-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---->민주국가의 정치가, 지식인들은 중국이 자본주의를 받아들이면 자연스레 민주화 될 거라고 예상했다. 하지만 중국은 경제적 역량을 키우면서, 서서히 국가주의적 방향으로 나아갔고, 그 과정에서 사회주의적 통제를 강화했다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---->개인적인 생각이지만 "역사의 족쇄"라는 게 있다. 한 국가의 행방은 그 나라의 과거 역사에 의해 상당히 영향을 받는다는 생각이다. 러시아가 옐친 이후로 민주주의 길로 가는듯 하다가, 푸틴이 들어서면서 과거 차르 시대처럼 변하고 말았다.
또 이란은 상당히 개방적인 국가였는데, 호메이니의 혁명으로 과거 이슬람 국가로 돌아가고 말았다. "자유" "민주"라는 것을 경험하지 못하고, 전제적인 왕이나 황제 아래 생활했던 사람들은 민주제를 경험해도, 선동이나 기타 정치적 수법으로 쉽게 과거의 전제적 생활로 돌아가고 만다.
중국은 무려 5천년간 전제적인 황제와 관료들 밑에서 살아온 국가이다. 따라서 중국이 완전한 민주 국가로 변신하기는 정말 힘이 든다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<공공의 적 장개석>이라는 옛날 공산당의 선전 책자.
장개석의 집안이 소금장사꾼이고, 장개석은 돈의 눈에서 나온 탐욕스런 악마라는 얘기.
Li Yuan
Bought this old picture book “Public Enemy Chiang Kai-shek” in Sichuan. It demonizes Chiang in every possible way.The first page is about his salt merchant family background.He was greedy and evil because he was born out of the eyes of money. The sort of education we grew up with
5부 주변부부터 터져나오는 금융위기의 신호들.
지방, 서민 건설 주택업자들 파산과
제 2 금융권 자영업 연체 폭증 (2019.07.10)
황장수
이미 작년 8월 뉴스이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
드루킹의 말대로 대한민국은 남미 사회주의 국가로 변하며 망하고 있다.
국민들이 사태를 잘 파악하고 바르게 투표해야 한다._정동수 목사 사랑침례교회
--->근대는 두 가지 벌을 우리에게 주었다. 너무 일찍 나이들게 하고, 너무 늦게 죽는다는 것이다.
머리 로스바드: 프랙시올로지 분석의 개척자
Murray Rothbard: "Pioneer of Praxeological Analysis"
Joseph T. Salerno
In the last decade or so there has been a concerted attempt by some economists associated more or less closely with the Austrian school to deny Rothbard’s central role in the modern revival of Austrian economics and to downplay his status as a leading proponent of the Misesian paradigm. In response, I have provided what I believe to be compelling textual evidence that Mises himself, as well as some of his closest followers, regarded Rothbard as Mises's foremost intellectual heir (here, here, and here). Now from the Rothbard archives comes a small treasure that corroborates the evidence I adduced in my earlier posts. This is in the form of Mises’s charming and pithy inscription in Rothbard’s copy of the third edition of Human Action, which reads:
To Murray N. Rothbard, pioneer of praxeological analysis with all good wishes. March 2nd, 1967.
“Pioneer of praxeological analysis”—given Mises’s well-known restraint in meting out compliments to fellow economists, this is high praise indeed and fits nicely with Mises’s remarks about Rothbard’s work in his letter defending praxeology to the French positivist Louis Rougier, which I cited in an earlier post:
The proof of the cake is in the eating. I can only refer to the systematic exposition of the whole doctrine of praxeology in my book Human Action and nowadays in the brilliant book of a younger man, Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy and State. . . .But, please, first of all read the book of Rothbard. It is very interesting also from the epistemological point of view.
-------------------------------------------
터커는 법률과 포고, 자유와 예속, 정의로운 정부와 권력을 탈취한 정부 등을 구별하는 기준을 찾으려 했다.
St. George Tucker: Distinguishing Laws from Dictates, and Freedom from Servitude
Gary Galles
While many of America’s founders are justifiably famous, others have received too little attention. St. George Tucker is one.
Born in Bermuda on July 10, 1752, Tucker was a militia colonel in the American Revolution, who even wrote Liberty: a Poem, on the Independence of America (my favorite line being “Freedom! thy joys alone are riches to the brave!”), that George Washington said “was equal to a reinforcement of 10,000 disciplined troops.” Afterward, his service included his appointment, with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, to the 1786 Annapolis Convention that led to the Constitutional Convention, and his opposition, with Patrick Henry and George Mason, to adopting the Constitution in the absence of a bill of rights.
