Laws of Justice and Mercy

 

23 “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.

 

2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,

 

 

3 and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.

 

4 “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it.

 

5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.

 

6 “Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.

 

7 Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

 

8 “Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the innocent.

 

9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

 

‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘

 

출 23:1) 너는 거짓된 풍설을 퍼뜨리지 말며 악인과 연합하여 위증하는 증인이 되지 말며

 

(출 23:2) 다수를 따라 악을 행하지 말며 송사에 다수를 따라 부당한 증언을 하지 말며

 

(출 23:3) 가난한 자의 송사라고 해서 편벽되이 두둔하지 말지니라

 

(출 23:4) ○네가 만일 네 원수의 길 잃은 소나 나귀를 보거든 반드시 그 사람에게로 돌릴지며

 

(출 23:5) 네가 만일 너를 미워하는 자의 나귀가 짐을 싣고 엎드러짐을 보거든 그것을 버려두지 말고 그것을 도와 그 짐을 부릴지니라

 

(출 23:6) ○너는 가난한 자의 송사라고 정의를 굽게 하지 말며

 

(출 23:7) 거짓 일을 멀리 하며 무죄한 자와 의로운 자를 죽이지 말라 나는 악인을 의롭다 하지 아니하겠노라

 

(출 23:8) 너는 뇌물을 받지 말라 뇌물은 밝은 자의 눈을 어둡게 하고 의로운 자의 말을 굽게 하느니라

 

(출 23:9) 너는 이방 나그네를 압제하지 말라 너희가 애굽 땅에서 나그네 되었었은즉 나그네의 사정을 아느니라

 

출처: 조갑제닷컴

----> 고대에 주민들 사이에서 자생적으로 나타난 법과 도덕들이다.  하이에크가 말한 진정한 법과 도덕이 바로 이런 것들이다.

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

아랍에미리트 교민이 “우리 대사관에서 한국기자가 전화하면 받지 말라고 했다. 원전에 대해 할 말은 많지만, 할 수가 없다”고 조선일보 노석조 특파원이 보도했습니다. 1만5000 명이나 되는 아랍에미리트 우리 교민들이 언론의 자유도 박탈되었습니다. '말할 자유'까지 뺏겼습니다.

  문재인 대통령이 그렇게 욕하던 유신시대처럼 우리 교민들은 '공포정치'를 느끼고 있습니다. 국내에서는 검찰의 압수수색, 거듭되는 영장청구, 별건수사가 이미 세계적으로 악명이 높아졌습니다.

  법원에서는 박근혜 대통령까지도 1심재판을 12개월이나 연장하며, 무리한 구속을 계속하여, 유엔인권위원회에 제소까지 되어 있습니다. 사업하는 사람들은 세무조사가 두려워 요즘 말 못하고 있습니다.

  방송사는 홍위병보다 더 독한 민주노총의 행패와 방송 재허가가 두려워 말 못하고 있습니다. 방송사는 이사장, 사장만 바꾸는 게 아니라, 앵커, 패널까지 싹 다 바꾸고 있습니다.

  전화도 도청이 되지 않느냐며, 꼭 만나서 말하겠다고 합니다. 저보고는 날이 어두워지면 혼자서 바깥에 나가지도 말라고 걱정하는 사람이 늘어납니다. 새마을이나 민간단체들은 '예산지원'이 끊길까봐 입조심 합니다. 공무원들은 후환이 두려워 눈치 봅니다. 어르신들은 자식들에게 해코지가 있을까봐 입을 닫아버립니다.

  어쩌다 이 지경이 됐습니까? 문재인 촛불혁명 대통령이 말하는 '적폐청산'이 '청와대 좌파들의 공포의 숙청'이 아니고 뭡니까?

김문수 전 경기지사의 트위터

---> 좌파 정치는 필연적으로 전체주의와 독재로 흐를 수 밖에 없다. 더구나 저들은 태블릿 조작이라는 반역적 행위를 통해 정권을 잡았으므로, 더욱 그렇게 될 수 밖에 없다.

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

출처: 일베

나는 <촛불난동은 더불어민주당이 주도한 쿠데타였다>(위퍼블 출판)에서, 이번 촛불 난동의 초반 주모자가 조응천이라고 주장했다.

그렇다면 조응천이 친구였던 유영하를 설득해 탄핵 세력에 끌여들였다는 설명이 가능해진다.

또 한때 청와대에 근무했던 그가, 김한수나 김휘종이 가지고 있던 태블릿을 가져다 제이티비씨에 갖다주고, 조작의 방법까지 가르쳐준 인물일 가능성이 더 커진다.

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

 

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




미제스가 말하는 산타 클로스 원칙


From "The Exhaustion of the Reserve Fund" in Human Action, Chapter XXXVI by Ludwig von Mises:


The idea underlying all interventionist policies is that the higher income and wealth of the more affluent part of the population is a fund which can be freely used for the improvement of the conditions of the less prosperous. The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution. Every measure is ultimately justified by declaring that it is fair to curb the rich for the benefit of the poor.


In the field of public finance progressive taxation of incomes and estates is the most characteristic manifestation of this doctrine. Tax the rich and spend the revenue for the improvement of the condition of the poor, is the principle of contemporary budgets. In the field of industrial relations shortening the hours of work, raising wages, and a thousand other measures are recommended under the assumption that they favor the employee and burden the employer. Every issue of government and community affairs is dealt with exclusively from the point of view of this principle.


An illustrative example is provided by the methods applied in the operation of nationalized and municipalized enterprises. These enterprises very often result in financial failure; their accounts regularly show losses burdening the state or the city treasury. It is of no use to investigate whether the deficits are due to the notorious inefficiency of the public conduct of business enterprises or, at least partly, to the inadequacy of the prices at which the commodities or services are sold to the customers.


