Tedenski izbor

branje0

Upam, da bo ob branju današnjega zapisa postalo jasno ne le, da je povsem zmotna teza o nezdružljivosti koncepta ekonomije delitve s tržnim gospodarstvom, ampak da v resnici šele v kombinaciji s tržnim sistemom ta koncept zares zacveti. In kot tak ponuja možnosti izjemnih razsežnosti.

(…)

Če se za konec spomnite na sestavine velike obogatitve, o kateri sem pisal prejšnjikrat (torej na motivacije, institucije in ideje), boste v sodobnem razmahu ekonomije delitve (in povezanega mikropodjetništva, ki nastaja še posebno pri aktivaciji pasivnega človeškega kapitala) na delu prepoznali vse tri elemente. Motivacije v obliki zaslužka (v nekaterih primerih pa pač le zadovoljstva, če je transakcija izvedena zastonj), neformalne institucije in nove oblike organiziranja, ki poenostavljajo in cenijo transakcije, ter ideje vse večjega števila ljudi, ki prepoznavamo in slavimo novi val souporabe kot vir delovnih mest, nove dodane vrednosti, okoljsko prijaznejše rabe sredstev in podobno. Seveda pa bitka za to etapo obogatitve človeštva še ni dobljena.

Ekonomija delitve: poslovni model za 21. stoletja – Rok Novak, Finance

***

Ideja politične accountability ni le heterogena, temveč tudi neskladna s socialističnim modelom vladanja, vsaj takšnim, kakršnega smo poznali v dvajsetem stoletju. Kajti katera oblast mora nenehno polagati račune? Katero oblast je treba nenehno nadzorovati, sumiti, katera oblast je vselej na pragu nelegitimnosti? Seveda, to je oblast, kot jo razume liberalna politična tradicija. Transparentna oblast, podvržena demokratičnemu nadzoru, oblast, ki mora nenehno odgovarjati tako strankarskemu članstvu kot tudi parlamentarni opoziciji, oblast, ki jo lahko v vsakem trenutku zamenja pretendentska vlada, je liberalna oblast. In zelo verjetno je, da ta oblast ni združljiva z gospodarskim in družbenim reformizmom, kot ga predlagajo mladi evropski socialisti. Projekti, kot so nacionalizacija in plansko gospodarstvo, zahtevajo, nasprotno, neproblematično vlado. Močna država, ki upravlja z velikimi državnimi korporacijami, država, ki načrtuje dolgotrajne socialne, gospodarske in infrastrukturne projekte, ne more biti osnovana na politiki, ki nenehno postavlja pod vprašaj samo razmerje vladanja. Bog najbolje ve, da je socializem dvomil o mnogo stvareh; a nikdar ni dvomil o vladanju.

Začetništvo in vrstništvo – Aljoša Kravanja, revija Razpotja

***

V ZDA je lani izšla knjiga, ki bi mogla ali morala zbuditi precej pozornosti. Da je ni, pove nekaj malega o znatnem trudu, ki je pri nas trajno na delu … izogniti se kočljivim dogodkom in osebam, zatisniti oči, speljati tok pripovedi z domačega praga. K pisanju torej sedam iz kljubovanja temu toku, iz spoštovanja do devetdesetletne gospe, ki je napisala knjigo War Changes Everything (Vojna vse spremeni), in iz spoštljivega spomina, ki ga zasluži njen oče, dr. Boris Furlan.

Bridki spomini Staše Furlan – Alenka Puhar, Časnik

***

Why is civil disagreement so hard? It cannot simply be a matter of dogmatic certainty. (…) There is the radical voluntarism upon which human identity is now predicated. Human beings are no longer complicated persons bound together by the deeper unity of an underlying common nature but merely aggregates of whatever opinions they happen to hold. Thus, those who hold even a single belief which the panjandrums of the culture find obnoxious are of necessity essentially defined by that, no matter how marginal it might actually be to their overall social existence and no matter how many other virtues they might embody. And we should note the role of social media in all of this: Disembodying debate, pushing clichés to the fore, reducing personal risk. It is so easy to demonize those with whom one disagrees when one does not have to look them in the eye or engage what they actually say.

In Praise of the Dying Art of Civil Disagreement – Carl R. Trueman, First Things

***

Not all marriages result in reproduction, just like not all businesses are profitable. But lots of features of family law and corporate law are based on the assumption of procreation and profit-making, respectively. Social conservatives can and should fight to preserve this definition of marriage, while conceding that same-sex married couples should have all the legal rights of straight couples.

(…)

If marriage isn’t about an ideal binding mothers and fathers to their children, some institution needs to be.

Given the numerical dominance of straight people, there is no inherent reason marriage can’t do what it has traditionally done for heterosexuals while government simultaneously gives marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But that becomes hard to do if the old view of marriage as being between a man and a woman is seen as morally equivalent to racism.

