"Governo desbloqueou 800 vagas para funcionários judiciais"
É uma pena. O que devia estar a acontecer é que os Tribunais Arbitrais e Julgados de Paz cada vez mais tivessem a seu cargo uma maior fatia do litigio comercial e civil, deixando os actuais recursos públicos centrados essencialmente no Direito Penal e Administrativo.
quarta-feira, 29 de dezembro de 2004
Entretanto VI
1) Russia and China forge new military ties
Analysts say decision to hold war games may be message to the West.
In a move that foreign policy analysts see as Russia's response to a "spat" with the West over the election in Ukraine, the Guardian reported Monday Moscow has reiterated its intention to hold wars games with China in 2005. China Daily reports that although the original announcement was made by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov during a visit to China two weeks ago, the first time Western media extensively covered the story followed his statement during a cabinet meeting Monday at the Kremlin."For the first time in history, we have agreed to hold quite a large military exercise together with China on Chinese territory in the second half of the year," Mr. Ivanov said at a cabinet session chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "The Russian side will not bring big numbers of servicemen, but mostly state-of-the art weapons - navy, air, long-range aviation, submarines - to practice interaction with China in different forms of military maneuvers."
2) Beijing Preparing Major Arms Deal
Russia plans to sell a host of new fighters and transport planes to China in 2005, arms export officials said Friday, and foreign sales of Russian weaponry could exceed $5 billion next year.
3) Sharon to visit China
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Wednesday that he has accepted an invitation to visit China, though the visit could be overshadowed by friction over a snagged Israeli-Chinese weapons deal.
Sharon accepted the invitation during a meeting in Jerusalem with Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan, the most senior Chinese official to visit Israel in nearly five years. "It is common practice to refuse an invitation the first time, and even the second time," Sharon was quoted as saying in a statement from his office. "I will accept this one on the spot."
The invitation was made though Israel and China find themselves embroiled in a potentially damaging argument over Israeli manufactured drone aircraft, purchased by China and sent to Israel for an upgrade.An Israeli military official said last week that the United States has demanded that Israel confiscate the drones, fearing that they could upset the military balance between China and Taiwan.
The demand puts Israel in the awkward position of having to either defy the United States, its main ally, or China, a market with growth potential for Israeli high-tech and military exports.
O concerto para "Cartas de Londres" e violino
O projecto da U.E. assenta numa dinâmica própria da fé das "religiões seculares": o império democrático e benfazejo da União munida do seu "tratado constitucional" supera toda e qualquer prudência e sã desconfiança na concentração de poder, que são as bases dos regimes políticos livres. Os "europeístas" como o Bruno (a Europa policêntrica da realidade histórica que lhe perdoe!) até acreditam que a secessão vai ser uma coisa pacífica. Porquê? Porque está prevista no tratado que quer ser Constituição... Está bem, estou muito mais descansado.
UM HOMOSSEXUAL CONDENA OS "DIREITOS HOMOSSEXUAIS"
Via: O Individuo
Tradução de Flávio Campos do Artigo originalmente publicado na revista http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taem00n.htm" target=_blank>The American Enterprise, por Justin Raimundo.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000). He is also the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996). He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Tradução de Flávio Campos do Artigo originalmente publicado na revista http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taem00n.htm" target=_blank>The American Enterprise, por Justin Raimundo.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000). He is also the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996). He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Algumas passagens:
"(...)Numa sociedade livre não existem direitos homossexuais, apenas direitos individuais. Tanto para homossexuais quanto para heterossexuais, estes direitos se fundem num único princípio: o direito de ser deixado em paz. Politicamente, o movimento pelos direitos dos homossexuais deve voltar às suas raízes libertárias. Isto iniciaria o imprescindível processo de despolitização da homossexualidade e evitaria uma perigosa guerra cultural que a minoria homossexual jamais poderá vencer.
Mesmo a "neturalidade" estatal que homossexuais "de centro" como Andrew Sullivan advogam forçaria o governo a tratar a homossexualidade como algo equivalente à heterossexualidade, como se vê nas demandas de Sullivan em prol de um pseudo-"casamento" homossexual e da admissão de gays assumidos nas forças militares. A verdadeira neutralidade, contudo, exigiria não uma aceitação, mas indiferença, desatenção, inação. Um estado neutro não penalizaria nem recompensaria a conduta homossexual.(...)
Os homossexuais devem rejeitar a idéia disparatada de que eles são oprimidos pelo "heterossexualismo", uma ideologia vil que subordina e denigre homossexuais ao insistir no papel central da heterossexualidade na cultura humana. Não se pode fugir da biologia humana, por mais que tal projeto possa seduzir acadêmicos alienados que imaginam que a sexualidade humana é uma "construção social" alterável à vontade. Homossexuais são e serão sempre uma raridade, uma pequena minoria necessariamente à margem da família tradicional.
O "preconceito" heterossexual das instituições sociais não é algo que precise ser imposto a uma sociedade relutante por um estado opressivo, mas uma predileção que surge de forma bastante natural e inevitável. Se isto é "homofobia", então a natureza é sectária. Se os homossexuais utilizam o poder estatal para corrigir esta "injustiça" histórica, eles estão se engajando num ato de beligerância que será considerado com justiça uma ameaça à primazia da família tradicional.(...)
Na condição de contigente especializado de um exército dedicado a empurrar o socialismo "multicultural" goela abaixo do povo americano, o lobby homossexual se alimenta dos piores medos de suas bases eleitorais. Empunhando o espantalho da "Direita Religiosa" a fim de manter as tropas em alerta, os políticos gays apontam para Jesse Helms e dizem: "sem nós, vocês não teriam a menor chance contra este sujeito".
Entretanto, nenhum grupo religioso de peso jamais clamou por medidas legais contra os homossexuais. A Coalização Cristã, o Eagle Forum e outros grupos ativistas conservadores somente se envolveram em atividades políticas supostamente "anti-homossexuais" defensivamente, trabalhando pela rejeição de leis garantidoras de "direitos gays" que atacavam as crenças mais preciosas daqueles grupos.
Os líderes do movimento gay estão brincando com fogo. A grande tragédia é que não serão eles os únicos que sairão queimados. A volatilidade dos temas que eles vêm levantando – temas que envolvem religião, família e as mais elementares premissas do que é ser humano – cria o risco de uma explosão social pela qual eles devem ser responsabilizados.(...)
Leis que estabelecem "direitos homossexuais" violam os princípios do autêntico liberalismo, e os homossexuais deveriam levantar sua voz contra elas – a fim de se distanciarem dos excessos deste movimento destrutivo, a fim de evitar conflitos sociais e para corrigir alguns graves males já criados. Estes males são o ataque político hoje lançado contra a família heterossexual pelos teóricos da revolução homossexual; o incansável deboche religioso que permeia a imprensa gay; e o ilimitado desprezo, inerente à subcultura homossexual, por toda tradição e pelos "valores burgueses".(...)
Esperar aprovação ou sanção oficial quanto algo tão pessoal quanto a própria sexualidade é um sinal de fraqueza de caráter. Pedir (não, exigir) com a cara limpa tal aprovação na forma de um ato governamental é algo de um mau gosto sem paralelos. É também a confissão de uma falta de auto-estima tão devastadora, de um tal vazio interior, que sua expressão pública se torna inapreensível. A auto-estima não é uma qualidade que se possa extrair dos outros, nem ser criada legislativamente.(...)"
Entretanto V
Ukraine's Yushchenko Calls for Blockade of Government
"KIEV (Reuters) - Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, winner of Ukraine's re-run of a rigged presidential election, called on his supporters on Tuesday to block the country's government building. "I want to say there should be no government meeting ... Dear friends, I ask you to strengthen a blockade of the government building tomorrow from early in the morning," Yushchenko told thousands of his supporters in the capital Kiev's Independence square. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who has vowed to challenge the election results, said he would return to work and hold a government meeting on Wednesday. "
PS: Isto é que é pressa.
"KIEV (Reuters) - Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, winner of Ukraine's re-run of a rigged presidential election, called on his supporters on Tuesday to block the country's government building. "I want to say there should be no government meeting ... Dear friends, I ask you to strengthen a blockade of the government building tomorrow from early in the morning," Yushchenko told thousands of his supporters in the capital Kiev's Independence square. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who has vowed to challenge the election results, said he would return to work and hold a government meeting on Wednesday. "
PS: Isto é que é pressa.
terça-feira, 28 de dezembro de 2004
Entretanto IV
"BEIJING (Reuters) - Relations between China and Taiwan are grim and the mainland will crush any major moves toward independence by the island no matter what the cost, the government said in a policy paper on national defense on Monday."
Entretanto (Lincoln serve de exemplo à China e):
"BEIJING, Dec. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese lawmakers described the enaction of anti-secession law as "extremely necessary" and "very timely" at their group discussions Sunday attended by the top legislator Wu Bangguo.
The members of the NPC Standing Committee unanimously agreed that Taiwan is an indispensable part of China, and the Chinese mainland has made a sustained effort to promote the relationship across the Taiwan Straits for the peaceful reunification.
In recent years, the activities of secessionists in the name of"Taiwan Independence" have become the largest obstacle to develop the relationship across the straits and the peaceful reunification,as well as the most serious threat to the peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits, according to the lawmakers. "
PS: Escusado será dizer que o mesmo grupo de pessoas que domina a politica externa americana e mais os intelectuais de serviço por esse mundo fora (e que inclui essa nova direita ultra-democratica-revolucionaria-pro-aborto-multicultural), apoiou a "revolução laranja" na Ucrânia, está perto de colocar a totalidade dos árabes e muçulmanos numa rota sem regresso de ódio contra o "Ocidente", tenta fazer com que "Taiwain" se torne numa daquelas questões morais passíveis de envolver os EUA (e depois claro, todos os aliados) num conflito com a China - talvez a Rússia fique do lado da China).
Os nacionais-internacionalistas não perdem uma e estão em todo o lado. Um dia vão conseguir a sua "world war", porque para criar é preciso destruir - não se vê logo as maravilhas que a Grande Guerra, Segunda Guerra e Guerra Fria fizeram ao mundo?
Ucrânia
Yushchenko: 51.9%
Yanukovych: 44.2%
Turnout: 77%
Source: Ukraine Central Election Commission
Se, como dizia, JMF no Público: " Hoje isso pode mudar se, como tudo indica, a "Revolução Laranja" - a cor da oposição - triunfar na Ucrânia. A mudança será tão importante que este dia poderá entrar para a História da Europa. Com "H" grande. " e "Será uma vitória do povo e do irresistível apelo que representou o sonho de viver em democracia e em liberdade""quem são os outros 44,2%? Ucranianos que desejam um qualquer pesadelo totalitário?
