segunda-feira, agosto 28, 2017
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.