Signum temporum

I am considering a moral mean in USA moral and political sign of a behavior that has transgressed the constitution. The Supreme Court of USA has trailed that a citizen has made crime to distribution of leaflets against the send of troops against Bolshevik revolution to Russia by President Wilson, the told of crime says: “JACOB ABRAMS was arrested in New York City on August 23, 1918. He and several friends had written, printed, and distributed copies of a leaflet that severely criticized President Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. government. The leaflet opposed President Wilson’s decision to send a small U.S. military force to Russia during the civil war that followed the communist revolution of 1917. Abrams and his friends were arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These laws made it a crime to write and publish disloyal or profane statements that were intended to interfere with production of goods necessary to the defense ofthe United States during wartime. However, the 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Opinion of the Court Justice John H. Clarke, writing for the Court, decided against Abrams’s claims that his 1st Amendment rights were violated. Clarke based his decision on the “clear and present danger” and “bad tendency” tests stated… According to these two tests, which Holmes used interchangeably in Schenck, free speech and press could be limited if they were intended to cause an illegal action or if they threatened national security. Justice Holmes denied that Abrams’s actions and intentions represented a danger sufficient to justify limitation of his freedom of expression.”. The citizen Abrams was right, because the constitution of USA has said that: “First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”, thereupon  action of Supreme court is illegal, or it is other? Certainly it is other, and explication of cause is in same trial: “…an illegal action or if they threatened national security”, a leaflet certainly could not subvert a nation, but we must consider times, this is 1919, and then the State was important and relevant to every citizen therefore we can sight a deeper mean, what? The State also in nation less statist on the word transgressed the first amendment of constitution because the security of nation has menaced, by a leaflet, or by opinion that this leaflet was discussing? Certainly by ideas, but this reaction means two consideration very meaningful first is the weakness of govern of USA and second that other ideas no were accepted, neither to propaganda; this is a authoritarianism, but no formal or to laws thereupon no explicit but alone moral, therefore unofficial, coward.

Alessandro Lusana     

    

 

Art of don’t see: Pontormo

Historical men of art study art but may don’t see what they comment; a monography about Bronzino(1503-1572), Italian painter has painted, according to opinion of a critical of art this painting(Fig.1) belongs to Bronzino; unfortunately this painting is of master of Bronzino, this is Pontormo; why? I think that is sufficient see very well this painting: the loaded brush of color is typical of Pontormo(Figs.2-3), after the cloth of figures, the folds are very schematic(Fig.4) that we can confront to the Visit(Fig.2), the light is other characteristic of Pontormo, very intense and brilliant is present in Deposition and other paintings(Figs.3-5-6); furthermore the face of this figure remembers other face in Deposition(Fig.7) aforesaid, and the fingers(Figs.9-10) remember some of this figure in same Deposition(Fig.9), hair is very similar(Figs.7-8). This painting is certainly a act of devotion to Catholic believer but we must consider that emerges the original consideration to posture and total absence of drama, it seems a natural gesture of a figure, but no certainly a martyrdom, a natural posture of a man during a moment; we can recognize this subject alone to attribute of arrow, then it is exemplar of laicism predominant in Florence during 16^th century.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

 

Constant economy

Now we can consider, otherwise no, because this assay is about rules of economy, that are constant, because the human necessities are every time same, thereupon is an economic book is written on 16^th century or published the day before yesterday result is same; to this observation we must consider again Thomas Mun(1571-1641), because he describes strategy of exportations, from England, and as I have said he caught from his experience as merchant; in fact he tacitly makes it. Because his strategy is from his job: anyway he said in the his book England's treasure by forraign Trade : “In our exportations we must not only regard our own superfluities, but also we must consider our neighbours necessities, that so upon the wares which that so upon the wares which they cannot want, nor yet be furnished thereof elsewhere…But the superfluity of our commodities which strangers use, and may also have the same from other Nations…”, the comment is it’s rational and logic, (then we have found the American continent, because nobody has explored this land until now), but these words are in 16^th century, this is important, and it gives to us motive to reflect about a question, why? I repeat because human necessities are no certainly similar, but same, specular, equal thereupon economy is same. Other step says: “For we have found of late years by good experience, that being able to sell our Cloth cheap in Turkey…”; certainly his experience aforesaid, but today a nation buys a ware where it is cheap, because during 16^th century because it is behavior; but today is same, because first interest of government is nation, or should be it, but a nation that must gives to people a ware but it must be cheap, then the cloth of Turkey that has mentioned Mun, during 16^th century, I repeat, is suitable, and proof is after in other step: “and the Venetians have lost as much in the utterance of theirs in those country…”, because evidently Venetian cloth was very costly, and again: “ And on the other side a few years past, when by excessive price of wools our cloth was exceeding dear…”, this is reality of Mun book’s and today is same; and :“The State in some occasions may gain most, when private men by their revenues get least”, private citizen last(least) something. These rules and rational methods are economy of 16^th century? No it are methods today, then economy and human necessity are same.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 Some notation

