Sunday, October 14, 2012
The EU, Still Far-away from the peace
I agree that the ideal of the European Union (EU) fits in with what the Nobel Peace Prize regards highly of. But, unless the EU unifies their fiscal policy by relinquishing the national governmental authorities among these EU countries, it is still too early to give the EU the Nobel Peace Prize.
The aftermath of WW1 caused European citizens to think of the European unification. The alliance countries force all the Central-Power countries to take their immense responsibility their ability cannot afford to bear the responsibility at the end of WW1. This resulted in the rise of ultra-nationalism in the former Central-Power countries in order to forcibly default their immense national debts. Even though some might argue that the main cause of the European integration was the loss of all empires, this fiscal havoc as an aftermath of WW1 was an extremely significant cause of the motivation in the European integration.
Polish still detest their past of being occupied by both Germany and Russia. But, because Germany is neither imperialistic nor oppressive nowadays, Polish started to think they are more co-habitable due to the successful political integration.
Nonetheless, I am still worried about the fiscal fragment and the nationalistic rigid labour market of these EU countries. Unless they start tacking with establishing the collective responsibility among these EU countries, the similar fiscal havoc at the end of WW1 might take place soon... Furthermore, the EU really needs to stimulate deregulation of their national labour market. The labour market has to be flexible as much as at the level of the USA and Asia in order to harmonise their business cycles together.
1+1=1, 1+1=3, and 1+1=2
This problem has been discussed by various ethical philosophers in the Western world from the ancient period to the nowadays. Hobbes explained that the world of words is operated by the totally different function from the world of mathematics and the world of natural science.
In order to make a consistent order, Hobbes claimed, in Leviathan, that we need the legitimate law and order authorised by a legitimate political structure.
Kant said it is our transcendental duty to follow the ethical axiom, as same as following the mathematical axiom, as much as possible (These two groups have to keep repenting themselves).
Aristotle and Ayn Rand were against these two points. The "reality" already explicitly shows 1+1=2, and these two groups in this pic are simply deluded by their unreal illusion. Then, Aristotle and Ayn Rand defied both any autocratic command unlike Hobbes and any abstract principle we cannot see unlike Kant, and so they supported "Laissez-faire (Let us do)", and the right one (The closest to the reality) wins in the nature of reality.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Comparison between English Feudalism and French Feudalism
When I started learning the medieval Western history, I was really surprised that French nobles were disloyal to their king unlike English nobles. English feudalism kept the loyalty of nobles to their monarchy, except the four times (John the land loser (Caused Magna-Carta to be established, and it has become the taboo to name John for English monarchy since his reign), Henry IV (Caused Wars of the Roses), Charles I (Caused the Cromwell revolution) and James II (VII of Scotland, Caused the Glorious Revolution)). By contrast, French monarchy always faced riots, betrayal, and assassination attempts in French feudalism. This characteristics caused Lois XIV to declare his absolute monarchism which extremely centralised French feudalism all the sudden.
The lack of French nobles' loyalty to their monarchy was due to the difference in the feudal property right of their land and the strong explicitly contract between nobles and king by law. In England, all nobles and their lands were entitled to be their king's subjects even though these nobles had a sovereign right to utilise their land and their commoners inhabiting there. This contract agreement has been strictly enforced by the law, which is the basis of British Common Law, since Henry II. Therefore, both the land and the commoners were governed by the dual ownership by both the King and the feudal lords. By contrast, French feudal lords had an ultimate feudal property right which the King was difficult to intervene into. Perhaps, it was because France is a continental country sharing a border with various countries unlike England and the rest of Britain. So, there were various nobles from too many different backgrounds to unify into one.
French claimed that English provoked the 100 years war by English interest. But when we consider the two aspect, it gives us an enough room to argue that English monarchy was hijacked by a French noble faction.
1) The contemporary English monarchy had a strong connection with French nobles (Since Plantagenet dynasty (Henry II, the first Plantagenet obtained Normandy and Anjou by getting married with Eleanor))
2) French monarchy was not strong enough to bind all nobles to obey their monarchy so that the regional conflict between the pro-monarchy side and the anti-monarchy side noble factions frequently took place then.
