우려하던 대한민국 최악의 시나리오가 진행되고 있다
“환상적 민족주의에 취해 국가 백년 대계인 안보가 무너지고 있습니다”
홍준표(자유한국당 대표) 페이스북
미북회담이 이상한 방향으로 흘러 가고 있습니다.
남북은 합작하여 우리민족끼리를 외치고 있고
미북은 합작하여 미 본토만 안전한 ICBM폐기만 협상하려고 하고 있습니다.
문 정권은 북핵도 연방제 통일하면 우리 것이라는 환상에 젖어 있고, 미국은 20세기 초 가쓰라-테프트 밀약, 1938. 9. 뮌헨회담, 1950. 1. 애치슨 라인 선포, 1973. 키신저-레둑토의 파리 정전회담을 연상시키는 위장평화 회담으로 가고 있습니다.
우리가 우려하던 대한민국 최악의 시나리오가 진행되고 있는데, 한국은 환상적 민족주의에 취해 국가 백년 대계인 안보가 무너지고 있습니다.
나야 60살을 넘겨 살 만큼 살았으니 이제 가도 여한이 없습니다만, 내 자식, 내 손주, 내 국민들이 북핵의 인질이 되어 노예로 살아가야 한다는 것이 눈물 나도록 안타깝습니다.
들려오는 외신들을 보면 외교도 장사로 여기는 트럼프 대통령은 그간의 호언장담 하던 북핵 폐기는 간데 없고
한국의 친북 좌파 정권이 원하는 대로 한국에서 손을 떼겠다는 신호라고 볼 수밖에 없습니다.
문 정권은 순간 이지만
대한민국은 영원해야 합니다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
美 전직 관리들 “트럼프 대통령, 북한의 선전전에 이용당해”
VOA(미국의 소리)
트럼프 대통령이 북한 정권의 선전전에 이용당하고 있다고 전직 미 관리들이 지적했습니다. 천안함 폭침을 주도한 것으로 알려진 김영철 노동당 부위원장을 백악관으로 불러 함께 환하게 웃는 모습은 북한 정권의 선전에 승리를 안겨주고 있다는 겁니다. 일부 전직 관리는 트럼프 대통령이 비핵화보다 종전선언 등 부수적인 과정에 집중해 과거 실패했던 전례를 따라가고 있다며 우려를 나타냈습니다. (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
사이공 최후의 날인가, 주석궁 최후의 날인가?
류근일(조선일보 前 주필)
한반도 싸움 끝판엔 사이공 최후의 날 같은 게 오거나 주석궁 최후의 날이 오거나 둘 중 하나인데, 요즘 돌아가는 꼴은 이쪽이 훨씬 더 불안-불안해 보인다. 과민(過敏)일까? 서로 다름의 차이를 인정하고 흡수통일을 안 해? 돼가는 꼴에 따라선 단계적 흡수통일이 거꾸로 올 수 있다는 생각은 안 해봤어?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
요미우리 “7월 27일 정전협정일 맞아 판문점 남북미 종전선언 검토 중”
트럼프 대통령이 북한 정권의 선전전에 이용당하고 있다고 전직 미 관리들이 지적했습니다. 천안함 폭침을 주도한 것으로 알려진 김영철 노동당 부위원장을 백악관으로 불러 함께 환하게 웃는 모습은 북한 정권의 선전에 승리를 안겨주고 있다는 겁니다. 일부 전직 관리는 트럼프 대통령이 비핵화보다 종전선언 등 부수적인 과정에 집중해 과거 실패했던 전례를 따라가고 있다며 우려를 나타냈습니다. (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
사이공 최후의 날인가, 주석궁 최후의 날인가?
류근일(조선일보 前 주필)
한반도 싸움 끝판엔 사이공 최후의 날 같은 게 오거나 주석궁 최후의 날이 오거나 둘 중 하나인데, 요즘 돌아가는 꼴은 이쪽이 훨씬 더 불안-불안해 보인다. 과민(過敏)일까? 서로 다름의 차이를 인정하고 흡수통일을 안 해? 돼가는 꼴에 따라선 단계적 흡수통일이 거꾸로 올 수 있다는 생각은 안 해봤어?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
다가오는 남북미 종전선언…주한미군·유엔사 모두 떠날 가능성은?
요미우리 “7월 27일 정전협정일 맞아 판문점 남북미 종전선언 검토 중”
▲ 문재인 대통령이 5월 27일 "美北정상회담이 잘 진행되면 싱가포르에서 남북미 정상회담을 갖고 종전선언을 할 수도 있다"고 밝히는 모습. ⓒ연합뉴스TV 관련보도 화면캡쳐.
김영철 北통일전선부장이 김정은의 친서를 들고 美백악관에서 트럼프 대통령과 만난 뒤 한국에서는 ‘종전선언’, 특히 ‘남북미 공동종전선언’이 임박했다는 추측성 보도들이 나오고 있다.
‘연합뉴스’는 3일 “7월 27일에 맞춰 판문점에서 남북한과 미국이 정상회담을 갖고 종전선언을 하는 방안을 검토 중”이라는 日요미우리 신문의 보도 내용을 전했다. 日요미우리 신문은 ‘한미 외교소식통’을 인용했다고 한다.
한반도 종전선언에 대한 보도는 남북정상회담이 확정된 뒤부터 계속 나온 이야기다. 이후 싱가포르에서 美北정상회담 일정이 잡힌 뒤에는 “6월 12일 전후 싱가포르에서 남북미 정상회담을 갖고 한반도 종전선언을 할 수도 있다”는 소문이 퍼졌다. 美정부가 “한국은 좀 빠지라”고 거듭 경고 메시지를 내놓은 뒤에 잠깐 잠잠해지는가 싶더니 다시 새나오는 이야기다.
