São uma vitória de Bush.
Mas uma palavra quanto ao pessimismo no que respeita à solidez das grandes transformações sociais, Rothbard em 1995 (todo o liberal será sempre um profeta da desgraça):
"A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out?
In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes.
But what about the Getting Out Party? 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."
segunda-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2005
Sudan peace deal revives vexed issue of African borders
CAIRO - This year’s landmark Sudan peace agreement promising southerners a referendum on independence has holed a founding principle of post-colonial Africa as the continent’s leaders prepare to meet in Abuja this weekend.
Ever since European colonial powers began withdrawing from Africa in the 1950s, successive governments have always insisted that there should be no redrawing of the continent’s political boundaries, however arbitary the lines imposed by imperial mapmakers.
The founding charter adopted by the Organization of African Union on May 25, 1963 required in Clause 1c that its members “defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and independence.”
Secession bids by the Katanga province of southern Congo in the early 1960s and the Biafra region of southeastern Nigeria in the late 1960s both met with staunch opposition from the continent’s leaders.
And Somalia’s claims to Djibouti, the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and Kenya’s northeastern province on the grounds they were ethnically Somali were firmly rejected by other African leaders, even when Somali troops invaded Ethiopia in 1977.
But the January 9 deal signed by the Khartoum government and southern rebels of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army raises the prospect of secession by the mainly Christian and animist south, if southerners vote for it after six years of interim autonomy.
Defenders of the deal argue that Sudan is a special case because colonial power Britain kept the two halves of the country separately administered virtually throughout its rule, and because the conflict there—Africa’s longest-running—has claimed an estimated 1.5 million lives since 1983.
But acceptance of the right of the southern Sudanese to self-determination raises the question of other regions that have long fought to break away, in some cases citing similar ethnic or historical pretexts.
The Somaliland region of Somalia broke away more than a decade ago amid anarchy in the rest of the country following the 1991 overthrow of president Mohammed Siad Barre.Its leaders argue that their administration deserves recognition, not only because it has established a level of security unseen in the rest of the country but also because, unlike the rest of Somalia, it was ruled by Britain, not Italy, before independence.
In Angola, separatist rebels continue a decades-old insurgency in the Cabinda enclave, which is geographically detached from the rest of the country but accounts for the lion’s share of its oil wealth.
And in the Western Sahara, the United Nations has yet to organize a referendum on self-determination promised for the past 15 years in the face of Moroccan claims to the formerly Spanish-ruled territory.
Morocco pulled out of the Organization of African Union in protest at the body’s admission of the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic proclaimed by the Algerian-backed independence organization Polisario.
Endorsement of south Sudan’s right to independence would not be entirely unprecedented as the the pan-African body has made some exceptions to the principle of the inviolability of colonial frontiers in the past decade or so.
Eritrea won independence in 1993 despite Ethiopia’s longstanding claim that the former Italian colony was historically a part of its territory.
And in 1994, newly majority-ruled South Africa ceded the enclave of Walvis Bay to Namibia even though it had been a British not a German colony like the rest of former Southwest Africa.
But secession by southern Sudan’s estimated 10 million people would be a more far-reaching precedent and the first since the continent’s leaders launched a more ambitious regional body, the African Union, in 2001.
Ever since European colonial powers began withdrawing from Africa in the 1950s, successive governments have always insisted that there should be no redrawing of the continent’s political boundaries, however arbitary the lines imposed by imperial mapmakers.
The founding charter adopted by the Organization of African Union on May 25, 1963 required in Clause 1c that its members “defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and independence.”
Secession bids by the Katanga province of southern Congo in the early 1960s and the Biafra region of southeastern Nigeria in the late 1960s both met with staunch opposition from the continent’s leaders.
And Somalia’s claims to Djibouti, the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and Kenya’s northeastern province on the grounds they were ethnically Somali were firmly rejected by other African leaders, even when Somali troops invaded Ethiopia in 1977.
But the January 9 deal signed by the Khartoum government and southern rebels of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army raises the prospect of secession by the mainly Christian and animist south, if southerners vote for it after six years of interim autonomy.
Defenders of the deal argue that Sudan is a special case because colonial power Britain kept the two halves of the country separately administered virtually throughout its rule, and because the conflict there—Africa’s longest-running—has claimed an estimated 1.5 million lives since 1983.
But acceptance of the right of the southern Sudanese to self-determination raises the question of other regions that have long fought to break away, in some cases citing similar ethnic or historical pretexts.
The Somaliland region of Somalia broke away more than a decade ago amid anarchy in the rest of the country following the 1991 overthrow of president Mohammed Siad Barre.Its leaders argue that their administration deserves recognition, not only because it has established a level of security unseen in the rest of the country but also because, unlike the rest of Somalia, it was ruled by Britain, not Italy, before independence.
In Angola, separatist rebels continue a decades-old insurgency in the Cabinda enclave, which is geographically detached from the rest of the country but accounts for the lion’s share of its oil wealth.
And in the Western Sahara, the United Nations has yet to organize a referendum on self-determination promised for the past 15 years in the face of Moroccan claims to the formerly Spanish-ruled territory.
Morocco pulled out of the Organization of African Union in protest at the body’s admission of the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic proclaimed by the Algerian-backed independence organization Polisario.
Endorsement of south Sudan’s right to independence would not be entirely unprecedented as the the pan-African body has made some exceptions to the principle of the inviolability of colonial frontiers in the past decade or so.
Eritrea won independence in 1993 despite Ethiopia’s longstanding claim that the former Italian colony was historically a part of its territory.
And in 1994, newly majority-ruled South Africa ceded the enclave of Walvis Bay to Namibia even though it had been a British not a German colony like the rest of former Southwest Africa.
But secession by southern Sudan’s estimated 10 million people would be a more far-reaching precedent and the first since the continent’s leaders launched a more ambitious regional body, the African Union, in 2001.
A Reforma das Pensões de Reforma
Vou insistir neste assunto:
No que respeita ao seu princípio geral, a Segurança Social deve limitar a sua prestação de serviço aos rendimentos de subsistência. Seria assim uma mudança estratégica para se salvar a si mesma, e por outro lado tentar melhorar a sua eficácia.
A pensão de reforma deve passar a ter um tecto no valor de um a dois salários mínimos introduzindo-se também um tecto contributivo.
O rendimento adicional que as pessoas desejam auferir quando se retiram da vida activa deve ter origem nas decisões pessoais e da família.
Em termos de regime transitório, as contribuições acumuladas até ao presente acima desse tecto, devem evidentemente dar lugar, segundo cálculo, a um valor acima do tecto. Assim, quem por hipótese, está a 5 anos da reforma, receberá praticamente tudo que o actual regime promete.
O financiamento das actuais responsabilidades (importante para o periodo transitório) passa, ainda assim, por um ajustamento realista do valor e idade prometido pelo sistema e ainda pelo recurso ao financiamento por dívida pública. Esta reforma não deve ter impacto no déficit considerado para efeitos dos compromissos europeus porque é uma reforma que diminui precisamente o déficit futuro (e portanto, actual também) da segurança social.
Esta é a reforma que todos procuram, não existindo aqui qualquer "privatização" da segurança social, mas sim uma mudança estratégica para serviço aos rendimentos de subsistência.
Teremos assim:
- aumento do rendimento disponivel por baixa do "imposto" da segurança social (actualmente em cerca de 33% do nossos rendimento)
- aumento da competitividade laboral em termos internacionais
- recursos adicionais geridos pelas pessoas e famílias
No que respeita ao seu princípio geral, a Segurança Social deve limitar a sua prestação de serviço aos rendimentos de subsistência. Seria assim uma mudança estratégica para se salvar a si mesma, e por outro lado tentar melhorar a sua eficácia.
A pensão de reforma deve passar a ter um tecto no valor de um a dois salários mínimos introduzindo-se também um tecto contributivo.
O rendimento adicional que as pessoas desejam auferir quando se retiram da vida activa deve ter origem nas decisões pessoais e da família.
Em termos de regime transitório, as contribuições acumuladas até ao presente acima desse tecto, devem evidentemente dar lugar, segundo cálculo, a um valor acima do tecto. Assim, quem por hipótese, está a 5 anos da reforma, receberá praticamente tudo que o actual regime promete.
O financiamento das actuais responsabilidades (importante para o periodo transitório) passa, ainda assim, por um ajustamento realista do valor e idade prometido pelo sistema e ainda pelo recurso ao financiamento por dívida pública. Esta reforma não deve ter impacto no déficit considerado para efeitos dos compromissos europeus porque é uma reforma que diminui precisamente o déficit futuro (e portanto, actual também) da segurança social.
Esta é a reforma que todos procuram, não existindo aqui qualquer "privatização" da segurança social, mas sim uma mudança estratégica para serviço aos rendimentos de subsistência.
Teremos assim:
- aumento do rendimento disponivel por baixa do "imposto" da segurança social (actualmente em cerca de 33% do nossos rendimento)
- aumento da competitividade laboral em termos internacionais
- recursos adicionais geridos pelas pessoas e famílias
domingo, 30 de janeiro de 2005
Democracia e "founding fathers"
"The word democracy was hated by the founding fathers. It does not appear at any point in the constitution, nor does it appear in any pleasant sense in the Federalist Papers" Gore Vidal.
E acrescento, nem na Declaração de Independência e nem nos "Artigos da Confederação".
Aqui democracia deve ser entendida como democracia politica, ou mais precisamente macro-democracia politica (milhões de pessoas elegem um orgão legislativo, um presidente, etc). Á América devemos sim, ter mostrado a eficácia da democracia civil e como a liberdade individual e das comunidades emanam dela (empresas, associações, as pequenas vilas e cidades) e com é necessário limitar fortemente os comandos de origem política e centralizada, sendo isso sim , a república. E devemos isso também porque nos apercebemos que com o tempo e os acontecimentos, nem tal república escapa a ser apanhada pela doença da ideologia, do nacionalismo (o de Estado e não o de cultura), o militarismo e por fim, a lógica do império civilizacional (com todos o foram), o pior é que logo a seguir está a derrocada, sempre inesperada (mas sempre à volta da decadência económica e/ou guerra). A História repete-se, não sabemos é com que novas roupas é que o faz nem quando.
E acrescento, nem na Declaração de Independência e nem nos "Artigos da Confederação".
Aqui democracia deve ser entendida como democracia politica, ou mais precisamente macro-democracia politica (milhões de pessoas elegem um orgão legislativo, um presidente, etc). Á América devemos sim, ter mostrado a eficácia da democracia civil e como a liberdade individual e das comunidades emanam dela (empresas, associações, as pequenas vilas e cidades) e com é necessário limitar fortemente os comandos de origem política e centralizada, sendo isso sim , a república. E devemos isso também porque nos apercebemos que com o tempo e os acontecimentos, nem tal república escapa a ser apanhada pela doença da ideologia, do nacionalismo (o de Estado e não o de cultura), o militarismo e por fim, a lógica do império civilizacional (com todos o foram), o pior é que logo a seguir está a derrocada, sempre inesperada (mas sempre à volta da decadência económica e/ou guerra). A História repete-se, não sabemos é com que novas roupas é que o faz nem quando.
sexta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2005
Unintended consequences
A alternativa ao efeito de dominó da revolução democrática pode ser o dominó do...
Assad warns Middle East states face break-up threat
Turkey warns U.S. to prevent Kirkuk from falling under Kurdish control.
Syrian President Bashar Assad warned the current turmoil in the Middle East is exacerbating ethnic differences which could lead to the break up of some countries in the region. Speaking to RIA Novosti news agency at the end of his four day state visit to Russia Assad said:
"The events in the Middle East could lead to the break-up of several countries in the region, the rise of extremism and religious and ethnic strife." He added: "This could produce a domino effect that could spread to your region."
O que estaria em consonância coma História e a "guerra pela democracia" de Woodrow Wilson de que apenas saiu o fim da estabilidade da civilização "monárquica" para, democraticamente, passarmos aos regimes republicanos comunistas, fascistas e outra guerra. No médio oriente o perigo que espreita é, democraticamente, passarmos para a destabilização total dos Estados Árabes (ou seja de seculares e monárquicos para ... ).
Bin Laden is waiting.
Assad warns Middle East states face break-up threat
Turkey warns U.S. to prevent Kirkuk from falling under Kurdish control.
Syrian President Bashar Assad warned the current turmoil in the Middle East is exacerbating ethnic differences which could lead to the break up of some countries in the region. Speaking to RIA Novosti news agency at the end of his four day state visit to Russia Assad said:
"The events in the Middle East could lead to the break-up of several countries in the region, the rise of extremism and religious and ethnic strife." He added: "This could produce a domino effect that could spread to your region."
O que estaria em consonância coma História e a "guerra pela democracia" de Woodrow Wilson de que apenas saiu o fim da estabilidade da civilização "monárquica" para, democraticamente, passarmos aos regimes republicanos comunistas, fascistas e outra guerra. No médio oriente o perigo que espreita é, democraticamente, passarmos para a destabilização total dos Estados Árabes (ou seja de seculares e monárquicos para ... ).
Bin Laden is waiting.
Saving and productive expenditure
Saving and productive expenditure, not consumption expenditure, is what constitutes the demand for labor and capital goods and is what enables and sustains the roundabout capitalist production processes that enable business firms to increase their production and, as a consequence, to cut the costs of their products.
The greater the saving and productive expenditure of businessmen and capitalists, the greater is the demand for labor and capital goods relative to the demand for consumer goods and the higher are both wages and the productivity of labor, the latter because of the production and employment of more capital goods per worker.(...)
Supply creates its own demand and not the other way around. And especially during periods of economic crisis, which have always and exclusively been a product of a governmentally inaugurated policy of inflation and credit expansion, the most pernicious thing to do is to increase government expenditure at the expense of saving and productive expenditure.(...)
Conclusion
The basic error of underconsumptionism is the belief that prosperity correlates directly and positively with consumption spending, that in demanding consumer goods one somehow demands labor services along with the intermediate goods that contribute to the production of the final product. The error stems from the misidentification of the forces that are actually responsible for mass consumption and for rising prosperity in real terms. The actual forces are saving and productive expenditure made by the business firms.
With respect to economic theory, it is very important to realize that a correct understanding of the functional relationship between consumption, saving, productive expenditure, and prosperity cannot be provided on the basis of contemporary economics because it confuses things to such a degree as to be virtually worthless. "
The Fallacies of Underconsumptionism, By Wladimir Kraus
The greater the saving and productive expenditure of businessmen and capitalists, the greater is the demand for labor and capital goods relative to the demand for consumer goods and the higher are both wages and the productivity of labor, the latter because of the production and employment of more capital goods per worker.(...)
Supply creates its own demand and not the other way around. And especially during periods of economic crisis, which have always and exclusively been a product of a governmentally inaugurated policy of inflation and credit expansion, the most pernicious thing to do is to increase government expenditure at the expense of saving and productive expenditure.(...)
Conclusion
The basic error of underconsumptionism is the belief that prosperity correlates directly and positively with consumption spending, that in demanding consumer goods one somehow demands labor services along with the intermediate goods that contribute to the production of the final product. The error stems from the misidentification of the forces that are actually responsible for mass consumption and for rising prosperity in real terms. The actual forces are saving and productive expenditure made by the business firms.
With respect to economic theory, it is very important to realize that a correct understanding of the functional relationship between consumption, saving, productive expenditure, and prosperity cannot be provided on the basis of contemporary economics because it confuses things to such a degree as to be virtually worthless. "
The Fallacies of Underconsumptionism, By Wladimir Kraus
Freedom and Free Trade
In The Market Shall Set You Free Robert Wright argues that moves toward free markets are bringing slow, but still exciting, progress towards freedom which the neocons downplay:
"You won't hear much about such progress from neoconservatives, who prefer to stress how desperately the global fight for freedom needs American power behind it (and who last week raved about an inaugural speech that vowed to furnish this power).
And, to be sure, neoconservatives can rightly point to lots of oppression and brutality in China and elsewhere - as can liberal human-rights activists. But anyone who talks as if Chinese freedom hasn't grown since China went capitalist is evincing a hazy historical memory and, however obliquely, is abetting war. Right-wing hawks thrive on depicting tyranny as a force of nature, when in fact nature is working toward its demise.(...)
The president said last week that military force isn't the principal lever he would use to punish tyrants. But that mainly leaves economic levers, like sanctions and exclusion from the World Trade Organization. Given that involvement in the larger capitalist world is time-release poison for tyranny, impeding this involvement is an odd way to aid history's march toward freedom. Four decades of economic isolation have transformed Fidel Castro from a young, fiery dictator into an old, fiery dictator.(...)"
Os resultados
de intervir onde não se é chamado são:
- a probabilidade da informação disponível ser errada (não existiu o anunciado ethnic cleasing no Kosovo e pelo contrário é a cultura cristã ortodoxa que está a ser destruída)
- ajudar uma das partes (os muçulmanos do Kosovo querem a independência, isso significa que de futuro a NATO vai ajudar os movimentos separatistas por esse mundo fora...Chechenya? Taiwain?), destruindo a capacidade da outra (bombardeamento durante 2 meses da Sérvia, intervenção no regime, etc).
- adiar indefenidamente a saida do território em questão
- a origem do conflito é apenas adiado algures para o futuro (década, etc) próximo
"Kosovo is fast becoming "the black hole of Europe" and could descend into renewed violence within weeks unless the EU takes urgent action, senior diplomats and international experts warned in Brussels this week.
But continuing EU indecision over the breakaway province's demand for independence from Serbia, coupled with the ethnic Albanian majority's failure to embrace reform and respect Serb minority rights, are paralysing plans to launch "final status" talks this year.
Five years after Nato ejected Serbian forces and imposed an international administration, the UN and the US are still lacking an exit strategy. Serbia, meanwhile, wants its territory back."
Karl Popper and the social engineer
"After ripping apart conservative socialism, he then tears into the welfare socialism of social engineering, particularly that supported by Karl Popper loving rationalists, and that used by democratic socialists and conservative socialists, especially since World War I. The basic problem Herr Hoppe sees here is that the proof never ever comes in as to whether a particular social engineering measure worked out or not, which is a bit like the Chinese Premier Chou En-lai quote to Henry Kissinger, in 1972, that it was too early to tell if the French Revolution was a good thing or not.
Essentially, according to Hoppe, social engineering measures can never be falsified, which as any student of Popper will know, is something of a basic contradiction in basic Popperian ideology. Go figure.
No matter how badly a social initiative program goes wrong, the social engineer can always say that all the evidence isn’t all in yet, or that ‘The social housing program we instituted would have worked, if we had also taken measure X ? let’s institute that measure now and see if it works.’ And when measure X also fails, usually making a terrible situation infinitely worse, the answer is again either ‘All the evidence isn’t in yet’ or more likely, ‘The social housing program, with measure X, would have worked, if only we had also instituted measure Y too’. And so we go round the houses again, screwing up the lives of yet another generation before anybody dare repeat the hopeful question, ‘Did it actually work?’. Though of course, once again this question is ignored, and measure Z is instituted, to cover up the earlier failures of measures X and Y. Whereas Hoppe claims that from the basic a priori principles of Austrian thinking it can easily be discerned that, say, forcibly fixed housing rents will fail to meet the noble goals ascribed to this action. And all this without the need to experiment on anyone to find out.
I won’t say anymore, as some of my best friends are Popperites. But if you love the great anti-historicist yourself, you might want to check out this chapter on Popper, especially if you’ve ever wondered why all this anarcho-capitalist heat seems to be coming your way these days, as to the irrelevance and danger of following Popperian piecemeal engineering solutions. Let me misquote Morpheus from the first Matrix film, you know; the good one:
Have you ever had a dream, Herr Popper, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Piecemeal social engineering is the world that you pulled over your eyes to blind yourself from the truth. You’ve been living in a dream world, Herr Popper. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You avoid reading this chapter - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You read this chapter - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Your ideology was socialism all along, Herr Popper, and used as such by all your enemies. Welcome to the real world." Catallarchy July 11, 2004 Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A Unified Theory of Everything
Essentially, according to Hoppe, social engineering measures can never be falsified, which as any student of Popper will know, is something of a basic contradiction in basic Popperian ideology. Go figure.
No matter how badly a social initiative program goes wrong, the social engineer can always say that all the evidence isn’t all in yet, or that ‘The social housing program we instituted would have worked, if we had also taken measure X ? let’s institute that measure now and see if it works.’ And when measure X also fails, usually making a terrible situation infinitely worse, the answer is again either ‘All the evidence isn’t in yet’ or more likely, ‘The social housing program, with measure X, would have worked, if only we had also instituted measure Y too’. And so we go round the houses again, screwing up the lives of yet another generation before anybody dare repeat the hopeful question, ‘Did it actually work?’. Though of course, once again this question is ignored, and measure Z is instituted, to cover up the earlier failures of measures X and Y. Whereas Hoppe claims that from the basic a priori principles of Austrian thinking it can easily be discerned that, say, forcibly fixed housing rents will fail to meet the noble goals ascribed to this action. And all this without the need to experiment on anyone to find out.
I won’t say anymore, as some of my best friends are Popperites. But if you love the great anti-historicist yourself, you might want to check out this chapter on Popper, especially if you’ve ever wondered why all this anarcho-capitalist heat seems to be coming your way these days, as to the irrelevance and danger of following Popperian piecemeal engineering solutions. Let me misquote Morpheus from the first Matrix film, you know; the good one:
Have you ever had a dream, Herr Popper, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Piecemeal social engineering is the world that you pulled over your eyes to blind yourself from the truth. You’ve been living in a dream world, Herr Popper. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You avoid reading this chapter - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You read this chapter - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Your ideology was socialism all along, Herr Popper, and used as such by all your enemies. Welcome to the real world." Catallarchy July 11, 2004 Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A Unified Theory of Everything
quinta-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2005
Tradição e Revolução
(via Último Reduto)
No próximo dia 28, sexta-feira, às 18:30, no Centro Nacional de Cultura, terá lugar o lançamento do livro "Tradição e Revolução - uma biografia do Portugal Político do século XIX ao século XXI", de José Adelino Maltez, em edição da Tribuna da História. A obra será apresentada por José Pacheco Pereira.
No próximo dia 28, sexta-feira, às 18:30, no Centro Nacional de Cultura, terá lugar o lançamento do livro "Tradição e Revolução - uma biografia do Portugal Político do século XIX ao século XXI", de José Adelino Maltez, em edição da Tribuna da História. A obra será apresentada por José Pacheco Pereira.
Inaugurating Endless War
"(...) President Bush says we have no other choice than to end tyranny on earth because the "survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." But this is ahistorical.
The world has almost always been a cesspool of despotisms, but America has always been free. We have retained our liberty by following the counsel of Washington and staying out of foreign wars that were not America's wars. It has been when we intervened in wars where our vital interests were not imperiled – crushing the Philippine insurrection, World War I, invading Iraq – that America has come to grief.
Occupying the Philippines led us to intervention in Asia, war with Japan and, soon after, wars to defend the South Korean and Indochinese remnants of the Japanese empire. Wilson's war gave us the Versailles peace treaty that tore a defeated Germany apart and imposed unpayable debts on her people, leading directly to Hitler.
The invasion of Iraq has reaped a harvest of hatred in the Arab world, cost us 10,000 dead and wounded and $200 billion, and created a new training ground and haven for terrorists to replace the one we cleaned out in Afghanistan.
