Τρίτη, 14 Δεκεμβρίου 2010

Θέσεις ...Απόψεις ...φίλων που μας γράφουν 14/12/2010 *

Θέσεις ...Απόψεις ...φίλων που μας γράφουν 14/12/2010 :

~** http://arfara-messinias-stamos-2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html , Η ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΕΝΟΣ ΧΩΡΙΟΥ , ΑΡΦΑΡΑ - ΜΕΣΣΗΝΙΑΣ 2010 .-



Η ΩΡΑ ΣΤ΄ ΑΡΦΑΡΑ ΜΕΣΣΗΝΙΑΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ .-

~** http://httpdimmetoparfarablogspotcom.blogspot.com/2010/12/h-i%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%8C%CF%82-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%8D-%CE%B2-%CF%83%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%AC.html , H Iστορία ενός χωριού Β΄ συνέχεια Αρφαρά -Μεσσηνίας Δεκέμβριος 2010 ( Τρίτη 14/12/2010 snsarfara –messinias – stamos01 ).-

** ΚΑΛΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥΓΕΝΝΑ ΣΕ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΜΑΣ !! ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΠΟΛΛΑ !!



**~** http://httpdimmetoparfarablogspotcom.blogspot.com/2010/12/2010.html , Η Ιστορία ενός χωριού , ΑΡΦΑΡΑ ΜΕΣΣΗΝΙΑΣ ενημέρωση..αθλητική Ιστορική αναδρομή ...Αστέρας Αρφαρών 2010 , Σάββατο 11Δεκεμβρίου 2010 .-

** Ο/Η Konstantinos Manikas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του ΝΔ Σύγχρονη Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντροδεξιά.

Konstantinos ManikasDecember 14, 2010 at 4:51pm
Θέμα: Νέες διαδικτυακές δημοσκοπήσεις
Μετά τις επιτυχημένες προβλέψεις μας στις αυτοδιοικητικές εκλογές, προχωρούμε σε μια έρευνα για τις Συνταγματικές αλλαγές αλλά και την αποτύπωση της δύναμης των κομμάτων. Σας ευχαριστούμε για τη συμμετοχή...
http://www.facebook.com/l/5bd750jCZ-BSvXSOSQC0Lgjtf4g;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/p/gallop.html .-

** Ο/Η Konstantinos Manikas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του ΝΔ Σύγχρονη Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντροδεξιά.

Konstantinos ManikasDecember 14, 2010 at 5:46pm
Θέμα: "Ρετιρέ" των ΔΕΚΟ και απολύσεις
Πρόταση για ειδικό "εκπαιδευτικό" καθεστώς μειωμένης αμοιβής για όσους ,υπό μετάταξη, δεν διαθέτουν τις απαραίτητες γνώσεις για να απορροφηθούν σε νέες θέσεις, ώστε να μην περιοριστούν οι νέες προσλήψεις σε τομείς όπως η υγεία, η εκπαίδευση κι η ασφάλεια.-
http://www.facebook.com/l/5bd75n429oIQg6jdI6mE9NUfflw;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/2010/12/%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%AD-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%BF-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82.html .-

** Ο Konstantinos Manikas σχολίασε τη φωτογραφία σας. Ο Konstantinos έγραψε:"Σ' ευχαριστώ πολύ για τις ευχές. Καλές γιορτές να έχουμε κι ότι καλύτερο για τη νέα χρονιά!!"Για να δείτε όλα τα σχόλια, ακολουθείστε τον παρακάτω σύνδεσμο:http://www.facebook.com/n/?photo.php&fbid=1772335635293&set=-.&mid=3718d68G56358b7cG26821f0G9&n_m=stamoskal%40windowslive.com Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook .-

** OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL‏
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson has just found the individual mandate central to Obamacare is unconstitutional. The provision would force most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014. The Constitution created a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The writers of the U.S. Constitution were very much aware of the need to set firm and specific limits on the powers of government. Hundreds of years of the British Monarchy, and study of the failures of republican forms of government as far back as ancient Greece and Rome, informed their mature understanding of the perils of government power.They were convinced that, unless government was restricted to only those few functions that government alone can perform, its powers would inexorably grow until it controlled everything in America. They were right.ObamaCare seeks to nationalize health care by placing so many restrictions and unfunded mandates on private insurance companies that they will go out of business. Government will then step in to manage Medicare for the entire population, rather than only the elderly. The government monopoly on health care will most surely go just about as well as the monopoly on the post office or public education. Medicare, even if kept only for the elderly population, is going bankrupt. The only question is when, not if, Medicare along with Social Security will run out of money.Our lives will be in the hands of doctors who have been told that they don't matter and that they are employees of the state. Their incentive will no longer be to provide excellent care. Their incentive will be to simply clock in, clock out, go through the motions and retire as soon as the government pension kicks in. Not all that different from many existing government employees.Americans want health care reform, but not the reforms put in place under the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act(PPACA). The new law moves America's health care system in the wrong direction, transferring vast powers to Washington bureaucrats who will control the dollars and decisions that should be in the hands of individual patients and their families. It is no surprise that most Americans continue to oppose the new law and that clear majorities want it repealed.Congress must repeal the new law. Congress cannot build sound market-based health care reform on the PPACA foundation, which is utterly incompatible with a health care system based on consumer choice and free markets. Beyond the unprecedented mandates, new taxes, massive entitlement expansion, unworkable and costly insurance provisions, and its failure to control costs, the new law concentrates enormous power in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(HHS). It creates a giant network for the federal micromanagement of health plans, benefits, insurance markets, and unprecedented intervention into the details of health care financing and the delivery of medical care.The early result is a veritable flood of controversial rules and regulations, administrative decisions, and guidelines directly affecting the lives of millions of Americans. This regulatory regime, administered by unelected bureaucrats, is even more onerous because of the fundamental flaws of the hastily enacted legislation itself, including undefined provisions and unrealistic timeliness. Those with the knowledge, access, and influence with the Administration are more likely to obtain exemptions than those who are not so fortunate. The new law allows the HHS Secretary to apply the provisions of the law and to enforce it as she sees fit, thus granting the Secretary the right to determine winners and losers. Before the 1960s, Americans who didn't get their insurance through work typically got it through civic organizations such as churches and social clubs. Now they're more likely to get it through government public programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The result? Greater dependence on government.Four years ago, fifty doctors who worked at the largest hospital in Athens had performed five hundred cosmetic surgeries, but they reported appendix, heart, and eye operations in patient files. They did that because cosmetic surgery is not covered by insurance, and they had sent the bills to the patients' health insurance agencies. It was a gang, and it even had the audacity to place the cosmetic surgery at the top of their priority lists, while patients with serious conditions and emergency cases were kept waiting. The case still hasn't seen the inside of a courtroom. It often seems as if Greece had no judiciary. The judiciary itself is the big patient!Obamacare will deteriorate USA to the miserable level of Greece, a country harassed by freakish Graecokleptocrats and brutal Graecocybercops. The entropy of an organization is proportional to the square of its size. Obamacare will bring huge entropy. The Greek government needs only four ministers, but it has forty. No wonder, Premier Papandreou cannot control his ministers, who do not have any better thing to do than suing dissident bloggers, confiscating their computers, and locking them in jail for treason! Freak galore!Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** Hey Stamatios,Στεφανία Ελλάς is playing CityVille and thinks you would like it too.Accept Στεφανία's invitation and help each other build your own sprawling metropolis.Happy building,Your friends at CityVille

