김영철 미션은 '제2의 베트남化' 착수
류근일(조선일보 前 주필)                    




 김정은 집단이 지금 노리는 것은 문재인 정권을 한-미 동맹으로부터 떼어내 서울을 평양의 전략 범위 안으로 묶어 들이고, 그 ‘우리민족끼리’를 근거로 미국이 한반도에서 손을 떼도록 유도하거나 강제하려는 것이다. “남조선이 우리와 손잡겠다는데 미국이 왜 남의 나라, 남의 민족 내부결정에 반대하느냐”는 (기만적) 대의명분을 만들려는 것이다.


  이 명분을 밀고나감으로써 평양집단은 한반도를 ‘평화적으로’ 제2의 베트남으로 만들겠다는 수작이다.


평양에서 남-북 정상회담을 해 남-북이 얼싸 안는 퍼포먼스를 하면서 전 세계를 향해 “여러분들 이것 보세요, 우리민족끼리는 이렇게 평화적으로 행복하게 살려고 하는데 미국이 이 땅에서 기어이 전쟁을 일으키려고 합니다. 이게 말이 됩니까? 이걸 막아주세요”라고 소리치려는 것이다.


대한민국 자유인들은 생(生)과 사(死) 둘 중 하나를 택해야 하고, 트럼프 행정부는 아시아 대륙 위에 남느냐, 아니면 태평양 바다로 내려앉느냐 중 하나를 택해야 한다. (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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


나는 이미 여러차례 곧 미북대화가 열리고, 북폭은 없다고 했었다. 미북대화가 열린다면, 북한이 굴복한 게 아니라, 미국이 굴복한 거다.


        왜냐고?


        미국은 지난 65년 동안, 북한과의 평화협정 대화를 거부해 왔다. 북한이 적화통일 전략을 계속 추진하면서, 평화를 얘기하는 건, 미군을 철수시키고, 남한의 사회주의자들과 손잡고 적화통일 하려는 위장 평화 공세니까.




       그런데, 이제 드디어 미국이 북한과 대화를 하겠다고 했다. 미북대화는 보나마나 비핵화 과정과 미군철수ㅡ한미동맹 파기의 과정과 속도를 조절하는 데 집중될 거다.


 
      이미, 트럼프는 행동으로 한국을 버렸음을 암시해 왔다. 최근의 무역 조치는 명백한 군사ㆍ정치적 메시지야. 한국, 너희들 마음대로 해라. 미군 빼고, 한미FTA와 한미동맹 파기하겠다는 전략적 의도.




       왜 이 길이 외통수인지 다시 정리해 줄게.




1.   북핵을 군사적으로 제거하는 건 불가능.

즉, 핵을 제거하기 위해서는, 반드시 지상군을 북한에 투입해야 하는데, 처음 지상전 며칠 만에 수 십 만에서 수 백 만명이 사망하고, 생화학전이 벌어질 것이라는 내용으로, 美 국방성은 美 국회의원들에게 문서로 답장했다.

      즉, 현실적으로 불가능하다. 이라크전은 예상 사망자 수가 최대 3,000 명, 그것도 대부분 전쟁 외적 부수적 사고사로 예상돼, 전쟁을 감행할 수 있었지만(종전후 집계해 보니, 몇 백명만 사망. 대부분 아군 오인 사격), 한반도는 개전 며칠 만에 수 백만명이 사망할 것으로 분석됐다.




2.  가공할 피해 외에도, 중국, 러시아, 한국이 모두 지상군 투입을 극력 반대하기 때문에, 미국은 전쟁을 할 수가 없다.




3.  전쟁은 이처럼 절대적으로 불가능하므로, "미군철수ㅡ한미동맹 파기ㅡ평화협정ㅡ북핵폐기" 방법 밖에 없는 것.




      이게 그렇게 이해가 안 되나? 전쟁은 불가능하고, 미군 철수 각에다가, 중국은 영구 독재 체제로 변환 시도중, 러시아도 독재체제, 북한의 독재체제...그리고...북핵.... 그리고 버림받은 한국.

