quinta-feira, Setembro 25, 2014
H. L. Mencken famously said that “every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” By now, however, I am no longer ashamed, because I do not identify with the government under which I live. Rather, I view it as a criminal organization that without provocation has chosen to make war on my just rights—not only mine, of course, but everyone's. Although this vile enterprise is my problem, because it robs and bullies me relentlessly and without mercy, it is not my responsibility: the nail is not the hammer.
sexta-feira, Setembro 19, 2014
Suppose I said, murder is wrong and I advocate that people stop committing murder or supporting those who do commit it. Now, sure enough, along comes someone to tell me how utopian and impractical I am, pointing out that historically murder has always been committed everywhere that humans have lived together. Clearly murder has demonstrated its social superiority as a form of social behavior. Murder has revealed itself as the "fittest" sort of behavior in the evolutionary shakeout.
Do you accept this argument about murder? If not, why do you accept it when we substitute "the state or a similar ruling organization" for "murder"?
Why I support anarchy is really an utterly simply matter: I'm opposed to genuine crime. The state is a criminal organization, and I therefore oppose it. Telling me that states have always existed or that nonstate alternatives would not be viable in competition with states does not dissuade me one bit. I'm still opposed to criminal actions -- you know, theft, extortion, murder, kidnapping, and all the other criminal actions the state takes to sustain itself.
quinta-feira, Setembro 18, 2014
Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got WESTMINSTER?
Choose Life - Trainspotting (1-12) Movie CLIP (1996) HD.mp4
The Ethics of Entrepreneurship and Profit por Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
Logically, what is required to avoid all conflict is clear: It is only necessary that every good be always and at all times owned privately, i.e., controlled exclusively by some specified individual (or individual partnership or association), and that it be always recognizable which good is owned and by whom, and which is not. The plans and purposes of various profit-seeking actor-entrepreneurs may then be as different as can be, and yet no conflict will arise so long as their respective actions involve only and exclusively the use of their own, private property.
All profits gained or losses suffered by an actor-entrepreneur with justly acquired means are just profits (or losses); and all profits and losses accruing to him through the use of unjustly acquired means are unjust.
The state .. contrary to its own self-serving pronouncements, is not the originator or guarantor of private property. Rather, it is the conqueror of private property. Nor is the state the originator or guarantor of justice. To the contrary, it is the destroyer of justice and the embodiment of in-justice.
Is the UK a “Nation by Consent”?:
In short, every group, every nationality, should be allowed to secede from any nation-state and to join any other nation-state that agrees to have it. That simple reform would go a long way toward establishing nations by consent. The Scots, if they want to, should be allowed by the English to leave the United Kingdom, and to become independent, and even to join a Gaelic Confederation, if the constituents so desire.
A common response to a world of proliferating nations is to worry about the multitude of trade barriers that might be erected. But, other things being equal, the greater the number of new nations, and the smaller the size of each, the better.
In sum, if we proceed with the decomposition and decentralization of the modern centralizing and coercive nation-state, deconstructing that state into constituent nationalities and neighborhoods, we shall at one and the same time reduce the scope of government power, the scope and importance of voting and the extent of social conflict. The scope of private contract, and of voluntary consent, will be enhanced, and the brutal and repressive state will be gradually dissolved into a harmonious and increasingly prosperous social order.
Should the Pope Excommunicate All Catholic Politicians (and His Fellow Jesuits?) por Thomas DiLorenzo:
Pope Francis recently excommunicated (i.e., kicked out of the Catholic Church) all members of the Italian Mafia, denouncing their “evil ways” as an affront to God. If he was consistent, however, he would similarly condemn and excommunicate all Catholic politicians and their networks of big-government worshipping Catholic political activists, among the most prominent of which are his fellow Jesuits. Politics is many orders of magnitude more evil and immoral than the Mafia or any other “private” criminal gang.
Politicians are natural criminals .. In order to finance their campaigns for election they must promise to steal money from those who have earned it and give it to others who have no moral right to it. They are inveterate liars, as everyone knows, since they all make campaign promises that they know they could never keep. The most successful among them are those who are the least hindered by strong moral principles opposed to lying and stealing and confiscating their fellow citizens’ property.
Theft, intimidation, threats, censorship, imprisonment, and murder are all defining characteristics of the state and statists. It is fine that Pope Francis has excommunicated the Mafia, but he actually supports and promotes far more sin and evil in the world with his Jesuit-inspired views of welfare statism and his incoherent and uneducated denunciations of peaceful exchange among consenting adults through the benefit of the international division of labor (i.e., capitalism).
