출처: 한겨레
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--->자신이 지명될 줄을 몰랐던 김 기자는, 준비가 없었던 탓에 오히려 평소 마음 속에 담고 있던 말을 할 수 있었다.
김 기자의 "자신감은 어디에서 나오는가?"라는 질문 하나에, 문죄인은 당황하고 말았다. 그리고 그 일당이 나서서 더러운 말들을 쏟아내고 있다. 저들의 오만방자함은 정말 어디에서 나오는 걸까?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국은 미국과 전부를 건 싸움을 벌이고 있다. 자신을 방위하는 게 당연한 것 아닌가?
월스트리트가 미국의 국가 안보와 무역 정책을 훼손하지 않도록 해야 한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
저게 경제부총리가 할 말인가? 고용사정이 나아지지 않을 거라는 걸 알고, 미리 선수 치는 건가?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
닐 퍼거슨과 중국의 Xiang Xu라는 학자의 공동 논문.
차이메리카(Chimerica)를 회복하기 위한 두 학자의 방안인데, 지금 미중 무역 분쟁은 단순한 무역 분쟁에서, 세계의 헤게모니를 둔 두 경제 대국의 싸움으로 성격이 바뀌었다. 따라서 시진핑이 죽고 그들의 패권주의적인 사고와 정책을 바꾸지 않는 한, 당분간 미중 협력 시대는 다시 오지 않을 듯 하다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
전통적인 남성성은 사회에 해롭다.
금속의 모양을 만드는 것은 망치이다.
우리의 노력과 목적이 새로움과 역경을 만나 충돌할 때, 우리는 성장한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
차이메리카(Chimerica)를 회복하기 위한 두 학자의 방안인데, 지금 미중 무역 분쟁은 단순한 무역 분쟁에서, 세계의 헤게모니를 둔 두 경제 대국의 싸움으로 성격이 바뀌었다. 따라서 시진핑이 죽고 그들의 패권주의적인 사고와 정책을 바꾸지 않는 한, 당분간 미중 협력 시대는 다시 오지 않을 듯 하다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
전통적인 남성성은 사회에 해롭다.
The American Psychological Association goes to war against boys and men
Barbara Kay
원석을 제련하는것은 불이다. 금속의 모양을 만드는 것은 망치이다.
우리의 노력과 목적이 새로움과 역경을 만나 충돌할 때, 우리는 성장한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
우리 삶의 규범들
해즐릿은 자본주의가 자유와 정의, 생산성 등을 증진하므로, 실제로는 부도덕을 조장하는 독재적 사회주의보다 더 월등하게 “사회적 (또는 도덕적)”이라 불릴 만하다고 주장한다.
우리 누구도 타인이 무엇으로 만족이나 행복에 이르는지 정확히 알고 있지 못하므로, 우리가 취해야 할 최고의 행동 규범은, 사람들 각자가 최선으로 자신의 목적을 추구할 수 있도록 사회적 협력을 조장하는 것이다.
도덕 규범은 언어나 종교, 예의, 법률처럼 자생적으로 발생했다. 그것은 아득한 과거 세대부터의 경험의 소산이고, 수백만 사람들의 상호관계, 상호 작용의 결과이다.
Codes to Live By
Rosalie Gordon / Bettina Bien Greaves
[Note: Henry Hazlitt considered The Foundations of Morality to be his most important work. The following two reviews of that book were found in one of the many boxes of papers generously given to the Mises Institute by Bettina Bien Greaves. Bettina wrote in a letter to Hazlitt "It seems to me this is your very best book, and one that will live through the centuries." Unfortunately The Foundations of Morality never received the audience recognition he would have liked, but as Bettina said, it is a book for the ages. Bettina was right because it remains immensely important today.]
"Codes to Live By" — Rosalie Gordon writing in America's Future (April 1973):
It is particularly fitting that there now be re-issued (it was first published in 1964) this seminal work by one of America's most distinguished journalists, economists and philosophers. Henry Hazlitt is as far as one can get from that breed of "instant" analyzers and accepters of current modes, which is merely another way of saying he thinks — thinks things through. And in these times, when at long last great numbers of our people are beginning to question the so-called "new morality" (which is neither new nor moral), his book could provide a needed buttress for that questioning. Besides, it will outlast by many decades the screeds of the "instant thinkers."
As an economist, Mr. Hazlitt is a practical man. As a moral philosopher, he understands the need for a rational basis for an ethical way of life. Contrary to modern "new morality" preachings, civilized man must have codes to live by; otherwise all is chaos and barbarism. Mr. Hazlitt traces most interestingly man's search for such codes throughout history, down to the present day. And between the Scylla of complete self-interest and the Charybdis of complete altruism, he reaches what he calls cooperatism — not the misnamed "social cooperation" of the socialist-communist state which imposes its dictators' brand of thinking on the people, but the sort of cooperation which flows naturally from men and women (as nearly as can be expected of fallible human beings) living by an individual ethical code which, being best for them, in the end is best for the whole society.
