fabiofernandes - Tumblr blog

fabiofernandes · 6 years ago

Text

The Law of Liberalism

What is Spontaneous Order?

The Law has only one reason to exist and that is to regulate our social relations and to establish order. It is an institution created by men purely for the protection of liberty. Today we are used to have our liberty and freedom regulated and diminished by the use of legislative power and new laws, but in the beginning, most of the laws were common sense of day-to-day relations and came to exist by what we call Spontaneous Order. The Common Law, opposed to the Civil Law, is an example of the remaining origins of Spontaneous Order. It is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than codified statutes.

The Spontaneous Order is when complexity comes into order in a self driven way and without being planned. It is the result of human action, but not of human design. Men’s need to organize themselves and collaborate to one another are some of the reasons why such order emerge, and we are surrounded in our daily lives by many examples, such as our native languages, the common law and even the internet.

Defenders of the Spontaneous Order often emphasizes how laws that came to existence by common law are easier to accept than laws created and enforced by governments. One overly used example by it defenders is the cannabis, that probably wouldn’t be illegal if it was up to the society to decide it. Another example would be the Uber App, created by spontaneous will of drivers that were fed up with the traditional taxi business model. They created its own order and was a tremendous success until government officials decide to regulate and restrict the service in defense of a minority of government protect citizens.

Why should we promote Spontaneous Order over Government policies?

As I see it, there are two main reasons for choosing Spontaneous Order over Government Law and Control.

First, letting order develop spontaneous is for numerous scholars a better and frequently more innovative way solve our society’s problems. One example I frequently tell is the city of Detroit. It is well known how the city has in the past decades been fighting the increasingly criminality up to the point as it got out of hand. Politicians were unwilling to solve the problem and were ineffective with tax payers money in finding smart and efficient solutions. It was the effort of the big banks (such as Citibank) and their monetary motivation to connect the criminality rates with a simple solution: electricity. The local Public Energy and Lighting provider had a huge debt and because of that many neighborhoods in the city were lacking maintenance and consequently, had their streets completely blackout. Criminality obviously increased in those neighborhoods where the streets were darker and easier to escape. Due to the negotiation of this banks and a recovery plan that included a new loan, the company was able to fully restore the public lighting and criminality immediately reduced. Obviously, the problem in Detroit goes much deeper that just light, but that example shows how the private initiative is quicker, cheaper, more innovative and efficient in solving our society’s problem.

Secondly, in Government Law, legislation is created by politicians who have little or nothing to loose by approving flawed laws. If entrepreneurs don’t get it right, they are almost immediately punished economically by the market, which puts a huge and heavy load on their backs to do their best and achieve perfection. On the other hand, if public servers and politicians make mistakes, they are not responsible for their catastrophic outcomes and don’t pay a dime for it. At the end, we pay for their mistakes.

The Rule of Law

Lastly, the Rule of Law is a very important concept for defending our liberties in a democratic society. It stands for the fact that we all equal before the Law, and therefore, nobody can abuse their power over another citizen. A police officer cannot hold you indefinitely without telling you what is that you are accused of, and a politician should not have a special treatment in the face of the law and must not impose their views and values on us. In addition, the law must be knowable, understandable and predictable.

Knowable: The Laws must be clearly articulated and available. If we don’t know the law or have no access to it. how are we supposed to follow it. (Ignorance of the Law is not an excuse!)

Understandable: If is written in a complicated style, or there are thousands of them to be followed and somehow they are overruled and contradictory, it makes hard for people to understand and consequently follow the law.

Predictable: The right and guarantee that the law won’t change overnight and will remain constant not because of a political view, but because it is the best for the society.

When the law is equally applied, in a understandable manner, and available to all, people trust their government and can create, innovate and be free, because the future is predicable to them.

THANK YOU FOR READING THIS POST ABOUT THE LAW OF LIBERALISM. MAKE SURE TO READ THE PREVIOUS POST ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF LIBERALISM.

CHEERS,

#Justice #Law #Common Law #Civil Law #Rule of Law

6 notes · View notes

fabiofernandes · 6 years ago

Text

Literature on Liberalism

Liberalism has been presented as being identical to conservatism, yet more reactionary, like a mask for exploitation. Furthermore, there has been a lot of confusion as to what liberalism truly is. To help you navigate thru the values I believe are the base for more freedom, wealth and happiness in our society, I compiled this list with the classic literature that created the classic Liberalism.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Main work: “Leviathan”, 1651 Known for: Among the earliest of a handful of writers to set out principles for liberalism. Because the natural state of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” liberty for an individual is tied to the power of a sovereign, administering through laws, within a commonwealth. His detailed construction became the foundation for numerous other works examining the proper role and structure of government.

John Locke (1632-1704)

Main works: “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, 1689, and “The Second Treatise of Government”, 1689 Known for: Expanded on Hobbes to provide the architecture for a modern liberal state. In “A Letter” Locke argues, contrary to Hobbes, for the state to tolerate different religious beliefs. In his “Second Treatise”, he echoes Hobbes’s view of the need for strong government, writing: “where there is no law, there is no freedom”. But, rather than endorse Hobbes’s all-powerful Leviathan, Locke thought that the system should separate those who make laws from those who execute them.

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755)

Main work: “The Spirit of the Laws”, 1748 Known for: Montesquieu devised the tripartite structure of government adopted by America. His monumental work provides guidance on how governments should be structured “by fallible human beings” to serve “the people for whom they are framed” with the most liberty that would be feasible. To accomplish this requires limits: “Liberty is a right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they forbid he would no longer be possessed of liberty.”

Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Main work: “Common Sense”, 1776 Known for: In just a few dozen pages of argument, Paine creates the intellectual catalyst for the American Revolution. The work received immediate, widespread circulation in America and then in other countries. “Government,” Paine argues, “is a necessary evil”, inevitably restricting liberty. He attacked both hereditary rule and monarchy, proposing instead a government of elected representatives and a limited, rotating presidency.

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

Main work: “The Wealth of Nations”, 1776 Known for: Smith laid the intellectual foundation of modern economics, markets and free trade. His assertion that an “invisible hand” is at the heart of the market is among the most cited phrases in economics. But he also explored the division of labour, the benefits of trade, the mobility of capital, the rigging of markets by businesses and government, and public goods (notably universal education).

Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793)

Main Work: “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen”, 1791 Known for: Gouges is often heralded as a founder of modern feminism. Her “Declaration” is a response to “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson, and Honoré Mirabeau, which did not extend the natural rights of the citizen to women as well as men. Gouges was a prolific defender of free speech, women’s rights and political dialogue, as well as an abolitionist and pacifist. She was executed by guillotine for her support of constitutional monarchy at the beginning of Maximilien Robespierre’s “reign of terror” in 1793.

