Cover Letter For Culinary Student

The corporate ethics is not (by JY. Naudet)

The business ethics does not exist!

By Jean-Yves Naudet

Director, Center for Economic Research Ethics

For Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

who understood the importance of open dialogue between philosophers and economists

This paper is a brief development of vocabulary, which has important consequences on the approach to economic ethics. Many terms, apparently equivalent are used for what the Anglo-Saxons call "business ethics": business ethics, corporate ethics, business ethics, ethics in business, but also corporate social responsibility or corporate citizenship. The term "business ethics" is often used, and on which we focus our analysis poses a fundamental problem: a company can it be ethical?

What we said the philosopher to help us see clearly (cf. the first paper of this group: "From the ethics and morals, to end the confusion directions "by Nicolas Madelenat di Florio)? Let the key phrases: Ethics is "the universal rule," "objective," which "must guide the choice." It also unites virtue and consists of "all-weather track in his inner compass," which is so different than the Ethics. Finally, she "makes us human."

Under these conditions, that may mean the term "business ethics": Will it transform the company into a human being? The company does practice virtue? The company, as such, does she have a choice? Where is the "inner compass" of the company? These few sentences show that talk about business ethics is nonsense. The company, as an institution, even as the legal framework, or, as economists often refer to as "nexus of contracts" does not have an ethic. She does not practice virtue, it has not among its internal compass, it is not and will never become a human being.

Only men, beings endowed with reason, capable of making free decisions, able to exercise their responsibilities, have an ethic. The company, as such, has no ethics: there are no business ethics, it makes no sense, and the company is not an individual, is not a person. It is not, in itself, issues of moral acts, much less ethics. The company does not take a decision, do not think, does not act as an institution: only men in it, make decisions, after thinking, and act accordingly, with this compass What internal ethics.

course, every person who works in a company, decide and act, according to numerous criteria, including that which should be paramount, ethics. There is therefore an ethic of the contractor, who takes the ultimate decisions for the common good of the company, but there is also the ethical framework, the ethics of a worker or an employee The ethics of unionists, the ethics of a shareholder, an investor, customer, a provider, etc.. We can talk about ethics in business or the business, even if it would rather the ethics of men, each man in the company. But there are no business ethics, as such. We can see that its leaders, who take key decisions have been, or not, ethical behavior, but they are always men who decide and who are therefore responsible for the choices made ..

This question is central and we find that confusion at all levels. Thus we often speak the ethics of capitalism, the ethics of the economy but the system as such is not subject to moral acts. There is an ethic of the men who play an economic role in capitalism: the ethics of entrepreneurs, trade unionists, workers, savers, consumers, men of the State, etc.. and again he would put all these words in the singular. Even the term, fashionable and, it must be said, very convenient, "moralization of capitalism" also implies that the ambiguity between morality and ethics, is not quite correct because it would better to talk about the ethics of men who decide and act in the economic world, which make economic decisions, including but not limited to, the ethics of capitalism, of every capitalist, every business leader. Talking about business ethics is probably less correct, if we understand that term, as we do, such as ethics in economic matters concerning economic decisions and choices, each of us according to our level of responsibility .

Why this issue, apparently secondary, is so important, including in the debate of ideas? After all, these expressions have passed into everyday language. Because the confusion of words is the source of the confusion of ideas. If we talk about the ethics of an institution, as the company, this will quickly lead to the idea of collective responsibility, and therefore a denial of individual responsibility. It dilutes the responsibility and attributed the cause of all violations of basic morality, the excesses of all, (so rightly criticized these days, but if so incoherent on the logical level) to the company as such, and for the economy as a whole, the system, the "capitalism". Inverting the reality of things, we slide towards a holistic view of society, as found in Marxism or in many forms of sociology: the responsibility of the class, group, system: if everything goes wrong, it ' is the fault of capitalism.

The consequence of this shift is simple: change the system to find a satisfactory ethics. The myth of the "big night", the new social structures, new institutions, which will be to reign virtue everywhere. It's easy, because it is easier to change institutions claim that the behavior of each of us, but it is an illusion, for without just men, men without virtue, there will never be true ethics. Slide the responsibility of each man to that of the whole, whether the company or scheme in general, is to deny freedom of choice responsible for each of us in favor of widespread irresponsibility. We swim in the open Marxism in particular, since the mental and moral superstructure will change when we have changed the relations of production : Matter, material elements are first, the moral being merely a reflection, as every superstructure is only the reflection of the infrastructure. Then the notion of responsibility and freedom of choice, so anyone who disappears: when you walk into a totalitarian society is the logical outcome of this reasoning. To restore true freedom, must assert the primacy of man over the institutions or on techniques. And reaffirm that only men have an ethic, make choices with ethical implications. Responsibilities are always those individuals.

is a key point which has often been addressed by the "moral authority" as they say. The question was raised, for example, about an expression used by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical on development, "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis" of 1987: the term "structure of sin." This expression, religious connotation, seems remote from the subject (although John Paul II explicitly applies to economic issues, the theme of development), but if you think about it, sin is a theological term to talk about what is unethical, evil from the good. If sin is unethical, about structure of sin he evokes not a kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt due to the structures, institutions, thus denying personal responsibility, freedom of choice personal ethics, so all we have to say.

That's what John Paul II said "If the current situation to difficulties of various kinds, it is not amiss to speak of structures of sin which, as I shown in the Apostolic Exhortation and Reconciliatio paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin and thus always linked to concrete actions of people who create them, consolidate them and make them difficult to abolish. Thus, they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior "(SRS § 36). That is already very enlightening: there may be situations coalition or coagulation of unethical behavior, which in turn induce other unethical behavior, but these attacks on ethics (These sins in the religious sense) are always connected "to the concrete acts of individuals."

