Doug Casey On The Death Of Privacy... And What Comes Next
42 minutes ago
Commentary on politics, economics, and the news of the day.
The socialist argument for redistribution requires a populace that actively violates the tenth commandment and a government that abets them by violating the eighth. Here's a refresher:Thinking about that in the context of the current healthcare debate has led me to this question which is worse: one person coveting a million dollars or a thousand people each coveting a thousand dollars worth of healthcare?TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
This is my video coverage of the Alton Tea Party. The playlist above is composed of the following fourteen videos (the links on the video numbers go to the HD version of that segment on YouTube):
In recent weeks we have seen disruptions at town halls, mob hysteria, arrests, death threats, and remarks that border on treason. Those who should be in control of the GOP remain mute or, even worse, they bless the hordes that take up pitchforks to puncture the idea of health care reform.
...
Yes, boys and girls, the anti-government tea baggers are being ginned up anew to squelch the president’s health care plan.
...
Currently there are enormous issues to deal with. The economy, unemployment, government and corporate corruption, health care, and the environment are such issues.I agree that those are enormous issues; however, I think we're facing much more pressing ones. The economy, corruption, healthcare, and the environment are the wave currently crashing on the beach. The waves behind them are bigger.
The college where I work has decided to forego ordering a textbook for the computer class that I teach this fall. Does anyone know of a free, open-source textbook for basic computer literacy concepts (overview of hardware, software, operating systems, and file systems)?I've followed the Open Source movement for many years. I've spoken at conferences about using Open Source software. What the Slashdotter is asking about is Open Content—a book, probably in electronic form, that is freely available.
You're walking down the hall and you meet someone. You talk. Work gets done. We don't yet know how to facilitate that hallway meeting.He's right, for now. Tools like twitter and Facebook are beginning to change that. The killer business app for Facebook will be a collection of tools that 1) filter your content so that you only see co-workers and work related material, 2) prioritizes the content so that you see your project's tasks, then your department's, then your company's, 3) automates your Facebook updates so that others are aware of your progress without you doing anything (other than your work), and 4) manages complex work-flows like document revision and sign-off, financial reconciliation, etc.
Elizabeth Eisenstein’s magisterial treatment of Gutenberg’s invention, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, opens with a recounting of her research into the early history of the printing press. She was able to find many descriptions of life in the early 1400s, the era before movable type. Literacy was limited, the Catholic Church was the pan-European political force, Mass was in Latin, and the average book was the Bible. She was also able to find endless descriptions of life in the late 1500s, after Gutenberg’s invention had started to spread. Literacy was on the rise, as were books written in contemporary languages, Copernicus had published his epochal work on astronomy, and Martin Luther’s use of the press to reform the Church was upending both religious and political stability.That is our world—the emerging second world.
What Eisenstein focused on, though, was how many historians ignored the transition from one era to the other. To describe the world before or after the spread of print was child’s play; those dates were safely distanced from upheaval. But what was happening in 1500? The hard question Eisenstein’s book asks is “How did we get from the world before the printing press to the world after it? What was the revolution itself like?”
Chaotic, as it turns out. The Bible was translated into local languages; was this an educational boon or the work of the devil? Erotic novels appeared, prompting the same set of questions. Copies of Aristotle and Galen circulated widely, but direct encounter with the relevant texts revealed that the two sources clashed, tarnishing faith in the Ancients. As novelty spread, old institutions seemed exhausted while new ones seemed untrustworthy; as a result, people almost literally didn’t know what to think. If you can’t trust Aristotle, who can you trust?
Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"In the Cash for Clunkers case, today's car buyers are enjoying a better car at the expense of future generations and the cost of used cars is increased at the margin as the clunkers are scrapped. The program taxes our children and grandchildren while making used cars more expensive for those that can't afford a new one—often the lower middle class and poor.
Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.
And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
Now let us consider James Goodfellow.
On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.