terça-feira, junho 23, 2015

Your enemy is the State

An Open Letter to Baltimore Rioters:
I’m not going to give you the cliche “violence is not the answer” line, because that’s a lie. There is a predatory gang of criminals at large who rob, assault, kidnap, and murder with impunity. The police, and the institution they stand for are your enemy, and they will not stop victimizing you until doing so becomes so dangerous that they find more productive ways of sustaining themselves.

Not only is violence the answer, it is the only answer, and the answer is so obvious that I am perpetually baffled by the fact that people don’t see it and act on it every day. The dumbed down docile nature of the public at large is so frighteningly destructive that it makes the looting look civilized by comparison.
So by all means Baltimore, burn buildings to the ground. Go ahead, kill your oppressors. Throw rocks, bottles, firebombs, and whatever weaponry you can muster at your enemy.

But perhaps you might want to figure out who your enemy is before you begin.
The State is your enemy, kill him before he kills you. He is not difficult to identify. He is so brazen in his aggressions that he brags about them on television. He claims his authority to brutalize you, by winning a popularity contest that you call an election. He wears uniforms, displays his emblems proudly, threatens you with sirens and strobe lights. He is not hiding.

Your enemy is the State. Kill him! Gun him down! Set him on fire! Break his spinal cord! Strangle him! Take his property! Make his family live in fear until they disassociate from him!

But if you instead loot businesses owned by your fellow victims, if you set fire to buildings that are not the property of your enemy, if you harm the innocent, then you have become the enemy yourself.

Income Inequality + Globalization

Trading Away Income Inequality: the Effects of Globalization | Learn Liberty

O País dos Fachos

O País dos Fachos por Ricardo Lima:
O português é aquele tipo que questiona o porquê de determinado fulano – ou entidade – não pagar taxas ou licenças e nunca o porquê dessas mesmas taxas ou licenças existirem. Vivemos numa luta de classes distópica em que grupos de interesses se tentam, diariamente, enterrar uns aos outros. Os fumadores que não bebem estão-se marimbando para as taxas sobre o álcool, quem bebe e não fuma aplaude as taxas sobre o fumo. Os taxistas querem ver a Uber pelas costas mas ai de quem taxe os turistas que a clientela voa – e não é para cá. Não nos entendemos. Com o mal do outro convivemos nós bem ..
Vivemos num país maioritariamente católico mas não nos amamos uns aos outros, longe disso, quanto mais respeitar a vontade do próximo. Somos chicos-espertos socorrendo-nos do nosso chico-espertismo para entalar o próximo, que tomamos sempre como um chico-esperto a tentar entalar-nos com o seu chico espertismo.
O que presentemente ocorre com a Uber em relação aos Táxis é o que se vem passando com as bancas de cerveja e as garrafeiras em relação aos bares, com os hostels em relação aos hotéis, com as tascas típicas em relação a alguns restaurantes, com as low-cost em relação à TAP, com os produtos da China e com outros infindáveis casos. É a treta da certificação e dos padrões de qualidade. É a história do cumprimento exímio da lei, da protecção do consumidor, da monitorização e do raio que nos parta. Somos um país de pequenos fascistas. A concorrência é uma coisa chata.
Se para pagar impostos um tipo quase precisa de uma pós-graduação em contabilidade, a burocracia é uma coisa aborrecida, medonha, quase kafkiana. Mas se o vizinho do lado precisa de meia dúzia de requerimentos para pintar as paredes ou mudar o portão do quintal acha-se muito bem. Era o que mais faltava o indivíduo fazer o que lhe apetece com a própria casa .. há sempre um energúmeno a bater palmas ..
.. Enquanto nos acharmos no direito de intervir no espaço do próximo, através do Estado – de outra forma seria uma agressão – estamos a legitimar que este mesmo Estado intervenha no nosso. A história provou que os precedentes que abrimos são perigosos e a última década vem mostrando que cada vez menos existem limites para a esfera interventiva dos governos .. de facto, em Portugal, a burrice tem um passado glorioso e um futuro promissor.”

