“Ancaps/minarchists condemn people to big business”

No we don’t. In fact, the exact opposite is true: statists (in particular socialists) condemn the people to the undemocratic will of big donors, lobbyists, etc. Yes, this is also true for #BernieSanders (as he darn well understood, but he still campaigned as protector of the little guy from big biz).
It’s only in direct democracy (self-rule) that citizens have any say in how their affairs will go.
Because the smaller the government (preferably 0), the less ability it will have to push its will on the people, meanungbthe less likely it is for businesses to try and have the government impose regulations that benefit that business, or a particular sector.

Advertisements

Burgemeester Bloomberg ondermijnt democratie

Het regime van Obama (Democratische partij) had het (niet-bindende!) klimaatakkoord van Parijs getekend, volgens dat akkoord zou de Amerikaanse belastingbetaler 4,5 miljoen dollar moeten betalen. Juist doordat de Amerikaanse kiezer het daar niet mee eens was, hebben ze op Trump (Republikeinse partij) gestemd. Zulks is de aard van de democratie. Dat oud-burgemeester Bloomberg besluit om lijnrecht tegen de wil van het volk in, toch dat geld over te maken, bewijst maar weer hoe rot de politiek is, hoe weinig ze zich van het volk aantrekken.
Lange termijn-verdragen zijn ondemocratisch: als partij A een verdrag tekent, en bij de volgende verkiezingen wordt weggestemd, dan is dat een teken dat men het verdrag niet wil.
Democratie: 2 wolven en een schaap die stemmen op wat er op tafel komt.

Bestrijding vuurwapengebruik inderdaad belangrijk

Nederland is hard op weg de 51e Verenigde Staat van Amerika te worden (nu ja, is het al lang), gezien het enthousiasme waarmee de Haagse Junta meedoet met bezettingsacties door het 4e rijk (de VS). Juist die zijn de reden dat er in de VS zoveel schietpartijen zijn. Vergelijk et Zwitserland: stuurt nooit een bezettingsmacht naar een ander continent(!), en hoeft dus ook niet het volk zo gek te krijgen dat ze die misdaden steunt. Ondanks dat 100% van de Zwitserse huishoudens een vuurwapen heeft (VS: 60%), is (zelf-)moord daar bijzonder laag.
Dus is het erg belangrijk, ook voor de eigen veiligheid, dat we Den Haag aan banden leggen.

Why Tesla ain’t bankrupt yet(won’t take long?)

The Tesla car company has never run a profit, but still it exists. This is seemingly because the government And other investors keeps pouring money into it, but those other investors will likely want to see some return on investment, something that a loss making business like Tesla, cannot provide.
The US government (which really is a zombie, with unaffordable and rising debt) now only subsidizes Tesla, because Tesla is supposedly a pioneer in saving of the climate from horrible photosynthesis. Omce this catches on, and all car makers have switched to electric or hydrogen, there is no longer a need to subsidize Tesla. Leaving out, that when the US government goes bankrupt, it will be unable to pay for anything anymore, never mind PC give aways like subsidies to cronies like Tesla. Instead they’ll focus on enriching the cronies at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon etc, because killing foreigners is what the government needs to survive the anger of the people over its inability to provide services in exchange for the high tax extortion.

Why are hybrid cars bad for the environment?

You can’t add lots of weight to a vehicle, ie make the engine perform more work (pulling in motion the batteries, or braking them to a stop), and expect it to consume less energy.
The only reason hybrid cars SEEM more frugal, is because they lose less energy on the typical state-operated road (with lots of stoplights, traffic jams, and similar obstructions) well, actually, they lose the same amout of energyas regular cars, but they are able to recoup some of that energy. Newton teaches us, that that is no energy gain (otherwise hybrids would be perpetal motion machines). So in order to reduce CO2 output, the state needs to do something itself, make the sacrifice of repealling the decades old policy of causing traffic problems. Or it must cease to exist, what everyone who truly cares for the climate (and believes that there’s a manmade climate crisis going on) has no other option but to wish for.

