The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)
quarta-feira, abril 08, 2015
Isto é delicioso - malta da Google andou a ver como salvava o planeta, e ainda fazia algum dinheiro no processo. The smartest guys in the room. Conclusão - para mudar para energias "renováveis" é preciso mais energia do que a que se produz. Nem há caso para aquele misticismo de "falha de mercado", em que supostamente a malta não investe porque os proveitos são dispersos -- todo o ciclo de produção é menos ineficiente, logo mais caro, logo destruidor de riqueza.
Quanto mais os Estados investem, mais destróiem capital que poderia ser usado em funções produtivas. A tecnologia que nos salvará de nós próprios (por favor esquecer que nunca na História a Humanidade viveu tão bem, e já não há "Aquecimento Global há 18 anos) ainda não foi inventada.
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change:
Quanto mais os Estados investem, mais destróiem capital que poderia ser usado em funções produtivas. A tecnologia que nos salvará de nós próprios (por favor esquecer que nunca na História a Humanidade viveu tão bem, e já não há "Aquecimento Global há 18 anos) ainda não foi inventada.
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change:
As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work
Apparently two members of the biggest street gang in New York--the NYPD--were just shot while sitting in their patrol car, and both died. And apparently the motive was revenge for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. (For the record, I don't know exactly what happened in the Michael Brown case, but Eric Garner was flat out murdered.) Before the shooting, the person presumed to be the shooter posted some comments, including: “I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,” and “They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” and included hashtags mentioning Eric Garner and Michael Brown, making the motive kind of obvious. The shooter then apparently killed himself, though I wouldn't just assume that to be true.
Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops in Garner ‘revenge’
Personally, I would rather see the exact INDIVIDUALS who commit evil being the ones targeted for retribution. I don't generally approve of the pack mentality thing, where people lash out at members of a group (whether based on race, religion, nationality, or anything else), for what other members of that group have done. However, other members of the violent NYPD street gang were not merely accidentally born into that group; they CHOSE to be in it, and chose to CONTINUE to be in it, even after the group has an obvious, well-documented history of being violent fascist bastards.
A whole lot of state mercenaries ("law enforcers") are quite open about the fact that they expect to be able to get away with extortion, assault and murder, whenever they want, and so far that is what has happened. So to any hired thugs of politicians ("police"), I have to ask, what did you THINK was going to happen if you kept acting like jackbooted Nazis? Whether those two cops "deserved" to die, I don't know (though it wouldn't at all surprise me, since they were professional thugs and thieves). But given the mentality the badge-wearing dumbasses in this country, this sort of thing was inevitable, and will only increase. As I've said before, if you have a job that makes lots of people hate you, and makes some people want to kill you, you should probably consider the possibility that it's because YOU'RE THE BAD GUY.
Penn Jillette on the Lesser of Two Evils:
In this clip Penn is explaining, to lock-step-Republican Sean Hannity of all people, why voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong .. He explained how voting for the lesser of two evils just gets more evil. It’s not about who wins the election to him, it’s about people actually voting for what they believe in. It’s about not voting for people who don’t represent you, and not rewarding the two parties for nominating them. That’s why libertarians don’t vote for the lesser of two evils.
7 Habits of Highly Effective Libertarians por Jeffrey Tucker:
What can be done to sustain the passion for liberty throughout a lifetime? Here are my suggestions for seven habits to foster a lifelong attachment to liberty and to live a life that makes the best possible contribution to human well-being.
1. Oppose oppression but love liberty even more.
2. Read broadly and be confident in your ideas.
3. Look beyond politics.
4. See everyone as an ideological friend.
5. Don’t have all the answers.
6. Hack your life.
7. Be joyful.
Imagine a small group of people going out into the world armed with these seven habits. Soon, that infectious optimism helps grow the group, as more and more people are drawn to its light. Those who doubt, criticize, and clamber for power will come to be seen not as progressive and forward thinking, but rather as stuck in old ways that don’t work. And the group of networked changemakers will prove their value one experiment at a time. People will turn not to the politicians and the paid experts, but to the geeks, volunteers, and entrepreneurs — to those with a vision of a beautiful future. That’s what freedom looks like. And that’s how you change the world with it.
The Gender Wage Gap—A Myth that Just Won’t Die:
The first thing to notice is that the “77 cents on the dollar” metric isn’t comparing apples to apples. It is a comparison of gross income. That is, it compares the income of all women to that of all men. It fails to take into account important factors—like education, experience, or even just comparing people in the same career. You wouldn’t compare the incomes of elementary school teachers with Bachelor’s degrees to those of individuals with PhDs in physics and complain that there is a “teacher-physicist wage gap” —but this is precisely what this statistic does.
When you take these characteristics into account, the purported “gap” all but disappears.
The gender wage gap falls completely apart if one thinks of it from the perspective of an employer. Suppose you own an accounting firm. Further suppose that the gender wage gap is real—women and men do the exact same work, but you can pay the women in your firm 77 cents for every $1 you pay your male employees.
You need to hire five new accountants. What are your options?
What would you do? Hire the women, of course! In fact, you’d be foolish to hire any men at all! You’d get the same work from either group of employees, but by hiring women you’d save $57,500 every year.
Will President Rand Be Good for Liberty? por Jeffrey A. Tucker:
There is something about politics that elicits a faux sense of certainty. No matter how many times that political action contradicts political promise, we still mostly pretend as if we know for certain what will happen when so and so wins. We know that Jim would be better than Jane, that Joan will be better than John, and so on. How do we know? By what they say in the campaign and nothing more. But the truth is that rhetoric is not decisive.
.. No single elected official has the power to change the system. The system is, in fact, largely unelected and unappointed. The bureaucracies are massive. The cumulative regulations and legislation that empowers them are monumentally complex, impossible for any single mind or any one generation to comprehend. The process of reform is messy, structured so that the special interests with the most lose get decide where it goes. It is highly unlikely that this process will result in an overall net good for the cause of human liberty.
This is why there seems to be so little relationship between promised results and actual results. Reagan was going to cut the budget. It doubled and then tripled. Bush was going to have a humble foreign policy. Instead, we went empire-building. Obama was going to break down the prison state and empower minorities. Instead, he grafted the surveillance state to the existing architecture of oppression.
One way to think about government is as a giant corporation with its own interests to better its position and power. The president is the CEO. How do you do a good job and earn the support of the stockholders and customers? Not by cutting the budget, driving down the stock price, and pulling back its market share. Everything that hurts government as an institution will be resisted at all levels and in every conceivable way. You win by boosting the prospects of the state.
This is why it is such an enormous and implausible effort to use the presidency to enhance liberty. Everything we know about government pushes against this .. we do well to keep in mind that politics is more about cosmetics than reality.
terça-feira, abril 07, 2015
Poder ao Povo por Bruno Alves:
A solução passa, como a "esquerda" gostava de dizer mas não de fazer, e a "direita" nunca foi capaz de perceber, por dar "poder ao povo": se o Estado deixasse de financiar directamente as suas escolas (que, como as privadas, teriam de cobrar uma propina), e em alternativa desse a todo e cada pai sem rendimentos suficientes os meios para os seus filhos acederem à escola que preferissem (privada ou detida pelo Estado), nenhuma escola que não fosse reconhecida como boa por um número suficiente de pais poderia continuar a operar, e os mais pobres teriam forma de sair da armadilha em que nascem.
Mensagem (Natalícia) aos Liberais:
Por isto, e por muito mais, sugiro aqui que sigamos o caminho dos EUA: assuma-mo-nos como libertários – ao invés de liberais (“Clássicos” ou não). Se nos fecham a porta, entramos pela janela. Chega de confundir a opinião pública.
Um libertário é coerente ao ponto de querer mais liberdade em ambas as áreas da nossa vida em sociedade: tanto civil, como economicamente! A título de exemplo, consideramos que é tão justo que aos indivíduos seja permitido o consumo de qualquer tipo de produtos que estes bem queiram (acabando assim com as actuais políticas antidroga que matam mais do que o próprio produto…), da mesma forma que achamos urgente acabar com o saque tributário sofrido em Portugal.
