Ayn Rand Lecture with Julie Meyer MBE - Why Society Works Best When It’s Organised Around the Entrepreneur
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.
terça-feira, dezembro 06, 2016
Watch Politicians Snap When Alternative Media Journalist Asks them One Short Question:
One of the best and most crucial questions that Helfeld has asked over the years is simple enough: “can you delegate a right that you don’t have to someone else?”
This simple question has caused dozens of politicians to either become aggressive, run away, or both because it points out that they do not have the right to do the things that they do in the name of government.
To use an example, if an average citizen does not have the right to steal from his neighbor, then he can not go ahead and vote for one of his friends to do it. Furthermore, if a particular group, even a group with a majority in a certain area decided to vote for themselves or one another, to steal from innocent people, they would not be justified in doing so. In this situation, these people would essentially be granting a privilege to another person that they themselves did not have, which is obviously a ridiculous idea.
However, this is exactly how democracy and representative government works. The power of the politicians is supposedly granted by the people. However, average people don’t have the right to do things that politicians and agents of the state do on a regular basis. Therefore, the people living in a democracy never had the authority that they allegedly gave their government to begin with, which means that this authority does not exist and that the government does not have a right to use it.
quarta-feira, novembro 30, 2016
End the Fed To Really ‘Make America Great Again’:
Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality. This is because, when the Fed acts to increase the money supply, well-to-do investors and other crony capitalists are the first recipients of the new money. These economic elites enjoy an increase in purchasing power before the Fed’s inflationary policies lead to mass price increases. This gives them a boost in their standard of living.
By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases.
Let's Expand the Electoral College:
The current confusion about the mechanics of the electoral college appear to be largely a function of the fact that it is now widely forgotten that the United States is intended to be collection of independent states, and not a unitary political unit.
For an illustration of why a system like the electoral college is so essential, we can look to the European Union. Consider, for example, if the European Union were to hold a union-wide election for a single chief executive. (The EU does not hold such an election, however, because the EU is controlled by appointees, and because there is no president in the conventional sense.)
If the EU were to do this, we would immediately notice that a small handful of large and populous member countries could dominate election and policy decisions union-wide. Without some sort of mechanism to even out these disparities, smaller states wold continually be at the mercy of the larger ones.
By all means, let’s speak ill of the dead this week:
And that’s the real takeaway from Castro’s contemptible existence. We shouldn’t constrain his infractions to the realm of economics—he chose socialism over capitalism; what an idiot—because the evil of his legacy is so much more instructive and universal than that. Castro’s Cuba is a reminder that government, given expansive power, will inevitably enrich itself and abuse others, regardless of whether it claims to be acting in the name of tradition, nationalism, the poor, science, whatever. This truth applies however incremental the state’s interventions might be, whether in Havana or at the VA. And just as Castro ascended in a relatively advanced Latin-American nation, so, too, could it happen here, if we allow government to seize more than it should.
That may be the only good to come from Castro. He died less than a month after Election Day and bequeathed to us a timely lesson.
Tiros na água…:
Na verdade falta tudo, porque ao Estado nada escapa. E eu todos os anos me interrogo porque é que em vez de andarmos a discutir este ou aquele número, a justiça deste ou daquele imposto, a relevância desta ou daquela fábrica de baterias operada por robots, não discutimos antes o seguinte: qual é a legitimidade do Estado para cobrar impostos, determinar o que estudam os nossos filhos, quantos filhos devemos ter, tratar-nos da saúde, transportar-nos, quem recebemos em nossa casa e quanto lhe cobramos, a quem damos boleia e quanto lhe cobramos, o que comemos ou o que bebemos? Era isto o que deveríamos debater até à exaustão: donde vem a legitimidade do Estado para nos saquear, se endividar em nosso nome e no fim, não satisfeito, ainda determinar onde gastamos o pouco que nos sobrou depois do assalto?