Walter E Williams - Secession and Nullification
terça-feira, dezembro 27, 2016
Did Edward Snowden Draw His Main Inspiration from Ayn Rand?p por Jeffrey Tucker:
.. This makes sense of so much. In the novel, everyone faces a gigantic and oppressive state apparatus that is gradually pillaging the producers and driving society into poverty. Each person who confronts this machine must make a decision: join it, defend it, ignore it, or fight it through some means. Those who take the courageous route know better than to take up arms. Instead, they do something more devastating. They walk away and deny the regime their own services. They decline to partake in their own destruction. In so doing, they are doing society a great service of refusing to have their talents contribute to further oppressing society.
There we have it. Edward Snowden must have had this riveting story in his mind. As any reader of Atlas can attest, the book creates in your mind a huge and dramatic world filled with epic moral decisions. People are tested by their willingness to stand up for what is right: to stand as individuals confronting gigantic systems against which they otherwise appear to be powerless. Her message is that one human mind, inspired to action by moral principle, can in fact change the word.
Here is where Rand’s book is decidedly different from all the other postwar literature in defense of freedom against the state. She was emphatic about the individual moral choice. She created a fictional world, a tactile and unforgettable world, in which history turns on doing what is right, regardless of the personal risk and even in the face of material deprivation.
terça-feira, dezembro 06, 2016
Watch Politicians Snap When Alternative Media Journalist Asks them One Short Question:
One of the best and most crucial questions that Helfeld has asked over the years is simple enough: “can you delegate a right that you don’t have to someone else?”
This simple question has caused dozens of politicians to either become aggressive, run away, or both because it points out that they do not have the right to do the things that they do in the name of government.
To use an example, if an average citizen does not have the right to steal from his neighbor, then he can not go ahead and vote for one of his friends to do it. Furthermore, if a particular group, even a group with a majority in a certain area decided to vote for themselves or one another, to steal from innocent people, they would not be justified in doing so. In this situation, these people would essentially be granting a privilege to another person that they themselves did not have, which is obviously a ridiculous idea.
However, this is exactly how democracy and representative government works. The power of the politicians is supposedly granted by the people. However, average people don’t have the right to do things that politicians and agents of the state do on a regular basis. Therefore, the people living in a democracy never had the authority that they allegedly gave their government to begin with, which means that this authority does not exist and that the government does not have a right to use it.
quarta-feira, novembro 30, 2016
End the Fed To Really ‘Make America Great Again’:
Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality. This is because, when the Fed acts to increase the money supply, well-to-do investors and other crony capitalists are the first recipients of the new money. These economic elites enjoy an increase in purchasing power before the Fed’s inflationary policies lead to mass price increases. This gives them a boost in their standard of living.
By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases.
Let's Expand the Electoral College:
The current confusion about the mechanics of the electoral college appear to be largely a function of the fact that it is now widely forgotten that the United States is intended to be collection of independent states, and not a unitary political unit.
For an illustration of why a system like the electoral college is so essential, we can look to the European Union. Consider, for example, if the European Union were to hold a union-wide election for a single chief executive. (The EU does not hold such an election, however, because the EU is controlled by appointees, and because there is no president in the conventional sense.)
If the EU were to do this, we would immediately notice that a small handful of large and populous member countries could dominate election and policy decisions union-wide. Without some sort of mechanism to even out these disparities, smaller states wold continually be at the mercy of the larger ones.
By all means, let’s speak ill of the dead this week:
And that’s the real takeaway from Castro’s contemptible existence. We shouldn’t constrain his infractions to the realm of economics—he chose socialism over capitalism; what an idiot—because the evil of his legacy is so much more instructive and universal than that. Castro’s Cuba is a reminder that government, given expansive power, will inevitably enrich itself and abuse others, regardless of whether it claims to be acting in the name of tradition, nationalism, the poor, science, whatever. This truth applies however incremental the state’s interventions might be, whether in Havana or at the VA. And just as Castro ascended in a relatively advanced Latin-American nation, so, too, could it happen here, if we allow government to seize more than it should.
That may be the only good to come from Castro. He died less than a month after Election Day and bequeathed to us a timely lesson.
Tiros na água…:
Na verdade falta tudo, porque ao Estado nada escapa. E eu todos os anos me interrogo porque é que em vez de andarmos a discutir este ou aquele número, a justiça deste ou daquele imposto, a relevância desta ou daquela fábrica de baterias operada por robots, não discutimos antes o seguinte: qual é a legitimidade do Estado para cobrar impostos, determinar o que estudam os nossos filhos, quantos filhos devemos ter, tratar-nos da saúde, transportar-nos, quem recebemos em nossa casa e quanto lhe cobramos, a quem damos boleia e quanto lhe cobramos, o que comemos ou o que bebemos? Era isto o que deveríamos debater até à exaustão: donde vem a legitimidade do Estado para nos saquear, se endividar em nosso nome e no fim, não satisfeito, ainda determinar onde gastamos o pouco que nos sobrou depois do assalto?
segunda-feira, novembro 21, 2016
Poupar é ser livre por André Abrantes Amaral:
A extrema-esquerda, e este PS que lhe dá palco, não gosta de quem poupa porque quem o faz não precisa dela. É independente, livre de escolher outro caminho. A sociedade ideal, a sociedade estável, é aquela em que se trabalha no Estado ou em empresas que estejam debaixo do olho do governo. Se somarmos a isso o não termos qualquer poupança que nos valha nos tempos de aflição, não passamos de ovelhas de costas viradas para os lobos. Poupar tornou-se um ato de resistência.Ódio de classe! por Maria de Fátima Bonifácio:
Também aprendi a “acumular dinheiro”!!! Quer dizer, a poupar o necessário para evitar depender de terceiros. Aprendi o valor da independência, condição da liberdade, o meu valor supremo .. Tenho orgulho de classe. Porquê? Porque a civilização burguesa, a que pertenço, foi a primeira civilização na História a dignificar o esforço e o trabalho.
La última del Papa Francisco: "Las empresas no deben existir para ganar dinero":
Si la semana pasada el Papa Francisco comparaba el cristianismo con el comunismo ignorando el genocidio que acometió este régimen durante décadas, este jueves, el pontífice argentino carga contra los empresarios del mundo.
En su discurso, el pontífice argentino les recordó que considera que "el dinero es el estiércol del diablo" y sostuvo que las empresas "no deben existir para ganar dinero", sino "para servir"El Papaflauta:
A ustedes les puede sorprender la frase, pero se la explicarán mejor si tienen en cuenta otra afirmación que el Papa ha hecho en la misma audiencia, y que ya había pronunciado anteriormente: "El dinero es el estiércol del diablo". Ahí es nada.
Pero ahora ya tiene uno que pensar que, tal y como apuntaba Federico Jiménez Losantos este domingo, estamos, simplemente, ante alguien que no es capaz de pensar con claridad, por decirlo de una forma suave. Ante una persona que no sólo tiene una empanada teológica –e ideológica– de primera, sino que, directamente, necesita ayuda profesional.