In declaring it to be America's mission in the world to end tyranny on earth, President Bush is launching a crusade even more ambitious and utopian than was Wilson's. His crusade, too, will end, as Wilson's did, in disillusionment for him and tragedy for his country." Patrick J. Buchanan
Ucrania
.Ms Tymoshenko has dismissed as politically-motivated accusations that she attempted to bribe officials in Russia's defence ministry when she was head of Ukraine's energy grid back in 1996.
It is alleged she wanted the officials to inflate the price of supply contracts with the Russian military by $80m (£42.5m).
But she is seen as an Ukrainian nationalist, and so is likely to alienate people in the Russian-speaking east and south of the country who backed Mr Yushchenko's rival in the election and who have close ties to Russia. "
quarta-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2005
Reflexões
"Consent has to do with the acceptance of the authority of a government by those subject to it: democracy refers to a type of rule, i.e., control by the majority or its agents. Consent neither implies nor is implied by democracy.
Dictatorial regimes have enjoyed widespread recognition of their authority: one need only mention Napoleon during the years of his political success. A democratic system, moreover, can be forcibly imposed on a country without the consent of its citizens. In this case, the citizens are able democratically to govern themselves but cannot change the system, even if they overwhelmingly wish to do so.
The United States has often acted in just this fashion in Latin America, since the days when Woodrow Wilson decided that the Mexican government was insufficiently democratic for his taste. Wilson also declined to grant Germany an armistice in World War I until the country replaced its monarchy with a republic.
Although consent and democracy need not in fact be connected, it might be argued that they ought to be. Only a democratic system ought to receive popular consent, even if people are benighted enough to think otherwise. But this contention presupposes that there exists an acceptable account of consent.
(...) Perhaps the most substantial argument in support of democracy is that of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. A democratic regime, since it by hypothesis enjoys majority support, will best insure that political change avoids violence. A government that people dislike but cannot alter democratically will, in contrast, be susceptible to revolution, with its attendant destruction.Mises’ argument seems to me vulnerable at several points. It does not address the contention raised earlier that a democratic system can itself be unpopular: unless the majority has the power to abolish democracy, Mises’ own argument would suggest the likelihood of revolution. He might, however, reply that, though he cannot show that democracy always leads to stability, it remains the system most likely to do so.
More directly to the essence, Mises fails to address the problem of revolutions brought about by minorities. Why should a dissatisfied minority confine itself to attempting to secure majority support for its proposals? Mises might reply that it has little choice – since the majority opposes it, it will lose should it attempt to seize power by force.
But this flies in the face of history; are not revolutions often, indeed usually, the result of efforts by a determined minority? Little purpose would be served by a long list of historical examples, though the French and Russian Revolutions will do for a start; but the list is unnecessary. All that is required to challenge Mises’ claim is to note that it is an empirical issue, not one to be settled a priori, whether revolutions stem in a significant number of cases from dissatisfied majorities. Unless they do, Mises has not shown that a system with majority support is in practice needed to avert revolution." What’s the Argument for Democracy? by David Gordon
terça-feira, 25 de janeiro de 2005
Secessão de Freguesias (american way)
Winhall adds secession to vote
"WINHALL -- Officials in this small bedroom community are irked about property taxes and want the town to secede from Vermont and join neighboring New Hampshire. Following in the steps of Killington to the north, the three-member select board is putting the secession idea before voters at Town Meeting on March 1."
PS: o que equivale a uma freguesia deixar um município e integrar outro.
"WINHALL -- Officials in this small bedroom community are irked about property taxes and want the town to secede from Vermont and join neighboring New Hampshire. Following in the steps of Killington to the north, the three-member select board is putting the secession idea before voters at Town Meeting on March 1."
PS: o que equivale a uma freguesia deixar um município e integrar outro.
Europeistas
Sempre tão prontos a delegar a a soberania a entidades supra-nacionais e rejeitando sempre qualquer caminho de federalização interna.
Publico: "Na sua intervenção no Congresso da Cidadania, Jorge Sampaio disse que a última revisão da Constituição "foi até onde se pode legitimamente ir sem pôr em causa a subsistência de um Estado unitário e do valor constitucional".
Mas
"Em declarações aos jornalistas, Carlos César salientou que a alteração constitucional "não encerrou para sempre, nem o podia fazer, o problema da configuração das autonomias regionais" e admitiu que as ilhas podem, no futuro, ter outras competências que hoje estão reservadas aos órgãos de soberania."
Publico: "Na sua intervenção no Congresso da Cidadania, Jorge Sampaio disse que a última revisão da Constituição "foi até onde se pode legitimamente ir sem pôr em causa a subsistência de um Estado unitário e do valor constitucional".
Mas
"Em declarações aos jornalistas, Carlos César salientou que a alteração constitucional "não encerrou para sempre, nem o podia fazer, o problema da configuração das autonomias regionais" e admitiu que as ilhas podem, no futuro, ter outras competências que hoje estão reservadas aos órgãos de soberania."
Re: Candidatou-se para ser Provedora?
Circulos uninominais, presença obrigatória no seu circulo, e deputados independentes.
PSD quer entregar aos funcionários públicos a gestão de serviços do Estado
Negocios.pt: "O PSD quer que o Estado entregue aos funcionários públicos a gestão de alguns serviços. A ideia, que está prevista no Programa eleitoral, é concessionar serviços pelo prazo de dois anos e inspira-se no modelo seguido recentemente pelos CTT. Em declarações ao Jornal de Negócios, António Mexia explica que o PSD pretende avançar "com experiências-piloto" e dá exemplos nas áreas da Saúde e da Educação. "Um centro de saúde, entregue aos profissionais que lá trabalham, subsidiado pelo Estado a um nível igual ou inferior ao custo que esse centro já representa" é uma hipótese, diz Mexia."
Nota: Os municipios (os que assim o queiram e achem estar preparados) devem poder assumir a gestão dos centros de saúde, sendo-lhes conferida esta hipótese adicional.
Nota: Os municipios (os que assim o queiram e achem estar preparados) devem poder assumir a gestão dos centros de saúde, sendo-lhes conferida esta hipótese adicional.
Jacobin to the Core
by Paul Craig Roberts (He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury)
After listening to his inaugural speech, anyone who thinks President Bush and his handlers are sane needs to visit a psychiatrist. The hubris-filled megalomaniac in the Oval Office has promised the world war without end.
Bush's crazy talk has even upset rah-rah Republicans. One Republican called Bush's speech "God-drenched." It has begun to dawn on the formerly Grand Old Party that a bloodless coup has occurred and Republicans have lost their party to Jacobins, who cloak themselves under the term "neoconservatives."
What is a Jacobin? Jacobins ushered in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins saw themselves as virtuous champions of universalist principles that required them to impose "liberty, equality, fraternity" not merely on France by a reign of terror, but also on the rest of Europe by force of arms.
Unlike America's Founding Fathers, who exhorted their countrymen to cultivate their own garden, Jacobins were not content with revolutionizing France. They were driven to revolutionize the world.
President Bush's second inaugural speech is Jacobin to the core. It stands outside the American tradition. Declaring American values to be universalist principles, Bush promised to use American power to spread democracy and to end tyranny everywhere on earth. As one of Bush's neocon puppetmasters, Robert Kagan, approvingly wrote in the Washington Post on Jan. 23, "The goal of American foreign policy is now to spread democracy, for its own sake, for reasons that transcend specific threats. In short, Bush has unmoored his foreign policy from the war on terrorism."
Michael Gerson, the Jacobin White House speechwriter who wrote Bush's infamous "God-drenched speech," defensively insists that Bush's wars will only last "a generation." We can take comfort in that. According to the dictionary, a generation is "about 30 years," so it is only our children and grandchildren who will have to be sacrificed for "Bush's historic mission." Along about 2035 things should be calming down. Whoever remains can begin to attack the $50 trillion national war debt.
Kagan calls America's moral crusade against the world "the higher realism that Bush now proclaims." Gerson declares that Bush's "methods are deeply realistic."
What is realistic about declaring weapons of mass destruction to exist where they do not exist?
What is realistic about assigning blame for Sept. 11 where it does not belong?
What is realistic about destroying a secular state and creating a vast breeding ground for terrorists?
What is realistic about making Osama bin Laden an Islamic hero and shaking the foundations of America's reigning puppets in the Middle East?
What is realistic about declaring a world crusade in the face of evidence that the U.S. cannot successfully occupy Baghdad, a city of only 6 million people, much less Iraq, a country of only 25 million people?
There is nothing realistic about Bush or any of his advisers. The world has not seen such delusion since the Children's Crusade led by a visionary French peasant, Stephen of Cloyes, marched off to free the Holy Land from the Muslims in the year 1212. The children were captured and sold into slavery.
Bush and the Republican Party have morphed into a Jacobin Party. They sincerely believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the obligation to impose U.S. virtue on the rest of the world. This Jacobin program requires the supremacy of executive power and is dependent on an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of force.
There is nothing American or democratic about this program. Bush speaks as Robespierre when he invokes "a fire in the minds of men" that "warms those who feel its power." Bush possesses Robespierre's "pure conscience" as he destroys Iraq's infrastructure and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, levels cities, and practices torture. American casualties (dead and wounded) have reached 10 percent of the U.S. occupation force and are but the "realistic methods" Bush uses to achieve his "deeply idealistic" goals.
At home, the casualties are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republicans explode in anger when a liberal judge creates a constitutional right. But they sit in silence when the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) creates the right for Bush to decide who has constitutional protections and who does not.
Like Robespierre, Bush justifies the state of terror that he has brought to Iraq by his noble aspirations. The effect is to destroy idealism with hypocrisy about violence. When the neoconservatives succeed in draining idealism of its power, will they then declare violence alone to be their goal?
Led by Bush, the Republican Party now stands for detainment without trial and war without end. It is a party destructive of all virtue and a great threat to life and liberty on earth.
After listening to his inaugural speech, anyone who thinks President Bush and his handlers are sane needs to visit a psychiatrist. The hubris-filled megalomaniac in the Oval Office has promised the world war without end.
Bush's crazy talk has even upset rah-rah Republicans. One Republican called Bush's speech "God-drenched." It has begun to dawn on the formerly Grand Old Party that a bloodless coup has occurred and Republicans have lost their party to Jacobins, who cloak themselves under the term "neoconservatives."
What is a Jacobin? Jacobins ushered in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins saw themselves as virtuous champions of universalist principles that required them to impose "liberty, equality, fraternity" not merely on France by a reign of terror, but also on the rest of Europe by force of arms.
Unlike America's Founding Fathers, who exhorted their countrymen to cultivate their own garden, Jacobins were not content with revolutionizing France. They were driven to revolutionize the world.
President Bush's second inaugural speech is Jacobin to the core. It stands outside the American tradition. Declaring American values to be universalist principles, Bush promised to use American power to spread democracy and to end tyranny everywhere on earth. As one of Bush's neocon puppetmasters, Robert Kagan, approvingly wrote in the Washington Post on Jan. 23, "The goal of American foreign policy is now to spread democracy, for its own sake, for reasons that transcend specific threats. In short, Bush has unmoored his foreign policy from the war on terrorism."
Michael Gerson, the Jacobin White House speechwriter who wrote Bush's infamous "God-drenched speech," defensively insists that Bush's wars will only last "a generation." We can take comfort in that. According to the dictionary, a generation is "about 30 years," so it is only our children and grandchildren who will have to be sacrificed for "Bush's historic mission." Along about 2035 things should be calming down. Whoever remains can begin to attack the $50 trillion national war debt.
Kagan calls America's moral crusade against the world "the higher realism that Bush now proclaims." Gerson declares that Bush's "methods are deeply realistic."
What is realistic about declaring weapons of mass destruction to exist where they do not exist?
What is realistic about assigning blame for Sept. 11 where it does not belong?
