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

Scott Lee

Financial Times 에서 문재인 대놓고 까는 것 보소.
북괴랑 야합하기 위해 인권을

팔아먹은 놈으로 NGO에 피소됐네. 중

요한 것은 서방 언론이 본격적으로

문재인을 작살내기 시작했다는 게

중요하지.
기사에 올라온 사진 좀 보소. 
개가 닭발 달라고 아양떠는 표정 아닌가?

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

손병호

[8.15 이승만과 미국과 일본]

2차대전 아시아 지역은 미국의 핵폭탄 2방에 일본이 항복했습니다.

일본의 식민지였던 한국을 독립시키느냐? 로 잠시 논란이 있었지만 독립시켜서 남쪽은 미국이 북쪽은 소련이 당분간 관리[통치]했습니다.

당시 한국엔 일본의 재산이 엄청 많았습니다.

그 재산문제를 정리하는 것이 복잡했어요.

경부선과 경인선등 철도와 각종 항만등은 일본국의 재산이므로 패전국의 재물로 몰수했습니다.

...

그러나 일본인이 개인적으로 설립한 각종 공장과 상업지역의 토지와 건물 개인의 방대한 농장(전국 농토의 10%)개인주택등은

일본인의 사적인 재산이므로 몰수 할 수 없었어요.

이승만은 일본인 개인의 재산도 한국의 재산이다.며 권리를 주장했으나 국제법으로 패전국의 개인 재산은 몰수 할 수 없다는게 대세였습니다.

그 때 이승만이 기발한 주장을 합니다.

[한국이 35년간 일본으로부터 받은 피해가 돈으로 환치하면 20억불에 달한다.

그러므로 20억불을 일본에게 받아야 한다.

일본으로부터 20억불을 받아주던지 일본인 개인 재산을 몰수해 주던지 결정하라]고 끈질기게 요구합니다.

이에 미국은 일본인 개인재산을 몰수하여 한국에 귀속시키고 몰수로 인한 사적인 피해는 패전국인 일본정부가 책임지라고 결정합니다.

이승만의 끈질긴 요구 덕분에 북한지역도 일본인들의 재산이 몰수되어 북한에 귀속됩니다.

그로 인해 한국에 전재산을 투자한 일본인들은 알거지가 됐습니다.

일본은 전재산을 뺏긴 자국민들에게 "당장은 보상 힐 수 없지만 차후 어떤 형태로든 보상하겠다"면서 몰수당한 재산 목록을 작성했습니다.

그리고 100년이 걸려도 보상을 완료하겠다는 100년의 약속을했어요.

그걸로 일본의 한국 강점에 대한 보상은 완료된 걸로 국제적으로 인정됐습니다.

그런데 박정희 대통령이 “아니다 그걸로 완수되지 않았다”며 일본의 보상을 요구하였고 일본은 당연히 보상이 끝났다고 일축했는데,

박정희는 “세계속의 일본이 되려면 한국을 안아야하고 한국을 안으려면 보상해야한다”고 집요하게 요구하였습니다.

결국 1965년 무상 3억불 차관 2억불로 일본과의 관계를 정상화시킵니다.

한마디로 보상을 두 번 받은 겁니다.

그런데 그 협상에서 일본인 개인의 재산을 불법 몰수한 사실을 일본측이 거론합니다.

몰수된 일본인 개인재산 문제에 코를 걸어둔 겁니다.

작년 일본의 어느 언론이 65년의 협상 과정에서 일본인 개인재산 몰수 문제를 거론했다는 점을 언급했어요.

1945년의 20억불이면 현재의 재화로 200조원쯤 된다는 말도 했습니다.

사실 당시 일본인들의 재산을 지금의 가치로 환산하면 그 쯤 될 것입니다.

호남평야등의 거대 농지와 명동과 을지로 일대등의 상업지구는 거의 모두 일본인 소유였어요.

가령 명동과 을지로 일대 불특정 대지의 구舊 등기부등본을 떼어보면 99%일본인 이름입니다.

오늘 어느 노인들이 신일본제철에 제소한 강제노역에 대한 보상금 1억원 청구건을 한국의 돌대가리 대법원에서 위자료라는 기상천외한 명목으로

원고 승소판결을 확정지었습니다.

이게 그 4명의 노인으로 끝나지 않을 것이고 수많은 피해자들이 나타나 일본을 괴롭힐 겁니다.

일본은 즉각 반응했어요.

이 지긋지긋한 민족과 아예 인연을 끊자는 말이 폭발합니다.