People Hate Feminism (TEMP)

Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #1 - Feminists Hate Men | #2 - The Patriarchy | #3 - The Gender Pay Gap (#EqualPayDay) | #4 - Gender Studies Degrees

Just say no

Saxo Bank CEO: "The Election Outcome In Britain Is Our One Chance To Say Stop To Brussels":
Last year, we celebrated the 25 year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Back then, in 1989, who could have imagined that just 25 years later, we would have forgotten about capitalism’s victory, about the dangers and failure of supranational government and control, forgotten socialism's absolute bankruptcy and the importance of competition, efficient capital allocation and specialisation. Yet, here we are, with the EU repeating the failed experiments of the past.

Enough is enough.

Condemn Inflation

Ten Reasons to Condemn Inflation:
1. Inflation Causes Booms and Busts
2. Inflation Redistributes Wealth and Purchasing Power
3. Inflation Prevents the Price of Goods From Falling
4. Inflation Causes the Welfare State to Grow
5. Inflation Destroys Families
6. Inflation Corrupts People
7. Inflation Expands the State Bureaucracy
8. Inflation Makes People Materialistic, Envious, and Egotistical
9. Inflation Depresses People
10. Inflation Leads to Waste and (Natural) Resources Becoming More Expensive

PIB Keynesiano

How GDP Metrics Distort Our View of the Economy:
GDP’s faulty theoretical underpinnings and politically motivated acceptance distort the performance and nature of an economy while failing to satisfactorily estimate a society’s standard of living. In fact, Kuznets partially understood this. In his very first report to the US Congress in 1934, Kuznets said “the welfare of a nation [can] scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.” Yet the blind usage of GDP persists. That its permanence and persistence only serves the Keynesian policies of greater consumer spending, increased government expenditures, and larger exports through currency debasement should not be considered coincidental. Unfortunately, the resulting economic stagnation, debt accumulation, and price inflation are as inevitable as they are predictable.

From Marxism to Capitalism

Thomas Sowell - From Marxism to Capitalism

tia Ayn Rand

If you really want to borrow $25 from me, I will take a chance on finding out what kind of person you are.
I want you to understand right now that I will not accept any excuse—except a serious illness. If you become ill, then I will give you an extension of time—but for no other reason. If, when the debt becomes due, you tell me that you can’t pay me because you needed a new pair of shoes or a new coat or you gave the money to somebody in the family who needed it more than I do—then I will consider you as an embezzler. No, I won’t send a policeman after you, but I will write you off as a rotten person and I will never speak or write to you again.
I will tell you the reasons for the conditions I make: I think that the person who asks and expects other people to give him money, instead of earning it, is the most rotten person on earth. I would like to teach you, if I can, very early in life, the idea of a self-respecting, self-supporting, responsible, capitalistic person. If you borrow money and repay it, it is the best training in responsibility that you can ever have.


Do Big Unions Buy Politicians?

Socialismo, burocracia, incompetência

Coisas que me tiram do sério (1) por Helder Ferreira:
.. não existe qualquer possibilidade de, em média, a qualidade da gestão pública ter sequer uma fracção da qualidade da gestão privada, pura e simplesmente porque não é possível alinhar os incentivos correctamente e porque a gestão pública é muitas vezes submetida a interesses políticos. As pessoas são o que são e reagem a incentivos. Ponto.
BÓNUS: Governo pergunta aos interessados na TAP se por mais 2€ não querem levar também a Carris, a CP e o Metro

Wealth Disparity

Thomas Sowell - Wealth Disparity

bad people

Robert Higgs:
The array of ad hominems flung in the face of libertarian anarchists is astonishing. We are called utopian, simplistic, unrealistic, impractical, and unconstructive, at best, and quite commonly called idiotic, arrogant, ill-informed, stupid, malevolent, and even destructive. A man from Mars listening to these calumnies might be forgiven for supposing that libertarian anarchists are very bad people, indeed.

Yet we are not the ones who willingly support and justify the rapacious state under which everyone except the privileged few is now plundered economically and debauched morally. We are not the ones who've approved the slaughter of millions of human beings in unnecessary foreign wars, the imprisonment of millions in the USA for victimless crimes, the ruin of entire subgroups of the population by means of welfare dependency, the miseducation of generation after generation in government schools, where the children are fed propaganda and political correctness with delicate concern for their self-esteem but no concern for their ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers. We are not the ones who have voted into office corrupt politicians in one election after another, expressing shock when one of them is episodically revealed to be the kind of scumbag that, in reality, nearly all of them are. We are not the ones who've supported the unjust redistribution of income in a thousand different programs and projects and the destruction of wealth through political machinations that create regime uncertainty, placing private property rights at incalculable risk and paralyzing investors and entrepreneurs who might otherwise drive rapid economic growth. We are not the ones . . . well, the litany might be extended indefinitely.

Surveying this sordid vista, well might one ask, Who are the truly foolish, destructive, and malevolent people in the USA?

Everything Has Its Price

Everything Has Its Price (And That's A Good Thing) | Learn Liberty

The libertarian case against vouchers

The libertarian case against vouchers por Jacob G. Hornberger:
Would that be morally justified? We all know it wouldn’t be. It is ingrained in all of us that stealing is wrong, even when the money provides “choice” to the robber.

That’s one of the fundamental moral objections that libertarians have always raised with respect to not only public schooling but to the entire welfare-state way of life. We have always held that forcibly taking money from a person to whom it belongs and giving it to someone else can never be morally justified, not even when it’s the government (or the majority) doing the taking and the giving. If it’s morally wrong for a robber to take your money to fund a child’s education, it’s just as morally wrong for the state to take your money to fund a child’s education.

Voucher schemes are based on the same immoral principle on which public schooling is based. Public schooling involves the government’s taking of money from people to whom it belongs in order to use it to fund the state’s schooling of people who have children. By the same token, vouchers are based on the government’s taking of money from people in order to fund the costs of private schooling for a select number of people’s children.

Immorality is immorality. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing.

segunda-feira, junho 22, 2015

Por que você é pobre?

Por que você é pobre? | Fernando Holiday

No compromise with thieves

Larken Rose:
Carjacker: "Hand over the keys, or die!" [aims gun at victim]
Victim: "Screw you, you thieving bastard!" [aims gun at car-jacker]
Carjacker: "Come on now, I was only expressing myself! No need to get all violent and divisive! Can't we all just get along?"
Victim: "Not while you're trying to rob me."
Carjacker: "Let's just agree to disagree."
Victim: "You mean you'll stop robbing me?"
Carjacker: "No, I mean we should agree to disagree about whether I should steal your car. I think I should. You think I shouldn't. But does that mean we can't be polite and civil, and appreciate opposing views?"
Victim: "You stupid shit. No, we can't get along or be civilized as long as you're trying to rob me!"
Carjacker: "Hey, no need for name-calling! You're so judgmental and intolerant! I'm offended!"
Victim: "Piss off, thief."
Carjacker: "My viewpoint is just as valid as yours!"
Victim: "No, it isn't."
Carjacker: "So you think you're BETTER than me? You think your opinion is more valid than mine?"
Victim: "YES, you jackass! Because I'm not trying to rob you!"
That's pretty much how debates between statists and voluntaryists usually go.


WAR | What They Won't Tell You!
Texto - War, Profit, and the State


Labor Unions Create Unemployment: It’s a Feature, Not a Bug:
.. the labor movement, from the very beginning, meant to protect organized white male labor from competition against black labor, immigrant labor, female labor, and nonunion labor.

Rule of Law or Emergence by Anarchy?

Embora com uma opinião pouco sofisticada relativamente ao voluntarismo...

Hayek and Hazlett: Rule of Law or Emergence by Anarchy?

O Papa anticapitalista

Pope Francis Condemns Legalization of Marijuana

John Galt Speech

Atlas Shrugged: John Galt Speech (raw footage)

O Papa anticapitalista

Coisas que não entram na cabecinha imoral do Papa: Stanford research finds climate change regulation burden heaviest on poor

The Ideas of Friedrich Hayek

Episode 85: The Ideas of Friedrich Hayek (with Steven Horwitz)

O Papa anticapitalista

The Vatican’s global warming blunder
Amazingly, the Vatican’s refusal to consider the mountains of scientific data that challenge the UN’s dogma on climate makes the comparison with Galileo’s trial remarkably apt. Books were burned and consideration of the heliocentric theory of the solar system banned. Today, for global warming pressure groups, censorship is a first resort.

Frustrated by the Churcgalileoh’s deliberate blindness to the facts revealed by telescopes about astronomy, Galileo wrote to Johannes Kepler, “what do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.”

Is it modern-day heresy to point out that the UN’s climate computer models project a warmer world than satellite observations record? That these satellites can find no meaningful global warming since the 1990’s? That the weather is historically normal and the incredibly painful and expensive “solutions” the UN prescribes would have very little impact on the climate, even if the UN’s models were correct?

quarta-feira, abril 08, 2015

The Cycle of The State

The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)

Nothing will reverse Climate Change Churchism

Isto é delicioso - malta da Google andou a ver como salvava o planeta, e ainda fazia algum dinheiro no processo. The smartest guys in the room. Conclusão - para mudar para energias "renováveis" é preciso mais energia do que a que se produz. Nem há caso para aquele misticismo de "falha de mercado", em que supostamente a malta não investe porque os proveitos são dispersos -- todo o ciclo de produção é menos ineficiente, logo mais caro, logo destruidor de riqueza.

Quanto mais os Estados investem, mais destróiem capital que poderia ser usado em funções produtivas. A tecnologia que nos salvará de nós próprios (por favor esquecer que nunca na História a Humanidade viveu tão bem, e já não há "Aquecimento Global há 18 anos) ainda não foi inventada.

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change:
As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work

Checks and Balances

George H Smith - Checks and Balances

Chegou a altura do ano

Larken Rose:
Apparently two members of the biggest street gang in New York--the NYPD--were just shot while sitting in their patrol car, and both died. And apparently the motive was revenge for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. (For the record, I don't know exactly what happened in the Michael Brown case, but Eric Garner was flat out murdered.) Before the shooting, the person presumed to be the shooter posted some comments, including: “I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,” and “They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” and included hashtags mentioning Eric Garner and Michael Brown, making the motive kind of obvious. The shooter then apparently killed himself, though I wouldn't just assume that to be true.

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops in Garner ‘revenge’

Personally, I would rather see the exact INDIVIDUALS who commit evil being the ones targeted for retribution. I don't generally approve of the pack mentality thing, where people lash out at members of a group (whether based on race, religion, nationality, or anything else), for what other members of that group have done. However, other members of the violent NYPD street gang were not merely accidentally born into that group; they CHOSE to be in it, and chose to CONTINUE to be in it, even after the group has an obvious, well-documented history of being violent fascist bastards.

A whole lot of state mercenaries ("law enforcers") are quite open about the fact that they expect to be able to get away with extortion, assault and murder, whenever they want, and so far that is what has happened. So to any hired thugs of politicians ("police"), I have to ask, what did you THINK was going to happen if you kept acting like jackbooted Nazis? Whether those two cops "deserved" to die, I don't know (though it wouldn't at all surprise me, since they were professional thugs and thieves). But given the mentality the badge-wearing dumbasses in this country, this sort of thing was inevitable, and will only increase. As I've said before, if you have a job that makes lots of people hate you, and makes some people want to kill you, you should probably consider the possibility that it's because YOU'RE THE BAD GUY.

The Truth About Ayn Rand

The Truth About Ayn Rand: Criticisms [3 of 4]

Lesser of two evils

Penn Jillette on the Lesser of Two Evils:
In this clip Penn is explaining, to lock-step-Republican Sean Hannity of all people, why voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong .. He explained how voting for the lesser of two evils just gets more evil. It’s not about who wins the election to him, it’s about people actually voting for what they believe in. It’s about not voting for people who don’t represent you, and not rewarding the two parties for nominating them. That’s why libertarians don’t vote for the lesser of two evils.

Africa: Establishing Free-Market Societies

George B. N. Ayittey | The New Path for Africa: Establishing Free-Market Societies

Habits of Highly Effective Libertarians

7 Habits of Highly Effective Libertarians por Jeffrey Tucker:
What can be done to sustain the passion for liberty throughout a lifetime? Here are my suggestions for seven habits to foster a lifelong attachment to liberty and to live a life that makes the best possible contribution to human well-being.
1. Oppose oppression but love liberty even more.
2. Read broadly and be confident in your ideas.
3. Look beyond politics.
4. See everyone as an ideological friend.
5. Don’t have all the answers.
6. Hack your life.
7. Be joyful.
Imagine a small group of people going out into the world armed with these seven habits. Soon, that infectious optimism helps grow the group, as more and more people are drawn to its light. Those who doubt, criticize, and clamber for power will come to be seen not as progressive and forward thinking, but rather as stuck in old ways that don’t work. And the group of networked changemakers will prove their value one experiment at a time. People will turn not to the politicians and the paid experts, but to the geeks, volunteers, and entrepreneurs — to those with a vision of a beautiful future. That’s what freedom looks like. And that’s how you change the world with it.

