[ 분노 ] 사탄파 비박 버러지들과 조중동은 반드시 퇴출되어야한다. 불법탄핵이 정당 ? 불법 탄핵을 덮고 가자 ? 불법탄핵은 반드시 바로잡아야한다. 언제나힘차게 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11346792392 불법탄핵인 이유 ① 혐의 입증전 탄핵 ② 검증안된 기사를 가지고 탄핵 ③ 혐의 입증하려고 파렴치 국회가 특검까지 자기들이 마련해놓고, 정작 혐의 입증의 재판도 하기전에 탄핵 ④ 이정미는 한국경제신문 당시 보도에 따르면 판결시, 재판관 공석은 위법하다고 주장해놓고, 재판관 1명 공석상태에서 판결 ⑤ 탄핵소추안을 수정하려면, 소추안 각하하고, 국회로 돌려보내 재의결 거쳐야하는데, 그냥수정하게한 헌재 재판관 행태는 위법 ⑥ 주요 핵심증거와 주요 증인들 심리않고 그냥 판결 ⑦ 재판관 임기내에 판결하겠다고 한 것은 그야말로 사법농단 - 자기 임기내에 재판을 부랴 부랴 마치겠다는 발상 자체가 위법한 발상 ⑧ 기존 혐의를 가지고 1심 최장 구속기간 6개월을 넘긴 것도 반인권적이고, 위법한 행태 ⑨ 혐의입증전 헌재 판결을 하고, 나중에 재판에서 혐의를 가리는 앞뒤가 바뀐 위법한 행태 ⑩ 형사재판에서, 아무리 파헤쳐도 객관적이고 명백한 잘못이 나오지않자, 궁예의 관심법적 묵시적 판결이 나온 것 자체가 위법한 행태 그냥 탄핵소추에서 나중 재판까지 모든 것이 엉터리이고, 위법한 일들로 점철되어있다. 그냥 객관적 사실만으로도 불법탄핵임에도 사탄파 비박 버러지 새끼들의 불법탄핵 부역과 조중동의 악질적 탄핵 선동은 반드시 단죄되어야하고, 객관적으로 불법적인 탄핵이므로, 상식이 있는 국가이고, 정상적인 국가라면, 반드시 불법탄핵은 바로잡아야한다. 뭐 ? 그냥 덮고가자 ? 그것 좌파에 부역한 사탄파 비박 버러지들과 조중동 니들의 헛된 바람이고, 지금 좌파 독재 시대를 결과적으로 부른 니들은 반드시 단죄되어야하고 불법탄핵은 반드시 바로 잡혀야, 정말 정상적이고 바른 사고로 살아갈 수 있는 정상 국가가 될 수 있다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국무부 우한폐렴 조사 막은게 한국놈이었노 소란도런 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11346772560 크리스토퍼 박 국무부 생물학 담당 부서장이 트럼프 대선불복 중이고 국무장관이 무조건 중국책임 찾아내라 하는데 판도라 상자 열 수 없다며 묻자고 선동했다함. https://youtu.be/hkD2FMhF7oo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이동욱회장,삭제되기전 꼭 시청바랍니다!팩트만 전합니다!..2021 06 05 15 32 10 https://youtu.be/wa0kraS2FeI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문서가 놀랍게도 이분에게 전달, 하늘이 돕나? https://youtu.be/TA63u3hY7wM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 다양한 세계관을 가진 세상에 대한 미제스의 대답 비록 세계관은 각자 다르더라도 거의 모든 사람들은 물질적 번영을 원한다. 그러므로 시장은 다양한 생각을 지닌 인간들이 합의에 도달할 수 있는 거의 유일한 제도이자 장소이다. Mises on Dealing with Rival World Views David Gordon In Human Action, Mises anticipates an issue that has been at the heart of political philosophy for the past thirty years or so. The discussion in political philosophy has centered on issues raised by John Rawls in Political Liberalism (1993). Rawls says that in modern nation-states, individuals and groups have different “conceptions of the good.” People have religious and philosophical views that lead them to different ideas about how society should be organized and how individuals should act. Rawls thinks that there is no way to settle conclusively, to the satisfaction of all rational people, which “conception of the good” is the best. He calls this inevitable disagreement “the fact of reasonable pluralism.” This state of affairs raises a problem: How can people with clashing world views live together in the same society? What happens, for example, if religious believers maintain that society and the economy should be organized a certain way, but atheists reject these opinions? Rawls answers that in these circumstances, people in deliberating publicly should not appeal to their conceptions of the good, or at least not do so exclusively. Instead, they should rely on “public reason.” That is, they should appeal to neutral principles that everyone who shares the desire to reach agreement with others could reasonably accept. If they do, they will wind up endorsing Rawls’s own theory of justice. In what he calls an “overlapping consensus,” each person will find reasons within his own conception of the good to endorse Rawls’s theory. The view is open to fatal objections, not the least of which is that Rawls’s theory of justice is mistaken. Aside from this, isn’t Rawls’s account of public reason itself vulnerable to disagreements that can’t be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction? It comes as no surprise that Mises‘s way of dealing with these issues avoids some of the difficulties that entangled Rawls. In what follows, I’ll try to explain Mises’s position. My main aim will be to describe his ideas, rather than argue for or against them. Like Rawls, Mises notes that people differ in worldviews, but he goes further than Rawls. He thinks that these worldviews, particularly the ones that address “ultimate” questions, aren’t subject to rational assessment. Human thoughts about things of which neither pure reasoning nor experience provides any knowledge may differ so radically that no agreement can be reached. In this sphere in which the free reverie of the mind is restricted neither by logical thinking nor by sensory