The path forward for social conservatives on gay marriage – W. James Antle III, The Week

***

What we have here is not the politics of autonomy, but the politics of identity. Where the politics of autonomy was about ejecting the state from gay people’s lives — whether it was Stonewall rioters kicking the cops out of their bars or Peter Tatchell demanding the dismantling of all laws forbidding homosexual acts — the politics of identity calls upon the state to intervene in gay people’s lives, and offer them its recognition, its approval. For much of the past 50 years, radical gay-rights activism was in essence about saying ‘We do not need the approval of the state to live how we choose’; now, in the explicit words of The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, it’s about seeking ‘the sanction of the state for our intimate relationships’. The rise of gay marriage over the past 10 years speaks, profoundly, to the diminution of the culture of autonomy, and its replacement by a far more nervous, insecure cultural outlook that continually requires lifestyle validation from external bodies.

The trouble with gay marriage – Brendan O’Neill, Spiked

***

The deeper reality is that the “Yes” victory in the Irish referendum changes nothing. O Ríordáin is right when he says that “marriage isn’t changing” because no law, not even one passed by a popular vote, can do that. (…)

At this juncture, probably the most that can be said for the Irish referendum is that, like the Supreme Court of Connecticut, it has exchanged the “second class” institution of civil union for the “second class” institution of same-sex marriage. Indeed, it is fanciful to believe that even the most convinced “Yes” voter can deny the simple biological difference between Jack and Jill and Jack and Joe. When the dust settles, and the impotence of the state to alter objective reality sinks in, it may be that the political masters of the Irish Republic will seek other means of enforcing their “right thinking” among the Irish people. And this will change everything.

On the Irish Referendum? No Big Deal – Michael D’Emic, Ethika Politika

***

Ruska propaganda vztrajno ponavlja, da v Ukrajini divja državljanska vojna. To mantro nerazumljivo povzemajo tudi v marsikaterih evropskih medijih, čeprav so stvari v bistvu dokaj jasne.

Ne, v Ukrajini ni državljanske vojne. To je vojna med Rusijo in Ukrajino na eni ter med Rusijo in Ameriko na drugi strani. To je torej vojna na dveh ravneh. Zakaj ni to notranji ukrajinski spopad? Ker v Ukrajini nikoli ni bilo političnega proruskega gibanja, ki bi se bojevalo proti vladi v Kijevu ali za to, da bi Ukrajina postala del ruske države. Proruskih strank ni niti v radi. Zato v Ukrajini ni državljanske vojne. Celo separatisti iz Donbasa so brez pravega političnega programa. Oni hočejo, da bi v njihovem imenu govoril sam Vladimir Putin. Zato tako vztrajajo, da v mirovnih pogajanjih s Kijevom sodeluje tudi Rusija.

Rusko orožje so skrivali po cerkvah v Donbasu – Branko Soban, intervju z Andrejem Kurkovom, Delo

***

Portraying the conflict among rival Orthodox churches in Ukraine as a war against the Ukrainian people has given rise to a movement that uses language redolent of that in texts like The Truth About Religion in Russia, where “schismatics” were those acting against the will of the state. The Kremlin, then and now, is hellbent on labeling Kiev as a haven for neo-Nazis and fascists.

Even Putin’s logic is similar to that of Stalin’s in the 1940s. Tying the church to a larger nationalist narrative allows Putin to shift the balance of power away from self-determinist movements. It makes it easier to bring “misbehaving” jurisdictions under one roof while bolstering the church’s credentials as protector of the greater Russian world’s heritage.

In the end, a little help from the church is crucial for any “mystical victory.”

Putin, Stalin, and the Church – Hannah Gais, First Things

***

Last night, in response to a reporter’s question, Putin offered his views on the revelation that the US will prosecute a number of current and former FIFA officers for corruption. As a commentary on the prosecutions, his thoughts were utterly wrong: he claimed that there were no US citizens involved in the case (there are several), and that the alleged crimes had nothing to do with the US or its territory (they did).

But as a commentary on Putin’s deepest, darkest fears about the United States, his response was quite illuminating. Putin believes the US uses its power covertly to interfere in foreign affairs, undermining unfriendly governments and then replacing them with more pliant leaders after they crumble. (…) But that’s the point: Putin’s fear of US aggression and interference is so deep that he sees it everywhere, regardless of whether that’s actually reasonable.

Putin’s bizarre FIFA comments reveal his greatest fear – Amanda Taub, Vox

***

I’m pleased that readers have demanded proof from me about my comments. Similar proof is not demanded from liberals who accuse Republicans of warring against women. I would ask several questions. Do Republicans include in this attack their mothers, wives and female children? What are the weapons Republicans use? Are failing to believe in late-term abortion and wanting to require parental knowledge and permission prior to a minor’s receiving birth control medication or an abortion tantamount to warring against women? Finally, are Republican women involved in the war against women?

Far more important for me in all of this is that liberals unintentionally treat me like a white person. Unlike their response to other blacks, they demand that I back up my statements. For that, I thank them.

Liberals respect me – Walter E. Williams, The New American

Advertisements

Prosimo, upoštevajte, da so komentarji namenjeni civizirani izmenjavi mnenj

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s