sábado, 31 de julho de 2004
sexta-feira, 30 de julho de 2004
Kosovo II
"American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army [KLA] before Nato's bombing of Yugoslavia. The disclosure angered some European diplomats, who said this had undermined moves for a political solution to the conflict between Serbs and Albanians... Several KLA leaders had the mobile phone number of General Wesley Clark, the Nato commander..."CIA aided Kosovo guerrilla armySunday Times , 12 March 2000
"I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists."United States special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, speaking about the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) 1998
BBC Online, 28 June 1998
"The retired General who had been refusing to declare himself a Democrat or Republican is now declaring himself a Democratic presidential candidate. But more important than his party affiliation is Wesley Clark's bizarre view on how to fight terrorism. The media refer to Clark's impressive military credentials but they fail to note that his main accomplishment under President Clinton was presiding over the establishment of a base for radical Islamic terrorism, including Osama bin Laden, in Kosovo... Clark, who has been making headlines by claiming that the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq was a misjudgment based on scanty evidence, ran Clinton's NATO war against Yugoslavia on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The House of Representatives failed to authorize the war under the War Powers Act, making it illegal. Thousands of innocent people in Serbia, Yugoslavia's main province, were killed to stop an alleged 'genocide' by Yugoslavia that was not in fact taking place. Investigations determined that a couple thousand had died in the civil war there.... The 1998 State Department human rights report had described the KLA as a group that tortured and abducted people and made others 'disappear.' Yet a photograph was taken of Clark and [KLA leader] Thaki with their hands together in a gesture of solidarity. The KLA's ties to Osama bin Laden were also well-known and reported.... Another Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has tried to prohibit funding for the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), the successor to the KLA now being protected by U.N. troops as a result of the outcome of the conflict. Kucinich said an internal United Nations Report found the KPC responsible for violence, extortion, murder and torture.... Clark's presidential decision suggests that he believes the media will not ask him about supporting the same extremist Muslim forces in Kosovo that militarily attacked us on 9/11. He's right: during interviews on ABC's Good Morning America and the NBC Today show on September 17, the subject didn't come up. "Wesley Clark's Ties To Muslim Terrorists
Accuracy in Media, 17 September 2003
Kosovo
"A United Nations court has ruled that Serbian troops did not carry out genocide against ethnic Albanians during Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of aggression in Kosovo from 1998 to 1999... The court, which is comprised of two international judges and one Albanian, was ruling on the case of a Serb, Miroslav Vuckovic, convicted of genocide by a district court in Mitrovica".Kosovo assault 'was not genocide'BBC Online, 7 September 2001
"If Senator Kennedy wants to talk about fraud [in relation to the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq], he ought to talk..... about what he and President Clinton told us in 1999 when they told us to bomb innocent Serbs, we'd find 100 thousand mass graves. Those mass graves were never found. They lied to the America people to justify the aerial bombardment campaign."Congressman Curt Weldon (R) Pennsylvania on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews'NBC News, 19 September 2003
"If Senator Kennedy wants to talk about fraud [in relation to the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq], he ought to talk..... about what he and President Clinton told us in 1999 when they told us to bomb innocent Serbs, we'd find 100 thousand mass graves. Those mass graves were never found. They lied to the America people to justify the aerial bombardment campaign."Congressman Curt Weldon (R) Pennsylvania on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews'NBC News, 19 September 2003
Empire's Failure in the Balkans
Nebjsa Malic
"(...)Stopping genocide" sounds great, until it is discovered the genocide was a fabrication. The gullible may be fooled by photos of people cheering and throwing flowers at the occupation troops – as many Albanians did in Kosovo – until someone points out that they cheered the 1941 Axis invasion with the same enthusiasm.
The claim that American intervention in the Balkans demonstrated good will by defending Muslims has utterly failed to impress the Muslim world. (...)
Setting logic and principle aside, for the sake of argument, one fact dooms the proponents of the Democratic empire as surely as lies about Iraq ought to doom their Republican counterparts: none of the highly praised interventions in the Balkans actually worked.
Bosnia is a protectorate misruled by a foreign tyrant. Kosovo is a concentration camp for non-Albanians, and a haven for slavers, drug- and gun-runners. And Macedonia is a simmering cauldron of resentment. (...)
Defending Disaster
The next "successful" intervention, in Kosovo (1999), has been tainted from the start by the naked aggression it entailed, brazen lies used to justify it, and the ethnic cleansing that took place once NATO occupied that Serbian province. Supporters of the Empire persistently ignored the terror that has ravaged Kosovo since 1999, again pretending there was "progress" where there manifestly couldn't be any. Then the pogrom of March 17-18 took place, with some 60,000 Albanians attacking Serb villages, churches and monasteries in an organized fashion, often unhindered by NATO troops or UN police. Faced with such a damning indictment of their occupation, what do the Empire's partisans do? Lie and deny, again.
Four months later, with the pogrom already forgotten in Washington and Brussels, Human Rights Watch, a frequent apologist for intervention, issued a report condemning NATO and UNMIK for failure to protect the Serbs from attacks. Apparently, it takes four months to state the obvious. Not that it made any difference: NATO and the UN rejected HRW's criticism out of hand. Besides, HRW only demanded a restructuring of the occupation, not its end.
Visiting EU dignitaries continue to spout nonsense about Kosovo. Just this week, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said he was "shocked by the March events, but … encouraged by reconstruction."(...)
Doomed to Failure
It is evident from looking at Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia – to take just these three – that Empire's intervention in the Balkans is not a success, but rather a disaster. The Pax Americana imposed on the region in the last decade is unnatural, based on lies and violence. It has had a considerable corrupting effect on people already suffering from Communism and chauvinism. The results are in plain view: poverty, apathy, despair, lingering hatred, violent crime and widespread delusions.
Some may argue that the solution lies in fine-tuning the intervention; however well-intentioned, they would be wrong. The best thing the Empire can do for the Balkans would be to leave. A true peace must be made by consenting parties, and as long as the Empire is around to back any of them, there will be no political will for a settlement of any kind.
Ninety years ago, a once-potent European empire embarked on a project of conquering the Balkans. On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and started a chain reaction that became World War One. What followed is sometimes described as the "suicide of European civilization," resulting in a century of protracted agony. It was certainly the end of Austria-Hungary, and its Hapsburg emperors.
Attempts to force an artificial order upon the Balkans – or anywhere else, really – are doomed to fail. The more this pressure forces things to bend to its will, the more violent the blowback will be. History has shown this time and again. Does anyone really need another demonstration?"
Nebojsa Malic left his home in Bosnia after the Dayton Accords and currently resides in the United States. During the Bosnian War he had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo, and contributed to the Independent. As a historian who specializes in international relations and the Balkans, Malic has written numerous essays on the Kosovo War, Bosnia and Serbian politics.
"(...)Stopping genocide" sounds great, until it is discovered the genocide was a fabrication. The gullible may be fooled by photos of people cheering and throwing flowers at the occupation troops – as many Albanians did in Kosovo – until someone points out that they cheered the 1941 Axis invasion with the same enthusiasm.
The claim that American intervention in the Balkans demonstrated good will by defending Muslims has utterly failed to impress the Muslim world. (...)
Setting logic and principle aside, for the sake of argument, one fact dooms the proponents of the Democratic empire as surely as lies about Iraq ought to doom their Republican counterparts: none of the highly praised interventions in the Balkans actually worked.
Bosnia is a protectorate misruled by a foreign tyrant. Kosovo is a concentration camp for non-Albanians, and a haven for slavers, drug- and gun-runners. And Macedonia is a simmering cauldron of resentment. (...)
Defending Disaster
The next "successful" intervention, in Kosovo (1999), has been tainted from the start by the naked aggression it entailed, brazen lies used to justify it, and the ethnic cleansing that took place once NATO occupied that Serbian province. Supporters of the Empire persistently ignored the terror that has ravaged Kosovo since 1999, again pretending there was "progress" where there manifestly couldn't be any. Then the pogrom of March 17-18 took place, with some 60,000 Albanians attacking Serb villages, churches and monasteries in an organized fashion, often unhindered by NATO troops or UN police. Faced with such a damning indictment of their occupation, what do the Empire's partisans do? Lie and deny, again.
Four months later, with the pogrom already forgotten in Washington and Brussels, Human Rights Watch, a frequent apologist for intervention, issued a report condemning NATO and UNMIK for failure to protect the Serbs from attacks. Apparently, it takes four months to state the obvious. Not that it made any difference: NATO and the UN rejected HRW's criticism out of hand. Besides, HRW only demanded a restructuring of the occupation, not its end.
Visiting EU dignitaries continue to spout nonsense about Kosovo. Just this week, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said he was "shocked by the March events, but … encouraged by reconstruction."(...)
Doomed to Failure
It is evident from looking at Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia – to take just these three – that Empire's intervention in the Balkans is not a success, but rather a disaster. The Pax Americana imposed on the region in the last decade is unnatural, based on lies and violence. It has had a considerable corrupting effect on people already suffering from Communism and chauvinism. The results are in plain view: poverty, apathy, despair, lingering hatred, violent crime and widespread delusions.
Some may argue that the solution lies in fine-tuning the intervention; however well-intentioned, they would be wrong. The best thing the Empire can do for the Balkans would be to leave. A true peace must be made by consenting parties, and as long as the Empire is around to back any of them, there will be no political will for a settlement of any kind.
Ninety years ago, a once-potent European empire embarked on a project of conquering the Balkans. On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and started a chain reaction that became World War One. What followed is sometimes described as the "suicide of European civilization," resulting in a century of protracted agony. It was certainly the end of Austria-Hungary, and its Hapsburg emperors.
Attempts to force an artificial order upon the Balkans – or anywhere else, really – are doomed to fail. The more this pressure forces things to bend to its will, the more violent the blowback will be. History has shown this time and again. Does anyone really need another demonstration?"
Nebojsa Malic left his home in Bosnia after the Dayton Accords and currently resides in the United States. During the Bosnian War he had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo, and contributed to the Independent. As a historian who specializes in international relations and the Balkans, Malic has written numerous essays on the Kosovo War, Bosnia and Serbian politics.
Taxa Única de Impostos II
Porque não manter as deduções (ou até aumentá-las) e de alguma forma baixar o IRS na mesma? Donde vem a satisfação em descer isto e aumentar aquilo?
Descer é sempre o único caminho para os impostos - a totalidade de impostos que pagamos - cerca de 50%, representa a percentagem de serviços compulsivos que pagamos sem que qualquer transação voluntária tenha existido e sem qualquer contrato civil ou comercial passível de litigação em tribunal e está ausente a possibilidade de renunciar - o que representa em si, a ausência de um estado de Direito.
Seja qual for o grau de inevitabilidade civilizacional que cada um atribua a esta situação, pelo menos podemos acordar que quantos menos contratos coercivos e unilaterais façam parte da nossa vida, melhor.
E outra coisa:
É possivel demonstrar que o IRC é pior que o IRS, que os impostos indirectos são "melhores" que os directos? Para mim não é, e para a população em geral também não.
Apenas uma discussão razoável ao nível da tributação geral é passível de ser entendida e ser eficaz, porque também obriga a pensar no lado da despesa.
Com uma Taxa Única para o IRS, IRC e IVA, acaba-se com uma parte do inútil jogo de descer isto e subir aquilo onde se usam uns argumentos hoje, e mais tarde outros para fazer o contrário, mas pelo caminho, é certo que a tributação geral aumenta sempre.
Reagan desceu as taxas marginais de IRS, mas depois subiu as taxas da segurança social - aconselhado por Greenspan, pelo caminho, a tributação geral acabou por aumentar: em média, a direita consegue fazer tanto ou pior que todos os outros.
Descer é sempre o único caminho para os impostos - a totalidade de impostos que pagamos - cerca de 50%, representa a percentagem de serviços compulsivos que pagamos sem que qualquer transação voluntária tenha existido e sem qualquer contrato civil ou comercial passível de litigação em tribunal e está ausente a possibilidade de renunciar - o que representa em si, a ausência de um estado de Direito.
Seja qual for o grau de inevitabilidade civilizacional que cada um atribua a esta situação, pelo menos podemos acordar que quantos menos contratos coercivos e unilaterais façam parte da nossa vida, melhor.
E outra coisa:
É possivel demonstrar que o IRC é pior que o IRS, que os impostos indirectos são "melhores" que os directos? Para mim não é, e para a população em geral também não.
Apenas uma discussão razoável ao nível da tributação geral é passível de ser entendida e ser eficaz, porque também obriga a pensar no lado da despesa.
Com uma Taxa Única para o IRS, IRC e IVA, acaba-se com uma parte do inútil jogo de descer isto e subir aquilo onde se usam uns argumentos hoje, e mais tarde outros para fazer o contrário, mas pelo caminho, é certo que a tributação geral aumenta sempre.
Reagan desceu as taxas marginais de IRS, mas depois subiu as taxas da segurança social - aconselhado por Greenspan, pelo caminho, a tributação geral acabou por aumentar: em média, a direita consegue fazer tanto ou pior que todos os outros.
quinta-feira, 29 de julho de 2004
Re: The Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
Quanto à propriedade no Espaço o "Homesteading Principle" aplica-se:
Quem de alguma forma ocupar/usar/transformar qualquer elemento físico espacial, apropria-se dele, criando-se um direito de propriedade. Os pormenores técnicos cabem à ciência jurídica resolver.
O mesmo se devia aplicar aos Mares: os pescadores têm direitos de propriedade ( na minha interpretação da LEI, estes existem, o Estado é que não os reconhece nem deixa ninguém reconhecê-los) nas rotas que usam e se assim fossem atribuídos os problemas de preservação ou das consequências do mar português passar a estar à livre disposição dos pescadores espanhóis ficava resolvido.
Quem de alguma forma ocupar/usar/transformar qualquer elemento físico espacial, apropria-se dele, criando-se um direito de propriedade. Os pormenores técnicos cabem à ciência jurídica resolver.
O mesmo se devia aplicar aos Mares: os pescadores têm direitos de propriedade ( na minha interpretação da LEI, estes existem, o Estado é que não os reconhece nem deixa ninguém reconhecê-los) nas rotas que usam e se assim fossem atribuídos os problemas de preservação ou das consequências do mar português passar a estar à livre disposição dos pescadores espanhóis ficava resolvido.
O ódio da esquerda internacionalista a Bush
Transcreve-se de seguida um interessante comentário de FCG recebido por email:
O ódio da esquerda internacionalista ao presidente norte americano George W. Bush é muito interessante por uma multiplicidade de razões. Uma das mais curiosas é a incredulidade limite com que os esquerdistas encaram seja quem for que tenha votado, ou considere votar no presidente norte americano.
Com frequência, usam a frase "quem votou [vota, votará, etc.] em Bush deve ser louco!", ou variantes equivalentes, para descrever o estado de espanto. O que torna este tipo de comentário interessante do ponto de vista político é a sua semelhança com o "dogma" soviético da dissidência: aqueles que não compreendiam a "superioridade" evidente do comunismo não eram opositores políticos—eram doentes mentais. Numa palavra: loucos. O internamento e "tratamento" psiquiátrico era
inevitável, em nome do interesse colectivo, mas, acima de tudo, para tentar "salvar" esses pobres estupores, se ainda fosse possível resgatá-los da sua abjecta condição e através do "processo de reabilitação" reconduzi-los à verdade histórica do comunismo.
Em caso de vitória do senador Kerry, poder-se-ão criar programas públicos de "auxílio psiquiátrico" aos infelizes sofredores de "bushismo" (a esquerda prefere agora chamar "reinserção" à "reabilitação"). Mas isso seria apenas um remedeio ditado pela compaixão "humanista". A melhor estratégia é identificar todos aqueles
que pensam votar Bush e interná-los antes da eleição presidencial.