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797)

Main Work: “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, 1792 Known for: Wollstonecraft’s treatise is considered by many to be the first feminist manifesto. Others grapple over whether her writings, which critique excessive emotion and female sexuality, are indeed feminist. “A Vindication” contains endless references to the paragon of rational thought, and a vehement defence of the importance of equal educational opportunities for men and women.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Main Work: “On Liberty”, 1859 Known for: Mill has become a reference point for liberalism. “On Liberty” is a defence of individual freedom with a caveat: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mill views even a society under representative government to threaten liberty, notably, in a term he popularised, the “tyranny of the majority”.

James Wilson (1805-1860)

Known for: Founding The Economist Magazine Our name originally included the phrase: “Free Trade Journal”. The Economist was an impassioned defender of laissez-faire while Wilson was editor, from 1843-59. In 1849 we wrote: “all the great branches of human industry are found replete with order, which, growing from the selfish exertions of individuals, pervades the whole. Experience has proved that this order is invariably deranged when it is forcibly interfered with by the state.”

Thomas Hodgskin (1787-1869)

Main work: “Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital”, 1825 Known for: One of Wilson’s deputies, Hodgskin had a far-ranging suspicion of intervention. “All law making,” he wrote, “except gradually and quietly to repeal all existing laws, is arrant humbug.” He argued that property rights are antithetical to individual liberty. Writing about capital, he said, “the weight of its chains are felt, though the hand may not yet be clearly seen which imposes them.” The book was praised as “admirable” by none other than Karl Marx—who used the chains metaphor rather more memorably in the “Communist Manifesto”.

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Main work: “The Man verses the State”,1884 Known for: A lowly editor in the early years of The Economist, Spencer went on to become an intellectual rival of Marx. He is perhaps best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest." An influential thinker in many fields, Spencer writes: "The degree of [man’s] slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain; and it matters not whether his master is a single person or society."

Baruch (Benedict) de Spinoza (1632-1677)

Main political work: “Theological-Political Treatise”, 1670 Known for: A polymath beloved today but often reviled in his own time, Spinoza earned his living grinding lenses and his fame by changing how people saw the world. While accepting the existence of an absolute sovereign, he argued that freedom of thought, speech and academic inquiry should not only be permitted by the state, but were essential for its survival.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

Main work: “Democracy in America”, 1835 Known for: His study of America remains at the heart of ongoing debates over questions with vast importance, including how to ensure democracy and individual liberty coexist. His conclusion was that America’s success stemmed from devolving responsibility to the most local of all organisations, often voluntary, an approach now threatened by the centralisation of resources and authority in Washington, DC. See our briefing for more on the gloomiest of the great liberals.

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

Main work: “The Law”, 1850 Known for: “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state,” Bastiat wrote. “They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.” He was an incisive debunker of flawed reasoning in support of government policies that come at the cost of individual freedom. His definition of “legal plunder” (if the law takes from one to give to another) remains a living sentiment for those who resist state expansion, as does his definition of what comprises good economic policy: it must be judged on not only what would be produced but what would be lost—the innovations and activities that do not occur.

Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858)

Main work: “The Enfranchisement of Women”, 1851 Known for: Though little was published under Taylor Mill’s own name, her second husband, John Stuart Mill, readily admitted the influence she had on him and his work. They were an intellectual duo to be reckoned with. Taylor Mill wrote anonymously or under a pseudonym on the nature of marriage, sex and domestic violence. She was a fierce advocate of women’s suffrage, writing along with her husband, “It is neither necessary nor just to make imperative on women, that they shall be either mothers or nothing.”

Salvador de Madariaga y Rojo (1886-1978)

Main work: A principal author of the Oxford Manifesto, 1947 Known for: Madariaga led a group of representatives from 19 countries in drawing up a charter laying out the fundamental principles of liberalism, as they defined it: a commitment to individual liberty, economic freedom, the free exchange of ideas and international coalition-building. Madariaga and his contemporaries worried that the death and destruction of the world wars were caused largely by the abandonment of these ideals. But he believed equality and liberty did not necessarily go hand in hard, writing in 1937 that “inequality is the inevitable consequence of liberty,” which may explain why “security” and “opportunity” were written into the manifesto as “fundamental rights”.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Main works: “Critique of Pure Reason”, 1781; “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, 1795 Known for: Kant favoured republican governments over majoritarian ones. He worried that rule by majority could undermine the freedom of individuals, and called direct democracy a kind of “despotism” of the masses. He argued that lasting international peace could only be realised through a “political community” of countries committed to what came to be known as “Rechtsstaat”, or the constitutional state. Kant’s faith in the supremacy of law and the social contract seems to be derived from his thinking on moral philosophy. Kant says that free will requires individuals to “self-legislate”, or police themselves, so that they act morally. If we scale up that idea, then having political freedom means entire societies must do the same, preferably—if it were up to Kant—with a constitution.

Harriet Martineau (1802-1876)

Main works: “Illustrations of Political Economy”, 1832-1834; “Society in America”, 1837 Known for: Half-way between a novel and a political treatise, Martineau’s “Illustrations” argued that economics was the least understood science and the one most integral to the wellbeing of society. Initially a non-interventionist, Martineau came to believe that governments should intervene in the interest of curbing inequality—unsurprising conclusions if one considers her reputation as a feminist and abolitionist. Like Tocqueville, she made one of the first sociological studies of America.

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)

Main political work: “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”, 1936 Known for: The father of the economic theory that bears his name, Keynes belonged to a new breed of 20th-century liberal that believed in accomplishing collectively what could not be achieved individually. In his “General Theory”, Keynes lays the case for heavily guided capitalism and comprehensive economic planning by government. In a turn away from laissez-faire liberalism, Keynesianism became a central organising principle of developed economies following the Great Depression.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Main works: “The Fountainhead”, 1943; “Atlas Shrugged”, 1957 Known for: Rand launched a brutal attack on the morality of a Western liberalism that criticises self-interest. “Atlas Shrugged”, a political screed presented as a romance, remains a staple of best-seller lists and perhaps the single most influential clarion call for anti-state individualism. Her uncharitable view of human frailty and the trials imposed by the unfairness of life makes her an incendiary figure on the left. But echoes of her writing are heard in the endless political obfuscation about causes and solutions. Her thesis, that a cynical pursuit of altruism undermines self-esteem, innovation, evolution and broad prosperity, resonates as—or perhaps because—public support for socialism grows.