Entretanto:
Ukraine minister found shot dead - "Heorhiy Kyrpa was a staunch supporter of Viktor Yanukovych has been found dead at his holiday home near the capital Kiev. The minister is reported to have gunshot wounds and officials said a gun was found near his body."
O "Cartas de Londres" e as Uniões de boas intenções
Não vou discutir com o Bruno Cardoso Reis (Cartas de Londres) se as Cortes de 1581 foram livres e representativas ou não pelos actuais critérios democráticos; não era isso que estava em causa. O Bruno sabe que a comparação dizia respeito às garantias de autonomia sob a união dinástica, que eu disse e repito que eram maiores com o acordo de 1581 do que com o "tratado constitucional" da União Europeia agora em discussão. Quanto à arbitrariedade do rei "absoluto" Filipe II (nosso I) e seus sucessores, o Bruno também saberá que não era assim tanta como se diz (leia um bocadinho o Prof. Hespanha e historiadores congéneres). De qualquer modo, se os sucessores de Filipe I usaram a sua arbitrariedade para se esquecerem das garantias dadas a Portugal pela união dinástica de 1581, o que eu receio é que os políticos da União Europeia usem essa mesma arbitrariedade (que é característica de todos os regimes políticos) para irem interpretanto o "tratado constitucional" como muito bem entenderem, tornando absolutamente irrelevante a nossa opinião, por mais representada que esteja no "centro"... Aliás, foi a constatação da nossa irrelevância no seio da união dinástica (não para decidirmos como todos dentro dela se governavam, mas como NÓS deveríamos ser governados) que conduziu a 1640; a diferença é que, se nos tornámos irrelevantes no pequeno ambiente peninsular, quanto a como eramos governados, imagine o Bruno o quão irrelevantes nos tornaremos a uma escala continental quando for o centro a querer definir tudo.
P.S. Dizer que "podemos sair" quando quisermos é uma ilusão grave, caro Bruno. Isso é algo que ainda temos de testar, não está garantido. O exemplo histórico dos E.U.A. mostram bem no que pode dar uma tentativa de secessão numa federação democrática.
P.S. Dizer que "podemos sair" quando quisermos é uma ilusão grave, caro Bruno. Isso é algo que ainda temos de testar, não está garantido. O exemplo histórico dos E.U.A. mostram bem no que pode dar uma tentativa de secessão numa federação democrática.
domingo, 26 de dezembro de 2004
Entretanto III
New York Times reports:
"The most popular theory – that Mr. Yushchenko was poisoned at the dacha – contains flaws, strong enough that even his own supporters raise questions about it. And as investigators seek deeper insight into the case, they say a chief obstacle has been Mr. Yushchenko himself, who has used the poisoning almost as a theme in his campaign, but has not fully cooperated with the authorities, even as the trail of his would-be assassin grows cold."
"The most popular theory – that Mr. Yushchenko was poisoned at the dacha – contains flaws, strong enough that even his own supporters raise questions about it. And as investigators seek deeper insight into the case, they say a chief obstacle has been Mr. Yushchenko himself, who has used the poisoning almost as a theme in his campaign, but has not fully cooperated with the authorities, even as the trail of his would-be assassin grows cold."
Entretanto II
Via War and Piece:
(1) Selling arms to China, or not - Haaretz.com : "The Israeli-American crisis over the sale of an advanced technology weapons system to China has also turned into an Israeli-Chinese crisis in the wake of an American demand that Israel not return to the Chinese the Harpy assault drone that China recently acquired and which it sent back to Israel for an upgrade.
The problem is that Israel walked into the problem of a severe clash - and not for the first time - with many members of Congress who maintain an anti-China line. In recent weeks there were hysterical reports in the U.S. about Israeli advanced technology sales to China. It's been said, for example, that American soldiers defending Taiwan could be harmed by Israeli technologies, and American ships by the Harpy. A special congressional committee held hearings and heard some very tough remarks against Israel.
A key question that cannot be ignored is why such misunderstandings repeatedly come up between Israel and the U.S. regarding China. There's a series here: once it was about the sale of Lavie technologies to China, then about the supposed sale of the U.S.-made Patriot missile secrets to China. One time it was in the wake of the sale of advanced air-to-air missiles to China, and then came the Phalcon affair - and there are plenty of other examples."
(2) the Forward: "The latest crisis comes just one month after the release of the first major strategy paper issued by the so-called Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank chaired by former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. The paper urges strongly that China, as the world's next superpower — and a major nation with no prior conceptions, positive or negative, about Judaism — be sought out by the Diaspora Jewish community for an institutionalized, free-standing relationship, independent of both American and Israeli policy interests.
The study, written by French academic Shalom Salomon Wald, notes that China appears receptive to such an initiative in part because it sees the American Jewish community as a significant player in Washington that could help China improve its standing in the United States."
(1) Selling arms to China, or not - Haaretz.com : "The Israeli-American crisis over the sale of an advanced technology weapons system to China has also turned into an Israeli-Chinese crisis in the wake of an American demand that Israel not return to the Chinese the Harpy assault drone that China recently acquired and which it sent back to Israel for an upgrade.
The problem is that Israel walked into the problem of a severe clash - and not for the first time - with many members of Congress who maintain an anti-China line. In recent weeks there were hysterical reports in the U.S. about Israeli advanced technology sales to China. It's been said, for example, that American soldiers defending Taiwan could be harmed by Israeli technologies, and American ships by the Harpy. A special congressional committee held hearings and heard some very tough remarks against Israel.
A key question that cannot be ignored is why such misunderstandings repeatedly come up between Israel and the U.S. regarding China. There's a series here: once it was about the sale of Lavie technologies to China, then about the supposed sale of the U.S.-made Patriot missile secrets to China. One time it was in the wake of the sale of advanced air-to-air missiles to China, and then came the Phalcon affair - and there are plenty of other examples."
(2) the Forward: "The latest crisis comes just one month after the release of the first major strategy paper issued by the so-called Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank chaired by former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. The paper urges strongly that China, as the world's next superpower — and a major nation with no prior conceptions, positive or negative, about Judaism — be sought out by the Diaspora Jewish community for an institutionalized, free-standing relationship, independent of both American and Israeli policy interests.
The study, written by French academic Shalom Salomon Wald, notes that China appears receptive to such an initiative in part because it sees the American Jewish community as a significant player in Washington that could help China improve its standing in the United States."
Entretanto...
1) Speaking by telephone from Vichy, France on Friday, Malbrunot quoted his captors as saying Bush's re-election "would improve our ability to fight."
"We vote for Bush because Bush help us a lot by intervening in Afghanistan. So, from that point we could spread all over the world and we are now in 60 countries," Malbrunot cited one of the militants as saying on October 15, two weeks before Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry. Malbrunot, 41, quoted the same militant as saying: "Our main targets are Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And because of Bush, if he is re-elected, we are sure that American soldiers will remain in Iraq for years."
[Curioso que os regimes da Arábia Saudita e do Egipto foram mencionados como o prémio final da estratégia Neocons para o Médio Oriente]2) "BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s Electoral Commission on Sunday dismissed suggestions from Washington that minority Sunni Arabs could get extra seats in parliament after next month’s election to avoid Shiite domination if Sunnis fail to vote."
[Parece que alguém percebeu que a destruição da influência Sunita (provavelmente os árabes mais seculares e tolerantes) vai pôr o Iraque sob a domínio shiita, abrindo caminho para o Irão]
Sempre grandes ideais
e confiança na revolução:
JMF no Público: " Hoje isso pode mudar se, como tudo indica, a "Revolução Laranja" - a cor da oposição - triunfar na Ucrânia. A mudança será tão importante que este dia poderá entrar para a História da Europa. Com "H" grande. "
[Ai esta confiança ... Andar a recolher despojos nas bordas de Impérios em dificuldades transitórias traz maus resultados a prazo, porque um dia podem recuperar - ou outros podem reivindicar para si - e depois lembrarem-se de pagar o cumprimento.]
"A "Revolução Laranja" pode triunfar hoje na Ucrânia com a previsível vitória do líder da oposição Iuschenko. Será uma vitória do povo e do irresistível apelo que representou o sonho de viver em democracia e em liberdade"
"Só que, depois destes treze anos de "democracia" vigiada, autoritarismo, corrupção, domínio das oligarquias e área de eleição para as máfias, o povo quis algo de diferente."
[Até pode ser, mas o combate às "oligarquias e área de eleição para as máfias" tem sido a tarefa de hércules de Putin e "democracia vigiada" é o que a UE/EUA exercem nos balcâs e outras paragens.]
"Viktor Iuschenko, o rosto hoje disforme desta "Revolução Laranja", pode nem ser o seu veículo ideal - afinal também ele foi primeiro-ministro sob o Presidente cessante, também ele colaborou -, mas é o que está à mão, o que representa a esperança de mudança, o que já disse que o país pode um dia fazer parte da União Europeia, quem não se intimidou quando Putin (e, é bom referi-lo, o jornal inglês da esquerda trabalhista, "The Guardian") acusou os milhares que saíram à rua de estarem a ser instrumentos da CIA e dos Estados Unidos. "
[Tradução: pronto, o rapaz nem é o ideal e é bem capaz de ser um bastardo mas é o "nosso" bastardo, até porque pagamos por isso.]
PS: Algumas sondagens - "The Western-funded Razumkov Center of Political Studies and Kiev International Institute of Sociology showed Yushchenko winning with 56.5 percent and Yanukovych collecting 41.3 percent of the vote, with no margin of error given." Tendo em conta o apoio externo dado ao campeão da "liberdade", não parece lá um grande dia para ficar na História da Europa. Na verdade, pode ficar marcado pelo inicio da desconfiança mútua declarada entre a Rússia e a UE/EUA, empurrando a primeira para a China (na verdade, recentemente, assinaram um acordo de cooperação militar). Na Ucrânia, entretanto, os perdedores podem vir a achar que a unidade territorial é um pormenor.
JMF no Público: " Hoje isso pode mudar se, como tudo indica, a "Revolução Laranja" - a cor da oposição - triunfar na Ucrânia. A mudança será tão importante que este dia poderá entrar para a História da Europa. Com "H" grande. "
[Ai esta confiança ... Andar a recolher despojos nas bordas de Impérios em dificuldades transitórias traz maus resultados a prazo, porque um dia podem recuperar - ou outros podem reivindicar para si - e depois lembrarem-se de pagar o cumprimento.]
"A "Revolução Laranja" pode triunfar hoje na Ucrânia com a previsível vitória do líder da oposição Iuschenko. Será uma vitória do povo e do irresistível apelo que representou o sonho de viver em democracia e em liberdade"
"Só que, depois destes treze anos de "democracia" vigiada, autoritarismo, corrupção, domínio das oligarquias e área de eleição para as máfias, o povo quis algo de diferente."
