quarta-feira, dezembro 30, 2015

Freedom is Freedom


Penn Jillette - Freedom is Freedom

Libertarians Are Hopeless

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless:
Libertarians, to our credit, have worked very hard to spread our ideas by way of reasoned logical arguments ..
In so doing, we have largely overlooked the crux of the issue. We have attempted to understand the realities of the universe and make better libertarian arguments, without trying to understand the flaw in our fellow man which prevents him from understanding reason. It is that inquiry which has led me to my startling conclusion, that libertarians are hopeless.

If libertarians are interested in reason, logic, and evidence, then they should start processing the evidence that reason and logic have nearly zero relation to modern social and political discourse. When one refuses to process a reasoned argument, giving them more reason is a senseless exercise in futility. Hence the great frustration of so many libertarians who might study themselves into the grave, never understanding why they have not saved mankind from his own irrationality.

Socialism is bad for the poor


Socialism is good for the poor by definition

Political Correctness

PC Is About Control, Not Etiquette:
If PC truly was about kindness and respect, it wouldn’t need to be imposed on us. After all, we already have a mechanism for the social cohesion PC is said to represent: it’s called manners. And we already have specific individuals charged with insuring that good manners are instilled and upheld: they’re called parents.
But what exactly is PC? Let me take a stab at defining it: Political correctness is the conscious, designed manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda.

PC is best understood as propaganda, which is how I suggest we approach it. But unlike propaganda, which historically has been used by governments to win favor for a particular campaign or effort, PC is all-encompassing. It seeks nothing less than to mold us into modern versions of Marx’s un-alienated society man, freed of all his bourgeois pretensions and humdrum social conventions.

Like all propaganda, PC fundamentally is a lie.

War


War Sucks, What is it Good For? - Learn Liberty

The Only Principle Is Faith in the Power of the State

https://mises.org/library/formlessness-progressivism:
The Only Principle Is Faith in the Power of the State

As vague and misty as most modern leftist ideals can be, they do share one solid, bedrock principle: the need for continuous expansion of the government’s role in our lives. The government’s heavy handed regulation of our industries has imposed unbelievable barriers and costs to the supply of goods and services. No matter that this overhead hurts the poorest among us the most, to the Progressive, these costs are necessary in order to ensure we are protected from “greed” or “racism” or sexism” or “wage injustice” or whatever word-clothing that particular government expansion merits. The goal of the policy is vague therefore the government impediment will last indefinitely. The crusade will never end.

quinta-feira, novembro 26, 2015

Myth Busting African Poverty


Myth Busting African Poverty | Magatte Wade

Politics Is a Zero-Sum Game

Social Justice versus the Left:
In a free market — where there is private property, free association, reciprocity, and fair play — exchange will only take place if both parties believe they will be made better off by it. Of course, one or both parties may be wrong, and losses do happen, but it’s in everyone’s self-interest to engage in trades that make themselves better off. In that sense, trade in a free market is a positive-sum game — one that allocates scarce resources in a way that both parties gain.

Politics is the opposite. Unlike markets, political power requires physical violence or the threat of physical violence to achieve particular ends. That’s because the only way one person can gain from a political encounter, regulatory or redistributive, is for the other side to lose.

Avoiding Economic Catastrope


John Allison - Avoiding Economic Catastrope

Dear Progressives

Dear Progressives:
Economic reform that is branded as neoliberal, and as a conspiracy against the people, has lifted millions out of poverty in countries like India and China — a stark contrast to the mass starvation caused by failed socialist models. When I look at capitalism, I see hope in the eyes of children in the poorest countries as they anticipate having the same things we have in the West.
My dear friends, I don’t doubt your values, but I want to see your values bear fruit. We don’t differ in our values but in our methods. History has shown capitalism to be the superior mode of economic organization, not just in terms of output but as a harbinger of hope, democracy, and individual freedom.

quarta-feira, novembro 25, 2015

25 de Novembro


Do 25 de Abril ao 25 de Novembro (versão integral)

O Modelo Sueco

:
Some 250 years ago, the area we recognize now as “Sweden” was a frozen tundra inhabited by a huddled mass of starving peasants. Their lives were tightly controlled by a series of kings, aristocrats, and other men of artificially high esteem. As award-winning author, Johan Norberg points out in this excellent piece on Sweden, it took a series of classically-liberal minded revolutionaries to wrestle control from the elites and put Sweden on a path to prosperity.

Licensing czars, an oppressive guild system, and a litany of other onerous regulations on free exchange were dramatically reduced or eliminated. In the century from 1850–1950, the population doubled and real Swedish incomes multiplied nearly tenfold. Despite the almost non-existence of a welfare state or any major state control of economic sectors, by 1950 Sweden was the fourth richest nation in the world. Sweden’s extraordinary growth during that century rivaled even that of the United States (Sweden was not a participant in the two World Wars). As a matter of fact, capital formation and wealth creation proved so abundant in Sweden during the global depression of the 1930s that even social democrats in the legislature practiced a form of salutary neglect to ensure the prosperity would continue. As with any other country, Sweden’s impressive capital stock was built by entrepreneurs operating in a free market system.

segunda-feira, novembro 23, 2015

Left but Really Right


Left but Really Right

EU absurdism

Vaclav Klaus: the West’s lies about Russia are monstrous:
Listen to Klaus in full flow on the absurdities of the EU and it’s hard to think why any sane individual — on left or right — would want their country to stay in it. ‘A few days ago I studied the names of the EU commissioners under Mr Juncker, and their portfolios. We in my country say that 16 is already too high for having meaningful portfolios. But the EU now has 28, more than in any country in our part of the world. If you look at the names of those portfolios, I really don’t believe my eyes. The former Estonian prime minister is a commissioner for digital markets. As an economist I really don’t know what the term “digital markets” means. Plus there is another, a German politician, Günther Oettinger, who is the commissioner for “digital economy and society”. We would laugh in the communist era to have such names for the members of our cabinet. I can’t imagine what these commissioners are doing.’

Patriotismo


Glenn Greenwald - Patriotism

Ways to Build a Free Society

Four Ways to Build a Free Society:
What can we do to fight back against government? We all understand the problem, but what is the solution? What can we do in the current environment to help build a more sane and libertarian world? And how can we find some measure of freedom in our lives today, to live more freely in our lifetimes? When libertarians talk about what must be done, the discussion tends to revolve around four common strategy options. None of them are mutually exclusive necessarily and there can be plenty of overlap between them.
1. The Political Option - The first, we’ll call the political option, or to borrow a tired phrase, “working within the system.” .. The argument goes something like this: government, and the political process that surrounds it, are inevitable in the real world. Therefore libertarians must not stand idly on the sidelines while politicians inexorably steal our freedoms. Instead we must organize and become active politically, under the banner of a third party vehicle like the Libertarian Party or by working within the Republican Party, because whether we want to involve ourselves with politics, politics involves itself with us.
2. Strategic Withdrawal - A second approach libertarians often consider might be loosely termed strategic withdrawal. You may have heard of the “Benedict option” being discussed by Catholics unhappy with the direction of the Church and the broader culture. Ayn Rand fans talk about “going Galt,” in reference to the strike by the productive class that takes place in Atlas Shrugged .. This approach involves separating, withdrawing, or segregating in some way from the larger society and political landscape. It asserts that the current environment is largely hopeless for libertarians politically and culturally, and therefore attempting to play the game where the rules are so heavily slanted in favor of the state is foolish.
3. Hearts and Minds - A third tactic that libertarians often advocate we might call “winning hearts and minds.” This approach is multi-pronged, involving education, academia, traditional and social media, religion, books and articles, literature, and even pop culture. Hearts and minds is why we hold conferences like this. The hearts and minds strategy is all about education, persuasion, and marketing, at every level ..
4. Resistance - Of course another strategy often discussed among libertarians involves simple resistance to the state, whether open or covert. This tactic contemplates actions like civil disobedience, tax protests, evading or ignoring regulations, and engaging in agorism and black markets .. It also contemplates the use of technological advances to advance freedom.

domingo, novembro 22, 2015

Copyright is Brain Damage


Copyright is Brain Damage | Nina Paley | TEDxMaastricht

No Such Thing as a Political Problem Solver

There’s No Such Thing as a Political Problem Solver:
Progress doesn’t occur by commanding and controlling. It is an emergent phenomenon.

