5월 9일

"트럼프, 核포기 조건으로 김정은과 정상회담 제의"

도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령이 "북한이 핵·미사일 개발을 포기하면 미국에서 김정은 노동당 위원장과 정상회담을 갖겠다"는 제안을 중국에 전달했다고 일본 교도통신이 9일 보도했다. 트럼프 대통령이 언제, 어떤 방식으로 이 같은 제안을 했는지는 알려지지 않았다. 교도통신은 중국 정부가 비공식 루트를 통해 이 같은 의사를 북한에 전달한 것으로 보인다고 보도했다.

미국은 정상회담 제안과 함께 ▲북한의 체제 전환을 추구하지 않겠다 ▲김정은 정권의 붕괴를 원하지 않는다 ▲남북통일을 가속화하지 않겠다 ▲북한 급변사태시에도 미군은 휴전선을 넘지 않는다 등의 '4가지 노(NO)' 방침도 중국측에 전달한 것으로 전해졌다.

출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/05/09/2017050900249.html

북폭은 물 건너 가고, 이제 한국의 공산화만 남은 것 같다.
트럼프는 자신의 책 <Trump: The Art of the Deal>로 협상의 기술을 이미 드러냈다. 중국과 북한은 그 책을  읽고, 그의 협상술을 간파해버렸다. 그래서 그의 협박이 통하지 않았다. 더구나 미국은 경제적으로 전쟁을 수행할 만한 여력도 없다.

--------------------------------------------------------

'현대판 불로초' 찾아 나선 글로벌 IT기업들

 

조선일보 기사의 제목인데, 모두 헛짓거리로 보인다. 현대 과학은 환원론적인 방식으로 인체를 접근하지만, 인체라는 복잡계는 한 두가지 요인으로 장수가 결정되지 않는다.

 

본인의 책 <서구의학은 파산했다>에 환원론(또는 환원주의)에 대한 자세한 비판이 있다. 

 

-------------------------------

 

 오늘 한국인이 집단적으로 자살을 택할 것인지 여부가 결정된다.

북한의 김정은과 한국의 좌파집단이 이번 박 대통령 탄핵 사태의 주역들이다. 북한은 이번에 반드시 종북 정권을 탄생시켜야만 김정은의 생명을 연장시킬 수 있다는 절박함에서, 한국에서는 문죄인이 송민순의 회고록으로 정치적 위기를 맞자, 여적죄를 벗어나고 나아가 조기 대선으로 정권을 탈취하고자, 탄핵 사태를 일으켰다.

대한민국과 자신들의 정체성도 망각한 한국의 검찰, 언론이 종북좌파와 한 패거리가 되어, 대통령을 탄핵했고, 눈앞의 정치적 이익에 빠진 비박계가 여기에 가담해, 망국적 탄핵을 통과시켰다.

언론의 선전선동의 도움을 받으며 좌파들은 문죄인을 대통령으로 띄웠고, 많은 생각 없는 사람들이 여기에 추종했다. 하지만 그중에서도 사태의 큰줄기를 파악하고 이번 선거의 의미를 정확하게 깨달은 시민들도 적지 않을 것이다. 오늘 그 결과가 나온다.

---------------------------------------------

A Tribute to F.A. von Hayek

 

•Ludwig von Mises

 

 

Written to be Presented at a Banquet in Hayek's Honor, Chicago, May 24, 1962

 

I am sorry that a combination of causes — geography, my busy schedule and no less my age — make it impossible for me to attend this gathering. If I were able to be present, I would have said a few words on Professor Hayek and his achievements. As conditions are, I have to put these remarks in writing and am grateful to our friends who will present them for me.

 

To appreciate duly Doctor Hayek's achievements, one must take into account political, economic and ideological conditions as they prevailed in Europe, and especially in Vienna, at the time the first World War came to an end.

 

For centuries, the peoples of Europe had longed for liberty and tried to get rid of tyrannical rulers and to establish representative government. All reasonable men asked for the substitution of the rule of law for the arbitrary rule of hereditary princes and oligarchies. This general acceptance of the freedom principle was so firmly rooted that even the Marxian parties were forced to make to it verbal concessions. They called their parties social-democratic parties. This reference to democracy was, of course, mere eyewash, as the Marxian pundits were fully aware of the fact that socialism does not mean freedom of the individual but his complete subjection to the orders of the planning authority. But the millions who voted the socialist ticket were convinced that the "withering away" of the state meant unrestricted freedom for everybody and did not know how to interpret the mystic term "dictatorship of the proletariat."

