O resultado das patentes lógicas
Amazon and Poetic Justice , Posted by Stephan Kinsella at 05:11 PM
"Amazon has been sued by Cendant for violation of its patent for "System and Method for Providing Recommendation of Goods or Services Based on Recorded Purchasing History". Cendant claims Amazon's "recommendations" feature infringes its patent because it tells customers who are interested in an item what other products were purchased by customers who bought the same item. Ridiculous.
Poor Amazon--yeah, the same one that sued Barnes and Noble for infringement of its ridiculous one-click patent. I really weep for them."
Nota:
Definição de direito de propriedade: Domínio (por apropriação original ou transferência - compra/etc - do título de propriedade) sobre um bem naturalmente escasso.
Definição de patente: o Estado transforma um bem não escasso, infinito e que "não se gasta" (ideias, etc) num bem escasso por decreto.
terça-feira, 9 de novembro de 2004
O internacionalismo
...existe para resolver situações de conflito, ou estas surgem com mais frequência, acalmam-se temporáriamente, e voltam a surgir ainda com mais violência, por causa do internacionalismo?
"The resumption of military action in Ivory Coast does not bode well for a region whose porous borders have for years circulated guns and gunmen from one country to the next. For more than a decade, a cycle of revenge and greed has led government leaders and their insurgent foes to provoke rebellions in one another's countries. Of particular concern now is the fragile peace secured not long ago in neighboring Liberia and Sierra Leone. In Guinea, to the north, peace is also precarious. "
"The 15-nation Council has condemned the killings of the French soldiers and confirme that the 10,000 UN and French peacekeepers were authorised "to prevent any hostile action"
PS: e sim, os americanos não os únicos internacionalistas, quem diria...
PS2: Como dizia Rothbard em 1994: Troops are usually sent first as purely "humanitarian" missionaries, to safeguard the "humane" aid of the UN "peacekeepers." But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. [ou franceses ou qualquer outro] must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill.
"The resumption of military action in Ivory Coast does not bode well for a region whose porous borders have for years circulated guns and gunmen from one country to the next. For more than a decade, a cycle of revenge and greed has led government leaders and their insurgent foes to provoke rebellions in one another's countries. Of particular concern now is the fragile peace secured not long ago in neighboring Liberia and Sierra Leone. In Guinea, to the north, peace is also precarious. "
"The 15-nation Council has condemned the killings of the French soldiers and confirme that the 10,000 UN and French peacekeepers were authorised "to prevent any hostile action"
PS: e sim, os americanos não os únicos internacionalistas, quem diria...
PS2: Como dizia Rothbard em 1994: Troops are usually sent first as purely "humanitarian" missionaries, to safeguard the "humane" aid of the UN "peacekeepers." But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. [ou franceses ou qualquer outro] must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill.
Destaques
1. António Lobo Antune: "Nós nunca vivemos em democracia, tal como os EUA não vivem em democracia. A democracia implicaria um referendar constante das decisões, e isso não acontece."
O mal entendido quanto às decisões colectivas é que para serem legítimas, primeiro têm os participantes que concordar em submeter-se a essas decisões colectivas, o que não acontece, portanto, a democracia política (ao contrário da democracia civil das empresas-associações-condomínios/comunidades) invade tanto a liberdade individual como qualquer outro processo.Outro aspecto: dizem que os referendos são perigosos (e podem ser) porque as pessoas podem ser mal influenciadas ou conhecer mal o que é decidido, mas estão como é que o sistema funciona melhor com as mesmas pessoas a escolher outras pessoas que quase nunca dão a conhecer especificamente o que vão ou não fazer? E como defender que o "sistema" funciona melhor quando as pessoas escolhem "personalidades" (pela postura, forma como se veste, cara, aspecto, maneira como fala, etc) do que quando decidem sobre "assuntos específicos"?
Portanto, é tão ou mais válido termos um Monarca hereditário que pouco intervem na economia e segue a tradição e costume da população (válido até nas presentes monarquias absolutas no Koweit, Qatar, etc) como, sem o desejarmos, submetermo-nos à inevitável social-democracia centralizada dos processos macro-democráticos e universais (pelo meio, temos que nos lembrar que quando esses monarcas desapareceram na Europa o que obtivemos foi o comunismo e fascismo), e agora caminhamos para o fim do Estado Nação, porque dizem, quanto maior for o circulo eleitoral, melhor.
2. A nação Bush , Pedro Lomba
"O conservadorismo americano é a ideologia mais poderosa da História "
Se hoje é uma ideologia é porque já não existe conservadorismo americano. E quem se torna "o mais poderoso" da História, diz a História que costuma acabar mal e mais ou menos no momento em que toma consciência de que o é e que por isso tem uma missão - fazer a guerra para trazer a paz ao mundo (Roma, Império Britânico, etc).
segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2004
"Invade the world", 10 anos depois, Entre o Kosovo, Iraque e Ivory Coast
Em Setembro, fez 10 anos que Murray N. Rothbard escreveu "Invade the world", pessoalmente um dos seus melhores e simultaneamente com mais piada. Fica aqui uma versão:
When Communism and the Soviet Union collapsed several years ago, it seemed evident that a massive reevaluation of American foreign policy had to get under way. For the duration of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was simply a bipartisan interventionist crusade against the Soviet Union, and the only differences were precisely how far the global intervention should go.
But when the Soviet Union fell apart, a rethinking seemed absolutely necessary, since what could form the basis of U.S. policy now?
