정세가 고조되고 있습니다. 문재인 지지도는 최저로 떨어지고 있습니다. 삭발한 제 머리를 얼른 알아보고 격려해 주시는 분들이 늘어나고 이야깃거리가 많아져 길을 나설 때 조금 빨리 나서고 있습니다.
혁명정세는 무르익었는데 주체세력은 4분5열되어 어지럽습니다. 어제 토요일 광화문 광장에는 굶어 죽은 탈북모자 고 한성옥ㆍ김동진 노제가 청와대 앞 연좌농성까지 계속 됐습니다. 삭발한 황교안 대표와 자유한국당 집회가 세종문화회관에서 크게 열렸습니다. 서울역 우리공화당 집회, 동화면세점 일파만파, 시청앞 국본, 여러 집회가 성황이었습니다.
청와대 앞에서는 <문재인 하야 범국민투쟁본부> 집회가 계속됐습니다. 고조된 정세를 돌파해 나갈 주체세력들의 통일ㆍ정돈ㆍ단결을 목말라 하는 참가자의 목소리가 높아지고 있습니다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
직장인 월급여 중 4대보험료 비중 9% 육박
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
지금 무슨 표창장 위조이니, 자녀들 입시비리니
그런 비위들은 새발에 피고, 조국도 그걸 두려워 하는게 아니다
빨갱이들이 지금 진짜 두려워하는 것은 조국 사모펀드와 신라젠 사태의 연관성이다.
민주당이 신라젠 폭탄돌리기 해서 정치자금 조성한 것은
정치에 조금만 관심 있는 사람이라면 누구나 다 아는 사실이다.
근데 그 신라젠을 수사한 서울남부지검 합수단이 조국 펀드를 파기 시작했고,
검찰 내부에서는 이미 냄새를 맡은 것이다.
조국 사모펀드와 신라젠의 연관성
이게 현재 빨갱이들이 가장 두려워하는 초대형 권력형 게이트의 실체이고,
검찰의 칼이 정확히 그쪽으로 향하고 있다는 점이다. / 일베
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문준용 "아버지 찬스 없이 열심히 살고 있다" vs 한국당 "도둑이 제 발 저려"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
폭망하는 베네수엘라 정권이 바뀌지 않는 이유
기업들하고
상위 10%의 지식인. 기업가. 전문직들은
죄다 나라를 떠남.....
좆망하는 와중에도 계속 복지하고 돈 달라는 인간들만 남았음
500만명이 떠났으면 말 다한거
남아있는 개돼지들은 아직도 차베스 그리워하면서
돈파주던 시절로 돌아가길 원함
한국도 이민자 늘어나고 기업들 해외로 공장이전 중.....
슬슬 좌파정치인들은 돈 퍼주기 시작함
일단 기업들 튀기 시작하면 그때부터 조심해라
여차하면 우리도 날라야할지 모른다. / 일베
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
노무현·MB정부 때 함박도 실태조사… 軍이 군사보호구역이라며 출입 불허. ---조선일보
---->국방장관이란 자의 목부터 베어야 한다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
The #HongKong police have invented a perpetual motion machine: undercover cops engage in violence, uniformed police use brutal tactics, society becomes enraged, there are more protests. This could go on for years.
사회 혼란의 무한동력기계 장치를 발명한 홍콩 경찰.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
MacArthur was smarter than 99.9% of America's #China experts.
Steven Eisenberg
Reading American Caesar (out of order). MacArthur knew, " 'never' recognize Peking because that would strengthen Mao's prestige. It should be the US goal...to destroy that prestige."
맥아더는, 중국을 인정하면 그것이 모택동의 권위를 강화할 거라고 생각하고, 중국을 인정하지 않았다.
-------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China's Communist Party, led by #XiJinping, is now pursuing all the same strategies that led to its near failure in the Maoist era. It is not hard to figure out what happens next.
중국 공산당이 모택동을 실패에 이르게 한 모든 전략들을 다시
추구하고 있다. 다음에 무슨 일이 일어날지 뻔하다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
인도네시아 여성의 핸드백을 강탈하려 할 때, 일어나는 일
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
류석춘 교수 ‘입장문’ 전문
입장문
2019년 9월 19일 제가 담당하고 있는 발전사회학 강의 현장에서 있었던 일을 가지고 학내외가 시끄럽습니다. 외부 언론이 21일부터 강의 ‘내용’이 문제라는 기사를 쓰기 시작해 파장이 커지고 있고, 학내에서는 22일 총학생회 그리고 사회학과 학생회가 강의 중에 ‘혐오발언’이 있었다는 문제제기를 하였습니다. 학교 당국도 저에게 연락해 이 문제에 대한 입장을 문의하기도 하였습니다.
