MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘inequalities’

For the European Union, the time has come to use force, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on January 2, 2020

https://www.voltairenet.org/article208739.html

by Thierry Meyssan

The new European Commission has clearly stated its project in the era of US withdrawal: to restore Western Europe’s dominance over the rest of the world from the 16th to the 19th century. To achieve this, it is adopting a trumped-up ideology that uses the vocabulary of its philosophers in the wrong way. This posture would be laughable if it could not lead to war.

Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria)

JPEG - 32.3 kb
The former German Defence Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, took up her post as President of the European Commission in the place reserved for Spitzenkandidate Manfred Weber. Until then, this role had been held by a representative of Atlanticist interests.

The European Union aims to restore to its members the status they had acquired by force in their respective empires. As the world has changed, it is no longer possible to base colonial reality on the educational abyss that separated the savages from civilization. A new ideology must therefore be formulated which dresses European domination with noble ideals.

This already exists in embryonic form and was used by the United States to justify its own leadership. It needs to be made more coherent and clearer.

Its basic slogan states that “universalism” should no longer be understood as the equality of all before the law, regardless of origin, wealth and religion, but as the equal treatment that everyone can enjoy in whatever country they travel to. From this point of view, the real enemy is no longer the disorder and insecurity that it engenders, but the States that are supposed to protect us and abusively create differences between us according to our nationalities; excellent doctrine for a supranational State! (the US federal state, then the European federal state).

- At the sociological level, this ideology indiscriminately supports any form of migration (because it allows the disappearance of borders between men) and any gender confusion (because it allows the disappearance of inequalities based on physical differences).
- At the economic level, it militates for the free circulation of capital (which cannot be hindered by States) and the globalisation of trade (because it binds people through trade).
- On the military level, it supports the interference of the “international community” in “non-globalized states” (because they are resistant to the New Order) and the use of non-state armed forces (because some states must disappear).
- At the political level, it supports any global cause such as the fight against human responsibility for global warming. Ultimately, it rejects International Law (i.e., agreed upon by nations) in order to replace it with Global Law (i.e., binding on all) [1].

If the issue of migration has become taboo for the European elites after the failure of Chancellor Merkel in 2015, all other points are commonly accepted.
- Gender confusion, part of the gender parity and which continues today with the development of a transgender model. No one dares to observe any longer that parity in the Parliamentary Assemblies and Boards of Directors has not benefited the working classes at all, but only the elites. It is not clear why the shift from the integration of transsexuals to an apology for gender uncertainty will advance anything.
- The free movement of capital is one of the “Four Freedoms” established since the Single European Act (1986). It allows large companies to avoid national taxes, which is why everyone deplores it, but no one wants to abolish it. The globalisation of trade has destroyed millions of jobs in Europe and has begun to erode the middle classes [2].
- Military interference in non-globalized states is at the heart of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine adopted by the United States in 2001. It is astounding that Western elites still seem to ignore it. For example, the release of a wide-ranging survey on the 18-year “failure” of the United States to pacify Afghanistan has generated a great deal of comment. But absolutely no one has dared to say that far from being a failure, it was the mission assigned in 2001 to the Pentagon by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; 18 years that the “Endless War” has been going on in more and more theatres of operation [3].
The use of non-state military forces has peaked with jihadist organizations. One of them -Daesh- even went so far as to take over a non-recognized state. It continues today with the official support of the European Union to a terrorist organization, the PKK, provided that it operates in Syria and not in Turkey [4].
- The fight against the human cause of global warming is first and foremost a policy aimed at regenerating the automotive industry at the end of the cycle: switching from petrol engines to electric motors. The fact that Milutin’s theory Milanković (position of the Earth in relation to the Sun) is sufficient to explain the current changes does not prevent the claim that it has been “scientifically proven” that they are due to human industry [5].

The worst is to come with the invention of a Global Law.

Ignoring the different legal traditions in the world, the European Union subsidizes the International Criminal Court. After having long been a tool of European colonialism in Africa, the Court intends to assert the superiority of Europeans over all other human beings.

After having unsuccessfully attempted to try Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi for crimes against humanity, the Court hopes to try Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for resisting the Muslim Brotherhood and Israel for its crimes in the Palestinian Territories. Since Europeans have no particular concern for the Rohingas, the Syrians or the Palestinians, how can we fail to observe that the Union is taking the opposite tack from the United States and trying to assert itself as the defender of the Muslims, even if it means selling off its tradition of secularity? [6]

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, announced the forthcoming creation of a comprehensive sanctions regime against human rights violations, as called for by the European Parliament last April (B8-0181/2019). Inspired by the US model of the Global Magnitski Act [7], the European Union will, like a teacher, teach Good and Evil and award good and bad points to everyone.

