8.30 박용찬(영등포구을) 재검표 / 법원에 보관된 투표함에 대한 어떤 훼손이나 개입이 없길 기대하지만 / '1차 통갈이'가 있었기에 사람들 크게 우려 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/QUFIES8LwHo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 충격! 2002년 노무현도 부정선거로 당선 되었다 - 조우석 칼럼 2020.05.11 [뉴스타운TV] https://youtu.be/8Odc5dyCN1s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 北지령에 스텔스기 반대한 그들… 지방선거 출마하고 與중진도 만났다 --->하나도 놀랍지 않은 뉴스! 왜냐하면 청와대에 더한 놈들이 앉아 있기 때문에! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [탐사기획] '박지원 국가정보원장 취임 1년' 그늘 속 86운동권 배후 세력 근황 추적 판관사사 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11358373521 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 선거무효소송] 선관위, 통합선거인명부 임의로 수정 제출해 논란 미디어 에프 https://youtu.be/xIJcgxa6H8M --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lab experiments found Lambda variant of COVID ‘shows vaccine resistance’ According to Japanese researchers, the Lambda variant of the COVID-19, which was first identified in Peru and is now spreading throughout South America, is more infectious and resistant to vaccines than the original version of the virus that emerged from Wuhan, China. 람다 변이가 나타났는데, 백신에 저항성을 보이고 있다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 선거 정보 분석 전문가 “트럼프가 이겼다”/마리코파 라우터 강제 소환 추진 닥터리와 아이들 https://youtu.be/5eckmPlqx_I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 법이란 무엇이어야 하는가? 성문법statutory law이 관료들로 하여금 이전의 법에 따르면 권력 찬탈과 시민들의 자유 침해로 여겨지던 행동들을 가능하게 했기 때문에, 개인의 자유는 점차 축소되었다. 법이란 무엇인가? 강제력을 지닌 법령들의 집합인가, 아니면 도덕적 의무감인가? 미국의 독립선언서는 창조주에 의해 인간이 권리를 부여받았다고 선언함으로써, 정부가 아닌 창조주가 최고의 권력자임을 밝혔다. 도덕의 기초는 황금율과 십계명이다. 정부는 사회의 한 기구일 뿐이고 그 고유한 역할은 타인에 대한 피해를 금지하고 명문화 하는 것이다. 개인이 자신에게 가하는 상해는 개인 자신의 고유의 일로 남겨야 한다. 도덕률은 민법의 법령들에 우선한다. 성문법이 도덕율의 영역을 침범하면, 그것은 효과가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 도덕적 행동을 마비시킨다. 예를 들어, 탐욕을 불법으로 한다고 해서 정부가 탐욕을 멈추게 할 수 있는가? 절대 그럴 수 없다. 민법의 역할은 타인에 가하는 상해를 금지하는 데에만 적용되어야 하며, 개인이 자신에게 가하는 상해에는 절대 관여하지 말아야 한다. 조직, 규제, 보호, 권장 등의 미명 아래 법이 한 사람의 재산을 빼앗아 다른 사람에게 준다. 법률이 부정의injustice의 도구가 되었다. 법률의 기능은 우리의 양심, 생각, 의지, 교육, 의견, 노동, 직업, 재능, 기쁨 등을 규제하는 것이 아니다. 법의 기능은 이런 권리들이 자유롭게 행사되도록 보호하는 것이다. The Moral Law versus Tyranny Gary Galles It struck me recently just how frequently we use the word “law” in our conversations. I read or hear, “That’s against the law” when someone wants someone else not to do something, and “There ought to be a law” when someone wants to further restrict others. I read arguments about what it really means to say that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. But few people seem to be thinking more than a millimeter deep about law—is there any law beyond civil law? What do we mean when we say “law” in a particular context? What are the current limitations on law? What should the limits on law be? In particular, as Bruno Leoni wrote in Freedom and the Law, “Individual freedom … has been gradually reduced … [because] statutory law entitled officials to behave in ways that, according to the previous law, would have been judged as usurpations of power and encroachments upon the individual freedom of the citizens.” Leonard Read considered such issues in “Law versus Tyranny,” in his 1975 Castles in the Air. At a time when even muddy thinking on that subject is uncommon, and clear thinking all but unheard of in popular discourse, that topic deserves more careful attention, because if “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” Americans have been insufficiently willing to pay the price of vigilance, forcing us to pay a far higher price in liberty as a result. Moral law or legal edicts? What is law? Is it a body of legal edicts backed by force? Or a consciousness of moral obligations? … Which takes precedence? … The latter … [not] an outpouring of legal edicts …designed to control the affairs of society. All man-made laws—legal edicts—which go beyond codifying and complementing