We are supporting the use of force to compel productivity when we believe that “problem-solving” political leaders drive progress. Human energy is exhausted when it is compelled. Those who are capable of creating value for others are prevented from doing so.

Every day, ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs pursue opportunities. No one controls the myriad decentralized decisions and actions that, along the way, solve problems. We don’t need “problem solvers” to tell us the “winning plan.” We need planners and “problem solvers” to stay out of our way.

Sex and Comedy Censorship


Freedom of Speech: Why Are Sex and Comedy Censored? - Learn Liberty

Lei do liberalismo selectivo

A rejeição de qualquer liberalismo é sempre acompanhada de argumentos que justificariam outros socialismos.

sábado, novembro 14, 2015

Migrants

Will Migrant Crisis Kill EU? - With Guest Nigel Farage
Ron Paul - Will Migrant Crisis Kill EU? - With Guest Nigel Farage

Citação Liberal do Dia

Robert Higgs:
I sometimes hear people say that governments are good at only one thing. I disagree. Governments are good at a variety of things, including the following:
1. Killing large numbers of people by aerial bombardments.
2. Killing large numbers of people by artillery bombardments.
3. Killing large numbers of people by small-arms fire.
4. Killing large numbers of people by cutting off their food supplies and causing them to starve.
5. Killing large numbers of people by destroying their homes, commercial distribution systems, sanitation facilities, and transport systems, along with other property.
6. Killing large numbers of people by embargoes and other trade restrictions that prevent essential medicines and other goods from reaching them.
7. Extorting enormous amounts of money from the people to whom it rightfully belongs.
8. Confiscating a variety of real estate and other forms of wealth from the people to whom those properties rightfully belong.
9. Imprisoning millions of persons, many of whom have violated no one's natural rights.
10. Widely dispensing lies, propaganda, and disinformation of various sorts.
11. Despoiling the physical environment on a grand scale.
12. Creating enormously dangerous weapons and other materials that present a continuous risk of catastrophe to the whole human race.
13. Employing huge numbers of bureaucrats, cops, soldiers, and other lackeys to carry out tasks of no genuine value -- indeed, for the most part of negative value.
14. Spying on hundreds of millions of people for no reason other than to facilitate the government's social control.
15. Harassing people and making many people's lives unpleasant for no good reason.
Moreover, the foregoing items are only a few of the many things that governments are good at doing, although a critic might insist that all these things are but particular forms of one single overarching thing: the destruction of life, liberty, wealth, and happiness.

The miracle of the market


Ici Londres: The miracle of the market

Government success

Robert Higgs:
Because the federal government does not actually fail; indeed, it succeeds on an almost unimaginable scale. It is by far the most successful criminal organization in the world's history, and it proceeds only from one towering success to another. The key to understanding this conclusion is to understand the government's actual intention and, above all, to recognize that it does not seek to promote the general public interest.

If its goals were the ones it claims to pursue, in accordance with longstanding classical liberal defenses of the state as an indispensable protector of people's rights to life, liberty, and property, it would not do most of what it is doing. More fundamentally, it would not begin its operations by extorting and stealing the resources it requires to carry out its activities, thereby burning down the village it purports to save at the very outset.

No one writes a well-documented forty-page analysis of why the James Gang failed to promote the general public interest. Such an analysis would evoke only ridicule and laughter. If the James Gang raked in a lot of loot from its robberies of trains and banks, notwithstanding killing many innocent people along the way, it considered itself successful. Those who constitute the upper echelon of the federal government employ exactly the same criterion when they assess their success. If they did not do so, they would act completely differently from how they are now acting, which is how they have always acted.

You don't expect bears to leave the forest and seek out a public restroom when they feel the need for a bowel movement. Likewise you should not expect a criminal organization to promote peace, private property rights, and justice.

Immigrants


The Truth About Illegal Immigrants: Was Donald Trump Right?

Bónus - The Truth About Immigration and Welfare

The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration

por Hans Hermann Hoppe (PDF):
It is frequently maintained that “free trade” belongs to “free immigration” as “protectionism” does to “restricted immigration.” That is, the claim is made that while it is not impossible that someone might combine protectionism with free immigration, or free trade with restricted immigration, these positions are intellectually inconsistent, and thus erroneous ..
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken.
By demonstrating that free trade is inconsistent with (unconditionally or conditionally) free immigration, and that free trade requires instead that migration be subject to the condition of being invited and contractual, it is our hope to contribute to more enlightened future policies in this area.

quarta-feira, novembro 11, 2015

Wind and Solar Energy


Can We Rely on Wind and Solar Energy?

Corporations versus the Market

Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now:
In a free market, firms would be smaller and less hierarchical, more local and more numerous (and many would probably be employee-owned); prices would be lower and wages higher; and corporate power would be in shambles. Small wonder that big business, despite often paying lip service to free market ideals, tends to systematically oppose them in practice.

Income Inequality


Richard Epstein - Income Inequality

immigration

However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners’ desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
Murray Rothbard

segunda-feira, novembro 09, 2015

Citação liberal do Dia

If you love death and destruction, oppression and suffering, injustice and violence, repression and torture, helplessness and despair, perpetual conflict and bloodshed, then teach your children to respect “authority,” and teach them that obedience is a virtue.

If, on the other hand, you value peaceful coexistence, compassion and cooperation, freedom and justice, then teach your children the principles of self-ownership, teach them to respect the rights of every human being, and teach them to recognize and reject the belief in “authority” for what it is: the most irrational, self-contradictory, anti-human, evil, destructive and dangerous superstition the world has ever known.
Larken Rose

Irwin Schiff


Irwin Schiff (Feb. 23 1928 - Oct. 16 2015) at the Libertarian Convention 1996

No Escaping Competition

There’s No Escaping Competition:
In a system where competition takes place through offering money to acquire resources, we get the emergence of prices, which serve as both the incentive for ongoing production and the information about what to produce. When buyers compete with buyers to acquire a good and thereby bid up the price, it tells existing and prospective producers that this good is more valuable and that they should produce more of it. Similar competitive bidding for the inputs into a production process informs other producers about what should and should not be used to make various goods and services.

Competition through money prices connects the competition over the distribution of goods with the production of goods in a way that no other form of competition does. In this way, market competition benefits not just the direct parties to the competition but all of us by encouraging the ongoing production of goods in ways that economize on resources.

Scarcity is a defining characteristic of the human condition, and scarcity means there will be competition over who gets what. Market capitalism has the great advantage of channeling that competition through the price system, which not only ensures an ongoing supply of goods but also encourages their efficient production.

We may not be in heaven, but the peaceful and socially beneficial competition of the market is downright heavenly compared to the alternatives.

