“Hitler was not a real socialist!” There must be something wrong with your ideology when you have to denounce its most succesful proponents. Yet socialists/communists Continually do so, because Hitler is impopular. Incredibly there are those that defend Venezuela, for its equality (Karabolut of the Dutch SP.)
Yet, what is socialism? Theft to give away to more PC people. What did Hitler do, to alleviate the housing shortage in Germany? He stole some land in other countries, to give to the people of his own country. How socialistic is that?
I frequently say, that anarchism (ancapism: anarcho capitalism instead of anarcho communism or ancomism) is not chaos, but legitimate order. The literal definition of legitimate is “imposed by (government) law”, which is why order imposed by the state is not legitimate (in the vernacular sense) and is thus not orderly; it depends on fear for reprisal; if people think they can get away with something, fear of reprisal melts away. And disorder (unlawfulness) follows on its heels.
In ancapistan and its close relative, minarchia (a minarchical state; with minimal government), which are societies based on private ownership, the private owner may allow access to the property (esp. smart if we’re talking about private roads, or hotels/convention halls, etc.), so long as one obeys certain rules, if one finds the rules unacceptable, one does not enter that property. Instead one attempts to find some other property where the rules are more to one’s liking. Possible due to the decentrallized nature of governance.
The vernacular sense
This is why ancap societies, are more legitimate (legit) in the vernacular sense of “feeling justifiable.”
I believe in liberty, but not enough to force it on people
I disagree with the stalemate Mencken recognized: if people wish to live in a dictatorial regime, where they have zero say in anything that happens, #libertarians can simply force freedom upon them; which is exactly what they want: have changes forced upon them.
Likewise, freedom (#libertarianism) e.g. in the form of anarchocapitalism, or even minarchism/libertarianism is far more desirable than socialism/communism, which requires absolute statist homogeneity.
Because in ancapistan it is possible to purchase a patch of land, put a fence round it (barbed wire or not), then build some houses there and let people live there, according to your rule. That rule may be: only public/communal property allowed. (Typically this applies to everyone else, because obviously: you’re needed to enforce the rule) in ancapistan that’s ok, because you bought the property, so you set the rules, and people that voluntarily choose to live there, agree to abide with those rules. In (socialist) states, it is impossible to have a capitalist commune in a (socialist/communist) state, because all land is publicly owned (ergo, by the state; not by any member of the public) and the state determines the rules on all its land.
Socialists (like the Dutch politician Emile Roemer and the American Bernie Sanders) enjoy stoking the bullshite fire about pharmamaffia driving up prices for medication. Particularly nasty, because government requires all medication undergoes extensive (and very costly) testing before being allowed onto the market.
“But that’s a good thing, because I want my medication to be safe.”
Fair enough, but don’t you dare complain about high prices. Because you asked for the high costs, but you want someone else to pay them. That is why socialists are anti-social and egotistical.
BTW, there are better ways to ensure safety of medication. Ways that do not keep medication off the market, because the incredibly high costs make medication for rare illnesses too much of a financial loss, because the junta-mandated expenses can not be recovered. It’s better to have full transparency, without the government’s ominous shadow obscuring matters. Then the reputation of pharmaceutical companies will see to it, that they continue to attempt to provide high-quality medication. There is no institution of magical authority that they can hide behind, or can rope into doing their bidding, to hide any wrongs from the people. This way the people, in a proper democracy (self-rule) can protect themselves/eachother.
For without such the malicious example given by government, society will become much more social.
In this great book Chaos Theory Bob Murphy partially quotes Thomas Payne: government is a necessary evil. Actually , the full quote is that government is atbest a necessary evil; at worst it is an intolerable evil. And going by what Professor Emeritus of management (bestuurskunde) Gabriël van den Brink reports,
government (esp. The Dutch one, but really all governments I know of) has made an effort to become as intolerable as possible, even going so far as attempting to kill the population, while blaming them for it! (After half a century, they surely know how to cure the traffic jams, that cause so much economic damage and such high emmission levels. One would be justified to expect that the CO2-hysteria would have them make an effort to cure the traffic jams, after 52 (!) years they know how to cure them, but they simply refuse to do it, wilfully causing high CO2-emmissions, which they condemn as harmful. That is not simply negligent, it is downright evil/murderous.
What is the “solution”? A travel ban per 2030, which must have been invented by GroenLinks (GreenLeft, formerly the, well, one of the communist parties), the party that was invited to negotiate to take part in the governing coalition, negotiations that (ostensibly) failed, but yet their wishes are made law, even though the voter voted against them. But such is the nature of dictatorships, that policies the voter voted against, get pushed through anyway. Per 2030 sales of cars with internal combustion engines are banned.
It’s the excise tax upon gasoline that is used to subsidize electric vehicles, public transport, and the soon equally banned hybrids too. So those already unaffordable cars will be even more expensive.
The claim appeRs to be that EVs don’t waste energy in traffic jams. Which is obviously patently ridiculous, as anyone with even a minor comprehension of physical reality will realize.
So in actuality, the way they hope to cure the traffic jams must be by bankrupting every single citizen. And so removing all traffic. As I said: beyond negligible, downright evil.
It is a bit tiresome that so many leftist arguments all revolve around the evil rich guy.
On top of that, it is disheartening, that their desire is, to make the situation worse, by growing the state/giving it more power. Thus making it a bigger lure for rich guys, that wish to get richer by having the junta throw contracts their way, or by having the junta make it harder for competitors to enter the field, by imposing regulations that established businesses can easily comply with, but that cost upstarts more money and effort.
So why exactly would anyone vote for socialists? Not to better the plight of the little guy, the big guy adores socialism, because it offers him such opportunities.
The richest people under socialism, in terms of not just money, but also the only real political currency (power) are the politicians, the people are poor as heck, not just monetarilly, but also power-wise.
Referring to these posts: https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/10/18/world-starvation-caused-by-vegans/
I posted about the threat to #life on the planet posed by veganism in a Facebook group, and triggered some rabid dimwits (most likely #communists) that refused to accept my argument (that vegan farming is unable to replenish the soil, so will lead to all soil to become infertile. #Veganism depends on stuff like artificial #fertilizer, made from #finite posphate. When that runs out, so does food.)
Cattle produces the manure needed to (re)feed the soil.
Some vegans in the group, immediately sought refuge in the #safespace of “cattle farming takes up too much space!” completely failing to address the argument. Instead they posted links to aerofarming, an admittedly smart system of vertical indoor #farming in hanging baskets, using LED light, and apparently without nutrients (fertile soil) for the plants to grow in. Others claimed they simply extracted nutrients from the bed rock. (Completely non-durable, not-renewable). They were so obsessed with disagreeing with me, that they self-rejected their own claims, leaving my claim wholy intact.
What presumably also plays a part, is the fact that I encroached on their terrain, by posing a terrible threat from their way of life. It’s their prerogative to feel smug and superior, when criticizing others.