segunda-feira, agosto 28, 2017

SJW / Esquerda socialista

Wage Gap

Reblog: Research find that as a group, only men pay tax:
Legions of feminists will ferociously type smash the patriarchy! at their Internet rallies, calling out for the end of the male supremacy in all spheres of life. Yet, few of them acknowledge the fact that one of these spheres, the government (the institution granting them rights), is entirely funded by male taxpayers. Economically, women cost more to the state than they benefit. The government is literally paying women to be alive. As such, strong independent women are only that way because the state is transferring money from men to them. Feminists are not seriously against being dependent on men, they are just against men having the full control over their money.
Componha-se esta informação com o facto do welfare state ter crescido desmedidamente desde que os políticos passaram a ter de captar o voto das mulheres...

Government Can’t Fix Anything

Let the Market Handle It

What We Mean by "Let the Market Handle It" por Don Boudreaux:
Put differently, to say “let the market handle it” is just a shorthand way of saying “Let whoever is most willing, most able, most experienced, most knowledgeable, and best equipped be free to try his or her hand at dealing with each specific problem.” And to say “let the market always handle it” is not – contrary to what Rodrik’s argument suggests – to propose a single, simple fix for all problems; it is to propose that the field be left open for as many fixes as are feasible to be tried. To say “let the market always handle it” is to warn that using government as a fix crowds out – prevents – experimentation with many other possible fixes.

In short, the choice is not between only two alternative possible fixes: the market or the government. Instead, the choice is between a gigantically large and varied set of possible fixes (the market, with its many detailed specialized carpenters and master builders) or a tiny set featuring one possible fix (the government, with its hammering, sawing, and clamping officials, none of whom – unlike the case with market participants – can be reasonably presumed to know enough of the finer details of any of the problems that they are called upon to ‘fix’).

The truly reasonable person – the one who understands the benefits of having access to as many ‘solutions’ to problems as possible – supports the market because he or she knows that to turn to government solutions is to drastically reduce the number of ‘solutions’ that will be tried.

O Papa anticapitalista

Taking Away the Right to Work

The Minimum Wage: Taking Away the Right to Work:
Do you believe that a minority teenager, maybe a high school drop out, with very few job skills, has a right to work? Or do you believe that being low skilled, maybe so low-skilled that you can only command $8 or $9 an hour in the job market, means you should have this right taken away? Oddly enough, for the progressive left, those who claim to be the most compassionate in our society, have adopted the latter position. In fact, the position that was adopted by the Democratic Party platform this summer argues that anyone whose skills are so low that they can’t command $15 and hour has no right to gainful employment. They argue that any employer who attempts to hire such a person at a rate that is commensurate with his or her skills will be breaking the law and subject to severe penalties.

This is the reality of raising the minimum wage. If you are in favor of a legal hourly minimum wage of $15 you are arguing that a person loses his right to be employed if his skills are not at a level where he can generate at least an equal amount in production for an employer. (It should be noted that you are actually saying more than this since to hire someone for $15 an hour it probably costs an employer about $17 or $18 given Social Security taxes and mandated benefits like, in some cases, health insurance.)

sábado, agosto 26, 2017

Unicorn Socialism

O Papa anticapitalista

Sim, o Papa Francisco é socialista!:
O pensamento politico-económico do Papa está classificado há muito: é o socialismo. O Papa está genuinamente centrado nos pobres, mas claramente acredita nos resultados de uma solução socialista; os liberais também estão genuinamente centrados na pobreza, mas propomos uma solução um ‘tudo-nada’ diferente. É somente isto!

A legitimidade de Sua Santidade, a sua simplicidade genuína, o seu amor pelos pobres, o seu fervor espiritual, a sua proximidade ao Povo de Deus e a beleza dos seus escritos espirituais não estão em causa. Está contudo por estabelecer a relação de causalidade entre a santidade de uma pessoa e a razoabilidade das suas opções politico-económicos.

Mises on Nationalism

Socialism is murder

Daniel Hannan: A century since the Communists began their mass slaughter, some still have not learned the lessons:
There are always ideologues who say they’d be happy to break a few eggs in order to make an omelette. These ideologues need to be refuted with the observable data of the last hundred years. Setting aside the vast fact that human beings are not eggs, there has not been a single case of an omelette actually emerging. Communism leaves us with empty eggshells and empty bellies. Every time.

sábado, agosto 19, 2017

A Internet está segura com o Estado

O Papa anticapitalista

Pope Francis Has Forgotten the Church’s Own Grand Libertarian Legacy:
Let me offer my own definition of libertarianism. It is the political theory that freedom and peace serve the common good better than violence and state control, thus suggesting a normative rule: societies and individuals must be left unmolested in their associations and commercial dealings so long as they are not threatening others.