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992)

Main works: “The Road to Serfdom”, 1944; “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”, 1988; “The Constitution of Liberty”, 1960 Known for: Hayek was the person most cited by readers after the publication of our initial bibliography. This reflects how powerfully he continues to resonate in the political debate about government. Hayek was not an absolute libertarian, and he allowed for government to provide some assistance, but he remains a controversial figure on the left because of how marginal those concessions were. He argued that the expanded presence of the state created a corrosive force that ended in the loss of individual freedom and prosperity. The strongest antipathy to his views, however, may be found among his fellow economists, because he argued that information was too scattered for either a state or an individual to make realistic assumptions or centralised plans. Read more about Hayek in our series on great liberal thinkers

Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997)

Main political work: Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958 Known for: Berlin defined a crucial faultline in liberal thinking when it came to individual freedom. He recognised that the gulf between “positive” and “negative” liberty would lead to divergent definitions of liberalism—and indeed it has. Negative liberty is best defined as freedom not to be interfered with. Positive liberty empowers individuals to live fulfilling lives, even if that requires interference from government; for example, in the form of education provided by the state. But positive liberty is ripe for exploitation, Berlin reasoned, and may allow government to force its goals upon citizens in the name of freedom—enabling totalitarianism.

John Rawls (1921-2002)

Main work: A Theory of Justice, 1971 Known for: One of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century, Rawls used a thought experiment, “the veil of ignorance”, to make the case for a philosophy he dubbed “justice as fairness”. If you were dreaming up an ideal society, Rawls argued, but didn’t know what lot you would be dealt, it would be in everyone’s self-interest to ensure equality of opportunity and shared wealth. Today, the veil of ignorance is commonly used to argue for more redistribution, but Rawls noted an important caveat: that inequality in distribution was permissible if it benefited the least well off in society. That sentiment would be shared by many who resist the growth of redistributive policies that undermine economic vitality, and hence the opportunities of the most vulnerable.

Robert Nozick (1938-2002)

Main work: “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, 1974 Known for: Though they are both considered liberals, Nozick was the anti-Rawls. He found much to dislike in Rawls’s theory of redistributive justice, arguing that people owned their talents. Successes belonged only to the individuals to whom they were attributed, not to society writ large. Nozick’s small-government liberalism was echoed in the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Liberty, Nozick said, disrupts patterns. Justice cannot demand some preferred distribution of wealth. Read more on Berlin, Rawls and Nozick in our series of philosophy briefs.

Judith Shklar (1928-1992)

Main work: The Liberalism of Fear, 1989 Known for: Shklar viewed limited, democratic government as a necessary defence that shields people, especially the poor and weak, from the abuses of the state and its agents—such as the armed forces and the police. She saw freedom from cruelty and the division of powers as the twin pillars of her ��liberalism of fear”. In her attempts to define this slippery ideology, she argued that a “liberal era” that truly upheld the notion of equal rights did not really exist in America until after the civil war. Liberalism, Shklar wrote, “was powerful in the United States only if black people are not counted as members of its society.” As a rebuke to critics who called her theory reductionist, Shklar asked why, in discussions of political philosophy, emotions must always play second fiddle to “causes”.

#Liberalism #Liberal #Classic Liberalism #Classical #Classic #Freedom

1 note · View note

fabiofernandes · 6 years ago

Text

A Libertarian Guide to Internet Privacy

One thing that is always on my mind as a libertarian is Privacy. Our ancestors valued privacy much more than we do today, because privacy in the past was physical, visible and consequently tangible. Having your privacy violated in the past meant someone going through your things, following you around or simply constantly controlling and asking what you’re doing. Your physical freedom was at stake.

The idea we have today of privacy is much broader, less invasive, but not one bit less important and meaningful than it was before. The fact is we are now even more monitored, controlled, followed and spied than ever before, sometime by harmless things such online ads, but every now and then, by malicious people who are trying to fool, take advantage or steal from us, and that is when we finally notice how vulnerable we are online. Total Internet privacy is impossible, and anyone who claims to have it is lying. But anyone can increase their Internet privacy by adjusting their online behavior, because the power to be more private and decide what we share online is in our hands.

First, it is important to say that, not everyone needs the same level of Internet privacy. The way I use my internet connection may differ from yours, and where I usually connect can also change how likely I am to treats. You don’t have to use Tor all the time (which will slow your Internet) or communicate only through Signal encrypted messenger (which is useless unless your contacts are using it too). While such technologies provide a higher level of privacy, they may not be necessary for you and the kind of personal threat you are exposed to. In other words, you probably don’t need to take the same privacy precautions as a Turkish dissident, a Venezuelan protester or an NSA whistleblower.

Internet privacy is important for everyone!

If you have a smartphone, which almost everybody in the world does nowadays, even your grandmother, then privacy issues directly impact you. Without Internet privacy someone can steal your credit card or even your identity, potentially causing problems for your credit score or at the very least inconveniencing you while a replacement card is shipped. Internet privacy keeps hackers and criminals from infiltrating your online accounts and spying on your activity while using public WiFi.

On the other hand, as both citizens and users of the Internet, we all have a stake in the quality of our society. Privacy is a fundamental human right and a prerequisite for democracy. For authoritarian governments and profit-seeking companies alike, invasions of privacy are a useful means of control. If you value your freedom, then Internet privacy should matter to you.

Here are a few tips to keep improve your privacy:

1. Limit the information you share publicly

A lot of sensitive information about you is publicly available on the Internet. Some of it is a matter of public record, like court records, addresses, and voter registration. But much of it we put on the Internet voluntarily, usually via social media: photos (often location tagged), family members’ names, work history, and a variety of clues about our daily lives. In the end, without even knowing, we are putting ourselves voluntarily in danger.

Hackers can use these clues for social engineering and to answer security questions. Photos of you on social media can even be used to create deepfake videos of you. Almost all online services and Internet-connected devices have privacy settings you can update to restrict the amount of information collected and/or posted publicly online.

2. Limit the information you share privately

Online service providers can be vulnerable to data breaches, which can instantly compromise your privacy, sometimes in embarrassing ways. Even large services like Google or Facebook are not immune to data breaches. You can mitigate the privacy threat of data breaches by limiting the information you share with these services. For instance, you can use Google Chrome or Google Maps without logging into your account, or simply switching to a more privacy-friendly browser like Firefox.

If the services themselves (and their third-party partners) are overly risky for the type of life you live on, then you can switch to privacy-focused services that do not collect user data (and therefore cannot share it with third parties). I for example use ProtonMail, an e-mail account that i anonymous (not linked to your real life identity), and only collect as little user information as possible. Unlike other email service providers (like Gmail) the ProtonMail service also have no ability to read your inbox due to end-to-end encryption. When you use the free version of Gmail for example, the Google servers scan all your emails and accounts in order to offer you better suited advertising online. The same thing happens while using Facebook Messenger.

3. Strengthen your account security

Your password is your first line of defense. Make sure you use strong, unique passwords. A password manager can help you generate and store them so that you don’t have to write them down.

Your second line of defense is two-factor authentication (2FA). This is a way to secure your account with a second piece of information, usually something you have with you on your person, like a code created on an authenticator app or fob.

Avoid using public computers to access your accounts because these can be compromised by keyloggers. And if you absolutely must use a public computer, be sure to log out of your accounts.

