as "elites" interpretam a realidade.

o Estado vs. a Inovação


The Mises View: "Can Government Create Innovation?" | Peter G. Klein

Secessão

Suponho que este tipo de democracia parlamentar procedimental seja considerada antidemocrática pelos amantes da regularidade constitucional que também apoiam um golpe de estado originado na democracia de rua, contra um regime democrático corrupto, e contra uma democracia autocrática saudosa de grandezas soviéticas, a favor de um império burocrático cujos governantes não foram eleitos, e com apoio de uma democracia liberal que anda a bombardear tudo o que se mexe no mundo. os democratas são gente de estranhos princípios.

Crimea parliament declares independence from Ukraine ahead of referendum

segunda-feira, março 03, 2014

Thinking


The Neglect of Thinking (by Henry Hazlitt)

more school choice

Rand Paul wants more school choice for poor, minority students:
He wants more public charter schools. He wants more vouchers, so that students can use tax money to enroll in private schools. He says students ought to be able to attend any public school in a community, regardless of their neighborhood and property lines.

“I’m talking about opening up all of the lines, so that kids can go to public, to private, wherever,” said Paul, a tea party favorite and potential 2016 presidential candidate. “Some of these schools are absolutely pitiful, absolutely. What I’m really proposing is helping these kids get out from the grind.”
Parents participating in the voucher program should be allowed to send their children to the private schools of their choice, Paul said.

“They’re not using government money,” he said, referring to the tax dollars funneled to vouchers. “It’s our money. We’re getting back some of the money taken from us. I think when you have choice, people choose the better product. I think it’s presumptuous of anyone to question parental authority.”