** CRIME AND PUNISHMENT FOR ALL, EXCEPT KLEPTOCRATS!‏

Victims of crime who have been granted protection by law in one EU Member State will be able to request similar protection if they move to another EU country, under the rules of the European Protection Order approved on Tuesday by the European Parliament. However, most freakish crimes are committed by kleptocrats, who enjoy complete impunity!Fourth Reich(EU), an unvoted illegal confederation, cannot protect Europeans from kleptocrats, especially Graecokleptocrats, and police brutes, especially Graecocybercops. Barroso condones the disgusting Graecokleptocrats who accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail!Measures to protect victims of crime already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) will enable anyone protected in one EU state to apply for protection if they move to another EU state. EPOs cannot touch Graecokleptocrats, the #1 enemy of the Greek people. Kleptocracy, perjury, and cybercop brutality are galloping in Greece, but Premier George Papandreou speaks no evil, hears no evil, and sees no evil. Selective hearing is a symptom of the cancer of kleptocracy! Freakish gangs of violent Graecocybercops break into the homes of Greek dissident bloggers, robbing their computers, software, files, documents, personal data, personal codes, and personal secrets. They lock the bloggers in jail, they humiliate them with handcuffs, photos, and lies, leak false information to the media, and initiate sham court proceedings for treason under perjury conditions. There are no toilet facilities in their jail cells. At night, they have to urinate in small bottles. There is no toilet paper either. Their kith and kin must bring them toilet paper and soap. They lose their jobs, and their lives are stolen."We wish to send a clear message to the Council: EU citizens want to live in a genuine area of freedom, security and justice and to be protected wherever they are in Europe", said Teresa Jimenez-Becerril Barrio (EPP, ES), Women's Rights Committee rapporteur. "We must think of the victims, of the people who are frightened and who want to live in peace. With this proposal we have the opportunity to save lives and we should be proud of that". "The European Protection Order is a first small step, but it's the beginning" of a broader framework for the protection of victims' rights in the EU, she concluded. "We want an instrument that provides effective protection. The law should resolve conflicts, not create them", said Carmen Romero Lopez (S&D, ES), Civil Liberties Committee rapporteur. "With today's vote we want to send a strong message to the Council. It is now up to the Council to shoulder its responsibilities", she said. MEPs voted to make it clearer that the rules will cover all victims of crime, except victims of kleptocrats. Most protection measures are granted to women victims of gender violence but an EPO could not cover crimes of kleptocrats. "This directive applies to protection measures which aim at protecting all victims and not only the victims of gender violence, taking into account the specificities of each type of crime concerned", says the text of the legislation as amended by MEPs. The rules will apply to a victim or potential victim who needs protection against a criminal act of another person which may, in any way, endanger his life, physical, psychological and sexual integrity, as well as his dignity or personal liberty. Such acts would include harassment, abduction, stalking and other forms of indirect coercion, but not acts of kleptocrats. Graecokleptocrats, the most corrupt politicians on Earth, are trying to gag dissident bloggers, manipulating an infamous gang of cybercops. Graecokleptocrats have discovered this freakish gang is the best political tool, able and willing to destroy their opponents. Freak galore! That's why an influential Greek dissident blogger would normally wait for brutal Graecocybercops to eventually confiscate his computer before he buys a new model!

