Justice and Charity in Wages, Clifford F. Thies, Acton Institute
" Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Centesimus Annus, is a marvelous defense of capitalism and attack on socialism in its feudal, totalitarian, and welfare state forms. One is particularly impressed by Pope John Paul’s argument that the burdens that the welfare state places on the poor are immoral. Accordingly, this teaching does more than simply return the Catholic church to the position originally expressed by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, whose one-hundredth anniversary it celebrates.
In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo argued that "as a rule, workman and employer should make free agreements." This was very much part of Pope Leo’s defense of capitalism. However, he then went on to say that if, through necessity, a worker accepts a wage that provides less than "reasonable and frugal comfort … he is the victim of force and injustice."
(...)
As I have come to understand the workings of the modern welfare state, I see that the poor are victimized by legal minimum wage laws that deny them the dignity of work and the true sympathy of those who are better off. More generally, and as argued by Pope John Paul, the poor are victimized by the state’s many interventions into the economy that prevent them from working, that price goods and services out of their reach, and that pervert natural incentives to work and otherwise act responsibly.
In the nineteenth century, when charity was essentially a church matter, the poor were viewed as brothers and sisters in Christ: that is, as equals. Working, being self-responsible, and contributing to society was viewed as good for all. The biblical admonitions to give to widows and orphans, to leave work for the poor, and to lend to the poor man who is our brother were taken seriously. As we move from merely defending capitalism to exploring the full implications of economic liberty, we will have to rediscover the subtle difference between what we owe each other as matters of justice, in which matters we are answerable to the state, and what we owe each other as matters of charity, in which matters we are answerable to a higher authority."
terça-feira, 6 de julho de 2004
Eleições como Revisão Constitucional (ou será Golpe de Estado?)
Já são muitos, à esquerda e direita, que pretendem uma revisão constitucional "de facto", apenas porque não gostam do candidato a primeiro-ministro e o seu alegado populismo. Portanto, acabe-se com o parlamentarismo. Eleição directa do primeiro-ministro. Mas isto sim, é populismo. Quanto ao populismo de Santana, a melhor esperança é que o dirija para alimentar o processo de descentralização - municipalização, e com todo o populismo que seja necessário.
sexta-feira, 2 de julho de 2004
Os resultados da discriminação positiva?
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community Thursday, telling a room full of activists that black children are running around not knowing how to read or write and "going nowhere."
He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: "Stop beating up your women because you can't find a job."
Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them.
(...)
"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
In his remarks in May at a commemoration of the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, Cosby denounced some blacks' grammar and said those who commit crimes and wind up behind bars "are not political prisoners.(...)
Cosby also said he wasn't concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them "against our people."
"Let them talk," he said."
He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: "Stop beating up your women because you can't find a job."
Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them.
(...)
"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
In his remarks in May at a commemoration of the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, Cosby denounced some blacks' grammar and said those who commit crimes and wind up behind bars "are not political prisoners.(...)
Cosby also said he wasn't concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them "against our people."
"Let them talk," he said."
Multa imposta por quem tem uma posição dominante
Microsoft Paga Multa Imposta por Bruxelas
A Microsoft, multinacional norte-americana de tecnologias, pagou ontem a multa de 497 milhões de euros aplicada pela Comissão Europeia por abuso de posição dominante, anunciou a porta-voz do comissário europeu da Concorrência, Mario Monti. TEXTO
A Microsoft, multinacional norte-americana de tecnologias, pagou ontem a multa de 497 milhões de euros aplicada pela Comissão Europeia por abuso de posição dominante, anunciou a porta-voz do comissário europeu da Concorrência, Mario Monti. TEXTO
"Show me the way"
Baseado no princípio presente na Secessão do Império Britânico pela colónias:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
American Secession Project
Purpose:
To bring together the various groups and movements within the United States that advocate and desire independence or increased autonomy for their state or states. The legal and Constitutional principles that support States' Rights and secession are common to every group that is working toward independence of their state.
The Goal(s):
Restoration of a Representative Constitutional Republic in the form of the Federal Union. A Republic that respects the constraints of the Constitution and utilizes only those powers delegated to it by the States.
Failing that we desire that the People of various states be allowed to reassert a degree of state autonomy and independence. We desire such an arrangement that would allow such states to remain in the Union but be protected via nullification of any federal laws that state is in disagreement with.
Failing that we desire that People of various states be allowed to withdraw their state from the federal compact and Union via peaceful means. We desire that such states be allowed to rejoin the community of nations and reclaim the independence and sovereignty that springs from the citizenry.
The Obstacles:
Ignorance of the people
A federal government that has henceforth been unwilling to stem its usurpation of powers not granted to it
The Justification:
This site is dedicated primarily to justification of the principles of self-determination and the proper role of the states in our current system. No mere summary can possibly do this broad subject justice. However the first paragraph of the document in which the thirteen colonies seceded from the British Crown may suffice:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
American Secession Project
Purpose:
To bring together the various groups and movements within the United States that advocate and desire independence or increased autonomy for their state or states. The legal and Constitutional principles that support States' Rights and secession are common to every group that is working toward independence of their state.
The Goal(s):
Restoration of a Representative Constitutional Republic in the form of the Federal Union. A Republic that respects the constraints of the Constitution and utilizes only those powers delegated to it by the States.
Failing that we desire that the People of various states be allowed to reassert a degree of state autonomy and independence. We desire such an arrangement that would allow such states to remain in the Union but be protected via nullification of any federal laws that state is in disagreement with.
Failing that we desire that People of various states be allowed to withdraw their state from the federal compact and Union via peaceful means. We desire that such states be allowed to rejoin the community of nations and reclaim the independence and sovereignty that springs from the citizenry.
The Obstacles:
Ignorance of the people
A federal government that has henceforth been unwilling to stem its usurpation of powers not granted to it
The Justification:
This site is dedicated primarily to justification of the principles of self-determination and the proper role of the states in our current system. No mere summary can possibly do this broad subject justice. However the first paragraph of the document in which the thirteen colonies seceded from the British Crown may suffice:
quinta-feira, 1 de julho de 2004
Conservadores e Conservadores
William Buckley, fundador da National Review, retira-se e afirma:
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
William Buckley, era em 1955, à data da fundação da National Review, até muito conservative-libertarian, mas a migração da esquerda democrata (muitos dos quais ex-trotskistas e cuja dissidência com Estaline era precisamente contra o seu "socialismo num país" e a sua rejeição da revolução internacional) para os republicanos (liderada por Irving Kristol) que deu origem aos neo-conservadores e o seu virus internacionalista (cujos referências são os "War Presidentes" Democratas Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman), acabou por convencer muitos, no cenário da guerra fria, de um novo papel internacionalista - nunca referido pelos "pais-fundadores" para o Estado Federal. Isso levou-o a proceder a uma purga de todas as facções dos conservadores tradicionais vindos da Old Right(na interpretação da Constituição, na rejeição do New Deal, na desconfiança contra o Estado Federal e por uma política externa minimalista) como Joseph Sobran, Patrick Buchanan e até a ignorar pensadores conservadores como Russel Kirk e Robert Nisbet que em larga medida, adaptaram Edmund Burke (ele próprio um observador preocupado com as próprias ambições do Império Britânico ao mesmo tempo que via o Jacobinismo como uma ameaça à ordem natural) ao mundo moderno.
