I disagree, it’s not about making the world a better place; it’s about having a nice shout, feeling superior to others. In the language of one of history’s most famous socialists, feeling like an Übermensch to the Untermensche. (Better people/lesser people)
Oddly enough, they gang up with people that behave the same, not look the same (the “diversity” that they demand from eg universities, is based on superficial features like skin colour, sex/gender, not deeper festylures like l opinions different from theirs =heresies).
IOW this is perfectly tweaked to causing upset, it is social vandalism, they don’t care in the least for the things they claim to fight for, they’re howler monkeys that only care about satisfying their genetic urge to howl develishly (hence Simia Belzebub).
Lefties are upset that some class of people (say, corporate executives) got richer than other classes (say, factory workers)? Are they professional begrudgers?
How about being grateful that nigh-on everybody can afford to buy a car these days (unless the left wing govrtnment artificially jacked up the price with penal-taxes)? So, some people have nicer cars than others. So? WHO CARES? Yours does excellent MPG, has air con, ABS, car stereo (with MP3!), comfy seating.
How about this: queen Victoria (the actual god-damn queen! of England) had a bed in her bathroom. Meaning that she had a bed pan close to her bed. Plus a bowl of water to wash herself. Not a seperate room for the toilet bowl, with ventilation to suck out the stench, like modern houses have these days, thanks to the wealth afforded by capitalism.
If it is so important to persons that everyone is (equally) poor, that classifies them as lefties. Keen to sacrifice the interests of the entire population, to their desires.
A marxist called Richard D. Wolff, took a wrong turn somewhere in life (though he means well)
Capitalism equalizes upward, because it gives everyone a chance to do something, that enriches them. Perhaps not from bum to billionaire overnight, but even if it takes a while, to get halfway there, that’s better than being stuck at the bottom for decades. It is capitalism (here meaning free markets) that got mankind out of the oceans, into the trees; then down from the trees and into airconditioned appartment buildings and mansions. A huge improvement every step of the way, right? Mostly even before there actually was a mankind to speak of
Marxism equalizes downward (nobody is allowed to own stock in businessess, because that would mean inequality)
By the way, Jeff Bezos isn’t rich: he owns a lot of stock in Amazon, which (because Amazon owns buildings and computers and machines to stock the shelves in the buildings: capital stock) represent a monetary value. But Amazon has been running at a loss for a LONG time, so Bezos doesn’t own a lot of money.
I believe communists/Marxists try to solve economic problems while keeping the source of the problems (the state) and think it is possible to maintain the institution of violence, AND equalize): violence never equalizes, there is always an agressor and a victim (state and citizen). They are disappointing that way.
The state is an institution of organized violence, and so always fails
Dat stuk over de Haagse hypocrisie bracht mij op dit volgende idee: ipv per oekaze te regeren, moeten alle regenten verplicht het goede voorbeeld geven. Dus, om bij kameraad Klaver te blijven: geen kinderen meer nemen, en zich laten steriliseren (minder slecht voor het milieu); de auto naar de schroothandelaar brengen (recyclen) en voortaan per fiets gaan of te voet of per bus; laat hem maar te laat op zijn werk komen, dst is gunstig voor het land. Je kunt veel klagen over Rutte en Balkenende maar zij namen (iig soms) de fiets naar het torentje.
Als politici alleen maar opdrachten geven, dan draven ze door, gaan ze denken dat ze überhaupt opdrachten mogen opleggen, uit onderzoek als het Stanford gevangenis-experiment en Stanley Milgram’s elektrocutie-experiment blijkt dat de mensheid niet psychologisch gezien niet met opdrachten kan omgaan.
Politicians on the left (howler monkeys; typically socialists) have found a new hobby-horse: “inequality!”
They need hobby horses to fool people to vote for them.
Some (non-socialists) try to moderate that position by refining it to “equality ofopportunity” instead of “equality of outcome.”
Equality of opportunity is risky. Because it will lead to removal of opportunity of certain castes, because others chose to not enter certain professions, in “desirable amounts.”
In dictatorships (to govern = to dictate) , this will happen, because any dictator will chose to bend the population to his/her will.
In order to fight the so-called “patriarchy” (which is solely the outcome of women’s choices to not pursue certain careers), tyrants are already imposing laws to ban men from certain careers, where there are apparently not enough women to hire. If there were, then they would be hired on their merits, which are surely a reality, otherwise the laws forcing companies to hire people that are less suitable for such work are downright criminal.
Hayek here alluded to something interesting: state social programs are undesirable, because: when one takes with violence to give to others, one disincentives the producer to produce, by the logic of: “”Why do all this hard work, if I can’t reap the benefits?”
Now, your friendly neighborhood socialist might say: “I don’t mind working for the benefit fo others, that’s called social!”
To which one might reply: “But if you don’t mind working for them, why should it be taken by force? Just
- because you are too lazy to give it yourself? (a somewhat valid reason, I suppose)
- so you never have to get in contact with the filthy underclass? I can’t find that very social, in fact it causes social atrophy.
Newsflash re. 2: in a voluntaryist society it is perfectly well possible to have specialists dedicate themselves to dirtying their hands with the underclass of untouchables.
In closing: society is healthier (more socially cohesive) as well as cheaper off arranging its own social services, instead of allowing government to create a whole industry which demands to be fed continuously, and when there’s no more food for it, to be kept alive anyway.
So that people who run into unexpected expenses (e.g. the washing machine needing replacing) don’t suddenly have to beg others for food, because otherwise they can’t make the rent)
Waarom is het altijd zo onrustig in het Midden-Oosten? Omdat, na WO1, het verslagen Ottomaanse rijk door de zegevierende kolonialisten werd onderverdeeld in zelfbedachte landen. Waardoor allerlei (bedoeïnen-)stammen die niet bij elkaar hoorden, aan elkaar werden opgedrongen. Dat was alleen bijeen te houden dmv grof geweld & geheime politie & soldaten op straat, oftewel meedogenloze dictatuur.
Er valt geen rust aan te brengen op dat continent, zolang die gekunstelde situatie in stand wordt gehouden. Ik zie geen andere oplossing, dan heel Arabië te verenigen onder 1 grote Islamitische Staat, welke dmv Balkanisering uiteen kan vallen langs meer organische (stammen-)lijnen.
Dan laat ik nog de meest voor de hand liggende oplossing daar: alle staten opheffen, en er 1 statenloos continent van te maken, dat is de duurzaamste oplossing.