Humanity and pseudo-humanists

It is quite a modern and widespread demagoguery - it will point to the elderly, families with young children or the sick and say something like: "it is right to help them," and therefore the state should support them. Supposedly because it's "humane and right."

The year 2009 and the CSSD campaign with the slogan: "It is right ..."
The year 2009 and the CSSD campaign with the slogan: "It is right ..."

Is it really humane and right?

Principles of humanism

For something to be humane, it must not logically be in conflict with the principles of humanity. Well, what are the principles of humanity?

They are simple: each person is unique and at the same time the same. Unique in his will, personality and form, the same in that he is human.

Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate against anyone because of their race or gender, but at the same time we cannot prohibit others from practicing discrimination.

"What is the benefit of a man who gains the whole world but loses or thwarts himself?"

- The Gospel of Luke

What good is everything we have and what we have achieved when we are dead? Useless. So human life has infinite value. However, we cannot forbid anyone to kill themselves if they so choose voluntarily. But we can persuade him not to do that.

In order to be able to treat this most precious thing — life — as best as possible, one needs freedom. Only a free decision is a voluntary decision, when the individual wants to achieve a better (subjective) state than he is in.

Humanism thus de facto rejects any violence. Violence is a disruption of voluntary, free life and decision-making. Because each person is unique, everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, to strive to achieve the goals they choose by the means they choose voluntarily. He has the right to evaluate on the basis of his opinions and does not have to (but can) take into account the opinions of others. He has the right to do as one sees fit. However, everyone also has the right to defend themselves against perceived violence and restrictions on power. An individual can defend against violence from someone else, others can defend against violence from an individual.

Everyone (whether they want to or not) will sooner or later face the effects of their actions. Responsibility is thus one of the pillars of humanism. A responsible person is also "humane."

Humanity is voluntariness!

Helping the weaker, the poorer and the more vulnerable is certainly respectable and humane, if it is a voluntary decision.

If a person claims to decide on your property without your voluntary consent, it is a robbery. Robbery is violence - it is an attempt to decide our past life, because our present property is the result of our actions (living) sometime in the past. And of course: even "a while ago" is a thing of the past.

The system of various social benefits is a system of "subsidies for people" - it is a robbery. Someone will take your money without asking you and decide on it for you. It is violence against your past. It doesn't matter how the robbery is defended. It's still a robbery. We can close our eyes on her - thanks to her defense - and tolerate her voluntarily. Considering it right that you want it to be so.

However, each human being is a unique creature - it is highly inhumane to say that "if I don't mind, it mustn't bother you either!" You have no right to speak for others unless the "others" - a certain group of people - have given you this right.

The fact that you want to pay contributions to the system of state social subsidies does not justify this system, if the state forces those who do not want to pay into this system to pay. It is not about helping the weak and helpless, but about using them for "political purposes." The weak and the sick are becoming the walking billboard of political parties.

False prophets

There is nothing respectable, humane and right, because robbery is not respectable, humane and right. Those who subscribe to humanism and support (proclaim) these redistributive practices are false prophets, pseudo-humanists. He claims that something humane is that is completely contrary to the principles of humanism.

The state social system is inhumane. It is not right to rob other people.

0 comments

  1. To clarify the constitution on the example. Many people opposed the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding possible participation in health care. They are right, yet the second truth is that even a constitutional article cannot bind so closely. Simply because it's about the state of the state. If it has nothing to do, even the constitutional wording will not help you. Therefore, the decision of the Constitutional Court is in perfect order. It is always the interpretation, both in the law and in the constitution. Make no mistake, every word in that constitution has some meaning and even what is not written there. The ergo hammer cannot be searched in it purposefully as VK and you do. VK thus found himself outside the constitution with that condition at the LS, as he managed to bypass the parliament. Nowhere is it written in the constitution, yet it is the constitution of parliamentary democracy, where the sovereign is the parliament, not the president, who has only purposefully expanded his powers and become a political player at the level of the parliament he is not.

  2. I don't even intend to respect that. Violence is when someone forces you out of democratic procedures. Dot.
    Then you can interpret anything else, in fact you are an anarchist. That would look like - one won't recognize the census, that one won't recognize this law, that one won't accept this - so where do you think you'll be in anarchy?
    Where do I get that assurance? Well, in those democratic practices. Nowhere have you written that democratically, something wrong cannot be accepted. But only in that democracy do you have the opportunity to change it for the better. What is unclear to you?
    So throw in a different way of taking interest, I'll be happy to learn.
    Your other questions are just a manifestation of absolute displeasure with the law, what it is, why it is and what it is for. Again, the same goes for the basics - as with Luke. Penetrate a little more into other disciplines or at least on the same level as in that economy and the dolls will start to open up to more realistic dimensions.
    How and why to argue with you about the law - when you oppose it so beautifully in its own way, and how you swim in the constitution, it is already surprising. Although not, it is only logical and proportionate to your idea of ​​law and the constitution.
    In the last separate supplement, you are already swimming in it like no other. do individual professions really not require other legal provisions - regulations? Do you really need a limited liability company as a company or a natural person? On the one hand, you are looking for a universe where it is not, and on the other hand, you would need details, whether in the constitution or in the law, that you simply cannot get there. Everywhere you need a certain amount of what you want to limit yourself to. it's like disputes over the status of sole proprietors, employees and entrepreneurs - something in common is something by chance. As you break that peace, you are going in the wrong direction. This is simply true for any area. And the law is not a priori here in the search for justice, however desirable it may be in that direction. It does not guarantee it in itself. It is here primarily for legal certainty - it is a bit different than justice itself. Although it may not be in conflict.

  3. Still to explain. A group cannot have rights as an entity. Only an individual can be a holder of fundamental rights. He can delegate these rights to the group. But only the rights that the individual actually has. You cannot delegate to anyone rights that I do not have. And none of us really has the right to sanction anyone who decides not to help someone and others do.

  4. All right, let's put aside who's confused. First of all, I am by no means an anarchist. I consider anarchy to be an absolutely inconsistent system internally for the simple reason that it does not recognize any violence. And violence, Mr. Spata, will always remain violence. Applying a sanction for not following some rules is simply an act of violence, whether you like it or not. And I never said "no violence"! Please respect that.