So, there must be a plot by the Anjou families and their fellow faction member nobles to attempt to conquer the opponents' land inside France by using their relative English monarchy and its factions.
P.S. By the way, I was really annoyed by how Brave Heart (Both the movie and the novel) depicted Philip IV、the French monarchy in Capet dynasty, as a good guy. I really hate Philip IV because he not only forcibly relinquished the Orders of Temple but also liquidated and tortured the Templar members even though the Templar did a tremendously big favour for French monarchy's fiscal administration! Even though he was a good king for majority French because he was strong enough to convince majority of French nobles to loyal to him.
The lack of French nobles' loyalty to their monarchy was due to the difference in the feudal property right of their land and the strong explicitly contract between nobles and king by law. In England, all nobles and their lands were entitled to be their king's subjects even though these nobles had a sovereign right to utilise their land and their commoners inhabiting there. This contract agreement has been strictly enforced by the law, which is the basis of British Common Law, since Henry II. Therefore, both the land and the commoners were governed by the dual ownership by both the King and the feudal lords. By contrast, French feudal lords had an ultimate feudal property right which the King was difficult to intervene into. Perhaps, it was because France is a continental country sharing a border with various countries unlike England and the rest of Britain. So, there were various nobles from too many different backgrounds to unify into one.
French claimed that English provoked the 100 years war by English interest. But when we consider the two aspect, it gives us an enough room to argue that English monarchy was hijacked by a French noble faction.
1) The contemporary English monarchy had a strong connection with French nobles (Since Plantagenet dynasty (Henry II, the first Plantagenet obtained Normandy and Anjou by getting married with Eleanor))
2) French monarchy was not strong enough to bind all nobles to obey their monarchy so that the regional conflict between the pro-monarchy side and the anti-monarchy side noble factions frequently took place then.
So, there must be a plot by the Anjou families and their fellow faction member nobles to attempt to conquer the opponents' land inside France by using their relative English monarchy and its factions.
P.S. By the way, I was really annoyed by how Brave Heart (Both the movie and the novel) depicted Philip IV、the French monarchy in Capet dynasty, as a good guy. I really hate Philip IV because he not only forcibly relinquished the Orders of Temple but also liquidated and tortured the Templar members even though the Templar did a tremendously big favour for French monarchy's fiscal administration! Even though he was a good king for majority French because he was strong enough to convince majority of French nobles to loyal to him.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Business and Ethics in 5 Different Cultures
In Business Administration lesson, when we tackle with the cost and benefit analysis (CBA), we tend to assume that all economic agents in this world use the same formula of the CBA to make their business plan. So, we tend to ignore that not all economic agents share the same rationale of their business planning. This CBA formula is based on the utilitarian philosophy which regards highly of maximising the utility which is the total benefits minus the total costs. It takes account of all the costs and benefits accumulated from the time of this business establishment to the present time period (or possibly to the expected ending period).
Nonetheless, when we take a look of our real world, we eventually realise that many economic agents do not exactly follow this business model. Some of them incur the costs more than this CBA suggests. Some of them only focus on minimising the cost rather than maximusing the benefit minus the cost. Some of them even behaves extremely irrational owing to perspective of this CBA rationale.
The ethics basing this CBA introduced in Business Administration is the ethics of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish entrepreneurs. Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ethics has become the dominant mainstream in this world especially in various private economic activities since British Empire started dominating the world economy. The USA took over the world economic domination from Britain. So, Anglo-Saxon culture has been extremely influential. Furthermore, Jewish have been taking a huge part of the world economic activities. So, Jewish philosophy also participated in forming the mainstream ethics of the world economy. All in all, the mainstream world business ethics is based on both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish philosophical characteristics.