Like the concept, relatively new and complex, might lead to erroneous interpretations, due to the reading surface, sliding structures of sin to sin and thus collective personal responsibility towards one group or institutions such as John Paul II was careful to give notes (note 65) a long excerpt of the text and Reconciliatio paenitentia December 2, 1984, n.16, in which he was referring to above: "But when she talks about situations sin or when the condemns as social sins certain situations or collective behaviors of social groups more or less extended, or even the attitude of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. This is very personal sins from those who cause or support evil or who exploit it (...) from those who seek refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also from those who sidestep effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order. The real responsibility, then those people. A situation-and even an institution, a structure, society-not by itself subject of moral acts, so it can be, by itself, good or bad. "

This text, if one wants to overcome the obstacle may be to some readers to use theological terms, is particularly illuminating: the social sins (the opposite of Ethics name) are the accumulation of personal sins, ie, damage to ethics on the part of many men, but this concentration does not diminish the responsibility of everyone. The key sentence is this "the real responsibility, then those people." An institution (one can think of now), a company (we can think of an economic system like capitalism) is not, by themselves, about moral acts. There is therefore no business ethics or of damage to ethics on the part of the company. There may be many individual breaches of ethics in a company, which is what John Paul II called for the sins or social structures of sin, but he is just an accumulation in one place for individual violations, and counterclockwise for ethical behavior.

This allows, in conclusion, to clarify a key issue for economists, and especially the Austrian school, as Hayek explained, that of institutions. Institutions are at the heart of the whole economic process; they provide, by their existence, information (think of property, contract, company, currency, etc.). that channel behavior, hence the importance of economic analysis of institutions. These institutions, we have just seen, are not subject of moral acts, however, they are not identical or interchangeable and better institutions, which have generally been selected by men over time are those that conform to human nature, to natural law.

private property, for example, conforms to natural law and is merely an extension of the property on the fruit of his own work and the right to use freely, and then human nature is so constituted, as already expliquât Aristotle and later St. Thomas Aquinas, that we manage better what is our own, private property, to keep this example, is more consistent with the nature of man, in search of his own property, that property Collective, which everyone loses interest in management. So there are some institutions more suited than others to human nature and that allow human to be more creative, more innovative, more so in the service of others.

institutions are not subject to moral acts, not even good in themselves, but more or less consistent with what man adapted to his behavior and nature so there are institutions that allow human beings to exercise freedom and responsibility, stating what is possible or not (this is particularly clear for the property or contract, which indicate what is to one or to another, this is possible or not, etc..) and therefore that somehow, cause man a freedom more responsibly, and therefore an ethic. This does not mean they are subject to ethical acts, but they grow through the information they provide, at a performance better than another. Conversely, there are institutions such as collective ownership, or a social system of generalized assistantship, which prompts man to laziness, denial, loss of autonomy, a-riding, short to the detriment or let live off others, helping to create structures of sin. The choice of institutions is not indifferent, even in terms of ethical behavior of men.

But whatever the institutions, it is men who decide, not the structure, not the group, not class, not different packages, even if they exist, are men who ultimately decide the good or evil, therefore be ethical or not. It is therefore an ethic of every man, who, working together, can at most be an ethical company, or better ethics men of the company, but there are no business ethics as such, as an institution.

The philosopher has reason and reflection made by the economist: ethics makes us human, and can not concern only individuals, since nothing other than an individual can become human, and not a business. The men who work there, if they have ethical behavior, can at most give it a human face, the result of all the faces of those who run this company, but the company will never become a human being. There is therefore no business ethics, taken as a whole.

Breakthrough Bleeding With Breast Lumps

From Bodin to Rousseau, a monarch guided by ethics to a dictatorship justified.

From Bodin to Rousseau, a monarch guided by ethics to a dictatorship justified.

By Nicolas

Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

is to remove all morality from his acts to remove all liberty from his will.

To Jean-Yves Naudet, because the freedom to think another world already makes it possible

A C., because the primary strength of youth is always able to choose between greatness and decadence.

In the first article of this series on the Social Contract of Rousseau, I have endeavored to present, briefly, the basis of this founding text of political thought and, in some aspects, sociological. That's why he was devoted to the notion of equality, misguided and disguised by the lure of power and convenient manipulation of the masses, but everywhere as being the foundation of the Temple of unreason-Marxist socialist future. and I'm happy if I can get the secret recognition of obscure and peaceful supporters of reason and inspire the gentle rustling through which sensitive souls meet defending the interests of humanity (Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments )

After presenting how equality and egalitarianism (the poisoned fruit of the first), are harmful and totally artificial in that the basic units of society (individuals) are different and we can only compare apples and apples, I will endeavor to introduce the concept of sovereignty and also the legitimacy of power Governance at Rousseau to present and refine the scope of its concepts, I will discuss them in parallel to those of a major political philosopher Jean Bodin (XVI century). Skip

Jean Bodin, philosopher living and sharing his wisdom to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, professional ideologue of bad faith may seem, prima facie, an odd choice. Who cares at the thought of the sixteenth century, a time when our country is troubled torn between Catholicism and Reformation, can not misunderstand Bodin, a man who, in full assembly of representatives, will dare to order the withdrawal of legislation guaranteeing the right to worship, and therefore religious diversity, Protestants. Philosopher, he was in what it represents more noble vocation or the priesthood, like Socrates, and many others who burn their lives to enlighten the world and push back the darkness. Lawyer also when the ideal society theorized by compiling in the books of the Republic what had already been made in civil law, and what we now call constitutional law. And this intellectual therefore owe our modern concept great, sovereignty, this intrinsic capacity for people to self-determination. But as leading economists argue future, including Friedrich A. von Hayek, a thinker merely the immediate area of expertise can be a guide or suggest workable solutions. Bodin was one of them and his thinking is not confined to civil law, or philosophy, but extends to the economy, and more broadly the company structure and mechanisms that compose it.