 

But now there was again a dictator at work, a man who — in the wake of Cromwell and of Napoleon — dispelled the parliament freely elected by adult suffrage and mercilessly liquidated all those who dared to oppose him. This new dictator claimed supreme unlimited power not only in his own country but in all countries. And thousands and thousands of the self-styled intellectuals of all nations were enthusiastically supporting his claim.

 

Only people who had lived in Central Europe in those critical years between the fall of the Russian Tsardom and the final catastrophe of the Central-European currencies know how difficult it was at that time for a young man not to surrender to communism or to one of the other dictatorial parties that soon sprang up as poor imitations of the Russian model. Friedrich von Hayek was one of this small group of dissidents who refused to join in what Julien Benda pertinently called the Treason of the Intellectuals. At the School of Law and Social Sciences at the University of Vienna, he was a hardworking student and in due time got the doctorate. Then, an opportunity was offered to him to spend one year and several months in New York as secretary of Professor Jeremiah Jenks, of New York University, an eminent expert in the field of international monetary policies.

 

Some time after his return to Vienna, he was entrusted with the management of a newly founded scientific institution, the Austrian Institute of Business Cycle Research. He did a brilliant job in this field, not only as an economist but also as a statistician and an administrator. But in all these years, his main interest was economic studies. He was one of the group of young men who participated in the work and the discussions of my Privat-Seminar at the University of Vienna. He published several excellent essays on problems of money, prices and the trade cycle.

 

Political conditions in Austria made it rather questionable whether he would ever be appointed to a full professorship at an Austrian University. But England was, at that time, still free from prejudice against the free market economy. Thus, in 1931, Hayek was named Tooke Professor of Economic Science and Statistics at the University of London. Relieved from the administrative responsibilities that had shortened the time he could devote to scientific work in Vienna, he could now publish a number of eminent contributions to economic theory and their application to economic policies. He was soon quite properly considered as one of the foremost economists of our age.

 

The economist is not merely a theorist whose work is of direct interest only to other economists and is seldom read and understood by people outside the professional clan. As he deals with the effects of economic policies, he is by necessity always in the midst of the controversies that center around the policies and thereby the fate of the nations. Whether he likes it or not, he is forced to fight for his ideas and to defend them against vicious attacks.

 

Doctor Hayek has published many important books and essays and his name will be remembered as one of the great economists. But what made him known overnight to all people in the Western orbit, was a slim book published in 1944, The Road to Serfdom.

 

The nations of the West were then fighting the German and Italian dictatorships, the Nazis and the Fascists, in the name of liberty and the rights of man. As they saw it, their adversaries were slaves, while they themselves were resolutely dedicated to the preservation of the great ideals of individualism. But Hayek uncovered the illusory nature of this interpretation. He showed that all those features of the Nazi economic system that appeared as reprehensible in the eyes of the British and, for that matter, of their Western allies, were precisely the necessary outcome of policies which the "left" the self-styled Progressives, the planners, the socialists and, in the U.S., the New Dealers — were aiming at. While fighting totalitarianism, the British and their allies waxed enthusiastic over plans for transforming their own countries into totalitarian outfits and were proceeding farther and farther on this road to serfdom.

 

Within a few weeks, the small book became a bestseller and was translated into all civilized languages. Many people are kind enough to call me one of the fathers of the renaissance of classical nineteenth century ideas of freedom. I wonder whether they are right. But there is no doubt that Professor Hayek with his Road to Serfdom paved the way for an international organization of the friends of freedom. It was his initiative that led, in 1947, to the establishment of the Mont Pelerin Society, in which eminent libertarians from all countries this side of the Iron Curtain cooperate.

 

Having devoted thirty years to the study of the problems of economic theory and the epistemology of the social sciences and having done pioneer work in the treatment of many of these problems, Professor Hayek turned to the general philosophy of freedom. The result of his studies is the monumental treatise the Constitution of Liberty, published more than two years ago. It is the fruit of the years he spent in this country as Professor at the University of Chicago. It is a very characteristic fact that this Austrian-born scion of the Austrian School of Economics, who taught for many years at London, wrote his book on liberty in the country of Jefferson and Thoreau.

