Jordan Peterson on Milo, Free Speech & Postmodernism
terça-feira, março 21, 2017
Why the Left Fears Libertarianism :
.. libertarianism, however weak its influence today, is a much greater long-term threat to the left than is any form of conservatism, and the leftist intellectuals sense this even if they can’t articulate why. Leftism, whether they know it or not, is a distorted permutation of the classical liberal tradition. The statist left did their deal with the devil—the nation-state, centralized authority of the most rapacious kind—supposedly with the goal of expediting the liberation of the common man and leveling the playing field. More than a century since the progressives and socialists twisted liberalism into an anti-liberty, pro-state ideology, they see that they have made a huge mess of the world, that, as they themselves complain, social inequality persists, corporatism flourishes, and wars rage on. As the chief political architects of the 20th century in the West, they have no one to blame but themselves, and so they target us—the true liberals, the ones who never let go of authentic liberal idealism, love of the individual dignity and rights of every man, woman and child, regardless of nationality or class, and hatred of state violence and coercive authoritarianism in all its forms.
The Oldest Rhetorical Trick in the Book:
It’s an old, old argument indeed – and one, despite its evident fallaciousness, still widely wielded and fallen for. If you are against trade restrictions, you are against workers and high wages. If you are against minimum wages, you are against the poor. If you are against paid family leave, then you are against families. If you are against Obamacare, then you are against affordable health care. If you are against government-set safety standards, then you are for letting people be poisoned and slaughtered indiscriminately. If you are against easy money, then you are for recessions. If you are against government-provided schooling, then you are against the education of the masses. If you are against American militarism, then you are against world peace and for evil dictators. If you are against the ‘war on drugs,’ then you are for widespread dissoluteness and dissipation. If you are against licensing requirements for hair-braiders, then you are for people having to suffer bad hairdos. The list can be extended indefinitely.
And it works, of course, with equal fallaciousness in the other direction. If you are for same-sex marriage, then you are against traditional families. If you are for legalizing prostitution, then you are against morality. If you are for cutting taxes, then you are against equality. If you are for Citizens United, then you are against democracy. This list, too, can be extended indefinitely.
Intellectual Property is Theft:
Property and monopoly (including IP) are not only distinct; they are antithetical to each other. To the extent that a proprietor has the exclusive right to use his particular means any way he chooses, a would-be monopolist cannot claim ownership of such “ways” and therefore cannot have the power to veto such uses. And to the extent a monopolist has “ownership” over ways of using any means whatsoever, a would-be proprietor can never truly own a particular means. The proprietor must ever be at odds with the monopolist.
domingo, março 19, 2017
El Papa Francisco, en 'El País': "El liberalismo económico mata":
Es entonces cuando pasa al ataque contra el liberalismo económico: "El problema es que Latinoamérica está sufriendo los efectos -que marqué mucho en la Laudato Si'- de un sistema económico en cuyo centro está el dios dinero, y entonces se cae en las políticas de exclusión muy grande. Y se sufre mucho. Y, evidentemente, hoy día Latinoamérica está sufriendo un fuerte embate de liberalismo económico, de ese que yo condeno en Evangelii Gaudium cuando digo que "esta economía mata". Mata de hambre, mata de falta de cultura". Y termina diciendo que "los sistemas liberales no dan posibilidades de trabajo y favorecen delincuencias". El papa Francisco pide para solucionar lo que según él es un problema, "rearmarse con formaciones de políticos que realmente den a Latinoamérica la fuerza de los pueblos".
Trans Pacific Partnership Is about Control, Not Free Trade:
A real free trade policy would amount to a couple of sentences, not thousands of pages: one nation announcing that all imports and exports to and from that nation are to be exempt from duties, controls, quotas, tariffs. That is free trade.
No, President Trump Didn't Get Rid Of "A Free Trade Deal":
The real meaning of free trade is no government interference, involvement, regulation, or meddling. That's why the word "free" is there. "Free" of the government.
Identity Politics Will Not Lead to Freedom::
Because of the inherent complexity of politics, encouraging identity-based advocacy to create and institute change is likely to exacerbate the ignorance and draw stronger lines between identity groups, thereby increasing the tendency to treat identity as a surrogate for political knowledge. This encourages suspicion of those who appear different instead of seeking information and education.
Sadly, relying on identity politics encourages stereotypes, thwarts the work of freedom, and assigns motives to many without direct evidence. As this occurs, many may eventually conclude: why bother with evidence when we have decided that identity politics is an acceptable surrogate for actual information? And when it is clear that the value of an idea is no longer relevant, and evidence and arguments are substituted with identities, expect unseemly movements to form in response.
domingo, janeiro 15, 2017
What's Wrong with Taxation?:
The first step is to acknowledge, unapologetically, that the institution of taxation is not a civilized but a barbaric method to fund anything, because it amounts to nothing less than outright extortion, a gross violation of human liberty.
