“Pagar a dívida é ideia de criança”
A tudo isto responderam-me que a distribuição da cultura era uma obrigação estatal que para alguma coisa se paga impostos. Portanto o Estado devia ser o monopolista e o planificador e que a cultura como mercadoria era uma abominação.
Irrita-me profundamente que o mundo das artes esteja cheio de parasitas que eram sustentados pelo Papá Estado e que quando lhes cortam os subsídios dizem arrogantemente que não precisam deles, mas que o Estado é que devia controlar a cultura. Ou seja o que está gente quer é uma revolução cultural como a do Mao.
Uma nota. São tempos complicados para o bolso dos contribuintes. Primeiro porque graças à criminosa gestão dos dinheiros estatais por sucessivos governos socialistas, o Estado está na penúria. Os contribuintes já estão esmifrados, mas como dócil gado contribuinte, sempre que for “inevitável” serão sempre os primeiros a serem sacrificados. Depois, porque se não há dinheiro, os palhaços protestam. Estão numa posição em que têm pouco a perder, e vão ser cada vez mais vocais. Estas “elites” são um ancien régime a ver as ameaçadas as suas rendas vitalícias, as suas avenças, as suas inquestionáveis pretensões sobre a carteira do povão ingrato. Por fim, em fim de mandato este Governo tenderá a perder a vergonha de “pagar bebidas”, como vulgar beberrão. Em fim de mandato todo o governante quererá deixar uma grandiosa obra de regime, ou seja mais uma miserável marquinha no já abusivo edifício legislativo português. E em fim de mandato, qualquer grupo de interesse que fale mais grosso será respondido com invertebrada deferência. O Senhor Secretário de Estado da Cultura, que já deu mostras de ser pessoa de fraca fibra liberal, com certeza estará na linha da frente.
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.
.. If a system is not dominated by a few major feedback factors, it ain’t stable. And if it has a regions of stability then perturbing it outside those regions will result in gross instability, and the system will be short lived.
Climate has been in real terms amazingly stable. For millions of years. It has maintained an average of about 282 degrees absolute +- about 5 degrees since forever.
So called ‘Climate science’ relies on net positive feedback to create alarmist views – and that positive feedback is nothing to do with CO2 allegedly: on the contrary it is a temperature change amplifier pure and simple.
If such a feedback existed, any driver of temperature, from a minor change in the suns output, to a volcanic eruption must inevitably trigger massive temperature changes. But it simply never has. Or we wouldn’t be here to spout such nonsense.
The miracle of AGW is that all this has been simply tossed aside, or considered some kind of constant, or a multiplier of the only driver in town, CO2.
When all you know is linear systems analysis everything looks like a linear system perturbed by an external driver.
The point finally is this: To an engineer, climate science as the IPCC have it is simplistic nonsense. There are far far better models available, to explain climate change based on the complexity of water interactions with temperature. Unfortunately they are far too complex even for the biggest of computers to be much use in simulating climate. And have no political value anyway, since they will essentially say ‘Climate changes irrespective of human activity, over 100 thousand year major cycles, and within that its simply unpredictable noise due to many factors none of which we have any control over’
Está toda a gente irritada com o Passos Coelho por causa da sua mensagem de Natal. Não deixa de haver, é certo, bons motivos para tal. Não obstante, e para temperar entusiasmos, deixo-vos aqui um bonito Tesourinho Deprimente — um regresso a um passado bullshiteiro, delirante e perdulário, meros meses antes da bancarrota do país. Sem mais, fiquem com o agora 44, em pleno espírito natalício:
Acho também extraordinário que um ministro, da economia, Pires de Lima, vá fazer figuras tristes para a Assembleia da República, falar de taxas e tachinhas, referindo-se a uma taxa camarária, e dos perigos que esta representa, e depois, pela caladinha, anda a trabalhar para aprovar uma taxa absurda, injusta, que é muitos casos é uma dupla e até tripla tributação, que vai incidir sobre todos os portugueses.