‘프레시안’이 강의 음성을 녹취해 보도한 [전문]에 따르면 이른바 ‘혐오발언’의 구체적 내용과 맥락은 다음과 같습니다. 특히 노란색으로 덧칠해진 부분이 문제가 되고 있습니다.
문제의 “궁금하면 한 번 해볼래요?”라는 발언이 나오게 된 과정은 다음과 같습니다. 매춘이 식민지 시대는 물론 오늘날 한국 그리고 전 세계 어디에도 존재한다는 설명을 하면서, 매춘에 여성이 참여하게 되는 과정이 가난 때문에 ‘자의반 타의반’으로 이루어진다는 설명을 했습니다. 그런데 일부 학생들이 이 설명을 받아들이지 않고 같은 질문을 반복하기에, 수강생들이 현실을 정확히 이해할 필요가 있음을 강조하기 위해 “궁금하면 (학생이 조사를) 한 번 해 볼래요?”라고 역으로 물어보는 취지의 발언을 한 것입니다. 그러므로 이 발언은 학생에게 매춘을 권유하는 발언이 절대 아닙니다. 차별을 위한 혐오발언도 전혀 아닙니다. 시중에 유통되고 있는 녹음 파일의 해당 부분을 확인하면 이 맥락은 더욱 분명히 드러납니다.
저는 오랜 동안 연세대학교 교수로 재직하면서 학생들과 격의 없이 소통하는 일에 소홀하지 않았습니다. 강의실에서는 물론이고 강의실 밖에서도 학생들과 어울려 자유로운 토론과 소통을 통해 젊은 세대의 입장을 이해하고자 항상 노력했습니다. 그리고 그 과정을 통해 연구와 강의에도 큰 도움을 받았기 때문에 그런 자세를 항상 보람 있게 생각해 왔습니다. 그래서 이번 사태는 저에게 더욱 큰 충격으로 다가옵니다.
저는 강의를 할 때 내용을 직선적으로 전달하는 스타일이기 때문에, 일부 학생들은 그걸 좋아하고 또 다른 일부 학생들은 불편해 하기도 합니다. 그러나 이 문제는 스타일의 문제이지 옳고 그름의 문제는 아닙니다. 더구나 학문의 영역은 감정의 영역이 아니고 이성의 영역입니다. 이번 강의에서도 세간에서 당연하다고 알고 있는 식민지 시대의 상황이 사실은 객관적 진리가 아닐 수 있음을 최신 연구결과인 이영훈 교수 등의 연구 성과를 인용하면서 직선적으로 그 내용을 설명했습니다. 그 과정에서 강의 내용에 선뜻 동의 못하는 일부 학생들이 있다는 사실도 충분히 인지할 수 있었습니다. 그렇기 때문에 보다 명확한 이해를 위해 바로 위와 같은 발언을 하게 된 것입니다. 결코 학생들을 혐오하거나 차별하려는 발언이 아닙니다. 매춘을 권유하는 발언이라는 지적은 언어도단입니다.
저는 이번 사태에 대한 학생회와 대학당국의 대처를 보면서 깊은 우려를 표하지 않을 수 없습니다. 학생회와 대학당국이 이번 저의 발언을 두고 그 진의를 왜곡한 채 사태를 ‘혐오발언’으로 몰고 가는 것은 아닌가 하는 의심마저 들기 때문입니다. 강의실에서의 발언을 맥락 없이 이렇게 비틀면 ‘명예훼손’ 문제까지도 고려할 수 있습니다. 요즘 화제가 되고 있는 이영훈 교수 등이 출판한 『반일 종족주의』 내용을 학생들이 심도 있게 공부해서 역사적 사실관계를 분명히 파악할 필요가 있다는 취지의 발언을 한 것뿐입니다.
