Morir tenemos Ya lo sabemos
Suscríbase al canal AQUÍ
CARLOS A. MONTANER EN CNN
El Blog de Montaner
El Blog de Carlos Alberto Montaner
Es uno de los periodistas más leídos del mundo hispánico. La revista Poder calculó en seis millones los lectores que semanalmente se asoman a sus columnas y artículos
Carlos Alberto Montaner
Quick fixes for small troubles
Tile mildew: Pour hydrogen peroxide into a spray bottle, wet the tile, and let it sit 3 to 5 minutes. To reduce the need for deep cleanings, use a $4 bottle of shower cleaner after every shower.
Water spots: Wipe down bathroom fixtures with vinegar to eliminate spots from mineral deposits. A stainless-steel sink will stay spotless if you rub it with mineral oil and a cloth once a week.
Rust stains: Lemon juice will dissolve rust stains on patios, porches, driveways, or garage floors. Cut a lemon in half, squeeze the juice directly onto the stain, and let it sit about 10 minutes. If the stain is old, you may need to scrub it with a bristle brush.
Everything else: When all else fails, fight stains on walls and floors with the mild abrasiveness of a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser. The disposable sponges cost about $4 a four-pack.
Source: Popular Mechanics
El error no fue olvidar que hay que morir,
El error es no saber que HOY hay mucho
Que se puede hacer, si hubiera gente con la
Voluntad para hacerlo, si se le resta poder a los intereses
Privados reñidos con esas soluciones que evitarían
La necesidad de dejar a 100 millones de personas sin
Empleo en todo el mundo, y parir una economía nueva
De la que todavía no tenemos puta idea.
Los pasos de trump contra la OMS son un buen comienzo,
Pero faltan 100 pasos mas que no creo que sean posibles dar.
Al menos no en este siglo. Seria necesario quitarle
El poder a los poderosos monopolios y sus aliados
Y crear un balance aceptable entre interés publico e interés privado
Felicitaciones a CAM por este Morir Tenemos ya lo sabemos.
Sí, hay que felicitarlo cuando está iluminado para alentarlo a que ocurra más a menudo. El puede. Tiene en la bola y no tiene ninguna necesidad de tirar todos esos wild pitchs y dead balls.
Y he de decir que en este video, en particular, estuvo particularmente inspirado. Suscribo cada una de las palabras que dijo. ¡Este es el Montaner que echamos de menos! ¡Bienvenido de nuevo, maestro! Esperemos que éste Montaner haya regresado para quedarse y el otro se tome unas largas y no muy merecidas vacaciones.
Muy bien dicho Julian. Saludos
La realidad es que se toman medidas sentados sobre una pregunta de la que nadie sabe la respuesta.
Hasta ahora, la mayoría de los países tomaron medidas en base a una de las posibles respuestas de una pregunta imposible de responder.
Sobre la pregunta ¿Qué valor tiene la vida?
La respuesta mayoritariamente adoptada hasta ahora es: el máximo valor posible sobre cualquier otro valor.
Sobre el valor de la miseria y el sufrimiento económico entre ellos.
Salvar una vida se ha tomado como prioridad ante cualquier otro requerimiento social evidentemente sentados ante la pregunta sin respuesta pero que creen haberla encontrado.
¿Está bien o mal aunque implique otros riesgos gravísimos el intento de detener a la muerte?
Ni siquiera tiene sentido ponerse a pensar un segundo sobre la infinidad de preguntas y respuestas que surgen de esta situación porque cualquier respuesta será solamente probable. Y lejanamente probable.
Se quiera o no, no queda otra que recurrir al pragmatismo. Se sea o no pragmático.
¿Acaso a alguien se le va a ocurrir paralizar la economía por algo que puede provocar la muerte de 10 personas en el mundo?
La respuesta es evidente. Y esa respuesta es pragmática fuera de toda duda. Cualquier otra elucubracion cae inmediatamente en el absurdo
Y si mueren 56.000.000 de personas por año en el mundo y hasta ahora llevan muertos 300.000 por el Coronavirus y entre ellos, la mayoría conscientes de que el “morir tenemos ya lo sabemos” lo tienen muy cerca, es evidente que al menos un equilibrio pragmático debería imponerse.
Probablemente la respuesta más cercana a un pragmático exámen sea: cuánto mayor la mortalidad más sufrimiento económico es justificable y cuánto menor sea, menos sufrimiento económico es imperativo.
