All the government does under capitalism

… is leave you alone, protects property rights…
Protects property rights from what? From theft by the government. Which is what governments always do, because they can not produce anything. So to protect against the institutional thievery, businesses have to grow big. What use is government, if all it does is steal from you? And if not-stealing is considered laudable, why government at all? If it doesn’t exist, it can not steal from you. So non-existence must be the most desirable form of government.

At approx. 14:00 in this vid:



Ancoms get off on calling #capitalism #slavery, because in capitalism you have to work for a living or else you die. [because you are a slave to yourself, you are the master in this master slave relationship; sounds quite voluntary to me; and slavery is not voluntary but compulsory labor].
In #socialism/#communism, the food just magically appears on the table, so communism is superior.

Hold on. In communism, food is not grown? (Turns out it’s not; on the orders of Stalin, millions of Ukraynians starved to death, and Kim Yong-Il starved milions of North Koreans to death, because acepting foreign aid would be an admission of incompetence by the state that is the monopolistic supplier of food) because human beings have to put the effort in to grow food, and trust me, the term back-breaking labour was first coined by an exhausted farmer, after a day’s work tilling the field.

In fact: growing food is such hard work, the socialist man that Marx dreamed about (who would do all work free of charge, just to supply his fellow comune-inhabitant with the food he needs, to… well: lazily hang around all day, every day.), If he comes to realise he could do something nicer than break his back day in, day out, namely, do some light weeding in his garden, then do some resting on a lawn chairand work on his tan, and have other farmers break their backs. That would lead to the under-production of food, the fields of crops all going to waste, because they’re not harvested on time. So: starvation ensues. A wise entrepreneur would buy the farm off the farmer’s hands and start producing food the former farmer can buy, without breaking his back. Hold on: that’s capitalism, not glorious socialism.

And because under socialism, the farmer can’t sell his farm to a hungry entrepreneur, because

  • Entrepreneurs don’t exist under socialism (presumably under penalty of years of hard labour)
  • Farms are already the property of everybody, so can not be sold, to people that are better at doing the hard work (doing it harder or smarter, or eventually a combination of both; or hiring staff to help them; automate it)

the only way a socialist state can cause enough food to be grown, is by slave labour.

Looking back, I understand why socialists still adhere to their debunked ideology, and urgently refuse to let go of it; it is so difficult to read a whole, long blog post like this. Especially for an intellectual it is too much asked to follow a logical train of reasoning that goes in the wrong direction (refutation of all that needs to be true)

Not real socialism v not real capitalism

I’ve found a way out of the eternal “real communism hasn’t been tried!” v. “Real capitalism has never been tried” debates that keep raging on anarchist fora (for “communism” or “socialism”, read “communism/socialism”). The reason that the west has grown so rich is, because of real capitalism. The reason the west is now turning poor (economic crises in 1929 and 2008 will be repeated, time and again by our wise overlords) is because of socialism (state control of factors the state is incapable of managing), not capitalism (free-market management of things the market deems desirable, of which there are a lot fewer than what the state wishes to have control over)
The central banks were the cause of afore-mentioned crises, and they were also part of Marx’s prescription. The west is not really socialistic (too much of a capitalist slant for that), but it is (its own version of) socialism, which is causing the (social & economic) problems of the west.

Equality, whether you like or not

Is the new global buzzword for leftists.
They do not care that poverty has been as good as eliminated globally thanks to markets (aka capitalism), they want to rag on about inequality (which socialism assures btw; both economic and political), even “the poor” are so much better off than they were in the past (better clothes, cars, phones, TVs, housing etc.) that the remaining economic inequality does not really matter to them; yet the power lusting, divisive socialists keep ragging on about inequality, in the hope that it will catch on. Whether people are concerned about economic inequality or not, they are badgered about it continually, perhaps in the hope they’ll vote for the socialists, in the hope that once they get absolute power, they’ll shut up about it? Makes sense, since political power is all politicians crave. When they’ve won the elections, they already have the delicious, absolute power they yearned for, so no reason to keep going on about it. Then for the next elections (if those’ll be held at all, and if they’ll be open to parties other than the socialist one(s)), they’ll come up with another lame fashionable excuse to vote for them. Actually, elections after they’ve won and ruled for a term, will prove to be hard for them, since all they know is to complain about the results of their wishes having come true.

Can’t do it
Of course, #socialism can’t result in economic #equality. Socialism’s raison d’être is to produce #political #inequality, in order to centralize absolute #power.
Political inequality will assure economic inequality, because businesses will seek favor with those in power (politicians) (this is called lobbying). So the inequality that socialists promote so passionately, will only lead to economic inequality.
Example: the well fed #Stalin riding in the backseat of his chauffeured limo, while the people were ordered to practice marching for the celebration of the revolution, on an empty stomach.