The meaning of the words changes. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, universalism enjoined to fight against colonialism. In the 19th and 20th centuries, it dictated “the duty of the white man” and authorized the mandates of “developed” countries to help the “underdeveloped”. In the 21st century, it became the justification for neo-colonialism.

President Ursula van des Leyen summed up her programme for the restoration of European domination with these words: The time has come, “We must use Force”.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

Be seeing you

?u=http4.bp.blogspot.com-qt9rRFpDGV0USflTvp5t4IAAAAAAAAQO4VveUWyawMSws1600600full-rosemarys-baby-screenshot.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Social Justice Is Nothing like Real Justice | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2019

So, when a high-income person pays a higher rate of income tax to support a government program designed to increase inequality, we are not transferring wealth from individuals shown to have “exploited” others. Nor is there evidence that every recipient who benefits from these programs has been victimized by some sort of economic exploitation. Instead, it is merely assumed that those who pay more tax are guilty of exploiting others, while those who receive the wealth were exploited.

https://mises.org/wire/social-justice-nothing-real-justice

Social justice is a political and social ideology that advocates for the equal redistribution of wealth, equal access to economic opportunities, and the reduction of unfair privileges within a society. The central argument used by social justice advocates is that the government has the moral obligation to equalize access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges.

In abstract, to many people, this ideology seems morally right. In practice though, social justice has done more harm to those it intended to help and has hindered society’s advancement as a whole. But to fully comprehend the reason why social justice is a problem; it is helpful to understand its origins.

The Origins of Social Justice

To understand social justice, we first need to define what justice is. Justice is a concept under which wrongs committed against one party by another party are “set right,” either through restitution or punishment. Justice is generally administered by an institution — law courts, for example —  in which a third-party impartially adjudicates a dispute. The purpose of adjudicating this dispute is to determine how a victim might be repaid for a loss or private property or bodily harm. Justice, properly understood, therefore assumes there must be an identifiable victim, and that some third party will ensure the proper steps are taken to repair the harm.

Social justice as a concept arose in the early nineteenth century during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labor. Indeed, the concept of social justice is rooted in the Marxist theory of man-made exploitation. Advocates of social justice argue that social inequalities are based upon the fact that those who have access to resources, do so because they have deprived the have-nots of these same opportunities. Consequently, social justice advocates argue that the government has the moral obligation to rectify that injustice. Unlike true justice, however, reparations in the name of social justice do not involve a specific victim or a specific perpetrator. Instead, the guilty party is said to be an entire class of people, many of whom have never been shown to have exploited any specific person at all.

In America, social justice has become the new go-to “solution” to alleviate economic inequalities between people and social classes. The current trend of social justice in the United States underlies the misleading premise that the top 1 percent controls all the wealth while the bottom 99 percent produces that wealth. Moreover, this fallacious premise builds upon the myth that most millionaires and billionaires have inherited the wealth that they have today from their predecessors. But, according to a 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments, 88 percent of millionaires in America are self-made. Most did not grow up in exclusive country club neighborhoods. Needless to say, most millionaires started out within the 99 percent then worked their way up by climbing the social ladder. Yet social justice proponents argue that the wealthy — merely by being wealthy — have deprived those from lower social classes of wealth and capital. To fix that “injustice,” policies such as a progressive income tax have been imposed at the national level and in most states.

Note also that the moral system undergirding social justice requires immorality on the part of the state. Since the state produces no wealth of its own, it can only “create” wealth for the less-wealthy by taking wealth and property from the more-wealthy. Thus, social justice is founded on the idea of the state using violence to take from one group and give to another.  Since no specific victim and no specific crime has been identified, this is no case of reparation as exists under real justice. It is simply a transfer of wealth from one group to another based on some sort of general “exploitation.”

So, when a high-income person pays a higher rate of income tax to support a government program designed to increase inequality, we are not transferring wealth from individuals shown to have “exploited” others. Nor is there evidence that every recipient who benefits from these programs has been victimized by some sort of economic exploitation. Instead, it is merely assumed that those who pay more tax are guilty of exploiting others, while those who receive the wealth were exploited. These, of course, are not good assumptions, and are not based on any sort of judicial proceeding or examination of evidence, as would be the case of administering what is properly known as justice.

Be seeing you

antifa

You can’t tell SJWs from ISIS without a program.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »