… is leave you alone, protects property rights…
Protects property rights from what? From theft by the government. Which is what governments always do, because they can not produce anything. So to protect against the institutional thievery, businesses have to grow big. What use is government, if all it does is steal from you? And if not-stealing is considered laudable, why government at all? If it doesn’t exist, it can not steal from you. So non-existence must be the most desirable form of government.
At approx. 14:00 in this vid: https://youtu.be/5nuD_CIUJzM
Wasn’t the GOP supposed to be all about big bussiness? And if you were against that, you’d vote democratic… (±2:00)
I’m all about helping people help themselves. Hence my proposal for air drops of crates of guns and ammunition. The safistic bastard Maduro should not continue (and since he’s a politician, regrettably the only way to stop him, is with violent retalliation). After this, the food supply can begin.
Actually; I’m getting cheered up about the state of the world:
- Threats to Dutch dictators (politicians)
- The fall of the junta of Venezuela
It’s almost starting to feel democratic here.
On this blog, I’ve written a Dutch post ( https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/180604-interpretatie-van-grafieken-ipcc-data/ ) about my interpretation of these data: http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html (English), the graphics seem to indicate that before, during and after the Kyoto treaty, CO2 kept rising increasingly sharp. Keep in mind that (apart from perhaps Liechtenstein and Bhutan), all governments aee totalitatlrian, meaning that they busybody the total collection of aspects of the life of all citizens. So, at the very least the people could have expected a reduction in the speed of CO2 increase. Didn’t happen.
Meaning either one of these:
- Humanity has no discernible impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so none of the economic terror committed by politicians can be justified.
- Politicians have made every effort to maximize CO2-levels, ie by means of increasing traffic jams (example: Dutch politicians for the last over half a century), or by sending expeditionary armies all over the globe (example:#4thReich). Modern wars are fought using tanks, planes, ships, etc that emit enormous amounts of CO2 (not counting Echelon, the computers of which need water cooling, that’s how much energy they burn, just to listen in on Merckel’s phone calls – Merckel was an ally of Obama! And Obama was one of Gore’s high preachers, and responsible for 7 wars in 8 years. Both had a Nobel prize for peace). Politicians are committing climate terrorism.
Either way, the economic terror is unjustifiable (as an aside, neither is the military).
Inspired by http://tomwoods.com/1173
I kinda get how the homosexual couple must have felt; “Oh, so you don’t wanna bake a cake for our wedding?! Just you wait, we’ll make you!”
When I was a hormonal teenager, I would have responded similarly (gladly, no weddings for teenagers, hormonal or not). The history of discrimination in (in this case) the USA is astonishing, and only partly in the past.
I get that homosexuals have to endure a lot of unprovoked abuse. But since this court case was presumably in the spirit of the cause of improving live for homosexuals, it would have been more strategic to find a way of, for instance, shaming the baker in public, and ordering their cake elsewhere, punishing the baker by not giving him their money. That would not have been so much of a punishment for the baker. He would have gotten what he wanted; not having to bake their cake, but alas no money for selling a customer a cake), but so would the couple. (Suppose the baker would have been forced to bake the cake; how much saliva would he have used to glue the marsipan decorations in place? I would not have been happy to take a bite from that cake, no matter how hungry I was)
What happened now, was that the state got involved in something it had no business involving itself in: a disagreement between citizens.
Also, the stereotype of bitchy gays (a contradiction in terms, surely! Gay means exuberant, bitchy does not) has been confirmed, much to the displeasure of homosexuals everywhere.
It would have been more strategic to get the cake from elsewhere, then after the wedding have a friendly chat with the baker, expressing how your feelings got hurt. Perhaps get into that, after devling into background information on his religion’s position on homosrxuality, and eventually parting ways in a friendly manner. That way the cause would not have suffered a setback, but instead may have even been advanced, by converting the baker and having him act as a champion in his religious community.
But instead they chose to go the statist route, and violence never solves anything (unless you are unhappy with too many people liking you). It must take real frustration to involve the state (in the sense of nation state, not united state), because that is the engine of evil.
My letter to the New York Times: (re https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/opinion/europe-euro-democracy-wrong.html ), someone had to tell them what is wrong with the politics on the land mass this side of the Atlantic.
A bit late, forgive me; but I would still like to reply to Paul Krugman’s column “What’s the Matter With Europe?” from May 21.
As a Dutchman, I can tell you why there is such increasing support for “anti-parties”: the governments have basically turned on the people, and the people are fed up with that. Indeed, the dictatorially imposed single currency plays a big role in that. Also, the fact that immigrants have long been used as a baton against the people, which through high taxation had to pay for benefits for the immigrants. While taxpayers’ lost their jobs, they have it hard to find a house to live in (while immigrants recieve preferential treatment in housing), due to the incredibly high population density (about 10* that of the USA), the fact that governments are responsible for half a century of traffic jams, which they stubbornly keep refusing to solve, even in spite of their fearmongering about the climate. One who really believes CO2 is harmful to the climate, surely would make an effort to alleviate traffic problems, instad of worsening them, which is what the state actually does (it occurs to me that’s treasonous attempted murder).
Then there’s the matter of the fine quotas for the police in order to reduce the budget deficit, which the Dutch parliament genuinely voted on. Amazingly, it was rejected, but to my knowledge not one single cop resigned over that anti-democratic shambles.
Finally, remember the vote in Catalunya? The junta from Madrid used a SWAT team to beat the love for Madrid into the people of Catalunya.
What horrible dictatorships the European governments are. Failed states, the lot of ’em.
“If you don’t like it here, then leave! Good riddance!”
Is what some morally/intellectually unflexible persons might say to anyone mentioming the concept of secession (a region splitting off of a certain political unit). To which I say:
I can find no reason to agree with that. Since the state ranks somewhere near the bottom of the hierarchy (well below any citizens), if the state is misbehaving toward me, I’m in my right to change the state. If (out of politeness) I would not wish to impose my will upon millions of others (democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner), then I can always create my own political unit, independent from the origin-state. On the very same patch of earth I’ve always called home.
After all: the state is dependent for its existence on the permission of ‘its’ citizens. So citizens can hardly be expected to have to bow down to the state. Therefore, if citizens are comfortable in a certain geographical region but unhappy with the state; why should they have to move out of that region? It makes much more sense for that region to move out of the state. If the state doesn’t like that, tough mammaries; it should have behaved better.