Modstanden mod kapitalisme er [... ] modstand mod mennesker og deres muligheder for at skabe og udvikle de samfund, der i stadig højere grad kan levere frie, rige og trygge liv. Liv, som det kulturelle og politiske aristokrati ser ned på, men som langt de fleste af os på kloden drømmer om og ønsker. Connie Hedegaards antikapitalistiske dagsorden er [...] ikke bare amoralsk. Den er farlig. Og hvis hun interesserede sig lidt for det EU, hun er magthaver i, ville hun vide hvorfor: De borgerkrigslignende tilstande i Sydeuropa er netop et produkt af, at EU har ofret velstandsskabelsen på et andet moralistisk projekt, nemlig nedbrydningen af nationalstaterne gennem stadig øget europæisk integration. Argumenterne for euroen var aldrig økonomiske, men politiske (læs: moralistiske). Krisen i Sydeuropa er en direkte konsekvens af manglende økonomisk vækst. En krise, der truer ikke bare levevilkårene for virkelige mennesker på vores kontinent, men også freden. Forstår Connie Hedegaard virkelig ikke det?

Læs mere:
http://www.b.dk/kronikker/connie-hedegaards-farlige-antikapitalisme

In his article “Property,” James Madison [...] explains that our right to property is as untouchable as our freedom of speech, press, religion and conscience. In fact, he views the concept of property as fundamental, pertaining to much more than merely our material possessions. In the narrow sense, Madison says, “A man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.” But in a wider sense, “A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them … in his religious beliefs … in the safety and liberty of his person … in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.” He then concludes: “[A]s a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Read more in: James Madison was right about property rights by Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca.

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!

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/apr/24/debating-first-principles-capitalism-moral/

http://ia600403.us.archive.org/15/items/FirstPrinciples-Government_WhatIsItsProperRole_/firstprinciplesgovernment.mp3

Den 31. marts i år lancerede den norske forfatter og politiske debattør Onar Åm ”The Free State Initiative”. Indtil videre består projektet af en hjemmeside på adressen http://freestateinitiative.org.

Målsætningen med projektet er at tilskynde til dannelsen af minimal-stater baseret på en udbredt grad af respekt for den private ejendomsret, og hvor individet sikres de bedst mulige betingelser for at skabe velstand.

Læs mere:

http://www.180grader.dk/Udland/norsk-liberalist-vil-skabe-fristat-i-afrika-1

Re: Afslutningsevent for Fattigdomsåret 2010

Tak for din mail

I COIN mener vi at lokal fattigdom bedst bekæmpes ved at afskaffe velfærdsstaten i Danmark til fordel for minimalstaten; og at den globale fattigdom tilsvarende bekæmpes bedst muligt, ved at man i ulandene øger respekten for den private ejendomsret, og at man i det hele taget sikrer et retssamfund, baseret på respekten for de individuelle frihedsrettigheder.

Den rette måde at bekæmpe fattigdom på, er ved at skabe de bedst mulige betingelser for det frie initiativ. Lave skatter kombineret med retssamfund baseret på frihedsrettighederne giver kun succeshistorier (Hong Kong, Singapore, Island, Monaco, Schweiz, 18. og 19. tallets USA, osv. osv. ). Høje skatter og/eller fravær af retssamfund fører til fattigdom. At plyndre de som producerer via skatterne og at give til de uproduktive er ikke alene moralsk skadeligt og forkert men også økonomisk destruktivt.

Et kapitalistisk manifest (eng. og dansk version):

http://www.coin.dk/default.asp?aid=987

http://www.coin.dk/default.asp?aid=986

Posteringer om beskatningens konsekvenser i ind og udland:

http://www.coin.dk/blogs/index.php?cat=52

Med venlig hilsen

Simon Espersen

On Mon Oct 11 16:47 , NN sent:

Styregruppen bag Fattigdomsåret i Danmark

Contrary to modern misinterpretations, our real rights—to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to goods and services. Jefferson defined liberty as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” This means we may act in our own behalf, for example, to earn money and buy health care, but we may not expect the government to tax and regulate others to provide us with health care for free.

Rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing exactly the same ones. There are no “rights” of groups—be they farmers, seniors, students, workers, homeowners, or the like—to any special privileges at the expense of others. According to Jefferson, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution].” What, then, would he have thought of our current government’s using taxpayers’ money to provide privileges to countless special-interest groups—through bank bailouts, government-backed mortgages, programs for the arts, government housing, car-company loans, etc.?
-- A sad birthday for Jefferson

Idet individer fritages fra deres pligt til selv at bære ansvaret for deres indkomst, sundhed, sikkerhed, alderdom og afkoms uddannelse, forringes bredden og tidshorisonten i den private sfære, hvormed ægteskab, familie, børn og slægtskabsbånd mindskes i værdi. Uansvarlighed, kortsigtethed, dovenskab, sygdom og endda destruktive tilbøjeligheder bliver belønnet, mens ansvarlighed, langsigtethed, flid, sundhed og konservatisme straffes. Især folkepensionen, hvor pensionister (de ældre) tvangssubsidieres af de nuværende produktive (de unge), medfører en systematisk undergravning af den naturlige solidaritet mellem generationerne - mellem forældre, bedsteforældre og børn. Såfremt de ældre ikke selv har sparet, behøver de her ikke længere understøttelse fra deres børn. De unge - som almindeligvis har akkumuleret mindre midler - skal forsørge de ældre - som almindeligvis har opsparet flere midler - i stedet for det modsatte, som er det naturlige inden for familien. Som følge heraf ønsker mange mennesker færre børn - og fødselsraterne er siden indførelse af socialpolitiken halveret. Og den respekt, som yngre traditionelt havde over for ældre, er blevet formindsket, og alle tilfælde af familiær forfald - i form af skilsmisser, uægte børn, børnemishandling og abort etc. - er steget.

http://www.180grader.dk/klumme/Den_moderne_konservatismes_intellektuelle_fallit.php

I love America for being the place where an upstart group of colonists, against all odds, battled the most powerful empire in the world---and won---all in the cause of liberty.

I love America for recognizing that not only is it illegal for a criminal to steal your property, force you to do things against your will, or hijack your life, but the government cannot do these things, either. I love America for declaring for the first time in history that government cannot act like a common criminal but must be accountable to moral law. Read more in Why I Love America by Gen LaGreca.

To tamper with man's freedom is not only to injure him, to degrade him; it is to change his nature, to render him, insofar as such oppression is exercised, incapable of improvement; it is to strip him of his resemblance to the Creator, to stifle within him the noble breath of life with which he was endowed at his creation....

...Note that I am not contesting [the socialists'] right to invent social orders, to disseminate their proposals, to advice their adoptions, and to experiment with them on themselves, at their own expense and risk; but I do indeed contest their right to impose them on us by law, that is by the use of the police force and public funds.

Frederic Bastiat at Ludwig von Mises Institute

COIN om Bastiat

Frederic Bastiat: In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil.

This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters - experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen, and those which are not seen. -- Fra That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen

Introduktion til Frederic Bastiat