What an inspiring film — people who refuse to cut their personal CO2 emissions are sentenced to death.
The economic illiteracy of these particular global warming alarmists is on fine display. Under the assumption that global warming alarmists are in favor of producing alternatives to fossil fuels; here’s the mistake in their plan to cut fossil fuel emissions:
If everyone decreases their use of fossil fuels the result is a decrease in demand for fossil fuels. The price of fossil fuels falls relative to alternative forms of energy. If fossil fuels become relatively cheaper than alternatives (read another way: alternatives become relatively more expensive), then alternative energies become less economically viable and we only end up prolonging our use of fossil fuels.
A better alternative if they do want to promote the use of alternatives would be this: Have everyone increase their consumption of fossil fuels by 10 percent per year, thus driving up the price of fossil fuels and making alternatives relatively cheaper.
So now, anyone who does not increase their consumption of fossil fuels should be summarily executed.
I wonder if the use of reason would warrant me being blown up.
The IRS might have a lot of dirt on you…but do they have to be so creepy about it?
The incredibly Orwellian video below has been making the rounds lately, but I thought it would be worth a repost.
What makes this video so chilling for me isn’t the simulated satellite camera feed or the narrator’s synthesized voice, but the notion that the IRS knows the power it has over the taxpayer and openly flaunts it to a degree approaching parody. The truth is, there’s nothing funny about paying taxes. Taxes are an act of force initiated by government against an individual.
If you think about it, there are basically three ways of making money:
(1) It’s given as a gift.
(2) It’s earned by trading a good or sevice.
(3) It’s stolen or taken under threat of force.
Think about what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and then tell me, which method does government use?
Everything. Funny how easy it is to lose sight of that. This video by Caleb Brown shows you in less than three minutes just how much one couple put on the line just so that you can enjoy fine coffee and wine. Altruism is great, but it doesn’t convince people to risk losing their house so they can provide tasty beverages to complete strangers.
By the way, this video is part of a contest. The winner is decided by traffic. So if you like what you see, spread it around far and wide.
Calling all you pro-freedom, liberty-loving activists! It’s time for the 3rd annual Sammies – the awards given by the Sam Adams Alliance to the hardworking everyday folks who are trying to make this country and the world a freer place. Check the categories:
Blogger: Cover state and local issues in your blog? Broken a story recently? An award for a dedicated citizen journalist who not only breaks the story but who strategically frames the debate: $3,000.
Video: Know how to edit video? Have the skills to go viral? An award for an exceptional online video that presents the ideals of liberty in relation to a contemporary issue: $3,000.
Watchdog: Fancy yourself a private eye? Good with FOIA? An award for an intrepid citizen investigator who uncovers government waste, abuse, patronage, and/or fraud: $3,000.
Town Hall: Give a town hall speech? Capture it on video? An award for an individual who delivered an eloquent and passionate town hall speech and, moreover, used that experience as a launchpad to speak out on other issues and work for local change: $3,000.
Tea Party: Organize a tea party? Turn that protest into concrete action? An award for the leader of a successful and ongoing local tea party movement: $3,000.
Modern-Day Sam Adams: The grand prize. An award for a remarkable individual who achieved a major political victory for freedom: $5,000.
Remember, kids – entries are due on February 17, 2010. The Sam Adams Alliance will fly the winners to Chicago (just like Oprah!) for a red-carpet presentation ceremony in April. To enter the Sammies, visit the Sammies website.
The Italian government is considering making it illegal for its citizens to post videos on the Internet without a license.
The free speech implications are obvious. But could the proposal also be a move to restrict unwanted economic competition against Italy’s state-dominated media?
Here’s an interesting video from ReasonTV (a Reason Magazine offshoot) that mimics the popular UPS whiteboard commercials. In this video Nick Gillespie details the war UPS is waging against FedEx in the regulatory arena. The fight centers on labor laws. Because UPS ships by ground while FedEx ships via air they are governed by two different sets of labor laws. The laws that govern UPS workers makes it easier for them to unionize, raising the labor costs for the company. Instead of attempting to reform the labor laws governing its own workforce, UPS is petitioning the government to place FedEx under the same onerous regulations to create an “even playing field”. This entertaining video points out that UPS isn’t the villain in the scenario. Though it may be utilizing a short-sighted business strategy, UPS is taking steps that make short-term business sense in a market that is completely skewed. The real villain, as the video points out, is a government that has the power help those businesses it favors and “crush” other businesses as it wishes.
Remember what people on the left used to say about questioning the policies of the occupant of the White House? Going back several years and ending only a few months ago, I seem to remember a lot of people talking about how “dissent is patriotic.” After all, wasn’t it lefty saint Howard Zinn himself who went so far as to declare that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”? Even politicians like the current U.S. Secretary of State, sick and tired though she was at the time, got into the act:
Yet now, like in the fickle world of fashion, dissent is strictly outré – an unsavory pastime for angry redneck losers with a birth certificate fetish. These days all the chic politicos are doing what’s best for the country and getting on board the Healthcare Express, full speed ahead. And much like another infamous vehicle from the recent past, the cabal that’s doing the driving is terrified that if they slow down, the entire effort will blow up in their faces. Hence the need to intimidate anyone raising uncomfortable questions.
Which brings us to the recent request from the White House that citizens report any “fishy” healthcare-related emails they might have received. Which is to say, please report on any fellow citizen who might have electronically communicated his doubts as to the wisdom of the President’s plan.
This policy has been widely described as “Orwellian” in that it supposed to remind one of the totalitarian regime from Eric Blair’s novel 1984. Based on my recollection, though, I would have expected Big Brother’s apparatchiks simply to have denied the existence of any dissent whatsoever, while heaving any counter evidence down the notorious memory hole. A much closer, real world example of citizen informants sharing information about dissenters directly with the government comes to us from East Berlin and the old Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. Of course, the Obamaniks are rank amateurs compared to the old Stasi pros, but one can’t help sense a similar impulse. Simply put, the revolution (in healthcare reform) is so important, it must be protected from the counterrevolutionaries who would confuse the people with “principles” and “facts” that would cause them to doubt the virtues of the government’s plan. And they always have a plan.
As it turns out, the Administration has already made some progress on that front. Dan Hayes of Reason.TV has managed to ferret out one of these unpatriotic dissent mongers. Once a respected director and film critic, associate editor Peter Suderman has been outed to the White House Communications Office as one of the fishiest of all the opponents to the President’s reform plan:
And for dessert, savor the most recent ad from the DNC. If you can count how many times they use the word “mob” in two minutes, you’ve got more fingers than I do:
Often, the policy issues people here in D.C. talk about can cause the eyes of non-wonks everywhere else to glaze over. With that in mind, we’ve created a new video series: Policy Translated. We take the complicated issues, add some irreverent subtitles, and bingo: instant comprehension.
Information Policy Analyst Ryan Radia introduces the series:
Regulatory Studies Fellow Ryan Young explains the economics of stimulus spending: