Vastaus ylläoleviin kysymyksiin on Liberaali ja vihervasemmistolainen ideologia ja on selvää että jos joku ajaa omaa ideologiaansa niin kyllä toisetkin siihen heräävät ja nyt on edessä uusi kansallinen herääminen ja kaikki kuuluu kaikille ideologian välinen taistelu.
Tuli tuosta mieleen Goldsmithin kirjasta eräs kohta, josta vasemmisto vetää herneet nenään ja lopettaa dialogin:
"You do not mean to imply that a nation cannot integrate foreigners?
Of course not. Indeed, nations need new blood and new ideas. But they can only absorb a limited amount at a time. They cannot allow themselves to be overwhelmed
by immigration otherwise they will lose their identity and cease to be nations. Newcomers who are welcomed into a nation should want to honour and
respect the customs of their new home. They must not step on shore or over the border and reject the national culture. If they do, the inevitable results are
hostility, intolerance and conflict."
Ja sitten myöhemmin vielä pahempi...
"The principal purpose of Europe's defence must be to protect Europe's vital interests and, more particularly, to defend its territory against military or uncontrolled
invasion. It should not pursue neo-colonial expeditions under the guise of humanitarian aid, when its real purpose is often to help some western politician's career
at home.
What do you mean by uncontrolled invasion?
I mean immigration on a scale which cannot be integrated."
-----
Sivulta 96-97. What about education?
The same general principles are valid for education as for health. Both must be based on subsidiarity and diversity. In the case of education, there must also
be a large measure of family control over state schools.
By subsidiarity, I mean maximum decentralization so that schools are deeply embedded in local communities. By diversity, I mean that, side by side, there
should be a multitude of types of schools: those run by the state, the municipalities, local communities, religious communities, teachers' cooperatives, parents'
cooperatives, private enterprise, etc.
This would provide choice for parents. The consequence, as usual in a free market, would be that those schools which satisfy
the public would expand and those which do not would either reform their operations or contract.
The state would supply vouchers to families which could be used in the school of their choice. The vouchers would need to be of sufficient value so that wellmanaged schools, when they cash them in, would receive enough funds to enable them to maintain standards as well as to be profitable.
Additionally, the state should establish norms for basic levels of education, examinations and standards of hygiene in schools. The norms would be the minimum acceptable to society and, as competition between different schools emerges, they should in practice be much improved upon.
----
Goldsmith ottaa kantaa myös lääkkeiden korkeisiin hintoihin.
Patents would continue to be issued. When a new product is developed, the developer would receive a patent. But any bona fide manufacturer of pharmaceutical
products would automatically be entitled to obtain a licence from the patent-holder to produce the new product and would pay a fixed royalty for the
privilege. In other words, the creator would receive a significant part of the funds spent by the public on buying his creation, no matter which company manufactures
the final product.
In this way, research would be well remunerated and motivated, and real competition would be introduced to the marketplace. Numerous manufacturers
could produce the new product; they would all pay the same percentage of their sales as a royalty; and they would compete vigorously both on quality and
on price. This would result in a sharp drop in the price of medicines.
Trumpin politiikka ei ensi silmäyksellä tunnu seuraavan ihan tarkkaan tuota, mutta toisaalta yksityiskohtaista, selkeää tietoakaan ei ole saatavilla Olen ymmärtänyt, että kun aikaisemmin isot lääkefirmat ovat pystyneet venyttämään patentin voimassaoloa hyvinkin pitkään, mutta nyt sille olisi tullut loppu.
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/ar...f-scott-gottlieb-isn-t-pharma-s-bff-after-all
Niin, Trump tuskin on yksi yksittäinen töräys, kuten metiat ja vastustajat haluavat esittää. Ikäänkuin kategorisoida ilmiö ja agenda kyltin Trump - alle. Ei uppoo minuun. Takana on taatusti tekijöitä ja agendoja.
