Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …
May 072016
 

Created on December 15, 1791, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights. This amendment establishes a number of legal rights that apply to both civil and criminal proceedings.[1] It contains several clauses: It guarantees the right to a grand jury. It forbids double jeopardy (being tried again for the same crime after an acquittal).[1] It protects a person against self-incrimination (being a witness against himself).[1] This is often called “Pleading the Fifth”. The Fifth Amendment requires due process in any case where a citizen may be deprived of “life, liberty, or property”.[1] Any time the government takes private property for public use, the owner must be compensated.[1]

The language of the Fifth Amendmend is:

The Fifth Amendment requires the use of grand juries by the federal legal system for all capital and “infamous crimes” (cases involving treason, certain felonies or gross moral turpitude[3]).[4] Grand juries trace their roots back to the Assize of Clarendon, an enactment by Henry II of England in 1166. It called for “the oath of *twelve men from every hundred and four men from every vill” to meet and decide who was guilty of robbery, theft or murder.[5] It was the early ancestor of the jury system and of the grand jury. The United Kingdom abolished grand juries in 1933.[6] Many of their former colonies including Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also stopped using them.[6] The United States is one of the few remaining countries that uses the grand jury.

The Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (autrefois means “in the past” in French).[7] It means if the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence and cannot be retried under the principle of double jeopardy.[1] The original intent of the clause is to prevent an individual to go through a number of prosecutions for the same act until the prosecutor gets a conviction.[1]

In a criminal prosecution, under the Fifth Amendment, a person has the right to refuse to incriminate himself (or herself).[1] No person is required to give information that could be used against him. This is also called “taking the Fifth” or more commonly “pleading the Fifth.”[8] The intent of this clause is to prevent the government from making a person confess under oath.[a] A person may not refuse to answer any relevant question under oath unless the answer would incriminate him. If the answer to a question on the witness stand could be used to convict that person of a crime, he can assert his Fifth Amendment rights.[8]

The authors of the Fifth Amendment intended the provisions in it apply only to the federal government.[10] Since 1925, under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments. Since the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when they arrest someone, police are required to include the “right to remain silent” as part of the legal Miranda warning (the wording may vary).[11]

The Due Process clause guarantees every person a fair, just and orderly legal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other provisions, forbids states from denying anyone their life, their liberty or their property without due process of law[12] So the Fourteenth Amendment expands the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states. Due process means the government must follow the law and not violate any parts of it.[13] An example of violating due process is when a judge shows bias against the defendant in a trial.[13] Another example is when the prosecution fails to disclose information to the defense that would show the defendant is not guilty of the crime. [13]

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”[14] The Fifth Amendment restricts only the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended this clause to include actions taken by State and local governments.[14] Whenever the government wants to buy property for public use, they make an offer to the owner. If the owner does not want to sell the property, the government can take them to court and exercise a power called eminent domain.[14] The name comes from the Latin term dominium eminens (meaning supreme lordship). The court then condemns the property (meaning say it can no longer be occupied by people). This allows the government to take over the property, but must pay “just compensation” to the owner. In other words, the government body must pay what the property is worth.[14]

A case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was decided in favor of allowing the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner.[15] The court upheld the city of New London, Connecticut’s proposed use of the petitioner’s private property qualifies as a “public use” fell within the meaning of the Takings Clause.[15] The city felt the property was in poor condition and the new owner would improve it. This extension of the Takings Clause has been very controversal.[b]

Continued here:
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …

 Posted by at 3:47 am  Tagged with:

Liberty, NC – Liberty, North Carolina Map & Directions …

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty, NC – Liberty, North Carolina Map & Directions …
Apr 302016
 

Liberty is a town in Randolph County, North Carolina, United States. Originally named Liberty Oak, the town was founded in 1809 near the plantation of John Leak (according to: The Town of Liberty). The first church within the town was the Liberty Christian Church (now the United Church of Christ) founded on October 11, 1884. The town’s first school, the Liberty Academy, was founded on May 6, 1885 as a charter school and helped to foster the town’s early reputation as a place of higher learning. Liberty is home to the mother church of the Southern Baptist Religion (Sandy Creek Baptist Church), World Skeet Shoot Champion Craig Kirkman, and is the birthplace of professional baseball player Joe Frazier. Liberty is also home to The Liberty Antiques Festival a world famous antiques’ show that draws such famous faces as Julia Roberts and other Hollywood celebrities. Also The Liberty Showcase who has had many famous Nashville recording stars such as Ronnie McDowell, Lorrie Morgan, Gene Watson, Exile, and many more. The movies “Killers Three” (1968) and “Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice” (1992) were filmed in Liberty and the surrounding areas.

Read the original:
Liberty, NC – Liberty, North Carolina Map & Directions …

 Posted by at 9:43 am  Tagged with:

Food fortification – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Food Supplements  Comments Off on Food fortification – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mar 272016
 

Food fortification or enrichment is the process of adding micronutrients (essential trace elements and vitamins) to food. It may be a purely commercial choice to provide extra nutrients in a food, while other times it is a public health policy which aims to reduce the number of people with dietary deficiencies within a population.

Diets that lack variety can be deficient in certain nutrients. Sometimes the staple foods of a region can lack particular nutrients, due to the soil of the region or because of the inherent inadequacy of the normal diet. Addition of micronutrients to staples and condiments can prevent large-scale deficiency diseases in these cases.[citation needed]

While it is true that both fortification and enrichment refer to the addition of nutrients to food, the true definitions do slightly vary. As defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), fortification refers to “the practice of deliberately increasing the content of an essential micronutrient, ie. vitamins and minerals (including trace elements) in a food irrespective of whether the nutrients were originally in the food before processing or not, so as to improve the nutritional quality of the food supply and to provide a public health benefit with minimal risk to health,” whereas enrichment is defined as “synonymous with fortification and refers to the addition of micronutrients to a food which are lost during processing.”[1]

Food fortification was identified as the second strategy of four by the WHO and FAO to begin decreasing the incidence of nutrient deficiencies at the global level.[1]

As outlined by the FAO, the most common fortified foods are:

The four main methods of food fortification (named as to indicate the procedure that is used in order to fortify the food):

The WHO and FAO, among many other nationally recognized organizations, have recognized that there are over 2 billion people worldwide who suffer from a variety of micronutrient deficiencies. In 1992, 159 countries pledged at the FAO/WHO International Conference on Nutrition to make efforts to help combat these issues of micronutrient deficiencies, highlighting the importance of decreasing the number of those with iodine, vitamin A, and iron deficiencies.[1] A significant statistic that led to these efforts was the discovery that approximately 1 in 3 people worldwide were at risk for either an iodine, vitamin A, or iron deficiency.[4] Although it is recognized that food fortification alone will not combat this deficiency, it is a step towards reducing the prevalence of these deficiencies and their associated health conditions.[5]

In Canada, The Food and Drug Regulations have outlined specific criterion which justifies food fortification:

There are also several advantages to approaching nutrient deficiencies among populations via food fortification as opposed to other methods. These may include, but are not limited to: treating a population without specific dietary interventions therefore not requiring a change in dietary patterns, continuous delivery of the nutrient, does not require individual compliance, and potential to maintain nutrient stores more efficiently if consumed on a regular basis.[3]

Several organizations such as the WHO, FAO, Health Canada, and the Nestl Research Center acknowledge that there are limitations to food fortification. Within the discussion of nutrient deficiencies the topic of nutrient toxicities can also be immediately questioned. Fortification of nutrients in foods may deliver toxic amounts of nutrients to an individual and also cause its associated side effects. As seen with the case of fluoride toxicity below, the result can be irreversible staining to the teeth. Although this may be a minor toxic effect to health, there are several that are more severe.[7]

