Índice Editorial Reasoning is important? By Miguel A. Morra Concepts Nothing more unfair than social justice By Gabriel Gasave Stories Luminous Footprints . Emilia Pardo Bazán By Constanza Classics : The State Frédéric Bastiat N ° 52 Reflections Firemen setting fire, correlated with a work by Ray Bradbury . By Alberto Benegas Lynch
2
Tying Cabos. Moral, cultural and educational degradation. Socialist premeditation. By Mariano Flores Educational failure ... Failure? The moral and cultural degradation. The destruction of the system from its bases. What are the pillars of Western society. Present Actuality ? How to generate improvements in the Public Sector. By Maria Emilce Eyherabide . Best hidrovía ... Higher exports l s By Jorge A. Isern Humor Riddles Republicans United The party
What differentiates Republicans United from other parties? Who is it? What do we want in politics? Republicans United Santa Fe File I love freedom Puzzle solution
4
Editorial Reasoning is important? By Miguel A. Morra Clive Lewis, excerpt from the book "Letter from the devil to his nephew", the book was written in 1941. - The young devil asks the old devil: How have you managed to send so many souls to hell? The old devil: - Because of fear! . The young devil: - Well done! And what were they afraid of? Wars? Hunger? Old Devil: - No ... Illness! - Young devil: - Were they sick? Have they died? There's no cure? Old devil: - A common disease, but it had a cure. - Young devil: - I don't understand. Old Devil: - Unintentionally we came to the conclusion that the only thing to save is life at any cost!
They stopped hugging. They stopped saying hello! They gave up all human contact. They gave up everything that made a man a man. They ran out of money. They lost their jobs. But they decided to fear for their lives, even if they had no bread to eat. They believed what they heard, they read the newspapers, and they blindly believed everything they read. They gave up their freedom. They did not leave the house again. They never went anywhere. They did not visit their friends and family again. The whole world became a huge prison with voluntary convicts. They all accepted this life to survive another miserable day. They did not live, they died every day! It was too easy to take their poor souls. -------------------------------------------2020-2021 A virus no more problematic than a flu since in 80% of the population it does not produce anything beyond what could be a cold, in 14% of the population it can produce the same effect as a flu without consequences In other words, a three-day rest without 6
intervention by the health system or remedies is enough to be well and immunized again. In other words, 94% of the population would be immunized without problems if they are infected even if the vaccine does not yet exist. And as it is well known how the virus enters the body, it is ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE to protect the remaining 6%, that is, the vulnerable, even though they may be surrounded by infected, whether at home, at work or anywhere they may be, even traveling and sightseeing. Fear clouds the reasoning in many people . The percentage of "clouded" increases if the fear is towards something that cannot be seen, and if only the words of " EXPERTS " who understand medicine but not mathematics are consulted , to clarify things , and experts from all subjects when the scheme that is proposed to face the problem? it impacts absolutely the entire social spectrum . So it is transformed into the world , a simple problem to solve , in a "pandemic
Conceptual" in which the arguments do not coincide with the mental structure interventionist attacked based on assumptions unreasonable but expressed by "experts" and therefore taken by many people as a holy word even if they suffer from many contradictions in their current acrobatics, such as the choice between health and economy and other incongruities like that. That will comes in handy to politicians who like to intervene them in society and make decisions as a dictatorship because they have the excuse given by relevant experts, who in turn are supported by politicians. It is the Vicious Circle of NO REASONING and logically its result is unnatural. A hug, and good reading. The author is CPN Independent, Liberal and Editor
8
10
Concepts Nothing more unfair than social justice By Gabriel Gasave The Independent Institute The "liberals" of Latin America affirm that it is one of the most neglected regions on the planet and that the gap between rich and poor is widening more and more every day. They ignore the fact that decades of statism and political patronage all they have achieved is that this situation is increasingly serious and notorious. However, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego they continue to insist on the need for governments to play a preponderant role in the task of making our societies more just and equitable. Much of the public opinion agrees with this and prays for the implementation of the old idea of income redistribution, believing that if solidarity is put in the hands of these enlightened bureaucrats, the condition of the people will improve- as if the current situation of our impoverished fellow citizens was not a
sample of what happens when solidarity is collectivized. For this reason, it is imperative to analyze what economic-philosophical idea is behind the redistributionist policies , grouped today under that contradiction in terms that have been called social justice. Handing out the cake There are basically two conceptions about wealth and the way it should be distributed in society. 1) The altruist-collectivist, currently predominant among public opinion and the so-called ruling class. It maintains that: a) Given a certain amount of wealth, what we must do with respect to it is to see how we are going to distribute it, to redistribute it among all of us; b) Nobody in this position questions how that wealth arose, nor who were the ones who contributed to its realization. They only care to see how we have to distribute it; and c) Finally, this position also considers wealth as something static, as held by the mercantilists in the seventeenth century. As this "cake" is somewhat static, continuing with this 12
collectivist point of view, if someone gets a larger portion of it, it will be to the detriment of someone else who has received a smaller one. Society thus becomes a kind of "Zero Sum Game", in which what one wins is what another has lost. It is in the face of this injustice, its defenders argue, that the government must use all of its means so that everyone receives an identical cut. 2) The other position on the matter is the one that takes place in a free society and which we could synthesize as follows: a) Continuing with the metaphor of the “cake”, it would have no limits, and it would never finish being “cooked”, because that day we would put an end to the evolution of our species and we would begin our return to the time of the caves. b) Wealth is not given to us, but must be created through the market process. We constantly hear our smug leaders say that Latin America is a naturally rich region, with vast and
fertile tracts of land and abundant natural resources. This is true, but not enough. Today wealth is fundamentally given by the fact of having things such as computers, communications satellites, fiber optics, etc., and all this essentially requires a prior process of capital accumulation for its realization, a process to which we have bent on attacking and destroying for the sake of "National Sovereignty" in a systematic way for many years now, through a whole range of interventionist artillery, the destruction of various monetary signs and an oppressive fiscal pressure. c) In a free society, each one will receive from that "cake" depending on how they have contributed their resources and personal effort in its preparation. This is what Ulpiano was referring to when defining justice as “giving each one his or her own”, an unattractive principle for parasites who aspire to live off their productive peers and who proclaim that “to each according to their need” instead of the rational "to each according to his ability." 14
When theft becomes legal Under a system of genuine laissez faire, the only alternative that each of us has in order to survive and progress is to meet the needs of the market in the best possible way, that is, of our fellow men. Of course we have another possibility to achieve these objectives: steal. This path could adopt two basic modalities. Making it revolve in hand, which is not only not elegant and brings about the discontent of our victims, but can also lead us to jail; or looting in a much more subtle and less risky way, getting the government to steal for us. Anyone who enjoys a subsidy, a tax exemption, a tariff protection, a monopoly granted by law, etc., is benefiting to the detriment of all of us, that is, he is stealing from us, with the advantage that this act , clearly illegitimate, enjoys the protection of the law. Social or Zoocial Justice ? That legalized looting is at the heart of policies aimed at income redistribution or social justice. Something similar to what happens with those who believe they have