    I never said the rules didn't have to be followed. Otherwise, they would not be rules and there would be no need to mention them.

    The question is, WHAT RULES ????????
    From what do they derive, who determines them?

    Where, "to hell", do you get the certainty that giving up part of your product under penalty, and therefore involuntarily, is some kind of democratic consensus?

    Did you agree on that? And with whom, may I ask?

    You just ignore the law of identity. Things are what they are and not something else.

    How can you deny an individual the right to freely decide who to help and who not? What about those who have a different opinion than you and want to fulfill their need to help others in other ways?

    The state is, and cannot be, anything other than the institution of violence against someone. Take it as you wish, this fact simply cannot be escaped. Violence is simply violence, of whatever kind.

    The crucial question is whether there is any justifiable violence and why and how to apply it?

    Yes, there is. It is violence that must not be applied first. Neither an individual, nor a group, nor a state. It is a defensive violence that only responds to the initiation of violence by someone first. Is it that hard to understand?

    Just look at our (and not only our) constitution and especially the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which is part of our legal order:

    "People are free and equal in dignity and rights. Fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, inalienable, inalienable and irrevocable. ", Title One, Article 1.

    The obligation to pay social insurance follows from Act No. 589/92 Coll. on social security. The whole Charter is also full of appendices concerning the restrictions on "inalienable, inalienable, non-expiring and inalienable" fundamental rights.

    If "fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, inalienable, inalienable and irrevocable", then it is necessary to clearly define which they are and it is then not possible to bend them further and modify them by other laws. And what are the rights?

    *****

    "Everyone has the right to life.", Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Charter.

    "Personal liberty is guaranteed.", Article 8, paragraph (1) of the Charter (would the right to free choice?).

    "Everyone has the right to own property.", Article 11, paragraph (1).

    *****

    Everything else is superfluous and not by chance.

    The key is the declaration that "Everyone is entitled to have rights.", Article 5 of the Charter.

    According to the legal interpretation, this means that a natural person (individuality, individual) has the same eligibility for rights as a legal person (group).

    According to § 21 of the Civil Code, the state is also a legal entity if it is a participant in civil law relations.

    And here we are.

    “The people are the source of all state power; it exercises it through the bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power. ”, Constitution of the Czech Republic, Article 2, para

    Really?

    When a natural and legal person is placed on an equal footing, there can be no question of "inalienable, inalienable, non-expiring and inalienable" fundamental human rights.

    It is a contradiction that seems appealing on the outside, but in essence it is inconsistent nonsense in the sum of all that legal ballast.

    It means that a group is more than an individual. That the views and needs of groups can be imposed on individuals by law.

    It is a pernicious collectivism that seeks to destroy philosophy as such.

    And this only has in common with the economy that certain groups seek to gain undue advantages at the expense of other groups and individuals.

  5. Pavel Pátek
    To those rules and laws even differently. He finds himself in the same problem. After all, the law is not able to record in those laws or the constitution every possible act of an individual person. This is most noticeable in the EC towards the constitution. It is always about economists' disgusting spirit of law or constitution. Lawyers are able to shrink another on the basis of the superiority of their profession and in those laws - only on the basis that they did not understand it and generalize it too much.
    Individual professions must be able to listen and respect each other, then you can move towards the generally beneficial administration of that state - even so, it will never be perfect. Which is another myth that too many people face, not all.

  6. Pavel Pátek
    But go. That you see some confusion in me does not mean that this is the case. The opposite is true. Of course, those rules and laws will always generalize to a certain extent and not everywhere. But they will certainly not be a universe, as I understand it. If only one law was enough - universal, which I really do not find possible.
    If no one has the right to force someone to do something - then you are an anarchist as if he were embroidering. That right and those holt rules will all force something to do, by the will of the majority of the democratic.
    After all, violence is not the same as sanctions.
    No individual forces you to help another, but the office of the democratic majority of society.
    No less the state? I would like to see your idea of ​​the state on paper.
    Visit Ivo Vašíček's blogs - brilliant reflections with the position that the state is the same as a company, brilliant karma. He tried his idea of ​​the state and everything turned out to be in full nudity. Try to find the blog, it should not be difficult.
    To the essence again - your and the author's point of view, as with Mr. Vašíček's, is seemingly based on racio. It is not just supported by one field and remains captive to the possibilities of that field. Moreover, it is based only on something in that field of economics. Nothing more, nothing less.

  7. Another answer to your last question "Where on earth do you see any obligation to help under the threat of violence?"

    Like you and others, I am obliged to give up a certain part of the values ​​I have created for the benefit of someone I do not know at all. I am OBLIGATORY, which means that if I do not do so, I will be charged with breaking the law and subsequently punished. This, of course, is violence. And it is irrational violence. Why do I think that?

    Helping others does not follow at all from some "universal" rule of how you put me in your mouth. It follows from the mere fact that the one I want to help represents some value to me (in a relatively very complex sense). I consider what value this or that represents for me and whether it deserves my help. It logically follows that my decision-making will be primarily guided by the effort to help those closest to them, ie their family, relatives, closest neighbors, etc.

    There is no universal rule of duty to help. The will to help can only spring from my knowledge of the system of values ​​that is formed within my life. It is I who exclusively own the values ​​I have created, and only I can decide with whom I will share these values ​​and with whom I will not. Because if I cut myself, I can't help the whole world, so I don't want to.

    No one (no individual) has the right to force anyone to help, much less the state. I am not saying that any pooling of resources to help others in need is bad in nature. However, everyone can only contribute voluntarily and not out of coercion.

    It is all about the rational ("right") role of the state as a collective (not collectivist) institute of violence.

    I dare say that any attempt at an activist (providing) role for the state is irrational. The only rational justification for the existence of the state in this sense is the passive role, that is, the protective role of fundamental (natural) human rights.

    It's still about the same thing - individualism versus collectivism.

  8. Mr. Spat, don't be angry, but you obviously have confusion in your terms. You say, "You can't look here, and not just some universal principles."
    And right away you talk about some rules, regulations and laws.

