This Day In History: Apple Computer placed the Macintosh personal computer on sale on this day in 1984. The Apple stock ($APPL) price in the IPO (Initial Public Offering) was $22 back then. Today the share price is $317. The most expensive stock is Berkshire Hathaway ($BRK) at $341,225.00. Amazon ($AMZN) is now trading at over $1800 and Tesla ($TSLA) is the new hot stock. If you can't afford to buy these stocks, you can actually buy a portion of these stocks. So let's say you only want to buy $5 worth of an Apple share, you can do that. Stash, M1 Finance and I believe Interactive Brokers allow you to buy Fractional Shares.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
The DeLorean Car on This Day in History
This Day In History: The production of the iconic DeLorean sports car began in Northern Ireland on this day in 1981, and anyone who's watched Back to the Future knows what a Delorean is. If you've ever wondered why you never actually seen one on the streets at the time, it is because the car sucked. The car’s small engine only produced 130 horsepower, and the stainless steel paneling that gave it such a great look was heavy. The dye from the floor mats would rub off onto shoes and the famous gull-wing doors had a habit of becoming stuck. When Johnny Carson took one for a test drive around the block it broke down. Raising capital to build the car was troublesome as well. John Delorean was caught with $24 million worth of cocaine he wanted to use to fund his dream car. The legal troubles that ensued made him sell his 500-acre New Jersey estate to Donald Trump. John Delorean (the man who also gave us the Firebird and the GTO) died in 2005 in a one bedroom apartment.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Auguste Comte on This Day in History
The Altruism of Auguste Comte by Julius Lloyd 1884
https://thebookshelf2015.blogspot.com/2018/06/auguste-comtes-peculiar-form-of.html
What Ayn Rand Meant by Altruism
https://fredericbastiat1850.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-ayn-rand-meant-by-altruism.html
Saturday, December 28, 2019
The Fascist President, Woodrow Wilson, On This Day in History
While often ranked as one of the best presidents in US history, Ivan Eland's book "Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity and Liberty" ranked Woodrow Wilson as the worst president:
"It can be argued that Wilson screwed up the entire twentieth century and beyond. U.S. involvement in World War I was instrumental in causing a violent twentieth century for the world. As a result of the two world wars, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and civil wars and conflicts spawned by the Cold War - most of which can be traced to U.S. entry into World War I - the twentieth century was by far the bloodiest in world history. Approximately 110 million people lost their lives in war in that century.
Even before World War I, however, Wilson had dramatically changed the Democratic Party from a Jeffersonian party of small government and military restraint overseas into a part of big government and profligate armed intervention abroad. The war also allowed Wilson to engineer an unprecedented government takeover of the domestic U.S. economy - a model that was later repeated during other crises, such as the Great Depression and World War II." Buy this book on Amazon
See also Woodrow Wilson: America’s Worst and First Fascist President
A Century Ago Woodrow Wilson Took America Into WWI: Blame Him For
Communism, Fascism And Nazism
Sunday, December 15, 2019
“I Believe in Freedom of Expression, but…”
The period between 1980 and 2003 was characterized by an unprecedented development towards democracy, strong institutions, and acknowledgment of human rights. Thus, dictators and authoritarian leaders around world loosened their iron grip on the press and citizens’ right “to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience,” as put forward by English poet John Milton in 1644.
Since 2003, however, freedom of expression has suffered multifarious limitations. According to Freedom House, only 13 percent of the world’s population enjoys a free press. Ignited in 2004, the global decline in press freedom has spread like a wildfire, and the number of countries with a free press has decreased by 10 percentage points. Concurrently, well-established democracies are calling for desperate measures to deal with the predicament of balancing civil liberties and national security. To make things worse, guarding against fake news and an emerging demand for shielding minorities against hate speech are gaining support.
On a global basis, the support for freedom of speech is relatively high. People generally consider it a fundamental right to criticize governments and politicians, but when it comes to minorities, the support for free speech vanishes. For instance, a survey conducted by The Varkey Foundation shows that only 49 percent of “Generation Z” believe that people should have the right to speak offensively to minority groups, while only 46 percent of Europeans think that people should be able to publish statements offensive to minorities.
Does Hate Speech Incite Violence?
The idea that hateful speech incites violence does not prove correct when examined carefully.Thus, when talking about freedom of expression, it seems like the prevailing attitude translates into: “I believe in freedom of speech, but…” Nevertheless, this unenthusiastic backing for free speech is highly perilous and allows for governments to restrain freedom of expression in several cases. The reason, it appears, is that a majority of people believe that hateful speech incites violence and conflict. Therefore, governments, companies, and organizations must censor offensive speech. Yet, there is no reason to believe that censorship will improve anything.
On the contrary, the idea that hateful speech incites violence does not prove correct when examined carefully. First of all, is it highly doubtful that hateful speech will encourage others to engage in acts of violence simply because they were exposed to hate speech? Individuals are rational and independent, and the idea that offensive words will drive people to act unlawfully because of offensive words is fallacious. On the other hand, it is likely that hate speech will provoke feelings in people who are already willing to engage in criminal conduct.