He puts it this way:
... social cooperation is the essence of morality. And morality, as we should constantly remind ourselves, is a daily affair, even an hourly affair, not just something we need to think about only in a few high and heroic moments. The moral code by which we live is shown every day, not necessarily in great acts of denunciation, but in refraining from little slights and meannesses, and in practicing little courtesies and kindnesses. Few of us are capable of rising to the Christian commandment to "love one another," but most of us can at least learn to be kind to one another — and for most earthly purposes this will do almost as well.
We found especially discerning Mr. Hazlitt's analysis of the moral or ethical bases of capitalism and socialism. He sees clearly that because capitalism promotes freedom, justice and productivity it has far more right to be called "social" (or "moral") than socialism which in its despotism actually promotes a code of immorality.
He cites, among other disciples of socialism, Lenin, who declared: "We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like toward those who disagree with us."
We cannot begin to indicate the wide scope of this study, save to say that the author delves deeply into the relationship of ethics or morality to law, economics, equality and inequality, freedom, rights and even (bless him — could anything be more necessary these days?) to good manners!
The Foundations of Morality — Bettina Bien Greaves writing in The Freeman (June 1973):
The many contradictions among different philosophical theories have caused much confusion over the years. Unfortunately, too few teachers and textbooks explain the basic principles that could help students discriminate intelligently among them and understand the ethical code which fosters freedom, morality and social cooperation. Thus, Henry Hazlitt deserves special credit for bringing logic and clarity to the subject. His book, The Foundations of Morality, was first published in 1964. After having been out of print for several years, it is again available thanks to Nash and the Institute for Humane Studies.
The author is primarily an economist, a student of human action. As a result, he is a strong advocate of individual freedom and responsibility. He has long been a close personal friend and associate of Professor Ludwig von Mises, the "dean" of free market economics, to whom he acknowledges a great intellectual indebtedness. With this background, he is well qualified to discuss the ethics of social cooperation. His many years of "apprenticeship" as essayist, book reviewer and columnist (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Freeman, National Review and many others) prepared him well for explaining complex matters simply. The reader may wish to pause, ponder and reflect from time to time on the ideas and concepts presented, but the author's reasoning is clear, his prose unambiguous and most chapters delightfully short.
Mr. Hazlitt's position is that "the interests of the individual and the interests of society," when "rightly understood" are in harmony, not conflict. His goal in writing this book was "to present a 'unified theory' of law, morals and manners" which could be logically explained and defended in the light of modern economics and the principles of jurisprudence. This reviewer believes most readers will agree that Mr. Hazlitt succeeded. He has marshalled the ideas of many philosophers and analyzed them with careful logic. He has explained many of the contradictions among them, thus disposing of much confusion. He has formulated a consistent moral philosophy based on an understanding of ethical principles, so frequently ignored in today's "permissive" climate, which promote peaceful social cooperation and free enterprise production.
Mr. Hazlitt points out that our complex market economy requires peaceful and voluntary social cooperation. The preservation of the market is essential for large scale production and thus for the very survival of most of us. Therefore, social cooperation is the very most important means available to individuals for attaining their various personal ends. This means that social cooperation is also at the same time a well worthwhile goal. Let Mr. Hazlitt speak for himself.
For each of us social cooperation is of course not the ultimate end but a means. ... But it is a means so central, so universal, so indispensable to the realization of practically all our other ends, that there is little harm in regarding it as an end-in-itself, and even in treating it as if it were the goal of ethics. In fact, precisely because none of us knows exactly what would give most satisfaction or happiness to others, the best test of our actions or rules of action is the extent to which they promote a social cooperation that best enables each of us to pursue his own ends.
Without social cooperation modern man could not achieve the barest fraction of the ends and satisfactions that he has achieved with it. The very subsistence of the immense majority of us depends upon it.
The system of philosophy outlined in the book is a form of utilitarianism, "insofar as it holds that actions or rules of action are to be judged by their consequences and their tendency to promote human happiness." However, Mr. Hazlitt prefers a shorter term, "utilism," or perhaps "rule utilism" to stress the importance of adhering consistently to general rules. He suggests also two other possible names — "mutualism" or "cooperatism" — which he thinks more adequately reflect the central role of social cooperation in the ethical system described.