Viniendo de cura rojo, el Santo Padre ha derivado en Papaflauta. Es un camino que podía resultar previsible pero que no deja de parecernos bastante lamentable a aquellos que, desde fuera del seno de la Santa Madre Iglesia, en los últimos años habíamos encontrado en ella una institución que, con sus más y sus menos, defendía grandes valores que muchos podíamos compartir: la libertad y el ser humano.
Algo que es evidente que Bergoglio ha decidido no hacer.
Government Has a Toxic Personality:
Travis Bradberry, the “emotional intelligence” columnist for Forbes, recently wrote a viral piece on toxic personality types and why you should stay away from them. Such toxicity can’t be fixed. They drain you emotionally. They sap your creativity. They disable your ability to function at your highest level. They bring down everyone around them. They make you unhappy. The only thing you can do is get away.
As I read it, it occurred to me that government itself manifests each of these traits and adds a few more, which explains why people want government out of their lives. Sadly, it’s not so easy as just walking away.
The Person Who Always Takes, Never Gives | The Passive-Aggressive | The Constant Downer | The Punisher | The Liar
The original article says that the solution to toxicity is to walk away. We keep trying. We vote the party in power out and a new party in, but the problem persists. We seek reforms and can’t get them. This is an institutional problem. There is no solution besides changing the institutions.
The article is right. We can’t be truly functional, creative, and happy until we get the toxicity out of our life, regardless of the source.
terça-feira, novembro 15, 2016
How Libertarian Activists Helped Impeach Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff:
The backstory is of particular interest to libertarians. Today's impeachment probably wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the Free Brazil Movement, a libertarian activist group that was determined to bring Rousseff down. The group helped organize a succession of demonstrations over the past year and a half that involved millions of anti-Rousseff protesters. In May of 2015, the Free Brazil Movement led a 33-day, 750-mile march from São Paulo to the federal capital of Brasilia while carrying an impeachment bill to deliver to Congress. After arriving in Brasilia, members of the group sat down with congressional leaders to make their case. Throughout the process, the group continued to meet with members of congress, promising to mobilize their constituents against them if they didn't come out in favor of impeachment.
I'm an Economist and I Refuse to Vote:
My honest answer begins with extreme disgust. When I look at voters, I see human beings at their hysterical, innumerate worst. When I look at politicians, I see mendacious, callous bullies. Yes, some hysterical, innumerate people are more hysterical and innumerate than others. Yes, some mendacious, callous bullies are more mendacious, callous, and bully-like than others. But even a bare hint of any of these traits appalls me. When someone gloats, "Politifact says Trump is pants-on-fire lying 18% of the time, versus just 2% for Hillary," I don't want to cheer Hillary. I want to retreat into my Bubble, where people dutifully speak the truth or stay silent.
Indeed, if, like von Stauffenberg, I had a 50/50 shot of saving millions of innocent lives by putting my own in grave danger, I'd consider it. But I refuse to traumatize myself for a one-in-a-million chance of moderately improving the quality of American governance. And one-in-a-million chance is grossly optimistic.
The Intellectual Yet Idiot:
The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.
segunda-feira, novembro 14, 2016
What Individualism Is Not:
Metaphysically, individualism holds that the person is unique, not a sample of the mass, owing his peculiar composition and his allegiance to his Creator, not his environment. Because of his origin and existence, he is endowed with inalienable rights, which it is the duty of all others to respect, even as it is his duty to respect theirs; among these rights are life, liberty, and property. Following from this premise, society has no warrant for invading these rights, even under the pretext of improving his circumstances; and government can render him no service other than that of protecting him against his fellow man in the enjoyment of these rights. In the field of economics (with which libertarians are rightly concerned because it is there that government begins its infringement), the government has no competence; and the best it can do is to maintain a condition of order, so that the individual may carry on his business with the assurance that he will keep what he produces.
The Double Thank You of the Market:
The “Double Thank You” of the market happens all the time and we barely notice it. We do it largely without conscious thought. When you do think about it, it’s actually rather strange. In many situations where we thank someone for having done something for us, they follow with a “you’re welcome,” or the somewhat less enthusiastic “no problem.” We tend to see those situations as one-sided, as if we had received a gift and were offering the verbal equivalent of a thank-you note.
When we unreflectively treat social interactions as mutually beneficial when they are not, we blur the line between the mutual benefit of the market and the zero-sum game, or worse, of politics. Not only does that reduce our resistance to the exploitative nature of coercive relationships, it leads us to under-appreciate the virtues instilled by the market. The more we can do to be conscious of the mutual benefit of the market and the deeply ingrained habits of virtue we have absorbed from it, the more we will appreciate those aspects of the market and recognize their absence in relationships of coercion and exploitation.
If we want the market order to survive, we will have to continue to treat it both in theory and practice as a realm of moral and virtuous behavior.
Friendliness Is an Economic Revolution:
Socialists and interventionists have lost the intellectual battle. The arguments presented by Austrian economists for free markets and against government are irrefutable. Since Mises told us nearly a century ago that economic calculation is impossible under socialism leading to chaos and crushing poverty, socialist thinkers have been completely helpless in their efforts to refute him. As Mises would later point out in his book Socialism, they knew it then, and they know it now. The only tool they have left is that of emotional appeal, a tool which they have always brilliantly exploited around the world to disastrous effect.
.. little acts of friendliness, appreciation, and kindness take away their only tool. They subtly and implicitly reveal the true nature of free markets, and they make people happy. Could Lenin and Trotsky have led the Russian people to revolution if they had been happy with their lives, if the two had only appealed to completely flawed economic theory? Hardly.
More than this, these little interactions that take place in the market are the beginnings of bigger conversations and potentially friendships. One of the great things about friends is that they’ll listen to what their friends are passionate about. That’s when a real discussion about free markets could begin.
So the next time you go to order your fast food craving, start a rebellion for free markets. Smile. Be friendly. Show people how valuable they are. The world will be a brighter, freer, and more prosperous place because of it.
sábado, novembro 12, 2016
Don’t Lose Friendships Over Politics:
One of the great tragedies of politics is that it can take people who in real life would be peaceful and loyal and loving friends and turn them into bitter enemies. I’m always struck by this when I see a political rally, with face offs between backers and protesters. What exactly is gained by this? If you put these same people in a shopping mall or movie theater or restaurant, they would have every reason to get along and no reason to be screaming obscenities at each other.
We should hold on to that realization. Each of us is a human being with feelings, hopes, dreams, and a vision of a life well-lived – every single person, regardless of race, religion, gender identity, or ideology. Politics should change nothing about that.
If we long for a better world of mutual understanding and peace, one way to help achieve it is to live as if it already exists. Above all, that means never letting politics get in the way of rewarding human relationships.
