Feb 9, 2022 | World
I am sure everyone saw that Putin was eagerly meeting with Xi at the Olympics. Maybe there was some discussion of economic cooperation, but the real reason was revealed by the Washington Post: they want to make the world safe for dictatorships!
The dictators use double-speak: we are democracies but we have a different definition of democracy. The dictators’ implicit definition includes one-party rule, no free elections. no freedom of speech, no separation of powers, and punishments for “political” crimes. “Consent” in this context means” obedience insured by the gun.
I wonder if the dictators are feeling some moral pressure now? Even the UN was not happy about Russia’s threat to invade the Ukraine (which Russia denied planning). Another aspect of dictators’ double-speak is that attempts by the free world to make defense treaties and arm themselves against aggression are labeled provocations while their own arms buildups and threats are labeled self-defense.
Ayn Rand said that morality was the strongest of all intellectual powers. Maybe the dictators’ are feeling the heat. Let us hope so. – Edwin A. Locke
Feb 6, 2022 | Business
Write economist Raymond Niles and urbanist Kyle M. Kirschling on the importance of a Substeading Act:
Imagine if getting to the airport were as easy as riding an elevator, if trains were as clean and comfortable as a limousine, if it took half as long to get anywhere in the city. In this paper, we show how Substeading (underground homesteading) can achieve this within a generation. In addition to proposing a new legal technology, we present specific projects that would be profitable today, despite high tunneling costs.
Substeading is economically powerful, based on proven technology, and could transform big cities in a generation.
Substeading would create brand-new and conveniently-located rights-of-way, ideal for new urban transportation networks and other infrastructure.
Substeading is politically practical because it has minimal environmental impacts, requires no government funding, and doesn’t use eminent domain.
Substeading would naturally pave the way for bigger and better cities by nurturing new construction and infrastructure technologies and by eroding regulatory obstacles to new development.
You can download their free report at substeading.com
Feb 6, 2022 | Sci-Tech
Issues covered include:
- What are the implications of the Lab Leak Theory?
- What is the probability the virus came directly from Nature?
- What are the implications for progress, human wellbeing?
- Does Gain Of Function make sense?
Yaron discusses this and much more with Matt Ridley, co-author with Alina Chan of Viral: The Search For the Origins of Covid-19.
Feb 5, 2022 | Arts
The Chinese artist,
Badiucao, has produced five posters
depicting CCP’s as part of his Beijing Collection “
to call for a boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics in opposition to the Chinese government’s human rights abuses!”
They represent 1. Oppression of the Tibetans 2. Uyghur genocide 3. The dismantling of HK democracy 4. The regime’s omnipresent surveillance systems 5. lack of transparency surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.
Feb 5, 2022 | Politics
Amy Peikoff on the first amendment and a good argument for why private companies could be called “state actors.”
Feb 2, 2022 | World
Australian Lawyers’ Alliance on Djokovic deportation:
“One of the most dangerous aspects of the Djokovic matter is the preparedness of the federal government to deem someone to be a risk to public order simply on the basis of what it perceives that person’s views might be…This is Orwellian and it is deeply troubling in a society supposedly committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought.” [Source]
Notes Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns SC on the minister’s powers as “God-like”:
“On the basis of this sort of reasoning, a minister could say: ‘Well, I’m not going to allow you into the country because you’ve got a very high profile and you may express views and become a lightning rod for people opposed to the US-Australian alliance’.”
President of Liberty Victoria Michael Stanton agreed.
“Deportation of a person because of a purported risk as to how others might perceive them can and will be used in the future to justify the suppression of legitimate political expression because others might engage in unrest,” he said in a statement posted online. [Western Advocate]
Feb 2, 2022 | Politics
Some findings of a Rasmussen/Heartland survey:
– Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 55% of Democratic voters would support such a proposal, compared to just 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliated voters.
– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.
– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.
– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”
– While about two-thirds (66%) of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Feb 2, 2022 | World
According to legal philosopher, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, “Europe is headed towards a tyrannical regime of mass surveillance and control. We are turning into China and if we don’t prevent the introduction of compulsory vaccination in Austria, Europe will no longer be part of ‘The Free West’.”
As Ms. Vlaardingerbroek notes on her blog:
I’ve come to learn that most Americans have no idea how dire the situation in Europe really is. Obviously, America has very heated debates about vaccine mandates too, but they don’t have a digital vaccine passport in place on a federal level. So whenever I talked about QR-codes that grant us access to everyday life, they always looked at me somewhat vaguely. And that’s exactly the issue here. What most people don’t know is the fact that the system we already have in place here in Europe, is a system that can be used for just about anything, not just your vaxx status. And it will be, because the people who rule us are actually very open about their intentions of doing just that.
This is all part of a plan called the ‘European Digital Idenity‘ project. Which basically comes down to every single European citizen having a digital wallet, that contains your medical records, identification information, soon possibly your Central Bank Digital Currencies; and basically anything else there is to know about you. In short: It’s a tracking app. The government, or whoever has access to your information, will know exactly where you are, who you are with and what you spend your money on. What could possibly go wrong there?
Well, a lot. As I said on Tucker Carlson Tonight: “We’re headed towards a new system, a tyrannical regime of mass surveillance and control. Here in Europe, we already have a system in place that reminds us of the early phases of a social credit system. We are literally turning into China”.
And I meant it. Because although in some countries the restrictions are being lifted, what I was afraid of indeed happened: Austria has fallen. Last Thursday, the National Council in Austria (NB: not Australia) passed a law making the Covid vaccines mandatory on a nationwide level; meaning every citizen above the age of 18 will have to pay massive fines up to €15,000 a year, for the ‘crime’ of being unvaccinated. When I say Austria has fallen and Europe is no longer ‘‘part of the Free West”, I’m not saying that to sound dramatic. I deeply believe that once a state no longer honors its citizens’ bodily integrity, freedom is a concept of the past. And there is no reason to think this will be limited to just Austria. On the contrary, actually. Germany has announced it also wants to enforce mandatory vaccination on a nationwide level, most likely starting at the end of February. And we all know that if Germany does something, it’s only a matter of time till the rest of the EU follows. On that note, Germany has also announced this week that they will be barring parliamentary members who are unvaccinated from entering the Bundestag. De facto this comes down to an exclusive entry-ban for members from the Alternative für Deutschland party. Unsurprisingly, this is a right-wing opposition party. And let’s not forget that the German head of the office for the protection of the constitution has stated that people who protest against the Covid restrictions are potential ‘‘enemies of the state’’…
Feb 2, 2022 | Sci-Tech
The arguments of Jane M. Orient written over two decades ago on the nature of mandatory vaccines still ring true today:
Mandates have a profound effect on medical practice. Once a vaccine is mandated for children, the manufacturer and the physician administering the vaccine are substantially relieved of liability for adverse effects. (3) The relationship of patient and physician is shattered: in administering the vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent of the state. To the extent that the physician simply complies, without making an independent evaluation of the appropriateness of the vaccine for each patient, he is abdicating his responsibility under the Oath of Hippocrates to “prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.” Instead, he is applying the new population-based ethic in which the interests of the individual patient may be sacrificed to the “needs of society.”
If a physician advises against a mandated vaccine, he faces increased legal liability if the patient is infected with the disease. In addition, he may risk his very livelihood if he is dependent upon income from “health plans” that use vaccine compliance as a measure of “quality.”
It is perhaps not surprising, although still reprehensible, that physicians sometimes behave in a very callous manner toward parents who question the need for certain vaccines. I have even heard reports of physicians threatening to call Child Protective Services to remove the child from parental custody if a parent refused a vaccine — even after the child had screamed inconsolably for hours after each of the first two doses. The federal policy of mandating vaccines marks a monumental change in the concept of public health. Traditionally, public health authorities restricted the liberties of individuals only in case of a clear and present danger to public health. For example, individuals infected with a transmissible disease were quarantined. Today, a child may be deprived of his liberty to associate with others, or even of his supposed right to a public education, simply because of being unimmunized. Yet, if a child is uninfected, his unprotected status is not a threat to anyone else. On the other hand, immunization of a child who is already infected (or who becomes infected in spite of the vaccine) is of no protective value to anyone. This represents a reversal of the earlier policy of preventing exposure to infectious agents. In fact, it takes exposure — as to contaminated needles or promiscuous sex — as a given, while begging the question of whether protection against hepatitis B has any overall effect on morbidity or mortality in a population that also exposes itself to worse hazards.
Read the rest.
Feb 2, 2022 | Business
Economist Mark Perry at AEI has created what many regard as the “The Economics Chart of the Century”:
Can you see the common denominator?
Feb 2, 2022 | Culture
In the first of a five-part series “Even black men can be fired for not being ‘woke’ enough“, a radio talk show canceled by Canada’s Bell Media and iHeartRadio demonstrates how individuals who are black are only useful to “liberals” when they repeat the slogans of their white intellectual masters. Those who do not conform to the “progressive” stereotype are kicked off the plantation.
Writes Jamil Jivani:
Wokeness—a political agenda with a superficial commitment to diversity and inclusion—has become a global ideological movement. And, more than government policy, it’s big corporations pushing this agenda and punishing those who refuse to comply.
Weeks after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis in 2020, Bell Media hired me to be part of the iHeartRadio talk network as a radio host. From my perspective, Bell Media/iHeartRadio recognized that despite its publicized commitment to valuing people from different backgrounds, they had yet to ever hire a fulltime black talk radio host in their Canadian market. What my experience made clear is that the company failed to consider what it would mean to sincerely engage someone from a black community, without expectations that we conform to the pressures of tokenism.
Elite institutions often make assumptions about a person’s political views based on what he looks like or where his parents are from. Soon after being hired, I could see that Bell Media/iHeartRadio erred in making the same assumptions. I felt that they were hoping to have hired a liberal stereotype of a black man who espouses their expected political talking points. Bell Media/iHeartRadio was not prepared for a black man who loves his country, rejects victimhood politics, maintains strong ties to his faith community, and shares heterodox views on a wide range of issues.
