vineri, 25 februarie 2011

Are You Dreaming?



"Exista in Romania nenumarati oameni onesti si competenti, ale caror constiinte si voturi nu pot fi cumparate. Exista in Romania intreprinzatori care nu si-au facut averea prin afaceri dubioase. Exista in Romania universitari, medici, cercetatori cu studii stralucite. Exista in Romania artisti de exceptie, scriitori de anvergura, sportivi de elita. Exista in Romania o clasa de mijloc formata din cetateni care au calatorit, au vazut si au inteles ca se poate trai si altfel. Exista in Romania oameni cinstiti, tineri si batrani, la sat si la oras, bogati si saraci, cu credinta in Dumnezeu si dornici sa traiasca in armonie cu semenii lor. De cele mai multe ori, vocea lor nu se aude. ei sunt cei liberi si puternici. Ei sunt forta vie a natiunii noastre si, totodata, adevarata majoritate."






Noscete ipsum et nosces universum et deos.

miercuri, 2 februarie 2011

John Galt - Ep. 4 "The Standard of Morality"

"Nothing but the most exemplary morals can give dignity to a man of small fortune". Adam Smith - Book V, The Wealth of Nations (1776)





Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds merely that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help and serve others (Vezi Drepturi pozitive - Sa ne dea, sa ne faca). 


Max Stirner was the first philosopher to call himself an egoist, it is questionable if he wanted to install a new idea of morality (ethical egoism) or argue against morality (amoralism). Others, such as Thomas Hobbes and David Gauthier, have argued that the conflicts which arise when people each pursue their own ends can be resolved for the best of each individual only if they all voluntarily forgo some of their aims — that is, one's self-interest is often best pursued by allowing others to pursue their self-interest as well so that liberty is equal among individuals. Sacrificing one's short-term self-interest to maximize one's long-term self-interest is one form of "rational self-interest" which is the idea behind most philosophers' advocacy of ethical egoism. Egoists have also argued that one's actual interests are not immediately obvious, and that the pursuit of self-interest involves more than merely the acquisition of some good, but the maximizing of one's chances of survival and/or happiness.
Noted egoist Ayn Rand argued that there is a positive harmony of interests among free, rational humans, such that no moral agent can rationally coerce another person consistently with his own actual, long-term self-interest. Rand argued that other people are an enormous value to an individual's well-being (through education, trade and affection), but also that this value could be fully realized only under conditions of political and economic freedom. According to Rand, voluntary trade alone can assure that human interaction is mutually beneficial (sau cum spunea Adam Smith, "Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog"). Rand's student, Leonard Peikoff has argued that the identification of one's interests itself is impossible absent the use of principles, and that self-interest cannot be consistently pursued absent a consistent adherence to certain ethical principles. Recently, Rand's position has also been defended by such writers as Tara SmithTibor MachanAllan GotthelfDavid KelleyDouglas RasmussenNathaniel BrandenHarry BinswangerAndrew Bernstein and Craig Biddle in his 2002 work, Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.
Philosopher David L. Norton identified himself an "ethical individualist," and, like Rand, saw a harmony between an individual's fidelity to his own self-actualization, or "personal destiny," and the achievement of society's well being.[
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that egoistic or "life-affirming" behavior stimulates jealousy or "ressentiment" in others, and that this is the psychological motive for the altruism in Christianity. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck similarly considered envy the motive of collective efforts by society to reduce the disproportionate gains of successful individuals through moral or legal constraints, with altruism being primary among these.
In addition, Nietzsche (in Beyond Good and Evil) and Alasdair MacIntyre (in After Virtue) have pointed out that the ancient Greeks did not associate morality with altruism in the way that post-Christian Western civilization has done. Aristotle's view is that we have duties to ourselves as well as to other people (e.g. friends) and to the polis as a whole. The same is true for Thomas AquinasChristian Wolff and Immanuel Kant, who claim that there are duties to ourselves as Aristotle did, although it has been argued that, for Aristotle, the duty to one's self is primary.
The term ethical egoism has been applied retroactively to philosophers such as Bernard de Mandeville and to many other materialists of his generation, although none of them declared themselves to be egoists. Note that materialism does not necessarily imply egoism, as indicated by Karl Marx, and the many other materialists who espoused forms of collectivism.
It has been argued that ethical egoism lends itself to individualist anarchism, as in the work of Murray Rothbard, and is another way of describing the sense that the common good should be enjoyed by all. However, most notable anarchists in history have advocated socialistic altruistic views.


marți, 1 februarie 2011

Să ne dea, să ne faca..