Why Mises (and not Hayek)?:
The state, for Mises, is legalized force, and its only function is to defend life and property by beating antisocial elements into submission. As for the rest, the government is “the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisonment. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”
Moreover (and this is for those who have not read much of Mises but invariably pipe up, “but even Mises is not an anarchist”), certainly the younger Mises allows for unlimited secession, down to the level of the individual, if one comes to the conclusion that government is not doing what it is supposed to do: to protect life and property. And the older Mises never repudiated this position. Mises, then, as my own intellectual master, Murray Rothbard, noted, is a laissez-faire radical: an extremist.
sexta-feira, novembro 11, 2016
SJW Attack Survival Guide por Vox Day:
Fortunately, SJWs are highly emotional, cowardly, and prone to depression, so demoralizing them tends to be considerably easier than you might imagine. They will still hate you, but after repeatedly meeting with staunch and confident opposition, they will usually decide to leave you alone and go in search of less difficult prey.
Catholics Don't Have To Be Commies:
If all you knew about Christianity and economics were drawn from Pope Francis' comments, you'd doubtless be deeply confused. This pope certainly does seem to mistake the Gospel's call for voluntary charity and unworldiness with an ideological program for the forced redistribution of wealth. His ecological encyclical urged governments to band together and assault private property through multinational conspiracies – oops, I meant “organizations” – such as the United Nations.
Five Differences Between the Alt-Right and Libertarianism por Jeffrey Tucker:
1. The Driving Force of History
2. Harmony vs. Conflict
3. Designed vs. Spontaneous Order
4. Trade and Migration
5. Emancipation and Progress
quinta-feira, novembro 10, 2016
The More Complex Society Becomes, the Greater the Need for Anarchy por Butler Shaffer:
As vertically-structured, chain-of-command systems collapse into horizontally networked systems, decision-making is decentralized. One sees this in modern business management organization – sometimes referred to as “participatory management” – in which employees exercise increased control over their work. Decision-making that had heretofore been directed by management supervisors – such as how and when work is to be performed, modifying work practices, and selection of new employees – is often made or shared with non-supervisory workers. Such decentralizing practices have led to increased productivity, creativity, and problem-solving, as those who are most familiar with the work to be performed and the tools to be employed are presumed to be more knowledgeable about what needs to be done. Such thinking also underlies the concept of academic freedom in schools, as well as First Amendment assumptions about the individual liberty to express alternate ideas.
Does the vertically-structured model by which mankind has long been subjected to political control fail to serve the ends proclaimed for it? Are wars, depressions and other economic dislocations, corruption, police brutalities, politically-generated conflicts, genocides, torture, looting, seemingly limitless levels of taxation and government debt, inflation and other currency failures, indispensable elements for what you would expect to see as part of a sane, decent, free, and productive society?
Those who have schemed so insistently to create and maintain their monopolies of violence over all of mankind never found comfort in Gutenberg’s invention. But neither the banning nor burning of books, heresy trials, Inquisitions, the hanging or burning of witches, nor Luddite machine-breaking riots, were able to destroy the civilizing consequences of the decentralized and liberating character of expanded information that produced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, or the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. Perhaps our children and grandchildren, sharing with one another the dispersed and individualized powers of information that the established order so mightily fears, will transform the thinking, and clean up the mess, that my generation so ignorantly allowed to be created.
Matt Ridley: Global Warming Versus Global Greening
Matt Ridley: Global Warming Versus Global Greening:
After covering global warming debates as a journalist on and off for almost 30 years, with initial credulity, then growing skepticism, I have come to the conclusion that the risk of dangerous global warming, now and in the future, has been greatly exaggerated while the policies enacted to mitigate the risk have done more harm than good, both economically and environmentally, and will continue to do so.
Is Playing Powerball More Rational than Voting for President?:
voter has a greater chance of dying in a car accident on the way to the polling station than of affecting the outcome of the presidential election. But you wouldn’t know it from the way engaged voters assiduously deliberate and strategize over their presidential “pick”: balancing pros and cons, prioritizing issues, and agonizing over character judgments, as if they were pondering a decision that would actually make a difference in their lives, like choosing a romantic partner or a dentist.
Get a grip. Handing in a piece of paper is not going to make you a billionaire, and it’s not going to make you a political kingmaker either. Agonizing over your World of Warcraft avatar would impact your future happiness far more than agonizing over your pick for president. Whether you vote for or support candidate X or candidate Y, or whether you doodle on the ballot, it will not make a whit of difference. So you might as well show a little independence, say to hell with the whole corrupt lot of them, and take a public stand for principles instead of personas.
The Entitlement State that Nobody Mentioned:
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, therefore, in the political arena an "entitlement" is a program of benefits that the government provides to a privileged group, a group that comes to believe that it deserves those benefits, and even comes to consider such benefits as their "right."
The government, however, cannot provide benefits to any privileged group in the society that does not reciprocally obligate others to supply the required resources, goods, or financial means to cover what has been promised. Since government has no supply of resources, goods or sums of money that it does not first tax or borrow from others, any such entitlement compels some other people in society to provide the means necessary for the government to meet its promises to the privileged groups.
That is, one group's privilege entails a compulsory obligation on others that is imposed and enforced through the government's police power to tax and garnish the income and wealth of any and all members of society.
Thus, society becomes divided into two groups: taxpayers and tax receivers; the unprivileged and the privileged; those who are forced to give up a portion of the production, income and wealth they have honestly earned in the peaceful transactions of the market place and those who have that production, income and wealth transferred to them through the power of the state.
This is, of course, what the famous nineteenth century French free market economist, Frederic Bastiat, referred to as legalized plunder. The government, instead of acting as a protector and guardian of each individual's right to his life, liberty and honestly acquired property, becomes the most powerful and intrusive violator of people's liberty.
domingo, novembro 06, 2016
Hillary, It Takes a Village, Not a State:
And there you have it: a portrait of what Hillary Clinton and her horde fancies the American “village” whereby she as President will shepherd the people through their perpetual childhood, sparing them as best as she can “all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living.” Let me be clear, the program Hillary Clinton advanced in It Takes a Village is very much the program she hopes to advance as President. Whether it be more mandates or subsidies, gun control restrictions or minimum wage increases, universal health care expansion or education mandates, domestic surveillance at home or wars for democracy abroad, Hillary Clinton hopes to further foster the “supreme authority” Tocqueville foresaw nearly two centuries ago.
Why not Socialism? por Lawrence W. Reed:
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death,” wrote Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. “A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society.”
Socialism isn’t happy thoughts, wishful thinking, mere good intentions or children sharing their Halloween candy with one another. In a modern political, economic and social context, socialism isn’t voluntary. You can’t opt out. Its central characteristic is the concentration of power for these purposes: central planning of the economy, government ownership of property and the redistribution of wealth.
It all comes down to persuasion versus force.
If it’s not the use of force to shape society the way you want it, then socialism is nothing more than a nebulous fantasy. It’s a giant blackboard in the sky on which you can write anything your heart desires, and then just erase it when embarrassing circumstances arise.
So “why not socialism?”