Subsidizing obesity

You may have heard there is an #obesity epidemic going on in the USA (and to a lesser degree in Europe as well).
This is due to the government’s farm #subsidies, raising e.g. #sugar production. While at the same time the government has a ministry (department) of #health, spending lots of money on obesity related issues. That even goes so far as to claim that it’s #obesity which causes #diabetes, which of course is nonsense: they have a shared cause, namely excessive #carbohydrate consumption (in particular fast, or highly glycemic carbs like #sugar or even #grains), which are #subsidized by the ministry of #agriculture.
As is to be expected in a totalitarian regime, it likes to meddle with even the slightest details of all citizens’ lives. But there are so many aspects to all those lives, and only some citizens are #farmers, so the #subsidies benefit only one small segment of the population, while actively harming the rest (that has to pay the #subsidies through involuntary taxation). And justifying more taxation to fund higher health costs.
This is bull-excrement. And can only be happen with a #schizoid institution, like government, where information passes other information by, due to entrenched interests, and established practices (#policies)
Remember the #milkLakes and the #butterMountains? More reasons to ditch subsidies; they’re wasteful, and so harm the economy. As well as causing more farm animals to be kept, which according to the most political of politicians (the left), is a bad thing.

To close off, some writing about diet:
Excessive eating in general does not make one fat, because it’s not calories that deposit fat. If it were, fat would have to be able to make you fat (being the most highly caloric of the 3 macronutrients).
Since only carbs can do that, and #carbs are equally low in calories as protein (which ARE essential, unlike carbs), eating a diet of mostly carbs, may be low in calories, but that’s only the second part of fat loss; the first is to stop gaining #fat, ie cutting the carbs. At the very least the fast (subsidized) ones.
Otherwise, you’d starve yourself to death trying to lose some fat. Which is fought by the consumption of carbs, meaning you have to reduce food consumption to cripplingly small amounts.
Fat provides 9 #calories per gram, while carbohydrates and #protein each provide 4 calories per gram. (I guess those are #Kilocalories)
But finally, there is one small bit of the science of gaining fat that I am less certain about:
Sure, it takes carbs to trigger the release of #insulin, which shuttles nutrients into cells (protein into muscle or most commonly/frustratingly, fat cells) but what nutrients get shuttled into fat cells? Surely, they’re fat molecules that get deposited, fat molecules that first have to be ingested. (Similar for protein, obviously), which explains where Michel #Montignac’s diet came from (“Lose fat by not consuming fat and carbs at the same time!”)
Insulin can only be triggered by carbs, not by fat. Therefore, so long as you don’t consume (more than minor amounts of) (fast) carbs, you won’t get fat.
This suggests a fool-proof way to prevent the yoyo-effect following extreme caloric restriction: after having lost the desired amount of fat, undo the caloric deficit by eating more fat, after that, you’re quite safe to eat carbs again (but don’t overdo it or you’ll gradually regain fat again, though not in a short amount of time, like with the #yoyo-effect)

Legitimacy

Referring to: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/levitsky/files/lipset_1959.pdf
The title of Seymour Martin Lipset’s paper:

Economic development and political legitimacy

emphasized that goernments that do not serve the people well, have no right to exist. Therefore, economically disastrous policy leads to an unstable government (Lipset speaks of democracy; I cannot call any government anything other than a dictstorship). The people have in all cases a right to exist, simply as a consequence of their existence. To the contrary, a government is an unnatural, adverse entity, that uses force to coerce people into certain unnatural modes of existence/behaviour.
The second ‘unnatural’ refers to forcing multiple people that would otherwise avoid each other’s company, together punishing natural behaviour, like removing burglars from one’s own home, this is punished by judges. (Welcome to the Democratic Kingdom of the Netherlands), since much to the ancom’s disgust, private property is a perfectly natural concept, it is also perfectly natural to wish to defend that property. Which has been obtained through muvh sacrifice (like getting up to go to work every morning), or in nature: running after a prey real fast, on an empty stomach. It makes little sense to not defend the result of such effort; the posession of goods/food. The government does not want you to defend your own home by yourself, instead when a cook breaks into your home, you’re to sit back and pray that the cops show up on time. And if they don’t (very likely), that they are able to retrieve your stolen goods (long) after the fact.
Governments that do not serve the interests of the people (protecting their safety/their property’s safety, either from orhers or by choosing to violate people’s intereststhemselves) have no letitimacy.
One of those interests is economic safety/well being. Governments, through their central banks have caused so many economic crises, that they have waived their legitimacy.
Now let us suppose they did not intend to cause the economic misery (a stretch of the imagination. Such inabilty to learn from the past is fodder for the hypothesis that homo politicus is an evolutionary branching off of homo sapiens, but: let’s stretch the imagination for now), then that in itself is sufficient reason to acknowledge the waiving of its right of existence and be done with it.