이동복
Every effect should have a cause. It appears beyond doubt that Trump has made a fatal mistake of choosing a wrong time to wage a trade war against China, allowing Xi Jinping to pick up one of a few deadly cards of his own out of his pocket, a North Korea card, in dealing with the perennial nuclear issue, asking the U.S. and the international community to take it for granted if North Korea continues to maintain, or keeps on beefing up, its notorious nuclear and ICBM arsenal as a quid pro quo for "progressive and synchronous measures for the realization of peace."
트럼프는 잘못된 시기에 중국과의 무역 전쟁을 개시했고, 시진핑은 치명적인 북한 카드를 꺼내서, 미국과 국제 사회에 북한의 핵무기를 한반도의 평화적 조치와 교환할 것을 요구하고 있다. (발췌)
--------------------------------
헌법 개정이 아니고 헌법부정이고 개악(改惡)이다!
arock(조갑제닷컴 회원)
헌법에 대한 문재인 대통령의 기본인식도 잘못 되었다. 그는 “헌법은 국민의 삶을 담는 그릇(2018.3.13일 발언)이며 5·18과 6·10 항쟁을 거쳐 만든 지 30년이 지났고, 세월호 사건, 촛불혁명 등으로 국민의 삶이 많이 바뀌었는데 헌법이 제대로 반영 못해 개정이 필요하다”고 했다. 헌법은 국민의 삶을 담는 그릇이 아니고 국가의 체제를 규정하는 준엄한 틀이다. 삶을 담는 그릇이라면 그릇은 수시로 양식을 먹느냐 한식을 먹느냐, 중식을 먹느냐에 따라 바꾸어야 하는데 헌법은 30년이 아니라 100년, 200년이 지나도 안 바뀌는 게 이상적이다. (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------
최악(最惡)의 수를 둔 시진핑
도락산(조갑제닷컴 회원)
시진핑의 이런 도발적 언행에 대해 미국은 과연 가만히 있을까? 미국은 중국이 갖고 있지 못한 ‘조커 카드’를 갖고 있다. 만일 朝·中이 합작을 하는 경우 이 조커 카드를 사용할 수 있다. 그 카드는 일본으로 하여금 핵 무장을 시키는 것이다. (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------
지금은, 새로운 東北亞 대치구도를 위한 과도기
펀드빌더(회원)
한반도 주변은 지금 과도기에 해당할지 모른다. '사회주의 연합(中國+北韓+韓國) vs. 자유민주 연합(美日)'이라는 대치구도로 넘어가기 위한 과도기를 말한다. 만약, 美國과 日本이 正義(使 命)를 포기하고, 그만 현실과 타협(北韓과 평화조약類 등)하면, 이러한 '사회주의 연합(中國+北韓+韓國) vs. 자유민주 연합(美 日)' 대치구도는 필연이 된다. (발췌)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
1. 전략 자산 운집(이미)
2. 태평양 사령부 전쟁 지휘부 발표(이미)
3. 해상 봉쇄 (특히 남조선 인천항 여수항)
4. 중국 경제 보복 (지적재산권 이어 중국 공산당 불법 및 부패 자금 미국 은닉한 것 동결 - 블룸버그)
5. 문재인 특사단 허위 보고에 대한 분노의 트윗 (비핵화??? 개소리)
6. 시한부 선전포고 (사담 후세인 경우 48 시간, 김정은 경우 2주 정도)
7. 문재인에 대한 경고 (한미 동맹 훼손은 여적죄에 해당, 정권 교체 암시)
자 지켜 봅시다
John Bolton 일본 거쳐 베이징 갔다가 서울 오면 그건 최후 통첩
[출처] Trump 곧 강경 대응책, 文 전화 안받을 것
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[지만원] 김정은 과 시진핑 왜 만났나? (2018.3.28)
설명=두 사람이 만났다는 것 자체로 미국의 감시는 강화될 것이다. 중국이 뒷구멍으로 딴 짓을 했다가는 아예 외교적 고아가 될 판이다. 그렇지 않아도 시진핑은 지적재권권을 상습적으로 훔치는 도둑놈이라는 죄목으로 WPO에 제소돼 있지 아니한가. 시간을 벌려는 꼼수의 꼬리만 들켜도 몰매를 맞는다. 시진핑이 김정은을 급히 부른 것은 꼼수를 의논하자는 것이 아니라 미국과 중국의 입장을 알아듣게 설명하면서 “너 때문에 내가 다치게 생겼다”는 중국의 처지를 설명해주기 위해서였을 것이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
경제 계획과 개입이란 시민들이 각자 내려야 할 결정을 누군가 대신 한다는 뜻이다. 경제학이란 단순히 말하면 목적을 성취하는데 최적의 방법을 선택하는 것이다. 따라서 삶의 모든 부분이 경제학이다. 예를 들어, 책이나 교실, 컴퓨터 등의 수단이 없으면 지식을 획득하기가 힘들다. 그런데 이런 상품의 생산을 정부가 계획한다면, 사람들이 지식을 얻을 수 있는 조건들을 계획한다는 뜻이다. 또는 밀턴 프리드먼이 말했듯이, 정부가 모든 인쇄기를 소유하게 되면 언론의 자유는 유지될 수가 없다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
문제는 계획 대(對) 무계획이 아니라, 누가 계획하느냐 이다. 개인들이 그들의 삶을 계획하도록 허용하는가, 아니면 정부가 그들을 대신해 계획을 하는가?