[Até pode ser, mas o combate às "oligarquias e área de eleição para as máfias" tem sido a tarefa de hércules de Putin e "democracia vigiada" é o que a UE/EUA exercem nos balcâs e outras paragens.]
"Viktor Iuschenko, o rosto hoje disforme desta "Revolução Laranja", pode nem ser o seu veículo ideal - afinal também ele foi primeiro-ministro sob o Presidente cessante, também ele colaborou -, mas é o que está à mão, o que representa a esperança de mudança, o que já disse que o país pode um dia fazer parte da União Europeia, quem não se intimidou quando Putin (e, é bom referi-lo, o jornal inglês da esquerda trabalhista, "The Guardian") acusou os milhares que saíram à rua de estarem a ser instrumentos da CIA e dos Estados Unidos. "
[Tradução: pronto, o rapaz nem é o ideal e é bem capaz de ser um bastardo mas é o "nosso" bastardo, até porque pagamos por isso.]
PS: Algumas sondagens - "The Western-funded Razumkov Center of Political Studies and Kiev International Institute of Sociology showed Yushchenko winning with 56.5 percent and Yanukovych collecting 41.3 percent of the vote, with no margin of error given." Tendo em conta o apoio externo dado ao campeão da "liberdade", não parece lá um grande dia para ficar na História da Europa. Na verdade, pode ficar marcado pelo inicio da desconfiança mútua declarada entre a Rússia e a UE/EUA, empurrando a primeira para a China (na verdade, recentemente, assinaram um acordo de cooperação militar). Na Ucrânia, entretanto, os perdedores podem vir a achar que a unidade territorial é um pormenor.
Um modelo para o Médio Oriente
Uma Cidade Estado e Principado (...absoluto), parte de uma pequena e efectiva federação, perseguindo o comércio como o seu pilar de existência.
"This month, Dubai's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Rashid Maktum warned his fellow Arab leaders to "change, or you will be changed" at a forum attended by intellectuals, Middle Eastern politicians, business leaders and former president Bill Clinton.(...)
In a sign of Dubai's priorities, the world's tallest building -- a more than 2,500-foot spear known as the Dubai Tower -- and a $750 million mega-mall are rising on former military land.
Meanwhile, the city-state is pushing a development scheme of "world firsts." A German consortium has announced plans to build the world's first underwater hotel, to be named Hydropolis. The largest mall outside North America is scheduled to open next year. But that will quickly be trumped by the mall at the Dubai Tower complex, featuring an aquarium, amusement parks, a "floating fashion island" and a "seven-star" hotel, which will be the largest in the world.
Even that distinction will not last long: A still larger shopping center is planned for Dubailand, a collection of zoos, sports complexes, houses, spas, amusement parks and an indoor ski slope proposed by an Iranian investor group.
From the start, trade was central to its governing ethic and remained so even after oil was discovered here in 1966. Dubai's reserves pale in comparison with those of Abu Dhabi, which in 1971 became the capital of a federation of six emirates and largely finances the budget for each. A seventh joined a year later and each has developed a distinct character, from the traditional and pious Sharjah to cosmopolitan Dubai.
Dubai's majority immigration population has arrived from the east over the past three decades to build its gleaming infrastructure and sustain an economy based on tourism, real-estate development and industries spun off from the booming tax-free port. Oil accounts for about 5 percent of Dubai's economy, and in the past five years its non-oil sectors have grown at a combined annual average rate of more than 9 percent."
"This month, Dubai's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Rashid Maktum warned his fellow Arab leaders to "change, or you will be changed" at a forum attended by intellectuals, Middle Eastern politicians, business leaders and former president Bill Clinton.(...)
In a sign of Dubai's priorities, the world's tallest building -- a more than 2,500-foot spear known as the Dubai Tower -- and a $750 million mega-mall are rising on former military land.
Meanwhile, the city-state is pushing a development scheme of "world firsts." A German consortium has announced plans to build the world's first underwater hotel, to be named Hydropolis. The largest mall outside North America is scheduled to open next year. But that will quickly be trumped by the mall at the Dubai Tower complex, featuring an aquarium, amusement parks, a "floating fashion island" and a "seven-star" hotel, which will be the largest in the world.
Even that distinction will not last long: A still larger shopping center is planned for Dubailand, a collection of zoos, sports complexes, houses, spas, amusement parks and an indoor ski slope proposed by an Iranian investor group.
From the start, trade was central to its governing ethic and remained so even after oil was discovered here in 1966. Dubai's reserves pale in comparison with those of Abu Dhabi, which in 1971 became the capital of a federation of six emirates and largely finances the budget for each. A seventh joined a year later and each has developed a distinct character, from the traditional and pious Sharjah to cosmopolitan Dubai.
Dubai's majority immigration population has arrived from the east over the past three decades to build its gleaming infrastructure and sustain an economy based on tourism, real-estate development and industries spun off from the booming tax-free port. Oil accounts for about 5 percent of Dubai's economy, and in the past five years its non-oil sectors have grown at a combined annual average rate of more than 9 percent."
Pontes privadas
"With its tallest tower soaring more than 1,000 feet above the deepest part of the Tarn Valley of southern France, the world's highest bridge is an airy confection of light-colored steel and concrete, a source of French pride and more than a little Bay Area envy.
(...) Eiffage, the Millau bridge construction company -- which built the bridge entirely with private-sector funds -- plans on recouping its costs over the next 75 years through hefty tolls. Cars crossing the bridge will have to pay fees ranging from $6.10 in the off-season to $8.60 during the peak months of July and August. Truck tolls are even higher. "
Eiffage officials argue that the steep fees are offset by fewer driving hours for drivers zipping down a now-streamlined highway linking Paris and the Mediterranean. And they suggest that the project's private-sector backing, along with cutting-edge building technology and materials, helped shorten the construction timetable and cut costs.
"I can't say that we go faster in the private sector," said Eiffage spokeswoman Sandra Wiegand, "but the fact that we had to pay for the project was a stimulator" to finishing it on time.
In a country known for its cumbersome bureaucracy and paralyzing strikes, the Millau bridge is testament to a more visionary France."
(...) Eiffage, the Millau bridge construction company -- which built the bridge entirely with private-sector funds -- plans on recouping its costs over the next 75 years through hefty tolls. Cars crossing the bridge will have to pay fees ranging from $6.10 in the off-season to $8.60 during the peak months of July and August. Truck tolls are even higher. "
Eiffage officials argue that the steep fees are offset by fewer driving hours for drivers zipping down a now-streamlined highway linking Paris and the Mediterranean. And they suggest that the project's private-sector backing, along with cutting-edge building technology and materials, helped shorten the construction timetable and cut costs.
"I can't say that we go faster in the private sector," said Eiffage spokeswoman Sandra Wiegand, "but the fact that we had to pay for the project was a stimulator" to finishing it on time.
In a country known for its cumbersome bureaucracy and paralyzing strikes, the Millau bridge is testament to a more visionary France."
sábado, 25 de dezembro de 2004
CHRISTMAS TRUCE
"On Christmas Day, 1914, in the first year of World War I, German, British and French soldiers disobeyed their superiors and fraternized with "the enemy" along two-thirds of the Western Front. German troops held Christmas trees up out of the trenches with signs, "Merry Christmas." "You no shoot, we no shoot." Thousands of troops streamed across no-man's land strewn with rotting corpses. They sang Christmas carols, exchanged photographs of loved ones back home, shared rations, played football, even roasted some pigs. Soldiers embraced men they had been trying to kill a few short hours before.
(...) Generals on both sides declared this spontaneous peacemaking to be treasonous and subject to court martial. By March, 1915 the fraternization movement had been eradicated and the killing machine put back in full operation. By the time of the armistice in 1918, fifteen million people would be slaughtered."
E esta foi a guerra que ia "acabar com todas as guerras" e "fazer o mundo mais seguro" e "para a democracia". Resultado: as republicas totalitárias surgiram por todo o lado apenas adiando um novo confronto, as escolhas da segunda guerra fizeram de Estaline um aliado - o que acabou por expandir e internacionalizar o comunismo, e depois a guerra fria quase acabou com a humanidade.
(...) Generals on both sides declared this spontaneous peacemaking to be treasonous and subject to court martial. By March, 1915 the fraternization movement had been eradicated and the killing machine put back in full operation. By the time of the armistice in 1918, fifteen million people would be slaughtered."
E esta foi a guerra que ia "acabar com todas as guerras" e "fazer o mundo mais seguro" e "para a democracia". Resultado: as republicas totalitárias surgiram por todo o lado apenas adiando um novo confronto, as escolhas da segunda guerra fizeram de Estaline um aliado - o que acabou por expandir e internacionalizar o comunismo, e depois a guerra fria quase acabou com a humanidade.
sexta-feira, 24 de dezembro de 2004
George Lucas
Via revista Sábado:
"Os temas de ambos os filmes [THX-1138 e Guerra das Estrelas] são actuais e estão presentes há milhares de anos.
A ideia de uma sociedade totalitária é, no fim de contas, sobre as pessoas que abdicam das suas liberdades e não necessariamente sobre alguém que toma posse delas.
Esta é a parte que mais me assusta: as pessoas abdicarem das suas liberdades voluntariamente e de bom grado"
"Os temas de ambos os filmes [THX-1138 e Guerra das Estrelas] são actuais e estão presentes há milhares de anos.
A ideia de uma sociedade totalitária é, no fim de contas, sobre as pessoas que abdicam das suas liberdades e não necessariamente sobre alguém que toma posse delas.
Esta é a parte que mais me assusta: as pessoas abdicarem das suas liberdades voluntariamente e de bom grado"
He Didn't Gas the Kurds!!
Jude Wanniski (runs the financial/political advisory service Wanniski.com. )...[e é um supply sider conservative]:
The neo-cons who propagated the story that Saddam "gassed his own people," i.e., the Iraqi Kurds, will still insist he did gas the Kurds, back in 1988 when he gave the order to Chemical Ali, who told the Iraqi army to commit genocide at the town of Halabja. But the news from Mohammed al-Obaidi is that the team prosecuting Saddam for crimes against humanity has dropped the genocide charge “due to insufficient evidence.”
(...)As most of you know, I have for the last two years argued that whatever else Saddam Hussein did for good or ill as Iraq’s president since 1978, there is no evidence that he committed genocide.(...) Here is the note I got Monday from Dr. al-Obaidi (a medical doctor who has been in exile in London for 20 years and is no fan of Saddam, but who has been among those who have insisted there was no genocide committed by his regime):
"Dear Jude: I have just been informed by Mr. Al-Khasawnah, Chief lawyer of Saddam's legal team, that after the Iraqi lawyer, Mr. Khalil Al-Dulaimi met with Saddam a couple of days ago, the American legal authority in Iraq informed the lawyer that they have dropped the charges of Halabja and genocide in the south against Saddam due to insufficient evidence.
