The USAC and ProReforma
The writer Adrian Zapata, published in Siglo XXI an article with the title: The USAC and constitutional reforms (27/10/2009) in which he makes reference to representatives of the University of San Carlos presented to the Legislative Committee of Congress in the audience granted to review the draft ProReforma.
Those who evacuated the audience were the Rector Estuardo Galvez and constitutional experts Arturo Sierra and Jorge Mario Garcia Laguardia.
We do not have the presentation by the audience who evacuated but what of that exposure Zapata tells us in his writing.
The first issue that deserves comment is the fact that three other people were taken to express ideas on behalf of all those who are somehow identified with the State University: students and workers. It is wrong to claim that it speaks for all those people (I assume, without driving statistics, which can easily exceed one hundred thousand) and, worse, that all these people say exactly the same views. But ... these are problems generated by a corporate-organizational spirit.
Zapata said that those who spoke at the hearing rejected the draft ProReforma wielding arguments to the effect of a historical, political and legal. Noted
To start a purely formal, seated Zapata: What Congress could not make changes to the Constitution because the ideological part of the same does not permit, in accordance with at the time by the Constituent Assembly. It is said that the project falls into what is called constitutional fraud.
is clear that the process of amendments to the Constitution should culminate corresponding to the popular consultation in which we have had two during the democratic period: 30 January 1994 to May 16, 1997. ProReforma
The project clearly adheres to the provisions of the Constitution and recognizes the need for the partial reform has the support of 2 / 3 of the members of Congress and be ratified in a referendum.
typing the so-called constitutional fraud is to ignore completely what about how ProReforma contains the draft.
Zapata continues to assert the following:
Similarly, pointed out the falsity of the statement poses ProReforma erroneously that violence and poverty will be eliminated by constitutional reform, when they really are a product of socio-economic structural conditions that would require profound changes in the prevailing economic model, characterized by inequality, exclusion, poverty production and concentration of wealth.
Is it indeed the approach ProReforma false? I think not. The authors and project promoters are fully aware of the system or economic model is what causes so much poverty in Guatemala. It is, in any case, a distributed system that has privileges to a few, based on the state protection to certain businesses, companies and individuals, which hampers investment of capital, which makes it extremely tortuous the path to open new businesses and enterprises, which punishes those production. ProReforma
course bearing in mind that this must be transformed, indeed, to be replaced following the example of companies which, in turn, left his place among the poorest countries adopting old principles as the foundation of social life. Remember to Holland, and, more recently, Hong Kong, Singapore and Estonia, etc.
course we need to change this system for another. Another, which does not protect private interests, he provides the existence of monopolies, not to punish force consumers to promote sectional interests.
Now, yes There is a vast difference between vision and the Carlist san ProReforma about crime (please, not violence, is simply crime). And is that the offender is not a product of "structures" that makes him and do what it is and what it does. Structuralism as a method for treating social phenomena eliminates the individual's responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Worse case of a structuralism inspired by Marxism as well known is the self determinism of the Marxist view of history and society.
To ProReforma is clear that crime (violation of the rights of others) should be pursued and punished as an economy or strong, or in a society whose standards of living are high people will cease to exist that violate the rules of coexistence. For this reason ProReforma calls for independence of the judiciary and it is assigned to the justice system the resources it needs to operate as it should operate.
The writer goes on to quote that: From a historical perspective, showed the time lag is to claim individual rights to the point of ignoring the development that they have been inspired by the doctrine of human rights guaranteed to them by a constant depth, making them more social.
also here there is a huge difference to be noted. While the speakers at the Carolina consider a delay to assert individual rights to life, property and freedom, ProReforma considers that the delay in the conditions of life in Guatemala is precisely the emphasis today is on the so-called "rights" social doctrine and in practice both are "rights" against the law.
doctrinally accepted that there can be no rights against the right and that is what are called social rights as to "provide" education, health, sports, art, dining solidarity, housing, money for sending children to school fertilizers, toys, fun, etc., about, you violated the right of others to your property and enjoy what is a product of their work.
