Saturday, December 30, 2017

Swiss students fight against mandatory TV fees

How Swiss students fight against imposed TV fees | Freedom Today Network - Bill Wirtz:

November 20, 2017 - "Together with other classical liberals in Switzerland, Frédéric Jollien is fighting against the royalties imposed by the government for media consumption. 450 Swiss Francs, the equivalent of €382, is the annual fee that consumers need to pay, regardless if they want state-run TV and radio channels or not. 'We are not trying to abolish anything. We merely want consumers to choose for themselves which channels they want to watch.', says Frédéric, who works in the campaign of 'NoBillag', the citizen's initiative that intends to overturn the fee via referendum.

"The state-run channels in Switzerland date back to World War One, when they were used to communicate with the citizens. The government had completely monopolised both TV and radio 'for security reasons'. After the war period, Switzerland opened the market to private media companies, but it kept the 'Billag' fee in order to pay for the state channels which still absolutely dominate the market until this day.

"The fee even has its own website www.billag.ch, on which the mandatory contribution is explained as follows: 'In Switzerland, you are legally obligated to pay the radio and television fees. By paying the fees you enable radio and television programmes in every part of Switzerland.'

"Which almost sounds like you couldn't have any TV or radio stations if it wasn't for governmental control. For Frédéric Jollien, who is a Senior Local Coordinator for European Students for Liberty and founder of Swiss Students for Liberty, this description is dishonest: 'The opponents to our campaign claim that without the "Billag", nobody would pay for state channels, yet they simultaneously also argue that people are very fond of the content. Which one is it now?'

"The 'NoBillag' campaign has been working on the issue of media royalties for three years now, and effectively managed to get their citizen's initiative approved. This means that a public vote on the repeal of the 'Billag' will take place on March 4, 2018. Until then, the campaign is tirelessly working to promote its ideas.

"However, running such a campaign demands considerable efforts: 'The government has extended the "Billag" to include private companies as well. Despite them only receiving less than 10 per cent of the revenue generated by the fee, they now also have vested interests in keeping it in place'.... The print media is equally unimpressed by the 'NoBillag' campaign, as owners also seek to convince the government to initiate large subsidies for the papers, the same way it is practiced in countries like France.....

"Jollien is very optimistic regardless: 'We started a crowdfunding campaign and raised over 50,000 Francs in only ten days, bringing us closer of our 100,000 CHF objective. But not only that: several polls have indicated that we might very well be able to win the public vote!'

"[J]ournalists (who by the way, are exempt from paying this fee) are releasing heavy verbal fire on the campaigners. They claim it would cause massive unemployment in the media sector, that it is anti-democratic or that it would enable big foreign companies to take over the Swiss market. "It's actually quite peculiar: the Swiss conservatives, who are usually the ones spreading fear of foreigners, support us because they believe that state media is being biased against them, while the Left opposes us because they believe the evil foreign media channels from Germany, Italy and France will eat us up. This shows how strange the idea of a free market can sound to people', says Frédéric."

Read more: https://ftn.media/how-swiss-students-fight-against-imposed-tv-fees
'via Blog this'

Friday, December 29, 2017

Ron Paul sees opening for a libertarian in 2020

Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is 'Very Possible' - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Ed Krayewski :

December 27, 2017 - "Distrust in America's foreign and monetary policies, unrelieved by the election of Donald Trump, is going to be a 'big opening' for libertarians in 2020, former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Examiner....

"'The appearance of the libertarian movement has been set back partially because of Trump, but intellectually we've been doing well,' Paul said. 'We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible' in 2020.

"Paul called the economic upturn this year 'a bit of an illusion,' and said U.S. monetary policy benefits those connected to government... 'It's a bubble economy in many, many different ways and it's going to come unglued,' said Paul.... 'We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed'....

"'I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that's when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say,  "Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this",' Paul told the Examiner. 'If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today.'

"Paul's criticism of Trump's foreign policy is understandable. Trump was never the non-interventionist some (at times even Paul's son, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) made him out to be.

"'I think [his] foreign policy is a total disaster,' Paul told the Examiner. 'Trump's approach sounds good one day but the next day he's antagonizing everyone in the world and thinks we should start a war here and there.'

"Paul also said he'd be delighted if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties, although he's not optimistic the replacement would be any better."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/27/ron-paul-a-popular-libertarian-candidate
'via Blog this'

Thursday, December 28, 2017

U.S. government cuts UN funding

The UN Cuts Are a Step in the Right Direction - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - Daniel J. Mitchell:

December 28, 2017 - "According to the Associated Press, steps are being taken to reduce the fiscal burden of the United Nations.
The U.S. government says it has negotiated a significant cut in the United Nations budget. The U.S. Mission to the United Nations said on Sunday that the U.N.’s 2018-2019 budge would be slashed by over $285 million. The mission said reductions would also be made to the U.N.’s management and support functions. The announcement didn’t make clear the entire amount of the budget or specify what effect the cut would have on the U.S. contribution. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said that the 'inefficiency and overspending' of the organization is well-known, and she would not let 'the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of.'
"By the way, 'nicked' or 'trimmed' would be more accurate than 'slashed.' Nonetheless, at least it’s a small step in the right direction.