한반도 종전선언에 가장 예민한 사람들은 한국인이다. 북한이 김일성 시절부터 “한반도 종전 선언과 美北 불가침 조약을 맺은 뒤 주한미군을 몰아내고 우리 민족끼리 자주통일을 이루자”고 떠들어 댔기 때문이다. 지금도 이런 주장이 그대로 적용될까.
◆ 종전 후 유엔사와 중립국 정전위 ‘유엔 평화유지군’ 될 수도문재인 대통령과 김정은은 4월 27일 남북정상회담을 가진 뒤 ‘판문점 선언’을 통해 2018년 이내에 한반도 종전 선언을 해낸다고 합의했다. (발췌)
출처: 뉴데일리
-----------------------------------------------------
곽석종(sjk****)
모바일에서 작성2018.06.05 나라 돌아가는 꼴이 이지경인데도 문통의 지지율이 80%대를 유지하다니 귀신이 곡을 하겠습니다. 방송을 보니 국회의원 보궐선거 지역이 12곳인데 11곳에서 더불당이 1위를 한다니 이 또한 귀신이 두번 곡을 하겠습니다. 6,13선거에서 정신들 차리지 않는다면 두고두고 후회할 겁니다.
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
괴물이 아니라 사회주의 주구로 변해가는 중이다.
-------------------------------------------------------
“수출입국”, “하면 된다”를 부르짖으며, 강력 추진했던 것은
박정희대통령과 이병철, 정주영 등 기업인들이었습니다.
1970년 대학에 입학했던 저는 운동권 이념서클에 가입하여,
“고속도로 반대”, “수출위주 첨단중화학공업화”를 반대했습니다.
당시 김대중후보는 고속도로만 반대했던 것이 아니라,1971년 대통령선거 때,
“대중경제”라는 소책자를 만들어 유세장마다 대량 배포를 했습니다.
당연히 운동권 교수와 학생들은 “대중경제론”을 주장했습니다.
“대중경제론”은 박정희의 수출입국 반대,
“내수위주 자급자족경제발전론”이었습니다.
이유는 우리나라 같은 후진국은 “자급자족경제”를 추구해서,
다시는 식민지가 되면 안된다는 것이었습니다.
수출위주 중화학공업화는 필연적으로 “기술종속”, “자본종속”,
“시장종속“ 그리고 마침내 ”종속국가“로 떨어져,
또 다시 그 지긋지긋한 ”신식민지“가 된다는 것입니다.
그리고 무엇보다도 전세계 어느 나라도 후진국이
”수출위주 첨단 중화학공업화“에 성공한 나라가 없다는 것입니다.
저와 운동권에서는 ”박정희의 무리한 수출위주의 첨단 중화학공업화는
우리나라 경제를 파탄내어, 곧 한국자본주의가 붕괴된다“고 믿었습니다.
그런데 한국자본주의는 망하기는커녕,
세계제일의 성공신화,
”한강의 기적“을 이룩했습니다.이것이 바로 ”박정희모델“입니다.
중국과 베트남이 박정희모델을 경제발전모델로 채택하여,
고도성장을 성공적으로 달성하고 있습니다.
그런데 우리나라에서만 ”박정희모델“은 ”친일친미 군사독재모델“로
”대중경제론자“들에 의해 아직까지 거부당하고 있습니다.
새마을운동까지 부정 당하고 있습니다.
박정희우표 발행까지 취소되고, 문재인우표만 발행되었습니다.
세계가 웃을 노릇입니다.
그런데도 국내 어느 언론도 박정희우표발행 취소의 부당성을 비판하지 않으니,
우리나라 언론이 얼마나 편파적인지 알 수 있습니다.
”대중경제론자“는 끊임 없이 무리한 수출 때문에 대한민국경제가
외세의존적이고 빈부격차가 커진다고 비판해 왔지만,
박정희대통령과 수출입국의 전사들이
피와 땀과 눈물로 세계시장을 개척하지 않았더라면,
오늘 우리가 누리는 경제 번영, 기술 발전, 세계경영전략이
어떻게 가능했겠습니까?
김문수---->박정희 모델이 성공한 건 인정한다. 하지만 자유주의자로서 박정희 모델이 많은 후유증을 남겼다는 사실도 지적하고 싶다. 그래서 나는 <자유주의자의 독백>(위퍼블 출판)에서 '그때는 맞고 지금은 틀리다'라는 글로 박근혜 대통령의 경제 정책을 비판했다. 이젠 탈중앙, 자유화에 의한 발전을 도모해야 한다. 아래 탈레브가 말한 로컬리즘의 원칙에 입각해야 하는데, 이는 물론 요즘 말하는 지방분권과는 다른 개념이다.
-------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
변호사·교수 등 법률가들 대법원 앞 초유의 천막농성 돌입
[한겨레] “사법행정권 남용 중립기구 통해 진상규명·처벌”
농성단 115명 이름올려…“요구 수용 때까지 농성”
양승태 전 대법원장 등 고소·고발
출처: 한겨레
----> 이번 선거가 끝나면 아마 본격적인 문화혁명이 시작될 것 같다.
----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
폴 크루그먼의 견해는 거의 모든 분야에서 쓸모가 없다.
------------------------------------------------------
로컬리즘이란 등이 가려울 때, 자기 손으로 긁는 것이다.
서브시디애리티Subsidiarity와 같은 뜻이라고 보면 될 듯.