A Internet está segura com o Estado


"CISA" Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

domingo, novembro 08, 2015

Democracia e Liberdade

Democracia e Liberdade por João Cortez n'O Insurgente:
Estágio 4: Uns anos mais tarde, surgem vários Gangues rivais, todos com a mesma finalidade – o “interesse geral” da sociedade embora o conceito de “interesse geral” tenha interpretações distintas. No entanto, estes Gangues que entretanto mudam o nome para Partidos, defendem meios diferentes para o mesmo fim. Uns querem cobrar mais impostos e impostos de natureza diferente (sobre o consumo, sobre a propriedade, sobre as heranças …) e distribuir mais benefícios; outros querem um Estado mais interveniente na economia, outros querem aumentar o número de regras a aplicar às relações profissionais e comerciais e também aos seus cidadãos – sempre com o “interesse geral da sociedade” em mente. Como desejam evitar guerras entre si, de forma diplomática os diversos Gangues – perdão Partidos – subscrevem um acordo a que chamam de Constituição e que determina algumas regras básicas, incluindo o modo como os Partidos chegam ao poder. Para o efeito, de quatro em quatro anos, a população pode votar no Gangue que fica com o monopólio de gestão do país, claro está – sempre no interesse geral da sociedade. A este sistema dão-lhe o nome de “Democracia”. Algumas corporações e grupos de interesse descobrem que é muito mais rentável fazer lobbying junto do Gangue que governa do que competir num mercado livre concorrencial; e com um investimento relativamente baixo, conseguem muitos benefícios e privilégios à custa da população como um todo. Quem não concordar com este sistema, pode sempre sair do país ou então é lhe aconselhado que forme um Gangue rival e que tente chegar ao poder para alterar o estado (pun intended) das coisas, afinal de contas, vivem num sistema democrático.

Moralidade do sistema: fica a questão para os leitores. Aceitação do sistema: na prática parece ser muito elevado, afinal de contas parece ser “o pior sistema com a excepção de todos os outros”.

5 Common Fallacious Critiques of Voluntaryism


5 Common Fallacious Critiques of Voluntaryism

Legitimidade

Gonçalo Taipa Teixeira:Vamos lá a ver... Anda aí muita discussão sobre a legitimidade de António Costa para fazer governo. Dentro das regras deste estado português, tem. Ponto. O tal de voto, em eleições legislativas, elege deputados e não um governo, segundo as regras do estado português. Todos aqueles eleitos para o parlamento têm a mesma legitimidade, aquela legitimidade dada pela imposição pela força das armas das forças policiais e militares.

Têm todos a mesma legitimidade para mandar em mim que o valentão no recreio das diferentes escolas por onde passei. A diferença é que, na infância, eu usava botas ortopédicas e usava-as como arma. A diferença é que, na adolescência, o meu tamanho era suficientemente intimidatório para que só me tivesse que defender muito raramente. A diferença é que agora me ameaçam com multas, prisão e, eventualmente e se tudo o resto falhar (eu continuar a desobedecer), com a morte.

Se um governo do PS tem a mesma legitimidade do governo PSD/CDS? Tem, inequivocamente, nenhuma.

The Myth of the Free Market Cartel


The Myth of the Free Market Cartel | by Murray N. Rothbard

sexta-feira, outubro 16, 2015

Citação Liberal do Dia

Robert Higgs:
Fellow Americans, when you speak of actions the U.S. government has taken -- for example, plundering people by "taxation," irresponsibly spending vast sums of other people's money, monopolizing and mismanaging the money stock, bombing hospitals in war zones, constantly killing and otherwise punishing innocent people in various parts of the world, including the USA -- please, please do not use the pronoun "we." Very few of us qualify as responsible for such actions, and some of us identify with the responsible government in no way other than as its victims. The people who constitute the U.S. government belong to one set; any "we" to which I belong comprises elements of a disjoint set. The U.S. government is a criminal organization, whereas the rest of us are, for the most part, peaceful, cooperative, and innocent of any genuine crime. The government is intrinsically criminal, whereas the rest of us are sometimes guilty of crimes only by virtue of individual lapses of morality and self-control.

Scientific Method

Force

Libertarianism’s Ultimate Logical Conclusion por Christopher Cantwell:
I believe it is the natural right of every man woman and child to live free from initiatory violence and fraud, and that the only proper exercise of violence in human society is the defense therefrom. To speak of these values initially sounds quite reasonable to many.
Even amongst those who have accepted this theory as their mantra, there exists great hesitation to carry it through to its ultimate logical conclusion. That being, if one has the right to use violence to defend themselves against initiatory force, and the government exists solely to initiate force against the populace, and refuses to stop its predations when we ask politely. Then the reasonable man is compelled to do something most see as quite unreasonable.

To violently overthrow that institution. To take up arms against his government and kill its agents, and stop them by force.
A free man need not ask permission. He does as he sees fit. If others violently interfere with his peaceful activities, whether that criminal be wearing a bandana, a badge, or suit, then he defends himself with whatever level of force is necessary. Though he may take no pleasure in it, he ends lives if he must.
You may choose not to fight, you may choose to delay your fighting in hopes of fighting at a more advantageous time, you may choose to support those who fight in other ways, you may even choose to fight on the other side. But on your list of options does not exist a choice to avoid the war entirely. The war has been brought to you against your will.

Música Liberal do Dia


Mata-Ratos - Rouba o Que é Teu

(via FB Mises Portugal)

Egalitarianism

The Menace of Egalitarianism por Lew Rockwell:
A libertarian is perfectly at peace with the universal phenomenon of human difference. He does not wish it away, he does not shake his fist at it, he does not pretend not to notice it. It affords him another opportunity to marvel at a miracle of the market: its ability to incorporate just about anyone into the division of labor.

Indeed the division of labor is based on human difference. Each of us finds that niche that suits our natural talents best, and by specializing in that particular thing we can most effectively serve our fellow man. Our fellow man, likewise, specializes in what he is best suited for, and we in turn benefit from the fruits of his specialized knowledge and skill.

So there is a place for everyone in the market economy. And what’s more, since the market economy rewards those who are able to produce goods at affordable prices for a mass market, it is precisely the average person to whom captains of industry are all but forced to cater. This is an arrangement to celebrate, not deplore.
The obsession with equality, in short, undermines every indicator of health we might look for in a civilization. It involves a madness so complete that although it flirts with the destruction of the family, it never stops to consider whether this conclusion might mean the whole line of thought may have been deranged to begin with. It leads to the destruction of standards – scholarly, cultural, and behavioral. It is based on assertion rather than evidence, and it attempts to gain ground not through rational argument but by intimidating opponents into silence. There is nothing honorable or admirable about any aspect of the egalitarian program.

quinta-feira, setembro 10, 2015

Get Angry


Yaron Brook's Keynote at Boston Tea Party Protest (2009)

How to Stop Crime

Este texto fez borbulhar o esgoto do feminismo radical, mas explora uma questão importante - o que aconteceria se a "protecção" estatal não existisse? - How To Stop Rape:
If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.

domingo, agosto 30, 2015

Left is Wrong about the Morality of Capitalism


Steve Forbes: Why the Left is Wrong about the Morality of Capitalism

Stop voting socialist

The 98 Percent of Americans Who Don’t Vote Libertarian Spoil Elections for Everyone Else.:
The reason libertarians don’t vote for candidates from the two major parties is not because they suffer from a false consciousness that leads them to misapprehend their own political preferences. The reason they don’t vote for Republicans or Democrats is because—brace yourself now—they don’t want either Republicans or Democrats to win.

