Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot!!
quarta-feira, outubro 19, 2016
The Real Reason Libertarians Don't Matter:
Here’s the thing to understand: The things libertarians want - freedom, less govt. interference in markets & in personal choices, non-interventionist foreign policy… there is no money in these things for politicians. There are no big corporations and very few rich people who are willing to pay tons of money to politicians to refrain from intervening in markets, or to keep the troops home, or to let people ingest whatever substances they want to.
In fact, it is just the opposite: Corporations have long been in the business of paying politicians to intervene in markets on their behalf, to erect barriers to competition and in some cases to squash a particular competitor. Competition is wonderful for society as a whole. But it’s not so great if you’re one of the ones doing the competing. It’s hard, and sometimes you lose. Sometimes, if you’re big enough, it’s just easier to send some money in the direction of the people who can discover antitrust violations in your competitor’s business practices.
Understand that behind the empty campaign promises, politicians have essentially two things to offer to the people who support them: 1. Power, in the form of regulatory and other control, over competitors and others who may get in the way of a particular entity remaining comfortably profitable; 2. Money. Not their own money of course - your money, and my money. Taken from us in taxes, and in the continual devaluation of the government-issued money we all use. Politicians can give money to their supporters in the form of contracts for things like military equipment and public works projects, or in less direct ways, like mandating that government schools all stock epinephrine injectors that meet the same very specific product requirements that your device happens to meet.
And the list goes on. What is not on this list is liberty. Why? Because nowhere in this game is there an advantage to selling liberty.
This is the real reason that libertarians “don’t matter” in the political sphere. It’s not because they don’t vote. It’s because they don’t participate in the real game of politics - the interest-driven game that can never reward a player who wishes to dismantle the very engine of that game. People win at the game of politics by buying and selling political power over other people’s lives and resources. A player who wants to reduce that power will not find themselves rewarded within that game - they will find themselves spat out of it.
Socialism: Force or Fantasy?:
Socialists are so intellectually slippery that they could crawl through a barrel of pretzels without knocking the salt off. It’s socialism until it doesn’t work; then it was never socialism in the first place. It’s socialism until the wrong guys get in charge; then it’s everything but. Under socialism, do you shoot the cow or just milk it 24/7? One thing I know for sure: When the milk runs out, socialists will blame the cow. Maybe the reason why socialists don’t like personal responsibility is that they don’t want to be held personally responsible.
Some socialists say that they are simply advocating “sharing,” and since socialism’s advocates have good intentions, it must be voluntary and beneficial, too. Except that it never is. If it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be socialism, and if it were beneficial, you wouldn’t need force to create it and sustain it.
Maybe all this nonsense springs from one fundamental, definitional flaw: if it’s not the use of force to shape society the way you want it, then socialism is nothing more than a nebulous fantasy. It’s a giant blackboard in the sky on which you can write anything your heart desires and then just erase it when embarrassing circumstances arise.
Either way, I don’t want any part of it, but it always seems to want a part of me.
O socialismo e o amor ao pobre:
A burguesia socialista não ama o pobre. A burguesia socialista ama a pobreza do indivíduo. Deseja e cobra que o Estado e que a sociedade ofereçam dignidade ao pobre, porém, não aceita que o indivíduo se liberte da pobreza e se torne independente; repudia a possibilidade do pobre se tornar um agente capitalista e acabar se tornando seu vizinho. Em sua perversão ideológica, ignora que o desejo do pobre é fazer parte do sistema capitalista, ser patrão, ficar rico para poder comprar o que quiser e na quantidade que desejar, viver num bairro nobre e fazer compras em Miami.