A National Review, é hoje, uma das casa dos neo-conservadores, como o é a Weekly Standard de Bill Kristoll, o American Enterpise Institute (AEI) e o Manathan Institute, e todos embarcaram no lógica da missão ideológica da revolução social imposta pela força e para o bem de todos, mas especialmente para o bem de Israel. Muito Napoleónico e Jacobino embora não o reconheçam. Reconhecem-se em Churchill mas este era um arqui-imperialista que não acreditava na democracia nas colónias (incluindo a Índia) e cujas decisões que tomou trágicamente levaram precisamente à queda acelerada do seu (e nosso) amado império, porque de alguma forma julgou que a Segunda Guerra ia ser como a Primeira (a guerra inútil que destruiu a Europa como civilização no mundo) no qual os Impérios vencedores ficaram ainda maiores. Enganou-se, porque o resultado foi a consolidação do comunismo por mais 50 anos na Europa e Ásia (já tinha sido a Primeira a provocar a queda do Czar), onde factores de equilibrio regionais foram destruidos (como o Japão, deixando-se o caminho aberto para Mao na China, e os comunistas na Coreia) tal como na "Primeira", a destruição por Versailles do Império Austro-Hungaro provocou a ausência de balanceamento das ambições germânicas na Europa Central (a Prússia e os Austríacos sempre foram rivais). O pior de tudo, claro, foi que Napoleão viu concluido, no início do séc. 20, o seu trabalho de destruir as monarquias e a velha ordem para vermos a emergência das repúblicas comunistas e fascistas. Quem quer uma NOVA ORDEM tem de contar com efeitos inesperados. Quem quer uma NOVA ORDEM dificilmente pode ser confundido com um velho conservador inglês ou mesmo americano.
Mas foram estes que apelidaram os Conservadores tradicionais pela "Republic, not an empire" de "unpatriotic conservatives" who have "turned their back on their country." (David Frum, o canadiano, na National Review).
A ironia é que hoje o militarismo e até tendências revolucionárias (como digo, muito napoleónico), reside nos que se acham "moderados e esclarecidos", muitas vezes críticos da Alemanha precisamente pela sua história militarista mas ao mesmo tempo críticos pelo seu aparente pacifismo. E num aspecto pouco compreendido na batalha das ideias na América é que a sua hard-right é apelidade de "isolacionista" mas também de "moderada", enquanto o espectro consensual social-democrata ao centro estatista (neoconservadores-republicanos -democratas) é quem se bate pelo estender dos conflitos e uso dos militares, para uma NOVA ORDEM, e portanto, muito pouco moderada.
Outras vozes:
Sen. Chuck Hagel, an influential moderate Republican from Nebraska, sharply criticized the Bush administration in an interview here Tuesday, saying that the war in Iraq appears to have hurt America in its battle against terrorism."
Hagel, a politician sometimes mentioned as a future presidential contender, also said the United States is going to have to consider restarting the draft to maintain its many military commitments abroad. (...)
"This put in motion a new geographic dispersion" of the terrorists, said Hagel, 58, in an interview before delivering a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "It's harder to deal with them because they're not as contained. Iraq has become a training ground."
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
William Buckley, era em 1955, à data da fundação da National Review, até muito conservative-libertarian, mas a migração da esquerda democrata (muitos dos quais ex-trotskistas e cuja dissidência com Estaline era precisamente contra o seu "socialismo num país" e a sua rejeição da revolução internacional) para os republicanos (liderada por Irving Kristol) que deu origem aos neo-conservadores e o seu virus internacionalista (cujos referências são os "War Presidentes" Democratas Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman), acabou por convencer muitos, no cenário da guerra fria, de um novo papel internacionalista - nunca referido pelos "pais-fundadores" para o Estado Federal. Isso levou-o a proceder a uma purga de todas as facções dos conservadores tradicionais vindos da Old Right(na interpretação da Constituição, na rejeição do New Deal, na desconfiança contra o Estado Federal e por uma política externa minimalista) como Joseph Sobran, Patrick Buchanan e até a ignorar pensadores conservadores como Russel Kirk e Robert Nisbet que em larga medida, adaptaram Edmund Burke (ele próprio um observador preocupado com as próprias ambições do Império Britânico ao mesmo tempo que via o Jacobinismo como uma ameaça à ordem natural) ao mundo moderno.
A National Review, é hoje, uma das casa dos neo-conservadores, como o é a Weekly Standard de Bill Kristoll, o American Enterpise Institute (AEI) e o Manathan Institute, e todos embarcaram no lógica da missão ideológica da revolução social imposta pela força e para o bem de todos, mas especialmente para o bem de Israel. Muito Napoleónico e Jacobino embora não o reconheçam. Reconhecem-se em Churchill mas este era um arqui-imperialista que não acreditava na democracia nas colónias (incluindo a Índia) e cujas decisões que tomou trágicamente levaram precisamente à queda acelerada do seu (e nosso) amado império, porque de alguma forma julgou que a Segunda Guerra ia ser como a Primeira (a guerra inútil que destruiu a Europa como civilização no mundo) no qual os Impérios vencedores ficaram ainda maiores. Enganou-se, porque o resultado foi a consolidação do comunismo por mais 50 anos na Europa e Ásia (já tinha sido a Primeira a provocar a queda do Czar), onde factores de equilibrio regionais foram destruidos (como o Japão, deixando-se o caminho aberto para Mao na China, e os comunistas na Coreia) tal como na "Primeira", a destruição por Versailles do Império Austro-Hungaro provocou a ausência de balanceamento das ambições germânicas na Europa Central (a Prússia e os Austríacos sempre foram rivais). O pior de tudo, claro, foi que Napoleão viu concluido, no início do séc. 20, o seu trabalho de destruir as monarquias e a velha ordem para vermos a emergência das repúblicas comunistas e fascistas. Quem quer uma NOVA ORDEM tem de contar com efeitos inesperados. Quem quer uma NOVA ORDEM dificilmente pode ser confundido com um velho conservador inglês ou mesmo americano.
Mas foram estes que apelidaram os Conservadores tradicionais pela "Republic, not an empire" de "unpatriotic conservatives" who have "turned their back on their country." (David Frum, o canadiano, na National Review).
A ironia é que hoje o militarismo e até tendências revolucionárias (como digo, muito napoleónico), reside nos que se acham "moderados e esclarecidos", muitas vezes críticos da Alemanha precisamente pela sua história militarista mas ao mesmo tempo críticos pelo seu aparente pacifismo. E num aspecto pouco compreendido na batalha das ideias na América é que a sua hard-right é apelidade de "isolacionista" mas também de "moderada", enquanto o espectro consensual social-democrata ao centro estatista (neoconservadores-republicanos -democratas) é quem se bate pelo estender dos conflitos e uso dos militares, para uma NOVA ORDEM, e portanto, muito pouco moderada.
Outras vozes:
Sen. Chuck Hagel, an influential moderate Republican from Nebraska, sharply criticized the Bush administration in an interview here Tuesday, saying that the war in Iraq appears to have hurt America in its battle against terrorism."
Hagel, a politician sometimes mentioned as a future presidential contender, also said the United States is going to have to consider restarting the draft to maintain its many military commitments abroad. (...)
"This put in motion a new geographic dispersion" of the terrorists, said Hagel, 58, in an interview before delivering a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "It's harder to deal with them because they're not as contained. Iraq has become a training ground."
quarta-feira, 30 de junho de 2004
Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism - Murray N. Rothbard
Introdução por Joseph Stromberg:
On Aug. 8, 1957, Murray N. Rothbard wrote to Richard C. Cornuelle of the Volker Fund, strongly recommending Emil Kauder's reseaches into the Aristotelian background of marginal utility and Austrian economic theory (Rothbard Papers). In a memo of February 1957, "Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism," reproduced below, Rothbard set down some thoughts on these matters. Rothbard's letters reveal an early and keen interest in the history of economic thought. The memos he wrote for the Volker Fund, from the early fifties down to 1962, on a large variety of books and scholarly journals, show off his growing knowledge of the subject. In addition, Rothbard's dissertation director, Professor Joseph Dorfman, was an authority on the history of American economic thought, and Rothbard was very interested, among other matters, in American contributions to the monetary debates of the early 19th century. Rothbard, as much a historian as an economist, was well-placed, not only to assess books for the Volker Fund, but also to grasp and synthesize economic doctrines logically and in historical perspective. His last major published work, his two-volume History of Economic Thought (1995) certainly stands as proof.
