You think I might be overdoing it?
. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
In response to widespread community concern about the untrammelled and biased perspectives presented in New Zealand political blogs, the Minister of Information Technology, Daffid Cantliffe announced that all blogs would be subject to a licensing regime and be subject to regulation by the Broadcasting Standards Authority.Read on.
The news came a day after Mr Brown made a pre-budget statement that embraced virtually none of the recommendations of the Stern report, and dashed hopes the Blair Government would move swiftly to a new environmental agenda..Is anyone in either the Clark Government or the National pseudo-opposition listening? Anyone? While you wait for anyone here to wake up, perhaps you can laugh at doom-mongering with this South Park clip on You Tube.
Labels: George Reisman
What do you make of that? "If there's no God then there's no free will"? If you're an atheist, then "logically" -- logically? -- you can't "believe" in free will? As I've suggested above, we don't need to "believe" in free will in the same way a Christian chooses to believe in the existence of a supernatural being; instead, to identify that we do have the faculty of free will, we can simply introspect and identify ourselves engaging in acts of free will. (Indeed, you can do it right now as you weigh in your mind that last thought, and choose whether or not to accept it -- or whether to evade the effort or the knowledge. And recognise, dear reader, that if you choose not to accept it or to evade it, you've still made a choice.)
Where does this thing called free will come from?"...if there is no God there’s no free will because we are completely phenomena of matter... we cannot be considered morally responsible beings unless we have free will. We do everything because we are controlled by our genes or our environment."
- comments by David Quinn in The God Delusion: David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate
Logically, if you are an atheist, you will believe that we are completely influenced by our genetics and environment. That there is no free-will, that moral responsibility has no ability to manifest in any human being. If you don't believe all of that, then you cannot be an atheist and you must have some inkling that God exists.
That which you call your soul or your spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call your "free will" is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.We have consciousness. Consciousness is endowed by its nature with the faculty of free will. What we each choose to do with our own consciousness is up to us -- and it's there that the discussion of morality really begins...
Labels: Ban Bans
The evidence of drug-use causing accidents isn't compelling.And check out her other writing; she's been producing good stuff recently.
When: Friday December 15th - Sunday December 17th, 10am - 10pmRELATED: Architecture, Wellington
Where: Futuna Chapel, 62 Friend Street, Karori
How much: Free!
"The Maori Party was unhappy that the bill did not ensure Maori gained part of the telecommunications sector which it was entitled to under the Treaty of Waitangi."Why would you invest in telco infrastructure in NZ? Or anything, where through the wilful uncompetitiveness of your competitors, your investment may be nationalised de facto?
We need to re-establish the principle of personal responsibility, re-affirm the importance of family and community, and turn our back on the politics of envy, where the party that wins is the one that can take $25,000 off a hard-working Kiwi and spread it around to win the maximum number of votes among those who aren't so hard-working.As a libertarian I don't agree with every word (what's wrong with re-affirming the importance of individual freedom?), but there's more meat there than in a whole folder-full of John Boy's mutterings - and doesn't that explain the advance auctions of stolen goods that are our western elections?
Hospital waiting lists grow ever longer, there's no possibility of tax relief (despite a record suplus of funds ripped off from the taxpayer), pensioners can't afford to use their heaters in winter.... But these effing morons can promote a useless plan to combat a non-existent threat at enormous cost to those of us who actually work for a living.And what then of that other strategy? Titled 'Get Smart, Think Small,' this one is produced by the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment Morgan Williams, and was tabled in Parliament yesterday. This one makes more sense; it suggests that "small scale energy schemes should be considered, instead of relying upon large generation projects." Why not? Alternative technologies are best tried small, and many of them have the potential to function better and more efficiently at a small scale - and working small is the best way for the market to test the alternatives, rather than building Muldoonist headline-hogging white elephants.
The principal objective of having enough power to meet demand is steadily being eroded. "It's very hard to invest in coal [because of Kyoto], nuclear's a sort of four letter word...hydro is suddenly becoming too hard... [oil is becoming too expensive] what's left?...we can't do everything on windpower," says Jenkins. And if there's no power, there's no industry -- and industry is our real lifeblood. So this decision demands that our own real lives are being sacrificed for the mystical life force of Ken Mair's river. Such is the RMA.Such is result of the current state-endorsed religion of environmentalism. As I've said for some time, the Kyoto Protocol and the RMA between them are an anti-industrial dream team that will leave us without the power to power industry. It's time to wake up from the dream before it really does become a nightmare.
