이동복
그래서, 내년 총선거에서 자유한국당을 중심으로 우리공화당을 포함하는 애국 세력이 21대 국회를 주도하는 위치를 확보하는 기적의 역사를 창출하는데 성공하기만 한다면
자유한국당을 이끄는 황교안 대표에게는 2017년의 불법적 대통령 ‘탄핵’으로 촉발되어 오늘까지 지속되고 있는 비정상적인 헌정을 정상화하고 그 일환으로 대통령님의 훼손된 명예를 회복하고 유린된 인권을 시정하는 역사적 과업이 부과될 것입니다.
이 경우, 저희들은 모든 관심 있는 애국 시민들과 함께 황교안 대표가 이끄는 자유한국당 및 우리공화당 등 애국 정당들이 합심하여
그 같은 역사적 과업을 차질 없이 수행할 수 있도록 독려하고 감독하는 역할을 수행할 것임을 감히 다짐하려 합니다. (조갑제닷컴, 발췌)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
성공회 대천덕 신부와 이재정 교육감 그리고 신영복의 연결 고리는?
14분 ---> 대천덕 신부가 공산주의자였다는 사실이 드러난다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wol£ O£ All Str€€ts
Just as @nntaleb says.. academics are some of the biggest scams 😂. I thought he was THE expert.
탈레브가 “학자들은 거물 사기꾼들이다”라고 말했는데, 그는 정말 전문가이다.
zerohedge
Prof Who 'Wrote The Book On Money-Laundering' Busted For Washing Millions In Venezuelan Bribes
돈 세탁에 관한 책을 쓴 교수가 베네수엘라의 뇌물 사건에서 수백만 달러를 세탁한 죄로 체포되다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The world we live in
is vastly different from
the world we think we live in."
~ @nntaleb
우리가 살고 있는 세계는 우리가 살고 있다고 믿고 있는 세계와는 천양지차가 있다.
--->인간은 코끼리의 일부를 만지면서 이것이 코끼리다라고 말하는 어리석은 짓을 반복할 뿐이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Francesca Minerva
Those of us working in philosophy must understand that philosophy is about sharing ideas and putting forward arguments, not about silencing colleagues we disagree with through letters, petitions, no-platforming, no co-platforming, etc.
철학은 생각을 나누고 논리를 전개하는 것이지, 다른 의견을
가진 사람을 침묵시키는 게 아니다.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Long Now Foundation
Kevin Kelly (@kevin2kelly) argues that the inevitable rise of superhuman artificial intelligence—long predicted by leaders in science and technology—is a myth based on misperceptions without evidence.
과학과 기술의 전문가들이 예언했던 초인적인 인공지능의 출
현은, 증거 없는 인식 오류에 바탕을 둔 환상이었다.
- Artificial intelligence is already getting smarter than us, at an exponential rate.
- We’ll make AIs into a general purpose intelligence, like our own.
- We can make human intelligence in silicon.
- Intelligence can be expanded without limit.
- Once we have exploding superintelligence it can solve most of our problems.
In contradistinction to this orthodoxy, I find the following five heresies to have more evidence to support them.
- Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept.
- Humans do not have general purpose minds, and neither will AIs.
- Emulation of human thinking in other media will be constrained by cost.
- Dimensions of intelligence are not infinite.
- Intelligences are only one factor in progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
스카이 뉴스
Kanye West moved some inmates to tears as he performed tracks from his new gospel album Jesus Is King at Harris County jail in Texas
진정한 예술!
---------------------------------------------------------
Claire Lehmann
One form of equality that social justice academics resist is the idea that everyone can contribute to the marketplace of ideas
Balaji S. Srinivasan
The one form of equality a journalist will always resist is the idea that everyone is now a journalist
언론인들이 언제나 반대하는 한가지 평등은, 모든 사람이 언론인이 될 수 있다는 생각이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
세금은 도둑질이 맞다.