witnessed a UFO phenomenon usually happens with this expression: they spend their time talking about it, but cannot really specify what it is. The same happens with social justice. There is no political, union or ecclesiastical leader who does not stop overwhelming us to the point of being fed up with the need to achieve it. Now, as soon as one asks them about its real meaning and what aspects of it would make it more praiseworthy than mere justice, no answer is obtained. If we agree that it is only fair " to give everyone his due " and observe how the policies of social justice take away about what is proper to them to give to others what you do not you c orresponde nor belongs, we notice then that we are facing a clear injustice. We can conclude that there is nothing more unfair than good social justice, which is nothing more than putting a sophisticated name to the old act of stealing from others, which is why, in our opinion, it should be called “ zoocial ” rather than social. ”, By virtue of the fact that it treats all of us as sacrificial animals for the purposes of third parties. 16
The human being is an end in himself, while social justice considers each of us as a mere means to the ends of others, as "cannon fodder" that must be sacrificed for the sake of the tribe or of that impossible to define monstrosity called "common good". First singular In holding a position such as the one described, it is not unusual for someone to question us about what will happen to the poor and needy in a free society. What are we going to do for them? This is precisely where the error lies. It is not about what we are going to do, but about seeing what I am going to do for those in need (if my values include helping them.) We must understand at once that both solidarity and charity are essentially individual and free acts, impossible to be collectivized without losing their essence. I am supportive or charitable when I voluntarily detach myself from something that belongs to me (if they steal from me with the excuse of helping a third party, not me, much less the thief, we are being supportive, and if in addition there is
demagogic propaganda of the fact, it becomes a real mockery of the supposed beneficiary). It should be understood that the only obligation that should be imposed on us towards our fellow men is not to disturb them, nor to interfere in the scope of their freedom. Everything else that we wish to do with and for them should be left exclusively to personal and voluntary decisions. To close these reflections, nothing seems more appropriate than to go to the arguments that Mrs. Ayn Rand puts forward in one of her works: "The next time you meet one of those 'inspired by the public good' dreamers, let him spit out at you that 'certain highly desirable goals cannot be achieved without everyone's participation' tell him that if he cannot obtain the voluntary participation of all, it would be better if that goal remains unattained - and that human lives do not belong to you, nor do you have the right to dispose of them. And, if you wish, give the following example of the ideals you seek. It is possible for medicine to remove the corneas from the eyes of a man 18
immediately after his death and transplant them into the eyes of a living blind man, thus restoring sight in certain types of blindness. This, according to collectivist ethics, presents a social problem. Should we wait for a man to die to take his eyes off him when other men need them? Should we regard everyone's eyes as public property and devise a fair method of distribution? you agree that an eye should be taken from a living man to give it to a blind man and thus 'equalize' both, NO? So don't keep fighting over issues related to 'public projects' in a free society. You know the answer. The principle is the same . " ( The Virtue of Egoism - Collectivized Ethics. P.20.) After long decades of systematically attacking wealth generation, our leaders should add some common sense to their wellknown nobles and good intentions. They should realize that the solution is not to kill the rich but to expand their numbers. The author is a Research Associate at the Center for Global Prosperity at
the Independent Institute and Director of ElIndependent.org.
20
Stories Luminous Footprints . Emilia Pardo Bazán By Constanza Did you know that the novelist and journalist we know as Emilia Pardo Bazán was the Countess of Pardo Bazán and lady of the Order of Queen María Luisa? Yes, it seems strange to us today, but that was the noble title of the versatile Spanish writer, who was also an essayist, literary critic, poet, playwright, translator, editor, professor and lecturer. Emilia Pardo-Bazán y de la RúaFigueroa was born in La Coruña in 1851 and died in Madrid in 1921. She married José Quiroga and Pérez Deza at the age of sixteen , and had three children: Jaime, Blanca and Carmen. They parted ways in 1884 amicably. He went to live on his properties in Galicia and she continued her writing activity in Madrid and Galicia.
Emilia was a pioneering feminist in considering women's rights. She believed that the education of women was fundamental and defended it from her public performance. In her works she reflects on the modernization of Spanish society, the need for female education and women's access to all the rights and opportunities that men have. His privileged position and his travels through Europe gave him access to new ideas. In a pedagogical congress of 1882 he openly criticized Spanish education, saying that what women received was "taming", to be passive, obedient and submissive to their husbands. He proposed Concepción Arenal for the Royal Spanish Academy, but the candidacy was rejected as well as that of Gertrudis Gómez de Avellaneda, and his own candidacy was rejected three times, in 1889, in 1892 and in 1912. He faced Menéndez Pelayo and José María Pereda, when she declared that a woman could not be an academic. She was the first woman to preside over the literature section of the Ateneo de 22
Madrid and the first to hold a chair of neo-Latin literature at the Central University of Madrid. Alfonso XIII in 1910 appointed her Minister of Public Instruction. He admired avant-garde painters of the time such as Sorolla and had controversial discussions regarding racial heritage and atavism. His best known novels are "Los Pazos de Ulloa" and "Mother Nature" The Countess of Pardo Bazán was the most important female intellectual figure in Spain during the last decades of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Thanks to the rich educational training provided by her father, she stood out for her work and for being a forerunner of women's rights. His traces are of independence, study, research, courage and constant personal training. Until the next footprints! Constanza is a teacher
Classics : The State Frédéric Bastiat N ° 52 Originally published in the Journal des Débats on September 25, 1848 . I would like a prize, not of five hundred francs, but of a million, with crowns, a cross and a decoration, to be awarded to whoever would give a good, simple and intelligible definition of the State. What a great service he would render to society! The state! What is it? Where is? What does? What should I do? All we know is that he is a mysterious character, and surely the most requested, the most tormented, the busiest, the most advised, the most accused, the most invoked and the most provoked in the world. Because, sir, I have not had the honor of meeting you, but I bet ten to one that you have been forging utopias for six months, and 24
if you forging utopias, I bet ten against one that you will entrust the State with them being carried out. As for you, madam, I am sure that you wholeheartedly want to put an end to all the evils of sad humanity, and that you would not mind in the least if the State took care of it. But alas! The unhappy, like Figaro, does not know who to listen to or whom to turn to. The hundred thousand mouths of the press and the rostrum cry out in unison: "Organize the world of work." "Eradicate selfishness." "Combat the insolence and tyranny of capital." "Do studies on manure and on eggs." "It runs rail lines all over the country." "Irrigate the plains." "Cover the mountains with trees." "Create model farms." "It sets up harmonious workshops." "Colonize Algeria".
