A Arte da Fuga

Sexta-feira, Janeiro 20, 2012

O legado de Obama às próximas gerações

Soak the poor

Soak the poorThe class-war doctrine is most vicious not in that it sets man against man, producer against producer, but in that it diverts the attention of the contestants from their common enemy, the State. Men live by production, but the State lives by appropriation. While the haves and the have-nots struggle over the division of existing wealth, it is the business of the State to improve itself at the expense of both; it picks up the marbles while the boys are fighting.The poor, simply because there are more of them, have more ability to pay than the rich. The national pay envelope contains more money than the combined treasuries of all the corporations of the country. The government could not for long overlook this rich mine. Political considerations however, made the tapping of the pay envelope difficult. The wage earners have votes, many votes, and in order not to alienate these votes, it was necessary to devise some means for making the taxation of their incomes palatable. They had to be lulled into acceptance of "soak the poor."

The drug that was concocted for this purpose was "social security."The swindle is further compounded by the promise of something-for-nothing. The worker is told that his employer, the "exploiter," pays part of the premium, and is in effect compelled to make a contribution to old-age benefits. The fact is, as every schoolboy should know, that the employer must include in his expenses what he is compelled to "contribute." This expense shows up in the price of his goods, and the wage earner, as consumer, actually pays it. There is a similarity in this scheme with the shell game at the county fair.The government will meet its obligations by handing out brand-new printed dollars, with declining purchasing power, and the old folks will have to depend on what support they can beg from their tax-ridden children.

Ron Paul Highlights - South Carolina

Ron Paul Highlights - South Carolina CNN Debate 01/19/12

The European Crack-Up

The European Crack-Up:

A Belgian journalist who interviewed me recently about the European debt crisis asked me whether I believed in the European Project. I replied that I would answer her question—if she would tell me what the European Project actually was. By revealing my doubts, I proved to her that I suffered from the strange kind of mental debility known as Euroskepticism, a condition supposedly compounded of low intelligence and aggressive xenophobia. The low intelligence manifests itself in the patient’s view of European institutions as a gravy train for a transnational nomenklatura, rather than as the beginning of a new, generous, and free-spirited type of postnational identity. The xenophobia manifests itself as a secret desire for conflict and war, the European Union and its predecessors supposedly having been responsible for the avoidance of war on the Continent over the last 65 years.

The journalist then asked whether I thought that nationalism was dangerous. The question implied that the choice before Europe was between the European Union and fascism: that all that stood between us and the ascension to power of new Mussolinis, Francos, and Hitlers were the free lunches of senior Eurocrats. I replied that dangerous forms of nationalism existed, of course, but that in the present circumstances, supranationalism represented by far the greater danger. Not only was such supranationalism undemocratic, for it reflected no widespread demand or sentiment among the population; it also risked provoking the very kind of nationalism against which it was to stand as the bulwark. Further, the breakup of supranational polities in Europe tends to be messy, as history demonstrates.

I was not entirely fair, however, in implying that no one could say what the European Project was. José Manuel Barroso, a fiery Portuguese Maoist student leader who became the preternaturally dull president of the European Commission—perhaps not as great a change as one might suppose, many a revolutionary being a frustrated bureaucrat—once let the cat out of the bag. Asked the same question that the journalist asked me, Barroso responded, “Sometimes I like to compare the European Union as a creation to the organization of empires.” ..

In short, the incontinent spending of many European governments, which awarded whole populations unearned benefits at the expense of generations to come, has—along with a megalomaniacal currency union—produced a crisis not merely economic but social, political, and even civilizational. The European Union that was supposed to put an end to war on the continent has resuscitated antagonisms that might end in bellicosity, if not in outright war. And the European Project stands revealed as what any sensible person could have seen it always was: something akin to the construction of a massive, post-Tito Yugoslavia.

The European Crack-UpA Belgian journalist who interviewed me recently about the European debt crisis asked me whether I believed in the European Project. I replied that I would answer her question—if she would tell me what the European Project actually was. By revealing my doubts, I proved to her that I suffered from the strange kind of mental debility known as Euroskepticism, a condition supposedly compounded of low intelligence and aggressive xenophobia. The low intelligence manifests itself in the patient’s view of European institutions as a gravy train for a transnational nomenklatura, rather than as the beginning of a new, generous, and free-spirited type of postnational identity. The xenophobia manifests itself as a secret desire for conflict and war, the European Union and its predecessors supposedly having been responsible for the avoidance of war on the Continent over the last 65 years.

The journalist then asked whether I thought that nationalism was dangerous. The question implied that the choice before Europe was between the European Union and fascism: that all that stood between us and the ascension to power of new Mussolinis, Francos, and Hitlers were the free lunches of senior Eurocrats. I replied that dangerous forms of nationalism existed, of course, but that in the present circumstances, supranationalism represented by far the greater danger. Not only was such supranationalism undemocratic, for it reflected no widespread demand or sentiment among the population; it also risked provoking the very kind of nationalism against which it was to stand as the bulwark. Further, the breakup of supranational polities in Europe tends to be messy, as history demonstrates.

I was not entirely fair, however, in implying that no one could say what the European Project was. José Manuel Barroso, a fiery Portuguese Maoist student leader who became the preternaturally dull president of the European Commission—perhaps not as great a change as one might suppose, many a revolutionary being a frustrated bureaucrat—once let the cat out of the bag. Asked the same question that the journalist asked me, Barroso responded, “Sometimes I like to compare the European Union as a creation to the organization of empires.” ..In short, the incontinent spending of many European governments, which awarded whole populations unearned benefits at the expense of generations to come, has—along with a megalomaniacal currency union—produced a crisis not merely economic but social, political, and even civilizational. The European Union that was supposed to put an end to war on the continent has resuscitated antagonisms that might end in bellicosity, if not in outright war. And the European Project stands revealed as what any sensible person could have seen it always was: something akin to the construction of a massive, post-Tito Yugoslavia.

Música Liberal do Dia

Sam The Kid - À Procura da Perfeita RepetiçãoE quanto às leis (e quanto às leis?), não tão bem explicadas, e eu não vejo o sentido, pra mim tão erradas/
São papéis, mai nada, não dão liberdade, a esta arte que pra eles 'inda é novidade/
Tou no meu quarto, eu sou um artista ausente de SPA's, a minha alma é alquimista, eu penso em RCA's/
Eu penso em rimas estruturadas, penso em 12 polegadas, eu não penso qu'ideias possam vir a ser multadas/
ou julgadas por alguém com poder, eles dizem 'tem cuidado a escolher', mas a censura censule/

welfare state, imperialismo e submissão

National Health Insurance and the Welfare StateThe modern welfare state and the implementation of socialized health care arose in 19th-century Germany, during the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the administration of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. In the 1870s, the Social Democratic Party had acquired increasing support among the German electorate and threatened to obtain a majority in the Reichstag, the German Parliament. The democratic triumph of Germany's socialist party seemed likely in the near future. The German monarchy and the conservative parties realized that something had to be done to deflect support away from the socialists and back to the established order.

Thus, the Kaiser sponsored welfare-statist legislation that was enacted by the Reichstag. Bismarck had this tactical goal in mind: the masses would shift their support from the radical program of the socialist movement to a renewed allegiance for the monarchy and the political status quo.In the 1890s, Bismarck explained his rationale to American historian and Bismarckian sympathizer William H. Dawson: "My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare .." Otto von Bismarck, conqueror of Germany and creator of the central gov't aka Second ReichCould you imagine how much better the 20th century would have been if Hitler had only been the ruler of a the small German state of Lower Saxony?

Megaupload

El FBI cierra Megaupload, una de las mayores webs de intercambio de archivosEl Departamento de Estado de EEUU, junto al FBI y otras autoridades internacionales, ha liderado una operación contra la popular página web de intercambio de archivos Megaupload, que ha sido clausurada, y contra varios de sus responsables, que han resultado detenidos y acusados en el estado de Virginia (EEUU) de conspiración para cometer un crimen y violación de la propiedad intelectual.Hackers attack FBI, Justice Department websites after Megaupload shutdownMinutes after the U.S. Department of Justice shut down notorious file-sharing site Megaupload.com, the department’s own website was brought down in a cyber attack orchestrated by the hacker group Anonymous.

“The government takes down Megaupload? 15 minutes later Anonymous takes down government & record label sites,” a member of Anonymous said via Twitter.

The group also disabled the sites of Universal Music, the RIAA, the U.S. Copyright Office, Broadcast Music Inc., the FBI and the Motion Picture Association of America in what it called its “largest attack ever.”
Internet strikes back: Anonymous Operation Megaupload explained
Various Artists - The Mega Song (Megaupload)

O "caminho do meio" entre Liberdade e socialismo

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.

Ayn Rand

Capitalism, Socialism, and the “Middle Way”: A Taxonomy (PDF):

Abstract- Political scientists have coined a variety of ideologically slanted terms to designate the “middle way” between the market and the command economy, including neofascism, the affirmative democratic state, and corporate liberalism. A more straightforward approach to classifying a political-economic system is by the way it treats property ownership (public vs. private) and control (public vs. private).

A fourfold political-economic classification system emerges from the dimensions of property ownership (private versus public) and control (private versus public). Capitalism is the system in which ownership and control are largely private, socialism the system in which they are largely public. The system that emerged in most Western states beginning in the late nineteenth century was one in which the ownership of the means of production was nominally private, but their control was increasingly in the hands of public officials. Feudalism, when added to this three-way taxonomy, appears as a fourth arrangement, in which the means of production are nominally public, but the actual use of productive property is largely private.

The most neutral description for the system of nominally private ownership and public control is “the third way” between capitalism and socialism. Many authors, however, have proffered far more descriptive names based on their ideological beliefs about the nature and workings of “third-way” systems. Those who believe in laissezfaire capitalism tend to coin terms stressing the negative effects resulting from the public control of productive property, for example, the hampered market and neofascism. Those who reject capitalism occasionally employ terms that connote the benefits of regulation, such as the positive state and the affirmative democratic state. Yet others, believing that third-way systems are typically captured by commercial interests who exploit them for their own gain, coin terms that emphasize a negative reading of that situation, such as corporate statism and corporate liberalism.