A major cleavages between our two authors study will focus on the concept of sovereignty and, more broadly, on the origin of power in the state. Bodin sovereignty posed as a right inherent to man. The person has of herself and the group, society, gathering of free individuals has therefore per extenso the same capacity, which is given partly in the hands of power. He takes on this aspect of the vision artistotélicienne of the individual, free as it is able to think (ergo sum Cogioto "I think therefore I am), is essentially a" political animal "(Meaning that the individual can not do without the society). "Small" individual sovereignty are amalgamated and transferred prior to being assigned to the sovereign, who administers them. For Bodin, the political power ( legislate, make laws) must not be carried by the same people who apply them (thus anticipating future theories of Montesquieu). By separating the powers, it guarantees the least biased arbitration possible. The head of state is "absolutely" In some ways, tempered by a particular approach to the separation of powers, however, this idea is not shared by all of my colleagues and I can only ask them to reread the books of the Republic not in a sanitized version and modernized but the original version (available on Gallica, the site of the National Library de France)

Rousseau meanwhile seems to follow a similar pattern, except that natural liberty of man is corrupted by society. It is normal, according to his reasoning, the state confiscates, through the social where each of us puts his person and share his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and we receive each member as an indivisible part of all (Rousseau, Social Contract The ) and sovereignty to a representative of "popular". However, the defect of this system is to exclude criticism of the leader since each individual as a man can have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest and its existence may make him consider what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss will be less damaging to others that the payment is still expensive looking for him and corporation that is the state as a rational being because it is not a man, he would enjoy the rights of citizenship without the duties to fill in the subject; injustice progress cause the ruin of the body politic (Rousseau , The Social Contract ). He added that the social contract tacitly includes this commitment alone can give strength to others, that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be constrained by the whole body: which means nothing except that is forced to be free (Rousseau, Social Contract The ). Indeed, the minority element, expendable (the individual) can not and should go against the social body, the guarantor of state cohesion. In essence, after destroying any independent existence, Rousseau endorse a totalitarian state where free will exists only if it accepts the plan and echoed the executives who are being struck with an irrebuttable presumption of truth; the vox populi (the voice of the people).

should therefore observe a shift, a corruption of sovereignty between the two authors. Bodin recognizes that all the liberals, then, argue, that is the right person to dispose of herself and choose, whenever possible, the life she wants, forging his opinions, and deciding in consciousness. Rousseau meanwhile remains faithful to the systems they create. In theorizing the full powers of the body politic, it will degrade the individual to a mere running of a perfect truth down from government to the people. It is therefore, like Soviet leaders of the future, the father of the people, but a father who can not, driven by his folly, save for his children thrown into the flames. With Rousseau, the possibility of individual choice disappears ethical in all areas, including economic decisions. In trying he dared to liberate the people claim to love, the philosopher gives her shackles and chains where Bodin throws in the howls of madness, a long quiet breath of silence, peace and freedom, opening a source hope. And then wish the inexhaustible supply! Gushing water / Abandonment of water in the sources; hidden reservoirs; Declos vase; hard rock burst. The mountain shrub cover; arid countries will rejoice and all the bitterness of the desert bloom (Andre Gide, Earth food ).

The next text will be published on cross-reading of Rousseau and FA von Hayek.

National Credit Counselor Of Canada Corp.