But among the intellectual pundits and elites, the molders of U.S. and even world opinion, virtually no rethinking has occurred at all. Except for Pat Buchanan and us paleos, U.S. foreign policy had proceeded as usual, as if the Cold War collapse never happened. How? Buchanan and the "neo-isolationists" urged that American intervention be guided strictly by American national interest.
But the liberal/neocon alliance, now tighter than ever before (now that Soviet Communism, which the neocons were harder on, has disappeared), pretended to agree, and then simply and cunningly redefined "national interest" to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun.
Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That's a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That's our national interest. Is some government not a "democracy" as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest.
(...)
It should be clear that there is now virtually no foreign policy distinction between the liberals and the neocons, the Tony Lewises and Bill Safires, Commentary and the Washington Post. Wherever the problem is, the liberal-neocon pundits and laptop bombardiers are all invariably whooping it up for U.S. intervention, for outright war, or for the slippery-slope favorite of "sanctions."
(...) starving the villains, cutting off transportation, trade, confiscating their property in terms of financial assets, and finally, when that doesn't work, bombing, sending troops, etc.
Troops are usually sent first as purely "humanitarian" missionaries, to safeguard the "humane" aid of the UN "peacekeepers." But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill.
(...) OK, the time has come to get tough and to get consistent. Sanctions are simply the coward's and the babbler's halfway house to war. We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.:
(...)There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds.
Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of "freedom," "free trade," "multiculturalism," and "expanding democracy."
And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!
Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.
But how will we Look in the Eyes of World Opinion if we invade the world? Not to worry; we can always get the cover of our kept stooges in the UN, NATO, or whatever. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is already reneging on his agreement to run for only one term as UN secretary-general, is perfect for the job; no more power-hungry UN official has ever existed. But what about the Security Council? That's OK, because we can always buy off the abstention of China or whoever for a few billion. No problem.
And then the whole world will subsist under the U.S. and UN flags, happy, protected, free of crime and poverty and hate. What could be more inspiring?
A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out?
In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two
Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes.
But what about the Getting Out Party? What about our universal experience that when U.S. troops get out, the whole aid, infrastructure, etc. go down the drain? The solution is simple, though it has been far overlooked because some narrow-minded selfish fascist stick-in-the-muds will raise a fuss. The solution: We Don't Get Out! Ever.
So we don't have to worry about preparing the natives for transition. We should stay in there and cheerfully Run the World. Permanently for the good of all. A Paradise on Earth. We can call it, the "politics of meaning."
(...)What? You say that some of our kids might pick up diseases or get shot along the way? Well, that's OK, because, as they say these days, every failure is a "learning experience."
And then, of course, the U.S.A. will only provide the backbone of the permanent forces of World Occupiers. The rest of the slots will be filled by troops from every other world country, headed by the UN, NATO, etc., providing equally healthful and joyful experiences for other occupiers: Zairians, Ukrainians, Vietnamese, etc.
To see Vietnamese troops, for example, occupying Holland, would provide instructive and globally democratic lessons in multiculturalism and mutual love of all peoples. The hardcore narrow-minded will of course have to be dealt with severely, but I am confident that massive educational programs, orientation courses, teachers, books and pamphlets, etc. will change the common climate of ethnic hate to love and understanding. In addition to teachers, hateful and undemocratic attitudes will be stamped out by a legion of shrinks, therapists counselors, etc.
How will all this be financed? Every nation will, of course, contribute its "fair share" of expenses, but since the U.S.A. is the world's Only Superpower, we must face the fact that the U.S. will have to be paying the lion's share – maybe 80 or 90 percent – of the program.
And of course there are always narrow-minded, backward, selfish dogmatists, who will balk at this program, and claim that it is too "costly." There are always a few rotters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But again: not to worry.
There will be a massive transpartisan educational effort, from all parts of the spectrum, from the Clintonian or Jacksonian left to the dozens of self-proclaimed "free-market" think-tanks, who, suitably financed by government and by corporate elites, will pour forth tomes instructing us that the program will "pay for itself," that it is in the best tradition of the Free Market and Democracy; that these expenses are not really costly because they constitute "investment in human capital" and will therefore save the taxpayers money in the long run, etc.
Thus, clearing up all the hookworm in the world will so reduce medical costs that we will all be paying less money. Eventually.
Any residue of complaint, any who survive this educational effort – and let's face it, there are a few rotten apples in every barrel – will be sent to "educational retraining centers," where their objections will be put to rest, and, after a few healthful years in these camps, chopping logs and reading the collected works of left, liberal, neocon and Pragmatic Libertarian pundits, I am sure that they will emerge, happily adjusted to the Brave New Global Democracy of tomorrow.
The above presents the consistent implications of our persistent policy of intervention, and it outlines the system toward which this country has been tending.
The question is: How do we derail this trend? How do we Take it Out? How do we prevent "1984"? Unfortunately, the Republican Party, while significantly better than the Democrats on domestic policy, has been, if anything, worse and more interventionist on foreign affairs. (...)"
When Communism and the Soviet Union collapsed several years ago, it seemed evident that a massive reevaluation of American foreign policy had to get under way. For the duration of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was simply a bipartisan interventionist crusade against the Soviet Union, and the only differences were precisely how far the global intervention should go.
But when the Soviet Union fell apart, a rethinking seemed absolutely necessary, since what could form the basis of U.S. policy now?
But among the intellectual pundits and elites, the molders of U.S. and even world opinion, virtually no rethinking has occurred at all. Except for Pat Buchanan and us paleos, U.S. foreign policy had proceeded as usual, as if the Cold War collapse never happened. How? Buchanan and the "neo-isolationists" urged that American intervention be guided strictly by American national interest.