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.
---------------------------------------------
Faroe Islands. 영국과 아이스랜드 사이의 섬들
--------------------------------------------------
상품은 절대 평등하게 분배될 수 없다. 사회주의 체제에서조차
Goods Can Never Be Distributed "Equally" — Not Even In a Socialist Regime
•Justin Murray
A common criticism levied at the capitalist system is that resources are prioritized on the ability to pay. The wealthy are able to better compete for resources when compared to the poor, creating an inequitable distribution of resources in favor of the rich. A common solution presented to this perceived problem is to convert to a socialist society, where the State is responsible for provisioning and distributing goods. As the argument goes, if the government is responsible for this provisioning, the issue of inequitable distribution will be solved and everyone will have access. For example, this was the justification behind the formation of Canada’s Universal Care System and other such systems around the globe. By eliminating the profit motive, so goes the argument, medical services will no longer be sold to the highest bidder but to those with the greatest need, as is the common mantra of Communism.
However, reality is a harsh mistress. Because of the concept of scarce resources, even idealized communism will have to discriminate on who gets first use of available resources. Before discussing this, it is important to understand how an economic system distributes goods.
Time and Opportunity Cost
Regardless of the economic system, all systems engage in a system of exchange. What is exchanged may be material in nature, as is common in barter systems, monetary, such as modern capitalist-leaning systems or, under socialist and communist structures, the most base asset, time.
Time is itself the base component in all resource production. At any moment in the day, time is expended on activity and cannot be refunded. An hour used is forever gone. This is the key driver behind the concept of opportunity costs. Whatever you elect to do with that hour of time, you give up a multitude of other options you can realistically perform with that same hour. An hour spent at the office is an hour no longer available to paint your house or hike in the woods (though not an hour lost traveling to Mars since that is currently not possible, so lost options are not infinite).
When evaluating the different economic systems, this opportunity cost must always be forefront in the mind. All systems mix land, labor, and capital within this opportunity cost framework. Even a hypothetical pure communist society will have to use up time accumulating capital as it is not possible to produce extensive resources without first constructing support structures, such as a factory, to do so.
Under modern capitalism, this time contribution is able to be stored and saved in the form of money. Money — with exceptions such as cronyist systems and salaries to involuntary bureaucrats (think a Senator’s salary) — usually represents an individual’s contribution to society. Money allows individuals to produce a good or service and then bank that exchange for some future, unspecified good or service in return. The more units of this money an individual possesses, the greater contribution to society that individual provided.
How capitalism discriminates depends on the quality of the time of the individual bidding on assets in the market. If two individuals are willing to give up an hour of their time in exchange for a particular good, the individual who is able to earn $30 in a given hour has a distinct advantage over the individual who earns $7. In different terms, the $7 earner needs a full hour to purchase a $7 item while the $30 earner only needs 14 minutes. What this means is that the opportunity cost of spending a unit of currency is lower for the $30/hour earner than it is for the $7/hour earner. What this means is that the $30 earner is willing and able to engage in higher bids than the $7 earner.
To improve the ability to bid for goods in a capitalist economy, an individual has to increase the quality of an hour of labor. If the $7 earner wants to compete on equal footing with the $30 earner, he has to increase his own productivity value up to $30 per hour. This is done through various channels — training, education and entrepreneurship being major avenues. Under this system, competing for new resources creates a self-reinforcing benefit for other actors on the market. When the $7 earner increases his productive value to $30, all the other actors in the market benefit from this as well. This is because a more productive worker produces more goods more cheaply, thus reducing everyone's cost of living and increasing the quality of life. Now the net pool of resources between the two actors has increased from $37 in an hour to $60 in an hour. If the original $30 actor wants to maintain his position, he must further increase his productivity in the market, further driving up the net resources available. This is why competitive capitalist economies continue to become wealthier as time goes on.
Under a socialist economy, all units of time become equal. The hour of one individual who provides a great deal to society is equal to someone who provides nothing. What a system where items are given away “free” does is now favors those with the most hours available to trade. In other words, the less valuable time is to the individual actor, the greater this actor’s competitive advantage becomes in attaining goods and services. If, for example, food is provisioned by the State, bread lines naturally form. To ensure access to resources under a socialist system, those who are able to pay more in hours, i.e. those who can stand the longest in line, will be the ones who have the greatest guarantee to receive the scarce resources. As time goes on, the available goods approach infinity, making what can be attained with an hour ever greater, benefiting all actors, even those whom have less productivity.
Under this system, the motivations and self-reinforcing element are the opposite of the capitalist structure. To increase resource competitiveness, an individual must reduce all other obligations. The hour spent at the bakery making the bread is an hour that is lost to someone else getting in line before them to get the bread. So the baker has to choose between either contributing materially to society or giving up this productivity to avoid losing out on resource distribution. The more individuals that drop out of productive activity increases the amount of time required to obtain even scarcer goods, further convincing more individuals to drop out of the factory and stand in distribution lines. This cycle eventually leads to total economic collapse, as is seen in just about every nation that attempts to move toward pure communism. As time goes on, the available resources approach zero, requiring ever greater amounts of time standing in lines to attain.
The Socialized-Medicine Example
Even in hybrid systems like the United Kingdom still see these issues and from a different angle. In the NHS, time is the key currency to obtaining services. Individuals who are able to get in line early, tying up hospital beds well in advance of obtaining services, are better positioned to obtain those services. What this has done is favored low-urgency services over higher urgency ones. Seekers of low urgency operations are willing to wait lengthy amounts of time standing in line to obtain services while someone with a higher urgency medical need does not have the time available to wait in line. Low urgency and young are, therefore, “time wealthy” compared to the sick and elderly, who are time impoverished.