The WHO states that limitations to food fortification may include: human rights issues indicating that consumers have the right to choose if they want fortified products or not, the potential for insufficient demand of the fortified product, increased production costs leading to increased retail costs, the potential that the fortified products will still not be a solution to nutrient deficiencies amongst low income populations who may not be able to afford the new product, and children who may not be able to consume adequate amounts thereof.[1]

Food safety worries led to legislation in Denmark in 2004 restricting foods fortified with extra vitamins or minerals. Products banned include: Rice Crispies, Shreddies, Horlicks, Ovaltine and Marmite.[8]

Danes said [Kelloggs] Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies and Special K wanted to include “toxic” doses which, if eaten regularly, could damage children’s livers and kidneys and harm fetuses in pregnant women.[9]

One factor that limits the benefits of food fortification is that isolated nutrients added back into a processed food that has had many of its nutrients removed, does not always result in the added nutrients being as bioavailable as they would be in the original, whole food. An example is skim milk that has had the fat removed, and then had vitamin A and vitamin D added back. Vitamins A and D are both fat-soluble and non-water-soluble, so a person consuming skim milk in the absence of fats may not be able to absorb as much of these vitamins as one would be able to absorb from drinking whole milk.

Phytochemicals such as polyphenols can also impact nutrient absorption.

Ecological studies have shown that increased B vitamin fortification is correlated with the prevalence of obesity and diabetes.[10] Daily consumption of iron per capita in the United States has dramatically surged since World War II and nearly doubled over the past century due to increases in iron fortification and increased consumption of meat.[11] Existing evidence suggests that excess iron intake may play a role in the development of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer.[12]

Fortification of foods with folic acid has been mandated in many countries solely to improve the folate status of pregnant women to prevent Neural Tube Defectsa relatively rare birth defect which affected 0.5% of US births before fortification began.[13][14] However, when fortification is introduced, several hundred thousand people are exposed to an increased intake of folic acid for each neural tube defect pregnancy that is prevented.[15] In humans, increased folic acid intake leads to elevated blood concentrations of naturally occurring folates and of unmetabolized folic acid. High blood concentrations of folic acid may decrease natural killer cell cytotoxicity, and high folate status may reduce the response to drugs used to treat malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and cancer.[15] A combination of high folate levels and low vitamin B-12 status may be associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment and anemia in the elderly and, in pregnant women, with an increased risk of insulin resistance and obesity in their children.[15] Folate has a dual effect on cancer, protecting against cancer initiation but facilitating progression and growth of preneoplastic cells and subclinical cancers.[15] Furthermore, intake of folic acid from fortification have turned out to be significantly greater than originally modeled in pre mandate predictions.[16] Therefore, a high folic acid intake due to fortification may be harmful for more people than the policy is designed to help.[14][15][17][18]

There is a concern that micronutrients are legally defined in such a way that does not distinguish between different forms, and that fortified foods often have nutrients in a balance that would not occur naturally. For example, in the U.S., food is fortified with folic acid, which is one of the many naturally-occurring forms of folate, and which only contributes a minor amount to the folates occurring in natural foods.[19] In many cases, such as with folate, it is an open question of whether or not there are any benefits or risks to consuming folic acid in this form.

In many cases, the micronutrients added to foods in fortification are synthetic.

In some cases, certain forms of micronutrients can be actively toxic in a sufficiently high dose, even if other forms are safe at the same or much higher doses. There are examples of such toxicity in both synthetic and naturally-occurring forms of vitamins. Retinol, the active form of Vitamin A, is toxic in a much lower dose than other forms, such as beta carotene. Menadione, a phased-out synthetic form of Vitamin K, is also known to be toxic.[20]

There are several main groups of food supplements like:

Many foods and beverages worldwide have been fortified, whether a voluntary action by the product developers or by law. Although some may view these additions as strategic marketing schemes to sell their product, there is a lot of work that must go into a product before simply fortifying it. In order to fortify a product, it must first be proven that the addition of this vitamin or mineral is beneficial to health, safe, and an effective method of delivery. The addition must also abide by all food and labeling regulations and support nutritional rationale. From a food developer’s point of view, they also need to consider the costs associated with this new product and whether or not there will be a market to support the change.[21]

Examples of foods and beverages that have been fortified and shown to have positive health effects:

“Iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) is the single greatest cause of preventable mental retardation. Severe deficiencies cause cretinism, stillbirth and miscarriage. But even mild deficiency can significantly affect the learning ability of populations…….. Today over 1 billion people in the world suffer from iodine deficiency, and 38 million babies born every year are not protected from brain damage due to IDD.”Kul Gautam, Deputy Executive Director, UNICEF, October 2007[22]

Iodised salt has been used in the United States since before World War II. It was discovered in 1821 that goiters could be treated by the use of iodized salts. However, it was not until 1916 that the use of iodized salts could be tested in a research trial as a preventative measure against goiters. By 1924, it became readily available in the US.[23]

Currently in Canada and the US, the RDA for iodine is as low as 90g/day for children (48 years) and as high as 290g/day for breast-feeding mothers.[24]

Diseases that are associated with an iodine deficiency include: mental retardation, hypothyroidism, and goiter. There is also a risk of various other growth and developmental abnormalities.[24]

Folic acid (also known as folate) functions in reducing blood homocysteine levels, forming red blood cells, proper growth and division of cells, and preventing neural tube defects (NTDs).[25]

In many industrialized countries, the addition of folic acid to flour has prevented a significant number of NTDs in infants. Two common types of NTDs, spina bifida and anencephaly, affect approximately 2500-3000 infants born in the US annually. Research trials have shown the ability to reduce the incidence of NTDs by supplementing pregnant mothers with folic acid by 72%.[26]

The RDA for folic acid ranges from as low as 150g/day for children aged 13 years old, to 400g/day for males and females over the age of 19, and 600g/day during pregnancy.[27]

Diseases associated with folic acid deficiency include: megaloblastic or macrocytic anemia, cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancer, and NTDs in infants.[28]

Niacin has been added to bread in the USA since 1938 (when voluntary addition started), a programme which substantially reduced the incidence of pellagra.[29] As early as 1755, pellagra was recognized by doctors as being a niacin deficiency disease. Although not officially receiving its name of pellagra until 1771.[30]Pellagra was seen amongst poor families who used corn as their main dietary staple. Although corn itself does contain niacin, it is not a bioavailable form unless it undergoes Nixtamalization (treatment with alkali, traditional in Native American cultures) and therefore was not contributing to the overall intake of niacin.[31] Although pellagra can still be seen in developing countries, fortification of food with niacin played a huge role in eliminating the prevalence of the disease.[30]

The RDA for niacin is 2mg NE(niacin equivalents)/day (AI) for infants aged 06 months, 16mg NE/day for males, and 14mg NE/day for females who are over the age of 19.[31]

Diseases associated with niacin deficiency include: Pellagra which consisted of signs and symptoms called the 3D’s-“Dermatitis, dementia, and diarrhea. Others may include vascular or gastrointestinal diseases.[30]

Common diseases which present a high frequency of niacin deficiency: alcoholism, anorexia nervosa, HIV infection, gastrectomy, malabsorptive disorders, certain cancers and their associated treatments.[30]

Since Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, it cannot be added to a wide variety of foods. Foods that it is commonly added to are margarine, vegetable oils and dairy products.[32] During the late 1800s, after the discovery of curing conditions of scurvy and beriberi had occurred, researchers were aiming to see if the disease, later known as rickets, could also be cured by food. Their results showed that sunlight exposure and cod liver oil were the cure. It was not until the 1930s that vitamin D was actually linked to curing rickets.[33] This discovery led to the fortification of common foods such as milk, margarine, and breakfast cereals. This took the astonishing statistics of approximately 8090% of children showing varying degrees of bone deformations due to vitamin D deficiency to being a very rare condition.[34]