The criterion for judging the consistency or inconsistency of a specific rule or action with this ethical system is always whether or not it promotes social cooperation. Mr. Hazlitt reasons from the thesis that social cooperation is of benefit to everyone. Even those who might at times like to lie, cheat, rob or kill for personal short-run gain can usually be persuaded of the longer-run advantages of social cooperation, i.e., of refraining from lying, cheating, robbing or stealing.
Even the most self-centered individual, in fact, needing not only to be protected against the aggression of others, but wanting the active cooperation of others, finds it to his interest to defend and uphold a set of moral (as well as legal) rules that forbid breaking promises, cheating, stealing, assault, and murder, and in addition a set of moral rules that enjoin cooperation, helpfulness, and kindness. ...
The predominant moral code in a society is compared with language or "common law." Society does not impose a moral code on the individual. It is a set of rules, hammered out bit by bit over many centuries:
[O]ur moral rules are continuously framed and modified. They are not framed by some abstract and disembodied collectivity called "society" and then imposed on an "individual" who is in some way separate from society. We impose them (by praise and censure, approbation and disapprobation, promise and warning, reward and punishment) on each other, and most of us consciously or unconsciously accept them for ourselves. ...
This moral code grew up spontaneously, like language, religion, manners, law. It is the product of the experience of immemorial generations, of the interrelations of millions of people and the interplay of millions of minds. The morality of common sense is a sort of common law, with an indefinitely wider jurisdiction than ordinary common law, and based on a practically infinite number of particular cases. ... [T]he traditional moral rules ... crystallize the experience and moral wisdom of the race.
But what about religion, you say? Doesn't a moral code have to rest on a religious bases? The fundamental thesis of this book as noted, is that reason and logic are sufficient to explain and defend the code of ethics which fosters and preserves social cooperation. Yet, the author does not ignore religion. He calls attention to similarities among the world's great religions and the contradictions in some of them. Religion and morality reinforce one another very often, he says, although not always and not necessarily. Here is his description of their relationship:
In human history religion and morality are like two streams that sometimes run parallel, sometimes merge, sometimes separate, sometimes seem independent and sometimes interdependent. But morality is older than any living religion and probably older than all religion. ... [W]hile religious faith is not indispensable [to the moral code] ... , it must be recognized in the present state of civilization as a powerful force in securing the observance that exists. ...
The most powerful religious belief supporting morality, however, seems to me ... the belief in a God who sees and knows our every action, our every impulse and over every thought, who judges us with exact justice, and who whether or not He rewards us for our good deeds and punishes us for our evil ones, approves of our good deeds and disapproves of our evil ones. ...
Yet it is not the function of the moral philosopher, as such, to proclaim the truth of this religious faith or to try to maintain it. His function is, rather, to insist on the rational basis of all morality, to point out that it does not need any supernatural assumptions, and to show that the rules of morality are or ought to be those rules of conduct that tend most to increase human cooperation, happiness and well-being in this our present life.
Mr. Hazlitt discusses many perplexing ideas and concepts such as natural rights, natural law, justice, selfishness, altruism, right, wrong, truth, honesty, duty, moral obligation, free will vs. determinism, politeness, "white lies." Anyone who has speculated on these problems without reaching satisfactory conclusions, as has this reviewer, will no doubt find his analyses and comments both stimulating and enlightening.
The book contains numerous quotations from the works of early and recent philosophers, which the author always analyzes for their consistency with social cooperation. Except for a few technical philosophical terms — such as tautology (repetition of the same idea in different words), eudaemonism (the doctrine that happiness is the final goal of all human action) and teleotic (an adjective derived from the Greek meaning end, design, purpose or final cause) — readers should not find anything in the book really difficult to understand. As they follow the author's line of thought, they will discover that reason and logic come to the defense of morality; order and a common sense ethical code evolve from philosophical chaos.
Mr. Hazlitt has long been a noted free market economist — one of the very best. His introductory Economics In One Lesson is a long-time best seller. The Failure of the "New Economics," a careful critique of Keynes, is a real contribution to economic theory. With the publication of The Foundations of Morality in 1964, he added another very important feather to his cap as a moral philosopher. It is good to have it in print again.
To summarize, the author explains again and again, in the course of the book under review, that the rules of ethics are neither arbitrary nor illogical. They are not mere matters of opinion. They are workable, acceptable, moral rules developed over long periods of time. They must be adhered to consistently and may not be willfully violated without detriment to social cooperation. In this age of permissiveness, when everyone is encouraged "to do his own thing" and few see any urgency in respecting the rights of others, it is a rare philosopher who recognizes that the consistent adherence to a set of ethical rules promotes social cooperation and benefits everyone in society. Perhaps a free market economist, whose very field of study encompasses the role of social cooperation, is the most appropriate person to explain the logic of this position. This book should live through the centuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
사회주의와의 마지막 전쟁
Still Fighting the Last War Against Socialism
Jeff Deist
Why does support for socialism persist?