A parte final do texto:
"(...) We may sum up the Case for Catholicism as follows: (1) Smith’s laissez-faire and natural law views descended from the late Scholastics, and from the Catholic Physiocrats; (2) the Catholics had developed marginal utility, subjective value economics, and the idea that the just price was the market price, while the British Protestants grafted on a dangerous and ultimately highly statist labor theory of value, influenced by Calvinism; (3) some of the most "dogmatic" laissez-faire theorists have been Catholics: from the Physiocrats to Bastiat; (4) capitalism began in the Catholic Italian cities of the 14th century; (5) Natural rights and other rationalist views descended from the Scholastics.
I would also recommend, for a chilling example of Protestant-Calvinist influence leading to a philosophy of altruist socialism, reading Melvin Richter, "T. H. Green and His Audience: Liberalism as a Surrogate Faith" Review of Politics (October, 1956).
Although tangential to this particular memo, I would also highly recommend Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Liberty or Equality (Caldwell, Id., 1952), the main gist of which is the thesis that Catholicism makes for a libertarian spirit (albeit "anti-democratic") while Protestantism makes for socialism, totalitarianism, and a collectivist spirit. One example is Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s assertion that the Catholic belief in reason and truth tend toward "extremism" and "radicalism," while Protestant emphasis on intuition leads to belief in compromise, Gallup-polling, etc.
Professor von Mises’ view on the Max Weber thesis should be mentioned here: namely, that Weber reversed the true causal pattern, i.e. that capitalism came in first, and that the Calvinists adapted their teachings to the growing influence of the bourgeoisie – rather than the other way round.
I am not prepared to say that the Protestant case should be thrown overboard completely and Catholic view adopted wholly. But it seems evident that the story is far more complex than the standard view believes.(...)"
Numa nota de rodapé: "Cf. Randall Collins, a Weberian sociologist, who has also inverted the Weber thesis while using Max Weber's methods of historical reconstruction; see Collins's Weberian Sociological Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986), where he writes: "Christendom was the main Weberian revolution, creating the institutional forms within which capitalism could emerge. The Protestant Reformation is just a particular crisis at the end of a long-term cycle; it gave rise to a second takeoff, which we mistakenly see as the first" (p. 76)."
On Aug. 8, 1957, Murray N. Rothbard wrote to Richard C. Cornuelle of the Volker Fund, strongly recommending Emil Kauder's reseaches into the Aristotelian background of marginal utility and Austrian economic theory (Rothbard Papers). In a memo of February 1957, "Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism," reproduced below, Rothbard set down some thoughts on these matters. Rothbard's letters reveal an early and keen interest in the history of economic thought. The memos he wrote for the Volker Fund, from the early fifties down to 1962, on a large variety of books and scholarly journals, show off his growing knowledge of the subject. In addition, Rothbard's dissertation director, Professor Joseph Dorfman, was an authority on the history of American economic thought, and Rothbard was very interested, among other matters, in American contributions to the monetary debates of the early 19th century. Rothbard, as much a historian as an economist, was well-placed, not only to assess books for the Volker Fund, but also to grasp and synthesize economic doctrines logically and in historical perspective. His last major published work, his two-volume History of Economic Thought (1995) certainly stands as proof.
A parte final do texto:
"(...) We may sum up the Case for Catholicism as follows: (1) Smith’s laissez-faire and natural law views descended from the late Scholastics, and from the Catholic Physiocrats; (2) the Catholics had developed marginal utility, subjective value economics, and the idea that the just price was the market price, while the British Protestants grafted on a dangerous and ultimately highly statist labor theory of value, influenced by Calvinism; (3) some of the most "dogmatic" laissez-faire theorists have been Catholics: from the Physiocrats to Bastiat; (4) capitalism began in the Catholic Italian cities of the 14th century; (5) Natural rights and other rationalist views descended from the Scholastics.
I would also recommend, for a chilling example of Protestant-Calvinist influence leading to a philosophy of altruist socialism, reading Melvin Richter, "T. H. Green and His Audience: Liberalism as a Surrogate Faith" Review of Politics (October, 1956).
Although tangential to this particular memo, I would also highly recommend Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Liberty or Equality (Caldwell, Id., 1952), the main gist of which is the thesis that Catholicism makes for a libertarian spirit (albeit "anti-democratic") while Protestantism makes for socialism, totalitarianism, and a collectivist spirit. One example is Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s assertion that the Catholic belief in reason and truth tend toward "extremism" and "radicalism," while Protestant emphasis on intuition leads to belief in compromise, Gallup-polling, etc.
Professor von Mises’ view on the Max Weber thesis should be mentioned here: namely, that Weber reversed the true causal pattern, i.e. that capitalism came in first, and that the Calvinists adapted their teachings to the growing influence of the bourgeoisie – rather than the other way round.
I am not prepared to say that the Protestant case should be thrown overboard completely and Catholic view adopted wholly. But it seems evident that the story is far more complex than the standard view believes.(...)"
Numa nota de rodapé: "Cf. Randall Collins, a Weberian sociologist, who has also inverted the Weber thesis while using Max Weber's methods of historical reconstruction; see Collins's Weberian Sociological Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986), where he writes: "Christendom was the main Weberian revolution, creating the institutional forms within which capitalism could emerge. The Protestant Reformation is just a particular crisis at the end of a long-term cycle; it gave rise to a second takeoff, which we mistakenly see as the first" (p. 76)."
Como as coisas podem correr mal II
Nota: Tal como a Grande Guerra provou, um pequeno incidente, excesso de zelo, a paranóia das alianças, militarismo disfarçado de princípios, nacionalismo de ingenuidade ideolológica, pode concorrer para um grande desastre inútil com o foi em 1914. Os europeus e o último grande império britânico sabem-no especialmente bem.
Attack Iran, US chief ordered British, By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.
An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.
Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez "If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday. "We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."
The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today's edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of the officer is not given.
"Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.
The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.
Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions. (...)
The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.
When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."
The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said.
"It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "
While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.(...)"
Attack Iran, US chief ordered British, By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.
An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.
Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez "If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday. "We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."
The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today's edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of the officer is not given.
"Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.
The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.
Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions. (...)
The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.
When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."
The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said.
"It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "
While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.(...)"
Three Steps to Sanity
June 28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a day freighted with historic significance.
On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I.
On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I, and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster.
(...)
War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples.
This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.
We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help."
Three Steps to Sanity, by Patrick J. Buchanan
On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I.
On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I, and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster.
(...)
War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples.
This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.
We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help."
Three Steps to Sanity, by Patrick J. Buchanan
terça-feira, 29 de junho de 2004
Axioma da aquisição original de propriedade ("Homesteading principle") e poluição
Em "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution: Foundation to Austrian law and economics", Murray N. Rothbard
"The “first ownership to first use” principle for natural resources is also popularly called the “homesteading principle.” If each man owns the land that he “mixes his labor with,” then he owns the product of that mixture, and he has the right to exchange property titles with other, similar producers. This establishes the right of free contract in the sense of transfer of property titles. It also establishes the right to give away such titles, either as a gift or bequest.
Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the oldfashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of homesteading, which should establish a property right.
Suppose, for example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.
Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homestead X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now “owns the right” to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action.
On the other hand, if the airport starts to increase noise levels, then the homeowners could sue or enjoin the airport from its noise aggression for the extra decibels, which had not been homesteaded. Of course if a new airport is built and begins to send out noise of X decibels onto the existing surrounding homes, the airport becomes fully liable for the noise invasion.
It should be clear that the same theory should apply to air pollution. If A is causing pollution of B's air, and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is aggression and it should be enjoined and damages paid in accordance with strict liability, unless A had been there first and had already been polluting the air before B's property was developed. For example, if a factory owned by A polluted originally unused property, up to a certain amount of pollutant X, then A can be said to have homesteaded a pollution easement of a certain degree and type.