What is realistic about destroying a secular state and creating a vast breeding ground for terrorists?
What is realistic about making Osama bin Laden an Islamic hero and shaking the foundations of America's reigning puppets in the Middle East?
What is realistic about declaring a world crusade in the face of evidence that the U.S. cannot successfully occupy Baghdad, a city of only 6 million people, much less Iraq, a country of only 25 million people?
There is nothing realistic about Bush or any of his advisers. The world has not seen such delusion since the Children's Crusade led by a visionary French peasant, Stephen of Cloyes, marched off to free the Holy Land from the Muslims in the year 1212. The children were captured and sold into slavery.
Bush and the Republican Party have morphed into a Jacobin Party. They sincerely believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the obligation to impose U.S. virtue on the rest of the world. This Jacobin program requires the supremacy of executive power and is dependent on an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of force.
There is nothing American or democratic about this program. Bush speaks as Robespierre when he invokes "a fire in the minds of men" that "warms those who feel its power." Bush possesses Robespierre's "pure conscience" as he destroys Iraq's infrastructure and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, levels cities, and practices torture. American casualties (dead and wounded) have reached 10 percent of the U.S. occupation force and are but the "realistic methods" Bush uses to achieve his "deeply idealistic" goals.
At home, the casualties are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republicans explode in anger when a liberal judge creates a constitutional right. But they sit in silence when the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) creates the right for Bush to decide who has constitutional protections and who does not.
Like Robespierre, Bush justifies the state of terror that he has brought to Iraq by his noble aspirations. The effect is to destroy idealism with hypocrisy about violence. When the neoconservatives succeed in draining idealism of its power, will they then declare violence alone to be their goal?
Led by Bush, the Republican Party now stands for detainment without trial and war without end. It is a party destructive of all virtue and a great threat to life and liberty on earth.
segunda-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2005
Re: VATICANO CONTRA FREE TRADE
O Vaticano não é mais contra o "Free Trade" do que os próprios acordos de "Free Trade" o são - documentos condicionadores dos termos em que o "Trade" é feito. Porque, em verdade vos digo, o "Free Trade" não carece de acordo algum.
O Imposto progressivo da Segurança Social
Todos pagamos cerca de 1/3 do nossos rendimentos para a Segurança Social (e depois ainda temos o IRS, IVA, IRC e os restantes impostos especiais e taxas diversas, etc)
mas
1) O Subsidio de Desemprego tem um tecto de 3 salários minimos
...o que significa que quem aufere mais de 3 salários minimos, recebe menos(e cada vez menos quanto maior é o rendimento) do que aquilo que paga proporcionalmente pelo "serviço" de seguro de desemprego. É como se existisse um tecto para as indeminizações de acidentes de viação (embora o prémio obrigatório pago por um carro de 35 000 Euros seja naturalmente mais caro que de um de 15 000 Euros), mas ficando o segurado desprotegido (e a pagar a suas expensas, embora tenha pago o prémio correspondente) acima desse tecto.
Se existe um tecto no subsidio de desemprego tem de existir um tecto contributivo.
2) o PS vem agora propôr um tecto na Pensão de Reforma acima dos 6 000 Euros.
...o que significa que qualquer rendimento superior, mais uma vez não irá recebe o retorno do "serviço" (de poupança forçada) pago através do imposto da segurança social.
E o pior é que rápidamente vão gostar da ideia: baixar o tecto do que se recebe e manter a contribuição proporcional.
Conclusão:
O sistema da segurança social tenderá a cada vez ser mais progressivo porque será sempre politicamente fácil defender a "moralidade" dos tectos das despesas mantendo sem tectos a contribuição. A moralidade da extorsão é sempre fácil de apregoar enquanto é uma maioria que se ilude que beneficia com tal.
No IRS, 66% da colecta é pago pelos rendimentos anuais acima dos 30 000 Euros e 80% pelos acima dos 22 500 Euros. Mas como é suspeito que paguem menos do que devem, a devassa e o totalitarismo igualitarista prepara-se para assegurar que essa fatia ainda seja maior, custe o que custar (não se aceitam prisioneiros na guerra total).
Na Segurança Social, com tectos no que se recebe e sem tectos no que se paga (e com toda a certeza, para serem diminuidos a prazo até ao ponto em que eleitoralmente isso náo prejudique o "status quo") agrava-se ainda mais a extorsão da minoria pela maioria a que chamam de progressividade.
O que fazer:
1. Exigir que a segurança social (nas componentes de subsidio de desemprego e pensão de reforma) seja dirigida para os escalão de baixo rendimento, ou seja, um salário minimo (ou quanto muito, dois).
2. Exigir os tectos de contribuição correspondentes, o que significaria um choque fiscal imediato e o fim do problema da "sustentabilidade".
mas
1) O Subsidio de Desemprego tem um tecto de 3 salários minimos
...o que significa que quem aufere mais de 3 salários minimos, recebe menos(e cada vez menos quanto maior é o rendimento) do que aquilo que paga proporcionalmente pelo "serviço" de seguro de desemprego. É como se existisse um tecto para as indeminizações de acidentes de viação (embora o prémio obrigatório pago por um carro de 35 000 Euros seja naturalmente mais caro que de um de 15 000 Euros), mas ficando o segurado desprotegido (e a pagar a suas expensas, embora tenha pago o prémio correspondente) acima desse tecto.
Se existe um tecto no subsidio de desemprego tem de existir um tecto contributivo.
2) o PS vem agora propôr um tecto na Pensão de Reforma acima dos 6 000 Euros.
...o que significa que qualquer rendimento superior, mais uma vez não irá recebe o retorno do "serviço" (de poupança forçada) pago através do imposto da segurança social.
E o pior é que rápidamente vão gostar da ideia: baixar o tecto do que se recebe e manter a contribuição proporcional.
Conclusão:
O sistema da segurança social tenderá a cada vez ser mais progressivo porque será sempre politicamente fácil defender a "moralidade" dos tectos das despesas mantendo sem tectos a contribuição. A moralidade da extorsão é sempre fácil de apregoar enquanto é uma maioria que se ilude que beneficia com tal.
No IRS, 66% da colecta é pago pelos rendimentos anuais acima dos 30 000 Euros e 80% pelos acima dos 22 500 Euros. Mas como é suspeito que paguem menos do que devem, a devassa e o totalitarismo igualitarista prepara-se para assegurar que essa fatia ainda seja maior, custe o que custar (não se aceitam prisioneiros na guerra total).
Na Segurança Social, com tectos no que se recebe e sem tectos no que se paga (e com toda a certeza, para serem diminuidos a prazo até ao ponto em que eleitoralmente isso náo prejudique o "status quo") agrava-se ainda mais a extorsão da minoria pela maioria a que chamam de progressividade.
O que fazer:
1. Exigir que a segurança social (nas componentes de subsidio de desemprego e pensão de reforma) seja dirigida para os escalão de baixo rendimento, ou seja, um salário minimo (ou quanto muito, dois).
2. Exigir os tectos de contribuição correspondentes, o que significaria um choque fiscal imediato e o fim do problema da "sustentabilidade".
domingo, 23 de janeiro de 2005
Need, greed and compassion
"Joseph Sobran recently wrote that, in the current lexicon, "need" is the desire of people to loot the wealth of others; "greed" is the desire of those others to keep the money they have earned; and "compassion" is the function of those who negotiate the transfer.
The ruling elite may be considered the "professional compassionate" class. It is easy, of course, to be conspicuously "compassionate" if others are being forced to pay the cost." Egalitarianism and the Elites, Murray N. Rothbard
The ruling elite may be considered the "professional compassionate" class. It is easy, of course, to be conspicuously "compassionate" if others are being forced to pay the cost." Egalitarianism and the Elites, Murray N. Rothbard
sexta-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2005
W and Dostoevsky
"Midway through his inaugural address, when the president proclaimed "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," I wondered if Bush or his speechwriters knew or cared how alien this ultra-revolutionary rhetoric would seem to conservatives of the old school – and soon had my answer:
"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
A fire in the mind – surely, I thought, Bush's speechwriters can't have inserted this phrase without knowing its literary origin. It is taken from Dostoevsky's novel, The Possessed, a story set in pre-revolutionary Russia in which the author chronicles the intrigues of the emerging revolutionary movement: one of the main characters is based on the infamous nihilist Sergei Nechaev, whose aim is to make a revolution of such destructive power that bourgeois society will be completely destroyed. Their strategy is to provoke a violent crackdown on all dissent – which will then spark an explosion of revolutionary violence. To this purpose the nihilist Peter Verkhovensky worms his way into the confidence of Lembke, a provincial governor, convincing him of the need to crush rebellious workers who are distributing revolutionary leaflets and generally agitating against the government. The result is an uprising of murderous anger, a volcanic eruption of nihilistic violence that consumes the provincial capital in a great fire." Justin Raimondo
Confrangedor
WP:
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush told tens of thousands of onlookers from the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in a 21-minute address in which he used the words "free," "freedom" or "liberty" 49 times.
The president also appealed to young Americans to consider enlisting in the military or to find other ways of joining his mission. "You have seen that life is fragile and evil is real and courage triumphs," he said. "Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself."
A última vez que um Presidente Americano se empenhou pela guerra na liberdade dos outros e os direitos dos outros povos, o mundo obteve o fim do padrão ouro e do liberalismo clássico, o inicio do comunismo e fascismo e uma segunda guerra pior que a primeira. E na altura o Congresso opunha-se ou equilibrava as visões do Presidente Wilson (recusou duas vezes o tratado de Versailles e a entrada na Liga das Nações).
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush told tens of thousands of onlookers from the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in a 21-minute address in which he used the words "free," "freedom" or "liberty" 49 times.
The president also appealed to young Americans to consider enlisting in the military or to find other ways of joining his mission. "You have seen that life is fragile and evil is real and courage triumphs," he said. "Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself."
A última vez que um Presidente Americano se empenhou pela guerra na liberdade dos outros e os direitos dos outros povos, o mundo obteve o fim do padrão ouro e do liberalismo clássico, o inicio do comunismo e fascismo e uma segunda guerra pior que a primeira. E na altura o Congresso opunha-se ou equilibrava as visões do Presidente Wilson (recusou duas vezes o tratado de Versailles e a entrada na Liga das Nações).
quarta-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2005
Contra a Poupança forçada (ou nem isso)
Porque aceitamos nós que nos seja imposto um serviço de poupança forçada que ainda por cima, para nos ser devolvida, está dependente da boa vontade das gerações futuras e do pressuposto que o Estado Social ainda exista daqui a 3 décadas?
E se "tem" de existir para alguns, com o argumento redistributivo e do patamar mínimo de subsistência, porque não limitar o imposto pago para a segurança social (nesta componente) para um tecto que apenas "assegure" uma pensão de reforma de 1 ou 2 salários minimos?
Agora falam em aumentar a idade de reforma, depois em novas formas de cálculo, outros ainda falam da "privatização", mas o problema está na TIRANIA da poupança compulsória (ou nem isso, porque é uma mera transferência).
Temos de exigir um tecto para as pensões de reforma e um tecto para o imposto pago para esse efeito, e assim obteremos quer um choque fiscal quer o aumento significativo da nossa liberdade ou seja, soberania sobre a nossa propriedade.
E se "tem" de existir para alguns, com o argumento redistributivo e do patamar mínimo de subsistência, porque não limitar o imposto pago para a segurança social (nesta componente) para um tecto que apenas "assegure" uma pensão de reforma de 1 ou 2 salários minimos?
Agora falam em aumentar a idade de reforma, depois em novas formas de cálculo, outros ainda falam da "privatização", mas o problema está na TIRANIA da poupança compulsória (ou nem isso, porque é uma mera transferência).