But the liberal/neocon alliance, now tighter than ever before (now that Soviet Communism, which the neocons were harder on, has disappeared), pretended to agree, and then simply and cunningly redefined "national interest" to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun.
Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That's a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That's our national interest. Is some government not a "democracy" as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest.
(...)
It should be clear that there is now virtually no foreign policy distinction between the liberals and the neocons, the Tony Lewises and Bill Safires, Commentary and the Washington Post. Wherever the problem is, the liberal-neocon pundits and laptop bombardiers are all invariably whooping it up for U.S. intervention, for outright war, or for the slippery-slope favorite of "sanctions."
(...) starving the villains, cutting off transportation, trade, confiscating their property in terms of financial assets, and finally, when that doesn't work, bombing, sending troops, etc.
Troops are usually sent first as purely "humanitarian" missionaries, to safeguard the "humane" aid of the UN "peacekeepers." But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill.
(...) OK, the time has come to get tough and to get consistent. Sanctions are simply the coward's and the babbler's halfway house to war. We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.:
(...)There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds.
Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of "freedom," "free trade," "multiculturalism," and "expanding democracy."
And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!
Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.
But how will we Look in the Eyes of World Opinion if we invade the world? Not to worry; we can always get the cover of our kept stooges in the UN, NATO, or whatever. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is already reneging on his agreement to run for only one term as UN secretary-general, is perfect for the job; no more power-hungry UN official has ever existed. But what about the Security Council? That's OK, because we can always buy off the abstention of China or whoever for a few billion. No problem.
And then the whole world will subsist under the U.S. and UN flags, happy, protected, free of crime and poverty and hate. What could be more inspiring?
A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out?
In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two
Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes.
But what about the Getting Out Party? What about our universal experience that when U.S. troops get out, the whole aid, infrastructure, etc. go down the drain? The solution is simple, though it has been far overlooked because some narrow-minded selfish fascist stick-in-the-muds will raise a fuss. The solution: We Don't Get Out! Ever.
So we don't have to worry about preparing the natives for transition. We should stay in there and cheerfully Run the World. Permanently for the good of all. A Paradise on Earth. We can call it, the "politics of meaning."
(...)What? You say that some of our kids might pick up diseases or get shot along the way? Well, that's OK, because, as they say these days, every failure is a "learning experience."
And then, of course, the U.S.A. will only provide the backbone of the permanent forces of World Occupiers. The rest of the slots will be filled by troops from every other world country, headed by the UN, NATO, etc., providing equally healthful and joyful experiences for other occupiers: Zairians, Ukrainians, Vietnamese, etc.
To see Vietnamese troops, for example, occupying Holland, would provide instructive and globally democratic lessons in multiculturalism and mutual love of all peoples. The hardcore narrow-minded will of course have to be dealt with severely, but I am confident that massive educational programs, orientation courses, teachers, books and pamphlets, etc. will change the common climate of ethnic hate to love and understanding. In addition to teachers, hateful and undemocratic attitudes will be stamped out by a legion of shrinks, therapists counselors, etc.
How will all this be financed? Every nation will, of course, contribute its "fair share" of expenses, but since the U.S.A. is the world's Only Superpower, we must face the fact that the U.S. will have to be paying the lion's share – maybe 80 or 90 percent – of the program.
And of course there are always narrow-minded, backward, selfish dogmatists, who will balk at this program, and claim that it is too "costly." There are always a few rotters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But again: not to worry.
There will be a massive transpartisan educational effort, from all parts of the spectrum, from the Clintonian or Jacksonian left to the dozens of self-proclaimed "free-market" think-tanks, who, suitably financed by government and by corporate elites, will pour forth tomes instructing us that the program will "pay for itself," that it is in the best tradition of the Free Market and Democracy; that these expenses are not really costly because they constitute "investment in human capital" and will therefore save the taxpayers money in the long run, etc.
Thus, clearing up all the hookworm in the world will so reduce medical costs that we will all be paying less money. Eventually.
Any residue of complaint, any who survive this educational effort – and let's face it, there are a few rotten apples in every barrel – will be sent to "educational retraining centers," where their objections will be put to rest, and, after a few healthful years in these camps, chopping logs and reading the collected works of left, liberal, neocon and Pragmatic Libertarian pundits, I am sure that they will emerge, happily adjusted to the Brave New Global Democracy of tomorrow.
The above presents the consistent implications of our persistent policy of intervention, and it outlines the system toward which this country has been tending.
The question is: How do we derail this trend? How do we Take it Out? How do we prevent "1984"? Unfortunately, the Republican Party, while significantly better than the Democrats on domestic policy, has been, if anything, worse and more interventionist on foreign affairs. (...)"
Anti-federalismos: Secessão
Enquanto os federalistas usam a estratégia da "inevitabilidade" e de como se "já abdicamos de parte da soberania mais vale abdicar de mais ainda", e se preparam para (sem falar no assunto) se sentirem legitimados por referendos de maioria simples e talvez até fraca participação...
1. THE LIECHTENSTEIN INSTITUTE ON SELF-DETERMINATION
The Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (LISD) supports research, publication, and teaching on self-determination, state sovereignty, boundaries, and autonomy; related sociocultural, ethnic, and religious issues; aspects of international law and international politics; strategic, political, economic, and economic-industrial matters; and the role and character of international organizations such as the UN, the OSCE, and other regional organizations and NGOs in search of greater autonomy or independence. The program is funded through the generosity of H.S.H. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein(...).