"Breastfeed the children." "Instruct the youth." "Protect the elderly." "Send the villagers to the countryside." "Ponder the benefits of all industries." "Lend money without interest to those who want it." "Liberate Italy, Poland and Hungary". "Perfect the riding horse." "Stimulates art, trains musicians and dancers." "It prohibits trade and, at the same time, creates a merchant marine." "Discover the truth and put a pinch of reason in our heads. The State's mission is to clarify, develop, enlarge, strengthen, spiritualize and sanctify the soul of the peoples." "Hey, gentlemen, a little patience!" Replies the State, with a plaintive air. "I will try to satisfy them, but for that I need resources. I plan to introduce five or six totally new taxes, and the most benign in the world. You will see how gladly you pay them." 26
But then there is a shout: Oh no! Oh no! What is the merit of doing something if you have the resources for it? The state is not necessary for that. Far from wanting to pay more taxes, we urge you to withdraw the existing ones. Thus, abolish the tax on salt, the tax on beverages, the tax on letters; the faithful, the patents, the benefits. In the midst of this tumult, and after the country has changed state two or three times for not having satisfied all the demands, I wanted to warn that they were contradictory to each other. How daring of mine! Couldn't I have kept this unfortunate observation to myself? Here I am forever discredited before all. I am accused of being a heartless and gutless man, a stale philosopher, an individualist, a bourgeois, and, to put it all in a word, an English or American school economist. Oh! Forgive me, sublime writers, whom nothing stops, not even the contradictions themselves. I am wrong, without a doubt, and
I retract with all my heart. I am not asking for anything better, be sure, than what you have already discovered: a benefactor and indefatigable being, called the State, who has bread for all mouths, work for all arms, capital for all companies, credit for all projects. , oil for all wounds, relief for all sufferings, advice for all the perplexed, solutions for all doubts, truths for all intelligences, distractions for all boredom, milk for babies, wine for the elderly; a being that provides for all our needs, prevents all our desires, satisfies all our curiosities, straightens all our wrongs, repairs all our faults and dispenses us with judgment, order, foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance and activity. And why shouldn't I want it? God forgive me. The more I think about it, the more interesting it seems to me and the greater my impatience to have within my reach that inexhaustible source of riches and lights, that universal medicine, that bottomless treasure, that infallible adviser that you call the State. I also ask that they show it to me, that they define it for me, and that is why I propose 28
that a prize be awarded to the first to discover this phoenix. Because, in short, I will be granted that such a discovery has not yet been made; Until now, everything that is presented under the name of State is immediately rejected by the people, precisely because it does not fulfill the somewhat contradictory conditions of the program. Should we say it? I fear that we are victims of the strangest illusion that has ever taken possession of the human being. Man is repulsed by pain, suffering. And yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of deprivation if he does not accept the penalty of work. So he has no alternative but to choose between the two evils. Can you still avoid them? The truth is that he has not found, nor will he ever find, any other way than to profit from someone else's work; make sure that pain and satisfaction do not fall on each one according to the natural proportion, but that all the pain is for some and all the satisfactions for others. Hence slavery, plunder in any of its forms: wars, impostures, violence, restrictions, fraud, etc .; monstrous
but consistent abuses with the thought that gave rise to them. The oppressors should be hated and fought, but they cannot be accused of falling into the absurd. Slavery is on its last legs, thank God. On the other hand, our willingness to defend what is ours makes looting plain and simple not an easy task. But the damned primitive inclination to put the suffering of others aside and the other self-gratification persists. It remains to be seen in what new form this sad trend manifests itself. The oppressor no longer acts directly with his own forces on the oppressed. No, our conscience is too scrupulous for that. There are still tyrants and victims, but between them there is an intermediary, the State, that is, the law itself. What better way to silence our scruples and, even better, to overcome resistance? Thus, all of us, for this or that reason or pretext, turn to the State and say: I do not see that there is proportion between my work and my expectations. To establish the desired balance, I would like to get hold of a part of the good of others. But it 30
is a dangerous undertaking. Couldn't you give it to me? Can't you get me a good position? Or hinder my competitors? Or lend me capital that you have previously taken from others? Or ensure my well-being when I am fifty years old? In this way I will achieve my goal and have a clear conscience, because the law will have acted for me, and I will enjoy all the benefits of plunder without taking its risks or bearing the hatred it arouses. Given that we all turn to the State with a demand of this type and that, on the other hand, it is proven that the State cannot provide satisfaction to some if it is not at the expense of others, while waiting for a better definition, I am authorized to propose mine. Who knows if I will win the prize? Here it is: The State is that great fiction through which everyone tries to live at everyone's expense. Because, today as yesterday, who else, who least tries to take advantage of someone else's work. This desire is not exhibited, we even hide it from ourselves. So what is done? We imagine an intermediary, we go to
the State and put our requests to them. "You who can take loyally, honestly, take from people and let's share." The state will be delighted to follow such diabolical advice; for it is made up of ministers, officials, men after all who, as such, ardently seize every opportunity to gain wealth and influence. The state immediately grasps the game that can give it the role that people want to entrust to it. He will be the referee, the owner of all destinies: he will take a lot, he will keep a lot; it will multiply its agents; expand the scope of its powers; it will end up acquiring overwhelming dimensions. Most notable is the astonishing blindness of the people in this whole affair. When victorious soldiers put their enemies into slavery they behave like barbarians, to be sure, but they are not absurd. Their goal, like ours, is to live at the expense of others. But, unlike us, they succeed. What should we think of a town where it does not seem to be suspected that pillage is no less pillage for the mere fact that it is reciprocal; that it is no less criminal by the mere fact that it is carried out in an orderly and 32
legal manner; Which is not at all adjusted to the public welfare, but rather reduces it depending on what it costs to maintain that wayward intermediary we call the State? We have placed this great chimera, for the edification of the people, on the frontispiece of the Constitution. Here are the first words of the preamble: France becomes a Republic to call all citizens to an ever higher degree of morality, light and well-being. It is, yes, France or abstraction that calls the French or the realities to morality, wellbeing, etc. Isn't this abounding in that curious illusion that leads us all to wait for the contest of energies other than our own? Is it not implied that, alongside and apart from the French, there is a virtuous, enlightened, prosperous being, who can and must pour out his magnificences on them? Is it to be assumed, and by the way very gratuitously, that between France and the French, that is, between the simple abbreviated, abstract designation of all individuals and the individuals themselves, there is a parent-child,