세월호에서 봤듯이 도대체 이 민족은 만족이 없어요.

방법은 일본과 인연을 끊는 수 밖엔 없어요.

만약 이 문제로인해 한일간의 관계가 최악으로 가면 일본은 일본인 개인재산 몰수 문제를 본격적으로 거론 할 겁니다.

[출처] 손병호--세월호에서 봤듯이 도대체 이 민족은 만족이 없어요. 방법은 일본과 인연을 끊는 수 밖엔 없어요.

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

세계는 '퍼주기 복지' 개혁 중

(3·끝) 나홀로 역주행하는 한국

 

올 복지예산 144조6000억…정부 지출 '3분의 1' 첫 돌파

기초연금 조기 인상·실업급여 기간 확대로 내년엔 더 늘어

 

정부 "복지지출, GDP 대비 10.4%…선진국보다 낮아"

한번 늘리면 줄이기 어려운 지출…재정 악화로 연결

저출산에 세금 내는 사람 줄고 혜택 대상자는 늘어나

"국가채무 관리 위해서라도 복지지출 구조 개혁해야"

[출처]  한경/  ((망햇다고봐야 한다))韓, 복지지출 증가 속도 OECD의 4배…국가채무 '뒷감당'은 누구 몫?

 

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

미제스 연구소의 자유주의자들은 트럼프의 보호무역 정책이나 무역전쟁을 비난하고 있다. 나 역시 자유주의자이지만 트럼프의 정책이 옳다고 믿는다. 그렇지 않으면 세계는 중국의 패권에 휘둘리며 굽신거려야 하는 상황까지 가게 될 것이다. 지금 아예 중국의 경제를 망쳐놓던가, 시진핑을 몰락시키지 않으면, 10년 20년 후에 미국과 세계는 중국의 횡포에 속수무책으로 당할 수 밖에 없다. 중국의 지도부는 지금 19세기나 20세기의 제국주의적 사고에 갇혀 있다.

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

Scott Lee

 

 

문재앙이나 시진핑에 앞서,

 

지금 이 순간 대한민국을 가장

 

깊이 난도질하고 있는 곳은

 

바로 법원(사법부)이다.

 

전라도 광주년이 박통 주심을 맡았지 아마.

 

나중에 최종 판결나고 한 달 쯤 있으면

 

재미있는 일이 벌어 질거다.지금은

 

저들이 악업을 쌓는 시기니 지켜보자.

 

10년 20년이 지나도 반인권 범죄는

 

공소시효가 없다.

결국은 불벼락이 되어 처 맞게된다.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

게시자 주)

 

대한민국의 실질적 대통령 ‘박근혜

 

대통령 상고심’, 민변·우리법硏 출신

 

노정희 대법관 주심 배당

 

1963년 전남 광주시 출생.

 

광주동신여고와 이대 법학과 졸

 

박근혜 전 대통령의 ‘국정농단’ 항소심 주심에 노정희 신임 대법관이 배당받았다. [중앙포토, 연합뉴스]

 

그러하다!!!

 

 

 

 

 

검찰은 원래 권력의 개니

 

따로 제껴 두겠다.

 

특정 정치적 정파가 사법부를 장악하는

 

세계사에서 유래가 없는 사법 반란이지

상당히 특이한 형태의 구데타이자

 

가장 무서운 형태를 띄고 있다.

 

 

 

간혹 서구 SF 물 영화에서 묘사되는

디스토피아' 중에는, 총, 칼로 억압

 

하는 디스토피아도 있지만,

 

관료주의로 억압하는 디스토피아도 있다.

 

유토피아의 반대어. 역(逆)유토피아라고도 한다.

 

가공의 이상향, 즉 현실에는 ‘어디에도 존재하지 않는 나라’를

 

묘사하는 유토피아와는 반대로, 가장 부정적인 암흑세계의 픽션

 

 

'매트릭스'는 neuro-science(신경과학)를

 

이용한 디스토피아?'마이너리티

 

리포트' 같은 경우는 '법'을 이용하는

 

대표적 경우다.

 

 

국민들의 지지로 법을 통과시킨 다음,

 

일어나지 않는 사건의 범죄자를 '식물

 

상태'로 만들고 남은 국민들은 행복을

 

만끽한다. 여기서는 명백히 법이 이용

 

된다.

 

 

 

남은 국민들은 맘 편하고 행복한 세계에

 

살아가나, 어느날 자신이 그 법의

 

희생자가 되었을때 깨닫는 거지.

