World

From abortion to Petrobras, the ethics of the fait accompli

Progressivism has a very characteristic moral disease: using “a fait accompli” as a moral rule, while at the same time striving to consummate some facts more than others. For my part, in the abortion discussion, I have always been struck by the fact that the most common “pro-choice” argument is, at the same time, the worst of all: women are alleged to have abortions, so they must have the right to have an abortion. abort. Is it not obvious that this reasoning underpins the decriminalization of homicide? Now, men kill each other long before women learn to abort. The CFM has defended decriminalization for years through a philosophical argument based on biology, namely: the ability to feel pain must be the mark of the beginning of human life, and abortion must be allowed before the living being passes from this state as than vegetative to the sensitive condition. Hence the period of 12 months (which however can be questioned by a scientific way). Consistently, those who advocated abortion for up to three months used to advocate euthanasia for those who were reduced to a vegetative state, with no possibility of returning to conscious life. Turning off the devices of someone who has been brain dead is not a crime, but it is murder to do the same with someone who has the possibility of returning to consciousness. In full 2022, with a range of theoretical possibilities to defend the decriminalization of abortion, Folha de S. Paulo published an editorial appealing to the moral of the fait accompli: “Despite the legal prohibition, hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year in the country. They take place in homes or in clandestine clinics, where the lack of adequate structure and guidance hurts and kills low-income women above all. Should they all spend 1 to 3 years in detention? Or should they be assisted by professionals who guarantee greater safety in the face of this extreme intervention in the first weeks of pregnancy? Advanced countries opt for the second path. Gradually, Latin American nations move in the same direction, as the examples of Argentina, Colombia attest and Mexico. Brazil, in turn, has stopped in time.”

Moral from the bottom of the pit

Progressivism uses the ethics of the fait accompli on all the issues it addresses. Racism is a fait accompli, so it would be unscientific to want to abolish racial categorization from social life. The rape of women by men is a fait accompli, so the legal world should consider men guilty beforehand when women claim they have been raped. Gays can only claim some social acceptance and patrimonial protection for their relationships if it is admitted that all sexual orientation is innate. On the trans issue, it must be argued that doctors make mistakes when they say that a baby is a girl just because she was born with a vagina. Gender would also be innate, like sexuality, and the correct thing would be to wait for its manifestation.

Everything happens as if the facts of the present and the future were inexorable, and as if the opinion of society did not had nothing to do with facts. In practice, progressives promote abortion and racism, turn them into facts, and then call those who dare to raise their sights a little and intend to improve the state of things as anti-scientific or denialists.

No In the case of abortion in particular, we see a macabre coherence. In fact, if defenders were to adhere to the CFM’s argument, they would have to be against late-term abortion, which is the newest agenda imposed by progressives via the judiciary, exporting Roe x Wade. And indeed, those who defend abortion advocate the withdrawal of state forces from poor areas – as in Fachin’s decision to prevent the police from going up the hills of Rio. These areas of the poor are like reserves for the free practice of homicides and all sorts of crimes. In them, the law of the fittest or the survival of the fittest – expression used by social Darwinists that actually belongs to Spencer, applies. Certainly the weakest poor are less likely to live and reproduce in these reserves of crime created by progressivism. Given the coherence of the agenda, given its undeniable neo-Malthusianism, and given the fact that the rich West is getting crazier and crazier (think of the outbreak of drag queens interacting with children or in the social acceptance of chemical castration of minors), one has to wonder if it is not deliberate.

The voice of Economic Science

The ethics of the fait accompli can be transposed to economics. And the right-wing tantrum against Bolsonaro on the issue of Petrobras prices repeats the same path as progressivism. Science says that price doesn’t change. The rise in oil is a fait accompli. Petrobras, therefore, must follow Science and push the price up. In fact, Science says that the state-owned company doesn’t work, so the right thing is to sell Petrobras. Anyone who disagrees is ignorant.