Atempadamente. E para seu próprio bem.
Era um descanso.
(FCG)
Sudão II
Nota: a cartada humanitária é - exagerar o problema, meter-se nos assuntos dos outros e criar ainda mais problemas à pacificação local, disfarçar outros factores geo-estratégicos em jogo, até que a situação se agrava mais do que seria na sua ausência e tornando o intervencionismo "inevitável" para todos.
"(...)But, while saying—as he had done on Iraq—that no decisions had been taken, the Prime Minister also reverted to his habitual use of the language of moralism. A question (planted?) made the comparison between Sudan and Kosovo and Blair replied, “I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can” (my italics).[5] This means war.
Blair evidently hopes that a humanitarian war will efface the memories of the “war for oil” in Iraq. The opposition to the Kosovo war having been minimal, and international support being widespread for an attack on the “genocidal” Sudanese government, his gamble is likely to pay off. It does not seem to matter to antiwar campaigners that the same language of moralism was used to justify all the other military interventions in Blair’s astonishingly militaristic premiership (the “Desert Fox” bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998; the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999; the intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000; the attack on Afghanistan in 2001; the invasion of Iraq in 2003.) Unfortunately, it is likely that the simple appeal of sending troops to help poor blacks against marauding Muslims will be too strong for most antiwar campaigners to overcome.(...)
According to Arab sources quoted by the informative Turkish paper, Zaman, oil is the basis of the crisis in Darfur.[7] These sources say that renewed fighting broke out at the very moment when a peace agreement was about to be signed which would have brought an end to 21 years of conflict. This is certainly what the Sudanese government itself alleges. If so, this would conform to the pattern established in Bosnia and Kosovo, when the international community moved to scupper peace deals, preferring to encourage wars which provide the pretext for intervention.
The Sudanese government, which is currently in the cross-hairs of the interventionist West, agrees that there is fighting and there is a humanitarian crisis. But it accuses Western humanitarian organisations and media of over-dramatising the situation in order to provide a pretext for military intervention.
The Washington embassy issued the following statement: “Politicization of the situation in Darfur and its use as a tool to destabilize the Government of Sudan must be considered the major factor of the humanitarian disaster there.”[8] But it correctly denounces the media distortions and calls them propagandistic.[9] It also protests at the claim that it is backing the Janjaweed militiamen who are said to be causing so much trouble: this claim is repeated with the same relentlessness as was the similar claim that Serbia was pursuing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. In reality, Janjaweed militiamen have been subjected to horrific punishments by the Sudanese courts, including amputation.[10]
Zaman also alleges that some of the groups fighting the central government in Khartoum are supported by Sudan’s neighbours, by the US, European governments, and by Israel. The US is said to have given $20 million to the Sudanese People Liberation Army, led by a man who conforms perfectly to the model of the American agent. John Garang is a ruthless killer who has a doctorate from a university in Iowa, and who is a former Marxist who curries support from American Christian fundamentalists. (The support of American charities for the “Christians” in Southern Sudan has been a feature of the conflicts there for some years now, even though, as in John Garang’s case, the local tribes worship either the sky or animals.[11]) Garang’s movement is supported by the Sudanese Communist Party: communists are, paradoxically, American allies all over Eastern Europe and in many Southern African states.
The suspicion is that intervention will encourage the Southern part of Sudan, including parts of Darfur, will move towards independence, as neighbouring Eritrea did from Ethiopia, and become, like Eritrea, a territory for US bases. Ethiopia, for its part, has funnelled aid from Israel and the US to the SPLA.(...)"
"Fill full the mouth of famine" 26th July 2004 John Laughland
O Universo é muito grande
Quanto ao Sudão, aos poucos, devagar devagarinho, vai crescendo o "consenso" para uma nova emergência. Mais um motivo para justificar que a ONU ou a "comunidade internacional" actuem para promover um qualquer bem e impedir um qualquer mal, que "não sei quem" destrua "não sei quem" por causa de "não sei o quê", ou ainda pior, que alguém impeça a chegada de ajuda humanitária decidida por um qualquer burocrata a precisar de ser promovido para um orgão internacional.
Por exemplo o Kosovo. Existe quem fique orgulhoso por uma paz só se manter com as armas e que mal estas retirem, os problemas retomem exactamente onde estavam ou provavelmente ainda pior. Nos Balcãs, tentam o mesmo há centenas de anos, foi lá que a Europa começou a ser destruída.
Por exemplo o Kosovo. Existe quem fique orgulhoso por uma paz só se manter com as armas e que mal estas retirem, os problemas retomem exactamente onde estavam ou provavelmente ainda pior. Nos Balcãs, tentam o mesmo há centenas de anos, foi lá que a Europa começou a ser destruída.
Claro que existe a solução apontada por Rothbard: "What about our universal experience that when U.S. troops get out, the whole aid, infrastructure, etc. go down the drain? The solution is simple, though it has been far overlooked because some narrow-minded selfish fascist stick-in-the-muds will raise a fuss. The solution: We Don't Get Out! Ever. So we don't have to worry about preparing the natives for transition. We should stay in there and cheerfully Run the World. Permanently for the good of all. A Paradise on Earth. We can call it, the "politics of meaning.""
Mas o facto é que à direita, esquerda e centro (e muitos, para não dizer, quase todos, liberais) subsiste um optimismo difícil de quebrar, na capacidade de agir externamente para mudar, guiar, reeducar e desenhar sistemas sociais e modificar costumes e tradições, tudo a bem do progresso, o que significa como sabemos todos, a social-democracia. Se "essas" tribos não o querem é porque não estão preparados para fazer o seu próprio julgamento, coitados. Fogo neles, desarmem-nos, banho neles, novas roupas, alimentem-nos e aí temos uma Nova Sociedade.
De todos os optimistas, o liberal é o mais intrigante. Sempre pronto na capacidade de indicar os problemas a longo prazo no intervencionismo do Estado, por exemplo, nas empresas municipais de recolha de lixo, tentado analisar para além de quaisquer benefícios de curto prazo. E essa capacidade inclui a análise da segurança social para além das suas boas intenções, pondo em evidência quer os malefícios causados pelos (des)incentivos quer na questão de princípio da responsabilidade individual em não sermos um fardo para ninguém quer no igual dever de, voluntáriamente, contribuir para que a sociedade civil trate dos carenciados, que se desejam, sejam apenas pontuais e não crónicos.
Mas em termos internacionais é outra história. Quando o nível de intervenção potencial é mesmo grande, não existe ninguém mais optimista que um liberal. Desaparece a capacidade analítica. Nem curto nem longo prazo nem questões de princípio. Zero. Nadia.
Gostava de saber se um dia quererão que um qualquer povo extra-terrestre, leitor de Kristol&Trotsky, venha ao planeta colocar os seus "soldados da paz" e impor a sua visão de "universalidade" a este nosso planeta desordenado. Talvez até desenhassem uma democracia mundial. Aposto que começariam nos EUA. E esmagariam todos os renegados e terroristas que combatessem tal ideal.
WORLD WAR I
"(...) Russia’s role has always been recognized as critical. The Austro-Serb Balkan conflict escalated into a European war because Russian leaders decided on 24-25 July to back Serbia. Recent scholarship indicates that the Russians supported Serbia in full recognition that this was almost certain to lead to war with Austria, and possibly with Germany as well.15 The czar and his ministers nevertheless made the decision to mobilize without understanding its military consequences for Germany.16
France has received less attention as its role has been regarded as secondary. Scholarly inquiry has focused on the extent to which French leaders strengthened Russian resolve in the Balkans, before 1914 and during the July crisis.17 Britain’s role in the crisis has been more controversial, and some scholars have argued that an earlier British commitment to support France might have encouraged Germany to restrain Austria.18 Recent scholarship suggests that Foreign Secretary Edward Grey went as far as he could in signaling his country’s intention to back France given the domestic constraints he faced, and that a British commitment might not have had the desired effect in any case.(...)"
FRANZ FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE, WORLD WAR I UNNECESSARY, Richard Ned Lebow
Nota: Se as causas e culpados (todas as partes envolvidas) pela guerra começam já a estar mais claramente percepcionadas, ainda poucos textos se concentram nas causas e culpados pela forma como acabou (os vencedores, com especial destaque para a entrada dos EUA) e que acabou por estabelecer as condições para a queda das monarquias, as repúblicas fascistas e comunistas, o nacionalismo, a Segunda Grande Guerra, os problemas no médio oriente, 50 anos de domínio comunista e a guerra fria, a social-democracia.
France has received less attention as its role has been regarded as secondary. Scholarly inquiry has focused on the extent to which French leaders strengthened Russian resolve in the Balkans, before 1914 and during the July crisis.17 Britain’s role in the crisis has been more controversial, and some scholars have argued that an earlier British commitment to support France might have encouraged Germany to restrain Austria.18 Recent scholarship suggests that Foreign Secretary Edward Grey went as far as he could in signaling his country’s intention to back France given the domestic constraints he faced, and that a British commitment might not have had the desired effect in any case.(...)"
FRANZ FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE, WORLD WAR I UNNECESSARY, Richard Ned Lebow
Nota: Se as causas e culpados (todas as partes envolvidas) pela guerra começam já a estar mais claramente percepcionadas, ainda poucos textos se concentram nas causas e culpados pela forma como acabou (os vencedores, com especial destaque para a entrada dos EUA) e que acabou por estabelecer as condições para a queda das monarquias, as repúblicas fascistas e comunistas, o nacionalismo, a Segunda Grande Guerra, os problemas no médio oriente, 50 anos de domínio comunista e a guerra fria, a social-democracia.
Taxa Única de Impostos (IRS, IRC, IVA)
Depois de em Espanha se ter falado, pela mão da esquerda, numa taxa única de IRS, foi agora a vez de na Alemanha, uma chamada "comissão de sábios" recomendar uma taxa única de IRS e IRC de 30%.
Parece que a minha proposta de Taxa Única de Impostos começa a ganhar adeptos.
Resumidamente o que proponho é um "pacto de regime" para que o IRS, IRC e IVA tenham uma Taxa Única, seja qual ela for, para simplificar as escolhas colectivas e impedir a habitual tática de mudar alguma coisa para ficar tudo na mesma. Por exemplo, tivemos uma subida do IVA de 2%, depois uma baixa do IRC e agora anunciam uma qualquer baixa no IRS. Mais tarde alguém se vai lembrar de fazer o contrário.
Assim, com uma Taxa Única, ganharemos a simplificação do IRS e o fim da imoralidade no princípio da descriminação segundo o rendimento (e a descredibilização do sistema democrático ao permitir que uma maioria, em interesse próprio, vote pela diferente aplicação do ónus de um imposto e com a consequência de desincentivar a produtividade) que é a progressividade galopante (que quanto muito, só será compreensível ao nível da isenção até um determinado rendimento) e o fim do jogo sobre subidas e descidas de diferentes impostos.
Assim, como ponto de partida, começaríamos em:
Taxa de IRS, IRC, IVA: 20%.
E as diferentes propostas eleitorais e governamentais iriam concentrar-se na discussão da Taxa (e talvez os níveis de isenção e crédito de imposto para os rendimentos mais baixos).
Nota: Vou estar em actividade reduzida até Setembro.
Parece que a minha proposta de Taxa Única de Impostos começa a ganhar adeptos.
Resumidamente o que proponho é um "pacto de regime" para que o IRS, IRC e IVA tenham uma Taxa Única, seja qual ela for, para simplificar as escolhas colectivas e impedir a habitual tática de mudar alguma coisa para ficar tudo na mesma. Por exemplo, tivemos uma subida do IVA de 2%, depois uma baixa do IRC e agora anunciam uma qualquer baixa no IRS. Mais tarde alguém se vai lembrar de fazer o contrário.
Assim, com uma Taxa Única, ganharemos a simplificação do IRS e o fim da imoralidade no princípio da descriminação segundo o rendimento (e a descredibilização do sistema democrático ao permitir que uma maioria, em interesse próprio, vote pela diferente aplicação do ónus de um imposto e com a consequência de desincentivar a produtividade) que é a progressividade galopante (que quanto muito, só será compreensível ao nível da isenção até um determinado rendimento) e o fim do jogo sobre subidas e descidas de diferentes impostos.
Assim, como ponto de partida, começaríamos em:
Taxa de IRS, IRC, IVA: 20%.
E as diferentes propostas eleitorais e governamentais iriam concentrar-se na discussão da Taxa (e talvez os níveis de isenção e crédito de imposto para os rendimentos mais baixos).
Nota: Vou estar em actividade reduzida até Setembro.
quarta-feira, 28 de julho de 2004
sexta-feira, 23 de julho de 2004
The Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
Inicio o meu contributo no Blog da Causa, com uma questão que me é particularmente cara: o Espaço, o Direito e a Política Espacial.
No passado dia 20, completaram-se 35 anos que pela primeira vez (conhecida pelo menos!) o ser humano caminhou na superfície lunar!
Foram os americanos, e em particular, Neil Armstrong, a terem a primazia no que toca à alunagem, in personna.
Hoje, mais se seguirá, umas "luzes" sobre:
- os recursos da Lua (e de outros Corpos Celestes);
- a quem pertencem;
- como explorá-los.
Transcrevo um texto do distinto e emérito Presidente do ECSL (European Centre for Space Law), que versa sobre a questão:
"The question of the legal status of the Moon's resources resurfaced (on the Earth), when some years ago a certain Mr. Dennis Hope, after having consulted some lawyers (it's possible to find lawyers to discuss matters about which they are ignorant) decided to set up "the Moon Embassy" and to sell acreage for a very attractive price: a dream in the eyes of grandchildren willing to experiment with their own crossing towards a "new frontier".
Serious as usual, international space lawyers - the new 7th cavalry - launched their assault. But was it too late? Firms have already been developing business proposals such as scattering your ashes on or around the Moon, or offering a fantastic honeymoon in space. Tourists are coming, as usual, following the discovery and colonisation of a new territory. But who should administer your sheriff to avoid a new gunfight at the OK Corral? (Clint Eastwood has already been to the Moon!)
The serious international space lawyers presented their views during the 43rd session of the UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee (29 March to 8 April), co-organized by the International Institute of Space Law and the European Centre for Space Law, under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Jankowitsch (Austria).
The audience listened as Mr. Tennen, an attorney -at-law from Arizona, courageously alleged that the non-apprpriation principle referred to in the Outer Space Treaty is at risk. Prof. A. Kerrest de Rozavel, while comparing the law of the sea and the law of outer space, said there is a problem when the use of the res implies its destruction (but what is a res?).
Prof. S. Hobe presented the Resolution adopted by the 2002 International Law Association, with a different vision than the one of Prof. Kerrest. And, finally, Prof. Lochan, a scientist ISRO explained to the lawyers the "a,b,c's" of the exploration and exploitation of the Moon. Newcomers always have to pay a price higher than others (on Earth too!).
Discussions took place with the participation, among others, of Prof. Gabrynowicz, Mr. Cassapoglou and Prof. Kopal. Prof. Marchisio, Chairman of the Legal Subcommittee, expressed conclusion remarks.
A last worry for 2005: where do we go after the Moon? To its hidden side? To Mars?
On the subject of "private property rights" on the Moon, let me mention the draft statement clearly concludes the prohibition of : national appropriation, the application of any soveireignty and the national legislation on territorial basis. The sellers of such deeds are legally unable to acquire title on their "claims".
