-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
김문수,
"드루킹과 문재인 정권은 댓글 공동체"
文 ‘촛불혁명’이 70년간 이룩한 한강의 기적을 무너뜨리고 있다”
“거짓선동”이 “최악의 적폐” 아닙니까?
“국론분열과 갈등,공사중단과 원전수출 차질, 국민들의 고통을 감안하면,
국민의 이름으로 문재인대통령을 탄핵하여야 마땅할 것입니다"
"20년 이상 간첩죄로 감옥 산 사람을‘내가 존경하는 사상가’라고 말하는
대통령을 의심하는 마음 자체를 비판한다면 우리가 어떻게 안보를 유지할 수 있겠는가?
[출처] 김문수, ..국민이름으로 문재인대통령을 탄핵하여야 마땅할 것입니다"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
여론조작의 실태를 말한다! [성창경의 미친언론]
https://youtu.be/THqz8qlLF5I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
트럼프를 속이기 위한 입맞춤?
----------------------------------------------------------------
https://youtu.be/THqz8qlLF5I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-woman violence feminists are afraid to confront
미래 세대가 스스로를 사회주의자로 여기고 있다.
Socialism Is No Longer a Dirty Word
•Mark Thornton
It has been often said that our future rests with the next generation. If that is true, then it is a scary prospect.
The millennial generation (ages 18-34) increasingly sees itself, politically, as socialist. I personally know a couple of young men who declare themselves Marxists! Although that is frightening enough, remember the context in which it occurs:
1.The United States already faces several daunting economic problem such as the national debt, the unfunded future liabilities (related to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare), as well as the obvious potential for hyperinflation. You can set aside things like the possibility of nuclear war and killer robots. The economic problems are real and likely to happen and can only be avoided or dealt by returning America to a free market economy—not socialism.
2.Moving our government and society towards socialism will only make matters worse. Worse yet, if socialists gain control—and some would likely argue that they already have—they are unlikely to relinquish power peacefully.
You would think that events in socialist Venezuela would knock some sense into these young people, but a new survey from GenForward shows increasing support for socialism. The report looks at how the millennial population thinks about politics and offers us a look at how the next generation thinks. Support for socialism is strongest among African-Americans and capitalism is supported by a small majority of white Americans. Among Asians and Latinos there is marginally more support for socialism. Given the support for the Bernie Sanders campaign this result is not surprising.
When asked questions about whether strong government or the free market is the key to solving social problems, respondents believed that government is the answer by two to one. The majority felt the government was doing a good job with the economy, especially those that identified as Republican.
How this can be is a mystery. The federal government deficit has averaged more than a $1 trillion over the last decade. Guess who will have to pay this bill? Every $1 trillion of increased government debt puts an approximate burden of $15,000 on every millennial. High government support among Republicans is probably just a reflection of the fact that their party is in power.
The millennial generation wants higher minimum wage laws, equal pay for equal pay, free tuition and for the government to pay off their student loans which indicates their Economic IQ is close to zero. I understand them not knowing that subsidies to higher education make a college degree even less attainable, but advocating a higher minimum wage is just stupid under all conditions.
Their gut feelings come from a variety of sources. Their education has brainwashed them about where our standard of living comes from. Lifestyle, for many of them, makes them feel guilty for the poor and downtrodden. Envy of the rich and famous also plays a role. They have been “successful” and “above average” all their lives. Why can’t they be rich and famous too?
I think a really big factor is that, under these conditions, they should feel betrayed and left out. Their generation, taken as a whole, is the first to take a step back economically since the Great Depression. Their real ire should be directed towards the Baby Boomers — their parents and grandparents. They are the generation which allowed the government debt and entitlement programs to grow into the deadly monster that they have become. Moreover, the Boomers are the generation that has benefited from all that waste and they are the generation that will hand over these problems to the millennial generation.
I have always felt uneasy with the idea of defaulting on the national debt and Social Security, because I believe strongly in carrying out your obligations. However, I also know that there are very strong ethical and economic cases that can be made for defaulting.
According to one website, I myself come from the Generation Jones—which I had never previously heard of. Generation Jones comprises the late Baby Boomers born from 1954 to 1965.
However, this Jones Generation is also the generation that did much of the work while receiving shrinking benefits from things like Social Security. Meanwhile, it will only see greater attacks on its income and wealth, both in terms of rhetoric and in law. Therefore, I am now “jonesing” for default, which is slang for wanting — if not craving — for defaults.
--->역사는 반복된다더니, 미국이나 한국이나 아무래도 사회주의 전체주의 아래 살게 될 것 같다.
----------------------------------
결핍으로부터의 자유를 원하면, 모두가 노예가 되는 결과를 낳는다.
우리의 자유가 일단 특정한 물질적 생활 수준과 동일시되면, 강탈이 자유로 가는 길이 된다.
"Freedom from Want" is Slavery for All
•James Bovard
"Freedom from want” is one of the most frequently invoked notions of freedom in our time. However, it is a bogus freedom that politicians and socialists offer to lull people into accepting policies that destroy true freedom. Freedom from want has been most loudly advocated in this century by those who favored removing almost all limits from government power.