    How, in your opinion, do these rules, regulations and laws arise, where are they taken? And what does the term "universal" actually mean?

    You probably assume that "universal" is something absolute, unchanging, timeless, and therefore completely outside the human will. Attention, this is very thin ice!

    Do not put anything in your mouth that they have never said. The essence and meaning of knowledge is not the search for some universal and absolute truth. Cognition is the result of the constant free activity of human consciousness. The object of knowledge is reality, which is what it is and there is nothing that is not. The sensory (non-free) perception of reality and subsequently the (free) process of integration of perceived reality, or existents and their causal relationships, create conceptual structures that are the basis for any value systems. By knowing reality, while respecting the law of identity (existents are simply what they are), simply "self-conscious" consciousness concludes that living in accordance with this knowledge is rational and vice versa. The fact that a person does not live alone, simply from the very beginning of his life, is again the result of a constant process of cognition. So the question is: if I recognize that my rational behavior (ie, living in accordance with knowledge) is a prerequisite for the survival and benefit of myself, what rules should I follow in order for that rational action to be fulfilled and goals to be achieved?

    Only by knowing that such rules can be found, the observance of which will lead to a state in which no one will be prevented from living rationally, that is, in accordance with knowledge, can rational coexistence in society take place.

    That is, by knowledge, not by pre-existing "universal" law or rule.

    On the other hand, no one can be prevented from making his actions irrational, ie. not in accordance with his knowledge. The ability to act rationally and irrationally is given by the essence of human consciousness, which is "self-conscious" and free. The only problem arises when the irrational action of one results in the impossibility of the rational action of the other. And so there is a need to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual.

    Every individual is as he is. Every society of individuals is as it is. Every nation, humanity as such is what it is.

    History and our daily lives teach us that living rationally, that is, in accordance with knowledge, brings benefits and good. On the contrary, irrational action breeds destruction and therefore evil. There is nothing absolutely universal about it, it's just the way it is.

    The fact that every life ends in death does not change anything, because death is a natural part of life. The flower grows, its flowers develop and fascinate the world with its beauty. Then they wither, dry up and perish. They will become a humus to support later life.

    It is rational to let the flowers bloom and show their beauty. To prevent this in any way is the pinnacle of irrationality.

  9. Pavel Pátek
    Still to you. Where on earth do you see any obligation to help under the threat of violence?

  10. Roman
    Yes, economics describes people's behavior, but exclusively and only that which it is able to grasp on its own - that is Lukáš's BENEFIT.
    You can't run a good company well just in the economy. If this were the case, other fields or disciplines simply did not have to exist. Likewise, there would not even be two concepts for the same thing - politics and economics.
    You have described it nicely by influencing the knowledge of one field by another, or the need of both to better grasp something specific. Interdisciplinary approach. Yes, and it's not really about anything else. A real and acceptable liberal does not get rid of that interdisciplinary view, an ideologically conceived liberal measures everything and adapts only to the economy. This is wrong because economics is a social science with all the things and the consequences that come with it. Even in economics itself, there may not be a single truth as in mathematics. And economics does not provide answers to new things given by developments that it has not yet been able to describe.

  11. Pavel Pátek
    Be it. Although it is possible to react in two directions. In the complex and in detail. In that detail. You ask that cardinal question universally - wrongly, that's why you answer wrongly. You can't look here and not just some universal principles. And not only you are looking for them here. In the event of an accident, human life is and is immediately endangered, which is why the obligation is enshrined in law as an obligation with a sanction as a social agreement of a rule, regulation, law. The same applies to the social agreement provided by the Constitution regarding social assistance and the organization of health care. Unlike that accident, you do not have an absolute determination here, but you have freedom to an extent that, however, cannot deny that solidarity completely.
    Not only does your mistake stem from seeking and finding some universality where it is not. Moreover, it is a matter of voluntariness - both were and are given in those rules completely democratically through democracy. Again, you can remove it from those rules by majority and within democracy. And it is true that if you take it away, you will not only return in the development of humanity, but of course you will also change the quality of democracy in a negative way. Surprisingly, for myself as well.

  12. * I came up with a more appropriate definition: "little ability to morally deal with things that have an ANONYMOUS owner"

    because there is certainly a subjective difference between property jointly owned by friends, neighbors or family and property of the abstract mass - municipality, state, EU
    we may not like it, but it is a completely natural feature when the shirt is closer than the coat…
    Certainly society should lead its members to moral conduct even towards anonymous property, but it IS IRREPONSIBLE (AMORAL) TO Rely ON THE COMPANY TO CONSIST OF THE "WORLDS"
    therefore, the less anonymous property the less opportunities for immoral phenomena

  13. @Jan
    Choice is simply a choice. Taking a choice as an option is not a revaluation.
    In the second paragraph, you are talking about something that liberalism does not claim. Nobody says give me back the money I gave you for bread. Where did you find out?
    The third paragraph. I guess I understand. You confuse freedom with some state of independence and self-sufficiency. That is why you claim that a person living in society cannot be independent and therefore not free. But this is a mistake. One has the freedom to choose from the given options the one which, in his opinion, satisfies the most of his wishes. Not a word was said about any independence or self-sufficiency. One simply exchanges with others what one has to get what one wants. Freedom lies in the fact that no one can force him against his will.
    Health has the value that each individual attaches to it. For some, health is more valuable than the enjoyment of smoking, so they do not smoke. Another has the opposite. But health is something other than health as a service. Of course, the cost of health care can be quantified and someone has to pay for it. To this end, the economy says that it is not possible to determine whether these costs are spent efficiently when its price cannot be freely determined according to supply and demand. But I've taken a turn.
    In the last paragraph, you speak almost like a liberal 😉 Yes, this can be beneficial for the state, and the morale of the deputy can be properly "motivated" by small improvements, as we often witness. Therefore, the more control I have over which school I send my child to, the better. And here I am, when I pay for school myself, otherwise someone can always outvote me. Do you have a cigarette vending machine here? I'm sorry, but they don't have it at that school. I'll sign the baby over there. If you have something to do with sociology, you certainly know research that shows that the higher a person is on the ladder of power, the easier he loses moral restraints. He feels that he is above the law and that he himself has become the law. For me, just another argument that the fewer things the state decides on, the better.
    Otherwise, smoking is only economically advantageous for the tobacco industry. For employers in general, it may not be very advantageous and could benefit a non-smoker (where I work, it is), for a person it is not very advantageous (it costs money and doctors in a free society would also cost something). It is immediately clear that even without state protection, smoking would have enough opposition.