Socialism preaches envy and theft and delivers strife and conflict. It pits class against class. It cynically buys off one faction at the expense of another. It thrives on victimology and shuns personal responsibility. Its advocates are intellectual dope pushers — foisting addictive, soul-sapping dependency and paternalism on others. They concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the people whose character and naivete make them the most susceptible to corruption.
It’s the bottom line that most effectively answers the question, “Why not socialism?” It’s force, pure and simple. If it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be socialism. It would be capitalism.
Law Has Become the Anonymous Violence of the Crowd:
The law – the mechanism by which we maintain peace in our society .. is not an alien construct that has imposed itself upon us. No, we are all complicit in a law that has enshrined chaos as justice.
Whether it's the drug user or the raw milk seller, we insist on blindly using violence.Some of us scapegoat the policemen we hire to carry out these chaos-causing anti-laws. Some scapegoat the victims of these chaos-causing anti-laws. But rarely do we ever step back and see the cause for what it really is: our ancient, universal need to use violence and domination to subdue those who disagree with us. Whether it’s the drug user, unlicensed driver, prostitute, tax objector, or raw milk seller – we insist on blindly using violence: hiring armed agents to subdue, capture and cage nonviolent human beings.
Of course, none of us would barge into these people’s homes or cars ourselves with firearms drawn. None of us would do it on our own if we lived on an island with these persons. Not one of us would put our knee on the back of our neighbor’s neck, electrocute him, draw a gun, kidnap him in a cage in the back of our car and place him in a shame cage with actual violent persons, leaving him unable to protect himself from further collective violence and assault. None of us would do that to neighbors we found using drugs in their home or selling raw milk from their cow or being too greedy with how much of their labor they wish to pay the collective. But get a group together, get a mob or a crowd, or, even better, a cast of 50 million anonymous voters involved, and suddenly we become possessed – suddenly things we would find repulsive to do ourselves magically become “law and order.” This “law,” this addiction we have to using collective anonymous violence to dominate nonviolent people, betrayed Philando Castile when it sent an armed man to take money from him so he would fix his taillight. And it will betray us all if we do not repent of it and exorcise it out of our civilization.
Every time you vote or sit on a jury that results in the continuance of laws that initiate violence for nonviolent behaviors, you murder your brother.
sábado, novembro 05, 2016
Let's Take Back Our Market Democracy:
The free market is a truly democratic process, one in which everyone has a voice. In fact, it’s the only system capable of recognizing the value of each and every peaceful, cooperative effort in society, thereby ensuring all members are rewarded in proportion to their contributions to the lives of others.
The leaders of this democracy are not politicians, but entrepreneurs. Rather than being elected once in a term of years, entrepreneurs are elected minute-to-minute in a never-ending campaign to win support from their patrons. Consumers vote for entrepreneurs by buying and refusing to buy. Every decision is a message to the market about which entrepreneur is most effective at improving people’s welfare.
Consumers’ decisions thus determine whether entrepreneurs become rich or poor, as well as which businesses succeed and fail, and who will make decisions about how to use society’s scarce resources. Yet this popular mandate is fickle: whereas elected politicians can at best be removed after several years, entrepreneurs are removed overnight by unsatisfied customers. Politicians’ disastrous policies persist long after their authors are forgotten, but if entrepreneurs make harmful decisions in the market, they are punished with ruthless efficiency by competitors.
When consumers are in control, markets reflect the values and wants of each member of society; entrepreneurs aren’t captured by special interests, but by customers who urgently need what they have to sell. In this system all voters can get what they want, not just the ones lucky enough to be members of the majority party.
The marketplace is like a democracy where a million political parties can each peacefully go about the business of trying to improve the lives of their members. Whereas politicians gerrymander voting districts to manufacture support from the public, entrepreneurs use the price system to hear directly from consumers how they would like to be treated.
.. markets are more truly democratic because being unable or unwilling to “vote” declares a preference, just as buying does: refusing to buy is a vote against the status quo. It’s a declaration that prices are too high, or that quality is too low. Entrepreneurs must improve their offerings or surrender their capital. This is the power of the market in a nutshell: every decision, whether it’s to buy or to abstain from buying, influences the vast structure of prices that governs the economy and “distributes” wealth to every individual based on his or her productivity.
.. in the market, people see each other as mutual contributors to the welfare of all. It’s politics that reduces people to sources of revenue, statistical data, and faceless cannon fodder.
The Absurdity of “Gender Identity”:
But since “gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender,” and therefore has nothing to do with sex-change surgery, hormones, clothing, sexual orientation, body transformation, sexual practices, or even outward appearance—
Can someone identify as a senior citizen and collect Social Security?
Can someone identify as a resident of Colorado, Alaska, Washington, or Oregon and legally use marijuana recreationally?
Can someone identify as a resident of Missouri and only pay a 17-cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes?
Can someone identify as a college graduate and qualify for a job?
Can someone identify as a new parent and take advantage of a company’s paid family leave?
Can someone identify as a TSA agent and grope people in airports?
Can someone identify as an ex-con and be released from prison?
Can someone identify as a cop and seize cash from motorists?
Can someone identify as a NASCAR driver and disregard the speed limit?
Can someone identify as a minority and take advantage of a company’s Affirmative Action policy to land a good job?
Can someone identify as an unwed mother with three children and get a huge Earned Income Tax Credit?
Can someone identify as a resident of Seattle and get paid a minimum wage of $15 an hour?
Can someone identify as having an income below the poverty level and receive welfare benefits?
Can someone identify as a veteran and get a free or discounted meal on Veterans Day?
Can someone identify as a U.S. Air Marshall and board an airplane with a gun?
Can someone identify as a resident of a state where medical marijuana is legal and smoke a joint when he gets a headache?
Can someone identify as the president and have a hit list of people to be killed?
Can someone identify as a season ticket holder and get free access to Yankee games?
Can someone identify as a senior citizen and get a senior citizen discount?
Can someone identify as a child and take advantage of a “kids eat free” promotion at a restaurant?
If the answer to all of these things is no, then why should a boy be able to identify as a girl and use the girl’s restroom? Why isn’t that idea viewed as just as absurd as all the others I have mentioned?
Political and Governmental Corruption Is a Feature, Not a Bug por Robert Higgs:
Political partisans in particular are utterly unprincipled in regard to the corruption of the political process ..
.. If governments confined themselves to protecting people’s natural rights, à la John Locke, they could operate with a tiny fraction of the money and personnel they now command.
.. If the money, power, and sadism were removed from politics and government, there would be nothing left but hollow promises and childish make-believe.
.. People who wouldn’t consider stealing a nickel from their neighbor’s loose-change jar will support politicians who bankrupt entire countries while enriching and empowering their political supporters and pals.
quinta-feira, novembro 03, 2016
Whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton Is Elected President, Liberty Loses:
What if the presidential election this year has become a beauty contest — devoid of intellectual substance, without serious debate over the limited duties of government in a constitutional democracy, rolling in the gutter and largely motivated by hate and fear? What if both Clinton and Trump recognize the paradox that government is essentially the negation of personal liberty? What if whoever wins will largely use it for that purpose?
