Common sense gun laws

Certain politically active folks have decided, in very poor taste, to exploit the killings of 17 children in the #FloridaShooting to try to have their political way, to have the government pass “common sense gun laws”. There is only one kind of common sense gun law, and that is the one that removes guns from the hands of people proven to use them to kill., meaning military personnel (as well as drug dealers) ’cause let’s face it: the US is the most experienced/prolific attack force on the planet. No country is safe from US meddling, it’s far from conspiratorial for Russians to fear attack by the west/USA, when in violation of agreements with Russia, the USA is moving NATO ever closer to the Russian border.
In fact, this may be a bit far fetched, but worth considering nonetheless: the reason GWB started the war in Afghanistan to justify putting a NATO base that close to Russia. Consider this:
To reach that North Atlantic Treaty Organization-base, members of the treaty have to swim south, out of the Noryh Atlantic, past Morocco/Mauritania/etc, into the South Atlantic; go round the cape of good hope, then on the east of Africa, you go back up north again, through the Indian Ocean, into the Arabian sea, then walk ashore in Pakistan, and walk a bitmore until you’ve reached (the NATO-base in) Afghanistan.
Afghanistan did not pose any kind of threat to the USA, the president didn’t even so much as cough in the direction of the US emmissary at some international meeting. The excuse of “having to kill Osama bin Laden” was no more than that, an excuse. They did manage to kill Osama (remember that as governor of Texas, GWB signed off on a record number of death penalty-executions, so the yearning to primitively exact murderous revenge was perfectly in character for him.)

According to Brown university, the human toll for the pointless war in Afghanistan since 2001 is (in 2016): 173000 killed and 183000 seriously injured (I presume those were only Americans, not Afghans or other NATO-members). Wow, such an effective way of defending the people, Mister secretary of Defense, sir (or miss, I dunno and don’t care). Starting a war to send them to their death or to permanent retirement due to horrible mutilation.

The world would be so much of a nicer place if all armies got disarmed.
Te people will have to do so by themselves, because there’s no chance that politicians will agree to do that themselves, voluntarily.
If only the people would stop signing up! That would help the economy so much. And many sign up due to the bad economy, thereby keeping the economy down, and keeping the flow of new assassins steady. Better to start a business of their own. Of course, bloody occupational licensing makes this needlessly difficult.

Drug dealers

Nixon’s “war against drugs” caused the deadliest war in the history of the American people, the “war over drugs”. Just like the prohibition made Al Capone filthy rich and caused so many gang killings in the strets of Chicago – killings that went away after prohibition was lifted the war over drugs kills many people, also puts many in jail (for victimless & non-violent crimes), breaking up families, causing so many children to have to get raised by single parents. And thus making them ripe to become the next generation of gang members. The most infuriating bit is: that politicians know about this, and deliberately continue on, thwarting any attempt to put a stop to the cycle of injustice, for the sake of continuing the violence.
Fortunately, there are people on the Christian right that recognize that breaking up the nuclear family causes more damage than it supposedly fixes.
So: remove guns (and the authority to use force, to arrest people) from the #DEA, in,order to sharply reduce gun violence.


Drug bans should be decentrallized

Let individual communities ban drugs (if they choose to), people that are principially opposed to the ban, or that like to use drugs, can then move to a different community. Try doing that with the state; that state will just bribe/pressure neighbouring states to adopt its policies, ad infinitum, until the whole world is homogenous. In its victimization of the perpetrators of this victimless crime.

Drugsoorlog in Brazilië

De junta neemt Nixon’s “War on drugs” wel erg letterlijk, door de macht aan het leger over te dragen. Ik heb een betere, meer duurzame, meer menselijke en ook goedkopere oplossing: schaf het verbod op drugs af! Dat verbod maakt dat mensen bereid zijn, om meer te betalen voor de drugs, wat bendes lokt.
Wat een imbeciel, die president.


Locked (in a spiral)

I guess I’ve divined the motivation for what lies at the core of DC’s policy, both foreign and domestic: the desire to lock people in #prison.

When the #warondrugs ran out of capacity to satisfy the junta’s desire to lock people behind bars, they invented

the #waronterror to be able to send armed thugs to other continents to collect new prisonfodder.

And FYI: #Trump fits the pattern very well, sctually, he takes it very much farther , by proposing to fence in the country, under the guise of keeping out Mexicans.


What if #drugs wouldn’t be banned? (and #alcohol)

The illicit nature of the drug trade attracts many an insane, sadistic criminal character.
What if drugs were not illegal?
Then they would not be so profitable as to attract people like that.
Where would those people go, if there would be no drug trade for them to end up in?
Well, they would likely not end up in such crazy situations where their sadistic nature flourishes. So the damage they caused would be limited to only a few unfortunate souls.

But what about the less insane criminals? You know, the regular Joes who only got into drug running, because they needed money to buy food/pay rent? Those people would have ended up adding up to the sum of productive members of the economy. Also, the considerable amounts of money spent on expensive drugs could have gone to more affordable products and services, from more suppliers.
Meaning: the ban on drugs is bad for the entire society AND the economy.

Compare drugs to Alcohol (without bringing up Al Capone): how can you tell alcohol isn’t banned? By the fact that the top managers of Heineken and Grolsch (and Hertog Jan, and…) don’t hire assassins to kill eachother off, blow up breweries, torch liquor stores that sell competing supplier’s products, but ibstead try to compete, on price, package design, product differentiation, etc.


Social contract – a refutation

Having written about the social contract before:
And like to revisit the concept: contracts are between multiple parties (at least two): since the social contract is supposed to be between the population and the government, the contract is null and void. Because one of the parties has forsaken its obligations:
The people aren’t safe from the government which keeps starting wars that kill their children on the battlefield and provoke retalliation like 9/11, #Brussels etc; the war over drugs (caused by the ban on drugs)
Taxation without representation
Imprisoning people for victimless crimes (drugs again)
Or for not letting themselves get stolen from
Causing max CO2 emissions while taxing (and blaming) the people over CO2 emissions.



Ik betwijfel of dhr. Van Aartsen in staat is om de liquidaties tegen te gaan. Indien hij daar al toe bereid is…
De oplossing is namelijk criminelen de wind uit de zeilen te nemen en bv drugs niet meer te verbieden. Want dat verhoogt de prijs die gebruikers bereid zijn te betalen, wat aanbieders aantrekt.