  14. re jan: I see that you overtook me and in the end it's more of a misunderstanding

    however, you yourself have tasted the big topic of liberalism - public projects, by depriving their clients of freedom of choice, they become to some extent a source of moral hazard (because morality is also a function of freedom of choice), there is a risk of irresponsible (amoral) behavior causes and consequences

    the more complex the system (and our economic system is complex despite the generous help of computers), the greater the risk of feedback failure
    it can be said that "joint ownership" is harmful to people for this incompatibility, for this small ability to deal morally with things that do not belong to me personally

    with the human "material" we have available today is the promotion of private property (with a minimum of exceptions) the least evil

    the only permanent source of moral society is education, the interventions of politicians (if they are moral themselves) are only a crutch, conditioned by time (homeless, disabled, pensioner will certainly starve faster than you raise a person who takes them voluntarily)
    after all, this does not apply retrospectively, when there are no moral people (and moral politicians) in society, the care of the needy will be promptly removed from the state budget (see eugenic laws of the Third Reich, or today's debate between private hospices and euthanasia from in the hands of a state doctor - a stormy discussion in the west, it awaits us too)

  15. re Jan: so explain to us your determinism 🙂 (which in earthly conditions does not even exist due to the quantum nature of events), there is only one determinism - backward, ie. that everything has some beginning, then ontological determinism is possible, it applies to a possible entity NAD / MIMO world (but it does not belong here)

    the same conditions do not necessarily bring the same results, the more complex conditions (and perhaps you do not doubt the complexity of the human mind) the less chance of repetition, so it is unthinkable today to do science without complex statistical tools

    this is exactly what the human will is about - you are not free to choose to become an astronaut, but you always choose from several options at any given moment - I eat lunch with X cutlery, a tick in the questionnaire and X b X c,
    it's like throwing dice, just a dice is not a piece of plastic, but your will and very often you can choose what fits

    even the rejection of a choice is a choice, and only the freedom of choice carries with it responsibility (however you see it), it is one of the basic elements of our legal system
    without freedom of choice, it makes no sense to talk about people, leaving only your "society" and its various parts to individuals

    in fact, it is exactly the opposite - society is an abstract sum at the core of free human beings

    PS: it is unbelievable how far postmodern decadence has progressed, because freedom (not only) of the human will is a thing that has been mentioned in the oldest parts of the book of genesis (> 4000 years)
    look at Muslims as they have a problem with fatalism (true, not stemming from determinism but from the opposite - from the absolutist arbitrariness of Allah, which may disregard any natural laws today and every day) and insufficient faith in freedom of choice

  16. Yes, you are right, the choice is an intersubjective feeling. I wrote not to overestimate it, which liberalism does. It arises in response to the situation of the time and can do nothing else. I would not say that I had a distorted idea.

    He doesn't have to nod at every stupidity, but we're getting completely different. So you can see for yourself that without the others, the individual would be recorded - that is, he is part of society and participates in moving it forward. When you share this belief with Smith, where did the initial contradiction come from? The individual takes care of his well-being and thus inadvertently moves the whole society. There are certain opportunities that he gains and at the same time some that he loses (while he gains more than he loses -> advantage). The immorality of this egoism comes when he wants to regain the opportunities he has lost on top of those he has gained. He wants back the money he gave for the bread, but refuses to return the bread.

    And an individual in society has largely given up freedom and cannot want it back. It just doesn't work anymore. The fact that money is often spent badly is a fact that cannot be contradicted. But we have to talk about it specifically, I certainly agree with you that certain projects are meaningless. They lack economics. Economic projects, however, often lack moral correctness. And, in my opinion, Mr Špáta rightly states that economics cannot fit everything - not even in the broader sense of economics. Because you can't measure the disproportionate, you can quantify health in money.

    It is amazing for the state when people smoke a lot, because they get taxes and the citizen dies soon and he will not have to pay his pension. So how about introducing cigarette vending machines in schools? From an economic point of view perfect, from a moral - humanistic inadmissible reasoning. And here also comes the phenomenon of choice - sociology says that a person confronted with smokers on a daily basis will be more prone to smoking (I will easily divorce this on request), the probability of addiction will simply increase. Well, you're a lawmaker who will let smoke machines into schools. Economic reasoning tells you it's great for you. A moral code should stop you.

  17. I don't know why you're upset right now for a little digging. Calling it an "attack" indicates that you have probably never known a real attack in your life.

    To the point. Spata: I don't really understand the cry about the Jehovists. Are they the ones who refuse to accept blood and prefer to die or let their children die? What do I have in common with them, who, on the other hand, go to donate (= of their own free will, voluntarily and for free) blood so that anyone, for example you, can get it in case of danger to life? Do you understand the difference? Jehovah wastes their lives (by themselves and their loved ones), and blood donors save lives (mostly strangers).

    Jan: I don't know if it makes sense to explain your attitudes to a person who claims that I do not belong to myself, but to a kind of society. I thought something similar at the age of fifteen when I admired Adi with his mustache. I have no wealth thanks to society. Perhaps only redistributors of foreign money in public administration and recipients of social benefits with Mercedes and gold chains, who have never touched work in their lives, have that. And some recipients of so-called humanitarian aid in developing (= euphemism for backward) countries. I do not belong to any of these groups.
    Thanks to the company, I also don't have any social status, without my own diligence I would have had the status of a sidewalk sweeper.