** SOCIALIST GAG OF INTERNET‏
All socialists, from Chavez of Venezuela to Papandreou of Greece, president of Socialist International, try to gag dissident bloggers.An amendment to the Radio and TV Social Responsibility Law (Ley Resorte) – submitted to the parliament of Venezuela on 9 December and due to be adopted this week at the president's insistence – will increase the severity of the penalties for offending broadcast media and make them applicable to online media as well.President Hugo Chavez has asked the outgoing parliament, which he controls, to rush adoption of the amendment as he already has with a proposed international cooperation law. Following the disgusting paradigm of infamous Graecokleptocrats, who persecute and jail dissident bloggers, Chavez terrorizes all Venezuelan dissident bloggers.The incoming parliament, elected on 26 September but not due to begin sitting until 5 January, will include opposition parties. As such, it would be better able to debate the pros and cons of these bills. Is it because he totally dominates the current parliament that Chavez wants these bills passed at all cost before Christmas? Everything suggests that he is trying to defy the electorate's will in this way.Blogging in Venezuela and Greece is considered an extreme-risk avocation. Freakish kleptocrats accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! Freak galore! These prisoners of conscience follow the long tradition of Socrates, who was killed by the Athenian democracy.Reporters Without Borders points out the original version of the Ley Resorte already encourages media self-censorship by defining offences in a very general and convoluted manner that is open to all kinds of interpretation. The new version develops this flaw to the point of caricature.It would, for example, ban use of radio, TV or Internet to transmit messages that could incite crimes against the president or could constitute a media manipulation aimed at stirring up unrest or disturbing public order. It would also ban messages that could be contrary to the nation's security or designed to defy the legitimately installed authorities. Such a level of vagueness would pervert any possibility of fair judicial implementation.The penalties are also much harsher in the new version. The first two offences mentioned above (inciting a crime against the president and media manipulation) would be punishable by a fine of up to 10 per cent of the broadcaster's or Internet service provider's gross annual income or a 72-hour suspension (which could be permanent for repeat offenders). The fine for a broadcaster (or ISP) that refuses to cede space for educational or cultural messages is increased from 1 to 2 per cent of the gross annual income and now also applies to refusing to carry the national anthem.A fine of 3 to 4 per cent of gross annual revenue will be payable by broadcasters and online media that transmit content of a violent nature at the wrong time of day. Instead of 7am-7pm, the hours for content fit for any age group would henceforth be 6am-9pm, while the timetable for content suitable for supervised age groups would run from 9pm to midnight.The official goal of protecting minors is praiseworthy in principle but these restrictions are excessive for radio and TV broadcasters and would appear to be impossible to implement on websites.According to article 212 of the law's amended version, the state will create an interconnection or access point for Internet Service Providers with the aim of regulating traffic within or into Venezuela in order to more effectively use the country's networks because of the sector's strategic nature.Venezuelan and Greek dissident bloggers are arrested for exercising the right to free expression and are jailed on grotesque charges, such as treason. Kleptocrats are trying to take away citizens' right to read what they want, and to say what they want. The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard, the voices of Venezuelans and Greeks who simply could not afford to publish their ideas to a wide audience using the mainstream media. Kleptocrats fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the blogosphere. Freak galore! Freakish Graecocybercops, the bumptious bugaboos of the Greek internet, must be abolished now.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

**PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE‏
Following the disgusting paradigm of infamous Graecokleptocrats, who persecute and jail dissident bloggers, the Obama Administration is hard at work attempting to acquire Julian Assange from either the British or Swedish government. They're not really sure what they can charge him with, but they'll think of something, probably.Freakish Graecokleptocrats accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! These prisoners of conscience follow the long tradition of Socrates, who was killed by the Athenian democracy.Following the brutal methods of freakish Graecocybercops, concerns about the prospect that Assange is about to disappear into some US black hole for his role in the publication of information severely embarrassing to the US government is finally starting to rise not just among human rights groups, but in official circles as well.It's just astonishing what is happening, noted the UN's top Human Rights official Navi Pillay, adding that the US moves against them are potentially violating WikiLeaks's right to freedom of expression.Brazilian President Lula expressed solidarity with Assange, and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin condemned his detention as undemocratic. US officials have condemned Assange as a terrorist on the basis of his publications, and top US presidential hopefuls have expressed support for assassinating him.Following the disgusting perjury paradigm of Graecocybercops, there are false rape accusations asgainst Assange. Greek dissident bloggers are arrested for exercising the right to free expression and are jailed on grotesque charges, such as treason, after sham trials. Graecokleptocrats are trying to take away Greeks' right to read what they want, and to say what they want. The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard, the voices of Greeks who simply could not afford to publish their ideas to a wide audience using the mainstream media. Graecokleptocrats fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Greek blogosphere through new stupid laws and freakish regulations. Freakish Graecocybercops must be abolished now.Operation Payback is a coordinated group of attacks on kleptocratic websites by dissident bloggers. In December 2010, Operation Payback organizers focused their attacks on websites that opposed WikiLeaks following the United States diplomatic cables leak. The First World Cyberwar(WCW I) is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. Dissident bloggers are the troops. The Second World Cyberwar(WCW II) might be against freakish governments that jail dissident bloggers.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** ESPIONAGE ACT‏
While the leaking of government documents is a crime, the publication of documents is not a crime. Nevertheless, following the disgusting paradigm of infamous Graecokleptocrats, who persecute and jail dissident bloggers, the government of USA is preparing to indict Julian Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917.Blogging in Greece is considered an extreme-risk avocation. Freakish Graecokleptocrats accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! These prisoners of conscience follow the long tradition of Socrates, who was killed by the Athenian democracy.The Espionage Act of 1917 was originally used to arrest antiwar activists during World War I, and later to censor criticism of the war during World War II. The court rulings at the time determined that the act could be used to restrict any political expression that the government considered a clear and present danger.Most classified material is improperly classified; governments oftentimes invoke claims of secrecy to shield themselves from embarrassment, not to protect national security. The attention on minute and often mundane details that shouldn't be classified precipitate a closer look at overclassification, Leaks have a beneficial side effect. Its post-war application has been all but impossible, however, as attempts to restrict previous coverage of the Pentagon Papers and to charge Daniel Ellsberg under the same act failed in court. Subsequent acts have never been successfully brought to a guilty verdict. Whether the Espionage Act can even be said to apply to a foreign national whose crime was committed outside of the US is even less clear, perhaps, than the Pentagon Papers case, which the government lost in 1971.The Act is a singularly bold attempt by Uncle Sam to severely curb freedom of speech, and its revitalization by the Obama Adminstration points to the desperation with which they are attempting to stifle embarrassing criticism. America's suddenly censorship-happy position is being met with serious concern abroad but so far the politically connected seem almost in unison behind the silencing of such unseemly dissent.Governments cannot call for unlimited internet freedom in other parts of the world if they do not respect this freedom themselves. Barroso condones the disgusting Graecokleptocrats who accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! Fourth Reich(EU), an unvoted illegal confederation, cannot protect Europeans from kleptocrats, especially Graecokleptocrats, and police brutes, especially Graecocybercops.Greek dissident bloggers are arrested for exercising the right to free expression and are jailed on grotesque charges, such as treason. Graecokleptocrats are trying to take away Greeks' right to read what they want, and to say what they want. The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard, the voices of Greeks who simply could not afford to publish their ideas to a wide audience using the mainstream media. Graecokleptocrats fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Greek blogosphere. Freakish Graecocybercops must be abolished now.The Ministry of Truth or Minitrue in Newspeak was how George Orwell described the mechanism used by the government of Dystopia to control information in his seminal novel of 1984. Now, Graecokleptocrats have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on public information. But there is no way Minitrue can gag the internet. Brutal Graecocybercops must be abolished now.Bloggers have to put up with the Greek government, the bully of blogosphere. Starting with no money, no backers, and no affiliation with elite institutions, the internet made it possible for many Greeks to succeed by making knowledge accessible and searchable on a scale never previously available in Greece. The intellectual playing field has been leveled and the internet changed the way Greeks think about the very real possibility of fairness and opportunity that has for too long been rigged to favor Graecokleptocrats.Graecokleptocrats, the most corrupt politicians on Earth, are trying to gag dissident bloggers, manipulating an infamous gang of cybercops. Graecokleptocrats have discovered this freakish gang is the best political tool, able and willing to destroy their opponents. That's why an influential Greek dissident blogger would normally wait for brutal Graecocybercops to eventually confiscate his computer before he buys a new model!Greek bloggers cause anxiety to Graecokleptocrats. The Greek government is wary of Greeks posting news without being controlled journalists. Worse, bloggers sometimes raise sensitive issues which the traditional Greek media do not dare cover. Blogs have in Greece become the only reliable source of news. Violent Graecocybercops must be abolished now.Greek blogs are a fantastic tool for freedom of expression in Greece. They have unloosed the tongues of ordinary Greeks. Greeks who were until now only consumers of stupid news have become players in a new form of journalism, a grassroots journalism by the Greeks for the Greeks, united against Graecokleptocrats. Sadist Graecocybercops must be abolished now.Email allows internet groups to grow from a dozen friends to a hundred hobbyists to a huge, international organization. Meanwhile, blogging is transforming journalism, and websites like this Yahoo Group are part of a new Library of Alexandria being built online. In countless ways, internet is radically enhancing our access to information and empowering us to share ideas with the entire world. Speech thrives online, freed of limitations inherent in other media and created by traditional gatekeepers.Preserving internet's open architecture is critical to sustaining free speech. But this technological capacity means little without sufficient legal protections. If laws can censor you, limit access to certain information, or restrict use of communication tools, then the Internet's incredible potential will go unrealized.Gagging the Greek blogosphere has backfired, creating new secure ways of fighting Graecokleptocracy. Greeks now bypass internet censorship and cybercops using onion routing, a technique for anonymous communication over a computer network. Messages are repeatedly encrypted and then sent through several network nodes called onion routers. Each onion router removes a layer of encryption to uncover routing instructions, and sends the message to the next router where this is repeated. This prevents these intermediary nodes from knowing the origin, destination, and contents of the message.Greeks evade freakish Graecokleptocrats and brutal Graecocybercops using Tor. Tor, The Onion Routing, is a system intended to enable online anonymity, composed of client software and a network of servers which can hide information about users' locations and other factors which might identify them. Use of this system makes it more difficult to trace internet traffic to the user, including visits to websites, online posts, instant messages, and other communication forms. It is intended to protect users' personal freedom, privacy, and ability to conduct confidential business, by keeping their internet activities from being monitored. The software is open-source and the network is free of charge to use.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