Y en situaciones tan complejas como éstas querer salirse del pragmatismo es demasiado peligroso. Creer que se tienen todas las respuestas siempre fué peligroso y hoy más que nunca sigue siendolo.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao entre otros ejemplos macabros de la historia creyeron que tenían todas las respuestas y así les fué a quienes cayeron en esa trampa.
Dennis Prager sacó hoy uno bueno relacionado con el tema. Ya lo había desarrollado más en sus fireside chats, pero aquí lo condensó.
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/70750-some-thoughts-about-being-safe-2020-05-19
Genial …… Y evidentemente pragmático
Ese articulo es de lo mejorcito que se han escrito sobre el tema que vivimos. Algunos párrafos para aquellos que no lo han leído disfrútenlo:
Are you going to take risks or play it safe? If you play it safe, you don’t get married. If you play it safe, you don’t have kids. There are real risks in getting married; there are real risks in having children.
I have been taking visitors to Israel for decades, and for all those decades, people have called my radio show to say, “Dennis, I would so love to visit Israel, but I’m just going to wait until it’s safe.” And I’ve always told these people, “Then you’ll never go.” And sure enough, I’ve gone there over 20 times, and they never went.
“Safe” has become a dirty word. I rarely use it in the context of living life. It’s one of the reasons I’m a happy person and have led a full life.
“Safe” is going to suppress your joy of life.
hay muchas opciones en la vida, yo prefiero safe, hasta que safe me empieza a saber a sacrilegio. Fue eso lo que me llevo a cruzar la frontera Venezuela-Colombia por Cúcuta hace 13 años
…hasta que el sacrificio me empieza a saber a sacrilegio. En algún lugar ve esa frase, no recuerdo donde.
y esta semana vengo escaso en tiempo. Espero no tener que regresar junto con victor 🙂
a mi no me da gracia el personaje, pero para gusto colores 🙂
The mistake was not forgetting that you have to die,
The mistake is not knowing that TODAY there is much
that can be done, if there were people with the
Will to do it, if power is taken away from the
private interests at odds with those solutions that would avoid
the need of leaving 100 million people without
jobs worldwide, and
giving birth to a new economy of which we still have no fucking idea.
The trump steps against the WHO are a good start,
but 100 more steps are missing that I do not think are possible to take.
At least not in this century. It would be necessary to take
power away from the powerful monopolies and their allies
AND create an acceptable balance between public and private interest.
On the April 10 online document, the logos of Google and Apple sat atop a description of the companies’ joint plan to enable America’s cellphones to keep track of everyone with whom their owners come into contact.
Who would sign on to such extensive surveillance? Much of the world already has. In South Korea, health officials use apps and video cameras to track down people who came into contact with COVID-19 patients before symptoms appeared. China, Singapore and Australia already have phone-based contact-tracing in place, and much of Europe is following suit. The UK’s National Health Service, for instance, has endorsed a scheme that’s undergoing a pilot test, and Germany’s government is close behind.
As US governors consider how to open up and allow people to go back to work, experts warn that the coronavirus, which is still in circulation, is almost certain to flare up again. To avoid more emergency-room disasters like the one that overwhelmed New York City in April, public-health officials must act aggressively to stop small outbreaks before they develop into big ones. The key, experts say, is contact tracing. For each new COVID-19 case, health care workers would develop a list of people the patient might have interacted with before symptoms developed. Then they would contact each one and recommend self-quarantine.
Contact tracing was used effectively during previous outbreaks, notably HIV/AIDS. With COVID-19, inquiries wouldn’t be as intrusive as questions about sexual partners, of course, but they would reach many more people—in a country where citizens take to the streets over such assaults against their liberty as the closing of hair salons and gyms. With the coronavirus infecting tens of thousands of people each day, tracking down all those contacts would take an army of healthcare workers—about 100,000, says the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (see page 24).
Technology, the thinking goes, might help automate the process. It’s worked in South Korea, which achieved COVID-19 numbers that are the envy of much of the world: as of early May, it logged fewer than 11,000 cases, in a population of 50 million, and just over 250 deaths—or 1/16th the U.S. per-capita case rate, and 1/300th the death rate. More than 20 countries, including most of Asia, have already been enlisting cellphones to help identify those who might have been exposed to the infection, so those people can self-isolate or get cleared by a test. America, with its vaunted technology industry, is a laggard.
