miercuri, 12 iunie 2013

What Keeps the Free Market Free?

George Washington ar fi putut sa lase o monarhie oricand in urma lui, putea sa fie el insusi rege, presedinte pe cate mandate vroia. Insa nu a facut asta, ba chiar a stabilit precedentul celor 2 mandate pe care le poate avea un presedinte investit cu atat de multa putere. Pentru ca scopul nu este sa obtii puterea, ci sa renunti la ea. Sa lasi oamenii liberi, nu sa fii deasupra lor la infinit. O astfel de schimbare in monarhie ar fi lasat puterea pe mana unui om care nu mai poate fi schimbat, ce in timp ar fi devenit o simpla marioneta (daca regii nu sunt deja), adica separatia puterilor in stat s-ar fi dus pe Apa Sambetei, puterea ar fi fost concentrata ori in parlament, ori intr-un consiliu de ministri, moment in care omul de rand nu ar mai fi putut schimba nimic. In plus, daca cel care urmeaza dupa tine e un om slab, cine ii va mai scapa pe acei oameni de un tiran fara alta o revolutie? Fara un razboi?

Incercati sa vedeti clipul de aici. Va va fi mult mai usor sa vorbiti despre doctrine si ideologii. Nu e cine stie ce. Libertatea ESTE pe intelesul oricarui om, nu e nevoie prea multe facultati ca sa intelegeti despre ce se vorbeste acolo. Constitutia US e simpla, clara, de o singura pagina, Biblia (sa nu ucizi, sa nu furi samd), la fel, se poate rezuma la Decalog.

Cei doi judecatori ai Curtii Supreme din US dau un exemplu tuturor despre cum ar trebui sa stea lucrurile sau sa se poarte un dialog intr-o tara normala, in care individul este respectat. Da, sunt chestiuni care sunt extrem de complicate (chiar si pentru ei - dupa cum o sa vedeti la un moment dat ca recunosc amandoi), insa in ce priveste Constitutia, cand e vorba de ce e bine si ce e rau, lucrurile sunt foarte clare. Asa cred ca ar trebui sa fie si la noi insa la cum arata actualul parlament, sau daca ne uitam la ce inteleg ei prin audierile in fata unei comisii parlamentare, se pare ca mai avem ceva de asteptat.






If you want to understand the basis for freedom and the free market then you should listen to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s Oct. 5, 2011 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Scalia, our freedom is secured by way of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he says, we aren’t adequately passing along the secret of the Constitution to the next generation. Scalia frequently meets with students from the best law schools and asks them, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” Never more than about 5 percent raise their hands. About this, Scalia says, “That is very sad…. Here is a document that says what the Framers thought they were doing. It is such a profound exposition of political science … yet we have raised a generation of Americans who are not familiar with it.”

Scalia goes on to ask why America is a free country and what sets it apart. According to Scalia, most people will say that the Bill of Rights is the basis of our freedom. Scalia shook his head, “If you think that a Bill of Rights is what sets us apart you’re crazy. Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every President for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former "Evil Empire," the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it, literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press -- big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests; and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!

Of course -- just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a parchment guarantee.2 And the reason is, that the real Constitution of the Soviet Union -- you think of the word "constitution," it doesn't mean a "bill"; it means "structure"; [when] you say a person has a sound "constitution," [he] has a sound "structure." The real Constitution of the Soviet Union, which is what our Framers debated that whole summer in Philadelphia in 1787 -- they didn't talk about the Bill of Rights; that was an afterthought, wasn't it? -- that Constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power, in one person or in one party. And when that happens the game is over; the Bill of Rights is just what our Framers would call a parchment guarantee.


“The real key,” said Scalia, “is separation of powers.” The system was built for gridlock, and that’s a good thing. According to Scalia, America is not about democracy. In fact, the Framers didn’t like democracy. Checks and balances was what really mattered to them. Unchecked power could not be permitted. Such power tends toward corruption. This ancient principle was best stated by Lord Acton in 1887, who famously wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He pointed to the murderous actions of English monarchs, and one might point to a larger history in which powerful men and women have killed and plundered without being held accountable.