24th Sunday in Ordinary Time

24th Sunday in Ordinary Time / C - 12/09/2010
Luke 15, 1-32 (p. 560) This
24th Sunday in Ordinary Time on Sunday is really God's mercy while we are celebrating this most merciful especially on Sunday in the octave of Easter. All readings are approaching this reality so important in the revelation that God makes of himself throughout the history of salvation. Rather than commenting on the famous parable of the prodigal son, I would like to meditate with you and for you all readings. Not in detail but in showing the wonderful harmony that exists between these texts along with the evolution of biblical revelation.
The two texts of the Old Testament, our first reading and Psalm 50, we show a God ready to forgive. Even if, against the sin of idolatry of the people, the golden calf, God gets angry and decides initially to exterminate the people. The people he no longer calls his people but the people of Moses ... And thanks to the prayer of Moses that "the Lord renounced the evil he had wanted to do for his people . Note how the passage of the biblical author recalls that this people is not only one of Moses but God's people, despite his infidelity. This presents us with divine wrath matter of course. And rightfully so, since we learn the catechism that anger is part of the seven deadly sins. It's a step in the revelation step which translates easily on God human categories. Which also existed in Greek mythology for example. This anger simply means how much our God infidelity leaves no one indifferent. And it is a great mystery for us to see. This God perfectly happy in himself is somehow affected by our sin, wounded by our ingratitude. Psalm 50 confesses about his great love and mercy of the Lord. This heart of God who gets angry, who is injured, is primarily a loving heart. It's a way incomprehensible to human reason alone that God loves each of its creator human creatures in a unique way.
The two texts of the New Testament (St. Paul and St. Luke) actually accomplish what has already been revealed to the people of Israel about what God who loves and forgives. This achievement could take place with the mystery of the incarnation, with the visible presence among us of the words and wisdom of God in this man named Jesus of Nazareth. The apostle Paul has a keen awareness of being one of the first recipients of the mercy shown by Jesus toward sinners, revelation of the loving heart of God. In St. Paul, the persecutor became the only apostle by Christ's grace, we find, I think he, both the son of the parable. Before being captured by the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Saul looks Strangely the eldest son of the parable. He is a Pharisee, a strict observer of the Act, even zealous fanatic, and he can make his own the words of the eldest son: 'There are so many years that I am at your service without ever having disobeyed your orders, and you never gave me a goat to celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came after spending your good with girls, you killed the fatted calf for him! " The Pharisee Saul who put his pride in his fidelity to God's law should see a very dim view of those Christians, members of a small Jewish sect, who claimed God gives his free hello to everyone. It would be jealous and angry, and his religious fanaticism spurred him to pursue them and persecute them with hatred. Saul knew by heart the law of God, he applied scrupulously. But he knew the God he claimed to serve so well? Had he not rather shut on itself because of this sense of religious pride, superiority over others, those who do not know? In fact it was not the Christians who were ignorant but him! Christ has forgiven me: what I did was out of ignorance, because I had no faith ; The grace of our Lord was even stronger, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. When Paul experienced the power of divine grace, strength of the mercy of God's heart, encountering the living Christ, he became another son of the parable. For the first time in his life he felt weak, sinful, guilty, who absolutely need to return to God the Father through Jesus the Savior. In her anger and jealousy of his son's chosen people have been transformed into an immense gratitude to God who justifies sinners. Now needed absolute certainty in his mind: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, myself included, I am a sinner, but if Jesus Christ has forgiven me is that I am the first in which all his generosity manifests itself, I had to be first example of those who believe in him for eternal life. The three parables of God's mercy we teach this shocking reality: every time we make a step towards God, we give her a heart broken and crushed, whenever we agree to recognize in ourselves the prodigal son, we joy God and angels! Because we allow it to be for us what is the deepest of himself: A God of Love, seized with pity in our view, a merciful God, a God who share in our quest to save us!

Real Flight G2 Version 2.00.723 Patch

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the anti-economic anti-ethics By Jean-Yves Naudet

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the anti-economic anti-ethics

By Jean-Yves Naudet
Professor at the University Paul Cézanne
Director of Research economic ethics

A Nicolas, who gave me the strange urge to reread Rousseau

In the series of articles devoted to the Social Contract, Nicolas Madelenat di Florio shows how negation, in Rousseau, the individual, on behalf of equality for the benefit of the masses, or at least the majority of society, leads ineluctably to deny our freedom to act and, thereby, the possibility of free moral choices. Speaking of equality, property, society, Rousseau certainly talking about politics, but it also touches on political economy. Yet the great "Dictionary of Political Economy" of Coquelin and Guillaumin, a major work from the mid-nineteenth century, states, under the pen of Henry Baudrillart "Rousseau is not an economist . But he adds immediately: "But his influence on economic and social trends of his time and ours was great: he is a father of modern socialism."

But there's more. It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau himself who wrote in the Encyclopedia of d'Alembert, the entry "Political Economy" (in Volume V, 1755, that is to say, appeared before Social Contract-1762) and not a member of what will soon call "the sect of economists" in the process of formation, that is to say, the Physiocrats. As soon as the article "Political Economy" will be published independently from the Encyclopedia (1758), he will name it still gives "Discourse on Political Economy." (We know, however, that Rousseau wrote most of the entries for the Encyclopedia of Music).

must situate this date in the chronology of the history of economic thought: the mercantilist have long been on the decline, new theories are emerging here and there (Mandeville and his Fable of the Bees, Cantillon, financial economists as Melon ), but the revolution in economic thinking that is preparing, with what we call the Physiocrats, is just the germ: Quesnay published in the Encyclopedia Articles Beans and Farmers in 1756 and 1757, so after Rousseau, still later -1758 - its economic picture, Le Mercier de la Riviere published his "Natural Order of Political Societies" in 1767 and Turgot is still far from power (1774).

Rousseau would have been the true pioneer of political economy and understand the shift that was done in his time, of the mercantilist state interventionism to free trade and economic freedom, the presentation of the State as a defender of private property and the idea of a natural economic order, all themes dear to the Physiocrats. It did not happen. While many economists have recently studied the economics literature of Rousseau (eg C. Spector in Rousseau and the critique of political economy in "Rousseau and science", Harmattan, Paris, 2003), some have even wanted to be the ancestor of modern criticism against neo-classical theories of market failures, or even written on the ethics of Nobel Sen, a straw! All these economic analysis Text of Rousseau's "Discourse on Political Economy" are well known to specialists.

What we do is more modest: to show how the economic conception of Rousseau is a misunderstanding of what was happening in his time, led to a nationalization of economic life and, thus denying economic freedom, reduced freedom itself, and with it the possibility of choice, including economic, free and responsible, so the ability to make ethical choices.

After giving the etymology of the word economy, Rousseau took care to distinguish the economy household (the wise government of the house), the political economy, it extends "to the Government of the big family, which is the state." Somehow, everything is already said: the heart of political economy, is the state. This is more an extension of the domestic economy to the city (polis) with an economy dominated by the free choice of producers and consumers, and based on free trade, is the state that is, him, the center of political economy. If it is the state, not the choices of free people exercising their responsibilities, ethics has already disappeared.