[출처] 예측대로 북미대화 열리고, 북폭은 절대 없다./ 일베

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

생각하는갈대1

문재앙은 공산당이며 적과 내부거래를 했다고 탄핵전부터 말해 주어도 귀막고 잇던 개돼지 국민들..
이제 뜨거운 난로에 손을 대보니 알겠냐
비박 친박ㅇ으로 갈라져서 싸우느라 ..대통령 탄핵시키고 ..이젠 모자라 탄핵 비탄핵으로 갈라져서 또 싸우고 자빠졌으니
진달래 암호명으로 김영철이 들어온 것임을 모르냐
우파 대통령 모두 감옥에 쳐 들어가는 것도 애국이라 잘한다고 개소리나 하고
탄핵 비탄핵으로 갈라져서 욕하고 비난하며 ..
니잘못 내잘못 따지고 있는 우파 병신들 ..그것도 애국이라 하니 웃기고 자빠졌음을 알기 바란다
세상은 변하는 것이라 것 조차 모르는 우물한 개구리 애국이 바로 문재앙에게 도움을 주는 것임을 흘려듣지 말고
우파가 잘하는 일에 칭찬을 하고 잘못하면 바른 길로 가도록 ..
내가 못하는 것이 있으면 저쪽에서 잘하도록 선도하는것이 훌륭한 애국임을 똑바로 알기 바란다~!!

출처: 일베 댓글

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

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

비선형적 결과에서 도출되는 취약성(fragility). 바위로 때리는 것과 그것을 작은 조약돌로 쪼개 때리는 것의 차이.

  

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

앤티프래질이란 충격으로부터(일정한 한계에 이르기까지) 오히려 혜택을 보는 것이다.


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

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

庖丁解牛

朝代：先秦

作者：莊周

原文：

吾生也有涯，而知也無涯 。以有涯隨無涯，殆已！已而爲知者，殆而已矣！爲善無近名，爲惡無近刑。緣督以爲經，可以保身，可以全生，可以養親，可以盡年。
庖丁爲文惠君解牛，手之所觸，肩之所倚，足之所履，膝之所踦，砉然向然，奏刀騞然，莫不中音。合於《桑林》之舞，乃中《經首》之會。
文惠君曰：“嘻，善哉！技蓋至此乎？”
庖丁釋刀對曰：“臣之所好者，道也，進乎技矣。始臣之解牛之時，所見無非牛者。三年之後，未嘗見全牛也。方今之時，臣以神遇而不以目視，官知止而神欲行。依乎天理，批大郤，導大窾，因其固然，技經肯綮之未嘗，而況大軱乎！良庖歲更刀，割也；族庖月更刀，折也。今臣之刀十九年矣，所解數千牛矣，而刀刃若新發於硎。彼節者有間，而刀刃者無厚；以無厚入有間，恢恢乎其於遊刃必有餘地矣，是以十九年而刀刃若新發於硎。雖然，每至於族，吾見其難爲，怵然爲戒，視爲止，行爲遲。動刀甚微，謋然已解，如土委地。提刀而立，爲之四顧，爲之躊躇滿志，善刀而藏之。”
文惠君曰：“善哉！吾聞庖丁之言，得養生焉。”

譯文我的生命是有限的，而知識是無限的。以有限的生命去追求無限的知識，真是危險啊！已經有了危險，還要執著地去追求知識，那麼除了危險以外就什麼都已經沒有了。做好事不要求名，做壞事不要受刑罰，以遵循虛無的自然之道爲宗旨，便可以保護生命，可以保全天性，可以養護新生之機，可以享盡天年。
庖丁給梁惠王宰牛。手接觸的地方，肩膀倚靠的地方，腳踩的地方，膝蓋頂的地方，嘩嘩作響，進刀時豁豁地，沒有不合音律的：合乎（湯時）《桑林》舞樂的節拍，又合乎（堯時）《經首》樂曲的節奏。
梁惠王說：“嘻，好啊！（你解牛的）技術怎麼竟會...

위의 글른 우리에게도 잘 알려진 장자의 소잡는 이야기다. 백정이 소를 잡는데, 그가 도에 따라 소를 잡기 때문에, 칼을 대기만 하면 살이 잘려나가고, 그래서 칼을 갈 필요도 없다는 얘기이다.