Tucker’s greatest service to posterity, however, involved the law. Not only was he a law professor and judge on three different Virginia courts, historian Clyde Wilson noted that,
St. George Tucker’s View of the Constitution of the United States was the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution after it had been ratified by the people of the several states and amended by the Bill of Rights. Published in 1803 by a distinguished patriot and jurist, it was for much of the first half of the nineteenth century an important handbook for American law students, lawyers, judges, and statesmen.
David Kopel wrote, “St. George Tucker is perhaps the preeminent source of the original public meaning of the Constitution. His 5-volume American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries was by far the leading legal treatise in the Early Republic.” Tom DiLorenzo summarized it as laying out “the Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution, which was replaced by the centralizing, big government … interpretation after 1865.” The fact that the Supreme Court has cited Tucker 40 times illustrates the importance of his work.
Today, with St. George Tucker’s commitment to limited government, states’ rights, and the judiciary’s role of preventing government oppression a too-dim memory, his insights into liberty and the original understanding of government under our Constitution are worth re-visiting.
In this country … the blessings of liberty have been … dearly purchased.
In a government founded on the basis of equal liberty among all its citizens, to be ignorant of the law and the constitution is to be ignorant of the rights of the citizen.
What can be more absurd than that a person wholly ignorant of the constitution should presume to make laws pursuant thereto?
A distinction … does exist between the indefinite and unlimited power of the people … and the definite powers of the congress and state legislatures, which are severally limited to certain and determinate objects.
All men being by nature equal, in respect to their rights, no man nor set of men, can have any natural, or inherent right, to rule over the rest.
Legitimate government can … be derived only from the voluntary grant of the people, and exercised for their benefit.
Every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government.
Government originally founded upon consent, and compact, may by gradual usurpations on the part of the public functionaries … become a government of force. In this case, the people are as completely enslaved as if the original foundations of the government had been laid by conquest.
No people can ever be free, whose government is founded upon the usurpation of their sovereign rights.
If in a limited government the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every such act is … treason against the sovereignty of the people.
A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government. … Hence every attempt in any government to change the constitution (otherwise than in that mode which the constitution may prescribe) is in fact a subversion of the foundations of its own authority.
A written constitution … [is] a beacon to apprise the people when their rights and liberties are invaded, or in danger.
Abuse of power is despotism … the right of one man is at the mercy of another, and freedom in such a government, has no existence.
It is indispensably necessary … that there be a perfect equality of rights among the citizens. … Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties in an honest way, and the fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own.
The rights of property must be sacred.
A thousand … pretexts and arguments … form the ladder by which the agents of the people mount over the heads of their constituents … from whence they behold those who have raised them with contempt.
The American states have reserved to themselves … the administration of justice … in all cases whatsoever, in which they have not specifically consented to the jurisdiction of the United States.
[Federal] jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects, only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
This original compact … is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent rights of a state may be drawn in question … it ought likewise to receive the same strict construction, wherever the right of personal liberty, of personal security, or of private property may become the subject of dispute.
The authority of the federal government … ought therefore to receive the strictest construction. Otherwise the gradual and sometimes imperceptible usurpations of power, will end in the total disregard of all its intended limitations.
The federal government. … Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers … can possess no legitimate power, but such as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty prescribed and enjoined by the constitution.
Until, therefore, the people of the United States … shall think it necessary to alter, or revoke the present constitution of the United States, it must be received, respected, and obeyed among us, as the great and unequivocal declaration of the will of the people, and the supreme law of the land.
The powers delegated to the federal government … have no relation to the domestic economy of the state. The right of property, with all its train of incidents … and the rights of persons appear to be no further subject to the control of the federal government, than may be necessary to support the dignity and faith of the nation in its federal or foreign engagements, and obligations.
Since the citizen is on no other account obliged to pay taxes, or undergo any other public burden, but as they are necessary to defray the expenses of the state, it ought to be the singular care of the government to draw no further supplies than the exigencies of the public require.
The first question is whether the power be expressed in the constitution.
All governments have a natural tendency towards an increase and assumption of power; and the administration of the federal government, has too frequently demonstrated, that the people of America are not exempt from this vice ... parchment chains are not sufficient.
A representative democracy ceases to exist the moment that the public functionaries are by any means absolved from their responsibility to their constituents.
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature.
Every power which concerns the right of the citizen, must be construed strictly, where it may operate to infringe or impair his liberty.