The Gender Wage Gap Myth

The Gender Wage Gap—A Myth that Just Won’t Die:
The first thing to notice is that the “77 cents on the dollar” metric isn’t comparing apples to apples. It is a comparison of gross income. That is, it compares the income of all women to that of all men. It fails to take into account important factors—like education, experience, or even just comparing people in the same career. You wouldn’t compare the incomes of elementary school teachers with Bachelor’s degrees to those of individuals with PhDs in physics and complain that there is a “teacher-physicist wage gap” —but this is precisely what this statistic does.

When you take these characteristics into account, the purported “gap” all but disappears.
The gender wage gap falls completely apart if one thinks of it from the perspective of an employer. Suppose you own an accounting firm. Further suppose that the gender wage gap is real—women and men do the exact same work, but you can pay the women in your firm 77 cents for every $1 you pay your male employees.

You need to hire five new accountants. What are your options?
What would you do? Hire the women, of course! In fact, you’d be foolish to hire any men at all! You’d get the same work from either group of employees, but by hiring women you’d save $57,500 every year.

Will President Rand Be Good for Liberty?

Will President Rand Be Good for Liberty? por Jeffrey A. Tucker:
There is something about politics that elicits a faux sense of certainty. No matter how many times that political action contradicts political promise, we still mostly pretend as if we know for certain what will happen when so and so wins. We know that Jim would be better than Jane, that Joan will be better than John, and so on. How do we know? By what they say in the campaign and nothing more. But the truth is that rhetoric is not decisive.

.. No single elected official has the power to change the system. The system is, in fact, largely unelected and unappointed. The bureaucracies are massive. The cumulative regulations and legislation that empowers them are monumentally complex, impossible for any single mind or any one generation to comprehend. The process of reform is messy, structured so that the special interests with the most lose get decide where it goes. It is highly unlikely that this process will result in an overall net good for the cause of human liberty.

This is why there seems to be so little relationship between promised results and actual results. Reagan was going to cut the budget. It doubled and then tripled. Bush was going to have a humble foreign policy. Instead, we went empire-building. Obama was going to break down the prison state and empower minorities. Instead, he grafted the surveillance state to the existing architecture of oppression.
One way to think about government is as a giant corporation with its own interests to better its position and power. The president is the CEO. How do you do a good job and earn the support of the stockholders and customers? Not by cutting the budget, driving down the stock price, and pulling back its market share. Everything that hurts government as an institution will be resisted at all levels and in every conceivable way. You win by boosting the prospects of the state.

This is why it is such an enormous and implausible effort to use the presidency to enhance liberty. Everything we know about government pushes against this .. we do well to keep in mind that politics is more about cosmetics than reality.

terça-feira, abril 07, 2015

Liberty and the Failures of Government

Walter E. Williams | Liberty and the Failures of Government

Poder ao Povo

Poder ao Povo por Bruno Alves:
A solução passa, como a "esquerda" gostava de dizer mas não de fazer, e a "direita" nunca foi capaz de perceber, por dar "poder ao povo": se o Estado deixasse de financiar directamente as suas escolas (que, como as privadas, teriam de cobrar uma propina), e em alternativa desse a todo e cada pai sem rendimentos suficientes os meios para os seus filhos acederem à escola que preferissem (privada ou detida pelo Estado), nenhuma escola que não fosse reconhecida como boa por um número suficiente de pais poderia continuar a operar, e os mais pobres teriam forma de sair da armadilha em que nascem.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory

Austrian Business Cycle Theory | Tom Woods

Mensagem aos Liberais

Mensagem (Natalícia) aos Liberais:
Por isto, e por muito mais, sugiro aqui que sigamos o caminho dos EUA: assuma-mo-nos como libertários – ao invés de liberais (“Clássicos” ou não). Se nos fecham a porta, entramos pela janela. Chega de confundir a opinião pública.
Um libertário é coerente ao ponto de querer mais liberdade em ambas as áreas da nossa vida em sociedade: tanto civil, como economicamente! A título de exemplo, consideramos que é tão justo que aos indivíduos seja permitido o consumo de qualquer tipo de produtos que estes bem queiram (acabando assim com as actuais políticas antidroga que matam mais do que o próprio produto…), da mesma forma que achamos urgente acabar com o saque tributário sofrido em Portugal.