tutor-ward, teacher- relationship. student? I know well that sometimes it is said, metaphorically: the country is a tender mother. But to catch the constitutional proposal in flagrant crime of inanity it is enough to show that it can be turned around, I would say that not only without inconvenience, but even with advantage. Would accuracy suffer if the preamble said: "The French have constituted themselves a Republic to call upon France an ever higher degree of morality, light and wellbeing"? What is the value of an axiom in which the subject and the predicate can change positions with impunity? Everyone understands the phrase "The mother will nurse the child", but it would be ridiculous to say "The child will nurse the mother". Americans had another idea of citizens' relations with the state when they put these simple words at the beginning of their Constitution: We, the people of the United States, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 34
ensure inner tranquility, provide for the common defense, enhance the general welfare, and secure the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, decree (...) Here there is no chimerical creation, no abstraction from which the citizens ask everything. They expect nothing but from themselves and from their own energies. If I criticize the first words of our Constitution, I do not do so, as it might seem, for a mere matter of metaphysical subtlety. I maintain that such personification of the State has been in the past and will be in the future a fruitful source of calamities and revolutions. People, on the one hand. On the other, the State. The latter, forced to pour over it, with all its right to claim it, the torrent of human happiness. What will happen? The State is not one-armed and cannot be. He has two hands, one for receiving and one for giving, or the rough hand and the gentle hand. The activity of the second is necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly speaking, the State can take and not give, given the porous and absorbent
nature of its hands, which always retain something and sometimes everything they touch. What has never been seen or will ever be seen, in fact cannot even be conceived, is to the State giving more than it receives. It does not, therefore, make sense that we adopt the humble attitude of the beggar before him. It is radically impossible to confer a particular advantage on certain members of a community without inflicting greater harm on the community as a whole. Our demands therefore place the state in a vicious circle. If he refuses to do the good that is demanded of him, he is accused of impotence, ill will, incapacity. If he tries, he will find it necessary to punish the people with more taxes, to do more harm than good and to attract general disaffection. So we have two hopes in the people and two promises in the government: many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises that, being contradictory, are never carried out. 36
Isn't this the cause of all our revolutions? Because between the State, which lavishes impossible promises, and the people, who conceive unrealizable hopes, two classes of men come to interpose themselves: the ambitious and the utopian. Your role is fully traced by the situation. It is enough for these courtiers of popular favor to shout at the people: "Power deceives you; if we were to command, we would shower you with benefits and free you from taxes." And the people believe, and the people hope, and the people make a revolution. As soon as they get hold of the situation, they are urged to keep their promises. "Give me work, bread, insurance, credit, education, colonies," says the people, "and, just as you promised, free me from the clutches of the treasury." The difficulties of the new State are not less than those of the old, since, certainly, the impossible can be promised, but not fulfilled. He then seeks to buy time to mature his great plans. First he does some shy rehearsals; on the one hand, it extends primary
instruction a bit; on the other, he slightly tweaks the tax on beverages (1830). But he always runs into contradiction: if he wants to be a philanthropist, he has no choice but to reinforce taxation; if he resigns from the treasury, he must also renounce philanthropy. These two promises always and necessarily cancel each other out. Using credit, that is, devouring the future, is in fact a means of reconciling them: it is about doing a little good today at the cost of causing a lot of harm in the future; But this procedure evokes the specter of bankruptcy in whoever takes the credit. To do? So the State arms itself with courage, concentrates forces to maintain itself, stifles opinion, resorts to arbitrariness, ridicules its old maxims, declares that it can only be administered by incurring unpopularity. In short, it proclaims itself governmental. And that's where other courtiers of popular favor await. That exploit the same illusions, walk the same path, reap the same success and are soon engulfed by the same abyss. 38
So we come to February. The illusion object of this article had penetrated more than ever in the mentality of the people with the socialist doctrines. More than ever, the state, in republican form, was expected to fully turn on the tap of the source of profits and turn off that of the source of taxes. "I have been wrong many times," say the people, "but I will take good care that he does not deceive me again." What could the Provisional Government do? What is always done in such circumstances: promise and buy time. He did so, and to give greater solemnity to his promises, he specified them in decrees. Increased well-being, decreased work; security, credit; free instruction; agricultural colonies, breakdowns; and at the same time reduction of taxes on salt, drinks, menus, meat ... Everything will be granted. As soon as the National Assembly comes. The National Assembly came, and as contradictory things cannot be done, its task, its sad task, was limited to withdrawing, as gently as possible, one after another, all the decrees of the provisional Government.
But, lest the disappointment be so cruel, he had to compromise a bit. Certain commitments were kept, and others began to be timidly and limitedly executed. That is why the current administration is struggling to imagine new taxes. Now I move with the thought to within a few months, and I wonder, with sadness in my soul, what will happen when the new officials go through our fields to collect the new taxes on inheritance, on income, on the profits of the exploitation agricultural. May Heaven deny my presentiments, but I see there a role for the courtiers of popular favor. Read the latest Manifesto of the Highlanders, the one issued in connection with the presidential election. It is a bit long, but, after all, it boils down to this: The state must give a lot to the citizens and take little from them. It is always the same tactic or, if you like, the same mistake. The State must provide free instruction and education to all citizens. It must seek an adequate general and professional education, as far as possible, to 40
the needs, tendencies and capacities of each citizen. He must teach citizens their duties towards God, towards men and towards themselves; develop your feelings, skills and abilities; In short, provide them with the science of their work, the understanding of their interests and the knowledge of their rights. It must make available to all the letters and the arts, the intellectual heritage, the treasures of the spirit, and all the intellectual joys that elevate and strengthen the soul. It must cover all claims, fire, flood, etc. (and this etcetera is very long), that the citizen suffers. It must intervene in the relations between capital and labor and regulate credit. It must promote agriculture and protect it effectively. It must be done with the railroads, the canals, the mines, and manage them with that industrial wisdom that characterizes it.
It must encourage generous initiatives, stimulate them and help them with the resources capable of making them succeed. As a credit regulator , you have to support industrial and agricultural associations to ensure their success. The State must do all this without prejudice to the services it is already providing; And, for example, it must always maintain a threatening attitude towards foreigners, because, say the signatories of the program, bound by this holy solidarity and by the precedents of republican France, we carry our votes and our hopes beyond the barriers that despotism elevates among nations: the right that we want for ourselves, we want it for all those who are oppressed by the yoke of tyrannies; we want our glorious army to be, if necessary, the army of freedom. The kind hand of the state, this good giving and giving hand, will be very busy under Montagnard's government . Do you think that the rough hand will be too, that hand that gets into our pockets and plunders them?
