Before continuing, let me clarify some points about the school: I have received a few emails that ask me questions.
Consider again the example of double budget, one according to the Civil Code and one following the tax directives.
We forget that the State is built by men to be beneficial to men. This perhaps is never remembered enough. We are in the opposite situation: the status dishonestly.
Double budget is immoral and at the very least you should declare aloud: also the exponents and the notability of the whole community, with a minimum of ethics, they should find a solution to many problems like this.
Teachers, in turn, should point out to students that this situation is unacceptable, both from an ethical point of view, from the point of view of economic efficiency.
From situations such as that of the dual budget generating destructive and perverse logic.
Clearly, the politician who has not removed this aberration shows that:
1. He has no interest in removing this budget doubles because he wants to remain the fiscal budget to obscure his reasons (but not too dark) and doesn’t have the courage to remove the contradiction in the Civil Code. He wants things to remain so.
2. Hinder anyone trying to highlight this problem and other analogs. These things must go into oblivion.
Clearly, about the issue, teachers will be induced to tell lies to avoid being shunned by some kind.
The first consequence, we repeat, is that the best teachers they will go and will be the worst.
This is not a situation that can evolve into a community.
We have to think in a new way and realize that it is very difficult that we will emerge from these situations with simple changes: they’re just changing the principles on which our society is founded.
First of all, no law or regulation self-contradictory.
Future posts will cover this kind of reasoning.