As far as libertarians are concerned, the 2 percent of Americans who vote libertarian don’t spoil an election. Rather, the 98 percent of Americans who don’t vote libertarian are the ones who spoil it for everyone else.

What We Say, and What Socialists Pretend We Say


My Speech to the YAL Convention: What We Say, and What Progressives Pretend We Say

Salário mínimo vs desempregados

Que se lixem os desempregados por André Azevedo Alves:
O aumento do salário mínimo é ainda mais irresponsável e reprovável se for tido em conta que as pessoas mais afectadas pela grave crise financeira e económica dos últimos anos foram precisamente todas aquelas que perderam o seu emprego ou que, já estando fora do mercado de trabalho, se viram impossibilitadas de a ele aceder. São essas pessoas – que continuam a ser muitas, como atestam as estatísticas sobre o desemprego – quem mais sofrerá com esta medida.

Monkey Experiment


Monkey Experiment Most unusual results VIDEO

How to kill a million people

How to kill a million people:
Do you want to know what a sociopath looks like? Think of George W. Bush. Think of all the people he knew were killed due to his policies. Do you think he cared? Did you see him joking about finding weapons of mass destruction in front of the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004? Do you think he had pangs of guilt later that night? I don’t think so. Sociopaths are people with no conscience. Many of those who have lost their consciences kill them over time by committing, ordering, approving or otherwise knowingly facilitate murder.

Psychopathy and sociopathy broadly refer to the condition of having little or no conscience, no guilt, no feeling of responsibility, no ability to feel sympathy for others. Sociopaths lie, cheat, manipulate, intimidate, use violence for their own benefit and do not feel as though they have done something wrong. Some of them occupy positions of power in big business, politics, the bureaucracy and security agencies. Do you think that matters?
Actually, all of us justify hurtful actions sometimes. If we tell ourselves we did the right thing, we are more likely to do it again and with less guilt. But not all of us benefit from doing things that make us feel guilty or repressing that guilt. I can lie, but I might lose the trust of those I rely on. I might steal, but I might face all kinds of social penalties if I do, including jail. Having power means not needing to take responsibility. Indeed, unless there is a sufficiently large scandal and perhaps scapegoating (in a democracy) or rebellion, those in power are rewarded with more money and power. The most powerful in today’s world wield their power through the state.

The state is an instrument of concentrated force. The small minority who control the state can use it to build consensus for their plans or simply impose them without asking, but ultimately the choice is theirs ..

.. Concentrating and institutionalising power incentivises sociopathic behaviour. If we considered everyone equal and thus not deserving of power over others we could achieve a free society with far less violence and suffering.

sábado, agosto 29, 2015

Frederic Bastiat: Slayer of Fallacies


Frederic Bastiat: Slayer of Fallacies

Statenomics

How Macroeconomic Data Encourages Government Intervention:
In a free market environment free of government interference, the “economy” doesn’t exist as such. A free market environment is populated by individuals, who are engaged in the production of goods and services required to sustain their life and well being, i.e., the production of real wealth. Also, in a free market economy every producer is also a consumer. For convenience sake we can label the interaction between producers and consumers (to be more precise between producers) as the economy. However, it must be realized that at no stage does the so called “economy” have a life of its own or have independence from individuals.

While in a free market environment the “economy” is just a metaphor and doesn’t exist as such, the government gives birth to a creature called the “economy” via its constant statistical reference to it. For example, the government reports that the “economy” grew by such and such percentage, or the widening in the trade deficit threatens the “economy.” The “economy” is presented as a living entity apart from individuals.
According to the mainstream way of thinking, one must differentiate between the activities of individuals and the economy as a whole (i.e., between micro- and macroeconomics). It is also held that what is good for individuals might not be good for the economy and vice-versa. Within this framework of thinking the “economy” is assigned a paramount importance while individuals are barely mentioned.

In fact one gets the impression that it is the “economy” that produces goods and services. Once the output is produced by the “economy” what is then required is its distribution among individuals in the fairest way. Also, the “economy” is expected to follow the growth path outlined by government planners. Thus whenever the rate of growth slips below the outlined growth path, the government is expected to give the “economy” a suitable push.
In practice, so-called macroeconomic indicators are fictitious devices that are used by governments to justify intervention with businesses. These indicators can tell us very little about wealth formation in the economy or individuals’ well-being.

The Machinery of Freedom!


Anarchast Ep. 231 David Friedman: The Machinery of Freedom!

Catolicismo e Capitalismo

A doutrina social da Igreja Católica e o capitalismo:
A principal dificuldade com boa parte daquilo que passou a ser chamado de 'Doutrina Social da Igreja' desde a publicação da encíclica Rerum Novarum (1891), do Papa Leão XIII, é que tal conjunto de ensinamentos pressupõe que a vontade humana é o suficiente para resolver questões econômicas, e que os ensinamentos e as conclusões das leis econômicas podem ser tranquilamente ignorados.

Com efeito, assim como a Escola Historicista Alemã à qual Ludwig von Mises se opôs, os proponentes da doutrina social efetivamente negam a própria existência de leis econômicas. Por conseguinte, as pessoas que seguem tal corpo de pensamento rejeitam por completo o papel da razão em avaliar as consequências de políticas econômicas "progressistas" e em compreender a ordem e a harmonia que podem existir em fenômenos complexos (neste caso, nos fenômenos de mercado).

Esta atitude é contraditória porque vai diretamente contra toda a tradição intelectual católica, segundo a qual o homem deve adequar suas ações à realidade, e não embarcar na impossível e tola tarefa de forçar o mundo a se adequar aos seus desejos. Os seguidores deste corpo de pensamento desejam obrigar a realidade a apresentar resultados que não podem ser efetivados apenas pela vontade.

Charity vs. Taxation


Charity vs. Taxation – What is the Difference? - Learn Liberty

The Fatal Conceit of Statesmen

The Breathtaking Arrogance of Two Statesmen:
I really do wonder if, in the entire history of preposterous displays of despotic statecraft, there has been anything so ridiculous as two men on opposite sides of the world, two men with a weak hold on power, two men who can barely claim to represent anyone, signing a piece of paper that purports to control the global climate by tightening the regulatory noose around the respective population’s neck sometime in the next 15 years.

It’s times like this when the regular news really does read like the Onion.

As for the policy and science behind the idea, consider how much these two masterminds do not know. The following just gets us started. They don’t know for sure in what way the climate is changing in departure from normal patterns, whether that change is on net a bad thing overall, whether and to what extent human activities are causing the change, the precise relationship between cause and effect, the precise kind of policy response that is required to reverse the change, whether the benefits of that policy will exceed its costs even if there were a way to measure it, whether that policy is actually realizable and enforceable, and whether there is any real test available to discern success from failure regarding this new policy.

They know none of this. No mortal truly can. True science is hard enough in the laboratory where human choice is not part of mix of what’s being studied. Make the entire world the lab and the human choices of 7 billion people, stretched out over a 15 or 30 year future, part of the control set and you are really entering into the realm of total fantasy.

World Poverty vs. Charity


Donation: World Poverty vs. Charity That Actually Works - Learn Liberty

Anatomia do culto verde

The ‘Cult’ of Climate Change (née Global Warming) (artigo muito editado, leitura integral recomendada):

.. the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes:

1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything.

2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics ..
3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ..
4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class: taxpayer-funded impostor “climate scientists” who have no independent (of the climate alarmism) scientific achievements ..
5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its shamans built with their own hands..