**WE NEED ROTHBARDIAN ANARCHY NOW!‏
The recent financial crisis confirms that anarchy is much better than democracy. Only kleptocrats and looters do better in democracy. Wars, terror, massacres, and misery are instigated by governments, not people. Anarchy is an ideal limit; the closer a system is to anarchy, the better it is. We should all strive for anarchy now.Greece, the cradle of democracy has become the cradle of kleptocracy. Since democracy has deteriorated to kleptocracy, especially in Greece, citizens now consider anarchy. Murray Rothbard defines the state as that institution which possesses one of the following properties: it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as taxation; and it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service over a given territorial area. Anarchist society is one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.The Rothbardian definition of the state is not arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way coercive. Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term coercion can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it physical violence or the threat thereof, with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state claims and exercises a monopoly of crime over its territorial area. The second criticism Rothbard would like to defuse is the common charge that anarchists assume that all people are good and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. Rothbard confesses that he does not understand the basis for this charge.Whatever other schools of anarchism profess – and Rothbard does not believe that they are open to the charge – he certainly does not adopt this view. Rothbard assumes with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In Rothbard's view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime – theft, oppression, mass murder – on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad. In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are good in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the nature of man, given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad.The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that needs to be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.Many people think the state is vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. Rothbard's contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.One important caveat: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state's unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.It is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: "We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other." Rothbard submits that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of "who will guard the guardians?" becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.The anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** THE STATE IS NOT A NECESSARY EVIL‏
Murray Rothbard asserts that disputes – in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property – could easily be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.Rothbard points out arbitration has grown to proportions that make the courts a secondary recourse in many areas and completely superfluous in others. The ancient fear of the courts that arbitration would "oust" them of their jurisdiction has been fulfilled with a vengeance the common-law judges probably never anticipated. Insurance companies adjust over fifty thousand claims a year among themselves through arbitration, and the American Arbitration Association (AAA), with headquarters in New York and twenty-five regional offices across the country, last year conducted over twenty-two thousand arbitrations. Its twenty-three thousand associates available to serve as arbitrators may outnumber the total number of judicial personnel in the United States. Add to this the unknown number of individuals who arbitrate disputes within particular industries or in particular localities, without formal AAA affiliation, and the quantitatively secondary role of official courts begins to be apparent. In addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-a-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. In other words, the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral law, has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has ceased to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. If an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the status of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law.It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. However, arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. Furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. The private courts of shippers developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.How then did these private anarchistic voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary enforcement, indeed provided highly successful. The merchants' courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail. Nevertheless, it is apparent their decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows provide if anything more effective than physical coercion. Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. It was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts, that arbitration caught on and developed a following in the American mercantile community. Its popularity, gained at a time when abiding by an agreement to arbitrate had to be as voluntary as the agreement itself, casts doubt on whether legal coercion was an essential adjunct to the settlement of most disputes. Cases of refusal to abide by an arbitrator's award were rare; one founder of the American Arbitration Association could not recall a single example. Like their medieval forerunners, merchants in the Americas did not have to rely on any sanctions other than those they could collectively impose on each other. One who refused to pay up might find access to his association's tribunal cut off in the future, or his name released to the membership of his trade association; these penalties were far more fearsome than the cost of the award with which he disagreed. Voluntary and private adjudications were voluntarily and privately adhered to, if not out of honor, out of the self-interest of businessmen who knew that the arbitral mode of dispute settlement would cease to be available to them very quickly if they ignored an award. Rothbard points out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.The advocates of government see initiated force (the legal force of government) as the only solution to social disputes. According to them, if everyone in society were not forced to use the same court system, disputes would be insoluble. Apparently it doesn't occur to them that disputing parties are capable of freely choosing their own arbiters they have not realized that disputants would, in fact, be far better off if they could choose among competing arbitration agencies so that they could reap the benefits of competition and specialization. It should be obvious that a court system which has a monopoly guaranteed by the force of statutory law will not give as good quality service as will free-market arbitration agencies which must compete for their customers. Perhaps the least tenable argument for government arbitration of disputes is the one which holds that governmental judges are more impartial because they operate outside the market and so have no vested interests. Owning political allegiance to government is certainly no guarantee of impartiality! A governmental judge is always impelled to be partial – in favor of the government, from whom he gets his pay and his power! On the other hand, an arbiter who sells his services in a free market knows that he must be as scrupulously honest, fair, and impartial as possible or no pair of disputants will buy his services to arbitrate their dispute. A free-market arbiter depends for his livelihood on his skill and fairness at settling disputes. A governmental judge depends on political pull. If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators. It would be more economical and in most cases quite sufficient to have only one arbitration agency to hear the case. But if the parties felt that a further appeal might be necessary and were willing to risk the extra expense, they could provide for a succession of two or even more arbitration agencies. The names of these agencies would be written into the contract in order from the first court of appeal to the last court of appeal. It would be neither necessary nor desirable to have one single, final court of appeal for every person in the society, as we have today in the United States Supreme Court. Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be vertically integrated, for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms.Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out fewer benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In Rothbard's view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man's person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In Rothbard's view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty – unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. Two is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force – force in defense of person and property – by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no district attorney to press charges on behalf of society. Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy's heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows form the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion. Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation – not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby's murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all. Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the Prudential Police Agency should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the Mutual or Equitable Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine checks and balances of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged balancing agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly protection service of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of protection. It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty protection racket on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: Pay us for your protection or else. In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a protection racket emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should Prudential become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. Prudential would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed sovereigns bent on promoting the common good or the general welfare. And lacking such legitimacy, Prudential would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another. But in Rothbard's view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill Rothbard's definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones's court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to Rothbard that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.But again Rothbard sees no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders – though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well. The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason. The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.An anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