The short answer may be simple human nature, our natural tendency toward dissatisfaction with the present and unease about the future. Even in the midst of almost unimaginable material comforts made possible only by markets and entrepreneurs—both derided by socialists—we cannot manage to conclusively defeat the tired but deadly old arguments for collective ownership of capital. We're so rich that socialists imagine the material wealth all around us will continue to organize itself magically, regardless of incentives.
It's a vexing problem, and not an academic one. Millions of young people across America and the West consider socialism a viable and even noble approach to organizing society, literally unaware of the piles of bodies various socialist governments produced in the 20th century. The fast-growing Democratic Socialists of America, led by media darlings Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now enjoy cool kid status. Open socialist Bernie Sanders very nearly won the Democratic Party's 2016 nominee for president before being kneecapped by the Clinton machine. New York City mayor Bill de Blasio helpfully announces "there is plenty of money in this city, it's just in the wrong hands." He freely and enthusiastically champions confiscation and redistribution of wealth without injury to his political popularity.
Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are outliers on the Right. Ocasio-Cortez and de Blasio are not outliers on the Left.
How is this possible, even as markets and semi-capitalism lift millions out of poverty? Why does socialism keep cropping up, and why do many well-intentioned (and ill-intentioned) people keep falling for something so patently evil and unworkable? Why do some battles have to be fought over and over?
The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin War fell decades ago. The Eastern Bloc discovered western consumerism, and liked it. Bill Clinton declared the era of Big Government over, and Francis Fukuyama absurdly pronounced that Western ideology had forever won the day. Even China and Cuba eventually succumbed to pressure for greater economic freedoms, not because of any ideological shift but because it became impossible to hide the reality of capitalist wealth abroad.
Yet economic freedom and property rights are under assault today in the very Western nations that became rich because of them.
Today's socialists insist their model society would look like Sweden or Denmark; not the USSR or Nazi Germany or Venezuela. They merely want fairness and equality, free healthcare and schooling, an end to "hoarded" wealth, and so forth. And they don't always advocate for or even know the textbook definition of socialism, as professors Benjamin Powell and Robert Lawson learned by attending socialist conferences (see their new book Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World). In many cases young people think socialism simply means a happy world where people are taken care of.
Never mind the Scandinavian countries in question insist they are not socialist, never mind the atrocities of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, and never mind the overwhelming case made by Ludwig von Mises and others against central economic planning. Without private owners, without capital at risk, without prices, and especially without profit and loss signals, economies quickly become corrupted and serve only the political class. Nicolás Maduro feasts while poor Venezuelans eat dogs, but of course this isn't "real" socialism.
History and theory don't matter to socialists because they imagine society can be engineered. The old arguments and historical examples simply don't apply: even human nature is malleable, and whenever our stubborn tendencies don't comport with socialism's grand plans a "social construct" is to blame.
These most recent spasms of support for the deadly ideology of socialism remind us that progressives aren't kidding. They may not fully understand what socialism means, but they fully intend to bring it about. Single-payer health care, "free" education, wealth redistribution schemes, highly progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, gun bans, and radical curbs on fossil fuels are all on the immediate agenda. They will do this quickly if possible, incrementally if they have to (see, again, the 20th century). They will do it with or without popular support, using legislatures, courts and judges, supranational agencies,university indoctrination, friendly media, or whatever political, economic, or social tools it takes (including de-platforming and hate speech laws). This is not paranoia; all of this is openly discussed. And say what you will about progressivism, it does have a central if false ethos: egalitarianism.
Conservatives, by contrast, are not serious. They have no animating spirit. They don't much talk about liberty or property or markets or opportunity. They don't mean what they say about the Constitution, they won't do a thing to limit government, they won't touch entitlements or defense spending, they won't abolish the Department of Education or a single federal agency, they won't touch abortion laws, and they sure won't give up their own socialist impulses. Trumpism, though not conservative and thoroughly non-intellectual, drove a final stake through the barely beating heart of Right intellectualism, from the Weekly Standard to National Review. Conservatism today is incoherent, both ideologically and tactically incapable of countering the rising tide of socialism.
Generals always fight the last war, and politics is no different. We all tend to see the current political climate in terms of old and familiar divisions, long-faded alliances, and obsolete rhetoric. We all cling to the comfortable ideology and influences that help us make sense of a chaotic world. As one commenter recently put it, liberal Baby Boomers still think it's 1968 and conservative Baby Boomers still think it's 1985. Generation X and Millennials will exhibit the same blinders. It may be disheartening to keep fighting what should be a long-settled battle against socialism, but today we have no other choice.
----------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기