"And the recent U.N. vote against the U.S. may lead to additional budgetary savings, as explained in the Wall Street Journal by John Bolton, a former ambassador from the United States to that bureaucracy.
…the U.N. showed its true colors with a 128-9 vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.… Despite decades of U.N. 'reform' efforts, little or nothing in its culture or effectiveness has changed  … largely because most U.N. budgets are financed through effectively mandatory contributions.... The U.S. should reject this international taxation regime and move instead to voluntary contributions. This means paying only for what the country wants—and expecting to get what it pays for. Agencies failing to deliver will see their budgets cut, modestly or substantially. Perhaps America will depart some organizations entirely.
"Bolton has some targets in mind.
…earlier this year the U.N. dispatched a special rapporteur to investigate poverty in the U.S.? American taxpayers effectively paid a progressive professor to lecture them about how evil their country is. The U.N.’s five regional economic and social councils, which have no concrete accomplishments, don’t deserve American funding either....Next come vast swaths of U.N. bureaucracy. Most of these budgets could be slashed with little or no real-world impact.... 
"My view, for what it’s worth, is that the United Nations is better (less worse?) than the OECD or IMF. But that’s mostly because it doesn’t have much power. When it does try to intervene in policy (global warming and gun control, for instance, as well as the Internet, the War on Drugs, monetary policy, and taxpayer-financed birth control), the U.N. inevitably urges more power and control for government."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/the-un-cuts-are-a-step-in-the-right-direction/
'via Blog this'

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Lichtenstein, the libertarian principality

Libertarian Paradise: Liechtenstein - 71 Republic - Jackson Parker:

December 23, 2017 - "The Principality of Liechtenstein situated on the eastern border of Switzerland goes unnoticed by many despite its record achievements. The small country, only spanning a total of 62 square miles, ... holds one of the highest ratings of GDP per capita in the world, first if not adjusting for purchasing power parity. It has an astounding human development index of .912, above numbers such as the UK’s, Japan’s and South Korea’s. The country’s population of around 37,000 have had a minuscule unemployment rating of less than 3%.

"The cause is the libertarian tendencies of the country’s policy....

"With 88% of the legislature belonging to fiscally right-wing parties, the people of Liechtenstein have one of the freest economies in the world. Liechtenstein holds some of the lowest tax rates in the world [with] a basic personal income tax of 1.2% and corporate profits ... taxed 12.5%. This economic freedom has allowed the small country to have more registered companies than citizens that make up for its lack of natural resources with opportunity in an extremely strong financial sector.

"The sitting Prince of Liechtenstein, Hans-Adam II also strongly believes in the ideas of liberty stated in his book, The State in the Third Millennium.
I would like to set out in this book the reasons why the traditional state as a monopoly enterprise not only is an inefficient enterprise with a poor price-performance ratio, but even more importantly, becomes more of a danger for humanity the longer it lasts....

The State should treat its citizens like an enterprise treats its customers. For this to work, the State also needs competition. We therefore support the right of self-determination at the municipal level, in order to end the monopoly of the State over its territory.
- HSH Sovereign Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, The State in the Third Millennium
"With the massive successes in economic and human development, Liechtenstein presents a favorable case towards how smaller government benefits everyone involved. With legislation to eliminate overstepping government regulations, taxes, and control, perhaps the whole world can take a card out of the Alpine microstate’s playbook to further the freedom of their citizens and to promote economic growth inside of their own borders."

Read more: https://71republic.com/2017/12/23/libertarian-paradise-liechtenstein/
'via Blog this'

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

The economic case for regifting

Don't Be Ashamed, Regifting is Good Economics - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - James Walpole:

December 26, 2017 - "Regifting is like free trade for Christmas presents. Allowing and encouraging regifting represents the true spirit of Christmas.

"Let’s say you want to be a great gift-giver. If you do, you need to 1) desire the best possible life outcomes for your recipient and also 2) recognize that you don’t exactly know what that best outcome is.

"All gifts, like all capitalistic ventures, require some risk and leap of faith that you have found the solution to a problem for your recipient, despite all the unknown variables. It’s also true that most gifts, like most capitalistic ventures, fail to do that.

