Those who inhabit this planet, and eventually inhabiting other planets, descendents of the "homeless." At the root of a house nobody appeared magically, no one gave him a house in the air. Those who first owned and lived in a cave had to dig and condition. Like the rest of the property, the houses do not come from nowhere, demanding effort. The combination persevering work with natural resources is on track to achieving the desired properties. All descended from gross and miserable situations (if not the monkey).
 |
| HOMELESS AND IF HOME |
First
happens with the poor but the bite (rather Tarascon or giant bite) of the Government angurria rages forward and step by step through the most diverse social strata. This can be overcome at first with the charity and philanthropic work but if it continues the tsunami statist containment fence is to be able to curb hunger, disease and widespread despair.
And there are still idiots that suggest mitigating moral evil with more of the same instead of opening wide the creative energy while respecting the rights of all devices making recede force to their specific missions of security and justice (which is all that do these troglodytes of power). No confidence in the blessings of freedom, only used the expression for the howling and singing ornate rosettes, patriotic anthems, but the singers forgot all sense of what they recite and declaim like robots stupefied by the superlative degree Leviathan. In practice they are paying homage to the altar of the sword and the regimentation of slavery.
Unfortunately with these policies is writing a history pathetic civilization goes back both difficult to establish the state of barbarism and "homeless" but not because there was nothing before but due to the systematic destruction of what exists. And this is exacerbated by policies that provide resources to the needy compulsively since not only creates an infamous relationship with the government agency (ie the fruit of the work of others) but are encouraged not to work.
round off evil in the context of the "homeless" has become fashionable to argue that the despicable "no one has right to excess while someone lacks necessary." This thought is ridiculous explained superbly by Alberto C. Salceda, who remarks that "means that nobody has the right to university education as someone lacking basic education, and therefore we close all the universities? Does that mean that nobody has the right to primary education while someone lacks food and clothing, and therefore we must close all schools? Does this mean that we should not build or use temples, theaters or concert halls, while someone lacks a comfortable home? What we should not use lotions, perfumes or soap while there is hunger in India? What we can not dance or play the flute is missing who till the land in Africa Central and who haul food to developing countries? What no one should smoke or chew gum until the Patagonian do three meals a day? ". Is that in an open society where wealth is increasing because it served successfully received their peers or other voluntary and creativity available goods increases, there is a zero sum process but extremely positive. Salceda ends his article by writing: "Suppose that someone considers the Pope's tiara than his own need when so many men suffer from hunger and cold [...] But to achieve this purpose it is essential that there is someone willing and able to buy tiara. And for which buy it (probably a Texan oil) the tiara will be superfluous even than to His Holiness. Only thanks to the appetite of the superfluous and the possibility of acquiring it will have been able to have the money to buy food and clothes. "
In this context it is useful to highlight the maximum stupidity that informs us Fox News has been the resolution of Marc Sarnoff, Director of Department Authority of the City Commission of Miami, who through David Krash his spokesman, said he has ordered that anyone can give food to homeless people because the "risk of intoxication" and that therefore, those wishing to deliver food must "first make appropriate training at the government office of the case, otherwise the offenders will be subject to fines." Have you ever seen more nonsense? This is a two-pronged attack: on the one hand, governments created the problem and then to mitigate obstacles.
On the other hand, in another vein, is a glaring risk that governments act as custodians of the health of people in poison as the politicization of this sensitive issue leads to poisonings occur when, at best, only replaced by other officials instead of opening the process of auditing the market for competing institutions to install the seal of knowing that if there is a problem going to the drivers life. But this example in Miami beyond all reason and reveals, in many directions, the extreme awkwardness with the "homeless."
is pertinent to recall these deviations in the U.S.. In this sense, we present the definition of Hilaire Belloc convert regard to servile status in his book by that title: "We call the arrangement the servile status of the society in which a number considerable families and individuals are bound by positive law to work for the benefit of other families and individuals so as to stamp the whole community with the mark of that work. " In the preface to a new edition of that work, writes Robert Nisbet also convert that "we are the United States live under a form of government that is closer and closer to the definition of Belloc's Servile State [...] As predicted Belloc, are impaired or limited real liberties of individuals by the Leviathan we have built in the name of equality. More and more Americans are [Americans] work by law to keep other Americans [U.S.]. " If this happens in the bastion of the free world, there is little for the rest of the countries.
is hoped that the above regression creepy and frightening in the history can be reversed if they are to what is happening today in countries considered backward by her insane policies does not spread, penetrating and perforating as a deadly rodent in the minds of who they live in affluent areas as a result of sensible institutional frameworks that reward productive work in the context of mutual respect, which traditionally have offered attractive living conditions for people and where homeless people "were only the vague and the unfortunate were attended charity care by highlighting the close correlation between freedom and philanthropy (which at this stage of events, where many are accustomed to use the third person plural, it is pertinent to recall that , by definition, own property is provided voluntarily and, if possible, anonymously).
is of great benefit to refresh the categorical definition of George Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, for the task of any government of an open society: "The government has been instituted to protect property of every kind [...] This is the end of the government, only a government is just as impartially secures to every man what is his. " This is the central axis referred to Ludwig von Mises to define a free society and the condemnation of property is what Marx and Engels argue is the crux of his thesis. This institution referred to in the above Nisbet prologue as the reason for the abandonment of socialist ideas, "while a student had a considerable confidence in what I was doing the New Deal [... but then] never imagined that there could be a genuinely free individual other than individual ownership. " In this indispensable and basic support in order to breathe oxygen provided by the liberal spirit referred to the work of Richard PipesPropiedad and freedom. Inseparable concepts throughout history, which is the same argument which, among many others, Gottfried Dietze fully developed in his book entitled In Defense of the property.
MAIL SHIPPING TO OUR AUTHORIZED PUBLICATION, TIMELINESS, VENEZUELA, opinions, news, liberal republican democracy, liberal, liberal, Libertarian, politics, foreign policy, ELECTIONS, UNITY, DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE
0 comments:
Post a Comment