It sounds like great news for the US, then, that contact-tracing capabilities are coming soon to a phone near you. As many states consider allowing people to go back to work, health experts say that identifying individuals who come into contact with people who have tested positive for the virus, so they can follow up with voluntary self-quarantines, is essential for keeping the outbreak from getting out of control. But such contact-tracing efforts are time-consuming and labor intensive. The hope is that all the information our phones can pull in about us, including where we are and who or what’s nearby, can provide a much-needed assist, as they have in South Korea and elsewhere.
f0018-01
South Korean soldiers spray disinfectant. (JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/GETTY)
f0019-01
BALANCING ACT
The challenge to smartphone-based contact tracing is preserving privacy while letting health care officials know who might be infected.
Singapore’s contact-tracing app uses Bluetooth
(CATHERINE LAI/AFP/GETTY)
f0019-02
Jennifer Daskal of American Unviersity is skeptical that enough Americans would use an app (JEFF WATTS)
→ In a fast-moving pandemic, protecting individuals’ rights to privacy limits the ability of the government to protect the → HEALTH OF THE POPULATION.
But Americans are not quite like the rest of the world. Perhaps more than the population of any other country in the world, Americans tend to resist letting the government keep a close eye on them, even under life-and-death circumstances. In the case of contact tracing, that reluctance looks like an immovable obstacle. “In a fast-moving pandemic, protecting individuals’ rights to privacy limits the ability of the government to protect the health of the population,” says Eric Campbell, a researcher with the University of Colorado’s medical campus specializing in health policy and bioethics.
The challenge is not technological. The Google-Apple plan and other proposed automated contact-tracing schemes check off all the boxes that privacy advocates have drawn. The challenge, rather, is that the privacy requirements themselves block data that health care officials need to keep people safe. None of the plans proposed so far gives officials and individuals enough reliable, detailed information to make a big difference.
The value Americans place on privacy virtually guarantees that automated contact tracing isn’t going to make a big difference any time in the next several months and may never achieve the impact in the US it’s having elsewhere in the world.
Just Saying No
ANY US CONTACT-TRACKING SCHEME FOR CELL phones, no matter how well crafted, is likely to run into a buzzsaw of noncompliance. No one expects the Trump administration to require participation. No state has floated a mandatory plan, either. States and localities that have mandated masks have seen angry protests in response. The town of Stillwater, Oklahoma, lifted its mask-wearing proclamation after businesses reported receiving serious threats from customers. On May 1, a store security guard in Flint, Mich. who demanded that a customer comply with the state’s mask-wearing requirement was shot dead.
It’s no wonder there’s little appetite for requiring people to submit to electronic tracking. Any smartphone-based contact-tracing apps would have to be optional—optional to download, optional to activate, optional to self-isolate or get tested if notified of exposure, optional to report being infected, and optional to share related data with public-health officials or anyone else.
In Europe, optional participation is not expected to be a big impediment. An Oxford University survey found acceptance of contact-tracing apps in Germany, Italy and France would run between 68 and 86 percent. In the US, by contrast, only 45 percent of people find contact tracing with smartphones acceptable, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center in April. “To prove really useful, at least 60 percent of the population would have to participate,” says Jennifer Daskal, director of the Tech, Law, Security Program at American University Washington College of Law. “With all the skepticism here, it’s not clear how we’d get to that level of compliance.” It doesn’t help that individual users get no direct benefit from using an app, only the possible privilege of being notified of the need to go back into quarantine. The benefit accrues to everyone else.
Privacy advocates say there are legitimate fears about a contact-tracing policy that would allow organizations to identify individuals by name, along with personal information such as their locations, the names of people they’re with and, especially, health information such as whether or not they’ve been diagnosed with COVID-19 or exposed to it and what symptoms they might have. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, also known as HIPAA, limits the sharing of information about underlying health conditions among health care organizations but doesn’t prevent most companies from sharing information they happen to get their hands on.
→ The use of Bluetooth → “SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE PRIVACY RISKS” → of contact-tracing.
The Google-Apple scheme, like other proposals from MIT, Stanford and elsewhere, is designed to head off those concerns. For instance, it doesn’t record locations or names. Instead, it assigns each phone a unique number, which changes every 15 minutes or so to make it nearly impossible to associate the number to a name. The only information the software grabs for each phone are the unique numbers of other phones lingering nearby—close enough to flag possible coronavirus transmission, should the holder of any of those phones turn out to be infected.
f0020-01
LIFE AND LIBERTY
Americans chafe at many measures to control COVID-19 that have worked succesffully in South Korea and other countries.
