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)


Don’t blame the Germans pt2

What I originally meant to say in my post was that it was correct to not sue the Quandt family for any profits made by selling batteries for V2 rockets etc. to the nazis, or by selling uniforms to the imperial army a world war earlier.

These people were just trying to make a living under circumstances they had no influence upon.


It’s true that ruthless relentless legal pursuit of business owners like the Quandts (or those behind Boeing, Lockheed Martin,etc.) is the only way to prevent future wars by scaring them out of supporting the warmonger-regimes. It’s theonly way democratic regimes may be convinced to not thrust the entire nation’s economy & security onto the dumps by picking a war of choice (vanity wars, coz: “sending teenagers into the battlefields makes us look good & fearless”)

When a country has been defeated militarily, it is in a horrible state economically, so unless the people there are able to make a living they are doubly punished for something they had nothing to do with.

So, contrary to both invasions of Iraq, which commenced after only negligible planning, any time a regime feels the need to start a war, it must take into account what happens if the war goes as hoped (as well as when it doesn’t), and provide jobs for the citizens of the losing regime, to make room for prosecution of the warfunders.

This will not sit well with the domestic population of the victorious expeditionary army’s politicians, because the war is ruining their economy as well. (Don’t let talk of the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex fool you; perhaps a few industrialists profit, but the majority of the tax victims doesn’t) This means that the war just ought not to be started at all.

Another reason to not take it out on the industrialists is that regimes tend to steer the prevailing mood among the population to breaking point, to where a certain amount of people is foaming at the mouth with warlust. This warlust will affect the entire population to see to it that it’s considered a good thing to at least not hinder the war effort.

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)

Communism needn’t have been evil

As contemporary ancoms (anarcho-communists) are keen to emphasize, there has never been a real communist state. Since communism is supposed to be anarchistic, the centrally-led dictatorships we’ve come to know as communist, were only supposed to be half-way solutions to full-fledged communist anarchism/anarcho-communism.
That it turned out that communism was the worst political system to live under, with horrible totalitarian oppression and high death tolls following a meager existence at low living standards, reflects poorly on the ideology, the fact that it attracted such despots speaks poorly for Soviet-era communists and even (perhaps especially so) for today’s socialists who’ve had so much more time to experience different kinds of state-organisation than the followers of Lenin and Stalin had.
Anarchism (the supposed end state of communism) makes oppression impossible, because there is no state to wield its magical authority to force people into a particular mold. The fact that many of today’s socialists are such power-hungry despots, reveals much more about them than it does about socialism. Which of course had enough to complain about, even without all the failed attempts to run states (no more than systems for the care of the inhabitants). The failed state is a system which presumes that the citizen is to serve the state, or one where the state abuses the citizen.
Chairman Mao Zedong wrote in The Little Red Book: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
that quote speaks volumes for the mindset of those who adopt communism.
Again, my ranking of importance, with justification:
The citizen (since the emergence of bipedal life on earth for the longest time it has existed without state a.k.a. leadership)
The state (politics can’t exist/is nothing without citizens, think of an Afdolf orating in the bathroom, to his toilet bowl for lack of attendance at Nuremburg).

The Bridge – spoiler warning

If yu ‘re watching the warlier episodes of “The Bridge” you might want to postpone reading this post until after episode 7.

I’m currently watching “The Bridge” on Netflix. It’s a good show about the investigation into a murder victim being found exactly on the Danish – Swedish border on the Øresund bridge, this being investigated by a team of detectives from both countries.
After some time, a bus with of school children gets kidnapped, and the perpetrator promises to kill one child for every demand of his that’s not met. He demands that five businesses are set on fire because they profit from child labor.
Of course, anyone in their right mind will applaud chiod,labor: because a child working in a sweatshop is a child not working the streets or in a brothel.
Read studies on sweatshops, like “Out of Poverty: Sweatshops in the Global Economy” (Cambridge, 2014)

which indicate sufficiently clearly that sweat shops offer the highest salaries in the region and that people there would rather receive higher wages than more vacation time or other similar luxuries, at least: that’s how the people themselves feel, when asked. Of course, their wishes are subservient to the wishes of western do good-activists.

On wealth and ideologies

Wealth creates wealth, builds upon previous wealth.
It takes wealthy people to buy products from others, making the producers wealthier (and the purchasers too: for otherwise they would not have parted with the money). Those producers can then, in turn, purchase products from others, and so forth and so further.
Wealth breeds safety and security. When one does not have to worry about acquiring the basic necessities for life (food, drink and shelter), one does not have to consider acquiring those by violent means, risking injury or even death (or social ostracisation),wasting resources one does not have due to one’s poverty (war presumes wealth: which is why it is very unlikely that North Korea will go to war).
Paradoxically, poverty creates empoverishing conflict while extreme poverty prevents it. Making socialism the most potent force for peace the world has ever known.

Growing the #economy by running a succesful business not only enriches thousands upon thousands, up to millions, but then enables these richer people to give to charity themselves because they now have more disposable income than they immediately need (so do not have to live hand to mouth).

Capitalists are not likely to deliberately put people in unsafe factories. It is not in their benefit for people to risk their health there. Capitalists will provide safer factories, if they would result in higher productivity/fewer complaints/strikes by the workers.
This would be for his own good, for increased profits.
Being a sadist, intent on harming workers, takes money and effort, which one cannot afford to spend on such unproductive matters, unless one is a capitalist.

Capitalism doesn’t tend to have people alwith an innate desire to tell people how to behave, because doing so is wasteful,of effort better spent on producing stuff.
Socialism on the other hand, is all about telling people what do do, and if the glorious leadership would rather not hear that, they easily turn aggressive. This means that people with an inherent violent streak are most likely to gravitate to socialism.