향락에 빠진 로마귀족들이 그들이 그토록 오랜세월 대항해 싸웠던 게르만족을
용병으로 고용해 국방을 맡긴 것도 로마제국이 한번도 가보지 않은 길이었다.
로마귀족들은 그들이 고용한 용병들에게 나라를 뺏긴 후에야 비로소 그들이 선택한
새로운 길이 파멸로 가는 길이었음을 깨달았다.
우리나라도 자본주의가 발달하면서 빈부격차가 심해지니까 이를 시정한답시고
한번도 가보지 않은 길을 가고있다.
지난 날의 좋은 정책들은 그대로 유지하고 부작용이 심했던 것들만 수정보완하면 되는데
국가권력을 동원해 급격하게 노동자들의 권익을 늘리는 한편 기업들의 권익은 급격하게
위축시키는 새로운 길을 가고있으니 이는 자유시장경제의 원활한 운영을 심각하게 훼손
하는 행위이기 때문에 시간이 갈수록 국가경제가 나아지기보다는 나빠질 가능성이 훨씬
더 높다.
그 이유로는 비슷한 길을 갔던 수많은 나라들 중 성공한 사례가 단 한군데도 없기 때문이다.
성공하지 못하면 그 과정에서 무고한 백성들만 그 대가를 톡톡히 치르게 되고
정작 그 정책들을 국가권력으로 밀어부쳤던 사람들은 지지자들의 환호 속에 은퇴를 하고
은퇴 후에는 국가가 주는 연금으로 안락한 은퇴생활을 즐길 것이다.
실패에 대한 공격을 당하면 자신들도 그리 될 줄 몰랐다고 변명하거나 반대파들이 협조를
잘 해주지 않아서 정책효과가 반감되었다고 변명하면 그만일 것이다.
5천만 국민의 미래가 달린 경제정책은 신중에 신중을 거듭해 선진국들이 채택해 효과가
입증된 정책들만 골라 시행해야 하는데도 단 한번의 성공사례도 없는 정책들을 5천만
국민을 대상으로 실험하면 국민들은 실험실의 모리모토 같은 존재로 전락해 정책들이
실패하는 경우 국민들만 가난과 굶주림과 경제파탄으로 정책실패에 대한 댓가를 톡톡히
치룰 것이고 실패한 정책을 밀어부쳤던 사람들은 그때까지도 그들 주위를 맴도는
지지자들에 둘러싸여 큰 소리를 치고있을 것이며 경우에 따라서는 한때 부강했던
베네주엘라를 남미의 최빈국으로 만들어버린 베네주엘라 좌파정치인들처럼
그때에도 권력을 틀어쥐고 국민들 위에 군림하고 있을 것이다.
They say that woman is born to be loved,
which sounds plausible.
If woman is to be loved, man should love her.
If so, is man born to love instead of to be loved?
Like everything else in life,
to define something using dichotomy like this
has the danger of drifting away from truth.
Man neither gives love to woman one-sidedly
nor woman receives it one-sidedly.
In fact, man and woman exchange love mutually.
Like in physics where there are action and reaction,
there are action and reaction in human society, too.
Let's take example of the Machine Destruction Movement,
the so-called Luddite Movement that occurred in England.
Industrial revolution expedited development of machine civilization,
which made laborers fear losing their jobs and join the movement
of destroying industrial machines.
However, their government persuaded laborers to curb proliferation of
the movement, which enabled continuous invention of new machines
to bring about today's glorious affluent material civilization
through eye-popping growth of productivity.
After the industrial revolution, capitalists accumulated enormous wealth
using machines and started exploiting laborers, in reaction to which
emerged communism and communist revolution.
The convincing plausibility of the sophiscated communist theory devised by Karl Marx
made Russians believe that the only way to materializing communism in Russia was
through a violent revolution, which brought about the Bolsheviks Revolution
in year 1917.
The gist of the revolution was to overthrow capitalists and build a country
of only laborers but the result of adopting communism by other countries
led by Russia was mass unemployment, poverty and hunger.
So, these countries belatedly returned to capitalsim entirely or partially.
However, it was only after many peope either lost their lives or saw
an economic hell during a communism experiment they went through
for the first time in their lives.
Economy develops only when it pursues co-existence of capitalists and
laborers. Mankind gained a bitter lesson through 7 decades' communism
experiment that any unilateral pursuit of laborers' world excluding capialists
brings about a terrible result.
Thus, if any extreme antipode to the existing order is adopted
as a reaction to a certain social phenomenon,
its serious side-effects always produce a disaster.
Therefore, choosing an untrodden way completely opposite to a certain
social phenomenon just because of its unsatisfactory result has a much
higher possibility of failure than success, because human history shows
repeatedly that any untrodden road taken not by an individual but by a nation
as an experiment always led it to its downfall.
The road of the Venezuelan welfare populism was also an untrodden road.
The Roman aristocrats, abandoning themselves to pleasure, also took
an untrodden road by putting their national defense in the hands of
mercenaries of German tribes against whom they had fought for so long.
They realized belatedly that the road they had taken was the one
to their destruction, only after they were robbed of their nation.
In our country, too, the government takes an untrodden road under the pretext
of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, because development of capitalism
has widened the economic gap.
It would be desirable if the government maintained the past effective policies,
supplementing and revising only the ones the side-effects of which were serious,
but the government drastically increases laborers' rights and interests
while drastically decreasing the same for businesses by mobilizing state power,
which will seriously hamper the smoothe operation of free-market economy
ending up in gradual deterioration of national economy over time.
The reason is because, even if many countries adopted the similar policy,
not a single country has ever succeeded.
If the government's policy fails, countless innocent people will have to pay
a terrible price for the failure, while the politicians who pushed ahead with
the policies mobilizing state power will retire amid their supporters' cheers
to enjoy a comfortable retired life on a governmental pension.
If they are attacked for their failure, they will get away with it saying
either that they themselves had no way of prediciting the future
or that their policy didn't work due to their opponents' noncooperation.
The future of 50 million people depends on the economic policy of
the government; so, it should have repeated prudence to adopt only
the economic policies that had been proven effective in advanced
countries but unfortunately it chose policies putting 50 million people
on an economic experiment degrading them to the status of an
experimental rat by adopting such policies that have no previous
success record; therefore, if they fail, people alone will pay the price
for the failure with poverty, hunger and economic disaster
while politicians who pushed ahead with them brag about their economic
feat surrounded by their supporters;
and God forbids, they will still be wielding power lording over people,
like the Venezuelan leftist politicians who are still in power
even after ruining the once opulent economy.