6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids:
– Photosynthesis. Plants grow by converting atmospheric CO2 into biomass ..
– Archimedes’ principle. Melting of Arctic ice cannot increase the sea level ..
– Sunspots and the effect of solar activity changes.

7) The alarmists appeal to medieval science errors.

8) The alarmists have created and spread climate mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs ..
– Incorrect association of CO2 with warming because of the word “greenhouse”—the mother of the global warming scare ..
– Incorrect claim that (allegedly anthropogenic) global warming causes glacier melting or Antarctic ice sheet collapse ...
– Incorrect claim that global warming causes droughts. Droughts are popularly associated with high temperatures but not caused by them..
– False attribution of wildfires, New Orleans’ devastation from Hurricane Katrina, current California water shortages, and various disasters to global warming ..
– Time scale confusion. Processes that take hundreds of years are described as if they happen overnight.

9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records.
10) Climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming.
11) The climate change cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific .. statements.
12) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments.

Permissionless innovation

How Communities Can Flourish in the Wake of the State:


Learning from Katrina: How Communities Can Flourish in the Wake of Disaster

maintaining a libertarian social order

Dances With Elephants por Bionic Mosquito:
But once property rights are disrespected – no matter the theoretical soundness of the professor’s idea – will the masses listen to libertarian reason about where to draw the line?
If I have a right to control the borders to my property, I along with my neighbors have the right to delegate this to an agent, acting on our behalf. This is as perfectly libertarian as it gets.

The only issue is that today’s provider is the monopoly state; I have only one way to put my sound libertarian right into practice. Only one. It is also true that those libertarians who wish to allow any and every biped from all corners of planet earth onto their property also have only one way to put their desire into practice. Only one.

Libertarian theory supports both. Libertarian theory offers no answer.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how many people would choose this service given that the agent today is the monopoly-state. We do know that where property owners have freedom to discriminate, they do so.

sexta-feira, agosto 28, 2015

Los intelectuales y el totalitarismo


Álvaro Vargas Llosa - Los intelectuales y el totalitarismo

A Internet está segura com o Estado

Against “Net Neutrality”:
The Internet is not public property. Telecommunications companies have spent billions of dollars on network infrastructure all over the world. They did so in the hope of selling communications services to customers willing to pay for them. The government has no right to effectively nationalize ISP’s by telling them how run their networks.

Proponents of a mixed economy like to invent hypothetical scenarios of ways companies could abuse customers. It is true that a free society gives people the freedom to be stupid, wrong, and malicious. The great thing about capitalism is that it also gives people the freedom for the most consumer-friendly business to win. A regulated Internet takes away that freedom and turn it over to politicians and lobbyists. History shows that most attempts to improve outcomes by regulating markets worsen the very problems they were intended to solve. That is how the USA ended up with the current overpriced, monopolistic oligopoly providers. Why do “net neutrality” advocates ridicule politicians for comparing the Internet to a “series of tubes,” and then trust them to regulate it?

In Defense of Selfishness


Four Things To Learn from "In Defense of Selfishness"

The green tax-gobblers

How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong:
Here is the mountain the tax-gobbling classes who tend to favor profitable alarmism must climb before they can make out a rational, scientific case for doing anything about our greenhouse-gas emissions.
The tax-gobblers’ mighty mountain
Step 10. Would the benefit outweigh the cost?
Step 9. Can we afford the cost of CO2 mitigation?
Step 8. Will any realistic measures avert the danger?
Step 7. Will warmer worldwide weather be dangerous?
Step 6. Will temperature feedbacks amplify that warming?
Step 5. Will greenhouse-gas emissions cause much warming?
Step 4. Are humankind raising CO2 concentration substantially?
Step 3. Are humankind increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Step 2. Is a consensus among climate experts compatible with science?
Step 1. Has any climate warming beyond natural variability taken place?
If the answer to the question at any Step from 1 to 10 on the stony path up the tax-gobblers’ mighty mountain is “No”, there is no rational, scientific basis for climbing any further. Unless one can legitimately reach the top by answering Yes to all ten questions, there is no credible justification for any investment of taxpayers’ funds in trying to make global warming go away.
The question is why, in the teeth of the scientific and economic evidence, nearly all of the global governing class were so easily taken in or bought out or both by the strange coalescence of powerful vested interests who have, until now, profited so monstrously by the biggest fraud in history at such crippling expense in lives and treasure to the rest of us, and at such mortal threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of science itself.

’Trickle-down economics’


Ici Londres: "Trickle-down economics" is a Left-wing fantasy

O Papa anticapitalista

É muito triste que o Papa -- este Papa tão simpático e tão bom comunicador --seja um anticapitalista primário, um analfabruto económico, e (como se isso não bastasse), sobranceiramente alheado dos efeitos nefastos dos lugares-comuns marxistas que não se coibe de papaguear. Ou se calhar é um teste à caridade dos crentes direitistas, que se ouvissem tamanhas barbaridades da boca de qualquer leigo, não tardiam em fustigar a personagem. Que Deus o ilumine.

The Pope Should Stick to Theology:
Asserting that it’s “pure scandal” that women, on average, are paid less than men, Pope Francis demands equal-pay-for-equal-work legislation (“Pope Francis: It’s ‘pure scandal’ that women earn less than men for the same work,” April 30).

What is really pure scandal is that this man arrogantly supposes that his premier perch on the moral high ground gives him leave to pronounce on matters about which he clearly knows nothing ..
And has the Pope familiarized himself with the large body of research that warns of the great risks of negative unintended consequences from well-meaning legislation? ..
The Pope should stick to studying the mysteries of theology, for the realities of the economy seem to be beyond his grasp.

BÓNUS -

End the Drug War


Milton Friedman - End The Drug War

A government big enough to give you the marriage you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have

Gay Marriage, Like All Marriage, Not Worth Celebrating:
The idea that the state should promote, sanction, and regulate monogamous relationships gained currency in the 16th century as a reaction to Europe’s first sexual revolution. Public, group, and what we now call homosexual sex were commonplace, prostitution was rampant and generally unpunished, pornographic books and pamphlets were widely popular, and laws against adultery and divorce went unenforced. Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant Reformation seized upon marriage as a means though which to curb unchristian freedoms and bring about social order.
Until then, the Church alone had recognized and overseen marriages, but Luther and the reformers wanted a more powerful and “worldly” enforcer of God’s laws .. Moved by these injunctions, governments across Protestant Europe seized control over marriage and instituted rules to enforce it.

On this side of the Atlantic, shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the newly-formed states, acting in their own professed self-interest, enacted laws that made it more difficult to end marriages .. According to the lawmakers, the “dissolution [of a marriage] ought not to be dependent on private will, but should require legislative interference; inasmuch as the republic is deeply interested in the private business of its citizens.”
The Union government required that all newly freed slaves under its care in refugee camps “who have been living or desire to live together . . . be married in the proper manner.”

After the war, administrators of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who were charged with making the ex-slaves conform to American norms, were ordered to coerce their charges into marriage so as to bring them into civilization
Dissolving a marriage became slightly less onerous in the 20th century .. but the institution’s state-sanctioned moral apparatus continued to keep most of us from pursuing our individual desires ..
So let us say to our gay brothers and sisters fighting for the “freedom to marry,” who once led the fight for freedom from marriage: be careful what you wish for—you’ll probably get it.

Música Liberal do Dia


Fuck Democracy by Fatal Fiction

One Liberty

The Seamless Web of Liberty por Ron Paul:
Scholars, commentators, and other public figures who defend liberty in some areas and authoritarianism in other areas — or combine a defense of economic or civil liberty with a defense of the warfare state — undermine the case for the liberties they claim to cherish. Restoring the link between economic liberty, civil liberty, and peace is a vital task for those seeking to restore a society of liberty, peace, and prosperity.