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.Ayn RandCapitalism, Socialism, and the “Middle Way”: A TaxonomyAbstract- Political scientists have coined a variety of ideologically slanted terms to designate the “middle way” between the market and the command economy, including neofascism, the affirmative democratic state, and corporate liberalism. A more straightforward approach to classifying a political-economic system is by the way it treats property ownership (public vs. private) and control (public vs. private).A fourfold political-economic classification system emerges from the dimensions of property ownership (private versus public) and control (private versus public). Capitalism is the system in which ownership and control are largely private, socialism the system in which they are largely public. The system that emerged in most Western states beginning in the late nineteenth century was one in which the ownership of the means of production was nominally private, but their control was increasingly in the hands of public officials. Feudalism, when added to this three-way taxonomy, appears as a fourth arrangement, in which the means of production are nominally public, but the actual use of productive property is largely private.

The most neutral description for the system of nominally private ownership and public control is “the third way” between capitalism and socialism. Many authors, however, have proffered far more descriptive names based on their ideological beliefs about the nature and workings of “third-way” systems. Those who believe in laissezfaire capitalism tend to coin terms stressing the negative effects resulting from the public control of productive property, for example, the hampered market and neofascism. Those who reject capitalism occasionally employ terms that connote the benefits of regulation, such as the positive state and the affirmative democratic state. Yet others, believing that third-way systems are typically captured by commercial interests who exploit them for their own gain, coin terms that emphasize a negative reading of that situation, such as corporate statism and corporate liberalism.

Quinta-feira, Janeiro 19, 2012

Government is silly. and evil.

Can the Government Make Entrepreneurs Do Useless Things For No Reason?

How Copyright Industries Con Congress

How Copyright Industries Con Congress por Julián Sánchez:

In my previous life as the Washington editor for the technology news site Ars Technica, I became curious about two implausible sounding claims I kept seeing made over and over—and repeated by prominent U.S. Senators!—in support of more aggressive antipiracy efforts. Intellectual property infringement was supposedly costing the U.S. economy $200–250 billion per year, and had killed 750,000 American jobs. That certainly sounded dire, but those numbers looked suspiciously high ..

As one expert consulted by GAO put it, “effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.” In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses nothing. In the other 20 percent of cases, the result is a loss to the content industry, but not a let loss to the economy, since the money just ends up being spent elsewhere. If you’re concerned about the overall jobs picture, as opposed to the fortunes of a specific industry, there is no good reason to think eliminating piracy by U.S. users would yield any jobs on net, though it might help boost employment in copyright-intensive sectors. (Oh, and that business about 19 million jobs? Also bogus.)

Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify. That is, in the cases where a consumer would have been willing to buy an illicitly downloaded movie, album, or software program, we want the market to be accurately signalling demand for the products people value, rather than whatever less-valued use that money gets spent on instead. This is, in fact, very important! It’s a good reason to look for appropriately tailored ways to reduce piracy, so that the market devotes resources to production of new creativity and innovation valued by consumers, rather than to other, less efficient purposes. Indeed, it’s a good reason to look for ways of doing this that, unlike SOPA, might actually work.

BÓNUS: SOPA, Internet regulation, and the economics of piracy

How Copyright Industries Con CongressIn my previous life as the Washington editor for the technology news site Ars Technica, I became curious about two implausible sounding claims I kept seeing made over and over—and repeated by prominent U.S. Senators!—in support of more aggressive antipiracy efforts. Intellectual property infringement was supposedly costing the U.S. economy $200–250 billion per year, and had killed 750,000 American jobs. That certainly sounded dire, but those numbers looked suspiciously high ..As one expert consulted by GAO put it, “effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.” In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses nothing. In the other 20 percent of cases, the result is a loss to the content industry, but not a let loss to the economy, since the money just ends up being spent elsewhere. If you’re concerned about the overall jobs picture, as opposed to the fortunes of a specific industry, there is no good reason to think eliminating piracy by U.S. users would yield any jobs on net, though it might help boost employment in copyright-intensive sectors. (Oh, and that business about 19 million jobs? Also bogus.)

Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify. That is, in the cases where a consumer would have been willing to buy an illicitly downloaded movie, album, or software program, we want the market to be accurately signalling demand for the products people value, rather than whatever less-valued use that money gets spent on instead. This is, in fact, very important! It’s a good reason to look for appropriately tailored ways to reduce piracy, so that the market devotes resources to production of new creativity and innovation valued by consumers, rather than to other, less efficient purposes. Indeed, it’s a good reason to look for ways of doing this that, unlike SOPA, might actually work.SOPA, Internet regulation, and the economics of piracy

Regulatory Capture

SMBC (clicar para ver o cartoon)

¿Las Malvinas o las Falklands?

¿Las Malvinas o las Falklands?No está claro que la historia vaya a cerrar el debate. En cualquier caso tiene poco de liberal remontarse a reivindicaciones estatales de hace más de dos siglos para determinar la soberanía de un pueblo actual, como si fueran los Estados y no los individuos los que tuvieran derechos .. Lo que cuenta es la opinión de las personas que hoy habitan las islas, muchas de las cuales son descendientes de los primeros colonos ..

Ludwig von Mises, en el apartado “El derecho a la autodeterminación” de su libro Liberalism, habla del “derecho de auto-determinación de los habitantes de cualquier territorio lo suficientemente grande como para formar una unidad administrativa independiente”. Según Mises, debe respetarse la voluntad de los habitantes de un pueblo, un distrito entero o una serie de distritos adyacentes que expresen en un plebiscito libre su deseo de formar un Estado independiente o asociarse a otro Estado.La situación de las Falklands, por último, guarda cierto paralelismo con Gibraltar, donde el 98.97% de los llanitos quiere permanecer bajo jurisdicción británica. Como en las islas, no corresponde a España o al Reino Unido decidir sobre el futuro del peñón, sino a los gibraltareños que allí residen.

O PS e o memorando da troika

Sei o que assinaste em maio passado - O memo da troika e as declarações do PS

Comment Moderation

Fostering Strong Comment Threads, and the Effort Rule of Comment Moderation:

.. I see Internet comment threads as a new and relatively important kind of online discussion, and I’m very interested in the conditions in which comment threads tend to be useful or just noise. In my view, having a really good comment thread is a terrific asset to a blog .. The interesting and new question is .. What kind of comment policies and software leads to the best, most interesting comment threads, and which don’t?

.. When the site is a popular blog with hundreds of commenters, some of the commenters will be “normal people” and some won’t. In any collection of that many people who can post at any time, there will be some stylistic quirks: There are the commenters who always bring up their pet topic, no matter the subject of the post; the commenters who see themselves as needing to wage constant battle with perceived ideological foes; the commenters who see criticism of their views as inherently objectionabe, etc ..

This diversity of audience, combined with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, means that unmoderated threads have a tendency to devolve into virtual food fights ..

These two conditions combine to produce what you might call the Effort Rule of commenting: Having consistently strong comment threads requires a significant effort moderating threads .. Second, the combination of no front-end filter and back-end moderation invariably leads to accusations of bias and claims of censorship .. The same basic reasoning applies to interpreting editorial decisions on a blog. The more passionate a commenter feels about the subject, the more likely they are to interpret editing or (in extreme cases) a ban on commenters as incredibly obvious evidence of bias against them based on their viewpoints .

Where do these points take us? First, to the conclusion that really good Internet comment threads are rare .. Second, I suspect the future of Internet comment threads is a bifurcation into two sorts of threads on high-traffic sites: open and unmoderated threads, where anyone can say anything and few people read the threads; and sites with more moderation on the front end, such as requiring registration through a Facebook account. Neither of those are ideal, for the reasons stated above, but they are more stable forms of comment threads because they don’t require the same amount of work from the editor.

Fostering Strong Comment Threads, and the Effort Rule of Comment Moderation.. I see Internet comment threads as a new and relatively important kind of online discussion, and I’m very interested in the conditions in which comment threads tend to be useful or just noise. In my view, having a really good comment thread is a terrific asset to a blog .. The interesting and new question is .. What kind of comment policies and software leads to the best, most interesting comment threads, and which don’t?.. When the site is a popular blog with hundreds of commenters, some of the commenters will be “normal people” and some won’t. In any collection of that many people who can post at any time, there will be some stylistic quirks: There are the commenters who always bring up their pet topic, no matter the subject of the post; the commenters who see themselves as needing to wage constant battle with perceived ideological foes; the commenters who see criticism of their views as inherently objectionabe, etc ..

This diversity of audience, combined with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, means that unmoderated threads have a tendency to devolve into virtual food fights ..These two conditions combine to produce what you might call the Effort Rule of commenting: Having consistently strong comment threads requires a significant effort moderating threads .. Second, the combination of no front-end filter and back-end moderation invariably leads to accusations of bias and claims of censorship .. The same basic reasoning applies to interpreting editorial decisions on a blog. The more passionate a commenter feels about the subject, the more likely they are to interpret editing or (in extreme cases) a ban on commenters as incredibly obvious evidence of bias against them based on their viewpoints .Where do these points take us? First, to the conclusion that really good Internet comment threads are rare .. Second, I suspect the future of Internet comment threads is a bifurcation into two sorts of threads on high-traffic sites: open and unmoderated threads, where anyone can say anything and few people read the threads; and sites with more moderation on the front end, such as requiring registration through a Facebook account. Neither of those are ideal, for the reasons stated above, but they are more stable forms of comment threads because they don’t require the same amount of work from the editor.

Big Government Failures

The New Deal Was A Failure: Hoover and FDR Prolonged the Great Depression with Big Government

Politicians are to blame for crony capitalism

Politicians are to blame if we have crony capitalistsFor many firms, profits are more dependent on political favours than serving individual customers. Energy companies rely on rigged electricity markets for their reveunues from renewables; rail firms require operating subsidies; the defence industry needs government contracts, and so on. The banking sector is, of course, one of the most telling examples. Without the bailouts, many of the banks now being heavily criticised on pay would not exist.

This level of state involvement brings immense political risks to business. A new regulation, tax hike or subsidy cut can destroy profits or ruin investment plans. George Osborne’s raid on North Sea oil revenues is one recent example; the subsidy cut for the solar-power industry is another.

The incentives for business leaders to develop close relationships with politicians and regulators are therefore very strong. The returns from lobbying are often far higher than the returns from conventional business activity. Indeed, large corporate interests often successfully capture the policy process and use it to shut out competition or obtain favourable treatment. The losers are generally dispersed groups such as consumers and taxpayers, who are powerless to resist.

The answer is not, as politicians propose, to add more layers of regulation to control corporate behaviour. This will strengthen incentives for business leaders to get closer to government – an entirely counterproductive result.

Crony capitalism is inevitable given an intrusive regulatory state. It can only be stopped by removing the payoffs from special-interest lobbying – by a substantial reduction in political influence over business activity.

Exploring Liberty

Exploring Liberty: The History of Liberty, Pt. 1 (Tom G. Palmer)

Misunderstanding Ron Paul

The New Yorker Misunderstands Ron Paul (Again)In the New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann frets over Ron Paul’s “hostility to government” .. I was especially struck by this comment ..

As for the financial crisis, Paul would have countenanced no regulation that might have prevented it, no government stabilization of the financial system after it happened, and no special help for working people hurt by it. This is where the logic of government-shrinking leads.

.. Here’s how the paragraph should have read:

As for the financial crisis, Paul would have countenanced none of the regulation that helped to cause it, no government creation of cheap money that created the unsustainable boom, and no special help for Wall Street banks when the bubble collapsed. He would have seen that that was where the logic of government-expanding leads.

the Rape of your Conscience

Statism, Cages and the Murder of Conscience

protestos online

I hope SOPA passes:

We're a country where people think that...
Boycotting gas for a day makes a difference. It doesn't. Delaying when you buy gas by a day only broadcasts your intentions to oil speculators so they can profit. And the oil still gets purchased a day before or after anyway.
Painstakingly recycling every single shred of garbage in your home makes a difference. It doesn't. Even if you, your neighbors, and everyone you've ever met recycled everything and reduced your waste output to zero, it wouldn't even make an observable impact on overall waste production in the world.
Changing your profile picture on Facebook will get people to: A) stop abusing kids B) stop molesting kids C) stop killing kids and D) do anything.
Signing an online petition, or changing the front page of your website to protest SOPA will fix anything.

.. My problem with this huge online protest against SOPA, and the reason I rarely take part in such protests, is because it doesn't address any problems, only the symptom. The problem isn't this shitty bill, it's the people who sponsored it ... Those same dipshits who wrote this legislation still have jobs. They're going to try again, and again, and again until some mutation of this legislation passes .. It's like trying to stop a cold by blowing your nose. It's time we go after the virus.

There have been many bills attempted (and some passed) like SOPA before it. There's the DMCA act of 1998, PRO-IP Act of 2008, 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and now the PROTECT IP Act of 2012. Think this victory means anything? A new bill gets introduced every year or two like clockwork. Check back in a few years, and there'll be another SOPA or Protect IP Act being squeezed down the lower intestinal tracts of congress. And then what? We black out our websites again like a merry band of idiots?

It needs to get worse before it gets better. We need a really shitty piece of legislation like SOPA in this country to be the spark that ignites the lazy, idle tinders of protest. It's not uncommon or even controversial to say that Washington is corrupt. It doesn't cause anyone to bat an eye when you say it in public, with Republicans, Democrats or "other." That's a problem. We need SOPA to wake the sleeping giant in this country. It could have been our generation's Rodney King verdict. Instead of blacking out our websites, what we need to do is dismantle the system that created this bullshit. Enough is enough.

I hope SOPA passesWe're a country where people think that...

Boycotting gas for a day makes a difference. It doesn't. Delaying when you buy gas by a day only broadcasts your intentions to oil speculators so they can profit. And the oil still gets purchased a day before or after anyway.
Painstakingly recycling every single shred of garbage in your home makes a difference. It doesn't. Even if you, your neighbors, and everyone you've ever met recycled everything and reduced your waste output to zero, it wouldn't even make an observable impact on overall waste production in the world.
Changing your profile picture on Facebook will get people to: A) stop abusing kids B) stop molesting kids C) stop killing kids and D) do anything.

Signing an online petition, or changing the front page of your website to protest SOPA will fix anything.

.. My problem with this huge online protest against SOPA, and the reason I rarely take part in such protests, is because it doesn't address any problems, only the symptom. The problem isn't this shitty bill, it's the people who sponsored it ... Those same dipshits who wrote this legislation still have jobs. They're going to try again, and again, and again until some mutation of this legislation passes .. It's like trying to stop a cold by blowing your nose. It's time we go after the virus.There have been many bills attempted (and some passed) like SOPA before it. There's the DMCA act of 1998, PRO-IP Act of 2008, 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and now the PROTECT IP Act of 2012. Think this victory means anything? A new bill gets introduced every year or two like clockwork. Check back in a few years, and there'll be another SOPA or Protect IP Act being squeezed down the lower intestinal tracts of congress. And then what? We black out our websites again like a merry band of idiots?It needs to get worse before it gets better. We need a really shitty piece of legislation like SOPA in this country to be the spark that ignites the lazy, idle tinders of protest. It's not uncommon or even controversial to say that Washington is corrupt. It doesn't cause anyone to bat an eye when you say it in public, with Republicans, Democrats or "other." That's a problem. We need SOPA to wake the sleeping giant in this country. It could have been our generation's Rodney King verdict. Instead of blacking out our websites, what we need to do is dismantle the system that created this bullshit. Enough is enough.

Rent Control

Will The Supreme Court End New York's Rent Control Laws?

estatistas criminosos

Trabalhador sofre com Estado gordoReduzir de forma brutal a despesa do Estado, cortar a sério no monstro, despedir milhares e milhares de funcionários públicos que estão a mais no Estado. Acabar de vez com inúmeros organismos, serviços e departamentos que só existem para dificultar a vida às pessoas, às empresas, ao investimento, à economia.

Agora os mesmos que nem sequer admitem cortar a sério no monstro choram muitas lágrimas com o acordo obtido na concertação social. Gritam como bezerros contra os cortes salariais, das férias, das pontes, das folgas, dos feriados, das horas extraordinárias, do trabalho nocturno.

Esta gente, que se diz de esquerda e outra que alinha as suas posições com a doutrina social da Igreja, não admite que os custos do trabalho sejam reduzidos à custa do Estado e protestam violentamente quando esse corte é feito à custa dos trabalhadores. São hipócritas, fariseus e os verdadeiros responsáveis pelo que se está a passar no mundo do trabalho e da economia.

Enquanto o governo alinhar com esta gente não há emprego, não há salários decentes para quem trabalha e não há economia que resista. A única solução, o único caminho é atacar o monstro, a sua despesa, a sua gordura, os seus vícios. O único caminho possível para Portugal é reduzir o Estado ao mínimo e baixar de forma brutal os impostos.

É criminoso que um empresário, uma empresa, um investidor, português, estrangeiro, grande, pequeno ou médio tenha de pagar ao Estado uma brutalidade para dar trabalho a uma pessoa. É criminoso que o Estado engorde à custa da vida e da dignidade de milhões e milhões de pessoas. É tempo de dizer basta.

Our Internet

"O Estado tem de regular" (2)

"O Estado tem de regular"What's Wrong With Gestational Surrogacy?Gestational surrogacy is the arrangement by which a couple arrange to fertilize the woman's egg with the man's sperm, then have the fertilized ovum implanted and gestated in another woman's womb ..

I gather, however, from a conversation with someone who has been researching the subject, that in most of western Europe it is illegal ..

Which raises an obvious question: Why would anyone be against the arrangement? ..

There are, I think, a number of possible answers, although none that in my view justify the restrictions. One is that the decision to be a host mother is not freely made since it is "compelled" by poverty ..

A second possibility, following a line of argument originated (I think) in the context of prostitution .. is that by permitting a woman to rent out the use of her womb (body) we "commodify" motherhood (sex), cause people to think of it as something to be bought and sold, and so cheapen the human experience ..A somewhat better argument that might be made against surrogacy is that permitting a couple to produce a child when they otherwise could not means that they will have no need to adopt, hence prohibiting surrogacy benefits children in need of parents. There is some logic to the argument, but its morality is questionable ..Finally there comes what I suspect is the real reason. Natural is good, and surrogacy (like IVF before it, and many other things as well) is unnatural. Our grandparents didn't do it, our pre-human ancestors didn't do it, so there must be something wrong with it, something wicked, sinful. Icky.

And worse still if done for money.

How to buy Ron Paul

Bush/Cheney strategist "We Could Never Influence (Buy) Ron Paul"

Citação Liberal do Dia

Censorship, in its old-fashioned meaning, is a government edict that forbids the discussion of some specific subjects or ideas—such, for instance, as sex, religion or criticism of government officials—an edict enforced by the government’s scrutiny of all forms of communication prior to their public release. But for stifling the freedom of men’s minds the modern method is much more potent; it rests on the power of nonobjective law; it neither forbids nor permits anything; it never defines or specifies; it merely delivers men’s lives, fortunes, careers, ambitions into the arbitrary power of a bureaucrat who can reward or punish at whim. It spares the bureaucrat the troublesome necessity of committing himself to rigid rules—and it places upon the victims the burden of discovering how to please him, with a fluid unknowable as their only guide.Ayn Rand “Have Gun, Will Nudge,” The Objectivist Newsletter, March, 1962, 9

Quarta-feira, Janeiro 18, 2012

a Internet está segura com o Estado (8)

No seguimento de a Internet está segura com o Estado (7), SOPA Will Take Us Back to the Dark Ages:

Behind the almost unreadable (yet truly scary) text of SOPA (and its Senate doppelganger, PIPA, or the Protect Intellectual Property Act) is a desire, likely fueled by powerful media conglomerate backers, to take us all back to the thin-pipe, content-distribution days of 1994 — right before the World Wide Web launched. From the moment the Internet and websites arrived, a veritable Pandora’s box of opportunities have opened to every average Joe and Josephine in the world. Everyone became a content creator. Everyone had an audience.

The music industry stuck its head firmly in the sand and ignored the digital age for years ..

The movie industry has long suffered from yahoos bringing camcorders into screenings and delivering crappy copies of first-run films to DVD peddlers in Chinatown ..

.. People create their own movies and music videos and, thanks to YouTube’s network, distribute it to, potentially, millions. They create their own following, even their own revenue stream (thank you, Google AdSense). People can now self-publish books and, sometimes, make oodles of money. Photographers post pictures on Flickr and Google+ and generate thousands of views. They no longer need a magazine or newspaper to reach an audience.

