ars libertatis

Eine grossartige (libertär-skeptizistische) Dokumentarsendung von John Stossel über die unsinnigen staatlichen Schutzbestimmungen für Schwangere und junge Mütter, die einzig dazu führen, das die Risikopersonen weniger oft angestellt werden; über die Bestrahlung von Lebensmitteln, um Bakterien und Viren abzutöten und so Lebensmittelvergiftungen zu verhindern (und der unwissenschaftliche, irrationale, tödliche Protest von dutzenden, ja hunderten Gruppierungen, die dies unbedingt verhindern wollen und leider Erfolg dabei haben); über Leute, die absichtlich halsbrecherische Risiken eingehen, um ihren Spass zu haben, und für die die Allgemeinheit dann aufkommen muss (z.B. die Rettung von Extremsportlern, betrunkenen Kletterern oder blossen Eisfischern bezahlen); über gefährdete Tierarten und deren Rettung (Die Rettung, die im privaten Besitz und in der kommerziellen Verwendung exakt dieser besteht. D.h. statt den Handel mit und das Töten von Tigern zu verbieten (mit einem Nutzen annähernd Null), soll man sie auf Farmen züchten und essen.); über Doping und andere leistungssteigernde Produkte (und das Märchen, dass Steroide zu Krebs und Kriminalität führen) und die lächerliche Ehrlichkeit im Sport; über die finanzielle Unterstützung der Alten und Ältesten, namentlich staatliche Rentenprogramme (Medicare (welches auch nur ein Ponzi scheme ist, in etwa wie die gutschweizerische AHV)).

Als Schmankerl hier das Video über die Rettung der bedrohten Arten:

Ein guter und ausführlicher Beitrag darüber, dass man nicht die Menschheit ändern muss, um Tiere und allgemein die Natur zu schützen (resp. diese nicht an den Rand des Abgrunds zu treiben) sondern lediglich privates Eigentum an Tieren/Land/Wasser zulassen und die Eigentumsrechte entsprechend schützen muss:

Why are salmon and trout habitually overfished in the nation’s lakes, rivers, and streams, often to the point of endangering the species, while the same species thrive in fish farms and privately owned lakes and ponds? Why do cattle and sheep ranchers overgraze the public lands but maintain lush pastures on their own property? Why are rare birds and mammals taken from the wild in a manner that often harms them and depletes the population, but carefully raised and nurtured in aviaries, game ranches, and hunting preserves? Which would be picked at the optimum ripeness, blackberries along a roadside or blackberries in a farmer’s garden? In all of these cases, it is clear that the problem of overexploitation or overharvesting is a result of the resource’s being under public rather than private ownership. The difference in their management is a direct result of two totally different forms of property rights and ownership: public, communal, or common property vs. private property. Wherever we have public ownership we find overuse, waste, and extinction; but private ownership results in sustained-yield use and preservation. Although it may be philosophically or emotionally pleasing to environmentalists to persist in maintaining that wildlife, the oceans, and natural resources belong to mankind, the inevitable result of such thinking is the opposite of what they desire.
[...]
Any resource held in common – whether land, air, the upper atmosphere and outer space, the oceans, lakes, streams, outdoor recreational resources, fisheries, wildlife, or game – can be used simultaneously by more than one individual or group for more than one purpose with many of the multiple uses conflicting. No one has exclusive rights to the resource, nor can any one prevent others from using it for either the same or any noncompatible use. By its very nature a common property resource is owned by everyone and owned by no one. Since everyone uses it there is overuse, waste, and extinction. No one has an incentive to maintain or preserve it. The only way any of the users can capture any value, economic or otherwise, is to exploit the resource as rapidly as possible before someone else does.

