Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Vintage Soul Train Dancers

Why can not there be a liberal socialism

Now it's official, the Radical Party and SDI (and presumably the new PSI) team up to form a socialist movement, secular, radical and liberal. Bobo Craxi even speak of liberal socialism.

We call this the mental disorder. Liberalism and Socialism two things are antithetical. Impossible to get together. But amazingly just to keep your feet both ways you try this absurd ideological marriage just to scrape together the more votes from people who do not know.

We went to comb through the literature and found that liberal Ludwig von Mises wrote about liberalism and socialism. Read below ... you'll see some good, pace of clowns in our house.


1. Definitions
liberalism and socialism for the supreme and agree in the past, but differ in the fact that, to achieve the same aims, liberalism, identifies the most suitable property in private means of production, while socialism identifies the collective ownership.

So there is no economic difference between socialism and communism. Both terms, socialism and communism denote the same system of economic organization of society, namely the public control of all means of production , distinct from private control, namely capitalism. The two terms, socialism and communism are synonymous.

The essential difference between the liberal and socialist production is that the first men fend for themselves, while the second is the system that provides them. Socialism wants to give to mangiare, da vivere e da vestirsi all'umanità. Ma gli uomini preferiscono mangiare, vivere vestirsi e cercare la felicità a modo loro.

La questione è di sapere quale dei due sistemi, liberalismo o socialismo, garantisca una più alta produttività degli sforzi umani, per migliorare il tenore di vita della gente.

2. Il valore sociale del Liberalismo
Il liberalismo assegna allo Stato il compito di proteggere la vita, la salute, la libertà e la proprietà dei suoi cittadini contro l'aggressione violenta o fraudolenta.

La politica del liberalismo è la politica del bene comune , la politica del sottomettere gli special interests to the general well-being - a process that requires the individual not the renunciation of one's interests but the perception of the harmony of all individual interests in order to improve the living conditions of all . There are, therefore, individuals or groups whose interests would, ultimately, better protected from socialism than to a society based on private ownership of means of production.

And this multitude rise of the radical social change that is caused by the "liberal industrial revolution." Those masses that dominated in all previous ages of history gave rise to flocks of slaves and servants, poor people and beggars, are Today buying public, whose support is sought by businessmen. They are the customers who have "always right", those who have the power to make poor people rich and rich suppliers poor vendors. In
fabric of the market economy, when it is not sabotaged by the panaceas of governments and politicians, there are no signori "noblemen country that keep the people submissive, do not collect these fees and taxes, and feasting merrily on the shoulders of farmers who have to settle for the crumbs. " The profit-based system makes those men prosper who manage to satisfy, as best as possible and cheaper, people's needs. Wealth can be increased only by serving the consumers. The capitalists lose their capital, not just a lack of investment in those classes that best meet the demands of the public. In a plebiscite repeated every day, in which every penny gives a right to vote, consumers decide who should own and operate factories, shops and farms.
E 'the consumer that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. And the consumer and fixing the remuneration of a movie star or an opera singer at a level higher than that of a welder or an accountant.

Liberalism was opposed to anything that had the character of immutable and guarantees has tried to minimize the number of employees public. Public officials, when corrupt, violate the laws and are fully aware of damage to the collective good. And since gradually get used to violate criminal laws and moral norms, they end up losing entirely the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, between good and evil. If you can not produce or sell goods without violating this or that regulation, you end up thinking that ultimately sin against the law and moral face "unfortunately part of life and miss those" theorists "who want things to go differently .


3. The failure of socialism
The impracticability of Socialism is the consequence di ragioni di ordine intellettuale e non morale. Il socialismo non può raggiungere il suo scopo perché in una società socialista il calcolo economico è impossibile .
Il socialismo non è fallito per resistenze ideologiche, perché anzi l'ideologia dominante è ancora oggi quella socialista. E fallito perché irrealizzabile. Ogni passo che ci allontana dal sistema sociale della proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione riduce la produttività e quindi provoca miseria e indigenza .
Il socialismo non è quel che pretende di essere. Non è la scelta avanzata di un mondo migliore e più bello, ma il distruttore di quel che migliaia di anni di civiltà hanno creato. Esso, non costruisce; distrugge .

In un paese socialista i gruppi di pressione mirano ad assicurare ai loro membri privilegi a spese dei gruppi e degli individui più deboli. L'esistenza della corruzione è un fenomeno concomitante inevitabile dell'interventismo statale.

La politica socialista fornisce a migliaia e migliaia di individui lavori sicuri, tranquilli, e non troppo faticosi, a spese del resto della società . Ogni nazionalizzazione o creazione di un’ impresa municipale o statale lega interessi privati al movimento contro la proprietà privata. Il socialismo e il distruttivismo odierni trovano i loro più forti sostenitori nei milioni di persone per le quali un ritorno a a freer economy would, in short, in the long run, detrimental to their own particular interests.

