Si la gente supiera


Seguro que algunos ya se toparon con esta imagen en alguna red social, yo la he visto varias veces pero hasta ayer me pregunté qué pasaría si todos nos bajáramos de la tabla y dejáramos que el gobierno cayera al vacío. La idea de la imagen, como yo la comprendo, es que somos un montón de individuos que dejamos que alguien nos gobierne, sin comprender que ese que está ahí debe ser un servidor público, que su deber es cuidar ciertos intereses nuestros y no deberíamos permitir que se extralimite en sus facultades. Si todos diéramos un paso atrás, ese gobernante no podría sostener al Estado por sí mismo. Supongo que la idea no es cambiar al que está en el estrado por uno de los que forman el grupo del otro lado de la tabla, eso sería elegir un pan con lo mismo.

¿Cómo sería la imagen después de la caída del gobierno? ¿Nos convertiríamos en grupos de salvajes peleando con otras tribus por territorios y riquezas? ¿Empezaríamos a construir de nuevo la tabla salvadora para establecer un nuevo gobierno que proteja a los débiles de los abusos de los fuertes? ¿Usaríamos a los débiles como esclavos? ¿Nos aislaríamos en grupos pequeños y pacíficos que no pelearían con otros grupos? ¿Estableceríamos un libre comercio y resolveríamos los problemas de los individuos con jueces privados? Yo no tengo una respuesta definitiva; sin embargo, sé que elegiría asociarme con otros individuos que respetaran la libertad individual y que concideraran la vida su máximo valor. De hecho, buscaría a alguien como el profesor, de la novela The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, de Robert A. Heinlein, quien al ser cuestionado por otro de los personajes sobre su postura política declara:

“But—Professor, what are your political beliefs?”

“I’m a rational anarchist.”

“I don’t know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist,

philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian—those I know. But what’s this? Randite?”

“I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and

‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible

individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame,

guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being

rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect

world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

Ambos personajes están discutiendo cuáles son las mejores normas para una sociedad, el segundo personaje se desespera un poco con el profesor porque éste parece no estar de acuerdo con ningún grupo de normas que se le presentan:

Wyoh plowed doggedly into Prof, certain she had all answers. But Prof was interested in questions

rather than answers, which baffled her. Finally she said, “Professor, I can’t understand you. I don’t insist

that you call it ‘government’—I just want you to state what rules you think are necessary to insure equal

freedom for all.”

“Dear lady, I’ll happily accept your rules.”

“But you don’t seem to want any rules!”

“True. But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what

rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I

am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

“You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?”

“Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it.”

Creo que es cierto que muchas personas desconocen el poder que tienen, no sólo para pelear por sus derechos, para instaurar o derrocar gobiernos. Hay muchos que desconocen el poder de su propia libertad, su poder para usar la razón y decidir qué leyes nos benefician y cuáles otras nos hacen daño. Antes de tirar al gobernante del otro lado de la tabla yo le preguntaría a ese grupo de personas si están listas para vivir por sí mismas y dejar a los otros vivir por sí mismos, si están dispuestos a abandonar el uso de la fuerza para obligar a los otros a aceptar sus leyes, si están dispuestos a comprender que son moralmente responsables de sus acciones, que pueden convivir y cooperar con los otros sin necesidad de dominarlos o dejarse dominar.

North Carolina Bans Rare Burgers! | Nanny of the Month (May 2011)


Video: Nanny of the Month – Reason.tv

Via   on May 31, 2011:

May’s biggest busybodies are taking it to poker players and teen tanners, but the nation’s top nag has lovers of pink-in-the-middle burgers seeing red.

In a stunning blow to all that is juicy and delicious, the Tar Heel state actually prohibits restaurants from serving rare or medium-rare hamburgers.

And if this crime against meat freedom seems especially un-American, keep in mind that it comes from the same state that once banned Old Glory at public rallies.http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV#p/c/2DD00E99B83A258A/12/XBP_deuQzwE

To watch previous Nanny of the Month episodes, go here:http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV#p/c/2DD00E99B83A258A

Remember the Swine Flu chaos?