It’s not just books, music and movies. The Internet is empowering people to create all sorts of businesses and distribution systems. They leapfrog the old hurdles, ignore the gatekeepers and go straight to the public.

.. I can only assume that the authors and backers wanted nothing more than to fundamentally change the rules of the web: To shut down the open post fields, kill reposting (goodbye, Tumblr), end shared videos (sorry, YouTube), expand the definition of what it means to infringe (sorry, Twitter, no sharing links that aren’t yours).

.. Fear is a powerful motivator. It will grind the engine of the Internet to a halt and when everyone is wondering what do to next, trying to figure out where they get their daily fix of viral videos or post their latest Bieber cover song, there will be media companies. They’ll be standing there, smiling, with open arms. One hand will be ready to give you a warm embrace, while the other collects your money.

a Internet está segura com o Estado (7)SOPA Will Take Us Back to the Dark AgesBehind the almost unreadable (yet truly scary) text of SOPA (and its Senate doppelganger, PIPA, or the Protect Intellectual Property Act) is a desire, likely fueled by powerful media conglomerate backers, to take us all back to the thin-pipe, content-distribution days of 1994 — right before the World Wide Web launched. From the moment the Internet and websites arrived, a veritable Pandora’s box of opportunities have opened to every average Joe and Josephine in the world. Everyone became a content creator. Everyone had an audience.The music industry stuck its head firmly in the sand and ignored the digital age for years ..

The movie industry has long suffered from yahoos bringing camcorders into screenings and delivering crappy copies of first-run films to DVD peddlers in Chinatown .... People create their own movies and music videos and, thanks to YouTube’s network, distribute it to, potentially, millions. They create their own following, even their own revenue stream (thank you, Google AdSense). People can now self-publish books and, sometimes, make oodles of money. Photographers post pictures on Flickr and Google+ and generate thousands of views. They no longer need a magazine or newspaper to reach an audience.

It’s not just books, music and movies. The Internet is empowering people to create all sorts of businesses and distribution systems. They leapfrog the old hurdles, ignore the gatekeepers and go straight to the public... I can only assume that the authors and backers wanted nothing more than to fundamentally change the rules of the web: To shut down the open post fields, kill reposting (goodbye, Tumblr), end shared videos (sorry, YouTube), expand the definition of what it means to infringe (sorry, Twitter, no sharing links that aren’t yours)... Fear is a powerful motivator. It will grind the engine of the Internet to a halt and when everyone is wondering what do to next, trying to figure out where they get their daily fix of viral videos or post their latest Bieber cover song, there will be media companies. They’ll be standing there, smiling, with open arms. One hand will be ready to give you a warm embrace, while the other collects your money.

Libertarians In Charge

John Stossel - Libertarians In Charge

"Equalization of Opportunity"

Isn't That Fascism? No, Because We Don't Call It Fascism.South ParkDistribuição. Governo quer acordo com fornecedores nem que seja à forçaO governo poderá impor mecanismos de regulação que obriguem à normalização de relações entre grandes retalhistas e fornecedores .. é “fundamental” que as duas partes assinem em breve um Código de Boas Práticas, documento que deve representar uma forma de auto-regulação que facilite o entendimento entre hipers e supermercados e os seus fornecedores. Caso tal não aconteça, disse então, “o governo terá de ponderar mecanismos de regulação”.

Politics is corrupt to the core

Jack Abramoff: 'Congress corrupt to core'

greed

John Kay on the Market EconomyThe difference between North Korea and the US is not that one society offers more scope for greed than the other. In both countries, as in many others, there are greedy people and many who are not, and those who are greedy are disproportionately represented in the controlling elite. The difference lies in the channels of greed – the degree to which the quest for profit is directed towards the creation of new wealth rather than the appropriation of wealth already created by other people.

A successful market economy emphasises the former and restricts the latter through rules and institutions, in a structure that has evolved slowly and requires constant defence against those who would use economic and political power to subvert it. Success or failure in that endeavour is the central explanation for why some societies are rich and others poor. Crony capitalism is very different from the market economy.

The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

The Anti-Human Mindset Of EnvironmentalistsTalk to an environmentalist long enough, and eventually they will reveal their contempt for humans. The proof is in this exclusive clip from the forthcoming movie "Not Evil Just Wrong." "They care more about fish eggs than they do about children," said Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

Liberty as a means (2)

Liberty as a meansColumbia Economist Slays Straw ManAttacking libertarianism, Jeffrey Sachs writes that “Libertarians hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect, and even survival of the poor, weak, and vulnerable – all are to take a back seat” (“Libertarian Illusions,” Jan. 16).

As non-sequiturs go, this one’s a doozy. Mr. Sachs here performs the equivalent of, say, accusing someone who advocates sobriety of thereby being indifferent to other values such parental responsibility, financial prudence, and neighborliness. But just as being sober in no way precludes – and likely promotes – other values such as parental responsibility, being a libertarian in no way precludes any of the values and causes that Mr. Sachs lists. Indeed, libertarians argue that these other values and causes are best promoted by individual liberty, and that too many people who insist that achieving these other values requires the suppression of liberty are cynically seeking convenient cover for their own self-aggrandizement.

Of course, libertarians might be mistaken about liberty’s merits. But that Mr. Sachs presumes that libertarians hold cheap such values as compassion, civic responsibility, and honesty proves that what Lord Acton wrote about Robert Kemp Philp’s description of history applies perfectly to Mr. Sachs’s description of libertarianism: “It were well if he knew his subject as well as he knows his own mind about it.”*

Democratic Chinatown white libertarian

Can a White Libertarian Man Represent NY's Chinatown? Meet Dan O'Connor.

Lá como cá

Rajoy opta por la vía comunistaAhora ya podemos afirmar con rotundidad que todo el Parlamento español es de izquierdas. Ya conocíamos la inclinación colectivista de la totalidad de los partidos políticos, pero con las últimas medidas tomadas por el gobierno del Partido Popular, ahora sabemos a ciencia cierta que ese colectivismo es de izquierdas.

Incluso los que no nos esperábamos nada realmente bueno de Rajoy nos hemos quedado sorprendidos: su medida para reducir el déficit es subir de forma histórica los impuestos al trabajo, al ahorro y a la vivienda. ¡Toma ya!Con lo cual el gobierno ya nos está diciendo que la austeridad va a ser privada. El esfuerzo lo van a realizar trabajadores, ahorradores, inversores y autónomos. Es decir, las clases medias que ya están completamente ahogadas y endeudadas.Esto roza la obviedad, y posiblemente el gobierno sea consciente de ello. Pero admitirlo conllevaría tomar medidas que no serían de su agrado ni de su conveniencia: medidas de austeridad pública reduciendo el gasto público y eliminando privilegios. Implantar y vivir en la fantasía comunista es más cómodo para todos.

De esta manera Rajoy ha empezado a culminar el sueño comunista... y nuestra peor pesadilla. Sólo le queda la puntilla final: una mala reforma laboral.

Piracy

via Facebook

A Filosofia Libertária e a Falácia das Fronteiras Abertas

A Filosofia Libertária e a Falácia das Fronteiras Abertas:

O erro que os proponentes das fronteiras abertas normalmente cometem é o de confluir a desejável ausência de fronteiras nessa sociedade “nirvanesca” totalmente privatizada com as fronteiras abertas de Estados que possuem um sistema de providência e vasta propriedade estatal. No actual contexto em que vivemos, fronteiras abertas não seria mais do que integração forçada, no sentido em que obriga os contribuintes nativos de cada país a pagar (via Estado providência) pela integração de pessoas que os primeiros não escolheram, não seleccionaram, nem têm formas eficazes de filtrar. Porque neste contexto, estando desprotegidos, os nativos não têm o mecanismo de selecção e discriminação dos plenos direitos de propriedade, essencialmente devido a leis anti-discriminação e ao Estado providência que força, a título de exemplo, um contribuinte a financiar casas sociais para imigrantes na sua vizinhança contra a sua vontade.

A crítica por parte dos defensores das fronteiras abertas que no meu entender tem mais força é a de que o Estado não consegue emular os direitos de propriedade quando selecciona imigrantes. O argumento “enquanto existe Estado, mais vale que se comporte como um dono privado”é de facto complexo e difícil de justificar. Mas considero que tal prende-se com uma questão de perspectiva: não me parece que essa seja a melhor forma de colocar a questão; faz bastante mais sentido dizer que recursos que estão sujeitos a uma autoridade e são usados por utilizadores, como a propriedade “pública”, não deixam de precisar de regras que viabilizem a sua utilização e impeçam uma “tragédia dos comuns”, tal como precisariam se a propriedade fosse privada e aberta ao público. Emulação eficiente do mercado, claro, não existe, é por isso que se advoga a privatização, mas tal não elimina a premissa anterior (i.e. necessidade de regras).

Para o liberalismo, nas actuais circunstâncias, o que faz sentido é advogar descentralização de poder/secessão e não fronteiras abertas.

LEITURA ADICIONAL - uma visão libertarian-contrarian sobre a imigração

A Filosofia Libertária e a Falácia das Fronteiras AbertasO erro que os proponentes das fronteiras abertas normalmente cometem é o de confluir a desejável ausência de fronteiras nessa sociedade “nirvanesca” totalmente privatizada com as fronteiras abertas de Estados que possuem um sistema de providência e vasta propriedade estatal. No actual contexto em que vivemos, fronteiras abertas não seria mais do que integração forçada, no sentido em que obriga os contribuintes nativos de cada país a pagar (via Estado providência) pela integração de pessoas que os primeiros não escolheram, não seleccionaram, nem têm formas eficazes de filtrar. Porque neste contexto, estando desprotegidos, os nativos não têm o mecanismo de selecção e discriminação dos plenos direitos de propriedade, essencialmente devido a leis anti-discriminação e ao Estado providência que força, a título de exemplo, um contribuinte a financiar casas sociais para imigrantes na sua vizinhança contra a sua vontade.A crítica por parte dos defensores das fronteiras abertas que no meu entender tem mais força é a de que o Estado não consegue emular os direitos de propriedade quando selecciona imigrantes. O argumento “enquanto existe Estado, mais vale que se comporte como um dono privado”é de facto complexo e difícil de justificar. Mas considero que tal prende-se com uma questão de perspectiva: não me parece que essa seja a melhor forma de colocar a questão; faz bastante mais sentido dizer que recursos que estão sujeitos a uma autoridade e são usados por utilizadores, como a propriedade “pública”, não deixam de precisar de regras que viabilizem a sua utilização e impeçam uma “tragédia dos comuns”, tal como precisariam se a propriedade fosse privada e aberta ao público. Emulação eficiente do mercado, claro, não existe, é por isso que se advoga a privatização, mas tal não elimina a premissa anterior (i.e. necessidade de regras).Para o liberalismo, nas actuais circunstâncias, o que faz sentido é advogar descentralização de poder/secessão e não fronteiras abertas.uma visão libertarian-contrarian sobre a imigração

Ron Paul against SOPA

The Dangers of NDAA & SOPA

o socialismo deriva de psicologias da idade da pedra (3)

No seguimento de o socialismo deriva de psicologias da idade da pedra (2), The Origins of Envy:

Our egalitarian feelings were forged in the Stone Age. But the cave man ethos is not always appropriate in the context of the modern world.

Thus, the feelings that go along with that tribal interdependency—including envy—are “hardwired.” And we’ve not had enough time in civilization to rewire them. “Natural selection, the process that designed our brain,” write Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, “takes a long time to design a circuit of any complexity. The time it takes to build circuits that are suited to a given environment is so slow it is hard to even imagine—it’s like a stone being sculpted by wind-blown sand. Even relatively simple changes can take tens of thousands of years.”

There are three primary egalitarian emotions—envy, guilt, and indignation. I call these the “Stone Age Trinity.” These three are connected as facets of the same socio-biological function. To get a better sense of this connection, let’s break them down as follows:
If in comparing myself to you I find you have more, I may feel envy.
If in comparing myself to you I find you have less, I may feel guilt.
If in comparing someone to you I find you have more, I may feel indignation.
For Paleolithic Man, this was not just some errant feeling. It provided the basis for survival logic in a mostly zero-sum world.

As a commune grows, free-rider problems infect the labor pool.

.. the rules, mores, and dispositions ideal for living in civilizations could be very different from the rules, mores, and dispositions for surviving in Paleolithic clans.

Any human emotion can become destructive by degree. Economist Young Back Choi thinks that envy is particularly destructive because it “is man's desire to eliminate others' relative gains even if he would become absolutely worse off in the process.” We see this in the original Ultimatum game. And we see it in the brutal consequences of Stalin and Mao .. Understood this way, envy, despite its evolutionary rationale, does not seem very sane .. “’Only those societies that have been able to develop sufficient means to mitigate the destructive forces of envy have been able to build civilizations and prosper. Anthropologists have documented that two of the most distinguishing features of poor societies are the relative free expression of envy and the universal fear of envy on the part of those who come to have above-average gains.” Envy can creep into both our politics and our personal lives. So also can envy’s sister emotions, guilt and indignation. All three are facets of a brain that was sculpted by millennia in a mostly zero-sum environment. But now we can live in a positive-sum world.

o socialismo deriva de psicologias da idade da pedra (2)The Origins of EnvyOur egalitarian feelings were forged in the Stone Age. But the cave man ethos is not always appropriate in the context of the modern world.

Thus, the feelings that go along with that tribal interdependency—including envy—are “hardwired.” And we’ve not had enough time in civilization to rewire them. “Natural selection, the process that designed our brain,” write Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, “takes a long time to design a circuit of any complexity. The time it takes to build circuits that are suited to a given environment is so slow it is hard to even imagine—it’s like a stone being sculpted by wind-blown sand. Even relatively simple changes can take tens of thousands of years.”There are three primary egalitarian emotions—envy, guilt, and indignation. I call these the “Stone Age Trinity.” These three are connected as facets of the same socio-biological function. To get a better sense of this connection, let’s break them down as follows:

If in comparing myself to you I find you have more, I may feel envy.
If in comparing myself to you I find you have less, I may feel guilt.
If in comparing someone to you I find you have more, I may feel indignation.

For Paleolithic Man, this was not just some errant feeling. It provided the basis for survival logic in a mostly zero-sum world.As a commune grows, free-rider problems infect the labor pool... the rules, mores, and dispositions ideal for living in civilizations could be very different from the rules, mores, and dispositions for surviving in Paleolithic clans.Any human emotion can become destructive by degree. Economist Young Back Choi thinks that envy is particularly destructive because it “is man's desire to eliminate others' relative gains even if he would become absolutely worse off in the process.” We see this in the original Ultimatum game. And we see it in the brutal consequences of Stalin and Mao .. Understood this way, envy, despite its evolutionary rationale, does not seem very sane .. “’Only those societies that have been able to develop sufficient means to mitigate the destructive forces of envy have been able to build civilizations and prosper. Anthropologists have documented that two of the most distinguishing features of poor societies are the relative free expression of envy and the universal fear of envy on the part of those who come to have above-average gains.” Envy can creep into both our politics and our personal lives. So also can envy’s sister emotions, guilt and indignation. All three are facets of a brain that was sculpted by millennia in a mostly zero-sum environment. But now we can live in a positive-sum world.

Terça-feira, Janeiro 17, 2012

human nature and the blank state

Steven Pinker: Chalking it up to the blank slate

Some fallacies never die

The Keynesian Cure for Hunger: Eat MoreThere you have it. For millennia people were starving to death and the solution was right there in front of them: Consume more. Similarly, those who died of thirst in the world’s deserts could have been saved if they had only drunk more water.What a man produces is what he can bid for the produce of others. The value of what he creates – that is, its value to others – represents his effective demand in the marketplace. If he produces nothing, if what he produces has no value (mud pies), if what he produces loses its value (stone knives in the Bronze Age), or if he produces more than can be consumed (houses after a housing bubble has burst), he has no effective demand though his needs be unchanged.
This restates Say’s Law, which Keynes in his General Theory popularly, though misleadingly, formulated as: Supply creates its own demand – misleading because a supply of goods with no value yields no effective demand and because supply that does have value to others does not create effective demand, it is effective demand.

What Keynesians do not understand is that if a man is hired to dig holes and then fill them back up, he is fully employed but he produces nothing of value; effective demand is not increased by his efforts. Nor does giving him money or goods in exchange for his useless labor create effective demand; it only shifts it from the people who produced what was given him.

Only production creates effective demand and only after what was produced is sold can other goods can be purchased and consumed. What changed England was not increased consumption but increased production, production that made increased consumption possible. And, yes, that increased production was due in large part to the entrepreneurial employment of the steam engine and the loom, inventions that Nasar so cavalierly dismisses.

Coroação de mais um euroburopoliticocrata

Farage: What kind of President Schulz are we going to get?

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (4)

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (3)They know it? How could they not: Ron Paul is for unilateral, unconditional free trade. He believes any American should be perfectly free to buy from or sell to any person in the world. In that sense—the laissez-faire sense—he favors globalization, which, applied consistently, would require a worldwide free market. He’s such a strong advocate of free trade that he objects to the world’s governments, led by the U.S. government, setting up international bureaucracies, such as the World Trade Organization, to manage trade. He thinks trade should be a totally private matter. That’s a solid classical-liberal, or libertarian, position... we are left with the daffy conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand isolationist precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather than invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries.If you think establishment conservatives are scared of Ron Paul, imagine how Obama and his supporters must feel. Can you imagine their having to run against a staunch antiwar, pro-Bill of Rights opponent? This is the same Obama who has maintained Guantanamo, launched more deadly drone attacks than George W. Bush, signed into law the authority to detain individuals indefinitely without charge or trial, claimed he may kill even American citizens without due process, cracked down harshly on whistle-blowers, protected torturers from legal consequences, invoked state secrets to quash lawsuits by torture victims, and on and on.

Most progressives live in a fantasy world where they are champions of peace, tolerance, and the rule of law, when in fact they support—and refuse to criticize—a man who has mimicked George W. Bush in virtually every way.
How can they tolerate a man—Ron Paul—who reminds them of that?

Too Late to Apologize

http://youtu.be/uZfRaWAtBVg

Leviatán: bestia y parásito

Leviatán: de bestia a parásito:

Como un ente con vida propia, el Estado también es capaz de adaptarse a las circunstancias. Para ajustarse a la realidad y pagar las deudas contraídas por exceso de gasto, cabían dos opciones: adelgazar el propio Estado o aumentar el expolio de los contribuyentes que lo sustentan. A estas alturas ha quedado probado que los políticos profesionales y la mayoría de las "fuerzas vivas" del país han optado por la segunda opción.

Una opción nefasta que nos arrastra a un empobrecimiento generalizado sin salida, ya que no estamos dispuestos a admitir que el actual sistema de privilegios organizados desde el Estado está basado en un principio de planificación centralizada que no puede dar buenos resultados .. Las subvenciones y regulaciones generan verdaderas externalidades negativas que son abordadas con nuevas subvenciones y más regulaciones en una maraña sin fin que entorpece la libre elección de cada uno.

Todo parásito está interesado en la supervivencia del propio huésped porque es la suya propia; no obstante, el cuerpo parasitado se debilita y, en no pocos casos, fallece. Algo similar ocurre con todos los organismos públicos que parasitan a los contribuyentes .. la capacidad emprendedora de la sociedad se desgasta y los burócratas de turno constatan "problemas estructurales de productividad". Ya es demasiado tarde, un cuerpo social debilitado que es el huésped de todas las subvenciones y ayudas que reparte el Estado será incapaz de sustentar semejante pirámide de privilegios enmascarados por el lenguaje políticamente correcto como "ayudas".

El Estado se autorregula, pero no siempre elige la mejor opción. El gran leviatán que imaginábamos como bestia gigante se asemeja más a un pequeño pero incómodo parásito. El huésped respira fatigado y no le queda energía que este parásito estatal pueda seguir aprovechando. Solo nos queda vigilar nuestros bolsillos y ahorros porque el parásito hurgará hasta sacarnos hasta el último céntimo.

Leviatán: de bestia a parásitoComo un ente con vida propia, el Estado también es capaz de adaptarse a las circunstancias. Para ajustarse a la realidad y pagar las deudas contraídas por exceso de gasto, cabían dos opciones: adelgazar el propio Estado o aumentar el expolio de los contribuyentes que lo sustentan. A estas alturas ha quedado probado que los políticos profesionales y la mayoría de las "fuerzas vivas" del país han optado por la segunda opción.

