Are Electric Cars Really Green?
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."