Quote of the Day
Stay committed to your decisions, but stay flexible in your approach.Anthony Robbins
Chart of the Day
Image of the Day
The Charleston Massacre
I am not going to publicize the identity of a publicity-seeking, sick, twisted bastard who murdered 9 beautiful, God-fearing people in Charleston earlier this month. I can't fathom what kind of evil would commit an unforgiveable abomination in a House of God.
Unfortunately, the political whores are out in force: never let a crisis/tragedy go to waste. There's a pathetic attempt to link this incident to conservatives or the right wing. From what I understand, he acted on his own and was not affiliated with known terror or extremist groups. There are no easy answers. My thought and prayers to the victims and their families.
Father and Child Reunion
More on the Pope's New Green Encyclical
Fr. Robert Sirico, president of the Catholic libertarian Acton Institute, responds to 'Laudato Si':
« Let’s cut to the chase: Much of what is in Pope Francis’ encyclical on environmental stewardship, Laudato Si’, poses a major challenge for free-market advocates, those of us who believe that capitalism is a powerful force for caring for the earth and lifting people out of poverty. But one of the most welcome lines is a call for honest, respectful discussion.
Francis warns against both extremes: on one end, “those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change.” And on the other end those who view men and women “as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced.”
He continues: “On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.” That Francis would lend the full moral force of his office to call for an honest debate is a great step for the planet. This has not characterized the past few decades of discussion.
The document is not a political manifesto, though it will have political implications when Pope Francis visits the U.S. in September. It is not a scientific manifesto, though it references various scientific reports and conclusions. Nor does it turn the Magisterium of the Catholic Church over to Greenpeace. Those on the left will undoubtedly celebrate some of its policy recommendations. Yet it includes several more authoritative teachings with which they will not be so happy, and which they will attempt to ignore or dismiss, such as the contention that “concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.”
The document is a theological statement that places environmental concerns within the context of Christian life. Concern for our common home is a just concern for all people of good will, and the longing for clean air, better use of resources, and an end to waste and pollution are worthy goals. In articulating these, the encyclical clearly makes an important contribution.
But much of the discussion in this encyclical and many of its underlying assumptions are imprudent. There is a decided bias against free markets, and suggestions that poverty is the result of a globalized economy, as this citation exemplifies: “The alliance between the economy and technology ends up sidelining anything unrelated to its immediate interests.”
Yet capitalism has spurred the greatest reduction in global poverty in world history: The number of people living on $1.25 a day fell to 375 million in 2013 from 811 million in 1991, according to the International Labor Office. This is only one statistic among reams of evidence that vindicate capitalism. An honest debate among experts will lay this canard to rest.
The encyclical unwisely concedes too much to the secular environmental agenda, for example, by denigrating fossil fuels. But it also voices moral statements dismissing popular, ill-conceived positions. The repeated lie that overpopulation is harming the planet—expressed by even some of the advisers for the Vatican—is soundly rejected. It is bewildering that the people who have been most vigorous in developing the policies proposed in the encyclical are those who also vigorously support population control and abortion as solutions to the environmental problem.
Note too that the pope praises the material advance of humanity, praises science, and praises the practical arts that have given rise to so many wonderful tools for making a better life. “It is right,” he says, “to rejoice in these advances and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up before us.” His concern is that this progress be balanced with a deep respect for nature, which God places into human care. Technology alone, without a moral center, can have profoundly damaging results. Here again, Francis’ writings defy common political categories.
People, particularly the most vulnerable, are the pope’s first concern. The proper goal should be to find sustainable systems in which a flourishing and growing population can live better. He speaks with passion concerning the lack of clean drinking water, the absence of sanitary medical care, and the unrelenting exposure to danger that is most intensely felt in the poorest countries. The solution here—one which did not get enough elaboration in the encyclical—is a path for economic progress. Wealth creation can diminish poverty, and poverty and despoliation often go hand in hand.
As a priest who strives to be faithful to his church, I know that I too am expected to use my God-given reason in evaluating these questions. The pope’s primary focus is the faith, and the moral implications that faith has for our behavior and the systems of politics and economics we create. In this sense, there is plenty of room for discussion. The purpose of an encyclical is not to close that debate, but precisely to open faith to understanding. »
Facebook Corner
(Reason). The fitness of libertarianism or lack thereof has nothing to do with Rand Paul.
Richman is an anarchist, not a libertarian. (if we're going by some purity test he applies to Rand and Paul) So sick of him at Reason.
Libertarians include anarchists (like Richman) and minarchsts (like me). There is an irritating tendency among anarchists (like Richman) to attack minarchists so as to suggest if you agree to a limited government, it's like being a little bit pregnant.
Libertarians can also be subdivided as left-libertarian (like Richman) and right-libertarian (like me). See here.
It's debatable whether Rand Paul is a libertarian. My hunch is, he is, and he's tempering it a bit to hopefully win the nomination. What's not up for debate though, is that Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. In fact, she hated libertarianism. Found libertarians to be weak, and basically no better than any other statist.
Rand Paul is a fusionist, like other libertarian-conservatives (e.g., Amash, Massie, Sanford, etc.) In practical politics, being a libertarian means dealing with drug legalization, which is the easiest way to be defined away as an extremist. I think he finds ambiguity useful. I think he also dislikes the neo-cons trying to paint him as an isolationist, which is another way of dismssing him as a fringe candidate. I think Rand is less strident, more pragmatic than his dad.
(Libertarianism.org) Regulations in markets work as a hidden tax. #QOTD #liberty #libertarianism
and why do those regulations get put in place by government controlled by capitalists?
A lot of crackpot anti-corporate leftist bullshit as usual; they put the cart before the horse. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that the government invasion of the healthcare sector was a vast right-wing corporate conspiracy? No, you had fascist politicians blinded by their own ideology. Of course, once the government extended its legal monopoly into the marketplace, special-interest groups tried to influence the power and money. Big companies are better able to withstand the shocks of, say, dyfunctional minimum wage policies on smaller competitors. It's not necessarily that the bigger companies want fascists telling them how to pay their own employees, but the fact that the fascists will screw their competition in the way a free market won't by imposing higher costs.
If the fascist OP was sincerely interested in curbing the government-caused cronyism, he would be calling to SHRINK the government, not further entrench crony corruption by increasing the size and scope of government. It's like the idiotic anti-bank populists; the fact is that the historically high number of bank failures in American history have been caused by bad government policy. Small farm state banks, for example, didn't want to compete against big bank branches. That meant, vs. properly diversified banks that when farms had a bad year, so did bankers. I wouldn't doubt the fascist OP is an anti-bank conspiracy nut. There is a bank you should worry about--the central bank.
The fact is not all industries are regulated to the extent of education, banking, and healthcare. If the government were regulating the IT industry the same way it turns other sectors to shit, we would still be teaching high school kids how to work a slide rule.
(Rand Paul 2016). At this point, is anyone surprised when this man can't keep a promise?
This halfways sounds like his expansion of hostilities in the Middle East, like he doesn't need Congressional approval to close Gitmo. He wants to call the shots and the role of Congress is to rubber-stamp him.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via IPI |
Dionne Warwick, "I Just Don't Know What To Do With Myself"