이는 양생의 한 방법을 이야기한 것이만, 장자가 말하는 도란 또한 하이에크 등이 말한 암묵지(tacit knowledge)이기도 하다. 당시 소 잡는 일을 하찮게 여겨졌지만, 또 그것을 지식이라고 여기지도 않았지만, 장자는 그 지식은 암묵지이며, 스승으로부터 배우고 스스로 오랜 기간 연마해야 도달하는 지식이라는 것을 알고 있었다. 그래서 공자(孔子)류의 서적에 의한 지식 대신에, 이렇게 스스로 연마하고 터득한 지식이, 행동으로 배운  지식이, 비로소 삶에 자양분이 된다고 역설하고 있는 것이다. 즉 유가들이 아폴론적인 지식을 추구한 반면에, 노자와 그의 추종자들은 그보다 디오니소스적인 암묵지에 더 중점을 둔 것이다.  노자와 장자 등은 유가적인 아카데믹한 지식을 반박하고, 더 중요한 지식은 우리가 명확히 언어로 표현할 수 없는 도(道)에 있다는 것을 주장한 사람들이다.

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

차명진

평창올림픽의 금메달감은 김여정이라고?뉴욬타임즈 기사라는데 뭘 몰라도 한참 모르는 소리다.
이번 올림픽에서 북은 완전히 '예선 탈락'이다.


첫째, 남한 남자들을 일거에 뿅 가게 만드리라고 기대했던 선전전의 최선봉,
미녀 응원단과 심지연 악단이 졸지에 원시부족의 집단 군무, 시골 유랑극단 수준임이 만천하에 폭로됐다.
다 큰 성인이 똑같은 옷, 똑같은 동작으로 보위부의 호위(?)를 받으며 화장실까지 줄서서 다니고
짝짝이를 치며 단순동작을 되풀이 하는 모습을 보고 세계인들은 무얼 느꼈을까?
"아! 자유가 정말 소중한거구나! 그걸 못살리면 개인도 사회도 저렇게 퇴화하는구나!"
국민들은 지금 미녀응원단이 돌아갔는지, 아직 강원도 호텔에서 우리 세금 축내고 있는지, 관심도 없다.



둘째, 그들은 김여정과 김영철을 연타로 내려 보내면서
평화가 김정은의 손가락 버튼에 장악되어 있음을 세계에 과시하려 했나 보다.
미국과 한국이 그들과의 대화에 목을 메고 끌려 올 것이라고 기대했나 보다.
미안하지만 미국이 코웃음도 안쳤다. "항복 안하면 대화 꿈도 꾸지마라!" 한다.
평범한 국민들도 눈치를 챘다.
만찬장에서 펜시의 출현을 초조하게 기다리는 김영남을 보고,
개막식에서 뒷자리에 앉아 굳은 얼굴로 펜스 부통령 뒷통수를 곁눈질하는 김여정을 보고 국민들은 이렇게 생각했다.
"쟤들이 급하긴 급했나 보다. 그동안 지들 울안에 숨어서 큰소리 쳐대더니."

안타깝게도 수십 년 전으로 박제되어 있는 북의 실상을 무비판적으로 추종하는 자들이
대한민국 정부와 지식 사회의 심장부에 또아리를 트고서 잘 먹고 잘 살고, 잘 떠들고 있다.
북측 대남 선전과 공작 일꾼들은 그들이 살고 있는 체제 자체가 정지해 있어서 어쩔 수 없다고 치자.
개명천지 자유대한민국에 살면서 일반인보다 훨씬 많은 정보를 취득하는 소위 전문가라는 자들이 도대체 왜 그럴까?
개인적 연고가 있지 않고서야 그럴 수가 없다.

그나저나 김여정을 평창올림픽 금메달깜이라고 띄우는 뉴욬타임즈도 옛날의 그 뉴욬타임즈는 아닌 거 같다.
--->첫번째는 나도 100% 동의한다. 하지만 두번째는 아직 진행되고 있으므로 지켜보아야 한다.