Podem perguntar como um Principado e o seu Príncipe se lembram de financiar tal tema, mas a verdade é que o Liechtenstein tem expressamente declarado o direito de Secessão na sua Constituição.
Agora, em teoria política, como justificar maiorias qualificadas para os Parlamentos e afins para determinados assuntos, e querer impôr que um plebescito de maioria simples possa declarar a federalização de uma Nação?
2. Na "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
Secession
Until quite recently secession has been a neglected topic among philosophers. Two factors may explain why philosophers have now begun to turn their attention to secession. First, in the past decade there has been a great increase not only in the number of attempted secessions, but also in successful secessions, and philosophers may simply be reacting to this new reality, attempting to make normative sense of it. Second, in the same decade the idea that there is a strong case for some form of self-government for groups presently contained within states has gained ground. Once one begins to take seriously the case for special group rights for minorities -- especially if these include rights of self-government -- it is difficult to avoid the question of whether some such groups may be entitled to full independence.
1. Philosophical Issues of Secession
2. Theories of the Right to Secede
3. Secession and the Philosophy of International Law
4. Conclusion
Bibliography
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
Na conclusão, podemos ler a última das questões: "what gives a state a valid claim to its territory?"
Philosophical work on secession falls into three main categories:
(1) attempts to develop an account of the moral right to secede (understood either as a claim-right or as a mere liberty)
(2) investigations of the compatibility or incompatibility of secession with constitutionalism, and (3) attempts to determine what posture international law should adopt concerning secession.
In each of these areas of inquiry, as well as in the connections among them, exploration of the moral issues of secession provides a powerful lens through which to examine some of the most important issues of moral-political theory, including perhaps the most fundamental issue of all: what gives a state a valid claim to its territory?"
1. THE LIECHTENSTEIN INSTITUTE ON SELF-DETERMINATION
The Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (LISD) supports research, publication, and teaching on self-determination, state sovereignty, boundaries, and autonomy; related sociocultural, ethnic, and religious issues; aspects of international law and international politics; strategic, political, economic, and economic-industrial matters; and the role and character of international organizations such as the UN, the OSCE, and other regional organizations and NGOs in search of greater autonomy or independence. The program is funded through the generosity of H.S.H. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein(...).
Podem perguntar como um Principado e o seu Príncipe se lembram de financiar tal tema, mas a verdade é que o Liechtenstein tem expressamente declarado o direito de Secessão na sua Constituição.
Agora, em teoria política, como justificar maiorias qualificadas para os Parlamentos e afins para determinados assuntos, e querer impôr que um plebescito de maioria simples possa declarar a federalização de uma Nação?
2. Na "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
Secession
Until quite recently secession has been a neglected topic among philosophers. Two factors may explain why philosophers have now begun to turn their attention to secession. First, in the past decade there has been a great increase not only in the number of attempted secessions, but also in successful secessions, and philosophers may simply be reacting to this new reality, attempting to make normative sense of it. Second, in the same decade the idea that there is a strong case for some form of self-government for groups presently contained within states has gained ground. Once one begins to take seriously the case for special group rights for minorities -- especially if these include rights of self-government -- it is difficult to avoid the question of whether some such groups may be entitled to full independence.
1. Philosophical Issues of Secession
2. Theories of the Right to Secede
3. Secession and the Philosophy of International Law
4. Conclusion
Bibliography
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
Na conclusão, podemos ler a última das questões: "what gives a state a valid claim to its territory?"
Philosophical work on secession falls into three main categories:
(1) attempts to develop an account of the moral right to secede (understood either as a claim-right or as a mere liberty)
(2) investigations of the compatibility or incompatibility of secession with constitutionalism, and (3) attempts to determine what posture international law should adopt concerning secession.
In each of these areas of inquiry, as well as in the connections among them, exploration of the moral issues of secession provides a powerful lens through which to examine some of the most important issues of moral-political theory, including perhaps the most fundamental issue of all: what gives a state a valid claim to its territory?"
O Espectro da "Grande Albânia"
Público:
"(...)A "questão albanesa", da qual não deve ser excluída a deriva do "pan-albanismo", permanece decisiva nesta região. Já em 1992, após a declaração da independência da Macedónia no decurso da desintegração jugoslava, os distritos albaneses do Oeste do país organizaram um referendo que aprovou a "autonomia territorial" e a eventual união com o Kosovo.
A liderança macedónia albanesa aguarda com enorme expectativa a resolução do estatuto final do Kosovo, que será decidido em 2005. A possível declaração do Kosovo como "Estado independente" constituirá um estímulo suplementar para as suas ambições autonomistas, e o reforço do "pan-albanismo", a unificação dos albaneses dos Balcãs num único Estado, mas pela "via pacífica"(...)".
Nota: os internacionalistas, como qualquer intervencionista ou burocrata ou até um bom marxista, nunca assumem as consequências dos seus ideais transformados em acções violentas porque, claro, as intenções são boas.
A criação de um grande estado muçulmano - com o apoio aos freddom fighters (!!) - e o recuo do cristianismo ortodoxo à custa dos bombardeamentos e posterior ocupação pela NATO é ou será mais um monumento a somar aos grandes desastres dos bens intencionados.
"(...)A "questão albanesa", da qual não deve ser excluída a deriva do "pan-albanismo", permanece decisiva nesta região. Já em 1992, após a declaração da independência da Macedónia no decurso da desintegração jugoslava, os distritos albaneses do Oeste do país organizaram um referendo que aprovou a "autonomia territorial" e a eventual união com o Kosovo.