I hope that Mr. Hope receives this statement by special "DHL - Moon" and, also, that all governments are reminded that we don't own the Moon or any other celestial bodies. In the future we may have to set up "Texas rangers" in order to implement Earthly laws.
- Dr. G. Lafferanderie
ECSL
quinta-feira, 22 de julho de 2004
domingo, 18 de julho de 2004
sexta-feira, 16 de julho de 2004
Fukuyama
Depois do anúncio da retirada do seu apoio a Bush nas eleições, fica como dado em restrospectiva:
"(...) Once a rising young star in the neocon firmament, Fukuyama signed a 1998 letter to then President Clinton, sponsored by the Project for a New American Century, urging him to take out after Iraq, and another one shortly after 9/11, urging George W. Bush not to be distracted by Osama bin Laden when he should really be going after Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, and the Palestinians – oh, and don't forget that "a serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending."
But people can always change their minds – yes, even at the End of History."
Justin Raimondo
PS: Sabemos hoje a dimensão do perigo que Saddam, os palestinianos, a Síria, "whatever", representam para os EUA. E da insignificância de Osama Bin Laden.
Pacto de Estabilidade e o caminho Federalista
A única penalização realmente eficaz e o único que faz sentido tendo em conta o facto - novo na história - de várias dívidas públicas de diferentes Estados independentes serem monetizados por emissão monetária por parte do Banco Central é:
A Dívida Pública (adicional) do Estado não cumpridor deixar de ser comprado/monetizado pelo BCE. Desta forma, os déficits deixam de poder ser financiados por monetização/inflação monetária (mal só possível - e imposto escondido - com o fim coercivo do Padrão Ouro e da liberdade bancária) e isso obriga automáticamente ao equilíbrio ou ao Default.
Eu não o quero, mas os economistas federalistas irão perceber da sua utilidade mais tarde ou mais cedo.
Depois teremos um caminho gradual para transformar as dividas "estaduais" monetizáveis em dividas não monetizáveis, e em sua subtituição dividas federais monetizáveis. Neste ponto teremos orçamentos federais com déficits financiados por dívida federal monetizada, mas os Estados não.
Perceberam alguma coisa? É o problema de desencadearem processos políticos que mexem na soberania e que as populações não percebem nem deviam ter de perceber.
A Dívida Pública (adicional) do Estado não cumpridor deixar de ser comprado/monetizado pelo BCE. Desta forma, os déficits deixam de poder ser financiados por monetização/inflação monetária (mal só possível - e imposto escondido - com o fim coercivo do Padrão Ouro e da liberdade bancária) e isso obriga automáticamente ao equilíbrio ou ao Default.
Eu não o quero, mas os economistas federalistas irão perceber da sua utilidade mais tarde ou mais cedo.
Depois teremos um caminho gradual para transformar as dividas "estaduais" monetizáveis em dividas não monetizáveis, e em sua subtituição dividas federais monetizáveis. Neste ponto teremos orçamentos federais com déficits financiados por dívida federal monetizada, mas os Estados não.
Perceberam alguma coisa? É o problema de desencadearem processos políticos que mexem na soberania e que as populações não percebem nem deviam ter de perceber.
Inflação
Está agora nos 3.3% nos EUA e a taxa de juro fixada pelo FED (sempre que penso nisto, faz-me lembrar a fixação de preços na URSS) nos 1.25%. A bolsa está neutra, mas o imobilário a ferver, assim como os commodities e metais (ouro mas até mais a prata). Podemos ainda vir a observar inflação com crescimento enquanto os Banqueiros Centrais não entrarem em pânico, e depois sem crescimento quando ficarem.
Europe or Free Trade?
Nota (revisto): Por vezes fico com a impressão que quase toda a gente acha que o mundo civilizado começou no séc. 20 (ou talvez depois da WWII ) - o pior de todos os séculos da humanidade. O periodo de crescimento de prosperidade e de grande liberdade, pode ser identificado com o de Liberalismo Clássico, desde a revolução industrial ate à Grande Guerra. A Europa dividida em mutiplas nações descentralizadas, e alguns impérios concorrentes, tinha a liderança cultural e economica do mundo e a liberdade individual (em quase todos ou muitos dos seus aspectos) e defesa de direitos de propriedade era maior do que hoje. Ainda mais irritante é querer identificar a Europa com uma cultura do totalitarismo, quando foi na verdade, após a Grande Guerra, e a queda das monarquias (e ainda assim apenas por alguns anos - Hitler teve 12 anos no poder) que surgiu o fascismo, comunismo e social-democracia. Tudo inexistente e desconhecido até 1914. Reparem, vejo alguns a acusar Bismarck de ter dado alguns passos tímidos em direcção ao Federalismo Alemão (que incluia dezenas de Estados e monarquias autónomas) e algum Wellfare-State, quando toleram em grande medida a actual social-democracia e protecção ou fortaleza burocrática de sectores económicos inteiros (agricultura, educação, saúde), e onde 50% do nosso rendimento (o que nos aproxima de um estado de facto de escravatura - não ser dono do produto do nosso trabalho) está fora da "rule of law" do livre contrato.
Defende-se que a Europa se levantará na medida em que se contrua uma grande integração política. Não. Têm de voltar à diversidade cultural, politica e económica que teve na base do aparecimento do capitalismo e livre comércio na civilização. Se pode existir cooperação e coordenação a bem do livre comércio isso não tem de significar uma centralização exponencial da capacidade legislativa e até executiva. E não só não tem como no longo prazo podem bem ser incompatíveis. O Super-Estado Mínimo é uma Utopia.
Free trade – the ultimate pacifist
The heyday of free trade was the 100 years between the Napoleonic Wars and World War 1, the pinnacle being reached with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 --an issue which split the Conservative Party asunder and ushered classical liberalism into government. By the end of that period, Europe had enjoyed by far its most peaceful century.
Free trade intertwines international voluntary exchanges to such an extent that war is unthinkable to the participants; it is a doctrine of international peace in which the frontiers of nations are immaterial to their citizens. Any voluntary exchange benefits both participants. No fact about trade is more superficial than the particular pieces of geography concerned, so a single nation pursuing free trade unilaterally still gains.
In the early 20th century, not only goods but people could move freely around the world in a way never seen before or since; among the European nations only the Russian and Turkish Empires imposed visa requirements. In the previous halfcentury over 50 million people migrated from their home countries to other parts of the world.
Nobody could argue that the European Community has anything like this record, especially given its untested enlargements of membership, bureaucracy, and intervention in trade. (It started off as a common market of course.)
Unfortunately power politics was too strong for the doctrine of classical liberalism and free trade to survive, and the second half of the 19th century saw its decline – with Bismarck's welfare state (much admired by Churchill) and its philosophy of mercantilism and nationalistic self-sufficiency winning the day. In this climate, war is inevitable. (...)
The Globalisation bogeyman
Nor does the anti-enterprise globalisation movement fare any better in comparison with either theory or history. After the ravages of two world wars, international trade as a proportion of output has only just reached the levels of 100 years ago. Free trade is only a small proportion of that.
The European Community's Common Agricultural Policy is an affront to civilisation; its protection of rich Western farmers not only costs consumers billions, it also does its best to ensure that the world's poorest nations remain that way.
The Third World needs trade not aid – which is always siphoned off by corrupt politicians. An open border can accomplish what a dozen World Bank projects, billions of pounds of Aid (Government to Government) and all the UN councils on poverty cannot – massive reductions of Third World poverty.
What has this to do with cartels? Plenty! Cartels love tariff barriers; they help get rid of that pesky competition. True free enterprise has no cartels or monopolies; show me one and I'll show you a government behind it; Western farming is one of many examples. (...)
McDonalds has shops not jails
Similarly the idea that McDonald's or Coca-Cola or Microsoft is more powerful than any government is absurd; all are at the mercy of their customers, who can eliminate them at any time simply by walking away.
In contrast Government is all powerful and barely touched by periodical elections; it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in – inheriting, and almost always extending, enormous coercive power. (...)
Little Englanders or globetrotters?
No doubt some of those wanting a UK withdrawal from the EC have a nationalistic and isolationist agenda – which always leads to war. But many others don't; they simply want the advantages of the division of labour to be available to entirely voluntary trade, both within and across borders, in the promotion of international peace. In contrast political clubs like the EC are themselves often isolationist and bellicose.
Nikita Krushchev is credited with saying "When all the world is socialist, Switzerland will have to remain capitalist, so that it can tell us the price of everything".
Is it too much to expect the UK to join them in such a noble quest?
Defende-se que a Europa se levantará na medida em que se contrua uma grande integração política. Não. Têm de voltar à diversidade cultural, politica e económica que teve na base do aparecimento do capitalismo e livre comércio na civilização. Se pode existir cooperação e coordenação a bem do livre comércio isso não tem de significar uma centralização exponencial da capacidade legislativa e até executiva. E não só não tem como no longo prazo podem bem ser incompatíveis. O Super-Estado Mínimo é uma Utopia.
Free trade – the ultimate pacifist
The heyday of free trade was the 100 years between the Napoleonic Wars and World War 1, the pinnacle being reached with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 --an issue which split the Conservative Party asunder and ushered classical liberalism into government. By the end of that period, Europe had enjoyed by far its most peaceful century.
Free trade intertwines international voluntary exchanges to such an extent that war is unthinkable to the participants; it is a doctrine of international peace in which the frontiers of nations are immaterial to their citizens. Any voluntary exchange benefits both participants. No fact about trade is more superficial than the particular pieces of geography concerned, so a single nation pursuing free trade unilaterally still gains.
In the early 20th century, not only goods but people could move freely around the world in a way never seen before or since; among the European nations only the Russian and Turkish Empires imposed visa requirements. In the previous halfcentury over 50 million people migrated from their home countries to other parts of the world.
Nobody could argue that the European Community has anything like this record, especially given its untested enlargements of membership, bureaucracy, and intervention in trade. (It started off as a common market of course.)
Unfortunately power politics was too strong for the doctrine of classical liberalism and free trade to survive, and the second half of the 19th century saw its decline – with Bismarck's welfare state (much admired by Churchill) and its philosophy of mercantilism and nationalistic self-sufficiency winning the day. In this climate, war is inevitable. (...)
The Globalisation bogeyman
Nor does the anti-enterprise globalisation movement fare any better in comparison with either theory or history. After the ravages of two world wars, international trade as a proportion of output has only just reached the levels of 100 years ago. Free trade is only a small proportion of that.
The European Community's Common Agricultural Policy is an affront to civilisation; its protection of rich Western farmers not only costs consumers billions, it also does its best to ensure that the world's poorest nations remain that way.
The Third World needs trade not aid – which is always siphoned off by corrupt politicians. An open border can accomplish what a dozen World Bank projects, billions of pounds of Aid (Government to Government) and all the UN councils on poverty cannot – massive reductions of Third World poverty.
What has this to do with cartels? Plenty! Cartels love tariff barriers; they help get rid of that pesky competition. True free enterprise has no cartels or monopolies; show me one and I'll show you a government behind it; Western farming is one of many examples. (...)
McDonalds has shops not jails
Similarly the idea that McDonald's or Coca-Cola or Microsoft is more powerful than any government is absurd; all are at the mercy of their customers, who can eliminate them at any time simply by walking away.
In contrast Government is all powerful and barely touched by periodical elections; it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in – inheriting, and almost always extending, enormous coercive power. (...)
Little Englanders or globetrotters?
No doubt some of those wanting a UK withdrawal from the EC have a nationalistic and isolationist agenda – which always leads to war. But many others don't; they simply want the advantages of the division of labour to be available to entirely voluntary trade, both within and across borders, in the promotion of international peace. In contrast political clubs like the EC are themselves often isolationist and bellicose.
Nikita Krushchev is credited with saying "When all the world is socialist, Switzerland will have to remain capitalist, so that it can tell us the price of everything".
Is it too much to expect the UK to join them in such a noble quest?
quinta-feira, 15 de julho de 2004
Freitas do Amaral
Na Visão, chama Neo-Liberal a Durão Barroso e Bruxelas e o Sampaio o Guardião de tal infame política.
E quer esquecer que um sistema semi-presidencialista, também é semi-parlamentarista.
E quer esquecer que um sistema semi-presidencialista, também é semi-parlamentarista.
"Cenários da Morte e Enterro de Arafat Assustam Israel"
"Um fantasma assombra Israel: a morte de Yasser Arafat, 75 anos, pode levar centenas de milhar de palestinianos a marchar sobre Jerusalém com o cadáver do líder palestiniano para aí o enterrarem. O cenário é traçado num documento interno da MNE israelita, ontem revelado pela rádio militar.
Seguir-se-ia o desmoronamento da Autoridade Palestiniana e o risco de intervenção internacional, diz o documento, que admite o recomeço das manifestações de massa que marcaram o início da Intifada em 2000."
Nota:
Os chineses dizem "Cuidado com o que desejas porque podes consegui-lo realizar". Como o afastamento do poder de Saddam (e do seu partido e estrutura administrativa, policial e militar) mostra, quando um inimigo é demonizado até ao limite e depois esmagado, arriscamo-nos a ficar com um caos anónimo e invisível nas mãos e um futuro incerto.
Os chinese também dizem "Mantém os teus amigos perto e os teus inimigos ainda mais".
Depois da Grande Guerra e o fim de Guilherme II e do Império Austro-Hungaro (e do Czar), foi Churchill o primeiro a ter saudades dos seus velhos rivais e a lamentar o seu desaparecimento.
Seguir-se-ia o desmoronamento da Autoridade Palestiniana e o risco de intervenção internacional, diz o documento, que admite o recomeço das manifestações de massa que marcaram o início da Intifada em 2000."
Nota:
Os chineses dizem "Cuidado com o que desejas porque podes consegui-lo realizar". Como o afastamento do poder de Saddam (e do seu partido e estrutura administrativa, policial e militar) mostra, quando um inimigo é demonizado até ao limite e depois esmagado, arriscamo-nos a ficar com um caos anónimo e invisível nas mãos e um futuro incerto.
Os chinese também dizem "Mantém os teus amigos perto e os teus inimigos ainda mais".
Depois da Grande Guerra e o fim de Guilherme II e do Império Austro-Hungaro (e do Czar), foi Churchill o primeiro a ter saudades dos seus velhos rivais e a lamentar o seu desaparecimento.
O começo do fim: Fukuyama Withdraws Bush Support
"Famous academic Francis Fukuyama, one of the founding fathers of the neo-conservative movement that underlies the policies of US President George W. Bush's administration, said on July 13 that he would not vote for the incumbent in the November 2 US Presidential election.
In addition to distancing himself from the current administration, Fukuyama told TIME magazine that his old friend, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should resign.
In 1997, Fukuyama together with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush, signed a declaration entitled 'The New American Century Project'. That declaration set the groundwork for the neo-conservative movement.(...)"
Nota: E agora que o movimento e as pessoas responsáveis pelos erros de Bush (que durante a sua campanha discursou explicitamente contra o "nation building" e por uma "humble foreign policy") se prepara para uma possivel mudança (e habitual) e apoio aos Democratas (como já Clinton tinha tido no Kosovo, Somália, etc) quer dizer duas coisas:
1) Pior que um Republicano rodeado de neoconservadores é um presidente democrata rodeado de neoconservadores. Pelo menos, mesmo em grande minoria, ainda existem Republicanos pela "Republic, not an Empire" que lêm a sua Constituição de vez em quando sem grandes reinterpretações.
