문무대왕(회원)
역대 정권의 검찰 가운데 문무일 체제의 현 검찰만큼 권력지향적이고 지저분한 검찰이 또 있었던가? 우리 사회를 섹스공화국으로 타락시킨 문화예술계 물총쟁이들의 '헐레'에 대해서는 침묵하고 천암함 폭침의 원흉 김영철이 대한민국 대통령을 만나는 것에 대해 문무일 총장은 아무 생각도 없는가? 그러면서 죽은 권력에 대해서만 용감무쌍한 검찰의 X수작이 정말 가소롭기 짝이 없어 보인다.(발췌)
------------------------------------------
유권자들이 깨어있다고 착각하게 만들어주는
정치인들 '만' 이 선택받는다
민주주의는 현실적으로 열등하니
관념적으로라도 우월하고자 하는 군증/대중/민중들의 욕구를
선거철마다 주기적으로 충족시켜주므로써
사회질서를 안정화(정치의 최대실익) 시키며 이는,
검투사들의 생사를 결정지음으로써
황제가 된마냥 착각에 빠지게 했던
로마 콜로세움의 정치 엔지니어링과
소름끼칠만큼 동일하다
남자들이 접근가능한 여자들에게 '만'
사랑을 고백하듯
사람들도 접근가능한 정치이념에 '만'
표를 던진다
[출처] 깨어있는 시민이란 무엇인가/ 일베
----> 꽤 의미 있는 글이다. 현재의 민주제는 사실 귀족제에 가까운 제도다. 소수의 선택 받은 자들만이 그들만의 리그에 들어가고, 나머지 민중은 그들의 노예가 되는 제도이다. 그래서 나는 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>에서 일정한 국민들(예를 들면 30 - 60세 사이 범죄경력 없는 시민)을 대상으로 로또 민주제(추첨을 통해 무작위로 국회의원을 뽑고, 그 해의 안건을 이들에 의해 표결하게 하는 제도)를 주장했다. 물론 이는 나만의 독단적인 주장이 아니라, 이미 일부 학자와 정치가들이 주장하고 있는 것이다.
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
[출처: 중앙일보] 트럼프 北선박 글로벌 경보 체제, 동맹국과 초강력 해상차단
탈레브, 앤티프래질
내가 이해할 수 없는 것들이, 반드시 비합리적인 것은 아니다.---니체
니체는 지식은 선(善)이라는 개념에 의문을 제기했다.
고대 그리스의 문화는 아폴론적인 것과 디오니소스적인 것의 조화를 꾀했다. 하지만 소크라테스가 아폴론에 중점을 두면서, 합리주의가 득세하기 시작했다. 디오니소스가 없는 아폴론은 음(陰)이 빠진 양(陽)과 같은 것이다.
---->하이에크는 합리주의자들이 이성으로 이해하지 못하는 것들을 폐기하고, 이성만으로 세계를 다시 건설하려는 시도가 바로 공산주의라고 보았다. 그의 책 <과학의 반혁명>을 참고할 것. 본인의 책 <서구의학은 파산했다> 부록에 하이에크의 <과학의 반혁명>의 후반부를 개괄해서 번역해 놓았다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
어학의 수재였던 르낭은 아베로스를 공박하는 글에서, 논리는 뉘앙스를 배격하는데, 진리는 뉘앙스에 숨어 있으므로,논리학은 도덕과 정치학에서 진리를 탐구하는 적절한 도구가 되지 못한다고 주장했다.
노자 “道，可道，非常道；名，可名，非常名。”
노자 역시 명확하게 말로 정의되는 도는 상도(常道)가 아니라고 말했다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
大카토에 따르면, 소크라테스는 나라의 관습을 파괴하고 시민들에게 법과 질서에 반하는 견해를 주입시켜, 나라의 폭군이 되려 한, 말 잘하는 재주꾼이었다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
과학과 이성이 아니라, 전통과 위기 관리, 스킨 인 더 게임이 우리가 지닌 최고의 자산이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
경제학자들의 완전 경쟁 모델에 따라 만들어진
반트러스트 법안
경제학자들이 말하는 완전한 경쟁이론은 하이에크에 따르면 모든 경쟁 행위의 실종을 의미했다. 그 이론으로 인해 반트러스트 규제가 도입되었다.
결국 반트러스트 법은 미국 산업의 생산력을 떨어뜨리고, 세계 시장에서 미국의 경쟁력을 저하시켰다.