***RONALD REAGAN'S VIEW OF FREEDOM‏

I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in war and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of an election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon our freedom revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. This is a time for choosing.You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up, man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com .-

** AYN RAND ON MORALITY‏
Graecokleptocrats are the #1 enemy of the Greek people. Kleptocracy, perjury, and police brutality are galloping in Greece, but Premier George Papandreou speaks no evil, hears no evil, and sees no evil. Selective hearing is a symptom of the cancer of kleptocracy! Anarchy is much better than kleptocracy.You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door, but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.Graecokleptocrats enjoy impunity, whereas citizens suffer from perjury. Police thugs are the main perjurers. Public prosecutors pick up either very easy targets of poor people who cannot afford defense to justify a quota system or very large targets to get publicity. Prosecuting famous bloggers brings a lot of publicity to machiavellian kleptocrats, pusillanimous prosecutors, and bumptious cybercops. Brutal Graecocybercops must be abolished now.There is no independence of justice in Greece, and perjurers are dime a dozen. The huge Greek judiciary corruption complements the huge political corruption and the gag of Greek blogosphere. Extrajudicial rings of judges, clergy, and kleptocrats manipulate the Greek justice system. Many judges have been found guilty for participating in trial-fixing rackets.For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors, between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason, that in reason there's no reason to be moral.Whatever else they fought about, it was against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was man's mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch, or build a cyclotron, without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call human nature, the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival, so that for you, who are a human being, the question to be or not to be is the question to think or not to think.A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. Value is that which one acts to gain and keep, virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps it. Value presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? Value presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.Greek dissident bloggers are arrested for exercising the right to free expression and are jailed on grotesque charges, such as treason. Graecokleptocrats are trying to take away Greeks' right to read what they want, and to say what they want. The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard, the voices of Greeks who simply could not afford to publish their ideas to a wide audience using the mainstream media. Graecokleptocrats fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Greek blogosphere. Freakish Graecocybercops must be abolished now.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** POVERTY‏
Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.How many people are poor in the EU? Is inequality increasing? Does a job guarantee escape from poverty? Questions like these and many others on poverty and social exclusion as well as housing, health and education are analysed in the new publication Income and living conditions in Europe issued by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. This publication is based on data from the EU-SILC survey, and is issued in connection with the closing conference of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, which takes place in Brussels on 16 and 17 December 2010.We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating welfare agencies, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.As President Barroso says in the foreword to the publication: "One of the headline targets in the Europe 2020 Strategy for Jobs and Growth is promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty, by aiming to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty and excluded from full participation in work and society. This publication is an integral part of this political agenda". To illustrate the content of the publication, this News Release focuses on some aspects of the statistical measurement of poverty and social exclusion.Half of taxpayers do not pay taxes, while receiving generous federal benefits. Talk about a perfect fiscal storm. On the one hand, more and more spending on dependence-creating programs. On the other, an ever-shrinking number of taxpayers to pay for these programs. A key target of the Europe 2020 strategy is to lift at least 20 million people in the EU27 out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion. Progress towards this target is measured by using a combination of three indicators: persons at-risk-of poverty, severely materially deprived persons and persons living in households with very low work intensity5. In 2008, 116 million people in the EU27 were affected by at least one of these forms of social exclusion.Eurokleptocracy, gigaregulation,Antitrust Armageddon, and gigataxation, especially VAT, are the real causes of the European poverty. Fourth Reich(EU), an unvoted illegal confederation, cannot protect Europeans from kleptocrats, especially Graecokleptocrats, and police brutes, especially Graecocybercops. Barroso condones the disgusting Graecokleptocrats who accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail!As regards income poverty, 81 million persons (or 17% of the population) in the EU27 in 2008 were at risk of poverty after social transfers, meaning that their disposable income was below their national at-risk-of-poverty threshold5. Latvia (26%), Romania (23%) and Bulgaria (21%) had the highest at risk-of-poverty rates, and the Czech Republic (9%), the Netherlands and Slovakia (both 11%) the lowest.In the EU27, 42 million (or 8% of the population) were severely materially deprived, meaning that they had living conditions constrained by a lack of resources such as not being able to afford to pay their bills, keep their home adequately warm, own a car or a telephone etc5. The shares of those materially deprived varied significantly among Member States, with the highest in Bulgaria (41%) and Romania (33%), and the lowest in Luxembourg, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain (all less than 3%).Regarding the indicator on low work intensity, 34 million (or 9% of the population aged 0-59) in the EU27 lived in households where the adults worked less than 20% of their total work potential during the past year5. Ireland (14%), Hungary, Belgium and Germany (all 12%) had the largest proportions of those living in low work intensity households, and Cyprus (4%), Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia and Sweden (all 5%) the lowest.It's worth recalling what Thomas Jefferson called the sum of good government in his first Inaugural Address: a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. We're drifting further and further from this ideal. Let's hope that citizens wake up before we go too far down this dangerous path. Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** Η Κωνσταντίνα Κότσαρη σχολίασε τη φωτογραφία σας. Η Κωνσταντίνα έγραψε:"Καλησπέρα, καλές γιορτές!"Για να δείτε όλα τα σχόλια, ακολουθείστε τον παρακάτω σύνδεσμο:http://www.facebook.com/n/?photo.php&fbid=1772362555966&set=-.&mid=371abc4G56358b7cG26830deG9&n_m=stamoskal%40windowslive.com Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

