Trump is right about having the military pay for the wall: it’s supposed to be a DEfensive institution, right? A wall just sits there, unlike an army that travels to other continents, to cause other people to have to defend themselves. (And invasions always succeed, so defense is impossible, wall or not.) By not causing anger in Arabia/Persia, the wall is the best defensive measure imaginable – apart from government shutdown with full defunding. Gosh who’d have thought? Trump bringing democracy to the USA?
Of course, the real purpose of the wall is to keep people locked up inside.
Not very #democratic.
Kijk, een nuchtere kijk op #brandstof. Ipv je vast te klampen aan het moeilijke #waterstof, kun je er #alcohol ingooien. Dat heb ik als aftershave,. Waterstof vereist een grandioze & riskante infra-uitbreiding.
Maar ja, #duur was nu net de reden van #Gore
I’m sure the anarcho communists will get enraged by this post (it don’t take much to enrage an ancom). That must be, because it is entirely true.
Reasoning goes like this: under communism succession is always along the party lineage, resembling the monarchical bloodline. Making communism about equally democratic as king Louis XVI.
This ensures that the glorious new policy will strongly resemble the old guy’s policy. That’s progressiveness for you.
As any good parent will know: sure, some offspring must be threatened with punishment to keep them inline (as in: if you don’t behave on camp, you will get no deserts the entire week), but if the child does misbehave (a bit), the trick is to let them have a desert anyway (occassionally)
Acknowledge you failed (a bit) and don’t take that out on the kid. Hopefully next time they will behave better.
Because the parent knows, there will be a next time, time doesn’t stop. The child will want to live (and has to do so as part of growing up, anyway; the only alternative would be to kill the kid… )
Of course, I intend this as an analogy with the national legal system. Where the state only ever seeks to resort to (threats of), sometimes even deadly violence.
While sometimes the judge acquits a defendant, the sizes of prison populations suggest that it isn’t very often
Note: I have not yet read Hayek’s choice in currency, so I have no idea if this post duplicates or contradicts Hayek in any way https://mises.org/library/choice-currency-0
But here goes: what kinds of currencies have people chosen to use throughout history?
Of course it started with barter, but since food did not keep for long / was only available seasonally, more convenient means were sought. People liked gold, so started to do barter with gold as an intermediary, because gold is portable (though heavy), scarce, divisible (unlike a live cow) and in sufficient demand. Any monetary currency is a substitute for barter.
In Surinam, the people used to keep sugar as a retirement fund. Which had its downsides: insects would make off with your savings.
In the Gulag, people would sometimes make soups from plant leaves, those hungry from chopping wood on Siberia’s frozen tundra, were sometimes happy to trade in their shoes that kept their feet off the frozen top soil. those shoes were so scarce and desired, they were used as currency.
Then there is the inflation in (iirc) Brasil, which made the population look for a replacement for the official state currency, the peope chose bus tokens: those were small and easily portable (though not divisible), and could be exchanged for a bus ride.
The danger to such a system is, that because the tokens were still issued centrally by the bus company (which I presume was state-run), if the token money catches on, the state may take to inflating the currency (as they are wont to do) removing one more currency from the pool of convenient money substitutes. And wreaking havoc with the bus company’s planning of resource application.
- No ban on pot
- People acting acording to the sexual orientation they were born with
They want the government to let them do what they like, so long as they don’t hurt anyone.
FYI: the French translation for “to let do” is “laisser faire”. Complicted French grammar changes the R to a Z in certain conjugations.
“Somewhat” unPC, but actually fairly accurate.
Solve this by #privatising the sheltering of #asylumseekers.
Let the politicians that claim to be oh so concerned about asylumseekers, open their own houses+wallets
now easily over 7,000,000,000 people. Those people were born on a planet which could support them. The UN is busy trying to undermine that support by trying to have CO2 reduced; hence reducing photosynthesis, which plants need to grow. Before land based animals (like cows, goats, horses, humans) can eat them.
So making (a.o.) people hungry.
It gets even worse:
Plants need CO2 to do photosynthesis and they absorb that through pores in their leaves.
Those pores are kept open until enough CO2 has been absorbed. They also lose water, which evaporates through those same open pores.
So, a shortage of water dries out the plants.
Farmers try to compensate the dehydration by watering the crops more intensely; that water can obviously not save the crops from death by dehydration without enough CO2 to make them close the pores, so causing a water shortage:
The water is sprayed on the field, only to evaporate – and, since H2O is a strong greenhouse gas (much stronger than CO2), it only adds more heat, evaporating more water.
So what the #IPCC and Albert Riefenstahl (Gore) are doing, is forcing 3rd world farmers to have to choose between quenching their own thirst and feeding their child.
The sixing sadists!
I’ve heard people claim that ongoing economic growth can simply not continue for ever.
Well, that’s as may be, but by the time the limit is reached, all of mankind will have died out.
Wealth is not a fixed cloud floating through the universe, that entrepreneurs pluck some out of, depleting the total amount of wealth available to mankind (and to Martians, Venutians, any other grays).
Wealth is created. It starts off with an idea
Ideas are as plentiful as there are electrons in the universe. That’s before you start combining ideas, the possibilities are nearly infinite (is that even mathematically possible?)
Wealth is created by implementing such ideas.
Further wealth is created by building upon those ideas, ad infinitum (proxima).
If wealth were a cloud floating through the universe, surely it would take spacecraft to be able to pluck some wealth? But designing, building, launching spacecraft require incredible amounts of wealth already. Catch-22!
So, no, wealth isnot a fixed pie
Of course, the implementation of those ideas must be funded, this is traditionally done by banks lending out money from savings-accounts, because that is the most convenient way to do it. So: you wanna boost the economy? Put your money in a savings account, so that investors can use it to create wealth-producing factories/ shops etc.
This will become a problem when state #currencies lose faith, and all of society will use #cryptocurrencies.
Het lijkt mij wel goed om de dividendbelasting af te schaffen. Wat voor recht/smoes heeft de overheid om belasting te heffen op dividend? Het argument dat dan andere belastingen moeten stijgen, is lariekoek. Het is beter om alle belastingen af te schaffen. Laat de roverheid maar leren met minder te doen, dat moet de burger tenslotte ook, en die heeft geen 17 miljoen portemonnees om een graai in te doen, wanneer het even tegen zit.
Alle belastingen op nul: laten ze hun eigen spelletjes maar zelf betalen.