 

'나는 미래의 살인을 아직 저지르지

 

않았다. 그러나 난 벌을 받아야 한다.'

 

 

 

현재 벌어지고 있는 사법 살인,

 

무고한 자들, 변희재, 남재준, 김관진,

 

박근혜, 이명박의 주식한 주 없는 소유권 이슈......

 

 

 

한국의 좌빨들이 아직 모르고 있는데,

 

이 모든 사건은 나중에 The International

 

Criminal Court(국제형사재판소)로

 

제소되어 조사받을 수 있는 사건이다.

 

 

 

대단한 사람들이 국제사법 재판소에

 

의뢰하는 것이 아니다.

 

사건을 의뢰할 수 있는 곳은 세 군데,

 

UN, 특정 국가(정부), 희생자의 가족, 친구들

 

 

 

일단 사건을 의뢰 받으면 권력에 의한

 

박해가 의심되면, ad hoc committee

 

(특설(特設)위원회)가 만들어 지고

 

일차 심사를 들어가고 최종적으로

 

결론이 나면 유엔에 보고 된다.

 

 

 

사법부를 이용한

 

정치적 박해는 역사가 깊다.

칠레, 아르헨티나, 이집트, 이라크,

 

남아프리카 공화국, 미얀마....

 

다들 들어보았던 만델라, 아웅산 수지

 

등등의 신화도 국제사법 재판소에서

 

조사를 한뒤 유엔에 이첩되어 대부분 제재가 가해졌다,.

 

 

 

문재인 정부에 대한 것만이 아니라

 

사법적 인권 유린에 가담했던 판 검사들도

 

모조리 유엔의 제재 명단에 올라갔다.

 

 

 

형벌은 해외 여행시 입국 금지 정도,

 

흉악한 학살자가 아닌 경우는 일단

 

유엔에 보고되어 유엔 차원의 조치를 먼저 주문한다.

 

 

 

그러나 한번 반인권 범죄자

 

(Criminal Against Humanity) 낙인이

 

찍히면, 정권이 바궜을때 죄다 목이

 

날아가거나 수십년은 감옥에서 썩거나

 

비참한 최후를 맞이했다.

 

 

 

남아프리카 공화국에서 흑인을 박해했던

 

판사들 대부분은 감옥에 끌려갔고,

 

버마에선 아웅산 수지가 권력을 잡고 모조리 처단했다.

 

 

칠레, 아르헨티나에서도 마찬가지다.

 

죄질이 나쁜 판사의 경우 사법살인죄까지 뒤집어 썼다.

 

 

 

International Court of Justice

 

(국제사법재판소) 는 주로 국가간의 분쟁을

 

다루지만, ICC(국제형사재판소)는 그 범위

 

가 없다. 특히 ICC 가 엄하게 다루는 것은

 

사법부가 앞장서서 사법 살인을 자행하는

 

경우다.

 

 

지금 박통이 당하고 있는게 대표적인

 

케이스지.

 

변희재의 경우는 법이란게 과연 존재하는

 

건지 의문을 가질 수 밨에 없는 구금 상태다

 

 

 

ICC는 특히 사법적 구금, 장기 격리의

 

경우, 판사를 제1의 제재대상으로 다룬다.

 

 

 

법에 대해서는 '리트리버' 수준인데,

 

'김명수' 개쌔끼 때문에 남미의 군사

 

정권 때 판사들의 사례를 좀 조사해서 읽어봤지.

 

 

만델라 시기에 남아공의 판사들도 결국

 

모조리 비참하게 벌을 받았다.

 

ICC는 법을 이용한 정치적 박해를 하는

 

것을 아주 엄중히 다루고 있다.

 

 

법을 운영하는 자가 법을 이용해 정적을

 

죽이는 행위를, 법을 다루는 자의

 

입장에서는 더욱 용납할 수 없는 거지.

 

 

 

탄핵 재판도 그렇고 이미 저 들이

 

증거를 조작하고 고문에 가까운

 

취조를 하고, 증인을 협박 매수한

 

증거는 차고 넘친다.

 

 

 

근데 일단 대법원 판결까지 나와야 한다.

 

그 전에는 헤이그 ICC 는 각 국의

 

사법부가 공정한 판결을 내려 줄 것을 지켜보지.

 

 

 

전라도 광주년이 박통 주심을 맡았지 아마.

 

나중에 최종 판결나고 한 달 쯤 있으면

 

재미있는 일이 벌어 질거다.

