Paul,
This has nothing to do with rotary engine, but this could have some relation to
freedom, and thus freedom to fly an airplane.
Please, read my post, I don't ask for more.
I don't forget that is your own site of discussion and that you are the only one to
decide what is worth diffusing.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987
and my own comments
I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to
understand that if they have a problem, it's the
government's job to cope with it. “I have a problem, I'll get a grant.” “I'm
homeless, the government must house me.” They're
casting their problem on society.
Up to this point I have absolutely nothing to object.
And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women,
and there are families.
This is the key point and a typical individualist type of opinion : Is an airplane
only a bunch of spare parts? How can pure
individuals be concerned by their own country in any other way than the
consumer one? How explaning (as well as lots of
similar feelings) Patriotism?
To my sense There are such things as society, and without those things mankind
probably wouldn't have gone through the
terrible adventures as ice age or the great compression. And without those
things mankind will probably not survive the
difficulties to come.
And no government can do anything except through people...
True! And this is why governing is so difficult... Taking good decision is quite
easy, enforcing them means finding a way to
make the people accept them, and that is the real challenge. This is known for
ages, but no one has ever found the perfect
way to do it.
..., and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our
neighbour.
Again, I have nothing to object to that.
People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations.
True ! But it is so easy for politicians to lie to the people... and for
the (uneducated) people to believe tempting
promises... And when the people finally understands that most of the politicians
are liars, democracies face a terrible
problem : Even when a candidate is saying the truth, a majority of people don't
believe him (or her), the abstention rate is
high, and when people cast its vote, it is not to elect the best candidate, but
to repel the worst candidate (at least to
repel the candidate perceived as the worst). In any case there is no more large
popular adhesion to a policy, and thus almost
no way to enforce it.
There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.
True again! The political structure of the midle age that lasts 1000 years (not bad
compared to other systems!) was based on
the close linking of entitlement and obligation. On top of this equilibrium
between entitlement and obligation, this system
gave anybody (even the rather badly considered persons) its place in the society.
Example #1 : To the executioner had to wear red clothes, but to its charge
(that did contribute to cities and markets
safety), did correspond the right to take without paying anything once and only with
one hand from any market stall.
Exemple #2 : In Paris (13th century) the prostitutes were given the right to
make their business only in the streets
perpendicular and ending to the river Seine and, in case of fire, they had the
obligation to carry water.
In other words "there is no free lunch". But the word "obligation" means
restriction of freedom. And Several choices are
possible :
If freedom is valued above all, it is fair to say that there is no entitelment to
get from the government. As this freedom
is the bes environment for business to develop, it is obvious that living
capitalism shall push to this sort of
government. (No obligation and No entitlement)
But if a crisis lasts a little longer than it should, if structural reasons
(lack of natural resources, overpopulation,
concurrence of poor country workforce) seem to impede business and wealth
production, (poor) people may think that minimum
ressouces from the state are worth some reduction of freedom. (For instance, what
is the right to travel the world and the
seven seas worth to the one who don't have the money to pay a passport fee or even a
bus ticket?)
Communism is the opposite of capitalism in the way that it correspond
to the opposite solution of the equation
(Entitlement and Obligations).
History teach us that this solution either doesn't work at all if enforced by
violence, or works as long as the population
accepts it. (Israel kibbutz did work well with the fist generation)
But there is a third inconsistent and catastrophic possibility : Populism.
(Entitlements...)
Populism is the easiest way for the long lasting liar polititian.
Promissing entitlements and never talking of
obligations; Living on money inflation and increasing debt; Buying votes of the
poor by feeding them;
This is sustainable as long as the government can live on wealth produced at very
low costs, (by slaves in the Roman Empire,
or by poor people in the colonies, by selling natural ressources like oil in
Venezuela or USSR, one billion of economic
slaves in China, or... if the money of the country is the unique international
reference i.e. if the value of the debt is
payed by the rest of the world's labor).
But as soon as this source of wealth is dry (second century AD, all slaves in the
roman empire become (poor) citizens, and
then "clients" -people paid for their votes by wealthy senators ; middle of
20th century, European countries lose their
colonies ; End of 20th century th Euro and the Yuan become comparison values to the
US$ ; today the cost of china's workforce
is increasing just because the people compares its way of life with what he sees
on TV ) there is a big problem that the
population is not prepared to face. It took 2 centuries to the roman empire to
collapse, 25-30 years to Europe to face a very
high structural unemployment rate...
When the situation becomes bad, the usual answer of Populist polititians to their
problem is to point an enemy (USA for the
USSR) or Chechnya for Russia... and blame it for all the problems. Of course that
can degenerate into a war, but at least,
that starts economy again and justifies hard times. With good speeches, the
politician can become the hero of his country, the
"great skipper" or the "little father of the people" !
Finally, I would conclude that the present president of the USA is not a
communist, but more merely a Populist. The people
that voted for him is not so dumb that you suppose. They know that there is no
free lunch. In fact (like the French when
elected their present president) they did not vote for a candidate, but against the
other one because they believed that the
one they rejected would bring them the inevitable hard times sooner than the other...
Philippe Dejean
In France
I think he is a communist.
http://cba3.com/
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
You Tube key word PaulLamar2
Copyright 1998-2012 All world wide rights reserved.