4. Protect your devices

Most threat models should include the possibility of your device getting stolen or lost. So it’s important to also have strong passwords protecting your devices. There are apps that allow you to wipe, locate, and potentially identify the thief if your device is stolen.

Another important part of protecting your device is maintaining its software. You can help prevent attackers from installing malware on your device by keeping your apps and operating systems up to date. Software updates often include security patches for recently discovered vulnerabilities. You can also use anti-virus software.

If your device somehow is compromised with spyware, a low-tech privacy solution, ironically popularized by Mark Zuckerberg, is to cover your webcam with a piece of opaque tape

5. Practice email safety

Email is one of the easiest ways for hackers to get into your computer. So it’s important to be alert for phishing attacks, in which the attacker tries to trick you into clicking on a link, downloading an attachment, or giving up sensitive information (such as entering your username and password into a spoofed webpage).

6. Use encryption as much as possible

Encryption is the process of converting readable information into an unreadable string of characters. Without encryption, anyone monitoring the Internet could see the information being transmitted, from credit cards to chat messages. The vast majority of online services use some form of encryption to protect the data travelling to and from their servers. But only a few tech companies encrypt your information in such a way that even the company cannot decrypt it. This kind of encryption is called end-to-end encryption(E2EE). Whenever possible you should use services that offer E2EE because your privacy is protected by default.

Often, there is an E2EE alternative to less private services. For example, ProtonMail is a private alternative to Gmail. Instead of Google Drive, which can access your files, you could use Tresorit. DuckDuckGo is a private alternative to Google Search, and Brave is one example of an Internet browser that doesn’t track your browsing activity. For notes, Standard Notes is one E2EE option.

For instant messaging, you have a number of options. WhatsApp is one of the most popular chat apps, and it features E2EE. But Facebook (which owns WhatsApp) can see who you communicate with and when, and there may even be ways for Facebook to gain access to your messages if it wanted to. Facebook Messenger is not E2EE by default. WeChat offers no E2EE. For better chat security and privacy, I recommend using Wire or Signal.

For web services that are not E2EE, you should at least ensure that your Internet connection is encrypted from your device to the company’s servers. You can check that this is the case by making sure the URL of the website begins with “https”. There’s a browser plugin called HTTPS Everywhere to help you do this automatically.

7. Use a virtual private network (VPN)

A VPN encrypts your Internet connection from your device to the server owned by your VPN service provider. Using a VPN can help keep your web traffic safe from anyone monitoring the network at the local level: hackers, your Internet service provider, and surveillance agencies. A VPN will also mask your true location and IP address, allowing you to browse more privately and access geo-restricted content.

A VPN will not, however, protect your web traffic against the VPN provider. That’s why it’s important to choose a VPN service you trust that does not keep logs of your activity.

8. Use Tor

Lastly, if your lifestyle requires a very high level of Internet privacy (maybe you’re a spy), you should connect to the Internet through Tor. Tor is a technology maintained by the nonprofit Tor Project, which allows you to use the Internet anonymously. It works by bouncing your connection through multiple layers of encryption, both protecting your data and concealing its origin. Tor also allows you to access blocked websites (such as those offering E2EE services) via the dark web. However, the downside of Tor is that it is generally significantly slower compared to using a VPN.

Lastly, I want to say that just because you want privacy, it does not mean you have something to hide. Privacy, as mentioned before, is not only good for building stronger democracies but a fundamental right of the individual in our society. Creating a more private Internet is possible, but it will require a major shift in our culture and from the Internet’s current ad-based business model.

Hope you can use some of the tips here to improve you internet security against hackers and criminals and to regain your privacy. Mostly of the information was gathered in my favorite email provider ProtonMail. If you don’t have an account, go check them out, it’s free.

As always, be kind.

- F.

#Privacy #Liberal #Liberalism #Liberty #VPN #Email #Privacy Online #Internet

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 6 years ago

Text

Notre-Dame Cathedral Fire

This week, one of the most iconic buildings in Paris has burned and many people, including myself felt heartbroken by the 15 hours fire that destroyed 2/3 of the Cathedral. The grief over the burning is completely human, but why do we fell like this incident happened in our own home, a deep sense of empathy, even from people that have never visited the Cathedral nor are religious?

My hypothesis lays on what this building represents and how our society nowadays is so far distant from that idea. First, we have to go back in time to France in 1160, when the work to build the Cathedral begun. By that time (Medieval Europe), the project and construction of such a building presented enormous challenges, not only in the engineering side, but also in resources available, from workers to raw materials. To overcome this problem, the construction of the Cathedral initiated by Bishop Maurice de Sully was divided in three stages, and took roughly two hundred years to be completed. In such a long time, it is easy to imagine that hundreds if not thousands of people died in the construction site from accidents, sickness, or even simply from the low life expectancy of the intensive labor. As for the raw material for the building itself, even if they were available from local sources surrounding Paris in the quality stone necessary to support such structure, still, transporting stone was certainly costly and demanding, even over a short distance. Thus people involved on the project, from the Bishop, to the workers knew they hardly would see the finished product of their work, and that was fine, because working for a greater idea than their own merely existence was rewarding enough.

Furthermore, our values today are different from the past and differently spread. In medieval Europe, the church had immense power over the citizens and was the source of moral values and sometimes even the law. Those values were then transmitted in the households and homes from Lords to servants, and from parents to children. The moral code had deep influence in the society understanding of their mundane life and their purpose, which allowed them to have a broader perspective of the individual responsibility in the community and a greater commitment in building ideas and even buildings they would not likely see completed.

Nowadays it is impossible to imagine a project that would take the commitment of generations to be built. Our society, in desperate need for immediate validation, is constantly looking for projects that could quickly and less costly be concluded. For us, short term projects are from 6 months up to two years from now, while long term projects are up to ten years from now. Our medieval relatives would call us shortsighted for thinking so close ahead, but that is because It probably took ten years only to build the foundation of the Notre-Dame Cathedral and half a century to raise its walls.

In addition, the search for new and personal goals was practically nonexistent. If a man was a shoemaker or a stone-carver, he would probably pass its craft to their sons, who would continue the job until they passed it to the next generation. The same thing happened with Kings, Lords and Barons. This model of communal purpose worked perfectly in assuring continuity overtime necessary to complete a colossal project, such as the Notre-Dame Cathedral. Some people may say it was horrible not to have freedom to choose their own path in life, and I would agree, but to be honest, I see nowadays so many people lost and desperately searching for a meaning in life, that I believe they would gladly accept a purpose that was passed to him than going thru the hard and adventurous task of finding their own.

Thus, the grief over the burning of the Cathedral may not be about the building itself, but rather what it represents. Even without knowing, we may be felling a sentimental yearning for the past instead, when life passed slowly and had more meaning and purpose. We all fell lonely or lost sometimes, that is because we are constantly changing our priorities and projects in life, while our medieval European cousins had probably one virtue and purpose in their lifetime, and that was serving God.

