김미영소장..부정선거 싸움이 이제부터 탙탈탈홍홍홍 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351628663 저는 부정선거 관련된 인터뷰 및 취재를 가장 많이 한 사람 중 하나일 것입니다. 제 관점에서 이번 감정 결과로 증거가 확보되었습니다. 이제 시작입니다. 저는 변호사단에 영향을 끼치기 위한 활동은 최소화했습니다. 왜냐하면 변호사들조차 전모를 이해하지 못했기 때문입니다. 이 글은 변호사들과 대화를 시도하기 위한 것입니다. 일단 열어봐야 대화가 될 것으로 보았습니다. 저는 재검해도 표 수는 맞춰져 있고 로그데이터를 들여다보지 않는 한 QR로 증거가 나오지는 않는다고 봤습니다. 증거는 사후 인멸 과정에서 전산으로 결정된 수치를 실제 표와 맞추기 위해 필요했던 표에 있다고 봤습니다. 이미 있는 표로 맞추었으면 빳빳한 종이일 것이고, 없어서 급조했으면 인쇄상태가 나쁠 것으로 봤습니다. 1. QR코드는 단순 정보만 있을 것이다. 사전이냐 당일이냐 용도, 그리고 겉으로 일련번호가 드러나지 않는 용도 정도였을 것이다. 그러나 프로그램을 위해 매우 중요하다. 사전명부 대조 로그데이터 확인 없이 QR만으로 증거는 확보되지 않을 것이다. 2. 문제는 사전 투표가 끝났을 때 당일 투표 이후 필요한 표 수가 얼추 미리 다 계산되었을 것이다. 빅데이터가 이미 필요수를 계산했고 실물표가 사전에 준비되어 있었다. 3. 개표 과정에서 계산을 해 나가면서 마지막으로 목표치에 접근해 가면서 당락을 결정하는 수치가 확정되었을 것이다. 4. 문제는 중앙선관위 통계수치 발표 이후 부정선거 의혹이 불거졌고 미리 준비해서 맞춰 두었던 표수와 통계 수치가 정확하게 일치하지는 않았을 것이다. 5. 선거가 끝난 후부터 법원 보전 신청까지의 시간 동안 통계수치와 실제 표수를 정확히 맞추는 작업을 했을 것이다. 이때는 많은 표가 필요하지는 않지만 정밀하게 맞추어야 하기 때문에 가장 어려운 단계의 증거인멸이다. 이것이 핵심이고 그래서 뒤처리 작업에서 증거가 드러난다고 보고 있었다. 6. 선거 후부터 법원 보전 사이에 표 맞춤을 위해 들어간 투표지를 찾아내는 것이 이번 재검표의 의미라고 생각했다. 그런데 바로 그런 급조된 표들이 나왔다!! 이것이 4.15 빼박 증가다. 7. 결론 : 4.15부정선거는 세 단계로 이루어졌다. 사전에 필요 표수가 계산되어 있었다. 실물표가 미리 준비되어 있었다. 그러나 사전에 준비되었다 해도 컴퓨터 계산값과 정확히 일치하지는 않는다. 재검해도 당락 변화는 일어나지 않는다. 다만 사후에 대대적 발각을 예상 못했을 것이다. 따라서 증거인멸은 최종 통계치와 실제 투표지수를 "정확히" 일치시키는 작업을 말한다. 이 수는 얼마되지 않지만 매우 정교해야 되고 사후에 표 맞춤이 쉽지 않았을 것이다. 빳빳한 투표지, 급히 인쇄된 투표지가 필요했던 이유다. 우리의 요구 1. 푸른색 인쇄지, 급조된 인쇄지, 빳빳한 인쇄지 공개하고 정밀 감정해야 한다. 2. 다른 곳들도 다 열어 보아야 한다. 3. 선거 명부 대조 필수! 검증은 이제부터 시작이다! 민경욱 이언주 이은권은 이런 식으로 맞춰 두었을 것이나 다른 데는 제대로 못 맞추었을 것이다. 보전 신청한 데 모두 한꺼번에 열어보아야 한다. 그리고 보전신청되지 않은 곳도 다 보전되고 검증되어야 한다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 바이든 당선 이후 충격적인 진짜 미국 근황...JPG 갈비개굴꺄팡덮밥 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351597405 https://blog.naver.com/sjumo12/222291117224 https://blog.naver.com/sjumo12/222377104676 실제 미국교포가 쓴 글 사람들 여전히 총이랑 총알 삼 이유는 좌파정권이 경찰예산 삭감해서 치안공백 장기화 시민들 경찰혐오도 맥스찍고 자영업자들은 경찰 대신 갱스터출신 자경단한테 보호비상납 흑인들은 이때다 싶어서 코리아타운 공략중 이거 완전 미국판 광주 폭동 해방구 아니냐??? 언론에선 바이든 잘한다 잘한다 하지만 길바닥은 완전히 장악못한듯. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [재개표]대법관과 선관위원들 전원 사형해야 한다 익명50마오 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351595952 법적으로 몇 달만에 해야하는 재판도 1년 2개월 넘겨 해 녹화도 못하게 해 기자도 못들어가게 해 이미지 원본 파일 못 받아도 그냥 넘어가 방청도 못하게 해 공범이다.. 부정선거 주요 사범들이 이 놈들이다. 사형하라!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국 교육계에 무슨 일이.. GROUND C https://youtu.be/2vYcDwYHhxA 탈북운동가 박연미 Fox인터뷰 │ 미국 대학 미쳤네 https://youtu.be/p9B-V7doCyI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1보)민주당, 국가교육위법으로 전교조통해 전국민 좌빨세뇌교육 실시 2030공정 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351679759 -최근 민주당은 국가교육위 설치법을 강행처리하기로 함. 내용은 문재인과 민주당이 전교조원들로 국가교육위원회를 채운 후, 이들이 나라의 모든 중장기 교육정책을 결정하게 함. -이에 따라 대학입시나 교원채용 등 여러 분야에서 좌빨 교육자들이 더 쉽게 채용되고 좌경화를 가속화하게 교육제도 바꿀 예정. 이에 따라 이번에 천안함 군인들에게 쌍욕했던 휘문고 교사도 한자리 차지할 듯 -이제 우리들의 어린 자녀들은 전교조들이 만든 좌경화 교재를 이용해 어려서부터 더 좌경세뇌교육을 당하게 됨에 따라 문재인과 민주당은 더 오랫동안 좌빨 독재 가능해짐. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1보) 586좌빨들이 이런 기막힌 방법으로 2030세대를 등쳐먹었으니 우리가 지금 힘들지.. 2030공정 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351678366 586좌빨 꼰대들은 대학에서 데모만 하고 공부를 안했으니 능력은 없는데 권력욕심은 많아서, 갖은 감언이설로 국민 선동해야 권력잡을 수 있고 대통령 단임이니 이 기회에 한탕해야 노후를 즐길 수 있어. 방법은 우선 유착기업에게 특혜준다고 해서 뇌물받은 후, 정부규제를 피할 수 있게 해주고 특정주주에게 환매특혜 등을 맘대로 설정할 수 있는 사모펀드를 만들어, 이 기업주식을 사서 상장특혜든 정부사업취득이든 정부보조금 지급등을 권력과 혈세를 이용해 주가 올린 후 개미투자자들에게 비싸게 처분하고 한몫 챙기는거야. 이 정부 집권중 마음대로 쓴 천조원이 넘는 국책사업 자금들 (K방역, 일자리, 여성, 저출산,태양광, 바이오,보조금…)이 이런식으로 결국 이스타항공,지오영,신라젠,암호화폐거래소 등의 기업을 거쳐 라임, 옵티모스 등의 사모펀드로 돈이 흘러가게 하고 거기서 번 돈으로 강남아파트, 상가건물 마구 사들이며 떼돈을 번 거지. 이 모든 것을 위해 검찰 금융특수부도 폐지하고 대통령 친인척 감시 비서관은 아직까지 임명하지 않았지. 부정한 방법으로 돈벌었으니 정권바뀌면 다치지 않기 위해 검찰 무력화하고 경찰 정치화하고 공수처 세워 방패막이 만들어. 그리고 국회, 법원, 헌법재판소, 선관위, 시민단체들에 꼬붕 심어서 이중삼중으로 퇴임후를 대비하지. 좌빨들끼리 지 자식들 좋은 자리로 끌어주고 추천해줘서 자식들도 혜택누리게 하고 민주화유공자녀우대법도 만들어 자손대대로 혈세를 빨게 법을 만들어 놔. 하지만 겉으로는 적폐청산, K방역선전, 남북정상회담, 반일선동 등으로 국민들 관심을 다른 곳으로 돌리고 선거때면 혈세를 선심쓰듯이 국민에게 풀어 이기면 돼. 국민여러분, 이 정부가 그렇게 많은 혈세를 여러분들에게서 걷어갔는데도, 4년이 지난 지금 여러분들은 파산,실직,부도,코로나 등으로 더 힘든 이유는 이 자들이 중간에서 여러분이 낸 혈세를 가로챘기 때문입니다. 더구나 국방붕괴, 외교왕따, 사회분열, 환경오염, 건강 실업보험 파탄도 모자라 중국 시진핑에게 나라까지 팔아넘기기 위해 전국 각처의 군부대 근처에 중국문화단지 세워서 전쟁시 우리 군인들 뒤에 치게 만들고, 우리 먹거리 기술도 다 갖다바치고 있습니다. 이제는 한국전쟁때 수십만 우리 여인들 유린한 중공군들을 위해 혈세로 추모시설까지 건립하자고 난리이고 시진핑 일대일로 연결돕기 위해 북한에 우리 혈세 수십조원으로 고속철도 항만 등을 대신 깔아주게 하는 법도 은밀히 통과시켰습니다. 이 모든 부정부패는 문재인의 권력에 의존하고 있으므로 결국 문재인이 여러분 돈을 훔치고 여러분 노후를 망가뜨린 겁니다. 그런데도 문재인은 올해에도 지 연봉은 올리고 퇴임하면 매달 수천만원 연금을 혈세로 받고 땅값오른 양산 호화주택에서 노후를 즐기며 여러분들을 비웃고 있을겁니다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1보) 문재인, 좌빨자식들에겐 수조원씩 퍼주고 수백만원 천안함 유족연금은 떼먹으려 하고... 2030공정 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351678093 문재인이 천안함 유족들에게 유족연금을 이 핑계 저 핑계로 지급을 하지 않는다는 중앙일보 기사보고 너무 화가 나서 씁니다. -애초에 민주당은 천안함은 자작극이라고 했고, 위원회 만들어 재조사를 시도하더니, 이젠 나라 지키다 순국한 영웅들이 유족에 남긴 돈도 빼먹으려 했네요. 문재인은 대통령되고도 좌빨들이 일으킨 여러 폭동의 추모제엔 꼬박꼬박 참석하면서 지난번에 천암함 추모제에 마지못해 한번 참여했을 때에도 기자들이 사진 다 찍으니 화환도 엉망으로 만들어 놓더니… -이미 다수당인 민주당이 통과시켜 4.3특별법은 6월 시행을 앞두고 있는데, 제주폭동 일으킨 좌빨 자손들에게 혈세 1조3천억원 퍼준답니다. 연평해전 천안함 참전군인은 버림받아 막노동판을 전전한다던데… 이제 대통령 임기 1년도 안 남고 선거에도 지게 생기니까 여당이 다수당일때 중국과 북한을 위해서 할 수 있는 모든 법을 바꿀 생각이군요. -이번엔 민주당과 정의당이 힘을 합쳐 국가보안법 폐지법안 법사위에 회부했네요. 둘이 합치면 다수당이니 곧 국가보안법 페지되면, 중국간첩이나 북한간첩이 여러분 가족 학살하고 재산 빼앗어가도 정부는 보호해줄 법적 근거가 희박해 집니다. -집권이후, 우리 전방부대 해체하고, 간첩침투 용이하게 한강하구 지도 다 내주고, 수도권 탱크방호시설 철거하고, 비상시 정부대처체계 해체하고, 한미 연합훈련 막고, 군부대옆에 중국간첩들의 아지트인 중국문화센터 마구 허가해주고, 간첩잡던 국가정보원, 정보사 유능직원들 다 잘라내고… -문재인 집권한 다음부터 현충원에선 태극기도 이용못하게 하고 애국가도 못 부르게 하면서, 한국전쟁때 수백만명의 우리 국민과 여인들을 유린하고 죽이고 통일을 좌절시킨 중공군을 위해서 추모시설 건립 추진하고... -김정은위해 북한저작물 이용료 수금하러 다니던 임종석을 문재인 취임하자마자 대통령 비서실장으로 임명해서 최고급 군사기밀들이 다 북한으로 흘러갔을 텐데… 이것을 방어하려면 모든 군대와 무기체계 배치 다 바꾸려면 혈세만 수십조원 더 허비해야 할텐데… -코로나 초기엔 중국인들 마구 입국시켜 혈세로 치료해주고 수백만 마스크 조공하더니, 지난번엔 시진핑 일대일로 도와주기위해, 북한에 도로 항만 등 기간시설 우리 혈세 수십조로 지어주는 법도 민주당이 은밀하게 추진하더니… -이번에 미국가서도 44조원 첨단산업 퍼주고도 백신도 제대로 못 챙기면서 바이든이 김정은이랑 대화는 계속 해보겠다니까 그저 좋아서 실실. 연관산업효과와 하청업체까지 미국으로 빠져나가면 결과적으로 100조원 넘는 먹거리 첨단산업과 수십만개의 고연봉 일자리와 수십조원의 세수도 같이 빠져나가는 건데.. 이미 문재인이 반기업,탈원전,북한지원, 포퓰리즘정책으로 수백조의 재정적자 나게 생겼는데 부족한 세수는 다 2030세대가 세금,준조세,연금,보험료,벌금으로 메꿔야 하다니... -바이든과 회담 전에 중공군 무찌른 영웅 훈장수여해서 친중하는 것 조롱당하고, 부실급식먹는 우리 군인들의 건강을 미국 대통령이 백신으로 챙겨주는데도 말도 못하고 실실거리며 어색하게 웃는 모습에 내가 다 얼굴이 화끈해짐. 바이든이 마스크 벗어던지는 것 보며 문재인이 국민 속이고 화이자 맞았다고 확신. 결과적으로, 문재인은 여러분이 세금은 더 내게 하면서, 북한과 중국이 좀 더 여러분 재산을 빼앗고 여러분이 사랑하는 사람들을 쉽게 죽이게 만들어 놓고 있네요. 그래도 최근 대국민 회견에서 지 자랑만 하면서 민주당은 사상 최대의 방미실적이라고 아부하고... 그럼에도 문재인은 올해도 지 연봉인상하고 퇴임후엔 죽을때까지 매달 수천만원씩 어러분들로부터 혈세 뽑아먹게 되어 있습니다. 이제는 분노할 일에 분노해야 우리의 가족과 재산을 지킬 수 있습니다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun 27, 2021 Donald Trump Wellington, Ohio Rally Speech Transcript: First Rally Since Leaving Office Donald Trump: (02:55) America first. You never used to hear that expression, did you? You hear it plenty now. After just five months, the Biden administration is already a complete and total catastrophe. I told you, crime is surging. Murders are soaring. Police departments are being gutted. Illegal aliens are overrunning their borders. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Our poor borders, they were so perfect, they were so good. Donald Trump: (03:32) Drug cartels and human traffickers are back in business. Like they’ve never been before. They’re doing numbers that they’ve never even thought possible. And just a few short months ago, drugs were way down. Human trafficking was way down. It was all way down. They had to do is go away for a little while. It was beautiful. Donald Trump: (03:55) But the schools, when you take a look at schools, and you look at all of the things that happen, left-wing indoctrination camps, critical race theory is being forced on our military, gas prices are spiking, inflation is skyrocketing and China, Russia and Iran are humiliating our country. 무려 1시간이 넘는 연설의 일부 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-wellington-ohio-rally-speech-transcript-first-rally-since-leaving-office ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 간략하게 봄바베르크의 학술 이론과 나아가 오스트리아 학파의 핵심 이론을 소개한 글 Böhm-Bawerk: Austrian Economist Who Said No to Big Government Richard M. Ebeling We live at a time when politicians and bureaucrats only know one public policy: more and bigger government. Yet, there was a time when even those who served in government defended limited and smaller government. One of the greatest of these died one hundred years ago on August 27, 1914, the Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Böhm-Bawerk is most famous as one of the leading critics of Marxism and socialism in the years before the First World War. He is equally famous as one of the developers of “marginal utility” theory as the basis of showing the logic and workings of the competitive market price system. But he also served three times as the finance minister of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, during which he staunchly fought for lower government spending and taxing, balanced budgets, and a sound monetary system based on the gold standard. Danger of Out-of-Control Government Spending Even after Böhm-Bawerk had left public office he continued to warn of the dangers of uncontrolled government spending and borrowing as the road to ruin in his native Austria-Hungary, and in words that ring as true today as when he wrote them a century ago. In January 1914, just a little more than a half a year before the start of the First World War, Böhm-Bawerk said in a series of articles in one of the most prominent Vienna newspapers that the Austrian government was following a policy of fiscal irresponsibility. During the preceding three years, government expenditures had increased by 60 percent, and for each of these years the government’s deficit had equaled approximately 15 percent of total spending. The reason, Böhm-Bawerk said, was that the Austrian parliament and government were enveloped in a spider’s web of special-interest politics. Made up of a large number of different linguistic and national groups, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was being corrupted through abuse of the democratic process, with each interest group using the political system to gain privileges and favors at the expense of others. Böhm-Bawerk explained: We have seen innumerable variations of the vexing game of trying to generate political contentment through material concessions. If formerly the Parliaments were the guardians of thrift, they are today far more like its sworn enemies. Nowadays the political and nationalist parties … are in the habit of cultivating a greed of all kinds of benefits for their co-nationals or constituencies that they regard as a veritable duty, and should the political situation be correspondingly favorable, that is to say correspondingly unfavorable for the Government, then political pressure will produce what is wanted. Often enough, though, because of the carefully calculated rivalry and jealousy between parties, what has been granted to one [group] has also to be conceded to others—from a single costly concession springs a whole bundle of costly concessions. He accused the Austrian government of having “squandered amidst our good fortune [of economic prosperity] everything, but everything, down to the last penny, that could be grabbed by tightening the tax-screw and anticipating future sources of income to the upper limit” by borrowing in the present at the expense of the future. For some time, he said, “a very large number of our public authorities have been living beyond their means.” Such a fiscal policy, Böhm-Bawerk feared, was threatening the long-run financial stability and soundness of the entire country. Eight months later, in August 1914, Austria-Hungary and the rest of Europe stumbled into the cataclysm that became World War I. And far more than merely the finances of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in ruins when that war ended four years later, since the Empire itself disappeared from the map of Europe. A Man of Honesty and Integrity Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk was born on February 12, 1851 in Brno, capital of the Austrian province of Moravia (now the eastern portion of the Czech Republic). He died on August 27, 1914, at the age of 63, just as the First World War was beginning. Ten years after Böhm-Bawerk’s death, one of his students, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, wrote a memorial essay about his teacher. Mises said: Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk will remain unforgettable to all who have