I’m almost certain that most thinkers in the liberal tradition would be happy with that definition.

Is that view strange or exotic, dangerous or radical, to the point that the rise of such thoughts really do constitute a dangerous invasion of culture?

Rights Vs. Privileges

Lincoln, facínora

The Dark Side of Abraham Lincoln:
I. Lincoln was the inventor of a new concept of “Union,” one that im­plied a strong centralized government and an “imperial presiden­cy.” a Union that now dominates virtually every important aspect of our corporate life as Americans.
II. Lincoln’s skillful use of egalitarian rhetoric has given Northern and New South historians the argument that the War Between the States was fought solely over the question of slavery rather than over a number of interrelated issues, none of which in itself could have led to Secession and War.
III. Lincoln was responsible for the War Between the States, a con­flict in which more than 600,000 Americans were killed for no good purpose.

quinta-feira, abril 06, 2017

O Papa anticapitalista

Pope Francis Warns Against ‘Invasion’ of Libertarianism

What is Anarcho-Capitalism?

What is Anarcho-Capitalism? - Chase Rachels

De mortuis nil nisi bonum redux

De mortuis nil nisi bonum:
The Latin phrases De mortuis nihil nisi bonum (“Of the dead, nothing unless good.”) and De mortuis nil nisi bene [dicendum] (“Of the dead, nothing [spoken] unless good.”) indicate that it is socially inappropriate to speak ill of the dead.
Parece-me que este bom costume social teve origens bastante cínicas - pois em sociedades onde a violência física era mais presente, e mais generosamente distribuída, não seria boa ideia irritar os lutuosos. Não obstante, ficou, e transformou-se em bom costume. E à medida que a civilização singrou, e as interacções sociais passaram a ser cada vez mais codificadas, e porventura sujeitas a maiores tensões só libertáveis por palavras, cada vez mais a contenção se tornou marca de elegância. De facto, faz sentido o pesar pela morte de alguém querido, faz sentido a indiferença perante a morte de algum desconhecido, faz sentido deixar ir os adversários com algum fair-play.

Mas estas são boas práticas sociais. Sociais. Não "sociais" como em "rede social", que em muitos casos é o oposto ao que é "naturalmente" social - as "redes sociais" promovem um suposto contacto com imensa gente que mal conhecemos, o que dá origem a episódios socialmente pouco saudáveis - por exemplo pesares desequilibrados pela morte de alguma celebridade qualquer -- e a patologias crónicas -- por exemplo, indiferenças por milhares que são carnicariados em nome de ideologias políticas. São exemplos da utilização de uma ferramenta para a qual a psicologia humana não está preparada - quaisquer travões só existem por analogia com a "vida real". Mas, no fim do dia, as "rede sociais" (incluam-se os mass media), sendo "pouco naturais", e pouco sociais, não condicionam forçosamente a vida de ninguém.

O mesmo não acontece com a política moderna. O político, ou agente político, efectivamente é um agente de influência sobre um sistema político e burocrático que ordena a vida das pessoas. Já dizia Proudhon:

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

Nestas condições, é apenas saudável que a política desperte paixões. O Estado é uma instituição "pouco natural" que ordena a sociedade pela força. Os seus agentes não têm escrúpulos, em vida, em serem veículos de ideias. Sobretudo ideias sobre como mandar nas pessoas. Os mesmos agentes não têm escrúpulos em "imortalizarem" os seus pares no espaço público, para memória futura das suas ideias; e quando a memória dessas ideias se torna inconveniente para o regime, não têm escrúpulo em removerem essas manifestações do mesmo espaço público, para que as ditas ideias possam cair no esquecimento.

O Estado não é civilização. Não pertence ao universo das instituições sociais. As regras sociais não se aplicam ao Estado. Nem aos seus agentes. Que se queira estender cortesias sociais ao político, é legítimo. Incluindo de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Como é legítimo não o fazer. Não é um privilégio do político ficar lavado da sua carreira, ao serviço do monopólio da violência, uma vez que tenha deixado de ser. Nem é um direito ou expectativa razoável de quem o apoiou, politicamente e socialmente, estar protegido de desagrados meramente verbais. As pessoas vão-se, as ideias para as quais contribuiram não. Compreende-se que seja desagradável, mas mais desagradável - violento - foi o poder que o político exerceu. E comparativamente e contra esse poder abusivo, quando um seu agente se vai, meras palavras desagradáveis podem não passar de um epitáfio caridoso.