사람들은 법률 시스템에 의해 만들어지지 않은 도덕적 권리도 지니고 있으며, 법률은 반드시 이를 존중해야 한다.
머피와 네이글 두 저자는 법률적 권리과 도덕적 권리를 혼동했다.
Yes, Taxation Is Theft
David Gordon
Libertarians think that taxation is theft. The government takes away part of your income and property by force. Your payments aren’t voluntary. If you think they are, try to withhold payment and see what happens.
An influential book by Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, The Myth of Ownership, tries to show that this view of taxation is wrong. Many people, they say, foolishly resent taxes. By what right does the government take away part of what we own? Isn’t this legalized theft? The government may claim that it needs the funds to provide essential social services: are the poor to be left to starve? But these assertions do not justify its policy of forcible seizure. Isn’t it up to each owner of property to decide what, if anything, he wishes to donate to charity and other good causes?
You might guess that the authors will respond, along conventional leftist lines, with a denial that property rights are absolute: you do not have the right to keep all that you own, if the government’s exactions are devoted to a good purpose. Quite the contrary, they adopt a much more radical stance. You are not giving away anything at all to the government when you pay taxes, since you own only what the laws say you do.
Our authors are nothing if not direct on this point: "If there is a dominant theme that runs through our discussion, it is this: Private property is a legal convention, defined in part by the tax system; therefore, the tax system cannot be evaluated by looking at its impact on private property, conceived as something that has independent existence and validity. Taxes must be evaluated as part of the overall system of property rights that they help to create. . . . The conventional nature of property rights is both perfectly obvious and remarkably easy to forget . . . We cannot start by taking as given . . . some initial allocation of possessions— what people own, what is theirs, prior to government interference."
An example quickly discloses the authors’ fallacy. Suppose that the government banned advocacy of libertarian property rights. Against those who claimed that this interfered with free speech, advocates of the new measure replied in this way: "Don’t you see the obvious conceptual error that underlies your protest? ‘Free speech’ is a legal category. People have no independent liberty of speech, apart from what a particular legal system grants them. Your opposition is absurd: away with you!"
I doubt that Murphy and Nagel would display much patience for this sophistry. Legal rights indeed depend on the specifications of a particular legal system; but it is perfectly in order to say that people have moral rights, not created by the legal system, that the law ought to respect.
In like fashion, opponents of taxation are guiltless of the conceptual error Murphy and Nagel impute to them. They maintain that people possess property rights that the government ought to recognize. Why is the falsity of this view "perfectly obvious"? It is rather Murphy and Nagel who have lapsed into grievous error: they confuse legal with moral rights.
The authors at one place acknowledge the point at issue: "[D]eontological theories hold that property rights are in part determined by our individual sovereignty over ourselves. . . . On a deontological approach, there is likely to be a presumption of some form of natural entitlement that determines what is yours or mine and what isn’t, and this prima facie presumption has to be overridden by other considerations if appropriation by taxes is to be justified. On a consequentialist approach, by contrast, the tax system is simply part of the design of any sophisticated modern system of property rights."
Our authors of course reject the entitlement view, but they have here made a crucial admission. Given that this theory exists, is it not evident that their earlier account is false? The alleged error that opponents of taxation commit is present only if the conventionalist theory is true. Supporters of Lockean entitlements to property may be incorrect, but they at least have a theory: they stand acquitted of simply failing to grasp a conceptual point, the charge that Murphy and Nagel bring against them. Do they think the Lockean account obviously incoherent? They say nothing against it but instead go on interminably to accuse opponents of their view of confusion.