Isto só é possível com menos Estado. Menos Estado consegue-se com menos gastos públicos. E querer menos gastos públicos, é o mesmo que querer que o Estado deixe de tirar aos indivíduos aquilo que bem quer e lhe apetece, indo contra a vontade destes. Que deixe de lhes tirar o dinheiro que esses mesmos indivíduos obtêm com o suor do seu trabalho, quando é o Estado a gastá-lo em áreas que o indivíduo não quer, ou não precisa, ou que simplesmente até podiam ser providenciadas pelos seus semelhantes (o famoso e tão injustamente criticado “Mercado”).
Ora, esse saque é isso mesmo: um saque. Algo que se dá contra a vontade (individual) de quem o sofre. Algo que acaba sempre por prejudicar, directa ou indirectamente, quem mais sofre. Algo que é assegurado pela força. Pela força coerciva do Estado e dos estatistas que o apoiam. Que apoiam o avanço que esse mesmo Estado tem vindo a tomar, desenfreadamente, ao longo das últimas décadas.
The Internet Memory Hole:
Reputation capital consists of the good or bad opinions that a community holds of an individual over time. It is not always accurate, but it is what people think. The opinion is often based on past behaviors, which are sometimes viewed as an indicator of future behavior. In business endeavors, reputation capital is so valuable that aspiring employees will work for free as interns in order to accrue experience and recommendations. Businesses will take a loss to replace an item or to otherwise credit a customer in order to establish a name for fairness. Reputation is thus a path to being hired and to attracting more business. It is a nonfinancial reward for establishing the reliability and good character upon which financial remuneration often rests.
Reputation capital is particularly important because it is one of the key answers to the question, “Without government interference, how do you ensure the quality of goods and services?” In a highly competitive marketplace, reputation becomes a path to success or to failure.
Right-to-be-forgotten laws offer a second chance to an individual who has made a mistake. This is a humane option that many people may choose to extend, especially if the individual will work for less money or offer some other advantage in order to win back his reputation capital. But the association should be a choice. The humane nature of a second chance should not overwhelm the need of others for public information to assess the risks involved in dealing with someone. Indeed, this risk assessment provides the very basis of the burgeoning sharing economy.
Sorry Molyneux, Competition is not Theft:
The people who call themselves the State are nothing but criminals parading as saviors. No doubt hundreds of years from now when peaceful parenting rids the world of anything resembling the modern State, there will still be fraudsters and violent criminals. Many of those criminals may well try to convince people that their crimes are for the greater good, it is after all, one of the oldest scams in history.
Thus, the NYPD, the City of New York, the State of New York, and the US Federal Government have no more a right to take from vendors than the MCC does. That people submit to their will, whether out of ignorance or out of fear, is no different than vendors submitting to the MCC. In both instances, everyone has every moral right to resist the threats of the coercion cartel. They may choose not to, for the sake of their safety, and that’s understandable, but that’s a value judgement that they make for themselves.
Eric Garner evaded the taxes imposed on cigarettes by government authorities. He also evaded regulations preventing the sale of individual cigarettes. He also sold his product in the common spaces instead of paying rent and property taxes and licensing fees. This provided him with a market advantage, being able to sell a cheaper product at a higher markup than the brick and mortar vendors in Staten Island.
For the brick and mortar vendors in Staten Island to call the NYPD on Eric Garner for not paying their taxes, is no different than for John to send the MCC after Eric in Ancapistan. In both instances, Eric was a superior competitor by avoiding the extortion of the coercion cartel. The fact that he beat out his competitors by doing so does not victimize the victims of the coercion cartel any more than a faster runner victimizes a slower runner by escaping from a hungry lion. Thus, it cannot morally subject him to violence at the hands of the extortionists or their victims.
Five Questions ("Government on Trial")
When they lose the moral/philosophical argument (which takes about ten seconds), statists love to fall back on "What's the alternative?" Then they expect anarchists to describe how every aspect of everyone's lives, until the end of time, will all work perfectly without a ruling class. But statists are so comfortable with the authoritarian mindset that it takes a while for them to even comprehend what is being suggested.
