A Arte da Fuga

Rant Liberal do Dia

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Sat, 25 May 2013 16:00:00 +0000

Se "ai e tal não interessa quem de facto organiza as manifs, o que importa é protestar contra a desorientação do Governo", "não estou a legitimar a extrema-esquerda com a minha presença -- antes idiota-útil ao lado dos que berram por mais estatismo, do que calado", então estou à espera de ver muitos "apartidários" "independentes", bem alinhados com a CGTP em Belém. Ou só é cool, e "eu fui", participar em manifs "apartidárias" organizadas pelo Bloco?

What Anarchy Isnt

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Sat, 25 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

What Anarchy Isn't

os socialistas acham que o meu dinheiro é deles

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Thu, 16 May 2013 08:00:00 +0000

Jorge Miranda acha que o meu dinheiro é dele por Henrique Raposo:

O constitucionalíssimo Jorge Miranda, um dos grandes reaccionários do actual momento da pátria, resolveu considerar a pensão de reforma como algo equivalente à propriedade privada. É um pouco triste ..

Tal como existe em Portugal, a segurança social é um sistema estatal que obriga os cidadãos a fazer x descontos. Repito: é estatal e obrigatório. Além disso, os descontos do cidadão Jorge Miranda não ficam anexados a uma conta pessoal e intransmissível. Era bom que assim fosse, mas não é assim que o sistema funciona (aliás, aposto que Jorge Miranda consideraria inconstitucional ..). Nesta realidade colectiva e a milhas da noção de propriedade privada, os descontos do contribuinte Jorge Miranda são atirados para um saco comum que alimenta quem já está reformado. Quando chegar à idade da reforma, .. dependerá da propriedade privada de outrem. Sim, é isso mesmo: em Portugal, a pensão de reforma não é propriedade privada do reformado, porque depende da propriedade privada de quem está a descontar ..

E este é precisamente o centro da falácia de Jorge Miranda: o Sôr Doutor Constitucionalíssimo está a pedir um efeito capitalista para uma causa socialista, está a pedir uma protecção individual para algo que foi sempre colectivo, está a ver um PPR privado onde só existe um saco colectivo. Ora, um PPR é mesmo propriedade privada, porque o seu proprietário colocou dinheiro numa conta pessoal abrangida pelo direito de propriedade. Aquele dinheiro existe mesmo, não é um cálculo virtual. Ao invés, as pensões dos sistemas colectivos são meros cálculos virtuais que não resistem à frieza dos números do PIB e da demografia ..

Socialistamente sós

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Thu, 16 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000

How Protectionism Hurts Hawaii: Why It's Time to Repeal the Jones Act

Turismo AMN (5)

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Thu, 16 May 2013 06:00:00 +0000

No seguimento Turismo AMN (4),Governo reduz taxas de atividade de animação turística e elimina registos:

O Governo decidiu reduzir em cerca de 80% as taxas de acesso a atividades de animação turística e eliminar o registo como condição à entrada e permanência no setor, informou hoje o secretário de Estado do Turismo.

Adolfo Mesquita Nunes declarou, no mesmo documento, que "só existe criatividade e inovação quando o Estado sai de cima" e que "nenhum jovem cria uma empresa de animação turística, ou põe a sua criatividade ao serviço do turismo, se tiver de percorrer um calvário de licenciamentos e pagar um amontoado de taxas".

Choice in Schools and in Education

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:59:00 +0000

Choice in Schools or Choice in Education?

mistrust of government

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:00:00 +0000

Why All of Us Should Mistrust the Government:

It should come as no surprise that President Obama told Ohio State students at graduation ceremonies last week that they should not question authority and they should reject the calls of those who do. He argued that "our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule" has been so successful that trusting the government is the same as trusting ourselves; hence, challenging the government is the same as challenging ourselves. And he blasted those who incessantly warn of government tyranny.

Yet, mistrust of government is as old as America itself. America was born out of mistrust of government ..