The conventionalist theory they support leads quickly to disaster. Isn’t it "perfectly obvious" that it makes us all slaves of the government? Once more, Murphy and Nagel acknowledge the objection. Their view "is likely to arouse strong resistance" because it "sounds too much like the claim that the entire social product really belongs to the government, and that all after-tax income should be seen as a kind of dole that each of us receives from the government, if it chooses to look on us with favor"
They fail to see that their admission gives away the game. If, as they admit, individual rights require some degree of private property, then the government cannot morally tax away this property. If so, there are moral limits to the taxing power, and it is not "a matter of logic" that there cannot be a pre-tax income over which persons retain full control
Murphy and Nagel are pure conventionalists about property when this enables them to attack libertarians, but they shrink from the full implications of the position. How is this tension in their presentation to be resolved? I suspect that in practice they would not deviate very far from the total subordination of property rights to the state. They consider endowment taxation, in which people are taxed, not just on their income, but rather on their potential to generate revenue. Someone who abandoned a multi-million-dollar business career in order to become a Trappist monk might on the endowment account be taxed as if he continued to receive his former high income. Our authors eventually reject this monstrous proposal, though not on the grounds that it compels people to work.
To reject the proposal because it compelled people to work would put them suspiciously close to a famous argument, advanced very effectively by Robert Nozick, that income taxes are akin to forced labor. Of course our authors cannot accept so libertarian a view; "we may assume that this argument is not dispositive against taxation of earnings." Since taxation is acceptable—this we know a priori—no argument that holds it illegitimate is right. But then we cannot reject endowment taxation if we reason in a way that would also condemn the income tax. "[T]here is no intrinsic moral objection to taxing people who don’t earn wages" (p. 124). We can, then, maintain that endowment taxation is "too radical" an interference with autonomy; but we cannot in principle reject it.
If you affirm a “conventionalist” account of property, you will wind up in dark waters. Taxation is indeed theft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
서방은 소련 공산주의의 진정한 적이 아니었다.
소련 반체제 인사인 블라디미르 부코푸스키의 책 서평.
그는 공산주의는 사라지지 않고, 옷을 바꿔 입은 뒤에 “리버럴(미국의 좌파를 지칭하는 말)이 되었고, 그들에 반대하는 사람들을 겁을 주고 위협하고 있다고 고발하고 있다.
The West Was Never Really an Enemy of Soviet Communism
Jason Morgan
[Vladimir Bukovsky, tr. Alyona Kojevnikov, Judgment in Moscow: Soviet Crimes and Western Complicity (Ninth of November Press, 2019), 707 pages.]
Few remember him today, for reasons that should unsettle us all, but Vladimir Bukovsky was a hero from a dark age whose example confirms Mises’s motto, taken from the Aeneid: “Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.” Often glossed in the press as a “Soviet dissident,” Bukovsky was infinitely more important. He took on the entirety of the Communist behemoth and lived to see it fall — only to watch pieces of it rise again, he claims, and all with the conniving of the West.
Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky seemed destined to be a dissenter. The son of true-believer communists, Bukovsky realized at age ten, when Stalin died, that a mortal god was no god at all. He began to distrust the propaganda of the Soviet state. Apparently preternaturally incapable of lying, to others or, most important, to himself, Bukovsky refused to acquiesce in the quiet suicide of the conscience that is the necessary condition for any totalitarian government to succeed. As an undergraduate, Bukovsky began taking part in public demonstrations against the Soviet regime, after which he was marked for life as an enemy of the state.
Bukovsky embraced this role. Like a handful of others — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, of course, and poets Anna Akhmatova and Osip Mandelstein, to name just a few — Bukovsky valued integrity above all else. He knew that communism was a lie and that everyone complicit with it was a liar, and he would not be a part of any of it. Tortured, imprisoned, subjected to psychological torment and physical deprivation, Bukovsky didn’t yield. He went on hunger strikes, published samizdat that circulated widely inside and outside of the Soviet Union, and made it the purpose of his life to tell everyone, everywhere: man must be free, and freedom and truth are ultimately the same thing.