This clearly indicates that the information the legal team had about the responsibility of what happened in Halabja lies on Iran and not Iraq and made the American authority drop this charge against him.
Best regards Mohammed"
Global warming bombshell - hockey-stick plot used modified data
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey-stick.
In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalisation in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalisation procedure tends to emphasise any data that do have the hockey-stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not.
In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalisation in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalisation procedure tends to emphasise any data that do have the hockey-stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not.
quinta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2004
How Did the Blogosphere Get Fooled on Ukraine?
"Ukraine is a multi-party parliamentary democracy which has held several both presidential and parliamentary elections in the presence of international observers since 1994.(...)Viktor Yanukovich has never, to my knowledge, officially expressed hostility to parliamentary democracy as such.(...)The present democratic constitution of Ukraine was adopted under the leadership of Yanukovich's presumed mentor Leonid Kuchma and it is precisely Yanukovich and Kuchma - not Yushchenko and Timoshenko - who were pushing for the recently adopted raft of constitutional reforms that transfer powers to parliament.
(...)As for the description of Yanukovich as a “nationalist”, for all I know he may well be one – but being a native Russian-speaker who has his most solid base of support among the Russophone minority of the Eastern Ukraine and whose political party is named the “Party of Regions”, he is most certainly not a Ukrainian nationalist.
On the other hand...
as has been discussed here (see, in particular, the “update”), openly Ukrainian nationalist forces – more precisely, Ukrainian ethnic-nationalist forces – including political formations that have direct historical links to movements that well deserve the designation “fascist” or, to be more precise, Nazi, do indeed form part of the “orange” coalition. As has likewise been seen here, moreover, representatives of these formations and press organs openly supporting the "Orange" have traded in overtly anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing.
In any case, by falling back upon Cold War schemas, some of the, let’s say, anti-anti-American sectors of the blogosphere have inadvertently provided ammunition to their enemies. As I have repeatedly noted here, there is much evidence that Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yanukovich did indeed have significant popular support in Ukraine: notably in its Russophone east. Hence, the possibility of a Yanukovich victory in the November elections was hardly implausible.
The actual division of Ukraine between the pro-Yushchenko "Orange" and the pro-Yanukovich "Blue" has, however, been effaced by the fable of the Ukrainian people, seemingly as one solid mass, rising up against Kremlinite tyranny.
Nicholas Kristof did not even wait for the results of the Ukrainian election re-run to make use of this simplification against the current American administration and its Iraq policy. Thus, he notes in his NYTimes column of 8 December that “These days, Ukraine’s pro-democracy leader, Viktor Yushchenko, is promising to pull Ukraine’s troops out of Iraq. A Ukraine that is responsive to public opinion, it seems, will not be a member of our coalition.” Nice work, guys...."
Transatlantic Intelligencer
(...)As for the description of Yanukovich as a “nationalist”, for all I know he may well be one – but being a native Russian-speaker who has his most solid base of support among the Russophone minority of the Eastern Ukraine and whose political party is named the “Party of Regions”, he is most certainly not a Ukrainian nationalist.
On the other hand...
as has been discussed here (see, in particular, the “update”), openly Ukrainian nationalist forces – more precisely, Ukrainian ethnic-nationalist forces – including political formations that have direct historical links to movements that well deserve the designation “fascist” or, to be more precise, Nazi, do indeed form part of the “orange” coalition. As has likewise been seen here, moreover, representatives of these formations and press organs openly supporting the "Orange" have traded in overtly anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing.
In any case, by falling back upon Cold War schemas, some of the, let’s say, anti-anti-American sectors of the blogosphere have inadvertently provided ammunition to their enemies. As I have repeatedly noted here, there is much evidence that Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yanukovich did indeed have significant popular support in Ukraine: notably in its Russophone east. Hence, the possibility of a Yanukovich victory in the November elections was hardly implausible.
The actual division of Ukraine between the pro-Yushchenko "Orange" and the pro-Yanukovich "Blue" has, however, been effaced by the fable of the Ukrainian people, seemingly as one solid mass, rising up against Kremlinite tyranny.
Nicholas Kristof did not even wait for the results of the Ukrainian election re-run to make use of this simplification against the current American administration and its Iraq policy. Thus, he notes in his NYTimes column of 8 December that “These days, Ukraine’s pro-democracy leader, Viktor Yushchenko, is promising to pull Ukraine’s troops out of Iraq. A Ukraine that is responsive to public opinion, it seems, will not be a member of our coalition.” Nice work, guys...."
Transatlantic Intelligencer
Em defesa da poupança
...incluindo guardar as notas debaixo da almofada
"If you build a house and refuse to buy a house, the rest of the world is one house richer. If you earn a dollar and refuse to spend a dollar, the rest of the world is one dollar richer—because you produced a dollar's worth of goods and didn't consume them.
Who exactly gets those goods? That depends on how you save.
Put a dollar in the bank and you'll bid down the interest rate by just enough so someone somewhere can afford an extra dollar's worth of vacation or home improvement.
Put a dollar in your mattress and (by effectively reducing the money supply) you'll drive down prices by just enough so someone somewhere can have an extra dollar's worth of coffee with his dinner."
"What I Like About Scrooge - In praise of misers." By Steven E. Landsburg, Slate.comBobby Fischer
REYKJAVIK (AP) Iceland has rejected a U.S. request to drop the offer of a residency permit for former American chess champion Bobby Fischer, officials said Tuesday.
The U.S. ambassador to Iceland, James Gadsden, asked the country last week to withdraw its offer because Fischer is wanted in the United States on criminal charges.
Fischer, who is being held in Japan, is wanted in the United States on charges of violating U.N. sanctions against Yugoslavia when he played a chess match there in 1992.
Fischer, who has said he would like to move to Iceland, is fighting a deportation order to the United States.
PS: O simbolo de uma vitória pacifica contra a URSS durante a Guerra Fria, é, perseguido pela real politik internacionalista. Bobby Fischer é marcadamente um individualista ultra-politicamente incorrecto (o suficiente para por à margem os "politicamente incorrectos" politicamente corrrectos).
The U.S. ambassador to Iceland, James Gadsden, asked the country last week to withdraw its offer because Fischer is wanted in the United States on criminal charges.
Fischer, who is being held in Japan, is wanted in the United States on charges of violating U.N. sanctions against Yugoslavia when he played a chess match there in 1992.
Fischer, who has said he would like to move to Iceland, is fighting a deportation order to the United States.
PS: O simbolo de uma vitória pacifica contra a URSS durante a Guerra Fria, é, perseguido pela real politik internacionalista. Bobby Fischer é marcadamente um individualista ultra-politicamente incorrecto (o suficiente para por à margem os "politicamente incorrectos" politicamente corrrectos).
Liberventionists: The Nationalist Internationalists
"Liberventionism is saturated by contradictions: using government to bring about liberty, bombing cities to bring about peace, occupying countries for the sake of liberation, initiating force to combat aggression, and so forth.
Sometimes the liberventionists concede that war is a zero-sum game, that to save Americans "we" must kill innocent foreigners – or to save foreigners "we" must sacrifice Americans to the cause – and conclude that real libertarians, who oppose war, are either overly "nationalistic" or "isolationist," and thus deaf to the screams of the oppressed people abroad; or, as the case may be, overly "internationalist": we care more about foreigners than Americans.
The liberventionists who want to have it both ways – who think that sacrificing American lives will bring freedom to people abroad, and yet killing innocents abroad will save American lives – are a bizarre group of nationalist internationalists.
They believe in and advocate the US nation-state’s ability to centrally plan the world toward liberty. Indeed, these people believe the US government is capable of accomplishments that border on the Messianic. They worship the state, as if it were some sort of omnipotent deity that can, through the omnisciently chosen applications of miraculous violence, bring about what’s best for everyone.
In truth, war is almost always a negative-sum game. It is a tragedy for everyone involved, minus the political elite of the winning state.
On the other hand, so think many of the liberventionists, we real libertarians also couldn’t care less about the oppression of foreigners. If we oppose Gulf War II, it’s because we prefer Saddam Hussein to a life of liberty for the Iraqi people. If we oppose the Cold War, we are turning our backs to the victims of Communism. If we question World War II, we are Nazi sympathizers who care nothing about those that Hitler oppressed and mass-murdered. To sum up, we are insufficiently internationalist.
In opposing the US warfare state, we allegedly disgrace our country. In waiting for a foreign enemy to attack before retaliating, we would let Americans die before tolerating the necessary collateral damage of innocent foreign men, women and children. To sum up, we don’t seem to care as much about American lives as foreign lives, and, in fact, we don’t feel adequately connected to the US state as some sort of extension of ourselves. In other words, we are insufficiently nationalist." Anthony Gregory
Sometimes the liberventionists concede that war is a zero-sum game, that to save Americans "we" must kill innocent foreigners – or to save foreigners "we" must sacrifice Americans to the cause – and conclude that real libertarians, who oppose war, are either overly "nationalistic" or "isolationist," and thus deaf to the screams of the oppressed people abroad; or, as the case may be, overly "internationalist": we care more about foreigners than Americans.
The liberventionists who want to have it both ways – who think that sacrificing American lives will bring freedom to people abroad, and yet killing innocents abroad will save American lives – are a bizarre group of nationalist internationalists.
They believe in and advocate the US nation-state’s ability to centrally plan the world toward liberty. Indeed, these people believe the US government is capable of accomplishments that border on the Messianic. They worship the state, as if it were some sort of omnipotent deity that can, through the omnisciently chosen applications of miraculous violence, bring about what’s best for everyone.
In truth, war is almost always a negative-sum game. It is a tragedy for everyone involved, minus the political elite of the winning state.
On the other hand, so think many of the liberventionists, we real libertarians also couldn’t care less about the oppression of foreigners. If we oppose Gulf War II, it’s because we prefer Saddam Hussein to a life of liberty for the Iraqi people. If we oppose the Cold War, we are turning our backs to the victims of Communism. If we question World War II, we are Nazi sympathizers who care nothing about those that Hitler oppressed and mass-murdered. To sum up, we are insufficiently internationalist.