I am not saying we are now worse than men and women from medieval Europe, what I am saying is that buildings like the Notre-Dame Cathedral will not be built again in the future, or at least, not with the same blind commitment we as a society once had, trusting each other to continue the work and the project and moving forward. The sadness and grief are the result of Nostalgia of what buildings like the Notre-Dame Cathedral, the Pyramids in Egypt, the Milan and Florence Duomos in Italy, the great wall of China, and many other sites represent in human evolution, and to feel that, you don’t have to be religious or french, but simply human.

#Paris #Notre-Dame Cathedral #Fire #Catholic #Catholicism #Church #Burning

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 6 years ago

Text

The Philosophy of Liberalism

Liberty

Everybody loves Liberty. From Bernie Sanders and Carl Marx, to Aristotle, Confucius, and Adam Smith, one thing most intellectual thinkers agree on is Liberty. Politicians, Economists, Philosophers, Artists, they all at some point like to think and to talk about Liberty, but what does it mean?

For Libertarians, Liberty is at the core of what we believe. It defines as “the freedom to pursue your own good, in your own way, without limitations from other”. From a political point of view, it concedes that we need to respect the boundaries of others, as your own boundaries should be respected and nobody is allowed to impose their ideas and beliefs to others. But why Libertarians focus on Political and Economic Liberty, rather them other liberties? Because in this perception of Liberty resides what allows us to pursue all the other libertarian values. Without liberty we cannot achieve things that matter the most to us, but libertarians argues either liberty oath to be everyone’s primary political value, or starting with political liberty is the path to achieve all the other individual values. Liberty permit us to, as different from each other as we are, to pursue in our own way our own good and be happy.

Finally, Why to be a Libertarian? Because nobody knows what is best for you than yourself, and it is your own judgement and path that will take you to the place you want to be in life. It is shortsighted to think that your happiness should be defined by other people’s expectation. It might be frightening to take control of your life and the responsibility of deciding your future, but I promise it is worth it.

Individualism

Individualism has been extremely trivialized and often associated with being selfish, thoughtless and not caring about others, when in fact Individualism is the basis of our human existence. Before being members of a society, we oath to think about us as individual cells, with different cultures, backgrounds, beliefs, knowledge, and therefore unique to the world. The special thing we bring to the world, is our uniqueness, in other words, our individual being. From this point, we can understand that we as individuals are placed in a social environment to mutually contribute and live together under a set of agreed rules - that is a Society.

Libertarians are concerned not only with general Liberty, but particularly with Individual Liberty. We believe everything individual is unique and under liberty to choose its own path he/she can flourish to be the best it can in our society, applying their uniqueness to our world. Nobody is more valuable than anybody else, and that dignity appear when we are free and equal to chose. Individualism tells us that the rules we set up and the laws we are to follow, they shouldn’t address or conceive from us as members of a collective. They should address us as individual agents, responsible for our own actions and not the actions and choices of others, and accountable for what we do.

Furthermore, Individualism isn’t the view that we are all just islands, isolated and unconnected to the continent and other people. In fact, it is perfectly consistent to be an individualist, but to believe who we are and what we do is deeply influenced by others, our families, friends and the society we live in. It is not an opposition to community but rather a way of thinking of communities that treasures our purposes’ and uniqueness’s to the world.

Toleration

One of the most important foundations of Liberalism is Toleration. As I mentioned before, Liberty is the freedom to chose and not to be imposed by anyone else, and therefore it would be foolish and hypocrite trying to impose your views and beliefs to others. Rather, Libertarians believe in constructive dialogue, in argumentation and persuasion thru logic and in respecting other people’s options.

The English philosopher, John Locke wrote his “A Letter concerning Toleration” in 1689 and was one of the first Libertarians to discuss Toleration, mentioning religious toleration and the separation of powers between the Church and the State. He argued that the state of a citizen’s soul is absolutely none of the government business’s and we should all have liberty to chose and to believe in whatever we wanted, even if we strongly disagreed with their views for eternal salvation. That doesn’t mean you have to agree or endorse a different view from yours, but toleration is the basis of western dialogue

Finally, Toleration is not only limited to the government, but should be present in the fields of education, the media, culture and our private lives. Libertarians believe we should allow even the most controversial ideas to be expressed, partially because we believe not to have the right to silence other people’s opinions and partially because we believe bad ideas make great ideas in a fair context. Toleration means we Live and we Let Live.

Peace

War, What is it good for? Creating peace? Spreading democracy or boasting the economy? The answer is NOTHING.

Libertarians often say that War is the Health of the State. What they mean by that is that war makes governments stronger at the expense of everyone’s individual freedom. It empowers politicians, government agents, military staff instead of the ordinary people.

War is not a policy option that a politician has in order to solve a problem. They are horrible, traumatic events that only leaves death and destruction on its way. It makes the citizens afraid, and scared citizens are more inclined to abdicated their individual rights and liberties to the government, and once you give this power away it is very hard to have it again.

Lastly, peace generate long lasting economic prosperity. War’s economic growth due to government expenditure is short and misleading and we should never justify military intervention from an economic perspective, because even just war may have unjust consequences. War is an enemy of individual liberties and prosperity. It’s rhetoric may seem noble and make us feel safe, but should be a last resort not decided by political agenda.

Thank you for reading this post about The Philosophy of Liberalism. Make sure to read the following post about The Economics of Liberalism.

Cheers,

#Liberal #Liberalism #Liberalist #philosophy #Government #Individualism #Peace #Freedom #Liberty #Toleration

2 notes · View notes

fabiofernandes · 6 years ago

Text

The Venezuela Crisis Photographed

We all have been following the news and the crisis that has quickly escalated in Venezuela since the beginning of this year. The South American country went from being one of Latin America’s wealthiest societies to one the poorest and has been caught in a downward spiral for years with growing political discontent further fueled by hyperinflation, power cuts and shortages of food and medicine. As a result, more than three million Venezuelans have fled the country in recent years.

Alejandro Cegarra’s photo series “State of Decay” is an unflinching portrait of Venezuela’s collapse. Shot between 2013 and 2019, Cegarra’s remarkable series of black-and-white images takes us beyond these statistics. (This year, the project was nominated for a World Press Photo award.) A native of Caracas, Cegarra depicts life in his home town as precariously strung-out and pared-down, shorn of any softness. We see street preachers shouting, inmates weight lifting, children running in fear, bloodstains on the ground, predatory soldiers with masked faces and black helmets, men brandishing weapons, one of them a youngster standing purposefully with a sawed-off shotgun. There are listless people in supermarkets with empty shelves, funerals and mourners, women and children with fear on their faces.

When did It all start?