A liderança macedónia albanesa aguarda com enorme expectativa a resolução do estatuto final do Kosovo, que será decidido em 2005. A possível declaração do Kosovo como "Estado independente" constituirá um estímulo suplementar para as suas ambições autonomistas, e o reforço do "pan-albanismo", a unificação dos albaneses dos Balcãs num único Estado, mas pela "via pacífica"(...)".
Nota: os internacionalistas, como qualquer intervencionista ou burocrata ou até um bom marxista, nunca assumem as consequências dos seus ideais transformados em acções violentas porque, claro, as intenções são boas.
A criação de um grande estado muçulmano - com o apoio aos freddom fighters (!!) - e o recuo do cristianismo ortodoxo à custa dos bombardeamentos e posterior ocupação pela NATO é ou será mais um monumento a somar aos grandes desastres dos bens intencionados.
domingo, 7 de novembro de 2004
Anti-federalismos
1. Vamos a votos
Produtores de Pesca nas Ilhas Opõem-se à Transferência da Gestão do Mar para UE
"Mais de 30 mil açorianos e madeirenses subscreveram já petição do sector pesqueiro nacional a solicitar a realização de um referendo sobre a aceitação ou recusa da gestão dos recursos marítimos pela União Europeia. TEXTO "
2. Claro que é
"Se Portugal perde a sua Zona Económica Exclusiva, o mesmo acontece com os restantes países signatários do tratado e nem a Espanha protestou. Nada disto faz sentido", garantiu Carneiro Jacinto, para quem o problema é apenas "semântico". "A Constituição europeia é uma constituição federadora, portanto o mar é transnacional, mas no sentido em que são definidas regras comuns a todos os países no que respeita, por exemplo, à poluição e à vigilância", sublinhou.
3. Deslumbrado
Carvalhas acusa Sampaio de estar "deslumbrado" com federalismo europeu
"(...)acusou ontem à noite o Presidente da República, Jorge Sampaio, de estar "muito deslumbrado" com o Tratado Constitucional e com o federalismo europeu, não defendendo o suficiente a soberania nacional."O Presidente da República parece muito deslumbrado com a dita Constituição europeia, com o federalismo e com o directório das grandes potências e faria melhor em defender a soberania nacional"
Produtores de Pesca nas Ilhas Opõem-se à Transferência da Gestão do Mar para UE
"Mais de 30 mil açorianos e madeirenses subscreveram já petição do sector pesqueiro nacional a solicitar a realização de um referendo sobre a aceitação ou recusa da gestão dos recursos marítimos pela União Europeia. TEXTO "
2. Claro que é
"Se Portugal perde a sua Zona Económica Exclusiva, o mesmo acontece com os restantes países signatários do tratado e nem a Espanha protestou. Nada disto faz sentido", garantiu Carneiro Jacinto, para quem o problema é apenas "semântico". "A Constituição europeia é uma constituição federadora, portanto o mar é transnacional, mas no sentido em que são definidas regras comuns a todos os países no que respeita, por exemplo, à poluição e à vigilância", sublinhou.
3. Deslumbrado
Carvalhas acusa Sampaio de estar "deslumbrado" com federalismo europeu
"(...)acusou ontem à noite o Presidente da República, Jorge Sampaio, de estar "muito deslumbrado" com o Tratado Constitucional e com o federalismo europeu, não defendendo o suficiente a soberania nacional."O Presidente da República parece muito deslumbrado com a dita Constituição europeia, com o federalismo e com o directório das grandes potências e faria melhor em defender a soberania nacional"
sábado, 6 de novembro de 2004
Alguns argumentos a favor das patentes lógicas
Um texto de Ricardo Pinho sobre um tema importante e polémico entre liberais:
Alguns argumentos a favor das patentes lógicas
Incentiva a inovação
A possibilidade de capitalizar sobre os inventos de programas informáticos estimula a inovação europeia.
Equilibra as regras
Ao não proteger os inventos na forma de programas informáticos, a União Europeia joga com um handicap no mercado internacional. Os EUA e o Japão permitem patentear programas informáticos. Assim, enquanto os inventos lógicos daqueles países são protegidos, os inventos europeus ficam acessíveis – totalmente grátis, sem qualquer contrapartida – às empresas daqueles países que destes queiram dispor.
Cria riqueza
O formato MP3, invento da alemã Fraunhofer IIS, traz para a UE dinheiro resultante da exploração dos royalties daquela patente lógica nos países que a reconhecem (está registada no Patents’ Office dos EUA). A exploração dos royalties dentro da União trará ainda maior dinamismo económico interno, completa recompensa aos inovadores europeus, e protecção adequada dos direitos destes.
Não é o apocalipse
Os opositores às patentes de programação informática criam situações fantásticas hipotéticas, como o fim do duplo clique. Na verdade, não se podem registar conceitos já conhecidos, nem demasiado vagos. O facto é que nos países onde já se protegem estes inventos, não ocorreram cenários do apocalipse, mas pelo contrário a inovação tecnológica floresce.
É justo
A recompensa pelo investimento e mérito intelectual dos autores de inventos é justa. A oposição às patentes assenta em argumentos que desvalorizam a propriedade privada. A liberdade de cobrar, ou não cobrar, royalties é um direito que só aos autores pertence.