For example, the NHS has abysmal survival rates for cancer , which requires quick identification and treatment to survive, while tying up GPs, surgeons and hospital beds for surgical virginity restoration who were able to get their slot in line early. One normally does not plan on getting cancer 18 weeks in advance while one can do so with a hymen repair procedure. A capitalist system would have the individual seeking cancer treatment able to outbid the individual seeking virginity restoration since the urgency of cancer treatment would price it well above virginity restoration.
No economic system is able to escape the realities of scarce resources and resource allocation must be made on some discriminatory level. Because of this, the choice of economic system must take into consideration motivations of resource attainment. If a system rewards productivity and value, as a hypothetical pure free market would, then the motivation is to produce greater value. If the system rewards the ability to stand in a long line for hours or weeks at a time, then the system will motivate people waiting in line and being unproductive, thus producing less value.
In any system, whatever good you consume must be paid for. Even under the hypothetical communist utopia, nothing is free.
Justin Murray received his MBA in 2014 from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.
---------------------------------------
제과점 주인인 잭 필립이 종교적 신념에 따라 게이 결혼을 위한 케이크 제작을 거부하면서 분규가 발생하고, 사건이 대법원까지 올라간 사건에서 대법원은 제과점의 손을 들어주었다.
하지만 이 사건은 제과점 주인의 사유재산권을 존중하기만 하면, 쉽게 끝날 일이었다. 그가 자신의 종교적 신념에 따라 자유롭게 그가 선택하는 사람과 계약하는 것이 허용되기만 한다면, 아무 문제 될 게 없었다.
What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Its Gay-Wedding Cake Decision
•Ryan McMaken
The US Supreme Court today ruled 7-2 in favor of a Denver small business owner who has been threatened, sanctioned, and ultimately driven out of business by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The controversy arose when the cake shop owner, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, claiming to be motivated by religious beliefs.
The cake shop was hauled up before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the commission ruled that the shop must "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."
Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Thomas all voted to overturn the earlier appeals court's decision to uphold the Commission's ruling against Phillips. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.
In the decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, much of the reasoning centered on the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated an apparently obvious bias against religious people, even though "neutrality" is legally required in such cases. The ruling states:
As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
The SCOTUS ruling also noted that both the Commission and the appeals court largely ignored and glossed over the fact that the Commission had on three prior occasions ruled in favor of bakers who had refused to bake cakes with anti-gay slogans on them. There was an enormous double standard at work.
As Kagan notes in her concurring opinion, the Civil Rights Commission was abandoning neutrality in favor of making decisions “based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.”
In other words, the Commission was deciding, based on the members' own personal prejudices and biases, who shall be forced to bake cakes, and who shall not.
As is sometimes the case with these decisions, the SCOTUS's decision is highly specific and certainly doesn't amount to a general "you don't have to bake that cake" edict. Nevertheless, the decision does reinforce certain limits on "civil rights" organizations that pretend to be doing battle against prejudice and bigotry.
In reality, as the behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has made clear, governments are simply substituting their own bigotry in place of the alleged bigotry practiced by small business owners like Philips. As the ruling notes, the members of the Commission showed hostility toward Phillips's religious beliefs, and this was a motivating factor in the Commissions efforts to destroy him.
Government-imposed bigotry is worse than private-sector bigotry, of course, because there are numerous private-sector firms which one can voluntarily boycott or employ to bake cakes. If one bakery is rude or intolerant toward certain customers, the customers can choose to go elsewhere. When it comes to government commissions, on the other hand, there is no escape. One can't simply say, "I don't like you and I'll go to the government next door." No, you're simply stuck with the bigots at the government's commission, and if they don't like your religion, you have no other choices — except of course uprooting your entire life and moving to another state. This situation is even worse when policy is federalized, and one can't even take advantages of different legal environments in different states.
Ignoring the Real Solution: Property Rights
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's ruling does not address the central problem with "anti-discrimination" laws and other "public accommodation" requirements.
At their core, such laws and regulations are fundamentally based on eliminating the private property rights of business owners who ought to be free to dispose of their property as they see fit.
As such, the problem in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case could be easily addressed by simply respecting the property rights of business owners everywhere. Unfortunately, the choice of judges and legislators in recent decades has been to fall back on very narrowly defined "rights" such as religious liberty and the right to free speech. Much of the legal debate has thus centered on whether or not baking a cake, or not baking one, counts as the exercise of religion, or is free speech, or is even a form of artistic expression.
But, as Murray Rothbard has demonstrated, rights to religious expression and speech are simply types of property rights. Consequently, religious liberty and free speech can be protected with a more general respect for property rights.
In other words, if a cake shop owner is allowed to contract freely with whomever he chooses, his rights to religious expression and speech, and artistic expression will also automatically be protected.
As it is, though, judges and lawmakers have repeatedly sought ways to destroy property rights in order to take control of business owners' private property in the name of anti-discrimination.
Faced with political resistance to a wholesale micromanaging of private business decisions — resistance based largely on stubborn reverence for the rights mentioned in the First Amendment — lawmakers have been forced to carve out exceptions to this takeover of private businesses.
This has led to a number of absurd legal and legislative acrobatics in which property owners must prove that their business decisions are motivated by artistic choices or religious conviction, but not by some other motivating factor. Thus, government commissions and courts are required to read the minds of business owners and determine whether or not their internal feelings and religious views fall under some government-approved motivation for refusing some sort of business service.
