«Liberté! Sauvons la liberté! La liberté sauvera le reste!» Victor Hugo.

31/10/2007

Mutualist

Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism.

# Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism

24/10/2007

Sobre as escolas

Postei isto no Contrapolitics.

Quando somos crianças ou adolescentes e vamos para a escola, entre uma aula sobre os componentes da célula e outra sobre movimento uniformemente variado, nós perguntamos aos nossos pais e aos professores: "Para que eu vou precisar disso na minha vida?".

A pergunta faz todo o sentido, você é jovem mas sabe que vai ter obrigações no futuro e talvez até tenha planos em mente. Os professores ou pais, no entanto, não acham que a pergunta faz todo o sentido. De fato, freqüentemente eles riem ou simplesmente desprezam a questão com uma atitude próxima a "Quando você for adulto você vai entender". Mas eu não entendi. E, suspeito, todo aquele que realmente pensou sobre o assunto também não entendeu.

Pois então, para que serve tudo o que você aprendeu na escola? Você provavelmente já esqueceu tudo o que supostamente fazia parte da educação "fundamental" (que deveria ser aquilo estritamente necessário, embora aborde milhões de outros conteúdos). Do ensino médio, imagino que você também não tenha levado nada para sua vida. Você lembra de algum conteúdo seu de biologia? Ou de física? Ou de química? Ou de português? A não ser que seu curso universitário ou seu trabalho lide diretamente com um desses assuntos, você não sabe nada sobre eles. Logo, eles foram uma completa perda de tempo. Teria sido mais produtivo ficar em casa e ver a Xuxa na televisão.

Mesmo que você se recorde do que foi ensinado, para que exatamente você usa esse conhecimento? Além de possivelmente esses anos escolares o terem tornado craque nas perguntas do Show do Milhão ou de A Grande Chance, imagino que sua vida não tenha sido acrescida em muito.

Eu não quero que quem estiver lendo isso ache que eu estou dizendo algo banal. Não. Eu estou dizendo que não apenas quase todo o conteúdo escolar é inútil, mas também que ele é prejudicial às pessoas.

As principais justificativas para que as pessoas sejam obrigadas a atravessar treze anos de educação, até onde eu sei, são as seguintes: (1) Há um conteúdo básico e universal cujo conhecimento é necessário a todos; (2) A escola serve para ensinar a viver em sociedade, como um "instrumento de cidadania"; (3) A escola provê às crianças o espaço e o tempo de socialização que elas não teriam de outra forma.

A primeira justificativa é claramente falsa. O único conteúdo educacional estritamente necessário às pessoas é o domínio básico da língua e de algumas operações matemáticas. As outras matérias são, no máximo, um complemento. O fato de que conteúdos obviamente complementares sejam obrigatórios e que isso seja aceito como natural por todos nos diz muito sobre a cultura que prevalece na sociedade hoje em dia. E, ademais, qualquer um pode testemunhar no orkut que os nossos milhões de alfabetizados (até mesmo em escolas particulares, das quais sai a maioria dos usuários de internet), poucos sabem escrever uma linha em português inteligível. Parem as aulas sobre moléculas cis e trans e os façam estudar concordância verbal.

A segunda justificativa é ridícula e demonstra uma visão totalitária da sociedade. Ela assume que as crianças devem ser doutrinadas a aceitar certos valores que permitam a vida em sociedade. Eu não pretendo aqui entrar nos problemas que uma proposta desse tipo acarreta. Basta dizer que, em primeiro lugar, as crianças não são animais que devem ser domesticados. Além disso, restaria saber quais valores são tão desejáveis à sociedade. Esses valores evidentemente seriam ditados pelos powers that be.