Risk factors for vitamin D deficiencies include:

The current RDA for infants aged 06 months is 10g (400 International Units (IU))/day and for adults over 19 years of age it is 15g (600 IU)/day.[35]

Diseases associated with a vitamin D deficiency include rickets, osteoporosis, and certain types of cancer (breast, prostate, colon and ovaries). It has also been associated with increased risks for fractures, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune and infectious diseases, asthma and other wheezing disorders, myocardial infarction, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease.[34]

Although fluoride is not considered an essential mineral, it is seen as crucial in prevention of tooth decay and maintaining adequate dental health.[36] In the mid-1900s it was discovered that towns with a high level of fluoride in their water supply was causing the residents’ teeth to have both brown spotting and a strange resistance to dental caries. This led to the fortification of water supplies with fluoride with safe amounts to retain the properties of resistance to dental caries but avoid the staining cause by fluorosis (a condition caused by a fluoride toxicity).[37]

The tolerable upper intake level (UL) set for fluoride ranges from 0.7mg/day for infants aged 06 months and 10mg/day for adults over the age of 19.

Conditions commonly associated with fluoride deficiency are dental caries and osteoporosis.[36]

Some other examples of fortified foods:

Despite having some scientific basis, but with controversial ethics, is the science of using foods and food supplements to achieve a defined health goal. A common example of this use of food supplements is the extent to which body builders will use amino acid mixtures, vitamins and phytochemicals to enhance natural hormone production, increase muscle and reduce fat. The literature is not concrete on an appropriate method for use of fortification for body builders and therefore may not be recommended due to safety concerns.[42]

There is interest in the use of food supplements in established medical conditions. This nutritional supplementation using foods as medicine (nutraceuticals) has been effectively used in treating disorders affecting the immune system up to and including cancers.[43] This goes beyond the definition of “food supplement”, but should be included for the sake of completeness.

Read more:

Food fortification – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network

 Basic Income Guarantee  Comments Off on The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network
Mar 272016
 

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

May 12 – 15, 2016

The Fifteenth Annual North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress will take place in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada from Thursday, May 12 to Sunday, May 15, 2016. The congress is co-organized by the Basic Income Canada Network, the United States Basic Income Guarantee Network, Basic Income Manitoba, and the University of Manitoba. It will bring together social activists, policy advocates, researchers, government officials, and community members interested in the provision of an unconditional, universal, adequate basic income for all. Visit tourismwinnipeg.com for information about Winnipeg, Manitoba. Please direct inquiries to: nabigcongress2016@umanitoba.ca.

Event: Fifteenth Annual North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress, May 12 – 15, 2016

Location: University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Dates: Thursday, May 12 – Sunday, May 15, 2016

Call for Participation and other details

At the moment there is a problem to fetch the latest news. Please visit Basic Income News directly or try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience!

The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen’s income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes. Click here for more information.

A Belorussian translation

The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (The USBIG Network) is an informal group promoting the discussion of the basic income guarantee in the United States. USBIG (pronounced “U.S big”) publishes an email newsletter (subscription 500) every two months, maintains an on-line discussion paper series, and has yearly conferences.

USBIG was founded in December 1999 by Fred Block of University of California-Davis, Charles M. A. Clark of St. John’s University, Pamela Donovan of the City University of New York, Michael Lewis of the State University of New York-Stony Brook, and Karl Widerquist then of the Levy Economics Institute. The USBIG Coordinating Committee has thirteen members: Michael Howard of the University of Maine (Coordinator), michael.howard@umit.maine.edu; Steve Shafarman, author (Activist Coordinator, steve@IncomeSecurityForAll.org); Michael Lewis, Silberman School of Social Work, Hunter College; Eri Noguchi of Columbia University; Dan O’Sullivan of Rise Up Economics danosully@gmail.com; Jason Murphy murphyjb@slu.edu; Jeff Smith, Forum on Geonomics, jjs@geonomics.org, Dianne Pagendianepagen@yahoo.com; Mark Witham,mwitham@basicincomeproject.org; Shawn Cassiman,scassiman1@udayton.edu;Ann Withorn,withorn.ann@gmail.com;Alanna Hartzok, alanna@centurylink.net;Click here for more information, or email (michael.howard@umit.maine.edu).

Last updated – 30.01.2016-20:49

See more here:

The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network

 Posted by at 1:47 am  Tagged with:

Ethical Egoism – Lander University

 Ethical Egoism  Comments Off on Ethical Egoism – Lander University
Mar 232016
 

Abstract: The various forms of ethical egoism are defined. Standard objections to ethical egoism are evaluated, and the conclusion is drawn that ethical egoism is incomplete.

I. Ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons ought to act from their own self-interest.

A theory of ethics should

Therefore, the theory should be both consistent and complete.

e.g., the injunctions from folklore morals, “Haste makes waste” and “Look before you leap” would be inconsistent with “A stitch in time saves nine,” or “The race is to the swift.”

e.g., In Christian ethics, the principle “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21) is meant to distinguish between secular and religious situations in order to avoid political difficulty for religious belief and so would be an incomplete theory of action in the secular realm.

Consequently, the three ways to raise objections to an ethical theory is to show that the theory is

I. Charge: Ethical egoism is contradictory because it allows one and the same act to be evaluated as both right and wrong. Charge: the theory is mistaken in truth; it is inconsistent.

Therefore, praising Jack’s qualities is both right and wrongright for Jack and wrong for Jill.

II. Charge: Ethical egoism is committed to giving inconsistent advice. (The charge is inconsistency.)

III. Charge: If the (universal) egoist believes that each person should promote his own interest, then isn’t he acting against his own interest to state his theory. (The charge is inconsistency.)

IV. Charge: There are certain interpersonal decisions that have to be made that transcend the egoist’s point of view. (The charge is of incompleteness)

V. Final Comments on Ethical Egoism: the egoist is often seen to be egotistical and selfish, rather someone acting under enlightened self-interest.

E.g., An ethical egoist can act in self-interest by contributing to the Salvation Army or to the United Fund.

VI. If the egoist is to choose what is in his own interest, then he must have the personal freedom to choose.

Recommended Sources

Solipsism: An excellent discussion of the role of solipsism in the history of Western and Eastern philosophy and its role as a limiting case in thought experiments and epistemology from Wikipedia. See also from this source links to various related concepts to egoism including ethical egoism.

Ethical Egoism: A section of the entry “Egoism” discussing arguments for and against by Robert Shaver published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Ethical Egoism: A section of the entry “Egoism’ from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Alexander Moseley emphasizing conflict resolution.

Read this article:

Ethical Egoism – Lander University

 Posted by at 10:44 pm  Tagged with:

Long Beach, Mississippi – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Beaches  Comments Off on Long Beach, Mississippi – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mar 232016
 

GeographyEdit

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 10.4 square miles (26.9km2), of which 10.0 square miles (25.9km2) is land and 0.39 square miles (1.0km2), or 3.74% is water.[2]

As of the census[5] of 2000, there were 17,320 people, 6,560 households, and 4,696 families residing in the city. The population density is 1,713.6 people per square mile (661.5/km). There were 7,203 housing units at an average density of 712.6 per square mile (275.1/km). The racial makeup of the city was 87.49% White, 7.36% African American, 0.39% Native American, 2.57% Asian, 0.07% Pacific Islander, 0.68% from other races, and 1.44% from two or more races. 2.29% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There were 6,560 households out of which 36.2% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 53.8% were married couples living together, 13.5% have a female householder with no husband present, and 28.4% were non-families. 22.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.7% had someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.61 and the average family size is 3.07.