Política exterior liberal


Miguel Anxo Bastos - Política exterior liberal

Citação Liberal do Dia

Robert Higgs:
I say that taxation is extortion, and you say I'm crazy. So, what do you think it is, a form of voluntary donation backed by the government's threats of fines and imprisonment?

Espectro liberal-estatista

Who Really Cares About the Poor?

Who Really Cares About the Poor?: A Socratic Dialogue por Bryan Caplan:
Glaucon: .. Fine, I'll tell you. The democratic faction - to which I happen to belong - proposed a new law to give ten gold pieces a year to every poor Athenian.

Socrates: From the public treasury?

Glaucon: Yes, from the public treasury. Anyway, we democrats called a vote - and the aristocratic faction voted us down. How can they be so uncaring?

Socrates: Why do you assume the aristocrats voted No because they were uncaring? Did they say, "I'm voting No because I don't care about the poor"?

Glaucon: Of course not. No one admits such things.

Socrates: So, what objections did the aristocrats voice?

Glaucon: Oh, the usual. They said our meager program would turn poor and rich alike into lazy bums. The poor wouldn't want to work if they got free money, and the rich wouldn't want to work if they had to pay the taxes required to fund the program.

Socrates: Sounds overstated. Divide by ten, and they're right. Any other argument?

Glaucon: Yes. Many also insisted that, "It's my money." They earned it, so they shouldn't have to share it.

Socrates: And they're wrong?

Glaucon: Of course they're wrong! We're a community, we all depend on each other and we're all obliged to take care of each other. If they had an ounce of compassion for disadvantaged Athenians, they would have voted Yes.
...uma história de hipocrisia socialista.

quinta-feira, agosto 20, 2015

A proposal for libertarian statists


A proposal for libertarian statists

Trickle-down

:
No serious economist in modern era supports the trickle-down theory, nor is the IMF study about it at all. Rather, the trickle-down concept remains a straw man of liberal partisans used to attack any supply-side plan to cut taxes.
Certainly wealth can trickle down in the sense that lower taxes for a business could mean more revenue to expand their production and create jobs. However, wealth also trickles up through savings and investment. After all, the savings that lower- and middle-class people put into the bank are loaned out to businesses for profit. Similarly, their retirement savings are usually in the form of investments for big business.

This is fundamentally why supply-side economists support tax cuts for everyone: so both the rich and poor will have more money to spend, save, and invest in markets, fueling the private sector’s engine of prosperity. It’s not a trickle so much as a whirlwind.
As economist Thomas Sowell has repeatedly pointed out in his columns at Townhall, “no economist of the past two centuries had any such theory.” Sowell again:
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this “trickle-down” theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a “trickle-down” policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.

Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism


Whole Foods' John Mackey: Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism

To Hell with the Culture War

To Hell with the Culture War por Jeffrey Tucker:
In the end, there is only one winner: the master of us all, the government that concocted this crazy system to begin with.

What seems like a great culture war of our time is actually a wide and growing set of conflicts that are rooted in government intervention.
So long as there is a central plan, there will be vicious arguments about whose values should prevail in the implementation of that plan. Get rid of all mandates and we would finally, at last, see the dawn of peace. It really is possible, though hardly anyone can imagine it right now.

Culture wars are a lot more exciting to fight than real wars over the nature and reach of government. This is why so many people encourage them and fight them.
This is the way states conquer and divide. They turn a diverse group of people loose in the arena and tell them to kill or be killed. Democracy encourages this; more importantly, overweening government in every area of life would seem to require it. Government is a zero-sum game: what you get I lose.

This is the very opposite of the way the market economy works. Through market exchange, both parties win. They come away with more value than they brought to the table. It draws on our internal sense of what is valuable.
If you are fighting the culture war, you are fighting the wrong war. As they say in Hunger Games, let’s try to remember who the real enemy is.

Drogas: Libera Geral


DROGAS: LIBERA GERAL! - DESCE A LETRA

Consenso

A Climate Falsehood You Can Check for Yourself por David D. Friedman:
The fact that one prominent supporter of a position is dishonest does not prove that the position is wrong. For all I know, there may be people on the other side who could be shown to be dishonest by a similar analysis. But it is a reason why those who support that side because they trust its proponents to tell them the truth should be at least somewhat less willing to do so.

Tocqueville Liberty


Lawrence W. Reed: What Alexis de Tocqueville Teaches Us About American Exceptionalism — Can It Last?

o Papa anticapitalista

Where Pope Francis Got His Advice on Global Warming:
The Holy Father’s encyclical will do greatest harm to the very people dearest to him, the poor. It appears that radical environmentalist political ideology has trumped science in this field and given all of science a bad name in the process. This all started from global warming theoretical predictions made by the highly politicized (and now discredited) United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), predictions that have been thoroughly disproven by experimental data yet have been widely used as a benchmark by alarmist environmental groups. In some circles this brouhaha is also giving the papacy a bad name by associating it with Pope Francis’ and Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga’s Marxist controlled home countries of Argentina and Honduras, since environmental extremism and liberalism/socialism are closely linked.

The Truth about CO2


The Truth about CO2

Applications of Austrian Economics to Business and Management


Applications of Austrian Economics to Business and Management | Peter G. Klein

domingo, agosto 16, 2015

Why Do Libertarians Pay Taxes?

Why Do Libertarians Pay Taxes?, leitura integral recomendada:
There are some important reasons why libertarians pay taxes. But before looking at them, perhaps it would be beneficial to look at reasons why libertarians don’t pay taxes; that is, erroneous reasons why libertarians pay taxes.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe it is just what Americans do.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are confused about the tax code.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the government is entitled to them for services provided.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the U.S. income tax cannot tax earnings from the common, ordinary occupations of life.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe paying taxes is the right thing to do.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes in the United States are lower than they are in other countries.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes are a necessary evil.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the tax code requires them to.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they aren’t aware that most Americans aren’t legally required to pay income tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the tax code.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because millions of Americans are dependent on government handouts.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are not educated tax scholars.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the Constitution gives the government the power to tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t know how to read the tax code.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they think it is patriotic.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they haven’t yet figured out how to lay a proper factual evidentiary foundation on how not to pay the income tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the federal government has no constitutional power to tax the wages of ordinary Americans.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they think the government needs the money.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t believe the income tax is part of the contract involved with acceptance of a government privilege.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t know the history of the income tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they never noticed in the withholding statute in Subchapter C of the tax code that the only people subject to withholding are government employees.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are not enlightened about the income tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the constitutional functions of government should be funded.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t realize what an excise tax is.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they would feel guilty if they didn’t and other Americans did.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand from Title 26, Subtitle A, that most Americans aren’t engaged in engaged in ordinary occupations liable for the income tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the difference between a privilege and a right.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they have misinterpreted the Supreme Court tax cases.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t realize that paying taxes is voluntary.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t read the tax code with the understanding of the history of the tax.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe they have engaged in an excise taxable activity.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the income tax is a classical liberal tax on federal employments, offices, and privileges.

Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe “non taxpayers” are screwballs.

Why, then, do libertarians pay taxes?

Libertarians pay taxes so they don’t end up in a cage ..

