Legitimate order v. State-imposed order

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.”


When the leaders aren’t so glorious

Take the famous (notorious) example of Obama. Who has publicly stated belief in what Pastor Gore said in the church of UN, has no doubt contributed to the ongoing rise of CO2, since ± Kyoto, by way of his 7 wars in 8 years of being president (1 Nobel peace prize, 0 days of peace), given that wars these days consume more energy than in the era of the knight in shining armor on horseback. Because back then, there were no tanks, aircraft (, drones), no Echelon computers spying on the people (and listening in on cell phone conversations of leaders of allied countries – Angela Merckel), and consuming so yonking much energy that Michael Boldin of the http://www.tenthamendentcenter.com proposed getting Utah to stop supplying the 17 million gallons of water the stasi needs to cool the computers. The enormous energy saving would reduce energy consumption and thus CO2 output considerably.
Globally less well known is how the Dutch politicians make every effort to maximize CO2 levels by having spent almost every week since 1966 (by now over half a century! 52 years) campaigning to prevent solving the traffic jams on the highways. (And the local juntas did their bit by programming the stop lights in such a way that they halted traffic so much, that emissions increased needlessly much, and caused countless frustrations in the population).
Oh, there’s the bit where both Obama and Dutch politicians have repeatedly publicly announced believe in the whole debunked http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4/pdf political hypothesis of dangerous CO2. Either:

  • they didn’t believe CO2 was risky, (in which case they’re lying their rear ends off for political gain at the expense of the people, that are a prerequisite for politics to exist in the first place)
  • Or they do (in which case they tried to kill al live on the planet by deliberately changing the climate).

Any which way, they should be prevented in the future.

How to defend the population

Mr/Ms/Mrs secretary of Defense, if you are sincere about defending the people in the country, stop sending them out to nonsense wars, because a veteran shoots him-/herself dead at an average of once per minute. These veterans (citizens) were not defended from violent death! So the title Department of Defense is a grand misnomer.

In fact I believe that the majority of gun deaths in the US, is a suicide, whether veteran or not. I do not know what drives the other suicices, but let’s assume that economic woes play a not inconsiderable role. If anything destroys economies, it’s killfare, so the offensive wars of choice probably contribute to those other suicides as well and are the exact opposite of defense.


All offensive wars cause grudges (the only “happy” exception perhaps being Vietnam), and those grudges may result in a violent response, a returned military attack.
Or terrorizing the world may result in counter terrorist responses (9/11).

The only way to defend you, the nation (the political construct) is making the people feel you deserve it, and then hoping that they will come to your defense, when a hostile-army is at the gates, so they think that, under a new regime, they will be worse off.


“Donald Trump is not my president!”

Apart ftom the fact that Donald Trump is the president of the US government, not the people in the US, I could say the bloody same about Barack Obama, yet he, very much against my express(-ed) will, sent the Dutch army on penal expeditions I whole heartedly disapproved of. But I, as a Dutchman, can truthfully say that:

Obama was not my president!
(Nor is Trump, btw)


A slight misquotation

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.


I swear

The next time people expect that an oath will suffice to make the people in power not abuse those powers. I’m sure the people responsible for what happened to Rodney King took an oath to protect people like him, and George W Nush, when he got sworn in as president, took an oath to defend and uphold the condtitution,which h then wiped his ass with, by signing the Patriot Act, much to the detriment of someone like mostafa (see the film “Washington, you’re fired”, linked below, at around the 12:00 mark in particular)

Oaths don’t mean shite to the people taking them, so please world, abolish them. Having people take an oath before them entering some office, or commencing duty in some official capacity is a sign of weakness.
Since the blind faith of the oath does not guarantee there will be no sbuses, stronger measures to keep those in power, in check (whether physical measures or not) are needed. The tale of Damocles offers inspiration. It’s either that, or abolition of the whole office.


Revisiting veganism (voluntary limitation)

Follow up to: https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/vegans-and-other-communists-are-so-tiresome/

It just dawned on me, that one mistake made by people who fervently promote veganism, is that they presume that the growth of the population is untenable, and must therefore be allowed to continue. (This phrasing is correct, even though it seems to make no sense)
It seems more likely that if food shortages become endemic, that people will stop breeding. As unlikely as that seems, given that even with the dire future (economic & political) prospects in the west, people keep breeding;
also Africans keep spawning starving offspring.
I’d propose the following explanations for that:
Africans are kept barely alive with foreign aid.
In the future when global starvation has hit, this will be imposdible. There will be no food available to ship to Africa, to alleviate hunger there.