kodak2004: (Default)
Terrorism Denial on the Left:

..In this respect, terrorism denial commits the same faulty reasoning that the anti-vaxx movement uses to deny the reality of the threat posed by infectious diseases and pandemics. Anti-vaxxers argue that the small number of deaths caused by infectious diseases in recent times is evidence of them posing no threat. However, those who understand the underlying science recognise the nature and scale of the threat, and the critical role that vaccination and pandemic prevention play in neutralising it. Were we to stop vaccinations — or counter-terrorism — it’s clear that the death toll from both these threats would rise significantly.

This isn’t to say we should be consciously fearful about terrorist attacks on a day-to-day basis. Yes, there are legitimate debates to be had about the balance between intelligence gathering, national security, and civil liberties. We should be skeptical of political leaders who seek to capitalise on the fear of terrorism for cheap political gain. We should be careful to recognise their rhetoric and bombast about being ‘tough on terrorism’ when it’s a substitute for actual knowledge about the threats posed by it.

But claiming that the war on terrorism is ‘fictitious’ is conspiratorial and irresponsible. When the left cites misleading death tolls in order to play down the terrorist threat, it discredits itself in they eyes of anyone who knows better.

kodak2004: (Default)
Собственно, да: http://yakov-a-jerkov.livejournal.com/1295794.html?thread=41735602#t41735602

Жаль, что в данный момент такую реформу провести невозможно.
kodak2004: (Default)
..It’s not clear if the weathermen considered the compromise alternative of letting people know the real forecast with an appropriate warning: “There will be seven inches of sleet and ice rather than 24 inches of snow, but that can be even more dangerous.” If they did it was apparently rejected as insufficiently protective of public safety. In any event, officials deliberately misled the public on the belief that people cannot be trusted to take care of themselves, even with accurate information. They undermined their own public-safety goals by making it less likely that anyone will listen to them when the next big blizzard comes calling. And they increased the danger to those in disfavored rural areas who were misled into expecting a smaller storm.

Their action epitomizes the problems of the modern liberal administrative state: arrogation of policy decisions by unelected bureaucrats, counterproductiveness, regional and class snobbery, and a stultifying infantilization of the public. The Weather Service misled not just the citizenry but their elected leaders—governors, mayors, even the president they report to. There may be certain emergency situations that justify the government lying to the people “for their own good.” But the decision to do so should be made by officials who can then be voted out of office if the people who were lied to decide that the judgment wasn’t justified, not by unelected civil-service bureaucrats. There is no indication that the Weather Service cleared its decision to withhold information up the chain of command with the Secretary of the Interior or with the White House..

kodak2004: (Default)
Уже хорошо, но надо еще больше регуляций :)

kodak2004: (Default)
Наверное, просто нужно немножко больше налогов, регуляций там добавить, стимулюс какой-нибудь замутить.

Italy’s Continuing Downward Spiral
kodak2004: (Default)
Собственно, даже год назад все вакансии из коммифорнии игнорировал. В добрый путь, хехе.

Демократические Сенаторы в Калифорнии представили билль, который намерен реализиовать в штате страховую систему “единого плательщика”. Под этим подразумевается скрытая национализация всей страховой сферы штата и создание одного государственного (или квазичастного) органа, ответственного за медстрахование.

Фактически это следующий шаг в сторону огосударствления медицины после Obamacare. Реформа Обамы ввела обязательную страховку для всех граждан, которую можно было купить у частных страховых компаний. Когда Obamacare начал буксовать в 2014-15 гг., Обама заявил, что во всем виноваты жадные страховщики, которые не хотят помогать людям. И для решения проблем с Obamacare нужно создать единое государственное страховое агентство, раздающее всем страховки. Я так понимаю, что после появления проблем уже с госстраховкой либералы обвинят во всем больницы и жадных врачей и потребуют национализировать медицинскую сферу.

В прошлом два штата (Колорадо и Вермонт) уже пытались установить систему единого плательщика, но они быстро столкнулись тем, что им нужно непомерно увеличить расходы на медицину. Согласно оценкам экспертов, в первый год после внедрения этой системы Калифорнии придется откуда-то достать дополнительные $40 млрд на медицину - и еще примерно по $10 млрд в каждый последующий год. Точнее, Калифорнию ждет выбор: либо сокращать количество процедур, покрываемых страховкой, либо платить меньше докторам, либо выискиывать новые средства. В первом случае взвоет электорат Демократов, во втором случае все способные доктора соберут вещи и уедут в те штаты, где им будут платить больше. Остается третий вариант, но он потребует резкого увеличения налогов и еще больше ускорит массовое бегство бизнеса и среднего класса из Калифорнии.

kodak2004: (Default)
The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction. And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing business, and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to cater to the interests of the economically powerful. Libertarians, in contrast, believe in free markets, and truly free markets are the enemy of big business.

The second mistake is to confuse intentions with results. Even if government policies were intended to benefit the poor, we would have good reason to expect them to fail. Good intentions often produce unintended consequences. Increased safety regulations at airports lead more families to travel by the much more dangerous method of driving and so lead to a larger number of deaths. Laws that limit price increases on essential goods in the wake of natural disasters lead to fewer of those goods being brought to market and more people having to suffer without them. Government bailouts of failed firms encourage more failed firms. Perverse consequences like this sometimes surprise us, but they shouldn’t. Society is a complex and dynamic system. Politicians lack both the knowledge and the incentive to cope with it effectively. Libertarians propose to deal with it by decentralizing decision-making to individuals who are free to make choices based on their expert knowledge of their particular circumstances. Individuals and corporations should reap the benefits of good decisions, and pay the costs themselves when their choices turn out poorly.

kodak2004: (Default)
И такой цирк с конями в коммифорнии до сих пор, бгг :) Хай буде.

If the water industry were free and competitive, the response to a drought would be very simple: water would rise in price. There would be griping about the increase in water prices, no doubt, but there would be no “shortage”, and no need or call for the usual baggage of patriotic hoopla, calls for conservation, altruistic pleas for sacrifice to the common good, and all the rest. But, of course, the water industry is scarcely free; on the contrary, water is almost everywhere in the U.S. the product and service of a governmental monopoly.

When the drought hit northern California, raising the price of water to the full extent would have been unthinkable; accusations would have been hurled of oppressing the poor, of selfishness, and all the rest. The result has been a crazy-quilt patchwork of compulsory water rationing, accompanied by a rash of patrioteering ecological exhortation: “Conserve! Conserve! Don’t water your lawns! Shower with a friend! Don’t flush the toilet!”

Well, the amusing aspect of all this is that these imbecile exhortations were as manna from heaven to the wealthy liberal elitist ecofreak population of the San Francisco Bay Area. The California water authorities were hoping and shooting for a decline of about 25% in 1977 water consumption as compared to 1976. But, lo and behold, in late June, the figures rolled in and it turned out that Bay Area communities had responded by voluntarily cutting their water consumption by 40-50%.

The “morality” of the Bay Area masses had exceeded everyone’s expectations. But what was the reaction to this onrush of patriotic altruism and self-sacrifice? Oddly enough, it was mixed and ambivalent—thereby pointing up in a most amusing way some of the inner contradictions of statism. For suddenly, many of the local governmental water districts, including San Francisco’s, realized that dammit! they were losing revenue! Now, water shortage is all well and good, but there is nothing more important to a bureaucrat and his organization than their income. And so the local California water districts began to scream: “No, no, you fools, you’ve ‘over-conserved.’” (To a veteran anti-ecologist such as myself, the coining of the new term “over-conserving” was music to my ears.) The water districts began to shout that people have conserved too much, and that they should spend more, for which they were sternly chastised by the state water authorities, who accused the municipal groups of “sabotaging” the water conservation program.
kodak2004: (Default)
А какие еще результаты можно ожидать от полиси, основанной на влажных идеологических фантазиях? Лол :)

No Thug Left Behind
kodak2004: (Default)
Вот за это пидор.

kodak2004: (Default)
Это что-то на уровне Кругмана.

kodak2004: (Default)
Why Libertarians Should Oppose the Universal Basic Income

Libertarians have a standard set of fundamental criticisms of the welfare state.

1. Forced charity is unjust. Individuals have a moral right to decide if and when they want to help others.

2. Forced charity is unnecessary. In a free market, voluntary donations are enough to provide for the truly poor.

3. Forced charity gives recipients bad incentives. If the government takes care of you, you're less likely to take care of yourself by work and saving.

4. The cost of forced charity is high and growing rapidly, leading to a future of exhorbitant taxes or financial crisis.

kodak2004: (Default)

Once again, the Republican Party has unified control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. The last time that happened, during the George W. Bush administration, they delivered massive overspending, the biggest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, centralization of education, a war that has lasted longer than World War II, an imperial presidency, civil liberties abuses, the intrusion of the federal government into social issues and personal freedoms, and a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street and the automobile industry. Voters who believe in limited government had every reason to reject that record.

kodak2004: (Default)
Левые продолжают доставлять дефицитом фактчека :)

Прям как в случае с Easing the Russian Sanctions, пишешь такой простыню про идиотские требования для госслужащих, искрометно шютишь по поводу правых, Козиря, Brave new world, вот это вот всё. А потом (видимо, после разбана в гугле) приходится дописывать смущенный апдейт, типа каким-то образом это еще до гитлера успели наворотить (после Бенгази, собсна). Внезапно!

Способность трумпа насрать в штаны предыдущей администрации поистине безгранична, лол.

kodak2004: (Default)
Доставляют как сами первоисточники, так и те, кто весь этот мусор тиражирует :)

kodak2004: (Default)
There is but one solution to all this chaos and crisis: libertarianism, which necessarily entails a dismantling, not a reform, of the welfare-warfare state way of life and a restoration of a governmental system based on individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.

But that’s not what most Americans have chosen, so far. They have chosen to stick with the welfare-warfare state, hoping against hope that someone — anyone — will come along and finally make it work, even if it means a further loss of their liberty at the hands of government officials. But it’s not going to work, not even with Donald Trump in charge. Americans are going to find that the chaos and crises only get bigger, especially as Trump displays more dictatorial tendencies in the months ahead in his the attempt to make the welfare-warfare state way of life finally succeed.

kodak2004: (Default)
Когда присосался к государственной кормушке, лол.

Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 09:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios