America's Socialist Origins
quarta-feira, maio 04, 2016
Again, What Is Economic Freedom?:
Here are five core elements to this idea of market freedom, or whatever you want to call it. It is my short summary of the classical liberal vision of the free society and its functioning, which isn’t just about economics, but the whole of life itself. Call it capitalism if you want to.
I. Volition. Markets are about human choice at every level of society.
II. Ownership. .. as long as we live in the material world, there will be potential conflicts over scarce resources. These conflicts can be resolved through fighting over things or through the recognition of property rights. If we prefer peace over war, volition over violence, productivity over poverty, all scarce resources -- without exception -- need private owners.
III. Cooperation .. People need people to obtain a better life. We trade to our mutual betterment. We cooperate in work. We develop every form of association with each other: commercial, familial, fraternal, and religious. The lives of all of us are improved by our capacity to cooperate in some form with other people.
IV. Learning .. We observe success and failure in others, and we are free to accept or reject these lessons as we see fit. In a free society, we are free to emulate others, accumulate and apply wisdom, read and absorb ideas, and extract information from any source to adapt for our own uses.
V. Competition .. there should be no legal (coercive) limits on the ways in which we are permitted to serve each other.
Private Cities: A Path to Liberty:
The incentive for the operator of a private city would be profit: offering an attractive product at the right price. This would likely include public goods, such as a clean environment, police, and fire protection, as well as some infrastructure and social rules. But the operator’s main service is to ensure that the free order is not disturbed and that residents’ life and property are secure.
Competition has been proven as the only effective method in human history for limitation of power. In a private city, contract and arbitration are efficient tools in favor of the residents. But ultimately, it is competition and the possibility of a speedy exit that guarantee that the operator remains a service provider and does not become a dictator.
A private city is not a utopian, constructivist idea. Instead, it is simply a known business model applied to another sector, the market of living together.
A essência do socialismo:
O socialismo parte do princípio que grupos ou classes sociais competem entre si pelos recursos e que compete ao estado ser o salomónico árbitro que regula as transferências de recursos (redistribuição) entre esses grupos. Supostamente para garantir justiça, equidade, etc, etc. A consequência é que a governação socialista acaba por ser uma luta constante em que os diversos grupos tentam obter os favores do estado; sendo que cada favor obtido resulta – objectivamente – à custa da restante população.
segunda-feira, maio 02, 2016
You Can Take the Word Liberal From Me When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Mouth por Jeffery Tucker:
Now, you might correctly point out that the “liberals” started it. About a century ago, everyone knew what a liberal was. A liberal favored free speech, freedom of action, a free economic order, and religious freedom. A liberal opposed war. A liberal favored the ever-increasing liberation of the world from oppression, poverty, suffering.
That began to change in the Progressive Era and especially with the New Deal. Liberals had to make a choice between the free economy and the fascist model of the New Deal. They chose poorly. Yet they kept calling themselves liberals. Ten years later, it had begun to stick.
Who Cares about Inequality? — Political Equality Is All That Matters:
The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality. But this is a false dichotomy. The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality.
Political equality refers to equality of rights.
In a land of opportunity, an individual should succeed or fail on the basis of merit, not political privilege. You deserve what you earn — no more, no less. Today, however, some people are being stopped from rising by merit, and others are securing unearned wealth through political privilege. But the real source of this problem is that we have granted the government an incredible amount of arbitrary power: to intervene in our affairs, to pick winners and losers, to put roadblocks in the way of success, to hand out wealth and other special favors to whatever pressure group can present itself as the face of “the public good.” Some of these injustices do increase economic inequality, but it isn’t the inequality that should bother us — it’s the injustices.
Only when the government is limited to the function of protecting our equal rights can people rise through merit rather than through government-granted privilege. The cure for people seeking special favors from the government is to create a government that has no special favors to grant.
.. We need to liberate the individual so that each of us is equally free to pursue success and happiness.
Leitura obrigatória - 18 Spectacularly Wrong Prophecies from the First Earth Day
domingo, maio 01, 2016
Sanders' image of Scandinavia is just like the rest of his policies: stuck in the 1970s.
During its laissez faire period, between 1850 and 1950, Swedish income per capita increased eightfold as the population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 percent, and life expectancy increased by a whopping 28 years. And all this happened before the welfare state was even a glint in the taxman's eye.
It was at this point, when we Scandinavians had satisfied our thirst, that we thought that we could turn our backs to the well. We began to regulate.
.. the Scandinavian countries became a real life version of the old joke about how to make a small fortune; you start with a large one. Sweden took democratic socialist policies further than its neighbors, and as a result its economy fell more steeply.
It was a disaster for entrepreneurship and employment. During this time, not a single job was created in the private sector (on net), despite a growing population. As of 2000, just one of the 50 biggest Swedish companies had been founded after 1970.
During this brief Bolivarian turn, many Swedish intellectuals feared that their country would become an Orwellian nightmare. The Social Democrats toyed with an incredibly unpopular plan to socialize private businesses, and Parliament implemented a general rule saying that any economic transaction that had the intention of lowering one's taxes was illegal even if the transaction itself was legal. IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad and many other entrepreneurs, plus all of our famous sports stars, fled the country.
But in the early 1990s Sweden began to abandon its brief detour into Bernienomics. It deregulated, privatized, reduced taxes, and opened the public sector to private providers. The two decades that followed saw real wages increase by almost 70 percent.