Una opción nefasta que nos arrastra a un empobrecimiento generalizado sin salida, ya que no estamos dispuestos a admitir que el actual sistema de privilegios organizados desde el Estado está basado en un principio de planificación centralizada que no puede dar buenos resultados .. Las subvenciones y regulaciones generan verdaderas externalidades negativas que son abordadas con nuevas subvenciones y más regulaciones en una maraña sin fin que entorpece la libre elección de cada uno.Todo parásito está interesado en la supervivencia del propio huésped porque es la suya propia; no obstante, el cuerpo parasitado se debilita y, en no pocos casos, fallece. Algo similar ocurre con todos los organismos públicos que parasitan a los contribuyentes .. la capacidad emprendedora de la sociedad se desgasta y los burócratas de turno constatan "problemas estructurales de productividad". Ya es demasiado tarde, un cuerpo social debilitado que es el huésped de todas las subvenciones y ayudas que reparte el Estado será incapaz de sustentar semejante pirámide de privilegios enmascarados por el lenguaje políticamente correcto como "ayudas".

El Estado se autorregula, pero no siempre elige la mejor opción. El gran leviatán que imaginábamos como bestia gigante se asemeja más a un pequeño pero incómodo parásito. El huésped respira fatigado y no le queda energía que este parásito estatal pueda seguir aprovechando. Solo nos queda vigilar nuestros bolsillos y ahorros porque el parásito hurgará hasta sacarnos hasta el último céntimo.

Does The Constitution Still Matter?

Andrew Napolitano - Does The Constitution Still Matter?

end the war on drugs

It's time to end the war on drugs por Gary Johnson:

As President I will stop one of the biggest wastes and frauds ever perpetrated on the American people – the trillion dollar war on drugs. While falsely promising us a safer, more sober society, the war on drugs is bankrupting our state and local coffers and costs the Federal government $15 billion dollars per year. That’s five hundred dollars every second – mostly for possession of marijuana, a relatively harmless drug the effects of which are certainly no worse than alcohol, the sale of which is legal and regulated.

Criminals deal drugs because drugs make them money, a lot of money. When that kind of money is in play, people kill for it. Entire armies of crime have built up on our streets and across the border in Mexico. But we can stop that tomorrow – with drug policy reform. We know that prohibition makes prices higher. Our own history with prohibition proves that. When we make something illegal, we keep the supply artificially low, and that keeps the price artificially high – and that means violence.

When marijuana is legal, farmed and taxed, we will suck the lifeblood from violent gangs and place the money in the public good. We tax and regulate alcohol and cigarettes, and we prevent kids from using these dangerous substances. Marijuana is no more dangerous than those, and yet Democrats and Republicans can only unite to allow this weed to fund entire armies of crime.

Every experiment in drug reform and decriminalization has met with a drop in crime. When New York State reformed its harsh Rockefeller drug laws, the precipitous drop in crime rates continued. When Portugal decriminalized drugs, crime dropped. Drug use dropped. New HIV infections dropped. Brute force has failed. And we should know better – our own experiment with prohibition virtually created organized crime in our country. Prohibition doesn’t work – users and addicts find a way to use drugs anyway. All prohibition does is create a black market that kills innocent people, when the DEA isn’t shooting them already.

It's time to end the war on drugsAs President I will stop one of the biggest wastes and frauds ever perpetrated on the American people – the trillion dollar war on drugs. While falsely promising us a safer, more sober society, the war on drugs is bankrupting our state and local coffers and costs the Federal government $15 billion dollars per year. That’s five hundred dollars every second – mostly for possession of marijuana, a relatively harmless drug the effects of which are certainly no worse than alcohol, the sale of which is legal and regulated.Criminals deal drugs because drugs make them money, a lot of money. When that kind of money is in play, people kill for it. Entire armies of crime have built up on our streets and across the border in Mexico. But we can stop that tomorrow – with drug policy reform. We know that prohibition makes prices higher. Our own history with prohibition proves that. When we make something illegal, we keep the supply artificially low, and that keeps the price artificially high – and that means violence.

When marijuana is legal, farmed and taxed, we will suck the lifeblood from violent gangs and place the money in the public good. We tax and regulate alcohol and cigarettes, and we prevent kids from using these dangerous substances. Marijuana is no more dangerous than those, and yet Democrats and Republicans can only unite to allow this weed to fund entire armies of crime.Every experiment in drug reform and decriminalization has met with a drop in crime. When New York State reformed its harsh Rockefeller drug laws, the precipitous drop in crime rates continued. When Portugal decriminalized drugs, crime dropped. Drug use dropped. New HIV infections dropped. Brute force has failed. And we should know better – our own experiment with prohibition virtually created organized crime in our country. Prohibition doesn’t work – users and addicts find a way to use drugs anyway. All prohibition does is create a black market that kills innocent people, when the DEA isn’t shooting them already.

Fraud

Fraud. Why the Great Recession (Official Trailer) from amagifilms on Vimeo.

Free markets are not to be blamed for the Great Recession. On the contrary, its origins rest upon the deep government and central bank intervention in the economy. Through fraudulent mechanisms, this causes recurrent boom and bust cycles: bad policies create phases of “irrational exuberance”, which are then followed by economic recessions, a result that every citizen ends up suffering from.

Com este Estado ninguém resiste

Com este Estado ninguém resiste.. Voltando ao discurso da austeridade, inimiga confessa do crescimento económico e do emprego, importa dizer desde já que não é preciso ser um Nobel da Economia ou da Retórica para perceber que uma economia em recessão fica pior quando é sujeita a programas de austeridade violentos, em que uma das componentes é o aumento brutal de impostos sobre as famílias e as empresas. O problema está precisamente nesta componente da austeridade.

O Estado gigante, o monstro criado por muitos governos e responsáveis políticos com a bênção democrática da maioria dos portugueses, não sobrevive com menos impostos e não consegue reduzir os défices crónicos apenas com cortes na despesa. Precisa, hoje como ontem, de cargas fiscais obscenas, que atingem em cheio o bolso e os cofres de cidadãos e empresas.

É por isso que é fundamental reduzir drasticamente o Estado para se poder acabar com a austeridade. É por isso que é fundamental reduzir a carga fiscal para a economia ser competitiva, criar riqueza e emprego e permitir níveis aceitáveis de consumo privado.Sem uma redução brutal dos impostos sobre as empresas e as famílias não há crescimento e emprego. Não percebem que o tempo do investimento público, do endividamento pornográfico do Estado e da despesa pública acabou e não volta mais.

A esquerda e uma certa direita conservadora, com medo de perder privilégios e deixar de ter um Estado omnipresente que lhe sirva de encosto e conforto, são as grandes responsáveis pela pobreza, pelo desemprego e pela bancarrota. Foram e continuam a ser os grandes coveiros de Portugal.

Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy (2)

Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy
Chuck Woolery On Democracy

the burden of proof

Where Should the Burden of Proof Rest?:

.. the modern nation-state has been a well established institution for hundreds of years, during which it has tended to expand its size, scope, and power, ultimately achieving its current near-totalitarian form. People living now are accustomed to what the state is and what it does, and they have difficulty in imagining how alternative arrangements might operate at all, much less how they might operate much more successfully for the general public. Hence, ordinary politics takes the form of arguments and policies that move the state back and forth between the 5 yard line and the 4 yard line, not far from the goal line of totalitarianism. The libertarian who proposes to move the state back to the 50 yard line or even to move it all the way to the opposite goal line of statelessness, have difficulty in gaining a hearing for their arguments, much less widespread acceptance of their proposals.

Morally speaking, it would seem that those who opt in favor of coercive arrangements ought to bear the burden of proof. If the state is such a superior arrangement, by comparison with genuine, voluntary self-government, why must the state be propped up by all of its police and armed forces? Why must people be constantly threatened with imprisonment and death in order to bring forth the revenues that suppport the state’s activities ..

.. we need to be constantly aware that if an arrangement depends on violence or the threat of violence to keep it afloat, it almost certainly has severe deficiencies. Raw force is always the resort of someone who cannot present a persuasive argument in support of his actions. Although the modern state enjoys the support of countless court intellectuals and apologists, it rests firmly on violence in the event that we do not accept the excuses it makes for its crimes. That so many of us fear and loathe the state should in itself be sufficient to indicate that the state, not those of us who long for freedom, should always bear the burden of proof.

Where Should the Burden of Proof Rest?.. the modern nation-state has been a well established institution for hundreds of years, during which it has tended to expand its size, scope, and power, ultimately achieving its current near-totalitarian form. People living now are accustomed to what the state is and what it does, and they have difficulty in imagining how alternative arrangements might operate at all, much less how they might operate much more successfully for the general public. Hence, ordinary politics takes the form of arguments and policies that move the state back and forth between the 5 yard line and the 4 yard line, not far from the goal line of totalitarianism. The libertarian who proposes to move the state back to the 50 yard line or even to move it all the way to the opposite goal line of statelessness, have difficulty in gaining a hearing for their arguments, much less widespread acceptance of their proposals.Morally speaking, it would seem that those who opt in favor of coercive arrangements ought to bear the burden of proof. If the state is such a superior arrangement, by comparison with genuine, voluntary self-government, why must the state be propped up by all of its police and armed forces? Why must people be constantly threatened with imprisonment and death in order to bring forth the revenues that suppport the state’s activities .... we need to be constantly aware that if an arrangement depends on violence or the threat of violence to keep it afloat, it almost certainly has severe deficiencies. Raw force is always the resort of someone who cannot present a persuasive argument in support of his actions. Although the modern state enjoys the support of countless court intellectuals and apologists, it rests firmly on violence in the event that we do not accept the excuses it makes for its crimes. That so many of us fear and loathe the state should in itself be sufficient to indicate that the state, not those of us who long for freedom, should always bear the burden of proof.

Police or Tasers

Who's Lethal? Police or Tasers

Liberty as a means

Why Libertarianism Needs our Adjective, Jeff Sachs Version.. bleeding heart libertarians (and I think many though not all libertarians-without-adjectives) do not believe those other values are substitutes for liberty but rather complements. We believe in liberty because we think liberty not only improves the condition of the poor, weak, and vulnerable, but because a free society is more likely to be one in which all of those other virtues are practiced in a serious and meaningful way ..