In the city the population dispersal was 27.1% under the age of 18, 9.1% from 18 to 24, 29.8% from 25 to 44, 22.8% from 45 to 64, and 11.2% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age was 36 years. For every 100 females there were 93.1 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.7 males. The median income for a household in the city was $43,289, and the median income for a family was $50,014. Males had a median income of $35,909 versus $24,119 for females. The per capita income for the city was $19,305. 9.0% of the population and 7.7% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 15.2% of those under the age of 18 and 3.7% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

The city of Long Beach is served by the Long Beach School District. The district operates five campuses and has an enrollment of approximately 2,700 students. These campuses include Long Beach High School, Long Beach Middle School, Reeves Elementary School, Quarles Elementary School, and Harper McCaughan Elementary School, rebuilt in a new location after the previous school was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

Long Beach High has a long-standing tradition of excellence. It offers rigorous academics including college preparatory classes, advanced placement classes and award winning vocational classes. In 2007 Long Beach High School was named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education, making it one of four schools in Mississippi and one of about 273 private and public schools in the United States to receive this honor.

The Gulf Coast campus of the University of Southern Mississippi is located in Long Beach along Beach Boulevard. The Friendship Oak tree is located on the front lawn of the Southern Miss Gulf Park campus.

Long Beach began as an agricultural town, based around its radish industry. But on August 10, 1905, Long Beach incorporated and became another city on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. As the years went on, the city moved from its agricultural heritage and moved toward tourism with the beach and high-rise condominiums becoming increasingly popular.

Long Beach’s early economy was based largely upon radishes. Logging initially drove the local economy, but when the area’s virgin yellow pine forests became depleted, row crops were planted on the newly cleared land.[6]

A productive truck farming town in the early 20th century, citizens of Long Beach proclaimed the city to be the “Radish Capital of the World”. The city was especially known for its cultivation of the Long Red radish variety, a favorite beer hall staple in the northern US at the time. In 1921, a bumper crop resulted in the shipment of over 300 train loads of Long Beach’s Long Red radishes to northern states.[7][8]

Eventually, the Long Red radishes for which Long Beach was known fell into disfavor, and the rise of the common button radish caused a dramatic decline in the cultivation of this crop in the area.[6]

Nineteen days following the city’s centennial, Hurricane Katrina struck the city on August 29, 2005, destroying almost all buildings within 500m of the Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Many Long Beach residents were left homeless or living in water and or wind damaged houses.[9]

The city of Long Beach, California, held a fund raiser to help its eponymous relative.[10] The city of Peoria, Arizona, adopted Long Beach and provided both public and private resources. This resulted in a close relationship between the two communities.[citation needed]

Today, the city is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina. Residents are returning as beaches and condominiums in the area are being repaired. However, the city has not seen a return of business to pre-Katrina levels due in part to building codes on the beach established by Federal Emergency Management Agency and Mississippi Emergency Management Agency and to the economic downturn.

Go here to see the original:
Long Beach, Mississippi – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberty (village), New York – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty (village), New York – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feb 182016
 

Liberty is a village in Sullivan County, New York, United States. The population was 4,392 at the 2010 census.

The Village of Liberty is centrally located in the Town of Liberty and is adjacent to New York Route 17.

While the Town of Liberty was incorporated in 1807, the Village of Liberty was not incorporated as a separate entity until 1870.[1]

The Munson Diner, Liberty Downtown Historic District, St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, and Town and Country Building are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[2]

Liberty is located at 414752N 744434W / 41.79778N 74.74278W / 41.79778; -74.74278 (41.797792, -74.742829).[3]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 2.4square miles (6.2km).None of the area is covered with water.

As of the census[6] of 2000, there were 3,975 people, 1,646 households, and 893 families residing in the village. The population density was 1,660.3 people per square mile (642.2/km). There were 2,071 housing units at an average density of 865.0 per square mile (334.6/km). The racial makeup of the village was 76.58% White, 13.89% Black or African American, 0.30% Native American, 1.94% Asian, 5.38% from other races, and 1.91% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 14.21% of the population.

There were 1,646 households out of which 30.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 32.8% were married couples living together, 16.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 45.7% were non-families. 38.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 17.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 3.09.

In the village the population was spread out with 25.5% under the age of 18, 7.3% from 18 to 24, 25.2% from 25 to 44, 23.4% from 45 to 64, and 18.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females there were 84.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 79.7 males.

The median income for a household in the village was $27,903, and the median income for a family was $35,265. Males had a median income of $26,823 versus $27,813 for females. The per capita income for the village was $19,180. About 12.7% of families and 15.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 13.5% of those under age 18 and 12.0% of those age 65 or over.

More here:
Liberty (village), New York – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationalism (international relations) – Wikipedia, the …

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Rationalism (international relations) – Wikipedia, the …
Jan 182016
 

Rationalism in politics is often seen as the midpoint in the three major political viewpoints of realism, rationalism, and internationalism. Whereas Realism and Internationalism are both on ends of the scale, rationalism tends to occupy the middle ground on most issues, and finds compromise between these two conflicting points of view.

Believers of Rationalism believe that multinational and multilateral organizations have their place in the world order, but not that a world government would be feasible. They point to current international organizations, most notably the United Nations, and point out that these organizations leave a lot to be desired and, in some cases, do more harm than good. They believe that this can be achieved through greater international law making procedures and that the use of force can be avoided in resolving disputes.[1]

Rationalists tend to see the rule of law and order as being equally important to states as it helps reduce conflicts. This in turn helps states become more willing to negotiate treaties and agreements where it best suits their interests. However, they see it as wrong for a nation to promote its own national interests, reminiscent of Internationalism, but that there is already a high level of order in the international system without a world government.[1]

Rationalists believe that states have a right to sovereignty, particularly over territory, but that this sovereignty can be violated in exceptional circumstances, such as human rights violations.

In situations such as that of Burma after Cyclone Nargis, rationalists find it acceptable for other states to violate that country’s sovereignty in order to help its people. This would be where an organisation such as the United Nations would come in and decide whether the situation is exceptional enough to warrant a violation of that state’s sovereignty.[1]

Realists believe that states act independently of each other and that states’ sovereignty is effectively sacred. Rationalists agree to a certain extent. However, as stated previously, rationalism includes sovereignty as a vital factor, but not as untouchable and ‘sacred’.

Realists also hold the Treaty of Westphalia and the international system that arose from this as the international system that prevails to this day. Rationalists acknowledge that the treaty has played an important part in shaping international relations and the world order and that certain aspects, such as sovereignty, still exist and play a vital role, but not that it has survived in its entirety. They believe that through the existence of international organisations, such as the European Union and the United Nations, the international system is less anarchic than Realists claim.[2]

Internationalists believe in a world order where an effective world government would govern the world, that sovereignty is an outdated concept and barrier to creating peace, the need for a common humanity and the need for cooperative solutions. Rationalists adhere to these beliefs to some extent. For example, with regards to the need for a common humanity and cooperative solutions, rationalists see this as being achieved without the need to abolish sovereignty and the Westphalian concept of the nation-state. The current system is seen as the example of this, as nation-states still hold their sovereignty and yet international organisations exist that potentially have the power to violate it, for the need to create peace, law and order.[1]

It is believed that the proposals for reform of the United Nations come from rationalist thoughts and points of view. This belief is held because most members of the UN agree that the UN requires reform, in the way of expanding or abolishing the Security Council and granting it more powers to violate sovereignty if necessary.[1]

Some figures who consider themselves as ‘rationalist’ include:

Read more:

Rationalism (international relations) – Wikipedia, the …

Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics
Dec 262015
 

The American Historical Review

Description: The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association (AHA). The AHA was founded in 1884 and chartered by Congress in 1889 to serve the interests of the entire discipline of history. Aligning with the AHAs mission, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States since 1895the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge. The journal also publishes approximately one thousand book reviews per year, surveying and reporting the most important contemporary historical scholarship in the discipline.