When we observe those who behave differently from what the mainstream business ethics suggests, the CBA analysis may eventually regards these economic agents are highly irrational. By contrast, we should realise that their business planning is based on their own different rationale of business ethics. In particular, since Germany became industrially strong, and the USA became highly influenced by her Germanic origins, German business ethics has been a very remarkable characteristics in the world economy. Even though it has not been the top mainstream, it formed one of the unique characteristics in the Western business models. Nowadays, on the top of Germanic influence, Nordic (Scandinavian) nations recently started having a strong influence over the world because of increase in the number of Nordic multinational corporations. We also cannot ignore Romanic culture (Latins and France) because it was dominant before British empire took over the dominance from it. Orthodox culture (Russia, many Eastern European countries, and Greece) is also unavoidable. In addition, some of the non-Western cultures have a strong impact on the world business ethics. Thus, regardless of right and wrong, we must analyse the various CBA analyses offered by the different business ethical models. This essay introduces 5 different influential models.
Nonetheless, when we take a look of our real world, we eventually realise that many economic agents do not exactly follow this business model. Some of them incur the costs more than this CBA suggests. Some of them only focus on minimising the cost rather than maximusing the benefit minus the cost. Some of them even behaves extremely irrational owing to perspective of this CBA rationale.
The ethics basing this CBA introduced in Business Administration is the ethics of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish entrepreneurs. Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ethics has become the dominant mainstream in this world especially in various private economic activities since British Empire started dominating the world economy. The USA took over the world economic domination from Britain. So, Anglo-Saxon culture has been extremely influential. Furthermore, Jewish have been taking a huge part of the world economic activities. So, Jewish philosophy also participated in forming the mainstream ethics of the world economy. All in all, the mainstream world business ethics is based on both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish philosophical characteristics.
When we observe those who behave differently from what the mainstream business ethics suggests, the CBA analysis may eventually regards these economic agents are highly irrational. By contrast, we should realise that their business planning is based on their own different rationale of business ethics. In particular, since Germany became industrially strong, and the USA became highly influenced by her Germanic origins, German business ethics has been a very remarkable characteristics in the world economy. Even though it has not been the top mainstream, it formed one of the unique characteristics in the Western business models. Nowadays, on the top of Germanic influence, Nordic (Scandinavian) nations recently started having a strong influence over the world because of increase in the number of Nordic multinational corporations. We also cannot ignore Romanic culture (Latins and France) because it was dominant before British empire took over the dominance from it. Orthodox culture (Russia, many Eastern European countries, and Greece) is also unavoidable. In addition, some of the non-Western cultures have a strong impact on the world business ethics. Thus, regardless of right and wrong, we must analyse the various CBA analyses offered by the different business ethical models. This essay introduces 5 different influential models.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Moral is relative in Legal Judgement
The "moral" is a big variable affecting the legal justification. But, the moral is highly "relative" in both ethics and legality.
In countries which adapt Civil Law e.g. Continental Europe, Scotland, and almost all non British common wealth countries, the moral influence depends on how the written positive criminal code is interpreted by the professionals.
In the other parts of Britain, Contin
ental Europe, and almost all British Common-Wealth nations, the moral intervention depends on the past case scenario, the ability of lowyers to emphasise, and the current moral trend which juries believe in.
Some customary law, adapted in the United Nation and Paris, France, depends on its "customary moral principle".
The moral also can be really relative across time, place, and occasion. Both legal and moral issues are treated differently in Scotland, the other parts of Britain, Paris, and the other parts of France....
In countries which adapt Civil Law e.g. Continental Europe, Scotland, and almost all non British common wealth countries, the moral influence depends on how the written positive criminal code is interpreted by the professionals.
In the other parts of Britain, Contin
ental Europe, and almost all British Common-Wealth nations, the moral intervention depends on the past case scenario, the ability of lowyers to emphasise, and the current moral trend which juries believe in.
Some customary law, adapted in the United Nation and Paris, France, depends on its "customary moral principle".
The moral also can be really relative across time, place, and occasion. Both legal and moral issues are treated differently in Scotland, the other parts of Britain, Paris, and the other parts of France....
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9.11 Condolence
To those who lost their
irreplaceable ones on
11th of September 2001,
I am sending my
enormous condolence....
......Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)