A verdade: Enquanto a burguesia capitalista deseja que o indivíduo saia da pobreza para poder consumir seus produtos e serviços, a burguesia socialista deseja que o indivíduo permaneça pobre por toda a vida, assim lhe servindo como a principal inspiração para suas masturbações filosóficas.
sábado, julho 02, 2016
It’s Not the Thought that Counts por Christian Newma:
So the next time you hear someone make the case that “it’s the thought that counts,” just remind them that it isn’t. If it was the “thought” that counted, one would have to consider which means allow for a greater number of people to satisfy urgently felt needs, and to arrive in a position where they can say “keep the change,” more frequently. If it was the thought that counted, the inevitable conclusion would lead them to free markets, voluntary transactions, capital accumulation, and the growth of wealth. When it comes right down to it, never is it the “thought” that counts. For people who either ignorantly or dishonestly profess such views, it is always the “feelings” that count.
Leaving the EU means joining the world:
I was just too young to vote in the 1975 referendum. I would have voted “Yes” to the European Community and I think I would have been right to do so. It had contributed to European peace by blurring French and German economic sovereignty. It was a free trade area in a world of high tariff barriers, albeit within a protectionist wall that excluded other countries and continents. It helped to halt Britain’s disastrous obsession with central planning.
Two decades later, the European project stopped being about economic growth (to this day it still has no trade deals with America, China, Japan, Brazil, India, Canada, Australia and Indonesia) and embarked on the drive for monetary and political union, embodied in the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon.
The result has been horrible.
Patri Friedman sobre o video Brexit the full movie:
But exactly BECAUSE this is a propaganda film targeted at potential Leave voters; it represents the arguments that those potential Leave voters will find compelling. That's what it's for - swaying those voters. And what are these arguments? They are classic free-market economic points about free markets, deregulation, and reducing bureaucracy to create economic growth, as well as beliefs in transparency and democracy. True or false, based on accurate or distorted facts, these are the ideas that pro-Leave propagandists thought would appeal to potential Leave voters.
.. on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarchocapitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have "open borders" at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property.
A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. Under total privatization, many local conflicts and "externality" problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled.
With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community.
Brexit: Individualism > Nationalism > Globalism por Jeff Deist:
Globalism, championed almost exclusively by political and economic elites, has been the dominant force in the West for a hundred years. World War I and the League of Nations established the framework for multinational military excursions, while the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank set the stage for the eventual emergence of the US dollar as a worldwide reserve currency. Progressive government programs in Western countries promised a new model for universalism and peace in the aftermath of the destruction of Europe. Human rights, democracy, and enlightened social views were now to serve as hallmarks of a post-monarchical Europe and rising US.
But globalism was never liberalism, nor was it intended to be by its architects. As its core, globalism has always meant rule by illiberal elites under the guise of mass democracy. It has always been distinctly anti-democratic and anti-freedom, even as it purported to represent liberation from repressive governments and poverty.
Yes, libertarians advocate unfettered global trade ..
But the EU, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, TPP, and the whole alphabet soup of trade schemes are wholly illiberal impediments masquerading as real commercial freedom. In fact, true free trade occurs only in the absence of government agreements. The only legislation required is a unilateral one-sentence bill: Country X hereby eliminates all import duties, taxes, and tariffs on all Y goods imported from country Z.
And as Godfrey Bloom explains, the European Union is primarily a customs zone, not a free trade zone. A bureaucracy in Brussels is hardly necessary to enact simple pan-European tariff reductions. It is necessary, however, to begin building what globalism truly demands: a de facto European government, complete with dense regulatory and tax rules, quasi-judicial bodies, a nascent military, and further subordination of national, linguistic, and cultural identities.
.. It’s true that libertarians ought not to concern themselves with “national sovereignty” in the political sense, because governments are not sovereign kings and should never be treated as worthy of determining the course of our lives. But it is also true that the more attenuated the link between an individual and the body purporting to govern him, the less control — self-determination — that individual has.