A terceira justificativa é a única que pode realmente ter algum fundamento. Mas, se ela for verdadeira, isso justifica que as crianças sejam obrigadas a freqüentar treze anos de escola? Imagino que não. E outro ponto permanece: essa socialização é desejável? Eu, ao menos, mantenho amizade com não muitos dos meus colegas de escola. Pela minha experiência, eu posso dizer que poucos dos amigos de escola permanecem no futuro. As pessoas, em geral, se tornam amigas daqueles com quem compartilham interesses ou que trabalham no mesmo ramo de atuação. A escola é só um espaço onde as crianças e os adolescentes passam seis horas por dia. Elas não têm nada em comum além do fato de que vão ter prova de matemática na próxima semana. Veja, leitor, o seu próprio caso. Quantos amigos do ensino médio você mantém até hoje? É possível que você tenha nutrido grande amizade por algumas pessoas durante o tempo que passou na escola, mas depois que saiu dela, sua amizade provavelmente morreu. É natural que isso tenha ocorrido. Se você fosse ligar para os seus antigos amigos, o que diria? "Como foi a prova na terça?"?

Esse tipo de socialização é realmente desejável? Quer dizer, não seria melhor colocar a criança em algo em que ela fosse se divertir ou se realizar? Não seria melhor mandar as crianças para uma escolinha de futebol? Para uma aula de balé? De guitarra? Piano? Desenho? Em todos esses ambientes, as crianças se divertiriam e provavelmente se interessariam infinitamente mais pelo que estariam vendo do que pelos conteúdos escolares. Elas também socializariam da mesma forma que na escola, com o diferencial de que, como só uma coisa é ensinada, a possibilidade de que as crianças convergissem a uma só área de interesse seria muito maior. Portanto, a qualidade da socialização seria mais alta.

Isso já responde à possível objeção de que a socialização em si é algo desejável. Mesmo que seja, não se segue que as crianças devam ir para uma escola e aprender conteúdos por que elas muito provavelmente não se interessariam, trancafiadas por várias horas todos os dias. Em outras atividades, as crianças e adolescentes também podem se socializar e se socializar de uma forma muito melhor.

Assim, eu acredito que os argumentos principais que pretendem estabelecer que as crianças devem ir à escola são falsos. Mas se o objetivo principal da escola, ensinar, é em sua maior parte desnecessário e se seu objetivo secundário, a socialização, é cumprido insatisfatoriamente, não há realmente nenhum motivo para que as crianças e os adolescentes continuem freqüentando-a. Nós devemos abandonar o modelo escolar.

Pode-se dizer que as crianças não saberiam desenvolver as próprias potencialidades sem algo como a escola. Porém, a escola não é o único modo de estimulá-las. O homeschooling é uma alternativa perfeitamente válida, e na minha concepção muito superior, ao modelo escolar. Os próprios pais podem ensinar às crianças, e esse acompanhamento de perto permitiria a adoção de um currículo mais adaptado aos interesses delas. Há ainda uma alternativa mais interessante, a do unschooling, que consiste em, basicamente, não direcionar a criança a nenhum caminho específico. Os pais poderiam estimulá-la através de certos livros e materiais didáticos, sem, contudo, fazer qualquer cobrança. Essa abordagem tem a vantagem de incentivar a curiosidade das crianças.

Evidentemente existem críticas a esse tipo de proposta. Pode-se dizer que haveria lacunas no aprendizado de quem não fosse à escola. No entanto, essas lacunas só existem em relação àqueles que freqüentaram as escolas. Como eu já observei, o conteúdo escolar é quase totalmente dispensável. Por isso, deve-se rejeitar essa crítica. Há ainda os que dizem que as crianças podem tender a ter visões distorcidas das coisas. Mas esse perigo não existe nas escolas? Aulas de história e geografia não são constantemente acusadas de doutrinamento? Neste modelo, há a vantagem de que as crianças seriam estimuladas a buscar as respostas por si, sem o peso de uma "versão oficial" pré-imposta pelo professor. Portanto, a escola novamente não resolve a questão.