What if liberty really is attached to humanity? What if all rational people yearn for personal freedom? What if the government — in order to stay in power — has detached liberty from humanity and made it a gift of the state instead of a gift of God? What if government knows that by restricting and then expanding liberty, it can command loyalty?
What if there is a sense of hopelessness in the land? What if this hopelessness is bred by a government that kills, lies, steals, conceals, and denies? What if that hopelessness is furthered by a rational fear that things will only get worse, no matter who wins the presidential election? What do we do about it?
Você sabe o que realmente significa ‘neoliberalismo’?:
Mas a verdade é que a ideologia neoliberal de fato existe — embora ninguém se identifique como tal — e .. nada tem a ver com o genuíno liberalismo. Há uma clara — e intransponível — distinção entre o liberalismo clássico da Escola Austríaca e o neoliberalismo.
Poucos sabem, mas o neoliberalismo surgiu como uma terceira via entre o socialismo e o liberalismo. Como explicou Jorg Guido Hülsmann:.. as primeiras declarações programáticas do neoliberalismo foram publicadas somente na década de 1930 — novamente, e previsivelmente, na Alemanha e nos Estados Unidos. O manifesto mais influente veio do economista de Chicago Henry Simons, que, em 1934, fez circular uma monografia intitulada A Positive Program for Laissez Faire .. — no qual a palavra "positivo" indicava que esse programa justificava amplas intervenções governamentais ..
Simons exortava o governo a regular a oferta monetária e o sistema bancário, a impedir a formação de monopólios, e a fornecer uma renda mínima para os destituídos — um desvio e tanto do liberalismo laissez-faire.
O neoliberalismo, portanto, surgiu entre ex-socialistas que haviam percebido que o socialismo não funcionava, mas que também não queriam abraçar inteiramente o liberalismo clássico.
O neoliberalismo possui uma agenda abertamente intervencionista, ainda que menos intervencionista que o próprio socialismo. Historicamente, neoliberais defendem monopólio estatal da moeda por um Banco Central, agências reguladoras para controlar determinados setores da economia, programas de redistribuição de renda, leis e regulações anti-truste, concessões em vez de genuínas privatizações e desestatizações, ajustes fiscais por meio de aumentos de impostos, além, é claro, de monopólio estatal da justiça, e saúde e educação fornecidas pelo estado.
O próprio Ludwig von Mises batalhou contra um grupo de economistas .. que, na década de 1940, poderiam ser rotulados de 'neoliberais'. Para Mises, esses neoliberais eram apenas relativamente liberais — comparados aos doutrinários socialistas —, mas ainda eram intervencionistas que defendiam o monopólio estatal da moeda por um Banco Central, programas assistencialistas, e todo aquele supracitado aparato regulatório e burocrático comandado pelo estado.
Britain Should Embrace Unilateral Free Trade Right Now:
The unilateral free trade program is very simple: the British Parliament declares the abolition of all tariffs. To avoid a race in non-tariff barriers, the Parliament can pass a law declaring that every product which conforms to the EU norms and regulations can be sold freely in the UK. This should not be a problem since the UK still is a member of the EU. By Parliament’s act, most of the “non-tariff barrier” problem withers away without any need for regulatory harmonization. If the EU legislator considers it necessary to regulate the curvature of vegetables, so be it! But, although EU producers will be free to sell their product in the UK, the British legislator may deem it unnecessary to regulate its producers in the same absurd way.
The advantages of this approach are many. First, the UK can have free trade now instead of waiting through years of negotiations. No need to wait for bureaucrats to agree on which laws we burden consumers and producers with.
There certainly is a more efficient policy than maintaining trade barriers or threatening to raise some in order to force trade “partners” to keep their markets open. Indeed, the British government can make it clear that if the EU unfairly penalizes British interests in some sectors, e.g., finance, then the British government will work to maintain the competitiveness of the industry in question by aggressively lowering their taxes. Imagine that the EU wants to damage Britain’s car manufacturers. Then the British government should not be afraid to create a loophole and to lower manufacturers’ corporate taxes — even to zero. In an economy which was never as globalized and competitive as today, the UK would have good chances of prevailing over the EU interests.
Perhaps the EU will consider making trading conditions with the UK harder, but they would have way too much to lose if doing so means creating a fiscally ultra-attractive market just next door. In the short run, unilateralism in trade can achieve what multilateralism cannot, a quick and radical liberalization of exchanges. In the long run, unilateralism can achieve what multilateralism cannot, genuine free trade.
quarta-feira, outubro 19, 2016
The Real Reason Libertarians Don't Matter:
Here’s the thing to understand: The things libertarians want - freedom, less govt. interference in markets & in personal choices, non-interventionist foreign policy… there is no money in these things for politicians. There are no big corporations and very few rich people who are willing to pay tons of money to politicians to refrain from intervening in markets, or to keep the troops home, or to let people ingest whatever substances they want to.
In fact, it is just the opposite: Corporations have long been in the business of paying politicians to intervene in markets on their behalf, to erect barriers to competition and in some cases to squash a particular competitor. Competition is wonderful for society as a whole. But it’s not so great if you’re one of the ones doing the competing. It’s hard, and sometimes you lose. Sometimes, if you’re big enough, it’s just easier to send some money in the direction of the people who can discover antitrust violations in your competitor’s business practices.
Understand that behind the empty campaign promises, politicians have essentially two things to offer to the people who support them: 1. Power, in the form of regulatory and other control, over competitors and others who may get in the way of a particular entity remaining comfortably profitable; 2. Money. Not their own money of course - your money, and my money. Taken from us in taxes, and in the continual devaluation of the government-issued money we all use. Politicians can give money to their supporters in the form of contracts for things like military equipment and public works projects, or in less direct ways, like mandating that government schools all stock epinephrine injectors that meet the same very specific product requirements that your device happens to meet.
And the list goes on. What is not on this list is liberty. Why? Because nowhere in this game is there an advantage to selling liberty.
This is the real reason that libertarians “don’t matter” in the political sphere. It’s not because they don’t vote. It’s because they don’t participate in the real game of politics - the interest-driven game that can never reward a player who wishes to dismantle the very engine of that game. People win at the game of politics by buying and selling political power over other people’s lives and resources. A player who wants to reduce that power will not find themselves rewarded within that game - they will find themselves spat out of it.
Socialism: Force or Fantasy?:
Socialists are so intellectually slippery that they could crawl through a barrel of pretzels without knocking the salt off. It’s socialism until it doesn’t work; then it was never socialism in the first place. It’s socialism until the wrong guys get in charge; then it’s everything but. Under socialism, do you shoot the cow or just milk it 24/7? One thing I know for sure: When the milk runs out, socialists will blame the cow. Maybe the reason why socialists don’t like personal responsibility is that they don’t want to be held personally responsible.
Some socialists say that they are simply advocating “sharing,” and since socialism’s advocates have good intentions, it must be voluntary and beneficial, too. Except that it never is. If it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be socialism, and if it were beneficial, you wouldn’t need force to create it and sustain it.
