Your invoice will be issued once a first or partial payment of your session is received.
Thus, the rate of QST calculated, will be that of 2010, if you make your first payment before December 31, 2010. After this date, laTVQ be calculated at 8.5%. (New government tax)
We can only rejoice, as a liberal / libertarian Republicans to victory in the elections of 2010 Mid-term, especially when it was carried by a wave People in the form of the Tea Party, whose main ideas advocated less government and less taxes.
But let us not be fooled, politics has twisted it this pernicious tendency to diminish in practice the ambitious programs, particularly those of a liberal.
And moreover it is difficult to go on social rights or right to (allowances, tax loopholes, preferences etc. ...), in fact c ' is through this that policies are re-elected because he can buy the votes of voters, giving them new rights either by promising not to repeal those they already enjoy.
And plus the mass of beneficiaries increases and it becomes increasingly difficult to go back.
is probably the main feature of our social democracies that have become under the terms of a social fiction or Bastia everybody endeavors to live at the expense for everyone.
While these will be newly elected Republicans, will they reduce the power that will allow them to be reelected?
all depends on the nature of the ideology of voters. For a minimal state-like program (why not abolish the state) can be implemented should a majority of voters are convinced of the merits of a drastic reduction of the state to the critical point where everyone of his constituents agree to forego the advantages he enjoyed.
Because in general it is always inclined to remove the allowances and / or privileges of others, but suddenly it becomes difficult when it comes to his own.
Of Victor Hugo, and today field of political thought, we holds the man who ignited for great causes, denouncing social injustice and who was the spokesman of the oppressed and the poor of the 19th century that his major work, Les Miserables, put on the front of the stage as leading roles.
But do you know Victor Hugo specialist in economic theory? As surprising as it may be, in this same book that is Les Miserables, we demonstrated in a few lines # a good sense for the economy that few socialists today. Jean Val Jean, the convict, the very symbol of the victim's system, under a false identity, that of M. Madeleine, gave up the economy of the region of Montreuil-sur-Mer.
As an innovation in imitation of the English jet beads and black of Germany (I have no idea what it is) it would " prodigiously reduced prices raw material, which had led, first, to raise the price of labor, benefit to the country and secondly, to improve the manufacturing advantage Consumer and thirdly, to sell more cheaply while trebling the profit, profit for the manufacturer . Here is an admirable analysis of the benefits of innovation in industry, reducing production costs, which in some cases increases wages, lowers the price of the goods and increasing profits. This clarity in the explanation reminds us of Bastia.
Then he adds that " the author of this process had become rich, which is good, and had done everything around him rich, which is better . What a surprise, he rehabilitates the concept in a few lines so reviled profit. This is not a zero sum game where gains of some are at the expense of others, however, profit is divided between the contractor, its employees and customers, everyone wins. It returns to this creed as how the research of personal interest in trade, is combined with that of research interest. Even better, a little further, he explains that John Valjean has a "thin capital " who " serving a ingenious idea [..] had drawn his own fortune and wealth of all countries . Nothing is forgotten. The operation of an idea can not be done without an initial capital, that is to say a sum of money we saved. Basically, this is a restatement of the principle of the capitalist entrepreneur, the only engine of prosperity. The two concepts are inseparable. We need a starting capital and the idea to make fruit. But where will we do if Victor Hugo is the teacher of capitalism?
It keeps coming back on the benefits that the industry has made Jean Valjean in the region where " unemployment and misery" are now "unknown " whereas before his arrival " while languishing in the country .
Another remarkable detail in the description of this process is that this wealth creation is not the result of impersonal forces and mechanical springs from nowhere and can be parameterized by a State Almighty, which the author brings to light the flaws often repeated in his work, but one of action and the willingness of an individual in its own right. Moreover, when Jean Valjean, aka Dr. Madeleine is unmasked by Javert and must flee " prosperity of Montreuil-sur-mer disappeared.