É a revolução lógica
O programa informático é o suporte tecnológico da actualidade, tal como um circuito analógico electrónico ou um processo mecânico. Aliás, a indústria de programas informáticos é hoje tão influente como a mecânica na Revolução Industrial. Não percamos agora este comboio.
sexta-feira, 5 de novembro de 2004
Eleições II
(...) No wonder the very word democracy is missing throughout the entire Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Indeed, note how sternly anti-democratic are the first five words of the First Amendment on matters of abridging religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition: "Congress shall pass no law .... " Repeat, "pass no law."
So Ben Franklin, asked outside Independence Hall what kind of state the Fathers produced, replied with a famous proviso, "A republic, if you can keep it." Big if. I think Old Ben was warning us: As political democracy grows the individual shrinks.
Hear, for example, the prescient speech of Benjamin Disraeli, a young novelist and thinker – then a back-bench Tory M.P. but later twice becoming Britain’s Prime Minister – in the House of Commons, March 31, 1850 (Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations, Knopf, 1942, p. 484):
"If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of the public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, your freedom less complete."
Aristotle in his Rhetoric (c. 322 B.C., Mencken, op. cit., p. 275) also censured democracy as "when put to the strain, grows weak, and is supplanted by oligarchy."
So later thinkers such as George Bernard Shaw hit democracy in his Maxims for Revolutionists (1903, ibid., p. 277) for substituting "election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
Or as economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, who in his Democracy – The God That Failed (Transaction, 2001, p. 96), holds that "majorities of ‘have-nots’ will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of the ‘haves’."
America’s Other Democracy by William H. Peterson
PS: O problema está mais na mass democracy e menos na local democracy. A solução está em transformar a democracia política em democracia civil através das assembleias gerais das empresas, associações e condomínios regulados pelas suas constituições - os estatutos. O caminho para a solução chama-se privatização e descentralização política e administrativa. Não é uma utopia porque não promete nem felicidade nem pão, depende apenas da nossa vontade em alcançarmos o último dos fins políticos: o exercício em pleno do nosso livre arbítrio regulado pela única regra ética que permite a cooperação voluntária resultando em ordem social e paz: o direito de propriedade. O desenvolvimento económico é apenas o prémio que recebemos por o percebermos.
quinta-feira, 4 de novembro de 2004
O Combate contra o Federalismo Europeu
Creio que é a hora das hostes anti-tratado constitucional e anti-federalismo europeu se organizarem:
Sampaio defende construção de uma Europa federal nos próximos 20 anos
Um dos pontos essenciais parece-me ser refutar que um referendo com uma simples maioria acima de 50% possa ser suficiente para aprovar o tratado ou o federalismo.PS: Podemos sempre avisar que se tal maioria foi suficiente, as regiões portuguesas - ou qualquer outra na Europa - podem então declarar a secessão dos Estados respectivos, com o bom argumento que decidiram por maioria acima dos 50% não fazer parte da Federação.
Statism Is the Problem
"How is it that most conservative evangelical Christians aren't seeing through Bush? Let me answer with a question. Why is it that mainline Protestant ("liberal") Christians didn't see through the Commies in the past and can't see through the Democratic political machine now? I've heard protestants explain how Catholics inevitably are statists. I've seen Catholics give similar theories about Protestants. I've seen the libertarian attacks on the Northeastern post-millenial pietists and now the libertarian attacks on the Southern/Mid-Western fundamentalists.
Congratulations, guys. You all win the prize because you're all correct! All these groups and more are sick with the disease of statism. Our whole country is sick with it, our whole Western culture is sick with it. It is our new god, our new lord and saviour." Stephen Carson Via LRCBlog.
Congratulations, guys. You all win the prize because you're all correct! All these groups and more are sick with the disease of statism. Our whole country is sick with it, our whole Western culture is sick with it. It is our new god, our new lord and saviour." Stephen Carson Via LRCBlog.
Apesar de tudo, George W. Bush!
Apesar da divergência de fundo com a política de Bush no Iraque e no mundo, e relativamente a outras matérias (economia, diminuição das liberdades individuais - Patriot Act - etc.), mas porque Bush mantém, por outro lado, na sua essência, o apego a alguns valores conservadores da heartland norte-americana (família, religião, comunidade, desconfiança em relação ás políticas sociais de Washington...), eu torci pelo presidente na noite-madrugada eleitoral e fiquei contente com a sua vitória.
De facto, apesar do internacionalismo e da "social-democracia" dos neo-cons, que gravitam á sua volta, o texano George W. Bush ainda mantém alguma genuinidade conservadora, que o tornam preferível ao catavento socializante e yankee do sistema Kerry, que, na verdade, não tinha nada para oferecer ou para agradar a libertários/conservadores.
Apesar de tudo, parabéns George W. Bush!
De facto, apesar do internacionalismo e da "social-democracia" dos neo-cons, que gravitam á sua volta, o texano George W. Bush ainda mantém alguma genuinidade conservadora, que o tornam preferível ao catavento socializante e yankee do sistema Kerry, que, na verdade, não tinha nada para oferecer ou para agradar a libertários/conservadores.
Apesar de tudo, parabéns George W. Bush!
quarta-feira, 3 de novembro de 2004
Bush contra o "sistema"?
Bush leva um avanço de 3 milhões e meio de votos e de dois delegados no Colégio Eleitoral. Os resultados estado a estado mostram que Bush se aguenta bem em quase todos (ver Califórnia p.e.), à excepção dos pequeninos e "históricos" do Nordeste (onde Kerry consegue diferenças significativas). Em quase todos os estados onde Kerry ganha, é "taco a taco". Significativa é a votação de Kerry em Washington D.C. (90%!), o que mostra bem qual é o candidato do "sistema"...!
Eleições
A forte participação eleitoral é um sinal de decadência da sociedade civil americana (ainda assim, a mais forte à face do planeta). Não era suposto ser muito importante a votação do presidente do governo federal.
As únicas "eleições" verdadeiramente legítimas são aquelas que se passam na sociedade civil: assembleias gerais de sociedades (empresas, associações e condomínios). As eleições políticas menos graves são as locais, até porque quando resultam em males, esses são locais e é mais fácil de votar com os pés. Quanto mais amplo (humano e geográfico) é o sistema de decisão menos aderência tem o que daí resulta com qualquer nocão de liberdade individual.
Mas em geral, temos assim escolhas baseadas na liberdade individual e eleições políticas baseadas num sistema não contratual e não voluntário e onde se diz que somos livre por podemos participar em escolhas de pessoas e elites políticas que decidem o que é ou não legal, mandatório e compulsivo.
PS: imaginem que eramos obrigados a escolher entre consumir Coca-Cola ou Pepsi, e a Coca-Cola vencia por 60%. Isso quer dizer que eramos "livres"? Agora, ainda pior, imaginem que tal referendo era feito em cada cidade. Isso era bom? Não. Mas era melhor comparativamente a um referendo nacional de igual teor.
As únicas "eleições" verdadeiramente legítimas são aquelas que se passam na sociedade civil: assembleias gerais de sociedades (empresas, associações e condomínios). As eleições políticas menos graves são as locais, até porque quando resultam em males, esses são locais e é mais fácil de votar com os pés. Quanto mais amplo (humano e geográfico) é o sistema de decisão menos aderência tem o que daí resulta com qualquer nocão de liberdade individual.
Mas em geral, temos assim escolhas baseadas na liberdade individual e eleições políticas baseadas num sistema não contratual e não voluntário e onde se diz que somos livre por podemos participar em escolhas de pessoas e elites políticas que decidem o que é ou não legal, mandatório e compulsivo.
PS: imaginem que eramos obrigados a escolher entre consumir Coca-Cola ou Pepsi, e a Coca-Cola vencia por 60%. Isso quer dizer que eramos "livres"? Agora, ainda pior, imaginem que tal referendo era feito em cada cidade. Isso era bom? Não. Mas era melhor comparativamente a um referendo nacional de igual teor.
Oportunidade para Bush
- analisar os erros cometidos
- abandonar o idealismo democrático-intervencionista-militarista-neoconservador e ganhar algum realismo
- corrigir os déficits e baixar ainda mais os impostos
- deixar de dar todas as oportunidades por omissão apenas a um dos lados no conflito territorial israelo-palestino
- diminuir o peso da segurança social deixada por Roosevelt
- lembrar-se que não se impõe a troca de liberdade individual por segurança colectiva
- lembrar-se que o Governo Federal foi constituído pelos Estados e não o contrário
- abandonar o idealismo democrático-intervencionista-militarista-neoconservador e ganhar algum realismo
- corrigir os déficits e baixar ainda mais os impostos
- deixar de dar todas as oportunidades por omissão apenas a um dos lados no conflito territorial israelo-palestino
- diminuir o peso da segurança social deixada por Roosevelt
- lembrar-se que não se impõe a troca de liberdade individual por segurança colectiva
- lembrar-se que o Governo Federal foi constituído pelos Estados e não o contrário
terça-feira, 2 de novembro de 2004
Robert E. Lee
"Shake off those gloomy feelings. Drive them away. Fix your mind and pleasures upon what is before you. ... All is bright if you will think it so. All is happy if you make it so. ... Live in the world you inhabit. Look upon things as they are. Take them as you find them. Make the best of them. Turn them to your advantage."
Charley Reese: "...He was a true Christian. There is no record from any of his own writings or from the many memoirs of people who knew him that he ever used a vulgarity, spoke ill of any man or expressed any hatred or bitterness. Such was his fame that after the war, he received many lucrative offers, including an English estate and a job that paid $50,000, a fortune in his day. He turned them all down and accepted the post of president of Washington College for $1,500 a year.
In turning down the $50,000 offer, Lee wrote: "I cannot leave my present position. I have a self-imposed task. I have led the young men of the South in battle. I must teach their sons to discharge their duty in life."
What a contrast to our own generals, who cannot wait to cash in on their measly little victories against virtually unarmed foes. Lee, like another Southern hero, Alvin York, would never have agreed to make a profit on the misery of war. "
sexta-feira, 29 de outubro de 2004
"For A New Isolationism", 1959
Aviso: mais um texto sobre o século 20 e as suas guerras.
Rothbard foi o último dos moicanos na tentativa de preservar a tradicional politica de neutralidade, entretanto quebrada desastrosamente pelos presidentes democratas Woodrow Wilson e Roosevelt e depois Truman e Johnson (as guerras americanas devem-se à sua esquerda).
O primeiro envolve-se numa guerra da qual nasce (e sem qual, talvez a Europa fosse ainda hoje fosse um retalho de Monarquias parlamentares...nice though) o comunismo na Rússia e o fascismo e nazismo na Europa, e a Segunda faz de Estaline (que entretando já tinha morto bem mais população - durante os anos 20 e 30 - do que aquela que seria depois atribuída a Hitler e ao nazismo) um aliado, o verdadeiro vencedor da Segunda Grande Guerra, e o comunismo e Mao com mãos livres na Àsia (por causa da destruição do Japão) - e depois todas as vitimas da Guerra Fria: a queda do Império Britânico e Francês e as descolonizações influenciadas por nacionalismos que viram na ideologia comunista um meio (e mais um meio do que um fim em si mesmo) de incentivar as populações a revoltarem-se, os apoios do Ocidente a toda a espécie de ditaduras militares (por exemplo, a CIA teve na origem da deposição do Presidente eleito no Irão para ser substituído por Phalevi que mais tarde foi deposto pela Revolução Islâmica), o Vietname e o Cambodja (milhões de mortos só para demonstrar o quanto a teoria do dominó estava errada), etc.