    Does principledness seem childish to you? Well, you see, it seems pathetic to me to obediently bend my back before the fabrications of the official-political mafia. Keeping up and running is the behavior of certain herd animals.
    I'm not sure if attitudes can be explained at all, because it's something I've come to (and can evolve) based on life experiences, sometimes hard enough. And it's unlikely that you, who, in your own words, have gained wealth and status through society, would understand them. Perhaps just three of the many principles in words:
    - let everyone do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others
    - who does not work, let him not eat (meaning he does not eat from foreign money, of course with reasonable exceptions)
    - I don't believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye

    Briefly about the specific things:
    addition - my position is exactly described in the article on Eva Pallotto's blog

    elections - it is perhaps clear, can you imagine compulsory elections in a situation where you do not identify with any of the candidate parties? Even in the local elections, I have a problem choosing a reasonable one, while there are dozens of parties. What about the US pattern system, where there are two sides, moreover with the same puppeteers behind the curtain.

    blood donation - here I will ask you. If you are not a donor, what would you do if donated blood could save your life? Would you accept her? And how would you argue that you take but don't give yourself? What if everyone like you were where the blood needed to be taken to hospitals?
    I'll just add that in that case, I would feel like a whore. But that's my childhood principles. Someone with other attitudes may not have a problem with that.
    PS: I don't even consider this an attack, just a small dig at the end.

  18. @ A. Špáta: Economics simply describes people's actions. It describes the principles on which this action is based. This does not take precedence over any other field. On the other hand, other fields (such as law) should respect the conclusions reached by the economy. Similarly, physics is not above biology, but physicists know how bat sonar works.
    If a politician or lawyer ignores the results of economics when making rules, then it is not surprising that the rules do not work well. In this sense, politics is influenced by the actions of the people, and therefore by the economy. I don't think it can be better seen in our current politics. If a science deals with human behavior, its conclusions cannot be ignored in all areas in which human behavior occurs. Your mistake is that you limit the scope of the economy to the area of ​​monetary affairs, trade, etc.

    @Jan: You have a misconception about liberalism. A liberal has no problem cooperating with anyone if the cooperation is mutually beneficial. He knows that without working with others and without meeting the needs of others, he cannot think of satisfying his own needs. He may be grateful to whoever he wants or may not, but that doesn't change the fact that without the others he would be recorded. That was already written by Adam Smith. The question, however, is whether it must nod to every stupidity the government devises, whether it must support those who do not want to work from its earnings, and to what extent, whether it must support projects on which someone other than it earns, etc.
    There are never the same conditions in the universe and you never know all the variables. You make your choices, no one else. You are influenced by your psychology, the socio-cultural background of your upbringing and other circumstances, however you have a choice to the extent and you are responsible for this choice. You may think that your choice was predetermined, but it has no practical meaning, because you perceive the choice as a choice, otherwise the word would not exist in your dictionary at all - whether you oppose it or not.

  19. Mr. Spata,

    I don't want to crash what you and some others write here at all. But no matter how much I look for in an article, I can't find anything to suggest that holding an opinion in an article should logically imply, as a result of acting on that view, not providing help to others in need or endangering life. This whole discussion went in a completely different direction than the article deserved.

    The problem is not whether to help or not! The question is asked differently: Is it moral and ethical for anyone under the threat of any kind of violence to be forced to help?

    The answer, in my view, is NOT. The author used the term "humane" and I'm not sure if this term is entirely appropriate. That is why I use it moral and ethical. And certainly, these concepts are not economic concepts at all, but philosophical ones.

    You write yourself that nothing is given for you. In your opinion, what has a "head and heel" is correct. Nothing against it, but then your claims don't have a head and a heel. Obviously, you always come out of the middle. For something to have a head and a heel, it must always be the result of deduction or induction, and this consequence must also be reducible back to the very beginning. Only then is "something" at least consistent. But if nothing is "given" at all, one cannot come to anything other than any (arbitrary) statement that cannot be discussed, and therefore it makes no sense to deal with it.

    Once again, some time ago, we had an interesting discussion together at Idnes. That is why I am quite sorry to read such demagogic flights in your contributions.

  20. to ranha: No, I did not commit any philosophical and mental suicide, and what you gave as an example is an example of a ABSOLUTE misunderstanding of determinism. I have nothing more to say about it, so let's not discuss

  21. Of course, company is a surrogate term for what you name. No one claims that there is a society as an entity, a society is a collection of individuals, to question, albeit extremely volatile, a society with no chance of success. Nor do I claim that society is superior to the individual. The important thing about what I have written is that you cannot separate from the rest of society, a situation that would egoistically suit absolutely anyone who is self-sufficient. Your successes in space = in society simply are not "your merit" - this is a mistake. When your parents allow you to realize yourself within the family, you feel grateful for them. When society allows you to do this, you don't have to feel grateful, but at least feel a valid part of it.

    And to the first paragraph - the choice certainly does not exist. Under the same conditions, you will get the same results, because the universe has its laws. That is determinism. Although the idea of ​​an unchanging future is a little sad at first glance, it is a real nightmare for liberals (or their geographically confused fellow libertarians), because it is this ideology that elevates personal freedom to an ideal. But she just doesn't exist.

    You confuse economics with economics, these are different concepts. But you are right that economic behavior is inherent in human behavior. However, this does not in the slightest elevate economics to "better" science.

  22. Romane is even clearer - your thesis that "At least the economy is able to describe humane human behavior on the basis of its postulates." Is meaningless - it is more of a wish. It can simply be proved that the thesis corresponds to the thesis that the economy is able to include, for example, the right. If that were the case, there would be only one universal field - economics or economics as the field above all fields, which are then, at best, sub-fields of economics.

  23. Roman
    This is a point of view. You can always find things in common with apples and pears as well as humanity and economy.
    What is important - that not only the author, but also VK, Ševčík or Mach confuse politics with economics, they only put on an empty political coat in one economic direction. It is characteristic of them that they have huge holes in those other areas - it is not just human rights and the social sphere as a direct consequence of that humanity, they, like most macroeconomists, underestimate those other areas that elevate the economy simply. Add law and constitutionality there. One simply would not do without the law - Mach fully believes that yes. In the Free program, he even had market competition between the rights of individual countries - which is literally ridiculous.
    It was never about the author, the author is about the complete exclusion of the state from the social sphere, which is again nonsense. The foundations of the welfare state were not laid by any socialists, but by Bismarc or, for example, by the compulsory schooling of Maria Theresa. And ideology played absolutely no role, but only and exclusively reason, and if you want social and economic benefits.
    The rules, which are de facto the rules of society in the laws and in the constitution, also reflect that value system. Just as there is always a thief, so there is one who does not provide help - on that road. The author and his advocates would inevitably come to the conclusion that no laws are actually needed, and the theory of the small state simply, from the logic of things, de facto brings no state into the thesis - only on paper. All because only - again - they have studied the economy somehow and consider it the alpha and omega of the state's existence - they will do well in other fields and they usually do not have the slightest pair about them - that's why these fields are underestimated and they are not interested. therefore, they turn out completely unreal and only harden the water.