The government that has come about by self-rule derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Because the tyranny of the majority can be as dangerous to freedom as the tyranny of a madman, all use of governmental power should be challenged and questioned. Government is essentially the negation of liberty. If we fail to challenge government at every turn, there will be no liberty remaining for us to defend when the government tries to negate it.

Culture And Success

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:00:00 +0000

Thomas Sowell - Culture And Success

Euro Crony Capitalism

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 20:00:00 +0000

Monty Python Policy-Making por Don Boudreaux:

Let’s re-write the opening of your report with words that make the facts clearer: “~~Chinese solar-panel manufacturers~~ European consumers of Chinese solar-panels will face ~~import tariffs~~ additional taxes of up to 67.9% on the price of solar panels at European Union borders under a ~~plan~~ scheme from the 27-nation bloc’s executive body, according to a copy of the ~~plan~~ scheme viewed by The Wall Street Journal (“EU Plans ~~Tariffs~~ Taxes of Up to 67.9% on Europeans Who Buy Chinese Solar Panels,” May 9).

“The ~~tariffs~~ taxes, which will come into effect by June 6, will range from 37.3% to 67.9%, according to the document, drafted by the European Commission. ~~Some of the largest Chinese manufacturers~~ Even the poorest Europeans, depending on which Chinese manufacturers they patronize, will face duties on the higher end of that range.

“The proposal is likely to spark one of the largest battles over unfair trade crony capitalism ever waged under the decades-old system of international trade rules. European manufacturers say ~~Chinese firms are selling their products well below fair-market prices~~ European consumers are buying Chinese products at prices well below the monopolistically high ones that European manufactures would like to fetch for their panels. To justify their proposal to force European consumers to pay unnecessarily high prices for solar panels, European politicians – who thrive by doling out corporate welfare – prey upon the gullibility of the typical European voter by making the baseless assertion that if Europeans aren’t forced to pay higher prices for solar panels the Chinese will dominate the world market for solar panels.”

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

If ‘our’ government subsidizes green energy, that act (we are assured) is noble and wise and far-sighted. If ‘their’ government subsidizes green energy, that act (we are warned) is unlawful and devious and dangerous. (And we’re supposed to trust politicians to spend other people’s money – and, simultaneously, to prevent people from spending their own money – all in an effort to stimulate a ‘green’ economy. It’s like a Monty Python skit.)

Hayek vs. Colectivismo

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

F A Hayek - The Right Philosophy

F A Hayek - The Power Of Pricing

Defense?

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 18:00:00 +0000

In Defense of Liberty: State of Denial por Michael Hendricks:

One of the most common cries of the Statist is “Who would provide defense without the State?” The idea that the State somehow provides protection is observably false. If one examines military campaigns throughout history they will find that armies always defend the capital of the State as its top priority. It defends government facilities and officials first, and civilians are low on the priority list.

The military “defends” a civilian population in the same way that a wolf defends a calf, by consuming it. When an army moves into an area it expropriates all it needs. If its logistics cannot support it, it takes what it wants, and needs, from the population. It is of no consequence whether that population is its own citizenry or if they are foreign. The atrocities are brutal in either case. This is what the Statist who cries, “Defense! Defense!” either doesn’t realize or chooses to ignore. Even when the State does defend a civilian area, after it has prioritized its own facilities and those necessary to win the conflict, before any of that happened the civilians were already aggressed against to pay for everything the army does.

It doesn’t matter whether the priority of the military is truly to defend its civilian ward or not. Because of what it is, and how it runs, the military simply cannot defend the civilians! The claim that it does so is entirely fallacious, even if we naively assume that the military is there for us, to protect us, and its members are loyal and trustworthy. And because the nature of the State is consistent across time and distance, there is no reason to believe the US and its military will not eventually behave like other foreign, despotic governments.

As we can see from all these examples, State armies don’t defend their civilians when it doesn’t suit them. Armies always prioritize securing strategic positions and supplies, even at the expense of civilians, and States always prioritize conquest and the protection of their own centers of power. When States aren’t murdering their own people they are failing to defend them, as they prioritize defending themselves.