Temos de exigir um tecto para as pensões de reforma e um tecto para o imposto pago para esse efeito, e assim obteremos quer um choque fiscal quer o aumento significativo da nossa liberdade ou seja, soberania sobre a nossa propriedade.
terça-feira, 18 de janeiro de 2005
War and Revolution
"Many of the basic values of war and revolution are identical. In each there is legitimization of violence in the name of some moral or social end that transcends violence. The appeal in each is overwhelmingly to youth – its unique energies, strengths, and also values, the latter so often subordinated in peacetime to the values of the older and established members of the social order. In both war and revolution there is an emphasis upon loyalty, honor, and cause that is all too often difficult to find in ordinary political and economic society." Robert Nisbett
domingo, 16 de janeiro de 2005
Re: INQUALIFICÁVEL
A Igreja pode apelar a que os advogados se recusem a tratar de processos de divórcios (gostaria ainda assim de saber em que termos exactos o terá feito) como pode apelar a uma série de outras atitudes a serem tomadas voluntáriamente no dominio civil.
O Estado é que não devia vir a poder (como o vai, mais tarde ou mais cedo fazer) obrigar os Católicos (que não o queiram fazer por escolha moral) a financiar compulsóriamente (e em último caso, sob ameaça de arresto de bens e prisão) o aborto e até provavelmente a perseguir os médicos que o recusem a fazer.
No entanto, os primeiros se calhar são os "fanáticos" e os segundos os moderados bafejados por esse bem supremo que é a modernidade.
O Estado é que não devia vir a poder (como o vai, mais tarde ou mais cedo fazer) obrigar os Católicos (que não o queiram fazer por escolha moral) a financiar compulsóriamente (e em último caso, sob ameaça de arresto de bens e prisão) o aborto e até provavelmente a perseguir os médicos que o recusem a fazer.
No entanto, os primeiros se calhar são os "fanáticos" e os segundos os moderados bafejados por esse bem supremo que é a modernidade.
sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2005
Europa das regiões II
JMF no Publico: "...porque não referendar o "Plano Ibarretxe" (o nome do lehendakari, o presidente do Governo autónomo)? Não seria uma lição de democracia? Não seria a forma de permitir aos bascos escolherem o seu futuro? A resposta, por paradoxal que tal pareça, é "não".
Quer isto dizer que, não fora o Estado espanhol e a prevalência do seu Estado de direito, todos os não-nacionalistas do País Basco estariam não apenas ameaçados como desprotegidos.
...A primeira é que esse referendo não tem condições para decorrer de forma justa, leal e democrática.
...A segunda razão crucial é que uma definição liberal de democracia coloca o ênfase no direito dos indivíduos e não no "direito dos povos", um tipo de "direito" em nome do qual a Humanidade - e a Europa - conheceu as maiores tragédias. "
Até sou capaz de concordar que qualquer intenção de Secessão levanta questões complexas (sobretudo quando movimentos migratórios modificam ao longo de gerações a identificação étnica de uma Nação...porque depois é posta em causa com facilidade), mas porque não achar que a construção da Europa ou qualquer outro processo de integração politica levanta exactamente o mesmo problema de forma inversa?
A origem problemática dos "direitos dos povos" iniciou-se com a sua proclamação por um progressista Woodrow Wilson justificando assim a entrada (essa sim trágica) dos EUA na Grande Guerra, levando ao fim dos impérios e monarquias continentais (reforçando temporáriamente o francês e inglês) e conduzindo a Europa directamente para a Segunda Guerra.
Todos os Estados existem assentes num qualquer Status Quo, que a cada momento, tentam que seja o definitivo, mas que a história teima mais tarde ou mais cedo de pôr em causa. Por exemplo, os EUA nascem da revolta dos colonos contra o bom Império Britânico e um inofensivo King George por causa de um misero imposto sobre o chá.
Mais tarde Lincoln vai declarar ilegal a secessão dos Estados Sulistas (a China está a dizer o mesmo em relação a "Taiwain"). Não é um precedente histórico muito favorável à criação de uma Federação Europeia, de que se diz, os Estados vão poder retirar-se. Mas não irá nessa altura alguém afirmar que o desejo de "sair" está a ser forçado por "nacionalistas étnicos" que falam do povo português (essa "noção artificial"...) e que estão a pôr em causa os direitos daqueles que querem continuar na "Federação"? Aposto que nessa altura já existirá um Exército Federal pronto a defender os direito desses "Europeus".
Quando diz: "a noção de "povo basco", além de artificial - tão artificial que os radicais se reivindicam o direito de definir quem é ou não basco -, resulta de um nacionalismo étnico que remete, na sua fundamentação ideológica, para imaginários que, no limite, são semelhantes aos fanatismos em que se baseiam as noções de superioridade racial...ao subtrair o País Basco ao Estado de direito espanhol, criando uma judicatura própria, atenta contra os direitos fundamentais dos que, vivendo nessa região, se sentem bascos e espanhóis, ou mesmo só espanhóis, ou até apenas cidadãos da Europa."
...as suas objecções ao "nacionalismo étnico"" e "direitos dos povos" não se aplicam a Israel?Porque não cidadãos do Médio Oriente? Já sabemos que o que faz um povo querer e conseguir governar-se a si próprio é apenas a sua capacidade de impor o seu "Status Quo". A Irlanda conseguiu mas ainda subsistem dificuldades precisamente porque é dificil duas comunidades sentirem-se apenas "cidadãos" quando uma delas começou por dominar e subjugar a outra. Tal como o "Ocidental" teria dificuldades em sentir-se um "cidadão do mundo" numa federação mundial de maioria indo-chinesa-muçulmana.
A melhor receita contra independentismo é o federalismo interno (no caso específico da Europa, muitas regiões podem vir a quer ser europeias, sim, mas como meio de ultrapassarem o seu próprio Estado). Quando não é possível, a negociação pacífica e o recurso a referendos parece inevitável. A antiga Checo-Eslováquia mostrou tal é possível. Muitos conflitos no mundo, tal como em África e noutros pontos, podem ser mais facilmente resolvidos se a Secessão for encarada com tranquilidade. Provavelmente no Iraque, a pressa pela sua democratização, poderá conduzir a uma guerra civil que acabará por desaguar na perda da unidade.
A origem dos conflitos internacionais que já marcaram a história não está no "direito dos povos" por si (embora tudo aconselhe a que só as partes em causa "discutam" entre si qualquer mudança de status quo, coisa que Wilson não fez, libertando com isso o génio do mal). É o intervencionismo económico. E este tanto pode existir nas pequenas unidades políticas como nas grandes. Mas as pequenas pagam o devido preço de forma abrupta. As grandes unidades políticas têm muita mais capacidade de se fecharem e de imporem as suas regras, enquanto proclamam as maravilhas do seu mercado interno.
Quer isto dizer que, não fora o Estado espanhol e a prevalência do seu Estado de direito, todos os não-nacionalistas do País Basco estariam não apenas ameaçados como desprotegidos.
...A primeira é que esse referendo não tem condições para decorrer de forma justa, leal e democrática.
...A segunda razão crucial é que uma definição liberal de democracia coloca o ênfase no direito dos indivíduos e não no "direito dos povos", um tipo de "direito" em nome do qual a Humanidade - e a Europa - conheceu as maiores tragédias. "
Até sou capaz de concordar que qualquer intenção de Secessão levanta questões complexas (sobretudo quando movimentos migratórios modificam ao longo de gerações a identificação étnica de uma Nação...porque depois é posta em causa com facilidade), mas porque não achar que a construção da Europa ou qualquer outro processo de integração politica levanta exactamente o mesmo problema de forma inversa?
A origem problemática dos "direitos dos povos" iniciou-se com a sua proclamação por um progressista Woodrow Wilson justificando assim a entrada (essa sim trágica) dos EUA na Grande Guerra, levando ao fim dos impérios e monarquias continentais (reforçando temporáriamente o francês e inglês) e conduzindo a Europa directamente para a Segunda Guerra.
Todos os Estados existem assentes num qualquer Status Quo, que a cada momento, tentam que seja o definitivo, mas que a história teima mais tarde ou mais cedo de pôr em causa. Por exemplo, os EUA nascem da revolta dos colonos contra o bom Império Britânico e um inofensivo King George por causa de um misero imposto sobre o chá.
Mais tarde Lincoln vai declarar ilegal a secessão dos Estados Sulistas (a China está a dizer o mesmo em relação a "Taiwain"). Não é um precedente histórico muito favorável à criação de uma Federação Europeia, de que se diz, os Estados vão poder retirar-se. Mas não irá nessa altura alguém afirmar que o desejo de "sair" está a ser forçado por "nacionalistas étnicos" que falam do povo português (essa "noção artificial"...) e que estão a pôr em causa os direitos daqueles que querem continuar na "Federação"? Aposto que nessa altura já existirá um Exército Federal pronto a defender os direito desses "Europeus".
Quando diz: "a noção de "povo basco", além de artificial - tão artificial que os radicais se reivindicam o direito de definir quem é ou não basco -, resulta de um nacionalismo étnico que remete, na sua fundamentação ideológica, para imaginários que, no limite, são semelhantes aos fanatismos em que se baseiam as noções de superioridade racial...ao subtrair o País Basco ao Estado de direito espanhol, criando uma judicatura própria, atenta contra os direitos fundamentais dos que, vivendo nessa região, se sentem bascos e espanhóis, ou mesmo só espanhóis, ou até apenas cidadãos da Europa."
...as suas objecções ao "nacionalismo étnico"" e "direitos dos povos" não se aplicam a Israel?Porque não cidadãos do Médio Oriente? Já sabemos que o que faz um povo querer e conseguir governar-se a si próprio é apenas a sua capacidade de impor o seu "Status Quo". A Irlanda conseguiu mas ainda subsistem dificuldades precisamente porque é dificil duas comunidades sentirem-se apenas "cidadãos" quando uma delas começou por dominar e subjugar a outra. Tal como o "Ocidental" teria dificuldades em sentir-se um "cidadão do mundo" numa federação mundial de maioria indo-chinesa-muçulmana.
A melhor receita contra independentismo é o federalismo interno (no caso específico da Europa, muitas regiões podem vir a quer ser europeias, sim, mas como meio de ultrapassarem o seu próprio Estado). Quando não é possível, a negociação pacífica e o recurso a referendos parece inevitável. A antiga Checo-Eslováquia mostrou tal é possível. Muitos conflitos no mundo, tal como em África e noutros pontos, podem ser mais facilmente resolvidos se a Secessão for encarada com tranquilidade. Provavelmente no Iraque, a pressa pela sua democratização, poderá conduzir a uma guerra civil que acabará por desaguar na perda da unidade.
A origem dos conflitos internacionais que já marcaram a história não está no "direito dos povos" por si (embora tudo aconselhe a que só as partes em causa "discutam" entre si qualquer mudança de status quo, coisa que Wilson não fez, libertando com isso o génio do mal). É o intervencionismo económico. E este tanto pode existir nas pequenas unidades políticas como nas grandes. Mas as pequenas pagam o devido preço de forma abrupta. As grandes unidades políticas têm muita mais capacidade de se fecharem e de imporem as suas regras, enquanto proclamam as maravilhas do seu mercado interno.
Charadas geo-estratégicas
US fury over EU weapons for China
"America is waging an intense behind-the-scenes battle to stop the European Union lifting its 15-year-old arms embargo against China, warning Britain that it will not tolerate the prospect of European military technology being used to threaten its soldiers in the Far East. As Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, prepares to travel to Beijing next week to discuss ending the arms ban, The Telegraph has learnt that the Bush administration is alarmed by Tony Blair's "cave-in" to French and German pressure. Japan has also expressed dismay over the EU's move dramatically to upgrade relations with Beijing.(...)
The US sees China as its main long-term rival for global dominance and is worried about possible military conflict over China's declared desire to re-assert control over Taiwan, which America has vowed to defend. US officials argue that any easing of European arms control exports poses a threat to its soldiers. But EU officials point out that Israel, one of America's closest allies, sells large amounts of weaponry to China."