Furthermore, if the alternative is the use of the state or other forms of coercion to achieve a society that better cares for the poor, weak, and vulnerable, Professor Sachs cannot just assert that a society with less liberty will produce more of the other values, he’s going to have to show it. It’s not at all clear to me that the welfare state, for example, has in fact improved the lives of the poor, weak, and vulnerable, nor that it and other forms of state intervention have served the causes of compassion, honesty, etc.. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that government and the political process are hardly the homes of such virtues, while it is the private sector and civil society in which they seem to flourish.

Three of a Kind

Ron Paul - Three of a Kind

the atrocities of the State vs. Christian beliefs

The Worship of Leviathan Has Enabled Its Atrocities:

The all-powerful modern nation-state—and the atrocities committed by it—are the result of social and intellectual developments that began centuries ago. A key causal factor in the rise of Leviathan is a distinctive ideological orientation, what might be termed “secular theocracy”—the worship of the secular state. This ideology arose in the West just as the traditional arbiter of standards for worship—the church—was losing its hold on the Western mind. Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau dismissed natural law and conferred a sacred status on political institutions. Edward Gibbon and Voltaire asserted that the secular state would put an end to wars of religion. In reality, the world they championed was tyrannical and far bloodier and than they claimed, according to Independent Institute President David J. Theroux.

“In the actual period of European state building, the most serious cause of violence and the central factor in the growth of the state was the attempt to collect taxes from an unwilling populace with local elites resisting the state-building efforts of kings and emperors,” Theroux writes. “The point is that the rise of the modern state was in no way the solution to the violence of religion.”

What occurred was a process of substitution. During the Enlightenment, nationalism began to replace traditional religion as the belief system that dominated the public square. Wars and mass violence were condemned when committed in the name of traditional religion but celebrated when executed on behalf of the secular state. “The religious-secular split,” Theroux continues, “enables public loyalty by Christians to the nation state’s secular violence, including invasive wars, torture, and ‘collateral damage,’ while avoiding direct confrontation with Christian beliefs about the supremacy of God and natural law teachings.”

BÓNUS: Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule

The Worship of Leviathan Has Enabled Its AtrocitiesThe all-powerful modern nation-state—and the atrocities committed by it—are the result of social and intellectual developments that began centuries ago. A key causal factor in the rise of Leviathan is a distinctive ideological orientation, what might be termed “secular theocracy”—the worship of the secular state. This ideology arose in the West just as the traditional arbiter of standards for worship—the church—was losing its hold on the Western mind. Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau dismissed natural law and conferred a sacred status on political institutions. Edward Gibbon and Voltaire asserted that the secular state would put an end to wars of religion. In reality, the world they championed was tyrannical and far bloodier and than they claimed, according to Independent Institute President David J. Theroux.

“In the actual period of European state building, the most serious cause of violence and the central factor in the growth of the state was the attempt to collect taxes from an unwilling populace with local elites resisting the state-building efforts of kings and emperors,” Theroux writes. “The point is that the rise of the modern state was in no way the solution to the violence of religion.”

What occurred was a process of substitution. During the Enlightenment, nationalism began to replace traditional religion as the belief system that dominated the public square. Wars and mass violence were condemned when committed in the name of traditional religion but celebrated when executed on behalf of the secular state. “The religious-secular split,” Theroux continues, “enables public loyalty by Christians to the nation state’s secular violence, including invasive wars, torture, and ‘collateral damage,’ while avoiding direct confrontation with Christian beliefs about the supremacy of God and natural law teachings.”Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule

Segunda-feira, Janeiro 16, 2012

The Virtue Of Profits

Clifton L Ganus Jr - The Virtue Of Profits

grow up

Dear Student: I Don't Lie Awake At Night Thinking of Ways to Ruin Your LifeDear student, I once thought as you do. I once carried about the same misconceptions, the same litany of cognitive biases, and the same adolescent desire to blame others for my errors. I was (and remain) very poorly served by my immaturity. As shocking as it may seem, I still cling to a lot of it, even after four years of college, five years of graduate school, and now five-and-a-half years as a professor. Economics is hard, but becoming a responsible member of a free society is very, very, very hard. I’m still learning to put aside childish things. I hope you will do the same. Start now. The effort is daunting, but the rewards are substantial.

Are We All Austrians Now?

Pare, escute e olhe

O InsurgentePare, escute e olheNos últimos 25 anos, o estado português sobreviveu à custa de um aumento gradual dos impostos e de um endividamento ao exterior que, para ser pago, nos levou às medidas de austeridade que conhecemos. Foram muitos os avisos de que quanto mais o estado exige a quem trabalha, menor é a vontade de trabalhar. É a velha máxima de quanto maior a tributação, menor é a competitividade. Infelizmente nenhum governante se preocupou com esta situação, ou alterou a forma como geria os interesses do país. Porquê? Porque acreditavam no que faziam. Melhor: porque faziam aquilo em que queriam acreditar. Porque queriam que o Estado fosse o motor da economia e que quanto mais este investisse e regulasse a actividade económica, melhor. Melhor para o país, já vimos que não. Mas melhor para o conceito de vida política que impregna o íntimo dos nossos governantes. Os convence do direito de, conquistado o poder político, terem acesso ao poder económico. Distribuir benesses, repartir favores. Serem influentes, não à custa do que conseguiram com o trabalho, mas do dinheiro que cobram aos cidadãos.

Estatistas "inteligentes" e moralidade

Mensa Statists and the Aneurysm of Truth!

África necesita urgentemente más capitalismo

Magatte Wade: África no necesita 500.000 cooperantes sino "500.000 empresarios":

Intentar hacer negocios en Senegal, así como en gran parte de África, es una odisea. Es excepcionalmente difícil conseguir hacer cualquier cosa. Por ejemplo, puede costar meses conseguir tener electricidad en funcionamiento, a no ser que des “regalos” a la gente adecuada.

Debido a esta burocracia sin sentido y a la regulación excesiva, la inmensa mayoría de africanos trabajan en la economía informal. Por eso no pueden conseguir préstamos bancarios, seguros, ni protección legal para cualquiera de sus actividades. La economía informal funciona, a su propia manera, pero impide al africano medio crear empresas que puedan ser exitosas y crecer para poder aprovechar las economías de escala y ganar en eficiencia.

En los Estados Unidos, al igual que en África, casi todo el mundo tiene un empresario en la familia. La diferencia crucial es que los empresarios americanos pueden conseguir préstamos, su propiedad está protegida por la ley, pueden estar asegurados, y si su compañía crece pueden acceder a mercados de capitales desarrollados. Nada de esto está disponible para los africanos.

Lo más importante que puede hacerse es que los individuos compren productos de calidad hechos en África y que inviertan en empresarios y compañías africanas. El capitalismo es el único camino para crear prosperidad, y África necesita urgentemente más capitalismo ..

Por el contrario, no deberían apoyar la ayuda externa de gobierno a gobierno, dado que la mayor parte de ella va a mantener el mismo viejo sistema corrupto .. Salvo que las ONGs sean o estrictamente humanitarias o verdaderamente efectivas a la hora de ayudarnos a construir negocios reales preferiría que se fueran .. En un momento dado calculé que había alrededor de 500.000 cooperantes en África. Si tuviéramos 500.000 empresarios, cada uno con los 100.000 dólares de capital que, probablemente, absorban anualmente cada uno de los cooperantes, estaríamos mucho mejor.

Los tomadores de decisiones políticas tienen que facilitar a los empresarios las cosas para que hagan su trabajo. Derechos de propiedad seguros, estado de derecho y libertad económica es todo lo que se necesita para generar prosperidad a través de la labor de los empresarios.

Magatte Wade: África no necesita 500.000 cooperantes sino "500.000 empresarios"Intentar hacer negocios en Senegal, así como en gran parte de África, es una odisea. Es excepcionalmente difícil conseguir hacer cualquier cosa. Por ejemplo, puede costar meses conseguir tener electricidad en funcionamiento, a no ser que des “regalos” a la gente adecuada.Debido a esta burocracia sin sentido y a la regulación excesiva, la inmensa mayoría de africanos trabajan en la economía informal. Por eso no pueden conseguir préstamos bancarios, seguros, ni protección legal para cualquiera de sus actividades. La economía informal funciona, a su propia manera, pero impide al africano medio crear empresas que puedan ser exitosas y crecer para poder aprovechar las economías de escala y ganar en eficiencia.

En los Estados Unidos, al igual que en África, casi todo el mundo tiene un empresario en la familia. La diferencia crucial es que los empresarios americanos pueden conseguir préstamos, su propiedad está protegida por la ley, pueden estar asegurados, y si su compañía crece pueden acceder a mercados de capitales desarrollados. Nada de esto está disponible para los africanos.Lo más importante que puede hacerse es que los individuos compren productos de calidad hechos en África y que inviertan en empresarios y compañías africanas. El capitalismo es el único camino para crear prosperidad, y África necesita urgentemente más capitalismo ..

Por el contrario, no deberían apoyar la ayuda externa de gobierno a gobierno, dado que la mayor parte de ella va a mantener el mismo viejo sistema corrupto .. Salvo que las ONGs sean o estrictamente humanitarias o verdaderamente efectivas a la hora de ayudarnos a construir negocios reales preferiría que se fueran .. En un momento dado calculé que había alrededor de 500.000 cooperantes en África. Si tuviéramos 500.000 empresarios, cada uno con los 100.000 dólares de capital que, probablemente, absorban anualmente cada uno de los cooperantes, estaríamos mucho mejor.Los tomadores de decisiones políticas tienen que facilitar a los empresarios las cosas para que hagan su trabajo. Derechos de propiedad seguros, estado de derecho y libertad económica es todo lo que se necesita para generar prosperidad a través de la labor de los empresarios.

Dambisa Moyo (5)

Dambisa Moyo (4)

The author of Dead Aid argues that flawed economic decisions made by western governments have resulted in the scales of economic growth being tipped in favor of what she calls the emerging world. She talked with Libertarian economist Dan Mitchell.

educating entrepreneurs

Stop teaching our kids to be employees, start educating entrepreneursThe issue at hand is that the problems start from a very young age. I can only speak for the education system here in the US, but I think that we’re not completely unique from the rest of the world. The shocking lack of interest in doing things that are truly innovative is a direct byproduct of an educational system that’s aiming toward passable standardized test scores instead of something much greater.So perhaps we are to blame for the problems, every bit as much as the education system that led these people to where they are today. They’re simply participating, then expecting the trophy. Why wouldn’t they? It’s how they’ve been brought up.I beg you to stop teaching our kids to be employees. Teach them to be entrepreneurs. If you don’t feel qualified to do that, take up the reigns and drive your own path toward greatness so that you can teach others.