Adolfo Mesquita Nunes: Behind Portugal's New Free-Market Tourism:
“Freedom is the most important political value for me. It comes before anything else,” he says. “So when somebody comes to me, my first question is never, ‘How can I help?’ but ‘What can I do to let the market do what it wants?’”BÓNUS - Turistas nada acidentais por Sérgio Figueiredo:
E os grandes heróis desta história chamam-se empresários. Que começaram lá atrás, desenvolvendo estratégias empresariais consistentes, tornando-se competitivos, ganhando capacidade para internacionalizar e dando escala ao sector.
Our problem is that we have to fight unicorns.
Unicorns, of course, are fabulous horse-like creatures with a large spiraling horn on their forehead. They eat rainbows, but can go without eating for years if necessary. They can carry enormous amounts of cargo without tiring. And their flatulence smells like pure, fresh strawberries, which makes riding behind them in a wagon a pleasure.
Problem: "the State" is a unicorn
When I am discussing the State with my colleagues at Duke, it's not long before I realize that, for them, almost without exception, the State is a unicorn .. their solution is, without exception, to expand the power of "the State." That seems literally insane to me—a non sequitur of such monstrous proportions that I had trouble taking it seriously .. I realized that they want a kind of unicorn, a State that has the properties, motivations, knowledge, and abilities that they can imagine for it ..
Go ahead, make your argument for what you want the State to do, and what you want the State to be in charge of .. Then, go back and look at your statement. Everywhere you said "the State," delete that phrase and replace it with "politicians I actually know, running in electoral systems with voters and interest groups that actually exist."
To paraphrase Hayek, then, the curious task of the liberty movement is to persuade citizens that our opponents are the idealistic ones, because they believe in unicorns. They understand very little about the State that they imagine they can design.
quarta-feira, Setembro 17, 2014
O Extraordinário Cobrador:
Nunca no Portugal contemporâneo, incluindo os tempos do Estado novo e da sua polícia política, o estado teve acesso a tanta informação sobre a vida diária e as interacções da generalidade dos indivíduos. Nunca as pôde consultar e cruzar com tanta facilidade. Nunca a omnipresença do estado na vida diária das pessoas foi tão destacada, intrusiva e em tão grande escala. A máquina fiscal torna-se na força de ocupação consumada da vida diária das pessoas.
Does it ever occur to such flamboyant warriors to ask why those sorts of groups enjoy so much support, and whether yet more bombing of predominantly Muslim countries – and/or flooding the region with more weapons – will bolster rather than subvert their strength? Just consider how a one-day attack in the U.S., 13 years ago, united most of the American population around the country’s most extreme militarists and unleashed an orgy of collective violence that is still not close to ending. Why does anyone think that constantly bringing violence to that part of the world will have a different effect there?
As a libertarian anarchist, I am pressed from time to time to defend anarchy against those who dispute its desirability or its feasibility. But, really, why should I be the one who must defend this condition (that is, the absence of rulers)? I live in a world in which gangs of total strangers -- people I do not know, people who do not know me, people I want nothing to do with -- presume to order me about in countless ways and to strip me of my wealth at their pleasure, putting the plunder to uses that in many cases I consider utterly abhorrent and achieving this domination over me only by making credible threats to bring violence to bear against me should I resist their impositions. THAT outrageous complex of actions, not my embrace of anarchy, is the condition that requires a defense. Strange to say, although the prevailing rulers' insolence and moral arrogance rise to horrifying heights, many of their victims take completely for granted the legitimacy of the degrading and exploitative setup under which they live -- Stockholm syndrome writ large.
terça-feira, Setembro 16, 2014
Prisioneiros e Reguladores por José Manuel Moreira:
Lembrei-me então de uma piada de Walter Block, o grande "defensor do indefensável", destinada a audiências de reguladores, com primeiras filas repletas de economistas do sistema e advogados aptos a ganhar dinheiro com os dois lados. Vamos à piada. Três prisioneiros na ex-URSS desataram a comparar as penas a que tinham sido condenados. O primeiro disse ter sido por chegar sempre atrasado ao trabalho, sendo, por isso, acusado de defraudar o Estado. O segundo, que chegava muito antes da hora, foi acusado de ser puxa-saco. Ao terceiro, por chegar sempre a horas, acusaram-no de ter um relógio de pulso ocidental. O fartote de risos contrastou com o silêncio que se seguiu à segunda parte da piada. Que reza assim. Havia três prisioneiros nos EUA por violação da concorrência. O primeiro por cobrar preços elevados, foi acusado de exploração. O segundo, por preços baixos, acusaram-no de concorrência desleal e preços predatórios. Já o terceiro, por ter preços iguais aos dos outros, foi acusado de fazer cartel.
É este mundo kafkiano e parasitário que nos cabe aguentar. Até se conseguir ligar esta maldição à proliferação de entidades que nos policiam, fiscalizam e saqueiam. A bem da protecção dos interesses instalados no Orçamento do Estado. Num crescendo de legislação e controlos burocráticos que perseguem sem parar o cidadão comum.