 

지금은 저들이 악업을 쌓는 시기니 지켜보자.

 

 

 

10년 20년이 지나도 반인권 범죄는

 

공소시효가 없다.결국은 불벼락이 되어

 

처 맞게된다.어찌보면 암껏도 안하는

 

박통의 전략은 길게보면 나쁘지 않을

 

수도,

 

 

 

ICC 가 보고서를 제출해도 당장 저들이

 

처벌을 받는 것은 아니다.

그러나 정권이 바꿨을때

 

즉시 잡아서 목을 매달 수 있다.

 

 

 

"대한민국"은 ICC member 국가다.

모든 ICC의 조사에 응하지 않을 수 없다.

 

여기서 증거 인멸을 시도하면

 

더욱 강한 압박만 받게 될 뿐이다.

 

어찌 보면 좌빨 판사들을 일거에 처단할 명분이 될 수도 있지

 

 

[출처] Scott Lee "문재앙이나 시진핑에 앞서, 지금 이 순간 대한민국을 가장 깊이 난도질하고 있는 곳은 바로 법원이다"

 

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

세계 최대의 태양광 농장은 매일 패널을 청소하기 위해 20만 리터의 물을 사용하고 있다. 그럼에도 일부 멍청이들은 우리의 모든 전력을 사막의 태양광 농장에서 만들 수 있다고 생각한다.

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

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

20세기 들어 인도인들이 당뇨병에 걸린 이유.

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

아래 논문은 하이에크의 책 <the sensory order>를 잘 설명하고 요약한 글이다. 책을 읽기 전에 이 논문을 읽으면 이해가 쉬울 것 같아, 발췌해서 여기에 올렸다. 

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

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

행상에서 시작해 백화점을 세운 세대들

Cheers to the Peddler Class

 

Frank Chodorov

The Free Market 25, no. 3 (March 2007)

 

 

I was born on the lower East Side of New York and brought up on the lower West Side. (I bring in these facts as introduction to some ideas that may be of general interest, not as autobiography.) Of my earliest experiences I remember practically nothing.

 

But, one incident does come to mind. My father, an immigrant who, like many others, took to peddling as a means of making a living, brought me a toy of some sort from one of his trips; maybe the fact that this was the only toy I ever had, if memory serves me right, made an indelible impression on me. In those days, and under the circumstances, a toy was a rarity in the life of a youngster.

 

As a vocation, peddling has long since gone out of style in this country, and the image of the peddler that has remained is not a glamorous one. Yet, the peddler must be given credit for helping to build the great American economy. He began his enterprise by bringing to the hinterland a modest pack on his back, as much as he had capital for, selling the contents and returning to his distributing point as soon as possible. He lived frugally, saved much of the proceeds of his sales, and invested his savings in a larger pack. He continued this process until he had saved enough to buy a horse and wagon, which enabled him to go more deeply into the sparsely settled areas and distribute more merchandise.

 

After a few of these trips he found a burgeoning community that gave promise of supporting a permanent or resident peddler, that is, a merchant. He built a shack in this town and filled it up with things folks wanted, and made his residence in the back of the store. In due time, he brought a wife to help him with the chores and to share with him his meager quarters. As the town grew so did his store. He built another room to hold more wares, and then an upper story, meanwhile moving his wife and children to a more commodious house. And when he died he left his heirs a department store.

 

This is the story of most of the department stores, the merchandise marts, that dot the American landscape today; they began with a pack on some peddler’s back. Indeed, it is the story in broad outline of many of the industries that make up the American economy, from steel to automobile; some pioneer, beginning in a small way, exercised industry and thrift and plowed back his savings into his business to serve the needs of the community. He might have, as conditions warranted, borrowed the savings of others to expand his enterprise, but until he had demonstrated his ability to render service, and the need for it, his capital consisted mainly of his own savings.

 

That practice has gone by the boards these days for one reason: the income tax absorbs the savings of the entrepreneur before he can lay his hands on it. The tax collector gets the accumulations that might have been plowed back into the business, and growth from modest beginnings is therefore impossible. This has the tendency to discourage enterprise, to freeze the proletarian into his class regardless of his ambition or ability. The imaginative entrepreneur of today must begin on a relatively large scale, by borrowing from the government against a government contract or some enterprise undertaken on a government grant or guarantee. The “little man” must remain little.