The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion por Alex Epstein:
1. They use manipulative language
2. They won’t admit when their theory fails
3. They intimidate, rather than explain
ealth Care Is a Commodity, Not a Right:
... medical care is a commodity, and treating it otherwise is foolhardy. To make a commodity cheaper and better, two elements are necessary: profit incentive and freedom of labor. The government destroys both of these elements in the health-care industry.
domingo, janeiro 08, 2017
5 Things Libertarians Say That Scare Normal People:
1) Advocate for open borders
2. Explain how children fare in a Libertarian society
3. Try to explain how people have no obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves
4. Suggest that we abolish the Department of Education
5. Tell folks that legalizing drugs will be good for America
Open Borders Are Not Libertarian. They’re Communist:
Libertarians will argue that if we just get rid of the welfare state, then open borders will work. But this will not make the tragedy of the commons disappear, and people coming here will still be able to vote.
If libertarians aren’t going to argue that education is a human right that should be protected by the state in the absence of the complete privatization of everything, then they shouldn’t argue that free movement is a human right that should be protected by the state either. This isn’t to delegitimize the concerns that libertarians have with closed borders, but to instead show the many problems that exist with open borders. Hopefully libertarians open minded enough on the issue will begin to reconsider their position on immigration, and understand that open borders are not libertarian. Open borders are communist.
A Realistic Libertarianism por Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
There is only one important caveat, however. While the Right may accept all human inequalities, whether of starting-points or of outcomes, as natural, the libertarian would insist that only those inequalities are natural and should not be interfered with that have come into existence by following the ground-rules of peaceful human interaction mentioned at the beginning. Inequalities that are the result of violations of these rules, however, do require corrective action and should be eliminated. And moreover, the libertarian would insist that, as a matter of empirical fact, there exist quite a few among the innumerable observable human inequalities that are the result of such rule-violations, such as rich men who owe their fortune not to hard work, foresight, entrepreneurial talent or else a voluntary gift or inheritance, but to robbery, fraud or state-granted monopolistic privilege. The corrective action required in such cases, however, is not motivated by egalitarianism but by a desire for restitution: he (and only he), who can show that he has been robbed, defrauded or legally disadvantaged should be made whole again by those (and only those) who have committed these crimes against him and his property, including also cases where restitution would result in an even greater inequality (as when a poor man had defrauded and owed restitution to a rich one).
The egalitarian world-view of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist world-view have become the dominant ideology of our age?
At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite. The ruling elite therefore enlisted the help of the “intelligentsia” (or the “chattering class”). It was put on the payroll or otherwise subsidized and in return it delivered the desired egalitarian message (which it knows to be wrong yet which is enormously beneficial to its own employment prospects). And so the most enthusiastic proponents of the egalitarian nonsense can be found among the intellectual class.
Typically, in order to maintain their intellectual status as libertarians, the left-libertarians do so quietly, surreptitiously or even unknowingly, but in effect, in giving up this fundamental requirement of justice, they replace private property and property rights and rights violations with the muddled notion of ‘civil rights’ and ‘civil rights violations’ and individual rights with ‘group rights’ and thus become closet-socialists.
You cannot be a consistent left-libertarian, because the left-libertarian doctrine, even if unintended, promotes Statist, i.e., un-libertarian, ends.
terça-feira, dezembro 27, 2016
Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #1 - Feminists Hate Men | #2 - The Patriarchy | #3 - The Gender Pay Gap (#EqualPayDay) | #4 - Gender Studies Degrees | #5 - Hashtag Hate Group | #6 - Everything is Sexist | #7 - Male Feminists | #8 - Yes All Feminists | #9 - Feminists Say the Darndest Things | #10 - #Feminism is a Supremacy | #11 - Feminism Is Its Own Parody
Did Edward Snowden Draw His Main Inspiration from Ayn Rand?p por Jeffrey Tucker:
.. This makes sense of so much. In the novel, everyone faces a gigantic and oppressive state apparatus that is gradually pillaging the producers and driving society into poverty. Each person who confronts this machine must make a decision: join it, defend it, ignore it, or fight it through some means. Those who take the courageous route know better than to take up arms. Instead, they do something more devastating. They walk away and deny the regime their own services. They decline to partake in their own destruction. In so doing, they are doing society a great service of refusing to have their talents contribute to further oppressing society.
There we have it. Edward Snowden must have had this riveting story in his mind. As any reader of Atlas can attest, the book creates in your mind a huge and dramatic world filled with epic moral decisions. People are tested by their willingness to stand up for what is right: to stand as individuals confronting gigantic systems against which they otherwise appear to be powerless. Her message is that one human mind, inspired to action by moral principle, can in fact change the word.
Here is where Rand’s book is decidedly different from all the other postwar literature in defense of freedom against the state. She was emphatic about the individual moral choice. She created a fictional world, a tactile and unforgettable world, in which history turns on doing what is right, regardless of the personal risk and even in the face of material deprivation.