Basic slavery

If the basic income would get introduced, that would (in my humble estimation) lead to Soviet-style slavery to get the dirty jobs done (aka the Gulag),because there would be no possible (financial) incentive for people to do the unpleasant jobs, like building tall buildings. That’s how the Soviets ended up with the tall baracks complexes (“Apartment buildings”). They had Gulag slaves to dig the uranium out of the mines, they also used slaves to cut down trees in order to get the wood that was the premier Soviet export commoddity.


Social contract

The “social contract” is supposed to say something to the extent of: “by living in this country, you agree to abide by government’s requirements.
Which could be considered as a justification for the iron curtain: because you were living in the USSR, you agreed to having us make your live as hard as humanly possible. Oh, and we don’t want to let you leave, because your persons are belong to us. !?!?!??

Apart from the (valid) argument “I didn’t sign that!”, how about: “contracts are between 2 or more parties” and clearly government (the failed state) is not holding up its part of the deal, by harming the interests of the people (not only Venezuela, DPRK etc. Do so but certainly every NATO-country which is provoking islamic counterterrorism, and also making war with Russia more likely by the day, by opening new NATO-bases, or holding military exercises, ever closer to the Russian border all the time.
That is NOT representative of the interests of the people!

Then there’s the economic malfeasance of toying with the currency, and so having caused depression after depression.

The following is inspred by

See the bottom video (“You can always leave”)
Why should I leave? I’m not the one creating the bad situation, so why should the burden of departure fall upon me? (If I would leave – where to? Then I would leave behind millions of other victims for politicians, so leaving would be rather selfish. More pragmatically considered: if the entire population just up and left, there would be no country left for politicians to rule.
And besides, if I move into a different society, I implicitly sign its social contract, choosing to feel that the laws and customs are at the top of my list of most desirable ones (least undesirable ones). This leads to the following:

The only way a social contract might be used, is in this weak form:

“When people live among eachother, certain modes of behavior are more conducive to happy cohabitation.”

So people not killing, or stealing from, others, etc. would fall under the social contract. Note that the tit for that-mechanism (or fear there of) will do just fine for encouraging respect of the social contract: there’s no need for a big, extorting, bully, that breaks social contract rules itself (by stealing taxes from the people, by killing some of them – in war, or in a penal system)

It’s not the government I agree to by living there: by (attempting to) rule over us, they agree to abide to our rules. Because the state of nature is independence and so government is an unnatural construct on top of the natural state of being, government is only tolerated so long as they behave acceptably well, so in effect, the people can behave toward government any way it chooses to. Government is on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy (if even that high up, as to be on a rung at all).
Also, it’s society’s rules I agree to live in accordance with (regarding murder etc.), and since government is hostile to society, and in no way representative of society, I owe no allegiance at all to government.

No, Hitler wasn’t a fascist (& Stalin)

#Hitler was a socialist, although socialism was international and the National Socialist Hitler wasn’t internationally minded – as witnessed by his attempting to bring so many nations under the umbrella of one single nation, the third Reich. That he was in charge of (of course, who else?)
Also, he was quite the racist (though perhaps he wasn’t, deep down inside; maybe he only used persecution of Unermenschen as a tool for getting elected. – divide and conquer. He was callous, in his readiness to sacrifice other people’s lives to make his own happy dream true. And Mussolini’s party even had a few jewish members. Black leaders were very positive about him (until the invasion of Ethiopia, of course.)
But Stalin was quite fascistic, though: one of the features of fascism was that the state was considered a sentient being in its own right. Stalin famously (notoriously) instated the Gulag, the Main Directorate of Corrective labour camps.
Good, grief! Let that sink in for a bit: the state deigns to reeducate (correct) the people! The people it is entirely dependent upon for its mere existence!

Fascism = socialism

The socialist Mussolini loved what WW1 did to Italian society: it made everyone band together to fight the enemy, instead of each pursuing his or her own interests.
– aka it imposed #socialism.

Each pursuing his own interests is what makes a country of milions of individual citizens run smoothly, each citizen adapting to his own surroundings and finding ways to make do as best as they can.

– Adam Smith wrote something along these lines (not quoting verbatim):

“It isn’t from their benevolence that we expect the baker to supply us with bread and the farmer with vegetables, it is their own care for their own self-interests that makes them want to satisfy our needs to enable them to satisfy their own needs.”

Leaving aside that socialism depends on central planning to have everyone’s needs met, which can’t be planned (as proven by the evils of the USSR) meaning the smooth system of every citizen causing their own needs to be met, can’t exist in socialism, denying some the possibility of meeting their own needs. Central planning is chunky & bumpy, not smooth.

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).

Hunch re the happiness literature. & statism

I have a hunch re the happiness literature and why such studies would rank countries where government is most intrusive, as countries where people are happiest:
Those people have lost the capacity of independent thought, and independent living.
They don’t know what they’re missing.
Think of a laboratory animal which was born in captivity and hasnever known freedom. Such an animal gets released from its cages, then ecapes, following its instincts, it runs into the wild it has never known, it does not know how to gather food, or find a safe place to sleep or find shelter for the weather. Meaning it will die in the wild.
BTW the kind of people likely to release such poor lab animals into the wild and thus condemn them to a miserable death are the same bleeding hearts likely to strive to imprison millions of people (à la “behind the iron curtain #socialism”)

Those aren’t people anymore; they’re mindless drones. Recall the TV-coverage of when Kim Jong-Il died, and North Koreans were interviewed about that by state-TV? They were balling their eyes out, hoping to appease the regime, frightened for being singled out for such questioning. If they didn’t show sufficient grief over losing him, they’d get punished.
Just because the despot died, didn’t mean the state did.
BTW that’s another reason why a sudden, violent uprising is inferior to gradual change by increasing awareness (through #minarchism). Gradually increase resistance, making it harder for such regimes to continue to exist/maintain dominion.
One way might be to increase the wealth of the entire world, literally shrinking regimes such as North Korea and Venezuela, until they could no linger continue to exist.

Why socialism is bad for society

#Socialism empoverishes in a sectacular way. Some goon (Sadet Karabolut) from the Dutch socialist party claimed that #Chavez took on the rich oligarchy by nationalizing the oil-industry.
That is exactly why #Venezuela is dirt poor! I do wonder how many dogs there are left now, on the streets of Venezuela. The only problem Venezuelans had concerning pests, was that there were not enough dogs: they were all hunted for food. Sure, there was a second problem: the pests had seized the reigns of the country and were committing horrible murder on the emtire population.
ecause thanks to the nationalization of that oil industry, the richness the oil reserves could offer the people only goes to Chavez’ family, or goes up in the air, to reach nobody.
Poverty means people lie, steal, deceive and cheat for sheer survival. Smiles are never real, unless they’re over a succesful theft or scam.
That’s not very social, yet it’s utterly socialistic.
Remember: #capitalism is not an -ism: it’s what people do if you leave them alone. Socialism,IS an -ism: it’s imposed with superior force by power hungry #sadists.
Which comes first in #socialists? #Egotism or #sadism?
Socialists (like Karabolut) have a big mouth about (in-)equality, yet under socialism, some are more equal than others