2) Todos os grandes "war presidents" americanos, desde a guerra contra a Coroa Espanhola e subsequente anexação de Cuba e as Filipinas por Teddy Roosevelt (o tio), a entrada ingénua e desastrosa na Grande Guerra por Woodrow Wilson, a instigação do conflito com o Japão por Roosevelt e a legitimização e alargamento do poder de Estaline, o uso de WMD (e crime contra a humanidade) por Harry Truman, a guerra inconstitucional na Coreia (não foi declarada pelo Congresso), o Vietname de Lyndon Johnson - foram Democratas, e constituem no seu todo, as grandes referências do militarismo ideológico pelo "Império da Liberdade", com referências desde o internacionalismo de Trotksy ao elitismo politico amoral de Leo Strauss.
São sempre os bens intencionados que provocam os maiores males. Quando a direita esquece o seu traço egoista-individualista-comunitário, pouco favorável a grandes mudanças sociais, consciente do quanto mal menor (mas ainda assim com muitos males) é a democracia, é um problema. Mas pelo menos recorda-se de vez em quando do seu "Ethos" (ou pelo menos, assim espero).
In addition to distancing himself from the current administration, Fukuyama told TIME magazine that his old friend, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should resign.
In 1997, Fukuyama together with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush, signed a declaration entitled 'The New American Century Project'. That declaration set the groundwork for the neo-conservative movement.(...)"
Nota: E agora que o movimento e as pessoas responsáveis pelos erros de Bush (que durante a sua campanha discursou explicitamente contra o "nation building" e por uma "humble foreign policy") se prepara para uma possivel mudança (e habitual) e apoio aos Democratas (como já Clinton tinha tido no Kosovo, Somália, etc) quer dizer duas coisas:
1) Pior que um Republicano rodeado de neoconservadores é um presidente democrata rodeado de neoconservadores. Pelo menos, mesmo em grande minoria, ainda existem Republicanos pela "Republic, not an Empire" que lêm a sua Constituição de vez em quando sem grandes reinterpretações.
2) Todos os grandes "war presidents" americanos, desde a guerra contra a Coroa Espanhola e subsequente anexação de Cuba e as Filipinas por Teddy Roosevelt (o tio), a entrada ingénua e desastrosa na Grande Guerra por Woodrow Wilson, a instigação do conflito com o Japão por Roosevelt e a legitimização e alargamento do poder de Estaline, o uso de WMD (e crime contra a humanidade) por Harry Truman, a guerra inconstitucional na Coreia (não foi declarada pelo Congresso), o Vietname de Lyndon Johnson - foram Democratas, e constituem no seu todo, as grandes referências do militarismo ideológico pelo "Império da Liberdade", com referências desde o internacionalismo de Trotksy ao elitismo politico amoral de Leo Strauss.
São sempre os bens intencionados que provocam os maiores males. Quando a direita esquece o seu traço egoista-individualista-comunitário, pouco favorável a grandes mudanças sociais, consciente do quanto mal menor (mas ainda assim com muitos males) é a democracia, é um problema. Mas pelo menos recorda-se de vez em quando do seu "Ethos" (ou pelo menos, assim espero).
Os (unicos) 6 votos Republicanos em Oct 2002 no Congresso contra a Guerra
Ron Paul, Texas: "For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine… when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously. … There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come."
Jim Leach, Iowa: "The best chance we have to defeat terrorism and the anarchy it seeks is to widen the application of law and the institutions, including international ones that make law more plausible, acceptable and, in the end, enforceable …"
John Hostettler, Indiana: "A novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression? …‘Don't fire unless fired upon.’ It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the minutemen and framers of the Constitution …"
Connie Morella, Maryland: "Can I or can any parent look into the eyes of an 18-year-old boy and with a clear mind and clear conscience say that we have exhausted every other option before sending him into the perils of conflict? …The world is watching us today as we show how the world's last remaining superpower sees fit to use its great influence. We are looked to as we set an example for the world."
Amo Houghton:"… with thousands of votes which we make over the years, I have found that conscience is probably the best thing to follow and is most honest if one is going to be true to one's self, if not always politically popular. … Iraq is now one of the only secular countries in that region. And the Sunnis and the Shiites could create such a mess following a war that we could find ourselves against a religious fundamentalist state …, where that is not the case now. Now there are some people here in Washington who seem to be clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq. I represent a very patriotic pro-military district in Tennessee. My people will strongly support our troops if we go to war. But I can assure you that as I go around my district I hear no clamor or even a weak desire to go to war against Iraq …
Of these six Representatives, only Connie Morella was not re-elected, in a close race in a recently redrawn district. Imagine! Sticking to the Constitution and an 83% percent chance of keeping your job? Sounds like the American people might be smarter than Washington thinks.
Edmund Burke wrote, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
America and the Constitution were betrayed by the United States Congress in 2002. We know it now. But the common opinions and uncommon ability of Ron Paul, Jim Leach, John Hostettler, Connie Morella, Amo Houghton and John J. Duncan should both inspire us today and set a new standard for the 109th Congress."
Six Heroes in Washington, by Karen Kwiatkowski
[is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.]
Jim Leach, Iowa: "The best chance we have to defeat terrorism and the anarchy it seeks is to widen the application of law and the institutions, including international ones that make law more plausible, acceptable and, in the end, enforceable …"
John Hostettler, Indiana: "A novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression? …‘Don't fire unless fired upon.’ It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the minutemen and framers of the Constitution …"
Connie Morella, Maryland: "Can I or can any parent look into the eyes of an 18-year-old boy and with a clear mind and clear conscience say that we have exhausted every other option before sending him into the perils of conflict? …The world is watching us today as we show how the world's last remaining superpower sees fit to use its great influence. We are looked to as we set an example for the world."
Amo Houghton:"… with thousands of votes which we make over the years, I have found that conscience is probably the best thing to follow and is most honest if one is going to be true to one's self, if not always politically popular. … Iraq is now one of the only secular countries in that region. And the Sunnis and the Shiites could create such a mess following a war that we could find ourselves against a religious fundamentalist state …, where that is not the case now. Now there are some people here in Washington who seem to be clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq. I represent a very patriotic pro-military district in Tennessee. My people will strongly support our troops if we go to war. But I can assure you that as I go around my district I hear no clamor or even a weak desire to go to war against Iraq …
Of these six Representatives, only Connie Morella was not re-elected, in a close race in a recently redrawn district. Imagine! Sticking to the Constitution and an 83% percent chance of keeping your job? Sounds like the American people might be smarter than Washington thinks.
Edmund Burke wrote, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
America and the Constitution were betrayed by the United States Congress in 2002. We know it now. But the common opinions and uncommon ability of Ron Paul, Jim Leach, John Hostettler, Connie Morella, Amo Houghton and John J. Duncan should both inspire us today and set a new standard for the 109th Congress."
Six Heroes in Washington, by Karen Kwiatkowski
[is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.]
quarta-feira, 14 de julho de 2004
Albert Jay Nock
"To take another example, the present state of public affairs shows clearly enough that the State is the poorest instrument imaginable for improving human society, and that confidence in political institutions and political nostrums is ludicrously misplaced.
Social philosophers in every age have been strenuously insisting that all this sort of fatuity is simply putting the cart before the horse; that society cannot be moralized and improved unless and until the individual is moralized and improved.
Jesus insisted on this; it is the fundamental principle of Christian social philosophy.
Pagan sages, ancient sages, modern sages, a whole apostolic succession running all the way from Confucius and Epictetus down to Nietzsche, Ibsen, William Penn, and Herbert Spencer--all these have insisted on it."
Social philosophers in every age have been strenuously insisting that all this sort of fatuity is simply putting the cart before the horse; that society cannot be moralized and improved unless and until the individual is moralized and improved.
Jesus insisted on this; it is the fundamental principle of Christian social philosophy.
Pagan sages, ancient sages, modern sages, a whole apostolic succession running all the way from Confucius and Epictetus down to Nietzsche, Ibsen, William Penn, and Herbert Spencer--all these have insisted on it."
Sobre democracia
1. Não existem democracias "liberais"
2. Todas as democracias modernas são, na realidade sociais-democracias.(1)
3. O único caminho para que "democracia" e "liberalismo" possam ser cada vez mais compatíveis é a descentralização política, a privatização, a liberdade de escolha na educação-saúde-reformas, a abertura de cada vez mais sectores à liberdade económica, incluíndo o da defesa, produção de lei e tribunais (muito abundantes na história até antes do séc. 20, por exemplo, o direito mercantil, os julgados de paz, o estrito "commom law", etc).
4. De todas, a descentralização política (e o federalismo interno) é a mais importante, porque será a única forma que regiões e localidades possam prosseguir caminhos e escolhas próprios mais liberais do que as inevitáveis políticas nacionais sociais-democratas ou resultantes de grandes integrações políticas internacionais.
4. Existem e já existiram muitas não democracias muito liberais económicamente (o que perfaz uma boa parte da chamada liberdade individual): muitos regimes monárquicos a seguir à revolução industrial e antes da Grande Guerra. E muitos outros passados e presentes: Singapura, Qatar, Dubai, etc.
(1)A king owned the territory and could hand it on to his son, and thus tried to preserve its value. A democratic ruler was and is a temporary caretaker and thus tries to maximize current government income of all sorts at the expense of capital values, and thus wastes.
Here are some of the consequences: during the monarchical age before World War I, government expenditure as a percent of GNP was rarely higher than 5%. Since then it has typically risen to around 50%. Prior to World War I, government employment was typically less than 3% of total employment. Since then it has increased to between 15 and 20%. The monarchical age was characterized by a commodity money (gold) and the purchasing power of money gradually increased. In contrast, the democratic age is the age of paper money whose purchasing power has permanently decreased.
Kings went deeper and deeper into debt, but at least during peacetime they typically reduced their debt load. During the democratic era government debt has increased in war and in peace to incredible heights. Real interest rates during the monarchical age had gradually fallen to somewhere around 2½%. Since then, real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) have risen to somewhere around 5%--equal to 15th-century rates. Legislation virtually did not exist until the end of the 19th century. Today, in a single year, tens of thousands of laws and regulations are passed. Savings rates are declining instead of increasing with increasing incomes, and indicators of family disintegration and crime are moving constantly upward." Hans-Hermann Hoppe
2. Todas as democracias modernas são, na realidade sociais-democracias.(1)
3. O único caminho para que "democracia" e "liberalismo" possam ser cada vez mais compatíveis é a descentralização política, a privatização, a liberdade de escolha na educação-saúde-reformas, a abertura de cada vez mais sectores à liberdade económica, incluíndo o da defesa, produção de lei e tribunais (muito abundantes na história até antes do séc. 20, por exemplo, o direito mercantil, os julgados de paz, o estrito "commom law", etc).
4. De todas, a descentralização política (e o federalismo interno) é a mais importante, porque será a única forma que regiões e localidades possam prosseguir caminhos e escolhas próprios mais liberais do que as inevitáveis políticas nacionais sociais-democratas ou resultantes de grandes integrações políticas internacionais.
4. Existem e já existiram muitas não democracias muito liberais económicamente (o que perfaz uma boa parte da chamada liberdade individual): muitos regimes monárquicos a seguir à revolução industrial e antes da Grande Guerra. E muitos outros passados e presentes: Singapura, Qatar, Dubai, etc.
(1)A king owned the territory and could hand it on to his son, and thus tried to preserve its value. A democratic ruler was and is a temporary caretaker and thus tries to maximize current government income of all sorts at the expense of capital values, and thus wastes.
Here are some of the consequences: during the monarchical age before World War I, government expenditure as a percent of GNP was rarely higher than 5%. Since then it has typically risen to around 50%. Prior to World War I, government employment was typically less than 3% of total employment. Since then it has increased to between 15 and 20%. The monarchical age was characterized by a commodity money (gold) and the purchasing power of money gradually increased. In contrast, the democratic age is the age of paper money whose purchasing power has permanently decreased.
Kings went deeper and deeper into debt, but at least during peacetime they typically reduced their debt load. During the democratic era government debt has increased in war and in peace to incredible heights. Real interest rates during the monarchical age had gradually fallen to somewhere around 2½%. Since then, real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) have risen to somewhere around 5%--equal to 15th-century rates. Legislation virtually did not exist until the end of the 19th century. Today, in a single year, tens of thousands of laws and regulations are passed. Savings rates are declining instead of increasing with increasing incomes, and indicators of family disintegration and crime are moving constantly upward." Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"Libertarianism, as it comes of age politically, is bound to reassert itself as an ideology that goes beyond "left" and "right." These archaic categories, based on the seating arrangements in the French Parliament circa 1790, serve only to mask the real ideological divide." (Ou seja, estatismo , versus, não estatismo). Justin Raimundo.
Desenvolvimentos geoestratégicos
Russia warns Nato on Baltic military patrols
"Russia warned Nato yesterday against deploying forces in the former Soviet bloc and said that the Baltic states' failure to respect the rights of ethnic Russians represented a "threat" to the country.
Russia has long felt threatened by the encroachment of Nato on its borders, and Sergei Ivanov, the Defence Minister, said: "What alarms us most, from the point of view of our own security, is the Nato deployment of means and forces on the territory of its new members."(...)"
Nota: Pergunto eu qual a ligação entre a ciência oculta da geoestratégia e as populações que financiam as jogadas no tabuleiro do "war games"? Nenhuma. Perguntem a um cidadão da rua: quer financiar voluntáriamente com o seu dinheiro a transformação da Nato numa organização ofensiva e que se quer expandir para as fronteiras de outras potências aproveitando as debilidades momentâneas destas e aumentando a probabilidade no longo prazo, que acontecimentos inesperados ou maus julgamentos em situações emergentes (tal como a história o demonstra em abundância), provoquem conflitos que ninguém consegue parar e muitos até instigam? Se fosse livre, não. E você?
PS: mais um exemplo de populismo liberal (no sentido não intervencionista) nos assuntos internacionais.
"Russia warned Nato yesterday against deploying forces in the former Soviet bloc and said that the Baltic states' failure to respect the rights of ethnic Russians represented a "threat" to the country.
Russia has long felt threatened by the encroachment of Nato on its borders, and Sergei Ivanov, the Defence Minister, said: "What alarms us most, from the point of view of our own security, is the Nato deployment of means and forces on the territory of its new members."(...)"
Nota: Pergunto eu qual a ligação entre a ciência oculta da geoestratégia e as populações que financiam as jogadas no tabuleiro do "war games"? Nenhuma. Perguntem a um cidadão da rua: quer financiar voluntáriamente com o seu dinheiro a transformação da Nato numa organização ofensiva e que se quer expandir para as fronteiras de outras potências aproveitando as debilidades momentâneas destas e aumentando a probabilidade no longo prazo, que acontecimentos inesperados ou maus julgamentos em situações emergentes (tal como a história o demonstra em abundância), provoquem conflitos que ninguém consegue parar e muitos até instigam? Se fosse livre, não. E você?
PS: mais um exemplo de populismo liberal (no sentido não intervencionista) nos assuntos internacionais.
terça-feira, 13 de julho de 2004
READINGS ON ETHICS AND CAPITALISM: CATHOLICISM
Unpublished Memo to the Volker Fund, by Murray N. Rothbard, Dated: May 1960
Documento de 16 páginas, fica aqui o seu início.
"There is, first of all, no official and specific “Catholic position” on capitalism.
There are enormous differences among Catholics on political and economic questions: and Catholics can be found who are left-wing anarchists, socialists, middle-of-the-roaders, fascists, and ardent free-enterprisers and individualists. Even on such strict dogmatic matters as the immorality of birth control, Catholics, agreeing on that, differ as to whether birth control should or should not be illegal.
There had, however, been a kind of “central tendency” or drift, particularly in Europe, where the Church is apt to intervene more directly in political questions than it does here.