The problem of immigration in USA is very important and radical are differences between two parties, federalist and antifederalist, because so names of two parties, in origin, this is after the war to independence; I don’t think that s revolution because some document certifies that in 1782 the states were independent; this is a act of congress to a question about New Hampshire, that is very useless but some names is important, the first is Congress and the president , that are mentioned in this session: “That in answer to the remaining part of the letter, which represents that the state of New Hampshire was over-rated in the requisition made by Congress…” but the Congress is impossible if these states were colonies; therefore is historical a right declaration of independence, but I think that British kingdom had just renounced to these lands. I understand that somebody is going to be irritated, but he must consider that we must divide between history that has occurred truly and propaganda that other question and necessary to other framework;  we must study the history and no certainly the lies of propaganda, that every nation uses because it must justify new regime or consolidate the present; today in politic is same, Churchill said that during a war the first victim is the truth; and today to every politic has adopted lie and truth in conformity to interest of nation; it is normal, above all after bloody events. Other notation is a step of constitution of USA that shows the persistent immigration to USA, we can read this step: “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United. States…”, a question, why alone seven years American citizen? Evidently because immigration was very important and limit that constitution has given; important I think consider that an act of 1790 of Congress said: “That any alien, being free white person, that shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of United States for the term , may be admitted to become a citizen thereof two years…”, why this limit is decreased? From seven years to two alone, with limits and other rules, but why this diminution? May because much immigrant were outcome from USA, or because a nascent nation has had need of citizens? I think that it is motive, because USA needed of worker, and limits were very serious, therefore beyond the native, in Latin jus soli, this is who born in a nation is citizen of this nation; in USA it is reality, but evidently in 1790 chosen was difficult, because immigration was very scarse.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

From practice to theory:Thomas Mun

We must consider that in field economy of is theory, and after it is become practice, it is usually method to learn something, but in trade principal taught is experience; certainly it is normal, but today is very different from past centuries, because now we have learned by university; thereupon from theory, and after we become practical men, but by theory, that has taught us as become practical; but I repeat during past centuries it was contrary, above all in trade dynamic, and we can understand it by a theoretic treated of Thomas Mun (1571-1641) England’s treasure by foreign trade his methods to trade; he has e trade man and he has written in 1621 a book necessary to trade and he has very exact and truthworth, we can ask why?, answer is very simple, because he has took from experience his taught; in fact this step is meaningful: “The particular ways and means to encrease the exportation of our commodities, and to decrease our Consumption of forraign wares.he revenue or stock of a Kingdom by which it is provided of forraign wares is either Natural or Artificial. The Natural wealth is so much only as can be spared from our own use and necessities to be exported unto strangers.”, we can think that it is theory alone, but it isn’t, because is practice and after it was become theory, thereupon Mun has took his experience and he has given it to a book, other step says: “  The Artificial consists in our manufactures and industrious trading with forraign commodities, concerning which I will set down such particulars as may serve for the cause we have in hand. First, although this Realm be already exceeding rich by nature, yet might it be much encreased by laying the waste grounds (which are infinite) into such employments as should no way hinder the present revenues of other manufactured lands, but hereby to supply our selves and prevent the importations of Hemp, Flax, Cordage, Tobacco, and divers other things which now we fetch from strangers to our great impoverishing”. It is normal and mechanic think, but I want concentrate my attention on phenomenological occurred; a process that set theory after that experience, we must learn to write and after we can become writer, but now is contrary; he has took from reality theory. And other step is very meaningful, in fact it says: " Yet might they easily beamended by enforcing the observation of such good laws as are strictlypractised in other Countries against the said excesses". It is nothing if we read it but not consider that he has mentioned other countries; during 1664, year of pubblication of this treated, certainly informations from other countries were very scarse, but he said other countries, how he know it? Because by trade that he undertaken he has took these learns and he has translated in this book; and since trade and its prices is variable, he didn't report name of caountry, but we can understand that he has took by experience. 

Alessandro Lusana

 