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

All of Me


https://youtu.be/y9JAjvKZ9jk


이별의 슬픔을 표현한 노래. 전에도 한번 올렸다. 이번 비디오는 가수 겸 피아니스트인 Colleen Kobussen이라는 여성이 피아노를 치며 노래하는 비디오다.


사탕요정의 춤, 위에 소개한 가수의 연주
Tchaikovsky "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy"


https://youtu.be/K1HfKlOdd9I?list=RDy9JAjvKZ9jk


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

탈레브, 앤티프래질
------------------------------------------------------------------------
427 Year Old Style Spring Mouse Trap In Action. 4 Mice in 1 Night.


https://youtu.be/wvWD-E-gbkk


427년 전에 고안된 쥐덫. 일베에서 가져옴.


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

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

Angela Merkel is about to pay for the ‘Mutti’ of all blunders

Niall Ferguson

사학자 닐 퍼거슨/ 독일의 메르켈 총리가 잘못된 이민 정책으로 독일에 안겨준 재앙!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

지구 온난화의 부작용(?)으로 지구가 점점 푸르게 변하고 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


한국당의 문제 (정규재영상칼럼; 2월26일)


https://youtu.be/W8wu-NQoGW0


비박계가 박 대통령을 쓰러뜨리기 위해 탄핵에 찬성했고, 이로써 좌파의 숙주 노릇을 했다는 말이 나온다. 나도 이미 탄핵 당시에 김무성은 역사에 죄인으로 남을 거라고 말했다.


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

케인즈와 세이의 법칙

 

아담 스미스와 세이의 업적은 불경기가 돈의 부족이나 전반적인 과잉 생산에 의한다는 신념을 타파한 것이었다.

19세기에 세이의 법칙은 경제학자의 자질을 시험하는 하나의 중요 문제로, 이를 모르는 사람들은 엉터리 경제학자였다.

모든 문명국들이 금본위 제도를 채용한 동안에, 인플레의 원인은 영원히 사라진 듯 했다.

경제학자들은 여신 팽창으로 경기를 부양시켜려 했던 시도들이, 결국은 경기의 변동을 가져온다는 사실을 밝혀냈다.

화폐의 부족으로 불경기가 일어났다는 인플레주의자들의 생각과는 달리, 불경기는 여신(與信)의 팽창으로 일어났다.

케인즈가 제기한 새로운 경제 이론은 사실 영국을 비롯한 많은 국가에서 시행되던 정책이었다.

케인즈는 화폐 증발(增發)이 특정 집단에 혜택을 주고, 자본의 악성투자와 자본의 낭비을 초래한다는 명제에 어떤 반격도 하지 못했다.

케인즈의 인플레 이론은 이전 세대가 축적한 자본을 낭비하는 것 외에는 별 생각이 없는 사이비 철학의 소산이다.

 

 

Lord Keynes and Say's Law

 

•Ludwig von Mises

 

 

Lord Keynes's main contribution did not lie in the development of new ideas but "in escaping from the old ones," as he himself declared at the end of the Preface to his "General Theory." The Keynesians tell us that his immortal achievement consists in the entire refutation of what has come to be known as Say's Law of Markets. The rejection of this law, they declare, is the gist of all Keynes's teachings; all other propositions of his doctrine follow with logical necessity from this fundamental insight and must collapse if the futility of his attack on Say's Law can be demonstrated.

 

Now it is important to realize that what is called Say's Law was in the first instance designed as a refutation of doctrines popularly held in the ages preceding the development of economics as a branch of human knowledge. It was not an integral part of the new science of economics as taught by the Classical economists. It was rather a preliminary—the exposure and removal of garbled and untenable ideas which dimmed people's minds and were a serious obstacle to a reasonable analysis of conditions.

 

Whenever business turned bad, the average merchant had two explanations at hand: the evil was caused by a scarcity of money and by general overproduction. Adam Smith, in a famous passage in "The Wealth of Nations," exploded the first of these myths. Say devoted himself predominantly to a thorough refutation of the second.