힐레어 벨록은 이렇게 말했다.
"부의 생산을 통제한다는 말은 인간의 삶을 통제하는 것이다."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
자유란 각자가 자신의 목적을 성취하는데 자신의 지식을 이용하는 상태이다. 모든 개인은 자유로워야 하고, 그들 자신의 목적을 성취할 수 있어야 한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
하이에크에 따르면 민주제는 단지 수단이고 목적이 아니다. 정부 권력을 제한하는 목적은 경제적 자유를 지키기 위한 것이다. 민주제는 정치 권력을 견제하는 중요한 수단이지만, 정치적 결정은 무엇보다 경제적 자유는 신성불가침이라는 근본 원칙하에 행사되어야 한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
빌헬름 룁케는 이렇게 표현했다.
:민주제는 공적인 삶과 경제적 질서의 최상의 규범과 원칙들은 반드시 민주적 결정의 영역 밖에 있다는 합의가 있어야 가능하다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3번의 인물은 진재선 검사라고 한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
케인즈는 "장기적으로 보면 우리 모두는 사자(死者)들이다."라고 했는데, 이 말은 장기적으로 어떤 손해를 끼치던 상관이 없으며, 중요한 건 현재로, 여론과 대중의 요구, 선거, 대중의 선전선동 등만이 가치있다는 뜻이다. 인간의 도덕은 장기적인 효과에 관련하고, 그 효과는 인간이 헤아리기 불가능하지만, 케인즈의 말은 이를 인정하지 않고, 대대로 학습된 전통을 무시하겠다는 뜻이다.
------------------------------------------------
이는 경제학자의 자질을 시험하는 중요한 명제였지만, 케인즈는 이를 비웃었고, 그래서 인플레를 유발해 돈을 풀면 실업이 해소되고 경제가 활성화된다고 믿었다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
이들 정의는 다음과 같은 4가지 전제를 포함하고 있다.
상품을 배분하는 시장의 놀라운 솜씨
The Way Markets Allocate Goods Is Truly Amazing
•T. Norman Van Cott
The longer I taught economics to university students, the more I came to appreciate subtleties in markets grounded in secure private property rights. Indeed, as my awareness of these subtleties developed, a sense of awe arose. The subtleties go far beyond that typically drilled into freshmen and sophomores.
Setting the Stage
Let’s put everything in terms of a simple product like raspberries. Buyers and sellers have conflicting objectives. Buyers want low prices; sellers want high prices.
Market prices reconcile these competing objectives. Market prices will continually be gravitating towards prices where all willing buyers can find willing sellers and all willing sellers can find willing buyers.
Secure property rights are key in obtaining these benefits of market exchange. Secure property rights prevent forcing sellers to sell at artificially low prices. Example: government price ceilings on rental housing undermine landlords’ property rights. Secure property rights also disallow forcing buyers to pay artificially high prices. Example: government-mandated minimum wages.
No coercion means buyer/seller exchange is at mutually agreeable prices. These prices are not as high as sellers prefer, nor as low as buyers prefer. Nevertheless, buyers and sellers simultaneously gain. Buyers don’t gain because sellers lose, nor do sellers gain because buyers lose.
Raspberry buyers and sellers’ opposing objectives have an important consequence. To wit, they make raspberries’ contribution to the community living standards as high as possible, even though it is the immediate objective of no one involved in the raspberry market! How can that be, you say?
