Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' (for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal Democratic Party). "Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left, only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the other thing:
Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's full "cratos" for ruling, becuase every person has different aims, goals, interests, etc. Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are establishing a minority whose interests are trampled down by the so called "majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority indeed. Voting is cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the voters compromise their (real?) interests for the least controversial lies. What is even worse: the "elected" persons don't even follow their own lies later on in practice. They go after their (untold???) interest. Impeachment is difficult. One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist traps: it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have-nots, be it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the "haves" - mind you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners, political donors, etc. etc. established since Adam Smith. Growth is NOT maintainable with the limited resources existing. And a (cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. . Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead? On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2015, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno wrote. > *That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist > sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in > europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as > possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by > allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to > pay tax for)*. > > Capitalism (in Adam Smith's sense?) means FOr Profit, Growth, competition, > etc. > > > That is what I would call life. > > > Liberalism comes from your langiage (Liberte' - freedom). > > > Liberalism means "right" in Europa. It means that adults can sign (job) > contracts to do things and are free to sell them to any adults, or kids if > it is legal, without any or very few intervention of the state. This leads > necessarily to grow, profit, competition. It is opposed to economy planned > by a state, like it was in China and the ex-URSS where all companies were > owned by the state. Today we have mafia, which is like an unregulated > liberal economy, except that violence is used between the competitors for > the market attribution. > > Democracy allows, in principle, to vote for the left when the country go > too much on the right, and to vote for the right when the country go too > much on the left. But this works only if the system is regulated by > different powers which are kept well separated, which is not really the > case today (the Press is rarely really independent, nor is Justice; even > some academies are under the influence of non academical powers, usually of > the type religious). > > Bruno > > > JM > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote: >> >> Bruno, >> even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in >> the US, >> leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the >> population. >> I am not talking Marxism. >> The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments) just made it worse. >> The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of >> one's acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of >> others.* >> >> >> >> That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist >> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in >> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as >> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by >> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to >> pay tax for). >> >> >> >> Within such all subchapters are viable. >> >> >> We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend freedom, >> we are on the same political side. >> >> >> >> >> (About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's >> demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is >> not even paying for >> susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.) >> >> >> Global is new, and we have to adapt and revise many things. But that >> cannot be enforced: it needs good education and less lies. >> >> Prohibition must be stopped, like any violent crimes, but as you say, it >> is not the deeper culprit, which is 1500 years of authoritative argument in >> the most fundamental human science, itself supprted in part by billions >> years of nature's brainwashing. We are too much mammals, we can learn from >> the invertebrates. >> >> Let each of us do what is possible. The necessary will care of itself. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> JM >> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote: >>> >>> Bruno: >>> could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms? >>> Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote: >>> >>> "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "* >>> >>> >>> >>> Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition. >>> >>> Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the >>> respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract. >>> >>> >>> >>> where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'? >>> >>> >>> Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people >>> doing false advertisement in the matter of health. >>> >>> I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some >>> important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that >>> disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I >>> think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given >>> that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in >>> the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are >>> not dependent of a big lucrative organization. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Is a 'regulating system a power? >>> >>> >>> Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK. >>> >>> >>> >>> (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the >>> Supremes' >>> "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking. >>> It would >>> undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality. >>> >>> >>> That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the >>> law of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible >>> genuine competition. >>> >>> >>> >>> The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it >>> in EU. >>> And so on. >>> >>> >>> I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean >>> virtue", which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when >>> asserted on people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads to >>> more hidden dogma, or free-exam, etc. >>> But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state does >>> not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions (perhaps) >>> like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be problematic >>> (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not political propaganda). >>> If you study the case of cannabis, all statements on its danger comes from >>> paper which have not been made available to the public, and was >>> contradicted by all papers available to the public. The cannabis set-up was >>> gross, immense, obvious, and nobody was failed, except the general public >>> and the physicians. Many doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of >>> marijuana, said that they were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at >>> that time, and took some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10 >>> years before the paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that >>> cannabis demolish brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just >>> ridiculous (the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven >>> days 24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just >>> to give one example among many). >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> John Mikes >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote: >>>> >>>> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary >>>> witness >>>> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas. >>>> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what >>>> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing >>>> can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be >>>> that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is >>>> not that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another >>>> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of >>>> lies). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming >>>> majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to >>>> work for less than what they may have produced. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market, >>>> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like >>>> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid >>>> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority >>>> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond >>>> the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the >>>> so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the >>>> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, >>>> the latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival. >>>> >>>> >>>> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is >>>> everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of >>>> the less rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the >>>> have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. >>>> It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of >>>> wars) of the system are called heros. >>>> >>>> Just to vent off >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is >>>> faulty, but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of >>>> America were quite aware of the possibility. >>>> >>>> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US >>>> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually >>>> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually). >>>> >>>> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad >>>> people. The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the >>>> lies. >>>> >>>> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) >>>> is still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still >>>> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in >>>> movies. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Mikes >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, >>>>>> it takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they >>>>>> need to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In >>>>>> some >>>>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its >>>>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the >>>>>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when >>>>>> Gorbachov was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, >>>>>> it >>>>>> took us a very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never >>>>>> engaged with the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from Afghanistan, even before >>>>>> Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a >>>>>> stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that, >>>>>> because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the >>>>>> Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the Jihadists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We >>>>>> knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan, their >>>>>> communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population would be >>>>>> able >>>>>> to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this that we never >>>>>> critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made here. >>>>>> >>>>>> It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were >>>>>> right, not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of >>>>>> Jihadism that we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the dangers >>>>>> of >>>>>> having failed states. Our ideology at the time was that a failed state >>>>>> would quickly get itself organized into a flourishing democracy if you >>>>>> could only keep the evil communists out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was >>>>>> weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his nationalist opposition who >>>>>> were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin took over he >>>>>> had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in the background >>>>>> there >>>>>> were forces lurking who were extremely critical of the West. In any >>>>>> country >>>>>> you'll have the opposition that tends to question the government's policy >>>>>> especially if things are not going well economically and especially when >>>>>> there has been a recent radical change. In the years after the collapse >>>>>> of >>>>>> communism that move was democratization, liberalization of the economy >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's easy for us to say that the Russians who were critical at the >>>>>> time were stupid, just look at the opposition in the US against a >>>>>> universal >>>>>> health care system. Now, if we could turn back the clock and had dealt >>>>>> with >>>>>> Afghanistan differently, then the outcome of that might not just have >>>>>> prevented the rise of international Jihadism, you would also have had the >>>>>> pro-Western reformists in Russia to be in a politically far stronger >>>>>> position. Likely you would not have had Putin in power today, or Putin >>>>>> may >>>>>> not have become that anti-Western (he wasn't when came into power). >>>>>> >>>>>> Another thing is that we would have improved the UN Security Council >>>>>> System to deal with complex problems. As it currently functions, the UNSC >>>>>> is a panel of prosecutors who are the World's policemen, prosecutor, jury >>>>>> and judge at the same time without a requirement for members to recuse >>>>>> themselves when they are involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> The system works fine in emergency situations, like when Iraq invaded >>>>>> Kuwait, just like a police can intervene effectively when there is a bank >>>>>> robbery going on. But when the emergency situation is dealt with, we all >>>>>> know that you need a proper justice system to deal with the problem on >>>>>> the >>>>>> longer term. We know that what cannot work is a system where the local >>>>>> police can have a caucus with other police officers from neighboring >>>>>> areas >>>>>> to deal with that. Even if you assume that police officers can be 100% >>>>>> objective, you would still not have much faith in a system where the >>>>>> police >>>>>> officers could be the prosecutors juries, judges, appeals judges and >>>>>> Supreme Court judges all at the same time. >>>>>> >>>>>> This i.m.o. is the reason why Iraq was invaded. Iraq under Saddam >>>>>> Hussein (supported by both superpowers in the 1980s) could never prove >>>>>> that >>>>>> it had no WMD within the current system once some prosecutors decided to >>>>>> throw the book at him. >>>>>> >>>>>> Had instead the Western powers thought critically about how to >>>>>> improve the international institutions instead of seeing the collapse of >>>>>> the Soviet Union as a big gain in their power within the current system, >>>>>> the UNSC could have been reformed. You can think of a system where the >>>>>> UNSC continues to exist in its present form but that it creates a new >>>>>> institution where judges rule on contentious fundings of facts. The UNSC >>>>>> could then have referred difficult dossiers like the Iraq WMD case, >>>>>> Iran's >>>>>> nuclear program etc. to such an institution where decisions are made on >>>>>> the >>>>>> basis of real evidence instead of political rhetoric. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think I agree with your analysis, but I think there is much more, >>>>> which is the disparition/erosion of the separation of power, which is part >>>>> of the making of the rhetoric. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, I put most of the blame of the current situation on the West's >>>>>> failures to just think about the long term during the late stages of the >>>>>> Cold War. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As long as prohibitionist are not all in jail, or amnestied perhaps, >>>>> some corporatism will will continue to make huge profits in diseases and >>>>> war selling. >>>>> >>>>> The war on terror is fake, because if that was genuine, the most >>>>> urgent thing which would have been done is to stop prohibition, which is >>>>> the fuel, even the main engine of international crimes and terrorism, and >>>>> it is know today that whatever drug is prohibited, the consumption of it >>>>> is >>>>> multiplied by a large factor (which is normal as you offer the market to >>>>> the criminals). >>>>> >>>>> I mean that it is not just our incompetence, there is a part of >>>>> unwillingness. We tolerate the lies on important things, like on cancers, >>>>> indeed we tolerate that people think for us about what is good or bad to >>>>> us, but that's contradict already the intent of most of the founders of >>>>> America. >>>>> >>>>> As long as prohibitionism is not abolished, I think we must remain >>>>> skeptical about any *official* theory by default. Liars lie rarely only >>>>> once. Prohibition rotten everything. International prohibition can only >>>>> lead to international chaos, mafia wars, well disguised. >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Saibal >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 30-08-2015 22:34, meekerdb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - the governments know that prohibition is the main fuel of >>>>>>>> criminality and terrorism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> So Muslims flew planes into buildings government (which one?) >>>>>>> prohibited something (what?). >>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>>>>> [1]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]. >>>>>>> Links: >>>>>>> ------ >>>>>>> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>>>>> [2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>>> . >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