 

Now, the peddler, using the term figuratively, was the backbone of the American economic and social system. He was the middle class man who prided himself on his initiative, self-reliance, independence and, above all, his integrity. He might be shrewd and even grasping, but he never asked for favors and certainly did not expect society to take care of him.

 

In fact, if he thought of society at all, he thought of it as a collection of individuals, like himself, each of whom contributed to it, and that without them society simply did not exist. To keep his standing in the society of which he was an integral part, he paid his debts and taxes regularly, went to church as a matter of course, voted as his conscience dictated, contributed to local charities and took part in civic affairs. To be “good” a society had to consist of “good” men, and therefore the ethos of his community was his own. He was society.

 

And he was middle class. But, the term, in the context of the early part of the century, carried certain connotations that have been lost. In popular usage the term “middle class” designates those whose incomes provide them with more than the mere necessities, who enjoy some of the luxuries, who have saved up something for future contingencies, and who are neither “rich” nor “poor.” That is, we think of the middle class in terms of income.

 

In that context, we might include in the present middle class many who in former times would have been classified as proletarian; for the income of many who work for wages today is sufficient to provide them with satisfactions that would have been luxuries to the old middle class. The merchant or the banker of that era did not dream of an automobile or of a Florida vacation, nor did he enjoy any of the home conveniences that are now considered necessities by most of those who have nothing to sell but their labor. Thus, in economic terms, the middle class is much larger and much more affluent than it was in the past.

 

The middle class, of the earlier period, was identified by something besides economic status; one thinks of them as a people motivated by certain values, among which integrity was uppermost. The middle class man was meticulous in fulfilling his contractual obligations, even though these were supported only by his pledged word; there were few papers that changed hands, fewer laws covering contracts, and the only enforcement agency was public opinion. In the circumstances, personal integrity in the middle class community was taken for granted; anyone who did not live up to his obligations was well advertised and lost his credit standing. Bankruptcy carried with it a stigma that no law could obliterate and therefore was seldom resorted to.

 

The life of the old middle class man was, by present standards, rather prosaic, even humdrum, being enlivened only by plans for expanding his business. If he had dreams, these were concerned with getting ahead by means of serving his community better, of widening the scope of his enterprise. But, his personal life was quite orderly and quite free of eroticisms; rarely was it disturbed by divorce or scandal. His sense of self-reliance imposed on him a code of conduct that precluded psychopathic adventures and gave him stability. Orderliness in his personal life was necessary to his main purpose, which was to produce more goods or render more services for the market; that burned up all the surplus energy he had at his disposal.

 

It never occurred to this middle class man that society owed him a living, or that he might apply to the government for help in the solution of his problems. The farmer is a particular class in point; the present day agriculturist, who must be included in our present day middle class in terms of income, holds it quite proper to demand of government, that is, the rest of society, a regularized subsidy, even a subsidy for not producing; the farmer of the early part of the century would hardly have thought of that.

 

The merchant or manufacturer located in the area served by the Tennessee Valley Authority has no hesitation in accepting electricity at rates that are subsidized by the rest of the country, and even demands more of that handout, without any hurt to his self-esteem. The pride of the peddler, the entrepreneur, has left the industrialist who now grovels before legislatures and bureaucrats in search of government contracts, while the independence that characterized the early banker has been replaced by a haughty obsequiousness of the modern financier in his dealings with government.

 

Indeed, it has become a “right” to demand a special privilege from the authorities—as, for instance, the urgency of professional athletic organizations for publicly financed stadia in which to display their wares; and the man who secures such a privilege does not feel humiliated by its acceptance, but rather holds his head as high as did the earlier entrepreneur who made his way on his own steam.

 

Among the modern middle class men, in terms of income and the station in life they have attained, there are two categories that deserve special attention: the bureaucrats and the managers of the great corporations. In earlier days, the government employee was held to be a man who could not have made his way in the business world and was therefore tolerated with condescension; he had little to do and his remuneration was correspondingly small. Even the few entrepreneurs who entered the public service did so mainly under draft, as a necessary though unwanted duty, to be got out of as soon as possible.

 

Today, the government agent holds his head higher than do those who furnish him his keep—he is the government while they are only the people—and is held in esteem by the very ones he dominates. He is, of course, a non-producer, but in the present ethos that circumstance does not degrade him, either in his own eyes or that of society; indeed, the producer holds an inferior position in life than does the government official. The government official is the law.

