정신병자들의 통치를 받는 멀쩡한 국민들! 참으로 역사에는 기이한 일들이 많이 일어난다.
한국이라는 배의 조종간을 탈취한 일단의 정신병자들은 과연 앞으로 또 어떤 광기를 보여줄까?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
마드리드 북한대사관 습격은 CIA가 아니라 북한레지스탕스 조직원 10명의 거사."(WP) 조갑제
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NKTV] #214. 역대급 긴박한 탈북현장 (3월13일 1부방송)
김문수
미국 국무부 <2018 북한인권보고서>가 문재인 정부를 정조준했습니다. 김정은만 쏜 게 아니라, 문재인을 쐈습니다. 김정은의 인권 침해에 대해서는 일부 표현을 완화한 반면, 문재인 정부의 김정은 눈치보기 사례는 조목조목 열거했습니다.
"평창올림픽 때 탈북자 단체에게 '김정은 비판을 참아달라'고 압력을 가했다."
"판문점 남북정상회담 취재에 탈북자 출신 조선일보 김명성 기자의 출입을 불허했다."
"북한인권법 시행을 하지 않고, 북한인권재단 사무실을 폐쇄했다."
"북한인권대사를 1년 이상 공석으로 두었다."
친북을 넘어 종북으로 달려가는 문재인이 문젭니다.
"평창올림픽 때 탈북자 단체에게 '김정은 비판을 참아달라'고 압력을 가했다."
"판문점 남북정상회담 취재에 탈북자 출신 조선일보 김명성 기자의 출입을 불허했다."
"북한인권법 시행을 하지 않고, 북한인권재단 사무실을 폐쇄했다."
"북한인권대사를 1년 이상 공석으로 두었다."
친북을 넘어 종북으로 달려가는 문재인이 문젭니다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[경악] 부산 국밥집 사장이자 문재인 팬클럽 운영자 국립공원공단 이사장 되다
출처: 프리덤코리아닷컴
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
미국의 안치용 기자 기사
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
518진상] 8가지 의혹 규명전 김진태,이종명,김순례 징계절대 불가, 성명[9개시민단체]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://youtu.be/p3OhSB-o7oE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
자본주의 투자는 가장 위대한 자선이다.
가장 위대한 자선은 사람들을 도와서 그가 자연의 제한 내에서 완전히 자조적으로 만들고 나아가 자유인으로 만드는 것이다.
자선에는 소비적인 자선과 생산적인 자선이 있다. 소비적인 자선은 세상에 흔히 알려진 자선을 말한다. 이에 반해 생산적인 자선이란 개인 기업에 투자된 저축의 결과로 나타난다. 그로 인해 사람들의 생활에 지속적인 영향을 미치게 되고, 근본적인 의미에서 자선이 된다.
Capitalist Investment: The Greatest Type of Charity
Jay Engel
In our time of rising socialistic rhetoric and indignation against those who have great levels of wealth, we also encounter the idea that the use of wealth for charitable purposes is better for society, perhaps even more moral, than the use of wealth for business development and capital investment.
Few interpretations of social affairs are as unpopular as defenses of the existence of billionaires and wealthy capitalists. But it is the employment of capital into the production structure that reaps great benefit to the world. To elaborate on this theme, I want to summarize a certain concept that was formulated by the great F.A. Harper in the 1956 festschrift to Ludwig von Mises.
In his essay “The Greatest Economic Charity,” Harper challenges the prevailing notions regarding the relationship between wealth redistribution and charity. We can, as Harper does, refer to economic charity in a standard dictionary sense wherein the purpose of charity is to initiate material benevolence, to improve the material well being of someone else, most often someone who has a particularly obvious set of needs to be met.
But in terms of material benevolence, we can reasonably see a difference between an effort of charity which improves the immediate conditions of a man, and an effort of charity which improves the long-term conditions of not only a specific person, but an entire society of them.
It is this latter charity, which actually works to prevent men from facing constant need of charity in the future, that Harper refers to as the greatest economic charity. He writes,
The greatest charity of all… would be to assist a person toward becoming wholly self-reliant within nature’s limits, and therefore totally free.
Here, we can turn our focus to Harper’s separation between what we might call consumptive charity and productive charity.
By consumptive charity, I refer to what most naturally comes to mind when we think of the nature of charity. Harper describes this concept as follows:
Of the various forms of economic charity in which we commonly indulge, the simplest would seem to be something such as buying a vagrant a cup of coffee or giving him a dime for the purpose.
