Mainstream economists turned climate warriors use cost-of-production methods to determine the “true” social cost of carbon. They appeal to a discredited methodology falsely attributed to medieval Scholastics.
Original Article: The Worse-than-Medieval Economics of Climate Technocrats
[embedded content]
Tags: Featured,newsletter
Read More »Americans have been fed the myth that US foreign policy from 1919 to 1941 was isolationist. In reality, US policies destabilized already volatile international relations.
Original Article: Pushing the False Narrative of U.S. Isolationism
[embedded content]
Tags: Featured,newsletter
Read More »Leave it to government judges and politicians to turn constitutional protections of free speech into new ways to centralize and grow state power.
Original Article: Destroying Liberty Through State Protection: The First Amendment
[embedded content]
Tags: Featured,newsletter
Read More »
Public goods, in mainstream economic theory, are goods that are nonrivalrous, where one person using a good does not preclude anyone else’s capacity to do the same, and nonexcludable, where owners of the public goods are generally unable to restrict anyone’s access to the good. Commonly touted examples include public lighting, like streetlights, radio, firework shows, military defenses, and flood defenses.
To the mainstream, public goods present an economic and social problem. According to their understanding, the lack of rivalry and excludability allows free riders to exist, which eliminates the profit motive for providing the good and thus the incentive to provide it in the first place. This means that the market on its own would not produce enough public
In the last century, states have had great control over channels of media. In most of the West, lobbying groups and cartels working with “liberal” and “democratic” governments regulated who could broadcast while governments, with their endless pools of money and political force, competed alongside private, or foreign, establishments. South Africa banned television entirely, and then after legalizing it in the ’70s, the industry was still controlled by the state.
All media in the Soviet Union was centralized and controlled by the state immediately after the October Revolution—the Bolshevik leaders understood the importance of media control. Every state in the last century has had some grip over the country’s media, propagating favorable narratives and restricting
In history classes (in public or private schools, colleges, and others), state propaganda, and mainstream history, a historical fiction has been spun that allegedly debunks any notion of noninterventionism. This is the myth of American isolationism.
The assertion usually goes that America was extremely isolationist prior to World War I and had no interest in involving itself in unnecessary warfare. After the Zimmermann telegram was sent, America was then forced to enter the war, quickly ended the war, and promptly withdrew from meddling with the outside world, even refusing to enter the League of Nations. America then spent the next two decades in isolation, foolishly ignoring the world stage until being unexpectedly attacked by Japan.
Variations exist, but this
Federal laws with acronyms are usually bad news. (Think the USA PATRIOT Act.) The RESTRICT Act is yet another Orwellian proposal in which the federal government assumes ignorance is strength.
Original Article: "Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act"
[embedded content]
Tags: Featured,newsletter
Read More »
The RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act) has recently been making the rounds in the media, and rightfully so. The act is truly terrifying, but more than the open tyranny that it would further, the act illustrates a very clear problem from the perspective of the state.
In previous eras, either formally or informally, the state exercised a great deal of control over the information available to the wider population. This is no longer the case in the present day. With the advent of the internet and the resulting decentralization of media and other channels of information, the state has had increasingly fewer options at its disposal to control information. It is very obviously afraid of