A escola tem servido como uma espécie de álibi para os pais. Eles precisam trabalhar e querem se livrar dos filhos ao menos por algumas horas por dia. A escola oferece esse alívio. Eles não apenas pensam que estão se livrando de seus filhos, mas também que estão fazendo um bem a eles. Mas, para a criança, a escola é algo prejudicial. O que ela ensina, se ensina, é inútil. As pessoas podem aprender o que lhes interessa por si mesmas. Elas não têm que ficar trancafiadas seis horas por dia por anos num ambiente tedioso, de onde não levarão nem conhecimento nem amizades. As crianças podem se desenvolver muito mais, fazer coisas muito mais interessantes e divertidas, coisas que realmente contribuirão para suas vidas futuras. Elas podem fazer amizades mais duradouras e aprender sobre o que elas realmente gostam e querem para as próprias vidas. Elas não vão perguntar "Para que eu vou usar isso na minha vida?".

Mas isso tudo, é claro, tem um preço, e é um preço que a maioria não está disposta a pagar. Requer o abandono da crença de que a "educação" pode curar todos os males da sociedade -- isto é, a crença de que basta que as crianças e os adolescentes estejam trancados em escolas para que não tenhamos que trancá-los em cadeias. Requer o abandono da fé cega que a maioria tem nas escolas como transformadores sociais. Requer, ainda, que paremos de achar que o fato de que nosso filho tirou uma nota 10 na prova de matemática significa que ele é mais inteligente ou esforçado. Uma vez que esses mitos sejam abandonados, nós poderemos ver com mais clareza quais os reais méritos da educação escolar. Quando isso acontecer, acredito eu, teremos que abandoná-la.

21/10/2007

Gold: The Once and Future Money

For most of the last three millennia, the world’s commercial centers have used one or another variant of a gold standard. It should be one of the best understood of human institutions, but it’s not. It’s one of the worst understood, by both its advocates and detractors. Though it has been spurned by governments many times, this has never been due to a fault of gold to serve its duty, but because governments had other plans for their currencies beyond maintaining their stability. And so, says Nathan Lewis, there is no reason to believe that the great monetary successes of the past four centuries, and indeed the past four millennia, could not be recreated in the next four centuries. In Gold, he makes a forceful, well-documented case for a worldwide return to the gold standard.

Governments and central bankers around the world today unanimously agree on the desirability of stable money, ever more so after some monetary disaster has reduced yet another economy to smoking ruins. Lewis shows how gold provides the stability needed to foster greater prosperity and productivity throughout the world. He offers an insightful look at money in all its forms, from the seventh century B.C. to the present day, explaining in straightforward layman’s terms the effects of inflation, deflation, and floating currencies along with their effect on prices, wages, taxes, and debt. He explains how the circulation of money is regulated by central banks and, in the process, demystifies the concepts of supply, demand, and the value of currency. And he illustrates how higher taxes diminish productivity, trade, and the stability of money. Lewis also provides an entertaining history of U.S. money and offers a sobering look at recent currency crises around the world, including the Asian monetary crisis of the late 1990s and the devastating currency devaluations in Russia, China, Mexico, and Yugoslavia.

Lewis’s ultimate conclusion is simple but powerful: gold has been adopted as money because it works. The gold standard produced decades and even centuries of stable money and economic abundance. If history is a guide, it will be done again.

# Nathan Lewis was formerly the chief international economist of a firm that provided investment research for institutions. He now works for an asset management company based in New York. Lewis has written for the Financial Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Japan Times, Pravda, and other publications. He has appeared on financial television in the United States, Japan, and the Middle East. Mais informações aqui.

16/10/2007

Por quê o mercado?

Freedom, as people enjoyed it in the democratic countries of Western civilization in the years of the old liberalism’s triumph, was not a product of constitutions, bills of rights, laws, and statutes. Those documents aimed only at safeguarding liberty and freedom, firmly established by the operation of the market economy, against encroachments on the part of office holders. No government and no civil law can guarantee and bring about freedom otherwise than by supporting and defending the fundamental institutions of the market economy... Where there is no market economy, the best-intentioned provisions of constitutions and laws remain a dead letter.

