Laying to rest (slavery)

In this post, I am permanently laying to rest, this argument used by #communists to prove that in capitalism, people are not free, capitalism is slavery: namely

Even though there is freedom of association, meaning that one is free to apply for any job one wishes; according to desperate communists, the need to get a job in order to survive (be able to make rent, buy food), means one is not free, to live as one would want to, rather one is a slave and #capitalism is all about #slavery

They know perfectly well, that people still need shelter from the weather and they need food to survive, so if YOU won’t work for those, somebody has to: houses don’t appear as if by magic, you know, similar to food in the shops, including the shops themselves, those have to be built and farmers must grow food, for it to appear in the builtshops.
And, not to forget, people need to #transport the goods from the #farm to the #shop, if those transporters would like to be able to not carry the produce on their backs, they will need trucks. Those trucks have to be built in a factory, using tools that have to be built in a factory, using stuff (resources) extracted from the ground (eg iron ore, clay for bricks) or from nature (wood, sharpened rocks), by people, using other tools that have to be…..
So if you were to get everything for free, someone else has to pay for it. And don’t say “the state will provide”, because the state only steals from people doing actual work.

So it is just your typical comment bait by frustrated commie #HowlerMonkeys

Representative == repressive?

The words look similar, as do the concepts. If you pretend/attempt to represent tonnes of people with one single person, you cannot please everyone, in fact, you’ll displease most (I know, at first glance the law of averages has it that you please half, but people are displeased in different amounts about different things, so less than half), MP’s know that, so thry stop trying to figure out what the people want, and by extent, stop caring about what we want. They only do as they themselves want, because they’re in charge.
Which is why all self-labeled #democracies are #oligarchies: minority rule; a #parliament of 150 Dutch MPs tells a population of a bit more than 17,000,000 what to do, without really representing anyone,other than themselves. The scary thing is, observing hearings they demonstrate to actually believe that they serve the people. Impossible! There are 113,333 1/3 people per MP. Each of those people has different wishes from the next, some genuinely wish to harm,their fellow country men, those are the ones that vote communist/socialist.

And I’m not even talking about the American election fraud that won, Obama the ’08 election. And that country made duch a big fuss about imposing democracy on,Arabia, at the cost of millions of lives (and rising for the foreseeable future  – and bryond?) (link to a Dutch report)

Why does capitalism work better than socialism?

Socialism, being dictatorial, lets evertyhing (it’s always totalitarian) be decided by one person, unlike capitalism, which lets everything get decided by the market, which consists of millions of “one person”s. So, yes, capitalism is more social.

And anarchism, with its zero rulers, is the most social and democratic of all.

Who actually started WW2? (& NATO v. Russia)

I’m,going on a controversial limb and say that Neville #Chamberlain started World War 2, by declaring war on #Hitler over the invasion of #Poland. Now, obviously, that invasion was a very bad thing, but so was the occupation of Poland (& other countries) by the #Soviets following #WW2 and the occupations of so many other countries during WW2., because Chamberlain, from London, declared war on Hitler in Berlin. The distance to Poland from the UK is considerable, and includes all,of Germany itself. So, a bit weird for the UK to have an alliance with far-away Poland. And Hitler’s response to,te declaration of war was to accept it, and to get his assassins close enough to the British isles, he had to invade the Netherlands, which was inconveniebtly in the way, but at least had a coastline with the same sea (the North) with the UK.

So enter 1940-1945 some of the darkest years ever for the people of the Netherlands my grandad was kidnapped, put to work in a labour camp, upon return home, my mum was conceived. So we could easily state that I owe my existence to socialism.

Of course the invasion of Poland should have been made undone. (And it should not have been followed by a Versaille 2.0, punishing the German people for the deeds of their rulers, wihch by definition they had no influence upon, so no sanctions.)

If not Chamberlain, who should have responded to Germany’s invasion of Poland? I would suggest, Stalin. Since Rusdia and Poland share a border, there was no country in between to get caught between a rock and a hard place. What was Hitler going to do? Invade Poland to take on Russia?

