Thursday, May 30, 2019
Mark Thornton: The Economics of Prohibition
Mark Thornton: The Economics of Prohibition
LibertyInOurTime
1
9:10
The Economics of Prohibition: Part I
auburnbrewclub
2
7:03
The Economics of Prohibition: Part II
auburnbrewclub
3
6:52
The Economics of Prohibition: Part III
auburnbrewclub
Herbert Spencer: The Man versus The State
Herbert Spencer: The Man versus The State
Audio presentation of Herbert Spencer's classic 1884 study "The Man versus The State." Read by Jock Coats. In his study, English libertarian sociologist Herbert Spencer sees a statist corruption appearing within the liberal ideological framework, and warns of what he calls "the coming slavery". He argues that liberalism, which liberated the world from slavery and feudalism, was undergoing a transformation.
LibertyInOurTime
1
27:57
The Man versus The State (Forward) by Eric Mack
LibertyInOurTime
2
18:18
The Man versus The State (Introduction) by Albert Jay Nock
LibertyInOurTime
3
51:33
The Man versus The State (Essay 1: The New Toryism) by Herbert Spencer
LibertyInOurTime
4
1:08:13
The Man versus The State (Essay 2: The Coming Slavery) by Herbert Spencer
LibertyInOurTime
5
1:31:11
The Man versus The State (Essay 3: The Sins of Legislators) by Herbert Spencer
LibertyInOurTime
6
1:20:34
The Man versus The State (Essay 4: The Great Political Superstition) by Herbert Spencer
LibertyInOurTime
7
19:00
The Man versus The State (Postscript) by Herbert Spencer
LibertyInOurTime
Laws to ease workers’ burden
See - https://opinion.inquirer.net/121569/laws-to-ease-workers-burden
"x x x.
EDITORIAL
Laws to ease workers’ burdenPhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:14 AM May 25, 2019
Lost in the organized chaos of the midterm elections is the welcome news on the fate of a number of important measures that would significantly ease the hardships of workers and jobseekers. Two of these, the First Time Job Seekers Assistance Act and the Extended Maternity Leave Act, have been signed into law; another one, the Alternative Working Arrangement bill, has just passed third and final reading in the Senate.
President Duterte signed Republic Act No. 11261, or the First Time Job Seekers Assistance Act, last month, though it was made public only on May 7. Under this law, first-time job applicants no longer have to pay fees for government documents required for employment.
Covered are the following government documents: police clearance certificate, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance; barangay clearance; medical certificate from public hospitals (except fees and charges for laboratory tests and other medical procedures); birth certificate; marriage certificate; transcript of records from state colleges and universities; taxpayer identification number; Unified
Multi-Purpose ID card; and other documentary requirements that may be required of job applicants.
Applying for work can be an expensive exercise, more so for fresh graduates who have yet to earn their first peso. A police clearance certificate, for instance, costs P100, same as a barangay clearance, while a multipurpose NBI clearance will set back an applicant by P130. Thanks to the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) law, a birth certificate from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) Helpline (formerly the National Statistics Office) now costs P365 a copy.
The new law should make it easier and less costly for fresh graduates to apply for and land their first job, instead of joining the 2.2 million unemployed and 5.5 million underemployed Filipinos as of October 2018, based on figures from the PSA.
Meanwhile, employees from the private sector should find some comfort in Senate Bill No. 1571, which would allow them to enjoy an alternative working arrangement while still doing the required eight hours of work for five days. Under this bill, employers and employees may agree to adopt flexible working arrangements, including a four-day work week or compressed work week.
The Senate-approved bill comes two years after the House passed a similar measure, House Bill No. 7402 or the Telecommuting Act, which allows employees to work from home using the latest technological devices.
The Senate’s Alternative Working Arrangement bill is seen to help ease the worsening traffic situation in Metro Manila which, last year, cost the country some P3.5 billion in lost opportunities a day, according to the Japan International Cooperation Agency. With employees riding to and from work at varied hours instead of filling the streets and public transport hubs during those frantic rush hours, a smoother, less stressful commute may be expected.
In fact, based on a global research report from Regus—the world’s largest provider of workplace solutions—nine of 10 companies offering flexible working hours to their staff in the Philippines have attested to its benefits, among them improved productivity, reduced overhead expenses and an improvement in work-life balance that results in increased job satisfaction and motivation.