Proving or disproving internal motivations, of course, has always been an extremely sketchy way of doing things. After all, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission concluded that Phillips was using his religious views to justify unlawful discrimination. This, of course, requires that the commission members somehow have certain knowledge about the thoughts in Phillips's head.
This sort of reasoning also has the habit of working against business owners who hold views that are held only by small minority or otherwise might be considered especially idiosyncratic. One might argue that one is religiously opposed to providing some sort of service. But unless those views are recognizable to judges and bureaucrats as part of a known religious movement, the business owner is likely to be accused of simply making up an ad hoc religion to "mask" unlawful discrimination.
Ultimately, this invites just the sort of corruption and bigotry we see on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission: the commissioners were able to decide based on personal whim whose religious views are legitimate and whose or not.
This sort of power in second guessing a person's religious and personal views ought never be allowed of a government agency. This is likely to lead to a situation in which pretty much any business can be brought up on charges of "discrimination" and shut down based on whatever the bureaucrats imagine to be in the mind of the business owner.
As I've discussed before, if lawmakers see discrimination as a problem, the real answer lies in increasing the number of firms available to customers by lowering barriers to entry and encouraging entrepreneurship. And, as I've discussed here, the history of business in ethnic enclaves, and entrepreneurship among minority populations has long demonstrated that underserved groups of customers encourage the creation of new firms to address those unmet needs. Dealing with discrimination this way, however, would involve government giving up some of its regulatory power — and thus such a solution is unlikely to be popular with the people who make the laws.
---------------------------------------------
태 前공사의 설명은 충격적이다.
"김정일은 집권 말기부터 ‘남한 민중’ 뿐만 아니라,
한국 전체를 없애야 북한 체제가 영원히 생존할 수 있다는 결론을 내렸다"는 것이다.
다시 말하면 "노동당에게 ‘남한 민중’은 더 이상 아우르고 가야 할 대상이 아니라,
핵무기를 비롯한 대량살상무기로 쓸어버려야 할 존재가 됐다"는 것이다.
그는 "김정은 정권에게 핵무기는 통일전략 그 자체"라고 설명했다.
당시 태 前공사는 “김정은은 핵무기 개발을 완료하면
미국과의 협상을 통해 주한미군 철수를 요구한다는 로드맵을 갖고 있다”면서
“남베트남이 몰락할 때처럼
미군이 철수한 뒤 외국인들이 투자를 철회하면
한국도 버티지 못할 것이라는 계산에 따른 것”이라고 말했다.
[출처] 태영호 "북한 '한국 멸절 계획’ 세웠다", 뉴데일리
--------------------------------------------------------
안철수 "서울시청 6층에 박원순 외인부대... 부패 원흉 없애자"
출처: 뉴데일리
-----------------------------------------------------------
김영철 北통일전선부장이 김정은의 친서를 들고 美백악관에서 트럼프 대통령과 만난 뒤 한국에서는 ‘종전선언’, 특히 ‘남북미 공동종전선언’이 임박했다는 추측성 보도들이 나오고 있다.
‘연합뉴스’는 3일 “7월 27일에 맞춰 판문점에서 남북한과 미국이 정상회담을 갖고 종전선언을 하는 방안을 검토 중”이라는 日요미우리 신문의 보도 내용을 전했다. 日요미우리 신문은 ‘한미 외교소식통’을 인용했다고 한다.
한반도 종전선언에 대한 보도는 남북정상회담이 확정된 뒤부터 계속 나온 이야기다. 이후 싱가포르에서 美北정상회담 일정이 잡힌 뒤에는 “6월 12일 전후 싱가포르에서 남북미 정상회담을 갖고 한반도 종전선언을 할 수도 있다”는 소문이 퍼졌다. 美정부가 “한국은 좀 빠지라”고 거듭 경고 메시지를 내놓은 뒤에 잠깐 잠잠해지는가 싶더니 다시 새나오는 이야기다.
한반도 종전선언에 가장 예민한 사람들은 한국인이다. 북한이 김일성 시절부터 “한반도 종전 선언과 美北 불가침 조약을 맺은 뒤 주한미군을 몰아내고 우리 민족끼리 자주통일을 이루자”고 떠들어 댔기 때문이다. 지금도 이런 주장이 그대로 적용될까.
◆ 종전 후 유엔사와 중립국 정전위 ‘유엔 평화유지군’ 될 수도문재인 대통령과 김정은은 4월 27일 남북정상회담을 가진 뒤 ‘판문점 선언’을 통해 2018년 이내에 한반도 종전 선언을 해낸다고 합의했다. (발췌)
출처: 뉴데일리
-----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
“수출입국”, “하면 된다”를 부르짖으며, 강력 추진했던 것은
박정희대통령과 이병철, 정주영 등 기업인들이었습니다.
1970년 대학에 입학했던 저는 운동권 이념서클에 가입하여,
“고속도로 반대”, “수출위주 첨단중화학공업화”를 반대했습니다.
당시 김대중후보는 고속도로만 반대했던 것이 아니라,1971년 대통령선거 때,
“대중경제”라는 소책자를 만들어 유세장마다 대량 배포를 했습니다.
당연히 운동권 교수와 학생들은 “대중경제론”을 주장했습니다.
“대중경제론”은 박정희의 수출입국 반대,
“내수위주 자급자족경제발전론”이었습니다.
이유는 우리나라 같은 후진국은 “자급자족경제”를 추구해서,
다시는 식민지가 되면 안된다는 것이었습니다.
