zondag, 26 september 2004
Doorsturen Doorsturen   Printen Printen

ECB fel tegen versoepeling europact

Het doet ons goed te lezen dat ook de Europese Centrale Bank (ECB) ziet niets in voorstellen van de Europese Commissie, het dagelijks bestuur van de Europese Unie, om de strenge begrotingsregels van de eurolanden te versoepelen.
De Commissie wil het zogenaamde stabiliteitspact voor de euro aanpassen, omdat grote landen als Duitsland en Frankrijk weigeren te buigen voor de regels. Als het aan de Commissie ligt, kan iedereen het in marmer gebeitelde contract veel “creatiever” toepassen. Zoiets als creatief winkelen?

U kunt meehelpen aan dat geritsel te ontkomen door:
te beginnen met te stemmen: “EU – NEEN!”

 
Waardering: 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars

Door , topic: EU
Reacties op dit artikel kunnen gevolgd worden op de RSS 2.0 feed.
Reacties
  1. Ivo schreef op : 1

    "U kunt meehelpen aan dat geritsel te ontkomen door: te beginnen met te stemmen: "EU – NEEN!" "
    Ik dacht dat hier zojuist een stem-NIET-campagne gevoerd werd.
    Wat willen liberteiren eigenlijk, niet stemmen of neen stemmen?
    Geef mij maar een lekkere bom.

  2. Nuchtere Nederlander schreef op : 2

    [1]
    Hallo, op dit moment is het referendum aan de orde, Ivo.
    Ter info: helaas bepaalt de regering de agenda, niet de libertariers.

  3. Hub (auteur van dit artikel) schreef op : 3
    Hub Jongen

    [1]Ivo, je hebt kennelijk het stukje over STEMMEN van 17 augustus gemist!
    Daarin is het verschil tussen een "verkiezing van politici" en dit "referendum" beredeneerd.
    Bekijk dat nog eens en geef dan commentaar.
    Bommengooien is geen alternatief. Voor een libertarier is dat immoreel, en het klinkt nogal kwajongensachtig.

  4. Ivo schreef op : 4

    Hier de column van Tibor Machan van 13 september jongstlede (ik hoop dat ik de meeste returns heb kunnen verwijderen) die stelt dat het niet is omdat jij van oordeel bent dat nee dient gestemd dat je anderen mag oproepen om ook nee te stemmen. Mensen die geen benul hebben van het feit of de grondwet goed of slecht is moeten met rust gelaten worden. Het is immoreel om potentiële thuisblijvers aan te manen de moeite te nemen de zaak te bestuderen en te gaan nee-stemmen. Het opkomstpercentage wordt daardoor trouwens verhoogd.
    Burtgerplicht, burgerrecht? Ik ben geen burger. Hoe kan ik in die hoedanigheid rechten en plichten hebben?
    Anderen helpen bij het elimineren van de EU? Sorry, ik ben geen altruïst.
    Het probleem is natuurlijk dat wanneer Mencius (Meng Zi), een Oud-Chinese filosoof, , (die het recht op revolutie erkent maar wiens boek thans een van de vier boeken uitmaakt die de Chinerse bijbel uitmaakt – en onder het neo-confucianisme werden deze boeken “herwerkt” door de Boeddhisten die het “ego” niet erkennen. Daarom is Mencius onbekend bij liberteiren maar niet bij de Chinezen.), tijdsgenoot van Plato en Aristoteles, schreef:
    3. ‘When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus:– even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child’s parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing.
    Dit geïnterpreteerd werd als altruïsme.
    Ach, er is veel werk voor de boeg.
    Gelukkig is er Tibor.

  5. Ivo schreef op : 5

    Get out the (Stupid) Vote?

    Tibor R. Machan

    As one walks about towns throughout the country
    now, one can see a bunch of people on street
    corners, in malls, and elsewhere, urging
    everyone to vote. They are attempting to register
    eligible voters everywhere, hoping these will
    actually go to the polls and do their
    “democratic duty.”

    But is this really such a great idea?
    I suspect that those of us who aren’t going to
    vote on our own initiative either care nothing
    for the candidates who are running or have no idea
    why they
    ought to vote for one person rather than an other.
    In either case such folks should not be
    urged to vote.

    In the first case they are probably basing their
    judgment on pretty solid grounds of their own—their
    considered disapproval of the main candidates; in the
    second instance their vote will distort the total
    count since they have no good reason for voting in
    the first place.
    Their input will amount to something entirely
    arbitrary, irrational.

    This idea that everyone ought to vote, no matter
    how informed or uniformed, is a very bad one indeed.
    For myself, if I do not know enough about some
    proposition or the candidates vying for office, I do
    not vote one way or another. My reason is that other
    folks, more knowledgeable than I, should be deciding
    on the issue or candidate, not I who would be voting
    practically blindfolded.

    Often, of course, one may consider both candidates
    bidding for the office equally bad, so one may well,
    and wisely, refuse to back either. This
    notion that there must be a lesser of two evils
    is a mistake. There may ell not be.

    But the worst idea is to get out the stupid
    vote—and this may only happen when those who know
    nothing cast a vote anyway. That’s what is stupid,
    not their ignorance, which may often be perfectly
    justified.

    Some of us simply haven’t the time or energy to
    study the issues or candidates. Many citizens are
    legitimately busy with other tasks that
    are more important. If they leave the voting to those
    who are, in fact, well informed, well perhaps the
    decision will be a good one.
    But if they muddy up matters with their ignorant vote,
    e are sure to be in bad shape.

    There is, of course, also the matter that
    many, many issues up for a vote should not be up for
    a vote at all. It is none of anyone’s business
    whether shops should put up signs to advertising
    what they have to offer us—it is their business, not
    ours. I despise the idea that I must take part in what
    is none of my business, simply because in our society
    such lynch mob tactics are permitted by law. In fact, it is
    wrong to take part in such a vote, like voting on whether
    someone should hang who hasn’t had a trial that follows
    rules of evidence and such. Sometimes democracy is
    plainly unjust and one should not give it credence
    by taking part.

    Of course, there are times even those who find all major
    candidates unworthy of support need to vote—defensively.
    Voting against the most intrusive measures and the most
    statist politicians may be the only way to bar some from
    violating the individual rights of citizens. And then,
    reluctantly, one needs to go out there and vote.
    But only if one has a reasonably clear idea what one is
    voting for and why and if one is
    basically not in support of voting on everything under
    the sun. (Just
    consider: Why should all matters of concern to us be up
    for a vote? How about whom one should marry? Or where one
    should live? There are many other issues that should never be
    subject to majority rule.)

    But back to the main point: Getting out the vote is a silly
    idea if it involves recruiting people who have no understanding
    of the issues and the candidates as they cast their ballot.
    That goal will just subvert what is of value in democracy,
    namely, intelligent public choices about who is to
    serve us in administering the law.