Convenient Boogeyman - transcrição
We live in an era in which voters have elected politicians who vote for programs of state intervention. People with badges and guns threaten those who prosper through exchange. Yet, lo and behold, economic inequality is still with us. But what we find is this: those who get very rich seem to be able to avoid the long arm of the law. In fact, they seem to be the beneficiaries of it. A century after the Progressive movement gained its greatest triumphs -- the Federal Reserve System, the federal income tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators -- there is still economic inequality. The spiritual heirs of the Progressive offer a solution: more of the same.
Those of us who remain skeptical of the Progressives and their heirs propose a rollback of the power of the state.
If you get individual justice, there will be greater social justice. That is our position. We are beginning to get a hearing. Meanwhile, the West's economy is in the hands of unelected central bankers and the few dozen major banks, which central banks represent. We are told that we need central banks in order to insure the independence of banking from politics. The defenders of social justice actually believe this -- all in the name of mass democracy. What we have are the most powerful cartels in history: commercial banking cartels.
Consistency is not one of the strengths of those who defend social justice.
It's a debate over two views of theft:
Take your pick.
- Thou shalt not steal.
- Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows .. the produced output will increase over-proportionally, and real incomes will actually rise ..
As it is stated, the above argument in favor of free immigration is irrefutable and correct. It would be foolish to attack it, just as it would be foolish to deny that free trade leads to higher living standards than does protectionism.
In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation). The territory over which a government’s taxing power extends becomes “inland,” and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner.
Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties. Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism).
.. The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy .. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian).
Khan has proven that 100+ years of educational theory is wrong. With no training whatsoever in a formal program of education, he became, almost overnight, the most important teacher in the history of the world. The teachers' union can scream bloody murder, but it won't do any good. His program is clearly better than anything that the typical tax-funded public school has to offer. Other charter schools will pick up Khan's program. Why not? It's free. They get all of this educational support material, and it does not cost them a dime. All the school has to do is buy used computers, add Wi-Fi, and let the students loose on Khan Academy's site.
Bigotry is not politely declining to cater a gay wedding, or relating racial opinions and misgivings to your girlfriend; neither involves active antagonization. Bigotry does include both wielding the State against gays, blacks, etc (like Jim Crow laws, etc), and such non-State antagonization as protesting a gay wedding or funeral, as do the Westboro Baptist Church bigots, or hostilely belittling a black man by addressing him as “boy” or some other epithet.
But bigotry also includes boycott organizers trying to destroy the business of religious bakers, feminists trying to get a disc jockey fired for playing the song “Blurred Lines,” and thought police publicly hounding elderly men over coarse things they get caught saying in private or merely politically incorrect or poorly phrased things they state in public.
The BOP strategy, when directed at people over their personal views and how they arrange their personal and commercial affairs, is predicated on antagonization over a difference in thought and behavior, and it is therefore bigotry. What else can you call even non-violent campaigns against people’s very livelihoods and against their welcome in society itself, over their different personal beliefs and unobtrusive practices?
Experience shows that if something is going to go really wrong, predictably waste your time, annoy you and attack your dignity, and finally just prove to be totally ineffective at accomplishing the task, there’s a good chance that it involves the government.
1. Presume that all things worth knowing are already known.
2. Presume that the path of victory is paved by enforcement.
3. Presume that all disagreement amounts to betrayal and treason.
4. Presume that the material world matters more than ideas.
5. Oppose every unapproved change in the plan.
The court ruled that “closely held corporations” whose owners have religious convictions against contraceptives cannot be forced to pay for employee coverage for those products.
I wish the court could have said this instead: (1) No one has a natural right to force other people to pay for her (or his) contraception or anything else (with or without the government’s help), and by logical extension, (2) everyone has a right to refuse to pay if asked.
For people about to celebrate the Fourth of July, these principles ought to be, well, self-evident.
A group of politicians cannot legitimately have the power to compel one group of people—employers, taxpayers, or insurers—to pay for things that another group wants. That’s immoral, and it violates inalienable rights. Moreover, when government has the power to issue such commands—always backed by force, let us never forget—it sets off a mad interest-group scramble for control of the government machinery—because control is a license to steal. Is it any wonder that people are willing to spend billions of dollars to influence who makes government policy? If people face the alternative of controlling the government or being controlled by it, those who have resources will buy power and influence, even if only in self-defense.
Free persons ought to be at liberty to opt out of any decree that violates their rights. (Decrees against murder, theft, and rape do not violate rights, so one may not opt out of them.) This libertarian principle means that a person would not only be free to opt out of a contraception mandate on religious grounds but would also be able to opt out of any mandate on any grounds—moral as well as religious—or no grounds at all! That’s freedom.
Think of the benefits: you and I could opt out of paying for war and empire. This is a slippery slope all freedom-loving people should embrace.