In the United States, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as executive ambition … by constitutions, paramount to all laws: defining and limiting the powers of the legislature itself, and opposing barriers against encroachments.
The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state.
Absolute independence of the judiciary … [is] necessary to the liberty and security of the citizen, and his property.
The judiciary … is that department of the government to whom the protection of the rights of the individual is by the constitution especially confided, interposing its shield between him and the sword of usurped authority.
A law limited to such objects as may be authorized by the constitution, would … be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
The object of the several states … was not the establishment of a general consolidated government … but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects.
Acts of congress to be binding, must be made pursuant to the constitution; otherwise they are not laws.
As the subjects upon which congress have the power to legislate are all specially enumerated, so the judicial authority … is limited to the same subjects as congress have power to legislate upon.
People of America have not thought proper to suffer the freedom of speech and of the press to rest upon such an uncertain foundation as the will and pleasure of the government.
Whenever [civil] liberty is, by the laws of the state, further restrained than is necessary … a state of civil slavery commences. ... This species of slavery also exists whenever there is an inequality of rights, or privileges, between the subjects or citizens … for the pre-eminence of one class of men must be founded and erected upon the depression of another; and the measure of exaltation in the former, is that of the slavery of the latter.
St. George Tucker searched for “the criterion that distinguishes laws from dictates, freedom from servitude, rightful government from usurpation.” And Clyde Wilson suggests that his answer is best summarized in his statement that, “It is the due [external] restraint and not the moderation of rulers that constitutes a state of liberty.” Given that today, the federal power to oppress has clearly increased at the expense of Constitutional restraints, we should give Tucker’s understanding as much serious thought now as our forefathers did when our great experiment in liberty began.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
李庆丰老师讲甘草附子汤医理及病案
2015年12月17日
金匮甘草附子汤组成：甘草丶附子丶白术丶桂枝。
仅四味药，平淡无奇，要是用于临床，疗效斐然！
主治：风湿相抟，骨节疼烦，汗出短气，小便不利，恶风不欲去衣，或微肿者，以水寒土湿，木郁不能行水，湿阻关节，经络不通，是以痛肿，湿蒸汗泄，卫阳不固，故恶风寒，术丶甘，补土燥湿，桂枝疏木通经，附子温其水寒也。
这是黄师的解释。
我再给大家详细的诠释一下！
内经：诸湿肿满，皆属于脾，此症为内由太阴湿土阳衰，湿邪过盛，外感风湿之邪，或由于中风伤寒被误治，伤其里阳，外邪不解，导致内蕴湿寒、表阳失固、经络不通、关节酸痛、恶风汗出等证候。
首先我讲一下湿邪的成因及病机。
湿，为太阴之主气，由脾所主，脾能运化水湿，转输水液于肺，发宣于皮毛汗孔，降为甘露布散，以濡它脏，通过三焦，水津下布，渗于膀胱，排为尿液。内经：饮入于胃，游溢精气，上输于脾，脾气散精，上归于肺，通调水道，下输膀胱，水精四布，五经并行，合于四时，五脏阴阳，揆度以为常也。由于中土阳败，湿邪淫溢，脾主四肢肌肉，秉水谷之气而散精，阳衰土湿，精华不专，水液肆溢，关节乃人体溪壑蓄水之地，筋脉聚集之处，水流溪壑，理自然也。水暖土燥，木气条达无有湿阻，中土阳衰，脾阳不升，胃阴莫降，湿阻中黄，四溢肌肤关节，表阳不敛，营阴外泄，里阳更亏，无以温煦，故怕风汗出；阳虚气馁，湿阻经络，故肢体烦疼、汗出短气；水湿不流膀胱而弥于肢体丶皮肉，故痛酸肿满、小便不利；阳虚之人，最易感风湿之邪，风伤营，而卫开营泄，加之，湿气弥漫，则汗出恶风身重。
仲景治疗此证，内培中土而化湿，外解营卫之不和，甘丶术培土化湿，附丶桂暖水达木，配伍甚精！如湿重加泽泻丶茯苓，疗效倍增，我临床用之即五苓散加附子。
仲景：治湿不利小便，非其治也。然非单利才能去湿，要断生湿之源，必培土暖水。
举一例：一老太，年近七旬，感冒后，汗出不止，恶风不已，围被不敢出来，稍有透风，凉汗如水，脉沉缓，舌淡嫩齿痕，面白，多医不效，竟有庸医妄以为阴虚，重用生地知母，病情加重，我以甘草附子汤五剂，诸证悉除！
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
오령산 응용
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기