For example, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, two of the founders of British socialism and authors of The Soviet Union: A New Civilization?, asserted in 1936: “Personal freedom means, in effect, the power of the individual to buy sufficient food, shelter and clothing.”
The Webbs did not specify how many millions of people government should be permitted to kill in the name of “freedom from want.” But during Stalin’s bloodiest decade, they asserted that for government economic planning to succeed, “public discussion must be suspended between the promulgation of the decision and the accomplishment of the task” and that any criticisms of the master plan should be treated as “an act of disloyalty, or even of treachery.”
For government to be able to liberate people with food and clothing, it must have the power to execute anyone who criticizes the official economic plan. After visiting the Ukraine, the Webbs endorsed Stalin’s war on the kulaks (the least impoverished peasants), commenting that “it must be recognized that the liquidation of the individual capitalist in agriculture had necessarily to be faced if the required increase of output was to be obtained.”
(Output plummeted.)
Equating liberty with satisfactory living standards became far more common as the twentieth century went on. “Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good homes, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends,” wrote Sir Oswald Mosley, the most prominent British supporter of Nazi Germany, in his 1936 book, Fascism.
James Gregor noted in his book The Ideology of Fascism that fascism aimed at “restraints which foster the increased effective freedom of the individual.”
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt noted in 1937 that “even some of our own people may wonder whether democracy can match dictatorship in giving this generation the things it wants from government.”
University of Chicago professor Leslie Pape noted in 1941 that “democracies readily admit the claims of totalitarian states to great achievements in the cause of positive freedom.”
British historian E.H. Carr, writing in 1951, observed that, for the modern era, “freedom from the economic constraint of want was clearly just as important as freedom from the political constraint of kings and tyrants.”
Carr justified the array of economic controls in postwar Britain: “The price of liberty is the restriction of liberty. The price of some liberty for all is the restriction of the greater liberty of some.”
However, with this standard, there is no limit to the amount of freedom that government can destroy in the name of creating “greater liberty for some.” The British Labour government that Carr championed advanced freedom by conscripting labor for the coal mines and empowering the Ministry of Labour to direct workers to whatever employment was considered in the national interest—empowering over 10,000 government officials to carry out searches (including of private homes) without warrants—prohibiting restaurants from serving customer meals costing more than 5 shillings (less than $2 in 1947)—and fining farmers who refused to plant the specific crops government demanded.9
The government also “nationalized all potential land uses in the United Kingdom, permitting only continuation of existing ones and requiring ‘planning permission’ for any others,” as law professor Gideon Kanner noted.
The Labour government offered freedom via the solidarity of standing in the same rationing line—liberation via deprivation. (A 1998 New York Times article cited the Labour government’s postwar food rationing, which continued into the 1950s, as a contributing factor to the long-term decline of British cuisine.11
The more politicians promise to give, the more they entitle themselves to take. Carr, serving in 1945 as chairman of the UNESCO Committee on the Principles of the Rights of Man, declared that “no society can guarantee the enjoyment of such rights [to government handouts] unless it in turn has the right to call upon and direct the productive capacities of the individuals enjoying them.”
Thus, the price of government benefits is unlimited political control over people’s paychecks and work lives.
Once freedom is equated with a certain material standard of living, confiscation becomes the path to liberation. Thus, the more avidly a politician raises taxes, the greater his apparent love for liberty. In the name of providing “freedom from want,” the politician acquires a pretext to destroy the basis of private citizens’ independence. “Freedom from want” becomes a license for politicians, rather than a declaration of rights of citizens.
Anyone who does not have certain possessions is assumed not to be free—and in need of political rescue. President Johnson, justifying a vast expansion of government social programs, declared in 1965, “Negroes are trapped—as many whites are trapped—in inherited, gateless poverty. . . . Public and private poverty combine to cripple their capacities.”
Vice President Hubert Humphrey defined a poor person as “the man who for reasons beyond his control cannot help himself.” This perspective on poverty and self-help mocks all of American history. It implies that any individual who earns less than $7,890 a year (the official poverty line for a single person) is incapable of any discipline or resolution.
While advocates of positive freedom insist that government must intervene so that each person “can be all that they can be,” government aid programs are notorious for rewarding people for making the least of themselves. President Roosevelt warned in 1935 that “continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
President Clinton declared in 1996: “For decades now, welfare has too often been a trap, consigning generation after generation to a cycle of dependency. The children of welfare are more likely to drop out of school, to run afoul of the law, to become teen parents, to raise their own children on welfare.”
A rising tide no longer lifts all boats when the government rewards people for scuttling their own ships.
Faith in freedom from want depends on a political myopia that focuses devoutly on only one side of the ledger of government action. This is measuring freedom according to how much government does for people, and totally disregarding what government does to people. Government provides “freedom” for the welfare recipient by imposing tax servitude on the worker. In an age of unprecedented prosperity, government tax policies have turned the average citizen’s life into a financial struggle and insured that he will likely become a ward of the state in his last decades.