The famous sociologist, Gustave Le Bon wrote a book titled The Psychology of Revolution in which he wrote, “One of the most constant laws of history is that of which I have already spoken: Immediately any one class becomes preponderant – nobles, clergy, army, or the people – it speedily tends to enslave others.” Whatever democratic idealism we find expressed today, self-advancement is not far to find in it. Men are not as good as they often pretend, and those who appear as champions of the people are more often champions only of themselves. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution is about the separation of powers, as Scalia said.

Critics of the U.S. Constitution say it is an instrument of class oppression – made by the rich to the disadvantage of the poor. They deny the reality of separate powers under the Constitution. For them, the inequalities of the market economy must be corrected by government intervention. A century ago Le Bon wrote of the difficulties involved in “reconciling Democratic equalization with natural inequalities.” As Le Bon pointed out, “Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigor, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.” When a politician pretends to oppose the inequalities of nature, he proves to be a special kind of usurper – personifying arrogance in search of boundless power. 

Logically, the establishment of universal equality would first require the establishment of a universal tyranny (a.k.a., the dictatorship of the proletariat). A formula for doing all this was worked out in the nineteenth century, and was the program of Karl Marx. Le Bon warned that socialism might indeed “establish equality for a time by rigorously eliminating all superior individuals.” He also foresaw the decline of any nation that followed this path (i.e., see the Soviet Union). Such a society would aim at eliminating all risk, speculation and initiative. These stimulants of human activity being suppressed, no progress would be possible. According to Le Bon, “Men would merely have established that equality in poverty desired by the jealousy and envy of a host of mediocre minds.”

The U.S. Constitution as written blocks the path to universal equality and universal tyranny. Yet there is a chink in our constitutional armor. Separation of powers will not work when the various powers agree on a socialist re-interpretation of the Constitution. In recent decades, some have suggested that we have a “living constitution,” which would be amenable to socialist re-interpretation without amendment. Perhaps anticipating such a possibility, Justice Scalia humorously remarked, “I’m hopeful the living Constitution will die.” In Scalia’s thinking, the living Constitution signifies disregard for the actual Constitution. Such would undermine protections offered to property rights under law. To borrow words from Le Bon, it would result in “a kind of bureaucratic servitude or parliamentary Caesarism which will at once enervate and demoralize an impoverished country.’”

It is doubtful that many people today understand the basis for our economic freedom. Many students are not properly educated today, as Justice Scalia testified. Political forces are at work aiming at a fundamental re-interpretation of the Constitution, and these forces dominate education and the media. The time may not be far off when we entirely forget the secret of our prosperity along with the secret of liberty.

J.R, Nyquist.


http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/what-keeps-the-free-market-free

marți, 11 iunie 2013

luni, 10 iunie 2013

Despre casatorie, zoofilie, traditie si modernitate.



PS: pe logica unor leftisti ca Remus Cernea, Dan Alexe de la Europa Libera sau alti progresisti si modernisti ce bantuie pe internet propovaduind libertatea totala, casatoria intre homosexuali samd, clipul de mai sus s-ar putea incadra la categoria "soft fantasy porn", asa ca intrati si voi mai cu grija, pe riscul vostru, sa nu va molipsiti..

luni, 3 iunie 2013

Why beauty matters.

Sa pun un link ca sa vedeti de ce s-a ajuns aici. Dezastrul nu e numai in economie ci si in Arta. Compromisul moral a lasat urme adanci peste tot, chiar si in viata de zi cu zi. Pentru ca socialistii lui Nastase si Ilici au inversat orice criteriu moral, orice criteriu ESTETIC (vezi kitch-urile lui din sufragerie), pentru ca scopul socialistilor si bolsevicilor a fost intotdeauna INVERSIUNEA MORALA propovaduita la rang de stiinta. Asa s-a ajuns ca hotii sa fie laudati si luati drept model, ca oamenii cinstiti sa fie eliminati din orice sistem TOCMAI pentru ca erau cinstiti, corecti, adica nimeni nu avea nevoie de ei, asa s-a ajuns ca rolul traditional al familiei sa fie atacat din toate directiile, homosexualitatea sa fie declarata drept virtute ba chiar un lucru perfect natural (desi nu exista absolut nici o dovada biologica in acest sens ci numai factori de mediu, ce tin de educatie), aici e motivul pentru care toate nulitatile sunt promovate pe toate posturile, in timp ce valorile autentice, traditionale, sunt marginalizate si luate in ras.