Hoppe and Immigration

Hoppe and Immigration:
I will add other examples: homeowners associations, apartments, condominiums, hotels, amusement parks, multi-tenant office buildings, companies of all sorts. Each of these – in areas where the government has not established “forced integration,” to use Hoppe’s perfectly formed term – has rules and guidelines for those who would like to enter.

They do not allow any and all comers with any and all behavior. They do not allow uninvited visitors free use of the cafeteria, bathrooms, telephone and internet. They do not allow trespass-occupation of temporarily unused conference rooms or hotel rooms. They do not allow tents in common areas known as hallways or lobbies.

In each of these examples, the owners control access to their property. This is what a libertarian, free-market immigration policy would look like.

quinta-feira, agosto 13, 2015

Dismantle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j26oHC8T6JY

Lincoln racista

Historical Truth por Walter E. Williams:
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
.. Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

o Papa anticapitalista


Greg Gutfeld - The Misguided Pope

Política AMN

O CDS nasceu para ser o partido da direita das liberdades:
E o que faz um secretário de Estado que se afirma liberal num Governo assim?

Liberaliza. Liberalizámos a animação turística, o alojamento local, os hostels, o jogo online, desregulámos profissões no turismo, reduzimos dezenas de taxas e eliminámos algumas, reduzimos em 30% a despesa do Turismo de Portugal, despolitizámos a promoção, e em dois anos passámos do 20º país mais competitivo do mundo para o 15º. O liberalismo reforçou a competitividade de Portugal como destino turístico.

We’re All Slaves Now


The Civil War Was Not About Slavery - We're All Slaves Now

transgénicos

E agora, que vão dizer os opositores aos transgénicos?:
Nos últimos 20 ou 30 anos, com o progresso da genética molecular e da fisiologia, tornou-se possível proceder ao melhoramento de espécies de maneira totalmente controlada e racional, com resultados quase imediatos. Naturalmente, agora como sempre na História, o “interesse comercial” continua a ser a força motriz de tudo isto, mas novos objectivos mais “nobres” são também agora prosseguidos. Por exemplo, arroz geneticamente modificado que contém vitaminas e assim salva da cegueira e de várias outras doenças os povos de regiões pobres. Por vezes, os dois tipos de interesses conjugam-se: a resistência de plantas transgénicas a várias pragas e parasitas permite limitar ou eliminar a utilização de pesticidas tóxicos, é “amiga do ambiente” e diminui grandemente os custos de produção.

Em resumo, hoje fazemos melhor, mais controladamente e, sobretudo, muito mais depressa o que sempre fizemos na História. Donde a minha enorme surpresa ao assistir à resistência de alguns ambientalistas contra os alimentos “transgénicos”. Lobby muito poderoso e vocal, promotor frequente de arruaças, o “movimento anti-transgénico” é fruto de uma total irracionalidade.

Sharing Economy


Sharing Economy: Uber, Airbnb, & Feastly vs Government Regulation - Learn Liberty

the Killing of Innocents

Truman, A-bombs, and the Killing of Innocents:
Seventy years ago today a president of the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, a city full of innocent Japanese. It was the second time in three days that Harry Truman had done such a thing: He had bombed Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The fatalities in the two cities totaled 150,000–246,000. The victims – mostly children, women, and old men – suffered horrible deaths in the blasts and firestorms. Only shadows remained of those who were vaporized. Many more were injured; others later died from radiation sickness.
The bombings – and other atrocities committed by the U.S. government during World War II, including the “conventional” firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 noncombatants; the destruction of Dresden, a German city of no strategic value; and the continued bombing of Tokyo after the A-bombings and an agreement to surrender – should have been enough to destroy forever any perception of moral authority in the U.S. government – particularly on the subjects like terrorism. But, oddly, things have not worked out that way. America proclaims itself the “indispensable nation.” The rules that apply to everyone else don’t apply to American “leaders.” Because of alleged “American exceptionalism,” presidents of the United States gets to write their own rules, even redefining torture if they wish. If much of the rest of the world objects, it’s too bad; no one is in a position to do anything about it. (This immunity from common rules of decency extends to America’s “closest ally,” Israel.)

Until Americans come to see the mass murder in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the war crimes they are, it’s hard to be optimistic that they will ever see U.S. imperial foreign policy for the aggression it is.

domingo, julho 12, 2015

Freedom of Speech: How Is Offensive Speech Good For Society?


Freedom of Speech: How Is Offensive Speech Good For Society? | Learn Liberty

The Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America

The Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America:
Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.
Taking Marriage Private:
In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents.

Tyranny of the Intellectuals


Eric Hoffer - Tyranny of the Intellectuals

Self-Determination and Secession

Self-Determination and Secession:
But if any community, no matter how small, can simply break off and join another state or remain independent, what’s to stop single households from doing this?

Rothbard asked this same question, and it brings us back to Mises’s comments on self-determination. Mises writes:
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations which make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.

In other words, anarchism is theoretically justifiable, although technically problematic.

Roads in an Anarcho-Capitalist Society


Roads in an Anarcho-Capitalist Society

Citação Liberal do Dia

Robert Higgs:
Participatory fascism (now often called crony capitalism and long called mercantilism) is a bad form of economic order and an even worse form of political order in many ways, but it is infinitely superior to socialism, which is a perfect recipe for poverty and totalitarianism. Under crony capitalism the masses enjoy a high standard of living in the economically advanced countries and a rising standard of living even in many of the poorer countries. Under socialism, people enjoyed mass starvation in China and the USSR (as nowadays in North Korea) along with political dictatorship by a tiny party elite. Socialism now yields the abominations of Venezuela, a once thriving country turned into one with no toilet paper and scarcely anything else in the stores, growing poorer by the day. Under crony capitalism, the young protesters in the USA and Europe enjoy smart phones and $5.00 cups of the coffee concoction of their choice. The yearning for socialism is truly a poison fruit of deep, deep ignorance not only of economic theory, but also of modern history and current affairs.

Antiwar and Peace


Anarchast Ep. 226 Scott Horton: Antiwar and Peace!

Uber

De cavalo para Uber:

A desconfiança em relação às novas formas de transporte não é inédita. Há coisa de um século, a indústria do cavalo e dos transportes hipomóveis desconfiava do new kid on the block, que ameaçava satisfazer as necessidades de deslocação do ser humano de forma mais capaz, porque mais rápida, confortável e conveniente — o automóvel.
A concorrência do transporte automóvel, dizia-se, prejudicava as empresas de caminhos-de-ferro. “Tal concorrência ainda seria aceitável se se fizesse em condições de igualdade, mas não foi isso o que sucedeu. (...) Ainda há de facto quem impugne a regulamentação legal nesta matéria e preconize os benefícios da livre concorrência de cada uma das duas formas de transporte (...). Mas não há o menor fundamento para supor que a livre concorrência levaria cada uma das formas de transporte a limitar-se ao seu terreno próprio”.

Experimente agora reler as citações substituindo “caminhos de ferro” por “táxis” e “automóveis” por “Uber”.
Relacionado: Depois da proibição do Uber, datilógrafos querem o fim do computador

Uber Solves the Fundamental Problem of the Marketplace:
The fundamental problem of markets is the need to establish trust among strangers.
.. Not only are you getting into the backseat of a stranger’s car; you are getting into the backseat of their personal vehicle, which has no obvious marking that it is intended to provide rides to strangers. At first blush, it seems like a case similar to an apparently random person showing up at your home to do repairs.

But Uber overcomes this apparent problem in several ways that make clever use of technology. When you request your ride, you are immediately given identifying information about the driver and car, including a thumbnail picture of the driver, the color and make of the car, and its license plate. An additional way in which Uber establishes trust is by using GPS technology to show you exactly where your car is and how long (and what path) it will take to get to you. Watching the car drive up on the Uber app as you see it in front of you is a major signal of trust.