Read the rest.
Jan 31, 2022 | Business
According to Hannah Cox, “Are we about to enter a new era of antitrust? If enemies of tech companies get their way, maybe. It’s been decades since the government brought a successful case against a company, and a look back at the history of antitrust indicates it probably never should have tried to begin with. “
This reminds us of Ayn Rand’s excellent identification of the nature of antitrust:
“The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer you to the works of the best economists.) The Antitrust laws were the classic example of a moral inversion prevalent in the history of capitalism: an example of the victims, the businessmen, taking the blame for the evils caused by the government, and the government using its own guilt as a justification for acquiring wider powers, on the pretext of “correcting” the evils.”
“Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms.” [“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 1]
Jan 31, 2022 | Politics
Amy Peikoff of Don’t Let It Go has an excellent list of “When did the Covidian fascists cross the line for you?”
Here are a few of them…
4. Flip-flop on masks
9. Government protocols that deny early treatment
15. Mandating vaccinations for travel, restaurants, shopping, and other good things in life
16. Governments releasing official statements shaming the unvaccinated, sowing division
17. Mainstream media, refusing to help expose cover-ups about origins of the virus, vaccine injuries, data crimes, or other challenges to “the science”
22. In some places already, mandating the vaccines for kids, and even legalizing their administration without parental consent
23. Social media as an accomplice in pushing the narrative, banning, throttling, and labeling anything which questions “the science”
24. QR Codes for “vaccine status,” as an entree to social credit scores.
Read the entire list.
Jan 27, 2022 | Politics
Yaron Brook is an objectivist. Yoram Hazony is a national conservative. This is a conversation and debate about national conservatism vs individualism.
Jan 24, 2022 | World
Yeonmi Park is a North Korean defector and human rights activist trying to shine a light on the atrocities still being committed in North Korea by the current Kim regime. She wrote her experiences into a bestseller, ‘In Order to Live.’
Jan 23, 2022 | World
What does it mean for the United Nations to go into “Emergency Mode”?
It means using a crisis as an excuse to implement draconian measures, that have little or nothing to do with resolving the crisis, to expand your power to control people’s lives. As the saying goes politicians should “never let a crisis go to waste.”
Of course, the U.N. does not go right out and say it but speaks in code. Let’s translate that code into plain English as we examine their five action areas:
“Tackle the Pandemic”
“Tackle the Pandemic” means fighting #COVID19 with Covid Vaccination mandates, lockdowns of healthy people, and the prison of the healthy (unvaccinated people who are covid negative). It means creating vaccine passports, which are eventually enlarged to require obedience to mandates which have nothing to do with COVID, as the E.U. is attempting. As Eva Vlaardingerbroek has observed “Europe is headed towards a tyrannical regime of mass surveillance and control. We are turning into China and if we don’t prevent the introduction of compulsory vaccination in Austria, Europe will no longer be part of ‘The Free West’.”
“Transforming the global financial system”
“Transforming the global financial system” means a confiscatory global tax of the productive (#TaxTheRich) to transfer their wealth to socialist politicians and their cronies who believe they know how to better spend the money than those who earned it. Much mention is made for a global tax minimum to force low-tax states to increase their taxes, but when it comes to the advocacy of a global tax maximum they are notoriously silent.
“Taking urgent climate action”
“Taking urgent climate action” means to ban fossil fuels and cripple free countries – especially the United States – while China, “the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide” plans to build over 40 coal-powered energy plants over the next decade.
“Putting people at the center of the digital world”
“Putting people at the center of the digital world” sounds like a Microsoft commercial. What happens if you don’t like Microsoft’s way of putting you at the center of the world? Well, in a free market you can select another company. The U.N. seeks to put an end to this so there is no escape.
When that idea is taken over by the U.N. global monopoly its meaning changes to mean having the state take over the internet so it can impose censorship to battle “misinformation”, i.e., people who disagree with government officials.
Who decides what is “misinformation”? Free people discussing and debating in the free-marker for ideas. Don’t be silly. The U.N. will. “Misinformation” means anything U.N. bureaucrat says is misinformation, or that their proxy in the private sphere (“independent” state-approved “fact-checker”) says is misinformation. The science is “settled”: thinking for yourself is a crime. It’s a brave new world.
“Delivering sustainable peace”
How is “delivering sustainable peace” different from just “delivering peace”? It has “sustainable” in it. Examples of past U.N. “sustainability” include giving moral sanction to communist china’s CCP dictatorship, allowing the Hutus to slaughter millions of Tutus in Rwanda, and condemning free countries like Israel.
Writes Ayn Rand on the expulsion of Taiwan (“Republic of China”) from the United Nations to appease Communist China:
When an institution reaches the degree of corruption, brazen cynicism and dishonor demonstrated by the U.N. in its shameful history, to discuss it at length is to imply that its members and supporters may possibly be making an innocent error about its nature—which is no longer possible. There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China—an action forbidden by the U.N.’s own Charter—was a “moment of truth,” a naked display of the United Nations’ soul.
What was Red China’s qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China? The fact that she was a friend of the United States.
