[출처: 중앙일보] 단 한발에 석기시대 된다···"北, 美도 못막는 EMP 폭탄 완성" --->갈수록 태산! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이스라엘 휴전협상 이후 가자지구 또 폭격 작은태양별달 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11349317944 하마스 씹새끼들이 휴전협정 무시하고 풍선에 폭탄 매달아서 이스라엘로 날려 보냄 로켓포는 아이언돔에 의해서 무력화 되니까, 풍선을 이용해서 또 도발함 이런 테러를 참으라고?? 난 이스라엘 지지한다 --->북한이 저걸 배워서 한국으로 방화 풍선을 날려보낸다면? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott 인간과 자유이야기 외교 무대를 패션쇼 무대로 착각하는 ㅁㅊㄴ... 푸대자루 떡대장군이라고 하는 분도 있다. --->김정숙 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 조지아 선거 관리들이 2020년 선거 위해 ACLU와 다른 좌파 단체와 연계된 수천 명 고용 여정훈 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11349357222 풀턴 카운티는 혼자가 아니었다. 모두 합쳐서, ACLU는 11월 3일 주 전역의 투표에 2,700명 이상의 선거 노동자들을 모집하고 훈련시키고 배치했다. 또한 도미니언 투표 시스템의 기계 조작과 "문제 해결"을 도울 "기술자"를 모집하는 데 도움을 주었다. ACLU 모집자들은 선거 업무를 위해 젊은 조지아인들을 대상으로 했는데, 이들 중 많은 이들은 이전에 유권자들을 체크한 경험이 없었으며, 카운티에서 분리된 특별 교육 프로그램을 통해 이들을 선발했다. …ACLU 채용 외에도 부재자 투표자 심사, 개표, 선거운동, 감사, 심지어 여론조사 감독까지 포함한 340명 이상의 투표 근로자들이 선거 인력 채용이나 훈련을 전문으로 하지 않는 소수자 소유의 임시 기관을 통해 풀턴 카운티로 계약되었다. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/georgia-elections-officials-hired-thousands-individuals-tied-aclu-leftist-groups-2020-election-go-wrong/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 손정민 살해사건 5- 흰옷=B 추적 최상천의 사람나라 https://youtu.be/s_wH3GeX4Ws --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사회가 혼란해지는 이유 정치적 개혁가들이란 시민들의 세금을 걷어 사회적인 개혁을 하겠다는 사람들이므로, 사회의 평화를 유지하는데에는 적합하지가 않다. 정부의 기본 특징은 조직된 폭력이고, 이것은 무엇인가를 금지하고 벌주고, 억제하고, 억합할 수는 있어도, 발견하고 발명하고 통찰을 하는 능력은 없다. 따라서 정부의 임무는 폭력과 사기, 강탈 등을 방지하고 처발하는 데 한정되어야 한다. Governments Are Failing at Their Most Basic Duties—While Promising Free Stuff Gary Galles Three city blocks were systematically burned to the ground as hundreds of the local police stood by and viewed the violence. They were obeying orders not to harm the arsonists. The National Guard was called, adding more armed watchers. A passive gendarmerie consorting with open rebellion has rarely been seen in American history, until recently. Except for variation in detail and numbers, this sort of thing is happening today. Does the above sound as if it had been written recently? While it could easily have been written earlier this year, it was not. Leonard Read wrote it in “Social Reformers as Keepers of the Peace,” chapter 8 in his 1969 The Coming Aristocracy. But it offers keen insights into America’s recent turmoil and violence. Most important for us today, however, is Read’s analysis of why it has happened. In particular, the relationship between what is being promised by political candidates and their ability to keep the peace seems just as descriptive of this year as when he wrote. These increasing depredations … pose the question: Have we of the “free world” lost the art of keeping the peace and, if so, why? What really lies at the root of this rampaging violence? A good part of the blame rests upon the electorate which has put social reformers into Federal, state, and local government office. Keeping the peace is the highly specialized task of government, and social reformers are peculiarly unqualified to perform this function; they are agitators, not peacemakers. When it comes to keeping the peace, social reformers are misfits—deplorable failures! We are electing reformers to city councils, state legislatures, the Congress, and to top administrative posts. This being the case, is it any wonder that the rioters go unrestrained? The mobsters are among the clients of these agitators for change … and all too often in a manner consistent with the avowed policies of the social reformers. What did Read mean by “social reformers” that made them “peculiarly unqualified” to keep the peace? How can we tell whether a candidate for public office is a social reformer? By simply listening to his platform, the things he intends to do if elected. If a candidate so much as mentions what he is going to do for some group or class or minority or locality with other people’s money, that is, if he proposes to feather the nests of some at the expense of others, he must be classified as a social reformer, and an unprincipled one, at that. These reformers promise to do good things, not voluntarily with the fruits of their own labor, but through the use of coercion; they rely on the force of government to achieve their ends; they coercively expropriate the fruits of your labor and mine to do their “good.” These politically-oriented reformers who would apply coercion … eloquently boast of what they intend to do … which of them can do the most for us with our money…. Naive voters, taken in by this nonsense, are the ones at fault. They are fascinated by the prospects of “social gains”—and greatly disappointed when those who promise such gains fail to keep