The belief in "government" is the belief that some people should have an EXEMPTION from morality and should have the RIGHT to forcibly rob and dominate everyone else. The answer to such a horrendously bad idea is very simple: the "alternative" to imagining that some people have the right to be violent bastards is......... NOT imagining that some people have the right to be violent bastards. Nothing else needs to change. We still have all the technology, all the resources, all the cooperation and organization. The only thing we lose is a gang of parasitical crooks getting societal permission to victimize everyone else. Now, if some statist wants to point me to any problem which is IMPROVED by giving some people permission to violently victimize innocents, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, the whole "What's the alternative?" thing is as silly as saying, "But if we get rid of car-jackers, what will we have instead?"
Politics Is Violence:
"Every state is founded on force," said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of "state" would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as "anarchy," in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state — nobody says that — but force is a means specific to the state.
.. at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the "right" to use violence.
Hence, "politics" for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e., considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be.
Whoever wants to engage in politics at all, and especially in politics as a vocation, has to realize these ethical paradoxes. He must know that he is responsible for what may become of himself under the impact of these paradoxes .. He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence.
Be glad someone had the courage to be Charlie por Robert Shrimsley:
Charlie Hebdo’s leaders were much, much braver than most of us; maddeningly, preposterously and — in the light of their barbarous end — recklessly brave. The kind of impossibly courageous people who actually change the world. As George Bernard Shaw noted, the “reasonable man adapts himself to the world while the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself”, and therefore “all progress depends upon the unreasonable man”. Charlie Hebdo was the unreasonable man. It joined the battle that has largely been left to the police and security services.
It is an easy thing to proclaim solidarity after their murder and it is heartwarming to see such a collective response. But in the end — like so many other examples of hashtag activism, like #bringbackourgirls campaign over kidnapped Nigerian schoolchildren — it will not make a difference, except to make us feel better. Some took to the streets but most of those declaring themselves to be Charlie did so from the safety of a social media account. I don’t criticise them for wanting to do this; I just don’t think most of us have earned the right.
To be Charlie you have to be ready to defy real death threats and firebomb attacks; to press on, like the murdered journalists, in the face of patent risks to your life while working under police protection (the dead included two officers). It is to continue publishing cartoons and jokes that you know will only inflame people who already need little incitement to kill. It is to hold your life and the fears of your family less dear than the absolute principle of freedom. It is to be so determined to fight the fascism of fundamentalists that you keep on publishing when all rational thought tells you to stop. These people were not just satirists; they were freedom fighters wilfully agitating a foe they knew to be deadly.
But the rest of us, like me, who sit safely in an office in western Europe — or all those in other professions who would never contemplate taking the kind of risks those French journalists took daily — we are not Charlie. We are just glad that someone had the courage to be.
sábado, abril 04, 2015
Police Compared To A Foreign Military por Christopher Cantwell:
I shouldn’t have to explain this to anarchists. Police, simply by being police, are a threat to your safety. They are sworn to “uphold the law” which almost exclusively consists of threats to initiate force against peaceful people. They are paid through theft that they justify by renaming taxation, and citation. They have no legitimate authority to do this.
.. Police are worse than common criminals. They are a militant force, which has us outnumbered, and outgunned. They command our obedience, not only in the moment they victimize us, but at all times. Not only do they command our obedience, but they claim ownership over future generations as well. Dealing with a threat this extreme, requires extreme measures.
The police have none of the excuses the Axis Powers have for their initiations of force. We pose no threat to their safety, we didn’t invade their country, we didn’t kill a million of their people. They signed up for the job to get paid, and to hold a certain status in society. They could quit their jobs at any moment, and seek out productive employment, with pretty much no negative consequences whatsoever. All they would have to give up is their status in society as police. They may actually make more money working in the private sector, if they have any marketable skills whatsoever.
The police aren’t dealing with a threat to themselves, they have pledged their lives to be a threat to you.
Policing is a Dirty Job, But Nobody's Gotta Do It: 6 Ideas for a Cop-Free World:
Rather than be scared of our impending Road Warrior future, check out just a few of the practicable, real-world alternatives to the modern system known as policing:
- Unarmed mediation and intervention teams
- The decriminalization of almost every crime
- Restorative Justice
- Direct democracy at the community level
- Community patrols
- Here's a crazy one: mental health care
A “nossa sociedade ocidental, céptica, individualista” merece ser defendida:
Mas nos ataques terroristas destes últimos dias – e dos últimos anos – não está o “vazio”, o “cepticismo” e o “individualismo”. Está, isso sim, um ódio visceral a tudo isto. A Casa dos Segredos não é o problema. O problema está em haver gente que odeia um modo de vida em que ver algo como a Casa dos Segredos é um direito. Um modo de vida e uma série de direitos que merecem ser defendidos.Lamentavelmente, nas manifestações viu-se tudo menos individualismo.