Maybe all this nonsense springs from one fundamental, definitional flaw: if it’s not the use of force to shape society the way you want it, then socialism is nothing more than a nebulous fantasy. It’s a giant blackboard in the sky on which you can write anything your heart desires and then just erase it when embarrassing circumstances arise.
Either way, I don’t want any part of it, but it always seems to want a part of me.
O socialismo e o amor ao pobre:
A burguesia socialista não ama o pobre. A burguesia socialista ama a pobreza do indivíduo. Deseja e cobra que o Estado e que a sociedade ofereçam dignidade ao pobre, porém, não aceita que o indivíduo se liberte da pobreza e se torne independente; repudia a possibilidade do pobre se tornar um agente capitalista e acabar se tornando seu vizinho. Em sua perversão ideológica, ignora que o desejo do pobre é fazer parte do sistema capitalista, ser patrão, ficar rico para poder comprar o que quiser e na quantidade que desejar, viver num bairro nobre e fazer compras em Miami.
A verdade: Enquanto a burguesia capitalista deseja que o indivíduo saia da pobreza para poder consumir seus produtos e serviços, a burguesia socialista deseja que o indivíduo permaneça pobre por toda a vida, assim lhe servindo como a principal inspiração para suas masturbações filosóficas.
sábado, julho 02, 2016
It’s Not the Thought that Counts por Christian Newma:
So the next time you hear someone make the case that “it’s the thought that counts,” just remind them that it isn’t. If it was the “thought” that counted, one would have to consider which means allow for a greater number of people to satisfy urgently felt needs, and to arrive in a position where they can say “keep the change,” more frequently. If it was the thought that counted, the inevitable conclusion would lead them to free markets, voluntary transactions, capital accumulation, and the growth of wealth. When it comes right down to it, never is it the “thought” that counts. For people who either ignorantly or dishonestly profess such views, it is always the “feelings” that count.
Leaving the EU means joining the world:
I was just too young to vote in the 1975 referendum. I would have voted “Yes” to the European Community and I think I would have been right to do so. It had contributed to European peace by blurring French and German economic sovereignty. It was a free trade area in a world of high tariff barriers, albeit within a protectionist wall that excluded other countries and continents. It helped to halt Britain’s disastrous obsession with central planning.
Two decades later, the European project stopped being about economic growth (to this day it still has no trade deals with America, China, Japan, Brazil, India, Canada, Australia and Indonesia) and embarked on the drive for monetary and political union, embodied in the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon.
The result has been horrible.
Patri Friedman sobre o video Brexit the full movie:
But exactly BECAUSE this is a propaganda film targeted at potential Leave voters; it represents the arguments that those potential Leave voters will find compelling. That's what it's for - swaying those voters. And what are these arguments? They are classic free-market economic points about free markets, deregulation, and reducing bureaucracy to create economic growth, as well as beliefs in transparency and democracy. True or false, based on accurate or distorted facts, these are the ideas that pro-Leave propagandists thought would appeal to potential Leave voters.
.. on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarchocapitalist 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. Under total privatization, many local conflicts and "externality" problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled.
With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community.
Brexit: Individualism > Nationalism > Globalism por Jeff Deist:
Globalism, championed almost exclusively by political and economic elites, has been the dominant force in the West for a hundred years. World War I and the League of Nations established the framework for multinational military excursions, while the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank set the stage for the eventual emergence of the US dollar as a worldwide reserve currency. Progressive government programs in Western countries promised a new model for universalism and peace in the aftermath of the destruction of Europe. Human rights, democracy, and enlightened social views were now to serve as hallmarks of a post-monarchical Europe and rising US.
But globalism was never liberalism, nor was it intended to be by its architects. As its core, globalism has always meant rule by illiberal elites under the guise of mass democracy. It has always been distinctly anti-democratic and anti-freedom, even as it purported to represent liberation from repressive governments and poverty.
Yes, libertarians advocate unfettered global trade ..
But the EU, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, TPP, and the whole alphabet soup of trade schemes are wholly illiberal impediments masquerading as real commercial freedom. In fact, true free trade occurs only in the absence of government agreements. The only legislation required is a unilateral one-sentence bill: Country X hereby eliminates all import duties, taxes, and tariffs on all Y goods imported from country Z.
And as Godfrey Bloom explains, the European Union is primarily a customs zone, not a free trade zone. A bureaucracy in Brussels is hardly necessary to enact simple pan-European tariff reductions. It is necessary, however, to begin building what globalism truly demands: a de facto European government, complete with dense regulatory and tax rules, quasi-judicial bodies, a nascent military, and further subordination of national, linguistic, and cultural identities.
.. It’s true that libertarians ought not to concern themselves with “national sovereignty” in the political sense, because governments are not sovereign kings and should never be treated as worthy of determining the course of our lives. But it is also true that the more attenuated the link between an individual and the body purporting to govern him, the less control — self-determination — that individual has.
Ultimately, Brexit is not a referendum on trade, immigration, or the technical rules promulgated by the (awful) European Parliament. It is a referendum on nationhood, which is a step away from globalism and closer to individual self-determination. Libertarians should view the decentralization and devolution of state power as ever and always a good thing, regardless of the motivations behind such movements. Reducing the size and scope of any single (or multinational) state’s dominion is decidedly healthy for liberty.
quinta-feira, junho 23, 2016
Todos os impostos começam por ser para os ricos…:
Todo o imposto sobre o rendimento, quando é introduzido, dirige-se aos “ricos” (pelo menos é o que os políticos dizem). Depois, os anos passam, e a noção de “rico” vai sendo cada vez mais alargada; as deduções vão emagrecendo; e, finalmente, a complexidade ligada à aplicação do imposto cresce exponencialmente – medido em número de páginas, o código o imposto tem hoje 187 vezes mais páginas que as 400 originais em 1913 (caso dos Estados Unidos).
Saviors Need Victims:
Saviors need victims who need saving. And if such victims are not real and readily available, the saviors conjure them up by convincing themselves that this or that group of people are helpless victims eager to be raised from the muck of their misfortunes by the saviors. Sometimes the saviors convince even the groups they seek to save that they — the members of these groups — are indeed mired in a muck from which they can be extracted only by the saviors.
Anarchism and Radical Decentralization Are the Same Thing:
Even in a world where one could choose freely among providers of legal and defense services (i.e., a marketplace for civil government) there would not be an unlimited number of choices. What makes markets preferable to states, however, is that they are voluntary, dynamic, flexible, and constantly seeking to provide desirable services in exchange for the freely-given cooperation from the consumers.
This sort of voluntary society can be facilitated and expanded through the use of free association and secession as envisioned by Mises, or through the type of local nullification and civil disobedience as envisioned by Hoppe. In either case, conflict resolution shifts away from state coercion and toward negotiation, compromise, arbitration, and consensus. While even these methods can still result in violence when they fail, they are preferable to the state model of governance in which coercive violence is assumed, legitimized, and frequently used.