Motto: If being a winner in nature’s struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist? 


Art 36 din Constituţie: (2) "Nu au drept de vot debilii sau alienaţii mintal, puşi sub interdicţie, şi nici persoanele condamnate, prin hotărâre judecătorească definitivă, la pierderea drepturilor electorale. "


Ar trebui sa fie inclusi si asistatii social. Si bugetarii. Ei nu contribuie cu nimic si ar vota pe cei care i-ar tine in perfuzii si in Wonderland mereu. 

Trebuie sa fii complet nebun sa crezi ca ai dreptul sa votezi si sa-ti dai cu parerea cand tu nu contribui cu nimic, ba mai mult, doar primesti. Chestia asta ar duce automat la o inflatie de promisiuni electorale (ce nu vor fi niciodata indeplinite - evident), care mai de care mai absurda si irealizabila, care in final se va intoarce exact impotriva alegatorului de rand. Prin urmare, astfel de idioti (atarnatorii de care vorbeam mai sus) n-ar trebui sa aiba drept de vot nici azi, in conditiile legii de acum. Insa cine sa o aplice. Dar cine sa inteleaga..



Cand primesti un cadou nu ai nici un drept sa pui conditii ci numai sa-l refuzi. "Drepturile pozitive" sunt o poveste pentru adormit copii sau socialisti ce au impresia ca o nevoie poate sta la baza unui drept. Ciudat e cum toti se mira ca aceste "nobile idealuri" se termina de absolut fiecare data, in dezastru..





Normal ar fi ca oricine isi da cu parerea sa o faca pe banii lui. Ca la poker: pui banii pe masa, vorbesti. Nu pui banii, nu risti nimic, atunci asta e. Si la revedere.



Altfel ajugem inevitabil sa facem "Bine cu forta" sau "We must FORCE the people to be FREE!" - Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just 1789 France (a murit decapitat 5 ani mai tarziu), care stim prea bine unde a dus..






Update decembrie 2012: daca esti asistat sau condamnat penal nu ar trebui sa nu poti nici candida. În Parlament au fost votati 27 de condamnaţi, arestaţi, incompatibili şi cercetaţi penal.

sâmbătă, 29 ianuarie 2011

Niall Ferguson: Empires on the Edge of Chaos



"Sometime over the next decade the US will reach the crossover point at which it will be spending more on debt service, than it is able to spend on defense..."

Throughout history the rise and fall of empires isn't slow or cyclical, as we like to think, but arrhythmic...it mostly happens very, very suddenly. America is a superpower on the edge of chaos, according to economic historian and author Niall Ferguson. US debt levels, he says, and its unwillingness to address the problem, has put it in the same category as other great empires which have collapsed throughout the ages.

Ferguson argues the world is changing. There's the rise of authoritarian China as a super-power; a Keynesian president leading a weakened United States; the re-emergence of democratic India as a great power; the continued decline of Japan; and the probability of continued global economic instability ahead.

Is the rise and fall of empires cyclical or arrhythmic? How does economic profligacy - whether the result of arrogance or naivety - contribute to the downfall of civilisations? Not to be missed, the address will offer a timely review of primacy, leadership, and the complex factors behind the rise and fall of great powers and civilisations.


Niall Ferguson delivered the annual John Bonython Lecture as guest of the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney.



01.    Introduction    
02.    Niall Ferguson Opening Remarks   
03.    Historical Cycles of Empire Decline   
04.    Complexity Theory   
05.    Implications for the United States   
06.    Interest Payments as a Share of US Revenue   
07.    Failure of Perception    
08.    Debt Payment Overtaking Defense Spending   
09.    Q1: Healthcare Reform    
10.    Q2: China's Military Sustainability    
11.    Q3: Gold Investing    
12.    Q4: Political Stability of China    
13.    Q5: Children Teaching You About Debt / Radical Islam    
14.    Q6: Advice to Obama    
15.    Q7: Limits of Keynesian Stimulus    
16.    Q8: Better Leadership in the West    
17.    Q9: Fear of Hyperinflation    


Full Program aici (sariti primele 9 minute).



..and you know the thing about Chaos? It's fair!

luni, 17 ianuarie 2011