This could have been kept a local war. The fall-out could have been kept relatively small: no eastern block, no iron curtain, perhaps not even Russian ocupation of Poland (no NATO, no Warsaw-pact, perhaps not even an EU) If the socialists had tried that, western forces could have taken action against that. In the real 1945, they could hardly respond to Stalin’s decision to occupy all of eastern Europe, after they let the Russians do the hard work, fight the very hard battles. Stalin got angry at the western allies for not making their move quickly enough, while the Russians were already fighting, taking casualties.

It would have meant, at worst, that only Poland would be occupied by the Soviets (really bad, but all the rest of eastern Europe may have been spared the horror of three-quarters of a century of communism.

And the Afghani & Iraqi people would not have been invaded by a NATO-alliance, because there would not be a NATO.

And there would not now be NATO-exercises held practically on the Russian border, potentially provoking WW3.

One simple bit of restraint would have prevented two wars (plus the entire cold war and its miriad hot wars.)

So: Neville Chamberlain has many a dead milion on his conscience.

This whole post has obviously been predicated upon ignoring the guilt of Hitler for the invasion of Poland,

But since this post is really about the unexpected consequences of policy. We can add WW1 to the tally of gruesome wars resulting from policy. (That’s a bit unfair, becsuse ALL wars result from policy)

If Austrians had not invaded/occupied Serbia, the Iraq-war would not have happened, and #ISIS would not exist. Because: the Ottoman empire had joined the side that lost, and got broken up as a result, creating Iraq which got invaded over #FakeNews-reports about #WMDs there, resulting in Iraqi army-officers in an American #POW-camp founding ISIS.

This reflects quite poorly on you

In,a much older post, I have written about anarcho-communism and anarchocapitalism. I have to say, I’m still convinced that anarchocapitalism (ancapism) is the most promising view (esp. compared to statism). So ancapism may be less strictly anarchist, because it allows for voluntary employer (boss)-employee relationships. A heresy to ancoms (anarcho-communists). Which makes ancapism that the only feasible way to organize real life societies.

This year (it’s 24 April 2017, as I write this), marks the centenial of the market debut of Das Kapital (in 1917). Since then communism has been the source of unquantifiably much human suffering, countless civillians killed and the economic damage (and damage to mental & physical health) is unimaginable. Still people turn to communism as their ideology of choice, knowing full well what it does

(I know Marx did not invent socialism, but for convenience sake, let’s take 1917 as the birth date of that ideology as well: communism is an iteration of socialism, which has failed just as spectacularly as communism has.

Communism requires a dictator, as much as communists try to deny that: a centralized state without dictator simply does not work. Of course, a centralized state equally simply does not work for the people, but ignoring them for a moment, one can simply recognize that unnatural structures need brutal enforcing.

On anarchist fora (forums), ancoms are desperate to try and make their ideology look good, and to slur ancaps. They resort to slander, transparent fables, and equally transparent distortions, anything to make their darling ideology look fine. The worst of it is, they know what they’re doing. Any regular person would have taken the stupendous failure to heart and dropped the ideology  but oh no, not communists. They keep kicking the dead donkey until ancaps cave in, or plain miss out on an opportunity to respond.

THAT is what reflects poorly on them: the despair to defend (and promote) an inmpossible (& harmful) system. Because just like all leftists they do not care about the wellbeing of others, only about their own enjoyment. Socialism is the perfect ideology for egotists (aka politicians), and the wrong ideology for civillians.

Bio-entrepreneur and “-ism”s

This post may seem a tad untasteful, but it serves a purpose, so please read on.

Consider what happens when living beings excrete solid waste, the poop ends up in nature (hopefully not too near a stream), and does not stay there permanently, instead it gets broken down into fertilizer by microbes.
Something develops (through evolution) so: what’s useless for one being, gets consumed by something that needs the waste to survive, turning that waste into stuff useful for the excreting beings.
Something similar happens when for instance scrap metal merchants relieve human setlements of their old cutlery, old cars/bikes, discarded buckets etc. They recycle them into metal used for making new buckets/cutlery etc.
So because the waste products can be used for profit by entepreneurs to relieve others from their waste, turning the waste into useful products for the first group. So, it’s a simple simile for natural processes.
Once again, where comunism/socialism are unnatural, capitalism isn’t an “-ism”, it’s what people do when you leave them alone.