In opposing the US warfare state, we allegedly disgrace our country. In waiting for a foreign enemy to attack before retaliating, we would let Americans die before tolerating the necessary collateral damage of innocent foreign men, women and children. To sum up, we don’t seem to care as much about American lives as foreign lives, and, in fact, we don’t feel adequately connected to the US state as some sort of extension of ourselves. In other words, we are insufficiently nationalist." Anthony Gregory
terça-feira, 21 de dezembro de 2004
William Gladstone
"Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." -
PS: Gladstone foi mais um Liberal Inglês (a juntar a Lord Acton) que apoiava a secessão dos Estados Confederados (Sulistas) na "Guerra Civil" americana.Via Wikipedia:
William Ewart Gladstone (December 29, 1809 - May 19, 1898) was a British Liberal politician and Prime Minister (1868-1874, 1880-1885, 1886 and 1892-1894). He was a notable political reformer, known for his populist speeches, and was for many years the main political rival of Benjamin Disraeli.
As Chancellor he pushed to extend the free trade liberalisations in the 1840s and worked to reduce public expenditure. He also took his moral and religious ideals into politics (he was a Nonconformist), but in a progressive manner later called Gladstonian Liberalism.He was re-elected for the University of Oxford in 1847 and became a constant critic of Lord Palmerston.
Gladstone became Chancellor of the Exchequer till 1855 and unsuccessfully tried to abolish the income tax.
Gladstone left the Conservatives and joined the newly formed Liberal Party. As Chancellor, he made a controversial speech which seemed to support the independence of the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War.
Gladstonian Liberalism was characterised, in the 1860s and 1870s, by a number of policies intended to improve individual liberty and loosen political and economic restraints. First was the minimization of public expenditure, on the basis that the economy and society were best helped by allowing people to spend as they saw fit. Secondly, a foreign policy aimed at promoting peace helped reduced expenditure and taxation as well as help trade. Thirdly, there was the reform of government institutions or laws that prevented people from acting freely to improve themselves.
Tribalism Finished Rome
"There is a certain type of libertarian who ignores the group and concentrate only on the individual. This ignores the fact people have throughout history formed themselves into tribes, and always will. If tribes get big enough, they fight. I expect this to come to a head in Europe long before the US. The countries of Europe certainly do appear to be nations of eternal war, as was noticed by the Founders centuries ago. You'd think Europe would have learned their lesson in the 20th century about fighting tribes, but apparently not. The US will have some problems, too, but we usually fix them before they get too bad." Bob Wallace
Secessão
Members of the Basque parliament have voted in favour of proposals for more autonomy from Spain.
"The plan, drawn up by the leader of the Basque government, Juan Jose Ibarretxe, calls for a referendum on independence. This vote in the Basque parliament's institutional commission is the first important step for the Ibarretxe plan. The autonomy plan calls for a separate judiciary, police force, financial system and a distinct citizenship for those with Basque ancestry.
The commission voted to support the proposal after more than a year of heated debate. The document needs the endorsement of the regional parliament before it can go to a referendum. "
"The plan, drawn up by the leader of the Basque government, Juan Jose Ibarretxe, calls for a referendum on independence. This vote in the Basque parliament's institutional commission is the first important step for the Ibarretxe plan. The autonomy plan calls for a separate judiciary, police force, financial system and a distinct citizenship for those with Basque ancestry.
The commission voted to support the proposal after more than a year of heated debate. The document needs the endorsement of the regional parliament before it can go to a referendum. "
segunda-feira, 20 de dezembro de 2004
Alguém diga a José Manuel Fernandes...
...que a palavra "democracia" não aparece uma única vez nem na Declaração da Independência, nem nos Artigos da Confederação, nem sequer na Constituição Americana.
Isto a propósito do seu comentário a "The Roads to Modernity The British, French, and Americam Enlightnments" Gertrude Himmelfarb (talvez a "mãe" NeoCon uma vez que o seu marido é o "pai" Irving Kristol,e seu filho Bill Kristoll [Weekly Standard])
"...[d]aqueles que fundaram a primeira República moderna, os "founding fathers" (país fundadores) da democracia americana."
E, como disse, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, em "Leftism Revisited" (Washington D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990):
"Of the American founders, Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. Likewise, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Morris, has a strong monarchist leanings. George Washington expressed his profound distate of democracy in a letter of September 30, 1798, to James McHenry. John Adams was convinced that every society grows aristocrats as inevitably as a field of corn will grow some large ears and some small. In a letter to John Taylor he insisted, like Plato and Aristotle, that democracy would ultimately envolve into despotism, aind in a letter to Jefferson he declared that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel". James Madison, in a letter to Jared Parks, complained of the difficulty "of protecting the rights of property against the spirit of democracy". And even Thomas Jefferson, probably the most "democratic" of the Founders, confessed in a letter to John Adams that he considered:
the natural aristocracy...as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts and governments of society...may we not even say that that form of government is best, which provides most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?
Characterizing the general attitude of the founders, them, the most appropriate pronouncement is that of John Randolph of Roanoke: "I am an aristocrat: i love liberty, i hate equality"
Isto a propósito do seu comentário a "The Roads to Modernity The British, French, and Americam Enlightnments" Gertrude Himmelfarb (talvez a "mãe" NeoCon uma vez que o seu marido é o "pai" Irving Kristol,e seu filho Bill Kristoll [Weekly Standard])
"...[d]aqueles que fundaram a primeira República moderna, os "founding fathers" (país fundadores) da democracia americana."
E, como disse, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, em "Leftism Revisited" (Washington D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990):
"Of the American founders, Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. Likewise, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Morris, has a strong monarchist leanings. George Washington expressed his profound distate of democracy in a letter of September 30, 1798, to James McHenry. John Adams was convinced that every society grows aristocrats as inevitably as a field of corn will grow some large ears and some small. In a letter to John Taylor he insisted, like Plato and Aristotle, that democracy would ultimately envolve into despotism, aind in a letter to Jefferson he declared that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel". James Madison, in a letter to Jared Parks, complained of the difficulty "of protecting the rights of property against the spirit of democracy". And even Thomas Jefferson, probably the most "democratic" of the Founders, confessed in a letter to John Adams that he considered:
the natural aristocracy...as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts and governments of society...may we not even say that that form of government is best, which provides most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?
Characterizing the general attitude of the founders, them, the most appropriate pronouncement is that of John Randolph of Roanoke: "I am an aristocrat: i love liberty, i hate equality"
domingo, 19 de dezembro de 2004
The Reluctant Anarchist
Joe Sobran (received his B.A. in English from Eastern Michigan University and pursued graduate studies in English, specializing in Shakespeare. From 1969 to 1970 he taught English on a fellowship and lectured on Shakespeare. In 1972, he went to work for National Review Magazine, beginning what would be a 21-year stint, including 18 years as senior editor. From 1979 to 1991, Mr. Sobran was a regular commentator on CBS Radio’s “Spectrum” series. He also writes the weekly column “Washington Watch” for The Wanderer, a weekly Catholic newspaper, which is also posted on this site. ):
"My arrival (very recently) at philosophical anarchism has disturbed some of my conservative and Christian friends. In fact, it surprises me, going as it does against my own inclinations. As a child I acquired a deep respect for authority and a horror of chaos.(...)
As I grew up, my patriotism began to take another form, which it took me a long time to realize was in tension with the patriotism of power. I became a philosophical conservative, with a strong libertarian streak. I believed in government, but it had to be “limited” government — confined to a few legitimate purposes, such as defense abroad and policing at home.
These functions, and hardly any others, I accepted, under the influence of writers like Ayn Rand and Henry Hazlitt, whose books I read in my college years. Though I disliked Rand’s atheism (at the time, I was irreligious, but not anti-religious), she had an odd appeal to my residual Catholicism. I had read enough Aquinas to respond to her Aristotelian mantras. Everything had to have its own nature and limitations, including the state; the idea of a state continually growing, knowing no boundaries, forever increasing its claims on the citizen, offended and frightened me. It could only end in tyranny. (...)
Still, the last thing I expected to become was an anarchist. For many years I didn’t even know that serious philosophical anarchists existed. I’d never heard of Lysander Spooner or Murray Rothbard. How could society survive at all without a state?
Now I began to be critical of the U.S. Government, though not very. I saw that the welfare state, chiefly the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, violated the principles of limited government and would eventually have to go. But I agreed with other conservatives that in the meantime the urgent global threat of Communism had to be stopped.
Since I viewed “defense” as one of the proper tasks of government, I thought of the Cold War as a necessity, the overhead, so to speak, of freedom. If the Soviet threat ever ceased (the prospect seemed remote), we could afford to slash the military budget and get back to the job of dismantling the welfare state. Somewhere, at the rainbow’s end, America would return to her founding principles. The Federal Government would be shrunk, laws would be few, taxes minimal. That was what I thought. Hoped, anyway. (...)
The key to it all, I thought, was the Tenth Amendment, which forbids the Federal Government to exercise any powers not specifically assigned to it in the Constitution. But the Tenth Amendment had been comatose since the New Deal, when Roosevelt’s Court virtually excised it. This meant that nearly all Federal legislation from the New Deal to the Great Society and beyond had been unconstitutional. Instead of fighting liberal programs piecemeal, conservatives could undermine the whole lot of them by reviving the true (and, really, obvious) meaning of the Constitution. Liberalism depended on a long series of usurpations of power.(...)
In a way I had transferred my patriotism from America as it then was to America as it had been when it still honored the Constitution. And when had it crossed the line? At first I thought the great corruption had occurred when Franklin Roosevelt subverted the Federal judiciary; later I came to see that the decisive event had been the Civil War, which had effectively destroyed the right of the states to secede from the Union. But this was very much a minority view among conservatives, particularly at National Review, where I was the only one who held it.(...)
In the late 1980s I began mixing with Rothbardian libertarians — they called themselves by the unprepossessing label “anarcho-capitalists” — and even met Rothbard himself. They were a brilliant, combative lot, full of challenging ideas and surprising arguments. Rothbard himself combined a profound theoretical intelligence with a deep knowledge of history. His magnum opus, Man, Economy, and State, had received the most unqualified praise of the usually reserved Henry Hazlitt — in National Review! I can only say of Murray what so many others have said: never in my life have I encountered such an original and vigorous mind. (...)
He insisted that the Philadelphia convention at which the Constitution had been drafted was nothing but a “coup d’etat,” centralizing power and destroying the far more tolerable arrangements of the Articles of Confederation. This was a direct denial of everything I’d been taught. I’d never heard anyone suggest that the Articles had been preferable to the Constitution! But Murray didn’t care what anyone thought — or what everyone thought.(...)
Murray died a few years ago without quite having made an anarchist of me. It was left to his brilliant disciple, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, to finish my conversion.
Hans argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution “meant,” steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out. What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was “indissoluble” unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that.(...)
As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street.(...)
Americans still agreed in principle that the Federal Government could acquire new powers only by constitutional amendment. Hence the postwar amendments included the words “Congress shall have power to” enact such and such legislation.