하지만 이번 일을 겪으면서 저에게는 더욱 안타까운 대목이 있습니다. 바로 강의실에서 행해진 발언과 대화를 교수의 동의 없이 녹음하고 외부에 일방적으로 유출해, 강의 내용에 비판적인 입장을 가진 외부의 언론으로 하여금 대대적인 보도를 하게 한 행위입니다. 대학은 기존의 지식을 검증해 새로운 지식을 찾는 일을 사명으로 하는 공간입니다. 학문의 자유는 바로 이걸 보장하기 위해 존재합니다. 강의실에서의 발언은 교수와 학생 간의 토론과 대화로 끝나야 합니다. 경우에 따라 필요하면 학술적인 세미나 등의 방식으로 논쟁할 수 있습니다. 특히 현재 쟁점이 되고 있는 위안부 문제에 대한 논쟁은 전문가들 사이에서 공개적인 토론을 거쳐 사실관계를 엄밀히 확인하는 작업이 필요하다고 생각합니다. 그러나 그 과정에서 생길 수 있는 이견 나아가서 갈등을 외부에 의도적으로 노출시켜 기존 주장과 다른 주장을 하는 교수에게 외부의 압력과 통제가 가해지도록 유도하는 일은 정말이지 대학에서는 있을 수 없는 일입니다.
대학 강의실에 존재할 수 있는 권력관계를 저는 최대한 경계하며 교수 생활을 해왔습니다. 강의 소개를 할 때도 항상 “내 의견에 동의하지 않는 사람도 성적을 잘 줄 수 있다. 다만 그런 주장을 보고서에 성실히 정면으로 제출해 달라. 논리와 자료를 가지고”라고 요구해 왔습니다. 특히 “교수에게 잘 보이기 위한 아부성 보고서는 환영하지 않는다”는 말도 빼놓지 않습니다. 평소 이렇게 생각하는 저에게 학생회와 대학 당국이 혐오발언과 권력관계를 문제 삼고 있는 현실은 참으로 안타까운 일입니다. 이번 일을 계기로 다시는 이런 불행한 일이 반복되지 않기를 바라며, 학내외 관계된 분들에게 이 글을 공개해 저의 입장을 밝힙니다.
류석춘
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Yardley
Amazing that @BBCNews discusses ''the Greta effect" at UN without considering who this child's backers are. This omission must be considered suspicious & possible evidence that @BBC itself is pursuing political agendas on climate change. Normal journalistic scrutiny is suspended.
그레타 선버그GretaThunberg의 배후 지지자들이 누구인지 고려하
지 않고, 비비씨 뉴스가 유엔에서의 "그레타 효과"를 토론하고
있다. 어쩌면 비비씨 자체가 기후 변화라는 정치적 의제를 추
구하고 있는지도 모른다.
---------------------------------------------------------
Darren Grimes
Remainers: Darren, you don’t have a degree! You have no right to debate & discuss politics or economics!
Also Remainers: A 16-year-old pigtailed truant is convinced the world will die in a ball of flames! We must ensure poorer people STOP driving, eating meat or taking flights!
유럽연합 잔류파: 대런, 당신은 학위도 없잖아! 당신은 정치나
경제를 토론할 권리가 없어!
또 다시 잔류파: 16살 짜리 꽁지머리를 한 무단결석 학생이 세
계가 화염에 휩싸여 망할 거라고 확신하고 있다. 그러므로 우
리는 가난한 사람들이 운전하고 고기를 먹거나 비행기를 타는
등의 행위를 금지해야 한다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henrik Palmgren
On behalf of Swedes, I apologize for #GretaThunberg, she does not represent us. I disavow her climate alarmism that's sucking kids into an apocalyptic cult. She's being used in a PR campaign called "We Don't Have Time" started by Al Gore's business partner Ingmar Rentzhog:
스웨덴 인을 대표해 그레타 선버그에 대해 사과합니다. 앨 고
거의 사업 동반자인 잉그마 렌조그에 의해 조직된 <우리는 시
간이 없다>라는 정치적 올바름 운동이 있는데, 그 소녀 아이는
거기에 이용된 것입니다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg
Why would Economist claim that climate change in Malawi has reduced maize yield by 65%?
Maize (corn) yields are increasing by 10% per decade
경제학자들은 왜 기후변화로 인해 말라위의 옥수수 수확이 65% 줄었다고 주장하는 걸까?