Given a prescriptive easement, the courts have generally done well in deciding its limits. In Kerlin v. Southern Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1941), a public utility had maintained an easement by prescription of telephone poles and wires over someone else's land (called the “servient estate” in law). The utility wished to string up two additional wires, and the servient estate challenged its right to do so. The court decided correctly that the utility had the right because there was no proposed change in the "outer limits of space utilized by the owner of the easement." On the other hand, an early English case that an easement for moving carts could not later be used for the purpose of driving cattle.50
Unfortunately, the courts have not honored the concept of homestead in a noise or pollution easement. The classic case is Sturgis v. Bridgman (1879) in England. The plaintiff, a physician, had purchased land in 1865; on the property next to him the defendant, a pharmacist, used a mortar and pestle, which caused vibrations on the physician's property. There was no problem, however, until the physician built a consultation room 10 years later. He then sued to enjoin the pharmacist, claiming that his work constituted a nuisance. The defendant properly argued that the vibrations were going on before the construction of the consultation room, that they then did not constitute a nuisance, and that therefore he had a prescriptive right to keep operating his business. Nevertheless, defendant's claim was denied."
"The “first ownership to first use” principle for natural resources is also popularly called the “homesteading principle.” If each man owns the land that he “mixes his labor with,” then he owns the product of that mixture, and he has the right to exchange property titles with other, similar producers. This establishes the right of free contract in the sense of transfer of property titles. It also establishes the right to give away such titles, either as a gift or bequest.
Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the oldfashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of homesteading, which should establish a property right.
Suppose, for example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.
Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homestead X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now “owns the right” to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action.
On the other hand, if the airport starts to increase noise levels, then the homeowners could sue or enjoin the airport from its noise aggression for the extra decibels, which had not been homesteaded. Of course if a new airport is built and begins to send out noise of X decibels onto the existing surrounding homes, the airport becomes fully liable for the noise invasion.
It should be clear that the same theory should apply to air pollution. If A is causing pollution of B's air, and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is aggression and it should be enjoined and damages paid in accordance with strict liability, unless A had been there first and had already been polluting the air before B's property was developed. For example, if a factory owned by A polluted originally unused property, up to a certain amount of pollutant X, then A can be said to have homesteaded a pollution easement of a certain degree and type.
Given a prescriptive easement, the courts have generally done well in deciding its limits. In Kerlin v. Southern Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1941), a public utility had maintained an easement by prescription of telephone poles and wires over someone else's land (called the “servient estate” in law). The utility wished to string up two additional wires, and the servient estate challenged its right to do so. The court decided correctly that the utility had the right because there was no proposed change in the "outer limits of space utilized by the owner of the easement." On the other hand, an early English case that an easement for moving carts could not later be used for the purpose of driving cattle.50
Unfortunately, the courts have not honored the concept of homestead in a noise or pollution easement. The classic case is Sturgis v. Bridgman (1879) in England. The plaintiff, a physician, had purchased land in 1865; on the property next to him the defendant, a pharmacist, used a mortar and pestle, which caused vibrations on the physician's property. There was no problem, however, until the physician built a consultation room 10 years later. He then sued to enjoin the pharmacist, claiming that his work constituted a nuisance. The defendant properly argued that the vibrations were going on before the construction of the consultation room, that they then did not constitute a nuisance, and that therefore he had a prescriptive right to keep operating his business. Nevertheless, defendant's claim was denied."
O ciclo da social-democracia
Asks DeMint, "How can a nation survive when a majority of its citizens, now dependent on government services, no longer have the incentive to restrain the growth of government?" DeMint speaks of an "eleventh-hour crisis in our democracy."
His words echo those of Scottish Professor Alexander Tyler, writing more than 200 years ago, on the fall of the Athenian republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government," wrote Tyler. "It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
"The Engines of Government's Growth", by Patrick J. Buchanan
His words echo those of Scottish Professor Alexander Tyler, writing more than 200 years ago, on the fall of the Athenian republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government," wrote Tyler. "It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
"The Engines of Government's Growth", by Patrick J. Buchanan
sexta-feira, 25 de junho de 2004
Edmund Burke on Iraque
David Bromwich is editor of "On Empire, Liberty and Reform: Speeches and Letters of Edmund Burke" (Yale University Press, 2000).
June 24, 2004
Edmund Burke, the greatest British political writer of the 18th century, was a principled opponent of wars and revolutions. Hatred of violence and love of liberty were the central motives of his work, and sudden political change, whether imposed from above or below, from within a country or by an external force, inevitably produced an increase of violence and a loss of liberty.
Above all, Burke opposed wars that were entered into from choice and not necessity.
The pertinence of Burke's thinking to the crisis in Iraq, as the United States seeks to impose a good revolution by force of arms on a large portion of the Arab world, requires little comment in view of the startling aptness of his words.
A "Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol," from which all of the passages below are taken, was composed in early 1777 when Burke was a member of Parliament from Bristol. England then appeared to be winning the war with America, yet Burke was alarmed by the means his country employed (for example, its reliance on mercenaries) and deeply skeptical regarding the announced purpose of the war:
the projection of British power into America in order to subdue the resistance of the colonists. (...)North and his administration, the "king's men," had persuaded themselves that America was full of friends who would welcome the stabilizing authority of British arms as soon as a determined show of force was offered.
This was not the first mistake of North and his administration. Burke believed that their preference for force over diplomacy had been the cause of the war. Why did they do it?
"Let them but once get us into a war, and then their power is safe, and an act of oblivion passed for all their misconduct."
"Has any of these gentlemen, who are so eager to govern all mankind, shown himself possessed of the first qualification towards government, some knowledge of the object, and of the difficulties which occur in the task they have undertaken?"
"They promise their private fortunes, and they mortgage their country. They have all the merit of volunteers, without the risk of person or charge of contribution."
"They are continually boasting of unanimity, or calling for it. But before this unanimity can be matter either of wish or congratulation, we ought to be pretty sure that we are engaged in a rational pursuit."
By a recent act of Parliament, England had suspended the protection of habeas corpus. Persons accused of treason in America could now be transported to England and jailed without a chance to confront the charges against them.
(...)
Burke saw a connection between the continuous violence of the war in America and the contempt shown for civil liberties at home:
"Power in whatever hands is rarely guilty of too strict limitations on itself."
"Not one unattacked village which was originally adverse throughout that vast continent, has yet submitted from love or terror. You have the ground you encamp on; and you have no more. The cantonments of your troops and your dominions are exactly of the same extent. You spread devastation, but you do not enlarge the sphere of authority."
Having failed to anticipate the difficulties of the war, the administration blamed the chaotic result on militias organized by the enemies of the empire. Burke, on the contrary, believed that the resistance was largely spontaneous, that it was becoming more virulent because of the presence of an occupying army and that its cause lay in human nature:
"General rebellions and revolts of an whole people never were encouraged, now or at any time. They are always provoked."
"If any ask me what a free government is, I answer that, for any practical purpose, it is what the people think so; and that they, and not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of this matter."
Not only the outlines but many details of Burke's analysis show an uncanny resemblance to what critics of the Bush administration have said; so it may be asked what deeper continuity of political life accounts for the strength of the parallel. A tentative answer seems possible. When imperial conquest is grafted onto the normal structures of constitutional government, the change will produce grotesque distortions of thinking that undermine judgment and common sense."
June 24, 2004
Edmund Burke, the greatest British political writer of the 18th century, was a principled opponent of wars and revolutions. Hatred of violence and love of liberty were the central motives of his work, and sudden political change, whether imposed from above or below, from within a country or by an external force, inevitably produced an increase of violence and a loss of liberty.
Above all, Burke opposed wars that were entered into from choice and not necessity.
The pertinence of Burke's thinking to the crisis in Iraq, as the United States seeks to impose a good revolution by force of arms on a large portion of the Arab world, requires little comment in view of the startling aptness of his words.
A "Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol," from which all of the passages below are taken, was composed in early 1777 when Burke was a member of Parliament from Bristol. England then appeared to be winning the war with America, yet Burke was alarmed by the means his country employed (for example, its reliance on mercenaries) and deeply skeptical regarding the announced purpose of the war:
the projection of British power into America in order to subdue the resistance of the colonists. (...)North and his administration, the "king's men," had persuaded themselves that America was full of friends who would welcome the stabilizing authority of British arms as soon as a determined show of force was offered.