Economists and the Emergence of Antitrust
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Although most economists today favor stricter antitrust regulation, from the 1880s until the 1920s the economics profession expressed nearly unanimous opposition to antitrust. When Sanford Gordon surveyed professional journals in the social sciences and articles and books written by economists before 1890, he found, "A big majority of the economists conceded that the combination movement was to be expected, that high fixed costs made large-scale enterprises economical, that competition under these new circumstances frequently resulted in cut-throat competition, that agreements among producers was a natural consequence, and the stability of prices usually brought more benefit than harm to the society. They seemed to reject the idea that competition was declining, or showed no fear of decline." 1
George Stigler has also noted economists' initial disapproval of antitrust: "For much too long a time students of the history of antitrust policy have been at least mildly perplexed by the coolness with which American economists greeted the Sherman Act. Was not the nineteenth century the period in which the benevolent effects of competition were most widely extolled? Should not a profession praise a Congress which seeks to legislate its textbook assumptions into practice?2" Stigler offered three possible explanations. First, economists did not appreciate the importance of tacit collusion. Second, they had too much confidence in other forms of regulation as a means of dealing with monopoly. Third, they underestimated the income they would receive as antitrust consultants.
These explanations are plausible, but there may be an even more important reason for the transformation of economists' attitudes toward antitrust. In the late nineteenth century most economists viewed competition as a dynamic, rivalrous process, similar to the theory of competition embodied in the work of Adam Smith and today's Austrian economists. Consequently, they tended to regard mergers as a natural consequence of the competitive struggle and not something that should be interfered with by antitrust legislation. Although some industries were becoming more concentrated in the late nineteenth century, rivalry was still as strong as ever, as the rapid expansion of output and the decline in prices attest. Thus, the economists of the time saw no reason to interfere in market processes with antitrust regulation.
Beginning in the 1920s, mathematical economists developed the so-called perfect competition model, and it replaced the older theory. To economists competition no longer meant rivalry and enterprise. Instead, it meant the equation of price and marginal cost. Most important, it meant that there must be "many" firms in "unconcentrated" industries. Once economists began to define competition in terms of market structure, they became more and more enamored with antitrust regulation as a way of forcing the business world to conform to their admittedly unrealistic theory of competition.
Economist Paul McNulty has noted: "The two concepts [of competition] are not only different; they are fundamentally incompatible. Competition came to mean, with the mathematical economists, a hypothetically realized situation in which business rivalry ... was ruled out by definition.". F. A. Hayek has made an even stronger statement: "What the theory of perfect competition discusses has little claim to be called competition at all and ... its conclusions are of little use as guides to policy." Moreover, wrote Hayek, "If the state of affairs assumed by the theory of perfect competition ever existed, it would not only deprive of their scope all the activities which the verb 'to compete' describes but would make them virtually impossible." Advertising, product differentiation, and price undercutting, for example, are all excluded by definition from a state of "perfect" competition which, according to Hayek, "means indeed the absence of all competitive activities."
Those economists who use market structure to measure competition are likely to have a favorable attitude toward antitrust regulation. Stigler asserted more than 30 years ago, "One of the assumptions of perfect competition is the existence of a Sherman Act." To the nineteenth-century economists, however, an antitrust law was incompatible with rivalry and free enterprise. The perfect competition model and its corollary, the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of industrial organization theory, have seriously misled the economics profession, at least as far as antitrust policy is concerned.
The two principal reasons for the "antitrust economists' paradox," then, are the lack of historical knowledge–particularly about actual economic events in the late nineteenth century–and the failure to appreciate that competition is best viewed as a dynamic discovery procedure, as Hayek contends. Economists who believe that there was once a "golden age of antitrust" have never produced any evidence of such an age. As this paper has shown, the Sherman Act was a tool used to regulate some of the most competitive industries in America, which were rapidly expanding their output and reducing their prices, much to the dismay of their less efficient (but politically influential) competitors. The Sherman Act, moreover, was used as a political fig leaf to shield the real cause of monopoly in the late 1880s- protectionism. The chief sponsor of the 1890 tariff bill, passed just three months after the Sherman Act, was none other than Sen. Sherman himself.
In the late nineteenth century most economists viewed competition as a dynamic, rivalrous process, much like the contemporary Austrian theory. Accordingly, they nearly unanimously opposed antitrust on the grounds that such a law would be inherently incompatible with rivalry, Once the economics profession embraced the "perfect" competition theory which, as Hayek has said, means "the absence of all competitive activities," it also embraced antitrust regulation. For once competition came to mean "many" firms and the equation of price to marginal costs, rather than dynamic rivalry, most economists became convinced that antitrust laws were needed to force markets in the direction of their idealized model of "perfect" competition. Consequently, antitrust has for over a century been a tremendous drag on competition, rendering American industry less productive and less competitive in world markets. Robert Bork might not have been exaggerating when, writing in his book, The Antitrust Paradox, he remarked that if government were to somehow force the economy into "competitive equilibrium," it would have approximately the same effect on personal wealth as several strategically placed nuclear explosions.
Excerpted from The Truth About Sherman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
어제에 이어 오늘도 미국의 위협이 계속되고 있다. 제재가 듣지 않으면 제2단계로 넘어가고, 그것은 매우 불행한 일이 될 거라고 경고하고 있다. 김정은에게 들으라고 하는 말이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
황제내경 속의 북두칠성 지식과 그 의의
---------------------------------------------------------------------
황제내경 속의 북두칠성 역법(曆法)의 지식
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기