Unintentional Benefits
It’s because buyers wanting to pay low prices gravitate to raspberries’ lower cost producers. These producers will be able to — that is, not want to — sell at lower prices. Cost is a yardstick for opportunities given up. Giving up less to produce raspberries means the community can have more of other things. In supply and demand terms, buyers search for sellers on the lower portion of the supply schedule.
Sellers, wanting high prices, instinctively search for buyers willing to (not wanting to) pay higher prices — that is, those who value raspberries more highly. In supply and demand terms, sellers search for buyers on the upper portion of the demand schedule.
Any other arrangement of production tasks or consumption benefits lowers raspberries’ contribution to living standards. Again, this occurs as a consequence of market participants trying to enhance their own economic positions. How to describe this? How about: “Wow, that’s amazing!”
Adam Smith noticed this too, and in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (not to be confused with The Wealth of Nations), Adam Smith wrote:
Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
Information Requirements
The amazing nature of these transaction is also illustrated by the ease with which one can obtain necessary information. A seller only need know his/her costs and the price of raspberries. A seller does not need to know the identity or costs of other sellers, nor does a seller need to know the identity of buyers. Likewise, a buyer only need know his/her maximum willingness to pay for raspberries relative to the price.
Notwithstanding these trivial information requirements for buyers and sellers, the raspberry market will be filled with information about millions of buyers’ consumption values. The same holds for producer costs. That all this information is included in production/consumption decisions, despite individuals knowing virtually nothing, is surely deserving of another “Wow, that’s amazing!”
The notion that any group in say, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could achieve this result via edicts is absurd.
Is the Latter a Rephrasing of Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil?”
Some might argue that I am here only rephrasing the central insight of Leonard Read's "I, Pencil." That's not quite true, although I am making a similar point. Read’s article surely stands as a profound economics essay. His argument was that the diversity of technological requirements for a product as simple as a pencil is so vast that they are beyond the comprehension of any individual. Nevertheless, all this technological expertise is brought to bear in a pencil’s production.
My point is that an unencumbered marketplace assigns production tasks to lower cost producers and consumption benefits to buyers who value the product most highly, even though the outcome is beyond the comprehension of any individual. If anything, my point augments Read’s insights in a way which also fits into a supply and demand framework.
The above is not unique to raspberries. It applies with equal force to the millions of other goods and services we produce and consume. Those choosing to ignore the “amazing marketplace” court societal disaster. Look no further than North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and the communist experiments of the previous century.
Final Comment
The Psalmist, King David, in the first four verses of Psalms 19 expresses his awe at the wonders of God when contemplating heavens. Surely, the wonders of a magnificent order can touch human affairs. When I quoted these verses to my students in support of the order found in “the amazing marketplace,” perhaps the biblically literate among them appreciated my awe of the marketplace.
What happens when markets are characterized by private property rights and the rule of law borders on beyond-the-imagination. Indeed, when understood, one develops a sense of awe for what can be accomplished with so little knowledge and effort on the part of each individual involved in a market. It’s an outcome that is impossible to be duplicated by any other method for providing for economic sustenance.
T. Norman Van Cott, an adjunct scholar with the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is professor of economics at Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
---------------------------------------------------------
사법부의 횡포
법관들은 불법 판결이나 엉터리 판결에도 불구하고 좀처럼 법적인 제재를 받지 않는다.
The Tyranny of the Bench
•Murray N. Rothbard
One of the fatal flaws in the concept of "limited" government is the judiciary. Endowed with the compulsory monopoly of the vital power of deciding disputes, of ultimately deciding who can wield force and how much can be wielded, the government judiciary sits as an unchecked and unlimited tyrant.
Pledged to preside over the rule of law, law that is supposed to apply to everyman, the judges themselves are yet above the law and free from its sanctions and limitations. When clothed in the robes of his office, the judge can do no legal wrong and is therefore immune from the law itself.
There is a crucial catch-22 in this grisly situation. For if anyone would like to argue against this arrangement, he can do so — in our archist system — only before judges who themselves are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It is up to government judges to rule on whether government judges are immune from the law. How do you think they would decide? Well, how do you think a group of economists would decide on the question of whether economists should be immune? Or any other group or profession?
Not surprisingly, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in 1872, that judges were immune from any damage suits for any "judicial acts" that they had performed — regardless of how wrong, evil, or unconstitutional those acts may have been. When clothed in judicial authority, judges can do no wrong. Period. Recently a case of an errant judge has come up again — because his action as a judge was considered generally to be monstrous and illegal. In 1971, Mrs. Ora Spitler McFarlin petitioned Judge Harold D. Stump of the DeKalb County, Indiana, Circuit Court to engage in a covert, compulsory sterilization of her 15-year-old daughter, Linda Kay Spitler. Although Linda was promoted each year with her class, Mrs. McFarlin opined that she was "somewhat retarded" and had begun to stay out overnight with older youths. And we all know what that can lead to.
