Daily Archives: 21 November 2019

Sovereignty and Economics

Posted on by
Reply

The member nations of the European Union, and particularly of the euro monetary union subset of the EU, may have surrendered too much sovereignty to the EU.  The European Commission, the Executive Branch of EU governance, has decided that

eight European Union member states risk breaching the bloc’s tough fiscal rules next year by missing their debt and deficit reduction targets.

On the other hand, the EC has decided that other nations are not spending enough.

…the Commission is encouraging countries with strong finances, particularly Germany and the Netherlands, to spend more to help the eurozone economy. Both countries have been under pressure to boost spending to stimulate growth across Europe….

Because nations with economically sound budgets, governments whose men have developed and maintained those sound budgets, are not bound by their own people’s imperatives, they’re not bound by their own nation’s welfare first. No, these governments must spend their citizens’ weal propping up nations that are missing their debt and deficit reduction targets.

Even though those nations that are missing those targets are doing so deliberately and as results of carefully thought-out national economic policies. Fiscally sound nations are responsible for—and to—fiscally unsound nations, not to their own nations.

This is important because the nations of Europe are unique from each other in their cultures, their views of the role of government in men’s lives, even in their views of the purpose of money.  There can never be balance within such disparity.

This One Europe Government ideology is a vanguard of the One World Government ideology that would sacrifice all national sovereignty, that would carve all nations so as to fit one ideology’s Procrustean Bed.

A Thought on Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Stanley Fish, Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law, thinks that when Seton Hall “disinvited” him from speaking there he wasn’t being censored.

Fish’s headline, I Wasn’t Censored When I Was Disinvited, led off his claim. Then he contradicted himself with the opening sentence of his second paragraph:

My ideas were judged unworthy of being heard.

This is precisely what censorship is. Here is a legal definition of censorship:

The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.

Here’s a “civilian” definition of censor:

To examine and expurgate.

Near the end of his piece, Fish had this:

I have no right to speak at Seton Hall….

That’s a strawman argument. No one claiming he had a right to speak or that such a right was being blocked.  Moreover, there’s nothing in either of those definitions about blocking a right to speak; censorship in the Seton Hall case was the blocking of speech itself, and the censors were precisely those managers of the school and the school’s pupils.

This is an example of how far left the Left has pushed what is permissible speech and how meekly folks who should know better have acquiesced in that push.