 

As long as a definite thing is still an economic good and not a "free good," its supply is not, of course, absolutely abundant. There are still unsatisfied needs which a larger supply of the good concerned could satisfy. There are still people who would be glad to get more of this good than they are really getting. With regard to economic goods there can never be absolute overproduction. (And economics deals only with economic goods, not with free goods such as air which are no object of purposive human action, are therefore not produced, and with regard to which the employment of terms like underproduction and overproduction is simply nonsensical.)

 

With regard to economic goods there can be only relative overproduction. While the consumers are asking for definite quantities of shirts and of shoes, business has produced, say, a larger quantity of shoes and a smaller quantity of shirts. This is not general overproduction of all commodities. To the overproduction of shoes corresponds an underproduction of shirts. Consequently the result can not be a general depression of all branches of business. The outcome is a change in the exchange ratio between shoes and shirts. If, for instance, previously one pair of shoes could buy four shirts, it now buys only three shirts. While business is bad for the shoemakers, it is good for the shirtmakers. The attempts to explain the general depression of trade by referring to an allegedly general overproduction are therefore fallacious.

 

Commodities, says Say, are ultimately paid for not by money, but by other commodities. Money is merely the commonly used medium of exchange; it plays only an intermediary role. What the seller wants ultimately to receive in exchange for the commodities sold is other commodities.

 

Every commodity produced is therefore a price, as it were, for other commodities produced. The situation of the producer of any commodity is improved by any increase in the production of other commodities. What may hurt the interests of the producer of a definite commodity is his failure to anticipate correctly the state of the market. He has overrated the public's demand for his commodity and underrated its demand for other commodities. Consumers have no use for such a bungling entrepreneur; they buy his products only at prices which make him incur losses, and they force him, if he does not in time correct his mistakes, to go out of business. On the other hand, those entrepreneurs who have better succeeded in anticipating the public demand earn profits and are in a position to expand their business activities. This, says Say, is the truth behind the confused assertions of businessmen that the main difficulty is not in producing but in selling. It would be more appropriate to declare that the first and main problem of business is to produce in the best and cheapest way those commodities which will satisfy the most urgent of the not yet satisfied needs of the public.

 

Thus Smith and Say demolished the oldest and most naive explanation of the trade cycle as provided by the popular effusions of inefficient traders. True, their achievement was merely negative. They exploded the belief that the recurrence of periods of bad business was caused by a scarcity of money and by a general overproduction. But they did not give us an elaborated theory of the trade cycle. The first explanation of this phenomenon was provided much later by the British Currency School.

 

The important contributions of Smith and Say were not entirely new and original. The history of economic thought can trace back some essential points of their reasoning to older authors. This in no way detracts from the merits of Smith and Say. They were the first to deal with the issue in a systematic way and to apply their conclusions to the problem of economic depressions. They were therefore also the first against whom the supporters of the spurious popular doctrine directed their violent attacks. Sismondi and Malthus chose Say as the target of passionate volleys when they tried—in vain—to salvage the discredited popular prejudices.

 

II

 

Say emerged victoriously from his polemics with Malthus and Sismondi. He proved his case, while his adversaries could not prove theirs. Henceforth, during the whole rest of the nineteenth century, the acknowledgment of the truth contained in Say's Law was the distinctive mark of an economist. Those authors and politicians who made the alleged scarcity of money responsible for all ills and advocated inflation as the panacea were no longer considered economists but "monetary cranks."

 

The struggle between the champions of sound money and the inflationists went on for many decades. But it was no longer considered a controversy between various schools of economists. It was viewed as a conflict between economists and anti-economists, between reasonable men and ignorant zealots. When all civilized countries had adopted the gold standard or the gold-exchange standard, the cause of inflation seemed to be lost forever.

 

Economics did not content itself with what Smith and Say had taught about the problems involved. It developed an integrated system of theorems which cogently demonstrated the absurdity of the inflationist sophisms. It depicted in detail the inevitable consequences of an increase in the quantity of money in circulation and of credit expansion. It elaborated the monetary or circulation credit theory of the business cycle which clearly showed how the recurrence of depressions of trade is caused by the repeated attempts to "stimulate" business through credit expansion. Thus it conclusively proved that the slump, whose appearance the inflationists attributed to an insufficiency of the supply of money, is on the contrary the necessary outcome of attempts to remove such an alleged scarcity of money through credit expansion.