But practice shows that the supremacy they have acquired the so-called social rights has led to the stagnation of economies, even those once healthy and prosperous, and not to mention the whirlpool of poverty that engulfs million in the third world. On the contrary, wherever the right to life, liberty and private property remain as the foundation of the legal system may see a capacity to generate wealth truly impressive. On the contrary, social rights have generated in the same United States of America the crisis we all know. Because no it is the cyclical crises of capitalism proposed by Marx but of results generated by the interest of governments to provide cheap housing for everyone. But the matter does not stop there must be added another folly: to grant public money to those who are in serious financial risks. If these false
social rights constitute a development, progress in the field of law should not lead to impoverishment in the stocks or destructive impact on the economy. What would we think, for example, if the field of medical advances are achieved deteriorate the health of the people instead of better? What do we deserve the que los avances en la química se tradujeran en medicamentos menos eficaces? Entonces ¿cómo puede hablarse de avance en la ciencia del derecho cuando los “nuevos” “derechos” sólo empantanan la generación de riqueza?
Las propuestas que se hacen deben ser parte de la solución no parte importante del problema. Afirmo lo anterior porque esa visión historicista del derecho es una herencia que nos ha hecho mucho mal. Califico de visión historicista del derecho a esa tradición jurídica que sostiene que los hombres debe hacerse las leyes que consideren necesarias en conformidad con el momento, con las circunstancias o, como se dice hoy, de acuerdo a la coyuntura.
El articulista también says USAC also recognizes the need to promote a deep and inclusive national debate, about whether or not changes are needed in the Constitution and, if so, which, with the purpose making the best possible way to supreme Status: the common good.
If there is already a previous goal to achieve: the so-called common good, then there really is not any discussion, this is only to discuss the strategy to achieve. To this must be added that bandied common good is indefinable, and always results in the promotion of individual interests, group, class or sector.
The false insistence on debate is evident in the statement of Zapata: The rejection of the proposal and the decision ProReforma promote debate in the terms described, are the substance of the positioning of the USACE.
Not surprisingly, neither the above statement and the attitude behind it. In this land our first dismisses the other and then promotes dialogue, first despises the thought of another and then call a roundtable discussion. In general is what I see, not only on the issue at hand, but about almost everything can be discussed: They hang tags and then attempt to debate. Whenever we forget the ideas, theories, hypotheses and concentrate all the strength to knock down the opponent, in damage and reject it.
Perhaps this attitude disguised folk academia and intelligentsia Bertrand Russell delivered his scathing response to the question "Why in the History of Philosophy makes no mention of Latin America? Russell said, because Latin America has not thought of.
An article last reference to Zapata and ensuring that it ends ... it requires a vision of state.
If changes to the constitution must be done keeping in mind that the State is the promoter of welfare and it is involved in the generation of wealth, whether to have as a goal a welfare state, whether to have an enormous faith and confidence in the state apparatus; ... then there will be changes but the same thing. There will be new but deepening political vices we have today. Innovations will not only the perpetuation and exacerbation of all the calamities that the State has caused it to rain on all Guatemalans. Precisely
ProReforma an essential principle is to maintain separate state society, not only in analysis but as a fact of which depart. The latter based on the different nature of the state and society. For if society is the free and voluntary association of human beings based on the division of labor, the state (or government) is the apparatus of coercion that guarantee the functioning of human cooperation. Another view does not fit. If men themselves try to do what is in the nature of the state, so we'll have is anarchy and "justice" into their own hands. But if the state intends to do what men in cooperation that will be inefficient state monopolies and the welfare state becomes a state tax, a burden rather than a help.
interventionism is the state guie the functions of some aspects of society, and socialism that the state intends to guide them all the functions of society, Marxism argues that all functions of society from becoming state functions. In any case or is confused society with the state or, at worst, the company merges with the state and all men would take decisions by themselves become a matter of government administration.
Guatemala has a history marked by steady state intervention in matters that concern only individual actors. This is reflected in formal education, the psychology of a Guatemalan political parties, training of professionals of all kinds, religious mentality in Catholic and some Protestant areas in the business world: We are unable to have confidence in ourselves, in our initiative, our efforts, our ability to succeed in work and productivity and rest more on what the government can do for us or what the government can give us.
This prevents us from telling the government: Do your part by ensuring the rule of law, administering justice promptly and effectively, protecting our property and our lives, giving us an environment to develop our daily activities, which we'll produce everything we all need to live.
But, of course, there are also those who understood these fundamental principles are dedicated to promoting action and state intervention because they live it, profit from that speech disguised as benevolence ("false philanthropy" Bastiat called it) thinking that they themselves could succeed in a scheme like the one we raised but others can not. This vision of society as divided into capable and incapable, and awkward working, prepared to survive and useless, they can proudly make your life and inept poor devils, is not only false but an insult to the human condition (so called Hannah Arendt) and those that are the subject of populist and demagogic.
