Politicians from Hungary and Alba Iulia Declaration of independence

Recently the hungarian vice prime minister Semj Zsolt in a personal visit in Tusnad Romania Harghita county, declared that Romania should respect Alba Iulia declaration of independence from 1 december 1918.
Let's see if Romanians respected their part of the deal:

"Alba Iulia national assembly resolution:
I. The National Assembly of All Romanians in Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Land, gathered through their representatives entitled to Alba-Iulia on 18 November v. 1 December 1918 n., Decreed the unification of those Romanians and all their territories inhabited by Romania . The National Assembly proclaims in particular the inalienable right of the Romanian nation to the entire Banat between the rivers Mureş, Tisa and the Danube.

II. The National Assembly reserves to the territories above indicated provisional autonomy until the Constitution elected on the basis of universal suffrage.

III. In connection with this, as fundamental principles for the composition of the new Romanian State, the National Assembly proclaims the following:

1. Full national freedom for all congregational peoples. Every nation will be educated, administered, and judged in its own language by individuals of its own, and each people will receive the right to be represented in the legislative bodies and government of the country in proportion to the number of individuals that make up it.
2. Equal righteousness and full autonomous confessional freedom for all denominations in the State.
3. The perfect realization of a truly democratically regime in all the fields of public life. Public, equal, secret, common, proportional vote for both genders aged 21 years to represent in communes, counties or parliament.
4. Perfect freedom of press, association and assembly; free propaganda of all human thoughts.
5. Radical agrarian reform. All properties, especially large properties, will be conscripted. On the basis of this enlistment, by abolishing the fideicomis and, under the right to diminish as needed, it will give the peasant the possibility to create a property (archer, pasture, forest) at least as much as he and his family can do. The guiding principle of this agrarian policy is, on the one hand, the promotion of social leveling, on the other hand the potentiation of production.
6. Industrial workers are granted the same rights and advantages as are legally regulated in the most advanced industrial states in the West.
IV. The National Assembly expresses its desire that the Peace Congress should carry out the communion of the free nations in such a way that justice and freedom be secured for all large and small nations alike, and in the future to eliminate war as a means of regulating international relations.

V. The Romanians gathered in this Assembly welcome their brothers from Bukovina, escaped from the yoke of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and united with the mother country Romania.

VI. The National Assembly hails with love and enthusiasm the liberation of the subjugated peoples to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, namely the Czechoslovak, Austro-German, Yugoslav, Polish and Ruthenian nations, and decides to make this salutation known to all those nations.

VII. The National Assembly with humility bowed before the memory of those good Romanians who, in this war, shed their blood for the realization of our ideal dying for the freedom and unity of the Romanian nation.

VIII. The National Assembly expresses its gratitude and admiration to all the allied powers, which, through the brilliant struggles waged by the cerbies against an enemy trained for many decades for war, escaped civilization by the barbarity of the barbaric.

IX. In order to further the business of the Romanian Nation in Transylvania, Banat and Hungary, the National Assembly decides to establish a Great Romanian National Council, which will have all the right to represent the Romanian nation, anytime and everywhere to all the nations of the world and take all the dispositions on which they find necessary in the interest of the nation.

Dr. Laurenţiu Oanea
Notary of the National Assembly

(Stefan Cicio Pop)
Vice-President of the National Assembly"

Comments on each article:
I. ,V,VI have the legitimacy such as the US declaration of indepence: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Replace in the text of US declaration of independence the word king and with kingdom of Hungary and you get the same results except brits in 1776 didn't try to impose their language on colonists as hungarians did after 1866.
II The 1923 constitution was approved by parliament not by electorate.This is a failure but at the time in Moldova and Walachia a large proportion of the peasants were illiterate, so it less likely that a referendum would make difference.
III.1 Full national freedom meaning education,administration and judging in that national language.
This happened after WW1 and it is valid now, only during communist time the administration in national languages stopped but even then the education in Hungarian and in German continued till high school level.
Till 1944 in Romania existed a party of hungarians and after 1989 exists Democratic Alliance  of Hungarians from Romania UDMR and another party. Also UDMR participated in many governments.
The article 62 (2) allows any minority to enter in the Parliament even if doesn't have enough votes.
Those who seek independence of Hungarians in Transylvania use this article as proof that the national assembly wanted to grant them independence. No they didn't. Independence for Hungarian in 1918 mean unification with Hungary the country that Romanians wanted to separate themselves.
This article is a deal proposal for minorities: we offer you this and implicit protection and you accept the new state.
If the deal was so bad, why Hungarians accepted it? I mean if you look at the map of the time you see Hungarian and German names, if you go into the cities you hear mostly Hungarian and German, you might think that the majority of Transylvanian's were Hungarian.
You can have a territory either if you have population numbers either if you have an army.
The military situation in Transylvania in 1918 is complex, the Hungarian army was disorganised every minority had its own guards, the biggest one been the army or former Romanian soldiers led by Iuliu Maniu another proof that the Romanians were majority then. The Romanian army was mobilised less than a month before declaration of independence so the declaration was done in a territory free of Romanian troops.
I could say that the military situation between the forces pro-independence and those pro-Hungary was balanced, so the numbers were more important.
The majority of Romanians were peasants, for long time there were not alowed to move into town hence this disproportion of 3 to 1 between village and city dwellers and between Romanian's and Hungarians.
Also it didn't help that others minorities which lived in the  such as Germans didn't sided with Hungarians because of their nationalistic policies.
My point here is: some people decide to separate from Hungary as the Americans separated from Great Britain. They promised to those who live with them and they were loyal to Hungary, a fair treatment. In general they kept their promises, except in communist regime imposed by soviet tanks.
III,2 The 22 article of 1923 constitution guaranteed liberty of conscience and specified that orthodox church and greco-catolic church were romanian churches and had higher priority over other cults. But in fact I didn't heard of any hindrance of other confections till the great comunist terror from '50
III.3 The kingdom of Romania was an imperfect democracy with party in power winning the elections. Only after 1989 we could say that our system is more democratic.
III.4 Except year 1938-1989 the press was free
III.5 Done in 1921. This annoyed German and Hungarian minorities because their churches had a lot of land.
III.6 Only in period 1924-1928, and 1934-1938 Romania didn't have social conflicts. This was failure of the independence declaration.
IX. The national assembly appoints a council to promote interests of Romanian's as now the Hungarians appoint their representatives to promote their interests.
Then in 1918 the interest of Hungary and Romanians were divergent. Romanians took a decision and the events after WW1 gave them right.
In conclusion almost all the points were achieved, despite WW2,despite soviet occupation,despite communism.
Why? Because all people Romanians or Hungarians want the same thing personal safety,prosperity freedom to believe in what you want and freedom of speech.
Freedom gained by Romanians in 1989 translated also in freedom for minorities.Then in 1989 they had the same goal, despite 50 years of nationalistic rhetoric.
After 100 years the nationalistic rhetoric of some Hungarian politicians try to make a wedge between interests of Hungarians and Romanians. Interest that at individual level converge but a national level diverge, due to personal ego and greed of politicians who wants to rule more people to own more money.
Viktor Orban can promise anything, He can promise the independence of Szekelly land. If this succeeds he will have all the glory, if it doesn't nobody can blame him. He wins either way, and the people from Romania will pay the price.
Szekelly land Covasna and Harghita counties are more closer to Romanian province Moldavia than to Budapest, and their interest more connected.
The great victory over ottomans of the Moldavian prince Stephen the Great was possible also because of 3000 szekelly fighters.
Szekelly land and Moldova also have in common the poverty and corrupt representatives.
These representatives fight to get a grip on local power ignoring welfare of their counties.If in Moldova are no nationalism to stir, in Transylvania they use Hungarian nationalism.