Syrian Missile Deal Puts New Strain on Israel's Relationship With Moscow
Crisis Over Israeli Funding of Yushchenko [na Ucrania]
Israel Briefed US on Crisis With Russia...
...so US Demands Russia Cancel Proposed Missile Sale to Syria...
sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2005
Southern Sudanese to seek independence in referendum
RUMBEK, Sudan: Southern Sudanese will finally get a chance to decide in a referendum to be held in six years if they want to remain part of Sudan or secede, and there is little doubt which way they will vote.
quinta-feira, 13 de janeiro de 2005
Unify Europe: a subversion of our deepest heritage
"(...) in western societies free-market relations don’t exist because of the State, but in spite of it. Classical liberals and libertarians are aware that the roots of our history of freedom are in the Middle Ages and in its institutional pluralism. As Boudewijn Bouckaert wrote, “polycentric extended orders, such as Medieval Peace of God (1100-1500), do not conform with the Hobbesian intuition about power and order.
(…) The Medieval order was an order without a sovereign power in the ‘modern’ sense of the word, i.e. a central power disposing of a monopoly of a coercive power enabling it to rule a whole nation and to act as a conflict-solver of the last resort.
We can find the same observations in Robert Nisbet: “medieval society, from the point of view of formal authority, was one of the most loosely organized societies in history. Despite the occasional pretensions of centralizing popes, emperors, and kings, the authority that stretched theoretically from each of them was constantly hampered by the existence of jealously guarded ‘liberties’ of town, gild, monastery, and village”
(...) one of the most important elements of this European identity is history. And history has not always been the Nation-State’s dominion. In fact, pluralism has been the key of our historical success, and such pluralism was the absence (at the end of Middle Ages) of a powerful center of political decisions.We had Church, Empire, a number of Kings and Princes, a multitude of feudal relationships and – in some regions – independent Cities, but we never had a small group of rulers able to organize economic life and civil society. As Jean Baechler noticed in his important study about the origins of capitalism and about the role of medieval anarchy in this extraordinary history “the dark centuries have undeniably diffused a spiritual order, but also a deep disorder in politics and the economy”.
This manageable chaos was the explanation of our success.
The will to unify Europe shows a misunderstanding of what the European identity is all about and a subversion of our deepest heritage."
"European Unification as the New Frontier of Collectivist Redistribution The case for Competitive Federalism and a Free-market Economy" Carlo Lottieri, University of Siena
Noticias de Secessão
Sudan Sunday's deal ends Africa's longest-running civil war
"[On Sunday], one of the most important moments of African history of the last 50 years came to pass when the Sudan government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed a final peace accord ... ending nearly 25 years of civil war...
One of the elements of the settlement is that the south can exercise the option to secede in six years. This is the first time in Africa that a peace settlement has recognised the right to secession ..."
Charadas democraticas
"Zapatero pediu que os bascos não cumpram a ameaça de convocar um referendo sobre a questão se a vontade do Parlamento espanhol for o veto do plano. O "Plano Ibarretxe", adoptado no dia 30 de Dezembro pelo Parlamento basco, visa conceder ao País Basco espanhol competências autónomas em matéria de segurança social, fiscalidade e justiça. O documento será votado no Parlamento espanhol, onde a maioria dos deputados já se manifestaram contra. Contra estão também 68,8 por cento dos espanhóis, segundo uma sondagem Sigma Dos publicada no dia 9 pelo jornal "El Mundo". Outra sondagem, da Euskobarometro (basca), publicada no fim de Dezembro pela Universidade do País Basco, revela que 36 por cento dos bascos consideram que Ibarretxe deve levar o seu plano em frente, 34 por cento pedem que negoceie com Madrid e 18 por cento querem que o plano seja retirado."
Nota: É uma ilusão pensar que (via Blasfémias) que:"os dois maiores partidos espanhóis acreditam que a aprovação da Constituição Europeia é a melhor tábua de salvação contra os planos independentistas bascos, a que se podem seguir os de outras regiões."
É apenas mais um argumento falacioso a favor do caminho Federal porque com a integração politica acelerada:
(1) A coesão nacional tende a diminuir
(2) As regiões vão poder jogar com o trunfo autonómico-independentista, argumentando que querem permanecer na UE/Federação (o que pode ser ou não verdade no longo prazo).
quarta-feira, 12 de janeiro de 2005
DOES DEMOCRACY PROMOTE PEACE?
James Ostrowski1(pdf):
"(...)My contention is that my imagined opponents are confusing a dispute over
definition with a dispute over values. That is, when some would carve out of the
definition of peace an exception for democratic, majoritarian, law-making, what they are
really saying is, they value democratic decision-making more highly than the avoidance
of violence or the threat of violence against persons on the wrong end of that decisionmaking.
After all, as a purely empirical matter, the physical actions and mental states
involved with criminal extortion—“Give me a thousand dollars or I will kidnap you
tomorrow.”--are identical to democratic fund-raising—“Give me a thousand dollars or I
will put you in jail tomorrow.” Both, in a strictly factual sense, are breaches of the peace.
It is just that the democrat values democracy more than he values peace!
Similarly, when someone argues, “Yes, violence, etc. is a breach of the peace, but
so is poverty.”, a word game is being played. The disputant is being intellectually
dishonest. He is trying to use a definitional dispute to disguise a value judgment. He is
trying to smuggle welfare rights into the prestigious concept of peace. Let’s just be
honest about it. What you are really saying is, “Sure, I like peace, but I am willing be
unpeaceable to achieve welfare rights because I value them more than I value peace.”
(...) Needless to say, the world has yet to stumble upon peace. My suspicion is, even if the
world pondered the question and was inexorably drawn to the rather common sensical
definition of peace proffered herein--the absence of violence or the palpable threat of violence against persons and their property—most people and most politicians and most intellectuals would recoil in horror at the prospect of such a world.
It’s not that these people don’t like peace in general terms; it’s just that there are
many things they value more highly. Many of these things can only be achieved by the
use of democratic violence or the palpable threat of democratic violence against persons
and their property. That is why we live in such a violent world. We are lying in the bed
we have made. Most people don’t want peace, not really. If they did, it could be
achieved without enormous difficulty since “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.”
Morto e enterrado
"(...) The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.
Antes e agora
"The very word 'guerrilla' acquired its present meaning from the ferocious insurgency of the illiterate Spanish poor against their would-be liberators under the leadership of their traditional oppressors.
On July 6, 1808, King Joseph of Spain presented a draft constitution that for the first time in Spain's history offered an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, and the abolition of the remaining feudal privileges of the aristocracy and the church. … Yet the Spanish peasantry did not rise up to demand the immediate implementation of the constitution. Instead, they obeyed the priests, who summoned them to fight against the ungodly innovations of the foreign invader – for Joseph was the brother of Napoleon Bonaparte and had been placed on the Spanish throne by French troops a month earlier. That was all that mattered for most Spaniards – not what was proposed, but who proposed it."
The same thing happened in Naples, where a "Holy Faith" militia organized by Cardinal Fabrizio Ruffo rose up against the Napoleonic "liberators" and paved the way for the British massacre of local French-supported liberals. It didn't matter to the insurgents that the Roman Catholic faith was enshrined in the Napoleonic constitution – the illiterate peasants who resisted "liberation" couldn't know that and wouldn't have cared if they did. As Luttwak says, what mattered was "not what was proposed, but who proposed it."
Like the Spanish and Italian peasants who were urged to resist Napoleon's occupation by their priests, the Iraqi people are listening to their clerics, who are telling them that foreigners are crusading against their religion, stealing their resources, and violating their women. In Germany and Japan, the elites collaborated with the Allies to effect a transformation of the political structure, and the people, with a long (if not entirely untroubled) history of parliamentary government behind them, were not in irreconcilable opposition. The situation is quite different in Iraq. In short, there can be no Iraqi democracy in any recognizably Western sense of the term due to the acute shortage of democrats."
On July 6, 1808, King Joseph of Spain presented a draft constitution that for the first time in Spain's history offered an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, and the abolition of the remaining feudal privileges of the aristocracy and the church. … Yet the Spanish peasantry did not rise up to demand the immediate implementation of the constitution. Instead, they obeyed the priests, who summoned them to fight against the ungodly innovations of the foreign invader – for Joseph was the brother of Napoleon Bonaparte and had been placed on the Spanish throne by French troops a month earlier. That was all that mattered for most Spaniards – not what was proposed, but who proposed it."
The same thing happened in Naples, where a "Holy Faith" militia organized by Cardinal Fabrizio Ruffo rose up against the Napoleonic "liberators" and paved the way for the British massacre of local French-supported liberals. It didn't matter to the insurgents that the Roman Catholic faith was enshrined in the Napoleonic constitution – the illiterate peasants who resisted "liberation" couldn't know that and wouldn't have cared if they did. As Luttwak says, what mattered was "not what was proposed, but who proposed it."
Like the Spanish and Italian peasants who were urged to resist Napoleon's occupation by their priests, the Iraqi people are listening to their clerics, who are telling them that foreigners are crusading against their religion, stealing their resources, and violating their women. In Germany and Japan, the elites collaborated with the Allies to effect a transformation of the political structure, and the people, with a long (if not entirely untroubled) history of parliamentary government behind them, were not in irreconcilable opposition. The situation is quite different in Iraq. In short, there can be no Iraqi democracy in any recognizably Western sense of the term due to the acute shortage of democrats."
The Capitalist Response
John Clark, no Seattle Catholic - A Journal of Catholic News and Views:
(...) As a matter of historical fact, capitalism almost literally began in the backyard of the Vatican. As Raymond De Roover explains in The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank: 1397-1494: "Modern capitalism based on private ownership has its roots in Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance."
Even the premiere economic historian Joseph Schumpeter admits that:
"by the end of the fifteenth century most of the phenomena that we are in the habit of with that vague word Capitalism had put in their appearance, including big business, stock and commodity speculation and 'high finance'..."
Simply put, the Bellocian thesis that capitalism has Protestant origins must be summarily rejected. It is significant that modern capitalism found its origin in Catholic countries at the height of the glory of Christendom, when faith still mattered. It is also significant that the Medici Bank, which existed as both the figurative and literal center of the capitalist world, had one customer that did business with it more than any other: the offices of the Catholic Church.(...)
After all, there are quite a number of extremely influential Catholic economists from whom he could have chosen. If the reader would please forgive the length of the following, I would suggest that the greatest Catholic thinkers on economic questions would include the following:
St. Bonaventure (the thirteenth century doctor of the Church who laid out an extensive moral application of property rights).
St. Albert the Great (who developed a moral defense of the lawfulness of business as well as establishing the "need theory of value").
Pope Alexander III (who provided an ethical foundation for the formula of a "just price").
Alexander of Hales (thirteenth century Franciscan chairman in theology at the University of Paris who, according to Odd Langholm, produced the "first clear definition and denunciation of monopoly in medieval theological literature").
Henry of Ghent (the thirteenth century master of arts at Paris who provided the moral defense of personal financial investments for future needs).
St. Bernardino of Siena (fifteenth century scholastic whose treatise De Contractibus et Usuris is considered by economists as perhaps the first general survey of the field of economics).
Richard of Middleton (thirteenth century regent master of arts at the University of Paris whose theories on international trade are considered by economists as breakthroughs).
Blessed John Duns Scotus (fourteenth century Franciscan whose commentaries on usury provided a pivotal understanding about the nature of money itself).
Roland of Cremona (thirteenth century regent master of arts at Balogna, who wrote a 1400 page confessional manual addressing questions of wealth and property).
St. Antoninus (archbishop of Florence until 1459, whom Schumpeter describes as "the first man to whom it is possible to ascribe a comprehensive vision of the economic process in all its major aspects").
