Another joy of private property

Thids ppstvis a follow up to:

If environmental activists are really so concerned about protecting public land from the president’s greedy cronies, the should champion that all land becomes private property. One can’t really complain about what the president does to state monuments, like enabling oil exploration, because it is HIS land.
If you wanna protect the national monuments, buy them, before explorers discover oil there and the price rises. When they’re your private property, you decide what does and does not get done there.
Si, shut up about Trump letting “his buddies in the oil industry” ruin public lands, because there is no such thing as public lands! When the government owns it, they can do to it whatever they want. So long as, once every 4 years, they pretend to care about the people, by holding elections (and lying to their faces – the pinacpe of democracy)


Why proper socialism (communism) can never work, pt2

The future must be anarchocapitalist. The nation states can’t continue on. They’re self-destructive: politicians, once they’ve got the taste of power, will always spiral out of control. So the future is either anarchist, or it’s dead. Let’s stay positive and go for the living option: the future’s anarchist.

The question remains: which flavour? The pure, 100% anarchist kind (anarcho-communist, or ancom), or the more pragmatic kind (allowing private property, and employer/employee relationships; anarcho-capitalist, or ancap)? Since private property is inborn into all live; live that spends finite resources to acquire items like a nest to breed in, young as a result of satisfaction of hormonal urges (a biologist might say to the reason beings have those urges (Richard Dawkins famously wrote a book about genes wanting to be reproduced), I disagree with that, because the urges are simply there, they may result in certain effects, but that does not mean that those urges/the hormones that drive them, are sentient, goal oriented beings), etc. Think of a toddler that has found a toy. It may be a sharp toy, but it will dislike having it taken away nonetheless. Children will fight over who gets to play with a particular toy, when the floor is covered in unused toys.

Thus private property, is the perfectly standard mode of natural affairs. The only way to keep people out if doing that is by having a big, evil, aggressive, coercive government apparatus. So, the USSR is the inevitable outcome of socialism, utterly negating the concept of anarchism. (No-ruler-ism).

This means that all anarchism,will be ancapism or it will simply not be anarchism (and be hell on earth instead). I think the definition of anarchism should include a reference to the NAP, since anarchism means nobody tells you what to do, so long as you don’t aggress on them.
Also, ancapism is the only way to ensure environmental protection: since when the last few rhinoceroses are privately owned, people will want to view them, touch them, and pay good money for the privileges, the money can be used to finance the upkeep of the magnificent beasts, and to feed the owners as well (and his staff). Meaning the owners will want to protect their investment. And so work to ensure survival of the species, for the love of money.

Look at two species of animal: the aforementioned rhino and the cow. Cows are financially useful, so the species is maintained. Rhinos are not allowed to be the property of anyone because that dishonors the glorious creatures. So they are threatened with extinction on a continual basis. Because nobody feels compelled to endure their safety. The measures to stop poachers are inadequate, because there is no sufficient incentive to stop them.

If there are more than enough rhinos left alive to form a credible breeding population, the funding may also come from hunting permits.

How to deal with #statists

You can’t really blame statist citizens for their naive & foolish statism: they’ve fallen victim to the Stockholm syndrome.
Therefore, in,order to find out how to deal with them, one has to find out how to deal with patients suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
I’ve looked up a little bit of information, here are a few links that seem promising:

probably not a good idea

I osted this in an FB-threat (about gun control?) the other day, and thought I’d repost it here, it seemed useful.

I must say: probably not a good idea to let yourself get drawn into an escalating power struggle. Unless us citizens gain access to cruise missiles that can reach DC, it won’t work, they keep having the power, and as proves, the regime isn’t above taking political prisoners – using the court system.
It’s up to us to rise above their level, set the right example to the multitudes, and inspire them that way. So become Ghandi jr. and set the entire nation (planet) against them. This may require a clever marketing campaign, because it’s been done before, obviously (by Ghandi himself), and the mood created by the MSM is that anyone going against their opinion, is a paranoid paramilitary nut.

A historical lesson politicians won’t learn

Government is by definition not democratic. Even with a parliament (congress), of self-proclaimed “representatives” of the people. It’s still a minority ruling over a majority: #minorityRule is also called #oligarchy. And the people, not being able to exert any influence, resent being exploited and victimized. That’s why, when the allies defeated the Nazi-forces, and occupied Germany, they did not encounter any local terrorist activities. The German people were quite relieved at bring liberated from the jerk that had seized and abused power, and had thrust the world into war. “The people” had voted him in power, on account of the continued economic victimizationresulting from the treaty of Versailles, so they can’t really blamed for the consequences resulting from what they had no influence on (WW1), leading to something nobody asked permission for (WW2).
In short, in nation ststes, the people are victims of their overlords. Any party attacking that overlord, will be (initially) welcomed. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, after all, leading to a present-day sentiment of: “Vladimir, darling, how are you?”

The root of it vs desperate patching


Basically, what Paul Krugman is saying in that column, is, that it’s silly to rely on government for social services for the elderly. But instead of yanking the problem out by the root, and letting citizens arrange their own entitlements, Krugman calls for desperate patching of the demographic problems, by inviting more people into the country. I’m not opposed to people moving into an area (even if that area is in a different city, or even country), but Krugman’s approach is just to push the problem forward, causing future generations to having to handle their own (much worse?) demographic issues. This demonstrates the problem innate to Krugman’s economical theory: Keynesianism, which does the exqct same thing, but not with people, but with the economy (so: yes, with people).

Surely, there’s an easy argument to be made for curing the problem right now and removing government from this equation (statelessness would be ideal, but simply banning government from this role will perform miracles)