This are the sources that I used for the text:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania
and https://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Rezolu%C8%9Biunea_Adun%C4%83rii_Na%C8%9Bionale_de_la_Alba_Iulia

Ce e in sufletul ministrului Daea

Am aflat tarziu si eu de gafa ministrului Daea ca a comparat operatiunea de eliminare a porcilor bolnavi de pesta porcina cu operatiunea de eliminare a evreilor la Auschwitz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnvRS89dFpE
https://newsweek.ro/politica/gafa-incredibila-daea-compara-incinerarea-porcilor-cu-auschwitz-ul
Pentru mine al doilea razboi mondial e ca o hartie de turnesol pentru al doilea razboi mondial:
Daca apreciezi eficacitatea armatei germane de a face fata a 3 puteri mondiale si a SS-ului de a anihila "dusmanii poporului" atunci ai tendinte autoritariste apreciezi forta bruta si supunerea oarba in fata ordinelor. Probabil faci drepti in fata sefului si urli ordine la subalterni.
Pe de alta parte daca apreciezi lupta de rezistenta, capacitatea de a rezista in lagare in fata exterminarii voite a evreilor,polonezilor si rusilor, atunci apreciezi drepturile omului,legea si democratia.
Constatarea de mai sus e generala,nu-l cunosc pe dl. Daea nu stiu daca este un om autoritar care zbiara la angajati, dar ce am remarcat este ca in guvernele lui Dragnea este promovata supusenia.
Erau doi premieri am uitat cu ii cheama ca au zburat ca nu prea raspundeau la comenzi. Ah Grindeanu si Tudose, restul ministrilor care au ramas probabil au plecat capul.
In plus promovarea de catre Dragnea a femeilor nu are nimic cu promovarea lor si egalitatea de sanse. De obicei barbatii sunt mai agresivi si mai competitivi si te poti astepta din partea lor sa te rastoarne si sa-ti ia locul, femeile sunt mai putin agresive.

Resource economy versus market economy

Nature manufactures with what is readily available: if it has Hydrogen,Carbon and Oxygen. It uses this to manufacture what it needs.
On the other side humans are driven by society demands (market): if gold is desired and rare and it is expensive, then humans will cross seas, and mill mountains  to get it.
On the plus side this allowed a better distribution of of resources and of people on earth. Some cities in Siberia exists because of expensive mineral resources.
Also high price of resources developed technologies, expensive spices payed the development of new ships. 
On the minus side it lead to exhaustion of the natural resources.
The whales were many,cheap and had plenty of oil.This lead to excessive hunting, this increased price for them which lead to investment in new,better whale ship, which lead the whales on brink of extinction.
Other disadvantage is that the market demands an expensive good that has higher consts for environment and for society. For example natural diamonds: the only purpose of this trinket is to be on the finger of a lady, but for this tonnes of earth are excavated, children in Africa are enslaved.
The demand of Chinese for donkey skin has determined stealing and slaughtering of these animals in Africa, where the are main way to transport goods.
In global market economy the side effects are payed by someone else from the other part of the globe.
In order to be beneficial the market economy must be rational (this is impossible) and the technology development must be directed toward substitution, and efficiency not to exploitation.
In 19 century while other invested in whaling ships other invested in petroleum. Finally petroleum replaced whaling oil in lightning and lubrication, saving the whales.
If the investments for new whaling ships should have been directed to oil industry, the whaling industry would died off sooner, and we would have more whales now.
If the money invested in new oil wells would have been in invested in new more economic technologies, we would not use tar sands, and drill on the Arctic.