In a free #market, the people may decide for themselves how their money is spent (if at all), so instead of lobbyists inluencing their masters how (on who) their money is to be spent (which businesses offer the most attractive backhanders/post-politics career opportunities/campaign contributions), the people are to be persuaded themselves, imagine sending one lobbyist after millions of people / instead of after one or two politicians. This is how #minarchism / #anarchism assures equality, and only societies without centrallized power can do so.

Because power is democratized
When the people are attracted to a certain product (like bread), or are not attracted to a certain product (like bread), they can choose to buy it or not. If they choose to not buy it, the producers will have to find our why not, and see if they can meet the desires of those customers, then try to convince these customers, that purchasing the products, will improve the customer’s lives enough for him to make it worth spending his money on the products.

If power and money are centralized
The milk seas and butter mountains of the EU will reoccur; farming lobyists will beg for subsidies, those subsidies will come with requirements to meet certain production quotas, farmers will want to get those subsidies, so they produce more than the market will ask for/consume.
To prevent this from happening again, some farmers are even paid to not produce anything; they have police inspections to see if they don’t secretly produce anything, then receive the money they would have made if they HAD worked for their living. So their fertile farm land lays unused (except as a tourist trap). All of that’s paid for by the tax victim, who is unable to influence that, because the glorious leaders have decided it is to be so¹.


Cancelling subsidies will result in complaints that the regulations make it so hard for farmers to survive, so they need to be compensated for the cost of meeting those regulations. The obvious answer isn’t to soldier on down the wrong path, but to stop imoposing regulations at all.

But without regulations, the farms will maintain harmful practices, that deplete the soil (so farming stuff just to throw it away doesn’t deplete the soil?) and mistreat animals!

Actually, it may still be possible to create guidelines, and the closer a farm gets to meeting the guidelines, the higher the price people will be willing to pay for the products. If there comes a point when the size of the premium exceeds the people’s willingness to pay the premium, either the guidelines have become ridiculous, or the people’s ability to pay has reached a ceiling.

That’s called #democracy.

(And no central planner can ever compute this for all citizens, btw)

¹) In the meantime, elsewhere in the world, people starve to death. How’s that for equality?

“Disappointed in capitalism”

You may hear some people say they’re “Disappointed in capitalism.” interestingly, capitalism ain’t what you’re disappointed in, amigo.
Sure, the western societies tend to lean more toward capitalism than to communism. That doesn’t mean they’re properly capitalistic! They’re… statist. This is apparently too fine a point for most socialists since Marx to grasp, because they keep identifying the wrong cause for the world’s misery. Time for progress (what lefties all boast about but appear allergic to), time to limit government to its only proper role: reducing government. (It’s most orderly if a government does that. Going via a minarchist phase into statelessness, a sudden shock in the form of a revolution will offer quick temporary gratification but will result in chaos).
So what these people are most disappointed in, is: the state’s meddling with stuff. That’s what causes the trouble and the inequality.Because the state has a magical authority, it can be co opted by big businesses. If there is no magical power, or institution claiming it (a state), how couod anyone try to seize it for their personal use if it doesn’t exist? Putting it in place, preying on the gullibillity of people might work, but requiees,a lot of patience.
Yes, this applies to you too, #AbbyMartin. Your personal internet show appeared to be in the right track, the title caused expectations: “empire files.” But instead of being critical of the empire, you seemingly adore the idea of an empire, so long as it does what you want it to.
C’mon! That’ll yield exactly what I wrote about above, but then different cronies will determine policy.

Politics is really a battlefield, where all sides lose. If (A) has the power, (B) gets/feels oppressed and (ab)used. So then, when (B) gets power, they use that power to take revenge on (A) and so forth and so on, ad infinitum.
Most recent example of this: after 8 years of Obama, the people were fed up with the abuse by the left. So they voted Trump into power. After Trump, who knows, what democrat will seize power and misbehave just like Trump did? Perhaps Bernie Sanders will have another go at it? The guy’s a jew, AND a socialist, (how confused/ignorant of the facts of one’s adopted ideology can one get?). 100 years since the Russian revolution and he’s still a socialist! It’s been 60 years,since the end of WW2!
People voted Obama because they where fed up with Bush2, even though they thoroughly enjoyed protesting against his wars (something they lost the urge for, when Obama was president and continued killing millions inbl watlrs of vanity), and they were fed up with not getting what they wanted. So they voted for Barry.

Stossel: Let Them Be!’
The junta in Madrid got awoken by the #Catalonian displeasure with them, so responded by sending in armed bastards, to beat the love for Madrid into the people. Only a government…
They even pretended that Catalunya had to ask permission from #Madrid, to express their opinion about Madrid. It seems pretty likely that the opinion will be negative, doesn’t it?