Police confront protesters in Sacramento, California
(CAROLYN COLE/LOS ANGELES TIMES/GETTY)
f0020-02
a drive-thru coronavirus testing site in Somerville, Massachusetts (MADDIE MEYER/GETTY)
To accommodate privacy concerns, the Google-Apple software stops short of providing full contact-tracing capabilities. Users have to download contact-tracing apps that can make use of the unique identifiers the phone gathers. If a user is infected, they voluntarily report that fact to the app, which then, with permission, sends out a list of unique numbers representing the phones of the people who might have been infected too in recent days. Those numbers would go to a computer run by whatever organization is managing the contact-tracing effort—most likely a government health department—which would send out some sort of “you might have been exposed” notification, along with instructions for quarantine and testing.
f0020-03
Kelly Lyda, owner of Aspen Cafe in Stillwater, Oklahoma, which dropped its directive that customers in shops wear masks. (JOHANNES EISELE/AFP/GETTY)
Where would the apps come from, and who would oversee them? In all non-US countries with automated contact tracing, government health agencies at the national level, such as the UK’s National Health Service, select the app and determine key details: how users report infections, who is notified when, what information is stored where. But the US has no such organization. The closest thing is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which does not have the authority to dictate detailed policies. “We’ve never had a national public-health infrastructure capable of handling this sort of task,” says John Christiansen, an Olympia, Washington attorney specializing in public and private health information technology. “We don’t even have many state public health agencies that are strong enough. Most public health infrastructure happens at the local level, if it happens anywhere at all.”
The thought of a patchwork of city or county-level programs across the nation all specifying their own apps and policies doesn’t inspire much confidence. But neither do the alternatives. Let Google, Apple or other tech giants run a national contact-tracing program and take control of the information? Unlikely. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that half as many people would download a contact-tracing app from a tech company as from a public-health agency.
The best bet for a quasi-trusted authority capable of managing a large contact-tracing-app program might be a coalition of state-level health care players including hospitals, insurers and state health agencies, says Christiansen. Some states, including Washington, have coalitions in place to manage health-record sharing and uniform billing. But whether enough of these coalitions could be formed in time, and whether they’d be able to effectively manage such a massive public-health effort and reach a large-enough share of the population, are shaky propositions, he adds.
Is It Secure?
MOST OF THE WORLD’S AUTOMATED CONTACT-TRACing schemes take measures to hide individual identities, typically through some form of “information blurring”—stripping out identifiable information such as names, randomly altering just enough of the data to prevent personal identification or replacing detailed data with aggregated summaries.
The Google-Apple plan goes further: it never records identifiable information in the first place, and it stores what information it does record on each user’s phone and nowhere else.
The trouble is, phones are easily hacked. Companies, for instance, routinely harvest data from the phones of people who wander into stores, via open Bluetooth and wifi channels. That data includes mobile tracking numbers assigned to each device. The data is often sold to third-party data brokers where it becomes part of the information economy, exploited for targeting ads and other purposes. The Google-Apple system relies on an always-on Bluetooth connection on each user’s phone in order to detect nearby phones and to swap the special contact-tracing numbers unique to each phone. “That significantly increases the privacy risks of any contact-tracing system that uses Bluetooth,” says Alan Butler, interim executive director and general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. And it’s one big reason the UK chose to go with a scheme that stores information on centralized servers rather than on individuals’ phones.
Anonymity is another soft spot for contact-tracing schemes. Google-Apple’s system of using ever-changing identifiers is meant to ensure that information can’t be used to identify the individuals to whom the phones belong. But no such scheme has ever proven unbreakable—all kinds of supposedly “de-identified” information has later been “re-identified.” One easy way to do it is to glean health-related comments from social media along with the names of the posters and correlate the comments with de-identified medical information. In 2018, Facebook worked with Stanford University’s health care system and the American College of Cardiology to explore exactly that sort of approach. And last year Facebook for a time allowed outside companies to pore over supposedly private group posts to extract health information that could in theory be used for that purpose as well.
Even Google-Apple’s extensive protections can’t guarantee the privacy of contact-tracing participants, says Butler. “There are lots of ways hackers and others could reverse-engineer the system to re-identify people who have been infected,” he says. (Google did not respond to a request for comment. An Apple spokesperson referred Newsweek to previously published material from the two companies.)