Those regimes that offer more freedom, more respect for private property, and more self-determination, will also be those that are most economically successful. But fundamentally, the power of states can only ultimately be controlled by human beings adopting ideologies that question the prerogatives and legitimacy of monopolistic states. In the absence of these ideologies, no organizational structure, no document, and no historical event can by itself create the conditions necessary for the successful exercise of self-determination.
Beware of Kafkatrapping:
The term "kafkatrapping" describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.
The Immaturity of Supporting Hillary Clinton as a Woman:
It is important to note that such immature thinking is to be found only on the left. Racial solidarity, ethnic solidarity, class solidarity and gender solidarity all matter to the left, not the right. When Margaret Thatcher first ran for the office of British prime minister, she would have become the first female prime minister in British history. But British conservatives, including women who supported her, rarely mentioned her gender, let alone offered it as a reason to vote for her.
segunda-feira, maio 16, 2016
A Superior Vision:
My initial premise, when looking at all human issues, is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are your private property. If you agree with that premise, then certain human actions are moral and others immoral. The reason murder is immoral is that it violates private property. Similarly, rape and theft are immoral, for them, too, violate private property. Most Americans will agree that murder and rape violate people’s property rights and are hence immoral. But there may not be so much agreement about theft. Let’s look at it.
Theft is when a person’s property is taken from him — through stealth, force, intimidation, threats or coercion — and given to another to whom it does not belong. If a person took your property — even to help another person who is in need — it would be called theft. Suppose three people agreed to that taking. Would it be deemed theft? What if 100,000 or several hundred million people agreed to do so? Would that be deemed theft? Another way to ask these questions is: Does a consensus establish morality?
People have the right to take chances with their own lives. People do not have a right to take chances with the lives of others .. Nobody should be forced to take care of me for any reason. If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives.
I have only touched the surface of ideas of self-ownership .. We’ve become a nation of people endeavoring to live at the expense of others — in a word, a nation of thieves.
No, You Don't Have an Obligation to Vote:
(1) It's your civic duty. Really? .. In certain instances you might even have an obligation not to vote. If you sincerely believe the system is rigged, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump claim, then maybe you should abstain—lest you grant legitimacy to a system that doesn't deserve it.
(2) Not voting insults our veterans who fought for that right .. rights also entails a corresponding right: the right not to do those things .. Veterans fought (and troops now are fighting) to keep Americans free, not to keep them tied down with endless obligations.
(3) If you don't vote, you can't complain. Sure you can ..
Despite the lousy choices and long odds, many of us vote anyway, because .. It's fun to take part in something even when the results are mostly out of our hands. But .. it's perfectly rational to decline—and no moral stain on you if you do.
The real reason Donald Trump is unfit to be president:
As Vaclav Havel used to say in Czechoslovakia, living under a Communist regime doesn't mean that you have to legitimize it. A citizen can still retain his or her integrity by refusing to vote for the approved list, refusing to display party posters, refusing to repeat official slogans. And integrity matters.
segunda-feira, maio 09, 2016
Daily Reminder that the wage gap isn’t real:
This article is nothing new or unique, I’m just here to say what has been said over and over again. However, instead of just arguing the points, stating all the statistics, and repeating what has been said over a hundred times now, I’m just going to gather all the already existing videos and articles that perfectly debunk the wage gap in so many ways and put them all in one place.
If after reading this article to the end, you still believe that women (In western countries) are paid less than men for the same job, you are either willfully ignorant, delusional, or you just really want women to be paid less than me
Even an anarchist society would not be a world without the political. It indeed might be a world without electoral politics for positions of state power, but even voluntary organizations involve rules that must be negotiated (and sometimes even elections) and activities that require consensus and consent. These are the political.
So if we wish to say that we “reject politics,” I think we should be clear that it is the electoral politics of the state that we are rejecting.
I do believe that people should feel an obligation to debate what constitutes a good society and to work toward achieving it. There are a variety of ways to do that, and electoral politics is only the smallest slice of the larger pie. Many of us are doing these things in our own ways already.
By explicitly acknowledging our political engagement, we might challenge the idea that electoral politics is all that matters. We’ll also reduce the perception that we don’t care about improving the world.
The world we desire is not a world without politics. Recognizing this might open up more careful thought about what it means to be a citizen — not just of that imagined libertopia, but of our own world where democratic politics, in Ostrom’s broader conception, infuses so much of what we do, including the voluntary sector that we value so deeply.
Progressives, Left and Right:
It is, of course, a virtue and a defining feature that liberty is neither left nor right. Libertarianism per se says nothing about outcomes, about whether a more libertarian society would be more culturally conservative or liberal, more traditional or secular, more egalitarian or stratified, or anything else. Libertarianism is anti-state and pro-private property. Nothing more, nothing less.
Progressivism has been the overwhelming force in western politics for the last 100 years. Political progressives—defined not by their party, but by their desire to remake man into a more obedient political animal, absolutely dominated the 20th century.
In every meaningful way, progressives control politics, government, business, and culture in America and the west. The 20th century was so irretrievably progressive that we’ve stopped paying attention to the baseline state all around us. Thanks to that progressive century—a century of war and socialism—government has become like the furniture or potted plants around us: we’re so accustomed to it we no longer even see it.
Of course, progressivism virtually always means left progressivism. While there are right-wing progressives (neoconservatives) with grandiose ideas about government and human nature, most of them came from and will comfortably return to the Left when it suits them. And left-progressives largely have co-opted neoconservative foreign policy prescriptions for their own
Every realistic, potential, or actual threat to liberty in the western world today results directly from progressives policies. The simple reality is that state power in the west, and the threat of state power, is overwhelmingly wielded by progressives rather than conservatives. Even when progressives don’t directly control a particular state apparatus, they effectively apply extra-legal means (executive or judicial) to promote their political agenda and thwart the opposition.
.. libertarians should be reaching out by talking about decentralization, secession, and unyoking ourselves politically from the progressive Hydra. It’s the only peaceful (i.e., nonpolitical) way forward for all of us, regardless of ideology.
quarta-feira, maio 04, 2016
Again, What Is Economic Freedom?:
Here are five core elements to this idea of market freedom, or whatever you want to call it. It is my short summary of the classical liberal vision of the free society and its functioning, which isn’t just about economics, but the whole of life itself. Call it capitalism if you want to.
I. Volition. Markets are about human choice at every level of society.
II. Ownership. .. as long as we live in the material world, there will be potential conflicts over scarce resources. These conflicts can be resolved through fighting over things or through the recognition of property rights. If we prefer peace over war, volition over violence, productivity over poverty, all scarce resources -- without exception -- need private owners.
III. Cooperation .. People need people to obtain a better life. We trade to our mutual betterment. We cooperate in work. We develop every form of association with each other: commercial, familial, fraternal, and religious. The lives of all of us are improved by our capacity to cooperate in some form with other people.