Uber also gives you a cell number for your driver, which is useful if the pickup location is ambiguous. It also makes retrieving anything you left in the car much easier. Have you ever tried to get a lost item back from a cab company?

"Fair" Trade


Fair Trade: Does It Help Poor Workers?

O Papa anticapitalista

Bergoglio, o dito papa Francisco, não me representa! Ou: O sangue de Cristo e de 150 milhões de vítimas do comunismo:
Em Santa Cruz de la Sierra, nesta quinta, Bergoglio fez um discurso que poderia rivalizar com o de Kim Jong-un, aquele gordinho tarado que tiraniza a Coreia do Norte. Atacou o capitalismo, um “sistema que impôs a lógica dos lucros a qualquer custo, sem pensar na exclusão social ou na destruição da natureza”, segundo ele. E foi além: “Digamos sem medo: queremos uma mudança real, uma mudança de estruturas. Este sistema já não se aguenta, os camponeses, trabalhadores, as comunidades e os povos tampouco o aguentam. Tampouco o aguenta a Terra, a irmã Mãe Terra, como dizia são Francisco”.

É de embrulhar o estômago. Em primeiro lugar, esse papa, com formação teológica de cura de aldeia, não tem competência teórica e vivência prática para cuidar desse assunto. Em segundo lugar, os movimentos que hoje lutam pela preservação do planeta são exclusivos de regimes democráticos, onde vige o capitalismo. Ou este senhor poderia fazer essa pregação na China, por exemplo, onde o capitalismo de estado é gerido pelo Partido Comunista?
Evocando um igualitarismo pedestre, disse Sua, não mais minha, Santidade: “A distribuição justa dos frutos da terra e do trabalho humano é dever moral. Para os cristãos, um mandamento. Trata-se de devolver aos pobres o que lhes pertence”. A fala agride a lógica por princípio. Se o tal “que” pertencesse aos pobres, pobres não seriam. A fala repercute a noção essencialmente criminosa de que toda a propriedade é um roubo. Como esquecer que essa concepção de mundo de que fala o papa já governou quase a metade do mundo e produziu atraso, miséria e morte?
.. uma expressão do trogloditismo de patetas terceiro-mundistas como Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Nicolás Maduro e Cristina Kirchner.

Public Choice And Government Failure


Public Choice And Government Failure

Attempts To Reach The Left: An Unmitigated Disaster

Attempts To Reach The Left: An Unmitigated Disaster:
Leftists improve nothing. They are destruction incarnate, and as has been said many times, anything not inherently opposed to the left, will be taken over by it. We’ve seen it with the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, countless police accountability efforts, the list goes on and on.

Some uninformed figurehead at an organization is desperate to see some progress. He realizes he can quickly increase his numbers and gain access to resources by teaming up with leftists, not realizing that it doesn’t matter how many people are on your side, if your side has no meaning. The strategy is tantamount to inviting cockroaches into one’s home to clean up some spilled food. Before you know it, they are in everything, literally crawling out of the woodwork. They eat the food that was spilled, replace it with insect feces, then contaminate every morsel in the building.

In Defense of Selfishness


In Defense of Selfishness

O modelo sueco

Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism:
Left-leaning pop stars, politicians, journalists, political commentators and academics have long praised Scandinavian countries for their high levels of welfare provision and for their economic and social outcomes. It is, indeed, true that they are successful by most reasonable measures.
However, Scandinavia’s success story predated the welfare state. Furthermore, Sweden began to fall behind as the state grew rapidly from the 1960s. Between 1870 and 1936, Sweden enjoyed the highest growth rate in the industrialised world. However, between 1936 and 2008, the growth rate was only 13th out of 28 industrialised nations. Between 1975 and the mid-1990s, Sweden dropped from being the 4th richest nation in the world to the 13th richest nation in the world.Left-leaning pop stars, politicians, journalists, political commentators and academics have long praised Scandinavian countries for their high levels of welfare provision and for their economic and social outcomes. It is, indeed, true that they are successful by most reasonable measures.

However, Scandinavia’s success story predated the welfare state. Furthermore, Sweden began to fall behind as the state grew rapidly from the 1960s. Between 1870 and 1936, Sweden enjoyed the highest growth rate in the industrialised world. However, between 1936 and 2008, the growth rate was only 13th out of 28 industrialised nations. Between 1975 and the mid-1990s, Sweden dropped from being the 4th richest nation in the world to the 13th richest nation in the world.

sexta-feira, julho 10, 2015

Logic vs. Feminism


Milo Yiannopoulos SCHOOLS & OUTWITS TWO Feminists with Charm and Logic! - Sky News - MGTOW MRM MRA

Statist rainbows

So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?:
By making this display, you have done nothing but tell the world that you are a useful idiot .. You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of government power, and the forced revocation of actual rights like freedom of association ..

Were the court to strike down marriage licenses as an interference with contracts, I would celebrate with you. Were a legislature to repeal all laws pertaining to marriage, I would join your parade. Despite what these despots would have you believe, an opposition to government involving itself in more people’s sex lives is not an indicator that one hates gay people. I am entirely uninterested in the sex lives of complete strangers, and I think the government should hold the same position. Any person or group should be able to enter into any contract they see fit, and call it anything they want. Any person or group should be able to do whatever they want sexually without fear of government violence. Were the court to recognize these obvious truths, this would be a cause for celebration, but that’s not what they did.
.. a “license” is an indicator that you do not have a “right” to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law. To say that you are fighting for gay “rights” by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English.
.. So why the sudden concern for the wellbeing of gay people?

The answer is quite simple. To expand federal authority, centralize power, and give the left a win that they would never be able to accomplish through elections. While portrayed as being a lessening of restrictions on gay people, it is an increase in the power of the court and of the federal government, which could just as easily be used to federally ban homosexuality entirely.

terça-feira, junho 23, 2015

Your enemy is the State

An Open Letter to Baltimore Rioters:
I’m not going to give you the cliche “violence is not the answer” line, because that’s a lie. There is a predatory gang of criminals at large who rob, assault, kidnap, and murder with impunity. The police, and the institution they stand for are your enemy, and they will not stop victimizing you until doing so becomes so dangerous that they find more productive ways of sustaining themselves.

Not only is violence the answer, it is the only answer, and the answer is so obvious that I am perpetually baffled by the fact that people don’t see it and act on it every day. The dumbed down docile nature of the public at large is so frighteningly destructive that it makes the looting look civilized by comparison.
So by all means Baltimore, burn buildings to the ground. Go ahead, kill your oppressors. Throw rocks, bottles, firebombs, and whatever weaponry you can muster at your enemy.

But perhaps you might want to figure out who your enemy is before you begin.
The State is your enemy, kill him before he kills you. He is not difficult to identify. He is so brazen in his aggressions that he brags about them on television. He claims his authority to brutalize you, by winning a popularity contest that you call an election. He wears uniforms, displays his emblems proudly, threatens you with sirens and strobe lights. He is not hiding.

Your enemy is the State. Kill him! Gun him down! Set him on fire! Break his spinal cord! Strangle him! Take his property! Make his family live in fear until they disassociate from him!

But if you instead loot businesses owned by your fellow victims, if you set fire to buildings that are not the property of your enemy, if you harm the innocent, then you have become the enemy yourself.

Income Inequality + Globalization


Trading Away Income Inequality: the Effects of Globalization | Learn Liberty