4. The Harlequin Italian
To protect the socialist ideal from the devastating effects of this criticism has been made recently, some attempts to improve the common definition of "socialism" .
My definition of socialism as a policy aimed at creating a society in which the means of production are socialized , is in agreement with everything that scientists have written on the subject. He says that historically have to be blind not to notice that over the past one hundred years of socialism ha rappresentato solamente questo, e nient'altro; e che è in questo senso che il grande movimento socialista è stato ed è socialista.
Non è tuttavia il caso di litigare sulla definizione! Se a qualcuno piace chiamare socialista un ideale che conserva la proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione, libero di farlo! Un uomo è libero di chiamare cane un gatto e sole la luna, se gli fa piacere. Bisogna però dire che il capovolgimento della terminologia abitualmente usata, che tutti capiscono, non porta alcun vantaggio e crea solamente malintesi.

MORALE FINALE DA LEGGERE A VOCE ALTA A PANNELLA E SOCI
Il socialismo non è la prosecuzione del liberalismo : it is his enemy. It is not allowed to come up with a close connection between liberalism and social democracy for the simple reason that they oppose one and another.

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

How Much Is Imax At Cineplex

Ripartiamo (2005)

Here's what we saw during the holidays of August 2005, from wiretaps to the "new center", from London to Lampedusa (see 2004), from football to yet another little book by Dan Brown ... What we have seen

This month in August?
1. A man talking on the phone along with many other people became rich thanks to the brick. And they all complain about having their mobile phones under control and they were intercepted ... and do not have privacy , And have been exposed to public ridicule of the media and newspapers. Poor things ... of course they spoke of Saint Teresa of Calcutta and orphanages in Africa and of favoritism ... mica rules circumvented.
PS. In 2004 we had already written about this man that discredits all of us. He is still there attached to his increasingly weak bench. We are here, more and more convinced to be right. Read and believe.

2. The only "politician" Italian appreciated and respected abroad than it does our own proposal: "neither right nor left, but with a new pole " (he calls him a center, to distinguish it, perhaps?) And all our politicians to criticize the proposal and to minimize their impacts. And how could they, do otherwise? How could they give reason to those who thus calls directly to step aside for manifest inability (we would say for "obvious immorality")? Well, we are ready to support any new pole that makes her the liberal revolution, the only recipe for this Italy blocked and decadent.

3. The man symbol of the United Kingdom announced in a trembling voice, but with strong will, the rules of the game have changed for those who want to live in Britain and experience the hard way the "power" of a liberal society, anchored to traditional values courageously and always striving to reinvent itself for the social and civil progress. Thanks to him we know that it is possible to prevent the raves against the West in mosques all paid for with money, that we continue to use a foreign language instead of the language of business worldwide, and we live in subcomunità and sub-cultures preferring isolation to integration.

4. The usual boats of illegal immigrants in Lampedusa to indicate more clearly the difference between Italy and the United Kingdom, and Oriana Fallaci reaffirms what many think is an Italian citizen and raped for days by a pack of scoundrels 6, 5 of which were to be expelled . Who pays for this omission of official acts? Who gains from the business of landing and expulsions fake?

5. The stupid new book by Dan Brown, who will start in an attractive and ends with a final psychedelic pales in comparison with which John Wayne, which makes us seriously doubt the sanity of summentovato and above (which is why the example in this article) throws again discredit, doubt, and malicious thoughts on the only global institution (global?) anchored in Rome and very critical of a certain philosophy of life from oltreatlantico. Cui prodest ? Who benefits from destroying the only world power that stood for two thousand years and that, like it or not, still speak Latin, and still sits on this side of the Atlantic, Rome, Caput Mundi in ?

6. Besides the usual things:
  • the usual mess-ups of calcium (This time is Genoa. Betting or not? Tapping real or fake? Judges asleep or unscrupulous?). Then renew the same proposal to Mr. Carraro: stay there another year, to let us know what else you can see. My imagination is still.

  • The centrist and right sides throw on the left to avoid being involved in the defeat of Berlusconi declared loyal but demanding a strong signal strength (not saying that .... Harlequinesque-style of a foot in both camps)
We could continue with the list of summer events (which chooses the TV Pupo, the beloved holidays, road accidents, the usual fire and destruction of pine forests, ...), but we will not bore you further. I would ask you to do if I forgot something important to write an email or using the forum. We leave again. The objectives are the same ( http://www.liberaliperlitalia.it/pagina.phtml?_id_articolo=148) .

Welcome back then. And bon voyage