known him. The students who were fortunate enough to be members of his seminar [at the University of Vienna] will never lose what they have gained from the contact with this great mind. To the politicians who have come into contact with the statesman, his extreme honesty, selflessness and dedication to duty will forever remain a shining example. And no citizen of this country [Austria] should ever forget the last Austrian minister offinance who, in spite of all obstacles, was seriously trying to maintain order of the public finances and to prevent the approaching financial catastrophe. Even when all those who have been personally close to Böhm-Bawerk will have left this life, his scientific work will continue to live and bear fruit. Another of Böhm-Bawerk’s students, Joseph A. Schumpeter, spoke in the same glowing terms of his teacher, saying, “he was not only one of the most brilliant figures in the scientific life of his time, but also an example of that rarest of statesmen, a great minister of finance…. As a public servant, he stood up to the most difficult and thankless task of politics, the task of defending sound financial principles.” The scientific contributions to which both Mises and Schumpeter referred were Böhm-Bawerk’s writings on what has become known as the Austrian theory of capital and interest, and his equally insightful formulation of the Austrian theory of value and price. The Austrian Theory of Subjective Value The Austrian school of economics began 1871 with the publication of Carl Menger’s Principles of Economics. In this work, Menger challenged the fundamental premises of the classical economists, from Adam Smith through David Ricardo to John Stuart Mill. Menger argued that the labor theory of value was flawed in presuming that the value of goods was determined by the relative quantities of labor that had been expended in their manufacture. Instead, Menger formulated a subjective theory of value, reasoning that value originates in the mind of an evaluator. The value of means reflects the value of the ends they might enable the evaluator to obtain. Labor, therefore, like raw materials and other resources, derives value from the value of the goods it can produce. From this starting point Menger outlined a theory of the value of goods and factors of production, and a theory of the limits of exchange and the formation of prices. Böhm-Bawerk and his future brother-in-law and also later-to-be-famous contributor to the Austrian school, Friedrich von Wieser, came across Menger’s book shortly after its publication. Both immediately saw the significance of the new subjective approach for the development of economic theory. In the mid-1870s, Böhm-Bawerk entered the Austrian civil service, soon rising in rank in the Ministry of Finance working on reforming the Austrian tax system. But in 1880, with Menger’s assistance, Böhm-Bawerk was appointed a professor at the University of Innsbruck, a position he held until 1889. Böhm-Bawerk’s Writings on Value and Price During this period he wrote the two books that were to establish his reputation as one of the leading economists of his time, Capital and Interest, vol. I, History and Critique of Interest Theories (1884), and vol. II, Positive Theory of Capital (1889). A third volume, Further Essays on Capital and Interest, appeared in 1914 shortly before his death. In the first volume of Capital and Interest, Böhm-Bawerk presented a wide and detailed critical study of theories of the origin of and basis for interest from the ancient world to his own time. But it was in the second work, in which he offered a Positive Theory of Capital, that Böhm-Bawerk’s major contribution to the body of Austrian economics may be found. In the middle of the volume is a 135-page digression in which he presents a refined statement of the Austrian subjective theory of value and price. He develops in meticulous detail the theory of marginal utility, showing the logic of how individuals come to evaluate and weigh alternatives among which they may choose and the process that leads to decisions to select certain preferred combinations guided by the marginal principle. And he shows how the same concept of marginal utility explains the origin and significance of cost and the assigned valuations to the factors of production. In the section on price formation, Böhm-Bawerk develops a theory of how the subjective valuations of buyers and sellers create incentives for the parties on both sides of the market to initiate pricing bids and offers. He explains how the logic of price creation by the market participants also determines the range in which any market-clearing, or equilibrium, price must finally settle, given the maximum demand prices and the minimum supply prices, respectively, of the competing buyers and sellers. Capital and Time Investment as the Sources of Prosperity It is impossible to do full justice to Böhm-Bawerk’s theory of capital and interest. But in the barest of outlines, he argued that for man to attain his various desired ends he must discover the causal processes through which labor and resources at his disposal may be used for his purposes. Central to this discovery process is the insight that often the most effective path to a desired goal is through “roundabout” methods of production. A man will be able to catch more fish in a shorter amount of time if he first devotes the time to constructing a fishing net out of vines, hollowing out a tree trunk as a canoe, and carving a tree branch into a paddle. Greater productivity will often be forthcoming in the future if the individual is willing to undertake, therefore, a certain “period of production,” during which resources and labor are set to work to manufacture the capital—the fishing net, canoe, and paddle—that is then employed to paddle out into the lagoon where larger and more fish may be available. But the time involved to undertake and implement these more roundabout methods of production involve a cost. The individual must be willing to forgo (often less productive) production activities in the more immediate future (wading into the lagoon using a tree branch as a spear) because that labor and those resources are tied up in a more time-consuming method of production, the more productive results from which will only be forthcoming later. Interest on a Loan Reflects the Value of Time This led Böhm-Bawerk to his theory of interest. Obviously, individuals evaluating the production possibilities just discussed must weigh ends available sooner versus other (perhaps more productive) ends that might be obtainable later. As a rule, Böhm-Bawerk argued, individuals prefer goods sooner rather than later. Each individual places a premium on goods available in the present and discounts to some degree goods that can only be achieved further in the future. Since individuals have different premiums and discounts (time-preferences), there are potential mutual gains from trade. That is the source of the rate of interest: it is the price of trading consumption and production goods across time. Böhm-Bawerk Refutes Marx’s Critique of Capitalism One of Böhm-Bawerk’s most important applications of his theory was the refutation of the Marxian exploitation theory that employers make profits by depriving workers of the full value of what their labor produces. He presented his critique of Marx’s theory in the first volume of Capital and Interest and in a long essay originally published in 1896 on the “Unresolved Contradictions in the Marxian Economic System.” In essence, Böhm-Bawerk argued that Marx had confused interest with profit. In the long run no profits can continue to be earned in a competitive market because entrepreneurs will bid up the prices of factors of production and compete down the prices of consumer goods. But all production takes time. If that period is of any significant length, the workers must be able to sustain themselves until the product is ready for sale. If they are unwilling or unable to sustain themselves, someone else must advance the money (wages) to enable them to consume in the meantime. This, Böhm-Bawerk explained, is what the capitalist does. He saves, forgoing consumption or other uses of his wealth, and those savings are the source of the workers’ wages during the production process. What Marx called the capitalists’ “exploitative profits” Böhm-Bawerk showed to be the implicit interest payment for advancing money to workers during the time-consuming, roundabout processes of production. Defending Fiscal Restraint in the Austrian Finance Ministry In 1889, Böhm-Bawerk was called back from the academic world to the Austrian Ministry of Finance, where he worked on reforming the systems of direct and indirect taxation. He was promoted to head of the tax department in 1891. A year later he was vice president of the national commission that proposed putting Austria-Hungary on a gold standard as a means of establishing a sound monetary system free from direct government manipulation of the monetary printing press. Three times he served as minister of finance, briefly in 1895, again in 1896–1897, and then from 1900 to 1904. During the last four-year term Böhm-Bawerk demonstrated his commitment to fiscal conservatism, with government spending and taxing kept strictly under control. However, Ernest von Koerber, the Austrian prime minister in whose government Böhm-Bawerk served, devised a grandiose and vastly expensive public works scheme in the name of economic development. An extensive network of railway lines and canals were to be constructed to connect various parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire—subsidizing in the process a wide variety of special-interest groups in what today would be described as a “stimulus” program for supposed “jobs-creation.” Böhm-Bawerk tirelessly fought against what he considered fiscal extravagance that would require higher taxes and greater debt when there was no persuasive evidence that the industrial benefits would justify the expense. At Council of Ministers meetings Böhm-Bawerk even boldly argued against spending proposals presented by the Austrian Emperor, Franz Josef, who presided over the sessions. When finally he resigned from the Ministry of Finance in October 1904, Böhm-Bawerk had succeeded in preventing most of Prime Minister Koerber’s giant spending project. But he chose to step down because of what he considered to be corrupt financial “irregularities” in the defense budget of the Austrian military. However, Böhm-Bawerk’s 1914 articles on government finance indicate that the wave of government spending he had battled so hard against broke through once he was no longer there to fight it. Political Control or Economic Law A few months after his passing, in December 1914, his last essay appeared in print, a lengthy piece on “Control or Economic Law?” He explained that various interest groups in society, most especially trade unions, suffer from a false conception that through their use or the threat of force, they are able to raise wages permanently above the market’s estimate of the value of various types of labor. Arbitrarily setting wages and prices higher than what employers and buyers think labor and goods are worth—such as with a government-mandated minimum wage law—merely prices some labor and goods out of the market. Furthermore, when unions impose high nonmarket wages on the employers in an industry, the unions succeed only in temporarily eating into the employers’ profit margins and creating the incentive for those employers to leave that sector of the economy and take with them those workers’ jobs. What makes the real wages of workers rise in the long run, Böhm-Bawerk argued, was capital formation and investment in those more roundabout methods of production that increase the productivity of workers and therefore make their labor services more valuable in the long run, while also increasing the quantity of goods and services they can buy with their market wages. To his last, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk defended reason and the logic of the market against the emotional appeals and faulty reasoning of those who wished to use power and the government to acquire from others what they could not obtain through free competition. His contributions to economic theory and economic policy show him as one of the greatest economists of all time, as well as his example as a principled man of uncompromising integrity who in the political arena unswervingly fought for the free market and limited government. Originally published September 6, 2014. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

