Med COIN-Bloggen kommenteres løbende på dagsaktuelle emner. Vi vil søge at præge debatten, sådan at de skjulte konsekvenser ved nye former for indgreb, afgifter, skatter, forbud bliver gjort mere synlige.
"Ifølge deres egne udsagn, har den gennemsnitlige fattige [amerikaner] tilstrækkelige midler til at varetage alle essentielle behov samt til at opnå lægebehandling for familiemedlemmerne i løbet af året, når behovet er der", lyder det fra Heritage [Foundation].
USA's fattige sulter således ikke. Men det gør imidlertid 925 millioner mennesker i de ikke-industrialiserede lande, som ifølge "The World Food Programme" ikke får tilstrækkeligt med mad til at kunne leve et normalt og aktivt liv. På organisationens hjemmeside: www.wfp.org optræder USA således heller ikke over de 72 lande i verden, hvor sulten ifølge WFP hersker. Det gør i stedet 41 lande i Afrika, 8 lande i Syd- og Mellemamerika; 18 lande i Asien og 5 lande i Mellemøsten.
Læs mere om USA's fattige her:
Læs mere om fattigdom i ikke-industrialiserede eller ikke-kapitalistiske lande her:
Læs om sammenhængen mellem velstand og frihed her:
The European Union is pouring enormous amounts of money into the United States. Regular
multimillion-dollar payments to individuals and organizations in the U.S. raise important
questions over Brussels’ interference in U.S. political and social debates—including climate
change, the death penalty, and membership of the International Criminal Court. It is also not
possible to justify EU human rights budgets being spent in one of the world’s freest nations.
The EU budget has become synonymous with profligacy, waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
It is beyond time for EU member state governments and European parliamentarians to take
action. And it is Congress’s duty to ascertain whether these expenditures are in compliance
with U.S. laws, and to ensure that American interests are protected.
Swaying American Opinions
Congress Should Investigate
EU Advocacy in the United States
First Principles is a series of three debates on the moral underpinnings of today's politics co-sponsored by Demos, The Ayn Rand Institute and It's A Free Country. Part one explored the role of government, and part two discussed freedom; part 3 featured Washington Post political columnist Ezra Klein (here represented by Demos' David Callahan) and BB&TChairman John Allison, debated:
Capitalism: Is it Moral? Listen to the Debate!
Yaron Brook gives a rousing speech at the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit 2011 on 2/25/2011. His speech focuses on the idea that freedom lies in stresses a single, fundamental principle, the principle of individual rights, rather than vague terms such as fiscal responsibility (can be done through taxation) or limited government (can suggest democracy rather than a republic). An engaging speech which ended in an 1800 person standing ovation, the only one that night.
[A binding agreement in Copenhagen would imply that] the U.S. would be required not only to overhaul its domestic energy policy but to assist other countries to develop their own energy capacity with billions, if not tens or hundreds of billions, of U.S. taxpayer dollars over the course of many years.
Not only are the contemplated obligations of a Kyoto II treaty onerous, but the manner in which the obligations would be enforced would submit the U.S. to an unprecedented monitoring and compliance regime. The U.S. would apparently be required to submit itself to an intrusive international review of both its energy policy and its compliance with obligations to transfer wealth and technology to "developing countries." The current draft negotiating text is replete with references to "facilitative mechanisms," "monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms," and requirements that financial commitments and transfers of technology be "legally binding."[...]
Furthermore, as conceived, the proposed Kyoto II treaty would require the U.S. and other parties to accept as binding the decisions and rulings of the international bureaucracy created to monitor compliance with the treaty. That is to say, the U.S. would not have the final authority on questions regarding its compliance. Instead, the Kyoto II treaty bureaucracy will decide.
From The "Kyoto II" Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty by Steven Groves
Is the Kyoto Protocol Worth Extending?
No. Even aside from the growing doubts about the seriousness of the global warming threat -- the Kyoto Protocol or any other putative global warming solution is only a solution to the extent that a genuine problem exists in the first place -- the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[...] Emissions are increasing in several signatory nations. In several more countries, emissions are declining more slowly than emissions in the U.S., which ironically is not a party to Kyoto.[...]
Is U.S. Sovereignty at Risk?
Yes. Kyoto has no international enforcement mechanism with any real teeth. To actually reduce emissions, any successor treaty coming out of Copenhagen would need an effective enforcement mechanism. Domestic U.S. enforcement of the treaty, if ratified, would be problematic enough, but any binding international enforcement provisions would create additional serious problems.
What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference by Ben Lieberman
Dr. Rahn would like to share a new video, The Value-Added Tax: A Hidden New Tax to Finance Much Bigger Government, released by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation. The video explains why a value-added tax (VAT) would be a dangerous money machine for big government. The evidence from Europe is clear. The crippling expansion of government in Europe over the last several decades was made possible by the VAT. In fact, the evidence also shows that VATs actually lead to higher income taxes.
Please take a look and tell us what you think. And please don't hesitate to share the video since that has been the key to the success of this educational project.
Link to all CF&P videos:
Link to Press Release:
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
The concepts of self-ownership and self-governance still have a powerful rhetorical ring, and few Americans will admit that they don’t want to rule themselves. Many citizens and most politicians give lip service to personal liberty but because of bad political habits and worse moral assumptions, they either acquiesce in the face of this cultivated dependency upon government or act to sustain and further the paternalist arrangement.
Self-ownership and self-government are also the prerequisites to a happy and flourishing life. Friends of freedom must return to these foundational concepts. They must fight the battle for freedom in terms of rational self-interest. And it is the joy of self-ownership and running one’s own life that ultimately will be the catalyst to the restoration of political freedom.
In recent years, a number of pro-free-market think tanks and taxpayer associations have been formed in France, and their effectiveness and impact clearly are increasing. These groups include Institut Economique Molinari, the Institute for Economic Studies-Europe, Institut de Formation Politique, Contribuables Associes (French Taxpayers Association), etc.
In part because of their efforts, France has sharply reduced its corporate income-tax rate so it is lower than the U.S. rate. France also has been reducing its individual tax rates so that many Frenchmen now pay a lower maximum tax rate than do the taxpayers of New York, California and many other states.
If the tax-rate increases proposed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are passed into law, all upper-income Americans will be paying higher personal tax rates than the wealthy in France.