The downside risk for users of contact-tracing apps is high. Information about who is infected or who was in proximity to whom, if hacked, could have an impact on individuals’ employment, personal relationships and public reputations. “It’s not hard to understand why law enforcement, intelligence agencies or foreign malicious actors might want to make use of proximity-tracking data,” says Daskal.
Proponents argue that the risk of misuse of data could be contained by ensuring data is regularly deleted as it becomes irrelevant to managing infection—after about two weeks, according to the Google-Apple scheme—and that the entire system is dismantled when the pandemic crisis has passed. But privacy advocates note that most of the “temporary” investigatory mechanisms put in place in the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 remain in effect today.
Questioning the Benefits
ALL OF THESE RISKS MIGHT PROVE ACCEPTABLE TO a big swath of the American public if a proposed contact-tracing system could be counted on to play a big role in taming the pandemic. But even if enough people opted in to the system and chose to faithfully report their own infections and comply with self-isolation, plans like Google-Apple’s would likely have so many false alarms and missed exposures that people would lose faith in them, says Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington Law School and co-director of the school’s Tech Policy Lab. “They just wouldn’t be effective, and in fact could do more harm than good.”
f0022-01
UNCOORDINATED
The U.S. has no central health authority, relying instead on a patchwork of local and state institutions.
A homeless person in April in New York City
(ALEXI ROSENFELD/GETTY)
f0022-02
a May day in Brooklyn (JUSTIN HEIMAN/GETTY)
Calo, who recently testified before the Senate on privacy issues in the coronavirus response, notes that Bluetooth signals can easily penetrate walls, car windows and other barriers that the coronavirus can’t. That means many of the “you need to self-isolate” notifications sent out by Bluetooth-based systems like Google-Apple’s would go to people who couldn’t have been exposed. By the same token, the system would completely miss serious exposures caused by contacting, say, particles on surfaces or in the air freshly coughed-out by an infected person who has just walked away or left their phone in the other room or back in their car, out of reach of proximity detection. “You’d get false reassurances that you haven’t been exposed, and there’d be a whole range of situations where you wouldn’t get notified when you need to be,” says Calo.
f0022-03
“Mostpublic health infrastructure happens at the local level, if it happens anywhere at all,” says health care attorney John Christiansen. (COURTESY OF JOHN R. CHRISTIANSE)
The system itself is vulnerable to misdirection, he says. Political operatives hoping to discourage voter participation or malicious agents eager to disrupt a neighborhood or an entire city could arrange for dozens or even hundreds of people to falsely report infections, triggering a slew of phony notifications. South Korea and many other countries limit these sorts of problems simply by allowing their contact-tracing systems to gather and store more data, including GPS location data, personal health records and video-camera images. This extra data can validate or eliminate proximity alerts, as well as improve the accuracy of infection reporting. But it exacts a high cost in privacy that most Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay.
→ There are lots of ways hackers → and others could reverse-engineer the system → to RE-IDENTIFY PEOPLE → who have been infected.”
If these obstacles were overcome, another problem would remain: the vast inequities such a system might inject into the coronavirus battle. About 20 percent of Americans don’t have smartphones, locking them out of the system. Most live in vulnerable and predominantly minority communities, which frequently harbor a deep distrust of sharing information with public officials, particularly out of fear it may be shared with law enforcement. And many people in those communities will simply choose to ignore any notification to self-isolate because they need to keep working to meet their families’ most basic necessities “People in these communities would be invisible to the whole automated contact-tracing model,” says Kirsten Ostherr, director of Rice University’s Medical Futures Lab.
Lowering Expectations
STILL, TO SAY THAT CELLPHONE CONTACT-TRACING is going to return incomplete and flawed information, fall far short of needed adoption rates and may carry privacy risks is not to say we should skip it altogether. Even the most ineffective versions of the proposed schemes could still get hundreds of thousands of people to self-isolate or get tested when exposed, slicing off at least a small chunk of the new-infection rate. Tens of millions of Americans will decide any extra risks to their privacy will be a small price to pay for a chance to help contain the disease.
The biggest danger to automated contact-tracing schemes is that authorities and the public misplace their faith in how much those schemes can contribute and shortchange the tactics that likely will do a much better job. That includes conventional contact-training carried out by trained workers, making rapid testing widely available and continuing to encourage and when necessary enforce social-distancing and self-isolation policies.