At his swearing-in ceremony, in February of 1999, Chávez promised to transform Venezuela—and over the next decade and a half, he did just that. While a global oil-price boom brought a trillion dollars into his treasury, Chávez declared his country to be the chrysalis of a revolutionary political force that he dubbed “twenty-first-century socialism.” He aligned himself with Cuba and spoke out against the United States. Meanwhile, the oil money was spent as fast as it came in, much of it on social programs to alleviate poverty, but also on expensive Russian weaponry for the armed forces and on subsidies to Cuba and other friendly governments that signed onto Chávez’s vision of a world free of Yankee domination.

When Chavez died, of cancer, in 2013, the Presidency went to his hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro, a loyalist who has shown himself to be ill-equipped at handling the country’s crisis. Venezuela’s economic problems have gone from bad to worse during his time in office. On the political front, he has resorted to deception and brute force, imprisoning his rivals and sending troops into the streets to beat and shoot youthful demonstrators. Faced with an opposition-dominated National Assembly—the country’s main legislative body—he set about creating a new constituent assembly, stacked with his supporters. Finally, last May, after banning his main political adversaries from political participation, Maduro insured his reelection to the Presidency for a new six-year term, which began last month.

The Present Moment

On January 23rd, the leader of the legislature, Juan Guaidó, declared himself acting president and said he would assume the powers of the executive branch from there onwards. The move was a direct challenge to the authority of President Nicolás Maduro, who had been sworn into a second six-year term in office just two weeks previously. Not surprisingly, President Maduro did not take kindly to his rival's move, which he condemned as a ploy by the US to oust him.

#Venezuela #Crisis #Photographs #Photos #Explained

1 note · View note

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Text

Why are we hungry for friendship?

It seems everyday more and more people are feeling lonely and part of this emptiness is caused by our shallow and thick relationships, one of them in friendship. The internet and Social Media have failed its main promises to connect people and bring us closer together, since the evidence show people are now more lonely and depressed than ever. A study published in PLOS One found that going on Facebook made users feel less satisfied with their daily lives and less happy from moment to moment. Basically, logging onto Facebook made them pretty immediately sad. Another study from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine found that the more young people used social media, the more depressed they became. The explanation for this can be traced thousands of years ago. It’s impossible to think about friendship without looking back at Aristotle and how he described the types of friendships and their effects in our lives. In Book VIII of “The Nichomachean Ethics”, Aristotle makes reference to three kinds of friendship that can still be applied today:

FRIENDSHIP BASED ON UTILITY: WHERE BOTH PEOPLE DERIVE SOME BENEFIT FROM EACH OTHER.

Aristotle describes a friendship of utility as shallow, “easily dissolved” or for the old. He views them as such because this type of friendship is easily broken and based on something that is brought to the relationship by the other person. Aristotle uses the example of trade and argues that friendships of utility are often between opposite people, in order to maximize this trade. In other words, in this kind of friendship people are together for the sake of benefiting from each other.

This kind of friendship may seem out of date, but it continuous to be as true as it was back them, not in a diabolical or Machiavellian strategy to profit from another person as you might think, but it exists in simple daily activities, for example, being friends of someone else only because of their connections, circle of friends, their jobs or for their money. It’s easy to see how this type of friendships are not strong in the test of time.

FRIENDSHIP BASED ON PLEASURE: WHERE BOTH PEOPLE ARE DRAWN TO THE OTHER’S WIT, GOOD LOOKS, OR OTHER PLEASANT QUALITIES.

The second is friendship base on pleasure. Aristotle says that friendship of pleasure is normally built between the young as passions and pleasures are great influences in their lives. This type of relationship is characterized by such feelings as passion between lovers, or the feeling of belonging among a like-minded group of friends. It differs from the friendship of utility in that those who seek utility friendships are looking for a business deal or a long term benefit, whereas the friendship of pleasure Aristotle describes is where one seeks something which is pleasant to them presently.

This is very common between young adults when you have friends because they are fun, or they like to go out to parties together. They may not have a single thing in common but they find amusing to go out together since they have such a good time. The point made by Aristotle is that immediate pleasure (in this case having a good time) is temporary and eventually ends and that is why this kind of friendship is shallow and easy to be dissolved.

In addition, friendship based on utility or pleasure are two kinds of friendship that according to Aristotle are only accidental, because in these cases friends are motivated by their own utility and pleasure, not by anything essential to the nature of the friend. Both of these kinds of friendship are short-lived because one’s needs and pleasures are apt to change over time.

FRIENDSHIP BASED ON GOODNESS (VIRTUE): WHERE BOTH PEOPLE ADMIRE THE OTHER’S GOODNESS AND HELP ONE ANOTHER STRIVE FOR GOODNESS.

Friendships of the good (or Virtue) are ones where both friends enjoy each other’s characters. Aristotle calls it a “…complete sort of friendship between people who are good and alike in virtue…” This is the highest level of Philia,(φιλία), often translated “brotherly love”, and one of the highest forms of Love in Aristotle´s “Nichomachean Ethics”.

Those involved in friendship of the good must be able to value loving over being loved and as such, their relationship will be based more around loving the other person and wanting what is good for them. Goodness is an enduring quality, so friendships based on goodness tend to be long lasting. This friendship encompasses the other two, as good friends are useful to one another and please one another. Such friendship is rare and takes time to develop, but it is the best kind.

As well, Aristotle believes that it is through friendship that cities are held together. Those with the moral virtue to enter virtuous relationships are a major part of this but friendships of utility and pleasure are also needed as friendships of virtue are severely limited in number. It is the friendships of utility and pleasure that keep the city together, however it takes the character of those in the virtuous friendship for a solid community to exist.

Aristotle states in Book VIII, Chapter 1:

“Between friends there is no need for justice, but people who are just still need the quality of friendship; and indeed friendliness is considered to be justice in the fullest sense. It is not only a necessary thing but a splendid one”.

Aristotle bases his conception of justice on a conception of fair exchange, and does the same for friendship. Friendships are balanced by the fact that each friend gives as much as receives. Hence, justice and friendship are closely connected.

I hope we all think about friendship as Aristotle did, as the founding stone or our society and our communities, because only by meaningful, true, good and selfless relations we might find the overwhelming fullness of joy we are looking for.

#Aristotle #Friendship #Filosofia #philosophy #Plato #Socrates #Virtue #Virtù

2 notes · View notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Text

Angela Merkel will step down as head of her party

This week started with very good news when Angela Merkel said: "The time has come to open a new chapter" confirming reports that she would not run again as party leader. She will remain Germany’s chancellor for now but said this will be her last term. She’s expected to step down as chancellor by the end of her term in 2021.

I mentioned many times before that Angela Merkel was clinging on to power for too long, and the consequence of being pushed out-of-office in mid-term elections was inevitable, as it had happened with Germany’s most recent chancellors who overstayed their term.