** SAKHAROV PRIZE‏
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought will be presented tomorrow in Strasbourg in the absence of its Cuban recipient, dissident blogger Guillermo "El Coco" Farinas Hernandez, because he has not been allowed to leave Cuba.Following the disgusting paradigm of infamous Graecokleptocrats, who persecute and jail dissident bloggers, the government of Cuba terrorizes dissident bloggers. Farinas is recovering slowly from the serious muscular after-effects of his many hunger strikes. He is not angry about not being able to go to Strasbourg, because the most important thing is to avoid being prevented from returning to Cuba afterwards.The words "Definitive Exit" were stamped in the passports of all of the 18 journalists who have been released from prison since July on condition that they take a one-way trip into exile. Most of these journalists, who had been detained since the March 2003 Black Spring crackdown, are now living in Spain.Three other Black Spring journalists remain in prison, because they refuse to leave Cuba: Pedro Arguelles Moran, Hector Maseda Gutierrez and Ivan Hernandez Carrillo. Reporters Without Borders reiterates its insistence that they have an unconditional right to live freely in their own country.This is the message Farinas sends for the ceremony: A message of reconciliation. Without rancour or hatred. Let us love our enemies. There is no civil war in Cuba. Just a peaceful rebellion and the promise of deep-seated social change. I am a very small part of this rebellion and I receive the Sakharov Prize in the Cuban people's name. The prize encourages me to pursue this collective movement towards the best of prizes, total democracy in Cuba and human rights for all, even for those who today are our oppressors.Blogging in Cuba and Greece is considered an extreme-risk avocation. Freakish kleptocrats accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! Freak galore! These prisoners of conscience follow the long tradition of Socrates, who was killed by the Athenian democracy.The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs(MFA) tries to appease bully Turkey by persecuting and jailing bloggers who oppose Turkish aggression! If this is not freakish diplomacy, what is it? Freak galore! The stupidity and entropy of MFA uptrend, confirming the Second Law of Thermodynamics!Freakish gangs of violent Graecocybercops break into the homes of Greek dissident bloggers, robbing their computers, software, files, documents, personal data, personal codes, and personal secrets. They lock the bloggers in jail, they humiliate them with handcuffs, photos, and lies, leak false information to the media, and initiate sham court proceedings for treason under perjury conditions. There are no toilet facilities in their jail cells. At night, they have to urinate in small bottles. There is no toilet paper either. Their kith and kin must bring them toilet paper and soap. They lose their jobs, and their lives are stolen.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com .-

** SonicoIn the photo of Angela Gondim, Gerard Selle commented:"moi j'en veux bien de tes cadeaux virtuelle Angela gracias"See the photo and answer to the comment Greetings Stamatios!Sonico.com

** HORIZONTAL ANTITRUST‏
EU antitrust has been transformed into a terrorist religion, which relies on pseudoeconomic theories that bestow a veneer of objectivity and credibility on EU law enforcement practices that actually rely on hunch, whim, and blackmail. On all EU antitrust cases, from mergers to price fixing, arbitrary antitrust laws lead to ill-informed juries and bureaucratic abuse. Those laws also create a perverse incentive for entrepreneurs to hold down sales volume, stop innovation, and avoid improvements in price, quality, and service; otherwise, such entrepreneurs could become the next targets of the antitrust terrorists. Today the European Commission has adopted a revised set of Guidelines and two Regulations which describe how competitors can co-operate without infringing EU competition rules. The Horizontal Guidelines provide a framework for the analysis of the most common forms of horizontal co-operation such as agreements in the areas of R&D, production, purchasing, commercialisation, standardisation, standard terms, and information exchange. The two Regulations exempt from the competition rules certain R&D, specialisation and production agreements that are unlikely to raise competition concerns. Galileo muttered the phrase Eppur si muove, And yet it moves, after being forced to recant in 1633, before the Inquisition, his belief that the Earth moves around the Sun. Similarly the new inquisition of regulators force executives to admit something they did not do, in order to get smaller penalties. Eppur si muove! The Guidelines promote a standard-setting system that is open and transparent and thereby increases the transparency of licensing costs for intellectual property rights (IPRs) used in standards. The revised standardisation chapter sets out the criteria under which the Commission will not take issue with a standard-setting agreement (safe harbour). Moreover, the chapter gives detailed guidance on standardisation agreements that do not fulfil the safe harbour criteria, to allow companies to assess whether they are in line with EU competition law. European antitrust laws lead to huge corruption, because government officials ask for kickbacks in order to erase the alleged violation. The standard kickback in EU is 10% of the erased penalty! Many Greek officials were caught on tape asking for the corrupt tithe! Many European political parties make up their election expenses from kickbacks on antitrust cases! This is the worst possible blackmail, where tiptop ethical companies are held hostage by European kleptocrats. Eppur si muove!Standard-setting organisations may wish to provide for their members to unilaterally disclose, prior to setting a standard, the maximum rate that they would charge for their intellectual property rights (IPRs) if those were to be included in a standard. Such a system could enable a standard-setting organisation and the industry to take an informed choice on quality and price when selecting which technology should be included in a standard. The revised rules clarify that such a system would normally not infringe EU competition rules.European antitrust law is wielded most often by favor-seeking businessmen and their kleptocrat allies. Instead of focusing on new and better products, disgruntled rivals try to exploit the law by consorting with kleptocrats. EU officials routinely direct antitrust regulators to bend the rules in pursuit of political ends. In reality, the threat of abusive EC power is far larger than the threat of oligopoly. Eppur si muove! Information exchange can be pro-competitive, for example, when it enables companies to gather market data that allow them to become more efficient and better serve customers. However, there are also situations where the exchange of market information can be harmful for competition, for instance when companies use sensitive information to align their prices. The Guidelines give clear and comprehensive guidance on how to assess the compatibility of information exchanges with EU competition law. The only viable definition of monopoly is a grant of privilege from the government. It therefore becomes quite clear that it is impossible for the government to decrease monopoly by passing punitive laws. The only way for the government to decrease monopoly is to remove its own monopoly grants. The antitrust laws, therefore, do not in the least diminish monopoly. What they do accomplish is to impose a continual, capricious harassment of efficient business enterprise. There is an Antitrust Armageddon in Europe between tiptop companies and Fourth Reich(EU). Eurokleptocrats are willing to do anything in order to get kickbacks from industry leaders. The European antitrust laws have the unfortunate consequence of harming Europeans by chilling innovation and discouraging competition. Instead of protecting competition, EU laws protect competitors who give kickbacks to kleptocrats! Kickback is the lubricant that allows a European industry to run smoothly! No European machinery can run without lubricant! Eppur si muove! When a company is forward-thinking, proactive, innovative, and productive, it will produce good products that customers want to buy. As a result, it will win a large market share. If the company is much better than its competitors, it might win most, or almost all, of the market. This is the case with Microsoft. It has earned its market share by producing good products that customers want to buy.Eurokleptocracy, gigaregulation,Antitrust Armageddon, and gigataxation, especially VAT, are the real causes of the European financial meltdown. Fourth Reich(EU), an unvoted illegal confederation, cannot protect Europeans from kleptocrats, especially Graecokleptocrats, and police brutes, especially Graecocybercops. Barroso condones the disgusting Graecokleptocrats who accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail!Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com .-

** Dear Sender: Facebook has changed its corporate email address domain from @facebook.com to @fb.com. Your message has been delivered to the intended recipient, but please update your contact details with
@fb.com for future correspondence. You will not receive this message again if you utilize
@fb.com. We will not be forwarding any email sent to @facebook.com corporate email addresses past January 5th, 2011. Regards,Facebook

** SOCIALIST GAG OF INTERNET‏
All socialists, from Chavez of Venezuela to Papandreou of Greece, president of Socialist International, try to gag dissident bloggers.An amendment to the Radio and TV Social Responsibility Law (Ley Resorte) – submitted to the parliament of Venezuela on 9 December and due to be adopted this week at the president's insistence – will increase the severity of the penalties for offending broadcast media and make them applicable to online media as well.President Hugo Chavez has asked the outgoing parliament, which he controls, to rush adoption of the amendment as he already has with a proposed international cooperation law. Following the disgusting paradigm of infamous Graecokleptocrats, who persecute and jail dissident bloggers, Chavez terrorizes all Venezuelan dissident bloggers.The incoming parliament, elected on 26 September but not due to begin sitting until 5 January, will include opposition parties. As such, it would be better able to debate the pros and cons of these bills. Is it because he totally dominates the current parliament that Chavez wants these bills passed at all cost before Christmas? Everything suggests that he is trying to defy the electorate's will in this way.Blogging in Venezuela and Greece is considered an extreme-risk avocation. Freakish kleptocrats accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! Freak galore! These prisoners of conscience follow the long tradition of Socrates, who was killed by the Athenian democracy.Reporters Without Borders points out the original version of the Ley Resorte already encourages media self-censorship by defining offences in a very general and convoluted manner that is open to all kinds of interpretation. The new version develops this flaw to the point of caricature.It would, for example, ban use of radio, TV or Internet to transmit messages that could incite crimes against the president or could constitute a media manipulation aimed at stirring up unrest or disturbing public order. It would also ban messages that could be contrary to the nation's security or designed to defy the legitimately installed authorities. Such a level of vagueness would pervert any possibility of fair judicial implementation.The penalties are also much harsher in the new version. The first two offences mentioned above (inciting a crime against the president and media manipulation) would be punishable by a fine of up to 10 per cent of the broadcaster's or Internet service provider's gross annual income or a 72-hour suspension (which could be permanent for repeat offenders). The fine for a broadcaster (or ISP) that refuses to cede space for educational or cultural messages is increased from 1 to 2 per cent of the gross annual income and now also applies to refusing to carry the national anthem.A fine of 3 to 4 per cent of gross annual revenue will be payable by broadcasters and online media that transmit content of a violent nature at the wrong time of day. Instead of 7am-7pm, the hours for content fit for any age group would henceforth be 6am-9pm, while the timetable for content suitable for supervised age groups would run from 9pm to midnight.The official goal of protecting minors is praiseworthy in principle but these restrictions are excessive for radio and TV broadcasters and would appear to be impossible to implement on websites.According to article 212 of the law's amended version, the state will create an interconnection or access point for Internet Service Providers with the aim of regulating traffic within or into Venezuela in order to more effectively use the country's networks because of the sector's strategic nature.Venezuelan and Greek dissident bloggers are arrested for exercising the right to free expression and are jailed on grotesque charges, such as treason. Kleptocrats are trying to take away citizens' right to read what they want, and to say what they want. The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard, the voices of Venezuelans and Greeks who simply could not afford to publish their ideas to a wide audience using the mainstream media. Kleptocrats fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the blogosphere. Freak galore! Freakish Graecocybercops, the bumptious bugaboos of the Greek internet, must be abolished now.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com .-