Better yet, if the father's power is limited to Rousseau (no right of life and death for example) the sovereign power "has no other bounds than the public interest well understood": we is far from the fundamental rights of individuals, the general will apply to all, even in economic matters, even if Rousseau concedes here that "private property" is prior to general administration, but we know his conception of the fluctuating property because it also explains, in a kind of anticipation of progressive taxation and especially of its excesses, we must take each surpassing the necessary (in the name of equality): what is to own if the state can resume essential in order to make us equal to others in terms of resources. We will return.

But he goes further: if the small family is intended to extend to not disappear, "the great being made to last forever in the same state, just not only that it" is preserved, but can easily prove that any increase would be more detrimental useful. . If Rousseau is a prophet, not two centuries of growth that will follow, but it is of zero growth. Without growth, no opportunity to progress, to get rich if you want it, so still no free choices, and no freedom, no ethics. Again, we will come back in fine.

Rousseau took the opportunity to perform a shift of vocabulary that speaks volumes, since it believes that "it is rightly distinguished public economics of the particular economy": an economy service substitutes here in political economy. And a little further and asks readers "to distinguish even the public economy of which I speak, and I call government, public authority, which I call sovereignty", one being the statutory law, the other the executive power. Admirable shift of political economy at public economy and finally to the government. It's hard to find the person and free moral choices. Rousseau and then to expound at length on the body politic, "which will" (...) and the "general will" (...) "is for all members of the state, compared to them and to him, the rule of fair and unfair. " Nothing could be clearer and farther from our open economies based on free trade and freedom of choice. As for ethics, is the general will which sets the rules. Besides, he immediately opposite the small communities (which constitute what is now called civil society) to large (state), a decision which may be advantageous to small and highly prejudicial to the great. Then came one of the key phrases, in fact, "the personal interest is is always inversely proportional to the duty. " The name of duty, on behalf of the great society, personal decisions or small groups should bow. Suffice to say that self-interest, in principle, is evil. Conclusion: "Proof that the indomitable will, the wider is always the fairest, and the voice of the people is indeed the voice of God: two centuries of totalitarian temptations arising therefrom. Ethics and fell to the dustbin of history.

Yet the interest is not inherently immoral. Without going into the idea of the fable of the bees Mandeville, for which private vices lead to public benefits, the whole tradition of economic liberal after Rousseau emphasize the role of self-interest in economic decisions, even if Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations focused on this interest, do not forget the Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, centered on sympathy. And all economic flows from the Physiocrats and the Classical to Neo-classical and especially the Austrians like Hayek will insist that this interest will be born an order, called natural in XVIII, and spontaneous order in the twentieth Austrians (as opposed to the created order, which can be found among socialists) is the generalization of the proof of Smith that it is not the benevolence of the butcher, the baker and the brewer is expected our food, but because they pursue their personal interests. The famous "invisible hand", which is simply the price mechanism does the rest to achieve a coherent order, and that Mises and Hayek, repeating the old phrase of Richard Whately, will call an order catallactic, before Hayek does this spontaneous order from the market and the free exchange of the final name "catallaxy" because of ambiguities (that illustrate theories of Rousseau) of the word economy.

For Rousseau fell into the trap that condemns Hayek in his trilogy "Must, Legislation and Liberty": the idea that eventually the state will play in the great society the role of the father in the small company, even if Rousseau seems to defend himself at the beginning of his article: what Rousseau has not seen is the shift from a closed society to a society open in the sense of Popper, in which each pursues his own good, its own goals, and where there is no agreement on the goals, but only on the playing field, each exercising his freedom of choice according to his personal ethics. Personal interest is not in itself inherently anything wrong, selfish or immoral (that Marxism which, according to Rousseau, totally throw aspersions on the personal interest and feel guilty and even those who defend the market). Pursue his personal interest is pursuing its own good, as they say in philosophy, which is not in itself immoral and allow Pierre Coulange speak of "the moral value of acts concerned." All those who now criticize the principle of self-interest (we're talking about a normal behavior, normal, rational beings, not pathological excesses of those who, blinded by this purely selfish, forget that the others) in fact carry the stigma of Rousseau and Marx. It is there for immoral to want to honestly earn a living to live and support his family properly?

short this means that Rousseau, he expresses himself clearly establish "the general will for the first principle of public economy." This has the merit of clarity. It even distinguishes between "public economics and popular" economy and "tyrannical". In the first case, it is almost (two centuries will suffice) to the "democracies" we know what they are and of democratic and popular! And we know the means of states, inherently totalitarian, will use that rule, in the words of Rousseau "between the people and leaders of interest and unity of will": Beware of dissidents !

The rest of the article on Rousseau's political economy is disconcerting, because if we see the politics, we see much the economy, if not totally subservient to the political economy. Besides the first part of his article begins "The first and most important maxim of legitimate or popular government, that is to say who is to benefit the people, therefore, as I said, to follow all the general will. " As for her government also means public economics, political economy, therefore, for him, the general will will therefore dominate the economy: are again popular democracies announced. Rousseau'm arguing about the need "to ensure both the public liberty and government authority, we are hardly reassured and prefer in any case the concrete liberties to freedom in the abstract.