live] 재검표로 밝혀졌다 / 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/zrfSdARcEZ0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 끔찍한 일이 다가온다!국가 전복이 올수있다?...2021 06 29 전광훈 https://youtu.be/IqJH5JZyEUE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '대체공휴일'로 정신 빼놓고… '여순사건 진상규명 특별법' 끼워 통과 75개 민생법안 국회 본회의 통과… 광복절부터 대체공휴일, 5인 미만 사업장은 빠져 총리실 소속 명예회복위 설치… 여수·순천 희생자에 의료·생활지원금 등 지급키로 New Daily 2021-06-29 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 부정선거 스모킹건 나왔다!!! 가세연 https://youtu.be/vvOIq7f3oQY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [출처: 중앙일보] "국민연금 이대로면 반란 일어난다" 차기 연금학회장의 경고 [view] 윤석명 현 연금학회 회장도 같은 학술대회에서 “주요 정책 결정자들이 카르텔을 형성해 정보를 차단하고 있다. 인구구조가 세계에서 가장 안 좋은데, (연금 개혁은) 가장 느리게 가고 있다”고 지적했다. 윤 회장은 22일 추가 통화에서 “재정 당국이 공무원·군인연금 국가부채(를 적게 보이려고) 추계에 꼼수를 쓴다”며 “국민연금도 미적립부채가 1500조원(국민 1인당 289만원)에 달하는데, 국가부채에 포함하지 않는다”고 지적했다. 그는 “그리스보다 심각하다. 출산율(0.84명) 반등 가능성이 희박한데 세금 거둬서 연금을 주면 된다(부과 방식)고 한다”며 “이 경우 높은 세금 때문에 청년들의 탈(脫)한국 러시가 예상된다. 이들이 중국과 일본에서 3D 업종의 일을 할 가능성이 큰데 그러면 나라가 망하는 것”이라고 말했다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The turning tide of intellectual atheism A growing number of leading serious intellectuals are recognising the need for Christianity’s resurrection but can’t quite bring the faith to life in themselves. by Jonathon Van Maren For now, historians like Niall Ferguson recognise that Christianity is a fundamental bulwark of the fragile civilisation we inhabit. “I think the notion that we can deal with these arrows of outrageous fortune without some kind of established and time-honoured set of consolations is almost certainly wrong,” he told me. “I’m one of these people who didn’t come to atheism by choice, and I’ve almost come out of it on the basis of historical study. The biggest disasters that we likely face are actually related to totalitarianism, because that’s the lesson of the 20th century. Pandemics killed a lot of people in the 20th century, but totalitarianism killed more.” “It disturbs me that in so many ways, totalitarianism is gaining ground today,” Ferguson said. “Totalitarianism was bad for many reasons, and one of the manifestations of its badness was its attack on religion. When I see totalitarianism gaining ground not only in China but in subtle ways in our own society, that seems to be the disaster we really need to ward off. Why am I a conservative and not just a classical liberal? Because classical liberalism won’t stop wokeism and totalitarianism. It’s not strong enough. Ultimately, we need the inherited ideas of a civilisation and defences against that particular form of disaster.” 고전적 자유주의는 워키즘wokeism과 전체주의를 멈출 수 없다. 우리는 계승되어온 문명의 사상들이 필요하다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Stimulus Boom Is Already Over. Now Comes Stagnation. Daniel Lacalle It's already clear that after an initial sugar high caused by stimulus funds, there's now hardly any "bang for the buck" from stimulus funds. In fact, governments are spending millions for each job "created" by stimulus. 부양정책에 의한 호황은 이미 끝났다. 이제는 스테그플레이션이 찾아온다. https://mises.org/wire/stimulus-boom-already-over-now-comes-stagnation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 자유 사회에서 금지해야 할 것들 우한 폐렴 사태로 인해 우리 사회에서 무엇을 금지해야 하고, 무엇을 하지 말아야 하는지에 대해 생각해볼 기회가 생겼다. 레너드 리드는 그의 책 에서 이에 대한 해결책을 하나 제시했다. 즉 우리 대부분이 잘못이라고 동의하는 것에 집중하고, 그것을 예방하면, 우리의 권리와 자유, 그리고 사회적 협력을 유지할 수 있다는 주장이다. 무엇을 금지할 것인지에 대한 황금율은 다음과 같다. “남들이 너에게 하지 않기를 바라는 것들은, 너도 남들에게 하지 말라!“이다. 자유주의자들의 금기 사항은 타인의 생명과 생계에 대한 공격을 금지했던 십계명의 2개의 조항처럼 단순하다. 무엇이 금지되어야 하는가? 그것은 바로 타인의 자유를 저해하는 행동들이다. 그것들을 찾아내서 제거해야 한다. What Should Be Prohibited In a Free Society? Gary Galles Covid triggered a massive upswing in government prohibitions in America. Many were prohibited from keeping their firms open. Many were forced to stop working. Many of our normal freedoms of association and travel were eliminated. Many rights—such as access to due process or to contract enforcement—were effectively prohibited. And almost everyone can add to the list from their experiences. That hyperdrive upswing in our “enjoyment” of government dictation in our lives raises a crucial question for Americans. Exactly what should we prohibit in society? It is hardly a new question, but we should re-think it because of the ballooning of what has been prohibited, with little public conversation about central issues. Leonard Read offers us insight on this issue in his “Find the Wrong, and There’s the Right,” Chapter 4 in his 1968 Accent on the Right. The key is to focus solely on what we agree is wrong, and preventing that, which preserves far more of our rights, liberty and the social cooperation they enable than government imposition and enforcement of what they decide are the “right answers.” His insights are worth remembering. Those actions which are wrong in social relationships are the ones we should aim to prohibit by personal endeavor, by education and, as a last resort, by society’s formal agency of organized force: government. Thus, to analyze what should be prohibited is a means of opening to our vision the infinite realm of righteousness. What does Read mean by the “infinite realm of righteousness”? Ask what would be off-limits if we only focused on prohibiting what we agree is wrong. Nothing more than that would be disallowed. That would leave open a far vaster array of possibilities for productive and mutually-agreeable arrangements than the bacchanalia of prohibitions we have just been forced to be part of. Socialist and libertarian…What really, in the ideological sense, marks the one from the other?...The difference between the socialist and the libertarian thinker is a difference of opinion as to what others should be prohibited from doing. Man…does not now possess…instinctual do-nots: built-in prohibitions. Instead, he must enjoy or suffer the consequences of his own free will, his own power to choose between what’s right and what’s wrong…more or less at the mercy of his own imperfect understanding and conscious decisions. The upshot of this is that human beings must choose the prohibitions they will observe…conscious selection of the must-nots…by variable, imperfect members. The most advanced prohibition [is] the Golden Rule. As originally scribed…it reads: “Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you.” Ever so many people will concede the soundness of the Golden Rule, but only now and then is an individual to be found whose moral nature is elevated to the point where he can observe this do-not in daily living. Not only does such a person possess a sense of justice but he also possesses its counterpart, a disciplinary conscience. Justice and conscience are two parts of the same emerging moral faculty. Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you. There is more to this prohibition than first glance reveals. Nearly everyone, for instance, will concede that there is no universal right to kill, to steal, or to enslave--because these practices cannot be universalized, if for no higher reason. But only the person who comprehends this ethic--the Golden Rule--in its wholeness, who has an elevated sense of justice and conscience, will conclude that such a concession denies to him the right to take the life of another, to relieve any person of his livelihood, or to deprive any human being of his liberty. While there are many who will agree that they, personally, should not kill, steal, enslave, it is only the individual with a first-rate moral nature who will have no hand in encouraging any agency--even government--in doing these things for him or others. Anyone who gets the whole point of the Golden Rule sees that there is no escape from individual responsibility by resort to the popular expedient of collective action. How does the Golden Rule thus illustrate the dividing line between collectivists and libertarians? It is the difference of opinion as to what should be denied others that highlights the essential difference between the collectivists—socialists, statists, interventionists, mercantilists—and those of the libertarian faith. Take stock of what you would prohibit others from doing and you will accurately find your own position in the ideological line-up. [Note] the collectivist philosophy: We--you and I--belong to the state. We are “its” wards! Where…are the prohibitions? The program [someone] favors would cost X hundred million dollars annually. From where come these millions? The state has nothing except that which it takes from the people. Therefore, this man favors that we be prohibited from using the fruits of our own labor as we choose in order that these fruits be expended as the state chooses…[with] police force as the method of persuasion. That portion of our incomes is socialized which the state turns to its use by its prohibition of our use. It follows, then, that a person would impose prohibitions on the rest of us to the extent that he supports governmental projects which would socialize our income. Read then follows with a small part of what is a cornucopia of examples that people have accepted as justifying “prohibiting our freedom of choice.” There are ever so many who favor prohibiting our freedom of choice in order to: Pay farmers for not growing peanuts, tobacco, and other crops; Support socialist governments all over the world; Put men on the moon; Subsidize below-cost pricing in air, water, and land transportation, education, insurance, loans of countless kinds; Socialize security; “Renew” downtowns that consumers have deserted, build hospitals and other local facilities; Give Federal aid of this or that variety, endlessly. Another phase of socialism is the state ownership and/or control of the means of production. Included among the existing prohibitions of this type are: The planting of all of a farmer’s own acreage to wheat, cotton, peanuts, corn, tobacco, rice--even to feed his own stock; The quitting of a business at will; The taking of a job at will; The selling of a citizens own product at his own price, for instance, milk, steel, and others; The free pricing of services (wages); The delivery of first-class mail for pay. The listing of prohibitions is endless. Read then asks us a question made even more important by the recent expansions in government prohibitions: “Which of all the prohibitions…implicit in socialism do you or others favor?” Those among us with a libertarian devotion would, it is true, impose certain prohibitions on others. They quite accurately note that not all individuals have acquired a moral nature sufficient strictly to observe such fundamentally sound taboos as “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal.” There are those who will take the lives of others, and those who will take the livelihood of others, such as those who will pilfer and those who will get the government to do their pilfering for them. Most libertarian believers would supplement the moral laws with social laws aimed at prohibiting any citizen from doing violence to another’s person (life) or another’s livelihood (extension of life). Thus, they would prohibit or at least penalize murder, theft, fraud, misrepresentation. In short, they would inhibit or prohibit the destructive actions of any and all, and that is all! Asserts the libertarian, “Freely choose how you act creatively, productively, for this is in the realm of what’s right. I have no desire to prohibit you or others in this respect. I have no prohibitory designs on you of any kind except as you or others would keep me and others from acting creatively, productively ourselves, that is, as we freely choose. I do not classify any creative action as a wrong action.” The libertarian in his hoped-for prohibition of destructive actions does no violence to anyone else’s liberty…We must not, therefore, think of liberty as being restrained when fraud, violence, and the like are prohibited, for these destructive actions violate the liberty of others and, therefore, they are not in the composition of liberty. Destructive actions are the negations of liberty…An accomplished libertarian would never prohibit the liberty of another. There we have it: the all-out collectivists at one end of the ideological spectrum who would completely prohibit individual liberty and, at the other end of the spectrum, the libertarians whose prohibitions are not opposed to but are in support of individual liberty. And their prohibitions are few and as simple as the two Commandments against assaults on life and livelihood. The libertarian…observing that human frailties are universal, balks at halting the evolutionary process which is the ultimate prohibition implicit in authoritarian schemes… how can the human situation improve if the rest of us are prohibited from growing beyond the level of the prohibitionist’s imperfections? Human faculties can flower, man can move toward his creative destiny, only if he be free to do so; in a word, where liberty prevails. What should be prohibited? Actions which impair liberty! Let us find these and be rid of them, for they are wrong. Leonard Read laid out the massive chasm between the few prohibitions –of what we all agree is wrong-- necessary to liberty and the panoply of prohibitions already part and parcel of imposed collectivism over a half-century ago. Added prohibitions since have further constrained our power to make our own decisions. But their exponential expansion under the banner of Covid has multiplied that gap, making the issue even more important. Not only do we need to recognize and oppose further inroads into our self-ownership from where we have been herded, we must also apply our understanding to roll back what should never have rolled over us in the first place. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 분노 ] 투표이미지 파일, 원본을 제출해야지, 사본을 제출했다면, 조작가능성크고, 재검의 의미가 없다. 언제나힘차게 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351310151 투표 당일 저장된 이미지 원본 파일을 가지고 재검할 때 생성된 파일과 대조해야 검증이 되는 것인데, 선관위가 법원에 제출한 자료가 원본이 아니라고 실토했다는데, 원본이 없는데, 무엇을 복사해서 재판부에 제출했나 ? 무엇을 복사했고, 누가 복사한 것인가 ? 도저히 설명할 방법이 없이 원본을 없앴나 ? * 투표 분류기를 통과할 때, 자연적으로 생성되는 이미지 파일은 선관위는 파기했나 ? 왜 원본이 없다고 하나 ? 투표법에는 원본은 반드시 보관되어야함을 규정하고 있다고 지적 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 15총선은 부정선거가 맞습니다. 대한민국의 언론은 죽었습니다. 탕자 티비 https://youtu.be/XH2aNeNzwlk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정완진TV] 국채금리 '폭등'...4200조 빚폭탄?~~[멋진아재TV] https://youtu.be/GhvWzAAwHZE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국의 재산세와 양도세.. 슈뢰딩거를죽인고양이 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11351215870 (페북 펌) 제가 다른 나라의 경우는 몰라도 미국의 부동산 세제는 대충 압니다. 정확한 수치까지는 몰라도 기본적인 작동구조를 말씀드리겠습니다. 첫째 종부세는 없고 보유세에 해당하는 재산세가 있습니다. 재산세는 기본적으로 지방세입니다. 지방마다 세율이 다릅니다. 제가 알기로는 하와이가 가장 낮고 뉴욕주가 가장 높은 것으로 알고 있습니다. 이 재산세라는 게 그 지역의 교육인프라 등 지방의 공공서비스와 관련이 높습니다. 기본적으로 비싼 공공서비스를 제공하면 비싼 세금을 받겠다는 겁니다. 미국의 재산세는 소득세와 연계돼 있습니다. 재산세는 소득세에서 공제혜택을 받습니다. 우리나라의 경우는 따로 놀죠. 나아가 대출로 집을 산 경우 이자도 소득세에서 공제를 받습니다. 마치 기업의 경우에 각종 비용을 손비로 처리받는 것 처럼... 양도세의 경우가 재미있습니다. 집을 팔때마다 양도세를 내는 것이 아니라 양도차익이 실현되는 시점에서 세금이 이연됩니다. 즉 내가 10억에 집을 사서 15억에 팔고 그 금액에 해당하는 집 또는 그 금액보다 비싼 집을 다시 산다면 양도소득세를 내지 않습니다. 만약 12억 짜리 집을 산다면 양도차익 5억 중 실현된 3억에 대해 양도소득을 납부하고 2억만큼은 이연됩니다. 미국의 부동산 세제는 이처럼 합리적입니다. 우리처럼 세금이 무서워서 이사를 못가게 하지 않습니다. 보유세도 소득세에서 공제되기 때문에 실효세율도 생각보다 높지 않습니다. 여당 일부의원들이 이야기하는 것처럼 우리의 세율과 미국의 세율을 수치로만 직접 비교하는 것은 아무 의미가 없습니다. PS: 미국의 재산세의 기준가격은 시가가 아니라 구입가입니다. 즉 집을 구입할 때 향후 자신이 내야 할 재산세가 얼마인지 알고 임한다는 점이 중요합니다. 따라서 우리나라처럼 소득없는 은퇴자가 갑자기 집 시세가 올라서 세금 폭탄을 맞는 어이없는 일은 벌어질 수 없습니다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [세뇌탈출] 1526탄 - 미국은 혁명 전야! 중국은 붕괴 전야! ( 20210624) https://youtu.be/Bm_GnTdVHLk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 檢 중간 간부도… 특정지역 출신이 장악 / 문화일보 청 와 대 : 전남 보성, 전북 익산 대검찰청 : 전남 영광, 전북 군산, 전남 나주, 전북 정읍 중앙지검 : 전남 목포, 전북 익산 동부지검 : 광주 북부지검 : 전남 순천 남부지검(국회·금융) : 전북 완주, 광주 안양지청(과천 청사) : 전북 전주, 전북 부안 권력수사 : 전북 고창, 전남 순천, 전북 임실 / 일베 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

미,중 동징웨이 망명 부인 왜?/구소련 해체와 중공, The Longer Telegram/모택동 운명의 숫자 8341 박상후의 문명개화 중공 국가 안전부 부부장 동징웨이의 미국 망명에 대해 미국과 중공이 부인하고 있습니다. 그런데 부인하는 모양새가 상당히 미심쩍습니다. 동징웨이가 갑자기 상하이 협력기구 회의에 등장했지만 이를 두고 AI를 동원한 화면 조작이라고 의문을 제기하는 이들도 있습니다. 동징웨이는 중공으로서나 미국으로서나 뜨거운 감자입니다. 동징웨이는 과거 주청두 미국 영사관으로 도피한 왕리쥔과도 비슷합니다. 당시 미국은 왕리쥔의 망명을 받아들이지 않고 신병을 중공측에 인계한 적이 있습니다. 동징웨이에 대한 미 바이든 행정부의 태도를 보면 역대 민주당 정권의 스탠스와 연장선상입니다. 구소련처럼 갑자기 중공이 붕괴될 경우 통재하기가 어렵고 경제적 투자등 얽혀 있는게 많아 미국에도 재앙이 됩니다. The Longer Telegram에서 보듯 바이든 행정부의 대중정책 핵심은 시진핑은 제거하되 중공은 용인한다는 것입니다. 레짐체인지를 해서 과거 쟝저민, 후진타오 시절로 회귀해 미국의 패권에 당장 도전하지 않으면 된다는 것이 바이든 행정부의 스탠스입니다. 이번 방송에서는 동징웨이 관련 미스테리를 역사적 맥락에서 분석한 것 이외에 중국공산당 창건일을 앞둔 분위기도 짚었습니다. 또 당 창건 기념일이 7월 1일이 된 배경과 모택동의 생애를 관통한 8341이라는 숫자에 얽힌 이야기도 조명했습니다. https://youtu.be/UBzZJsuhIFc 미국의 젊은 정치인 Mike Gallagher, 중공100년 죄악 결의안 제출/조선족 정율성과 인민해방군가 위스컨신 출신의 공화당 연방하원의원 Mike Gallagher가 중국공산당 100주년을 맞이해 중공의 죄악을 열거하고 규탄하는 결의안을 제출했습니다. 여기에는 공화 민주 양당의 의원들이 서명했습니다. 그는 과거 100년동안 중국공산당이 자행한 반인류적 범죄를 열거하면서 공산당 100주년은 경축할만한 것이 아니라 반성해야 할 게재라고 강조했습니다. Mike Gallagher는 1984년생으로 해병대에 7년동안이나 자원복무한 인사로 군복무와 학업이 모두 국가안보와 관련이 있는 애국적 정치인입니다. 오늘 방송에서는 미국의 저력인 젊은 정치인의 모습과 함께 애플데일리 폐간이후 국제사회가 중공을 규탄하고 있다는 소식도 전해드립니다. 아울러 중공100주년을 맞아 뉴욕 플러싱에서 중공계 여성들이 붉은 가곡에 맞춰 광장무를 추는 바람에 현지에 반중여론이 일고 있다는 내용, 그리고 국내 조선족들이 서울에서 장구를 연주하면서 틀어놓은 중공인민해방군가에 얽힌 내용도 전해드립니다 https://youtu.be/v4b5OS-Hvg8 마이크 갤러거 의원은 앞으로도 눈 여겨 볼만한 정치인이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 하버드 졸업증명서 위조? 625에 양민 학살한 빨치산 딸을 만난 이준석 (급하게 프로필 변경. 복수 전공만 속였냐?) 스콧 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/qQyrnZLIZAs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Niall Ferguson I learned from a transatlantic trip that we have two things to fear: the shape-shifting virus and the accumulation of regulations that will persist long after the pandemic: Get Ready to Live With Covid’s Hassles Forever Just as with airline security after 9/11, many "temporary" pandemic regulations are with us to stay. bloomberg.com There's only been one winner during the pandemic: the bureaucratic state, writes @nfergus 펜데믹 기간 중에 유일한 승자가 있었는데, 그것은 바로 관료국가이다. ---> 나는 한국을 비롯해 각국의 망국의 이유는 복지관료주의라고 주장한바 있다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정부 개입은 위기를 불황으로 변화시킨다. Interventionism Turns Crisis into Depression Mark Thornton Interventionism does not work because it misallocates resources in the economy. More importantly, it disturbs, distorts, and destroys the corrective process whereby market actors reallocate resources back into a sustainable framework. 정부 개입은 경제에서 자원의 분배 오류를 유발하기 때문에 성공할 수 없다. 더구나 시장의 활동가들이 자원을 재배치에서 지속적인 성장이 일어나도록 할 때, 정부 개입은 시장의 이러한 자가 조절을 방해하고, 왜곡하고 파괴한다. https://mises.org/wire/interventionism-turns-crisis-depression --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[단독] 국가보안법 철폐 여론전 사업 계획서 입수 '충격'···이미 지난해 기획돼 [충격] 국가보안법 철폐론 수면위로···더불어민주당 범여권 73명 주최자 명단 공개 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 탄소중립 사기를 알아보자 모험자본가 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11350907260 1차 산업혁명(1760~1820)과 2차 산업혁명(1865~1900) 그리고 2차 세계대전(1939~1945)을 거치면서 인류의 이산화탄소(CO2) 배출량은 기하급수적으로 늘어났으며, 그 주요 원인은 석탄(43%), 석유(34%), 천연가스(18%) 등이다. 과거 10만년간의 이산화탄소량의 변화를 보면 최저 182ppm 수준까지 낮았던 수치가 산업혁명직전에는 280ppm까지 올라섰고, 산업혁명 이후에는 드라마틱하게 치솟아 2017년 현재 406ppm까지 올라갔고 계속 상승중이다. 빌게이츠는 이러한 기후재앙으로 인해 농사를 짓지 못하고, 산불로 인해 미국 농업생산이 급감할 것으로 예상하고 있다. 그래서 탄소중립정책 등을 통해 향후 30년 이내에 인류의 탄소배출량 510톤을 '0'으로 만들어야 한다고 책도 썼다. 세계 각국도 탄소중립 아젠다에 대한 대응책을 발표하고 있다. "그런데 말입니다" 이런 주장들이 사실일까?? 하나하나 따져보자. 1. 이산화탄소가 지구온도를 급상승시키고 있나?? - 아니다. 사실은 지난 300년간 지구는 서서히 1.5°C 정도 상승하여 왔으며 인류의 이산화탄소 배출량과 큰 상관관계는 없었다. 2. 인류의 이산화탄소 배출이 빙하축소와 해수면 상승의 원인이 아닌가? - 아니다. 오히려 지구온도의 상승이 빙하를 녹이고, 빙하가 녹으면서 해수면이 상승한 것일 뿐이다. 1825년경부터 190년간 지구온도 상승으로 빙하가 일정추세로 줄어들기 시작하였고, 이러한 경향은 이산화탄소 배출 급증시기인 2차세계대전 이후에도 별다른 영향 없이 그 추세가 그대로 유지되고 있다. 3. 아무튼 이산화탄소가 많아지고 기온이 올라가면 캘리포니아 처럼 산불이 많이 늘어나고 재앙이 오는 것이 아닌가? - 아니다. 이산화탄소가 많아지면 토양이 습해져 산불이 줄어든다. 기온이 올라가면 수증기가 더 많이 생기고 공기에 습기가 더 많아진다. 이산화탄소가 많아지면 식물이 물을 더 적게 소비하게 되어 토양에 습기가 많아진다. 따라서 미국의 산불발생 건수는 과거보다 매우 낮은 수준을 유지하고 있으며 전세계적으로 산불피해 지역은 지구온난화와 함께 지속적으로 감소하고 있다. 4. 하지만 빌게이츠는 이산화탄소 배출 급증에 따른 온난화에 따른 농업생산의 감소를 경고하고 있는데? - 멍청한 소리다. 이산화탄소의 증가는 인류의 축복이다. 동일한 조건에서 공기중 이산화탄소 수치가 높을 수록 식물의 성장을 촉진한다. 만약 이산화탄소가 지금보다 300ppm 더 많아진다면 평균적으로 46%의 농작물 수확증대가 예상된다. 지구의 이산화탄소 수치가 급증한 최근 30년 동안 지구 온난화로 인해 줄어든 녹지보다 늘어난 녹지가 훨씬 많아진 것을 알 수 있다. 특히 2000 ~2017년 사이에 아시아, 인도, 유럽은 이산화탄소 급증의 최대 수혜를 받았다고 할 수 있다. 5. 그렇지만 지금의 이산화탄소 수치는 인류를 위협할 정도로 너무 많은 수치 아닌가? - 아니다. 인류는 화석연료를 활용하게 되면서 너무 많이 줄어든 지구의 이산화탄소 수치를 정상화 시키는 중이다. 지구의 이산화탄소는 1억4천만년전 2500ppm에서 182ppm까지 떨어졌다가 인류의 화석연료 사용으로 비로소 반등하게 되었다. 이산화탄소는 조개류나 화석, 각종 암석들에 지속적으로 축적되면서 농도가 계속 낮아져만 왔었는데 화석연료를 태우면서 이를 지구에 되돌려준 것이다. 만일 150ppm 이하로 떨어지게 되었다면 식물이 멸종하는 대재앙을 맞을뻔 하였다. 참고로, 잠수함 내부의 이산화탄소 수치가 8,000ppm까지 올라가지만 인간의 생존에는 큰 영향이 없다고 한다. 6. 하지만 지구온난화로 해수면이 상승하면 진짜 큰일 아닌가? - 지구의 온도변화에 따라 해수면은 항상 변해왔다. 그것을 사람이 막을 수는 없지만, 공포심을 유발시킬수는 있다. 과거에는 지금보다 해수면이 100미터 이상 낮았었다. 지금은 지구의 온도가 올라가고 있는 시기 때문에 당연히 해수면이 올라가는 것이지 이산화탄소가 해수면을 올리는 것이 아니다. 과거 1만년간의 기후변화를 보면 지구는 이제야 비정상적으로 추운 시대를 지나 조금 따스해 지고 있으며 6천만년전과 비교해 본다면 따뜻해서 남극에서조차 빙하가 없었던 지구가 지독히 추워져 북극에도 빙하가 생겼다가, 최근에야 기온이 조금 반등한 상황이다. 지구의 온도 정상화에 따라 해수면 상승은 당연하지만 환경론자들이 이것을 부풀려서 공포심과 신앙심을 불러 일으켰다는 것이 문제다. (시간이 지날수록 해수면상승 예상수치가 계속 실패하고 예측수치도 계속 낮아지고 있음) 미국에 상륙한 허리케인의 수도 줄고 있어 이산화탄소 증가에 의한 기후변화로 천재지변이 늘어난다는 것도 미신이란 것을 알수있다. 7. 하지만 북극곰은 빙하가 없어지면 멸종하는데 이러한 현상이 전 지구적으로 나타나는 것은 비극 아닌가? - 북극곰은 포유류이기 때문에 따뜻한 지역에서 더 잘 산다. 북극곰은 인류의 사냥으로 줄어든 것이지 온난화로 줄어들지 않으며 실제로 개체수가 늘었다. 빙하가 많이 줄어든 지역(따뜻한 지역)의 북극곰이 빙하가 적게 줄어든 지역(추운지역)의 북극곰들 보다 몸무게가 더 무겁다는 통계 북극곰의 숫자도 50년 전보다 두배 이상 증가하였고 잘 지내고 있다. 심지어 코카콜라도 마시고 있다. 8. 이런 주장들을 믿을 수 있나? - "97%의 과학자들이 지구온난화를 믿고 있다."라는 사기에 놀아나는 것은 후진국에서의 병폐라고 봐야한다. 미국은 민주당 지지자들의 80%가 기후변화 아젠다에 동의하지만, 공화당 지지자들은 20% 만이 동의하고 있다. 학교에서 관련 서적들을 읽고 토론하며 실체적 진실에 다가가 있는 것이다. 트럼프가 탈퇴한 파리기후협정에 바이든이 재가입 의향서를 제출했지만 미국 의회에서 승인될 가능성은 거의 없다. 9. 그럼 탄소중립 아젠다와 그 모든 탄소중립을 위한 정책들은 도대체 무엇인가? - 글로벌 엘리트들은 그들의 이익을 위해 사람들을 위협하고 맹목적으로 따르도록 할 수 있다고 생각한다. 10. 그럼 내가 여러분께 한가지 질문을 하겠다. 인류의 이산화탄소 배출의 증가로 농업생산이 위협을 받을 것이라고 책까지 쓴 빌게이츠는 왜 지속적으로 농지를 사고 있나? 자료 출처 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OsIuPwIIqo&ab_channel=InconvenientFacts(Gregory Wrightstone) 관련 서적 : Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know(아마존 베스트 셀러) (국내번역서 : 불편한 사실 앨 고어가 몰랐던 지구의 기후과학) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 박대출 의원 발의 공직선거법 개정안 입법에 관한 청원 청원의 취지 우리나라는 투표가 끝나면 투표함들을 개표소로 이송하여 투표지분류기를 이용해 개표를 하고 있습니다. 그러나 선거 때마다 투표지분류기의 오류가 발생한 상황입니다. 또한, 현행법상 사전투표 종료 후 그 투표함을 보관할 때 이를 영상정보처리기기로 확인할 수 있는 법적 근거가 없는 등 사전투표 관리의 안전성과 신뢰성을 담보하기 위한 규정이 부족한바, 이에 대한 보완이 필요한 상황입니다. 이에 개표를 할 때에는 수개표를 원칙으로 하는 내용을 도입이 필요합니다. 사전투표 실시 방법ㆍ절차에 관한 사항을 개선하는 등 공직선거에서의 투표ㆍ개표관리의 공정성을 강화가 필요하기 때문입니다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 조선일보 대법 “5·18 유공자 된 이해찬·설훈… 국가보훈처는 공적조서 공개하라” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미제스와 사회진화론 사회적 진화론자들은 진화에서 잘못된 결론을 도출해냈다. 지난 수천년간의 인간을 포함해, 진화에서는 강자가 약자를 정복하는 투쟁이 있었다. 하지만 분업이 나타나면서 상황이 바뀌었다. 약육강식의 논리 대신에, 분업 이후에 진화의 성공에서 중요한 것은 강자와 약자간의 평화적인 상호 협력이 되었다. 인간들 사이의 친선을 가능하게 한 것은 바로 분업의 결과로 나타난 높은 생산력 덕분이었다. 모든 사람은 빵과 옷과 신발, 자동차 등을 원하는데, 대량 생산에 의해 가격이 낮춰지고 거의 모든 사람들이 이것들을 살 수 있게 되었다. 먹이를 찾아 서로 경쟁하는 자연계의 생물학적인 경쟁과, 사회적 협력 체제에서 가장 좋은 위치를 차지하려는 개인들의 사회적 경쟁을 혼동해선 안된다. 사회적 경쟁은 투쟁이 아니며, 여기에서 패배한 사람은 제거되는 게 아니라 그에게 적절한 위치로 옮겨가게 될 뿐이다. Mises and Social Darwinism David Gordon It’s often claimed that support for the free market rests on the ideology of social Darwinism. According to this nefarious doctrine, Charles Darwin showed that evolution is a process of struggle. In it, the strong, meaning those best able to reproduce, supplant the weak. Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, it is alleged, applied evolutionary theory to support the free market. If the poor did not fare well, their situation should not be deplored or remedied. The victory of the strong over the weak is a law of nature, and to endeavor to combat it is futile. One way to respond is to claim that social Darwinism is a myth, largely concocted by the historian Richard Hofstadter in his book Social Darwinism in American Thought. The journalist Jonathan Goldberg adopts this line, but for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere, it’s a mistake. There really were social Darwinists, who defended capitalism in just the way indicated above. A better way to counter the claim that capitalism rests on the ideology of social Darwinism is to show that Spencer and Sumner, the supposed chief figures of this line of thought, do not advocate it. In a recent column, I attempt this task for Sumner. Mises adopts a characteristically insightful standpoint on this issue. He is strongly committed to Darwinism, but, he says, the social Darwinists draw the wrong lessons from evolution. They are right that, aside from human beings in the past several thousand years, evolution is a struggle in which the strong overcome the weak. But the onset of the division of labor changes things. With its onset, the key to evolutionary success is peaceful cooperation between the weak and the strong. As Mises puts this point in Human Action, Yet nature does not generate peace and good will. The characteristic mark of the “state of nature” is irreconcilable conflict. Each specimen is the rival of all other specimens. The means of subsistence are scarce and do not grant survival to all. The conflicts can never disappear. If a band of men, united with the object of defeating rival bands, succeeds in annihilating its foes, new antagonisms arise among the victors over the distribution of the booty. The source of the conflicts is always the fact that each man’s portion curtails the portions of all other men. What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. It removes the natural conflict of interests. For where there is division of labor, there is no longer question of the distribution of a supply not capable of enlargement. Thanks to the higher productivity of labor performed under the division of tasks, the supply of goods multiplies. A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions. Catallactic competition is substituted for biological competition. It makes for harmony of the interests of all members of society. The very condition from which the irreconcilable conflicts of biological competition arise—viz., the fact that all people by and large strive after the same things—is transformed into a factor making for harmony of interests. Because many people or even all people want bread, clothes, shoes, and cars, large-scale production of these goods becomes feasible and reduces the costs of production to such an extent that they are accessible at low prices. The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier. What enhances the price of shoes is the fact that nature does not provide a more ample supply of leather and other raw material required, and that one must submit to the disutility of labor in order to transform these raw materials into shoes. The catallactic competition of those who, like me, are eager to have shoes makes shoes cheaper, not more expensive. (pp. 669–70) To reiterate, there is for Mises an antithesis between biological competition and social competition. In biological competition, people struggle against each other; in social or catallactic competition, more people does not mean greater struggle. The division of labor means that people benefit each other. As Mises says, In nature there prevail irreconcilable conflicts of interests. The means of subsistence are scarce. Proliferation tends to outrun subsistence. Only the fittest plants and animals survive. The antagonism between an animal starving to death and another that snatches the food away from it is implacable. Social cooperation under the division of labor removes such antagonisms. It substitutes partnership and mutuality for hostility. The members of society are united in a common venture. The term competition as applied to the conditions of animal life signifies the rivalry between animals which manifests itself in their search for food. We may call this phenomenon biological competition. Biological competition must not be confused with social competition, i.e., the striving of individuals to attain the most favorable position in the system of social cooperation. As there will always be positions which men value more highly than others, people will strive for them and try to outdo rivals. Social competition is consequently present in every conceivable mode of social organization…. Catallactic competition is emulation between people who want to surpass one another. It is not a fight, although it is usual to apply to it in a metaphorical sense the terminology of war and internecine conflict, of attack and defense, of strategy and tactics. Those who fail are not annihilated; they are removed to a place in the social system that is more modest, but more adequate to their achievements than that which they had planned to attain. (pp. 273–74) Mises doesn’t think that it is always true that, once people have discovered the benefits of the division of labor, the more people the better. He is a Malthusian who thinks that there is an optimum level of population. But it is safe to say that such a point will not be reached for a very long time to come. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경찰을 민영화하라! Privatize the Police N. Rothbard Abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital. The fact that all streets and land areas would be private would by itself solve many of the seemingly insoluble problems of private operation. What we need to do is to reorient our thinking to consider a world in which all land areas are privately owned. Let us take, for example, police protection. How would police protection be furnished in a totally private economy? Part of the answer becomes evident if we consider a world of totally private land and street ownership. Consider the Times Square area of New York City, a notoriously crime-ridden area where there is little police protection furnished by the city authorities. Every New Yorker knows, in fact, that he lives and walks the streets, and not only Times Square, virtually in a state of "anarchy," dependent solely on the normal peacefulness and good will of his fellow citizens. Police protection in New York is minimal, a fact dramatically revealed in a recent week-long police strike when, lo and behold!, crime in no way increased from its normal state when the police are supposedly alert and on the job. At any rate, suppose that the Times Square area, including the streets, was privately owned, say by the "Times Square Merchants Association." The merchants would know full well, of course, that if crime was rampant in their area, if muggings and holdups abounded, then their customers would fade away and would patronize competing areas and neighborhoods. Hence, it would be to the economic interest of the merchants' association to supply efficient and plentiful police protection, so that customers would be attracted to, rather than repelled from, their neighborhood. Private business, after all, is always trying to attract and keep its customers. But what good would be served by attractive store displays and packaging, pleasant lighting and courteous service, if the customers may be robbed or assaulted if they walk through the area? The merchants' association, furthermore, would be induced, by their drive for profits and for avoiding losses, to supply not only sufficient police protection but also courteous and pleasant protection. Governmental police have not only no incentive to be efficient or worry about their "customers'" needs; they also live with the ever-present temptation to wield their power of force in a brutal and coercive manner. "Police brutality" is a well-known feature of the police system, and it is held in check only by remote complaints of the harassed citizenry. But if the private merchants' police should yield to the temptation of brutalizing the merchants' customers, those customers will quickly disappear and go elsewhere. Hence, the merchants' association will see to it that its police are courteous as well as plentiful. Such efficient and high-quality police protection would prevail throughout the land, throughout all the private streets and land areas. Factories would guard their street areas, merchants their streets, and road companies would provide safe and efficient police protection for their toll roads and other privately owned roads. The same would be true for residential neighborhoods. We can envision two possible types of private street ownership in such neighborhoods. In one type, all the landowners in a certain block might become the joint owners of that block, let us say as the "85th St. Block Company." This company would then provide police protection, the costs being paid either by the home-owners directly or out of tenants' rent if the street includes rental apartments. Again, homeowners will of course have a direct interest in seeing that their block is safe, while landlords will try to attract tenants by supplying safe streets in addition to the more usual services such as heat, water, and janitorial service. ' To ask why landlords should provide safe streets in the libertarian, fully private society is just as silly as asking now why they should provide their tenants with heat or hot water. The force of competition and of consumer demand would make them supply such services. Furthermore, whether we are considering homeowners or rental housing, in either case the capital value of the land and the house will be a function of the safety of the street as well as of the other well-known characteristics of the house and the neighborhood. Safe and well-patrolled streets will raise the value of the landowners' land and houses in the same way as well-tended houses do; crime-ridden streets will lower the value of the land and houses as surely as dilapidated housing itself does. Since landowners always prefer higher to lower market values for their property, there is a built-in incentive to provide efficient, well -paved, and safe streets. Private enterprise does exist, and so most people can readily envision a free market in most goods and services. Probably the most difficult single area to grasp, however, is the abolition of government operations in the service of protection: police, the courts, etc.—the area encompassing defense of person and property against attack or invasion. How could private enterprise and the free market possibly provide such service? How could police, legal systems, judicial services, law enforcement, prisons—how could these be provided in a free market? We have already seen how a great deal of police protection, at the least, could be supplied by the various owners of streets and land areas. But we now need to examine this entire area systematically. In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply "police protection," as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called "police protection" any more than there is an absolute single commodity called "food" or "shelter." It is true that everyone pays taxes for a seemingly fixed quantity of protection, but this is a myth. In actual fact, there are almost infinite degrees of all sorts of protection. For any given person or business, the police can provide everything from a policeman on the beat who patrols once a night, to two policemen patrolling constantly on each block, to cruising patrol cars, to one or even several round-the-clock personal bodyguards. Furthermore, there are many other decisions the police must make, the complexity of which becomes evident as soon as we look beneath the veil of the myth of absolute "protection." How shall the police allocate their funds which are, of course, always limited as are the funds of all other individuals, organizations, and agencies? How much shall the police invest in electronic equipment? fingerprinting equipment? detectives as against uniformed police? patrol cars as against foot police, etc.? The point is that the government has no rational way to make these allocations. The government only knows that it has a limited budget. Its allocations of funds are then subject to the full play of politics, boondoggling, and bureaucratic inefficiency, with no indication at all as to whether the police department is serving the consumers in a way responsive to their desires or whether it is doing so efficiently. The situation would be different if police services were supplied on a free, competitive market. In that case, consumers would pay for whatever degree of protection they wish to purchase. The consumers who just want to see a policeman once in a while would pay less than those who want continuous patrolling, and far less than those who demand twenty-four-hour bodyguard service. On the free market, protection would be supplied in proportion and in whatever way that the consumers wish to pay for it. A drive for efficiency would be insured, as it always is on the market, by the compulsion to make profits and avoid losses, and thereby to keep costs low and to serve the highest demands of the consumers. Any police firm that suffers from gross inefficiency would soon go bankrupt and disappear. One big problem a government police force must always face is: what laws really to enforce? Police departments are theoretically faced with the absolute injunction, "enforce all laws," but in practice a limited budget forces them to allocate their personnel and equipment to the most urgent crimes. But the absolute dictum pursues them and works against a rational allocation of resources. On the free market, what would be enforced is whatever the customers are willing to pay for. Suppose, for example, that Mr. Jones has a precious gem he believes might soon be stolen. He can ask, and pay for, round-the-clock police protection at whatever strength he may wish to work out with the police company. He might, on the other hand, also have a private road on his estate he doesn't want many people to travel on—but he might not care very much about trespassers on that road. In that case, he won't devote any police resources to protecting the road. As on the market in general, it is up to the consumer—and since all of us are consumers this means each person individually decides how much and what kind of protection he wants and is willing to buy. All that we have said about landowners' police applies to private police in general. Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients' friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent—and paying—customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively. In fact, as government police have become increasingly inefficient, consumers have been turning more and more to private forms of protection. We have already mentioned block or neighborhood protection. There are also private guards, insurance companies, private detectives, and such increasingly sophisticated equipment as safes, locks, and closed-circuit TV and burglar alarms. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice estimated in 1969 that government police cost the American public $2.8 billion a year, while it spends $1.35 billion on private protection service and another $200 million on equipment, so that private protection expenses amounted to over half the outlay on government police. These figures should give pause to those credulous folk who believe that police protection is somehow, by some mystic right or power, necessarily and forevermore an attribute of State sovereignty. [Excerpted from chapters 11 and 12 of For A New Liberty.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[사설] 1차 추경 절반도 못 쓰고 또 추경, 정권 ‘정치 실탄’ 된 추경 조선일보 ---->정부에서 돈을 쓸수록 경제는 망가지고, 시민들은 가난해진다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1보)강창일 주일대사, 문대통령 도쿄올림픽 지지하고 방일원한다고 아사히신문 인터뷰 백성의피눈물 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11350699642 강창일 대사가 일본 아시히신문과 공식인터뷰한 기사이며 일본정부가 이러한 문대통령의 희망을 "어른스럽게" 받아들이면 좋겠다고 애걸. 일제시대 강제동원과 위안부 보상문제도 우리 법원 압박해 문재인이 압박해 기각시켰고 일본을 기쁘게 할 추가적인 회유책도 12개 이상 준비되어 있다고 자랑한 기사에는 내 얼굴이 다 화끈해졌음. 예전엔 죽창 언급하며 반일하자고 국민선동해서 무역보복 당하고 국내 일식집 망가뜨리고 2030세대 일본취업 다 막더니, 이제 와선 이완용이 울고 갈 아부라니.. 싸이코인가? 결국 선거와 통치에 반일이용해 국민들만 피해봤네. 애비는 일제때 우리 농민수탈했던 농업과장이었고, 자기는 일본 야동 즐기며 친일파 김지태유족 변호해 117억 혈세 받아내고 일본전자기업들과 싸우던 삼성 이재용 잡아 가두고, 마누라는 일본 우라센케 다도에 미치고, 딸은 일본 우익단체가 세운 고쿠시칸대학에서 유학하고, 아들은 일본만화와 비디오가 방천장까지 닿을 정도로 탐닉했으니.. 토착왜구 원조집안이었네 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 평양주재 대사의 충격 증언! 김정은은 '바지사장'! 신인균의 국방티비 https://youtu.be/PqKUmgxlS4s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 미국의 반자본주의 심각하다. 서구문명 몰락의 시작인가? 위기의 지구촌 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/hKlw_7sgfa8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 복지-전쟁 국가와 법정 화폐 시스템은 권위주의 정부를 유지하는 생명선이고, 이걸 폐지해야만 권위주의 정부를 몰아낼 수 있다. The Road to Authoritarianism is Paved with Fiat Currency Ron Paul Last week, the Federal Reserve announced it will maintain an interest rate target of zero to 0.25 percent for the rest of 2021. The Fed said it will also continue its monthly purchase of 120 billion dollars of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. Some Fed board members are forecasting a rate increase by late 2022 or 2023, though with the rate still not reaching one percent. The Fed will neither allow interest rates to rise to market levels nor reduce its purchase of Treasury securities. A significant increase in interest rates would make the government’s borrowing costs unsustainable. The Fed also raised its projected rate of inflation to three percent, although it still insists the rise in prices is a transitory effect of the end of the lockdowns. There is some truth to this, as it will take some time for businesses to get back to full capacity. However, the Fed began taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy in September of 2019, when it started pumping billions of dollars a day into the repo market that banks use to make short-term loans to each other. The lockdowns only postponed and deepened the forthcoming Fed-caused meltdown. Germany’s Deutsche Bank recently released a paper warning about the Federal Reserve continuing to disregard the inflation risk caused by easy money policies designed to “stimulate” the economy and facilitate massive government spending. Germans have reason to be sensitive to the consequences of inflation, including hyperinflation. Out-of-control inflation played a major role in the collapse of the German economy in the 1920s, which led to the rise of the National Socialists. This pattern could repeat itself in America where we have already witnessed the rise of authoritarian movements. Last summer, groups exploited legitimate concerns about police misconduct to foment violence across the country. Can anyone doubt that an economic crisis that leads to mass unemployment, foreclosures, and maybe even shortages will result in large-scale violence? Or that the violence will be exploited by power-hungry politicians? Or that many people will once again fall for the big lie that preserving safety requires giving up their liberty? The apparatus of repression already exists in the form of a surveillance state, police militarization, and big tech’s cooperation with big government to stamp out dissent. Now, President Biden and his congressional allies want to use the January 6 US Capitol turmoil to justify expanding government powers in the name of stopping “domestic terrorists.” Part of this new campaign is expanding censorship of “extremism,” defined as any views that threaten the status quo. The Biden administration has taken a page from the Communist playbook in suggesting people report their friends and family who are becoming “radicalized.” We may still have time to prevent collapse in America, or at least to make sure the collapse leads to a transition to a free society. The key to success is spreading the ideas of liberty until we have the ability to force the politicians to dismantle the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that is the lifeblood of authoritarian government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 거짓에 대한 열린 마음은 오히려 해롭다 열린 마음을 가지라고 하는데, 그 대상이 거짓인 경우에도 열린 마음을 가질 필요는 없다. 이런 경우의 황금율은 이것이다: 당신이 알고 있는 것에는 닫힌 마음을 가져도 되고, 당신이 모르거나 이해하지 못한 것에는 열린 마음을 가지라는 것이다. 레너드 리드가 발표한 9가지 자유 사회의 원칙 5. 창조는 개인적인 것으로, 때론 경쟁하고 때론 협력하는 개인에게서만 나온다. 6. 교환에서의 자유는 절대적인 원칙이다. 7. 어떤 상품이나 서비스의 가치는 타인이 자발적인 교환에서 그에게 주는 만큼이다. An "Open Mind" Is of No Use When It's Open to Lies Gary Galles In our world, there is very little people agree upon. One thing that seems to be an exception is that having an open mind is almost universally well regarded, while having a closed mind is almost universally criticized. However, such rhetoric presumes that what we are open or closed to is the truth. That leads to some problems of understanding, because we are routinely exposed to a great deal of nonsense, which we do not want to be open to, as well as truth. That is particularly important to understand in a period when Americans have been repeatedly told to “follow the science” (say on mask restrictions) to prove they are not just obstinately closed-minded, when the main purpose was to open people’s minds to falsehoods, while at the same time they have been browbeaten to close their minds to legitimate questions about vaccines, mandated closures, critical race theory, and more, with both types of arguments used to reduce our freedoms. Leonard Read insightfully addressed such issues in “Open versus Closed Minds,” chapter 22 of his 1973 Who’s Listening? We should have an open mind to what he wrote. Open-mindedness is almost everywhere hailed as a virtue…. A person of closed mind, on the other hand, is generally condemned as narrow, shallow, nit-witted…. But this, of course, poses the question: To what should one’s mind be closed and to what should it be open? I would like my mind open to truths yet to be perceived and closed to all nonsense. While no one knows overmuch, each of us knows some things…. A good rule: Close the mind on what one knows and understands and keep it open to what is not known and understood. In either function, one’s mind serves him as a guide … helping him to avoid the ditches and stay on the road toward his destination. Read begins by explaining why someone being close-minded about something need not be an inverse indicator of their wisdom on the topic, and being open-minded on something need not be a positive indicator of their wisdom on the topic. The more one knows and understands, the more the issues upon which his mind is closed! But although a closed mind may indicate the number of issues upon which a man has reflected and reached settled conclusions, it also might be a sign that one has perceived next to nothing. The degree of closed-mindedness is not necessarily an accurate gauge of how much one knows and understands! The lesson? Never try to estimate the knowledge and wisdom of others by how closed or open their minds. A person’s mind may be closed with … things which he knows or sincerely believes and upon which he can act; or it may be closed and quite empty, receptive to no ideas at all. By the same token, a mind may be open, but open to every kind of an idea—wise or foolish; or it may be so open on every side that no idea can be registered there for reference or use. So the question is not entirely whether a mind is open or closed but whether it is a working mind and, if so, to what purpose. Read then takes his view of what we should, and what we should not, be open to, and asks a very uncommon question about it—what kind of openness would serve both ourselves and society, both those around us today and in posterity? The idea that one’s mind should be open to that which is not known or understood and that our aim is to grow in knowledge and wisdom, gives rise to a logical and relevant question. How may we best serve each other as each of us pursues this end? By opening our minds to each other! By so doing, we expose what light we have gained and, thus, maximize the total enlightenment. Open-mindedness in its best sense! Unquestionably, this sharing process accounts for the greater expanse of knowledge and wisdom … we have inherited from the past…. We are free to pick their brains, so to speak, to whatever extent we are willing to open our minds to their ideas. Likewise, we may pick the brains of one another among our contemporaries to the extent each is willing, always bearing in mind the personal responsibility to choose and judge which ideas to accept or reject, and which of ours are worthy of sharing with others. As Ortega phrased it, “The known is what’s no longer a problem.” So numerous and all-pervasive are our problems that the unknown must be regarded as infinite…. Those issues to which the mind is still open are problems rather than answers…. Thus, the best one can do for others is to enumerate those ideas and propositions on which his own mind is closed—express what he believes to be true. Not only did Leonard Read add to our ability to know what we are talking about with open- and closed-mindedness, he provided us an example, laying out things his mind was closed to—core principles which he believed were true, and solid premises from which to reason and evaluate behavior. He wrote, “Here I stand, I can do no other.” The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. 1. The good society rests on individuals having high moral scruples and ethical guidelines; no organizational gadgetry, however deftly devised, can overcome moral and ethical deficiencies. 