the peace! In response to the expanding promises of coercive violations of some people’s rights on behalf of hoped-for political clients, Read insisted, “America politically is off course!” Why? There remains only a vestige of the idea that the role of government is to keep the peace; in its stead is the notion that the force implicit in government is to implement social reform. Thus, the political debates are less concerned with keeping the peace than disturbing it; the argument is over the best way to use coercion to redistribute earnings and savings acquired peacefully through production and exchange. So long as this redistributionist sentiment prevails, social reformers will vie with each other to accommodate the sentiment. We are not likely, under these conditions, to find individuals vying with each other to keep the peace. How to get back on course? Any change for the better must originate in the minds of voters as a more realistic appreciation of the essence of government. To know the nature of government is the first step in knowing what not to ask of it. The essential characteristic of government is organized force…. Organized force can … inhibit, prohibit, penalize, restrain, suppress. Organized force cannot be an agency for creativity … discovery, invention, intuition, inquisitiveness, insight. [Consequently,] we can logically deduce the proper role of government by merely asking: What in good conscience should be prohibited, penalized, suppressed? The answer has been given in the moral codes: the destructive actions of men such as violence, fraud, predation, misrepresentation…. Limit government to this policing function, for here is its principled role. The balance of the message comes just as clearly: never use force to achieve a creative end, be it housing, power and light, education, medicine, welfare, security, prosperity, charity. Leave these desirable achievements to the creativity which can flourish among men only when they are free! How would this realign the political compass? Were government limited to its principled role, as opposed to the statist or social-reformer concept, officials at all levels would concern themselves with the codification of the thou-shalt-nots and their enforcement. Common justice—everyone equal before the law as before God—would be their hallmark. We, the voters, would judge candidates on their sense of justice, on their ability to maintain a fair field and no favor, on their competence at writing prohibitive law, and on their skills in keeping peace and order. Speeches would bear little resemblance to what candidates are promising today. Men with the potential statesmanship so sorely required … will be drawn from obscurity … when an audience exists, and not before … persons who understand the difference between a government of social reformers and a government to keep peace and order—with a strong preference for the latter…. We shall hear answers to our hopes and prayers when we know what to ask for. What would such a major reorientation require of American citizens? There is no place for social reformers in governmental posts, for these positions endow them with coercive power which they mistakenly use to achieve their “reforms.” Reform, to be meaningful, is a volitional turn for the better to which coercion is obviously antagonistic. We need to bring from obscurity the potential statesmen who can keep the peace. To effect such change requires little more of us—the people—than a reasonable sense of justice and a knowledge of what government should and should not do. Leonard Read’s proposal for political improvement would limit government to providing mutual benefits rather than unearned benefits for some at others’ undeserved and involuntary expense. In a sense, it would not require that much from Americans. However, we have stooped into our current political malfeasance as a result of vast numbers honoring Read’s advice in the breach and politicians trying to buy their votes. Consequently, from where we are now, reestablishing “a reasonable sense of justice and a knowledge of what government should and should not do” is a very long step. Taking it also requires widespread willingness to act appropriately on that knowledge, even when it threatens someone’s place at the political pig trough of power and resources. Read spent much of his adult life advocating for the moral and practical case for doing exactly that. Yet we seem farther from that goal today, not nearer, and we have yet to see a groundswell of people open to both listening to the lesson and acting on it. That may be depressing for lovers of liberty, but for those who forego coercion, clear explanation and persuasion is the only possible means of achieving it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 피통치에 대한 동의라고? 