Angela Merkel’s had several great achievements during her consecutive terms, such as supported early childhood education and children’s rights, while overseeing substantial progress on gender equality and Merkel’s leadership and firmness in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent tensions and fighting in Ukraine. In addition, her economic plan kept Germany’s economy growing, even if in modest rates and boosted by the Brexit announcement. On the other hand, many illiberal decisions were made that I personally condemn such the implementation of a 30% quota for women on supervisory boards of large companies, the fierce war against Italy in the European Parliament regarding austerity and my biggest critic was Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to accept almost 1.5 million asylum-seekers without careful examination of their backgrounds, political status and push for their integration into German society in a unilateral decision.

Now the race is on for her successor. In December CDU delegates will begin the process by voting in the new party leader. Jens Spahn, Germany’s health minister, has already announced he will run. Young, ambitious and outspoken, he has been a vocal conservative critic of Angela Merkel’s refugee policy. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the CDU’s current general-secretary, will also run. She is a centrist in the Merkel mode and is viewed as the chancellor’s preferred candidate. Luckily Mrs. Merkel has also said she does not believe in anointing successors, so she will let rivals fight it out on their own.

#germany #angela merkel #europe #election #chancellor #party #politics #political #Politics

2 notes · View notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Photo

#tbt @museerodinparis ! 😍 (at Musée Rodin) https://www.instagram.com/p/BozZ4_7FCmR/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=n6toujjizoyf

#tbt

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Photo

We’ll meet again... 🇫🇷 (at Tour Eiffel) https://www.instagram.com/p/BnypenuHow2/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1a3lwuyczi7tz

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Text

So what to expect from our European Parliament this fall?

It's July and I am nostalgic and happy at the same time for everything that happened to me in the last 12 months. The blog and the Podcast were launched and some of you contacted me with great and positive compliments and some critics that I will consider implementing in the future.

I am saying that because it's summertime and it seems that everyone in Europe is enjoying the summer and are on vacation. Few of us are still in the cities, working during this hot endless summer. The European Parliament is one of the institutions that will resume their activities in September. So what to expect from our European Parliament this fall?

1. The Annual State of the European Union address

First, the Annual State of the European Union address. It is particularly important this year because it will outline the European Union's priorities for next year, thinking ahead of the European Elections in 2019.

2. Copyright

The second topic is Copyright. Members want to update the European Union copyright rules for artists and journalists.

The proposal to reform EU copyright was presented by Günther Oettinger shortly before leaving his post as Digital Commissioner. The proposal says that the reason for the reform in EU's copyright is “to reduce the differences between national copyright regimes and allow for wider online access to works by users across the EU”. This reason would be extremely honorable and helpful for the European market but the problem is that the text proposed is not at all pro-access.

The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights provide for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place.

The proposal goes on seeking to limit our ability as internet users to participate in the online community through the use of 1. Censorship machines, that will be responsible for monitoring all posts online and search for copyright violations, 2. a Link tax for news content in which Media conglomerates would be allowed to charge for link sharing and for the traffic coming from search engines such as Google and Bing, and 3. a very narrow exception for text and data mining would curtail how we can share links, upload media and work with data in the academic and business sectors.

This proposal is of utmost priority for us European Union members, as it interferes directly in how we interact dialy with the Internet.

Expected Date: September, 2018.

3. AudioVisual Media

New rules for Audiovisual services will be discussed in the plenary. The reason is because members want better protection for children online and stricter rules for video on demand.

On one side I am excited that the European Parliament is worried about children's content, even tough I am a believer that protecting and restricting children's access to streaming services and content is a parental obligation rather than a government role. When it comes to creating stricter rules for video on demand, I am absolutely against it specially the kind of restrictions our parliament is trying to implement.

First, the revised legislation will apply not only to broadcasters, but also to video-on-demand and video-sharing platforms, such as Netflix, YouTube or Facebook, as well as to the live streaming on video-sharing platforms. That means video on demand services will have the same treatment as the traditional broadcast system. The problem is that people stopped watching TV not only for one demand possibilities online, but also because of the strict rules regarding what type and genre of content is allowed to be broadcasted. On the internet, users were free to watch whatever they wanted and when was more convenient for them and not for the broadcaster. This new imposition may drive people away from European regulated services and impact negatively on the streaming provider companies, but it seems, our negotiators, don't think like us:

“By applying similar rules to similar services, irrespective of whether the media content is consumed online or offline, we have made EU regulation fit for the digital era. Protecting children and minors has always been a top priority for us. We have now negotiated a level of protection for internet media services similar to that in place for traditional broadcast media. The transparency rules on advertising, and in particular on product placement and sponsorship, now also apply to user-generated content uploaded to video-sharing platforms. This will protect consumers, especially children and minors.”- EP negotiator Sabine Verheyen (EPP, DE)

Second,the cultural imposition of at least 30% of content must be European in programmes of TV channels and VOD platforms is absurd. Europe is not the biggest producer of content and its content has little impact on the young generation. The change will limit the introduction of new interesting content from abroad due to a technical limitation of the amount of national content is included on the provider portfolio. For instance, Netflix could not include on its European catalog new content from abroad, if the 30% ratio from its total portfolio is not European. This means more limitations on your personal freedom and choices and I strongly condemn this parliamentary initiative.

We will keep our eyes in this absurd proposal during the Parliament sessions.

4. European Union Telecoms

Members are pushing to improve internet access and lowering the costs of long distance calls inside the EU.

It's not clear though what will be discussed on this topic. My wish is to be the implementation of the next generation of network, such as the 5G, which would allow a fast development of the Internet of Things. This new technology has to arrive with a fair low cost for the Telecom companies in order to be spread quickly and cheaply to the consumers.

Unfortunately we don't know much about this initiative but what we know is that the European Union has done an excellent job in this field pushing Telecom companies to lower their prices and improve their services. One great example of it is the end of international roaming during calls inside European member countries that was introduced last summer. We will have to wait to learn more about this project but so far I am very optimistic about every initiative in this field.

5. Antibiotics for Animals

Parliament will review plans to curb the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The aim is to keep drug resistant bacteria out of the Human food chain.

We all know how the use of antibiotics has increased the bacteria's resistance to old and traditional drugs. That is because the widespread use of antibiotics can improve the bacteria's resistance overtime. The best know method to avoid or minimize the risk of bacteria getting stronger is to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics and that's what the EU Parliament is trying to approve. The EU has one of the best and as a consequence on of the most restrictive rules ans regulations regarding food. This new project won't make it easier to international trade but the aim is to keep the EU community safe and free of the super resistance bacteria.

Last year we heard about a new category of antibiotics that were discovered by a medical research team that could revolutionize and long term resolve the chronic problem we have today with the super resistant bacteria. I hope they will include this subject into discussion.

6. European Solidarity Corps.

Members will vote on creating a European Solidarity Corps, allowing young people to volunteer for projects helping communities. I am a member of the European Solidarity Corps since it was launched in 2015 (I believe, not sure about the exact year). They haven't been very active and there are almost no opportunities to volunteer at this point, but it is a terrific idea that I fully support. I am excited to hear about where this project is going.

The European Solidarity Corps website is:

Extra:

Also this fall, The European Parliament Awards will host the Lux Film Prize for an European Film on Social and Political issues.

The 2018 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought will be awarded to Human Rights defenders in December.

#EU #Elections #European Union #European Parliament #SOTEU

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Photo

This is Milano in August. Not a single soul in the streets. It’s quiet and the heat is unbearable. It's the famous “Feriae Augusti” a holiday that was introduced by the emperor Augustus and continues until this day. (at Milan, Italy) https://www.instagram.com/p/BmfZdtZFyb6/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=mn3t4i1z2qcy

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Text

Socialist Pedro Sánchez, is sworn in as Spain's new prime minister

Spanish Socialist Pedro Sánchez has been sworn in as the country's new prime minister by King Felipe after the ousting of conservative Mariano Rajoy.

He plans to see out the remaining two years of the parliamentary term, after winning the support of six other parties to remove Mr. Rajoy over a massive corruption scandal.

As Spain's new prime minister, whose party only has a quarter of the seats in parliament, he now has to decide who to include in his cabinet and he's expected to name them by next week. This won't be an easy task to Mr. Sánchez, and I wouldn't be surprised if this announcement took longer than a week to be made.

Curiously Mr. Sánchez, who is an atheist, took the oath to protect the constitution without a bible or crucifix - the first Prime Minister in Spain's modern history to do so. I particularly think this was a very disrespectful act not only to the Institutions in Spain but also to the 70% of the population who is Roman Catholic.

Anyway, it was a brief ceremony at the royal residence in Madrid on Saturday, Mr. Sánchez, 46, promised to "faithfully fulfill" his duties "with conscience and honour, with loyalty to the king, and to guard and have guarded the constitution as a fundamental state rule".

Listen to the moment he was sworn in:

It is important to say that Pedro Sánchez emerged as a virtual unknown to win the Spanish Socialist party premiership in 2014. Economist and former basketball player, he won members over with a promise to unite a divided party and put the Socialists back in power.

Yet he subsequently suffered two humbling election defeats, in 2015 and 2016. He was eventually forced to resign after his refusal to back Mariano Rajoy in an investiture vote plunged the country into a prolonged political stalemate and his party into bitter infighting.

Months later he confounded his many critics by returning to win the Socialist primary.

Spain's constitution states that the party presenting a no-confidence motion must be prepared to govern and replace the deposed prime minister if a parliamentary majority backs it.

Therefore, this moderate but ambitious 46-year-old from Madrid is now Spain's prime minister, despite the fact that his party commands less than a quarter of seats in Congress.

Mr. Rajoy's departure casts the EU's fifth-largest economy into political uncertainty. Although Mr. Sánchez leads the Socialist PSOE party, he is not a member of parliament. Correspondents say that with only 84 lower house seats, the party will struggle to find allies to get legislation enacted. In return for having backed Mr Sánchez in the parliament vote, Spain's left-wing Podemos (We Can) party is likely to demand significant policy concessions from the PSOE, and perhaps some key cabinet posts. The new prime minister is likely to be challenged strongly over his plan to stick to the Rajoy budget.

Also, Smaller groups - including Basque and Catalan nationalists - supported the no-confidence motion against Mr Rajoy, but it is unclear whether they will back the new government.

Let's hope this new government will have the support of the parliament to continue the much-needed reforms in Spain's economy.

#Socialist #Pedro Sanchez #Spain #Prime Minister #Government #EU #European Union

2 notes · View notes

fabiofernandes · 7 years ago

Text

Italy's New Government: A populist rise near the birthday of the Republic.

As long as it lasts, Italy has now officially formed a government. Italy's anti-establishment coalition partners reached a new deal on Thursday, promising to end three months of political turmoil.

After months of political uncertainty, the two biggest parties — the far-right League and anti-establishment 5 Star Movement — put aside their differences and forged an unexpected coalition. The Italian Constitution does not provide time limits for the formation of coalition governments, but it was past time for the representatives in Rome to finally constitute the government. The news comes only a few days before the biggest Italian Holiday the "Festa della Repubblica" that celebrates the birthday of the Italian Republic after the World War 2 (Italian Referendum).

It was the second time the coalition presented and asked President Matarella approval for the Cabinet. He declined the first proposal last week, due to radical anti-Euro ideas from one of the members of the Cabinet (Paolo Savona as the economy minister). Savona is still there on the list, what I think is a complete disrespect to the President from the coalition, but now, he is in a much less problematic position, as EU Affairs Minister.

Matteo Salvini on the other hand will be the interior minister. The League leader, 45, will also be a deputy prime minister, as will 5Star chief Luigi Di Maio, and it’s clear that the two deputies will be much more powerful than Conte, the prime minister.

Salvini has on several occasions spoken out in favor of an Italexit but like his role model, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, he also pays lip service to the EU and has said “the League backs the peoples’ Europe.”

The governing contract he drew up with the 5Stars contains the goal of sending back half a million migrants and keeping them locked up for up to 18 months while the paperwork is completed. It’s been criticized for being draconian but locking migrants up for 18 months is allowed under EU law. One Brussels official even said that if Salvini makes it work in “a legal and human way, it could become a model” for other countries.

He’s already been dubbed the “sheriff minister” by analysts who expect him to be on the frontline of rounding up migrants.

Salvini’s debut could be on Tuesday at a meeting of EU interior ministers at which they will discuss reform of asylum rules ahead of a meeting of EU leaders later this month.

Luigi Di Maio will be the labor and development minister and he will oversee a jumbo ministry that brings together the departments of economic development and labor. Like Salvini, he does not have a university degree (he dropped out of law school in Naples) and will be a deputy prime minister.

Although Di Maio is the leader of the 5Stars, that’s a short-term situation as internal party rules put a two-term cap on MPs. That in part explains why he seemed so determined to get into power as it could have been his last chance.

For the 5Stars, getting into office is a big achievement. The League has been in power before alongside Silvio Berlusconi but this is the first time in such high office for the movement set up by comedian Beppe Grillo. And with 32 percent of the vote in the March 4 election, Di Maio is the majority shareholder in the government (the League got 17 percent).

Di Maio’s ministry is key for his party. The 5Stars have made labor an important part of their platform — and in the process wrested it away from the center-left — by proposing a universal income (although that’s morphed into better unemployment benefits). The joint government contract promises an income of €780 a month, for a maximum of two years, but the recipient can turn down only three job offers before losing the money. In many parts of the country’s poor south, where the 5Stars enjoy huge support, being offered three jobs is unlikely.

Sources: BBC, The Guardian

#Italy #Italian Governement #Government #Elections #Politics

1 note · View note