True, the arrangement may not work for all jobs, especially those in manufacturing and assembly line production, as noted by the Employers Confederation of the Philippines. But in most jobs, flexible working arrangements have resulted in reduced traffic congestion, less air pollution, as well as less work stress and better health for workers.
Just as timely in our rapidly changing workplace is Republic Act No. 11210, or the Expanded Maternity Leave law, which grants working mothers in the government and private sector 105 days of paid maternity leave credits, with seven days transferable to fathers. An additional 15 days of paid leave will be granted to single mothers.
The law gives mothers the option to extend their leave for another 30 days without pay, provided that the employer is given due notice. The measure also removes the four-pregnancy cap and applies to all female workers regardless of civil status. By giving mothers sufficient time to recover after childbirth and nurture their newborns, the law seeks to ensure the well-being and stability of Filipino women and their families, which should help translate to a healthier, more productive workforce.
Small measures with big impacts. Let’s have more of them.
x x x."
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/121569/laws-to-ease-workers-burden#ixzz5pNjLUD00
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Existence of a state of war
See - https://www.bworldonline.com/the-philippines-at-war/
"x x x.
The Philippines at war
May 23, 2019 | 9:42 pm
Being Right
By Jemy Gatdula
In the area of governance, none perhaps seems more important than the State’s survival. And the matter of survival becomes more imperative when the country is dragged into war. The question is, how does our government — regardless of the administration in power — respond institutionally in the case of armed conflict?
The constitutional spirit by which our government is to be guided is laid out by the Supreme Court in Rodriguez vs. Gella (GR No. L-6266, 1953). Speaking through Chief Justice Ricardo Paras, addressing an issue arising from the President’s war powers:
“Our Government is democratic in form and based on the system of separation of powers. Unless and until changed or amended, we shall have to abide by the letter and spirit of the Constitution and be prepared to accept the consequences resulting from or inherent in disagreements between, inaction or even refusal of the legislative and executive departments. Much as it is imperative in some cases to have prompt official action, deadlocks in and slowness of democratic processes must be preferred to concentration of powers in any one man or group of men for obvious reasons.”
The process then, as now, calls for congressional action. The Constitution’s Article VI.23 provides: “The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.”
Seems straightforward enough but note that the only thing that Congress does is to declare a war already in “existence.”
The reason is that Congress cannot call for initiatory military action, by dint of international law (e.g., Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter) and the Constitution’s Article II.2 (“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy”).
An implication of the foregoing is the question of who brings the Philippines to such a “state of war”. Aggression by another country is, obviously, one possibility.
Another is the President himself.
Note that the President, aside from an unfortunate designation by the Supreme Court that he (or she) is the “architect of foreign policy,” is also mandated by the Constitution to lead us in times of armed conflict. Thus, Article VI.18, in pertinent part:
“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.”
Going over the latter provisions, the President has the power to either ignore aggression by another country no matter the gravity thereof or bring the country to war on a perceived foreign slight that the commander-in-chief alone decides.
Technically, from the Constitution’s provisions, all the President needs to do is simply not declare suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or martial law and Congress is thus kept out of the picture.
By doing so and ordering the military under his commander-in-chief powers, the President could bring the Philippines to a “state of war,” for which Congress would logically have no choice but affirmatively declare.
Upon confirming the existence of a state of war, Congress is left with nothing to do aside from “by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.”
But the foregoing could only be just an add-on or embellishment to the President’s built-in military authority. Assuming that Congress withdraws the authorizations it granted, the President is still left with his commander-in-chief powers.
Even more interesting, Congress has no say on how the war is to be pursued. In other words, not only the President alone has the power to bring us to a state of war and how to conduct it (including perhaps the takeover of vital industries), the President can also decide on his own to simply surrender the country to another.
A legal mechanism then is needed to enable the People’s elected representatives to monitor, within reason, the President’s (and the general staff’s) conduct (and even termination) of the war, and to quickly impeach the President if his actions go clearly against the country’s sovereignty or freedom.
The Congress’ budget and taxing mandate should be considered, after all.
Something for the incoming Congress to ponder on as the Philippines faces challenges to its sovereignty.
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)