Worse, it is "the law alone that men owe justice and liberty": the law, the result of the general will, therefore, a majority of circumstances, not the law, according to natural law . The majority rule, unrelated to fundamental rights, is the contempt for the minority starting with the smallest minority: the individual. Rousseau and threat "As soon regardless of laws, a man claims to submit another in his private will, he released at the instant of the state civil" because the law in Rousseau can not be arbitrary. And leaders must, of course, ensure compliance with the laws, since the general will can not err, even when it comes to destroying the fundamental rights! In any case, there is little room for economic freedom. Here is how Rousseau concludes this part "I conclude that as the first duty of legislature is to conform the laws to the general will, the first rule of public economy is that the administration complies with the laws "(meaning the administration of the economy).

In the second part, Rousseau said: "The second essential rule of public economy, no less important than the first. Do you think the general will be accomplished? Make all the individual wills thereto, and as virtue is that the individual will comply with the general, to say the same thing in a word, ask reign of virtue. " Ethics back through virtue? On the contrary, since virtue is "that the individual will comply with the General": Rousseau also shows his ulterior motives by saying "do under the rule": not: become virtuous, but be there to reign strength. Otherwise? The door of the gulag already appears in the distance! Yet there is virtue and ethics as free men. Wanting to force men to be virtuous is to deny the ethical as well as freedom. Rousseau had forgotten that St. Thomas Aquinas had already said that "the law can not punish all the evil there is in the world." Besides the moral value of an act that requires us to do so is void.

Inequality of wealth is the worst thing for Rousseau, excluding any free market operation, since it rewards each according to services rendered, so unevenly. Aristotle had already said he is no worse injustice than to treat equally different things. Rousseau says the opposite: "So one of the most important affairs of government, to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes, not by removing the treasures from their owners, but by removing all means to accumulate ": that which is worse: it does not address the accumulated wealth, static, but the creative process of this wealth; impossible to make progress in such a society. like say more than a century later Pope Leo XIII condemned Marxist socialism, which Rousseau is an ancestor here, "instead of this equality as a dream, equality in the poverty, in destitution and misery "(Rerum Novarum § 12-1). All the miseries come to Rousseau "interest especially substituted in the public interest "still denying the right to seek his own good.

But do not worry "you all if you train citizens' means all, educated and not even walking in, it sends shivers down your spine. We therefore begin with the children: "If there are laws to mature, there must have for children, who teach others to obey." We know how in the twentieth century totalitarian regimes of Nazism to communism, will begin by indoctrinate children. "And since we do not give the reason for each man sole arbiter of his duties, we must all less abandon the lights and prejudices of fathers the education of their children, it is important to state more than fathers' in one sentence, he killed and the family (while all the legal and Religions say that the family has rights antecedent and superior to those of the State) and ethics, since we can not rely solely because of men. Nice work of demolition. Conclusion: "The state remains, the family dissolves. The public authority, he says, must "take the place of fathers'! "Public education, under rules prescribed by the government and under magistrates established by the sovereign, is one of the fundamental maxims of popular or legitimate government. " Here in all its splendor, with two centuries in advance, the great "secular and unified public service of National Education" dreamed of by the union of the left.

Finally, last part of the text of Rousseau on Political Economy: "It is not enough to have citizens and protect them, we must also consider their livelihoods, and provide for public needs is a clear continuum the general will, and the third essential duty of government ". For Rousseau understands the real problem: he still supports the right of property "the most sacred of all rights" (he later changed) but adds "it is difficult to ensure one side of the property without special attack of another ": the current problem in the tax burden, exacerbated by the fact that Rousseau has a design range of the third duty of government. It is far from the minimalist design of Montesquieu, who believed that the tax was part of the property that was willing to sacrifice to ensure the rest of the property For if the part becomes dominant property vanishes. Now, as for Rousseau, the state must "consider the livelihood" of citizens, it is likely that its share will be strong.

Rousseau thought that support the foundation of the social pact is the property, he hastened to empty it of its substance. Moreover, it appears explicitly about the tax: "Whoever did that simply should not need to pay anything at all, tax that which is superfluous may need to go to the extent of any which exceeds its need. " One suspects that it is the state that will define what is unnecessary or necessary: no freedom of choice, freedom to consume, but the essential thing is: if taxes can go up to remove all unnecessary, it could translate into modern terms: after-tax, all at minimum wage! What surely boost the productivity of most creative!

And no distinction in the requirements "because a lot" (translate, a noble example) "has two legs and a herdsman, and has a belly, not more than him. . Perfect equality, not of dignity or rights, but a condition: the communist ideal, which the Abbe de Mably, shortly after Rousseau, ask the foundations. "The law does not prescribe the magnificence in person, and decency is never a reason against the law." All equal, all poor! In any case the company gives much more rich than poor, because the rich have more to protect: here we fell at the height of demagoguery, but these are assertions that are appealing even today. It is more charitable here not to mention Rousseau, which was known to a higher level of argument. Of course, it also will tax imports (whose country does not need!) And exports (which he does not have too much ") are back protectionism mercantilist dearly. (It is far from "sweet trade" dear to Montesquieu). And surtaxons taxa and luxury, of course for him. But what he calls luxury we now seem very necessary, and besides "it may, I confess, that taxes helping to move more quickly some ways" over, the freedom to consume, the State will select what is good for us. "We can look at the tax as a kind of fine, which compensates the product of the abuse she punishes" here, admittedly, is a precursor Rousseau, alas!

Rousseau, at a key moment in history of thought, when the eighteenth rocker mercantilism moribund since the end of the seventeenth, with his love of wealth purely monetary interventionism and its protectionism, to the world of open society, had at its disposal a pioneering role in play: it will leave that role to the Physiocrats, in the years to come, with their demonstration of the natural order of societies (spontaneous order explaining much later Hayek), with the freedom of trade and beyond, shock in the form of Vincent de Gournay, "laissez-faire, laissez passer," that is to say, freedom of trade and industry that will take our Civil Code of Portalis, early next century. All of this has escaped Rousseau.

Rousseau, far from having anticipated these developments, has remained a vision of the economy totally subservient to politics, especially for him, because equality is first and is the condition of that He calls freedom, but that is not true freedom. In doing so, he challenged the economics still nascent at the root, as with the Physiocrats and the Classics (do not forget that Adam Smith has long met the Physiocrats in France before writing The Wealth of Nations), there is a design of an economy free from political and based on freedom of individual choice. As noted by C. Spector, he did not object to a particular doctrine, but what will unite all the competing voices of economists. What battle of all is the rationality of self-interest and the idea of harmony (as defined by Bastiat) or order (in the sense of Mercier de la Riviere, or later Hayek). The economic order for him is not an order and shall be subject to the policy. The property is not sacred, but in fact largely destroyed, and, finally, he refuses to advance the growth, the name of equality, the distribution from before creation, making it more a follower of the decay dear to the "Deep" Ecology as necessary development.

His denunciation of social inequalities, the privileges of some being made to the detriment of others (one is in a static economy with a zero-sum economic game: no creation of new wealth) is not far from the Marxist future operations, the words of Henry Baudrillart with Rousseau "is the whole economy in the hands of the legislature" and, since man is naturally good and that society corrupts, yeah, to Baudrillart, "the substance of the error socialist society is poorly made, then redo.

The design of Rousseau's economy is therefore an anti-economy, the opposite of the reality of the market and free trade in so doing, this approach can only lead to anti-ethics (as design policy in the Social Contract, reviewed by Nicolas Madelenat Di Florio in his series of articles) : Indeed, a business ethics can not be that free men accountable for their actions: if, in an economy subject to politics, man loses his freedom of choice, it also loses its freedom of decision, he loses the possibility to choose between good and evil, and he loses the freedom to make ethical choices.

Ohio Driver Licence Expiration

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time / C
05/09/2010
Luke 14, 25-33 (P.513)
In this era of back to school and resume normal activities for many, the liturgy offers us a gospel particularly apt to wake up the daily grind ... a radical Gospel sent to large crowds were traveling with Jesus, translate: addressed to all Christians. The central question of this course disturbing is this: being a disciple of the Lord or not not be! Twice the Lord speaks to us as well: you can not be my disciples, if you do not do this if you do not adopt such an attitude ... listen again one after another these sentences "shock": If someone one comes to me without preference to his father, mother, wife, children, siblings, and even his own life, he can not be my disciple.
Similarly, those of you who do not renounce all that he hath can not be my disciple.
There is a link between these two requirements. The first asks us to love Christ above love for our family and for our own lives. The second asks us to renounce material goods. Family relationships, our lives, our properties and possessions have in common that quality of being "property" and therefore positive realities in our human existence. For the man who is not spiritual these properties are the supreme goods. The requirement of Jesus in this Gospel is the fact that only God is good, only God is the Supreme Good. And if Jesus can have such requirements to us, precisely because it is the second person of the Holy Trinity, is God himself. Whoever
does not bear his cross and come after me can not be my disciple.
What we demand is really crucifying beyond our reasonable human perspectives, beyond our strength and our goodwill. Why so radical in his teachings? Why set the bar so high for those who want to become his disciples? Is not it frustrating? We must understand that the Lord thus designates the obstacles that stand in our way of holiness. Human goods can become obstacles if we absolutisons if we forget that they are ephemeral, fragile and relative, if we take the means to the end. This is probably no coincidence that this follows the Gospel parable of the guests at the banquet in the Kingdom of God: A man gave a great dinner, and he invited many people. At dinner, he sent his servant to say to guests, 'Come, now dinner is ready. " But they all began to excuse themselves so. The first said: 'I bought a field, and I have to go and see it please, excuse me. " Another said: 'I bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm going to try, please, excuse me. " A third said: 'I just got married, and for that reason, I can not come. "
link seems to Obviously with our Gospel in this parable as an attachment to material possessions (a field of cattle) or the family property (marriage) is a barrier in the positive response that guests should give to God.
Like any biblical teaching we receive seriously and in context, because God can not contradict itself. Preferring the love of Jesus to love his family certainly does not despise or abandon his family. Following the commandment of God who asks us to honor our parents, St. Paul does not hesitate to say: If someone does not take care of his family, especially the nearest, He has already broken his faith, he is worse than an unbeliever.
This does not detract from the fact that in certain circumstances crucifying children will offend or even hurt their parents to be faithful to God's will on them. If Jesus calls me to devote my life as a priest or religious, and if my parents object to this appeal, I prefer the call of Christ to the advice of my parents. That prefer Jesus to his parents. As prefer Jesus to his own life, be ready to go to martyrdom for him to stay faithful with God's grace. In these extreme choices, heroic, we carry our cross to truly follow Jesus.
The story of the tower to build back on her a sentence of Ecclesiastes: "To conduct a business is better than the first: it is perseverance that counts, not the claim." Carry our cross to follow Jesus is therefore not only make choices heroic, but also and above all persevere in our love of God and neighbor through the generous and faithful discharge of our duties of state. That's a nice program Back to all! Program unworkable if we do not put personal prayer at the heart of our days, utopian ideal if we do not experience the loving presence of God in our lives.

Stomach Flu In Florida 2009

Rousseau or the anti-ethics, the foundations of the negation of the individual.

Rousseau or the anti-ethics, the foundations of the negation of the individual

by Nicolas

Madelenat di Florio

Society of Literary History of France.

This text is the first in a series on the Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

A Matthew Mentz, because if something needs to survive the madness of men, it is friendship.

A C., with friendly kindness of the author.

In 1762 appeared very likely that the works was most marked in the history of thought in this industry so special that deals with the formation of societies. We need this text to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of Social Contract . It is him, here he comes. More than ever, in a society that seeks, it seems necessary to go back to basics, such illustrious sources, and often illustrated, if not corrupt, thought to draw, the cup's history and the analysis, this fountain strange wisdom to which guide our future.

A Rousseau, therefore, we need this text, founder of which became the Republic, and so many currents of thought that it would take more space devoted here to list them all. Number of thinkers, in addition to any modern political boast of descent from Rousseau, high wear colors that we like to imagine as a purity colored extraordinary humanist. I could not, in research that are mine, neglecting to account for what is, in fact and in truth, this book, to develop ideas, theories, nothing overlooked. After all, when the truth is obvious, it is impossible that rises from the parties and factions. Never played it emerged at noon (Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary ). And it is in this spirit of homecoming that I decided to work directly on the edition of 1762, bearing the title From Social Contract . The approach that is mine is in line with the research project instilled within the Centre for Research in Economic Ethics on the philosophical foundations of a humanistic ethic.

But the notion that we must hold here before pushing further our analysis, in other articles, therefore, is equality between people. Rousseau defined as in 1754 the inherent equality between individuals as being corrupted by society and thus considered to be naturally good, that is the thesis presented in discourse on the origins and foundations of inequality among men . But the author of this hypothesis harden over time and move forward in 1762 in the Social Contract that men are perfectly equal and it is the pooling The company, which will push everybody to evolve differently. The modern theory under which Rousseau would see in his conception of equality that equality in law is therefore not credible a round square (Heiddeger, Introduction to metaphysics). The contribution of the philosopher, however, is significant in that it will break with with the Aristotelian approach, which is based on an anthropological imperative in society (the philia Aristotle in the Ethics Nicomachean , is nothing but the imperative for men to cooperate with each other to avoid the domination of the strongest and the destruction or enslavement of the weak).

For Rousseau, men are perfectly equal and society will corrupt them, making them hungry for power and put forward their own person. That, for the author, living in a group that will lead to the emergence of violence "civil". For him there, before the company, a particular state in which each individual takes care to avoid the other is the state of nature. In this garden of hell, the author imagines the men fleeing each other, very carefully, seeming to forget that reproduction can not be ensured due to lack of partners. In sum, the imperative of logic and consistency adds a anthropological imperative distracted by the need to shine and distinguish the author by his zeal in the midst of a changing society.

But what we forget to deal with when trying to present Rousseau as a champion of individual rights, this is the great concept of the social body. Because that is where will play all the strange alchemy of his thoughts. Moreover, equality is perfect, although utopian, something which does not represent great danger. However, it becomes a terrible cleaver when applied to politics and various forms of possible links between beings. By dissolving the individual into a shapeless mass which he is a cog swappable and fully comparable to the other, the philosopher will kill all the features making the person, individual, at the same time, the machine becomes a state on I have all the powers on those who are its hardware upgrade. After all, if each and everyone can be replaced if the social body is all powerful and only guarantor of a collective interest, the party can easily be destroyed for the benefit of all, since he single account.

And it is in the concept of the social body that will frame the infamous ideology future. Deny the individual break into a mold before kneading with other clusters of flesh, perfectibility condemn, condemn any possible evolution. It is also breaking innovation, features, kill the differences, stupefy those who would look up and see farther than others. The social body dear to Rousseau generate the worst barbarism that will ever exist, the socialist-Marxist ideology. The same ideology that brought to power, to deport an arm and poor people refusing to be a sheep led by a blind shepherd.

In this sense, then the thought of Rousseau is corrupting of the individual as the basis of the release (of force) from the yoke of a society that corrupts, it will replace his ball by chains, take a convict and make it a slave. There is not much social progress and we should not have, having to choose between two evils which is the lesser. Because what if timid civilized world has found nothing and the other to oppose the brutal and rebirth Face of barbarism that concessions ? (A. Solzhenitsyn, Speech Stockholm, 1972) Following Rousseau, we turn our gaze together to freedom as promised. For who is better priest who has everything to gain by convincing us? Rousseau was there and those of his pen he would appeal to those who a few months later, the revolution should go, not the song but the drums in the blood, tears, hate and madness, not forgetting that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced by any body (social) : what justifies anything else that will force him to be free. (Rousseau, Social Contract The , Chapter VI, the sovereign)

On this abomination of thinking, this denial open and justified our humanity, we must now make the cloth of history and its lessons. Suppose that the man was a strange animal before contact with civilized beings. Suppose it is a wolf to man (Hobbes in the quote in Latin, homo homini lupus is ). But refuse a salvation offered by other slaveholders. Do not leave more of the oars in a galley for the chains of forced laborers in the pay of a lord almighty, Father of our spirits, and captain of our soul. Reject our own barbarity and turn us toward freedom, the very one that has a simple face, that of choosing. Leaving the individual the choice of his life, and ensuring an appropriate regulatory framework and intelligent that the others let them do so, we will be able to quench our thirst, but before any common individual freedom. Only the man could not survive, he needs others. But society can not it either, survive if those who compose it are no longer capable of thinking. Imagining the future is already discovering the truth and touch a certain ideal.

The next article will focus on the origin of power and its use.