Obviously Victor Hugo was not a liberal school that he considers "very respectable # but he did not share all the views. Its position is that it expressed later in the work, that would be of a Blairite where entrepreneurship has run its course for wealth creation but part of which must be redistributed to the needy. The utopia of the third way. However, in some lines, he demonstrated his exceptional acuity in economic theory, or simply common sense that few writers and intellectuals (and no union) of our time seem to have in their minds.
| Sunday, November 14, 2010, from 9h to 16h $ 80 (+ Tx) / person |
| Ms. Louise Ruelland , which is a virtuoso of the tip, will introduce you to the deposition technique of color on the canvas with a spatula so that the texture on your table. |
| Beginner, intermediate or advanced, come make your work in any and colorful |
Mixed acrylic paintWith René Milone |
| Sunday, October 24, 2010, from 10h to 16h $ 70 (+ Tx) per person including materials * |
| |
| Book your place now! Beginner, intermediate or advanced, just fun to create freely. |
| Book by phone with Visa or Mastercard: 450-448-8047 | |
 | |
| View images from the last workshop in mixed media with acrylic here |
One of the greatest contributions of Hans -Hermann Hoppe to liberal thinking was that to answer this important question: why the right of private property is it the moral and ethical foundations of the supreme laws of our societies?
In Indeed, more than one liberal has found, for example during a debate with a socialist ideology pushed into a corner and forced to explain why the right of private property should be the absolute standard that governs our lives. Answer all the more difficult that our era is the master relativism, asserting absolute values to the characters is frowned upon.
is through an angle of attack at first surprising that the German-born philosopher addresses this crucial question: he uses a method developed by his compatriot Jurgen Habermas ; ethics discussion. The principle is simple: the fact to debate, discuss, argue with someone implies, implicitly, the recognition of moral or ethical standards apply to both parties. Without at least implicit recognition of the standards debate could take place, in other words they are necessary to its existence.
What are these standards?
Any discussion, any argument between two people, and this concerns both the trivial discussion of the PMU counter the philosophical essay between ENS, requires that we reach agreement on a minimum point to the fact that we can not agree. It is possible that the two parties can not agree on any point of the discussion, except that they do not agree. This seems extremely tautological but that recognition of this fact implies that anyone can issue opinions that they want and the tool that ensures the expression of his ideas, that is to say, his central nervous system, his vocal cords , his mouth, his whole body in fact, belongs to him. It has exclusive control.
Besides, if we debate it with someone that you like, through argument and not by force, changing his ideas, and therefore his actions, because the production The idea is an action as another. So we want to convince them otherwise. Convincing someone to do otherwise by the argument is to recognize that it controls your body, not you, it will modify its actions only if it adheres voluntarily to your ideas. The term voluntary again refers to the concept of exclusive control over his own body. He is owner of her body and not you, so if you talk to him you would at least acknowledge that.
So when I debate, I affirm that I own my body and my partner is also the owner of his own. It would be absurd to discuss whether or not to own her body for nothing that to discuss means to own her body.
As the owner of his body, and by extension following the logic Lockean private property, it owns what is appropriated first (in the state of nature) that is produced or what the is received through a voluntary exchange. And here we are on track for the liberal philosophy of free trade and more broadly of the principle of nonaggression.
Why justify the right of private property by the debate or argument? After all, we are not forced to struggle to resolve our differences, force is an alternative far from being unthinkable to solve our disputes. And it is precisely on this point discussion of the alternative / strength behind this reflection. What distinguishes man from animals when in conflict resolution, for example with the appropriation of food, is that men may engage in discussion to find a solution. Discussion that uses reason and logic that are peculiar to man, not animals. Obviously I do not pretend that men are guided by infallible wisdom that frees them from any conflict, however history shows us the opposite by countless wars. Many men do not care for others and often use violence when it suits them, and for me it does not prevent me from any discussion which I recognize implicitly the private property of my interlocutor on his body and property to rape a moment later.
But when two men engage in a debate they say, one might say in spite of themselves, the standard of private property.
And again it is through reason and logic we can find a way establish objective standards to reduce conflicts with their portion of more congruent, ie in cases of self defense. And that's what Hans-Hoppe Hermman tried to demonstrate this through the debate / argument / discussion, exclusive means that men have to release them peacefully, involving de facto recognition of private property as a moral norm.