This was not the first mistake of North and his administration. Burke believed that their preference for force over diplomacy had been the cause of the war. Why did they do it?
"Let them but once get us into a war, and then their power is safe, and an act of oblivion passed for all their misconduct."
"Has any of these gentlemen, who are so eager to govern all mankind, shown himself possessed of the first qualification towards government, some knowledge of the object, and of the difficulties which occur in the task they have undertaken?"
"They promise their private fortunes, and they mortgage their country. They have all the merit of volunteers, without the risk of person or charge of contribution."
"They are continually boasting of unanimity, or calling for it. But before this unanimity can be matter either of wish or congratulation, we ought to be pretty sure that we are engaged in a rational pursuit."
By a recent act of Parliament, England had suspended the protection of habeas corpus. Persons accused of treason in America could now be transported to England and jailed without a chance to confront the charges against them.
(...)
Burke saw a connection between the continuous violence of the war in America and the contempt shown for civil liberties at home:
"Power in whatever hands is rarely guilty of too strict limitations on itself."
"Not one unattacked village which was originally adverse throughout that vast continent, has yet submitted from love or terror. You have the ground you encamp on; and you have no more. The cantonments of your troops and your dominions are exactly of the same extent. You spread devastation, but you do not enlarge the sphere of authority."
Having failed to anticipate the difficulties of the war, the administration blamed the chaotic result on militias organized by the enemies of the empire. Burke, on the contrary, believed that the resistance was largely spontaneous, that it was becoming more virulent because of the presence of an occupying army and that its cause lay in human nature:
"General rebellions and revolts of an whole people never were encouraged, now or at any time. They are always provoked."
"If any ask me what a free government is, I answer that, for any practical purpose, it is what the people think so; and that they, and not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of this matter."
Not only the outlines but many details of Burke's analysis show an uncanny resemblance to what critics of the Bush administration have said; so it may be asked what deeper continuity of political life accounts for the strength of the parallel. A tentative answer seems possible. When imperial conquest is grafted onto the normal structures of constitutional government, the change will produce grotesque distortions of thinking that undermine judgment and common sense."
Pensamentos anti-federalistas VI
Euro 2004. Eliminamos o nosso maior "inimigo" e o nosso maior "aliado". Agora temos de fazer o mesmo à Constituição Europeia. Por uma Europa inter-governamental.
quinta-feira, 24 de junho de 2004
Irão e Iraque e o que pode correr mal
Via Yahoo!News, Thu,Jun24,2004
CIA planned guerrilla campaign in Iran to counter communists in 1953: documents
"(...)The top secret papers, produced in late 1952 and 1953 by the State Department and the National Security Council, provide proof that the widely-known US-British efforts to destabilize the government of prime minister Mossadegh were backed up by broad contingency plans that called for bolstering US military presence in the region and launching an anti-communist guerrilla force in the south of Iran.
The Mossadegh government, which drew the ire of Washington and London because of its persistent attempts to increase control over the country's oil resources, was toppled in an August 19, 1953, coup led by US-backed general Fazlollah Zahedi who allowed pro-American Shah Reza Pahlavi to return from exile.
US officials have grudgingly acknowledged that the coup had become possible due to CIA (news - web sites)-designed Operation "Ajax" that helped plunge Iran into chaos and paved the way for Mossadegh's downfall.(...)"
A razão? Existem sempre razões. Para todos os lados. O Irão quis nacionalizar a indústria petrolífera que foi exactamente o que os Britânicos fizeram à sua.
Com este golpe de Estado e o reinado de Pahlavi, 2 décadas mais tarde dá-se a reacção da Revolução Islâmica (unintended consequence...). Depois o Irão tem de se defender de Saddam, apoiado por americanos. Depois Saddam, em dificuldades com a baixa do preço do petróleo (na altura, o Koweit furava amplamente os acordos da OPEP e existem indícios que estava a colectar petróleo em terreno iraquiano - já para não falar na reivindicação desde sempre do território do Koweit), convencido da neutralidade americana (documentos oficiais mostram que o embaixador americano foi préviamente consultado sobre o assunto pelo próprio Saddam) invade o Koweit e aí temos:
Golfo I, tropas da Arabia Saudita, Sanções e bombardeamentos durante 10 anos pelos "aliados", ocupação israelita perdura e com agravamento de situação, 11/9, Afeganistão, Golfo II sem causas dentro do direito internacional, Ocupação do IRaque. Iraque completamente destabilizado, entre terrorismo fundamentalista e resistência à ocupação e tensões separatistas. Irão ladeado por duas ocupações.
Acho que o Irão irá fazer tudo para ter armas nucleares. E outros também. Já muitos as têm.
O que pode correr ainda mal? Na história, vemos como é provável acontecimentos inesperados ocorrerem a uma tal velocidade que ninguém os consegue parar (a Grande Guerra). Por exemplo, destabilização da monarquia da Arábia Saudita (desejada quer por Bin Laden quer por muitos neocons), EUA mais uma vez obrigados a intervir e ocupar outro país, desta feita, totalmente por causa do petróleo. Tensões crescentes em todo o médio-oriente. Facções internas mais duras no Irão conseguem tomar conta do Poder. Israelitas vêm a oportunidade para atacar a Sìria. E etc e tal.
Para uns um sonho tornado realidade. Para uns, morte e destruição revolucionária será sempre o caminho para a "Liberdade".
CIA planned guerrilla campaign in Iran to counter communists in 1953: documents
"(...)The top secret papers, produced in late 1952 and 1953 by the State Department and the National Security Council, provide proof that the widely-known US-British efforts to destabilize the government of prime minister Mossadegh were backed up by broad contingency plans that called for bolstering US military presence in the region and launching an anti-communist guerrilla force in the south of Iran.
The Mossadegh government, which drew the ire of Washington and London because of its persistent attempts to increase control over the country's oil resources, was toppled in an August 19, 1953, coup led by US-backed general Fazlollah Zahedi who allowed pro-American Shah Reza Pahlavi to return from exile.
US officials have grudgingly acknowledged that the coup had become possible due to CIA (news - web sites)-designed Operation "Ajax" that helped plunge Iran into chaos and paved the way for Mossadegh's downfall.(...)"
A razão? Existem sempre razões. Para todos os lados. O Irão quis nacionalizar a indústria petrolífera que foi exactamente o que os Britânicos fizeram à sua.
Com este golpe de Estado e o reinado de Pahlavi, 2 décadas mais tarde dá-se a reacção da Revolução Islâmica (unintended consequence...). Depois o Irão tem de se defender de Saddam, apoiado por americanos. Depois Saddam, em dificuldades com a baixa do preço do petróleo (na altura, o Koweit furava amplamente os acordos da OPEP e existem indícios que estava a colectar petróleo em terreno iraquiano - já para não falar na reivindicação desde sempre do território do Koweit), convencido da neutralidade americana (documentos oficiais mostram que o embaixador americano foi préviamente consultado sobre o assunto pelo próprio Saddam) invade o Koweit e aí temos:
Golfo I, tropas da Arabia Saudita, Sanções e bombardeamentos durante 10 anos pelos "aliados", ocupação israelita perdura e com agravamento de situação, 11/9, Afeganistão, Golfo II sem causas dentro do direito internacional, Ocupação do IRaque. Iraque completamente destabilizado, entre terrorismo fundamentalista e resistência à ocupação e tensões separatistas. Irão ladeado por duas ocupações.
Acho que o Irão irá fazer tudo para ter armas nucleares. E outros também. Já muitos as têm.