the moral law serve not to bind men together but to spread them asunder, creating chaos rather than harmony, tyranny rather than peaceful order. Who is sovereign? Fundamental to my faith is the rejection of government as the sovereign power. This puts me on the side of the writers of the Declaration of Independence…. By proclaiming the Creator as the endower of men’s rights, they proclaimed the Creator as sovereign, denying government that ancient and medieval role…. We agree on being moralists … moral values being the correct vantage point from which to look for improvement, refinement. What are the foundations of morality? … My foundations are the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. The Golden Rule, in my view, is the prime tenet of sound economics and, doubtless, the oldest ethical proposition of distinctly universal character. Let no one do to others that which he would not have them do to him; that would be just about the ideal, economically, socially, morally, ethically. What is the relationship between moral law and man-made law? There are moral values which are appropriately reinforced by man-made law, and other moral values which do not lend themselves to legal implementation … where man-made laws are appropriate … is where they are complementary to the moral law. Man-made laws—legal edicts backed by force—are inappropriate when directed at what the individual thinks or believes or does to himself. A man’s inner life can only be impaired, never improved, by coercive forces. Government is but an arm of society and its only proper role is to codify and inhibit injuries inflicted on society, that is, on others than self. Self-injury is subject to self-correction—none other! Take the Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.” Enforce this by a man-made law? The absurdity is obvious. Envy is the root of many evils—stealing, killing, and the like—yet it cannot be done away with by the gun, billy club, fist, or any other physical force. The moralist [claims] … there is a moral law by which one may distinguish the good from the evil. But he knows that he is powerless to relieve any individual of the certain consequences of that person’s immoral actions…. Such human enactments … would indeed be a form of tyranny, an invitation to lawlessness in the mistaken belief that one might violate the moral law with impunity. Clearly, the moral law takes precedence over the legal edicts of civil law. The latter serves a useful purpose provided its limited role is understood and heeded. When statutory law invades the domain of the moral law, it is itself ineffective and it paralyzes moral action. Coercively enforce an observation of the Golden Rule when only self-enforcement is possible? Nonsensical! Can the government stop covetousness by making it illegal? Of course not! The role of civil law should be limited exclusively to inhibiting such injuries as some inflict on others, never directed at injuries we inflict on ourselves. My moral code is founded on the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments, and I would call upon the civil law to help enforce only these: “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” … each of these evils inflicts injuries on others…. Such destructive behavior should be inhibited, insofar as possible, by the organized and legal arm of society—government. Who does “Thou shalt not steal” apply to? Only those who reason clearly from cause to consequence stand foursquare in support of “Thou shalt not steal.” True, not one in a thousand would steal … another’s loaf of bread. Full respect for private property at the you-and-me level! Yet, people by the millions will ask the government to do the taking for them…. Plunder at the impersonal level! Why? The same old reason: government out of bounds, that is, government as