Isto só é possível com menos Estado. Menos Estado consegue-se com menos gastos públicos. E querer menos gastos públicos, é o mesmo que querer que o Estado deixe de tirar aos indivíduos aquilo que bem quer e lhe apetece, indo contra a vontade destes. Que deixe de lhes tirar o dinheiro que esses mesmos indivíduos obtêm com o suor do seu trabalho, quando é o Estado a gastá-lo em áreas que o indivíduo não quer, ou não precisa, ou que simplesmente até podiam ser providenciadas pelos seus semelhantes (o famoso e tão injustamente criticado “Mercado”).

Ora, esse saque é isso mesmo: um saque. Algo que se dá contra a vontade (individual) de quem o sofre. Algo que acaba sempre por prejudicar, directa ou indirectamente, quem mais sofre. Algo que é assegurado pela força. Pela força coerciva do Estado e dos estatistas que o apoiam. Que apoiam o avanço que esse mesmo Estado tem vindo a tomar, desenfreadamente, ao longo das últimas décadas.

Attack on Natural Rights

Excursions, Ep. 35: Jeremy Bentham's Attack on Natural Rights

Reputation capital

The Internet Memory Hole:
Reputation capital consists of the good or bad opinions that a community holds of an individual over time. It is not always accurate, but it is what people think. The opinion is often based on past behaviors, which are sometimes viewed as an indicator of future behavior. In business endeavors, reputation capital is so valuable that aspiring employees will work for free as interns in order to accrue experience and recommendations. Businesses will take a loss to replace an item or to otherwise credit a customer in order to establish a name for fairness. Reputation is thus a path to being hired and to attracting more business. It is a nonfinancial reward for establishing the reliability and good character upon which financial remuneration often rests.
Reputation capital is particularly important because it is one of the key answers to the question, “Without government interference, how do you ensure the quality of goods and services?” In a highly competitive marketplace, reputation becomes a path to success or to failure.

Right-to-be-forgotten laws offer a second chance to an individual who has made a mistake. This is a humane option that many people may choose to extend, especially if the individual will work for less money or offer some other advantage in order to win back his reputation capital. But the association should be a choice. The humane nature of a second chance should not overwhelm the need of others for public information to assess the risks involved in dealing with someone. Indeed, this risk assessment provides the very basis of the burgeoning sharing economy.

Profits Are Progressive

Profits Are Progressive

The State is Theft

Sorry Molyneux, Competition is not Theft:
The people who call themselves the State are nothing but criminals parading as saviors. No doubt hundreds of years from now when peaceful parenting rids the world of anything resembling the modern State, there will still be fraudsters and violent criminals. Many of those criminals may well try to convince people that their crimes are for the greater good, it is after all, one of the oldest scams in history.

Thus, the NYPD, the City of New York, the State of New York, and the US Federal Government have no more a right to take from vendors than the MCC does. That people submit to their will, whether out of ignorance or out of fear, is no different than vendors submitting to the MCC. In both instances, everyone has every moral right to resist the threats of the coercion cartel. They may choose not to, for the sake of their safety, and that’s understandable, but that’s a value judgement that they make for themselves.

Eric Garner evaded the taxes imposed on cigarettes by government authorities. He also evaded regulations preventing the sale of individual cigarettes. He also sold his product in the common spaces instead of paying rent and property taxes and licensing fees. This provided him with a market advantage, being able to sell a cheaper product at a higher markup than the brick and mortar vendors in Staten Island.

For the brick and mortar vendors in Staten Island to call the NYPD on Eric Garner for not paying their taxes, is no different than for John to send the MCC after Eric in Ancapistan. In both instances, Eric was a superior competitor by avoiding the extortion of the coercion cartel. The fact that he beat out his competitors by doing so does not victimize the victims of the coercion cartel any more than a faster runner victimizes a slower runner by escaping from a hungry lion. Thus, it cannot morally subject him to violence at the hands of the extortionists or their victims.

Government on Trial

Five Questions ("Government on Trial")

When they lose the moral/philosophical argument (which takes about ten seconds), statists love to fall back on "What's the alternative?" Then they expect anarchists to describe how every aspect of everyone's lives, until the end of time, will all work perfectly without a ruling class. But statists are so comfortable with the authoritarian mindset that it takes a while for them to even comprehend what is being suggested.