소위 말하는 사회계약에 대해 말하자면, 나는 일찍이 그 계약서를 본적도 없고, 동의하느냐고 질문을 받은 일도 없다. 나아가 나는 계약이 없었음에도 불구하고, 칙령에 따르지 않을 경우 나에게 해를 가하겠다는 위협을 하는 통치자로부터 경멸 밖에는 받은 게 없다. 나는 그들의 목적에 따라 털도 깎고 도축도 하는 순한 양이 되고 싶지 않다. 내가 동의했다는 사회 계약이라는 건 유니콘처럼 완전한 환상에 불과하다. 개돼지처럼 다스려지는데 동의할 사람은 아마 없을 것이다. Consent of the Governed? Robert Higgs What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke's time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been "the consent of the governed." When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." This sounds good, especially if one doesn't think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes. One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take — verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization. I raise this question because, in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven't even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I've never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends. Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of "consent of the governed" in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal. I, the party of the first part ("the ruler"), promise: (1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death. (2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character; yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made by me and my confederates. (3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist's cock-and-bull story to the effect that you "demand" all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision. (4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements, if your case is heard at all. In exchange for the foregoing government "benefits," you, the party of the second part ("the subject"), promise: (5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say "jump," ask only "how high?" Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it? Yet the foregoing description of the true social contract into which individuals are said to have entered is much too abstract to capture the raw realities of being governed. In enumerating the actual details, no one has ever surpassed Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote: To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverley Robinson. London: Freedom Press, 1923, p. 294) Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon's admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as "our own bodies." So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects. Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation. For the record, I can state in complete candor that I do not approve of the manner in which I am being treated by the liars, thieves, and murderers who style themselves the government of the United States of America or by those who constitute the tyrannical pyramid of state, local, and hybrid governments with which this country is massively infested. My sincere wish is that all of these individuals would, for once in their despicable lives, do the honorable thing. In this regard, I suggest that they give serious consideration to seppuku. Whether they employ a sharp sword or a dull one, I care not, so long as they carry the act to a successful completion. Whenever I write along the foregoing lines, I always receive messages from Neanderthals who, imagining that I "hate America," demand that I get the hell out of this country and go back to wherever I came from. Such reactions evince not only bad manners, but a fundamental misunderstanding of my grievance. I most emphatically do not hate America. I was not born in some foreign despotism, but in a domestic one known as Oklahoma, which I understand to be the very heart and soul of this country so far as culture and refinement are concerned. Moreover, for what it is worth, some of my ancestors had been living in North America for centuries before a handful of ragged, starving white men washed ashore on this continent, planted their flag, and claimed all the land they could see and a great deal they could not see on behalf of some sorry-ass European monarch. What chutzpah! I yield to no one in my affection for the Statue of Liberty, the Rocky Mountains, and the amber waves of grain, not to mention the celebrated jumping frog of Calaveras County. So when I am invited to get out of the country, I feel like someone living in a town taken over by the James Gang who has been told that if he doesn't like being robbed and bullied by uninvited thugs, he should move to another town. To me, it seems much more fitting that the criminals get out. This article was originally published on the Independent Institute's Beacon blog, June 1, 2010 -----------------------------------------------