Pedro Fernandez Navarrete (seventeenth century scholastic canonist who outlined the financial and moral perils of high taxation, whose theories pre-dated "The Laffer Curve" by almost four hundred years).
Cardinal Cajetan (sixteenth century general of the Dominican Order whose theories on the morality of exchange and pricing in De Cambiis provided a major ethical support for free market economic principles).
St. Alphonsus Liguori (eighteenth century doctor of the Church whose theories on the nature of capital would shape economic ethical theory henceforth).
Martin de Azpilcueta Navarrus (sixteenth century Dominican canon lawyer at Salamanca who developed the purchasing power parity theory of exchange rates).
Covarrubias y Leiva (sixteenth century bishop of Segovia who promoted the utility theory of value).
Francisco Suarez (sixteenth century chair of theology at the Jesuit College in Rome, who promoted the natural rights view of private property).
Leonard Lessius (seventeenth century student of Suarez who defended the capitalist principle of the entrepreneur being paid much more highly than other workers).
Laurentius de Ridolfis (fifteenth century canon lawyer who produced the first detailed discussion of foreign exchange).
(...) While Pope Leo XIII was admittedly concerned about the economic environment of his time which followed industrialization, he certainly was no anti-capitalist. On the contrary, he simply condemned the abuses of capitalism, not capitalism itself. That is a rather large distinction. Condemning the abuses of a thing is not the same as condemning the thing. One year prior to Rerum Novarem, Pope Leo XIII, in Sapientiae Christianae, condemned the abuses of the education of children; he did not say that the education of children is an abuse.
Pope John Paul II is really the first modern Pontiff to delve into capitalism proper, and analyze it on its own merits.
In Laborem Exercens, Pope John Paul II writes:
...it should be recognized that the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity of his work — that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and maker, and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process of production.
As close as a pope has ever come to fully endorsing a specific economic system occurred in Centissimus Annus. Speaking of capitalism, Pope John Paul II writes:
Certainly the mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to utilize resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above all they give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person. Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry" of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities...
Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative...
(...) The position of the greatest scholastic minds of the Church on the subject of trade is this: 1) international trade was ordained by God; 2) it is vital to the survival of the state; and 3) the effort to restrict trade may be a sin against charity.
In De Regno, St. Thomas says that entirely self-sufficient communities are impossible. Thomas writes:
One cannot easily find any place so overflowing with the necessaries as not to need some commodities from other parts. When there is an overabundance of some commodities in one place, these goods would serve no purpose if they could not be carried elsewhere by professional traders. Consequently, the perfect city will make a moderate use of merchants.
The perfect city is one that engages in trade. St. Bonaventure, the great Franciscan Doctor of the Church, argued that international trade must be moral because without trade, "many regions could not exist."
A late scholastic named Vitoria claimed that eternal law, natural law, and positive human law favored international trade. He wrote that to restrict the goods of an area from being supplied to another was not only economically unsound, but actually claimed that it was "iniquitous and against charity." Therefore, one can see that the Church has always been supportive of trade. (...)
Conclusion
As I mentioned in my Latin Mass article, capitalism and each of its component parts has been defended for centuries by the greatest minds of the Church. While capitalism continues to be attacked by the intelligentsia of the world, it has brought prosperity unknown prior to its arrival in countries across the world. Not even Belloc doubted its efficiency. Instead of attacking capitalism, perhaps Catholics should use the monetary tools at their disposal to produce Catholic businesses in an effort to glorify God.
May we all have the faith and courage to do so.
terça-feira, 11 de janeiro de 2005
Tem toda a razão
O Parlamento de Lisboa Por VITAL MOREIRA : "Há momentos em que Lisboa descobre de bom grado o resto do país. É quando o seu pessoal político excedentário, que não cabe nas listas eleitorais da capital, invade "a província" à procura de um lugar que lhes garanta uma cadeira em São Bento. Lisboa elege só por si 48 dos 230 deputados da Assembleia da República. No final, provavelmente mais de uma centena dos parlamentares são de Lisboa. TEXTO "
Nota: para além da adopção de circulos uninominais, já agora, podiam transferir o Parlamento, por exemplo, para Coimbra.Circulos uninominais, deputados independentes
E obrigatoriedade do deputado estar presente e disponivel para a comunidade que o elegeu.
Para quando?
Para quando?
How can we act, and act morally, in a State-controlled and dominated world?
"It seems to me that the most important concern is to avoid the twin, and equally destructive, traps: of ultra-purist sectarianism, where indeed we would not permit ourselves to walk on government-owned streets; and sellout opportunism, in which we could become supervisors of concentration camps while still claiming we were "libertarians" in some far off, ideal world.
Opportunists are people who severely split theory from practice; whose ideals are tucked away in some closet or trophy room and have no bearing on their daily lives. Sectarians, on the other hand, suffer from what the Catholics would call the error of "scrupulosity," and are always in danger of boxing themselves in to become hermits and virtual martyrs."
Living in a State-Run World, by Murray N. Rothbard
Opportunists are people who severely split theory from practice; whose ideals are tucked away in some closet or trophy room and have no bearing on their daily lives. Sectarians, on the other hand, suffer from what the Catholics would call the error of "scrupulosity," and are always in danger of boxing themselves in to become hermits and virtual martyrs."
Living in a State-Run World, by Murray N. Rothbard
segunda-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2005
Expulsão de condomínio
Público - No CONSULTÓRIO DE JUSTIÇA, 30 de Dezembro de 2004 - 17h11
Pergunta: "Pode-se numa reunião de condóminos de um prédio de habitação fazer-se um abaixo assinado com o intuito de obrigar a expulsão de um residente (e proprietário) por motivos de excesso de ruído e de provocar má vizinhança? Pedro Morais (Lagos)"
Resposta: "O proprietário goza de modo pleno e exclusivo dos direitos de uso, fruição e disposição das coisas que lhe pertencem, dentro dos limites da lei e com observância das restrições por ela impostas” ( artº 1305º do Código Civil).
O condómino é proprietário da fracção que lhe pertence, podendo usá-la como entender ( dentro dos limites da lei). Entre esses limites, inclui-se a obrigação de respeitar o direito ao repouso e tranquilidade dos vizinhos, abstendo-se de praticar actos que perturbem ou incomodem os condóminos. Perante as queixas de excesso de ruído e de má vizinhança, o condómino deverá modificar o seu comportamento, sob pena de se sujeitar às consequências de uma intervenção camarária ( com aplicação de coimas, no caso de violação da Lei do Ruído).
Também o Regulamento de Condomínio poderá prever a aplicação de sanções aos condóminos que violem certas obrigações.Se é possível “castigar” o condómino faltoso, com a aplicação de coimas pela câmara e de sanções pelo condomínio, já se torna problemática a propositura de uma acção em tribunal para o obrigar a mudar de casa.Pode-se recorrer ao tribunal para obter a condenação do condómino no pagamento de indemnizações, com a obrigação de se abster de comportamento ilícitos. Mas obrigá-lo a mudar de casa implicaria privá-lo de um direito fundamental, inerente à propriedade: o direito de usar e fruir o bem.
O Supremo Tribunal de Justiça pronunciou-se, em 1969, sobre a seguinte situação: o proprietário de um prédio mantinha animais incómodos , que afectavam o repouso de tranquilidade dos vizinhos. O Supremo considerou “ o direito à saúde e ao repouso essencial à existência física são direitos de personalidade”, dando razão aos queixosos."
NOTAS:
Parece-me que a expulsão deve ser possivel assim os estatutos do condomínio expressamente e detalhadamente articulem o processo. O que levanta também a aquestão da aceitação de novos proprietários. Podem estes serem vetados? Sim, já referi o caso da Madonna que não foi aceite como condómino.
Pergunta: "Pode-se numa reunião de condóminos de um prédio de habitação fazer-se um abaixo assinado com o intuito de obrigar a expulsão de um residente (e proprietário) por motivos de excesso de ruído e de provocar má vizinhança? Pedro Morais (Lagos)"
Resposta: "O proprietário goza de modo pleno e exclusivo dos direitos de uso, fruição e disposição das coisas que lhe pertencem, dentro dos limites da lei e com observância das restrições por ela impostas” ( artº 1305º do Código Civil).
O condómino é proprietário da fracção que lhe pertence, podendo usá-la como entender ( dentro dos limites da lei). Entre esses limites, inclui-se a obrigação de respeitar o direito ao repouso e tranquilidade dos vizinhos, abstendo-se de praticar actos que perturbem ou incomodem os condóminos. Perante as queixas de excesso de ruído e de má vizinhança, o condómino deverá modificar o seu comportamento, sob pena de se sujeitar às consequências de uma intervenção camarária ( com aplicação de coimas, no caso de violação da Lei do Ruído).
Também o Regulamento de Condomínio poderá prever a aplicação de sanções aos condóminos que violem certas obrigações.Se é possível “castigar” o condómino faltoso, com a aplicação de coimas pela câmara e de sanções pelo condomínio, já se torna problemática a propositura de uma acção em tribunal para o obrigar a mudar de casa.Pode-se recorrer ao tribunal para obter a condenação do condómino no pagamento de indemnizações, com a obrigação de se abster de comportamento ilícitos. Mas obrigá-lo a mudar de casa implicaria privá-lo de um direito fundamental, inerente à propriedade: o direito de usar e fruir o bem.
O Supremo Tribunal de Justiça pronunciou-se, em 1969, sobre a seguinte situação: o proprietário de um prédio mantinha animais incómodos , que afectavam o repouso de tranquilidade dos vizinhos. O Supremo considerou “ o direito à saúde e ao repouso essencial à existência física são direitos de personalidade”, dando razão aos queixosos."
NOTAS:
Parece-me que a expulsão deve ser possivel assim os estatutos do condomínio expressamente e detalhadamente articulem o processo. O que levanta também a aquestão da aceitação de novos proprietários. Podem estes serem vetados? Sim, já referi o caso da Madonna que não foi aceite como condómino.
Democracia e a Europa das regiões
Publico: "O que a sondagem da Sigma Dos, publicada ontem pelo "El Mundo", vem mostrar é que 49,5por cento dos espanhois apoiam a proposta de pacto de regime para derrotar o "Plano" que Rajoy se prepara para apresentar na próxima sexta-feira a Zapatero, e que este já decidiu recusar. Segundo a mesma sondagem, um total de 68,8 por cento dos espanhóis são contra o "Plano Ibarretxe", que pretende fazer do País basco uma região "livremente associada" à Espanha, com competências acrescidas em matéria de segurança social, fiscalidade e justiça. A maioria dos partidos com representação parlamentar em Madrid rejeita a proposta do Governo Basco. "
A angústia democrática reside em saber como prevenir que sub-circulos eleitorais reivindiquem a autonomização da sua própria democracia. Mas uma vez que querem legitimar a federalização supra-nacional (integração) por referendos de maioria simples, a Europa das Regiões pode mesmo vir a transformar-se na "unintended consequence" do federalismo europeu.
A angústia democrática reside em saber como prevenir que sub-circulos eleitorais reivindiquem a autonomização da sua própria democracia. Mas uma vez que querem legitimar a federalização supra-nacional (integração) por referendos de maioria simples, a Europa das Regiões pode mesmo vir a transformar-se na "unintended consequence" do federalismo europeu.
Localismo e regulamentação descentralizada
O "Economist" diz acertadamente: "Liberalising drink laws in Britain Getting alcohol licensing right means giving back power to local councils."
E afirma
"AT THE end of last year, the British government banned hunting, announced its intention to ban smoking in public places and raised the possibility of restrictions on companies selling unhealthy food. Next month, it will move toward letting pubs serve alcohol all day and all night (see article). Yet those who smoke, hunt and eat unhealthy food do little harm to anybody except themselves, while alcohol is implicated in 40% of violent crime.… "
Que sentido faz o Estado Central (seja via governo ou parlamento) "disparar" com autorizações ou proibições de escolhas que devem ser decididas localmente? Primeiro proibem a caça depois querem liberalizar totalmente os pubs (quando ainda existem restrições fortes). Que sentido faz esta dança de proibe tudo e em todo o lado para permite tudo e em todo o lado?
Assuntos como:
- Licenciamento de lugares nocturnos (se, como, onde, e que preço pelo licenciamento)
- Droga e Prostituição (para mim, seria inaceitável que um dia, o governo central ou o Parlamento, se lembrasse de impor a total "liberalização" da droga/prostituição, impedindo a comunidade local de regular estas actividades.
A forma mais o eficaz de o implementar seria serem possíveis mecanismos ageis de decisão colectiva pelas Juntas de Freguesia (em nome dos proprietários e residentes que a compõem) e inseridas numa politica geral da Município.
Existem assuntos que eu consideraria nos Municípios e JF:
- Quando finalmente conseguirem o "livre aborto", deixarem que cada Município possa impedir, por regulação , que este seja praticado na sua comunidade.
- Os projectos urbanisticos devem ser passiveis de mecanismos de veto e negociação pelas JF (obrigando quer o "construtor" quer o Município a negociarem com a comunidade local - uma forma de equilibrar os interesses/corrupção municipal nesta área).
É um pressuposto do que aqui está escrito, que o mecanismo de decisão colectivo ao nível da Junta de Frequesia seja equiparável ao de um Macro-Condominio, com Assembleias ordinárias e extraordinárias, certos poderes de gestão corrente delegados ao Presidente/Administração, etc.
sábado, 8 de janeiro de 2005
Domingo Liberal
Sai amanhã, dia 9 de Janeiro, o primeiro número do Domingo Liberal, o novo jornal dirigido por Jorge Pereira da Silva. Uma aposta de risco (como o são todos os novos projectos nesta área) a que desejo as maiores felicidades.
sexta-feira, 7 de janeiro de 2005
Taxas Únicas
Em Espanha, pensa-se numa Taxa Única para IRS, eu tenho defendido um Taxa Única de Impostos (ou Taxa Única Máxima de Impostos) para o IRS, IVA e IRC de 20%, e um "pacto de regime" para que as diferentes propostas eleitorais disputem, no que diz repeito a estas três impostos, apenas o valor desta Taxa em vez do habitual jogo de mentiras (baixa um, sobre outro).
Adicionalmente, a reforma da segurança social (e a sua insustentabilidade) deve passar por aplicar o principio de subsidariedade ao subsidio de desemprego e pensão de reforma, estabelecendo-se um tecto para ambos, por exemplo, ao nivel de 2 salarios minimos (mas mantendo-se todas as obrigações assumidas , ou seja, as contribuições passadas à data da reforma adicionam a esse tecto na medida em que excedam o necessário para o Tecto entretanto fixado).
Via Diario Economico: Especialistas do Governo defendem “taxa única”
Os especialistas contratados pelo Governo espanhol para estudarem a reforma do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares – IRFP, equivalente ao IRS em Portugal – defendem que o sistema caminhe para um imposto ‘linear’, uma espécie de imposto proporcional.
Jorge Martínez-Vàzquez e José Felix Sanz Sanz foram repescados pelo Governo de Zapatero, depois de terem colaborado com Aznar na definição da reforma do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares. No artigo de opinião que publicam, os dois especialistas preconizam a aplicação de um imposto linear sobre o rendimento. Este imposto caracteriza-se pela aplicação de uma taxa única sobre todas as famílias, e sobre qualquer tipo de rendimento, a partir de um determinado patamar de rendimento.Em contrapartida, não se admitem excepções à base tributável, cortando-se com a generalidade dos abatimentos, deduções e benefícios fiscais.Os dois especialistas defendem que, apesar de este sistema poder colocar reservas no plano da equidade, ele acabaria por ser socialmente mais justo que o modelo actual, dadas as distorções que a generalidade dos benefícios fiscais introduzem, e dado o tratamento diferenciado que agora é dado conforme os rendimentos sejam oriundos do trabalho ou do capital.
Outro conjunto de argumentos prende-se com a redução dos custos de administração que adviriam de uma simplificação das regras do imposto e com um mais fácil combate à evasão e fraudes contributivas.
Links between Catholicism and liberalism
READINGS ON ETHICS AND CAPITALISM: PART I: CATHOLICISM Memo to the Volker Fund by Murray N. Rothbard Dated: May 1960
"(...) I should like to conclude our investigation of Catholicism and the ethics of capitalism with a discussion of the important article by a French pro-free market Catholic economist, which appeared, translated in Modern Age. The reference is: Daniel Villey, “Catholics and the Market Economy,” Modern Age (Summer and Fall, 1959).
(...) (2) Secondly, the psychological and historical position of the Church must be realized. The Church was deeply shaken by the Reformation, and its Counter-Reformation was a great reaction against it, one which, understandably, went too far. In particular, in closing ranks against the Reformation, the Church tended also to oppose those other modern institutions which grew up along with Protestantism and atheism, e.g.: all the modern institutions going beyond the stationary, feudal society of the Middle Ages. As a result, “The Church is uneasy in the modern world,” and its attitude tends to be one of distrust and hostility.
(...) Having set forth and criticized the various sources of Catholic hostility to liberalism,Villey proceeds to inquire what are the possible links between Catholicism and liberalism. He warns again that he is not trying to make liberalism “the Catholic economic doctrine”or of deriving the market from the Bible.
But are there any links, parallels, etc., between liberalism and Catholicism, common grounds? In the 19th Century, authoritarianism seemed to correspond to the ideas of transcendence and God, while freedom coincided with agnosticism and relativism (which is why Pope Pius IX condemned freedom andliberalism so bitterly in his Syllabus of Errors.)
Nowadays, liberalism is more linked toGod and transcendence, while scientism has been associated with agnosticism (Nazis,Soviets.) In short, liberalism may stem either from skepticism or from faith.
The Christian view is that since God does transcend the world, this means that the world exists apartfrom God, and therefore nature is governed by its own autonomous natural laws. Since only God is unitary and transcendent, the Christian must consider nature as discontinuousand pluralistic, just as liberalism considers it. Therefore:“The Catholic mind is thus prepared to admit the heterogeneity of economic interests, themultiplicity of centers of economic imitative and the autonomy of economics in relation topolitics. This Catholic outlook harmonizes easily with the essentially pluralistic concept ofthe world which is peculiar to liberals. “
(...) Villey then asserts that when Catholic philosophy was being hammered out in the MiddleAges, the market economy did not exist, and the economic thought of modern Catholic corporativism, trade unionism, solidarism, etc. - still bears a medieval flavor.
Yet, there is,particularly in the advanced modern economy, no “middle way” anymore, between themarket [and] the planned economy. One or the other - the market or the government - mus tdecide on the allocation of productive resources. There is now no room for the handicraftor guild way of life, with its direct adjustment of supply to demand. We cannot - without crisis, famine, and retrogression - turn the clock back to handicrafts; we must choose, with no middle way, between the free market economy and the planned economy. There can be part of the economy devoted to the market and part to a plan; but there is no “third” or“middle” system to choose from.
And many Catholics concede that total economic planning requires a totalitarian state, and therefore must be rejected. Once they realize that there is really no “midd1e” or third way out, they will have to choose the market economy. The Encylcicals have been interpreted (by Ropke, Baudin) as compatible with capitalism,and further they certainly both condemned Socialism.
Villey ends his article with a call to Catholics (if not the Church per se) to join the defense of Western ideals: which include the free market, along with human rights, dignity, and democracy.
He calls on them to rehabilitate private property, profit, the market, and even speculation, to abandon nostalgia for the Middle Ages. He ends by noting that he hascalled the stock exchange “the temple of human rights” - a phrase which. has shocked Catholics and others, because they do not understand the central importance of stock speculation in the market economy.- "
quinta-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2005
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Via MisesBlog
Cicero (January 3, 106 BCE - December 7, 43 BCE) was a Roman Senator, who held every important Roman office at the youngest permissible age. And he left an extensive written record, about which Historian Edward Gibbon said, "I breathed the spirit of freedom."
Particularly influential was Cicero’s idea of natural law, echoed in John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers: Human nature included reason, which could be used to discover justice, which was the basis of law.
Murray Rothbard wrote that he was "the great transmitter of Stoic ideas from Greece to Rome…Stoic natural law doctrines…helped shape the great structures of Roman law which became pervasive in Western civilization." Voltaire said "He taught us how to think."
Cicero stayed loyal to the Roman Republic against Julius Caesar. His defense of that ideal also led to his murder by Antony, who had his head and hands nailed to the Senate speaker's podium as a warning to others.
On Justice
Justice is the crowning glory of the virtues.
Justice consists in doing no injury to men...
Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives every man his due.
The foundations of justice are that no one should suffer wrong; then, that the public good be promoted.
...justice must be observed even to the lowest.
Justice does not descend from its pinnacle.
Justice extorts no reward, no kind of price; she is sought...for her own sake.
Extreme justice is extreme injustice.
If our lives are endangered by plots or violence...any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.
On Law
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application...
The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give everyone else his due.
According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another.
The strictest law often causes the most serious wrong.
The more laws, the less justice.
...the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled...
The administration of government, like a guardianship, ought to be directed to the good of those who confer, not of those who receive the trust.
When a government becomes powerful...it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself.
On Liberty
We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free.
The essence of liberty is to live as you choose.
Freedom is a man’s natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is not prevented by force or law.
Freedom is a possession of inestimable value.
What is so beneficial to the people as liberty...to be preferred to all things.
Liberty is rendered even more precious by the recollection of servitude.
Freedom suppressed again, and again regained, bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered.
Only in states in which the power of the people is supreme has liberty any abode.
Peace is liberty in tranquility. Servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death.
Cicero (January 3, 106 BCE - December 7, 43 BCE) was a Roman Senator, who held every important Roman office at the youngest permissible age. And he left an extensive written record, about which Historian Edward Gibbon said, "I breathed the spirit of freedom."
Particularly influential was Cicero’s idea of natural law, echoed in John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers: Human nature included reason, which could be used to discover justice, which was the basis of law.
Murray Rothbard wrote that he was "the great transmitter of Stoic ideas from Greece to Rome…Stoic natural law doctrines…helped shape the great structures of Roman law which became pervasive in Western civilization." Voltaire said "He taught us how to think."
Cicero stayed loyal to the Roman Republic against Julius Caesar. His defense of that ideal also led to his murder by Antony, who had his head and hands nailed to the Senate speaker's podium as a warning to others.
On Justice
Justice is the crowning glory of the virtues.
Justice consists in doing no injury to men...
Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives every man his due.
The foundations of justice are that no one should suffer wrong; then, that the public good be promoted.
...justice must be observed even to the lowest.
Justice does not descend from its pinnacle.
Justice extorts no reward, no kind of price; she is sought...for her own sake.
Extreme justice is extreme injustice.
If our lives are endangered by plots or violence...any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.
On Law
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application...
The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give everyone else his due.
According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another.
The strictest law often causes the most serious wrong.
The more laws, the less justice.
...the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled...
The administration of government, like a guardianship, ought to be directed to the good of those who confer, not of those who receive the trust.
When a government becomes powerful...it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself.
On Liberty
We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free.
The essence of liberty is to live as you choose.
Freedom is a man’s natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is not prevented by force or law.
Freedom is a possession of inestimable value.
What is so beneficial to the people as liberty...to be preferred to all things.
Liberty is rendered even more precious by the recollection of servitude.
Freedom suppressed again, and again regained, bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered.
Only in states in which the power of the people is supreme has liberty any abode.
Peace is liberty in tranquility. Servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)