If we take all those steps, says Daskal, we have a real chance of reducing the infection rate to manageable levels—and that’s when automated contact-tracing might actually become a more workable scheme. “If we can get closer to normal, then phone contact-tracing can be useful in protecting against small flare-ups becoming massive ones,” she says.
In the dystopia we now seem to inhabit, though, “normal” seems so far away.
PM IMAGES/GETTY; PHONE: DABOOST/GETTY ■
Me parece que no tengo necesidad de explicar por qué este análisis de Ben Shapiro de los Papeles Federalistas me encantó 🙂
https://www.prageru.com/video/ben-shapiro-the-federalist-papers-by-alexander-hamilton-james-madison-and/
Hoy es casi un día de fiesta. Primero, CAM vino por la goma. Segundo, Shapiro hablando sabiamente de los Federalistas. Y, por último, esto de Dave Rubin.
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-bravery-deficit/
Quizás mi tocayo tenga razón y eso del ¨mejoramiento humano¨ no sea una leyenda urbana. (A pesar del gran esfuerzo de los media y los colleges para alcanzar el ¨empeoramiento humano¨).
puede ser casual su mencion del tocayo, que hoy se cumplan 125 años de sus muerte:
“…escribo desde Dos Rios, hoy 19 de mayo, adonde he venido pedaleando 111 km desde Manzanillo porque no me monto en los raudos autos oficiales con los que me crucé en el camino. Y me he encontrado el monumento cerrado, la cerca con candado, y el custodio seguramente no aparece porque ya se fueron los que pueden volar [todos se piraron en cuanto pudieron, eso pasa en todos los centros laborales, sobre todo si son publicos, “estatates” les dicen en Cuba]
…donde las autoridades formales fingen que nos pagan
y el resto figimos que trabajamos
«Y a los lindoros que desdeñan hoy esta revolución santa cuyos guías y mártires primeros fueron hombres nacidos en el mármol y seda de la fortuna, esta santa revolución que en el espacio más breve hermanó, por la virtud redentora de las guerras justas, al primogénito heroico y al campesino sin heredad, al dueño de hombres y a sus esclavos; a los olimpos de pisapapel, que bajan de la trípode calumniosa para preguntar aterrados, y ya con ánimos de sumisión, si ha puesto el pie en tierra este peleador o el otro, a fin de poner en paz el alma con quien puede mañana distribuir el poder; a los alzacolas que fomentan, a sabiendas, el engaño de los que creen que este magnífico movimiento de almas, esta idea encendida de la redención decorosa, este deseo triste y firme de la guerra inevitable, no es más que el tesón de un rezagado indómito, o la correría de un general sin empleo, o la algazara de los que no gozan de una riqueza que sólo se puede mantener por la complicidad con el deshonor o la amenaza de una turba obrera, con odio por corazón y papeluchos por sesos, que irá, como del cabestro, por donde la quiera llevar el primer ambicioso que la adule, o el primer déspota encubierto que le pase por los ojos la bandera,-a lindoros, o a olimpos, y a alzacolas,-les diremos: -«Mienten». ¡Esta es la turba obrera, el arca de nuestra alianza, el tahalí, bordado de mano de mujer, donde se ha guardado la espada de Cuba, el arenal redentor donde se edifica, y se perdona, y se prevé, y se ama!»
…es difícil pensar que un hombre que habla así incluso en tiempos de guerra, justo reconocedor y practicante de honrar a quién honor merece, pueda tener en su pensamiento algo siquiera similar a la «lucha de clases» y el desmadre de los 125 años que siguieron a su muerte.
the issue has never been to be born and die, the issue has ALWAYS been that they die what they should die, avoid unnecessary deaths, ergo: avoid unnecessary suffering: nobody wants people to die, what it is and has always tried is for them to die the least amount possible, and how difficult it is to determine how to achieve that. Faced with the scenario that this CORONA concentrated in certain areas in an extreme way, overloading the hospitals and, therefore, dying people who in less tumultuous and overwhelming conditions would not die.
I’m afraid that you, Julian, CAM and Prager are changing the subject of the matter. Of what this tragedy has been in the telluric centers of northern Italy, London or New York, to give famous examples.
Un periodista lúcido de Argentina definió la situación actual de muchos países como infectocracia. El gobierno de los infectologos.
No está muy lejos de la realidad esta definición.
esta semana vi un video hablando de que en Argentina habia un Anarcocapitalismo. Recordé a su compatriota hablar acá de que en Venezuela habia una Dictadura Anarquista.