Unlike Sanders, Scandinavian socialists have concluded that you can have a big government or you can make the rich pay for it all, but you can't do both.
Nixon Advisor Admitted War on Drugs Invented to Crush Anti-War and Black Movements:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others,” he famously said. He also claimed “[r]eefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” With regard to war, Anslinger insisted marijuana “leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing.” Though Anslinger was found to be dishonest — his department was caught fabricating figures in an attempt to prove prohibition stopped drug use and to prove marijuana was unhealthy — his basic prejudiced notions persisted for decades.
If You Vote, Do You Have a Right to Complain?:
I do not vote. This is not due to laziness or apathy. I do not vote as a matter of principle. I have given the question careful consideration and concluded that it is morally wrong to vote. I have long believed that I arrived at this conclusion solely on the basis of valid reasoning from sound ethical principles. However, I recently encountered something that made me wonder whether my opposition to voting may actually derive from something more primitive.
Voting is a selection process. It is perfectly appropriate to argue at length whether a system that assigns decision-making authority to whoever gets the most people on his her side is the best method of allocating coercive power. And if, like me, you believe that this is not a good selection process, you are free not to vote. But if you voluntarily agree to participate in the process by voting, then you are bound to shut up and live with the result. If you agree to participate in a process that gives whoever gets the most votes the power to decide what the government should do (within the law), then stop whining if he or she does not use that power the way that you prefer. If you vote, you don't get to say, "I don't like the teams. I'm not playing."
quarta-feira, abril 13, 2016
It never ceases to amaze me how people who personally advocate that I be forcibly subjugated and extorted to serve their agenda and priorities can then be shocked and offended when I criticize them for condoning violence against me. No, we can't "agree to disagree," and no, we can't get along "civilly," because YOU want armed agents of your "government" god to commit aggression against me. If you don't like me pointing out the immorality and hypocrisy of your authoritarian bullshit, that's your problem. Stop cheering for evil, and I will stop criticizing you for it.
Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism:
Societies are made up of the people who reside within them. If you replace the people of one society with the people of another society, then the society will come to resemble that of the place the new people just fled. Democratically elected governments, though they may seem largely unresponsive to what you want individually, do respond to that which can get them elected. If the people now electing your government, are the same people who elected the government of Mexico, or Venezuela, or some other terrible place, then in rather short order, your government will resemble that government. This almost seems too obvious to have to state.
"Se todos pagassem os seus impostos" ou "A história da Carochinha":
Se todos pagassem os seus impostos há uma certeza que tenho: no ano seguinte havia défice outra vez.
terça-feira, abril 12, 2016
As engrenagens do parasitismo:
Resumidamente, o Estado faz depender de si praticamente metade da população, sendo que, da outra metade, assegura que a maior parte não paga impostos para que não levante um motim, chegando até a dar-lhe algumas regalias, indo buscar todo o produto de que necessita à cada vez mais ténue minoria de empreendedores e trabalhadores verdadeiramente produtivos e atarefados que compõem a classe média e alta do setor privado. Mesmo assim, não vá o diabo tecê-las, inventa o conceito de retenção na fonte, escondendo da vista dos trabalhadores o assalto, fazendo depender de uma minoria ainda mais pequena, a dos patrões, o processamento de toda a papelada e trabalho burocrático que levaria qualquer cidadão comum a revoltar-se contra a canalha assaltante (de notar que as entidades reguladoras se asseguram que, ao mínimo deslize, a empresa que lute contra este inferno será atirada para um espancamento fiscal e judicial, para não mencionar reputacional, que mais nenhum empreendedor tentará a gracinha de lutar contra o processo).
Para este fim, é importantíssimo criar a ideia de que não pagar impostos não é simplesmente evitar um assalto: há que instalar na mente de todos os cidadãos que não prestar tributo ao Estado é considerar que os interesses individuais estão acima dos coletivos, é ser egoísta. Todos temos de pagar a nossa ‘justa parte’. Para os engraçadinhos que mesmo assim não se convencerem, cria o Estado um sem fim de mecanismos de deduções fiscais, que são basicamente prémios por entregar a produção privada ao gang, e que podem ser usados para gerir os incentivos (como dizem os economistas modernos), de forma a que, mais uma vez, se coloquem os cidadãos a policiar os seus próprios vizinhos. É prova disto a dedução por gastos com manutenção de veículos, gastos com cabeleireiros, os sorteios de veículos ou mesmo esse grande prémio que são os certificados de dívida do Estado! Os economistas, professores e demais intelectuais ao serviço do Estado conseguiram a grande proeza de fazer o povo acreditar que toda a sua produção é devida ao gang, e que cabe ao gang gerir e orientar as melhores formas de gerar a riqueza.
aviso à navegação por by rui a.:
O estatismo projectou a ideia, que vingou em sociedades mais frágeis, como a portuguesa, de que os governantes são uma espécie de seres superiores ao comum dos mortais, de elevada inteligência, com capacidades para além do normal, que zelam, abnegadamente, pela nossa felicidade. Erro fatal: não apenas são homens exactamente iguais aos outros nas suas limitações e incapacidades, como muitos deles têm um elevado quociente de estupidez congénita, que o vício e a dependência da política agravaram e obstruíram o mais elementar sentido crítico. E esta gente toma decisões que a todos nos podem afectar. É bom estarmos conscientes disso.