The belief in "government" is the belief that some people should have an EXEMPTION from morality and should have the RIGHT to forcibly rob and dominate everyone else. The answer to such a horrendously bad idea is very simple: the "alternative" to imagining that some people have the right to be violent bastards is......... NOT imagining that some people have the right to be violent bastards. Nothing else needs to change. We still have all the technology, all the resources, all the cooperation and organization. The only thing we lose is a gang of parasitical crooks getting societal permission to victimize everyone else. Now, if some statist wants to point me to any problem which is IMPROVED by giving some people permission to violently victimize innocents, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, the whole "What's the alternative?" thing is as silly as saying, "But if we get rid of car-jackers, what will we have instead?"

Politics Is Violence

Politics Is Violence:
"Every state is founded on force," said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of "state" would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as "anarchy," in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state — nobody says that — but force is a means specific to the state.
.. at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the "right" to use violence.

Hence, "politics" for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e., considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be.
Whoever wants to engage in politics at all, and especially in politics as a vocation, has to realize these ethical paradoxes. He must know that he is responsible for what may become of himself under the impact of these paradoxes .. He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence.

Karl Hess on Liberty

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Karl Hess on The Practice of Liberty (1 of 5) | The Tools of Liberty (2 of 5) | The Management of Liberty (3 of 5) | The Skills of Liberty (4 of 5) | The Love of Liberty (5 of 5)


Be glad someone had the courage to be Charlie por Robert Shrimsley:
Charlie Hebdo’s leaders were much, much braver than most of us; maddeningly, preposterously and — in the light of their barbarous end — recklessly brave. The kind of impossibly courageous people who actually change the world. As George Bernard Shaw noted, the “reasonable man adapts himself to the world while the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself”, and therefore “all progress depends upon the unreasonable man”. Charlie Hebdo was the unreasonable man. It joined the battle that has largely been left to the police and security services.
It is an easy thing to proclaim solidarity after their murder and it is heartwarming to see such a collective response. But in the end — like so many other examples of hashtag activism, like #bringbackourgirls campaign over kidnapped Nigerian schoolchildren — it will not make a difference, except to make us feel better. Some took to the streets but most of those declaring themselves to be Charlie did so from the safety of a social media account. I don’t criticise them for wanting to do this; I just don’t think most of us have earned the right.
To be Charlie you have to be ready to defy real death threats and firebomb attacks; to press on, like the murdered journalists, in the face of patent risks to your life while working under police protection (the dead included two officers). It is to continue publishing cartoons and jokes that you know will only inflame people who already need little incitement to kill. It is to hold your life and the fears of your family less dear than the absolute principle of freedom. It is to be so determined to fight the fascism of fundamentalists that you keep on publishing when all rational thought tells you to stop. These people were not just satirists; they were freedom fighters wilfully agitating a foe they knew to be deadly.
But the rest of us, like me, who sit safely in an office in western Europe — or all those in other professions who would never contemplate taking the kind of risks those French journalists took daily — we are not Charlie. We are just glad that someone had the courage to be.

sábado, abril 04, 2015

Police = Foreign Military

Police Compared To A Foreign Military por Christopher Cantwell:
I shouldn’t have to explain this to anarchists. Police, simply by being police, are a threat to your safety. They are sworn to “uphold the law” which almost exclusively consists of threats to initiate force against peaceful people. They are paid through theft that they justify by renaming taxation, and citation. They have no legitimate authority to do this.
.. Police are worse than common criminals. They are a militant force, which has us outnumbered, and outgunned. They command our obedience, not only in the moment they victimize us, but at all times. Not only do they command our obedience, but they claim ownership over future generations as well. Dealing with a threat this extreme, requires extreme measures.
The police have none of the excuses the Axis Powers have for their initiations of force. We pose no threat to their safety, we didn’t invade their country, we didn’t kill a million of their people. They signed up for the job to get paid, and to hold a certain status in society. They could quit their jobs at any moment, and seek out productive employment, with pretty much no negative consequences whatsoever. All they would have to give up is their status in society as police. They may actually make more money working in the private sector, if they have any marketable skills whatsoever.
The police aren’t dealing with a threat to themselves, they have pledged their lives to be a threat to you.

