Midilibre.fr
Tous les blogs | Alerter le modérateur| Envoyer à un ami | Créer un Blog

07/05/2012

The forgotten integration (spirit of law)

(prochaines mois très peut de publications)

Lire la suite

20/04/2012

Le monde selon Stiglitz


DOCUMENTAIRE LE MONDE SELON JOSEPH STIGLITZ 1 par DOCUMENTAIREROOTS

 

Pour voir le documentaire entier cliquez ici.

Lire la suite

19/04/2012

Ploutocratie et/ou démocratie c'est ça la question!?

 Le video dans son contexte original des mutins de pangée

Comme tout les autres présidents avant, le nouveau président va avoir une difficile marge de manœuvre entre « le monde financier » et « l'état de droit, » la soi-disant « République ».



Comment faire? Vu les mécanismes politico-économique en place c'est impossible, c'est un jeu de pouvoir et si la droite, gauche, centre, François Hollande, Nicolas Doisy, moi et vous continuer à croire que c'est l'argent qui fait bouger le Monde, c'est le monde financier qui va gagner la bataille et on va rester une ploutocratie. La démocratie, la république et l'état de droit va rester des intentions désirée, mais très peut concrétisé.



 

Lire la suite

09/04/2012

La machine contre l'être humain

.... ou notre* religion populaire que nous pouvons vivre de ce qu'il n'y a pas encore produit.

 

 

 

* Une religion partagée par entrepreneurs, chômeurs, politiciens, journalistes, scientifiques-économiques moi-même et tous les autres bureaucrates.

 

 informations complémentaires,requête no. 1797111,cour européenne des droits de l'homme,revenues de l'économie réelle,revenu non encore produit,transposition de l'économié réelle en un univers de chiffres et,comptabilité,rouages insignifiants,gigantesque machine,chaine de ponzi,lettre en chaine,die gazette,presseurop,80% du fonds d'aide à la grèce,banques,contribution réelle,système illusoire,terreur de classement,religion économique

 

English version (tempory) Machine against mankind can be found here.

 

Par machine, on entend la transposition de l’économie réelle en un univers de chiffres et de nombres. Parce que nous avons attribué une valeur en soi à cette transformation, cette dernière est devenue, au fil du temps, plus importante que l’économie réelle elle-même.

 

L’économie est divisée en une économie réelle et une variante arithmétique, une comptabilité fonctionnelle en reflet de l’économie réelle. Cette comptabilité permet de comprendre et d’avoir prise sur ce qui survient dans l’économie réelle. Vue sous cet angle, la comptabilité me semble être un instrument très utile et indispensable. Mais que se passe-t-il si nous accordons à cette comptabilité une valeur en soi ? C’est alors exactement le moment où se produit une séparation d’avec l’économie réelle. Il est possible d’y pallier très simplement, en associant et faisant participer le comptable à l’économie réelle, grâce à quoi la comptabilité demeure une partie de l’économie réelle et ne s’en détache pas.

 

 

Lire la suite

 

A lire aussi: L'intégration oubliée.

 

 

02/04/2012

Requête devant le court des droits de l'homme (2)

 

 

  

adam smith,montesquieu,karl marx,synthèse,désintégrations,intégration,communication économique,machine contre l'homme,participation,démocratie,état de droit,george greenstein,jérémie,conscience,györgy konrad,andrew cohen,liberté,tribunal d'arhem,chambre fiscal,cour d'appel,cour de droitde l'homme,peter hoopman pour les pays bas,requête,1797111,apartheid,science économique,ségrégation,foi,réligion,s.a. dangeville c. france,requête 3667797,constitution,le monde financier,l'origine de la bureaucratie déraillé,bureaucratie incontrôlable,mur d'apartheid,jugement,institutionalisation,dogme économique,the future of money,bernard lietaer,casino à l'échelle mondiale,justice,plus valeu,valeur ajouté,levier comptable,le leurre politico-économique,profit de papier,t.s. eliot,séparation des pouvoirs

 « Tu m’as encore mis dans de beaux draps. »

The English version can be found here. 

 

II. EXPOSÉ DES FAITS

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

WEERGAVE VAN DE FEITEN

 

14.

 

Le soussigné a tenté de dénoncer juridiquement la différence de pouvoir entre l’univers financier et le reste de la société. Cette différence de pouvoir se manifeste sous la forme d’intérêts qui sont réclamés sur l’argent prêté, en plus du remboursement. Ceci rend impossible tout échange économique équilibré entre les parties et diffuse un signal hiérarchique selon lequel on doit gagner plus que la contribution que l’on a apportée. En cas d’application de manière chronique, ceci conduit à des concentrations de pouvoir verticales, au lieu de communications économiques horizontales fondées sur l’ « égalité » entre les personnes selon le droit constitutionnel. La hiérarchie sociale, qu’elle soit publique ou privée, se formera et se stabilisera verticalement à partir de ces différences de pouvoir. En Inde, on appelle ceci le système de castes, en Afrique du Sud l’apartheid, aux États-Unis la ségrégation, en Allemagne le fascisme, au sein de la religion ceci s’appelle la foi et au sein de l’économie nous nommons cela la science.