Some statists insist that taxation is irrelevant to freedom. According to sociologist Robert Goodin,
If what the rich man loses when his property is redistributed is described as a loss of freedom, then the gain to the poor must similarly be described as a gain of freedom. . . . No net loss of freedom for society as a whole, as distinct from individuals within it, is involved in redistributive taxation. Thus, there is no basis in terms of freedom . . . for objecting to it
What does Goodin mean by “freedom for society as a whole”? By this standard, slavery would not reduce a society’s freedom, since the slave’s loss of freedom would be equaled by the slave owner’s gain. Nor is there any difference, vis-à-vis freedom, between permitting people to retain their earnings and spend them as they choose, and government confiscating their money to hire more regulators, inspectors, and informants to better repress the citizenry.
What are the practical results of the modern “freedom from want”? Economist Edgar Browning, writing in 1993, examined the marginal cost of redistribution—defined as “the ratio of the aggregate loss to the top four quintiles of households to the aggregate gain to the bottom quintile of households.”
Browning estimated that the marginal cost to the most affluent 80 percent of households of increasing the income of the poorest 20 percent by $1 was $7.82.18
The marginal costs of redistribution are much larger than people might presume because of reduced incentives to work, both among the taxpayers and recipients. Also, as Browning noted, “marginal tax rates must be increased very sharply relative to the amount of income that is redistributed.” Combining Browning’s analysis and Goodin’s definition, confiscatory redistribution destroys almost eight times as much “freedom” as it creates.
Once the notion of “freedom from want” is accepted as the pre-eminent freedom, it becomes a wish list justifying endless political forays deeper and deeper into people’s lives. Princeton professor Amy Gutmann, in her 1980 book, Liberal Equality, declared: “Liberal egalitarians want to say that freedom of choice is not very meaningful without a right to those goods necessary to life itself.”
Gutmann’s elaboration of “necessary goods” reveals how government would be obliged to control almost everything: “Supplying the poorest with more primary goods will be insufficient if their sense of self-worth or their very desire to pursue their conceptions of the good is undercut by self-doubt.”
By this standard, freedom is violated when people suffer self-doubt, and the government is obliged to forcibly intervene to guarantee that all people think well of themselves.
Political scientist Alan Wolfe, a self-described “welfare liberal,” asserted in 1995 that “people need a modicum of security and income maintenance, underwritten by government, in order to fulfill the ideal of negative liberty, which is self-sufficiency.”
Government dependency is the new, improved form of self-reliance: dependency on government doesn’t count because government is a better friend to you than you are yourself. But the more dependent people become on government, the more susceptible they are to political and bureaucratic abuse. Freedom from want is conceivable only so long as people are allowed to want only what the government thinks they should have.
Freedom from want supposedly results from government taking away what a person owns so that it can give him back what it thinks he deserves. The welfare state is either a way to force people to finance their own benefits via political-bureaucratic bagmen, or it is a way to force some people to labor for other people’s benefit. In the first case, government sacrifices the person’s freedom to the fraud that government must tax him to subsidize him; in the second, government sacrifices the person’s freedom in order to “liberate” someone else—often someone who chooses not to work. If someone pays the taxes that finance the government benefits he receives, he is less free than he would otherwise have been.
Some “freedom from want” advocates imply that government is a great benefactor when it promises citizens “three hots and a cot”—the old-time recruiting slogan of the Marine Corps. But trading freedom for a full belly is a worse bargain now than ever before. As economist F.A. Hayek observed, “As the result of the growth of free markets, the reward of manual labor has during the past hundred and fifty years experienced an increase unknown in any earlier period in history.”
The average worker in industrialized countries can purchase the bare necessities of life with fewer hours of labor than ever before. Comparing current wages and prices with those of 1800, economist Julian Simon found that the average American worker today needs to labor less than one-tenth the time to earn enough to purchase a bushel of wheat than his predecessors did two centuries ago.
While the real price of food has plummeted (in spite of government farm policies), the “real price” of political servitude has not diminished.
It is understandable that some well-intentioned people assume that “freedom from want” is the most important freedom. It is difficult for many people to conceive of enjoying anything (much less their freedom) if they lack food, clothing, or shelter. However, freedom is not a guarantee of prosperity for every citizen; the fact that some people have meager incomes does not prove that they are shackled. It is a cardinal error to confuse freedom with the things that free individuals can achieve or produce, and then to sacrifice the reality of freedom in a deluded shortcut to the bounty of freedom. Freedom is not measured by how much a person possesses, but by the restrictions and shackles under which he lives.
Throughout history, politicians have used other people’s property to buy themselves power. That is the primary achievement of the welfare state. The danger of government handouts to freedom was clear to some political writers hundreds of years ago. The French writer Etienne de la Boétie, in his 1577 Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, noted of ancient Rome: “Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine . . . and then everybody would shamelessly cry, ‘Long live the King!’ The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them.”
“Freedom from want” is not possible unless the government is allowed to control all things people want. Americans must beware of Trojan-horse definitions of freedom—definitions that, once accepted, allow bureaucrats to take over everyone’s life. Government handouts insinuate political power into the deepest recesses of a person’s life. And when the time is ripe, politicians take command where they previously lavished their gifts.
Originally published as "Bogus Freedom" in The Freeman May, 1999
---------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기