 

We are not losing Professor Hayek entirely. He will henceforth teach at a German University, but we are certain that from time to time he will come back for lectures and conferences to this country. And we are certain that, on these visits, he will have much more to say about epistemology, about capital and capitalism, about money, banking and the trade cycle, and, first of all, also about liberty. In this expectation, we may take it as a good omen that the name of the city of his future sphere of activity is Freiburg. “Frei” — that means free.

 

We do not consider tonight’s gathering a farewell party. We do not say “good-bye,” we say “till next time.”

 

[This is reprinted from Appendix One from Margit von Mises, My Years with Ludwig von Mises; pages 213–16.]

 

내용은 허술하지만 그래도 한번 읽어볼 만 하다.

-----------------------------------------------------------

진정한 개인주의란?

 

진정한 개인주의는 인간의 이성이 제한적이고 오류의 가능성이 있으며, 인간의 제도는 특정 개인이 설계하거나 이해할 수 있는 범위 밖에 있다는 깨달음에 기초해 있다.

개인들이 자유로운 때에만 사회는 개인들보다 위대해지고, 사회가 통제되면 그것은 사회를 통제하는 개인들의 좁은 소견에서 벗어나지 못한다.

 

What Individualism Is, and What It Is Not

 

•Friedrich A. Hayek

 

 

To advocate any clear-cut principles of social order is today an almost certain way to incur the stigma of being an unpractical doctrinaire. It has come to be regarded as'-the sign of the judicious mind that in social matters one does not adhere to fixed principles but decides each question "on its merits"; that one is generally guided by expediency and is ready to compromise between opposed views. Principles, however, have a way of asserting themselves even if they are not explicitly recognized but are only implied in particular decisions, or if they are present only as vague ideas of what is or is not being done. Thus it has come about that under the sign of "neither individualism nor socialism" we are in fact rapidly moving from a society of free individuals toward one of a completely collectivist character.

 

The difficulty which we encounter is not merely the familiar fact that the current political terms are notoriously ambiguous or even that the same term often means nearly the opposite to different groups. There is the much more serious fact that the same word frequently appears to unite people who in fact believe in contradictory and irreconcilable ideals. Terms like "liberalism" or "democracy," "capitalism" or "socialism," today no longer stand for coherent systems of ideas. They have come to describe aggregations of quite heterogeneous principles and facts which historical accident has associated with these words but which have little in common beyond having been advocated at different times by the same people or even merely under the same name.

 

No political term has suffered worse in this respect than "individualism."...

 

Before I explain what I mean by true individualism, it may be useful if I give some indication of the intellectual tradition to which it belongs. The true individualism which I shall try to defend began its modern development with John Locke, and particularly with Bernard Mandeville and David Hume, and achieved full stature for the first time in the work of Josiah Tucker, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith and in that of their great contemporary, Edmund Burke — the man whom Smith described as the only person he ever knew who thought on economic subjects exactly as he did without any previous communication having passed between them.

 

In the nineteenth century I find it represented most perfectly in the work of two of its greatest historians and political philosophers: Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton. These two men seem to me to have more successfully developed what was best in the political philosophy of the Scottish philosophers, Burke, and the English Whigs than any other writers I know; while the classical economists of the nineteenth century, or at least the Benthamites or philosophical radicals among them, came increasingly under the influence of another kind of individualism of different origin.

 

This second and altogether different strand of thought, also known as individualism, is represented mainly by French and other Continental writers — a fact due, I believe, to the dominant role which Cartesian rationalism plays in its composition. The outstanding representatives of this tradition are the Encyclopedists, Rousseau, and the physiocrats; and, for reasons we shall presently consider, this rationalistic individualism always tends to develop into the opposite of individualism, namely, socialism or collectivism. It is because only the first kind of individualism is consistent that I claim for it the name of true individualism, while the second kind must probably be regarded as a source of modern socialism as important as the properly collectivist theories.

 

I can give no better illustration of the prevailing confusion about the meaning of individualism than the fact that the man who to me seems to be one of the greatest representatives of true individualism, Edmund Burke, is commonly (and rightly) represented as the main opponent of the so-called “individualism” of Rousseau, whose theories he feared would rapidly dissolve the commonwealth “into the dust and powder of individuality,” and that the term “individualism” itself was first introduced into the English language through the translation of one of the works of another of the great representatives of true individualism, de Tocqueville, who uses it in his Democracy in America to describe an attitude which he deplores and rejects. Yet there can no doubt that both Burke and de Tocqueville stand in all essentials close to Adam Smith, to whom nobody will deny the title of individualist, and that the “individualism” to which they are opposed is something altogether different from that of Smith ...