Bukovsky detailed the decades of abuses and outrages in a book he published after the Soviet Union, grown tired of imprisoning him and increasingly wary of dissidents in general, exiled him. To Build a Castle, which Bukovsky put out in 1978 after he had settled in England, tells the story of the depravity of communist rule. In particular, and especially under Yuri Andropov (a man whom Bukovsky hated like no other), the Soviets learned how to weaponize psychiatry in order to diagnose those who resisted socialism as suffering from “sluggish schizophrenia” or some other nonsensical malady. Declared insane (as were thousands of other dissidents), Bukovsky relied on what he called “the implacable force of one man’s refusal to submit.” He was a tiny leaven of truth against the abuse of psychiatry, but even that small truth won out. The Soviets were eventually censured by their psychiatry colleagues in the West; Bukovsky had again not given in to evil, but had proceeded ever more boldly against it. In time, the Iron Curtain fell, and the Evil Empire, which had had a stranglehold on Eastern Europe and half of Eurasia, collapsed. Bukovsky had stared down the Soviet Union — the individual had defeated the collective.
It is at this point in the story of the Soviet Union that we in the West tend to swell with pride. We defeated the communist beast, we believe. Freedom prevailed.
Did it?
The other half, the much more important half, of Bukovsky’s public testimony can be found in Judgment in Moscow: Soviet Crimes and Western Complicity. The English version was released this year, just months before Bukovsky died. The book had been published in Russian in 1996, and then in French and other languages, but editors in the Anglophone world refused to issue an English translation until some six months ago. This is where we must shift uncomfortably in our chairs. Like Solzhenitsyn, Bukovsky did not spend his new life outside of the Soviet Union fawning over the West. The whole truth of the dissident experience is that, yes, communism was wicked and destroyed hundreds of millions of lives, but the “Free World,” for its part, was largely compromised, too. Cowards and sellouts and even outright champions of oppression thronged the halls of power in the US, Western Europe, and elsewhere outside the putative orbit of the Soviet Union. It is for détente that Bukovsky reserves his most acidic scorn.
Bukovsky’s revelations are a bucket of cold water to the face. We did not defeat communism, Bukovsky argues. The communists, he says, never really went away. They changed clothes, became “liberals,” and went on terrorizing people who spoke against them. To be sure, Russia today is not the communist hellhole that the Soviet Union was. But Bukovsky still thought that the apparent collapse of KGB dominance in the early 1990s was a sham, and that the same system that tortured him remained in place to crush dissents in what became the Russian Republic. In Judgment in Moscow Bukovsky names names, including that of Vladimir Putin, and alleges that the KGB simply sloughed off its old image while carrying on with the same bad game. This is explosive stuff, and Bukovsky levels these accusations like a man virtually defying the authorities to re-imprison him. Which, in a way, he was.
What is most troubling about Bukovsky’s revelations is that, while all of this was going on and while the Soviet dissidents were screaming to make it known, the West stood by, did nothing, even helped the totalitarian terrorists (for that is what they are, and what Bukovsky rightly calls them) clean up the messes they made. Even after the Kremlin folded, nobody dared be the one to give Bukovsky a platform to say that it was not just Brezhnev and Khruschev and Gorbachev who had been involved — Cyrus Vance, Willy Brandt, Henry Kissinger, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Richard Nixon, David Rockefeller, even Francis Ford Coppola were all, according to Bukovsky, somehow complicit in furthering or even strengthening the Soviet grip on power. That Bukovsky retained his sanity in the face of KGB mind-torture is remarkable; that he remained sane even after realizing that the USSR’s “enemies” were also on Moscow’s side is nothing short of miraculous.
As Bukovsky says in Judgment in Moscow and repeats on his invaluable website: "The movers and shakers of today have little interest in digging for the truth. Who knows what one may come up with? You may start out with the communists, and end up with yourself."