É bem fácil tirar a conclusão como o século 20 foi o pior da civilização e uma enorme tragédia induzida pelo tão glorificado Estado Moderno. Mesmo as Monarquias envolvidas no enorme erro da Grande Guerra (se bem que Versailles foi induzida pela República Francesa e a Americana fez questão no pura e simples desaparecimento do Império Austro-Húngaro com as consequências trágicas da Europa Central passar a ser dominado pelo espirito Prusso, ainda por cima agravado pelo sentimento de animal injustamente ferido - e o pior de tudo, tornado república com o fim das monarquias germânicas) foram já influenciados para não dizer vitimas das decisões de uma classe política e de políticos profissionais de carreira que caracterizam o Estado Moderno, quando antes eram ausentes nas decisões das, por comparação, civilizadas guerras entre monarquias europeias nos séculos anteriores.
Em 1959, Rothbard escreve um texto enviado para a National Review que começava na altura a literalmente expulsar os conservadores tradicionais para acolher o cold war interventionism e o início da migração neo-conservadora com origem no partido democrata. Estes tiveram perto de conseguirem um first strike, e já perto do colapso, a famosa team B de que fazia parte Paul Wolfitz, produzia um relatório mais uma vez histérico, que afirmava que a URSS estava mais perto do que nunca de dominar o mundo. Há pessoas que nunca aprendem.
Em 1959 Rothabrd escrevia então:
"(...)The only way for the Communist regime to crumble from within, therefore, is by internal revolution.
Now I know that Mr. Eugene Lyons has been valiantly predicting for many years now an imminent revolution inside the Soviet Union. I fervently hope that he is right. But to base a foreign policy on expectation of revolution seems to me foolhardy. The Soviet regime has been in power, after all, for some forty-two years, and unfortunately, there are still no signs of revolution on the horizon. Don’t misunderstand me: we must all hope and pray for such a revolution, but we cannot count on its arrival. The present regime seems more stable than any since Stalin’s death.
(…) We are not threatened by Russian tanks or machine guns or infantry. It is, therefore, the principal task of an American foreign policy truly devoted to American interests, to bring about a universal scuttling of the new weapons. If we all returned to no more than the old "conventional" weapons, and preferably even to the muskets of yore, then America would no longer be endangered.
This does not mean, of course, that America should unilaterally disarm. But it does mean that America should try its best to effect a disarmament-agreement with Soviet Russia, whereby all the nuclear etc. (…)
In the first place, I do not think it at all obvious that Russia will immediately attack the other nations. Believing as it does in eventual internal Communist triumph and fearing an American return to a cold-war policy, it will most likely refrain from any military attack. And, secondly, we can relieve ourselves of even more of the crippling and wasteful economic burden of armaments, as well as take the unilateral propaganda play for peace away from the Russians for a change, by suggesting to them further disarmament of even conventional weapons, perhaps eventually stripping down completely to bows and arrows. But let US assume the worst, and suppose that the Russians will really proceed to attack their neighbors with conventional arms once nuclear disarmament has been attained. What then?
I maintain that the only answer we can give to this hypothetical problem is the inelegant: "so what"? Let us not forget our initial axiom: that we first and foremost pursue American national interests. In that case, while we would personally deplore a Communist takeover of foreign countries, we would also adhere to the old isolationist principle of doing nothing about it, because it would not be of official national concern. Deprived of nuclear, etc. arms, Russia might be a military menace to Europe or the Middle East, but it would no longer be a menace to the United States, our primary concern. The Russian and Chinese hordes will not be able to swim the oceans to attack us.
(…)
A return to old-fashioned isolationism, then, is paradoxically the only really practical foreign policy that we have. It is precisely because we are living in the terrible technology of the nuclear age that we have a sound basis for a workable disarmament agreement with the Russians. And, with such an agreement, we would be back to the military realities of the pre-nuclear age when even our present Right-wing interventionists agreed that isolationism was practical.
One thing I would like to make quite clear: I am not proposing a program of large-scale foreign aid to the Soviet government, or a joint UN slush fund for the backward nations. In fact, adoption of a true isolationist program would finally end, once and for all, the blackmail wheedling of foreign countries that they will go Communist if we don’t come across with a suitable bribe. We can now tell the foreign nations to paddle their own canoes at last, and take full responsibility for their own actions.
There is, in short, an eminently sound alternative to the loudly trumpeted policies of either pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet interventionism. And that is a new policy of enlightened and realistic isolationism, sparked, as it needs to be in our day, by general nuclear disarmament of the world powers. Abandoning foreign meddling, we need neither continue the cold war nor pretend that the Communist leaders are our "heroic allies."
We need only adopt again that stance of splendid isolation which once made peaceful and free America the beacon-light of the world. "
terça-feira, 26 de outubro de 2004
Mises
"The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action."
"There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible."
"As a method of economic analysis econometrics is a childish play with figures that does not contribute anything to the elucidation of the problems of economic reality."
"There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible."
"As a method of economic analysis econometrics is a childish play with figures that does not contribute anything to the elucidation of the problems of economic reality."
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)