 

Le soussigné a tenté d’aborder cette question de manière informelle, dans une tentative de dialogue avec les pouvoirs publics néerlandais en 2006. Cette correspondance n’ayant abouti à rien, le soussigné a présenté une réclamation contre un avis d'imposition provisoire relatif à l’impôt sur les sociétés.

 

L’observation la plus intéressante de toute la procédure a été formulée par l’inspecteur du service des contributions, le 26 mars 2007 :

 

Le problème que vous abordez dépasse le cadre de cette réclamation.

 

Ceci a continué de planer au-dessus de toute la procédure et aucune des instances juridiques néerlandaises n’a eu le courage d’aborder le contenu de la problématique soulevée, éludant la question de manière juridico-technique afin de ne pas être contraintes de l’aborder sur son contenu.

 

 

On vie aujourd'hui dans une société qui ce désintègre, nous avons besoin une intégration (synthèse) des grand penseurs comme Adam Smith, Karl Marx et Montesquieu.

Pour lire le document tout entier;

Requete_Cour_Européenne_des_Droits_de_l_Homme__15_maart_2...

 

 

15/03/2012

Requête devant le court des droits de l'homme (1)

The English version one can find here.

 

 

« Sommes-nous les rouages insignifiants d’une gigantesque machine dont l’objectif principal est de produire de l’argent, de croître et d’accumuler des bénéfices ? »

 

Prit de: « Entre fidèles angoissés »

 

 tu m’as encore mis dans de beaux draps,la machine contre l’homme,communication économique,georg greenstein,que puis-je y faire,jérémie 31: 31-34,györgy konrád,andrew cohen,laurel & hardy,la sense de la vie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 « Tu m’as encore mis dans de beaux draps. »

Lire la suite

15/01/2012

Cry Freedom (Cri de liberté)

- Pas de nouveau billet avant le 15 mars -

 

Un petit livre à n'est pas rater pour comprendre le sujèt: L'esprit et la pensée de Krishnamurti, pour nous les soi-disant intelectuelles!!!! ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lire la suite

14/01/2012

A few questions to deepen the political-juridical economic debate.


 

Is the (economic) survival of the fittest constitutional?

It may be difficult to answer this just like that.

The negative side effects of ‘competition’ are not as tangible in a world where relatively few people live. Imagine a world with half a billion people and you can imagine that there is a place under the sun for everyone. In a world becoming ever more crowded, the side effects of ‘mutual competition’ will be ever more apparent.
It might be important to ask several questions:

For whom is ‘mutual competition’ efficient?

For those who already have a head start, the government, the losers, the winners, or the economy in general?

What happens to communication between the government and the people when ‘mutual competition’, which leads to ‘profit and growth’, is the most important social principle?

What does this do to the self-regulating ability of individuals in their interrelations within a society?

Do not people (and companies) become ever more dependent on the government as a result?

What does ‘mutual competition’ do to participation within a society, the independence of each individual and tolerance towards others?

How (economically) efficient is ‘mutual competition’, when you take profit and growth as a starting point instead of people and democratisation?

How democratic is our society if ‘winners’ have more rights than ‘losers’?

How much credibility does the government and the constitutional state have if winning is a more important social (economic) principle than coexistence?

What promotes an individual’s independence in society?

Do we compete against each other or do we create the conditions necessary for individuals to face society’s challenges and share them by participating and learning to co-operate?

Where does competition end and do crime, terrorism and war start, and what roles do politics, the legal system and the individual play in this?

I hope these questions and points of view are interesting for you, as a reader and, more importantly, as a fellow human being.

Best regards,
Peter Hoopman
Roquetaillade – Aveyron         

03/01/2012

Is there an alternative course?

La version Français se trouve ici.

De Nederlandse versie "Hoe dan wel?" is hier terug te vinden.

Die Deutsche version  "Wie dann?" kann mann hier zurückfinden (ist dass Deutsch?)

==============================================================

 

Enclosure II with the appeal of De Hutte Holding BV versus the Tax and Customs Administration, case number 07 / 2920 VPB 77 21 december 2008

 

What’s the alternative course?

 

Integral (integrated) economy
Today, we are experiencing several crises at the same time, all of which are interrelated below the surface and all of which come down to one and the same synthesising question: How can we co-exist? While the theoretical answer to this question is fairly simple, it is much harder to put it into practice – it takes two to tango. ;-)

A. The foundations of society
A healthy and living foundation for society requires certain conditions that promote life and survival. The simpler these preconditions are, the clearer and thus more effective they will be. What needs do we all share? The need for drinking water, food, clothing, shelter, education and health care. The constitutional state is responsible for these conditions and maintaining the foundation of society while we, the people, are responsible for the practical concretisation of this foundation by working together. In political terms this means solidarity and the ability to share what we have and what we need.