Historical “particulare”(particular) of Guicciardini

Francesco Guicciardini(1483-1540) an Italian historical man has descripted history of Italy above all during 16th century, and he has described some character of human gender, that we can ascertain today to everybody; an important notation about this character is the particular, what is? Ibn conformity of think of Guicciardini the particular, in Italian language of 16th century is “particulare” is personal interest or propriety; in fact Francesco has thought that to defense of cities is necessary soldiers and armies, but the first are ready to betray in front of a best offer, this is “particulare”, honor is absolutely secondary, but the chief can foresee, to men and soldiers, that other chief could take all proprieties going to can sequestered and given to his men; then he can say that you aren’t defend me but your interest, your proprieties, your money, your richness; thereupon they are very ready to defend city and their proprieties. Comments are: “It is normal, you haven’t discovery that with cloudy sky are almost always it’s rain”. It’s normal I know perfectly it, but that it method has been used  during 7th century in Byzantium by imperator Heraclius(610-641 b.Ch) it is to me very new; he has created the στρατιώτικα κτηματα has been fields that imperator given to farmers, or soldiers that were become farmers, so that they could defend their proprieties through armies; same strategy that Rome used to barbarian populations because the German people has been transferred in different land and region of Roman empire to defend borderlines. This strategy has been ruinous because German people just was in empire because they has transferred their people in Rome or other cities of empire, but they has accessed peacefully and in fact they were servants or waiters in the villas of Rome or rich families; but I want remark that the particular is present in every moment of history, and Guicciardini has given the name to a habit and human instinct; but this human behavior is present from centuries, because Roman empire is before of Byzantium and Guicciardini is after Byzantium; therefore it’s human gender and human habit, Francesco has told it and he has written that history and other, in other eras has made.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 

Justiniani lex

The character of our jurisprudence is very Roman document of sociality and very modern and sometimes, also contemporary, behavior; we can take it from some steps of Justinian code(a.Ch. 529), i.e. we can ascertain it in this step: “but if sons are son of family they must take consent of these parents under they are living…”, this is normal during Roman empire but today to allow of knowledge of future wife or husband is very past, or no? No certainly it is now present and it is from ancient custom, that has took from laws that are precedent to Justinian law, because this code is collection of laws both contemporary to 529 after Christ but also precedent to it; thereupon when somebody says you must knowledge my parents, beyond condolences we can think it is from Roman right. About the slavery, a ground of ancient societies, certainly Roman society, has been more indulgent because, a step about slavery says: “it was thing inhuman that they can give liberty to slavery, is other cause don’t’ prevent it…”, thereupon every slave is free; somebody can comments that it is motive of Christian religion, it’s right but religion is followed to Roman right, after Christ, because the freedmen, in Latin liberti, were ex slave, that has been got up social hierarchy and they have got liberty, and furthermore: “Today nobody man under our law is allow to rage to a slave without motive to law…”, and: “in conformity of Antoninian constitution who slays his slave he can suffers same penalty, as he has killed a slave of other host”, this is certainly a clear sign of other sensibility, that shows evolution of society, that now ascertain his barbaric custom, and tried improve it. To adoptions same right is present: “Not only the natural and legitimate sons they are under parental authority but also the sons that we have adopted, the adoption has two ways or emperor allow or judge”, it is natural today but we must consider that it is from ancient time. Adoptions are more curated because this step underline that major interest is to baby or young: “When a bay is adopted  to directly will of emperor this cause is considered to interest of baby, today is same.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

 

F. A. Hayek father of economic Europe

Friedrich August von Hayek(1899-1992) a liberal economist is father of Europe, father to sense that we can consider so because he has written a book in 1976, and he has foregone and anticipated a theoretical thesis that today is European costume, this is the euro money, and he seems have foregone also discomfort, alone momentary; it is enough read a step of his book Denationalisation of Money, certainly European reader understand very better this dynamic of this process: “ Initial advantages of government monopoly in money. Perhaps when the money economy was only slowly spreading into the remoter regions, and one of the main problems was to teach large numbers the art of calculating in money (and that was not so very long ago), a single easily recognizable kind of money may have been of considerable assistance. And it may be argued that the exclusive use of such a single uniform sort of money greatly assisted comparison of prices and therefore the growth of competition and the market. Also, when the genuineness of metallic money could be ascertained only by a difficult process of assaying, for which the ordinary person had neither the skill nor the equipment, a strong case could be made for guaranteeing the fineness of the coins by the stamp of some generally recognized authority which, outside the great commercial centers, could be only the government. But today these initial advantages, which might have served as an excuse for governments to appropriate the exclusive right of issuing metallic money, certainly do not outweigh the disadvantages of this system. It has the defects of all monopolies: one must use their product even if it is unsatisfactory, and, above all, it prevents the discovery of better methods of satisfying a need for which a monopolist has no incentive.”, other step is important: “If the use of several concurrent currencies is to be seriously considered for immediate application in a limited area…”, so in fact is economic Europe the actual coin of 20 countries in Europe has adopted the euro, 20 on 27 countries, in 2000 year these were 11, although this coin was invisible, because it become really coin of Europe from 1th January of 2002; and other step said: “…it is evidently desirable to investigate the consequences of a general application of the principle on which this proposal is based. If we are to contemplate abolishing the exclusive use within each national territory…”, this is certainly strategy of European Union that I think is took directly from Hayek, because the steps of this coin is perfectly correspondent to think of him; it demonstrated that sometime a think can certainly to be important, above all if it has been literally; and I think that European Union has made it.

Alessandro Lusana