42
Get rid of it. The courtiers of popular favor would not know their trade if they did not manage to hide the rough one when they show the kind hand. His reign will surely be the taxpayer's jubilee. The tax, they say, should weigh on the superfluous, not on the necessary. And should we not rejoice that, to fill us with benefits, the Treasury is content to reduce our superfluous assets? This is not everything. The Highlanders aspire that the tax "lose its oppressive character" and be no more than "an act of brotherhood." Divine goodness! I knew it's fashionable to sneak the frat everywhere, but I didn't suspect they could also fit in the fundraiser's newsletter. Coming to the details, the signatories to the program say: We want the immediate abolition of taxes on basic necessities, such as salt, beverages, and so on. The reform of the real estate tax , of concessions, of patents. Free justice, that is, the simplification of forms and
the reduction of expenses. [This certainly refers to the timbre]. These gentlemen have found the secret formula of giving a frenzied activity to the kind hand of the State and paralyzing the rue. And I ask the impartial reader: is not this childishness, otherwise dangerous childishness? Will not the people make revolution after revolution until they make possible the contradiction of giving nothing to the State and receiving much from it? Do you think that if the Highlanders came to power they would not be victims of the instruments they use to achieve it ? Citizens, there have always been two political systems, and both can be supported by good reason. According to one, the state must do a lot, but it must also take a lot. According to the other, the State should make itself felt little in both spheres. You must choose one of the two. A third system that participates in them and that consists of demanding the State without giving it anything is something chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, dangerous. Those who advocate 44
for him to give themselves the pleasure of accusing all rulers of impotence and thus exposing them to their attacks are sycophants who try to deceive people, or at least deceive themselves. As for us, we think that the State is not or should not be anything other than the common force instituted not to be between an instrument of oppression and reciprocal plunder, but, on the contrary, to guarantee each one his own and that they prevail justice and security. Article published in https://www.clublibertaddigital.com/li beral-ilustracion/52/el-estado-fredericbastiat.html
Reflections Firemen setting fire, correlated with a work by Ray Bradbury . By Alberto Benegas Lynch I have written about this imaginative author before, but now I do it again since a close parallel of his masterpiece can be established with what has largely been happening on our planet. It is, of course, Fahrenheit 451, which was released in 1950 and since then new editions in multiple languages have not stopped . In this work the enormous dangers and consequences of the censorship and the blockade that authoritarianism generates to all manifestations are consigned for intellectually investigating instead of proceeding like the herd. It is about a firefighter who, according to the directives of the respective department, was dedicated to burning books. There is here a close correlation with state apparatus: instead of protecting and guaranteeing the rights of the people, it attacks them, 46
persecutes and uses force to extract rents, that is, firefighters who set fire. Everywhere today, in some places more and in others less, governments have become tremendous grotesques that annihilate those who are supposed to protect their rights that are prior and superior to the very existence of the state apparatus. Thus they establish tax burdens with the idea that the taxpayer is a kind of lemon tree that must be squeezed to the maximum without exterminating the plant for the sole reason that in this way it will not bear more fruit. In this context, even the Laffer Curve is unknown in the sense that the lower the tax burden, the higher the collection. As monetary manipulations are not enough and taxes are always at the limit, it turns out that the decision is to indebt citizens, that is, to live on future income that, as has been noted from Thomas Jefferson, that procedure compulsively compromises the patrimonies of future generations that they have not participated in the electoral process to elect the ruler who contracted debt, so that the public debt becomes incompatible with
democracy, as, among others, the Nobel Prize in economics James Buchanan has pointed out. In the first line of the first chapter of the aforementioned Bradbury book it reads that "It was a pleasure to burn." The firefighter's wife beautifully represents the bewilderment of modern society with a radio connected to her ears through an extension (today we would say headphones) in which she is permanently invaded by other voices because her own does not exist in a demonstration of superlative autism who only interrupts to witness television frivolities and who requires increasing doses of sleeping pills in the context of an icy and, therefore, non-existent marriage. The following reasoning is recorded in the book: “You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we cannot count on dissatisfied and agitating minorities […] What do they want in this country first of all? […] Don't we keep them moving? Don't we offer them entertainment? That is what we live for ”. This is the discourse of authoritarians who crave power at the expense of the people. In this line of argument, the Bradbury narrator 48
tells us that nothing is more dangerous than knowledge. Hence the burning of books that has happened literally or figuratively at different times in history. The censorship of books is the central characteristic of National Socialisms, Communisms and the whole host of imitators. That is why Jorge Luis Borges has written that the mania of governments is "building walls and burning books." The fact is that the firefighter in question is very impressed that the owner of a library chooses to let herself be engulfed in the flames along with her books. It also drills his head to recapitulate what he heard his boss say about the owner of a library: "they dragged him to the asylum screaming" since "any man who thinks he can deceive the government is insane." In this gruesome story, the arsonist, after ten years of burning testimonies of humanity, meets a young woman who leaves him meditating with only two questions that disturb him and leave him confused: “Have you never read some of the books that does it burn? To which the firefighter, the fruit of an exacerbated servility, instinctively exclaims
"that's against the law!" ( affirmation that later will reconsider). The young woman's second question ends up disconcerting him, a question with an appearance of innocence: "Are you happy?" ( More later will grant the weight that insofar as this concept is present only in humans). Finally, the interlocutor emphasizes that the smell of kerosene with which the flames are stirred "is never eliminated" from the soul of the biblioclasts . In another of the encounters, the young woman emphasizes two additional aspects of life that also leave the firefighter restless. In the first place, the value of thought that is fed by reading and, secondly, the erroneous notion of social activities that are often considered to exist and are fed by the mere rumble of the stuttering of common places instead of the fruitful exchange of reflections and questions that are born from curiosity for knowledge. Two other meetings are decisive for the change of attitude of one of the memory killers: a former professor who judiciously elaborates on the importance of books as the lifeblood of culture and the importance of taking time to digest them, rather than letting 50
yourself go by what authority imposes and engaging in frivolous distractions. Likewise, he is impressed by the effort of a literary association whose members memorize the contents of the books before they are mercilessly exterminated by fire. All this makes the character of the play reconsider who finally begins to read books and keep them secretly at home for which he is denounced. Unlike other well-known novels where the authoritarian spirit is embodied, this one ends with the resurgence of the individual against the collectivist and undifferentiated troop. It is of great importance to realize the dangers that Bradbury reveals in this magnificent work that constitutes an alarm signal for what has been happening for some time now. It is to be hoped that the steps that humanity has been taking will also have a happy unfolding as it happens in this succulent novel. The censorship of the soul is the murder of the human being. Hence it is that all the liberals from the most remote corners of the planet have always attributed the priority it deserves to freedom of thought and its
correlative freedom of expression and the press so vilified by all autocrats under the most varied masks and pretexts. Ultimately, the caesura stems from a serious inferiority complex. It is the fear of knowledge that sooner or later reveals the supine ignorance on which social engineers rely, that if nothing stands in the way they perpetuate themselves in power to the effect of managing the lives and estates of others as they do. come in desire. State participation in the paper business, the alleged interference on the Internet and in the networks, the state news agencies , the system of government concessions of the electromagnetic spectrum, the tax charges on imported books, the outdated figures such as those of "contempt" and the like are all steps in the direction of strangling freedom of expression. As has been emphasized so many times, the American Founding Fathers have said and repeated that "the price of freedom is its eternal vigilance" and, as we have pointed 52