2. Government limited to administering justice and keeping the peace—equality before the law—is an essential adjunct to morality … 3. Government—organized force—can only inhibit, restrain, penalize. It has no business interfering in the creative realm. 4. Creativity stems exclusively from individuals acting privately, competitively, cooperatively, voluntarily. 5. No man who lives, no association, nor any government is competent to decide for any other where he shall work, what his hours or wage shall be, what and with whom he may exchange, or what thoughts he shall entertain. 6. Freedom in transactions is an absolute principle. 7. The value of any good or service is what another will give in willing exchange. 8. The good or bad politician is not the cause of good or bad government. He reflects the thinking of his constituents. When the thinking is good enough, then good men can and will be elected to office. 9. Obedience to one’s highest conscience is to seek approval from God, not men. Leonard Read’s closed-mindedness on certain principles as true provides us material for serious reflection about what we believe. And he reflects some ancient wisdom that is unfortunately more often honored in the breach than in modern practice. He seems to be channeling Marcus Aurelius, who wrote in Meditations, “If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” Further, Heraclitus, in Fragments, suggests perhaps a better term than closed-mindedness for Read’s approach: “To be even-minded is the greatest virtue. Wisdom is to speak the truth and act in keeping with its nature.” Read also provided us a way to evaluate the quality of our own closed-mindedness. There is a reliable test as to whether or not one’s closed-mindedness derives from a growing knowledge or from a lack of understanding. If from lack, there will be a sense of know-it-all-ness; if from growth, the more issues on which one’s mind is closed, the better paved is his access to the unknown. This test merely emphasizes the obvious: the more one knows, the more is he aware of the unknown. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

원전 발전 7%로 줄이고, 中·러시아 전기 수입 추진 [탄소 제로 30년 전쟁] [3] 정부가 마련한 ‘2050 로드맵’ 분석 / 조선일보 ---->정신병은 치유가 어렵다! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 듣보잡'에도 밀려난 백두혈통 김여정! 격화되는 北 권력암투! 첫 타겟은 김여정?! 신인균의 국방티비 https://youtu.be/3nKuQ8DwfW0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (속보) 아프간 상황그놈_최후_ 부엉바위 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11350553628 1. 미군, 아프간에서 손 뗀다는 바이든 정책에 따라 열나게 철수하고 있는데... 2. 미군이 줄어들자 변방에서는 아프간 정부군이 탈레반에 자진 항복하고 무기 헌납 3. 탈레반, 정부군과 싸우지도 않고 차곡차곡 나라 접수하는 중 4. 루머에 의하면 탈레반이 항복한 정부군 + 민간인 집단 학살하고 있다고 함 (한줄요약) 미군 철수하고 북한이 남한 먹을 경우 벌어질 상황 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 길에 들어섰다 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/vduRyqUcpvA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1보) 40세대, 586좌빨꼰대들의 노예로부터 탈출 시작 백성의피눈물 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11350585047 그동안 20-50세대는 문재인 지지했었고 60세대이상은 보수당을 지지했는데, 2030세대가 586좌빨꼰대들이 무능력과 위선적이면서 공정하지도 않고 부정부패로 혈세빨아 2030세대의 노후 망가뜨리는 작태를 보고 비판세력으로 전환해 지난 서울 부산선거와 이번 국민의 힘 대표선거를 통해 586좌빨꼰대들을 내몰수 있는 힘 과시 한편 40세대는 그동안 586좌빨꼰대들과 전교조의 세뇌교육으로 노예처럼 이들에게 선동되고 혈세를 바쳐왔으나, 586좌빨꼰대들이 무능력한 주제에 40세대의 진출을 막고 더 오랫동안 자기들끼리 혈세빨고 특혜를 누리려는 것을 깨닫고 586좌빨꼰대들에게 비판적이기 시작. 베트남에서도 룸싸롱가서 어린 여자랑 놀아난 송트남 당대표와 문재인에 아부해서 당선된 친문 최고의원 등 당지도부가 모두 586좌빨꼰대들. 대부분의 민주당 의원들도 대학때 시위나 하다 김대중에 의해 경쟁없이 발탁된 후 40대이하 신진정치인들의 진입을 철저히 막으며 기득권 지키기에 여념없는 586좌빨꼰대들. 68세 문재인, 69세 이해찬 이외에도, 69세 이낙연, 71세 정세균, 57세 이재명, 모두 대학때 친북하며 시위일삼던 좌빨 꼰대들이 민주당 대통령 후보. 63세 김두관은 53세 김어준이 예전에 문재인 비판했던 것 지적하자 "문재인 큰형님 죄송하다"며 페이스북에 사과하여 586좌빨꼰대 이미지에 조폭이미지 추가. 김일성 교조주의처럼, 문재인을 교주로 모시고 강성친문대께문들을 홍위병으로 이용해 내부 비판을 용납하지 않는 진정한 꼰대집단. 건국이후 문재인 집권 전까지 68년간 쌓인 국가채무가 660조원인데 문재인 집권 후 4년만에 410조원을 증가시켜 천조원이 넘게 만들고 부족해진 재정을 10년 국채를 발행해서 돈을 빌려. 10년뒤면 203040세대가 자식 뒷바라지하고 노후 대비해야 할 때인데, 203040세대한테 천조원이 넘는 세금부담 떠넘기고 586좌빨 생색 중. 10년뒤에 나라돈이 부족하면 결국 203040세대에 세금부담 늘이고 그것도 부족하면 203040세대가 지금 돈내고 있는 국민연금의 수령액을 줄여 메꿔야 함. 그때쯤되면 건강보험도 파탄날텐데… 결국 대학때 공부안하고 감빵경력 자랑하고 대학나와 사기나 치던 자들이라, 국민의 의무(납세,근로,국방..)는 안 한 주제에, 국민 선동으로 권력잡은 후엔, 온갖 부정부패로 혈세 빨고 그 부담을 203040세대에 전가 중. 겉으로는 공정,평등,준법, 서민을 외치면서 뒤로는 부동산 투기 일삼고, 불법으로 혈세 빨아 203040세대 착취하고, 지 자식들은 특혜입학, 특례채용, 해외유학시켜 203040세대 좌절시키고, 시진핑과 김정은에 나라 팔아먹으려 혈안이 된 위선자들 내년 대선은 203040세대가 586좌빨꼰대들을 몰아내고 더 공정한 나라로 가는 최상의 기회이므로 투표 잘합시다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1보) 문재인 집권후, 양질의 일자리 195만개 감소 백성의피눈물 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11350572283 유경준 국회의원실에 따르면, 문재인 집권후 OECD기준 양질의 일자리는 195만개 줄었는데, 정부가 돈 뿌려 저임금 초단기 알바 일자리만 213만개 증가시킴. 지난달엔 미국가서 44조 첨단산업과 수십만개 고연봉 일자리 미국에 주고 유통기한 다 된 얀센백신만 받아왔는데도 건국이래 최대 방미성과라고 자화자찬, 한편 경실련, 문재인 집권 후 서울집값 93% 상승 발표. 서민이 25년간 돈 한푼 안 쓰고 저축해야 집 장만 가능. 586좌빨들, 부동산정책 엉망으로 해서 자기 집값 올려 놓고 대선 앞두고 지지율 떨어지니, 선심쓰는 척 부동산세 내린다고 생색. 대선위해 부동산세, 전기료, 휘발유값, 각종 생필품값 인상 억제하고 있으나 대선승리하면 즉각 대폭 인상 예상 높은 부동산가격때문에 2030세대 어쩔 수없이 암호화폐 투자하게 만들고 나서 최근 대부분 상장폐지시켜 쪽박차게 만듬 코로나 변이바이러스가 갈수록 강력해지고 있는데 문재인은 시진핑에 잘 보이려고 다음달부터 중국백신 맞은 중국인들 입국 허용. 중국은 여전히 150만원 격리비용 받아내며 우리 국민 20일씩 격리시키는데 우리 정부는 우리 국민들이야 죽던말던 중국에 잘 보이려고 안간힘. 결과적으로, 문재인과 586좌빨들 때문에 2030세대는 부동산, 코로나, 암호화폐, 취업난으로 죽어나가고 있는데 문재인은 올해에도 지 연봉 억대로 인상하고 퇴임후엔 혈세로 매달 수천만원씩 챙기며 땅값오른 양산 호화주택에서 국민들 비웃으며 떵떵거리며 잘 살 예정 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LA 시사논평 / 최재형, 내각제 개헌 검토설 / 이재명-이준석의 기본소득, 이렇게 나라 망친다 (생방송 6. 23. 2021) https://youtu.be/FdSoNussw4c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정완진TV] 한국은행 '섬뜩한 경고'..."금융위기 터진다?"~~[멋진아재TV] https://youtu.be/OiQFe7UyOCo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 실시간] SK본사 앞 - 대한민국 통신주권 되찾기! 중공 공산당과 인민군의 앞잡이와 개노릇을 하는 화웨이 장비를 즉각 제거하라! 자유우파정권 K리퍼블릭 K파티 https://youtu.be/0rO__rCfqus --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “호주 본보기 삼은 中…스스로 호주만한 구덩이 파고 빠진 격”     중국과 호주의 외교적 갈등이 깊어지는 가운데, 중국이 호주를 본보기로 삼아 경제적 불이익을 주려 하지만, 실효를 내지 못하고 있으며 오히려 다른 국가들에게 ‘믿을 수 없는 나라’라는 인상만 주고 있다는 분석이 나왔다. 미국 허드슨 연구소 선임연구원 존 리 박사는 최근 미 의회 전문지 더힐(The Hill)에 보낸 기고문에서 “현재 중국은 스스로 호주만한 구덩이를 파고 있다”면서 “중국은 호주를 상대로 한 압박에 실패했을 뿐만 아니라 스스로 판 구덩이에 빠졌다”고 주장했다. [출처] 에포크타임스 한글판 - Kr.TheEpochTimes.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 접종 후 사망 신고는 누적 309명이다. 이 가운데 화이자 백신 접종자가 179명, 아스트라제네카 백신 접종자가 129명, 얀센 백신 접종자가 1명이다. 다른 증상으로 먼저 신고됐다가 상태가 악화해 사망한 사례까지 모두 포함하면 사망자는 총 417명이다. 연합뉴스 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 트럼프 , "바이든의 행정명령은 미국의 자살" / 지피지기 https://youtu.be/co32xp7ISRU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Rees and Steven Pinker: Wagering on catastrophe Four years ago these two eminent scientists bet on the likelihood of a man-made global biological disaster. Is it time to decide a winner? BY MARTIN REES AND STEVEN PINKER 4년전 천체물리학자 리스와 스티븐 핑커는 인위적이고 전세계적인 생물학적 재앙이 있을 것인지를 놓고 내기를 걸었다. 그 내기의 승리자는 아마 리스인 듯 하다. 리스 --- 생물학적 재앙이 있을 것이다. 핑커 --- 없을 것이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Covid Lockdowns Showed Us How Dangerous Social Engineers Have Become Birsen Filip It's fairly easy to destroy the spontaneously created institutions and groups that make up a well-functioning society. But it is nearly impossible to rebuild them once they're destroyed by central planners. 우한 폐렴으로 인해 사회 공학이 얼마나 위험한 지경에 와 있는지 알게 되었다. 사회에서 자생적으로 생성된 제도와 집단을 파괴하기는 쉽지만, 일단 중앙 계획가들에 의해 파괴된 제도와 집단을 복구하기는 거의 불가능하다. The Covid Lockdowns Showed Us How Dangerous Social Engineers Have Become Birsen Filip Since the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, governments around the world, along with a handful of unelected medical experts, have been behaving as though they are the social engineers of totalitarian regimes (e.g., fascism, Nazism, and communism). To be more precise, this select group of political leaders and medical experts have upended economies, as well as the lives of billions of ordinary people, by implementing extremely coercive and restrictive lockdowns and physical distancing measures for the stated purpose of bringing the pandemic under control and preventing future outbreaks. Specific measures have included curfews; police patrols on the streets; the compulsory closure of businesses deemed nonessential, as well as workplaces, schools, and institutions of higher education; the banning of social gatherings; the cancelation of sporting and cultural events; the suspension of religious services; and restrictions on personal movement and interactions at the local, national, and international levels. In many parts of the world, people have been subjected to mandatory stay-at-home orders, requiring them to spend most of the day confined and isolated in their homes. Lockdown measures have also been used to prohibit people from engaging in public protests and freely expressing their opinions, as failure to comply with limits on social gatherings has led to people being arrested, detained, and fined. It has also not been uncommon to see excessive police force being used to enforce lockdowns and curfews, and to disperse protests against unreasonable restrictions. Some governments have also set up detention centers for international travelers entering into their countries, where they are forced to quarantine at their own expense while they wait for the results of their covid-19 tests. Shockingly, in early June 2021, the provincial government in Ontario, Canada, went so far as to announce that residents in long-term care homes would soon be permitted to engage in “close physical contact, including handholding” and “brief hugs” with visitors when both parties are fully immunized. Unfortunately, instead of criticizing this state of affairs, the mainstream media and major social media platforms are fully on board. They have turned out to be willing collaborators of the governments in these matters by glorifying their oppressive and punitive measures, censuring critical viewpoints, and fostering a culture of surveillance, all while spreading fear. They have also been ceaselessly promoting the injection of experimental vaccines as the only solution that will bring totalitarian lockdown measures to an end. If Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek had witnessed the type of central planning that has taken place since the beginning of the pandemic, they would have called it “holistic social engineering.” They were convinced that supporters of the concept of a social engineer sought to extend “the power of the State” in controlling and reshaping society as a whole in accordance with their own ideals, goals, and wills.1 According to Popper, social engineers believe that they can diagnose the goals and needs of society, and then implement a strategy to achieve them through large-scale planning.2 However, such an undertaking would require social engineers to centrally coordinate the activities of millions of people by replacing the wills and ends of those individuals with their own. Meanwhile, Hayek stated that the best way to make everybody serve the ends of the social engineers is to make everybody believe in those ends. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants. If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to.3 Social engineers of the pandemic have been largely successful in convincing the masses that the oppressive lockdown measures that they are being forced to endure are ultimately in the best interests of society as a whole. In many instances, they have managed to make many people believe that the goals of the lockdowns are in fact their own goals. At the same time, social engineers have been discouraging “criticism,” as they do not “easily hear of complaints concerning the measures” that they have instituted.4 Accordingly, the critical views put forth by some journalists, activists, dissenters, legal experts, medical professionals, and anybody else who cares about freedom, human rights violations, and the common good have been systematically silenced. Popper explained that the social engineer: will have to be deaf to many complaints; in fact, it will be part of his business to suppress unreasonable objections. (He will say, like Lenin, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.”) But with it, he must invariably suppress reasonable criticism also.5 After nearly a year and a half of antiliberal, undemocratic, unethical, antiscientific, ahistorical, and oppressive governmental measures, while denying billions of people their basic human rights, freedom, and sovereignty, social and economic life has essentially been completely crippled in many countries and regions. Nonetheless, social engineers of the pandemic period have treated critics and complaints as “a blemish,” proof of irrationality, and violations of the common good.6 Hayek and Popper incessantly warned about the form of central planning that we are currently being subjected to, which has been used by numerous dictators and tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. They specifically argued that it would not only lead societies down “the road to serfdom,” but also cause irreversible, large-scale social and economic damage. In fact, since the lockdowns began, general freedom (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and intellectual freedom), negative freedom (i.e., freedom from coercion), positive freedom (i.e., freedom of self-development), subjective freedom (i.e., freedom to act based on one’s own will and views), objective freedom (i.e., freedom of “being with other”), and economic freedom (e.g., freedom to earn one’s living, to produce, to buy, to sell, etc.) have been all violated to some extent. Furthermore, hundreds of millions of people have lost their jobs or endured income reductions, many small and medium-sized companies have gone bankrupt, unemployment rates have increased across major economies, and most countries have gone into recession. Moreover, the lockdowns have also had a number of unintended social and health consequences, including increases in domestic violence to unprecedented levels, in the form of both physical and emotional abuse; a significant rise in substance abuse and related deaths (i.e., overdoses); worsening mental health problems leading to depression and suicides; isolation and antisocial lifestyles and behavior, particularly in children; physical inactivity and weight gain; and, the cancellation or delay of medical procedures, surgeries, and consultations. The unexpected destructive consequences of the totalitarian lockdown measures will undoubtedly be felt for decades to come. Hayek and Popper would not have been surprised that the lockdown measures generated so many adverse impacts on people, the economy, and society. In fact, they warned that social engineering could never successfully achieve its predetermined goals and ends in the real world for two main reasons: the limited and dispersed nature of human knowledge and the spontaneous forces of society. Based on the concept of dispersed knowledge, “we know little of the particular facts to which the whole of social activity continuously adjusts itself in order to provide what we have learned to expect. We know even less of the forces which bring about this adjustment by appropriately coordinating individual activity.”7 Hayek and Popper would have argued that social engineers of the pandemic could not realistically possess the type and the abundance of knowledge needed to plan such large-scale oppressive lockdowns. According to them, by ignoring the dispersed nature of human knowledge, social engineers falsely believed that they could possess all of the knowledge required to redesign an entire society while also having complete control over all efforts directed toward the achievement of teleologically evaluated goals. In fact, Hayek and Popper concluded that it was impossible to exercise complete control over society via social engineering because the limitations of human knowledge meant that nobody could foresee all of the possible consequences of human actions, which is necessary if common goals are to be achieved. These sentiments apply to contemporary social engineers of the pandemic, and could explain why they were unable to accurately predict the consequences of many of the oppressive policies and measures that were intended to mitigate the spread and impacts of covid-19. Popper and Hayek argued that even if it were hypothetically possible for a social engineer to possess all the knowledge needed to centrally plan and organize an entire society, they would still be unable to attain their teleologically evaluated goals in the manner they envisioned on account of the spontaneous forces of society, which represent the second main obstacle to the success of large-scale central planning. The spontaneous forces of society would make it impossible to effectively collect detailed information about the constantly changing activities, private interests, particular circumstances, complex relationships, and preferences of millions of people. The unexpected and unplanned outcomes associated with the spontaneous forces of society mean that the original plans of any social engineer will end in failure, because “the real outcome will always be very different from the rational construction” of the social engineer. In order to realize their predetermined goals, social engineers would be forced to continuously modify and change their plans, while using their exclusive power to coerce individuals for the purpose of imposing increasingly restrictive measures. That is to say, they would need to constantly interfere in the choices that individuals make without having to obtain any input from them. Hayek warned that the coercive measures employed by social engineers could “destroy those spontaneous forces which have made advance” and progress possible across history, and inevitably result in “a stagnation of thought and a decline of reason.”8 He wanted people to understand that while “it may not be difficult to destroy the spontaneous formations which are the indispensable bases of a free civilization, it may be beyond our power deliberately to reconstruct such a civilization once these foundations are destroyed.”9 This is why Popper called social engineering the “greatest and most urgent evil of society.”10 According to him, “even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it hell—that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”11 1.Birsen Filip, "Hayek and Popper on Piecemeal Engineering and Ordo-liberalism," in Robert Leeson, ed., Hayek: A Collaborative Biography: Part XIV: Liberalism in the Classical Tradition: Orwell, Popper, Humboldt and Polanyi (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 244. 2.K.R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960). 3.F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: Texts and Documents, ed. Bruce Caldwell, vol. 2 of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, ed. Bruce Caldwell (1944; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), p. 157. 4.Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945; repr., London: Routledge, 2011), p. 149. 5.Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, p. 150. 6.F.A. Hayek, The Counter Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1952; repr., Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press, 1979), p. 153. 7.F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, ed. Ronald Hamowy, vol. 17 of The Complete Works of F.A. Hayek (1960; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), p. 76. 8.Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p. 90. 9.F.A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (1948; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 25. 10.Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, p. 84. 11.Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, p. 157. Author: Birsen Filip Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. She has published numerous articles and chapters on a range of topics, including political philosophy, geo-politics, and the history of economic thought, with a focus on the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics. She is also the author of The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 법정 화폐는 어떻게 우리의 문화를 변화시키는가 건전한 화폐는 정부의 전제적 폭력에 대항해 시민들의 자유를 지키기 위한 도구로 만들어졌고, 이 사실을 알아야만 건전한 화폐의 중요성을 이해할 수 있다. 계속적인 인플레 상황에서 화폐를 사용하게 되면 사람들은 근시안적으로 바뀌게 되고, 야생의 동물들처럼 변한다. 동물들이 당장 내일의 먹이를 걱정하듯이, 인간들은 단기적인 목표만을 갖게 되고, 장기적으로 생각하고 계획하지 못한다. 법정 화폐는 정부를 더 크고 중앙 집권적으로 만든다. 건전한 화폐에서는 가능하지 않던 정부 프로그램이 법정 화폐로는 가능해지기 때문이다. How Fiat Money Changes Culture Stephan Livera Can the type of money used change the culture of a society? This might seem like an absurd proposition, but it is supported by the arguments of proponents of the Austrian school of economics. First, let’s contextualize the importance of sound money as opposed to fiat money. Mises notes in The Theory of Money and Credit: “It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments.“ Fiat money has never arisen through purely voluntary market actions. It has always been coercively imposed via interventions such as legal tender laws, capital gains tax laws, central banking, laws permitting fractional reserve banking, government bailout guarantees, etc. This causes a degeneration in the quality of money used by society. But are there cultural consequences of this? To see the cultural consequences, we must first understand the pivotal role money and prices play in coordinating production across society. Entrepreneurs must act under uncertainty to gather the required resources to offer their goods and services. And yet money, their unit of account, for measuring profit and loss, is being manipulated by the government. Money is created as new loans are issued by commercial and retail banks, and the first recipients of that money benefit at the expense of late recipients. Using money with continual inflation encourages short termism and haste. We live more like animals in the wild. Animals in the wild care mostly about their next meal, rather than thinking, planning, and building for the long term as humans can do when we’re at our best. Consider the counterfactual world of living under sound money, chosen by the market. In this world, how does the state fund large programs? It must openly tax citizens, and for this, politicians pay a high price in lost popularity, and risk losing their next election. Instead of explicit taxation, politicians inside the government will prefer to use more hidden forms of funding for their programs. In order to do this, they must first remove the check of sound money. Going one step further, the creation and enforcement of fiat money enables larger and more centralized government. Large government programs become possible that were not possible or sustainable under a market-chosen, sound money standard. Consider the impact of profligate spending under a market-chosen monetary standard. In the past, this meant that governments spending big and living large were subject to net gold outflows to other countries. While many like to think of government programs and welfare statism as a "safety net" for society, consider that these programs fundamentally drive the wrong behaviors. Where historically, non-government-based mutual-aid societies promoted a culture of self-reliance and thrift, government welfare states promote the opposite, the end result being that government programs remove the safeguards that a market society would have. In this way, fiat money frees people from the prior "restraints" of polite society, with expectations for productive and civil behavior broken. Freed of prior constraints that families, religion, and communities used to impose, people often turn to more short-term gratification. They may engage in more reckless behavior that previously would have had economic consequences, such as the cost of raising children. Fiat inflation forces people to invest in just about anything rather than save in fiat cash, driving more money and debt as leverage through the financial services sector than otherwise would be the case. With cheap fiat debt, governments may more cheaply engage in warfare or sustain warfare for longer than they otherwise could have. Cheap fiat debt essentially provides the government with command over more of society’s resources than it otherwise would have had. For readers interested in learning more, I highly recommend reading Jörg Guido Hülsmann’s The Ethics of Money Production, and watching his lecture here on the Mises Institute YouTube channel. How could this situation be rectified? If the world were to transition back to market-chosen money, such as gold or bitcoin, we would see the discipline of the free market reassert itself. Until then, let’s recognize the ways that society and culture have been greatly influenced by government fiat money. Stephan Livera (@stephanlivera) is an Austro-libertarian writer and host of the Stephan Livera Podcast. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------