What is Social Justice? por Wendy McElroy:
.. those who value individual freedom view justice as a means-oriented process, not as an ends-oriented state. That is, the concept of justice refers to the method by which society operates and not to a particular arrangement of society being produced. The methodology is “anything that is peaceful,” “society by contract,” “the non-initiation of force,” voluntaryism. Any outcome to which all of the adults involved have consented is, by definition, a just arrangement. The only end-state attributable to people who wish to live in freedom is precisely that: freedom. Otherwise stated, those who value liberty require only the protection of person and property, the prevention of force and fraud within society. Past that point, how society operates, what people choose to peacefully believe or do with their own bodies and property is up to them.
The dark side of decentralization:
Of course, central governments will not stop oppressing their populations unless and until they must, which will only happen with a combination of advancing technology and a willingness to use it in self-defense. In such oppression, centralization and the dark side of decentralization are allies, together for the long haul. For the state to win the war on terrorism would be against its rational self-interest, as the terrorists give the state an excuse to operate, grow, and oppress private individuals in the name of national security. For the state to lose the war on terrorism would also be against its rational self-interest, as failing at the one job it is supposedly solely capable of performing would quickly lead to its overthrow. The terrorists, for their part, need the state to motivate new recruits who would not be brought in by religious fundamentalism alone, as the military interventions that anger people in their home countries would be difficult, if not impossible, with competing private security forces in place of government militaries. In this sense, the state and Islamic terrorism are symbiotic enemies that must defeated together by the third side of libertarian decentralization.
What Freedom of Speech? por Andrew P. Napolitano:
In the post-World War II era, French governments have adopted a policy advanced upon them nearly 100 years ago by Woodrow Wilson. He pioneered the modern idea that countries’ constitutions don’t limit governments; they unleash them. Thus, even though the French Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, French governments treat speech as a gift from the government, not as a natural right of all persons, as our Constitution does.
The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal. When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down — permanently.
The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.
So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?
And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.
You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government.
State And Crime:
From an ethical point of view, crimes against the state and victimless crimes are no crimes at all, should not be prosecuted and punished and their prevention and prosecution not be financed by tax payers’ money. Huge resources would be released for useful appropriation if private companies in open competition would prevent, prosecute and punish crimes against individuals, companies, and their property. We could all live in greater prosperity, with more individual freedom and less surveillance. To abolish “crimes” against the state and victimless “crimes” is no utopia but a realistic possibility to break or at least diminish the state monopoly on violence.
Minarchists insist that the state should confine itself to monopoly control of the military, the police, the courts, the monetary system, and (in some arguments) certain essential elements of infrastructure and education. Which is to say, they want the state to have only the full complement of powers required for its establishment and maintenance of tyrannical government. There's a heavy load of wishful thinking being carried here by people who claim to favor a free society.
sexta-feira, abril 03, 2015
Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class:
Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to lock down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.
What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power.
Private Enterprise versus Free Enterprise:
It’s an important distinction to make. Free enterprise is the laissez-faire, free-market ideal, with the peaceful interactions between individuals being wholly unregulated by government. Under free enterprise, anyone can trade with anyone else on mutually agreeable terms. Since all interactions are voluntary, all traders necessarily benefit, and both wealth and welfare are free to increase without the imposition of artificial limits.
Private enterprise, in contrast, means merely that business and the means of production are held in private hands, although the government may make any number of demands on how these individuals go about their business. The fascist governments of Europe in the past century maintained a system of private enterprise, while simultaneously exercising near complete control over business operations. Similarly, the Roosevelt economy during World War II was marked by extensive private enterprise serving at the pleasure of government.