Most of the colossal amount of activity which today goes by the name of charity is of this type, where the intent of the giver is to provide something for direct consumption or relief of a destitute recipient.
Unfortunately, too many people focus their understanding of charity on those acts which only has the effect of consumption based needs-resolution in the immediate term.
While there is a role for this type of charity in society, it can also be counter-productive, can actually subsidize current conditions, and can even be leveraged by politicians and other power-seekers to effectually enslave men. For example, writes Harper in 1956,
National socialism is a common form, where the state becomes the dispenser of loot collected by force. The recipients lose their self-reliance in the process and come to feel indebted forever to the collective for their very lives. They have by then become enslaved.
In our time, the ever-popular democratic socialism could just as easily be used as the example.
Thus, we turn to productive charity; or charity that comes about as a result of “savings invested in privately owned economic tools of production.” Harper argues the investment into the “tools of production” not only has a longer and more sustainable effect on the livelihood of people, but it actually meets the conditions of charity in a much more profound way.
By economic tools of production, Harper means capital goods; goods, as Murray Rothbard, explains, “which aid in the process of production eventually to produce consumers’ goods.“ They are the factories, the equipment, the manufactured machinery that are arranged together to increase the output of goods that individuals consider as serviceable to satisfy their ultimate material ends.
Now, Harper describes three ways in which capital investment in the immediate terms satisfies the characteristics of economic charity in the longer term. Firstly, the investment in capital goods today eventually produces new goods that otherwise would not have been created; the tools make possible extra goods which are, by definition, passed on to others who see value in them.
Secondly, the transfer of economic benefits is voluntary—for stolen property passed from one party to the other does not meet the conditions for true charity; charity precludes theft as a means of wealth transfer. Charity requires the benefactor to act freely and of his own will in passing on material benefits to another.
Thirdly, and perhaps most insightfully, Harper mentions the clear anonymous nature of this economic charity. Rather than charity done with trumpets and lavishing media attention, investment into the capital structure has a benefit for thousands, perhaps millions of future people, many of whom are not born yet and certainly are unaware of the identification of this benefactor. Appealing to self-reflection, Harper writes:
One can easily test from his own experience the anonymity of the charity that flows from savings and investment in tools. If one will list all the economic items he consumes or enjoys in a day, the test is to try in each instance to name specifically all the persons whose savings and investment made the item possible. Most of us, I dare say, could not name even one person responsible for an item we use and enjoy.
The material well-being that was passed on to present day hundreds of millions of beneficiaries of the yesterday’s investment, Harper observed at the time, was vastly greater than the funds collected on an annual basis for consumptive charity. In fact, consumptive charity was “less than 1 percent of the amount of charity which users of tools receive” in the same length of time. This is because the capital tools bolster the quantity and quality of goods and therefore make workers more productive; it extends and expands the fruit of their labor.
The reason that the west faced greater levels of wealth than other parts of the globe over the last 300 years has little to do with things like disparities in intelligence, a spirit of innovation, and hard work. How much harder to so many people around the world work merely to survive another day? What really matters is the accumulation of savings and the investment of that savings into capital goods. At any time, mankind has within its reach the ability to pass on a greater amount of wealth to people it has never met; it does not require brilliant planners, democratically based political angst, or a soaking of the rich.
Harper therefore encourages his reader to have a wider perspective on the ramifications of the contemporary spirit of emphasizing consumptive charity over productive charity. It’s possible, he states, that
the giving of the grain to a starving person… could better serve as seed for a harvest that would keep twenty persons from starving later. […]
Savings, when used wisely by private enterprise to produce capital tools of venture, serve as economic seed in a like manner. The use of it as seed becomes an act of charity with a high leverage. But its creation requires enough patience and restraint from demands for immediate consumption so that the tools will be created. One must have foresight and economic insight enough to see beyond the exceedingly conspicuous and tempting need for present consumption.
Capitalism provides a better and longer-lasting charitable effect than any other socio-economic arrangement conceivable. The savers and investors of today, those who contribute to the buildup of capital goods and factors of production, are benefactors of persons yet unborn. If economic charity is at its greatest when it enables men to overcome the conditions of poverty and hand-to-mouth existences, the social criticism of capitalists and those that invest into the capital structure must be swiftly brought to an end.
C.Jay Engel is a business owner and entrepreneur who lives with his wife and two children in northern California.
----------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기