As a socialist is caught in a trap contradictory when he tries to rebut the private property argument. For in arguing against private property it validates the existence of private property which is a condition sine qua non argument. We understand better why today and in the past to the inconsistencies in their ideology of the socialists did not find any hair to achieve their ends, other alternatives to the debate, discussion or argument that the use of force.
Things have changed since the publication of the most famous works of Hayek, L a road to serfdom . Even if today the government and its hordes of regulations have returned to the front of the stage (had they actually left) and are, it would appear from many intellectuals, our only way of salvation, liberalization remains a topic, a possible optical, prowling around for the station and the Post, and perhaps even those of EDF and GDF to his sister. This is more an idea as unthinkable in the 80s (even the Gaullists would have dared to touch them), she often returns to the table in short it is an idea in the air.
But now, one area remains the preserve of all species of planners and socialist bureaucrats known so far on earth to believe that knowing that other areas will eventually escape their they cling to it with all the energy of despair. It is their sacred stronghold, their inviolable temple, their sacred garden: it is the sacrosanct health!
is even the case of very liberal albion (apparently). " Cut the deficit, not the NHS " was one of the cries of war campaign Cameron can reshape the whole earth except health, which is also completely nationalized. The U.S. is now affected by the same virus.
And obviously it's the same in France. But what is incredible is that the evolution of health care and French follows step by step, almost identical, the steps outlined in The Road to Serfdom. It looks like to play again before our eyes the same room, except that the actors and roles have changed.
look at some of these disturbing similarities between the work of Hayek and the reality of today:
The terrain is the same
Indeed, surprisingly, in France, health, or rather the production of medical care is a very complex mixture of private and public services and liberal state services or public (social security is special is public but not entirely of State) all in an atmosphere prégnant corporatism. And this situation of diversity that is the cause of its instability, manifested by higher costs or revenues, or by defects in the production of the service. It is this instability that forces political actors to find a solution.
But the diagnosis is wrong
For the vast majority of those who have studied the case, the problem lies either in the hand or in a liberal regulatory inadequate, when in fact whatever its form is its state-owned or controlled by that is causing the problem (for example a monopoly on health insurance).
Freedom and hence free trade in the proposed solution, are absent
As in The Road to Serfdom freedom is completely obscured as a solution to problems, for freedom I am referring to the original definition of the term, be free aggression, which includes the freedom of trade or free trade. Thus it is improper to associate with the concept of health is taboo, profit and health care do not go together, that's unthinkable, the market has nothing to do with medical care and treat n ' is not trade. Freedom in this area is an old outdated concept of the 19th century. When we speak of freedom, that it will not get sick, with his immediate corollary: The Right to Health. They simply forgot that the engine of prosperity is freedom, I mean the real one.
is the plan premium
There is salvation in the plan, we must organize, regulate, administer health improvement; error analysis is epistemological in nature, market mechanisms are unknown. This love of the plan, we do not even hide it: it proclaims loudly in election campaigns, plans multiply and succeed, is the plan of struggle against depression, the control plan against Alzheimer's disease, the plan against cancer etc ... We also reached the climax with the creation of Regional Health (ARS) which will be introduced to the Five Year Plans health (yes, really). Stalinization not hide even more, she proudly displayed. Freedom of speech has definitely disappeared.
And everyone has their own plan
And as in The Road to Serfdom, each proposed plan covers the interests of a particular sector. There is the plan of health professionals, health insurance, state, patients' associations, laboratories, etc ... Each mutual defends his plan to name the general interest (sometimes with sincerity) when in fact it represents the interests of the group. And privileges of each is doing at the expense of others, there is an institutionalized war manifested in the form of strikes and rounds (this singular reference to boxing) social negotiations to reach an agreement. This is the famous chaotic interventionism as decried by Hayek when society is between the true communism and laissez-faire.
But nothing is solved
And as the benefits of each are at the expense of others, the problem is simply moved. He returns with more force and requires further action.
Bureaucratization intensifies
Since you can not imagine freedom as a solution, it falls back again on new plans and new regulations that pile up over time. There is an increasing bureaucratization of the system that all complex procedures, general practitioners are overwhelmed by the growing burden of paperwork and medical services must do more reporting on their activity (sometimes up to spawn record 50 pages on how to clean the toilet (true!). Eventually the system loses efficiency and still the problem is worsening.
lobbying and industrial action take precedence over the production service
time and means to win favors or to preserve Privileges are provided time and resources spent less to produce the service.
The absurdities of the system become legions
Since man is not omniscient, the profusion of legislation creates absurdities rather surprising. Example: we banned the production of Diantalvic (perhaps under pressure from rival pharmaceutical boxes) as dangerous (it seems) and ineffective (as many other substances for sale) but it still allows doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to sell their stock for a year (it is if not so dangerous)! Imagine that you have authorized to sell the stocks of tainted blood. Cons by aspirin over the counter, ie without a prescription, whereas if it so familiar drug had been developed today would not have been eligible for placing on the market (by today's standards ) for its side effects too many.
Entrepreneurship and responsibility are dwindling ...
According to recent statistics only 10% of young doctors open a practice, the rest preferring activity or substitute employee. What good to get into business creation, basically a medical practice is managed like a business, when the legislative barriers and price controls make it difficult to create and maintain. Any new legislation has the effect of making predictions uncertain contractors; Hayek said very clearly, by wanting to plan ahead, the central authority made it difficult or impossible, the schedule that each individual develops in his corner for his own projects. Oh and we know how important enterprise for producing, whatever its nature, a service.
... and you prefer to acquire a final privileged status.
Since the gains are far from certain in professional activity and numerous pressures, young people prefer to employees (and growing old doctors), with benefits that go with, the paid leave, RTT, the maternity and paternity leave, simplified administrative procedures, without worrying about things like accounting, professional fees, payments to URSSAF that go with the management of any firm.
Some even claim that the craft GP is State run, the image of National Education. Firms would be well to state (no need to personally check if there are still toilet paper in the toilet) with a fixed salary schedules, breakdowns in the territory etc. .. etc. .. And if there is odd, it is more his fault but that of the head of the existing regulations, lack of means.
efforts move either, as mentioned earlier, to improve the service but to acquire a favorable status at the expense of consumers as always (yes we consume health benefits).
positions and jobs become too planned
In the famous warning influenza H1N1 is present at a Soviet revival with impressive cooks endless before vaccination centers and a vibrant organization for its absurdities. Specialists such as dermatologists or surgeons, were requisitioned for the vaccine in place to ensure their core business. Classic mistake of a hyper-regulation which leads to inefficient resource allocation.
Coercion shows the tip of his nose
Since nobody seems to show good will to the general interest, each new plan has not improved the situation, but rather worsens, we hesitate less to use force.
It restricts freedom of installation, practice nurses and those doctors are regularly threatened. Requisitions for general campaign multiply to such an extent that they enslave the weeks of 90 hours and provides even they are forced to ask permission to go on holiday (although he has not paid leave and are a profession, it's a little like a restaurateur had to ask permission to leave on vacation). It's a real indoctrination.
It restricts the free choice of patients and using the tools of propaganda of the state for stunning blow to prevention messages deficient in the aim of saving the new enemies of our time, tobacco, alcohol, viruses, cholesterol and osteoporosis.
However as described so Hayek, the government did not time the violence necessary to achieve his ends. He wants benevolent and conciliatory ... until voices were raised to take measures necessary for the survival of the system. One who will be expected to discipline all these people as selfish who never take into account the interests of all, and there, sure, we'll jump in with both feet into dictatorship.
Planning a portion ultimately affect the whole system
Limit and regulate medical fees are not made without consequences, a Price is always relative to another prize and always varies depending on other prices. Regulate a price will revert to another term to regulate prices. If you regulate the fees that doctors will someday return to regulate the price of materials they use (eg scalpels), so to administer the companies that produce them (companies scalpel), which each purchase other factors of production (the machines that manufacture the knives) and therefore closer and closer to the whole society will suffer the same fate.
This list is obviously far from exhaustive.
Finally, today, health is proving to be the Trojan horse of totalitarianism. Without realizing it, insidiously, with the most laudable intentions, the health and care, an area which in essence can not be evil, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.
Hayek has constantly reminded that saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