What matters more is the fact that the taxpayers must cover these deficits. The interventionists fully approve of this arrangement. They passionately reject the two other possible solutions: selling the enterprises to private entrepreneurs or raising the prices charged to the customers to such a height that no further deficit remains. The first of these proposals is in their eyes manifestly reactionary because the inevitable trend of history is toward more and more socialization. The second is deemed "antisocial" because it places a heavier load upon the consuming masses. It is fairer to make the taxpayers, i.e., the wealthy citizens, bear the burden. Their ability to pay is greater than that of the average people riding the nationalized railroads and the municipalized subways, trolleys, and busses. To ask that such public utilities should be self-supporting, is, say the interventionists, a relic of the old-fashioned ideas of orthodox finance. One might as well aim at making the roads and the public schools self-supporting.


It is not necessary to argue with the advocates of this deficit policy. It is obvious that recourse to this ability-to-pay principle depends on the existence of such incomes and fortunes as can still be taxed away. It can no longer be resorted to once these extra funds have been exhausted by taxes and other interventionist measures.


This is precisely the present state of affairs in most of the European countries. The United States has not yet gone so far; but if the actual trend of its economic policies is not radically altered very soon, it will be in the same condition in a few years.


For the sake of argument we may disregard all the other consequences which the full triumph of the ability-to-pay principle must bring about and concentrate upon its financial aspects.


The interventionist in advocating additional public expenditure is not aware of the fact that the funds available are limited. He does not realize that increasing expenditure in one department enjoins restricting it in other departments. In his opinion there is plenty of money available. The income and wealth of the rich can be freely tapped. In recommending a greater allowance for the schools he simply stresses the point that it would be a good thing to spend more for education. He does not venture to prove that to raise the budgetary allowance for schools is more expedient than to raise that of another department, e.g., that of health. It never occurs to him that grave arguments could be advanced in favor of restricting public spending and lowering the burden of taxation. The champions of cuts in the budget are in his eyes merely the defenders of the manifestly unfair class interests of the rich.


With the present height of income and inheritance tax rates, this reserve fund out of which the interventionists seek to cover all public expenditure is rapidly shrinking. It has practically disappeared altogether in most European countries. In the United States the recent advances in tax rates produced only negligible revenue results beyond what would be produced by a progression which stopped at much lower rates. High surtax rates for the rich are very popular with interventionist dilettantes and demagogues, but they secure only modest additions to the revenue.


 From day to day it becomes more obvious that large-scale additions to the amount of public expenditure cannot be financed by "soaking the rich," but that the burden must be carried by the masses. The traditional tax policy of the age of interventionism, its glorified devices of progressive taxation and lavish spending, have been carried to a point at which their absurdity can no longer be concealed. The notorious principle that, whereas private expenditures depend on the size of income available, public revenues must be regulated according to expenditures, refutes itself.


 Henceforth, governments will have to realize that one dollar cannot be spent twice, and that the various items of government expenditure are in conflict with one another. Every penny of additional government spending will have to be collected from precisely those people who hitherto have been intent upon shifting the main burden to other groups. Those anxious to get subsidies will have to foot the bill themselves for the subsidies. The deficits of publicly owned and operated enterprises will be charged to the bulk of the population.




The situation in the employer-employee nexus will be analogous. The popular doctrine contends that wage earners are reaping "social gains" at the expense of the unearned income of the exploiting classes. The strikers, it is said, do not strike against the consumers but against "management." There is no reason to raise the prices of products when labor costs are increased; the difference must be borne by employers. But when more and more of the share of the entrepreneurs and capitalists is absorbed by taxes, higher wage rates, and other "social gains" of employees, and by price ceilings, nothing remains for such a buffer function. Then it becomes evident that every wage raise, with its whole momentum, must affect the prices of the products and that the social gains of each group fully correspond to the social losses of the other groups. Every strike becomes, even in the short run and not only in the long run, a strike against the rest of the people.


An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole doctrine of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off. The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.


부자들의 돈을 빼앗아 가난한 사람들에게 나눠준다는 좌파들의 개입주의 정책이 왜 실패하는지 미제스가 설명하고 있다.


----------------------------------------------------------
북한군 광주 남침 빼박 증거, 전사자명부-전투기록장 (김주호 박사팀 입수)  


https://youtu.be/FDaZxvwTHCo


사실이라면 대단히 폭발력이 있는 아이템이다.


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



Nassim Nicholas Taleb          

  

4) The idea of #skin in the game is that people judged by reality and P/L, instead of peers or supervisors, are vastly more open-minded.

스킨인 더 게임의 아이디어는, 현실과 대중에 의해 판단되는

 사람들이, 동료나 감독자들에 의해 평가되는 사람들에 비해, 훨씬 더 개방적이라는 것이다.


3) Employed intellectuals, professional academics, and other slaves are rarely in love with thought & ideas. They are primarily in love with Orthodoxy.


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

A Climate Cure Worse than the Disease

Dec 20, 2017 Bjørn Lomborg                             

                                         

The climate policies lauded in Paris at the One Planet Summit this month are essentially high-cost, low-effect gestures. While the EU will devote 20% of its budget this year to climate-related action, even fully achieving the accord's emissions targets throughout this century would prevent just 0.053°C of global warming by 2100.

--------------------------------------------------
Robert Tombs

글래드스톤은 선거권을 지닌 평범한 시민들이 정부의 도덕을 확고히 한다고 믿었고, 토크빌은 일상의 경험 덕분으로 사람들이 분별력 있는 선택을 한다는 것을 깨달았다. 하지만 현대에는 대학 졸업자들만의 생각이 옳다고 주장한다.


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