# Ludwid von Mises, Human Action, p. 283.

09/10/2007

Militarism, protection, and socialism


Two Types of Civilisation—The Military Type—Conquest of Idleness—The Right to Apathy—Protectionist and Socialist—One Produces the Other.

The development of Socialism comes from two causes—Militarism and Protection.

Herbert Spencer has shown, with great force, the antagonism of the two types of civilisation—Military Civilisation and Industrial Civilisation.

Military Civilisation is based upon the passive obedience of the masses to the orders of the Chief, upon the established hierarchy of authority, upon the privileges annexed to each social rank, and upon the denial of personal rights.

Productive Civilisation is based upon the initiative of the citizens. It acquires its development through their industry and economy. It has competition for its motive force.

The two civilisations are incompatible, yet we endeavour to perform the miracle of making them co-exist.

Every German, every Frenchman,in passing through the army, receives the imprint of the type of military organisation, which is far easier to understand than the conditions of liberty.

Into his conceptions of economic life, he transfers the need of order, obedience, and search for least effort. At the bottom these unquiet revolutionaries have a conventual ideal; and that which they point out as a goal to the crowds which follow them is the attainment of idleness. They ask them to do themselves a lot of harm, and even to give and receive blows, so as to have a right to inertia. But is not this exactly the life of the savage warrior who scorns work? And have we not in this one more proof of the retrograde side of the Socialist programme?

According to the verifications which we have made, the word Socialism may be defined as “the intervention of the State in the economic life of the country.”

But, then, are these men who, in the interests of landed proprietors, ask for taxes on corn, on oats, on horses, cattle, wood, and wines, Socialists? those who, in the name of “national industries” and “national work,” ask for duties on cottons, silks, linens, and all kinds of textile fabrics, all kinds of steel, from rails down to pens, medicines, chemical products, and all objects whatsoever, due to human industry?

To this interrogation I answer by the clearest and most positive affirmation.

Yes, large and small proprietors alike, those of you are Socialists, who beg for customs duties. For what is it you ask, if not for the intervention of the State to guarantee the revenue of your property? What is it you ask for, tradesmen and manufacturers of every kind, who seek the imposition of import duties, if not for the intervention of the State to guarantee your profits? And what is it the Socialists ask, if not for the intervention of the State to guarantee to the workman a maximum of work, a minimum of wage? In a word, what is it you all ask, if not for the intervention of the State to protect you all against competition? The Protectionist asks for protection from the competition of progress from without—the Socialist asks for protection from the competition of activity within—and in aid of what? To throw political interference into the scale so as to violate the Law of Supply and Demand for the arbitrary benefit of such and such a class of producers or workmen, and to the detriment of all consumers and ratepayers, which means—everybody.

This conception of the economic duties of the State is the same for the large landowner who calls himself “conservative,” for the large manufacturer who scorns the Socialists, and for the miserable Socialist who flings his scornful invectives against property and manufactures. They all make the same mistake. They are all victims of the same illusion. Those who look upon one another as enemies are brothers in doctrine. Hence it is that every recrudescence of Protection engenders a revival of Socialism. The Socialists of 1848 were the true sons of the Protectionist copyholders of the Restoration and of Louis-Philippe’s Government. If Protectionists deny this intimate relationship, I will introduce them to a Socialist who will say to them:

“You ask for customs duties so that your revenues and profits may be guaranteed. You appeal to the superior interests of agriculture and national labour. So be it. You have even asked me to join you for this purpose.1 But what share will you give to me—to me, the working man? You demand the aid of “society.” I, too, claim a share in it, and with so much the more right that in society I hold, at least in point of numbers, a larger place than yours.”