Adicionalmente, muito recentemente:
– Ministra do CDS queria criar nova taxa
– a fiscalidade “verde”
– Fasci portoghese di combattimento II
Hipocrisia? Não, é só Pulhítica.
Foi assim — e com bananas, e prateleiras de supermercado cheias de produtos diversos, e oportunidades de emprego, e liberdade de escolha, expressão, associação… e “Liberdade” em geral — que a decadente sociedade burguesa capitalista seduziu os Alemães de Leste para longe do Paraíso Socialista. (Berlim, Fim do Ano, 1989)
Shirley Temple 1928-2014
What of the ethics of the matter? Here, again, there can be no controversy. The minimum wage law violates people’s rights to engage in consenting adult behavior. An employer and an employee agree to a wage contract of, say, $5 per hour. Both are considered criminals under this pernicious legislation. But it is a victimless “crime” to pay someone $5 per hour for his labor services, and/or to receive such an amount of money for working. Both parties agreed to this contract! Our society is now in the process of legalizing other victimless crimes, such as those concerning prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. Many people favor “choice” when it comes to adult behavior without victims. The minimum wage law is a step backwards from these moves in a moral direction. And, yet, paradoxically, it is to a great degree precisely those people who advocate the legalization of these victimless crimes who are the staunchest supporters of the minimum wage law.
We should instead eliminate it entirely, and sow salt where once it stood. More than that. We should criminalize passage of this law. That is, we should throw in jail, or deal with these miscreants as we would other criminals, all those responsible for the passage of this law and for its implementation, such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it and the judges who gave it their seal of approval ..
.. Suppose there were a law that explicitly did consign people to involuntary unemployment, not implicitly and indirectly as does the minimum wage law, but direcetly. That is, an enactment such as this: It shall be illegal to employ black people. It shall be illegal to employ white people. It shall be illegal to employ young people. It shall be illegal to employ old people. It shall be illegal to employ Jews. It shall be illegal to employ Christians. It shall be illegal to employ gays. It shall be illegal to employ heterosexuals. It shall be illegal to employ men. It shall be illegal to employ women. How would we treat all those responsible for the passage of such laws and for their implementation such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it, the judges who gave it their seal of approval? Precisely, we would throw the book at them. We would penalize them to the fullest extent of the law. Why should we do any less for those responsible for the minimum wage law?
The statists are swarming, energized by the cry: “Inequality is unfair!” .. Behind this preposterous and vicious campaign lies the doctrine known as “egalitarianism.”
What the egalitarians demand is not equality of rights but equality of condition. No one, they say, should be better off than another .. It is pointless to try to distinguish inequality of outcomes from inequality of opportunity. There is no more right to “equal opportunity” than to “equal outcomes.”
.. what began as a simple statistical calculation comes out the other side as pure communism: collective ownership. The national income is regarded as a common pot. Then some groups “take” from that pot more than their share.
.. who “we” are as individuals are people of different degrees of intelligence, ability, and moral virtue .. “all men are created equal” does not mean “all men must be kept equal.”
The essential is: inequality is morally irrelevant. Inequality is not “unfair,” nor is it “fair”: it has no moral significance at all.
.. it is to the interest of the poor man that those around him be as wealthy as possible. A man, for purely selfish reasons, should want to live in the richest possible society. Surrounded by billionaires, a man of modest ability can make a good living ..
.. The egalitarian hates inequality for a non-practical, non-venal reason: the sight of the successful and the happy stands as a reproach to him. It brings him face to face with his own failure and inner emptiness. Psychologically, emotionally, a man who is inferior can seethe with resentment at the sight of his betters.
Egalitarianism is a rationalization for the lowest of human emotions: envy. Not envy for what others have, but something much uglier: hatred of anyone for having achieved anything. Not “I’m upset because you have what I ought to have,” but “Punish those whose success makes me know I’m a loser.”
