Wstching this vid, and hearing Mr. Jordan mention “Afraid of getting caught”, I got inspired to write the following:
“Afraid of getting caught” describes the contemporary justice system to a T, which is why there is so much “crime” (victimless). Legal crime isn’t about doing wrong or harm, but about displeasing some MP. It’s not about committing misdeeds. Which is why people feel no qualms about committing the “crimes”. All punishment for crimes is limited to the consequences of getting caught. Your conscience will not nag at you for any actual wrong-doing, because none has been committed. This will transfer to actual (harm causing) misdeeds, escalating into a dog eat dog criminal society.
“Meldpunt tegen drugskoeriers”, ipv te leren van de ellende die de drooglegging in de VS heeft veroorzaakt (talloze doden, de vestiging van de georganiseerde misdaad – de opkomst van Al Capone. En de stijging van de criminaliteit – welke pas verminderde nadat de drooglegging gestopt werd.).
Laat iemand de staat eens op zijn plekje zetten, hen een lesje over democratie lezen. Als ze per sé iets te zeggen willen houden over drugs, reguleer het dan, net als alcohol (gewoon bij de buurtsuper te koop, v.a. 18 jaar), en dat veroorzaakt beduidend minder problemen dan het drugsverbod.
Ik heb een idee: een meldpunt van slecht beleid, zoiets bestaat al en heet de staatscourant.
Als op-en-top overheidsinstituut, moet de politie niet zo vreemd opkijken dat ze niet genoeg agenten heeft. Want ze miepen wel heel PC dat ze meer allochtone agenten willen hebben, maar zolang het beleid is om bij vergrijpen met extra aandacht naar autochtonen te kijken, is het niet zo vreemd dat allochtonen bijster weinig zin hebben om bij de,politie te gaan werken.
En dan nog: dat niet de helft of meer ontslag heeft genomen vanwege de bonnenquota, vind ik ook al boekdelen spreken over het volk wat daar werkt.
As any good parent will know: sure, some offspring must be threatened with punishment to keep them inline (as in: if you don’t behave on camp, you will get no deserts the entire week), but if the child does misbehave (a bit), the trick is to let them have a desert anyway (occassionally)
Acknowledge you failed (a bit) and don’t take that out on the kid. Hopefully next time they will behave better.
Because the parent knows, there will be a next time, time doesn’t stop. The child will want to live (and has to do so as part of growing up, anyway; the only alternative would be to kill the kid… )
Of course, I intend this as an analogy with the national legal system. Where the state only ever seeks to resort to (threats of), sometimes even deadly violence.
While sometimes the judge acquits a defendant, the sizes of prison populations suggest that it isn’t very often
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.
Communists are opposed to the idea of private property. Yet private property is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Because: the default mode in nature is to constantly be on the verge of starvation, because energy (food) is scarce, and even requires energy to acquire. (Hunting or forraging) So, once acquired, the creature will want to reap the benefits itself, and eat that food – replenish the energy lost in acquiring it, and satiate the hunger that prompted the attempt at acquiring the food in the first place.
Which is why Cheetahs drag their catch into a tree, lions fight off hyenas/other lyons. Any creature that continues to let others steal its food, forcing the creature to make another attempt, invest more energy, and then risk having that prey stolen once more.
The same holds true for nests, though not edible; it costs energy to build one, so a bird will not want another bird to steal its nest.
Of course, offspring is very costly in terms of energy investment, so the parental instinct to protect offspring is another manifeststion of the instinct to protect private property.
Anarcho-communists are both opposed to private property, and political rule. Of course, one cannot expect that an entire society full of people will voluntarily choose to fight their own natural instincts and abolish private property. Therefore, commnism requires a political ruler, a despot to enforce non-ownership on his (if communism wouldn’t have claimed 200 million casualties, I’d call it a delightful irony) subjects.
Ancoms are typically agressive people, because:
- Leftism attracts violent characters, due to its nature
- The mental gymnastics needed to try to unite such opposite concepts inevitably results in mental fatigue/spraining of the mind.
Kijk naar Capone, de misdaad is groot geworden in de VS dankzij het alcoholverbod.
Dus de roverheid bezorgt zich lekker veel werk en macht door de maffia groot te maken met dit verbod.
Dat is het enige waar het die psychopaten om gaat: macht (en rechtvaardiging: “kijk, jullie hebben ons nodig om de maffia te bestrijden, kijk hoeveel doden die maffia-oorlog eist; zonder ons wstonden jullie hulpeloos tegenover de maffia)