Qué nos dice Ramiro de estos “conceptos”?
o Dictadura Anarquica?
donde varios grupos hacen lo que les da la gana de modo desordenado buscando que en el desorden manden los corruptos con mayor libertad
La definición más exacta de la política argentina es cleptocracia.
Reúne prácticamente todas las características de una cleptocracia.
El 90% de los gobernadores de las provincias son simples ladrones.
El partido gobernante actual, el peronismo que gobernó los últimos 80 años y cuando no gobernó, sencillamente no dejó gobernar (no el que dejó el poder hace pocos meses) está constituido por los que realizaron el mayor saqueo de la historia Argentina durante los años 2002 al 2015.
Saqueo documentado con absoluta seguridad y con condenados y pedido de prisión hasta de la que gobernó 8 años de esos 12 años (el anterior a esta “señora” fué su esposo, el capo mafia).
En libertad porque no existe el poder judicial en mi país (unos resabios de justicia se pudo ver con los fiscales y un juez que se animó a juzgarla pero obviamente no llegó a nada, incluso los pocos que fueron presos están liberandolos actualmente).
Tampoco existe el poder legislativo.
El poder está concentrado en el ejecutivo. Es decir, no hay república. Y de Democracia queda un poco próximo a desaparecer probablemente.
Ud alguna vez dió una definición que se aplica ya a mi país: democracia forzada.
En medio de este panorama hay un anarcocapitalismo, pero como simple consecuencia, no como causa del desastre que pronto veremos en todo su potencial y será noticia global seguramente.
Pronto tendrá noticias de Argentina por todos los medios probablemente.
https://razonvsinstinto.blogspot.com/2018/09/borges-la-crisis-argentina-y-lo-que.html
Esto es la Argentina
esa misma persona que hablaba del anarcocapitalismo reinante, llamaba a tomar las mejores experiencias en la implementacion del Liberalismo, la de los nordicos, y alguien en la Mesa Redonda le saltaba al cuello “cada pais es distinto y hay que tener en cuenta las pecualiaridades de la gente”, el seños respondió “los seres humanos somos bien simples, somos muy parecidos no importa la cultura y lo aparentemente diversos”
me acordé de ud.
el sistema influye: ver norcorea vs sudcorea, alemania oriental vs occidental, china vs hong kong, taiwan, cubanos en cuba vs en Miami y resto del mundo, etc.
Justamente, por querer hacer algo parecido a los nórdicos nos va como nos va.
Somos una sociedad total y absolutamente incapaz de aplicar las políticas de los nórdicos.
El Estado de Bienestar se transforma inevitablemente en nuestros conocidisimos populismos.
Desde hace 80 años que insistimos en eso y así nos fué.
De uno de los países más ricos del mundo con el sistema económico liberal a uno de los 70-80 países más pobres del mundo con nuestras “políticas nórdicas”.
Lea los primeros renglones del link que compartí y verá no lo que yo pienso de los argentinos, sino Jorge Luis Borges y entenderá perfectamente porque es imposible un país nórdico en Argentina
me es fácil coincidir con su descripcion de la situacion en Argentina que, por cierto, es muy parecida a la de Cuba de los últimos 100 años.
Donde me pierdo es cdo ud introduce la causa de mayor peso:
Zaratustra, inclinando siempre a la ciudadanía hacia las políticas de izquierda -por el retroceso de los demás antes que el avance propio- lleva inexorablemente a que la participación del Estado aumente cada vez un poco más, con algunos retrocesos después de cada crisis recurrente pero con un nuevo avance después de cada recuperación. Más Estado en este escenario general, más desorganización y más corrupción se esparce.
…eso y a lo sabe ud. Por eso le traje varios ejemplos en que una misma cultura bajo sistemas distintos produce resultados muy diferentes, las dos coreas, las dos alemanias, etc
“Una misma Cultura bajo bajo sistemas distintos produce resultados muy diferentes”
Totalmente de acuerdo.
Pero también “un mismo sistema bajo culturas diferentes produce resultados muy diferentes”
“por el retroceso de los demás antes que el avance propio” no es una frase mía, sino de Borges.
Algo que resulta muy placentero para mí saber que Borges pensaba parecido.