IV. Learning .. We observe success and failure in others, and we are free to accept or reject these lessons as we see fit. In a free society, we are free to emulate others, accumulate and apply wisdom, read and absorb ideas, and extract information from any source to adapt for our own uses.
V. Competition .. there should be no legal (coercive) limits on the ways in which we are permitted to serve each other.
Private Cities: A Path to Liberty:
The incentive for the operator of a private city would be profit: offering an attractive product at the right price. This would likely include public goods, such as a clean environment, police, and fire protection, as well as some infrastructure and social rules. But the operator’s main service is to ensure that the free order is not disturbed and that residents’ life and property are secure.
Competition has been proven as the only effective method in human history for limitation of power. In a private city, contract and arbitration are efficient tools in favor of the residents. But ultimately, it is competition and the possibility of a speedy exit that guarantee that the operator remains a service provider and does not become a dictator.
A private city is not a utopian, constructivist idea. Instead, it is simply a known business model applied to another sector, the market of living together.
A essência do socialismo:
O socialismo parte do princípio que grupos ou classes sociais competem entre si pelos recursos e que compete ao estado ser o salomónico árbitro que regula as transferências de recursos (redistribuição) entre esses grupos. Supostamente para garantir justiça, equidade, etc, etc. A consequência é que a governação socialista acaba por ser uma luta constante em que os diversos grupos tentam obter os favores do estado; sendo que cada favor obtido resulta – objectivamente – à custa da restante população.
segunda-feira, maio 02, 2016
You Can Take the Word Liberal From Me When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Mouth por Jeffery Tucker:
Now, you might correctly point out that the “liberals” started it. About a century ago, everyone knew what a liberal was. A liberal favored free speech, freedom of action, a free economic order, and religious freedom. A liberal opposed war. A liberal favored the ever-increasing liberation of the world from oppression, poverty, suffering.
That began to change in the Progressive Era and especially with the New Deal. Liberals had to make a choice between the free economy and the fascist model of the New Deal. They chose poorly. Yet they kept calling themselves liberals. Ten years later, it had begun to stick.
Who Cares about Inequality? — Political Equality Is All That Matters:
The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality. But this is a false dichotomy. The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality.
Political equality refers to equality of rights.
In a land of opportunity, an individual should succeed or fail on the basis of merit, not political privilege. You deserve what you earn — no more, no less. Today, however, some people are being stopped from rising by merit, and others are securing unearned wealth through political privilege. But the real source of this problem is that we have granted the government an incredible amount of arbitrary power: to intervene in our affairs, to pick winners and losers, to put roadblocks in the way of success, to hand out wealth and other special favors to whatever pressure group can present itself as the face of “the public good.” Some of these injustices do increase economic inequality, but it isn’t the inequality that should bother us — it’s the injustices.
Only when the government is limited to the function of protecting our equal rights can people rise through merit rather than through government-granted privilege. The cure for people seeking special favors from the government is to create a government that has no special favors to grant.
.. We need to liberate the individual so that each of us is equally free to pursue success and happiness.
Leitura obrigatória - 18 Spectacularly Wrong Prophecies from the First Earth Day
domingo, maio 01, 2016
Sanders' image of Scandinavia is just like the rest of his policies: stuck in the 1970s.
During its laissez faire period, between 1850 and 1950, Swedish income per capita increased eightfold as the population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 percent, and life expectancy increased by a whopping 28 years. And all this happened before the welfare state was even a glint in the taxman's eye.
It was at this point, when we Scandinavians had satisfied our thirst, that we thought that we could turn our backs to the well. We began to regulate.
.. the Scandinavian countries became a real life version of the old joke about how to make a small fortune; you start with a large one. Sweden took democratic socialist policies further than its neighbors, and as a result its economy fell more steeply.
It was a disaster for entrepreneurship and employment. During this time, not a single job was created in the private sector (on net), despite a growing population. As of 2000, just one of the 50 biggest Swedish companies had been founded after 1970.
During this brief Bolivarian turn, many Swedish intellectuals feared that their country would become an Orwellian nightmare. The Social Democrats toyed with an incredibly unpopular plan to socialize private businesses, and Parliament implemented a general rule saying that any economic transaction that had the intention of lowering one's taxes was illegal even if the transaction itself was legal. IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad and many other entrepreneurs, plus all of our famous sports stars, fled the country.
But in the early 1990s Sweden began to abandon its brief detour into Bernienomics. It deregulated, privatized, reduced taxes, and opened the public sector to private providers. The two decades that followed saw real wages increase by almost 70 percent.
Unlike Sanders, Scandinavian socialists have concluded that you can have a big government or you can make the rich pay for it all, but you can't do both.
Nixon Advisor Admitted War on Drugs Invented to Crush Anti-War and Black Movements:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others,” he famously said. He also claimed “[r]eefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” With regard to war, Anslinger insisted marijuana “leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing.” Though Anslinger was found to be dishonest — his department was caught fabricating figures in an attempt to prove prohibition stopped drug use and to prove marijuana was unhealthy — his basic prejudiced notions persisted for decades.
If You Vote, Do You Have a Right to Complain?:
I do not vote. This is not due to laziness or apathy. I do not vote as a matter of principle. I have given the question careful consideration and concluded that it is morally wrong to vote. I have long believed that I arrived at this conclusion solely on the basis of valid reasoning from sound ethical principles. However, I recently encountered something that made me wonder whether my opposition to voting may actually derive from something more primitive.
Voting is a selection process. It is perfectly appropriate to argue at length whether a system that assigns decision-making authority to whoever gets the most people on his her side is the best method of allocating coercive power. And if, like me, you believe that this is not a good selection process, you are free not to vote. But if you voluntarily agree to participate in the process by voting, then you are bound to shut up and live with the result. If you agree to participate in a process that gives whoever gets the most votes the power to decide what the government should do (within the law), then stop whining if he or she does not use that power the way that you prefer. If you vote, you don't get to say, "I don't like the teams. I'm not playing."
quarta-feira, abril 13, 2016
It never ceases to amaze me how people who personally advocate that I be forcibly subjugated and extorted to serve their agenda and priorities can then be shocked and offended when I criticize them for condoning violence against me. No, we can't "agree to disagree," and no, we can't get along "civilly," because YOU want armed agents of your "government" god to commit aggression against me. If you don't like me pointing out the immorality and hypocrisy of your authoritarian bullshit, that's your problem. Stop cheering for evil, and I will stop criticizing you for it.
Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism:
Societies are made up of the people who reside within them. If you replace the people of one society with the people of another society, then the society will come to resemble that of the place the new people just fled. Democratically elected governments, though they may seem largely unresponsive to what you want individually, do respond to that which can get them elected. If the people now electing your government, are the same people who elected the government of Mexico, or Venezuela, or some other terrible place, then in rather short order, your government will resemble that government. This almost seems too obvious to have to state.
"Se todos pagassem os seus impostos" ou "A história da Carochinha":
Se todos pagassem os seus impostos há uma certeza que tenho: no ano seguinte havia défice outra vez.