Evidence from Rwanda shows that there is not much reason to believe that people are incited to act violently merely because of hate speech. The study finds no significant effect from the state-led Radio Rwanda which propagated hateful messages about the persecuted Tutsis. Another study shows similar results. The author finds that many of the convicted perpetrators of the genocide did not listen to Radio Rwanda.
Censorship: The Path to More Hate?
If, however, we accept that various precautions and curtailments are necessary to preserve diversity and a flourishing democracy, what would the consequences be?By silencing radical and dissenting viewpoints, European states have fostered an environment of discontent among the silenced.
Restricting freedom of speech in order to protect minorities has already been attempted in several countries. The effects from Europe have, in large, been arbitrary convictions and persecution of offensive statements aimed at people criticizing Islam. Moreover, by silencing radical and dissenting viewpoints, European states have fostered an environment of discontent among the silenced. By legally prosecuting “wrong” viewpoints, extremists will consider themselves as minorities persecuted by an elite. This is backed by a study on right-wing terrorism in which the author concludes that public repression might have fueled extreme right violence.
On a smaller scale, various online platforms have already implemented censorship in order to protect minorities from offensive speech. The results yielded by such efforts seems, however, to be small, if not counterproductive. For instance, Reddit launched a ban on two subreddits particularly known for their offensive language and hateful content. When Reddit decided to ban r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown in 2015, Reddit indeed achieved their objective. But what about the overall effect of the ban? A 2017 study shows that while Reddit did reduce controversial content, people simply fled to other sites to publish hateful content. This resonates with results from a UNESCO study indicating that banning “trolls” will just make them show up elsewhere.
Why Freedom of Expression Matters
Our observations undertaken here suggest that silencing hateful speech—regardless of the measures—is often unsuccessful or even counterproductive. On this background, we should remember why freedom of expression is so important and why we should cherish this freedom.For, as numerous scholars have shown, freedom of expression correlates with better protection of human rights, higher GDP, less violence and lower corruption. Finally, repression of freedom of speech has—in a historical perspective—been the most desired instrument for governments and dictators around the world to retain impoverished people in obedience.
Filip Steffensen
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
Monday, November 25, 2019
New Releases and Libertarian Classics Now Available for Kindle and iBook
FEE has a long history of publishing both new and classic texts on the humane values and ethical principles of the free society.
Alongside teaching how markets work, FEE’s focus has always been on teaching why markets matter. That is, how commercial exchange, unimpeded by capricious government intervention, permits people to interact in ways they might not choose were it not for the need to trade. FEE has consistently promoted the ideal of the free society and shown how arbitrary coercion, from any source, is fundamentally incompatible with it.
FEE revived Frédéric Bastiat’s classic The Law with Dean Russell’s translation of Bastiat’s seminal work. Today it remains a sort of “gateway drug” into the classical liberal tradition.
FEE has printed hundreds of thousands of copies of The Law, and continues to distribute it in book form to seminar students and anyone seeking a better understanding of the nature of law and the inevitabilities of human-held power.
Increasingly, our distribution is going digital. FEE.org hosts full texts of Essential Readings from Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, FA Hayek, and Leonard Read.
Not only are these life-changing texts available through web browsers, but they are now available in formats suitable for all electronic readers.
These eBooks are accessible to people young and old who prefer the convenience and speed of delivery of their Kindle or iPad. Importantly for those readers, text in these books scales to the size of the reader’s screen and can be adjusted to fit his or her preference.
Now available for Kindle, iPad, and iPhone are some of FEE’s most popular texts, as well as some brand new releases:
- 99 Ways to Leave Leviathan – Kindle · iBook
- Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus A Socialist? – Kindle · iBook
- Advice for Young, Unemployed Workers – Kindle · iBook
- I, Pencil – Kindle · iBook
- Anything That's Peaceful – Kindle · iBook
While we continue to distribute these texts physically, we strive to expand our distribution electronically so that they can be read by people across the globe — by anyone curious about the freedom philosophy and how it applies to a life well lived.
Coming in the next few months are new editions of FEE founder Leonard E. Read’s many books, beginning with his masterpiece Anything That’s Peaceful — available now with a new introduction by FEE president Lawrence W. Reed.
Reed writes, “There it was in one evening’s reading — freedom explained in its essence, socialism debunked at its core, a vision for a better world offered in a compelling — indeed, even inspiring — way."
Keep your eyes peeled for more of Leonard Read's books, alongside a series of beautiful compilations entitled Essays On Liberty, including contributions by Read, Hazlitt, Frank Chodorov, F.A. Harper, and Ludwig von Mises.
Richard N. Lorenc
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
The Tyranny of Socialism
Socialism, as a rule, goes along, as M. de Laveleye truly says, with godless Materialism. But, says M. Vinet, “Materialism leans with all its weight on tyranny.” Then Socialist-Radicalism leans all its weight on tyranny; and this, of course, is true. The blessed word “compulsion” is, as we all know, the Socialist-Radical's shibboleth.
Christianity is the religion of righteousness—that is, of duty. Therefore it is the religion of Individualism. There can be no duty if there is no personal responsibility, and there can be no personal responsibility if there is no individual liberty. Necessarily, then, Socialist-Radicalism is opposed to Christianity, if not to all religion. “Nulle religion,” says Vacherol, “est compatible avec l'idéal de la démocratie”—meaning, of course, the ultra-democracy of Socialist-Radicalism. The word “democracy,” by itself, has no definite meaning. Democracy, in some degree, reigns wherever there are communities of men. If the most absolute despot of a savage tribe is unsuccessful in war, the democracy—that is, what is called “the people”—cut his head off and set up another. Thus the democratic principle exists everywhere. The word itself, unqualified, defines nothing.
“Christianity,” says M. Vinet, “is the immortal seed of liberty here below. Jesus Christ has irrevocably established the reign of law and individual liberty...... all worthy Liberals and Conservatives desire liberty and order; and all bad men mortally hate both the one and the other.” Rough on the poor Socialist-Radical this!
“What,” asks M. Vinet, “is the principle of Socialism? It is to place the human species under tutelage; it is to rule despotically; it is to fashion for each individual his religion, his philosophy, and his conscience. The idea is a very ancient one. It is, in fact, the Pagan idea, whose funeral knell was sounded by Christianity.”
“A Socialist State,” again says M. Vinet, “accepts for its type a family where the children remain eternally minors.” The despotic tyranny of Socialist-Radicalism is far worse than the tyranny of a single despot. “The tyranny of a multitude,” said Burke, “is a multiplied tyranny.” Thus the reason why the Socialist-Radicals aim at this multiplied tyranny is, no doubt, because the tyranny of only a single despot is not tyranny enough for them.
“Despotism,” says Coventry Patmore, “whether of an irresponsible emperor or of a multitude, is the death of nationalities.” Now, the Socialist-Radicalism of the day, as it cannot be too often repeated, means despotism, with its necessary other side, slavery. I wonder whether we have gone too far in this direction for recovery
See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists For a list of all of my books on disks and other ebooks click here
“The frantic ambition,” said Coventry Patmore, after the General Election of 1892, “of one bad man, the cowardice of a few others, and the apathy of that large portion of the community which has been sane in judgment, but insane in sloth, have brought the final evil upon us sooner than it need have come. But come it must, inasmuch as the powers of evil have always in the history of nations proved too strong in the long run for those of good. Considering what men are, the wonder is not that all great nationalities should have come to a disgraceful end, but that their ordinary duration of life should have been a thousand years or so. How any of them should have lasted a hundred must seem a miracle to those who fail to take into account the agency of the two guardian angels of national life, religion and war—religion, which keeps alive submission to law and the spirit of self-sacrifice for corporate life; and war, which silences for a time the envy and hatred of the evil and the ignorant for all superiorities, and compels them to trust their leaders on pain of annihilation.”
History undoubtedly tells us that every nation goes down when its time comes. And what brings it down is the spirit of evil becoming stronger than the spirit of good; the spirit of evil meaning the Radical spirit of envy, hatred, destruction, and disintegration, as distinguished from the beneficent, preserving, and improving spirit of Conservatism and true Liberalism.
Now, about Great Britain. Have we got on the downward course?. At any rate, envy, hatred, and malice, with their inevitable children, lying and slander, seem more and more to rage over the land. What is poor old Mr. Gladstone's strongest political card?. It is the stirring up of envy, hatred, and malice between the “classes and the masses.” He has, I believe, described Nonconformity as the backbone of Radicalism in England. But what is the motive force that brings out this form of Radicalism?. It is class and sectarian envy, hatred, and jealousy, “the special qualities of the devil.” Take away social jealousy from Nonconformity, and its Radicalism would be nowhere. The Socialist-Radicalism of the day means at bottom war against ownership of property. Now, the Nonconformist loves his property as much as anybody; but at present his sectarian envy, jealousy, and hatred outweigh his love of property, and even his hatred of Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Hatred of what is near is stronger than hatred of what is far off. Surely we have much to fear as a nation from these dire forces that have of late increased so much. Communities of bees and ants consist of ranks and orders, classes and masses. What would happen if their masses were to set up a burning antagonism against the rest in their communities? Surely bees and ants would cease to exist.
By the way, talking of Roman Catholicism, I wonder, should the Nonconformists succeed in their schemes for disestablishing and robbing the Church, whether the contingency has ever occurred to them of the whole Church of England going over to Rome, and thus England becoming again a vast Roman Catholic community, with a few petty Nonconformist sects here and there. Educated Roman Catholicism is very different now from what it was when it burned people for believing the earth went round the sun, or for not believing in winking virgins. The truths of science are no longer denied by educated Roman Catholics —as, for instance, Mr. St. Mivart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)