Ultimately, Brexit is not a referendum on trade, immigration, or the technical rules promulgated by the (awful) European Parliament. It is a referendum on nationhood, which is a step away from globalism and closer to individual self-determination. Libertarians should view the decentralization and devolution of state power as ever and always a good thing, regardless of the motivations behind such movements. Reducing the size and scope of any single (or multinational) state’s dominion is decidedly healthy for liberty.
quinta-feira, junho 23, 2016
Todos os impostos começam por ser para os ricos…:
Todo o imposto sobre o rendimento, quando é introduzido, dirige-se aos “ricos” (pelo menos é o que os políticos dizem). Depois, os anos passam, e a noção de “rico” vai sendo cada vez mais alargada; as deduções vão emagrecendo; e, finalmente, a complexidade ligada à aplicação do imposto cresce exponencialmente – medido em número de páginas, o código o imposto tem hoje 187 vezes mais páginas que as 400 originais em 1913 (caso dos Estados Unidos).
Saviors Need Victims:
Saviors need victims who need saving. And if such victims are not real and readily available, the saviors conjure them up by convincing themselves that this or that group of people are helpless victims eager to be raised from the muck of their misfortunes by the saviors. Sometimes the saviors convince even the groups they seek to save that they — the members of these groups — are indeed mired in a muck from which they can be extracted only by the saviors.
Anarchism and Radical Decentralization Are the Same Thing:
Even in a world where one could choose freely among providers of legal and defense services (i.e., a marketplace for civil government) there would not be an unlimited number of choices. What makes markets preferable to states, however, is that they are voluntary, dynamic, flexible, and constantly seeking to provide desirable services in exchange for the freely-given cooperation from the consumers.
This sort of voluntary society can be facilitated and expanded through the use of free association and secession as envisioned by Mises, or through the type of local nullification and civil disobedience as envisioned by Hoppe. In either case, conflict resolution shifts away from state coercion and toward negotiation, compromise, arbitration, and consensus. While even these methods can still result in violence when they fail, they are preferable to the state model of governance in which coercive violence is assumed, legitimized, and frequently used.
Those regimes that offer more freedom, more respect for private property, and more self-determination, will also be those that are most economically successful. But fundamentally, the power of states can only ultimately be controlled by human beings adopting ideologies that question the prerogatives and legitimacy of monopolistic states. In the absence of these ideologies, no organizational structure, no document, and no historical event can by itself create the conditions necessary for the successful exercise of self-determination.
Beware of Kafkatrapping:
The term "kafkatrapping" describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.
The Immaturity of Supporting Hillary Clinton as a Woman:
It is important to note that such immature thinking is to be found only on the left. Racial solidarity, ethnic solidarity, class solidarity and gender solidarity all matter to the left, not the right. When Margaret Thatcher first ran for the office of British prime minister, she would have become the first female prime minister in British history. But British conservatives, including women who supported her, rarely mentioned her gender, let alone offered it as a reason to vote for her.
segunda-feira, maio 16, 2016
A Superior Vision:
My initial premise, when looking at all human issues, is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are your private property. If you agree with that premise, then certain human actions are moral and others immoral. The reason murder is immoral is that it violates private property. Similarly, rape and theft are immoral, for them, too, violate private property. Most Americans will agree that murder and rape violate people’s property rights and are hence immoral. But there may not be so much agreement about theft. Let’s look at it.
Theft is when a person’s property is taken from him — through stealth, force, intimidation, threats or coercion — and given to another to whom it does not belong. If a person took your property — even to help another person who is in need — it would be called theft. Suppose three people agreed to that taking. Would it be deemed theft? What if 100,000 or several hundred million people agreed to do so? Would that be deemed theft? Another way to ask these questions is: Does a consensus establish morality?
People have the right to take chances with their own lives. People do not have a right to take chances with the lives of others .. Nobody should be forced to take care of me for any reason. If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives.
I have only touched the surface of ideas of self-ownership .. We’ve become a nation of people endeavoring to live at the expense of others — in a word, a nation of thieves.
No, You Don't Have an Obligation to Vote:
(1) It's your civic duty. Really? .. In certain instances you might even have an obligation not to vote. If you sincerely believe the system is rigged, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump claim, then maybe you should abstain—lest you grant legitimacy to a system that doesn't deserve it.