Papal pronouncements on social questions are generally highly vague and take on a consciously eclectic hue - understandable in the light of the Church’s aim to speak for every member of the flock of varying political and social tendencies. The effect, however, has been to move into a “middle-of-the-road” position. It is no accident that, generally in Europe the specifically “Catholic” parties are the eclectic, compromising parties of the “Center.”
The kind of position which says that both extremes - of individualism or capitalism, and of socia1ism are wrong, that both the individual good and the common good should be considered, that the State should be active for the common good, and yet not go beyond a limited sphere - all these homilies, seemingly innocuous and all-inclusive, permit a very wide interpretation of specifics, and therefore great diversity among Catholics although they do give rise to a middle-of-the-road tendency.
(The inner contradictions and fuzziness of Catholic thought can be seen in handling political issues; thus, a priest, when queried about Catholic Presidents of the U.S., how much they are subject to Catholic rule, etc., will say, in the same interview, that
(a) all Catholics are subject to the same Church law, but that
(b) public officials can get special exemptions by virtue of their office -
or
(a) that God must come before the State, but
(b) nothing that an American President could possibly do under the Constitution could
possibly call down official Catholic censure. And so on.)
Dr. Diamant, in describing European Catholic reaction to the Industrial Revolution, puts the situation as follows:
“Just as Catholics in dealing with the modern state had attempted to steer a middle course between the unacceptable extremes of political individualism and totalitarianism, so in Readings on Ethics and Capitalism: Part I Catholicism: Memo by MNR (1960)dealing with the ‘social question,’ they spoke about a two-front war against Adam Smith and Karl Marx, against laissez-faire and socialism. Because they differed on the nature of the ‘middle course,’ they held a variety of views on the social question,ranging from those of ‘Catholic liberals to Catholic (religious) socialists and corporativists”
(Alfred Diamant, Austrian Catholics and the First Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, and the Social Order, l9l8-1934 (Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 15).
Most of the specifically “Catholic” social thought has been Continental European, which, in a way has been unfortunate, since European Catholicism has been much more anticapitalist than Catholicism in the U.S. The Papal Encyclicals, which we will turn to first, have been strongly influenced by the European “Social” Catholicism and its various movements. In the United States, Catholics think politically and economically, much like other Americans, and they range in the spectrum from the extreme-right wing Brooklyn Tablet to the highly New Dealish Commonweal, and even to the left-wing anarchist Catholic Worker.
The central tendency, however, especially among parish priests and rankand-file, is often quite conservative and pro-capitalist. As for the Papal encylicals, it must also be remembered that Catholics are not required to take them for gospel; only the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” on matters of high religious dogma - which of course is a rare event must be obeyed implicitly.
The two famous “social” Encyclicals of modern times are Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novaru(1891), and Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931). (For convenient full texts, see Father Gerald C. Treacy, S.J., ed., Five Great Encyclicals (New York: The Paulist Press, 1939).)
I have read these two works carefully, and according to my reading, there is a great deal of difference between the two. Rerum Novarum while, to some extent middle-of-the-road and with a pro-labor bias, is fundamentally libertarian and pro-capitalist. Quadragesimo Anno,on the other hand, is virulently anti-capitalistic(...)"
Documento de 16 páginas, fica aqui o seu início.
"There is, first of all, no official and specific “Catholic position” on capitalism.
There are enormous differences among Catholics on political and economic questions: and Catholics can be found who are left-wing anarchists, socialists, middle-of-the-roaders, fascists, and ardent free-enterprisers and individualists. Even on such strict dogmatic matters as the immorality of birth control, Catholics, agreeing on that, differ as to whether birth control should or should not be illegal.
There had, however, been a kind of “central tendency” or drift, particularly in Europe, where the Church is apt to intervene more directly in political questions than it does here.
Papal pronouncements on social questions are generally highly vague and take on a consciously eclectic hue - understandable in the light of the Church’s aim to speak for every member of the flock of varying political and social tendencies. The effect, however, has been to move into a “middle-of-the-road” position. It is no accident that, generally in Europe the specifically “Catholic” parties are the eclectic, compromising parties of the “Center.”
The kind of position which says that both extremes - of individualism or capitalism, and of socia1ism are wrong, that both the individual good and the common good should be considered, that the State should be active for the common good, and yet not go beyond a limited sphere - all these homilies, seemingly innocuous and all-inclusive, permit a very wide interpretation of specifics, and therefore great diversity among Catholics although they do give rise to a middle-of-the-road tendency.
(The inner contradictions and fuzziness of Catholic thought can be seen in handling political issues; thus, a priest, when queried about Catholic Presidents of the U.S., how much they are subject to Catholic rule, etc., will say, in the same interview, that
(a) all Catholics are subject to the same Church law, but that
(b) public officials can get special exemptions by virtue of their office -
or
(a) that God must come before the State, but
(b) nothing that an American President could possibly do under the Constitution could
possibly call down official Catholic censure. And so on.)
Dr. Diamant, in describing European Catholic reaction to the Industrial Revolution, puts the situation as follows:
“Just as Catholics in dealing with the modern state had attempted to steer a middle course between the unacceptable extremes of political individualism and totalitarianism, so in Readings on Ethics and Capitalism: Part I Catholicism: Memo by MNR (1960)dealing with the ‘social question,’ they spoke about a two-front war against Adam Smith and Karl Marx, against laissez-faire and socialism. Because they differed on the nature of the ‘middle course,’ they held a variety of views on the social question,ranging from those of ‘Catholic liberals to Catholic (religious) socialists and corporativists”
(Alfred Diamant, Austrian Catholics and the First Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, and the Social Order, l9l8-1934 (Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 15).
Most of the specifically “Catholic” social thought has been Continental European, which, in a way has been unfortunate, since European Catholicism has been much more anticapitalist than Catholicism in the U.S. The Papal Encyclicals, which we will turn to first, have been strongly influenced by the European “Social” Catholicism and its various movements. In the United States, Catholics think politically and economically, much like other Americans, and they range in the spectrum from the extreme-right wing Brooklyn Tablet to the highly New Dealish Commonweal, and even to the left-wing anarchist Catholic Worker.
The central tendency, however, especially among parish priests and rankand-file, is often quite conservative and pro-capitalist. As for the Papal encylicals, it must also be remembered that Catholics are not required to take them for gospel; only the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” on matters of high religious dogma - which of course is a rare event must be obeyed implicitly.
The two famous “social” Encyclicals of modern times are Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novaru(1891), and Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931). (For convenient full texts, see Father Gerald C. Treacy, S.J., ed., Five Great Encyclicals (New York: The Paulist Press, 1939).)
I have read these two works carefully, and according to my reading, there is a great deal of difference between the two. Rerum Novarum while, to some extent middle-of-the-road and with a pro-labor bias, is fundamentally libertarian and pro-capitalist. Quadragesimo Anno,on the other hand, is virulently anti-capitalistic(...)"
Subsídios à exportação de produtos agrícolas
Acabem com eles já. Se fosse livre, não seria com o meu dinheiro. E com o seu, seria?
PS: Um exemplo de populismo liberal.
PS: Um exemplo de populismo liberal.
Direitos universais?
Afeganistão Milícias São Principal Ameaça
"As milícias privadas dos vários senhores da guerra afegãos são o maior perigo que o país enfrenta, superior à insurreição taliban, defendeu numa entrevista ontem publicada pelo "New York Times" o Presidente Hamid Karzai. "O pau tem que ser usado, definitivamente", disse Karzai, explicando que as tentativas de persuação com vista ao desarmamento têm fracassado, mas sem adiantar medidas concretas.
Nota: Ameaça para quem? (Pensava que os Taliban eram a ameaça, não - a AlQaeda, não - o Bin Laden, oh well). Ameaça para instituir um Estado formal central em todo o Afeganistão. Mas onde está a legitimidade para um centro de poder com a força das armas (ajudado por potências estrangeiras) impor o desarmamento das tribos com vista ao fim de um sistema milenar e equilíbrio de poderes? Porque uns o querem? E como justificar que aquilo que está definido como um direito numa Constituição tem de ser combatido no outro lado do mundo?
"As milícias privadas dos vários senhores da guerra afegãos são o maior perigo que o país enfrenta, superior à insurreição taliban, defendeu numa entrevista ontem publicada pelo "New York Times" o Presidente Hamid Karzai. "O pau tem que ser usado, definitivamente", disse Karzai, explicando que as tentativas de persuação com vista ao desarmamento têm fracassado, mas sem adiantar medidas concretas.
Nota: Ameaça para quem? (Pensava que os Taliban eram a ameaça, não - a AlQaeda, não - o Bin Laden, oh well). Ameaça para instituir um Estado formal central em todo o Afeganistão. Mas onde está a legitimidade para um centro de poder com a força das armas (ajudado por potências estrangeiras) impor o desarmamento das tribos com vista ao fim de um sistema milenar e equilíbrio de poderes? Porque uns o querem? E como justificar que aquilo que está definido como um direito numa Constituição tem de ser combatido no outro lado do mundo?
Checks and balances II
No Público: Em caso de acção terrorista durante a votação ou imediatamente antes dela. Administração Bush estuda a hipótese de adiar a data das eleições presidenciais.
Mas o que vale é que o maior garante contra a profecia de James Madison de que "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.", é mesmo a segunda emenda da Constituição:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Maior "check and balance" não existe. Na Europa, só talvez a Suiça ainda o preserve com o seu exército civil proto-milicia, onde tal como nos EUA (mesmo que não tivessem um exército formal) qualquer acção de ocupação externa ou usurpação interna enfrentaria custos demasiados elevados (muito maiores do que no Iraque).
Mas o que vale é que o maior garante contra a profecia de James Madison de que "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.", é mesmo a segunda emenda da Constituição:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Maior "check and balance" não existe. Na Europa, só talvez a Suiça ainda o preserve com o seu exército civil proto-milicia, onde tal como nos EUA (mesmo que não tivessem um exército formal) qualquer acção de ocupação externa ou usurpação interna enfrentaria custos demasiados elevados (muito maiores do que no Iraque).
segunda-feira, 12 de julho de 2004
Breve análise dos tempos modernos
Em Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"(...) How ironic that monarchism was destroyed by the same social forces that kings had first stimulated and enlisted when they began to exclude competing natural authorities from acting as judges: the envy of the common men against their betters, and the desire of the intellectuals for their allegedly deserved place in society.
When the king's promises of better and cheaper justice turned out to be empty, intellectuals turned the egalitarian sentiments the kings had previously courted against the monarchical rulers themselves. Accordingly, it appeared logical that kings, too, should be brought down and that the egalitarian policies, which monarchs had initiated, should be carried through to their ultimate conclusion: the monopolistic control of the judiciary by the common man. To the intellectuals, this meant by them, as the people's spokesmen.
As elementary economic theory could predict, with the transition from monarchical to democratic one-man-one-vote rule and the substitution of the people for the king, matters became worse.
The price of justice rose astronomically while the quality of law constantly deteriorated. For what this transition boiled down to was a system of private government ownership--a private monopoly--being replaced by a system of public government ownership--a publicly owned monopoly.
A "tragedy of the commons" was created. Everyone, not just the king, was now entitled to try to grab everyone else's private property. The consequences were more government exploitation (taxation); the deterioration of law to the point where the idea of a body of universal and immutable principles of justice disappeared and was replaced by the idea of law as legislation (made, rather than found and eternally "given" law); and an increase in the social rate of time preference (increased present-orientation.)
A king owned the territory and could hand it on to his son, and thus tried to preserve its value. A democratic ruler was and is a temporary caretaker and thus tries to maximize current government income of all sorts at the expense of capital values, and thus wastes.
Here are some of the consequences: during the monarchical age before World War I, government expenditure as a percent of GNP was rarely higher than 5%. Since then it has typically risen to around 50%. Prior to World War I, government employment was typically less than 3% of total employment. Since then it has increased to between 15 and 20%. The monarchical age was characterized by a commodity money (gold) and the purchasing power of money gradually increased. In contrast, the democratic age is the age of paper money whose purchasing power has permanently decreased.
Kings went deeper and deeper into debt, but at least during peacetime they typically reduced their debt load. During the democratic era government debt has increased in war and in peace to incredible heights. Real interest rates during the monarchical age had gradually fallen to somewhere around 2½%. Since then, real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) have risen to somewhere around 5%--equal to 15th-century rates. Legislation virtually did not exist until the end of the 19th century. Today, in a single year, tens of thousands of laws and regulations are passed. Savings rates are declining instead of increasing with increasing incomes, and indicators of family disintegration and crime are moving constantly upward."
"(...) How ironic that monarchism was destroyed by the same social forces that kings had first stimulated and enlisted when they began to exclude competing natural authorities from acting as judges: the envy of the common men against their betters, and the desire of the intellectuals for their allegedly deserved place in society.
When the king's promises of better and cheaper justice turned out to be empty, intellectuals turned the egalitarian sentiments the kings had previously courted against the monarchical rulers themselves. Accordingly, it appeared logical that kings, too, should be brought down and that the egalitarian policies, which monarchs had initiated, should be carried through to their ultimate conclusion: the monopolistic control of the judiciary by the common man. To the intellectuals, this meant by them, as the people's spokesmen.
As elementary economic theory could predict, with the transition from monarchical to democratic one-man-one-vote rule and the substitution of the people for the king, matters became worse.
The price of justice rose astronomically while the quality of law constantly deteriorated. For what this transition boiled down to was a system of private government ownership--a private monopoly--being replaced by a system of public government ownership--a publicly owned monopoly.
A "tragedy of the commons" was created. Everyone, not just the king, was now entitled to try to grab everyone else's private property. The consequences were more government exploitation (taxation); the deterioration of law to the point where the idea of a body of universal and immutable principles of justice disappeared and was replaced by the idea of law as legislation (made, rather than found and eternally "given" law); and an increase in the social rate of time preference (increased present-orientation.)
A king owned the territory and could hand it on to his son, and thus tried to preserve its value. A democratic ruler was and is a temporary caretaker and thus tries to maximize current government income of all sorts at the expense of capital values, and thus wastes.
Here are some of the consequences: during the monarchical age before World War I, government expenditure as a percent of GNP was rarely higher than 5%. Since then it has typically risen to around 50%. Prior to World War I, government employment was typically less than 3% of total employment. Since then it has increased to between 15 and 20%. The monarchical age was characterized by a commodity money (gold) and the purchasing power of money gradually increased. In contrast, the democratic age is the age of paper money whose purchasing power has permanently decreased.
Kings went deeper and deeper into debt, but at least during peacetime they typically reduced their debt load. During the democratic era government debt has increased in war and in peace to incredible heights. Real interest rates during the monarchical age had gradually fallen to somewhere around 2½%. Since then, real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) have risen to somewhere around 5%--equal to 15th-century rates. Legislation virtually did not exist until the end of the 19th century. Today, in a single year, tens of thousands of laws and regulations are passed. Savings rates are declining instead of increasing with increasing incomes, and indicators of family disintegration and crime are moving constantly upward."
Reflexões sobre a Europa II
Depois da posta "Reflexões sobre a Europa" com pensamentos do Luis Aguiar Santos, ficam aqui também, partes de uma discussão interna na Causa Liberal, agora produzida por Pedro Madeira Froufe (e colocadas com a sua autorização).
(I)
Eu NÃO sou anti-federalista (seja lá o que isso for)! De resto, importará precisar, desde logo, para uma discussão deste género, de que modelo histórico de federalismo (organização do poder político numa lógica pluridecisional e subsidiária) é que estamos a falar...se bem que ache que todos os modelos foram-se construindo precisamente com o devir histórico, a começar pelo Norte-Americano...