But private ownership allows the owner to capture the full capital value of the resource, and self-interest and economic incentive drive the owner to maintain its long-term capital value. The owner of the resource wants to enjoy the benefits of the resource today, tomorrow, and ten years from now, and therefore he will attempt to manage it on a sustained-yield basis.
[...]
The proper path toward resolving the vexing issues of wildlife conservation lies in removing wildlife from common property resource treatment and creating private property rights. This entails an outright rejection of the concept that wildlife should be viewed as the common heritage of all mankind. It also poses a direct challenge to the basic philosophical beliefs of many environmentalists. But if we are to resolve the tragedy of the commons and preserve our natural resources and wildlife, we must create a new paradigm for the environmental movement: private property rights in natural resources and wildlife.¹

1. Robert J. Smith – RESOLVING THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS BY CREATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN WILDLIFE [↩]

Tearful Atlanta Cops Express Remorse for Shooting 92-Year-Old Kathryn Johnston, Leaving Her To Bleed to Death in Her Own Home While They Planted Drugs in Her Basement, Then Threatening an Informant So He Would Lie To Cover It All Up
[...]
This is what happens when you declare “war” on American citizens. You dehumanize them. And you instill an ends-justifies-the-means, win at all costs mindset in your “warriors.” This mindset infected the entire narcotics unit at Atlanta PD. You’d have to be awfully naive to believe the problem is limited to Atlanta.
[...]
Kathryn Johnston’s death is tragic. But the real tragedy here is that had the cops found a stash of marijuana in her basement that actually did belong to her–say for pain treatment or nausea–her death would have faded quickly from the national news, these tactics would have been deemed by most to be wholly legitimate, and we probably wouldn’t still be talking about her today.

These cops were evil. But they worked within an evil system that’s not only immoral on its face, but is rife with bad incentives and plays to the worst instincts in human nature.¹

-

…the Harvard Law School is having a conference to analyze the “free market mindset.” The basic premise of the conference seems to be that people who believe in limited government are psychologically troubled.

The conference schedule features presentations such as “How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” and “Addicted to Incentives: How the Ideology of Self Interest Can Be Self-Fulfilling.” The most absurd presentation, though, may be the one entitled, “Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies.” According to the description, the author argues that the market “delivers excessive levels of consumption.” Damn those entrepreneurs for creating so much wealth!²

-

While the immediate causes of the various bushfires are thought to include arson, discarded cigarette butts, faulty power lines, or lightning strikes, these initial fires transformed into huge infernos and spread uncontrollably across Victoria only because of extremely high fuel loads throughout the state’s bushland. The reason? For years, local governments have neglected to manage fire hazards on their land in order to be faithful to the principles of environmentalism — a philosophy that contends that nature has intrinsic value that must be preserved, regardless of any use it has to man.[6] The result has been that people have sacrificed their prosperity and even survival in an attempt to preserve the unspoiled sanctity of nature.³

-

Würde man das Urheberrecht – d.h. das Prinzip des Geistigen Eigentums, d.h. Ideen als Eigentum anzusehen und das “Kopieren” einer Idee (was nichts anderes darstellt als das, was Kunst und Kultur, ja unsere ganze Zivilisation ausmacht: Imitation) unter Strafe zu stellen – konsequent auslegen, so müsste man auch Tanzschritte kopierrechtlich schützen. Jemand, der sich eine neue Choreographie ausdenkt, einen neuen Tanz, müsste das alleinige Recht haben, diese Tanz aufzuführen oder aufführen zu lassen. Nachtanzen wäre nicht erlaubt.⁴

1. Radley Balko – Tearful Atlanta Cops Express Remorse for Shooting 92-Year-Old Kathryn Johnston, Leaving Her To Bleed to Death in Her Own Home While They Planted Drugs in Her Basement, Then Threatening an Informant So He Would Lie To Cover It All Up [↩]
2. Daniel J. Mitchell – Is Libertarianism a Sign of Mental Illness? [↩]
3. Ben O’Neill – The Victorian Bushfires: How Environmentalism Leads to Disaster [↩]
4. Stephan Kinsella – Copyrighting Dance Steps–The Death of Choreography [↩]