experience man can give vent to his individuality and subjectivity. Nothing is more personal than the notions and images about the transcendent. Linguistic terms are unable to communicate what is said about the transcendent; one can never establish whether the hearer conceives them in the same way as the speaker. With regard to things beyond there can be no agreement. Religious wars are the most terrible wars because they are waged without any prospect of conciliation. (p. 179) We can see that Mises sets himself what at first seems a more difficult task than the one that confronts Rawls. Rawls asks, “What can we do when people cannot agree about the ‘ultimate’ questions but have to live together?” Mises thinks that our access to the transcendent is purely personal and can’t be expressed in language at all. You might at first think that this makes the prospects for agreement harder: not only do people differ in the religious doctrines they hold, but they are unable even to talk about what they experience. In fact, though, Mises has neatly derailed religious doctrines that might cause trouble for the economic views he favors. If these views cannot be expressed, they don’t have to be confronted. Of course, a difficulty for Mises is that his picture of religious disagreement is highly controversial. If Mises has successfully sidestepped one sort of controversy, he has not avoided conflict altogether but rather has shifted the battlefield elsewhere. Mises can however respond to another objection and it is here that I think the main value of his approach lies. If people cannot express their visions of the ultimate, how can they reach agreement on political and social issues? Mises’s answer is that practically everyone wants material prosperity. Only a few ascetics aren’t interested in material goods, and, even among ascetics, almost no one goes all the way down this path. Asceticism teaches that the only means open to man for removing pain and for attaining complete quietude, contentment, and happiness is to turn away from earthly concerns and to live without bothering about worldly things. There is no salvation other than to renounce striving after material well-being, to endure submissively the adversities of the earthly pilgrimage and to dedicate oneself exclusively to the preparation for eternal bliss. However, the number of those who consistently and unswervingly comply with the principles of asceticism is so small that it is not easy to instance more than a few names. It seems that the complete passivity advocated by asceticism is contrary to nature. The enticement of life triumphs. The ascetic principles have been adulterated. Even the most saintly hermits made concessions to life and earthly concerns which did not agree with their rigid principles. But as soon as a man takes into account any earthly concerns, and substitutes for purely vegetative ideals an acknowledgment of worldly things, however conditioned and incompatible with the rest of his professed doctrine, he bridges over the gulf which separated him from those who say yes to the striving after earthly ends. Then he has something in common with everyone else. (pp. 178–79) Given this near-universal desire for peace and prosperity, rational agreement is within reach. Economics establishes that only a free market economy can attain this result. What is crucial for Mises is that “reasonable pluralism” does not hold here. Though many people in fact challenge the free market, their doing so is unreasonable. Praxeology and economics are not qualified to deal with the transcendent and metaphysical aspects of any doctrine. But, on the other hand, no appeal to any religious or metaphysical dogmas and creeds can invalidate the theorems and theories concerning social cooperation as developed by logically correct praxeological reasoning. If a philosophy has admitted the necessity of societal links between men, it has placed itself, as far as problems of social action come into play, on ground from which there is no escape into personal convictions and professions of faith not liable to a thorough examination by rational methods. (p. 180) As always with Mises, he gives us something worth thinking about, agree with him or not. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------