  24. re Jan: “Absorb it a little and do not overestimate free will, because man - anchored in the deterministic universe - still has none. Not in the true sense of the word. "

    fine, in that case you won't mind if a liberal hits you like a dog… don't take it personally, he didn't do it on purpose, he was forced by the deterministic universe to do it…

    PS: man is of course not a universe for himself and is influenced by his surroundings, but what you wrote is in complete conflict with European understanding of man, if you take such an attitude, then all discussion ends with you - you have committed "philosophical and mental suicide"

  25. @ A. Špáta: Economics and humanity are not 2 different things. At the very least, the economy is able to describe humane human behavior on the basis of its postulates. After all, the so-called first aid obligation enforced under the threat of punishment is also based on economic considerations: if you do not help, you will pay.
    Nevertheless, first aid remains a question of choice (although the reasoning is influenced by the possibility of punishment) and it is a question of how many people this obligation saved or did not save lives and what statistics would look like if this obligation were not.
    However, the obligation of first aid does not bother me as much as what the author really wanted in this text - ineffective state-imposed self-help, which results in hundreds of thousands of breadwinners, and which is hypocritically called humanity.

    @Jan: When you descend from your abstract heights to the ground and go buy fruit, you will find that you choose between apples and pears and that for a mango you would have to go to Tesco, which will cost you time and money because the greengrocer on your street does not. These are all choices.
    Furthermore, society does not have such a status as man, society is not equal to man, society is an abstract. We act as individuals, not as a society. That there are some cultural and historical customs and that we are influenced by them does not prove at all the existence of society as an entity or even its superiority over the individual. If I owe something, I owe it to other specific people and I also pay my obligations to them. Even the state are specific people, officials and politicians who act as individuals. In such a world, it is absurd to talk about obligations to society.

  26. Mácha - Not only as Jan says an unnecessary and mentally empty attack. You are just an offshoot of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood during the treatment and at their level - just a little different, nothing more.

  27. Absolutely useless attack, I would say. Especially when you don't have enough strength to react to the rest. Rejecting things only in principle reminds me of a child who apologizes to his mother because she didn't buy him ice cream. So you will certainly explain the reason for such nonsensical attitudes.
    Don't donate blood to those who don't go? I just have to smile at that.

  28. Jan: Yeah, you know three English words? You are a worldly man. I would like to be like you one day.

    To those specific examples. As a libertarian, I go to donate blood. However, if the donation of blood were mandatory, I would not go by chance. However, I am in favor of not providing blood free of charge to those who do not donate if necessary (injury, surgery), even though age / health allows them to do so. At the very least, they should pay dearly for it.

    I have the same with elections and census. I go to the polls as long as they are voluntary. However, if they were mandatory (as in some states), I would not go to the polls. I was willing to complete the census when I thought it would be anonymous and voluntary. But in its current form, of course, I rejected it.

    Slave: Just a trifle, he is inflected when addressed, ie "Mr. Spata". Otherwise, I agree with you.

  29. Liberalism? Get over it. Man is a part of society, he owns neither himself nor the fruits of his labor. It is shaped by society, it is part of it. You even have the wealth and social status of society. There is no king without subjects, and there is no rich without the poor. The company gave you wealth (!) And you definitely owe it something.
    Absorb it a little and do not overestimate free will, because man - anchored in the deterministic universe - still has none. Not in the true sense of the word.

  30. Slave, I have to giggle. Yeah, seeing the other's head, so there need be no discussion.
    And I would hope to know which part of your contribution was intended for me as well.
    Otherwise, the discussion is an exchange of views (however sharp) and what each party takes or does not take from it is up to her. What I take from it is my business and what you take from it is your business. Again, the regiments and your evaluation are not an argument - this also applies to me, Lukáš. It's always just the other's opinion - if you feel a liberal, my God, it's just up to you as much as you are or will be a liberal.
    As far as I'm concerned, your evaluation is just ridiculous, if we take into account what I told you, don't you think? There is perhaps only one logic.

  31. You know, Mr. Špát, only the first part of my contribution was addressed to you personally.

    Otherwise, it's nice that you have an overview, although some doubtful - probably "NEO", ie modern. You have studied dictionaries, economic studies, and you know the opinions of experts, but you are not a liberal by any chance. You don't feel the meaning of the word at all, you may even know it, but you adjust it according to your perverted needs.

    PS
    This post was intended for you in its entirety.
    I don't want to know or understand why you are trying to fight similar people and the opinions I hold. But I really want to see into your head for a moment and know if you know it at all.

  32. Dear Sir, I am an eclectic like he embroiders. I will also subscribe to conservatism if, for example, it contains the fact that it does not change what works and when it comes to changes, so much so on the tip and conservatively carefully.
    You understand liberalism differently than I do, and the root is in your written literature - I've also read some of it, and I consider the lesson from you that Keynes is not a liberal to be really valuable. It is not enough to deal only with the economy and economists - after all, precisely because humanity, ethics or what you want to call it really has nothing to do with economics - so politicians and not economists are looking for balance and any religion understood through ideas but not ideologically. That is also why the economist is usually a very bad politician, which literally shines on Klaus. He underestimated, underestimates and will underestimate law and constitutionality to the point of death to the extent that it harms the country even if it has economic knowledge like a god and that it has economists buffered. It might be interesting for you to find out that his economic rhetoric was quite different when he was prime minister - he himself did not even try to do many things that he otherwise happily claims. People have chosen economists to lead them to paradise - as economists. After all, they did not fail as much as economists, but rather as politicians, and so they continue to fail merrily only because they have elevated and elevated the economy above all else - and it can't even work that way. If you want to study only economics and economists, get involved in economics, but not in politics - these are completely different fields.
    Samuelson is just an eclectic, he didn't bring anything new himself, and he's a bit different from what you're describing.
    Mark yourself as you want, who is a collectivist or a moralist or an etist - only what I think has a head and a heel really takes from me, no matter how subjective it may seem to you and no matter how fully I am aware of my own fallacy. But I am certainly not wrong in one thing - libaralism based on ideology is worth the same fart as any other direction based on the same - that is, blind ideology.