Here’s one more example of how Google Trends could be a useful tool to tell if something has been researched, talked or studied long enough to avoid a problem (in this case a pandemic health problem).

Image of Google Flu Trends (February 15th, 2011)

In the last 5 years there hasn’t been much news on swine flu in the news. Now the US and the rest of the world is trying to find out a way of stopping the pandemia; if lucky they will get to stop it soon enough before more people dies. A vaccine won’t be ready in the near future and once again the government seems to be failing to “miraculously solve” our problems.

In democratic systems like ours, it is in moments of crisis that civilians demand government intervention on their private rights. Those interventions include telling what we should do, how and when. Borders are closed and commerce declines. History has shown that this tendency has been present all over the last 4,000 years. Are we heading to the same mistakes or at least very similar ones?

It looked like the flu pandemic the world had been dreading for 50 years: A virus, seen only in animals for several decades, had made the leap to humans and, more ominously, had passed from person to person.

Yet for the first time in history, scientific knowledge and government funding might be able to stop the flu in its tracks, saving a million lives at risk. Within months, Americans were lining up to be vaccinated against the virus. Then, in another triumph of nature’s unpredictability over human planning, the flu virus simply disappeared.

Incubated in pigs but not seen in humans since the 1920s, swine flu broke out in February 1976 at an Army base in New Jersey.

However noble the sentiment, the National Swine Flu Immunization Program, announced by President Gerald Ford just a month after the virus had been identified, became a public-health debacle that probably cost more lives than it saved. (read more: Deja Vu: Politics greeted outbreak of swine flu in 1976).

Arizona’s Immigration panic. A reality.


On April 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest bill on illegal immigration in American history. The intention of the bill is to identify and prosecute undocumented immigrants that live in the state. Opponents of the law consider it to be racist, as well as a violation of the equality of all people, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislation to identify and prosecute undocumented immigrants has been previously enacted by the federal government. However, this is the first time that a state law will make it a crime to fail to carry immigration document. In addition, the law gives the police broad powers to detain anyone suspected of being in the country without proper documentation. The root problem that Americans must confront is who will fall into a subjective criteria that some consider to be funded on a violation of the equality of all people.

Currently, people are evaluated as individuals, not as members of a group or class. To accept this law, which is based on racial stereotypes, will only open the doors for the exploitation of one person against others, as was written by the famous economist F. Bastiat in The Law. Once the exploitation of one group of people is supported by others who benefit, eventually a new group of privileged people use the same strategy to exploit the previous oppressors, creating an infinite cycle. The passing of the law in Arizona is a historical event compared only to the Prewar period in which Nazi Germany became an anti-Semitic country.

The criteria to be used by officers to identify potential undocumented immigrants are considered by some to be based upon skin color, verbal accent or social status , which may be a form of discrimination among people. The law also makes it a crime to not carry immigration papers. Similar laws has proved to only amplify the spectrum of intolerance and discrimination. A new period of discrimination has been ignited and it must to be stopped. If this law becomes the basis for future laws, discrimination based on skin color, accent or social status should be considered a violation of a person’s rights to life and pursuit of happiness.

But the past is never really past, racism and racists have survived in the United States since before it was an independent country. Different racial groups have been discriminated and among them were Irish-Americans, Jewish Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and Latino Americans. As of July, 2007 , Latinos are expected to be to more than 15.1% of the population in the country. Still a minority, Latin Americans are now confronting the historical results of a different paradigm after the civil-rights movements of 1960s. This new paradigm is race-based affirmative action. As Haney Lopez, a John H. Boalt Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, explained, “the end of explicit race-based subordination did not eradicate stubborn racial inequalities, progressives increasingly recognized the need for state and private actors to intervene along racial lines.” As such, the law signed by Gov. Brewer is the result of decades of progressive recognition of racial stereotypes that have violated the Constitution’s colorblindness. This law provide the impetus for future violations of the rights of all Americans, based upon the racist belief that that societies aren’t composed by unique individuals but by stereotyped collectives.