out time and again Alexis de Tocqueville has declared that taking freedom for granted becomes in a fatal moment. Bradbury's gruesome tale reveals the theme of our time that should not be belittled but addressed by all who consider themselves free men. It is then about studying and disseminating the values and principles of the open society and not merely declaiming. Esteban Echeverría specified the idea in his famous first reading at the Salón Literario, in 1837, in the heart of the San Telmo neighborhood, in Buenos Aires: “enthusiasm and good faith are not enough for us; we need a lot of study and reflection, a lot of work and perseverance ”. One way to illustrate the crucial importance that firefighters put out fires and do not dedicate themselves to burning has been what has happened in Argentine lands since the authoritarian leadership was abandoned when the Constitution of 1853 was promulgated, based on the Alberdiano liberal ideology that converted our country in the admiration of the civilized world for the
remarkable moral and material progress of its inhabitants, many of them recently arrived from distant countries in conditions of great poverty, until unfortunately we return to the barbarism of impoverishing statism more than seven decades later, where unfortunately we today we find ... again firefighters setting fire. To close this journalistic note, eventually it can also serve as an illustration from another perspective of the debate of ideas that underlies one of the many issues linked to the virtues of the open society, the unjustified criticism of John Nash -another Nobel laureate- of Adam Smith for the figure of his "invisible hand" affirming that many times each one in freedom pursuing his personal interest does not achieve mutual benefits but conflicts. To simplify the matter, let's illustrate with the case of the use (and abuse) of livestock by several usufructuaries who have the farm in common. There is no problem if property rights are assigned and respected. Conflict only occurs if the property belongs to everyone, in which case the overwhelming “tragedy of the commons” inexorably appears. 54
On the other hand, as an example of the "lack of coordination" suggested by Nash, the crisis of the aforementioned indebtedness that a large part of the world suffers today, but as has been said, is not due to "market failures" since the aforementioned public debt it is compulsively contracted by state apparatuses and not in the interest of the contracting parties at liberty. Where there are rights violations, the nature of the situation picture is radically different since the tension is not the result of operating in the context of the institutional frameworks required by the market process. When firefighters burn there is no possible rescue other than crushing with the need for solid institutional frameworks that make the nefarious tasks of the arsonists impossible. Along with Martian Chronicles in which Bradbury does very fertile exercises of "lateral thinking " through episodes such as the commentary of the protagonists in the sense that it is not possible to live on Earth "because there is oxygen", the work that we come commenting, he stands out not only for his wit
and the author's seasoned pen but, as we say, for his topicality. Firemen who set fire is the best illustration regarding those theoretically in charge of ensuring the rights of the people who are truly annihilating. The "bread and circus" has long been a deadly trap for rulers to tame and keep their subjects distracted. Study and knowledge are enemies of demagogues and megalomaniacs because they provoke questions and create nonconformists who are the most dangerous for autocrats. Ray Bradbury helps us chew and digest events in our troubled world today in order to leave behind the perverse mania of abusive rulers: firefighters who set fire.
56
The author is President of the Academic Council in Libertad y Progreso Article Progreso
published and
in
Libertad y Infobae
Tying Cabos. Moral, cultural and educational degradation. Socialist premeditation. By Mariano Flores Although the title sounds exaggerated, these are the issues that I am going to address. I will also take the trouble to establish a link between them. Educational failure ... Failure? I have already discussed this in the TENTH edition of this magazine. We have talked about how paternalistic governments do not like that we have freedom to educate ourselves, because we could disagree with them (Margaret Tratcher's phrase in the British Parliament echoes in me “There is no place for freedom in socialism, because you could not choose socialism ”). This time I am going to delve a little into the premeditation that exists in this, and why what at first glance seems a failure is not but, on the contrary, is a socialist triumph.
58
It is easy to believe that it is bad not to stand out, for example, in the PISA tests. However, nothing is more functional to governments than a low level of education. Defenders of these populist and socialist systems , which display overwhelming fascism completely dominating education systems, argue that "our education budget is increasing." This is nothing more than an intellectual trap, which takes advantage of the general public's ignorance of economic matters. IF we consider the accumulated inflation in a considerable period of 5, 10 or 20 years. And we see the increase in the budget, we will see that in real terms the budget is decreasing. (Note: We will not discuss here whether or not the government should be involved in education. That is another debate). Added to this, we have the fact that if students do not have the necessary permeability to learn, it does not matter if all the money in the world is spent teaching more time, or with better material or more people. This is essential to understand! Young people who reach the higher level must take courses
of "reading comprehension" that is to say: They leave high school without understanding text, since they should reach this level understanding texts, since otherwise, how are they going to understand what is being taught to them? teach? Well, here lies the premeditation that I will go on to explain. It can be argued that if a student does not have the ability to read comprehension, they can develop it later and can manage with their listening comprehension. Sure ... How convenient! That the student understands what they are told in class (dictated by the government) and if they want to read another position elsewhere they do not have the necessary tools to understand them and then debate with those who teach them, as well as with their peers. Note that it is ideal that we are increasingly relegated to the world in terms of education. And when it is very obvious and someone complains, we leave the PISA tests and that's it. A move too obvious, if we have a minimum logical capacity.
60
The moral and cultural degradation. The destruction of the system from its bases. The aforementioned process of educational degradation is not new. Only in the beginning it was a stealthy process. Yuri Bezmenov (known Defector of the USSR) already lamented that the western bloc believed that the KGB was dedicated to sending spies like James Bond, since most of its budget was dedicated to what they called “cultural subversion. ”. It is about the cultural, progressive and silent penetration of countervalues in educational systems. In fact, we can date back decades (and I'm talking about the 80s) how the works of Jacques Derrida were introduced to the French department at Yale University . It seems logical to teach texts in French for this chair. But if we consider that this author is nothing more and nothing less than the author of the postmodern concept of "deconstruction", although it is an extension of the concept of destruction raised by Martin Heidegger in his work sein und zeit . Of course, deconstructing sounds much kinder than destroying) (In fact, this same author
clearly influenced other pillars of post-modern thought, such as Jean Paul Sartre or Michel Foucault). Thus the students, while translating texts, are impregnated with the ideas of the author. No need to teach it directly. It's like “preparing the ground, if you will. So little by little those students would be the future teachers of other generations. And it would be easier for teachers to accept programs functional to socialism. Having rounded up the educational and raised its relationship with the cultural, we will go on to talk about cultural degradation. The main socialist error is its unnaturalness . Socialist thinking must be forced. It does not accept freedom of thought, we already raised that. The second mistake and not a minor one - is the lack of empiricism. Liberal thought is empiricist, I already raised it in my last article (On environmentalism). On the other hand, socialism is not based on verifiable fact, but is a kind of whim. 62
The idea is, roughly, change the system as of place. Logic indicates that, before changing a system, one must be certain of a better one. This is not the case. Socialist thought, from Saint Simon, through Marx, Lenin and Trotsky to the present day, has presented gross logical flaws that in practice have proven to be flawed. The construction of the wall (and not its fall) has been the most notorious proof. Having shown that on an economic, social and human level it was an unprecedented failure, they have sought to argue that it is morally superior to the systems of freedom. This is a huge mistake, as these are not just more efficient, but more moral and fairer, but I'll leave that for a future article. So if we don't have a better system, should we destroy the existing one? YES, according to this postmodern thinking. It has simply sought the destruction of the pillars of Western society, with the idea of building something new on top of it, although not even they are sure how, they act without measuring consequences, like capricious adolescents).
