Most people may believe that we tend to learn from past mistakes. On the other hand, some may prefer to subscribe to the approach of ‘let the bygones be bygones’ (or, in Latin terms, quod periit, periit), and focus on looking toward the future. However, when the past catches up with us, we must pay close attention to it and figure out what we want our next steps to be.
Despite a rather grim picture, we remain hopeful that decision-makers will take notice of available solutions and good practices, and implement policies that are much more inclusive, facts based, and accessible – to ensure that the future of the family in the region becomes bright.
We trust that our Reader will find here not only captivating ideas, but also a source of empowerment – to be able to brave the storms of the energy crisis that is now trundling through Europe.
When trying to imagine what the future of the European Union (EU) should look like, people often fall either into the trap of wishful thinking or doomsaying.
Paying taxes does not need to (and should not!) be taxing. Quite the contrary – it must be clear, straightforward, effortless, and taxpayer-friendly. What every taxation system needs is thus sensible policymakers who would look at the state expenditures and think of the ways of improving the exiting system and tax collection mechanisms.
Central and Eastern Europe, a home to around 190 m individuals. Each with their own hopes, dreams, and agendas. All of them with a unique set of experiences and access to their sui generis historical past. Most of them, however, shared similar routes on their way to becoming liberal democracies.
We trust that the tenth issue of 4libert.eu Review may act as both a reason for re-opening the discussion on what sets apart smart from fatuous regulation, and as an indicator of where the problems lie in the CEE region.
In the ninth issue of 4liberty.eu Review, by investigating a number of national perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe, we attempt to find this elusive middle ground – which, bear in mind, does not necessarily have to be in the middle, at least this is our belief.