Minimum Wage Cruelty por Walter Williams:
During South Africa’s apartheid era, its racist unions were the major supporters of minimum wages for blacks. South Africa’s Wage Board said, “The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would likely be employed.” In the U.S., in the aftermath of a strike by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, when the arbitration board decreed that blacks and whites were to be paid equal wages, the white unionists expressed their delight saying, “If this course of action is followed by the company and the incentive for employing the Negro thus removed, the strike will not have been in vain.”
Tragically, minimum wages have the unquestioned support of good-hearted, well-meaning people with little understanding who become the useful idiots of charlatans, quacks and racists.
To achieve this level of devastation, you usually have to be invaded by a foreign power. In the War of 1812, when Detroit was taken by a remarkably small number of British troops without a shot being fired, Michigan’s Governor Hull was said to have been panicked into surrender after drinking heavily. Two centuries later, after an almighty 50-year bender, the city surrendered to itself. The tunnel from Windsor, Ontario, to Detroit, Michigan, is now a border between the First World and the Third World — or, if you prefer, the developed world and the post-developed world. To any American time-transported from the mid 20th century, the city’s implosion would be literally incredible: Were he to compare photographs of today’s Hiroshima with today’s Detroit, he would assume Japan won the Second World War after nuking Michigan. Detroit was the industrial powerhouse of America, the “arsenal of democracy,” and in 1960 the city with the highest per capita income in the land. Half a century on, Detroit’s population has fallen by two-thirds, and in terms of “per capita income,” many of the shrunken pool of capita have no income at all beyond EBT cards.
Given their respective starting points, one has to conclude that Detroit’s Democratic party makes a far more comprehensive wrecking crew than Emperor Bokassa ever did. No bombs, no invasions, no civil war, just “liberal” “progressive” politics day in, day out.
A/C Seguro e amigos da Terra da Demagogia, Louçãnettes, Comunocassetes, Motas Soares e camaradas e cheerleaders do Governo, etc:
El líder del trasnochado socialismo español, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, .. antes que decir algo sensato, prefiere dar rienda suelta a su habilidad para las frases bonitas. La última que ha lanzado este famoso químico español ha sido: “La salud no puede ser negocio“. Desde luego, en un primer momento suena bien .. El problema es que, en la vida real, se trata de una soberana estupidez. Una frase hueca y ridícula, tras la cual sólo existe el vacío intelectual y la falta de propuestas serias.
Parece censurar con ello cualquier iniciativa privada que pretenda ofertar servicios sanitarios a cambio de dinero. Como si los servicios públicos sanitarios fueran gratis. La sanidad de calidad cuesta dinero, mucho dinero .. Es decir, se trata de uno de los servicios que necesitan de más recursos económicos y, sin embargo, su gestión la hemos puesto hasta ahora en manos casi exclusivas de lo público. Craso error.
Puestos a decir frases lapidarias ridículas, imagino que dentro de poco podríamos escuchar: “La alimentación no puede ser negocio“; y que acto seguido se expropiara Campofrío, Cuétara, Navidul, Telepizza, Cinco Jotas, Puleva o Ybarra. Si a Rubalcaba le parece mal que empresas privadas ganen dinero con la salud de los ciudadanos, imagino que también le parecerá un escarnio que haya empresas que obtienen pingües beneficios por ofrecer productos que calman nuestra necesidad básica de alimentarnos.
Seguimos siendo, en ocasiones, un país de pandereta, en el cual siguen produciendo urticaria conceptos como negocio, beneficio, capital, propiedad, privado o enriquecimiento. El hecho de que ofrecer un producto o servicio sea negocio es realmente estupendo, porque eso significa que será sostenible en el tiempo, que generará empleo, pagará impuestos y ofrecerá beneficios, lo cual será bueno para todos, porque esos beneficios se dedicarán a consumo, a reinversión o a ahorro, y las tres posibilidades son positivas para toda la sociedad.
Ben Swann – NSA’s Criminal Activity