 

The managers, of corporations owned by stockholders, have largely taken the place of the old peddler class. But, while the latter were characterized by self-reliance and a willingness to assume responsibility for their choices, the managerial class, taking them by and large, hide their personalities in committee decisions. To be sure, the corporations must abide by the decision of the market (except where its principal customer is the government), but its operations are bound by rules, conventions and rituals behind which the management can well hide. Risk is something nobody takes, if he can avoid it, and where he must make a decision he is sure to have an excuse or scapegoat in case he decides wrongly. “Passing the buck” is considered de rigueur by even the supervisory help.

 

And, above all, security has become a fetish among all classes of society, from the lowliest wage-earner to the president of the corporation. To be sure, security against the exigencies of life has always been a human aim. But, while in the last century man made provision against disaster, in insurance, in paying off the mortgage on the old homestead, in savings, the tendency during the latter half of the twentieth century is to put the burden of one’s security on society.

 

The young man entering the business world is not concerned with the chances of advancement that are open to industry and skill, but rather with the pension system provided by the company; and the candidate for president of the corporation is concerned with his retirement even as he takes on the duties of the presidency. This change of attitude from personal responsibility to collectivized security is probably the result of the income tax; it would be difficult to trace it to any alteration in human nature or any deterioration of character.

 

It is most difficult to find a cause and effect relationship to explain changes in the ethic of a people, as, for instance, the transmogrification of the freedom-loving (and therefore self-reliant) American of times past into one leaning on society. Undoubtedly, ideas have consequences, and the current urgency to turn to government for assistance in solving life’s problems might be traced to the socialistic and populist ideas promulgated during the last part of the nineteenth century.

 

But, ideas must be institutionalized before the mass of people can accept, or even comprehend, them; a religious concept has no meaning until it is ritualized, given material form in a church and reduced to a catechism. So with political ideas. The socialists and the populists might have ranted on and on ad infinitum and without effect, had not the politicians, in their own interests, taken hold of these ideas and institutionalized them.

 

The ethic of the nineteenth century (sometimes called the Protestant ethic) held that man was endowed with free will and therefore was a responsible being, responsible for himself, responsible to his fellow man and to his God. The origins can be traced to the Industrial Revolution, with its emphasis on individual initiative; or perhaps to the introduction of the capitalistic system, with its emphasis on contract rather than on status, which prevailed during the feudalistic eras. The emergence of the idea that “a man was a man for a’ that,” that freedom from restraint was his due, not only gave him a sense of individual dignity but also put upon him the necessity of making choices and of suffering the consequences. This called for industry, thrift, and self-reliance. Society could do nothing for the individual which he could not better do for himself; in fact, society could do nothing for the individual.

 

This ethic held, in this country, because it was institutionalized. There was the institution of the Declaration of Independence, and the institution of the Constitution, with its inhibitions on the power of the government. A particularly inhibitory influence was the limitation on its taxing powers; the government could do little in the way of interfering with private affairs because it did not have the wherewithal necessary to effect interference. What it could get by way of excise taxes and tariff duties was just about enough to make it a going concern; its power of exploitation, inherent in all governments, was sharply delimited. Washington was a village on the Potomac where some legislators met for a few months in the year, to pass a few laws which little affected the welfare of the people, except when the laws had something to do with war.

 

Debates in Congress were interesting to read about or to talk about, but the issues involved did not concern the making of a living or the manner in which one got by in this world. Newspapers sent reporters, not correspondents, to Washington.

 

The ethic was further institutionalized in the manners and habits of the people, in the books that were written and the plays that were produced. For instance, the moral concepts of Hawthorne’s stories, the peccadilloes of Mark Twain’s characters, the simple tragedies in the lives of Louisa Alcott’s Little Women all emphasized the worth of the individual, while the popular plays dealt with individual heroics, rather than social trends. The school books, too, stressed the virtues of independence and personal responsibility. Charity was a personal matter, both for the donor and the donee; somebody gave to somebody, as a duty and not by way of law. Young folks took care of their parents, with love, not as they do now through the medium of taxation.

 

And so it has come to pass, during the second half of the twentieth century, that the ethic of the peddler class has been replaced by the ethic of mendicancy. I am inclined to the thought that the change indicates a deterioration of the American character; but, then, I am loyal to my youth, as is every older man, and may be prejudiced.

 

Yet, one cannot help speculating on the future. When the present generation, well inured to the Welfare State, shall have grown old, will it not also write books on the “good old days,” even as this book speaks lovingly of the ethic of the peddler class? And what new ethic— every generation has its own—will these books decry? Maybe it will be the ethic of the totalitarian state. Who knows?

 

 

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