O que pode correr ainda mal? Na história, vemos como é provável acontecimentos inesperados ocorrerem a uma tal velocidade que ninguém os consegue parar (a Grande Guerra). Por exemplo, destabilização da monarquia da Arábia Saudita (desejada quer por Bin Laden quer por muitos neocons), EUA mais uma vez obrigados a intervir e ocupar outro país, desta feita, totalmente por causa do petróleo. Tensões crescentes em todo o médio-oriente. Facções internas mais duras no Irão conseguem tomar conta do Poder. Israelitas vêm a oportunidade para atacar a Sìria. E etc e tal.
Para uns um sonho tornado realidade. Para uns, morte e destruição revolucionária será sempre o caminho para a "Liberdade".
Pensamentos anti-federalistas V: The Antifederalist Papers
Muitos conhecem os "federalists papers" que defenderam o modelo federal para os EUA na sua fundação. Mais raro é encontrar alguém que conheça os "anti-federalists papers" escritos por aqueles que se opuseram a uma Constituição (Jefferson por exemplo era céptico, Benjamim Franklin quando regressou ao seu Estado depois da assinatura da Constituição, perguntaram-lhe: "então o que é que resultou?", ao que respondeu: " A republic, if you can keep it"), porque já existiam os "Articles of Confederation" para organizar políticamente as relações entre os Estados soberanos que saíram da Revolução Americana (na verdade, um acto de separatismo do Império Britânico, que...incluiu...sim...actos de "terrorismo". Muitos esqueçem até que já depois da Revolução, James Madison em 1812 fez tudo para os EUA declarassem guerra aos Britânicos por causa do Canadá, precisamente quando aqueles combatiam contra Napoleão. A verdade é que, até muito tarde nesse século, o espírito anti-britânico era muito comum (e assim, talvez alguns perceberão melhor a oferta da Estátua da Liberdade pelos Franceses).
Para já fica aqui a lista, espero comentar alguns deles mais tarde, mas passem os olhos pelos títulos. No meu julgamento, quase tudo que os anti-federalists disseram acabou por passar-se. A primeira dos quais foi:
"Se aprovarem uma Constituição vamos acabar por ter uma Guerra Civil (bem, um Guerra entre Estados)." (No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR )
A outra foi que a partir do momento que se criava a figura de um Governo Federal, mesmo que estipulado para ter funções mínimas, este acabaria por submergir a soberania dos Estados. E assim foi. Novas interpretações da Constituição, o crescimento natural de qualquer poder político e as crises que inevitávelmente provoca e ainda as guerras em que se envolveu, tornaram (ou cada vez mais fazem do)o sonho americano em mais um Estado Social-democrata de poder centralizado, com tendências de Império, o que a prazo, só nos vai fazer esperar, pela sua queda. É o ciclo natural das civilizações que acabam por desabar no seu próprio peso (que deriva da inevitável centralização a prazo).
Introdução:
During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.
No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
No. 2 "WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS"
No. 3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND DESPOTISM
No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS
No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT
No. 6 THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES
No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR
No. 8 "THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM"
No. 9 A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY
No. 10 ON THE PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY DEPENDS
No. 11 UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
No. 12 HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY?
No. 13 THE EXPENSE OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
No. 14 EXTENT OF TERRITORY UNDER CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT TOO LARGE TO PRESERVE LIBERTY OR PROTECT PROPERTY
No. 15 RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!
No. 16 EUROPEANS ADMIRE AND FEDERALISTS DECRY THE PRESENT SYSTEM
No. 17 FEDERALIST POWER WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE AUTHORITY
No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART 1)
No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART II)
No. 21 WHY THE ARTICLES FAILED
No. 22 ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION SIMPLY REQUIRES AMENDMENTS, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL POWER; CONSTITUTION GOES TOO FAR
No. 23 CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
No. 24 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART I)
No. 25 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART II)
No. 26 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 1)
No. 27 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 2)
No. 28 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART III)
No. 29 OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
No. 30-31 A VIRGINIA ANTIFEDERALIST ON THE ISSUE OF TAXATION
No. 32 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART I)
No. 33 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART II)
No. 34 THE PROBLEM OF CONCURRENT TAXATION
No. 35 FEDERAL TAXING POWER MUST BE RESTRAINED
No. 36 REPRESENTATION AND INTERNAL TAXATION
No. 37 FACTIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION
No. 38 SOME REACTIONS TO FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS
No. 39 APPEARANCE AND REALITY-THE FORM IS FEDERAL; THE EFFECT IS NATIONAL
No. 40 ON THE MOTIVATIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE FOUNDING
FATHERS
No. 41-43 (Part 1) Richard Henry Lee "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
No. 41-43 (Part II) (Richard Henry Lee) "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
No. 44 WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO; WHAT A STATE CAN NOT
No. 45 POWERS OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DANGEROUS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS; NEW YORK AS AN EXAMPLE
No. 46 "WHERE THEN IS THE RESTRAINT?"
No. 47 "BALANCE" OF DEPARTMENTS NOT ACHIEVED UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION
No. 48 NO SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS RESULTS IN NO RESPONSIBILITY
No. 49 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 1)
No. 50 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 2)
No. 51 DO CHECKS AND BALANCES REALLY SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
No. 52 ON THE GUARANTEE OF CONGRESSIONAL BIENNIAL ELECTIONS
No. 53 A PLEA FOR THE RIGHT OF RECALL
No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS
No. 55 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 1)
No. 56 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 2)
No. 57 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 3)
No. 58 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 4)
No. 59 THE DANGER OF CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS
No. 60 WILL THE CONSTITUTION PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF FAVORITE CLASSES?
No. 61 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE ELECTION OF CONGRESSMEN
No. 62 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 1)
No. 63 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 2)
No. 64 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 3)
No. 65 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 4)
No. 66 From North Carolina
No. 67 VARIOUS FEARS CONCERNING THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
No. 68 ON THE MODE OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
No. 69 THE CHARACTER OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE
No. 70 THE POWERS AND DANGEROUS POTENTIALS OF HIS ELECTED MAJESTY
No. 71 THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF OFFICE
No. 72 ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; ON REELIGIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT
No. 73 DOES THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO POWER INFRINGE ON THE SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS?
No. 74 THE PRESIDENT AS MILITARY KING
No. 75 A NOTE PROTESTING THE TREATY-MAKING PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
Nos. 76-77 AN ANTIFEDERALIST VIEW OF THE APPOINTING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Nos. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1)
No. 80 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 2)
No. 81 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 3)
No. 82 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 4)
No. 83 THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE ISSUE OF TRIAL BY JURY
No. 84 ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS
No. 85 CONCLUDING REMARKS: EVILS UNDER CONFEDERATION EXAGGERATED; CONSTITUTION MUST BE DRASTICALLY REVISED BEFORE ADOPTION
Para já fica aqui a lista, espero comentar alguns deles mais tarde, mas passem os olhos pelos títulos. No meu julgamento, quase tudo que os anti-federalists disseram acabou por passar-se. A primeira dos quais foi:
"Se aprovarem uma Constituição vamos acabar por ter uma Guerra Civil (bem, um Guerra entre Estados)." (No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR )
A outra foi que a partir do momento que se criava a figura de um Governo Federal, mesmo que estipulado para ter funções mínimas, este acabaria por submergir a soberania dos Estados. E assim foi. Novas interpretações da Constituição, o crescimento natural de qualquer poder político e as crises que inevitávelmente provoca e ainda as guerras em que se envolveu, tornaram (ou cada vez mais fazem do)o sonho americano em mais um Estado Social-democrata de poder centralizado, com tendências de Império, o que a prazo, só nos vai fazer esperar, pela sua queda. É o ciclo natural das civilizações que acabam por desabar no seu próprio peso (que deriva da inevitável centralização a prazo).
Introdução:
During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.
No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
No. 2 "WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS"
No. 3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND DESPOTISM
No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS
No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT
No. 6 THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES
No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR
No. 8 "THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM"
No. 9 A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY
No. 10 ON THE PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY DEPENDS
No. 11 UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
No. 12 HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY?