 

The next step in the individualistic analysis of society, however, is directed against the rationalistic pseudo-individualism which also leads to practical collectivism. It is the contention that, by tracing the combined effects of individual actions, we discover that many of the institutions on which human achievements rest have arisen and are functioning without a designing and directing mind; that, as Adam Ferguson expressed it, “nations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action but not the result of human design”; and that the spontaneous collaboration of free men often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully comprehend. This is the great theme of Josiah Tucker and Adam Smith, of Adam Ferguson and Edmund Burke ...

 

The difference between this view, which accounts for most of the order which we find in human affairs as the unforeseen result of individual actions, and the view which traces all discoverable order to deliberate design is the first great contrast between the true individualism of the British thinkers of the eighteenth century and the so-called “individualism” of the Cartesian School. But it is merely one aspect of an even wider difference between a view which in general rates rather low the place which reason plays in human affairs, which contends that man has achieved what he has in spite of the fact that he is only partly guided by reason, and that his individual reason is very limited and imperfect, and a view which assumes that Reason, with a capital R, is always fully and equally available to all humans and that everything which man achieves is the direct result of, and therefore subject to, the control of individual reason.

 

The anti-rationalistic approach, which regards man not as a highly rational and intelligent but as a very irrational and fallible being, whose individual errors are corrected only in the course of a social process, and which aims at making the best of a very imperfect material, is probably the most characteristic feature of English individualism ...

 

So let me return, in conclusion, to what I said in the beginning: that the fundamental attitude of true individualism is one of humility toward the processes by which mankind has achieved things which have not been designed or understood by any individual and are indeed greater than individual minds. The great question at this moment is whether man’s mind will be allowed to continue to grow as part of this process or whether human reason is to place itself in chains of its own making. What individualism teaches us is that society is greater than the individual only in so far as it is free. In so far as it is controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of the individual minds which control or direct it. If the presumption of the modern mind, which will not respect anything that is not consciously controlled by individual reason, does not learn in time where to stop, we may, as Edmund Burke warned us, “be well assured that everything about us will dwindle by degrees, until at length our concerns are shrunk to the dimensions of our minds.”

 

개인적인 생각이지만, 하이에크의 글은 미제스의 글보다 더 사변적이고 사려 깊고 치밀하다. 그가 대충 쓴 글은 아직 보지 못했다.
 

---------------------------------------------------------------

Is social democracy shattered?

닐 퍼거슨

 

 

 

진보 엘리트와 프롤레타리아와의 오래된 동맹은 깨졌다. 진보 엘리트는 이민에 관대하고, 다문화를 너무나 좋아한다. 하지만 프롤레타리아는 이민과 다문화를 모두 싫어한다.

 

영국의 언론인 데이빗 굿하트는 13년전, 재분배 복지 국가 정책은 인종적으로 단일한 사회에서만 가능하다고 말한 바 있다. 그의 발언은 비난을 받았지만, 후에 일어난 사태가 그 정당성을 입증했다.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

기이하지만 진실이다!

프랑스는 다수표를 얻는 사람을 지도자로 한다.

 

한국에서도 그러하다. 문제는 그가 반국가적이고 반역적인 생각을 가진 사람이라는 데 있다.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

ian bremmer

 

74% of Venezuelans have lost an average of 8.7kg (19.2 lbs) over the past year. They're not dieting.

지난해 베네수엘라 국민의 74%가 약 8.7 킬로그램의 감량을 했다.

 

마두로 다이어트의 혁혁한 실적.

 

문죄인이 집권하면 문죄인도 다이어트 방을 개설해서, 전국민의 몸무게를 줄여줄지 모른다.

------------------------------------------------------------


문죄인이 예상대로 당선되었다. 대한민국의 미래에 대한 불길한 예감으로 여러 감정이 교차하는 밤이다. 이제 盡人事, 聽天命 할 뿐이다.


도리스 데이의 노래 <케세라 세라>를 들으며 잠시 위안을 삼는다.

https://youtu.be/xZbKHDPPrrc


------------------------------------------------------------------