Judge Stump quickly signed the order, and the judge and mamma hustled Linda into a hospital, telling her it was for an appendicitis operation. Linda was then sterilized without her knowledge. Two years later, Linda married a Leo Sparkman and discovered that she had been sterilized without her knowledge. The Sparkmans proceeded to sue mamma, mamma's attorney, the doctors, the hospital, and Judge Stump, alleging a half-dozen constitutional violations.
All of these people, in truth, had grossly violated Linda's rights and aggressed against her. All should have been made to pay, and pay dearly, for their monstrous offense. But the federal district court ruled otherwise. First, it ruled that mamma, her lawyer, and the various members of the "healing professions" were all immune because everything they did had received the sanction of a certified judge. And second, Judge Stump was also absolutely immune, because he had acted in his capacity as a judge, even though, the district court acknowledged, he had had "an erroneous view of the law." So, not only is a judge immune, but he can confer his immunity in a king-like fashion even onto lowly civilians who surround him.
The US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, unaccountably didn't understand the program, and so it reversed the district court, claiming that Judge Stump had forfeited his immunity "because of his failure to comply with elementary principles of due process," and had therefore in a sense "not acted within his jurisdiction." To allow Stump's action to stand, said the appeals court, would be to sanction "tyranny from the bench."
Now this was pretty flimsy stuff, and besides it opened an entertaining wedge toward holding judges accountable to the law and to the protection of rights like everyone else. But this would have shaken the foundations of our monopoly archist legal system. And so the US Supreme Court, on March 28, set the matter straight. In a 5-3 decision in this illuminating case of Stump v. Sparkman, Justice Byron R. ("Whizzer") White, speaking for the majority, sternly reminded the appellate court of the meaning of the 1872 ruling:
A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously or was in excess of his authority. Rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."
Justice White conceded that no state law or court ruling anywhere could be said to have authorized Judge Stump's action; but the important point, he went on, is that there was no statute or ruling which prohibited such an action by the judge. Therefore, even though Stump had approved the sterilization order without legal authorization, without holding a hearing, without notice to the child, or without her being represented by a lawyer or guardian, it was still a "judicial act" and therefore beyond the law. Backing Justice White were Justices Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and John Stevens.
For the minority, Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Lewis Powell and Thurgood Marshall, argued that the judge's unauthorized action was "beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act." He pointed out that Stump's action
was in no way an act "normally performed by a judge." Indeed there is no reason to believe that such an act has ever been performed by any other Indiana judge, before or since.
In a ringing statement, Stewart concluded, "A judge is not free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity."
Ahh, Justice Stewart, but apparently and unfortunately he is so free.
Stump himself will be free for some time to come. Apparently the masses of DeKalb County were not concerned about Linda's rights, for they reelected him last year to another six-year term as circuit-court judge. Bruce Ennis, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, charged that the White decision meant that "judges can violate citizens' constitutional rights and get away with it" and "can ignore the law with impunity." Ennis said that the ACLU would ask for legislation from Congress reversing this "outrageous" decision.
Outrage, yes; but why the shock and surprise?
White and his allies were simply being thick as judges, guildsmen defending their guild privileges; and were defending the very cornerstone of our archist system: the immunity from the law of the ultimate decision makers.
Removing such immunity strikes at the very heart of that system, and paves the way for a truly free America in which rights would be protected fully, in which no man or group of men would be above the law, or would have a compulsory monopoly of judicial services. We hail Mr. Ennis and the minority judges; but do they know the full implications when we pit citizens' rights against the "loose cannon" of judges and the "tyranny of the bench"?
This article was originally published as "The Plumb Line: So What Else is New?" in the Libertarian Review, April 1978, p. 9.
-------------------------------
출처: 일베
-------------------------------
저커버그는 록펠러, 카네기, 언론 재벌 허스트 3명의 이상한 결합이다. 그들 셋의 운명이 바로 저커버그의 미래이다.
-----------------------------------------
중의사 陈逊斋가 최초로 경방 六纲의 病位病机를 천명했다.
陈逊斋最早初步阐明了经方六纲病位病机
作者：徐渊（北京汉传经方中医研究院 研究员）
---------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기