This is not to say that private enterprise is bad — it isn’t — but merely that it is insufficient for economic liberty, and prone to be corrupted by the political process. At first glance, one would think that business owners would favor free enterprise. After all, who wants to be pushed around by the government? But in fact, we see just the opposite. James Buchanan, founder of the Public Choice school of economics, was famous for exposing the incentives for private companies to attempt to manipulate government into playing favorites in the marketplace. A free enterprise system benefits everyone who is willing to be productive. Government controls on business, on the other hand, benefit the few at the expense of the many, which means the few who benefit have every incentive to lobby for, and support such a system. Thus, we see everywhere lip service being paid to free enterprise, but an actual promotion of private, unfree enterprise.
What’s Anarcho-Capitalism? — A transcript of the Lew Rockwell Show episode 402 with Ben Swann Talking to Lew Rockwell.:
What is Anarcho-Capitalism? It’s the view that — it’s also called the Non-Aggression Principle, the basis of Libertarianism — that it’s never legitimate to initiate violence or the threat of violence against the innocent. Of course, you’re going to use violence in defense of yourself, but you may never initiate and you can’t allow a government to do it, which, of course, is the great purveyor and initiator of violence in the whole world, is the U.S. government and other governments. An Anarchist would say that it is possible to have the free market provide the legitimate services that government provides. There aren’t many, of course, but there are some. They would be far more effective done in the market. Far better to have private police who treat you like a customer than government police who want to taser you and put you in a cage. That it’s just, from a practical standpoint, from a moral standpoint, that we don’t want this horrendous monopoly called the government. We don’t need it. We still need defense, we need police, that sort of thing, but these, again, can be provided far more efficiently and far more effectively, far more justly voluntarily in the market. We have the government, which is a monopoly. For example, it gets to decide how much of your money it’s going to take every year, whatever they’d like to take from you. And of course, Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians would argue that government activities have a different name. Taxation is actually theft. If it was done in the private sector, it’s theft. When it’s done by the government, oh, it’s taxation for public services. And conscription, the draft, is actually kidnapping and so forth. So you can go down the list. So everything the government does is illegitimate, even though they spend their time with huge propaganda in the government schools and through the government-friendly media and all their allies, who are getting some of the government dough, constantly telling us we have to have government for civilization. If we didn’t have government, why, we’d all be killing each other.
Well, of course, there’s too much killing going on, done by the government or by the government that can’t provide any help against crime. I’d like to see Obama, for example, get rid of the crime in the District of Columbia. It seems to me that’s an actual — it might be achievable. It’s in a small area — an achievable goal, rather than worrying about what’s going on in the Ukraine. But needless to say, they don’t care. They don’t care about crime because crime is against regular people. They only care about things that are done against the government, and then, of course, oh, my gosh, it’s the end of the world and it has to be stopped.
Science Lessons for Secretary of State John F. Kerry:
We do not accept gravity and phase transition because science tells us to. We accept these things because they can be empirically tested, repeatedly confirmed and form the bases of solid scientific theories.
Science tells us that climate has always changed and always will be changing. While the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is kind of in the same ballpark as the freezing point of water, the notion that humans are the primary cause of recent climate changes is nothing but a hypothesis which has failed almost every empirical test. This is why many scientists do not accept that this is “settled science.”
The myth of ‘settled science’:
Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming — and some of the same “experts” were onboard both scares. National Geographic even acknowledges this inconvenient fact, but it explains that this somehow actually helps make the case for global warming. If a scientific theory isn’t refutable — i.e., warming and cooling both prove climate change — then how is it science?
How is it paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is its objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics?
.. The entire history of the green movement is full of grand hoaxes and even catastrophic advice, dating back to the modern-day birth of this movement with Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” This was the green anthem that played a big part in the banning of DDT around the world — a move that contributed to millions of Africans losing their lives from malaria.
Nearly every environmental scare of the 1970s backed by hundreds of scientists as well as media, like National Geographic, was proved to be a hoax. We were assured then by the “experts” that the world was overpopulated, running out of energy, food, water, minerals, getting more polluted, and that the end result would be massive poverty famine and global collapse. Every aspect of this collective scientific wisdom was spectacularly wrong.