What are the pillars of Western society. Three mainly. Freedom, Enlightenment and family. We already made it clear that freedom has no place within socialism, but we will address the others. What separates barbarism from civilization? Well, the turning point is clearly enlightenment. Enlightenment is only possible through the development of language (otherwise we would still live in prehistoric societies) but, mainly, written language. Why does this happen? Because writing allows gathering knowledge as a basis to increase it. Before writing, knowledge was transmitted orally. It would have been impossible to develop modern theories (such as physics) without having earlier discoveries available to read and reread. Not to mention that in oral transmission data can be lost or misrepresented, in a kind of broken phone . The greatest proof of this is the lack of progress within tribalism. Note that when Europeans arrived in America, the 64
natives did not know about such archaic inventions as a wheel. On the other hand, there is the family as the fundamental brick of our society. And why is this happening? Well, because within a family values are transmitted, even before academic knowledge is transmitted. Then the academic progress of the members is monitored. In a tribal system, children without a kind of “tribal children” are taught to think as a tribe and not as critical individuals. How is the family destroyed? In reality, morality is first destroyed or, in any case, it is sought to propose a sort of "moral subjectivity" hand in hand with "social constructivism". The idea that everything social is a construct responds to the lack of socialist empiricism. Without empiricism, a coherent reading of reality is not necessary. And therefore we understand that morality is the result of a natural evolutionary process, as natural as the doctrine of survival of the fittest , by Charles Darwin. Morality has evolved as a process of cultural evolution at the service of
human natural evolution. The good is good not because someone got up one day and said that this was good, but because it has served our conservation as a species. Anthropophagy has always been frowned upon, generally speaking. If however there have been cannibals. In general lines, humans have felt empathy for other human beings and that is why they were not able to eat them, but cannibal tribes have dispensed with this limitation; however, cannibalism has not lasted throughout history. Everything that makes up our moral system is the result of a process of evolution. Morale is like a metal bar: it may be slightly ductile, but if it is bent too much it breaks. The moral system is not rigid, it is subject to constant change, but it cannot be twisted. The best example of this is premarital chastity. It is said that it is for a religious whim but the truth is that it is an evolutionary and functional question. Just 200 years ago. Mankind was hit by hunger almost if entirety. Having children without a job was a certainty of hunger. If people had given in to their libido when awake 66
in preadolescence , we would have had a horde of teenagers condemned to starvation. On the other hand, since there were no contraceptive methods, there was not only a risk of unwanted offspring but also of diseases that, until that moment, had no cure. Today we can see that the lack of premarital chastity is no longer frowned upon (except by religious extremists) because the moral system has evolved. Understanding this, we see that the family is attacked mainly by jeopardizing the classic family model. Two fathers and sons. Monogamy is attacked. There is talk of open relationships, free love, polyamory and many other things. Naturally, everyone is free to do what they want with their life, but why is monogamy advocated? Because it allows a functional family to society, as has already been raised. If they are not two people the whole system falls. Although it is said that "if the open relationship is agreed in advance there is no deception" that does not make this system less inappropriate. The importance of the relationship between two is that if they can be three they can be 4 or 10. There is no longer
the paradigm of the child that is due to the guidance of their parents. We return to that kind of son of the tribe! (Not to mention that seeking the child to identify not with his family but with a particular ideological group has been a recurrent fascist practice. In fact, the attack on education was condensed in the thought of the Italian ideologist Antonio Gramsci , who advised Benito Mussolini). This destruction of the family added to the indiscreet attack on language (without understanding that language is also an evolutionary process, it can change, as they propose, but only for the sake of its efficiency, not on a whim) are the ways they have to seek to demolish Western society as we know it. They feel uncomfortable with the system so they seek to break it without realizing that, even with its flaws, it is by far the best existing system.
68
The attack on our society is at a much more advanced stage than we think. It is time to start reacting.
Present Actuality ? How to generate improvements in the Public Sector. By Maria Emilce Eyherabide . This beautiful country in which we live has today, on its shoulders, the heaviest and most bureaucratic Public Sector. This situation generates excessive expenses, they prevent using that money in strategies to achieve a different Argentina. Today we are inserted in a world that changes at great speed, and according to Heraclitus "the only permanent thing is change", that is why I have thought about actions to carry out to generate improvements in the Public Sector, be it national, provincial or municipal and thus achieve a viable transformation in the sector. During the years worked in the private sector, and with the experience acquired, I propose for this project the possibility of using the same tools learned and applied in it. The bases of the same will be in: 70
Preparation of a Strategic Planning accompanied with Expense Budgets and their follow-up. The purpose is to put together strategies and action plans, jointly between the public and private sectors with the purpose of the common good, and to present the result obtained to the government of the day, for decision-making and actions accordingly. In said planning, the strategies to be followed and the objectives necessary to achieve them should be set. These goals should be clear, measurable, and challenging. In each objective you have to define: • Who is responsible for carrying it out • How you will do it • How much it will cost • How long it will take Annual control where the degree of fulfillment of each of the established objectives can be demonstrated, in order to set rewards and punishments to be applied. In short, if we achieve that this can be applied, we would surely be in the presence of
a mature and more efficient State, wanting to get ahead, and with the possibility that our Country begins to grow, and as a consequence of that growth, the level of life of each one of us. I feel an urgent need to try a change but I am convinced that I cannot alone, that it is necessary to work as a team, where values and respect for institutions are the main motto. It is a joint effort, it is the future of our children that is claiming it from us, it is the opportunity that is offered to us for them, feeling alive and participating in this transformation. How difficult it is to consider that we leave our children, when I look at mine and think that with God's help, in the best of cases, I could leave them with life values and a study as tools to face tomorrow, a house, or Perhaps a car, but what use would all this be to them in a bankrupt country, with so much impunity and a justice that acts under certain interests. Or is it that we are leaving you a passport to leave. Therefore I propose to you here and now, that we do not let this opportunity for 72
change escape us, God knocks on the door a few times, let's open it! Let us feel the joy of the attempt ! I invite you to join this project, I am sure it is worth it. Thanks … .. This article is within the "News" section of the magazine and has as part of its title the same word but between question marks "Current? ..... Do you know why ? ...... Because it was written more than fifteen years ago But …. WE ARE STILL ON TIME and this is the right time to go in the right direction . It is a joint effort, it is the future of our children that is demanding it from us, it is the opportunity that is offered to us for them, to feel alive and participate in this transformation.