Before such language as this the Protectionist is obliged to remain dumb, especially as the Socialist might add:

“You protect yourself; you strike at corn, meat, wines, at the things which are necessary for my food. In the custom house, textile fabrics, things of everyday use, and, therefore, the cheapest, those things intended for me, carry the heaviest weight. It is, therefore, upon my needs, and consequently upon my privations, that you ask the Government to guarantee your revenues and your profits. In my turn, I shall retort and tell you to return to me that which you take from me. I claim my share. Guarantee me my wages. Limit my hours of labour. Suppress my competitors, such as women. Suppress piece-work, which may prove an incentive to over-production at too cheap a rate. This for to-day; but to-morrow it will be necessary that property and manufactures shall rest in my hands alone. The State shall be the sole producer, the sole merchant, and all the profits shall be for me.”

» Yves Guyot, The Tyranny of Socialism [1893].

06/10/2007

La Globalización es buena

Do Counterpunch:

Bush's top advisors--and especially the vice president--are devoted to a Nixonian view of absolute power for the commander in chief. After he was driven out of office in disgrace, Nixon told interviewer David Frost in 1977, "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." Frost, somewhat dumbfounded, replied, "By definition?" Nixon answered, "Exactly. Exactly."

Fazia tempo que não lia o Counterpunch.

03/10/2007

What Things are Subjects of Property?

Every conceivable thing, whether intellectual, moral, or material, of which the mind can take cognizance, and which can be possessed, held, used, controlled, and enjoyed, by one person, and not, at the same instant of time, by another person, is right fully a subject of property.

All the wealth, that has before been described - that is, all the things, intellectual, moral, emotional, or material, that can contribute to, or constitute, the happiness or well-being of man; and that can be possessed by one man, and not at the same the by another, is right fully a subject of property- that is, of individual ownership, control, dominion, use, and enjoyment.

The air, that a man inhales, is his, while it is inhaled. When he has exhaled it, it is no longer his. The air that he may inclose in a bottle, or in his dwelling, is his, while it is so inclosed. When he has discharged it, it is no longer his. The sun-light, that falls upon a man, or upon his land, or that comes into his dwelling, is his; and no other man has a right to forbid his enjoyment of it, or compel him to pay for it.

A man's body is his own. It is the propriety of his mind. (It is the mind that owns every thing, that is property. Bodies own nothing; but are themselves subjects of property- that is, of dominion. Each body is the property- that is, is under the dominion- of the mind that inhabits it.) And no man has the right , as being the proprieter, to take another mans body out of the control of his mind. In other words, no man can own another man's body.

All a mans enjoyments, all his feelings, all his happiness, are his property. They are his, and not another man's. They belong to him, and not to others. And no other man has the might. to forbid him to enjoy them, or to compel him to pay for them. Other men may have enjoyments, feelings, happiness, similar, in their nature, to his. But they cannot own his feelings, his enjoyments, or his happiness. They cannot, therefore, right fully require him to pay them for them, as if they were theirs, and not his own.

A man's ideas are his property. They are his for enjoyment, and his for use. Other men do not own his ideas. He has a right, as against all other men, to absolute dominion over his ideas. He has a right to act his own judgment, and his own pleasure, as to giving them, or selling them to other men. Other men cannot claim them of him, as if they were their property, and not his; any more than they can claim any other things whatever, that are his. If they desire them, and he does not choose to give them to him gratuitously, they must buy them of himself as they would buy my other articles of property whatever. They must pay him his price for them, or hot have them. They have no more right to force him to give his ideas to them, than they in, trying to force him to give them his purse.

Mankind universally act upon this principle. No sane man, who acknowledged the right of individual property in any thing, ever claimed that, as natural or general principle, he was the rightful owner of the thoughts produced, and exclusively possessed, by other men's minds; or demanded them on the ground of their being his property; or denied that they were the property of their possessors.