수출위주 중화학공업화는 필연적으로 “기술종속”, “자본종속”,
“시장종속“ 그리고 마침내 ”종속국가“로 떨어져,
또 다시 그 지긋지긋한 ”신식민지“가 된다는 것입니다.
그리고 무엇보다도 전세계 어느 나라도 후진국이
”수출위주 첨단 중화학공업화“에 성공한 나라가 없다는 것입니다.
저와 운동권에서는 ”박정희의 무리한 수출위주의 첨단 중화학공업화는
우리나라 경제를 파탄내어, 곧 한국자본주의가 붕괴된다“고 믿었습니다.
그런데 한국자본주의는 망하기는커녕,
세계제일의 성공신화,
”한강의 기적“을 이룩했습니다.이것이 바로 ”박정희모델“입니다.
중국과 베트남이 박정희모델을 경제발전모델로 채택하여,
고도성장을 성공적으로 달성하고 있습니다.
그런데 우리나라에서만 ”박정희모델“은 ”친일친미 군사독재모델“로
”대중경제론자“들에 의해 아직까지 거부당하고 있습니다.
새마을운동까지 부정 당하고 있습니다.
박정희우표 발행까지 취소되고, 문재인우표만 발행되었습니다.
세계가 웃을 노릇입니다.
그런데도 국내 어느 언론도 박정희우표발행 취소의 부당성을 비판하지 않으니,
우리나라 언론이 얼마나 편파적인지 알 수 있습니다.
”대중경제론자“는 끊임 없이 무리한 수출 때문에 대한민국경제가
외세의존적이고 빈부격차가 커진다고 비판해 왔지만,
박정희대통령과 수출입국의 전사들이
피와 땀과 눈물로 세계시장을 개척하지 않았더라면,
오늘 우리가 누리는 경제 번영, 기술 발전, 세계경영전략이
어떻게 가능했겠습니까?
김문수---->박정희 모델이 성공한 건 인정한다. 하지만 자유주의자로서 박정희 모델이 많은 후유증을 남겼다는 사실도 지적하고 싶다. 그래서 나는 <자유주의자의 독백>(위퍼블 출판)에서 '그때는 맞고 지금은 틀리다'라는 글로 박근혜 대통령의 경제 정책을 비판했다. 이젠 탈중앙, 자유화에 의한 발전을 도모해야 한다. 아래 탈레브가 말한 로컬리즘의 원칙에 입각해야 하는데, 이는 물론 요즘 말하는 지방분권과는 다른 개념이다.
-------------------------------
변호사·교수 등 법률가들 대법원 앞 초유의 천막농성 돌입
[한겨레] “사법행정권 남용 중립기구 통해 진상규명·처벌”
농성단 115명 이름올려…“요구 수용 때까지 농성”
양승태 전 대법원장 등 고소·고발
----> 이번 선거가 끝나면 아마 본격적인 문화혁명이 시작될 것 같다.
----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
서브시디애리티Subsidiarity와 같은 뜻이라고 보면 될 듯.
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.
---------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
상품은 절대 평등하게 분배될 수 없다. 사회주의 체제에서조차
Goods Can Never Be Distributed "Equally" — Not Even In a Socialist Regime
•Justin Murray
A common criticism levied at the capitalist system is that resources are prioritized on the ability to pay. The wealthy are able to better compete for resources when compared to the poor, creating an inequitable distribution of resources in favor of the rich. A common solution presented to this perceived problem is to convert to a socialist society, where the State is responsible for provisioning and distributing goods. As the argument goes, if the government is responsible for this provisioning, the issue of inequitable distribution will be solved and everyone will have access. For example, this was the justification behind the formation of Canada’s Universal Care System and other such systems around the globe. By eliminating the profit motive, so goes the argument, medical services will no longer be sold to the highest bidder but to those with the greatest need, as is the common mantra of Communism.
However, reality is a harsh mistress. Because of the concept of scarce resources, even idealized communism will have to discriminate on who gets first use of available resources. Before discussing this, it is important to understand how an economic system distributes goods.
Time and Opportunity Cost
Regardless of the economic system, all systems engage in a system of exchange. What is exchanged may be material in nature, as is common in barter systems, monetary, such as modern capitalist-leaning systems or, under socialist and communist structures, the most base asset, time.
Time is itself the base component in all resource production. At any moment in the day, time is expended on activity and cannot be refunded. An hour used is forever gone. This is the key driver behind the concept of opportunity costs. Whatever you elect to do with that hour of time, you give up a multitude of other options you can realistically perform with that same hour. An hour spent at the office is an hour no longer available to paint your house or hike in the woods (though not an hour lost traveling to Mars since that is currently not possible, so lost options are not infinite).
When evaluating the different economic systems, this opportunity cost must always be forefront in the mind. All systems mix land, labor, and capital within this opportunity cost framework. Even a hypothetical pure communist society will have to use up time accumulating capital as it is not possible to produce extensive resources without first constructing support structures, such as a factory, to do so.
Under modern capitalism, this time contribution is able to be stored and saved in the form of money. Money — with exceptions such as cronyist systems and salaries to involuntary bureaucrats (think a Senator’s salary) — usually represents an individual’s contribution to society. Money allows individuals to produce a good or service and then bank that exchange for some future, unspecified good or service in return. The more units of this money an individual possesses, the greater contribution to society that individual provided.