  33. A. Špáta:

    If you're serious about your commitment to liberalism, try one of the liberals instead of Keyns and Samuelson. Keyns is not a liberal by mistake. I managed about twenty pages from Samuel's large textbook, and then I didn't feel like it. It was like defending government intervention. The author himself later admitted that without the defense of interventionism, his book would never have been successful at the time.

    But a liberal cannot be one who makes a claim to others to say how much solidarity they should be. Not to mention that the solidarity ordered is no longer solidarity. It's just a tax. Of liberalism, then, only the name remains.

    Try loading Bastiata or Hazlitta. Understand what solidarity will do in an economic sense. I mean, how government spending crowds out private investment.

    You take one person a thousand and give it to another. And then you will point out all the good that the thousand has made possible. Or, like Keynes, you will follow the progress of the entry of that thousand into the economy and calculate how many people will gradually bring wealth.
    But what you don't see is a person whose thousand has been taken away. You arrogantly think that person B deserves it more and that you are entitled by force to force person A to give up thousands.
    What you don't see is that for the thousand you might have bought something different that would have the same effect (in the sense of watching that amount and its journey in the economy).
    What you completely overlook is the psychological effect it has on citizens. You de facto legalize theft. You call it noble. You will open it up with words like solidarity, love of neighbor and something else.
    However, none of this changes the fact that man A is forced by violence. He is deprived of his property. And person B gets something that doesn't belong to him. It receives the fruits of robbery and violence.

    Whoever defends this is not a liebral but a collectivist, a moralist, a statistist…. you will certainly add another yourself.

  34. But go Slave. In practical cases, in many cases I behave exactly the same. You got me with that defensive reaction - I absolutely don't understand.
    And the word liberal is charming in that it can be interpreted in many ways, not to mention libertanism and other and contradictory derivatives of the relevant liberalisms. I interpret it in the original sense of the word, and I feel liberal in that as well. Namely, in the sense that nothing is definitively given to me - I am a free-thinker independent of ideologies. A certain type of liberalism has only become an ideology, and it does not take me at all, let alone what I like to say to neoliberalism, not in the political sense, but solely as a pejorative curse. The market is and can be a very useful servant, but it must not be a stupid master.
    This is an eternal discussion about your voluntary donations - well, other people have understood something - for example, why there is already an irreplaceable role of the state in this area. nothing more nothing less. And if you don't want to discuss, don't go into any explanation - it seems ridiculous.

  35. Listen, Mr. Spata. The problem with you is that you try to put ideas in people's mouths that the person in question has never expressed, and you obviously try to blacken them out from others.

    Just go through your reactions. Have you ever met a fanatic? Has anyone compared you to him?

    I will not discuss with you, because it would be a waste of time and energy and it would lead nowhere.
    I'm not as young as you probably think. I'm definitely not young enough to be manipulated by an individual of your stature.

    But it is also possible that it is just a mutual misunderstanding. It occurs to me that a defensive reaction can be observed in you. You also do not explain anything to those who defend themselves.

    **
    I did not come to my opinion of the world by reading books or discussing with people like you (but with a different opinion).
    Understand that I saw (gradually) and became a liberal. Not understood politically, which perhaps is not even possible, because a politician and a liberal is an oximore like embroidered. Feel free to call it another, I don't care. I use the word only to make it clear what values ​​I hold and honor.
    There is no force that can change my mind. I'm not saying that you can't live a happy life in any other way, but in principle nothing will change and in today's society it will always mean that someone will live at the expense of someone else.

    **
    For the last year or so, I have presented specific people with money and meal vouchers worth approximately a thousand crowns. I don't know if it's low or not, although I think it's a lot given my annual earnings. I'm not giving anything at the moment and I won't be in the near future, I can't afford it.

    I wouldn't give anything to the girls on the street who claim that they do a collection for children and the like. Similar collections work abroad, in the Czech Republic I would not contribute to an unspecified person.
    An acquaintance, for example, wears toys that her children have already grown up to the hospital, but she knows how and to whom she contributed.

    You have no idea what annoys me when I buy medicine and it says that I contributed two crowns to something completely anonymous, and the pharmacy will demonstratively add the two crowns. You can't protest, either take the drug or not.

    I tell the girls on the street that when the state stops robbing me and they tell me what specifically my money would be used for and for whom it is intended, then I will consider my gift.

  36. You see,
    I, in turn, think that the author pretends to be an intellectual. Not that language anymore.
    Yes, the degree of solidarity can be the subject of debate, but not so that solidarity itself is the subject of debate. She is basically a man from the very beginning of man's existence, and at that time she was completely self-evident for self-preserving reasons.
    And the answer to your question?
    I have somehow not fully loaded Keynes, Smith, but maybe Samuelson, for example. I guess you won't want a complete list. You could suffer a somewhat unexpected shock.
    Dear gold, somewhere you can answer only as it sounds from the forest - just so that the person concerned fully understands. Have a nice Easter and you better go chase the girls tomorrow.

  37. Alexander Špáta:

    Just for fun, Mr. Intellectual. How many books on economics have you read in the last year?

    You accuse the author of the article from youth to malice, but you don't say anything yourself.

    You wave words like duty is more than voluntariness, but who gives you the right to impose obligations on others? A liberal wants voluntariness because voluntary help is something natural. And after all, in the personal competence of each of us. The moralist of your stamping imposes obligations with complete certainty. But who asked you for such a moralization? Who asked you, secondly, to determine HOW MUCH they should help?

    She is not just 1/0 or YES / NO solidarity. That solidarity can be small or large. You can contribute 100 crowns or 3000 as a duty. Where will the moralists of your stamp draw a border line?