“Artistii si arhitectii urmeaza chemarea frumosului, conferind un sens lumii in care traim. Maestrii trecutului au inteles ca avem si nevoi spirituale, pe langa cele animalice. Pentru Platon, frumusetea era o cale catre Dumnezeu, in timp ce pentru ganditorii Iluminismului, frumosul din arta era o cale de a ne salva dintr-o rutina fara sens si de a ne ridica la un nivel superior al cunoasterii. Dar arta a intors spatele frumosului. A devenit o sclava a societatii de consum, satisfacandu-ne doar viciile si placerile meschine, incurajandu-ne parca propriul dezgust. Aceasta este in opinia mea lectia formelor celor mai urate din arta si arhitectura moderna. Ele nu reflecta realitatea ci se razbuna pe ea, rapindu-ne ceea ce ar fi putut fi o casa, un camin, lasandu-ne sa ratacim instrainati si alienati intr-un desert spiritual.
Desigur, e adevarat ca multe lucruri din lumea de azi ne zapacesc si ne deranjeaza. Vietile noastre sunt pline de astfel de reziduuri. Ne luptam cu zgomotele si nebunia cotidiana fara a rezolva sau intelege nimic. Totusi, raspunsul corect nu este de a accepta aceasta alienare ci de a cauta calea de iesire din desert, una care ne va duce in locul in care realul si idealul pot coexista in armonie.
In viata mea de pana acum am gasit acest drum mult mai usor prin muzica decat prin orice alta forma artistica. Pergolesi avea 26 de ani cand a compus Stabat Mater care descrie durerea Sfintei Fecioare langa crucea lui Isus, muribund. Toata suferinta lumii este simbolizata in acordurile sale splendide. Deoarece Pergolesi suferea de tuberculoza cand a scris Stabat Mater, si el este fiul muribund, pe acea cruce. De altfel el a murit la cateva luni de la finalizarea operei. 
Nu este o piesa muzicala complexa, sau ambitioasa, ci doar exprimarea din inima a credintei compozitorului.








Arata calea prin care emotiile adanci si cutremuratoare pot dobandi unitate si libertate, prin muzica. Vocea Mariei este scrisa pentru doi cantareti. Linia melodica urca incet, dureros, eliminand o disonanta prin intermediul alteia, atunci cand vocile se confrunta, ele reprezentand atunci conflictul si tristetea din interiorul sufletului ei. Muzica trece dincolo de cuvinte si transmite mesajul intr-un al limbaj, direct in propria inima. Arata ca poate misca universul fara ca lumea sa stie despre ce e vorba, sa afle, fara explicatia teologica, despre existenta acestui lucru pe care il numim suferinta, ci ca ne este destinata tuturor, dar nu este sfarsitul.
In acest film am descris frumusetea ca pe o resursa esentiala. Cautand frumusetea (sau fericirea) ne modelam lumea ca pe un camin, si procedand astfel nu reusim numai sa ne intensificam bucuriile ci sa gasim si consolare pentru durerile fiecaruia din noi. Arta si muzica stralucesc prin lumina sensului ce-l dau vietii noastre, si, prin ele, suntem capabili sa confruntam ceea ce ne provoaca durere, si sa gasim consolare si pace, in prezenta lor. Aceasta capacitate a frumosului de a ne alina suferinta este un motiv pentru care frumusetea poate fi considerata ca un substitut al religiei.
Dar de ce sa dam prioritate religiei? De sa nu spunem ca religia este un substitut al frumosului? Sau si mai bine zis, de ce sa le descriem ca rivale? Sacrul si frumosul stau laolalta, ca doua usi ce se deschid spre o singura incapere, si in acea incapere ne regasim pe noi, acasa”.
Roger Scruton - Why Beauty Matters.
DE CE CONTEAZA FRUMUSETEA? from John Galt on Vimeo.


I classici dell'arte si animano con la magia del digitale