How capitalism discriminates depends on the quality of the time of the individual bidding on assets in the market. If two individuals are willing to give up an hour of their time in exchange for a particular good, the individual who is able to earn $30 in a given hour has a distinct advantage over the individual who earns $7. In different terms, the $7 earner needs a full hour to purchase a $7 item while the $30 earner only needs 14 minutes. What this means is that the opportunity cost of spending a unit of currency is lower for the $30/hour earner than it is for the $7/hour earner. What this means is that the $30 earner is willing and able to engage in higher bids than the $7 earner.
To improve the ability to bid for goods in a capitalist economy, an individual has to increase the quality of an hour of labor. If the $7 earner wants to compete on equal footing with the $30 earner, he has to increase his own productivity value up to $30 per hour. This is done through various channels — training, education and entrepreneurship being major avenues. Under this system, competing for new resources creates a self-reinforcing benefit for other actors on the market. When the $7 earner increases his productive value to $30, all the other actors in the market benefit from this as well. This is because a more productive worker produces more goods more cheaply, thus reducing everyone's cost of living and increasing the quality of life. Now the net pool of resources between the two actors has increased from $37 in an hour to $60 in an hour. If the original $30 actor wants to maintain his position, he must further increase his productivity in the market, further driving up the net resources available. This is why competitive capitalist economies continue to become wealthier as time goes on.
Under a socialist economy, all units of time become equal. The hour of one individual who provides a great deal to society is equal to someone who provides nothing. What a system where items are given away “free” does is now favors those with the most hours available to trade. In other words, the less valuable time is to the individual actor, the greater this actor’s competitive advantage becomes in attaining goods and services. If, for example, food is provisioned by the State, bread lines naturally form. To ensure access to resources under a socialist system, those who are able to pay more in hours, i.e. those who can stand the longest in line, will be the ones who have the greatest guarantee to receive the scarce resources. As time goes on, the available goods approach infinity, making what can be attained with an hour ever greater, benefiting all actors, even those whom have less productivity.
Under this system, the motivations and self-reinforcing element are the opposite of the capitalist structure. To increase resource competitiveness, an individual must reduce all other obligations. The hour spent at the bakery making the bread is an hour that is lost to someone else getting in line before them to get the bread. So the baker has to choose between either contributing materially to society or giving up this productivity to avoid losing out on resource distribution. The more individuals that drop out of productive activity increases the amount of time required to obtain even scarcer goods, further convincing more individuals to drop out of the factory and stand in distribution lines. This cycle eventually leads to total economic collapse, as is seen in just about every nation that attempts to move toward pure communism. As time goes on, the available resources approach zero, requiring ever greater amounts of time standing in lines to attain.
The Socialized-Medicine Example
Even in hybrid systems like the United Kingdom still see these issues and from a different angle. In the NHS, time is the key currency to obtaining services. Individuals who are able to get in line early, tying up hospital beds well in advance of obtaining services, are better positioned to obtain those services. What this has done is favored low-urgency services over higher urgency ones. Seekers of low urgency operations are willing to wait lengthy amounts of time standing in line to obtain services while someone with a higher urgency medical need does not have the time available to wait in line. Low urgency and young are, therefore, “time wealthy” compared to the sick and elderly, who are time impoverished.
For example, the NHS has abysmal survival rates for cancer , which requires quick identification and treatment to survive, while tying up GPs, surgeons and hospital beds for surgical virginity restoration who were able to get their slot in line early. One normally does not plan on getting cancer 18 weeks in advance while one can do so with a hymen repair procedure. A capitalist system would have the individual seeking cancer treatment able to outbid the individual seeking virginity restoration since the urgency of cancer treatment would price it well above virginity restoration.
No economic system is able to escape the realities of scarce resources and resource allocation must be made on some discriminatory level. Because of this, the choice of economic system must take into consideration motivations of resource attainment. If a system rewards productivity and value, as a hypothetical pure free market would, then the motivation is to produce greater value. If the system rewards the ability to stand in a long line for hours or weeks at a time, then the system will motivate people waiting in line and being unproductive, thus producing less value.
In any system, whatever good you consume must be paid for. Even under the hypothetical communist utopia, nothing is free.
Justin Murray received his MBA in 2014 from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.
---------------------------------------
제과점 주인인 잭 필립이 종교적 신념에 따라 게이 결혼을 위한 케이크 제작을 거부하면서 분규가 발생하고, 사건이 대법원까지 올라간 사건에서 대법원은 제과점의 손을 들어주었다.
하지만 이 사건은 제과점 주인의 사유재산권을 존중하기만 하면, 쉽게 끝날 일이었다. 그가 자신의 종교적 신념에 따라 자유롭게 그가 선택하는 사람과 계약하는 것이 허용되기만 한다면, 아무 문제 될 게 없었다.
What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Its Gay-Wedding Cake Decision
•Ryan McMaken
The US Supreme Court today ruled 7-2 in favor of a Denver small business owner who has been threatened, sanctioned, and ultimately driven out of business by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The controversy arose when the cake shop owner, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, claiming to be motivated by religious beliefs.
The cake shop was hauled up before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the commission ruled that the shop must "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."
Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Thomas all voted to overturn the earlier appeals court's decision to uphold the Commission's ruling against Phillips. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.
In the decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, much of the reasoning centered on the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated an apparently obvious bias against religious people, even though "neutrality" is legally required in such cases. The ruling states:
As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
The SCOTUS ruling also noted that both the Commission and the appeals court largely ignored and glossed over the fact that the Commission had on three prior occasions ruled in favor of bakers who had refused to bake cakes with anti-gay slogans on them. There was an enormous double standard at work.
As Kagan notes in her concurring opinion, the Civil Rights Commission was abandoning neutrality in favor of making decisions “based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.”