Edgar the Exploiter

George Ought to Help

scarecrowing Austrian Economics

How Liberals [Socialistas] Distort Austrian Economics:

The earliest Austrian economists did not make their mark by advocating free markets and other classical-liberal ideas. They did so by proffering a revolutionary positive (not normative) theoretical approach to understanding how markets work, focusing on value, price, and capital, theory.

Yglesias thus conflates Austrian economic theory with libertarian political theory. In fairness, he is not alone in committing this error. Many libertarians do the same, which is unfortunate. Austrian economic theory describes how purposive action by fallible human beings unintentionally generates a grand, complex, and orderly market process. An additional ethical step is required to pronounce the market process good ..

Yglesias writes: “Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations.” It’s odd to say this without also pointing out that Austrians believe that government causes the instability of inflationary booms, recessions, and depressions. In light of that point, the suggestion that government is capable of stabilizing the economy may be seen in its proper light.

Drawing on a wide range of recent empirical research, we find the following: (1) The Fed’s full history (1914 to present) has been characterized by more rather than fewer symptoms of monetary and macroeconomic instability than the decades leading to the Fed’s establishment. (2) While the Fed’s performance has undoubtedly improved since World War II, even its postwar performance has not clearly surpassed that of its undoubtedly flawed predecessor, the National Banking system, before World War I. (3) Some proposed alternative arrangements might plausibly do better than the Fed as presently constituted. We conclude that the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system is as pressing today as it was a century ago.

Yglesias reveals his unfamiliarity with the Austrian literature when he writes, “Many of the original Austrians found their business cycle ideas discredited by the Great Depression, in which the bust was clearly not self-correcting.” Considering that Herbert Hoover's and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal impeded the market’s correction process, one wonders how the 1930s could possibly have discredited the Austrian theory of the origin of recessions.

Finally, Yglesias contends that “the Austrian school . . . preaches despair and demands no action at all.”

Balderdash. Since it explains that busts are central-bank-caused and hence avoidable through market-based money and banking, its implicit message is one of hope and optimism. And as for demanding no action, on the contrary, it puts forth a long list of actions for those who want stable economic growth—all of them designed to dismantle the interventionist state.

How Liberals [Socialistas] Distort Austrian EconomicsThe earliest Austrian economists did not make their mark by advocating free markets and other classical-liberal ideas. They did so by proffering a revolutionary positive (not normative) theoretical approach to understanding how markets work, focusing on value, price, and capital, theory.Yglesias thus conflates Austrian economic theory with libertarian political theory. In fairness, he is not alone in committing this error. Many libertarians do the same, which is unfortunate. Austrian economic theory describes how purposive action by fallible human beings unintentionally generates a grand, complex, and orderly market process. An additional ethical step is required to pronounce the market process good ..Yglesias writes: “Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations.” It’s odd to say this without also pointing out that Austrians believe that government causes the instability of inflationary booms, recessions, and depressions. In light of that point, the suggestion that government is capable of stabilizing the economy may be seen in its proper light.Drawing on a wide range of recent empirical research, we find the following: (1) The Fed’s full history (1914 to present) has been characterized by more rather than fewer symptoms of monetary and macroeconomic instability than the decades leading to the Fed’s establishment. (2) While the Fed’s performance has undoubtedly improved since World War II, even its postwar performance has not clearly surpassed that of its undoubtedly flawed predecessor, the National Banking system, before World War I. (3) Some proposed alternative arrangements might plausibly do better than the Fed as presently constituted. We conclude that the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system is as pressing today as it was a century ago.Yglesias reveals his unfamiliarity with the Austrian literature when he writes, “Many of the original Austrians found their business cycle ideas discredited by the Great Depression, in which the bust was clearly not self-correcting.” Considering that Herbert Hoover's and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal impeded the market’s correction process, one wonders how the 1930s could possibly have discredited the Austrian theory of the origin of recessions.Finally, Yglesias contends that “the Austrian school . . . preaches despair and demands no action at all.”

Balderdash. Since it explains that busts are central-bank-caused and hence avoidable through market-based money and banking, its implicit message is one of hope and optimism. And as for demanding no action, on the contrary, it puts forth a long list of actions for those who want stable economic growth—all of them designed to dismantle the interventionist state.

Domingo, Janeiro 15, 2012

A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity

The State hates the Internet (2)

The State hates the InternetWary Of SOPA, Reddit Users Aim To Build A New, Censorship-Free InternetMesh networks are designed to allow users to connect to one another directly instead of to a centralized Internet service provider ..

.. Meshnet would start by aiming to create local clusters of users and connect them with the traditional Internet. “We would piggyback on the current infrastructure to connect these islands of meshes,” he says. “But as the mesh networks grow, less and less dependence on the ISPs would be needed.””The problem with government projects is that there’s a mistrust of the government,” he says. “We want to connect all these communities, create one network, build it into something that would be more owned by the people than any corporations or government. We want to create an Internet that’s not dependent on the whims of any one group at all.”

Ron Paul educates

Ron Paul Wipes The Floor w MSNBC

analogia

Robert HiggsMy Australian friend Tim Gillin, like me, would like to see a stateless society but does not expect to see one. He writes:

"The analogy I use is crime. We all would like to see a society free of crime -- murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. -- but few of us ever believe a crime-free society is likely or practical. Do we think a crime-free society is humanly possible? Presumably most of us would also answer 'humanly possible yes, probable no.' That's how I think of a stateless society."

The analogy is precise, inasmuch as the state itself is a form of organized crime. If only more people recognized it for what it is. Tim adds, however, that unlike people in their rationalizations of the state, "very few people respond to the extreme improbability of a crimeless society by rationalizing in favour of crime or arguing that crime is a 'public good' or even 'socially necessary.'"

Sábado, Janeiro 14, 2012

Markets & Minorities

Thomas Sowell - Markets & Minorities

Uma história de pulhice e de pilhagem

Your dealings with the taxman must be prompt. His dealings with you need not beThe Government is unlawfully using late-payment penalty fines against tens of thousands of small firms who do not file their tax returns on time as a "cash-generating scheme" for the Exchequer.

In a damning judgement, the Tax Tribunal has ruled that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is operating a policy of "deliberately" waiting months before alerting businesses that have not filed their tax returns so that late- payment fines stack up.

"It is no function of the state to use the penalty system as a cash-generating scheme," said the judge, Geraint Jones, QC. "We have no doubt that any right-thinking member of society would consider that to be unfair and falling very far below the standard of fair dealing expected of an organ of the state."

the Iron Lady

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady

Socialism hurts the poor

Via O Insurgente, Hurting the Poor, Helping the Rich:

.. But the more I look around, the more I see that socialism is really a tool by means of which millionaire elites keep the poor masses from rising up ..

The evidence is overwhelming. Look at education. Rich people send their own children to expensive private schools .. meanwhile the political establishment makes sure that the only choice available to poor children is a horrible public school system that teaches nothing and trains students only for low-income jobs ..

Or look at business. Statism helps wealthy corporations in many ways .. Established businessmen use taxes and regulations to stifle competition from start-up entrepreneurs and up-and-coming small businessmen ..

Now look at the professions. Affluent professionals in the medical and legal fields enjoy salaries that are artificially increased because .. of doctor licensing and lawyer licensing that restrict the supply of new doctors and lawyers ..

In every situation mentioned, above socialist measures help the rich and hurt the poor, creating a caste system in which vast fortunes can be inherited but cannot be built up from scratch. The instances described above have all been justified on the ground that they benefit society as a whole or protect the whole public from the dangers of free markets — in itself a distinctly socialist justification. But a logical person would expect socialism to favor the wealthy, because it vests tremendous economic power in the class of bureaucrats and government officials, and one would expect the upper class to have the means to exploit that power. The rich are the ones most likely to be able to afford to run for office and to purchase influence among politicians by means of campaign contributions and special interest lobbying.

.. the wealthy are inherently better positioned than the poor to exploit the state’s power; therefore, the more powerful the state becomes, the more advantage the rich have over the poor in terms of the opportunity to make money.

.. While socialist interference in the economy drives up prices and eliminates jobs, the rich retain their connections, their ability to land good jobs, and their ability to pay for what they want to buy. By contrast, the poor have no choice other than to accept whatever goods and services the government-ruined markets have to offer, and they must desperately seek jobs in a market crippled by taxes and regulations.

O InsurgenteHurting the Poor, Helping the Rich.. But the more I look around, the more I see that socialism is really a tool by means of which millionaire elites keep the poor masses from rising up ..The evidence is overwhelming. Look at education. Rich people send their own children to expensive private schools .. meanwhile the political establishment makes sure that the only choice available to poor children is a horrible public school system that teaches nothing and trains students only for low-income jobs ..Or look at business. Statism helps wealthy corporations in many ways .. Established businessmen use taxes and regulations to stifle competition from start-up entrepreneurs and up-and-coming small businessmen ..Now look at the professions. Affluent professionals in the medical and legal fields enjoy salaries that are artificially increased because .. of doctor licensing and lawyer licensing that restrict the supply of new doctors and lawyers ..In every situation mentioned, above socialist measures help the rich and hurt the poor, creating a caste system in which vast fortunes can be inherited but cannot be built up from scratch. The instances described above have all been justified on the ground that they benefit society as a whole or protect the whole public from the dangers of free markets — in itself a distinctly socialist justification. But a logical person would expect socialism to favor the wealthy, because it vests tremendous economic power in the class of bureaucrats and government officials, and one would expect the upper class to have the means to exploit that power. The rich are the ones most likely to be able to afford to run for office and to purchase influence among politicians by means of campaign contributions and special interest lobbying... the wealthy are inherently better positioned than the poor to exploit the state’s power; therefore, the more powerful the state becomes, the more advantage the rich have over the poor in terms of the opportunity to make money... While socialist interference in the economy drives up prices and eliminates jobs, the rich retain their connections, their ability to land good jobs, and their ability to pay for what they want to buy. By contrast, the poor have no choice other than to accept whatever goods and services the government-ruined markets have to offer, and they must desperately seek jobs in a market crippled by taxes and regulations.