No. 13 THE EXPENSE OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
No. 14 EXTENT OF TERRITORY UNDER CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT TOO LARGE TO PRESERVE LIBERTY OR PROTECT PROPERTY
No. 15 RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!
No. 16 EUROPEANS ADMIRE AND FEDERALISTS DECRY THE PRESENT SYSTEM
No. 17 FEDERALIST POWER WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE AUTHORITY
No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART 1)
No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART II)
No. 21 WHY THE ARTICLES FAILED
No. 22 ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION SIMPLY REQUIRES AMENDMENTS, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL POWER; CONSTITUTION GOES TOO FAR
No. 23 CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
No. 24 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART I)
No. 25 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART II)
No. 26 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 1)
No. 27 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 2)
No. 28 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART III)
No. 29 OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
No. 30-31 A VIRGINIA ANTIFEDERALIST ON THE ISSUE OF TAXATION
No. 32 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART I)
No. 33 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART II)
No. 34 THE PROBLEM OF CONCURRENT TAXATION
No. 35 FEDERAL TAXING POWER MUST BE RESTRAINED
No. 36 REPRESENTATION AND INTERNAL TAXATION
No. 37 FACTIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION
No. 38 SOME REACTIONS TO FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS
No. 39 APPEARANCE AND REALITY-THE FORM IS FEDERAL; THE EFFECT IS NATIONAL
No. 40 ON THE MOTIVATIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE FOUNDING
FATHERS
No. 41-43 (Part 1) Richard Henry Lee "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
No. 41-43 (Part II) (Richard Henry Lee) "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
No. 44 WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO; WHAT A STATE CAN NOT
No. 45 POWERS OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DANGEROUS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS; NEW YORK AS AN EXAMPLE
No. 46 "WHERE THEN IS THE RESTRAINT?"
No. 47 "BALANCE" OF DEPARTMENTS NOT ACHIEVED UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION
No. 48 NO SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS RESULTS IN NO RESPONSIBILITY
No. 49 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 1)
No. 50 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 2)
No. 51 DO CHECKS AND BALANCES REALLY SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
No. 52 ON THE GUARANTEE OF CONGRESSIONAL BIENNIAL ELECTIONS
No. 53 A PLEA FOR THE RIGHT OF RECALL
No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS
No. 55 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 1)
No. 56 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 2)
No. 57 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 3)
No. 58 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 4)
No. 59 THE DANGER OF CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS
No. 60 WILL THE CONSTITUTION PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF FAVORITE CLASSES?
No. 61 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE ELECTION OF CONGRESSMEN
No. 62 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 1)
No. 63 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 2)
No. 64 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 3)
No. 65 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 4)
No. 66 From North Carolina
No. 67 VARIOUS FEARS CONCERNING THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
No. 68 ON THE MODE OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
No. 69 THE CHARACTER OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE
No. 70 THE POWERS AND DANGEROUS POTENTIALS OF HIS ELECTED MAJESTY
No. 71 THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF OFFICE
No. 72 ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; ON REELIGIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT
No. 73 DOES THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO POWER INFRINGE ON THE SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS?
No. 74 THE PRESIDENT AS MILITARY KING
No. 75 A NOTE PROTESTING THE TREATY-MAKING PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
Nos. 76-77 AN ANTIFEDERALIST VIEW OF THE APPOINTING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Nos. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1)
No. 80 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 2)
No. 81 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 3)
No. 82 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 4)
No. 83 THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE ISSUE OF TRIAL BY JURY
No. 84 ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS
No. 85 CONCLUDING REMARKS: EVILS UNDER CONFEDERATION EXAGGERATED; CONSTITUTION MUST BE DRASTICALLY REVISED BEFORE ADOPTION
quarta-feira, 23 de junho de 2004
Pensamentos anti-federalistas IV
Governo Propõe Referendo à Constituição Europeia em 2005
Agora pergunto eu:
51% de votos, no meio de 50% de abstenção, pode obrigar a restante população a uma integração política com perda de soberania?
Não seria natural que apenas 2/3 dos votos ou até 4/5 o pudessem fazer? Não têm as constituições o cuidado de reservar maiores requisitos para determinadas decisões?
É que de contrário, também 51% de votos no meio de 50% de abstenção pode pedir a saída novamente.
Pior (ou melhor) ainda é pensar que uma qualquer região (a Madeira? o Algarve?) pode então evocar o princípio democrático (pela qual guerras se fazem para ser imposta e como substituição à não revolução pelos próprios interessados) para num referendo local de 51% de votos com 50% de abstenção pedir a secessão e tornarem-se independentes.
Agora pergunto eu:
51% de votos, no meio de 50% de abstenção, pode obrigar a restante população a uma integração política com perda de soberania?
Não seria natural que apenas 2/3 dos votos ou até 4/5 o pudessem fazer? Não têm as constituições o cuidado de reservar maiores requisitos para determinadas decisões?
É que de contrário, também 51% de votos no meio de 50% de abstenção pode pedir a saída novamente.
Pior (ou melhor) ainda é pensar que uma qualquer região (a Madeira? o Algarve?) pode então evocar o princípio democrático (pela qual guerras se fazem para ser imposta e como substituição à não revolução pelos próprios interessados) para num referendo local de 51% de votos com 50% de abstenção pedir a secessão e tornarem-se independentes.
Grand Delusion: Two Leaders Who See What They Want to See
"I believe Cheney.
I believe the vice president when he claims that there was a link of some sort between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- and by intended implication with the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I believe, that is, that he is not necessarily lying, not making things up.
I believe, in other words, that Cheney's -- and President Bush's -- insistence on this association is just more evidence that the two of them are blinkered by ideology and seeing precisely what they want.
I'll tell you a story.
There was a man who went to see a psychiatrist. First, the shrink showed him a picture of crossed sticks and then one of hundreds of little dots. "What's that?" the shrink asked. Snakes and ants having sex, the man replied. The shrink told the man he was obsessed with sex. "What do you expect," the patient replied, "when you keep showing me dirty pictures?" By Richard Cohen, Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A17
I believe the vice president when he claims that there was a link of some sort between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- and by intended implication with the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I believe, that is, that he is not necessarily lying, not making things up.
I believe, in other words, that Cheney's -- and President Bush's -- insistence on this association is just more evidence that the two of them are blinkered by ideology and seeing precisely what they want.
I'll tell you a story.
There was a man who went to see a psychiatrist. First, the shrink showed him a picture of crossed sticks and then one of hundreds of little dots. "What's that?" the shrink asked. Snakes and ants having sex, the man replied. The shrink told the man he was obsessed with sex. "What do you expect," the patient replied, "when you keep showing me dirty pictures?" By Richard Cohen, Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A17
"Homesteading Principle" ou o axioma da aquisição original de propriedade
Tenho sustentado que é impossível refutar o axioma da aquisição original, que foi formulado por John Locke e recuperado por Murray N. Rothbard para a sua enorme importância como princípio ético.
Se um individuo não adquire propriedade, usando/ocupando/transformando recursos no "estado da natureza" pensemos nas consequências:
Por exemplo, um agricultor que emigrou para as Américas ou qualquer outro território "livre" ou no "estado da natureza" (no sentido de, um local, onde nenhum titulo de propriedade pode ser reclamado), constrói a sua casa e usa determinado espaço para cultivar, pode a qualquer momento ser confrontado com a violência de um terceiro (por exemplo, um suposto liberal que não reconhece o homesteading principle)ou com um grupo de terceiros (socialistas que não reconhecem de todo direitos de propriedade a ninguém ou a atribuem a todos por princípio) a reclamar essa mesma propriedade.
Ora, a Ética existe para estabelecer regras que permitam a sustentação da vida humana sem conflitos, tendo em conta o livre arbítrio do indivíduo e perante recursos escassos. Num universo não escasso não existe necessidade de Ética. O direito de propriedade é a regra ética por excelência sem a qual o conflito será permanente e o desenvolvimento económico desaparece. Portanto, agora fica a questão: Como se adquirem direitos de propriedade de forma honesta?