Outra questão são a qualidade das ideias. Alguns políticos defendem que o Estado mantenha ou aumente o seu poder sobre as pessoas. Outros, o oposto. A justeza das ideas não é medida pela "falta de nível" de quem se regozija pelo falecimento de um adversário político. Sim é baixo fazer ainda mais baixa a baixa política com a morte de alguém, mas os fundamentais não mudaram quando uma pessoa desaparece e as ideias ficam. E as ideias combatem-se. E não com ataques - ou defesas - ad hominem. Sobretudo, também não é com falsas modéstias, e acusações que os outros são sobranceiros. Existem ideias moralmente superiores, e são as ideias da Liberdade. As demais, que se arrogam "socialmente sensíveis", não passam de doutrinas que condenam a sociedade a viver sob os diktats de um sistema disfuncional imoral desgovernado por políticos e burocratas.

É verdade que nos extremos socialistas vingam os comportamentos bárbaros, mas nos meios-caminhos há muita gente que muito dignamente todos os dias contribui para uma sociedade menos livre. Muita gente muito educada que em fóruns políticos defende as ideias moderadas, moderadamente grotescas. Porque à medida que aperta o garrote socialista, o que é moderado é cada vez mais iliberal. Em substância e em tendência. A política é cada vez mais a gestão e o exercício do que socialmente seria inadmissível.

O unanimismo beneficia sobretudo esse status quo. Estatista. O unanimismo confere a todos uma aura de respeitabilidade que não tinham nem passaram a ser. É importante que as paixões sejam libertadas, nem que sejam negativas, nem que sejam reservadas só a quem afronta o sistema socialista, para que o respeitinho pelo estatismo não passe a ser a norma.

Dividir e Parasitar - modus operandi da esquerda

Não só em temas de "raça" mas também em temas sócio-económicos, religiosos, filosóficos, de princípios, etc,

Dead Wrong™ with Johan Norberg - Identity Politics on the Left and Right

How We Will Win

How We Will Win:
Back in 1992, in the last years of Murray Rothbard’s life, the brilliant founder and leading theoretician of the modern libertarian movement gave a speech before the first meeting of the John Randolph Club, a convergence of libertarians and paleoconservatives. Entitled “A Strategy for the Right,” it outlined the means by which a united paleo-libertarian movement could take back the country. I won’t try to summarize what he said in that seminal talk here, except to say it was vintage Rothbard, and that it ended on a characteristically optimistic note in which he seemed to foresee the possibilities that are opening up before us today:
“When I was growing up, I found that the main argument against laissez-faire, and for socialism, was that socialism and communism were inevitable: ‘You can’t turn back the clock!’ they chanted, ‘you can’t turn back the clock.’ But the clock of the once-mighty Soviet Union, the clock of Marxism-Leninism, a creed that once mastered half the world, is not only turned back but lies dead and broken forever. But we must not rest content with this victory. For though Marxism-Bolshevism is gone forever, there still remains, plaguing us everywhere, its evil cousin … well, let’s just call it ‘Menshevism,’ or ‘social democracy.’

“Social democracy is still here in all its variants, defining our entire respectable political spectrum, from advanced victimology and feminism on the Left over to neoconservatism on the Right. We are now trapped, in America, inside a Menshevik fantasy, with the narrow bounds of respectable debate set for us by various brands of Marxists. It is now our task, the task of the resurgent right, of the paleo movement, to break those bonds, to finish the job, to finish off Marxism forever.”

terça-feira, março 21, 2017

Free Speech & Postmodernism

Jordan Peterson on Milo, Free Speech & Postmodernism

the Left Fears Libertarianism

Why the Left Fears Libertarianism :
.. libertarianism, however weak its influence today, is a much greater long-term threat to the left than is any form of conservatism, and the leftist intellectuals sense this even if they can’t articulate why. Leftism, whether they know it or not, is a distorted permutation of the classical liberal tradition. The statist left did their deal with the devil—the nation-state, centralized authority of the most rapacious kind—supposedly with the goal of expediting the liberation of the common man and leveling the playing field. More than a century since the progressives and socialists twisted liberalism into an anti-liberty, pro-state ideology, they see that they have made a huge mess of the world, that, as they themselves complain, social inequality persists, corporatism flourishes, and wars rage on. As the chief political architects of the 20th century in the West, they have no one to blame but themselves, and so they target us—the true liberals, the ones who never let go of authentic liberal idealism, love of the individual dignity and rights of every man, woman and child, regardless of nationality or class, and hatred of state violence and coercive authoritarianism in all its forms.