In 1980 top scientists in the United States government issued a report called “The Global 2000 Report to the President,” which was a primal scream that by 2000 the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland and so on. Just a few brave souls such as Julian Simon and Herman Kahn dared to contradict this conventional wisdom. They were disparaged then — just as climate change skeptics are today — as dangerous lunatics. Yet on ever score, these iconoclasts were right and the green scientific consensus was wrong. Start with the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese — mostly girls — are demographically missing today because of the barbaric one-child policy, which the greens all supported as a way to save the planet.
What’s Behind the Gender Wage Gap:
But a second problem comes up after just briefly scratching the data; why isn’t this wage gap even remotely close to being consistent across industries? It’s not just models (who make 10 times as much as their male colleagues), but also a variety — albeit minority — of different fields. Forbes recently ran an article based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics titled “15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men.” These jobs include bakers (104 percent), teacher assistants (105 percent), nutritionists (101 percent), and occupational therapists (102 percent). Do those hiring bakers just happen to be some of the few people in this country who aren’t sexist?
What about location? The Huffington Post ran a similar article based on census data titled “The 11 Cities Where Women Out-Earn Men By the Biggest Margin.” They include Atlanta (121 percent), New York (117 percent), and San Diego (115 percent).
As I’ve discussed before, differences do not automatically equal discrimination. After all, Asian-Americans are paid more than Whites. And Japanese-Americans are paid more than Korean Americans. For crying out loud, lesbian women make more than straight women! One must dig a deeper before settling on discrimination as the end-all explanation.
.. Regardless, most of the gap has to do with choices. There’s nothing wrong with women’s choices; indeed, there may be something wrong with men’s as seeking a work-life balance is probably a wiser decision. Still, it is these decisions that are the primary reason for the wage gap, not discrimination. This stubborn fact might explain why, despite all of their protests, the White House paid women only 88 cents on the dollar compared to men and even Hillary Clinton herself only paid women on her staff 72 cents compared to men. Reality just doesn’t seem to care much about rhetoric.
The Moral Element in Free Enterprise:
I must briefly elaborate upon the two old truths which ought to be familiar but which are often forgotten. That freedom is the matrix required for the growth of moral values—indeed not merely one value among many but the source of all values—is almost self-evident. It is only where the individual has choice, and its inherent responsibility, that he has occasion to affirm existing values, to contribute to their further growth, and to earn moral merit. Obedience has moral value only where it is a matter of choice and not of coercion. It is in the order in which we rank our different ends that our moral sense manifests itself; and in applying the general rules of morals to particular situations each individual is constantly called upon to interpret and apply the general principles and in doing so to create particular values.
Free societies have always been societies in which the belief in individual responsibility has been strong. They have allowed individuals to act on their knowledge and beliefs and have treated the results achieved as due to them. The aim was to make it worthwhile for people to act rationally and reasonably and to persuade them that what they would achieve depended chiefly on them. This last belief is undoubtedly not entirely correct, but it certainly had a wonderful effect in developing both initiative and circumspection.
The simple facts are these: We want the individual to have liberty because only if he can decide what to do can he also use all his unique combination of information, skills, and capacities which nobody else can fully appreciate. To enable the individual to fulfill his potential we must also allow him to act on his own estimates of the various chances and probabilities. Since we do not know what he knows, we cannot decide whether his decisions were justified; nor can we know whether his success or failure was due to his efforts and foresight, or to good luck. In other words, we must look at results, not intentions or motives, and can allow him to act on his own knowledge only if we also allow him to keep what his fellows are willing to pay him for his services, irrespective of whether we think this reward appropriate to the moral merit he has earned or the esteem in which we hold him as a person.
Jesus Of Nazareth, Enemy Of The State, Executed For Treason:
Jesus of Nazareth was executed today on the orders of the Roman State. Method of execution: Crucifixion. The charge under Roman law was treason, and under Herodian law blasphemy against the Temple. The evidence against this anarchist was so strong that authorities of both the Roman State and the Kingdom of Herod concurred with the arrest and execution, and he was subjected to trial by both governments. And in a rare uprising of spontaneous collective justice, the mass of people who were gathered for Passover called for his execution as well. The mob affirmed their loyalty to the state, chanting, “We have no king but Caesar.”
Friday’s execution ended a career as an anti-government agitator ..