Everything happens as if there were no political interference in the market capable of generating internal impacts, and Science told us to passively look at everything. Thus, a good enlightened, scientific man is obliged to condemn government interference on the prices of state-owned Petrobras.

I, who am more humble than these people, took the trouble to listen to the Bolsonaro’s statement on the subject on the day 16 of this month. He claims that Petrobras is not obliged to raise prices as soon as there is an increase abroad; could, instead of passing on a large sudden increase, wait months, follow the fluctuations and make an increase only on the average. For him and for the economic team, the company’s billionaire profit is not a good thing. It is the Petrobras Board that seems most interested in making the largest possible profit for minority shareholders.

Petrobras’ boundary condition is complicated. The interest of minority shareholders is the highest possible profit; that of the majority – Brazil – is to make the company supply energy to the country at the lowest possible price. The lowest possible price means the price capable of guaranteeing the financial health of the institution, leaving it far from losses and with sufficient cash to invest in innovation. This is quite different from the price freeze imposed by Dilma on Eletrobras, which left her at a loss.

But it is good manners, now, to turn up one’s nose and, with a lot of “prudence and sophistication”, say that price controls are unscientific. As if the Petrobras Board were incorruptible. As if the Council were superior to politics. As if holding back the price reducing the profit margin of a state-owned company was the same thing as the Cruzado Plan or Dilma’s administration. On top of that, badmouthing Bolsonaro is chic at the end, people in Europe love it.

“Aha, that’s why it has to be privatized!”

Let’s say that there is corruption in the Board of our state-owned company, that the minority shareholders have bought it and that a group contrary to the interests of Brazil uses O Globo as an advisor of press. In this case, there would be a combination of corruption and politicking preventing the state-owned company from being managed according to our interests. The ordinary press would not mobilize to investigate any corruption; Brazilians would pay for the most expensive gasoline possible to bring profit to international pension funds.

Every time a public company is used against the interests of the country, the fashionable discourse slams: “That’s why that has to be privatized!”. Will it be? Let’s put aside the fact that corruption exists in the public and private spheres, and that it reinvents itself as mechanisms are invented to curb it. Ending corruption is not a sensible prospect. If, every time you take a case of corruption in the State, it is inferred that the State body should not exist, we will arrive at the WEF utopia, in which the State must be a timid provider of services, which may well be outsourced.

Let’s put that aside and notice the elephant in the room: the atypia that lives in the energy sector in the world. First, there are the sanctions imposed on Russia, which is a major supplier of energy to Europe. If Russian oil is under sanction, that alone is enough to drive prices up.

As for the US, Biden has put a lot of crazy environmentalists in charge of energy and has sabotaged the national oil industry. oil and gas based on environmentalism. In line with this, BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink has been using the votes of the shares in his custody to prevent the financing of oil companies, also based on the neo-Malthusians’ green agenda. The ESG + US combination has manipulated the market to prevent investment in fossil fuels and, therefore, make the product more expensive. Given the neo-Malthusianism of this group, it is plausible that they view inflation as a mechanism to reduce families.

In particular, I think that the Biden administration’s option to buy oil would demand more attention from analysts of Venezuela in substitution of the national and the Russian. The only explanation I have in mind is the possibility of buying it provisionally to calm the electorate during the midterm elections and then stop. Because you can’t let the American oil companies go back to work in the short term and without investment prospects, but you can buy from the Venezuelans in the short term and come back later. Be that as it may, the mere fact that US domestic production falls serves, like the sanctions on Russia, to make the price of oil rise.

A global interventionist PPP

In any case, the fact is that there is a public-private partnership interfering with the price of oil around the world. The naive liberal can defend himself by saying that there is no free market and the interventionists are to blame. Accordingly. But the Marxist also has a brilliant plan to make it all work, and he can also point to a culprit for why his plan failed. Serious people are not dazzled by ideology. It is past time to take into account that the world is not friendly to trade liberalization, and that the current market is very far from the free market.

To think that Brazil should be a passive spectator of the “market laws” is embarrassingly simplistic.

Back to top button