DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       WebWar
  HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 20223--------------------------------------------------
       Καπιταλισμ&#97
       2;ς και Δικαιο
       σύνη
       By: Pinochet88 Date: January 8, 2016, 1:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Η
       Οικονομική
       Δικαιοσύνη
       πρέπει να
       αποτελεί
       πυξίδα κάθε
       υποστηρικτ&#94
       2;
       της
       Ελευθερίας.
       Κάθε
       αποδέκτης
       φόρων είναι
       εγκληματία&#96
       2;
       και πρέπει α)
       να πάψει
       πάραυτα να
       ζει εις
       βάρος των
       συνανθρώπω&#95
       7;
       του και β) να
       κληθεί να
       αποζημιώσε&#95
       3;
       οικονομικά
       τα θύματά
       του. Ένα
       μεταβατικό
       Φιλελεύθερ&#95
       9;
       κράτος θα
       πρέπει να
       επιβλέψει
       αυτήν τη
       διαδικασία
       αποζημίωση&#96
       2;
       και να
       τιμωρήσει
       αυστηρά
       όσους επί
       σειρά ετών
       υπεξαιρούσ&#94
       5;ν,
       μέσω της
       φορολογίας,
       τον πλούτο
       από τους
       φορολογούμ&#94
       9;νους.
       Όσοι δε
       έχουν
       χτίσει
       καριέρες
       και έχουν
       επενδύσει
       πάνω σε
       αυτήν την
       βίαιη κλοπή
       της
       φορολογίας
       και της βίας
       του Κράτους,
       δεν
       δικαιούντα&#95
       3;
       να έχουν
       λόγο!
       [center]End Injustices Now, Not Later
       Gary Galles[/center]
       Tim Carney recently highlighted how Iowa’s important early role
       in the Republican primaries has produced “a gravitational pull
       to pander” on the Renewable Fuel Standard. Its ethanol mandate
       is “an indefensible subsidy” to Iowans from others’
       transportation and grocery budgets for, at best, highly
       questionable environmental benefits.
       Carney cited examples of cognitive dissonance, such as between
       Chris Christie’s “I want the free enterprise system,” and “we
       should enforce the Renewable Fuel Standard,” and similarly
       between Carly Fiorina’s criticism that “government favors … the
       big, the powerful and the well connected,” and “I support the
       Renewable Fuel Standard as it currently stands.”
       How do candidates try to square the circle on such
       contradictions? Fiorina would let RFS expire in 2022 when the
       current law sunsets. Jeb Bush’s “We need to phase that out over
       the long haul” echoes her position. Marco Rubio said he would
       not have voted for RFS, “but it is now existing law and I think
       it would be unfair to simply yank it away from people that have
       made investments based on its existence.” In each case, they
       claim principled opposition without requiring them to actually
       do anything about it, even if elected. The ethanol profiteers
       attacks on Ted Cruz, for promising to end RFS during his first
       term, and the warmth they felt for Donald Trump’s “I love it.
       I’m for it” reveals why.
       Injustices Should be Removed Immediately, Not Gradually
       But how convincing is the “I’m not really pandering because it’s
       unfair to change RFS midstream” defense for candidates
       professing inert opposition? In “other things equal”
       circumstances, there is clearly an argument for following
       through on commitments. But other things are not equal with the
       ethanol mandate. It involves continuing to impose harm on those
       forced to pick up the tab, an ongoing assault that eliminating
       RFS would stop. Justifying continuing it on the basis of
       unfairness would require that maintaining the status quo was
       more important than stopping government from imposing harm on
       those its most basic duty is to protect. Carney characterized it
       as, “We’ve been robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and Paul’s taken
       out a mortgage based on income from the theft. You don’t want
       Paul to lose his house, do you?”
       If an injustice has been done, should it be maintained or
       eliminated? The well-worn adage that “justice delayed is justice
       denied” would seem to make the answer clear. For politicians to
       endorse free markets, while the government they are part of
       abuses its own citizens to benefit buyers of political
       favoritism, then drag their feet forever against rectifying the
       abuse, fails the hypocrisy test.
       Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education,
       long ago considered government’s eagerness to violate rather
       than enforce citizens’ property rights, but then treat the
       benefits it transferred to others as inviolable property rights.
       We could profit from his insights in “Causes of
       Authoritarianism,” from his 1958 Why Not Try Freedom? In it he
       addressed what he called the fallacy that “Authoritarianism
       Should Be Removed Gradually.”
       [font=times new roman] If an act is morally wrong or
       economically unsound, the quicker it is abolished the better.
       Many people seem to hold the view that the beneficiary of
       special privilege acquires a vested interest in his unique
       position and should not be deprived of it abruptly. They give
       little thought to the many persons from whom the plunder has
       been taken.
       [One] privileged … [another] deprived of the fruits of his
       own labor. Yet, when it comes to the matter of restoring
       justice, most people will think of the disadvantages suddenly
       falling upon [the first] rather than the accrued damage done to
       [the second].
       Imagine an habitual and successful thief. For years he has
       been robbing everybody in the community without their knowledge.
       … Upon discovering his fraud, should his robbery be diminished
       gradually or should justice be restored to the community at
       once? The answer appears too obvious to deserve further comment.
       People, when contemplating the removal of authoritarianism,
       seem to fear that a sudden restoration of justice would too
       severely disrupt the economy. The fear is groundless.
       The fallacy of the theory of gradualism can be illustrated
       thus: A big, burly ruffian has me on my back, holding me down.
       My friends, observing my sad plight, agree that the ruffian must
       be removed. But, believing in the theory of gradualism, they
       contend that the ruffian must be removed gradually. They fail to
       see that the only result of the ruffian’s removal would be my
       going to work suddenly!
       There is nothing to fear by any nation of people in the
       removal of restrictions to creative and productive effort except
       the release of creative and productive effort. And why should
       they fear that which they so ardently desire?[/font]
       Government frequently acts as an agent of theft through the
       policies it imposes, then treats the prospect of restoring
       justice as unjust. But this rhetorical inversion of justice as
       injustice only works if we similarly invert the meanings of
       logic and illogic. It cannot advance Americans’ shared
       interests. As Leonard Read argued, every policy reflecting that
       flawed approach, such as RFS, should be ended as soon as
       possible. And no one who ducks the issue, disguising their
       unwillingness to act by supporting phase-outs that are never
       going to happen, is worthy of Americans’ trust to represent them
       rather than special interests.
       sauce
  HTML http://bc.vc/mNMGNK
       *****************************************************