Mas, independentemente disso (que seria um bom ponto prévio conceitual) e sem embargo de não vislumbrar muito bem aquilo que, in casu, imputam a este Tratado dito "constitucional" (independentemente de não concordar com alguns/muitos aspectos do dito), o facto é que não nos podemos esquecer que:
1 - Como uma parte significativa da doutrina norte-americana (neste caso, pelo menos desde 1995) e europeia têm vindo a trabalhar e a desenvolver - sobretudo no contexto das mudanças na correlação tradicional das "forças" e poderes políticos nas constituições materiais contemporâneas, fruto, designadamente, dos efeitos da globalização e do aprofundamento da integração comercial mundial, de facto existente - há que equacionar o aparecimento de um "novo constitucionalismo"...
2 - De facto, tal como o André refere, eu pessoalmente também não concordo com o exerto/definição de "europa não federal" infra, do CN. Com efeito, tal definição é não só a de uma Europa não federal, mas, MAIS e DIFERENTEMENTE disso, de uma Não Integração (de resto, nesses termos, a questão correcta a colocar deveria ser "Concorda ou não com a integração europeia"?)
II. (...) Na verdade, até agora e sem grande visibilidade, é certo, (até por razões naturais, técnicas e pouco apelativas para tratamento jornalístico), o processo de integração tem sido, sobretudo, numa perspectiva de "infraestrutura" (obrigado, K. Marx!!), uma "integração jurídica". O TJCE tem vindo a concretizar e a solidificar a vontade política (muitas vezes, corrigindo-a indirectamente expressa/subjacente aos Tratados. Por outro lado, as interinfluências são recíprocas, ou seja, na própria decisão política "pura" (ex. a nível de Conselho), reflectem-se, assimilam-se os avanços e as correntes jurisprudênciais (nem que seja como limite á decisão política). Por exemplo, é interessante ver um dos últimos acordãos do TJCE, ilustrativo precisamente destas inter-influências e que envolve mesmo Portugal e uma certa "esperteza saloia" do Estado português (além do relacionamento Conselho - Comissão), em matéria de "auxílios de Estado". Trata-se do Acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça de 29 de Junho de 2004, "Comissão vs. Conselho e República Portuguesa" (tem alguns dias e posso enviar,em breve, o link respectivo)...
(I)
Eu NÃO sou anti-federalista (seja lá o que isso for)! De resto, importará precisar, desde logo, para uma discussão deste género, de que modelo histórico de federalismo (organização do poder político numa lógica pluridecisional e subsidiária) é que estamos a falar...se bem que ache que todos os modelos foram-se construindo precisamente com o devir histórico, a começar pelo Norte-Americano...
Mas, independentemente disso (que seria um bom ponto prévio conceitual) e sem embargo de não vislumbrar muito bem aquilo que, in casu, imputam a este Tratado dito "constitucional" (independentemente de não concordar com alguns/muitos aspectos do dito), o facto é que não nos podemos esquecer que:
1 - Como uma parte significativa da doutrina norte-americana (neste caso, pelo menos desde 1995) e europeia têm vindo a trabalhar e a desenvolver - sobretudo no contexto das mudanças na correlação tradicional das "forças" e poderes políticos nas constituições materiais contemporâneas, fruto, designadamente, dos efeitos da globalização e do aprofundamento da integração comercial mundial, de facto existente - há que equacionar o aparecimento de um "novo constitucionalismo"...
2 - De facto, tal como o André refere, eu pessoalmente também não concordo com o exerto/definição de "europa não federal" infra, do CN. Com efeito, tal definição é não só a de uma Europa não federal, mas, MAIS e DIFERENTEMENTE disso, de uma Não Integração (de resto, nesses termos, a questão correcta a colocar deveria ser "Concorda ou não com a integração europeia"?)
II. (...) Na verdade, até agora e sem grande visibilidade, é certo, (até por razões naturais, técnicas e pouco apelativas para tratamento jornalístico), o processo de integração tem sido, sobretudo, numa perspectiva de "infraestrutura" (obrigado, K. Marx!!), uma "integração jurídica". O TJCE tem vindo a concretizar e a solidificar a vontade política (muitas vezes, corrigindo-a indirectamente expressa/subjacente aos Tratados. Por outro lado, as interinfluências são recíprocas, ou seja, na própria decisão política "pura" (ex. a nível de Conselho), reflectem-se, assimilam-se os avanços e as correntes jurisprudênciais (nem que seja como limite á decisão política). Por exemplo, é interessante ver um dos últimos acordãos do TJCE, ilustrativo precisamente destas inter-influências e que envolve mesmo Portugal e uma certa "esperteza saloia" do Estado português (além do relacionamento Conselho - Comissão), em matéria de "auxílios de Estado". Trata-se do Acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça de 29 de Junho de 2004, "Comissão vs. Conselho e República Portuguesa" (tem alguns dias e posso enviar,em breve, o link respectivo)...
A Strategy for Liberty
"Strands and remnants of libertarian doctrines are, indeed, all around us, in large parts of our glorious past and in values and ideas in the confused present. But only libertarianism takes these strands and remnants and integrates them into a mighty, logical, and consistent system.
The enormous success of Karl Marx and Marxism has been due not to the validity of his ideas—all of which, indeed, are fallacious—but to the fact that he dared to weave socialist theory into a mighty system.
Liberty cannot succeed without an equivalent and contrasting systematic theory; and until the last few years, despite our great heritage of economic and political thought and practice, we have not had a fully integrated and consistent theory of liberty. We now have that systematic theory; we come, fully armed with our knowledge, prepared to bring our message and to capture the imagination of all groups and strands in the population.
All other theories and systems have clearly failed: socialism is in retreat everywhere, and notably in Eastern Europe; liberalism has bogged us down in a host of insoluble problems; conservatism has nothing to offer but sterile defense of the status quo.
Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind."
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray N. Rothbard, 1973
The enormous success of Karl Marx and Marxism has been due not to the validity of his ideas—all of which, indeed, are fallacious—but to the fact that he dared to weave socialist theory into a mighty system.
Liberty cannot succeed without an equivalent and contrasting systematic theory; and until the last few years, despite our great heritage of economic and political thought and practice, we have not had a fully integrated and consistent theory of liberty. We now have that systematic theory; we come, fully armed with our knowledge, prepared to bring our message and to capture the imagination of all groups and strands in the population.
All other theories and systems have clearly failed: socialism is in retreat everywhere, and notably in Eastern Europe; liberalism has bogged us down in a host of insoluble problems; conservatism has nothing to offer but sterile defense of the status quo.
Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind."
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray N. Rothbard, 1973
domingo, 11 de julho de 2004
Família e Educação na perspectiva dos Direitos Fundamentais
Novo artigo no site da Causa Liberal:
Família e Educação na perspectiva dos Direitos Fundamentais, por Fernando Adão da Fonseca.
Família e Educação na perspectiva dos Direitos Fundamentais, por Fernando Adão da Fonseca.
sábado, 10 de julho de 2004
Um presidente digno cheio de "amigos" indignos
A reacção de partidos e personalidades de esquerda à decisão do presidente da República de nomear um novo governo no quadro da actual maioria parlamentar foi tristemente reveladora da forma como entendem a função constitucional do chefe de Estado.
Implícita nas tomadas de posição e declarações está o pressuposto de que Jorge Sampaio, sendo de esquerda, teria de favorecer os interesses imediatos da esquerda nesta sua decisão. Daí a ridícula "indignação" de personagens risíveis como Ana Gomes, Francisco Louçã e Carlos Carvalhas ou a forma como Ferro Rodrigues se demitiu, mais uma vez pessoalizando tudo e interpretando a decisão presidencial como uma derrota "pessoal"! (estas pessoas têm um ego que as impossibilita de estarem na política sem serem as grandes personagens que julgam ser, rodeadas dos amigos da juventude, que, mesmo em Belém, teriam de ser primeiro "amigalhaços" e depois aquilo para que foram eleitas). Não deixa de ser curioso pensar-se que estas mesmas pessoas achariam Sampaio um herói e um "resistente" se a decisão tivesse sido a de dissolver o Parlamento...
Digna de nota é também a forma desleal como as ponderadas justificações do presidente foram distorcidas. Sampaio sublinhou que, já que empossava um novo governo no quadro da actual legislatura para poupar o País a uma dolorosa descontinuidade política, exigia à maioria governamental uma continuidade de orientações (de contrário, de facto, a dissolução seria mais lógica); mas logo vieram os vermelhos e os rosados dizer que Sampaio estava a apoiar e a comprometer-se com a "política do governo".
Por estas e por outras, é preocupante o estado de espírito, de "cabeça perdida", que se vive na esquerda, confundindo-se os resultados das eleições europeias com o mandato dos deputados à Assembleia da República eleitos em 2002, fazendo uma chantagem emocional inaceitável sobre o presidente da República (que nas declarações de Ana Gomes chegou a ser ofensiva) e demonstrando total incapacidade de respeitar a independência da chefia de Estado e de compreender o que a Constituição dela requer.
Para quem quiser pensar pela sua cabeça, a decisão do presidente só prestigiou a Presidência da República e tornou Jorge Sampaio uma figura ainda mais respeitável e independente do que já vinha mostrando ser.
Implícita nas tomadas de posição e declarações está o pressuposto de que Jorge Sampaio, sendo de esquerda, teria de favorecer os interesses imediatos da esquerda nesta sua decisão. Daí a ridícula "indignação" de personagens risíveis como Ana Gomes, Francisco Louçã e Carlos Carvalhas ou a forma como Ferro Rodrigues se demitiu, mais uma vez pessoalizando tudo e interpretando a decisão presidencial como uma derrota "pessoal"! (estas pessoas têm um ego que as impossibilita de estarem na política sem serem as grandes personagens que julgam ser, rodeadas dos amigos da juventude, que, mesmo em Belém, teriam de ser primeiro "amigalhaços" e depois aquilo para que foram eleitas). Não deixa de ser curioso pensar-se que estas mesmas pessoas achariam Sampaio um herói e um "resistente" se a decisão tivesse sido a de dissolver o Parlamento...
Digna de nota é também a forma desleal como as ponderadas justificações do presidente foram distorcidas. Sampaio sublinhou que, já que empossava um novo governo no quadro da actual legislatura para poupar o País a uma dolorosa descontinuidade política, exigia à maioria governamental uma continuidade de orientações (de contrário, de facto, a dissolução seria mais lógica); mas logo vieram os vermelhos e os rosados dizer que Sampaio estava a apoiar e a comprometer-se com a "política do governo".
Por estas e por outras, é preocupante o estado de espírito, de "cabeça perdida", que se vive na esquerda, confundindo-se os resultados das eleições europeias com o mandato dos deputados à Assembleia da República eleitos em 2002, fazendo uma chantagem emocional inaceitável sobre o presidente da República (que nas declarações de Ana Gomes chegou a ser ofensiva) e demonstrando total incapacidade de respeitar a independência da chefia de Estado e de compreender o que a Constituição dela requer.
Para quem quiser pensar pela sua cabeça, a decisão do presidente só prestigiou a Presidência da República e tornou Jorge Sampaio uma figura ainda mais respeitável e independente do que já vinha mostrando ser.
sexta-feira, 9 de julho de 2004
Reflexões sobre a Europa
Resultantes da discussão interna pelos membros da Causa Liberal, com o seu acordo, aqui ficam alguns comentários por parte de Luis Santos Aguiar.
I. "Concordei com a "Lista contra a Constituição Europeia e uma Europa Federal" porque me pareceu que o que ele (CN) estava a pôr em causa era a existência de poderes legislativo e executivo supra-nacionais na União Europeia - com o que eu concordo.
Já defendi que seria perfeitamente possível a existência de uma união apenas assente em tratados e num poder judicial supra-nacional (ou "europeu") e no resto (o campo executivo) dependente da fórmula inter-governamental, permanecendo o poder legislativo nos parlamentos nacionais. Continuo a pensar que quando se fala de "integração" é fundamental especificarmos de que poderes estamos a falar (executivo, legislativo, judicial), sem o que podemos cair em coisas que não queremos.
Daí eu ter há uns meses proposto uma posição "anti-federalista" que aceitava a "integração" de um PODER NEGATIVO (judicial), mas rejeitava a "integração" dos PODERES POSITIVOS (legislativo e executivo) - e creio que essa posição é não-federalista ou anti federalista porque o federalismo pressupõe uma "integração" dos três poderes."
II. "O reconhecimento prévio da competência do tribunal comum seria a principal condição do Tratado da União; sem esse tribunal, não haveria União! Os Estados reconheceriam, ao subscrever o Tratado da União, que só esse tribunal comum teria competência para interpretar o seu texto e fazer aplicar as suas regras (união aduaneira e o resto que lá estivesse sobre circulação de pessoas, bens e serviços, etc.) - ou seja, os Estados teriam de aceitar um árbitro que aplicasse as regras que haviam subscrito.
Defendi ainda que só a jurisprudência emanada deste tribunal deveria formar o "Direito da União", pelo que não deveriam existir absolutamente nenhuns regulamentos ou outros diplomas legais emanados da Comissão ou do Parlamento Europeu (que não precisariam sequer de existir) ou do Conselho de Ministros (o órgão inter-governamental.
Haveria o risco dos Estados, sem um aparatoso super-estado polícia que mande neles, não cumprirem as determinações do tribunal?
Claro que sim, mas aí os outros Estados poderiam, escudados no Tratado e nas próprias determinações do tribunal, suspender a reciprocidade de direitos e obrigações relativamente ao Estado faltor. De qualquer forma, prefiro os riscos de uma União económica e jurídica com Estados faltores aos riscos muitíssimo maiores de uma União política que assegurasse pela força o cumprimento de determinações centrais (ou federais)."
I. "Concordei com a "Lista contra a Constituição Europeia e uma Europa Federal" porque me pareceu que o que ele (CN) estava a pôr em causa era a existência de poderes legislativo e executivo supra-nacionais na União Europeia - com o que eu concordo.
Já defendi que seria perfeitamente possível a existência de uma união apenas assente em tratados e num poder judicial supra-nacional (ou "europeu") e no resto (o campo executivo) dependente da fórmula inter-governamental, permanecendo o poder legislativo nos parlamentos nacionais. Continuo a pensar que quando se fala de "integração" é fundamental especificarmos de que poderes estamos a falar (executivo, legislativo, judicial), sem o que podemos cair em coisas que não queremos.
Daí eu ter há uns meses proposto uma posição "anti-federalista" que aceitava a "integração" de um PODER NEGATIVO (judicial), mas rejeitava a "integração" dos PODERES POSITIVOS (legislativo e executivo) - e creio que essa posição é não-federalista ou anti federalista porque o federalismo pressupõe uma "integração" dos três poderes."
II. "O reconhecimento prévio da competência do tribunal comum seria a principal condição do Tratado da União; sem esse tribunal, não haveria União! Os Estados reconheceriam, ao subscrever o Tratado da União, que só esse tribunal comum teria competência para interpretar o seu texto e fazer aplicar as suas regras (união aduaneira e o resto que lá estivesse sobre circulação de pessoas, bens e serviços, etc.) - ou seja, os Estados teriam de aceitar um árbitro que aplicasse as regras que haviam subscrito.
Defendi ainda que só a jurisprudência emanada deste tribunal deveria formar o "Direito da União", pelo que não deveriam existir absolutamente nenhuns regulamentos ou outros diplomas legais emanados da Comissão ou do Parlamento Europeu (que não precisariam sequer de existir) ou do Conselho de Ministros (o órgão inter-governamental.
Haveria o risco dos Estados, sem um aparatoso super-estado polícia que mande neles, não cumprirem as determinações do tribunal?
Claro que sim, mas aí os outros Estados poderiam, escudados no Tratado e nas próprias determinações do tribunal, suspender a reciprocidade de direitos e obrigações relativamente ao Estado faltor. De qualquer forma, prefiro os riscos de uma União económica e jurídica com Estados faltores aos riscos muitíssimo maiores de uma União política que assegurasse pela força o cumprimento de determinações centrais (ou federais)."
Case against Milosevic has all but collapsed for lack of evidence
Porque é que não me supreendo com "The realisation is now dawning that lies were peddled to justify the Kosovo war just as earnestly as they were to justify the attack on Iraq."?
Quem foram os maiores instigadores durante a administração de Clinton? William Kristoll (e a Weekly Standard & Co), que ameaçou até mudar para o Partido Democrático se os Republicanos atrapalhassem a inauguração da Wilsonian-Global-Crusader pelo bem no mundo.
John Laughland, The Spectator.co.uk
When the presiding judge, Patrick Robinson, said that a ‘radical review’ of the proceedings would now be necessary, many do-gooders feared that their worst nightmare was about to be realised — that the international community’s main trophy in its crusade for morality might, if only on medical grounds, be allowed to walk free.(...)
Since the trial started in February 2002, the prosecution has wheeled out more than 100 witnesses, and it has produced 600,000 pages of evidence. Not a single person has testified that Milosevic ordered war crimes. Whole swaths of the indictment on Kosovo have been left unsubstantiated, even though Milosevic’s command responsibility here is clearest. And when the prosecution did try to substantiate its charges, the result was often farce.
(...)Radomir Markovic, who not only claimed that he had been tortured by the new democratic government in Belgrade to testify against his former boss, but who also agreed, under cross-examination by Milosevic, that no orders had been given to expel the Kosovo Albanians and that, on the contrary, Milosevic had instructed the police and army to protect civilians.
Serious doubt has also been cast on some of the most famous atrocity stories. Remember the refrigerator truck whose discovery in the Danube in 1999, full of bodies, was gleefully reported as Milosevic was transferred to The Hague in June 2001? The truck had allegedly been retrieved from the river and then driven to the outskirts of Belgrade, where its contents were interred in a mass grave. But cross-examination showed that there is no proof that the bodies exhumed were the ones in the truck, nor that any of them came from Kosovo. Instead, it is quite possible that the Batajnica mass grave dated from the second world war, while the refrigerator truck may have contained Kurds being smuggled to Western Europe, the victims of a grisly traffic accident.
The realisation is now dawning that lies were peddled to justify the Kosovo war just as earnestly as they were to justify the attack on Iraq.(...)
The possibility is now real that a conviction of Milosevic can be secured only on the widest possible interpretation of the doctrine of command responsibility: for instance, that he knew about atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs and did nothing to stop them. But if Milosevic can be convicted for complicity in crimes committed by people in a foreign country, over whom he had no formal control, how much greater is the complicity of the British government in crimes committed by the US in Iraq, a country with which the UK is in an official coalition? This is not just a cheap political jibe but a serious judicial conundrum: the UK is a signatory to the new International Criminal Court, and so Tony Blair is subject to the jurisdiction of the new Hague-based body whose jurisprudence will be modelled on that of the ICTY. So if Slobbo goes down for ten years in Scheveningen jail because of abuses committed by his policemen, then by rights his cell-mate should, in time, be Tony. "
Quem foram os maiores instigadores durante a administração de Clinton? William Kristoll (e a Weekly Standard & Co), que ameaçou até mudar para o Partido Democrático se os Republicanos atrapalhassem a inauguração da Wilsonian-Global-Crusader pelo bem no mundo.
John Laughland, The Spectator.co.uk
When the presiding judge, Patrick Robinson, said that a ‘radical review’ of the proceedings would now be necessary, many do-gooders feared that their worst nightmare was about to be realised — that the international community’s main trophy in its crusade for morality might, if only on medical grounds, be allowed to walk free.(...)
Since the trial started in February 2002, the prosecution has wheeled out more than 100 witnesses, and it has produced 600,000 pages of evidence. Not a single person has testified that Milosevic ordered war crimes. Whole swaths of the indictment on Kosovo have been left unsubstantiated, even though Milosevic’s command responsibility here is clearest. And when the prosecution did try to substantiate its charges, the result was often farce.
(...)Radomir Markovic, who not only claimed that he had been tortured by the new democratic government in Belgrade to testify against his former boss, but who also agreed, under cross-examination by Milosevic, that no orders had been given to expel the Kosovo Albanians and that, on the contrary, Milosevic had instructed the police and army to protect civilians.
Serious doubt has also been cast on some of the most famous atrocity stories. Remember the refrigerator truck whose discovery in the Danube in 1999, full of bodies, was gleefully reported as Milosevic was transferred to The Hague in June 2001? The truck had allegedly been retrieved from the river and then driven to the outskirts of Belgrade, where its contents were interred in a mass grave. But cross-examination showed that there is no proof that the bodies exhumed were the ones in the truck, nor that any of them came from Kosovo. Instead, it is quite possible that the Batajnica mass grave dated from the second world war, while the refrigerator truck may have contained Kurds being smuggled to Western Europe, the victims of a grisly traffic accident.
The realisation is now dawning that lies were peddled to justify the Kosovo war just as earnestly as they were to justify the attack on Iraq.(...)
The possibility is now real that a conviction of Milosevic can be secured only on the widest possible interpretation of the doctrine of command responsibility: for instance, that he knew about atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs and did nothing to stop them. But if Milosevic can be convicted for complicity in crimes committed by people in a foreign country, over whom he had no formal control, how much greater is the complicity of the British government in crimes committed by the US in Iraq, a country with which the UK is in an official coalition? This is not just a cheap political jibe but a serious judicial conundrum: the UK is a signatory to the new International Criminal Court, and so Tony Blair is subject to the jurisdiction of the new Hague-based body whose jurisprudence will be modelled on that of the ICTY. So if Slobbo goes down for ten years in Scheveningen jail because of abuses committed by his policemen, then by rights his cell-mate should, in time, be Tony. "
Fukuyama vs. Taki on WWI
Texto indicado por AAA em Fukuyama no Blasfémias, de Daniel McCarthy
Without World War I there would have been no socialism. As Taki puts it, "socialism, the great cancer that has befallen us, would have remained a dream among hirsute intellectuals on the Left Bank of Paris."
Note that Taki and Fukuyama agree on the details. Had the Germans won World War I there would have been no Russian Revolution, no World War II, no Hitler, no Holocaust, no Cold War. Instead of all that, a mild form of 19-century imperialism would have persisted and Germany would have been a cultural and military world power. Taki likes the idea; Fukuyama doesn't."
"Neoconservatives profess allegiance to "democractic capitalism," but the "democracy" matters much more to them than the "capitalism," as Fukuyama's piece suggests.
Even socialism aside, what kind of case can anyone even nominally on the right make for democracy? Fukuyama doesn't make a case, he simply assumes that his readers (Wall Street Journal readers) take the worth of democracy for granted. In explicitly left-wing circles this would not be controversial, but the traditions of the right have always been critical of democracy."
Nota: a questão principal nem é se os Alemães tivessem ganho, mas se a paz se tivesse feito com concessões mútuas, ainda antes da intervenção americana e da queda do Czar (e consequente tomada do poder pelo comunismo). Mas ainda que a tivessem ganho, todas as guerras entre monarquias na Europa, não foram de conquistas "per si" mas por concessões estratégicas, posicionamentos de alianças, regras nas colónias, etc. Nem o combate e derrota de Napoleão beliscou a preservação e soberania francesa, e assum sucedeu nas restantes guerras "civilizadas" intra-europeias (iso é, descontando a guerra que inaugurou a mobilização geral, feita para uma Nova Ordem mais iluminada e racional por Napoleão) até à Grande Guerra.
Without World War I there would have been no socialism. As Taki puts it, "socialism, the great cancer that has befallen us, would have remained a dream among hirsute intellectuals on the Left Bank of Paris."
Note that Taki and Fukuyama agree on the details. Had the Germans won World War I there would have been no Russian Revolution, no World War II, no Hitler, no Holocaust, no Cold War. Instead of all that, a mild form of 19-century imperialism would have persisted and Germany would have been a cultural and military world power. Taki likes the idea; Fukuyama doesn't."
"Neoconservatives profess allegiance to "democractic capitalism," but the "democracy" matters much more to them than the "capitalism," as Fukuyama's piece suggests.
Even socialism aside, what kind of case can anyone even nominally on the right make for democracy? Fukuyama doesn't make a case, he simply assumes that his readers (Wall Street Journal readers) take the worth of democracy for granted. In explicitly left-wing circles this would not be controversial, but the traditions of the right have always been critical of democracy."
Nota: a questão principal nem é se os Alemães tivessem ganho, mas se a paz se tivesse feito com concessões mútuas, ainda antes da intervenção americana e da queda do Czar (e consequente tomada do poder pelo comunismo). Mas ainda que a tivessem ganho, todas as guerras entre monarquias na Europa, não foram de conquistas "per si" mas por concessões estratégicas, posicionamentos de alianças, regras nas colónias, etc. Nem o combate e derrota de Napoleão beliscou a preservação e soberania francesa, e assum sucedeu nas restantes guerras "civilizadas" intra-europeias (iso é, descontando a guerra que inaugurou a mobilização geral, feita para uma Nova Ordem mais iluminada e racional por Napoleão) até à Grande Guerra.
Ninguém gosta de Saddam
Islamist Gunmen Threaten to Behead Saddam Lawyers
"Saif al-Allah (The Sword of God) group, belonging to the Islamic Jihad, warns all those who defend the criminal file of the cowardly criminal Saddam ... that we will sever your necks before you arrive," one gunman read from a piece of paper.
Nem Bin Laden, nem os Kurdos separatistas, nem os fundamentalistas islâmicos, nem os foreign fighters (contro os quais Saddam avisou), nem os xiitas, nem Bush nem Chalabi (ah, esse caiu em desgraça - "Roma não paga a traidores"), nem o Novo Governo que se prepara para uma Lei Marcial para conter a violência de Kurdos, Xiitas e Fundamentalistas (e claro, Saddamitas), tal como Saddam tinha de o fazer para manter a ordem e um Estado uno: e se pensarem no assunto, fazia-no bem e sem tirar fotografias comprometedoras. Os Sunitas provávelmente eram bem capazes de o eleger em eleições....sim, livres.
"Saif al-Allah (The Sword of God) group, belonging to the Islamic Jihad, warns all those who defend the criminal file of the cowardly criminal Saddam ... that we will sever your necks before you arrive," one gunman read from a piece of paper.
Nem Bin Laden, nem os Kurdos separatistas, nem os fundamentalistas islâmicos, nem os foreign fighters (contro os quais Saddam avisou), nem os xiitas, nem Bush nem Chalabi (ah, esse caiu em desgraça - "Roma não paga a traidores"), nem o Novo Governo que se prepara para uma Lei Marcial para conter a violência de Kurdos, Xiitas e Fundamentalistas (e claro, Saddamitas), tal como Saddam tinha de o fazer para manter a ordem e um Estado uno: e se pensarem no assunto, fazia-no bem e sem tirar fotografias comprometedoras. Os Sunitas provávelmente eram bem capazes de o eleger em eleições....sim, livres.
James Madison
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
Checks and balances?
House refuses to curb Patriot Act
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-led House bowed to a White House veto threat Thursday and stood by the USA Patriot Act, defeating an effort to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that helps the government investigate people's reading habits.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-led House bowed to a White House veto threat Thursday and stood by the USA Patriot Act, defeating an effort to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that helps the government investigate people's reading habits.
quinta-feira, 8 de julho de 2004
90 anos depois
SARAJEVO REVISITED, by Srdja Trifkovic, chroniclesmagazine, July 2, 2004
"It was 90 years ago this week that a young Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated Austrian-Hungarian heir to the throne, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and his morganatic wife Sophie, during their state visit to Sarajevo. This event triggered off a diplomatic chain reaction known as the July Crisis that culminated in the outbreak of the Great War, the most tragic event in the history of mankind.
That war destroyed an imperfect but on the whole decent and well-ordered world, and opened the floodgates of hell. Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism, the second round of 1939-1945, the Holocaust, and the ruins of civilization we now live in, are all the fruits of the summer of 1914.
(...)
Four awful years later President Wilson’s Fourteen Points—the device that was allegedly meant to end the war—espoused the principle of self-determination. It threw a revolutionary doctrine thrown at an already exhausted Europe, a doctrine almost on par with Bolshevism in its destabilizing effect. It unleashed competing aspirations among the smaller nations of Central Europe and the Balkans that not only hastened the collapse of transnational empires, but also gave rise to a host of intractable ethnic conflicts and territorial disputes that remain unresolved to this day. Wilson’s notions of an “enlarging democracy” and “collective security” signaled the birth of a view of America’s role in world affairs which has created—and is still creating—endless problems for both America and the world. It is Wilson speaking through President George W. Bush who declared that America not only “created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish” but “also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples.”
Two decades after Wilson, burdened by Clemenceau’s untenable revenge of Versailles, Europe staggered into a belated Round Two of self-destruction. After 1918 it was badly wounded; after 1945 mortally so. The result is a civilization that is aborting and birth-controlling itself to death, that is morally bankrupt, culturally spent, and spiritually comatose. We are living—if life it is—with the consequences, and in the ruins, of Somme and Verdun. To have a hint of the human cost it is essential to visit the hecatombs of northern France and the Dolomites. To understand its cultural cost it is only necessary to look around us. As an Islamic deluge threatens to replace rapidly dying Europeans within a century, as America continues its futile quest for dominance abroad and its cultural self-destruction at home, the causes and meaning of the civilizational suicide of 1914 are more relevant to our present and to our future than at any time since Sarajevo.
"It was 90 years ago this week that a young Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated Austrian-Hungarian heir to the throne, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and his morganatic wife Sophie, during their state visit to Sarajevo. This event triggered off a diplomatic chain reaction known as the July Crisis that culminated in the outbreak of the Great War, the most tragic event in the history of mankind.
That war destroyed an imperfect but on the whole decent and well-ordered world, and opened the floodgates of hell. Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism, the second round of 1939-1945, the Holocaust, and the ruins of civilization we now live in, are all the fruits of the summer of 1914.
(...)
Four awful years later President Wilson’s Fourteen Points—the device that was allegedly meant to end the war—espoused the principle of self-determination. It threw a revolutionary doctrine thrown at an already exhausted Europe, a doctrine almost on par with Bolshevism in its destabilizing effect. It unleashed competing aspirations among the smaller nations of Central Europe and the Balkans that not only hastened the collapse of transnational empires, but also gave rise to a host of intractable ethnic conflicts and territorial disputes that remain unresolved to this day. Wilson’s notions of an “enlarging democracy” and “collective security” signaled the birth of a view of America’s role in world affairs which has created—and is still creating—endless problems for both America and the world. It is Wilson speaking through President George W. Bush who declared that America not only “created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish” but “also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples.”
Two decades after Wilson, burdened by Clemenceau’s untenable revenge of Versailles, Europe staggered into a belated Round Two of self-destruction. After 1918 it was badly wounded; after 1945 mortally so. The result is a civilization that is aborting and birth-controlling itself to death, that is morally bankrupt, culturally spent, and spiritually comatose. We are living—if life it is—with the consequences, and in the ruins, of Somme and Verdun. To have a hint of the human cost it is essential to visit the hecatombs of northern France and the Dolomites. To understand its cultural cost it is only necessary to look around us. As an Islamic deluge threatens to replace rapidly dying Europeans within a century, as America continues its futile quest for dominance abroad and its cultural self-destruction at home, the causes and meaning of the civilizational suicide of 1914 are more relevant to our present and to our future than at any time since Sarajevo.