But by the time of the New Deal, such scruples were all but defunct. Franklin Roosevelt and his Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause so broadly as to authorize virtually any Federal claim, and the Tenth Amendment so narrowly as to deprive it of any inhibiting force.
Today these heresies are so firmly entrenched that Congress rarely even asks itself whether a proposed law is authorized or forbidden by the Constitution. In short, the U.S. Constitution is a dead letter. It was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can’t be revived. This remained hard for me to admit, and even now it pains me to say it. (...)
My fellow Christians have argued that the state’s authority is divinely given. They cite Christ’s injunction “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” and St. Paul’s words “The powers that be are ordained of God.” But Christ didn’t say which things — if any — belong to Caesar; his ambiguous words are far from a command to give Caesar whatever he claims. And it’s notable that Christ never told his disciples either to establish a state or to engage in politics. They were to preach the Gospel and, if rejected, to move on. He seems never to have imagined the state as something they could or should enlist on their side.
At first sight, St. Paul seems to be more positive in affirming the authority of the state. But he himself, like the other martyrs, died for defying the state, and we honor him for it; to which we may add that he was on one occasion a jailbreaker as well. Evidently the passage in Romans has been misread. It was probably written during the reign of Nero, not the most edifying of rulers; but then Paul also counseled slaves to obey their masters, and nobody construes this as an endorsement of slavery. He may have meant that the state and slavery were here for the foreseeable future, and that Christians must abide them for the sake of peace. Never does he say that either is here forever.
St. Augustine took a dim view of the state, as a punishment for sin. He said that a state without justice is nothing but a gang of robbers writ large, while leaving doubt that any state could ever be otherwise.
St. Thomas Aquinas took a more benign view, arguing that the state would be necessary even if man had never fallen from grace; but he agreed with Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all, a doctrine that would severely diminish any known state.
The essence of the state is its legal monopoly of force. (...). It’s entirely possible that states — organized force — will always rule this world, and that we will have at best a choice among evils. And some states are worse than others in important ways: anyone in his right mind would prefer living in the United States to life under a Stalin.
But to say a thing is inevitable, or less onerous than something else, is not to say it is good. For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism — things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn’t disturb them. Yet it’s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning.
They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can’t assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label. “But what would you replace the state with?” The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be “replaced.”
Christians, and especially Americans, have long been misled about all this by their good fortune. Since the conversion of Rome, most Western rulers have been more or less inhibited by Christian morality (though, often enough, not so’s you’d notice), and even warfare became somewhat civilized for centuries; and this has bred the assumption that the state isn’t necessarily an evil at all.
But as that morality loses its cultural grip, as it is rapidly doing, this confusion will dissipate. More and more we can expect the state to show its nature nakedly. For me this is anything but a happy conclusion. I miss the serenity of believing I lived under a good government, wisely designed and benevolent in its operation.
But, as St. Paul says, there comes a time to put away childish things."
terça-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2004
Cristãos no Médio Oriente
1. "Iraq's besieged Christians weigh taking up arms, fleeing into exile"
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Leaders of the ever-dwindling Christian population in Iraq say bombings of their churches and attacks against their communities may force them to take up guns.
Two more churches were bombed in Mosul last week, the latest attacks, and some Christians say extremist Muslims are terrorizing them with the intent of ousting them and seizing their houses and belongings.
Iraq is home to one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, made up largely of ethnic Assyrians, an ancient people who speak a modern form of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. But as the turmoil increases, hundreds of Christian families are leaving each week for exile in Syria and Turkey. "
2. Christians leaving
The mayor of Bethlehem has blasted the Israeli occupation as an oppressive siege which is forcing Christians to leave the traditional birthplace of Jesus Christ in ever increasing numbers.
(...)
About 2400 Christians out of a total of approximately 40,000 living in Bethlehem and surrounding areas in the southern West Bank have left since the September 2000 start of the Palestinian intifada, according to Nasir.
"Imagine the city of Bethlehem with no Christians," he said.
"Christians all over the world should know this reality. If we don't have a quick breakthrough in the peace process more are going to leave."
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Leaders of the ever-dwindling Christian population in Iraq say bombings of their churches and attacks against their communities may force them to take up guns.
Two more churches were bombed in Mosul last week, the latest attacks, and some Christians say extremist Muslims are terrorizing them with the intent of ousting them and seizing their houses and belongings.
Iraq is home to one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, made up largely of ethnic Assyrians, an ancient people who speak a modern form of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. But as the turmoil increases, hundreds of Christian families are leaving each week for exile in Syria and Turkey. "
2. Christians leaving
The mayor of Bethlehem has blasted the Israeli occupation as an oppressive siege which is forcing Christians to leave the traditional birthplace of Jesus Christ in ever increasing numbers.
(...)
About 2400 Christians out of a total of approximately 40,000 living in Bethlehem and surrounding areas in the southern West Bank have left since the September 2000 start of the Palestinian intifada, according to Nasir.
"Imagine the city of Bethlehem with no Christians," he said.
"Christians all over the world should know this reality. If we don't have a quick breakthrough in the peace process more are going to leave."
More Guns and Butter
Medicare was born in 1966 when the war in Vietnam was escalating relentlessly,costing the lives of more than 15,000 American soldiers during the year. Whenthe war threatened to divert funds from President Johnson’s “War on Poverty,”the President stuck to his contention that it was possible to have both guns andbutter. The Vietnam War drew to an end in 1973 when a cease-fire agreement wasreached and American troops were withdrawn. The war on poverty has dragged onever since and Medicare has grown manyfold.
In the footsteps of President Lyndon B. Johnson, President George W. Bush nowstands his ground that we may have both guns for Iraq and butter for hissociety. Last year, upon his urging, Congress added another Federal entitlementprogram – the first major addition in a generation – Medicare for prescriptiondrugs. It does not begin until 2006 and then phases in over a number of yearsbefore becoming fully effective.(...)
President Johnson’s guns-and-butter policy led to painful social and economicupheaval. Soaring budget deficits together with Federal Reserve easy moneyintroduced the unprecedented phenomenon of both rising prices and risingunemployment. In August 1971 President Nixon finally froze all prices, wages,and rents. He devalued the dollar in December 1971, further in 1973, and againin 1974. Surely we cannot see what the future may bring, but the lamp ofexperience may guide our steps. It casts dark shadows on President Bush’sguns-and-butter policy." Hans F. Sennholz www.sennholz.com
segunda-feira, 13 de dezembro de 2004
Nota sobre a demissão do Governo
A demissão do governo, de acordo com as vagas razões invocadas pela Presidência para a interrupção da legislatura, são o verdadeiro acto consequente na situação política actual. O estranho é esse acto não ter sido do Presidente, mas do Governo. Pelo que se conclui que o Governo ajudou o Presidente a dar coerência às suas invocadas razões. Trata-se de um acto digno e de um exemplo comovente de solidariedade institucional...
A "estabilidade" como novo Boojum da caça presidencial ao Snark
No dia 11, o Presidente da República falou enfim ao País e percebeu-se o que aconteceu: Jorge Sampaio decidiu trocar o seu posicionamento estrictamente constitucional por um posicionamento claramente "político". Fê-lo usando a sua prerrogativa constitucional, entenda-se, mas abandonando uma interpretação restrictiva do texto da Constituição e substituindo-a por uma interpretação mais "livre". É que dizer-se que o "regular funcionamento das instituições", com a gravidade pressuposta na letra da Constituição, estava em causa, dificilmente é defensável; pelo que Sampaio usou essa figura legal para cobrir uma opção sua, que é legal e legítima, mas não é "supra-partidária" (como a atitude constitucionalista restrictiva).
O convite à maioria dissolvida para que aprove o Orçamento Geral do Estado é revelador da componente puramente "política" desta decisão: Sampaio deixou de querer este primeiro-ministro, mas o que este projectava fazer (do que o Orçamento é expressão maior) não é considerado tão mau que justifique uma oposição de Belém. O problema para Sampaio, portanto, é Pedro Santana Lopes e não a acção projectada do governo. Pelo que, se houve mudança de comportamento "político" do governo, também parece ter havido mudança na atitude do presidente. E o argumento da "instabilidade" provocada pelo governo (insinuada pelo Presidente) é um pau de dois bicos porque a interrupção da legislatura não cabe no argumentário da estabilidade política.
O convite à maioria dissolvida para que aprove o Orçamento Geral do Estado é revelador da componente puramente "política" desta decisão: Sampaio deixou de querer este primeiro-ministro, mas o que este projectava fazer (do que o Orçamento é expressão maior) não é considerado tão mau que justifique uma oposição de Belém. O problema para Sampaio, portanto, é Pedro Santana Lopes e não a acção projectada do governo. Pelo que, se houve mudança de comportamento "político" do governo, também parece ter havido mudança na atitude do presidente. E o argumento da "instabilidade" provocada pelo governo (insinuada pelo Presidente) é um pau de dois bicos porque a interrupção da legislatura não cabe no argumentário da estabilidade política.
Catholicism and Austrian Economics
Em Morality and Economic Law: Toward a Reconciliation, Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
"(...)Let me be clear: those of us within the Church who advocate the Austrian approach to economics are not demanding that the popes preach Austrian economics from the Chair of Peter. No one with any knowledge of the development of economic thought among churchmen over the centuries would dare to claim that a single view could constitute "Catholic economics." Against those who suggest that a Catholic may look at economic matters in only one way, Professor Daniel Villey reminds us that "Catholic theology does not exclude pluralism of opinions on profane matters." We do not claim that ours alone is "Catholic economics," but merely that what we teach is not only not antagonistic to, but in fact is profoundly compatible with, traditional Catholicism.
A profound philosophical commonality exists between Catholicism and the brilliant edifice of truth to be found within the Austrian school of economics. The Austrian method of praxeology should be especially attractive to the Catholic. Carl Menger, but above all Mises and his followers, sought to ground economic principles on the basis of absolute truth, apprehensible by means of reflection on the nature of reality.
What in the social sciences could be more congenial to the Catholic mind than this?
Likewise, Austrian economics reveals to us a universe of order, whose structure we can apprehend through our reason. As Professor Jeffrey Herbener explains, "A causal-realistic approach to economics arose in Christendom because only there did scholars conceive of nature as an interconnected order, created in the flux of time by God out of nothing, and governed by God-ordained natural laws that human intellect could discover and use to comprehend nature, with the goal of ruling over it for God’s glory." The alternative is the world of John Stuart Mill, who posited that it was entirely possible that we might find some place in the universe where two and two do not make four—a view which, in Herbener’s words, "is grounded in the metaphysical position that the universe is not an orderly creation." Which one is more compatible with Catholicism should not be difficult to discern.