The author is a National Public
Accountant.
74
Best hidrovía ... Higher exports l s By Jorge A. Isern From Republicanos Unidos Santa Fe we want to contribute our vision and proposal, about Hidrovía del Paraná, whose concession is on the end date. Their new hiring should be the pillar of Argentine growth and development, considering that it is their main route of exports, these being the fundamental activities for Argentines to overcome the level of decline and poverty in which we find ourselves immersed. The new management must be in charge of a private entity, subject to constitutional laws and regulations. Enabling a transparent tendering, contracting and awarding system. Never related to any partisan color. And sure of not being co-opted by bureaucracy, waste and corruption. Its objectives are to achieve the best navigability and transport conditions, the highest efficiency and the lowest operating
costs that promote exports through comprehensive improvements, increasing market competitiveness. Indispensable in the critical Argentine situation 2021. Its objectives are not to achieve prebendary conditions for people, producers, operators or other institutions that are related to its use. Its actions must be a sign of a republican and productive Argentina, attractive for investments, profitability, reinvestments and creation of productive jobs, giving strength to a socio-economic system of certainty and reliability. From a Federal perspective, our province of Santa Fe has a vital role in this development, not only because it has an 800km stretch of the waterway circuit but also because it is one of the most preponderant provinces in agro-business and with great industrial diversity. This channel gives us a strategic advantage in optimizing export costs, such as an opening to international markets, 76
facilitating access to inputs that our productive sector demands. The people and technical bodies of which we are part are at the disposal of those who require it, for the purpose of collaboration and achievement of the best result. JAI 18421
78
Humor . A Catholic priest argued with a Jewish rabbi about which was the best of their religions. - Once - said the priest - they called me for an extreme unction and it was pouring rain. I couldn't find my umbrella or my raincoat so I prayed and went out to the street to get wet, but My Lord was so great that he only made the rain fall around me and not a drop of water fell on me. That is so you can see that my religion is the true one. - Bahh - said the rabbi - mine was better, once I was walking down the street on a Saturday, when suddenly I saw a $ 100 bill on the sidewalk. How can we not touch money on that sacred day, I prayed to My Lord and a miracle happened, while everything around me was Saturday, where I was, it became Thursday and I was able to take the money ... ----------------------------------
Legend has it that in a meeting with the President of Switzerland, Cristina Kirchner presented to her Ministers: - This is the Minister of Social Welfare ... - This is the Minister of Education ... - This is the Secretary of Culture ... - This is the Minister of Justice and Security ... When it is the turn of the President of Switzerland, he indicates: - This is the Minister of Health ... - This is the Minister of the Navy ... Then C F K starts laughing ... - Excuse me, Mr. President, ha ha ha , ... why do you have a Minister of the Navy, if your country has no sea ...? The President of Switzerland replied: - You are excused, but bear in mind that when you introduced your ministers of Social 80
Welfare, Education and Justice and Security, I did not laugh ... ---------------------------------- And cúales were the last words of your uncle before he died in the river?
- "Don't worry son, there are no crocodiles here."
Riddles Would you like to see an assailant in action ? Be careful, they are strong images !!! " Solution in the end
82
Republicans United The party
Republicanos Unidos is a political party that aims to recover the ideas that made our country a power and position freedom again as the fundamental pillar for life in society, economic development and institutional quality. We believe that the key to reversing Argentina's decline is in respect for individual rights, equality before the law, private initiative and the right of each person to seek their own happiness.
What differentiates Republicans United from other parties? Internal democracy: the end of the sheet list is one of the fundamental commitments in the creation of Unidos. Any affiliate of the party who so wishes may be a candidate, starting from an internal election where the Single Transferable Vote (VUT) system will channel the opinions of the members and define those selected for the list and the order in which they will be located. The intolerable practice of “hand-picking” candidates for elective office is avoided. Openness: solid internal democracy guarantees the possibility that any citizen who shares the principles enshrined by the party can join. The intention is to help the ideological space never be divided into elections. The guarantees for those who wish to enter and participate in the internal elections will be the same as for those who already take part. The party will thus consolidate itself as a lasting institution, a tool for union and a guarantee of representativeness.
84
Antipersonalism : the internal division of powers from which the executive authorities of the party will not be able to run for elective positions guarantees that no personalism acquires a preponderant role, remaining as the central axis the ideas promoted by the party in its declaration of principles and its bases of political action. Innovation: attentive to technological advances and the context in which it arises, those of us who constitute Unidos are aware of the need to adopt technology in their daily operations, and for this we are dedicated to the development of a mobile application. This app will be the vehicle for affiliates to actively participate and decide in internal elections to define pre-candidates. Who is it? We are simply ordinary people of all ages, who work and study like any other, who enter politics from personal detachment , thinking that Argentina is being changed by a change in Society. We want for Argentina a change from the roots, and we decided to take the ideas of
freedom to the political field, to allow development and improve the quality of life. What do we want in politics? Our incorporation into the National Congress, the provincial legislatures and the deliberative councils in each municipality will give the space and the entire ideological sector an exponential boost. With a legislative presence, it will be possible to propose real turns in public policy, and give the ideas of freedom an unprecedented visibility and impact in recent years. We invite you to join this proposal. In the following link you can see all the information. https://unidosargentina.org/index.html Something new is needed.
------------------------------------------------A good test if you are interested in knowing your ideological preferences ; 86
https://www.testpolitico.com/ -------------------------------------------------
Republicans United Santa Fe C ontact Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Uni2-ArgentinaSanta-Fe-109998170725956 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/uni2 santafe/ To communicate by articles; WA +54 3492 520854 Facebok https://www.facebook.com/Miguel.A.Morra/
File I love freedom Videos of some articles The Conceptual Pandemic https://youtu.be/U3D89gge0sg The Parasite Concept https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiG4uG8 dDtc Brief introduction about Ayn Rand https://youtu.be/0LqdmSCFzVA La Moneda : The immense swindle to taxpaying citizens, by Argentine politicians https://youtu.be/onhkZZPCAB4 -----------------Podcast of some magazine articles:
88
https://anchor.fm/mam4
Link to read them in e- book https://issuu.com/uni2santafe To download them in pdf Click on the directory Magazines Archive https://drive.google.com/drive/folders /1VBjtldP6oqMyE2CvRwx9dP7y7YVMATCt?us p=sharing
90
Puzzle solution To see the Assailant in action …. Click HERE or on the following link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jn oSoNFzb1UGtjTlRPZ1p2TFU/view?usp=s haring -------------------------------------------------