Acho que alguns confundem dificuldades técnicas em situações particulares que devem ser resolvidas pela ciência jurídica com o princípio geral.
Devem estes reflectir que se aquisição de propriedade não é um processo independente de agentes externos (o Estado), ou seja, se não são os actos voluntários do indivíduo pela ocupação-uso-transformação ou a livre troca/contrato, a alternativa é qual?
É o Estado que atribui direitos de propriedade? Não, isso seria o mesmo que dizer que o Estado precede os direitos, quando a única - e mesmo essa é muito discutível - justificação para o Estado como monopolista no uso da violência num determinado território, é defender direitos e não defini-los (já agora, porque um Estado tem esse monopólio numa determinada área e outro noutra, é a razão para todos os conflitos territoriais, ou seja, todas as guerras são feitas por Estados na procura de um Status Quo).
Fica o texto de Murray N. Rothbard sobre o assunto:
Toward a Theory of Justice in Property
(...) Let Locke summarize these principles: "... every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then, he removes out of the state that nature hath...he hath mixed his labour with it ... and thereby makes it his property."
We conclude, then, with the permise of absolute universal right of self-ownership as our first principle of justice in property. This principle, of course, automatically rejects slavery as totally incompatible with our primary right. (...)
Let us now turn to the more complex case of property in material objects.
(...) For if every mas has the right to own his body, and if he must grapple with the material objects of the world in order to survive (...) he has placed the stamp of his person upon the raw material by "mixing his labour" (...). (...) we again have three logical alternatives: (1) either the transformer, the "creator", has the property right (...); or (2) another man or set of men have the right to appropriate it by force (...); or (3) the "communal solution" - every individual in the world has an equal, quotal share in the ownership (...). (...)
The pioneer, the homesteader, the first user and transformer of his land, is the man who first brings this simple valueless thing into production and use. It is difficult to see the justice of dipriving him of ownership in favor of people who have never gotten within a thousand miles of the land (...). It is more difficult to see the justice of a group of outside oligarchs owning the property, and at the expense of expropriating the creator or the homesteader who had originally brought the product into existence. (...) The moral issue involved here is even clearer if we consider the case of animals. Animals are "economic land", since they are original nature-given resources. Yet, will anyone deny full title to a horse to the man who finds and domesticates it?
From our two basic axioms, the right of every man to selfownership and the right of every man to own previously unused natural resources that he first transforms by his labour - the entire system of property rights can be deduced. (...) We have thus established the property-right justification for the free-market process. For the free-market economy, as complex as the system appears to be on the surface, is yet nothing more than a vast network of voluntary and mutually agreed upon two-person or two-party exchanges of property titles (...). (...)"
Fica a referência também ao meu texto:
Alexandre Herculano, o axioma da aquisição original e como a desigualdade social emana da igualdade civil
Se um individuo não adquire propriedade, usando/ocupando/transformando recursos no "estado da natureza" pensemos nas consequências:
Por exemplo, um agricultor que emigrou para as Américas ou qualquer outro território "livre" ou no "estado da natureza" (no sentido de, um local, onde nenhum titulo de propriedade pode ser reclamado), constrói a sua casa e usa determinado espaço para cultivar, pode a qualquer momento ser confrontado com a violência de um terceiro (por exemplo, um suposto liberal que não reconhece o homesteading principle)ou com um grupo de terceiros (socialistas que não reconhecem de todo direitos de propriedade a ninguém ou a atribuem a todos por princípio) a reclamar essa mesma propriedade.
Ora, a Ética existe para estabelecer regras que permitam a sustentação da vida humana sem conflitos, tendo em conta o livre arbítrio do indivíduo e perante recursos escassos. Num universo não escasso não existe necessidade de Ética. O direito de propriedade é a regra ética por excelência sem a qual o conflito será permanente e o desenvolvimento económico desaparece. Portanto, agora fica a questão: Como se adquirem direitos de propriedade de forma honesta?
Acho que alguns confundem dificuldades técnicas em situações particulares que devem ser resolvidas pela ciência jurídica com o princípio geral.
Devem estes reflectir que se aquisição de propriedade não é um processo independente de agentes externos (o Estado), ou seja, se não são os actos voluntários do indivíduo pela ocupação-uso-transformação ou a livre troca/contrato, a alternativa é qual?
É o Estado que atribui direitos de propriedade? Não, isso seria o mesmo que dizer que o Estado precede os direitos, quando a única - e mesmo essa é muito discutível - justificação para o Estado como monopolista no uso da violência num determinado território, é defender direitos e não defini-los (já agora, porque um Estado tem esse monopólio numa determinada área e outro noutra, é a razão para todos os conflitos territoriais, ou seja, todas as guerras são feitas por Estados na procura de um Status Quo).
Fica o texto de Murray N. Rothbard sobre o assunto:
Toward a Theory of Justice in Property
(...) Let Locke summarize these principles: "... every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then, he removes out of the state that nature hath...he hath mixed his labour with it ... and thereby makes it his property."
We conclude, then, with the permise of absolute universal right of self-ownership as our first principle of justice in property. This principle, of course, automatically rejects slavery as totally incompatible with our primary right. (...)
Let us now turn to the more complex case of property in material objects.
(...) For if every mas has the right to own his body, and if he must grapple with the material objects of the world in order to survive (...) he has placed the stamp of his person upon the raw material by "mixing his labour" (...). (...) we again have three logical alternatives: (1) either the transformer, the "creator", has the property right (...); or (2) another man or set of men have the right to appropriate it by force (...); or (3) the "communal solution" - every individual in the world has an equal, quotal share in the ownership (...). (...)
The pioneer, the homesteader, the first user and transformer of his land, is the man who first brings this simple valueless thing into production and use. It is difficult to see the justice of dipriving him of ownership in favor of people who have never gotten within a thousand miles of the land (...). It is more difficult to see the justice of a group of outside oligarchs owning the property, and at the expense of expropriating the creator or the homesteader who had originally brought the product into existence. (...) The moral issue involved here is even clearer if we consider the case of animals. Animals are "economic land", since they are original nature-given resources. Yet, will anyone deny full title to a horse to the man who finds and domesticates it?
From our two basic axioms, the right of every man to selfownership and the right of every man to own previously unused natural resources that he first transforms by his labour - the entire system of property rights can be deduced. (...) We have thus established the property-right justification for the free-market process. For the free-market economy, as complex as the system appears to be on the surface, is yet nothing more than a vast network of voluntary and mutually agreed upon two-person or two-party exchanges of property titles (...). (...)"
Fica a referência também ao meu texto:
Alexandre Herculano, o axioma da aquisição original e como a desigualdade social emana da igualdade civil
terça-feira, 22 de junho de 2004
Pensamentos Anti-federalistas III
A Europa das Nações é muito mais descentralizada que o actual federalismo nos Estados Unidos da América (que por sinal, acabaram por impor o seu federalismo pela força na sua Guerra da Secessão).
Pensamentos anti-federalistas II
Não precisamos de federalismo para descentralizar aquilo que em primeiro lugar não está nem precisa de estar centralizado.
A "Europa" como organização inter-governamental não precisa de descentralizar (pelo Federalismo), aquilo que à partida não está centralizado (impostos federais, politicas economicas federais, segurança federal, etc).
Ou seja, a melhor forma de descentralizar na Europa é recusar o federalismo.
A melhor aplicação do federalismo é aplicá-lo aos Estados nacionais internamente.
A confusão que reina sobre este assunto, é de facto a melhor arma dos federalistas.
A "Europa" como organização inter-governamental não precisa de descentralizar (pelo Federalismo), aquilo que à partida não está centralizado (impostos federais, politicas economicas federais, segurança federal, etc).
Ou seja, a melhor forma de descentralizar na Europa é recusar o federalismo.
A melhor aplicação do federalismo é aplicá-lo aos Estados nacionais internamente.
A confusão que reina sobre este assunto, é de facto a melhor arma dos federalistas.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)