If the ideas, which a man has produced, were not right fully his own, but belonged equally to other men, they would have the right imperatively to require him to give his ideas to them, without compensation; and it would be just and right for them to punish him as a criminal, if he refused.

Among civilized men, ideas are, common articles of traffic. The more highly cultivated a people become, the more are thoughts bought and sold. Writers, orators, teachers, of all kinds, are continually selling their thoughts for money. They sell their thoughts, as other men sell their material productions, for what they will bring in the market. The price is regulated, not solely by the intrinsic value of the ideas themselves, hut also, like the prices of all other commodities, by the supply and demand. On these principles, the author says his ideas in his volumes; the poet sells his in his verses; the editor says his in his daily or weekly sheets; the statesman sells his in his messages, his diplomatic paper's, his speeches, reports, and votes; the jurist sells his in his judgments, amid judicial opinions; the lawyer sells his in his counsel, and his arguments; the physician sells his in his advice, skill, and prescriptions; the preacher sells his in his prayers and sermons; the teacher sells his in his instructions the lecturer sells his in his lectures; the architect sells him in his plans; the artist sells his in the figure him has engraven on stone, and in the picture hue has painted on canvas. In practical life, these ideas are all as much articles of merchandize, as are houses, and land and bread, and meat, and clothing, and fuel. Men cant their livings, and support their families, by producing and selling ideas. And no man, who has any rational ideas of his own, doubts that in so doing they earn their likelihood in as legitimate a manner as any other member of society earns theirs. He who produces food for men's minds, guides for their hands in [*20] labor, and rules for their conduct in life, is as meritorious a producer, as he who produces food or shelter for their bodies.

Again. We habitually talk of the ideas of particular authors, editors, poets, statesmen, judges, lawyers, physicians, preachers, teachers, artists, &c., as being worth less than the price that is asked or paid for them, in particular instances; and of other men's ideas, as being worth more than the price that is paid for them, in particular instances; just as we talk of other and material commodities, as being worth less or more than the prices at which they are sold. We thus recognize ideas as being legitimate articles of traffic, and as having a regular market value, like other commodities.

Because all men give more or less of their thoughts gratuitously to their fellow men, in conversation, or otherwise, it does not follow at all that their thoughts are not their property, which they have a natural right to set their own price upon, and to withhold from other men, unless the price be paid. Their thoughts are thus given gratuitously, or in exchange for other men's thoughts, (as in conversation,) either for the reason that they would bring nothing more in the market, or would bring too little to compensate for the time and labor of putting them in a marketable form, and selling them. Their market value is too small to make it profitable to sell them. Such thoughts men give away gratuitously, or in exchange for such thoughts as other men voluntarily give in return- just as men give to each other material commodities of small value, as nuts, and apples, a piece of bread, a cup of water, a meal of victuals, from motives of complaisance and friendship, or in expectation of receiving similar favors in return; and not because these articles are not as much property, as are the most valuable commodities that men ever buy or sell. But for nearly all information that is specially valuable, or valuable enough to command any price worth demanding- though it be given in one's private ear, as legal or medical advice, for example - a pecuniary compensation is demanded, with nearly the same uniformity its for a material commodity. And no one doubts that such information is a legitimate and lawful consideration for the equivalent paid. Courts of justice uniformly recognize them as such, as in the case of legal, medical, and various other kinds of information. One man can sue for and recover pay for ideas, which, as lawyer, physician, teacher, or editor, he has sold to another man, just as he can for land, food, clothing, or fuel.

» The law of intelectual property, Lysander Spooner.

01/10/2007

A alegria do óbvio

Sexta feira passada, no forúm da Justiça estadual, em meio a uma longa demora para ser atendido no balcão, alguém, do meio do nada, diz repentinamente: "Que demora, por que não privatizam logo esse negócio para ele funcionar direito?". Essa frase, não sei porquê, foi um bom motivo para me alegrar naquele dia cansativo.