“un mismo sistema bajo culturas diferentes produce resultados muy diferentes”
Para llegar al mismo Sistema de los que le ha ido muy
Bien, primero habría que tomar TODOS los atajos
Pertinentes para asegurarnos que de modo efectivo
Se ha cumplido con los requisitos que el sistema
Demanda y requiere. El sistema socialista Real
Se ha intentado en una docena de culturas y en
Todas el resultado fue equivalente. El sistema nórdico
No ha sido implementado como tal en LA, una cosa
Es intentar o buscar una implementación falseada
De ese sistema y otra que ud asegure que se ha hecho
Con todas las de la ley Procurando:
-la fortaleza de las instituciones.
-el debido contrapeso y separación de poderes.
– políticas sociales efectivas y consistentes en el tiempo
– libre mercado
– imperio de la ley
– respeto a la propiedad, protección a las inversiones
– aumento de exportaciones y papel de la producción
Intelectual en la economía
Entre otros que caracterizan a los más prósperos
“A riesgo de caer en la extrapolación histórica, que en todo caso contribuye como aporte de categoría para el análisis, considero que la libertad en la obra de Martí tiene cabida en un marco de referencia muy posterior a su vida. Me refiero al concepto formulado un siglo después por el politólogo irlandés Philip Pettit de libertad como no-dominación.
Al respecto, el historiador francés Georges Lomné nos habla de la diferencia entre la “libertad en los antiguos” (asociada a Bolívar) y “la libertad en los modernos” (asociada a Constant), a la vez que subraya como rasgo distintivo la relevancia de la libertad como no-dominación de que habla Pettit:
Desde Londres, [el ecuatoriano] Vicente Rocafuerte intentó luchar contra el resurgimiento en América de la tiranía y el «espíritu de conquista». Movido por el «espíritu del Siglo», trató de impugnar en contra de Bolívar una forma de organización republicana inspirada por la Constitución norteamericana de 1787, por el protestantismo inglés y el Directorio. A la «libertad de los antiguos» que encarnaba el Libertador cual otro Napoleón, había que oponer la «libertad de los Modernos», definida por Benjamin Constant, pero sin sacrificar las exigencias de la virtud.
En este sentido, Rocafuerte era cercano a los ideólogos y participaba en ese tercer concepto definido por Philip Pettit como fundamento real del republicanismo: más allá de la «libertad negativa» a lo Tocqueville o de la «libertad positiva» a lo Rousseau, «la libertad como no-dominación»
(LOMNE, 2009, pp. 1266-1267).
Esa libertad se asocia más a la de los modernos (Constant, Locke: la libertad del individuo) que a la de los antiguos (Rousseau: la primacía de lo público sobre lo privado o la libertad y autoridad del Estado). Coincido en que aquella libertad de los modernos o libertad negativa de Constant puede ser mejor comprendida, siguiendo a Pettit, como instancia de no dominación, esto es, una libertad contra los poderes absolutos, ejercidos de manera arbitraria. Para Pettit, la opción entre libertad “positiva” y “negativa”, es decir, entre la posibilidad de participar en la vida comunitaria y la individualista, que es la de los liberales como Isaiah Berlin, es insuficiente. Pettit sostiene que la tradición republicana supone una tercera posibilidad que supera la opción de Constant: es la libertad como no-dominación, opuesta al poder absoluto. Podría coincidir con la libertad de los antiguos, pero no se identifica solamente con la participación política ni con la virtud, sino con que nadie nos pueda dominar, que no interfiera
arbitrariamente con nuestras decisiones.
REPLY
Manuel
20 May 2020 at 6:59 pm
PERMALINK
“un mismo sistema bajo culturas diferentes produce resultados muy diferentes”
Para llegar al mismo Sistema de los que le ha ido muy
Bien, primero habría que tomar TODOS los atajos
Pertinentes para asegurarnos que de modo efectivo
Se ha cumplido con los requisitos que el sistema
Demanda y requiere. El sistema socialista Real
Se ha intentado en una docena de culturas y en
Todas el resultado fue equivalente. El sistema nórdico
No ha sido implementado como tal en LA, una cosa
Es intentar o buscar una implementación falseada
De ese sistema y otra que ud asegure que se ha hecho
Con todas las de la ley
Procurando:
-la fortaleza de las instituciones.
-el debido contrapeso y separación de poderes.
– políticas sociales efectivas y consistentes en el tiempo
– libre mercado
– imperio de la ley
– respeto a la propiedad, protección a las inversiones
– aumento de exportaciones y papel de la producción
Intelectual en la economía
Entre otros que caracterizan a los más prósperos