Coverage: 1895-2009 (Vol. 1, No. 1 – Vol. 114, No. 5)

The “moving wall” represents the time period between the last issue available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal. Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a publisher has elected to have a “zero” moving wall, so their current issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication. Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted. For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.

ISSN: 00028762

EISSN: 19375239

Subjects: History, American Studies, History, Area Studies

Go here to read the rest:
Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics

 Posted by at 12:49 pm  Tagged with:

10 Different Types of Libertarianism

 Misc  Comments Off on 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
Dec 172015
 

By Tom Head

Anarcho-Capitalism:

Anarcho-capitalists believe that governments monopolize services that would be better left to corporations, and should be abolished entirely in favor of a system in which corporations provide services we associate with the government. The popular sci-fi novel Jennifer Government describes a system that is very close to anarcho-capitalist.

Civil Libertarianism:

Civil libertarians believe that the government should not pass laws that restrict, oppress, or selectively fail to protect people in their day-to-day lives.

Their position can best be summed up by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ statement that “a man’s right to swing his fist ends where my nose begins.” In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union represents the interests of civil libertarians. Civil libertarians may or may not also be fiscal libertarians.

Classical Liberalism:

Classical liberals agree with the words of the Declaration of Independence: That all people have basic human rights, and that the sole legitimate function of government is to protect those rights. Most of the Founding Fathers, and most of the European philosophers who influenced them, were classical liberals.

Fiscal Libertarianism:

Fiscal libertarians (also referred to as laissez-faire capitalists) believe in free trade, low (or nonexistent) taxes, and minimal (or nonexistent) corporate regulation. Most traditional Republicans are moderate fiscal libertarians.

Geolibertarianism:

Geolibertarians (also called “one-taxers”) are fiscal libertarians who believe that land can never be owned, but may be rented. They generally propose the abolition of all income and sales taxes in favor of a single land rental tax, with the revenue used to support collective interests (such as military defense) as determined through a democratic process.

Libertarian Socialism:

Libertarian socialists agree with anarcho-capitalists that government is a monopoly and should be abolished, but they believe that nations should be ruled instead by work-share cooperatives or labor unions instead of corporations. The philosopher Noam Chomsky is the best known American libertarian socialist.

Minarchism:

Like anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists, minarchists believe that most functions currently served by the government should be served by smaller, non-government groups–but they believe that a government is still needed to serve a few collective needs, such as military defense.

Neolibertarianism:

Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.

Objectivism:

The Objectivist movement was founded by the Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982), author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, who incorporated fiscal libertarianism into a broader philosophy emphasizing rugged individualism and what she called “the virtue of selfishness.”

Paleolibertarianism:

Paleolibertarians differ from neolibertarians (see above) in that they are isolationists who do not believe that the United States should become entangled in international affairs. They also tend to be suspicious of international coalitions such as the United Nations, liberal immigration policies, and other potential threats to cultural stability.

Read the original here:
10 Different Types of Libertarianism

 Posted by at 12:42 am  Tagged with:

Libertarianism and Objectivism – Wikipedia, the free …

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarianism and Objectivism – Wikipedia, the free …
Nov 032015
 

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1] However, the views of Rand and her philosophy among prominent libertarians are mixed and many Objectivists are hostile to non-Objectivist libertarians in general.[2]

Some libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand, too, argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[3] but argued that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such, while libertarians who agree with Rothbard’s argument call it “the non-aggression axiom.” Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract.[4] They thus consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand, Rand believes that government can in principle be funded through voluntary means.[5]

Jennifer Burns in her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, notes how Rand’s position that “Native Americans were savages”, and that as a result “European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights”, was one of the views that “particularly outraged libertarians.”[6] Burns also notes how Rand’s position that “Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism”, was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand’s fan base.[6]

Libertarians and Objectivists often disagree about matters of foreign policy. Rand’s rejection of what she deemed to be “primitivism” extended to the Middle East peace process in the 1970s.[6][7] Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as “primitive” and “one of the least developed cultures” who “are typically nomads.”[7] Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being “the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent”, while decreeing that “when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”[7] Many libertarians were highly critical of Israeli government at the time.[citation needed]

Most scholars of the libertarian Cato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,[8] while the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.[9][10]

The United States Libertarian Party’s first candidate for president of the United States, John Hospers, credited Rand as a major force in shaping his own political beliefs.[11]David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, described Rand’s work as “squarely within the libertarian tradition” and that some libertarians are put off by “the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following.”[12]Milton Friedman described Rand as “an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good.”[13] One Rand biographer quoted Murray Rothbard as saying that he was “in agreement basically with all [Rand’s] philosophy,” and saying that it was Rand who had “convinced him of the theory of natural rights…”[14] Rothbard would later become a particularly harsh critic of Rand, writing in The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult that:

The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.[15]

Some Objectivists have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand’s own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who separated from the Ayn Rand Institute because of disagreements over the relationship between Objectivists and libertarians), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden’s former wife), and others. Kelley’s Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between “open Objectivists” and the libertarian movement.[citation needed]

Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism.[16] Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[17]

Rand said of libertarians that:

They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers…. Most of them are my enemies… I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandledi.e., the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given.”[16]

In a 1981 interview, Rand described libertarians as “a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people” who “plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose.”[16]

Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party in 1976, Rand said:

The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand call themselves libertarians and run for office.”[18]

In 2011, Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, spoke at the Foundation for Economic Education.[19] He was a keynote speaker at FreedomFest 2012.[20] He appeared on ReasonTV on July 26, 2012.[21]

Ayn Rand Institute board member John Allison spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012,[22] contributed “The Real Causes of the Financial Crisis” to Cato’s Letter,[23] and spoke at Cato’s Monetary Conference in November, 2011.[24]

On June 25, 2012, the Cato Institute announced that John Allison would become its next president.[25] In Cato’s public announcement, Allison was described as a “revered libertarian.” In communication to Cato employees, he wrote, “I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists.”[26]

On October 15, 2012, Brook explained the changes to The American Conservative:

I dont think theres been a significant change in terms of our attitude towards libertarians. Two things have happened. Weve grown, and weve gotten to a size where we dont just do educational programs, we do a lot more outreach and a lot more policy and working with other organizations. I also believe the libertarian movement has changed. Its become less influenced by Rothbard, less influenced by the anarchist, crazy for lack of a better word, wing of libertarianism. As a consequence, because were bigger and doing more things and because libertarianism has become more reasonable, we are doing more work with them than we have in the past. But I dont think ideologically anything of substance has changed at the Institute.[27]

Continued here:
Libertarianism and Objectivism – Wikipedia, the free …

 Posted by at 8:40 pm  Tagged with:

First Amendment – constitution | Laws.com

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment – constitution | Laws.com
Oct 282015
 

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is contained in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment has proven to be one of the most fundamental and important in respects to the rights attributed to the populace of the United States. Originally, the First Amendment was implemented and applied solely to Congress. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, it was upheld that the First Amendment is to apply to all forms of government, including state and local levels. The Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause would apply to the 1st Amendment, and thus rendering such a decision.

As stated in the United States Constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Though a relatively short and concise assertion, the text provides for quite an encompassing set of rights that protect the citizens of the United States, and some of the most important and basic human rights. The First Amendment has many clauses that relate to each of the concepts that it sets out to protect. Religion is discussed in two clauses, one regarding the establishment of religion, and the other the free exercise of religion.