Segurança pública privada

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:00:00 +0000

Dale Brown of Detroit-based Threat Management Center is On-Point

The Public Choice Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 16:00:00 +0000

The Public Choice Revolution in the Textbooks por James D. Gwartney:

Why does the exclusion of public choice analysis from mainstream economics make any difference? The asymmetric treatment of the political process relative to markets diminishes the relevance of economics and leaves students with a romantic, and highly misleading, view of government and the operation of the democratic political process. There are three major reasons why this is the case.
The omission of public choice from mainstream economics creates a central planning mentality.

The democratic political process is shortsighted and, if unconstrained, will lead to excessive debt.

Like markets, unconstrained political democracy has deficiencies.

The imbalance of the mainstream approach also deters understanding of the current economic situation. Economics provides considerable insight on the structure of the institutional and policy environment consistent with growth and prosperity. Stable and predictable policies, rule of law, and economic freedom establish the foundation for gains from trade, private investment, and innovation, which are the key sources of the growth process. In contrast, persistent policy changes, temporary tax-and-spending policies, and discretionary regulatory action generate uncertainty and play into the hands of the rent-seeking special interests. Public choice analysis highlights both of these points. However, because of its omission of public choice, mainstream economics misses the fundamental causal forces underlying the excessive debt, constant policy changes, and crony capitalism that are undermining prosperity throughout the world.

Economic analysis is equally applicable to market and political decisionmaking. It indicates that there is both market failure and government failure. It is long past time that this realism be incorporated into mainstream economics. George Stigler once remarked that a person who considers only market failure is like the judge of a singing contest who immediately declares the second contestant the winner after hearing the performance of the first. This is precisely what happens when mainstream economics treats government as a corrective device and continues to exclude public choice analysis. It is time for the profession to consider the second singer.

Objectivist call to the warfare state

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

Não concordo com metade, ou seja com a parte sanguinária e trigger-happy pintada como "de senso comum", mas enfim cá vai...

Call to Action Foreign PolicyHD 720p

Rant Liberal do Dia

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 14:00:00 +0000

Aqui o mal é a malta achar graça a uma abstracção (a "democracia representativa"), e nem sequer pensar nos incentivos do sistema que se segue, incentivos que ditarão aquilo em o sistema se vai tornar - o "sistema". Portas, Barroso, Sampaio, Sócrates não são a excepção. São a norma. A excepção são políticos com coluna vertebral moral. Ora, como é que alguém acha que este estado de coisas é uma boa forma de governar os assuntos de todos - e até assuntos que só deviam ser privados - é coisa que roça a patologia psicológica.

a vergonha na cara não tem cotação política em portugal

E cá está mais um que julga um sistema pelas boas intenções místicas, indignando-se porque os resultados não correspondem ao wishful thinking mágico - em vez de perceber que com incentivos "democráticos", promovem-se dos piores comportamentos em sociedade - tiranetias em nome do "bem comum"

Elite antidemocrática

comentário político

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:00:00 +0000

Andy Kaufman: Mighty Mouse Original (Here I Come to Save the Day)

tipos no estimulam el crecimiento

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:00:00 +0000

BBajar tipos no estimulará el crecimiento sano:

En España, ahora mismo, ambas restricciones se hallan plenamente operativas: ni familias y empresas encuentran abundantísimas oportunidades de ganancia como para cargar con nueva deuda sus ya saturadas espaldas, ni los todavía infracapitalizados bancos patrios tienen capacidad o voluntad de prestar a un sector privado español que sigue siendo de alto riesgo. La reducción de tipos del BCE y la promesa de una provisión ilimitada de crédito para entidades financieras hasta al menos 2014 sólo servirán, por consiguiente, para beneficiar a aquellos dos agentes a los que siempre ha privilegiado un banco central: entidades financieras y gobiernos. Las primeras verán rebajar sus costes financieros (ensanchando su cuenta de resultados con cargo al envilecimiento de la moneda europea) y los segundos experimentarán una cierta moderación de sus tipos de interés (pues los bancos privados sí están, por lo general, dispuestos a seguir extendiéndoles crédito a las condiciones algo más favorables del momento). En la medida en que, además, los Estados se tomen está relajación monetaria como un impulso a perpetuar sus desequilibrios presupuestarios (esto es, en la medida en que los gobiernos busquen endeudarse a un ritmo todavía mayor que el actual), el euro tenderá a depreciarse frente al resto de divisas, de manera que ya podemos afirmar que Draghi nos mete de lleno en la pauperizadora guerra de divisas global.