 

The economists did not contest the fact that a credit expansion in its initial stage makes business boom. But they pointed out how such a contrived boom must inevitably collapse after a while and produce a general depression. This demonstration could appeal to statesmen intent on promoting the enduring well-being of their nation. It could not influence demagogues who care for nothing but success in the impending election campaign and are not in the least troubled about what will happen the day after tomorrow. But it is precisely such people who have become supreme in the political life of this age of wars and revolutions. In defiance of all the teachings of the economists, inflation and credit expansion have been elevated to the dignity of the first principle of economic policy. Nearly all governments are now committed to reckless spending, and finance their deficits by issuing additional quantities of unredeemable paper money and by boundless credit expansion.

 

The great economists were harbingers of new ideas. The economic policies they recommended were at variance with the policies practiced by contemporary governments and political parties. As a rule many years, even decades, passed before public opinion accepted the new ideas as propagated by the economists, and before the required corresponding changes in policies were effected.

 

It was different with the "new economics" of Lord Keynes. The policies he advocated were precisely those which almost all governments, including the British, had already adopted many years before his "General Theory" was published. Keynes was not an innovator and champion of new methods of managing economic affairs. His contribution consisted rather in providing an apparent justification for the policies which were popular with those in power in spite of the fact that all economists viewed them as disastrous. His achievement was a rationalization of the policies already practiced. He was not a "revolutionary," as some of his adepts called him. The "Keynesian revolution" took place long before Keynes approved of it and fabricated a pseudo-scientific justification for it. What he really did was to write an apology for the prevailing policies of governments.

 

This explains the quick success of his book. It was greeted enthusiastically by the governments and the ruling political parties. Especially enraptured were a new type of intellectual, the "government economists." They had had a bad conscience. They were aware of the fact that they were carrying out policies which all economists condemned as contrary to purpose and disastrous. Now they felt relieved. The "new economics" reestablished their moral equilibrium. Today they are no longer ashamed of being the handymen of bad policies. They glorify themselves. They are the prophets of the new creed.

 

III

 

The exuberant epithets which these admirers have bestowed upon his work cannot obscure the fact that Keynes did not refute Say's Law. He rejected it emotionally, but he did not advance a single tenable argument to invalidate its rationale.

 

Neither did Keynes try to refute by discursive reasoning the teachings of modern economics. He chose to ignore them, that was all. He never found any word of serious criticism against the theorem that increasing the quantity of money cannot effect anything else than, on the one hand, to favor some groups at the expense of other groups, and, on the other hand, to foster capital malinvestment and capital decumulation. He was at a complete loss when it came to advancing any sound argument to demolish the monetary theory of the trade cycle. All he did was to revive the self-contradictory dogmas of the various sects of inflationism. He did not add anything to the empty presumptions of his predecessors, from the old Birmingham School of Little Shilling Men down to Silvio Gesell. He merely translated their sophisms—a hundred times refuted—into the questionable language of mathematical economics. He passed over in silence all the objections which such men as Jevons, Walras and Wicksell— to name only a few—opposed to the effusions of the inflationists.

 

It is the same with his disciples. They think that calling "those who fail to be moved to admiration of Keynes's genius" such names as "dullard" or "narrow-minded fanatic" is a substitute for sound economic reasoning. They believe that they have proved their case by dismissing their adversaries as "orthodox" or "neo-classical." They reveal the utmost ignorance in thinking that their doctrine is correct because it is new.

 

In fact, inflationism is the oldest of all fallacies. It was very popular long before the days of Smith, Say and Ricardo, against whose teachings the Keynesians cannot advance any other objection than that they are old.

 

IV

 

The unprecedented success of Keynesianism is due to the fact that it provides an apparent justification for the "deficit spending" policies of contemporary governments. It is the pseudo-philosophy of those who can think of nothing else than to dissipate the capital accumulated by previous generations.

 

Yet no effusions of authors however brilliant and sophisticated can alter the perennial economic laws. They are and work and take care of themselves. Notwithstanding all the passionate fulminations of the spokesmen of governments, the inevitable consequences of inflationism and expansionism as depicted by the "orthodox" economists are coming to pass. And then, very late indeed, even simple people will discover that Keynes did not teach us how to perform the "miracle ... of turning a stone into bread," but the not at all miraculous procedure of eating the seed corn.

 

This article originally was published in "The Freeman," October 30, 1950, and is reprinted in Planning for Freedom

 

 

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

 

 

바스티아는 인간은 생명, 자유, 사유재산의 천부인권을 갖고 태어나며, 폭력의 정당한 사용은 이들 천부인권을 방어하는 집단적인 조직뿐이라고 주장했다.

 

We Need Bastiat's The Law More than Ever

 

•Frank Hollenbeck

 

 

High school students in the United States are usually required to take a course in government where they learn about the structure of government but rarely discover the appropriate role of government or the justifiable limits for the use of force in our society. If they did, one of their required readings would be Frédéric Bastiat’s essay, The Law, a seminal mid-nineteenth century work that describes eternal truths about life and how we pursue justice. These truths are just as valid today as they were then.

 

Bastiat states that individuals are born with natural rights of life, liberty, and property. From this notion, the only proper function of the use of force or the law is the collective organization of the natural right to self-defense of these rights:

 

 

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force — which is only the organized combination of the individual forces — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose

 

He then defines any illegitimate use of force or of the law as legal plunder. This is an all-encompassing term which includes any unjustified violation of the life, liberty or property of others. Many examples abound today with regulations on labor (e.g. minimum wage laws), products (e.g. subsidies and tariffs), health care, education, or even the use of marijuana or any other drugs.

 

Legal plunder has two primary motivations:

1.The first is stupid greed. For example, you would never think of robbing your neighbor, but are complacent if the government uses legal plunder to rob him on your behalf.

2.The second is misplaced philanthropy. Many socialists fall into this category. For example, they constantly talk about fraternity, but not fraternity that is voluntary. They support a type of fraternity that is forced on everyone.

 

Because legal plunder is so pervasive in society today, we often fail to distinguish the difference between justice and injustice. Just because something is legal, we assume it must be just, which is simply not true.

 

In the United States, for example, the Democrats will shortly spend billions of U.S. dollars to try to take control of Congress in the 2018 Midterm elections and will spend billions more on the next presidential election in 2020. The Republicans will do the same. But why spend so much time and energy trying to win elections? The answer is simple: each group is trying to protect itself from legal plunder. Or, are actively participating in the plundering.

 

But, as Bastiat explains, the purpose or law ought to be to protect people from this plunder:

 

 

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.

 

When viewed properly, the law should be viewed as a negation; for those who don't violate the life, liberty, or property of others, legal and government institutions should be invisible. In this situation, it would be possible to be somewhat indifferent as to who is elected president.

 

When the law is properly defined, there is no more sense to blaming the government for one's misfortunes or crediting the government for one's successes. There would be greater harmony and less reason for political revolts since the government’s jurisprudence would be well defined and limited. We would not see, as in France today, interest groups from different sectors of the economy constantly going on strike, paralyzing the country, and often demanding concessions from the government that are difficult or impossible to meet. Bastiat continues:

 

 

if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?

 

More important than left or right is the concept of liberty. The solution to the problem of human relationships is freedom, and it thrives most when the role of government is limited, the use of force is constrained, and the law is confined to the administration of universal justice. Or more precisely, the law is best when exclusively used as a roadblock to injustice.

 

Today, a person in the U.S. will either watch CNN or Fox News, but will probably never watch both. On Facebook, if a friend disagrees with you, you just unfriend him so that you are left with a group of people who hold similar opinions. We no longer have political discourse at the dinner table because of often opposite viewpoints. Everyone tries to avoid disharmony. This polarization can only ultimately lead to a form of civil war, very different, though, from the one fought over 160 years ago. We must recognize that we have a ticking social time bomb in our midst, and we must begin a serious discussion on the appropriate role of government or the just limits to the use of force by government. A good place to start would be to study Bastiat’s eternal truths found in The Law.

 

 

Frank Hollenbeck teaches finance and economics at the International University of Geneva.