The Church has always maintained that faith and reason are not in conflict, but rather constitute two harmonious paths to truth. That is the approach toward the secular world that makes the most sense for a Catholic, and for which there exists considerable precedent throughout history. In the second century, St. Justin Martyr spoke of the "seeds of the Word" to be found in the ancient Greeks, and Clement of Alexandria insisted that the great works of the Greeks be studied at his renowned catechetical school. St. John of Damascus (John Damascene) adopted the same attitude. He favored the study and use of what was good in Greek philosophy because "whatever there is of good has been given to men from above by God, since ‘every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.’"
In my book on Catholic intellectual life during the Progressive Era, I show that the same type of interaction with secular knowledge was at work in the early twentieth century as well. It is simply not possible to question the doctrinal orthodoxy of the men I profiled in that book. At the same time, they were not afraid to engage in selective appropriation of the best of secular thought wherever it contained an insight that might be of benefit to the Church, all the while keeping the Faith itself free from profanation.
Yet while the Church has not hesitated in the past to make use of whatever secular knowledge has to teach, what is especially interesting about the present case is that the secular truths that economic theory has to teach were in some cases anticipated or even discovered by some of the Church’s own theologians. The Austrian School carries forward a great many of the economic insights of the late Scholastic theologians—a source of pride, not shame, for modern-day Catholics. The Scholastics perceived clear relationships of cause and effect at work in the economy, particularly after observing the considerable price inflation that occurred in sixteenth-century Spain as a result of the influx of precious metals from the New World. From the observation that the greater supply of specie had led to a decline in the purchasing power of money, they came to the more general conclusion—an economic law, as it were—that an increase in the supply of any good will tend to bring about a decrease in its price.
The Austrian School also shows what reason, properly exercised, can accomplish, and surely this is something that Catholics, who have always granted reason its rightful due, ought to appreciate. The great economic treatises of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard begin with the axiom that human beings act, and proceed to the elaboration of an entire economic system from this irrefutable premise and a few subsidiary postulates. Austrians reject the mathematization of the discipline that other paradigms have encouraged, and dismiss artificial models that reduce man to a mere atom. They are methodological dualists who insist that the study of man, who unlike animals and inanimate things is endowed with reason and free will, is something unique, conceptually distinct from the study of the physical universe, and they criticize the attempt to fashion economics along the model of physics and the hard sciences.
This, clearly, is a system that is eminently congenial to the Catholic mind.
Economics does not contain all the answers of life, nor does it claim to. It does, however, show how the morally acceptable desire for profit leads to spontaneous social cooperation that obviates the need for a bloated state apparatus to direct production. It shows us the fascinating mechanisms by which peaceful social cooperation, without the initiation of physical force, leads to overall prosperity. This means less disease, more leisure time to spend with our families, and greater opportunities to enjoy the good things of civilization.
In A Humane Economy, Wilhelm Ropke wrote:
What overweening arrogance there is in the disparagement of things economic, what ignorant neglect of the sum of work, sacrifice, devotion, pioneering spirit, common decency, and conscientiousness upon which depends the bare life of the world’s enormous and ever-growing population! The sum of all these humble things supports the whole edifice of our civilization, and without them there could be neither freedom nor justice, the masses would not have a life fit for human beings, and no helping hand would be extended to anyone. . . . Romanticizing and moralistic contempt for the economy, including contempt of the impulses which move the market economy and the institutions that support it, must be as far from our minds as economism, materialism, and utilitarianism.
That is sound advice from a wise man. It also happens to be the very message that Catholics working within the Austrian tradition have been trying to convey.
"(...)Let me be clear: those of us within the Church who advocate the Austrian approach to economics are not demanding that the popes preach Austrian economics from the Chair of Peter. No one with any knowledge of the development of economic thought among churchmen over the centuries would dare to claim that a single view could constitute "Catholic economics." Against those who suggest that a Catholic may look at economic matters in only one way, Professor Daniel Villey reminds us that "Catholic theology does not exclude pluralism of opinions on profane matters." We do not claim that ours alone is "Catholic economics," but merely that what we teach is not only not antagonistic to, but in fact is profoundly compatible with, traditional Catholicism.
A profound philosophical commonality exists between Catholicism and the brilliant edifice of truth to be found within the Austrian school of economics. The Austrian method of praxeology should be especially attractive to the Catholic. Carl Menger, but above all Mises and his followers, sought to ground economic principles on the basis of absolute truth, apprehensible by means of reflection on the nature of reality.
What in the social sciences could be more congenial to the Catholic mind than this?
Likewise, Austrian economics reveals to us a universe of order, whose structure we can apprehend through our reason. As Professor Jeffrey Herbener explains, "A causal-realistic approach to economics arose in Christendom because only there did scholars conceive of nature as an interconnected order, created in the flux of time by God out of nothing, and governed by God-ordained natural laws that human intellect could discover and use to comprehend nature, with the goal of ruling over it for God’s glory." The alternative is the world of John Stuart Mill, who posited that it was entirely possible that we might find some place in the universe where two and two do not make four—a view which, in Herbener’s words, "is grounded in the metaphysical position that the universe is not an orderly creation." Which one is more compatible with Catholicism should not be difficult to discern.
The Church has always maintained that faith and reason are not in conflict, but rather constitute two harmonious paths to truth. That is the approach toward the secular world that makes the most sense for a Catholic, and for which there exists considerable precedent throughout history. In the second century, St. Justin Martyr spoke of the "seeds of the Word" to be found in the ancient Greeks, and Clement of Alexandria insisted that the great works of the Greeks be studied at his renowned catechetical school. St. John of Damascus (John Damascene) adopted the same attitude. He favored the study and use of what was good in Greek philosophy because "whatever there is of good has been given to men from above by God, since ‘every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.’"
In my book on Catholic intellectual life during the Progressive Era, I show that the same type of interaction with secular knowledge was at work in the early twentieth century as well. It is simply not possible to question the doctrinal orthodoxy of the men I profiled in that book. At the same time, they were not afraid to engage in selective appropriation of the best of secular thought wherever it contained an insight that might be of benefit to the Church, all the while keeping the Faith itself free from profanation.
Yet while the Church has not hesitated in the past to make use of whatever secular knowledge has to teach, what is especially interesting about the present case is that the secular truths that economic theory has to teach were in some cases anticipated or even discovered by some of the Church’s own theologians. The Austrian School carries forward a great many of the economic insights of the late Scholastic theologians—a source of pride, not shame, for modern-day Catholics. The Scholastics perceived clear relationships of cause and effect at work in the economy, particularly after observing the considerable price inflation that occurred in sixteenth-century Spain as a result of the influx of precious metals from the New World. From the observation that the greater supply of specie had led to a decline in the purchasing power of money, they came to the more general conclusion—an economic law, as it were—that an increase in the supply of any good will tend to bring about a decrease in its price.
The Austrian School also shows what reason, properly exercised, can accomplish, and surely this is something that Catholics, who have always granted reason its rightful due, ought to appreciate. The great economic treatises of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard begin with the axiom that human beings act, and proceed to the elaboration of an entire economic system from this irrefutable premise and a few subsidiary postulates. Austrians reject the mathematization of the discipline that other paradigms have encouraged, and dismiss artificial models that reduce man to a mere atom. They are methodological dualists who insist that the study of man, who unlike animals and inanimate things is endowed with reason and free will, is something unique, conceptually distinct from the study of the physical universe, and they criticize the attempt to fashion economics along the model of physics and the hard sciences.
This, clearly, is a system that is eminently congenial to the Catholic mind.
Economics does not contain all the answers of life, nor does it claim to. It does, however, show how the morally acceptable desire for profit leads to spontaneous social cooperation that obviates the need for a bloated state apparatus to direct production. It shows us the fascinating mechanisms by which peaceful social cooperation, without the initiation of physical force, leads to overall prosperity. This means less disease, more leisure time to spend with our families, and greater opportunities to enjoy the good things of civilization.
In A Humane Economy, Wilhelm Ropke wrote:
What overweening arrogance there is in the disparagement of things economic, what ignorant neglect of the sum of work, sacrifice, devotion, pioneering spirit, common decency, and conscientiousness upon which depends the bare life of the world’s enormous and ever-growing population! The sum of all these humble things supports the whole edifice of our civilization, and without them there could be neither freedom nor justice, the masses would not have a life fit for human beings, and no helping hand would be extended to anyone. . . . Romanticizing and moralistic contempt for the economy, including contempt of the impulses which move the market economy and the institutions that support it, must be as far from our minds as economism, materialism, and utilitarianism.
That is sound advice from a wise man. It also happens to be the very message that Catholics working within the Austrian tradition have been trying to convey.
sexta-feira, 10 de dezembro de 2004
Democracia
Iran-Linked Cleric Leads Iraqi Candidates
PS:e a única oposição séria à influência do Irão vão ser os ... sunitas saddamitas.
PS:e a única oposição séria à influência do Irão vão ser os ... sunitas saddamitas.
Intervencionismo centralista liberal
José Manuel Fernandes: "Ainda bem que existe Comissão Europeia. Ainda bem que alguém zela para que haja um bocadinho de concorrência e de mercado livre neste país. "
(1) O intervencionismo centralista mesmo que em tese possa "impor" uma acção liberal (o que não é o caso, não sabemos qual seria a situação em mercado livre, em determinadas industrias de capital intensivo e de longo prazo pode a industria - e os consumidores beneficiarem com isso - terem ganhos de escala e sinergias em combinar dois tipos de negócio - o essencial é termos a certeza que não existem barreiras à entrada) traz sempre consigo a capacidade de no futuro impedir outros caminhos liberais - imaginemos que um dia exista consenso para diminuir os impostos como a Irlanda e ainda reduzir a segurança social a um conceito de subsidariedade - será isso possivel com Bruxelas?
(2) A ideia que precisamos de uma entidade acima de "nós" que zela por "nós" foi o que sustentou todos os regimes autocráticos e impérios deste mundo, não?
Discrimination Myths that Everyone Believes
"The ideology that informs the thinking of present-day 'civil rights' agitation is cluttered with misconceptions. ... "For a quarter century, in fact, college-educated black couples have earned slightly more on average than college-educated white couples, yet 'civil rights' leaders prefer to obscure the real situation by looking at the two races in the aggregate. Only that way can they claim that 'racism' is the explanation for white-black income differences.
"Then there are behavioral differences that have an economic impact. For example, fully half of Mexican-American women marry in their teens, while only 10 percent of Japanese-American women marry that young. This cultural factor alone would account for considerable differences in incomes between the two groups, since a young married woman will tend to have less mobility and fewer educational opportunities than a young single woman." — Thomas E. Woods Jr. citado no washingtontimes.com.