(2) Not voting insults our veterans who fought for that right .. rights also entails a corresponding right: the right not to do those things .. Veterans fought (and troops now are fighting) to keep Americans free, not to keep them tied down with endless obligations.
(3) If you don't vote, you can't complain. Sure you can ..
Despite the lousy choices and long odds, many of us vote anyway, because .. It's fun to take part in something even when the results are mostly out of our hands. But .. it's perfectly rational to decline—and no moral stain on you if you do.
The real reason Donald Trump is unfit to be president:
As Vaclav Havel used to say in Czechoslovakia, living under a Communist regime doesn't mean that you have to legitimize it. A citizen can still retain his or her integrity by refusing to vote for the approved list, refusing to display party posters, refusing to repeat official slogans. And integrity matters.
segunda-feira, maio 09, 2016
Daily Reminder that the wage gap isn’t real:
This article is nothing new or unique, I’m just here to say what has been said over and over again. However, instead of just arguing the points, stating all the statistics, and repeating what has been said over a hundred times now, I’m just going to gather all the already existing videos and articles that perfectly debunk the wage gap in so many ways and put them all in one place.
If after reading this article to the end, you still believe that women (In western countries) are paid less than men for the same job, you are either willfully ignorant, delusional, or you just really want women to be paid less than me
Even an anarchist society would not be a world without the political. It indeed might be a world without electoral politics for positions of state power, but even voluntary organizations involve rules that must be negotiated (and sometimes even elections) and activities that require consensus and consent. These are the political.
So if we wish to say that we “reject politics,” I think we should be clear that it is the electoral politics of the state that we are rejecting.
I do believe that people should feel an obligation to debate what constitutes a good society and to work toward achieving it. There are a variety of ways to do that, and electoral politics is only the smallest slice of the larger pie. Many of us are doing these things in our own ways already.
By explicitly acknowledging our political engagement, we might challenge the idea that electoral politics is all that matters. We’ll also reduce the perception that we don’t care about improving the world.
The world we desire is not a world without politics. Recognizing this might open up more careful thought about what it means to be a citizen — not just of that imagined libertopia, but of our own world where democratic politics, in Ostrom’s broader conception, infuses so much of what we do, including the voluntary sector that we value so deeply.
Progressives, Left and Right:
It is, of course, a virtue and a defining feature that liberty is neither left nor right. Libertarianism per se says nothing about outcomes, about whether a more libertarian society would be more culturally conservative or liberal, more traditional or secular, more egalitarian or stratified, or anything else. Libertarianism is anti-state and pro-private property. Nothing more, nothing less.
Progressivism has been the overwhelming force in western politics for the last 100 years. Political progressives—defined not by their party, but by their desire to remake man into a more obedient political animal, absolutely dominated the 20th century.
In every meaningful way, progressives control politics, government, business, and culture in America and the west. The 20th century was so irretrievably progressive that we’ve stopped paying attention to the baseline state all around us. Thanks to that progressive century—a century of war and socialism—government has become like the furniture or potted plants around us: we’re so accustomed to it we no longer even see it.
Of course, progressivism virtually always means left progressivism. While there are right-wing progressives (neoconservatives) with grandiose ideas about government and human nature, most of them came from and will comfortably return to the Left when it suits them. And left-progressives largely have co-opted neoconservative foreign policy prescriptions for their own
Every realistic, potential, or actual threat to liberty in the western world today results directly from progressives policies. The simple reality is that state power in the west, and the threat of state power, is overwhelmingly wielded by progressives rather than conservatives. Even when progressives don’t directly control a particular state apparatus, they effectively apply extra-legal means (executive or judicial) to promote their political agenda and thwart the opposition.
.. libertarians should be reaching out by talking about decentralization, secession, and unyoking ourselves politically from the progressive Hydra. It’s the only peaceful (i.e., nonpolitical) way forward for all of us, regardless of ideology.