.. Ya tenemos una economía hiperapalancada y de bajísimo rendimiento debido a las reducciones artificiales de tipos que propició el BCE a partir de 2002. No hay margen para reinventarnos en ese desastre. Lo llamativo, con todo, es que los mismos que aplaudieron entonces sigan jaleando al BCE ahora para que suceda exactamente lo mismo que hace una década. Ni aprendemos ni, lo que es peor, queremos aprender.

Anarchist Kid

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 10:59:00 +0000

Anarchist Kid - A King in New York (1957)

Left-Libertarianism

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 10:00:00 +0000

Não partilhando eu algum fetiche por alguns egalitarismos sociais, e proximidades políticas poucos recomendáveis, desta maltosa... — Sheldon Richman Talks About Bastiat, Left-Libertarianism, and (shudders) Jimmy Buffett:

Joseph S. Diedrich: You often associate yourself with the concept of "left libertarianism"? What exactly do you mean by that? How does it differ from "right" or "neutral" libertarianism?

Sheldon Richman: It's a matter of emphasis and nuance. I believe that the historical concerns of good-faith leftists regarding the poor, minorities, immigrants, and vulnerable wage-workers, which I share, can be achieved only by market-anarchist means. There's a story that reaches back into history. Frederic Bastiat, a great favorite of libertarians everywhere, sat on the left side of the French legislature. This is where the terms left and right come from. The left were the people who were opposed to the old regime and were forward-looking. The right were the defenders of the old regime who wanted to restore the monarchy. Bastiat favored a forward-looking progressive view that the free market represents.

If we jump to America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the most active libertarians were the people around Benjamin Tucker. He published the magazine called Liberty, including in it [the writings of] Lysander Spooner. They called themselves socialists — they saw the left as an umbrella for any opposition to corporatism or state favoritism to business. We have this heritage that comes from the left. What modern left libertarians are trying to do today is to reach out to leftists and say you can achieve your ends through market means. At the same time, we're trying to reach out to standard libertarians and explain to them that there is a leftist heritage which they're not aware of.

Affirmative Action and Self-Help

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Walter E Williams - Affirmative Action and Self-Help

Estatolatria

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:00:00 +0000

The State Is A Religious Institution por Michael Suede:

There is no state that a person can point to. A person cannot point to a building or a street and say, “Here is the state!” The state doesn’t even exist except within the confines of our own minds. The great monuments states erect in their own honor are a means of providing a physical structure for beliefs to cling to, much like the great religious monuments of ancient times. The entire apparatus of the state is born out of fear, rather than out of necessity; something which all religions have in common.

The state has a vast array of ceremonies to solemnify and justify its existence. Judges’ chambers and garb come right out of the protestant church. Flags are treated with the same reverence as a religious icon. The pomp and circumstance of a presidential inauguration is only surpassed by a Papal coronation. The singing of hymns mirrors the singing of anthems, and on and on it goes.

The state is predicated on the initiation of force. If the collection of people who call themselves the state could not tax or inflate, those people could not exist as we know them today. If the use of force to gain compliance was impossible, the state would collapse within days. It is only through threats of violence that the collection of people who call themselves the state are able to exist at all. What a disgraceful religion. Certainly it is miles apart from peaceful tenants of Buddhism or the teachings of Christ.

The state is a mental construct born of fear, forged in chaos, and tempered in the fire of violence. This destructive religion will one day topple under the weight of its own fictitious beliefs, to be replaced by truth and reason. A hundred years ago, the primary mode of transportation was horseback. We are toddlers in the cosmic universe, still threatening each other for the control of each other’s toys. This will come to an end, and that’s a belief worth having faith in.