My Beef with School (+ Ideological Investment)

The Oldest Rhetorical Trick in the Book

The Oldest Rhetorical Trick in the Book:
It’s an old, old argument indeed – and one, despite its evident fallaciousness, still widely wielded and fallen for. If you are against trade restrictions, you are against workers and high wages. If you are against minimum wages, you are against the poor. If you are against paid family leave, then you are against families. If you are against Obamacare, then you are against affordable health care. If you are against government-set safety standards, then you are for letting people be poisoned and slaughtered indiscriminately. If you are against easy money, then you are for recessions. If you are against government-provided schooling, then you are against the education of the masses. If you are against American militarism, then you are against world peace and for evil dictators. If you are against the ‘war on drugs,’ then you are for widespread dissoluteness and dissipation. If you are against licensing requirements for hair-braiders, then you are for people having to suffer bad hairdos. The list can be extended indefinitely.

And it works, of course, with equal fallaciousness in the other direction. If you are for same-sex marriage, then you are against traditional families. If you are for legalizing prostitution, then you are against morality. If you are for cutting taxes, then you are against equality. If you are for Citizens United, then you are against democracy. This list, too, can be extended indefinitely.

Cult of Indiscriminateness

Cult of Indiscriminateness - SJW's Explained

Intellectual Property is Theft

Intellectual Property is Theft:
Property and monopoly (including IP) are not only distinct; they are antithetical to each other. To the extent that a proprietor has the exclusive right to use his particular means any way he chooses, a would-be monopolist cannot claim ownership of such “ways” and therefore cannot have the power to veto such uses. And to the extent a monopolist has “ownership” over ways of using any means whatsoever, a would-be proprietor can never truly own a particular means. The proprietor must ever be at odds with the monopolist.

domingo, março 19, 2017

There Is No Gender Wage Gap

There Is No Gender Wage Gap

O Papa anticapitalista

El Papa Francisco, en 'El País': "El liberalismo económico mata":
Es entonces cuando pasa al ataque contra el liberalismo económico: "El problema es que Latinoamérica está sufriendo los efectos -que marqué mucho en la Laudato Si'- de un sistema económico en cuyo centro está el dios dinero, y entonces se cae en las políticas de exclusión muy grande. Y se sufre mucho. Y, evidentemente, hoy día Latinoamérica está sufriendo un fuerte embate de liberalismo económico, de ese que yo condeno en Evangelii Gaudium cuando digo que "esta economía mata". Mata de hambre, mata de falta de cultura". Y termina diciendo que "los sistemas liberales no dan posibilidades de trabajo y favorecen delincuencias". El papa Francisco pide para solucionar lo que según él es un problema, "rearmarse con formaciones de políticos que realmente den a Latinoamérica la fuerza de los pueblos".

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance | Space News

Global Warming and Our Electric Sun | Space News

Trans Pacific Partnership Is about Control, Not Free Trade

Trans Pacific Partnership Is about Control, Not Free Trade:
A real free trade policy would amount to a couple of sentences, not thousands of pages: one nation announcing that all imports and exports to and from that nation are to be exempt from duties, controls, quotas, tariffs. That is free trade.

Bastiat: The Unseen Radical

Bastiat: The Unseen Radical

A Free Trade Deal

No, President Trump Didn't Get Rid Of "A Free Trade Deal"
The real meaning of free trade is no government interference, involvement, regulation, or meddling. That's why the word "free" is there. "Free" of the government.

Market Cooperation

How We Talk About Economics and Why It Matters | Paul Rubin

Identity Politics Will Not Lead to Freedom

Identity Politics Will Not Lead to Freedom::
Because of the inherent complexity of politics, encouraging identity-based advocacy to create and institute change is likely to exacerbate the ignorance and draw stronger lines between identity groups, thereby increasing the tendency to treat identity as a surrogate for political knowledge. This encourages suspicion of those who appear different instead of seeking information and education.