In defense of this law, the Governor acknowledged in her remarks that “We must react calmly. We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status. We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong.” However, how could the Governor expect that a law that considers people not equal to be enforced justly? By which standards of current affirmative action will will police officers base their decisions of whom to stop and detain? Who is to determine the criteria and characteristics of potential undocumented immigrants?

Historical precedent provides a useful guide to understanding what will happen after similar laws were passed. In prewar Nazi Germany, from 1933 to 1939, more than four hundred decrees and regulations were passed restricting all aspects of the public and private lives of Jewish citizens. Jews were required to carry their passports; in addition, they were required to have visible insignia that helped police officials identify them. Meanwhile, Jews were forced to look like Jews with regard of the criteria and characteristics decided by the Nazi Government. No corner of German society was left untouched. Jews disappeared from the social order in a mere six years.

In 1933, the German public advocated for the Nazi government to start planning the oppression of Jews. By not fighting to protect their rights under the law, as well as promoting outright subjugation, the Germans opened the doors to death, war and discrimination. Luckily, the United States Constitution is color-blind; and it should no more be violated to attempt segregation than to preserve integration. “In the eyes of government, we are just one race here,” Justice Antonin Scalia intoned in 1995. “It is American.” The law passed in Arizona doesn’t comply to this right of colorblindness. For Arizonians, they no longer are just one race.

Stossel y la rebelión de Atlas en el 2010


John Stossel es uno de los periodistas independientes más importantes de los Estados Unidos.  Trabajó como creador y conductor del programa 20/20 en la cadena de televisión ABC News durante muchos años.  El programa 20/20 se popularizó rápidamente en los Estados Unidos y el mundo entero por su efectiva y carismática difusión de las ideas de la Libertad y los principios de los Padres de la Independencia estadounidenses.  Por este motivo, John Stossel recibió un doctorado honoris causa por la Universidad Francisco Marroquín en el año 2008.

A partir del año 2010 Stossel mudó su programa al canal de noticias Fox News Channel y el primer programa salió al aire el 07 de enero de 2010.  Este programa fue dedicado a estudiar la novela “La rebelión de Atlas” escrita hace más de 50 años por la filósofa ruso-americana Ayn Rand.

A pesar de tener más de 50 años de haber sido publicada, la novela es el día de hoy un bestseller alcanzando ventas record en el año 2009.  Desde su publicación, la novela ha vendido más de 7 millones de copias y tan sólo en el primer trimestre del año 2008 había vendido ya más de 300,000 copias.

La novela, medio siglo después de haber sido escrita, es considerada por muchos una predicción clara y fehaciente de la coyuntura política y económica actual de Estados Unidos y el mundo entero.  En la novela, líderes empresariales y genios creadores deciden irse al paro y alejarse de una sociedad que los condena.  En esa sociedad descrita por Ayn Rand, los dirigentes gubernamentales fomentan la colectivización de la propiedad privada, la redistribución de la riqueza y la interferencia gubernamental en la economía.  Así, las decisiones tomadas por el gobierno de Barack Obama y por otros gobernantes del mundo luego del inicio de la crisis financiera en el año 2008 empezó a concretarse tal y como la novela de Ayn Rand relata.

Los gobernantes, empezando por el gobierno de Barack Obama, intervinieron la economía en un afán por “rescatar” a empresas que habían demostrado ser ineficientes, a bancos que habían malversado dinero de sus acreedores y cientos de millones de dólares han sido entregados desde el año 2008 para rescatar a empresas alrededor del mundo.

Ayn Rand desarrolló una filosofía a la que nombró Objetivismo.  Esa filosofía considera al hombre como un fin en sí mismo y su sistema filosófico se fundamenta en la búsqueda de la felicidad de los individuos a través de los principios de una sociedad capitalista.

Para conocer más el impacto de la obra escrita por Ayn Rand los invito a escuchar el programa que contó con la participación del banquero y emprendedor John Allison III, con Yaron Brook, presidente del The Ayn Rand Institute, con C. Bradley Thompson de la Universidad de Clemson y con el editor de la Reason magazine, el sr. Nick Gillespie.