Indeed. By means of a daring theft of archival materials (both with an accomplice and on his own), Bukovsky obtained thousands and thousands of pages of documents from the heart of Soviet power: the KGB, the prison system, the Politburo, the standing committees, the dreaded state security apparatus (chekists, Bukovsky calls them, after the Bolsheviks’ twisted political police, the Cheka). These papers reveal a world turned upside down. The West bent over backward to accommodate the Soviets, even help them along. And when Russian dissidents abroad began complaining too loudly, the Soviet leadership — masters of disinformation, propaganda, and “the big lie” — simply declared that it had turned democratic, Bukovsky alleges, and soldiered on.
Bukovsky says that Mikhail Gorbachev, whom the West believes brought down the Soviet Union through glasnost and perestroika, was both author and tool of this farce. Gorbachev, Bukovsky argues, helped sell the “reform and opening” movement in the USSR and overseas, but in the end he, too, was shunted out by the KGB, who had been in control of the entire process. Eventually, one of the KGB’s own, Vladimir Putin, became president of the “Russian Federation,” and immediately revived the old Soviet practice of hounding, and often killing, those who spoke out against the kleptocracy in the Kremlin. Bukovsky’s friend, Alexander Litvinenko, a former member of the FSB (the latest iteration of the KGB), was taken out by Russian agents in November of 2006 in London using polonium-210 mixed with tea. No one has ever proven that Putin ordered the murder, and the case officially remains unconnected to the Russian leader. Nevertheless, Bukovsky alleges that the British authorities worked to suppress the fact that the Russian state had committed extrajudicial murder right under the noses of MI-6. If this is ever proven, then it greatly strengthens Bukovsky’s case that the holdovers from the defunct KGB have regrouped and are back to their old tricks, governing Russia by stealthy terror.
But the status of post-Soviet Russia is not really what is at issue. Because the Soviet system was, essentially, a “gulag archipelago,” a tremendous prison and machine for carrying out psychiatric and physical terrorism, Bukovsky advocated a “judgment in Moscow,” a trial like that held in Nuremberg after the end of the Second World War. Only a massive “truth-and-reconciliation commission,” Bukovsky argued, such as the ones held in Chile and South Africa, would suffice to bring the nightmare of communism to an end. Just as the National Socialists — whom Mises resisted, ‘yielding not to evil’ — had been held to account at a public trial, so, too, Bukovsky says throughout Judgment in Moscow, must the Soviets, and everyone who helped them, including in the West, be brought to justice. The truth, and the truth alone, laid out in the sunshine for everyone to see, could stop the machinery of terror whirring, even all these years after the Soviet Union fell down dead in the dust.
[RELATED: "Soviet Dissidents and the Weaponization of Psychiatry" by Mark Hendrickson]
Reading Judgment in Moscow, one understands that this trial will probably never happen. Bukovsky understood it, too. As Bill Gertz details in Deceiving the Sky, the West continues to appease communism. We like to think that we won the Cold War, but Bukovsky reminds us that it was truth-tellers from inside the gulags — where Bukovsky himself spent twelve years incarcerated — who did the real work of resisting the Soviet menace. When the game changed and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the West congratulated itself on its apparent victory and then went right on refusing to take the moral high ground against collectivist totalitarianism. This, more than anything the Soviets did to him or to his fellow dissidents, was what drove Bukovsky nearly to despair.
Judgment in Moscow is essential reading for anyone who is interested in how the Soviet Union ended (and didn’t, as Bukovsky asserts), and in how the West propped up the failing regime much longer than it otherwise would have lasted. Most important, though, Judgment in Moscow is a testimony to the power of truth. It cost Vladimir Bukovsky everything to speak it, even if that meant just refusing to repeat the official lie of the party line. Nearly everyone around him, then and now, chose to go along with untruth instead.
“Tu ne cede malis,” Mises wrote, quoting Virgil, “sed contra audentior ito.” Now, more than ever, we must hear these words, and act on them.
Jason Morgan is associate professor at Reitaku University in Chiba, Japan, and was a 2016 Mises Institute Fellow.
-------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기