Sadly, relying on identity politics encourages stereotypes, thwarts the work of freedom, and assigns motives to many without direct evidence. As this occurs, many may eventually conclude: why bother with evidence when we have decided that identity politics is an acceptable surrogate for actual information? And when it is clear that the value of an idea is no longer relevant, and evidence and arguments are substituted with identities, expect unseemly movements to form in response.

domingo, janeiro 15, 2017

Society and the Entrepreneur

Ayn Rand Lecture with Julie Meyer MBE - Why Society Works Best When It’s Organised Around the Entrepreneur

Taxation is Wrong

What's Wrong with Taxation?:
The first step is to acknowledge, unapologetically, that the institution of taxation is not a civilized but a barbaric method to fund anything, because it amounts to nothing less than outright extortion, a gross violation of human liberty.

Democracia e rent-seeking

Destruindo a Democracia em 2 minutos, por Patri Friedman

The Church Of Climate Scientology

The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion por Alex Epstein:
1. They use manipulative language
2. They won’t admit when their theory fails
3. They intimidate, rather than explain

The Paris Climate Agreement and the Climate

The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate

Health Care Not a Right

ealth Care Is a Commodity, Not a Right:
... medical care is a commodity, and treating it otherwise is foolhardy. To make a commodity cheaper and better, two elements are necessary: profit incentive and freedom of labor. The government destroys both of these elements in the health-care industry.

domingo, janeiro 08, 2017

The Minimum Wage: Destroying Jobs and Increasing Poverty

The Minimum Wage: Destroying Jobs and Increasing Poverty

Scare Normal People

5 Things Libertarians Say That Scare Normal People:
1) Advocate for open borders
2. Explain how children fare in a Libertarian society
3. Try to explain how people have no obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves
4. Suggest that we abolish the Department of Education
5. Tell folks that legalizing drugs will be good for America

Executive Power corrupts absolutely

So NOW You're Worried About Executive Power? | We the Internet TV

Open Borders Are Communist

Open Borders Are Not Libertarian. They’re Communist:
Libertarians will argue that if we just get rid of the welfare state, then open borders will work. But this will not make the tragedy of the commons disappear, and people coming here will still be able to vote.
If libertarians aren’t going to argue that education is a human right that should be protected by the state in the absence of the complete privatization of everything, then they shouldn’t argue that free movement is a human right that should be protected by the state either. This isn’t to delegitimize the concerns that libertarians have with closed borders, but to instead show the many problems that exist with open borders. Hopefully libertarians open minded enough on the issue will begin to reconsider their position on immigration, and understand that open borders are not libertarian. Open borders are communist.

Taxation is Theft

Taxation is Theft

A Realistic Libertarianism

A Realistic Libertarianism por Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
There is only one important caveat, however. While the Right may accept all human inequalities, whether of starting-points or of outcomes, as natural, the libertarian would insist that only those inequalities are natural and should not be interfered with that have come into existence by following the ground-rules of peaceful human interaction mentioned at the beginning. Inequalities that are the result of violations of these rules, however, do require corrective action and should be eliminated. And moreover, the libertarian would insist that, as a matter of empirical fact, there exist quite a few among the innumerable observable human inequalities that are the result of such rule-violations, such as rich men who owe their fortune not to hard work, foresight, entrepreneurial talent or else a voluntary gift or inheritance, but to robbery, fraud or state-granted monopolistic privilege. The corrective action required in such cases, however, is not motivated by egalitarianism but by a desire for restitution: he (and only he), who can show that he has been robbed, defrauded or legally disadvantaged should be made whole again by those (and only those) who have committed these crimes against him and his property, including also cases where restitution would result in an even greater inequality (as when a poor man had defrauded and owed restitution to a rich one).
The egalitarian world-view of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist world-view have become the dominant ideology of our age?

At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite. The ruling elite therefore enlisted the help of the “intelligentsia” (or the “chattering class”). It was put on the payroll or otherwise subsidized and in return it delivered the desired egalitarian message (which it knows to be wrong yet which is enormously beneficial to its own employment prospects). And so the most enthusiastic proponents of the egalitarian nonsense can be found among the intellectual class.[2]
Typically, in order to maintain their intellectual status as libertarians, the left-libertarians do so quietly, surreptitiously or even unknowingly, but in effect, in giving up this fundamental requirement of justice, they replace private property and property rights and rights violations with the muddled notion of ‘civil rights’ and ‘civil rights violations’ and individual rights with ‘group rights’ and thus become closet-socialists.

You cannot be a consistent left-libertarian, because the left-libertarian doctrine, even if unintended, promotes Statist, i.e., un-libertarian, ends.