옥수수 수확은 10년 사이에 10% 증가했다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Yardley
ADVICE FOR YOUNG ECO WARRIORS
Walk to school 학교까지 걸어가기
Second-hand clothes 중고 옷
No central heating or hot water 중앙난방 또는 온수 없음
Bin smartphone and computer 중고 스마트폰과 컴퓨터
Bed by 8 8시까지 취침
Strict vegan diet 엄격한 비건 식사
No holidays 일요일 없음
Compulsory gardening 강제 원예 노동
환경운동 전사들이 지켜야할 사항들
----------------------------------------------------------------
Social scientists distinguish high-trust societies (where you expect most interactions to work) from low-trust societies (where you have to be on guard at all times).
People in low-trust societies may welcome an authoritarian ruler, someone who will impose order & consequences.
저(低)신뢰 사회의 주민들은 권위주의적 지도자를 환영한다.
전라도 사람들이 슨상님을 따르는 이유가 이것인가?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quillette
"One of the worst norm violations in philosophy is letting feelings creep in."
철학에서 최악의 규범 위반은 감정을 개입하는 것이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
“Hatred may lure us with feelings of righteousness, but it changes little for the better. Morality should certainly shape our political views, but our politics must never shape our morality.”
도덕이 우리의 정치적 견해를 형성해야지, 정치가 우리의 도덕
을 만들어서는 절대 안 된다.
-------------------------------------------------------------
기술 혁신은 두려워할 필요가 없다
기술이 일부 직업을 없애버렸지만, 기술은 또 새로운 직업들을 만들어냈다.
혁신은 단순히 일부 직업들을 사라지게 하는 게 아니라, 노동시장의 구조 자체를 근본적으로 변화시킨다.
Technological Innovation Is Nothing to Fear
Jean Vilbert
In recent decades, increasingly rapid innovation in medicine, education, means of transport, data storage, and communication have contributed to a general improvement in living standards. Still, from time to time this successful narrative is hit hard by noisy worries about the “job-destroying effect of automation” — a notion that remains lodged in minds of a lot of people.
A survey by Pew Research Internet finds Americans are roughly twice as likely to express worry (72 percent) than enthusiasm (33 pecent) about a future in which innovations are capable of doing tasks that are currently done by humans. Why are these fears so strong and persistent? Why are so many people afraid of technology?
We could point out several reasons, among which are self-interested authors (who are selling dystopian books) or even the (always present) political-ideological purpose — along with its secondary aims. But let’s focus here on two causes that maybe are the most important ones: (1) misinformation and (2) the fear of being left behind.
We must cast light upon these points to shake off the wide pessimism (prevalent nowadays) and replace it with realism about the role technology plays in our lives, notably in the labor market.
War Against the Machines
The idea of an eternal battle between men and machines is deeply embedded in the popular imagination through popular films like I, Robot or The Terminator, in which machines attempt to take over the world.
But even presumed lesser threats — such as the idea machines will put us out our jobs — are well ingrained in the minds of many.
Nor is this anything new. The Luddites, for example, were artisans whose manual skills were being replaced by mechanization in the early Industrial Revolution and who decided to fight back by smashing machines. In 1753, for example, they targeted John Kay, inventor of the “flying shuttle” (one of the first significant improvements in the mechanization of weaving), and burned his house down. It’s little wonder their movement has become synonymous with resistance to technological change.
Were Luddites able to stop technological innovation? Certainly not. Moreover, today we know that the brilliant inventions of that time (mass production machines) lowered costs and prices, enabling working class consumers to purchase things that before only aristocrats had access and that today we take for granted (sugar, tea, coffee, watches, porcelain, glass, curtains, colorful clothes, etc.).
That’s a good thing. But how about jobs lost? Sometimes a single machine can replace dozens of workers. So aren't machines a threat? Those who think so today certainly aren't alone. In 1930, John Maynard Keyes wrote an essay suggesting that there would be mass unemployment following automation of manufacturing.
Not surprisingly, Keynes was proven quite wrong. Unemployment has not become endemic to the modern economy even though mechanization has meant manufacturing dropped from 32 percent of the workforce in 1910 to 24 percent in 1970 to 8.5 percent in 2018. Jobs created in new areas replaced the jobs in manufacturing.
Moreover, as the twentieth century progressed, the job force grew to the point where female participation in the workforce grew to levels never before seen.
What conclusion can we draw from this? If technology eliminated some jobs, it clearly also brought some new ones into being. Keynes seems to have forgotten (among other things) that the stock of work in the economy is not fixed: where a door is closed, others (bigger ones) are opened.
Technology Changes the Way We Work
In 1901, the population in England and Wales was 32.5 million. 200,000 people were engaged in washing clothes. Then, electricity and indoor plumbing came up, technologies that made possible the automatic washing machine. The drudgery of hand washing became a thing of the past. By 2011, with a population of 56.1 million, just 35,000 people worked in the sector, most in commercial laundries.
It seems that we lost a lot of jobs, doesn’t it? But that’s not really what happened. We need to examine data sources carefully for better answers. The quoted figures above, for example, came from a study by economists at the consultancy Deloitte that indicates that innovation does not simply take away our jobs; instead, it fundamentally change the labor market structure.
Now, we cannot deny that, in some sectors, technology costs jobs (especially the low-skilled ones). However, in a vast number of cases, new technologies merely ease our workload or allow us not to do what we do not want to do anymore (something dull, dirty or dangerous, in general). So, the previous question is whether the jobs lost are really jobs we would want to hold on to.
Allow me to illustrate. A paper from Office for National Statistics shows that in 1841 around 20 percent of workers were concentrated in agriculture and fishing (dull and dirty and dangerous jobs). This number has declined to less than 1 percent by 2011. Statistics indicate that today robotics makes up 29 percent of welding applications. Welding requires professionals to work both with chemical reactions (hazardous fumes and ultraviolet light) and extremely hot temperatures. This makes it a particularly good fit for robotics when it comes to safety — when operating welding robots, humans stay behind safety fences or interlocking doors. This is just one example of how robots could supplement our roles by making them less dangerous than before.
Indeed, the last centuries have been witnessing a profound shift in the labor market, which is switching from muscle power activities to caregiving professions. In 1871, muscle power occupations (including agricultural workers, cleaners, domestic servants, routine factory operatives, construction laborers and miners) represented 23.7 percent of total employment; by 2011 this number has decreased to 8.3 percent. In the same period, caring professionals (encompassing health and teaching professionals, welfare and care home workers) leaped from 1.1 to 12.2 percent.
Nor does innovation necessarily lead to declines in wages. As reported by Brookings in 2011:
Real hourly compensation increased from an average $9.88 per hour in 1947 to $35.44 per hour today. These improvements in compensation and the rising living standards they afford reflect innovations that have made businesses and people more productive.
Jean Vilbert holds a Bachelors and a Masters of Law. He is currently a Judge and Professor in São Paulo, Brazil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
정부란 무엇인가?
정부란 거대한 허구인데, 사람들은 이를 통해 다른 사람들의
사유재산을 빼앗아 먹고 살려한다.
Government
Claude Frédéric Bastiat
[Excerpt from chapter 3 of the Bastiat Collection.]
반복해서 읽어도 좋은 바스티아의 명문.
I wish someone would offer a prize—not of a hundred francs, but of a million, with crowns, medals and ribbons—for a good, simple and intelligible definition of the word “Government.”
What an immense service it would confer on society!
The Government! What is it? Where is it? what does it do? what ought it to do? All we know is, that it is a mysterious personage; and assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tormented, the most overwhelmed, the most admired, the most accused, the most invoked, and the most provoked, of any personage in the world. I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader, but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.
And should the reader happen to be a lady, I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it.
But, alas! that poor unfortunate personage, like Figaro, knows not to whom to listen, nor where to turn. The hundred thousand mouths of the press and of the speaker’s platform cry out all at once:
“Organize labor and workmen.”
“Do away with greed.”
“Repress insolence and the tyranny of capital.”
“Experiment with manure and eggs.”
“Cover the country with railways.”
“Irrigate the plains.”
“Plant the hills.”
“Make model farms.”
“Found social laboratories.”
“Colonize Algeria.”
“Nourish children.”
“Educate the youth.”
“Assist the aged.”
“Send the inhabitants of towns into the country.”
“Equalize the profits of all trades.”
“Lend money without interest to all who wish to borrow.”
“Emancipate Italy, Poland, and Hungary.”
“Rear and perfect the saddle-horse.”
“Encourage the arts, and provide us with musicians and dancers.”
“Restrict commerce, and at the same time create a merchant navy.”
“Discover truth, and put a grain of reason into our heads. The mission of Government is to enlighten, to develop, to extend, to fortify, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people.”
“Do have a little patience, gentlemen,” says Government in a beseeching tone. “I will do what I can to satisfy you, but for this I must have resources. I have been preparing plans for five or six taxes, which are quite new, and not at all oppressive. You will see how willingly people will pay them.”
Then comes a great exclamation: “No! indeed! Where is the merit of doing a thing with resources? Why, it does not deserve the name of a Government! So far from loading us with fresh taxes, we would have you withdraw the old ones. You ought to suppress:
“The salt tax,
“The tax on liquors,
“The tax on letters,
“Custom-house duties,
“Patents.”
In the midst of this tumult, and now that the country has two or three times changed its Government, for not having satisfied all its demands, I wanted to show that they were contradictory. But what could I have been thinking about? Could I not keep this unfortunate observation to myself?
I have lost my character for I am looked upon as a man without heart and without feeling—a dry philosopher, an individualist, a plebeian—in a word, an economist of the English or American school. But, pardon me, sublime writers, who stop at nothing, not even at contradictions. I am wrong, without a doubt, and I would willingly retract. I should be glad enough, you may be sure, if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, work for all hands, capital for all enterprises, credit for all projects, salve for all wounds, balm for all sufferings, advice for all perplexities, solutions for all doubts, truths for all intellects, diversions for all who want them, milk for infancy, and wine for old age—which can provide for all our wants, satisfy all our curiosity, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance and activity.
What reason could I have for not desiring to see such a discovery made? Indeed, the more I reflect upon it, the more do I see that nothing could be more convenient than that we should all of us have within our reach an inexhaustible source of wealth an enlightenment—a universal physician, an unlimited pocketbook, and an infallible counselor, such as you describe Government to be. Therefore I want to have it pointed out and defined, and a prize should be offered to the first discoverer of the will-o-the-wisp. For no one would think of asserting that this precious discovery has yet been made, since up to this time everything presenting itself under the name of the Government is immediately overturned by the people, precisely because it does not fulfill the rather contradictory requirements of the program.
I will venture to say that I fear we are in this respect the dupes of one of the strangest illusions that have ever taken possession of the human mind.
Man recoils from trouble—from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose then between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the enjoyment from assuming their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the enjoyment that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be—whether that of wars, taxes, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc.—monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought that has given them birth. Oppression should be detested and resisted—it can hardly be called trivial.
Slavery is subsiding, thank heaven! and on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy.
One thing, however, remains—it is the original inclination that exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself.
The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our discretion has become too refined for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government—that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all, therefore, put in our claim under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it,
I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital, which you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some subsidies? or secure me a pension when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this means I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!
As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the Government; and as, on the other, it is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government, I feel authorized to give my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize?
Here it is:
Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
For now, as formerly, everyone is more or less for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to profess such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself; and then what is done? A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, “You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.” Alas! Government is only too much disposed to follow this diabolical advice, for it is composed of ministers and officials—of men, in short, who, like all other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their wealth and influence. Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part that is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion.
But the most remarkable part of it is the astonishing blindness of the public through it all. When successful soldiers used to reduce the vanquished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they were not irrational. Their object, like ours, was to live at other people’s expense, and they did not fail to do so. What are we to think of a people who never seem to suspect that reciprocal plunder is no less plunder because it is reciprocal; that it is no less criminal because it is executed legally and with order; that it adds nothing to the public good; that it diminishes it, just in proportion to the cost of the expensive medium which we call the Government?
And it is this great chimera that we have placed, for the edification of the people, as a frontispiece to the Constitution. The following is the beginning of the preamble:
France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.
Thus it is France, or an abstraction, that is to raise the French, or flesh-and-blood realities, to morality, well-being, etc. Is it not by yielding to this strange delusion that we are led to expect everything from an energy not our own? Is it not announcing that there is, independently of the French, a virtuous, enlightened, and rich being, who can and will bestow upon them its benefits? Is not this supposing, and certainly very presumptuously, that there are between France and the French—between the simple, abridged, and abstract denomination of all the individualities, and these individualities themselves—relations as of father to son, tutor to his pupil, professor to his scholar? I know it is often said, metaphorically, “the country is a tender mother.” But to show the inanity of the constitutional proposition, it is only needed to show that it may be reversed, not only without inconvenience, but even with advantage. Would it be less exact to say,
The French have constituted themselves a Republic, to raise France to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.
Now, where is the value of an axiom where the subject and the attribute may change places without inconvenience? Everybody understands what is meant by this, “The mother will feed the child.” But it would be ridiculous to say, “The child will feed the mother.”
The Americans formed a different idea of the relations of the citizens with the Government when they placed these simple words at the head of their Constitution:
We, the people of the United States, for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, of establishing justice, of securing interior tranquility, of providing for our common defense, of increasing the general well-being, and of securing the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, decree, etc.
Here there is no chimerical creation, no abstraction, from which the citizens may demand everything. They expect nothing except from themselves and their own energy.
If I may be permitted to criticize the first words of our Constitution, I would remark that what I complain of is something more than a mere metaphysical allusion, as might seem at first sight.
I contend that this deification of Government has been in past times, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions.
There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits. What will be the consequence?
In fact, Government is not impotent, and cannot be so. It has two hands—one to receive and the other to give; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second is necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly, Government may take and not restore. This is evident, and may be explained by the porous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never will be seen or conceived, is, that Government can restore more to the public than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for us to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individualities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole.
Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma.
If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If it endeavors to grant them, it is obliged to load the people with fresh taxes—to do more harm than good, and to bring upon itself from another quarter the general displeasure.
Thus, the public has two hopes, and Government makes two promises—many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises that, being contradictory, can never be realized.
Now, is not this the cause of all our revolutions? For between the Government, which lavishes promises which it is impossible to perform, and the public, which has conceived hopes which can never be realized, two classes of men interpose—the ambitious and the Utopians. It is circumstances which give these their cue. It is enough if these vassals of popularity cry out to the people—“The authorities are deceiving you; if we were in their place, we would load you with benefits and exempt you from taxes.”
And the people believe, and the people hope, and the people make a revolution!
No sooner are their friends at the head of affairs, than they are called upon to redeem their pledge. “Give us work, bread, assistance, credit, education, colonies,” say the people; “and at the same time protect us, as you promised, from the taxes.”
The new Government is no less embarrassed than the former one, for it soon finds that it is much easier to promise than to perform. It tries to gain time, for this is necessary for maturing its vast projects. At first, it makes a few timid attempts: on one hand it institutes a little elementary instruction; on the other, it makes a little reduction in the liquor tax (1850). But the contradiction is forever rearing its ugly head; if it would be philanthropic, it must raise taxes; if it neglects its taxing, it must abstain from being philanthropic.
These two promises are forever clashing with each other; it cannot be otherwise. To live upon credit, which is the same as exhausting the future, is certainly a present means of reconciling them: an attempt is made to do a little good now, at the expense of a great deal of harm in future. But such proceedings call forth the specter of bankruptcy, which puts an end to credit. What is to be done then? Why, then, the new Government takes a bold step; it unites all its forces in order to maintain itself; it smothers opinion, has recourse to arbitrary measures, repudiates its former maxims, declares that it is impossible to conduct the administration except at the risk of being unpopular; in short, it proclaims itself governmental. And it is here that other candidates for popularity are waiting for it. They exhibit the same illusion, pass by the same way, obtain the same success, and are soon swallowed up in the same gulf.
We had arrived at this point in February.2 At this time, the illusion that is the subject of this article had made more headway than at any former period in the ideas of the people, in connection with Socialist doctrines. They expected, more firmly than ever, that Government, under a republican form, would open in grand style the source of benefits and close that of taxation. “We have often been deceived,” said the people; “but we will see to it ourselves this time, and take care not to be deceived again!”
What could the Provisional Government do? Alas! Just that which always is done in similar circumstances—make promises, and gain time. It did so, of course; and to give its promises more weight, it announced them publicly thus:
Increase of prosperity, diminution of labor, assistance, credit, free education, agricultural colonies, cultivation of waste land, and, at the same time, reduction of the tax on salt, liquor, letters, meat; all this shall be granted when the National Assembly meets.