PS: E quando finalmente perceberem que os comportamentos individuais-sociais contam para definir o rendimento, incluindo a decisão de ter um casamento estável na altura certa, ainda se vão lembrar de subsidiar (descriminar positivamente) os casamentos nas comunidades negras/mexicanas e controlar em que idade o fazem...
quinta-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2004
Redistribuição
"If one person in a thousand, say, is a wealthy capitalist, and eats twice as much and has twenty times the clothing and furniture as an average person, hardly any noticeable improvement for the average person could come from dividing the capitalists’ greater-than average consumption by 999 and redistributing it." Reisman
PS: Apesar de 2/3 da colecta do IRS ser paga pelos contribuinte com rendimentos acima dos 30 000 Euros e os rendimentos até os 20 000 Euros "pagarem" apenas 20% da colecta, não passa um dia sem que alguém reafirme a convicção (politico, jornalista, etc) de que um dos problemas, para nao dizer "o" problema, são aqueles que deviam pagar (ou pagar mais) e não pagam (e na verdade, os únicos que não pagam, são todos funcionários públicos e equiparados, porque recebem da colecta de impostos e a noção de imposto retido é uma ficção pura). E por isto, acabe-se o sigilio bancário e faça-se da "fuga ao imposto" (de facto, nunca se viu ninguém a fugir a um pagamento voluntário) o mais vil dos crimes. O tributo ao senhor feudal foi substituido pelo tributo à maioria e o sistema que se perpetua.
PS: Apesar de 2/3 da colecta do IRS ser paga pelos contribuinte com rendimentos acima dos 30 000 Euros e os rendimentos até os 20 000 Euros "pagarem" apenas 20% da colecta, não passa um dia sem que alguém reafirme a convicção (politico, jornalista, etc) de que um dos problemas, para nao dizer "o" problema, são aqueles que deviam pagar (ou pagar mais) e não pagam (e na verdade, os únicos que não pagam, são todos funcionários públicos e equiparados, porque recebem da colecta de impostos e a noção de imposto retido é uma ficção pura). E por isto, acabe-se o sigilio bancário e faça-se da "fuga ao imposto" (de facto, nunca se viu ninguém a fugir a um pagamento voluntário) o mais vil dos crimes. O tributo ao senhor feudal foi substituido pelo tributo à maioria e o sistema que se perpetua.
How would a polycentric legal system work?
Individuals and businesses could choose from "legal service" and "protection" providers not much different from today's attorneys, mediators and arbitrators and private security services. Some providers would offer full-spectrum legal and security services, others would specialize in certain fields, like entertainment law or computer security. Some providers might resemble traditional common law court and jury systems; others would be more like private mediation services.
Individuals and businesses in dispute, or those charging others had defrauded or injured them, would have their legal service provider demand the other party enter into mediation or arbitration or go to court. The sanctions for refusing to enter into some form of dispute resolution--or to pay any agreed upon restitution--would be non-violent. The primary one would be a negative entry in one's "legal credit rating," which is much like a financial credit rating. This would be readily accessible through various "legal credit rating services." Current privacy laws outlaw such legal credit rating services.
Harm to an individual's "legal credit rating" would be a serious threat. Individuals proved to have repeatedly harmed or defrauded others (including by pressing false claims) would face the harshest sanction of all: ostracism by law-abiding people and communities. People would refuse to associate with them, to sell to or buy from them, to rent to or hire them, even to allow them entry into the community, city or region. They would have no choice but to live in communities with people as irresponsible and untrustworthy as themselves! Since everyone--from low income individuals to the biggest corporation--could hire a legal service provider (or, in a free market, form one), it might seem that polycentric law could degenerate into warfare among competing criminal gangs. However, warring societies self-destruct.
Free individuals are survival-oriented, as would be their legal service providers, both profit and non-profit. The services would want to keep the cost of providing services down and would avoid violence, which only would drive costs up. Both the claimant's and the defendant's legal service providers would be eager to persuade their clients to find a mutually satisfactory solution to their dispute. More likely, over time several popular systems of law would evolve as well as dozens of specialty law systems. Instead of law imposed by the dictators, politicians and special interests, would be law developed to serve the needs of all the people–by the people. This would be the true fulfillment of "democracy"--"rule by the people." Carol Moore
PS: Neste pequeno texto não está referenciado o papel que as seguradoras podem ter como já têm por exemplo, nos conflitos e danos entre automobilistas. O mais provável é que se generalize a exigência de seguro para todo o tipo conflitos (quer comerciais quer civis), que surgindo, seriam em primeira instância resolvidos inter-intra-seguradoras e os custos de litigio e potenciais indemnizações estariam também cobertos. Mesmo as pessoas, em termos individuais, tenderiam a estar cobertas por seguros de responsabilidade civil e eu diria até criminal. Quem não o fizesse (seguro) poderia ser impossibilitado de residir (as regras de condominio/comunidade não o permitiriam) e circular em muitos ou todos os locais da mesma forma que as estradas privadas exigiriam a posse de seguro automóvel. O que seria de esperar seria assim uma Sociedade ultra-privadamente regulamentada.
quarta-feira, 8 de dezembro de 2004
terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2004
Mais sobre Roosevelt e o New Deal
"In this madness, the New Dealers had a method. Despite its economic illogic and incoherence, the New Deal served as a massive vote-buying scheme. Coming into power at a time of widespread destitution, high unemployment, and business failures, the Roosevelt administration recognized that the president and his Democratic allies in Congress could appropriate unprecedented sums of money and channel them into the hands of recipients who would respond by giving political support to their benefactors. As John T. Flynn said of FDR, “it was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes,” and eventually “no political boss could compete with him in any county in America in the distribution of money and jobs.”
In buying votes, the relief programs for the unemployed, especially the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration, loomed largest, though many other programs promoted the same end. Farm subsidies, price supports, credit programs, and related measures won over much of the rural middle class. The labor provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act and later the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act purchased support from the burgeoning ranks of the labor unions. Homeowners supported the New Deal out of gratitude for the government’s refinancing of their mortgages and its provision of home-loan guarantees. Even blacks, loyal to the Republican Party ever since the Civil War, abandoned the GOP in exchange for the pittances of relief payments and the tag ends of employment in the federal work-relief programs. Put it all together and you have what political scientists call the New Deal Coalition—a potent political force that remained intact until the 1970s.
(...)If demagoguery were a powerful means of creating prosperity, then FDR might have lifted the country out of the depression in short order. But in 1939, ten years after its onset and six years after the commencement of the New Deal, 9.5 million persons, or 17.2 percent of the labor force, remained officially unemployed (of whom more than 3 million were enrolled in emergency government make-work projects). Roosevelt was a masterful politician, but unfortunately for the American people subjected to his policies, he had no idea how to end the depression other than to “try something” and, when that didn’t work, to try something else. His ill-conceived, politically shaped experiments so disrupted the operation of the market economy and so discouraged the accumulation of capital that they impeded the full recovery that otherwise would have occurred.
(...)Once the New Deal had burst the dam between 1933 and 1938, ample precedent had been set for virtually any government program that could gain sufficient political support in Congress. Limited constitutional government, especially after the Supreme Court revolution that began in 1937, became little more than an object of nostalgia for classical liberals.
But in the wake of the New Deal, the ranks of the classical liberals diminished so greatly that they became an endangered species.
The legacy of the New Deal was, more than anything else, a matter of ideological change. Henceforth, nearly everyone would look to the federal government for solutions to problems great and small, real and imagined, personal as well as social. After the 1930s, opponents of a proposed federal program might object to its structure, its personnel, or its cost, but hardly anyone objected on the grounds that the program was by its very nature improper to undertake at the federal level of government.
“People in the mass,” wrote H.L. Mencken, “soon grow used to anything, including even being swindled. There comes a time when the patter of the quack becomes as natural and as indubitable to their ears as the texts of Holy Writ, and when that time comes it is a dreadful job debamboozling them.”11
Six decades after the New Deal, Americans overwhelmingly take for granted the expansive, something-for-nothing character of the federal government established by the New Dealers. For Democrats and Republicans alike, Franklin Delano Roosevelt looms as the most significant political figure of the twentieth century."
The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal September 1, 1998Robert HiggsThe Freeman
John T. Flynn
John T. Flynn era um anti-intervencionista e fez parte da oposição ao New Deal e do America First Committee (que se dissolveu logo após Pearl Harbor). Hoje sabemos que Roosevelt serviu os propósitos de Estaline (para não falar da introdução do socialismo na América e o princípio do fim de um estrito federalismo), e que a sua administração, tal como o Senador Joseph Mccarthy (sim, esse mesmo e que disse coisas como "Traitors are not gentlemen, my good friends. They don't understand being treated like gentlemen" ) intuiu, estava pejada de comunistas e até espiões (em especial, o seu secretário que empurrou o resultado de Yalta). Em Outubro de 1945, John T. Flynn escrevia The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, ficam as conclusões (escreveu também vários livros, entre os quais, The Roosevelt Myth):
"1. By January l, 1941, Roosevelt had decided to go to war with Japan.
2. But he had solemnly pledged the people he would not take their sons to foreign wars unless attacked. Hence he dared not attack and so decided to provoke the Japanese to do so.
3. He kept all this a secret from the Army and Navy.
4. He felt the moment to provoke the attack had come by November. He ended negotiations abruptly November 26 by handing the Japanese an ultimatum which he knew they dared not comply with.
5. Immediately he knew his ruse would succeed, that the Japanese looked upon relations as ended and were preparing for the assault. He knew this from the intercepted messages.
6. He was certain the attack would be against British territory, at Singapore perhaps, and perhaps on the Philippines or Guam. If on the Philippines or Guam he would have his desired attack. But if only British territory were attacked could he safely start shooting? He decided he could and committed himself to the British government. Rut he never revealed this to his naval chief.
7. He did not order Short to change his alert and he did not order Kimmel to take his fleet out of Pearl Harbor, out where it could defend itself, because he wanted to create the appearance of being completely at peace and surprised when the Japs started shooting. Hence he ordered Kimmel and Short not to do anything to cause alarm or suspicion. He was completely sure the Japanese would not strike at Pearl Harbor.
8. Thus he completely miscalculated. He disregarded the advice of men who always held that Pearl Harbor would be first attacked. He disregarded the warning implicit in the hour chosen for attack and called to Knox's attention. He disregarded the advice of his chiefs that we were unprepared.
9. When the attack came he was appalled and frightened. He dared not give the facts to the country. To save himself he maneuvered to lay the blame upon Kimmel and Short. To prevent them from proving their innocence he refused them a trial. When the case was investigated by two naval and army boards, he suppressed the reports. He threatened prosecution to any man who would tell the truth."
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)