"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.As Liberty Scott says in his own analysis of the conference,
"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.
His words received warm applause from delegates...
Imagine if apartheid era South Africa held a conference on eugenics and racial superiority. This is the same. It should provoke protests, burning of Iranian flags and official condemnations from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Iranian Ambassador.It is the same except perhaps in three respects. First, the South African's weren't promising to wipe black South Africans right off the map. And second, the opposition to Ahmedinijad has been ... silence. And sanctimony.
"What does determine the survival of [America]," said Peikoff back in October, "is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor."The only thing funny about it is that religious conservatives like O'Reilly can react with equanimity to Pastor Becky bloody Fischer, but so septically about a child actor making fun of religion and those "goddamn Christians." The kid's funny too (see below). But they sure ain't.
National will repeal the Employment Relations Act and replace it with legislation that does not get in the way of small business and more jobs.So said National's Industrial Relations spokesperson Max Backward at the time.
The Bill remains a radical and backward looking departure from the status quo [continued Backward]. It goes against international trends in Europe, the Americas and Australia, where most countries are freeing up their labour markets... "We've marked the changes to the Bill out of 100 and the Government's only scored 20 out of 100. That's 20% and an "F" for failure... "The Government has set up the country's biggest monopoly with this Bill. Unions will have greater monopoly powers than Telecom or the electricity companies.That was then. Now, the new National Socialists just don't give a shit. They just don't care at all. New leader John Boy Key now says, "no change needed to industrial legislation."
The new leader of the National Party thinks New Zealand's industrial legislation is reasonable and will not need to be changed too much by a future National government."Reasonable. "Not changed too much." "Please kick me."
The people who would persuade us to hitch our star to Mr Key's wagon are either hearing things or reading between lines. I've been paying attention and there is no 'getting' to where John Key wants to be. We are already there. Anti-nuclear, soft on welfare, and paternalistic toward Maori."She's wrong. One week later and we're still "getting there." The National Socialists are now soft on union monopolies and inflexible labour legislation as well.
(1) You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming.WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?
- Alan, age 10
(2) No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're stuck with.
- Kristen, age 10
(1) Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then.HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?
- Camille, age 10
(2) No age is good to get married at. You got to be a fool to get married.
- Freddie, age 6
(1) You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MUM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?
- Derrick, age 8
(1) Both don't want any more kids.WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
- Lori, age 8
(1) Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.WHAT WOULD YOU DO ON A FIRST DATE THAT WAS TURNING SOUR?
- Lynnette, age 8
(2) On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that Usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.
- Martin, age 10
(1) I'd run home and play dead. The next day I would call all the newspapers and make sure they wrote about me in all the dead columns.WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
-Craig, age 9
(1) When they're rich.IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
- Pam, age 7
(2) The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with that.
- Curt, age 7
(3) The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have kids with them. It's the right thing to do.
- Howard, age 8
(1) I don't know which is better, but I'll tell you one thing. I'm never going to have sex with my wife. I don't want to be all grossed out.HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T GET MARRIED?
- Theodore, age 8
(2) It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to clean up after them.
- Anita, age 9
(1) There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?And here's the biggy...
- Kelvin, age 8
(1) Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a truck.*****BUT NOW, IF IT DOESN'T ALL WORK OUT, HERE'S THE WORLD'S BEST DIVORCE LETTER. This is one you DON'T want to share with the children: The World's Best Divorce Letter. "Dear Connie, I know the counsellor said we shouldn't contact each other during our 'cooling off' period, " it begins, "but I couldn't wait any more." This is one letter 'Connie' will probably wish she hadn't read.
- Ricky, age 10
Herbert A. MillingtonRead on here.
Chair - Search Committee
Dear Professor Millington,
Thank you for your letter of March 16. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me an assistant professor position in your department...
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.With the fourth report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about to be released early next year, jostling for position has already been taking place to spin the report. Just a couple of days ago, for example, we had this from Yahoo News: "the phone-book-sized report will convey an unvarnished message that will be bleak and quite possibly terrifying. Those close to the IPCC say it will not only confirm the grim warnings of the past but also amplify them."