B. The absolute necessity of integrated individualisation
Without integrated individualisation, the foundation of society is doomed. If you understand this interaction, you have the seeds of the pragmatic concretisation of a fairer society within your grasp. No political, social or commercial (market) party (whether majority or minority) can claim the exclusiveness of the foundation of society. That foundation is humanity as a whole and disallows any exclusivity on the part of any single individual. Once the preconditions for the foundation of society have been met, this will automatically create a breeding ground for integrated individualism, which is nothing other than the complete freedom to develop as an individual. This self-development should not, of course, be at the expense of the foundation of society. In political terms, this can be called integrated individualism, integrated liberalism. We can then put the synthesis of the foundation of society and integrated individualism into practice and call it integral economy.

This can be summarised as follows: everyone is an entrepreneur who, through co‑ordination, communication, practical actions and feedback, gradually improves the living conditions of the individual and the collective.

Lire la suite

08/12/2011

The difference between legal system and constitutional state.

 La version Français

                                                                       Supreme Court of the Netherlands

Ms XXXXX
PO Box 20303
2500 EH The Hague

 

13 September 2006

 

Copy to: Prime Minister Balkenende, Winterswijk Tax and Customs Administration and www.solution-simple.com

                                                                      
Re:The difference between legal system and constitutional state, and a concrete question to you

Dear Ms XXXXX,

Thank you for your explanation in your letter of 17 August 2006, in which you clarify that our legal system has to abide by the rules set down in the law. This seems very logical and right to me. You also state that an investigation is possible, provided that this is brought before the Supreme Court in the manner stipulated by law. This also seems logical in order to give the legal system a framework in which justice can be administered carefully and fairly. Nonetheless, I want to make a comment here. Your observation is entirely true if the legal system is in line with the way the constitutional state operates; that is, the legal system (theoretically speaking) operates completely synchronously with the constitutional state itself. That this is not the case today, either practically or theoretically speaking, is clearly evident from our politico-economic system in which the economic right of the strongest is institutionalised/protected, and which, therefore, disregards the most fundamental democratic principles which should be the basis of a well-functioning legal system.

But how can a constitutional state serve (the general mutually binding interests), if mutual competition is a key ‘common’ principle? The institutionalised representatives of the constitutional state, i.e. the judiciary, government and parliament, guarantee their own indispensability by creating conditions whereby society only becomes more dependent on these institutions.

The very nature of competition constantly requires the administration of justice, an arbitrator who intervenes and administers justice. From a marketing perspective, this is a winning recipe; having people compete because they will continuously have to knock on the door of those various bodies seeking justice, or sooner or later, they will hang their head in despair at this constant and chronic recurring injustice. 

A case of the goose that lays the golden eggs for the people working within this system. But what happens to the people who find themselves outside the system? Competition forces us to protect ourselves properly, which takes up a lot of our time and energy. There’s nothing really wrong with that, but shouldn’t the constitutional state (the government, the house of representatives, the judiciary, the business community and citizens) at least take a look at whether this is efficient and in the interests of an open society, one that is as free as possible? And the most important question in all of this is whether it’s fair on all those participating in society. Sooner or later, we have to ask ourselves if honest competition is actually at all possible. How and where do you set believable limits on what is possible, permitted and still just? A society where competition is a key principle logically creates the right of the strongest. Those who ‘earn’ the most can recruit the best staff, pay the best lawyers, etc., but does it actually create people who take their own responsibility within and for society as a whole? Fortunately, there are of course plenty of people like this, but unfortunately, they are more the exception than the rule within a competitive society. With competition, the first priority is having your own affairs in order. The consequences for society as a whole in the short and long run are secondary and, in day-to-day practice, they are often a loss-making priority. This brings me to the important conclusion that competition creates dependence instead of healthy independence and fair play in society as a whole: the constitutional state. By taking competition as a starting point, the legal system has created (unintentionally, I assume) an indisputably huge market share,on which practically all of society has become dependent. When viewed from the perspective of psychological laws that create mutual competition, this is completely understandable. But is this just and efficient from an economic point of view? Does this create the right principles for a free and open society and for individuals who stand on their own two feet?

Collaboration, on the other hand, places the responsibility on society, on the independently operating individual. Institutions intervene when the conditions for collaboration are undermined by the individual or groups of participants. This requires an entirely different attitude from parents, government, parliament and the judiciary. Democracy will then come to rest where it naturally belongs: in society itself, with the individual, instead of with the institutions that unconsciously try to protect their own market at the expense of democracy and the constitutional state. Because in a competitive society we can only protect our own achievements against our competitive fellow man. Over the years, this has resulted in institutions, governments, business and individuals only safeguarding their own system, achievements and mechanism, which, of course, has happened at the expense of the general interest: the constitutional state. In a competitive society, people always point the finger at others; nobody is responsible anymore for individual actions or joint ones. For instance, in your first letter of 12 July 2006 you suggest that I should vent my opinions in the political arena; a political world that is internally divided right down to its core and, because of its individual political fight for survival, has long since lost sight of social interests. This is all logical when you consider mutual competition, but it’s disastrous for the constitutional state striving for unity

Lire la suite