The National Assembly meets, and, as it is impossible to realize two contradictory things, its task, its sad task, is to withdraw, as gently as possible, one after the other, all the decrees of the Provisional Government. However, in order somewhat to mitigate the cruelty of the deception, it is found necessary to negotiate a little. Certain engagements are fulfilled, others are, in a measure, begun, and therefore the new administration is compelled to contrive some new taxes.
Now I transport myself in thought to a period a few months hence and ask myself with sorrowful forebodings, what will come to pass when the agents of the new Government go into the country to collect new taxes upon legacies, revenues, and the profits of agricultural traffic? It is to be hoped that my presentiments may not be verified, but I foresee a difficult part for the candidates for popularity to play.
Read the last manifesto of the Montagnards—that which they issued on the occasion of the election of the President. It is rather long, but at length it concludes with these words: “Government ought to give a great deal to the people, and take little from them.” It is always the same tactics, or, rather, the same mistake.
“Government is bound to give gratuitous instruction and education to all the citizens.”
It is bound to give “A general and appropriate professional education, as much as possible adapted to the wants, the callings, and the capacities of each citizen.”
It is bound “To teach every citizen his duty to God, to man, and to himself; to develop his sentiments, his tendencies, and his faculties; to teach him, in short, the scientific part of his labor; to make him understand his own interests, and to give him a knowledge of his rights.”
It is bound “To place within the reach of all, literature and the arts, the patrimony of thought, the treasures of the mind, and all those intellectual enjoyments which elevate and strengthen the soul.”
It is bound “To give compensation for every accident, from fire, inundation, etc., experienced by a citizen.” (The et cetera means more than it says.)
It is bound “To attend to the relations of capital with labor, and to become the regulator of credit.”
It is bound “To afford important encouragement and efficient protection to agriculture.”
It is bound “To purchase railroads, canals, and mines; and, doubtless, to transact affairs with that industrial capacity which patronizes it.”
It is bound “To encourage useful experiments, to promote and assist them by every means likely to make them successful. As a regulator of credit, it will exercise such extensive influence over industrial and agricultural associations as shall ensure them success.”
Government is bound to do all this, in addition to the services to which it is already pledged; and further, it is always to maintain a menacing attitude toward foreigners; for, according to those who sign the program, “Bound together by this holy union, and by the precedents of the French Republic, we carry our wishes and hopes beyond the boundaries that despotism has placed between nations. The rights that we desire for ourselves, we desire for all those who are oppressed by the yoke of tyranny; we desire that our glorious army should still, if necessary, be the army of liberty.”
You see that the gentle hand of Government—that good hand that gives and distributes, will be very busy under the government of the Montagnards. You think, perhaps, that it will be the same with the rough hand—that hand which dives into our pockets. Do not deceive yourselves. The aspirants after popularity would not know their trade if they had not the art, when they show the gentle hand, to conceal the rough one.
Their reign will assuredly be the jubilee of the tax-payers.
“It is superfluities, not necessities,” they say “that ought to be taxed.”
Truly, it will be a happy day when the treasury, for the sake of loading us with benefits, will content itself with curtailing our superfluities!
This is not all. The Montagnards intend that “taxation shall lose its oppressive character, and be only an act of fraternity.” Good heavens! I know it is the fashion to thrust fraternity in everywhere, but I did not imagine it would ever be put into the hands of the tax-gatherer.
To come to the details: Those who sign the program say, “We desire the immediate abolition of those taxes that affect the absolute necessities of life, such as salt, liquors, etc., etc.
“The reform of the tax on landed property, customs, and patents.
“Gratuitous justice—that is, the simplification of its forms, and reduction of its expenses,” (This, no doubt, has reference to stamps.)
Thus, the tax on landed property, customs, patents, stamps, salt, liquors, postage, all are included. These gentlemen have discovered the secret of giving an excessive activity to the gentle hand of Government, while they entirely paralyze its rough hand.
Well, I ask the impartial reader, is it not childishness, and worse, dangerous childishness? Is it not inevitable that we shall have revolution after revolution, if there is a determination never to stop till this contradiction is realized: “To give nothing to Government and to receive much from it?”
If the Montagnards were to come into power, would they not become the victims of the means that they employed to take possession of it?
Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this twofold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who proclaim it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all Governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.
For ourselves, we consider that Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but common force organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens; but, on the contrary, to secure to everyone his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.
----------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기