sovereign. “The king can do no wrong; therefore, what he does for me at the expense of others is right.” Sound reasoning? Hardly! Those who cherish liberty are well advised to respect and defend the rightful claims of others…. Observe that “Thou shalt not steal” presupposes private ownership, the bedrock or foundation of individual liberty…. To disregard this moral law is to deny being one’s own man; disobedience invites enslavement—being owned. Observe how the fruits of individual effort are increasingly expropriated by the collective, how our options of ownership are being diminished … the way to reverse this dreadful trend is to heed the Commandment against theft. Government’s role here, as in the case of murder, is to inhibit these infractions of the moral law, not to promote them. Leonard Read was already swimming against the modern stream when he wrote “Liberty versus Tyranny.” Since then, “Thou shalt not steal” seems to have lost even more ground to government domination, making it even more important. In reading it, I am also struck by how much his argument echoes Frederic Bastiat’s classic The Law, written 125 years earlier (which Read commissioned a modern English translation of on its centennial, a translation that has since sold over half a million copies). Anyone who finds Read’s treatment of “Law versus Liberty” of interest should also read Bastiat’s The Law, if they have not already, and reread it if they have. It is short, coherent and insightful, and increasingly so, as our government-dominated universe is rapidly expanding away from it. Consider just a few of those words, so closely aligned with Read’s analysis, as reinforcement: Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property … the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose … it cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another…. The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime … this act that it is supposed to suppress. It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights. The law … is to protect persons and property … if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property. If government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that [most] matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law. Whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government … [the] solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty. All hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice. Now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun … and try liberty. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 승마는 升提之药이 아니라 청열해독清热解毒약이다. （学习笔记）升麻非升解毒佳 作者：王幸福 自从李东垣的补中益气汤风行起来后，在东垣老人的新说下，升麻一改过去的功效成了升提之药，后世大多数医家也是附庸其说，致使升麻的主要功效被忽视埋没。 在早年学医始对此并未引起重视，受补中益气汤方剂分析学说的影响，也认为方中的柴胡和升麻是提升诸药以升阳气的，后来临床实践多了觉得并非这么回事。柴胡和升麻并未有升提阳气的作用，举个简单的例子就可以说明。 我早年在治疗气虚型的低血压证时，喜用补中益气汤，教科书也是这样教的，但是效果大多不明显，按理说其中的柴胡和升麻是起升提作用的，但是不管用少量还是大量均不见起升提作用，血压上升，其作用远赶不上枳实、干姜。在看《伤寒论》《金匮要略方》中也没有这样的提法和用法，相反却是以清热解毒见长，麻黄升麻汤，升麻鳖甲汤都是，喉咽不利，唾脓血而用之。 对此问题最早提出质疑的是已故医学大家裘沛然先生，我在上世纪八十年读先生的《壶天散墨》时看到此文后，引起了深思。后来又看到方药中先生用大量升麻治肝炎、杀病毒的经验，及潘华信先生在《中医杂志》上分析补中益气汤的文章，指出柴胡、升麻非升提，乃清热作用，结合仲景论述方确信不移，此乃谬说，误人子弟，必须纠正。 对于升麻的功效古文献巳有丰富的记载: 《神农本草经》：主解百毒（注意！），辟温疾，障邪。 《名医别录》：主中恶腹痛，时气毒疠，头痛寒热，风肿诸毒，喉痛、口疮（口腔溃疡、口唇疱疹）。 《金匮要略》中升麻鳖甲汤：治阳毒为病，面赤斑斑如锦文，咽喉痛，唾脓血。方中升麻用二两。 《滇南本草》：主小儿痘疹，解疮毒，咽喉（肿），喘咳暗哑，肺热，止齿痛，乳蛾，痄腮。 《药性论》：治小儿风，惊痫，时气热疾。能治口齿肿痛，牙根浮烂恶臭，热毒脓血，除心肺风毒热壅闭不通。 《肘后方》用于卒毒肿起（突发局部的毒热症）。 《仁斋直指方》用于喉痹作痛，升麻一味煎汤，治胃热齿。 《本事方》用于口舌生疮，悬痈肿痛。升麻汤（升麻、桔梗、薏苡仁、地榆、黄芩、牡丹皮、白芍、甘草）治肺痈吐脓血。 《干金方》用于口热生疮和产后恶血。 宋·朱肱有“无犀角以升麻代之……”记载。 学习文献，结合临床，我不再把升麻作为一味升提药，而是作为一味力专效宏的清热解毒药使用。曾治张姓女子，26岁，感冒引发扁桃体炎，红肿如弹子大，即将化脓，发烧、喑哑、疼痛，舌红苔薄白，脉寸关滑数。处方如下（对“病”方）： 1（消炎）元参30麦冬30生地30；升麻50。 2（消肿）丹皮12白芍15浙贝15薄荷10桔梗10甘草10。三剂 水煎服 日三次。 一天后热退，三付药后扁桃体减退已不红肿，又服三付痊愈。由此可见升麻之功效显著。 临床上除了用于咽喉炎症外，我还将升麻广泛用于疮疡、痤疮、肝炎、中耳炎、疱疹、白塞氏综合症、生殖器疱疹等。一言以敝之：清热解毒，大胆重用！ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------