Sundown in America (4)

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:00:00 +0000

No seguimento de Sundown in America (3),

"The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America" (David Stockman)

os socialistas são crianças a vida inteira

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Wed, 15 May 2013 06:00:00 +0000

Os meus filhos são socialistas:

Não sei se são só os meus filhos que são socialistas ou se são todas as crianças que sofrem do mesmo mal. Mas tenho a certeza do que falo em relação aos meus ..

Ora o primeiro sintoma desta deformação ideológica tem que ver com os direitos. Os meus filhos só têm direitos. Direitos materiais, emocionais, futuros, ambíguos e todos eles adquiridos. É tudo, absolutamente tudo, adquirido. Ele dão como adquirido o divertimento, as férias, a boleia para a escola, a escola, os ténis novos, o computador, a roupinha lavada, a televisão e até eu. Deveres, não têm nenhum. Quanto muito lavam um prato por dia e puxam o edredão da cama para cima, pouco mais. Vivem literalmente de mão estendida sem qualquer vergonha ou humildade. Na cabecinha socialista deles não existe o conceito de bem comum, só o bem deles. Muito, muito deles.

O segundo sintoma tem que ver com o aparecimento desses direitos. Como aparecem esses direitos. Não sabem. Sabem que basta abrirem a torneira que a água vem quente ..

Outro sintoma alarmante é a visão de futuro. O futuro para os meus filhos é qualquer coisa que se vai passar logo à noite, o mais tardar ..

O quarto tique socialista das minhas crianças é estarem convictas de que nada depende delas ..

Por fim, o último mas não menos aterrorizador sintoma muito socialista dos meus filhos é a inveja: eles não podem ver nada que já querem. Acham que têm de ter tudo o que o do lado tem quer mereçam quer não. São autênticos novos-ricos sem cheta. Acham que todos temos de ter o mesmo e se não dá para repartir ninguém tem. Ou comem todos ou não come nenhum. Senão vão à luta. Eu não posso dar mais dinheiro a um do que a outro ou tenho o mesmo destino que Nicolau II. Mesmo que um ajude mais que outro e tenha melhores notas, a “cultura democrática” em minha casa não permite essa diferenciação. Os meus filhos chamam a esta inveja disfarçada, justiça, os socialistas deram-lhe o nome de justiça social.

A minha sorte é que os meus filhos crescem. Já os socialistas são crianças a vida inteira.

Technological Disruption

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Tue, 14 May 2013 10:59:00 +0000

Singularity University's Salim Ismail on the Age of Technological Disruption

O contrato social

noreply@blogger.com (António Costa Amaral) — Tue, 14 May 2013 10:00:00 +0000

O “contrato social” por Bruno Alves:

Durante anos, ouviu-se gente como Francisco Louçã a gritar na defesa do sistema público de pensões, como algo de moralmente superior à suposta entrega das pensões à “economia de casino” que os sistemas privados implicariam. Talvez vá sendo altura de se começar a perceber que o sistema público não é menos inseguro: não só está tão sujeito à “economia de casino” como os privados, como também tem a insegurança adicional de uma das partes – o Estado- poder de forma unilateral escapar-se aos compromissos que assumiu, sem que qualquer compensação tenha de ser atribuída à outra parte, os cidadãos, que nem sequer têm a liberdade de não “assinar” o “contrato social” que enche a boca dos políticos, mas que, como a evidência demonstra à saciedade, não tem qualquer validade.

A Arte da Fuga

Rant Liberal do Dia

What Anarchy Isnt

os socialistas acham que o meu dinheiro é deles

Socialistamente sós

Turismo AMN (5)

Choice in Schools and in Education

mistrust of government

Culture And Success

Euro Crony Capitalism

Hayek vs. Colectivismo

Defense?

Segurança pública privada

The Public Choice Revolution

Objectivist call to the warfare state

Rant Liberal do Dia

comentário político

tipos no estimulam el crecimiento

Anarchist Kid

Left-Libertarianism

Affirmative Action and Self-Help

Estatolatria

Sundown in America (4)

os socialistas são crianças a vida inteira

Technological Disruption

O contrato social

What Anarchy Isnt

O contrato social