** FREEDOM OF THOUGHT‏
Guillermo Farinas, a hero of free internet, is the winner of this year's Sahkarov Prize for Freedom of Thought. The award ceremony takes place, most likely with an empty chair, on Wednesday, 15 December, in Strasbourg. President Buzek deeply regrets that Mr Farinas has not been given permission to leave Cuba in order to receive the prize in person. Following the disgusting paradigm of infamous Graecokleptocrats, who persecute and jail dissident bloggers, the government of Cuba terrorizes all dissident bloggers. Blogging in Greece and Cuba is considered an extreme-risk avocation. Freakish Graecokleptocrats and Cubanokleptocrats accuse dissident bloggers of treason, confiscate their computers, and lock them is jail! Freak galore! These prisoners of conscience follow the long tradition of Socrates, who was killed by the Athenian democracy.During the opening of the plenary session president Buzek declared the following with regard to this year's winner of the Sakharov prize: On October 21 Cuban dissident Guillermo Farinas was chosen as the winner of this year's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Regrettably, Mr Farinas is experiencing problems leaving the country, even though I made a personal appeal in a letter to the President of Cuba, Mr Raul Castro. We expect that Lady Ashton will take due note of these problems and that she will take this into account in future relations with Cuba. If Guillermo Farinas were to leave in the next few hours, he could still be here in time to receive his prize.The Sakharov ceremony will take place on Wednesday as scheduled, at 13.00h. A doctor of psychology, blogger, journalist and former soldier, 48-year-old Guillermo Farinas's has denounced the Castro regime. He is the founder of Cubanacan Press, an independent press agency aimed at raising awareness of the fate of political prisoners in Cuba. Cuban and Greek dissident bloggers are arrested for exercising the right to free expression and are jailed on grotesque charges, such as treason. Cubanokleptocrats and Graecokleptocrats are trying to take away Cubans and Greeks' right to read what they want, and to say what they want. The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard, the voices of Cubans and Greeks who simply could not afford to publish their ideas to a wide audience using the mainstream media. Cubanokleptocrats and Graecokleptocrats fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Cuban and Greek blogospheres. Freak galore! Freakish Graecocybercops, the bumptious bugaboos of the Greek internet, must be abolished now.Farinas has spent years in confinement and has gone on hunger strike 23 times so far, a non-violent means of fighting oppression in Cuba. His efforts to secure free internet for all earned him a Reporters Without Borders Cyber-Freedom Prize in 2006. Cubanokleptocrats are the #1 enemy of the Cuban people and Graecokleptocrats are the #1 enemy of the Greek people. Kleptocracy, perjury, and cybercop brutality are galloping in Greece, but Premier George Papandreou speaks no evil, hears no evil, and sees no evil. Selective hearing is a symptom of the cancer of kleptocracy! The entropy of an organization is proportional to the square of its size. The Greek government needs only four ministers, but it has forty. No wonder, Premier Papandreou cannot control his ministers, who do not have any better thing to do than suing dissident bloggers and locking them in jail for treason! Freak galore!The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs(MFA) tries to appease bully Turkey by persecuting and jailing bloggers who oppose Turkish aggression! If this is not freakish diplomacy, what is it? Freak galore! The stupidity and entropy of MFA uptrend, confirming the Second Law of Thermodynamics!Buzek said: Guillermo Farinas was ready to sacrifice and risk his own health and life as a means of pressure to achieve change in Cuba. I hope to hand over the award to him in person, here in Strasbourg, in December, which would be a tremendous moment for the European Parliament and for all Cuban prisoners of conscience.In July, Mr Farinas nearly died after a five-month-long hunger strike he began on February 24, following the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a fellow political activist who passed away after 80 days of fasting. He ended the strike after the Cuban government gave in to his plea and released 52 political prisoners. MEPs backing Mr Farinas' nomination said his struggle has been, and still is, a shining example for all defenders of freedom and democracy. Jose Ignacio Salafranca (EPP, SP) described Mr Farinas as the epitome of someone defending peaceful resistance.Gagging the Cuban and Greek blogospheres has backfired, creating new secure ways of fighting kleptocracy. Cubans and Greeks now bypass internet censorship and cybercops using onion routing, a technique for anonymous communication over a computer network. Messages are repeatedly encrypted and then sent through several network nodes called onion routers. Each onion router removes a layer of encryption to uncover routing instructions, and sends the message to the next router where this is repeated. This prevents these intermediary nodes from knowing the origin, destination, and contents of the message.Cubans and Greeks evade freakish kleptocrats and brutal cybercops using Tor. Tor, The Onion Routing, is a system intended to enable online anonymity, composed of client software and a network of servers which can hide information about users' locations and other factors which might identify them. Use of this system makes it more difficult to trace internet traffic to the user, including visits to websites, online posts, instant messages, and other communication forms. It is intended to protect users' personal freedom, privacy, and ability to conduct confidential business, by keeping their internet activities from being monitored. The software is open-source and the network is free of charge to use.-

**






**
Δημοσίευση σχολίου