    I have no doubt that you will not even think about the meaning of my contribution. You have too high an opinion on your own. But maybe instead of insulting and ridiculing others, it would want to come up with something positive on its own. However, this brings us back to the first question…. How many books on the topic have you been so determined and authoritative in the last year?

    Have you loaded Hayek, Bastiat, Mises?

  38. You talk to Lukáš again and accuse the other person of lying where you literally sucked the lie out of your finger yourself. Please read more carefully before pounding on the keys. What prevents you from finding another country to live. And where did you find the lie about choosing who you were born with in cactus? Well, this lie of yours fully corresponds to your current state of your mind (let's say still the age of puberty) and to Palacký, in which you stylized yourself in the original photo, it really doesn't correspond. As I have already written to you in a deep past - posture and stylized "learning" is not the real nut for anyone.

  39. To give such proponents of humanism Bastiat or Hazlitt and to constantly discuss the delusion of a broken window and what is and what is not visible. Over and over and over again… Until things that are not seen are taken into account.

  40. @Kaktusak - this is the biggest lie in the whole discussion so far. Or did you or I be able to choose where we were born and to whom?

  41. It's voluntary. You are a member of this company, which sets certain rules, completely voluntarily. Some rules are absurd, such as the protection of stolen property, but we can strive for change. Or go elsewhere.

  42. Slave, I don't mind any rudeness at my age today. Surprisingly, it is usually a manifestation not of rudeness, but rather of human and even more so of generational condemnation. Only I already know that you will practically do the same thing once you write or tell those at all ages at my age.
    As to the merits of the dispute. I will simplify it for you, when the current one is not enough and a little differently. Again, it's about simplification and marrow.
    Economics and humanity are two completely separate things that are not absolutely related. Humanity cannot be included in the economy, just as economics cannot be included in the humanity. The two are linked only in the work of a politician who seeks a path that suits both. Debts ala Greece cannot be tolerated without falling into trouble. In the same way, however, it is not possible to choose the simplest economic path - the path of the less productive or unproductive to gas. It's that simple.

  43. You probably wouldn't believe how I almost messed with my friends years ago because of a virtually literal speech like this to my friends. The fight was already in its infancy, and we all breathed it out for months. I both can be so stupid and not understand it, they how can I be such a bastard what the others just shit.
    It is also true that I have pointed out that, on the same principle, I am forced to contribute to the health insurance system, to pensions, to unnecessary civil servants…

    So these debates, with the people around me, have become taboo for me. Over time, some have come to realize that some "services and benefits to the state" pay a lot and get back disproportionately little. Nevertheless, they don't understand me and they can't even look at that monstrous system from the "outside", so they probably don't understand it. Sometimes it seems to me that their logic ends with the first sentence, it's not even about ideas, and that is "everyone does it that way"…

    **
    If someone has already registered my comments on this server, they may have imagined that I was a rioter and a rogue. In fact, this is not the case, I am able to have and I also have many faces, easily for each other. What he deserves right now. Therefore, I beg your pardon if I occasionally relieve myself here and make a foul word, I believe that you will understand why it happened, we have a common enemy after all and you know how bad it is when no one perceives it - so I try it at least virtually.

  44. To Lokotus
    Of course. We're all stupid just you're perfect, aren't we? :-)))
    By the way, with your genius, you forget about one small but quite important thing. Society as a whole can be mature and decent, but that does not mean that 100% of the members of such a society will behave in a crisis situation as I have described it humanely. Many endividuals will leave the accident without helping the disabled. Therefore, it is necessary to enshrine some things in the law. I don't want it for you, but maybe you and the author of that nonsensical blog will understand it when something like this ever happens to you and you need help.
    It is the same with other forms of help. Volunteering is not always reliable and some people still need help.

  45. Lokutusi - I completely agree with Griffin's quote. The mistake is only from youthful nonsense on your part - it concerns you. You just have no idea. When you mature like the author, if you succeed, then go back and read yourself again.

  46. Ad comments - the first and the second to laugh, there is no point in commenting on such emotional nonsense, the third equally stupid, but I will react.

    "Helping others in need should, of course, be a duty in a decent and mature society, not an option."

    If we are talking about a decent society, then emergency assistance does not have to be an obligation, because a decent society consists of decent people who would choose such actions themselves and VOLUNTARY!

  47. You can prove the nonsense of your article with a simple example. Imagine that you crash into a car and end up with many fractures almost unconscious. Subsequently, a person of similar stature like you will walk by, and with an icy calm and a smile on your face, he will leave you lying there with the words that humanity and help are purely voluntary things and that he is not in the mood to help anyone. You then excel completely according to your stupid notions of voluntary humanity. Good, right?
    You are a fool. Helping others in need should, of course, be a duty in a decent and mature society, not an option. By the way, only srabs who do not have the courage to face opponents do not allow discussions directly below the articles on Idnes.

  48. DISGUST !!!
    I want to throw up on your article. You would probably be able to shoot your neighbors on the day they reach retirement age or fall ill.

  49. Well, after a long time, I sharpened on you. You changed the photo - the posers and not too eyed and immature wisdom with a tendency to teach others did not.
    This article can even be read - but only to the point before the article Humanity is voluntariness. No, it is a normal duty to help another in need. Surely you can imagine how it would turn out and, after all, how it would turn out on the road in an accident. Thanks to your thoughts, which make you feel like an ancestor. You are not - the ancestor is ordinary selfishness and indifference to another, if he does not benefit - the typical economized brain and for that reason mistakenly considered a liberal. You are not even the liberal - only the selfish self. You also like to get intoxicated by the fact that the level of your own brain is the fruit of your activity alone, it is not, you have it by nature and without any merit or guilt for punishment. When you sometimes find that inference into the economic sphere, only then do you have a chance to become a real humanist and not just a very simple-thinking economist nota bene very smug.
    That cowardice to open discussions at MFDdnes has similar pathological causes as your omission of the things you have in sight, but due to your own immaturity you are still blind to them. That's why you're in that economy, sometimes in the deep past. Human life and human society cannot seem to simple individuals other than as a simple imprint of economic accounting - not economics as a science, as you mistakenly think.

Comments are off.