Is there anything I can do to pretend that I care today?

Remy: I Need a Hashtag!

a Cop-Free World

Policing is a Dirty Job, But Nobody's Gotta Do It: 6 Ideas for a Cop-Free World:
Rather than be scared of our impending Road Warrior future, check out just a few of the practicable, real-world alternatives to the modern system known as policing:
  1. Unarmed mediation and intervention teams
  2. The decriminalization of almost every crime
  3. Restorative Justice
  4. Direct democracy at the community level
  5. Community patrols
  6. Here's a crazy one: mental health care

Dark Ages

How Dark Were the Dark Ages?


A “nossa sociedade ocidental, céptica, individualista” merece ser defendida:
Mas nos ataques terroristas destes últimos dias – e dos últimos anos – não está o “vazio”, o “cepticismo” e o “individualismo”. Está, isso sim, um ódio visceral a tudo isto. A Casa dos Segredos não é o problema. O problema está em haver gente que odeia um modo de vida em que ver algo como a Casa dos Segredos é um direito. Um modo de vida e uma série de direitos que merecem ser defendidos.
Lamentavelmente, nas manifestações viu-se tudo menos individualismo.

Culture Kills Communism

John Stossel - How Culture Kills Communism

What is Social Justice?

What is Social Justice? por Wendy McElroy:
.. those who value individual freedom view justice as a means-oriented process, not as an ends-oriented state. That is, the concept of justice refers to the method by which society operates and not to a particular arrangement of society being produced. The methodology is “anything that is peaceful,” “society by contract,” “the non-initiation of force,” voluntaryism. Any outcome to which all of the adults involved have consented is, by definition, a just arrangement. The only end-state attributable to people who wish to live in freedom is precisely that: freedom. Otherwise stated, those who value liberty require only the protection of person and property, the prevention of force and fraud within society. Past that point, how society operates, what people choose to peacefully believe or do with their own bodies and property is up to them.

Hayek on 'Emergencies'


The dark side of decentralization:
Of course, central governments will not stop oppressing their populations unless and until they must, which will only happen with a combination of advancing technology and a willingness to use it in self-defense. In such oppression, centralization and the dark side of decentralization are allies, together for the long haul. For the state to win the war on terrorism would be against its rational self-interest, as the terrorists give the state an excuse to operate, grow, and oppress private individuals in the name of national security. For the state to lose the war on terrorism would also be against its rational self-interest, as failing at the one job it is supposedly solely capable of performing would quickly lead to its overthrow. The terrorists, for their part, need the state to motivate new recruits who would not be brought in by religious fundamentalism alone, as the military interventions that anger people in their home countries would be difficult, if not impossible, with competing private security forces in place of government militaries. In this sense, the state and Islamic terrorism are symbiotic enemies that must defeated together by the third side of libertarian decentralization.


Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 2/9/15: Vaccines: Why We Need Markets, Not Mandates

Freedom of Speech <> Government

What Freedom of Speech? por Andrew P. Napolitano:
In the post-World War II era, French governments have adopted a policy advanced upon them nearly 100 years ago by Woodrow Wilson. He pioneered the modern idea that countries’ constitutions don’t limit governments; they unleash them. Thus, even though the French Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, French governments treat speech as a gift from the government, not as a natural right of all persons, as our Constitution does.

The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal. When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down — permanently.

The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.
So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?

And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.

You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government.


State And Crime

State And Crime:
From an ethical point of view, crimes against the state and victimless crimes are no crimes at all, should not be prosecuted and punished and their prevention and prosecution not be financed by tax payers’ money. Huge resources would be released for useful appropriation if private companies in open competition would prevent, prosecute and punish crimes against individuals, companies, and their property. We could all live in greater prosperity, with more individual freedom and less surveillance. To abolish “crimes” against the state and victimless “crimes” is no utopia but a realistic possibility to break or at least diminish the state monopoly on violence.

The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny

The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Citação Liberal do Dia

Minarchists insist that the state should confine itself to monopoly control of the military, the police, the courts, the monetary system, and (in some arguments) certain essential elements of infrastructure and education. Which is to say, they want the state to have only the full complement of powers required for its establishment and maintenance of tyrannical government. There's a heavy load of wishful thinking being carried here by people who claim to favor a free society.