The Market of Ideas in Portugal
Novo artigo no site da Causa Liberal:
The Market of Ideas in Portugal, por Manuel Menezes de Sequeira.
The Market of Ideas in Portugal, por Manuel Menezes de Sequeira.
Mailing list
Quem desejar receber informações sobre as actividades e actualizações do site da Causa Liberal pode inscrever-se na mailing list através do form na coluna da direita.
Lista contra a Constituição Europeia e uma Europa Federal (actualização 3)
Como Europa Federal designo a existência de um Presidente Federal, Governo Federal, um Parlamento ou qualquer outro orgão político "representativo", eleições gerais europeias, impostos federais, uma Constituição, política externa e de defesa comum suportado em exércitos ou polícias federais, e/ou todos os passos dados que vão nessa direcção.
Como Europa não Federal designo uma organização Inter-governamental, presumindo-se a completa autonomia pelos sistemas legislativos nacionais na aprovação de legislação concebida ou proposta por Instituições Europeias, ainda que subsistam alguns mecanismos automáticos de transposição, mas que, formalmente poderão sempre ser postos em causa se assim for julgado necessário ou conveniente. O direito de não adoptar ou abandonar o Euro não exclui a capacidade de continuar presente nesta organização.
Proponho que se manifestem aqui quem é contra uma Europa Federal, identificando-se com o nome através dos comentários/"comentar", e actualizando-se, a lista periódicamente.
Lista:
1- Carlos Novais Gonçalves
2- João Carvalho Fernandes
3- Luis Aguiar Santos
Como Europa não Federal designo uma organização Inter-governamental, presumindo-se a completa autonomia pelos sistemas legislativos nacionais na aprovação de legislação concebida ou proposta por Instituições Europeias, ainda que subsistam alguns mecanismos automáticos de transposição, mas que, formalmente poderão sempre ser postos em causa se assim for julgado necessário ou conveniente. O direito de não adoptar ou abandonar o Euro não exclui a capacidade de continuar presente nesta organização.
Proponho que se manifestem aqui quem é contra uma Europa Federal, identificando-se com o nome através dos comentários/"comentar", e actualizando-se, a lista periódicamente.
Lista:
1- Carlos Novais Gonçalves
2- João Carvalho Fernandes
3- Luis Aguiar Santos
"What we lack is ...a truly liberal radicalism", Hayek
Hayek no seu melhor, ou seja, num discurso "Libertarian"
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty..., which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote. Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideas which still may arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere ‘reasonable freedom of trade’ or a mere ‘relaxation of controls’ is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm....
"Unless we can make the philosophical foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost."
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty..., which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote. Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideas which still may arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere ‘reasonable freedom of trade’ or a mere ‘relaxation of controls’ is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm....
"Unless we can make the philosophical foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost."
quarta-feira, 7 de julho de 2004
O fim das ideologias? Não, o princípio dos "Libertarians"
The New End of Ideology? by Murray N. Rothbard
Introdução por Joseph Stromberg: This piece first appeared in the Libertarian Forum, Vol. X, No. 3, March 1977, p. 1. It reflects Rothbard’s lifelong interest in the long march of American political ideologists toward the state-worshipping Center, a process in which Neo-Conservatism was just the latest phase.
Nota: "Liberal" é aqui no sentido "americano" ou seja, esquerda. E "Libertarians" serão os herdeiros do Liberalismo Clássico (e dos saudosos tempos em que os impostos não ultrapassavam os 10%, a moeda era livre, a dívida pública pouco expressiva, os US ainda com um governo federal reduzido) que terminou com a "Grande Guerra".
"(...) And so there is no distinguishable Right and Left anymore, no hard-edged ideology for either side; they now form the right and left wings of the Establishment, differing still, to be sure, on foreign policy and militarism, but really part of one overall, mish-mash consensus.
If the Right and Left are disappearing as ideological forces, what about the liberals, who still dominate academia, the media, and opinion-molding groups? The liberals are, as they have been for a long time, in a state of total intellectual confusion. There have been no new liberal answers for a long time, and more and more liberals realize that their old ideologies have broken down, that they are not working. More and more liberals – as well as members of the public in general – are realizing that the system of statism has been breaking down. But, human nature being what it is, they will not give up their crumbling paradigm until a better one comes along to replace it. They have to see an attractive alternative.
All this provides an unusually favorable opportunity for libertarians. For we are functioning in an intellectual climate where there is no longer any real, determined, militant ideological competition. Ideological decay and confusion are everywhere. But, in this miasma, we libertarians have that alternative; we have a new and intellectually stimulating and fascinating ideological paradigm, and one that explains the collapse of modern statism better than anyone else. We have a new and systematic creed, and we are just about the only ones who still believe in our ideology. In contrast to the Left, Right, and Center, our ideology hasn’t ended; it is just beginning."
Introdução por Joseph Stromberg: This piece first appeared in the Libertarian Forum, Vol. X, No. 3, March 1977, p. 1. It reflects Rothbard’s lifelong interest in the long march of American political ideologists toward the state-worshipping Center, a process in which Neo-Conservatism was just the latest phase.
Nota: "Liberal" é aqui no sentido "americano" ou seja, esquerda. E "Libertarians" serão os herdeiros do Liberalismo Clássico (e dos saudosos tempos em que os impostos não ultrapassavam os 10%, a moeda era livre, a dívida pública pouco expressiva, os US ainda com um governo federal reduzido) que terminou com a "Grande Guerra".
"(...) And so there is no distinguishable Right and Left anymore, no hard-edged ideology for either side; they now form the right and left wings of the Establishment, differing still, to be sure, on foreign policy and militarism, but really part of one overall, mish-mash consensus.
If the Right and Left are disappearing as ideological forces, what about the liberals, who still dominate academia, the media, and opinion-molding groups? The liberals are, as they have been for a long time, in a state of total intellectual confusion. There have been no new liberal answers for a long time, and more and more liberals realize that their old ideologies have broken down, that they are not working. More and more liberals – as well as members of the public in general – are realizing that the system of statism has been breaking down. But, human nature being what it is, they will not give up their crumbling paradigm until a better one comes along to replace it. They have to see an attractive alternative.
All this provides an unusually favorable opportunity for libertarians. For we are functioning in an intellectual climate where there is no longer any real, determined, militant ideological competition. Ideological decay and confusion are everywhere. But, in this miasma, we libertarians have that alternative; we have a new and intellectually stimulating and fascinating ideological paradigm, and one that explains the collapse of modern statism better than anyone else. We have a new and systematic creed, and we are just about the only ones who still believe in our ideology. In contrast to the Left, Right, and Center, our ideology hasn’t ended; it is just beginning."
Blasfémias
Após prolongadas e árduas negociações envolvendo vários empresários devidamente credenciados, passo a partir de hoje a colaborar no excelente (pelo menos até agora...) Blasfémias.
O blog da Causa Liberal continua, ficando sob o comando seguro do meu amigo CN e, espero eu, podendo contar em breve com a colaboração mais frequente de outros membros da Causa. Em todo o caso, continuarei a " postar" ocasionalmente aqui sempre que se trate de matérias directamente relacionadas com a Causa Liberal.
Feita a comunicação, vamos lá blasfemar...
O blog da Causa Liberal continua, ficando sob o comando seguro do meu amigo CN e, espero eu, podendo contar em breve com a colaboração mais frequente de outros membros da Causa. Em todo o caso, continuarei a " postar" ocasionalmente aqui sempre que se trate de matérias directamente relacionadas com a Causa Liberal.
Feita a comunicação, vamos lá blasfemar...
All you have to do is...
“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
Desenvolvimentos Geoestratégicos para a última guerra mundial
Notas:
a) Enquanto os US se encontram militarmente e até financeiramente debilitados por aquilo que constituía exactamente zero de ameaça militar a si ou aos vizinhos do Iraque e arranja cada vez mais má vontade e conflitos potenciais na zona (Irão - "Iran warns US of global retaliation to any attack", destabilização da monarquia na Arábia Saudita, Kurdistão independente - 20 dead in clashes between Iranian army and Turkish Kurd rebels - curiosamente ou talvez não com acções mais fortes pelo separatismo no Irão quando antes, na altura da guerra Iraque-Irão, estavam apoiados no Irão e umas das razões para objecto da ira de Saddam, etc).
b) a Nato perdeu o carácter defensivo (desde o duvidoso bombardeamento da Sérvia e ocupação do Kosovo para bem do separatismo muçulmano albanês) e expande-se para as fronteiras da Rússia aproveitando-se da debilidade momentânea (isto é, medido em décadas) desta, despoletando alertas internos que observam essa expansão como uma ameça séria.
c) A China, que aceita o Status Quo de uma independência na prática mas não na forma, não aceitará o intervencionismo externo para defesa de uma secessão e separatismo formal de "Taiwain".
d) Os mesmos neo-estrategas que influenciaram a decisão sobre o Iraque, já em tempos defenderam um conflito aberto com a China (já o tinham feito antes com a URSS), estão dispostos a eleger o "Taiwain" como mais um assunto de defesa moral absoluta.
e) Russos e Chineses aparecem como parceiros estratégicos comungando dos mesmos perigos: serem objectos dos erros e consequências não previstas sempre inevitáveis quando um espirito ideológico, moralista e intervencionista na política externa e militar toma conta do império do momento (numa perspectiva histórica), incluindo, podendo Russos e/ou Chineses adoptar cabalmente o princípio da actuação preventiva...
Notícias recentes:
1. Crisis in Asia
"(...)Do the neo-crazies expect China to take advantage of virtually all our combat troops being pinned-down halfway around the world in Iraq to invade and reabsorb "rogue province" Taiwan?
Well, the war-gamers doubt that China is thinking "invasion." (...) No, the war-gamers are thinking "blockade."
A Chinese naval blockade could bring Taiwan to its knees with relative ease and minimal international protest. A sustained interruption of key sea lines of communications would be economically disastrous for the Taiwanese economy, which relies heavily on shipping for its lifeblood trade and energy needs, some two-thirds of which are fulfilled by fossil fuel imports.
China could easily impose and then enforce a successful blockade.
How to enforce? With Russian-made super-sonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles launched by Russian-made submarines and Russian-made warships. At present, U.S. warships have no effective defense against the Russian-made Sunburn and Yakhont, both of which travel at Mach 2.5 and execute terminal maneuvers specifically designed to overcome U.S. warship defenses.(...)"
2. China show of strength for Taipei
Annual military drills this month said to simulate air, sea and land invasion of the island as warning to independence camp. China's largest military exercises of the year, to take place this month, are meant to send a 'substantial warning' to Taiwan separatists, state media said yesterday.(...)
Tension between Beijing and Taipei has been heightened since Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian was re-elected this year, with China fearful his pro-independence moves are aimed at gaining formal independence."
3. China threatens to use neutron bombs on U.S. aircraft carriers
"Summary: China has once again raised the level of its threats against Taiwan, warning in an article in the Global Times that, "If the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken." Included in the article, entitled "USA, do not mix in," China claimed that it "has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan." In addition to threatening Taiwan, however, China also warned that no external force could protect Taiwan, and, in a statement directed at the United States, that, "China’s neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers." China is now clearly signaling to the United States that it intends to act over Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui’s state-to-state comments. More importantly, China is also informing Washington that, if the U.S. interferes, China will not hold back as it did in 1996. For the United States, China’s warnings necessitate a careful calculation of its potential responses to a variety of possible Chinese actions and the ultimate consequences of those responses for both the U.S. and China."
a) Enquanto os US se encontram militarmente e até financeiramente debilitados por aquilo que constituía exactamente zero de ameaça militar a si ou aos vizinhos do Iraque e arranja cada vez mais má vontade e conflitos potenciais na zona (Irão - "Iran warns US of global retaliation to any attack", destabilização da monarquia na Arábia Saudita, Kurdistão independente - 20 dead in clashes between Iranian army and Turkish Kurd rebels - curiosamente ou talvez não com acções mais fortes pelo separatismo no Irão quando antes, na altura da guerra Iraque-Irão, estavam apoiados no Irão e umas das razões para objecto da ira de Saddam, etc).
b) a Nato perdeu o carácter defensivo (desde o duvidoso bombardeamento da Sérvia e ocupação do Kosovo para bem do separatismo muçulmano albanês) e expande-se para as fronteiras da Rússia aproveitando-se da debilidade momentânea (isto é, medido em décadas) desta, despoletando alertas internos que observam essa expansão como uma ameça séria.
c) A China, que aceita o Status Quo de uma independência na prática mas não na forma, não aceitará o intervencionismo externo para defesa de uma secessão e separatismo formal de "Taiwain".
d) Os mesmos neo-estrategas que influenciaram a decisão sobre o Iraque, já em tempos defenderam um conflito aberto com a China (já o tinham feito antes com a URSS), estão dispostos a eleger o "Taiwain" como mais um assunto de defesa moral absoluta.
e) Russos e Chineses aparecem como parceiros estratégicos comungando dos mesmos perigos: serem objectos dos erros e consequências não previstas sempre inevitáveis quando um espirito ideológico, moralista e intervencionista na política externa e militar toma conta do império do momento (numa perspectiva histórica), incluindo, podendo Russos e/ou Chineses adoptar cabalmente o princípio da actuação preventiva...
Notícias recentes:
1. Crisis in Asia
"(...)Do the neo-crazies expect China to take advantage of virtually all our combat troops being pinned-down halfway around the world in Iraq to invade and reabsorb "rogue province" Taiwan?
Well, the war-gamers doubt that China is thinking "invasion." (...) No, the war-gamers are thinking "blockade."
A Chinese naval blockade could bring Taiwan to its knees with relative ease and minimal international protest. A sustained interruption of key sea lines of communications would be economically disastrous for the Taiwanese economy, which relies heavily on shipping for its lifeblood trade and energy needs, some two-thirds of which are fulfilled by fossil fuel imports.
China could easily impose and then enforce a successful blockade.
How to enforce? With Russian-made super-sonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles launched by Russian-made submarines and Russian-made warships. At present, U.S. warships have no effective defense against the Russian-made Sunburn and Yakhont, both of which travel at Mach 2.5 and execute terminal maneuvers specifically designed to overcome U.S. warship defenses.(...)"
2. China show of strength for Taipei
Annual military drills this month said to simulate air, sea and land invasion of the island as warning to independence camp. China's largest military exercises of the year, to take place this month, are meant to send a 'substantial warning' to Taiwan separatists, state media said yesterday.(...)
Tension between Beijing and Taipei has been heightened since Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian was re-elected this year, with China fearful his pro-independence moves are aimed at gaining formal independence."
3. China threatens to use neutron bombs on U.S. aircraft carriers
"Summary: China has once again raised the level of its threats against Taiwan, warning in an article in the Global Times that, "If the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken." Included in the article, entitled "USA, do not mix in," China claimed that it "has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan." In addition to threatening Taiwan, however, China also warned that no external force could protect Taiwan, and, in a statement directed at the United States, that, "China’s neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers." China is now clearly signaling to the United States that it intends to act over Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui’s state-to-state comments. More importantly, China is also informing Washington that, if the U.S. interferes, China will not hold back as it did in 1996. For the United States, China’s warnings necessitate a careful calculation of its potential responses to a variety of possible Chinese actions and the ultimate consequences of those responses for both the U.S. and China."
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)