"You should encourage your recipient to feel free to regift your presents. An oven mitt which is useless to Sally (who already has an abundance of oven mitts) may be a perfect gift for her friend Sue (who is just getting started with cooking). One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Our social stigma against regifting would leave Sue without a good oven mitt and leave a good oven mitt gathering dust in Sally’s kitchen drawer.

"With a healthy regifting economy, gifts (like goods and services) flow to their most efficient uses.

"You might tell me that regifting is bad because of a loss of symbolic value when you regift something. 'It’s the thought that counts,' you might say.

"I’m not suggesting that you take the positive thought or intention out of your gifts. I’m suggesting that your intentions should include the possibility that regifting and trade is actually a good thing for the recipient, too."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/dont-be-ashamed-regifting-is-good-economics/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification
'via Blog this'

Sunday, December 24, 2017

GDPA wishes you a Happy Federal Holiday

More Christmas madness: Prof wants 'Merry Christmas' scrubbed, decorations called unsafe - The College Fix - Jennifer Kabbany:

December 23, 2015 - "University of Central Florida [UCF] professor Terri Fine suggested to her campus recently that they should stop saying 'Merry Christmas,' and instead use the more inclusive 'Happy Federal Holiday.'

"'A Holiday Greeting That Applies to Everyone' was the title of a column she penned for UCF Today that argued her idea was the best way to assure no one was offended in any way, shape or form in December.
[Because the U.S. government in some cases and the state government in others have identified certain days during the year as state and federal holidays ... we have no choice but to observe these holidays whether we want to or not. Most everyone is included and no one is excluded no matter their religious beliefs or practices.... The upside to wishing each other a “Happy Federal Holiday” is that we have lots of opportunities to do so during the year and not just during the current “Holiday Season."]
"'My friends and I wish each other a "Happy Federal Holiday,"' she explained, noting it’s the least offensive. Even 'happy holidays' doesn’t cut it, she stated.

"'Couldn’t "Happy Holidays" be the most inclusive greeting because it is so non-specific? Yes, perhaps, but it is the non-specificity of ‘Happy Holidays’ that makes it inappropriate because it fails to recognize the importance of Christmas to Christians while it also suggests that Chanukah should be more important to Jews than the high holidays and festivals that come at other times during the year,' Fine wrote....

"Moving right along, at the University of Missouri’s Student Health Center, administrators are so worried that seeing Christmas decorations might scar students they’ve banished them.

"'I’m aware that many of you are in the mood to decorate your areas with the holiday spirit in mind.  However ... I’ve decided that holiday decorations will not be displayed this year. Our mission is to provide a safe, comfortable place for all students to receive their health care. Without meaning to, some of the holiday symbols that we may display could contradict that mission,' stated an email sent out by Susan Even, executive director of the center."

Read more: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25612/
'via Blog this'

Saturday, December 23, 2017

An anarchist rereads A Christmas Carol

Misunderstanding the Moral of A Christmas Carol | The Anarchist Notebook:

December 24, 2014 - "Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol is an extremely well known fictional character, and one people often like to use as the stereotype of corrupt businessmen who steal from people in order to enrich themselves.

"Yet, even as a child, I understood that Scrooge wasn’t a criminal; he was a shrewd businessmen. He also wasn’t obsessed with material possessions, for he lived an austere life and ate meager meals. What made him disagreeable was his stinginess, his harsh demeanor, and his personal treatment of people such as his only nephew....

"Dickens’ solution to altering Scrooge’s conduct was not through violence, coercion, or aggression. No law is passed demanding that Scrooge hand over his money to the poor.

"The three Spirits of Christmas merely show him things that were, are, and will be. Scrooge is then left to decide what he will do with the information given, and it is here he has a change of heart. What he does from thereon out is purely voluntary; it is true charity.

"As he demonstrated previously in Oliver Twist, Dickens is making a critical point lost on so many social justice warriors who insist on using the state to redistribute wealth. True charity comes from the heart, and this can only be done through free will. If you attempt to bring out the end through involuntary means, you will fail.

"Dickens is drawing a critical distinction between what is moral and what is legal, and how to respond. Scrooge’s behavior is selfish and therefore immoral, but selfishness is a moral issue, not a criminal one. He is not violating anyone’s rights. Therefore, the use of force against him is not justified.

"The moral of A Christmas Carol, the message it conveys, is that the moral society is one in which the wealthy care for the poor of their own volition. A society which forces the wealthy to care for the poor is not a moral one because it relies on coercion rather than true charity.

"The morality of every society originates from the heart of its people. It does not come from the state.

"On that note, God Bless Us, Everyone (except the state)."

Read more: https://anarchistnotebook.com/2014/12/24/misunderstanding-the-moral-of-a-christmas-carol/
'via Blog this'