In other words, the Commission was deciding, based on the members' own personal prejudices and biases, who shall be forced to bake cakes, and who shall not.
As is sometimes the case with these decisions, the SCOTUS's decision is highly specific and certainly doesn't amount to a general "you don't have to bake that cake" edict. Nevertheless, the decision does reinforce certain limits on "civil rights" organizations that pretend to be doing battle against prejudice and bigotry.
In reality, as the behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has made clear, governments are simply substituting their own bigotry in place of the alleged bigotry practiced by small business owners like Philips. As the ruling notes, the members of the Commission showed hostility toward Phillips's religious beliefs, and this was a motivating factor in the Commissions efforts to destroy him.
Government-imposed bigotry is worse than private-sector bigotry, of course, because there are numerous private-sector firms which one can voluntarily boycott or employ to bake cakes. If one bakery is rude or intolerant toward certain customers, the customers can choose to go elsewhere. When it comes to government commissions, on the other hand, there is no escape. One can't simply say, "I don't like you and I'll go to the government next door." No, you're simply stuck with the bigots at the government's commission, and if they don't like your religion, you have no other choices — except of course uprooting your entire life and moving to another state. This situation is even worse when policy is federalized, and one can't even take advantages of different legal environments in different states.
Ignoring the Real Solution: Property Rights
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's ruling does not address the central problem with "anti-discrimination" laws and other "public accommodation" requirements.
At their core, such laws and regulations are fundamentally based on eliminating the private property rights of business owners who ought to be free to dispose of their property as they see fit.
As such, the problem in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case could be easily addressed by simply respecting the property rights of business owners everywhere. Unfortunately, the choice of judges and legislators in recent decades has been to fall back on very narrowly defined "rights" such as religious liberty and the right to free speech. Much of the legal debate has thus centered on whether or not baking a cake, or not baking one, counts as the exercise of religion, or is free speech, or is even a form of artistic expression.
But, as Murray Rothbard has demonstrated, rights to religious expression and speech are simply types of property rights. Consequently, religious liberty and free speech can be protected with a more general respect for property rights.
In other words, if a cake shop owner is allowed to contract freely with whomever he chooses, his rights to religious expression and speech, and artistic expression will also automatically be protected.
As it is, though, judges and lawmakers have repeatedly sought ways to destroy property rights in order to take control of business owners' private property in the name of anti-discrimination.
Faced with political resistance to a wholesale micromanaging of private business decisions — resistance based largely on stubborn reverence for the rights mentioned in the First Amendment — lawmakers have been forced to carve out exceptions to this takeover of private businesses.
This has led to a number of absurd legal and legislative acrobatics in which property owners must prove that their business decisions are motivated by artistic choices or religious conviction, but not by some other motivating factor. Thus, government commissions and courts are required to read the minds of business owners and determine whether or not their internal feelings and religious views fall under some government-approved motivation for refusing some sort of business service.
Proving or disproving internal motivations, of course, has always been an extremely sketchy way of doing things. After all, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission concluded that Phillips was using his religious views to justify unlawful discrimination. This, of course, requires that the commission members somehow have certain knowledge about the thoughts in Phillips's head.
This sort of reasoning also has the habit of working against business owners who hold views that are held only by small minority or otherwise might be considered especially idiosyncratic. One might argue that one is religiously opposed to providing some sort of service. But unless those views are recognizable to judges and bureaucrats as part of a known religious movement, the business owner is likely to be accused of simply making up an ad hoc religion to "mask" unlawful discrimination.
Ultimately, this invites just the sort of corruption and bigotry we see on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission: the commissioners were able to decide based on personal whim whose religious views are legitimate and whose or not.
This sort of power in second guessing a person's religious and personal views ought never be allowed of a government agency. This is likely to lead to a situation in which pretty much any business can be brought up on charges of "discrimination" and shut down based on whatever the bureaucrats imagine to be in the mind of the business owner.
As I've discussed before, if lawmakers see discrimination as a problem, the real answer lies in increasing the number of firms available to customers by lowering barriers to entry and encouraging entrepreneurship. And, as I've discussed here, the history of business in ethnic enclaves, and entrepreneurship among minority populations has long demonstrated that underserved groups of customers encourage the creation of new firms to address those unmet needs. Dealing with discrimination this way, however, would involve government giving up some of its regulatory power — and thus such a solution is unlikely to be popular with the people who make the laws.
---------------------------------------------
태 前공사의 설명은 충격적이다.
"김정일은 집권 말기부터 ‘남한 민중’ 뿐만 아니라,
한국 전체를 없애야 북한 체제가 영원히 생존할 수 있다는 결론을 내렸다"는 것이다.
다시 말하면 "노동당에게 ‘남한 민중’은 더 이상 아우르고 가야 할 대상이 아니라,
핵무기를 비롯한 대량살상무기로 쓸어버려야 할 존재가 됐다"는 것이다.
그는 "김정은 정권에게 핵무기는 통일전략 그 자체"라고 설명했다.
당시 태 前공사는 “김정은은 핵무기 개발을 완료하면
미국과의 협상을 통해 주한미군 철수를 요구한다는 로드맵을 갖고 있다”면서
“남베트남이 몰락할 때처럼
미군이 철수한 뒤 외국인들이 투자를 철회하면
한국도 버티지 못할 것이라는 계산에 따른 것”이라고 말했다.
[출처] 태영호 "북한 '한국 멸절 계획’ 세웠다", 뉴데일리
--------------------------------------------------------
안철수 "서울시청 6층에 박원순 외인부대... 부패 원흉 없애자"
출처: 뉴데일리
-----------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기