The Telegraph says that the report will reduce its estimate of man's role in global warming by 25 percent. However, the IPCC will still project global temperatures to climb by [up to] 4.5 C during the next century and rising sea levels, albeit by half the amount -- 17 inches instead of 34 inches by 2100 -- forecast by the IPCC's 2001 report. It will also note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb over the past five years [See Not PC: More Restrictions, Less Power, More Carbon] but that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution has been dampened by cooling caused by particulate matter and aerosol sprays, which accumulate in the upper atmosphere and reflect heat from the sun.There is no more persuasive or more widely-reported document in the global warming debate than the reports produced by the IPCC -- or, to be perfectly accurate, the Policy-makers' Summaries of the IPCC reports. Indeed, it was the predictions made in the first IPCC report in 1990 that kicked off the current hysteria, even though sixteen years later their predictions of global-warming-generated disaster have largely failed to materialise. (The Policy-makers Summary for the 1990 report predicted a 0.3 C-per-decade rise in global mean temperature due to what it called an "enhanced greenhouse effect," and a whopping six-centimetre-per-decade rise in the average sea level. In fact temperatures have been falling since a 1988 El-Nino high, and sea level rises have persistently refused to accelerate as predicted, remaining at just 2.4 ± 1.0 mm/year.)
Government ready to act on cellphones in carsUPDATE: Driver cell phone ban "unlikely" - Dominion Post
The Cabinet will today discuss a raft of road safety measures, including a ban on using cellphones in cars. The move comes just days after Ohope teenager Sharleen Lloyd was killed when her car crashed into a parked trailer. Police suspect that the 16-year-old was sending a text message at the time of the crash.
"Passing a law isn't always the most constructive thing to do,' [Transport Minister Harry] Duynhoven said. "We have very strong laws against speeding, but people still speed. Merely passing a law doesn't change behaviour."Halle-bloody-lujah!
RELATED: Politics-NZ, Law
Labels: Ban Bans
But the uniqueness and the crucial importance of Mises's challenge to socialism is that it was totally unrelated to the well-known incentive problem [ie., why would people produce when their income is supposedly guaranteed, when talent is unrewarded or error unpunished?]. Mises in effect said: All right, suppose that the socialists have been able to create a mighty army of citizens all eager to do the bidding of their masters, the socialist planners. What exactly would those planners tell this army to do? How would they know what products to order their eager slaves to produce, at what stage of production, how much of the product at each stage, what techniques or raw materials to use in that production and how much of each, and where specifically to locate all this production? How would they know their costs, or what process of production is or is not efficient?A complex market is simply the sum of voluntary exchanges freely entered into by participants according to their own value estimates. Value in this context is measured by the value we each place on goods and services by freely trading what we have produced for things on which we place even greater value. This morning for instance I traded three dollars for a large container of milk, since I placed greater value on that milk than I did on those three dollars (and the dairy owner valued my three dollars more than she did the milk). A market is simply the sum of all such voluntary exchanges, and it is by the sum of all such transactions freely entered into by which prices are set. There is no other way to determine economic value. But such voluntary exchanges are either banned or impossible under socialism.
Mises demonstrated that, in any economy more complex than the Crusoe or primitive family level, the socialist planning board would simply not know what to do, or how to answer any of these vital questions...
Developing the momentous concept of calculation, Mises pointed out that the planning board could not answer these questions because socialism would lack the indispensable tool that private entrepreneurs use to appraise and calculate: the existence of a market in the means of production, a market that brings about money prices based on genuine profit-seeking exchanges by private owners of these means of production. Since the very essence of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, the planning board would not be able to plan, or to make any sort of rational economic decisions. Its decisions would necessarily be completely arbitrary and chaotic, and therefore the existence of a socialist planned economy is literally "impossible" (to use a term long ridiculed by Mises's critics).They still don't know how today. And nor can they. It is still literally impossible, and if you aren't sure why it is, I challenge you to read and digest Rothbard's summary.
The calculation debate [says Eric] was framed entirely in the context of benevolent planners. And, when planners are benevolent, it's very clear that planner inability to engage in economic calculation reduces welfare in a planned economy. But what if the planner isn't benevolent?LINKS: Another med-lab strike on the cards - TVNZ