This proves to be one of the most important rights to secure by the Fathers of the Constitution, for so many people of European descent immigrated to the American Colonies to avoid religious persecution, and to find a safe haven to practice their religion of choice without any dire consequences. The First Amendment prohibits the government to establish a formal or national religion for the nation. It also addresses that there will be no preference of any particular religion, including the practice of no religion, or non religion.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the people of the United States the free exercise of religion, without interference from governmental factions. This right would also extend to any organization or individual infringing on such right, and would be deemed as unconstitutional.

One of the most commonly referred to clauses under the 1st Amendment is the freedom of speech. This clause has proven to be of great importance, particularly in the twentieth century and continues on with such regard in our lifetime. Under the text of the First Amendment, many issues are addressed regarding Freedom of Speech, and restrictions to exist in which such a practice may prove to be harmful to the general population or public. An example is the concept of sedition, and how this conduct can lead to insurrection against the government.

Other concepts also addressed include commercial speech, political speech, obscenity, libel, slander, and symbolic speech, such as the desecration of the American Flag. Under the First Amendment, there have been important and key court cases that have established a form precedence in how to apply the Amendment to these kinds of circumstances. The Freedom of the press is also included, and subject to similar restrictions as the freedom of speech.

The rights to petition and assembly often seem to be overlooked, for freedom of religion and speech are most commonly associated with the 1st Amendment. The right to petition is important because it gives citizens the opportunity to address their government in issues that have relevance and importance to the commonwealth. The formulation of an assembly, under the First Amendment, can be interpreted as citizens gathering and unifying for the purpose of communicating views or opinions on national issues, and for the relaying of pertinent information. The right to assembly is often related to that of petition, in such a way where citizens may assemble in the process of petitioning the government.

comments

Originally posted here:
First Amendment – constitution | Laws.com

Illuminati – News, Updates, Images & Quotes

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati – News, Updates, Images & Quotes
Sep 232015
 

Status message You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, videos and photo galleries. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other users, upload videos and photos in your own photo album and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! Articles (7) Illuminati Cliff Notes By admin 3 years 1 week ago

Cliffs notes for those who care: Illuminatti was started by Adam Weishaupt in the 1760s, who was financed by the recently reorganized and consolidated House of Rothschild, the largest len…

“The question of how and why the United Nations is the crux of the great conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and the enslavement of the American people within a U.N. o…

The leader of the Earths Illuminati is called the “Pindar”. The Pindar is a member of one of the 13 ruling Illuminati families, and is always male. The title, Pindar, is an abbreviated ter…

Compartmentalization has been a key instrument in keeping people away from information that would make them free to discover the truth. The less information people have to go off, the smalle…

The illuminati Big Brother is listening the illuminati Big Brother wants you, and the illuminati Big Brother actually already has you under his full surveillance. But we still accept this fa…

In the Preface to “Brave New World,” (1932) Aldous Huxley wrote: “As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to increase. And the dictator will do…

This article illustrates a few key distinguishing factors between you and the Illuminati….

Here is the original post:
Illuminati – News, Updates, Images & Quotes

 Posted by at 6:47 pm  Tagged with:

Statue of Liberty – New Jersey

 Liberty  Comments Off on Statue of Liberty – New Jersey
Sep 222015
 

A Symbol of Friendship

Located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, the statue commemorates the friendship between the United States and France that began during the American Revolution. Her official name is “Liberty Enlightening the World.”

The statue – also known as “Lady Liberty” – has many symbolic features. Her torch represents liberty. In Roman numbers, her tablet reads “July 4, 1776,” America’s independence day.

Her crown has 25 windows, recognizing the gemstones found on the earth and the heaven’s rays shining over the world. The rays of her crown symbolize the seven continents and seven seas. At her feet are chains, representing the tyranny of colonial rule from which America escaped.

Building the Statue

In 1876 French sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi began designing the statue. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel, the designer of the Eiffel Tower, worked with him. While Bartholdi developed the look of the statue, Eiffel worked on the framework. Bartholdi made the statue out of copper sheets, and Eiffel made the framework of steel. In July 1884, the statue was completed in France.

Richard Morris Hunt, designer of New York City’s first apartment building, designed the pedestal. The construction of the pedestal was completed in April 1886.

In addition to the architectural challenges of building the statue and pedestal, both countries faced challenges in getting money for the project. The French charged public fees, held fundraising events, and used money from a lottery to finance the statue.

In America, boxing matches, plays, art exhibitions, and auctions were used to raise money with limited success. Joseph Pulitzer, founder of the Pulitzer Prize, was able to more successfully motivate Americans with critical editorials in his newspaper, The World, and financing was completed in 1885.

On June 19, 1885, the French ship Isere arrived in New York Harbor with the Statue of Liberty. The statue was divided into 350 pieces held in 214 crates during the shipment. Over the next four months, a group of workers re-assembled Lady Liberty on the pedestal at Fort Wood on Bedloe Island, as Liberty Island was then known.

Thousands of people came to Fort Wood on October 28, 1886, as President Grover Cleveland officially accepted the statue.

Events in Statue History

In 1924, the statue became a national monument. Bedloe’s Island, home to Fort Wood and the statue, was renamed Liberty Island in 1956. That same year Ellis Island was included with Liberty Island to make up the Statue of Liberty National Monument. As the Lady Liberty’s 100th birthday neared, the country began working to restore the monument.

Starting in 1982, $87 million was raised for the restoration. When statue’s restoration began in 1984, the United Nations named it a World Heritage Site. The statue was re-opened on July 5, 1986, for her centennial celebration.

Visitors have not been able to enter the Statue of Liberty since September 11, 2001, but the island remains open. A fundraising drive is currently underway to make the necessary security and safety upgrades to re-open the statue itself.

Statue Statistics

More:
Statue of Liberty – New Jersey

 Posted by at 6:42 am  Tagged with:

Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina | MapQuest.com

 Liberty  Comments Off on Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina | MapQuest.com
Sep 112015
 

Liberty is a town in Randolph County, North Carolina, United States. Originally named Liberty Oak, the town was founded in 1809 near the plantation of John Leak (according to: The Town of Liberty). The first church within the town was the Liberty Christian Church (now the United Church of Christ) founded on October 11, 1884. The town’s first school, the Liberty Academy, was founded on May 6, 1885 as a charter school and helped to foster the town’s early reputation as a place of higher learning. Liberty is home to the mother church of the Southern Baptist Religion (Sandy Creek Baptist Church), World Skeet Shoot Champion Craig Kirkman, and is the birthplace of professional baseball player Joe Frazier. Liberty is also home to The Liberty Antiques Festival a world famous antiques’ show that draws such famous faces as Julia Roberts and other Hollywood celebrities. Also The Liberty Showcase who has had many famous Nashville recording stars such as Ronnie McDowell, Lorrie Morgan, Gene Watson, Exile, and many more. The movies “Killers Three” (1968) and “Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice” (1992) were filmed in Liberty and the surrounding areas.

Visit link:
Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina | MapQuest.com

What is Libertarianism? – Institute for Humane Studies

 Misc  Comments Off on What is Libertarianism? – Institute for Humane Studies
Sep 082015
 

According to Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservativesfavor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

According to What It Means to Be a Libertarian by Charles Murray, Broadway Books, 1997.

The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. . . .

A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.

The correct word for my view of the world is liberal. Liberal is the simplest anglicization of the Latin liber, and freedom is what classical liberalism is all about. The writers of the nineteenth century who expounded on this view were called liberals. In Continental Europe they still are. . . . But words mean what people think they mean, and in the United States the unmodified term liberal now refers to the politics of an expansive government and the welfare state. The contemporary alternative is libertarian. . . .

Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives-as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning-living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

More here:
What is Libertarianism? – Institute for Humane Studies

Eugenics in California – CSHPE – CSUS

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in California – CSHPE – CSUS
Sep 022015
 

Sir Francis Galton first defined the term eugenics in 1883, eventually describing it as the “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race” as well as those that “develop them to the utmost advantage.” In the early twentieth century, eugenics movements thrived across the globe, in dozens of countries as diverse as Argentina, Japan, India, and Germany. Although the scope of eugenics differed from place to place, its proponents shared the belief that directing reproduction and biological selection could better, even perfect, society.

California was home to an extensive eugenics movement in the twentieth century. Convinced that ideas of better breeding and genetic selection were central to settling the Pacific West, many European American migrants to California supported practices such as involuntary sterilization, immigration restriction, and racially-biased IQ testing. Indeed, 1/3 or 20,000 of the 60,000 sterilizations performed in the United States from 1900 to 1980 occurred in California under the aegis of the state government.

See the original post here:

Eugenics in California – CSHPE – CSUS

 Posted by at 1:45 pm  Tagged with:

Second Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com
Sep 022015
 

Second Amendment,Second AmendmentNARAamendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Referred to in modern times as an individuals right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstones Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the true palladium of liberty. In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/481826) described as the last coup de grace that would enable the states to thwart and oppose the general government. Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen. (See also gun control.)

Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security. More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution and holding that the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution. Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length was not any part of the ordinary military equipment protected by the Second Amendment.

For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain. This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail. In a narrow 54 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defense was the central component of the amendment and that the District of Columbias prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. However, the court was clear to emphasize that an individuals right to an organized militia is not the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendments guarantee.

Because the Heller ruling constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home, it was unclear whether the court would hold that the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states. The Supreme Court answered this question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago. In a plurality opinion, a 54 majority held that the Heller right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause.

However, despite the use of person in the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause, the McDonald plurality opinion did not extend to noncitizens. Clarence Thomass fifth and decisive vote only extended the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to citizens. Thomas wrote, Because this case does not involve a claim brought by a noncitizen, I express no view on the difference, if any, between my conclusion and the plurality with respect to the extent to which States may regulate firearm possession by noncitizens. Thomas further came to this conclusion because he thought the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendments privileges or immunities clause, which only recognizes the rights of citizens.

The relatively narrow holdings in the McDonald and Heller decisions left many Second Amendment legal issues unsettled, including the constitutionality of many federal gun-control regulations, whether the right to carry or conceal a weapon in public was protected, and whether noncitizens are protected through the equal protection clause.

The origins of the Second Amendment can be traced to ancient Roman and Florentine times, but its English origins developed in the late 16th century when Queen Elizabeth I instituted a national militia where individuals of all classes were required by law to take part in defending the realm. Although Elizabeths attempt to establish a national militia failed miserably, the ideology of the militia would be used as a political tool up to the mid-18th century. The political debate over the establishment and control of the militia was a contributing factor in both the English Civil Wars (164251) and the Glorious Revolution (168889).

Despite recognition in the early 21st century by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protected armed individual self-defense in the home, many constitutional historians disagreed with the court that the Second Amendment protected anything but the right to participate in a militia force as the means of defending their liberties. For over two centuries there was a consensus that the Second Amendment protected only the right of individuals to keep and bear Arms in order to take part in defending their liberties as a militia force. However, by the late 20th century the popular consensus had shifted, many believing that the Second Amendment was framed to protect armed self-defense in the home.

In England, following the Glorious Revolution, the Second Amendments predecessor was codified in the British Bill of Rights in 1689, under its Article VII, which proclaimed that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. Often misinterpreted as a right to defend ones person, home, or property, the allowance to have arms ensured that Parliament could exercise its sovereign right of self-preservation against a tyrannical crown by arming qualified Protestants as a militia.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution undoubtedly had in mind the English allowance to have arms when drafting the Second Amendment. The constitutional significance of a well regulated Militia is well documented in English and American history from the late 17th century through the American Revolution; it was included in the Articles of Confederation (1781), the countrys first constitution, and was even noted at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. The right to keep and bear Arms was thus included as a means to accomplish the objective of a well regulated Militiato provide for the defense of the nation, to provide a well-trained and disciplined force to check federal tyranny, and to bring constitutional balance by distributing the power of the sword equally among the people, the states, and the federal government.

Read more:
Second Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

 Posted by at 1:41 pm  Tagged with:

Nanorobotics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nano Technology  Comments Off on Nanorobotics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aug 192015
 

“Nanobots” redirects here. For the They Might Be Giants album, see Nanobots (album).

Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale of a nanometre (109 meters).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.110 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]

Nanomachines are largely in the research and development phase,[8] but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested. An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample. The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in nanomedicine. For example,[9]biological machines could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] Another potential application is the detection of toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.

Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.

According to Richard Feynman, it was his former graduate student and collaborator Albert Hibbs who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a medical use for Feynman’s theoretical micromachines (see nanotechnology). Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) “swallow the doctor”. The idea was incorporated into Feynman’s 1959 essay There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom.[12]

Since nanorobots would be microscopic in size, it would probably be necessary for very large numbers of them to work together to perform microscopic and macroscopic tasks. These nanorobot swarms, both those incapable of replication (as in utility fog) and those capable of unconstrained replication in the natural environment (as in grey goo and its less common variants[clarification needed]), are found in many science fiction stories, such as the Borg nanoprobes in Star Trek and The Outer Limits episode The New Breed.

Some proponents of nanorobotics, in reaction to the grey goo scenarios that they earlier helped to propagate, hold the view that nanorobots capable of replication outside of a restricted factory environment do not form a necessary part of a purported productive nanotechnology, and that the process of self-replication, if it were ever to be developed, could be made inherently safe. They further assert that their current plans for developing and using molecular manufacturing do not in fact include free-foraging replicators.[13][14]

The most detailed theoretical discussion of nanorobotics, including specific design issues such as sensing, power communication, navigation, manipulation, locomotion, and onboard computation, has been presented in the medical context of nanomedicine by Robert Freitas. Some of these discussions remain at the level of unbuildable generality and do not approach the level of detailed engineering.

The joint use of nanoelectronics, photolithography, and new biomaterials provides a possible approach to manufacturing nanorobots for common medical applications, such as for surgical instrumentation, diagnosis and drug delivery.[15][16][17] This method for manufacturing on nanotechnology scale is currently in use in the electronics industry.[18] So, practical nanorobots should be integrated as nanoelectronics devices, which will allow tele-operation and advanced capabilities for medical instrumentation.[19][20]

Nubot is an abbreviation for “nucleic acid robot.” Nubots are organic molecular machines at the nanoscale.[21] DNA structure can provide means to assemble 2D and 3D nanomechanical devices. DNA based machines can be activated using small molecules, proteins and other molecules of DNA.[22][23][24] Biological circuit gates based on DNA materials have been engineered as molecular machines to allow in-vitro drug delivery for targeted health problems.[25] Such material based systems would work most closely to smart biomaterial drug system delivery,[26] while not allowing precise in vivo teleoperation of such engineered prototypes.

A number of reports have demonstrated the attachment of synthetic molecular motors to surfaces.[27][28] These primitive nanomachines have been shown to undergo machine-like motions when confined to the surface of a macroscopic material. The surface anchored motors could potentially be used to move and position nanoscale materials on a surface in the manner of a conveyor belt.

Nanofactory Collaboration,[29] founded by Robert Freitas and Ralph Merkle in 2000 and involving 23 researchers from 10 organizations and 4 countries, focuses on developing a practical research agenda[30] specifically aimed at developing positionally-controlled diamond mechanosynthesis and a diamondoid nanofactory that would have the capability of building diamondoid medical nanorobots.

This approach proposes the use of biological microorganisms, like the bacterium Escherichia coli.[31] Thus the model uses a flagellum for propulsion purposes. Electromagnetic fields normally control the motion of this kind of biological integrated device.[32] Chemists at the University of Nebraska have created a humidity gauge by fusing a bacteria to a silicone computer chip.[33]

Retroviruses can be retrained to attach to cells and replace DNA. They go through a process called reverse transcription to deliver genetic packaging in a vector.[34] Usually, these devices are Pol Gag genes of the virus for the Capsid and Delivery system. This process is called retroviral Gene Therapy, having the ability to re-engineer cellular DNA by usage of viral vectors.[35] This approach has appeared in the form of Retroviral, Adenoviral, and Lentiviral gene delivery systems.[36] These Gene Therapy vectors have been used in cats to send genes into the genetic modified animal “GMO” causing it display the trait. [37]

A document with a proposal on nanobiotech development using open technology approaches has been addressed to the United Nations General Assembly.[38] According to the document sent to the UN, in the same way that Open Source has in recent years accelerated the development of computer systems, a similar approach should benefit the society at large and accelerate nanorobotics development. The use of nanobiotechnology should be established as a human heritage for the coming generations, and developed as an open technology based on ethical practices for peaceful purposes. Open technology is stated as a fundamental key for such an aim.

In the same ways that technology development had the space race and nuclear arms race, a race for nanorobots is occurring.[39][40][41][42][43] There is plenty of ground allowing nanorobots to be included among the emerging technologies.[44] Some of the reasons are that large corporations, such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys, Northrop Grumman and Siemens have been recently working in the development and research of nanorobots;[45][46][47][48][49] surgeons are getting involved and starting to propose ways to apply nanorobots for common medical procedures;[50] universities and research institutes were granted funds by government agencies exceeding $2 billion towards research developing nanodevices for medicine;[51][52] bankers are also strategically investing with the intent to acquire beforehand rights and royalties on future nanorobots commercialization.[53] Some aspects of nanorobot litigation and related issues linked to monopoly have already arisen.[54][55][56] A large number of patents has been granted recently on nanorobots, done mostly for patent agents, companies specialized solely on building patent portfolio, and lawyers. After a long series of patents and eventually litigations, see for example the Invention of Radio or about the War of Currents, emerging fields of technology tend to become a monopoly, which normally is dominated by large corporations.[57]

Potential applications for nanorobotics in medicine include early diagnosis and targeted drug-delivery for cancer,[58][59][60] biomedical instrumentation,[61]surgery,[62][63]pharmacokinetics,[10] monitoring of diabetes,[64][65][66] and health care.

In such plans, future medical nanotechnology is expected to employ nanorobots injected into the patient to perform work at a cellular level. Such nanorobots intended for use in medicine should be non-replicating, as replication would needlessly increase device complexity, reduce reliability, and interfere with the medical mission.

Nanotechnology provides a wide range of new technologies for developing customized solutions that optimize the delivery of pharmaceutical products. Today, harmful side effects of treatments such as chemotherapy are commonly a result of drug delivery methods that don’t pinpoint their intended target cells accurately.[67] Researchers at Harvard and MIT, however, have been able to attach special RNA strands, measuring nearly 10nm in diameter, to nano-particles, filling them with a chemotherapy drug. These RNA strands are attracted to cancer cells. When the nanoparticle encounters a cancer cell, it adheres to it, and releases the drug into the cancer cell.[68] This directed method of drug delivery has great potential for treating cancer patients while avoiding negative effects (commonly associated with improper drug delivery).[67][69] The first demonstration of nanomotors operating in living organism was carried out in 2014 at University of California, San Diego.[70] MRI-guided nanocapsules are one potential precursor to nanorobots.[71]

Another useful application of nanorobots is assisting in the repair of tissue cells alongside white blood cells.[72] The recruitment of inflammatory cells or white blood cells (which include neutrophil granulocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes and mast cells) to the affected area is the first response of tissues to injury.[73] Because of their small size nanorobots could attach themselves to the surface of recruited white cells, to squeeze their way out through the walls of blood vessels and arrive at the injury site, where they can assist in the tissue repair process. Certain substances could possibly be utilized to accelerate the recovery.

The science behind this mechanism is quite complex. Passage of cells across the blood endothelium, a process known as transmigration, is a mechanism involving engagement of cell surface receptors to adhesion molecules, active force exertion and dilation of the vessel walls and physical deformation of the migrating cells. By attaching themselves to migrating inflammatory cells, the robots can in effect hitch a ride across the blood vessels, bypassing the need for a complex transmigration mechanism of their own.[72]

In the United States, FDA currently regulates nanotechnology on the basis of size.[74] The FDA also regulates that which acts by chemical means as a drug, and that which acts by physical means as a device.[75] Single molecules can also be used as Turing machines, like their larger paper tape counterparts, capable of universal computation and exerting physical (or chemical) forces as a result of that computation. Safety systems are being developed so that if a drug payload were to be accidentally released, the payload would either be inert or another drug would be then released to counteract the first. Toxicological testing becomes convolved with software validation in such circumstances.With new advances in nanotechnology these small devices are being created with the ability to self-regulate and be smarter than previous generations. As nanotechnology becomes more complex, how will regulatory agencies distinguish a drug from a device?[75] Drug molecules must undergo slower and more expensive testing (for example, preclinical toxicological testing) than devices, and the regulatory pathways for devices are simpler than for drugs. Perhaps smartness, if smart enough, will someday be used to justify a device classification for a single molecule nanomachine. Devices are generally approved more quickly than drugs, so device classification could be beneficial to patients and manufacturers.

Read the rest here:

Nanorobotics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 8:44 am  Tagged with:

How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org

 Misc  Comments Off on How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org
Aug 082015
 

October 25, 2013 essays

Sweden often gets held up as an example of how socialism can work better than markets. But, as Norberg shows, Swedens history in fact points to the opposite conclusion.

Once upon a time I got interested in theories of economic development because I had studied a low-income country, poorer than Congo, with life expectancy half as long and infant mortality three times as high as the average developing country.

That country is my own country, Swedenless than 150 years ago.

At that time Sweden was incredibly poorand hungry. When there was a crop failure, my ancestors in northern Sweden, in ngermanland, had to mix bark into the bread because they were short of flour. Life in towns and cities was no easier. Overcrowding and a lack of health services, sanitation, and refuse disposal claimed lives every day. Well into the twentieth century, an ordinary Swedish working-class family with five children might have to live in one room and a kitchen, which doubled as a dining room and bedroom. Many people lodged with other families. Housing statistics from Stockholm show that in 1900, as many as 1,400 people could live in a building consisting of 200 one-room flats. In conditions like these it is little wonder that disease was rife. People had large numbers of children not only for lack of contraception, but also because of the risk that not many would survive for long.

As Vilhelm Moberg, our greatest author, observed when he wrote a history of the Swedish people: Of all the wondrous adventures of the Swedish people, none is more remarkable and wonderful than this: that it survived all of them.

But in one century, everything was changed. Sweden had the fastest economic and social development that its people had ever experienced, and one of the fastest the world had ever seen. Between 1850 and 1950 the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 per cent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. A poor peasant nation had become one of the worlds richest countries.

Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealthwithout hurting its productive capacity. And so Swedena small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europebecame a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Swedens biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state.

This is the story about how that happened. It is a story that must be learned by countries that want to be where Sweden is today, because if they are to accomplish that feat, they must do what Sweden did back then, not what an already-rich Sweden does now.

Read the original:
How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution