Gêne mbt zorg

De heer Kuijten uit Nuenen (Telegraaf, WuZ, 28 jiun 2018) legt zonder het te weten de vinger op de zere plek wanneer hij klaagt over dat de zorgbonzen ongepermitteerd profiteren van de hoge vraag naar zorg. Juist omdat je als burger geen invloed mag hebben (permissie mag verlenen), kunnen zorg-pipo’s steeds hogere salarissen blijven opstrijken. Het plan van kameraad Roemer om onder een andere naam het ziekenfonds weer terug te brengen, gaat dat niet oplossen, omdat de burger daar ook geen invloed op heeft. Zolang de staat niemand anders zldan zichzelf vertegenwoordigd (“We leven in een democratie” Hahahaaa!), !s het niet zo vreemd dat politici drukker bezig zijn om toekomstige baantjes, bv bij een zorgverkeraar, veilig te stellen door de belangen van de burger op te offeren aan die van de toekomstige werkgever. Laat de burger diens eigen zaken eindelijk regelen, een corrupt instituut als de Haagse junta hebben we niet nodig. Hoe meer macht bij de politiek, hoe minder de burger heeft.
De politiek is met alles zo schandalig slecht bezig, dat je alle gêne opzij moet laten amputeren om daarin te gaan.

Advertisements

Slavery

Ancoms get off on calling #capitalism #slavery, because in capitalism you have to work for a living or else you die. [because you are a slave to yourself, you are the master in this master slave relationship; sounds quite voluntary to me; and slavery is not voluntary but compulsory labor].
In #socialism/#communism, the food just magically appears on the table, so communism is superior.

Hold on. In communism, food is not grown? (Turns out it’s not; on the orders of Stalin, millions of Ukraynians starved to death, and Kim Yong-Il starved milions of North Koreans to death, because acepting foreign aid would be an admission of incompetence by the state that is the monopolistic supplier of food) because human beings have to put the effort in to grow food, and trust me, the term back-breaking labour was first coined by an exhausted farmer, after a day’s work tilling the field.

In fact: growing food is such hard work, the socialist man that Marx dreamed about (who would do all work free of charge, just to supply his fellow comune-inhabitant with the food he needs, to… well: lazily hang around all day, every day.), If he comes to realise he could do something nicer than break his back day in, day out, namely, do some light weeding in his garden, then do some resting on a lawn chairand work on his tan, and have other farmers break their backs. That would lead to the under-production of food, the fields of crops all going to waste, because they’re not harvested on time. So: starvation ensues. A wise entrepreneur would buy the farm off the farmer’s hands and start producing food the former farmer can buy, without breaking his back. Hold on: that’s capitalism, not glorious socialism.

And because under socialism, the farmer can’t sell his farm to a hungry entrepreneur, because

  • Entrepreneurs don’t exist under socialism (presumably under penalty of years of hard labour)
  • Farms are already the property of everybody, so can not be sold, to people that are better at doing the hard work (doing it harder or smarter, or eventually a combination of both; or hiring staff to help them; automate it)

the only way a socialist state can cause enough food to be grown, is by slave labour.

Looking back, I understand why socialists still adhere to their debunked ideology, and urgently refuse to let go of it; it is so difficult to read a whole, long blog post like this. Especially for an intellectual it is too much asked to follow a logical train of reasoning that goes in the wrong direction (refutation of all that needs to be true)

Wat te doen met de Sharia

In sommige kringen is het populair om te zaniken over de sharia-wet, en dat aan te voeren als bewijs voor de slechtheid van “de moslim”. Die slechtheid blijkt niet genetisch te zijn, (grote schrik!), want in Doebai heeft de regering een speciale economische zone ingesteld, om de economie te laten groeien. Ipv afhankelijk te zijn van olie en verder niets, willen ze daar ook een financiële dienstverlenings-industrie telen. Volgens de Sharia is het verboden om geld tegen rente te verhuren. En dus geldt in die zone geen Sharia.
Dus als PVV’ers graag de Sharia wensen uit te roeien, is het beter om samen te werken met de mensen.
Ik weet dat ze graag ruzie hebben met linkse politici, die op hun beurt weer graag ruzie hebben met wie dan ook. Maar daar schieten onschuldige buitenstaanders niets mee op. Houdt de roverheid erbuiten en laat het in plaats daarvan organisch oplossen.

“Capitalism is slavery!” vs “Socialism is slavery”

Another one from the anarchist fora on Facebook: which is the ideology that depends on (is most responsible for) slavery, capitalism or communism? Since communism is socialism refined to perfection, the two terms can be used interchangeably.
Ancoms keep reverting to “In capitalism, if you don’t work, you die of starvation.”
This makes sense, but does not turn work into slavery.
One argument against it, might be: “In capitalism, you own yourself, so if you wish to go hungry, you go right ahead and spend your money on things other than food. So working for money means you are a slave to nobody but yourself. If you don’t like a particular job, you quit and find something else (not necessarily in that order).
In socialism (not in Marx’s fairy tale version, but in the cold hard reality of life), nobody will work, because it’s more comfortable to sit on the sofa, get over your vodka binge of the previous night. Because initiative is not just not rewarded, but actively oppressed under socialism, there is not much else to do other than get drunk. You get the same amount of goods, whether you do something for them or not. That means there is no stimulus to achieve anything. So all human progress will come to a halt in Marx’s dream world.
Unless the small handful of central planners designs initiatives, which can not be smoothly, naturally introduced by entrepreneurs, but instead have to be forced through with brute violence, putting people to work in “corrective camps” (Gulags), to chop enough wood in the frozen tundra of Siberia for export, to enrich the centrally planning state apparatus. And to build train lines (which cost thousands of lives and hardly get used: no capitalist would waste such amounts of labor, time and money, only a Stalin would do that to punish people for not being perfect commies), to dig up nuclear material to make bombs.
Or speaking of death by starvation: central planning of the whole chain of agricultural production (production of tractors»digging up enough iron ore»planning for the mining industry, which requires people to be fed» planning for the agricultural sector)

Masterpiece cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Inspired by http://tomwoods.com/1173

I kinda get how the homosexual couple must have felt; “Oh, so you don’t wanna bake a cake for our wedding?! Just you wait, we’ll make you!”
When I was a hormonal teenager, I would have responded similarly (gladly, no weddings for teenagers, hormonal or not). The history of discrimination in (in this case) the USA is astonishing, and only partly in the past.
I get that homosexuals have to endure a lot of unprovoked abuse. But since this court case was presumably in the spirit of the cause of improving live for homosexuals, it would have been more strategic to find a way of, for instance, shaming the baker in public, and ordering their cake elsewhere, punishing the baker by not giving him their money. That would not have been so much of a punishment for the baker. He would have gotten what he wanted; not having to bake their cake, but alas no money for selling a customer a cake), but so would the couple. (Suppose the baker would have been forced to bake the cake; how much saliva would he have used to glue the marsipan decorations in place? I would not have been happy to take a bite from that cake, no matter how hungry I was)
What happened now, was that the state got involved in something it had no business involving itself in: a disagreement between citizens.
Also, the stereotype of bitchy gays (a contradiction in terms, surely! Gay means exuberant, bitchy does not) has been confirmed, much to the displeasure of homosexuals everywhere.

It would have been more strategic to get the cake from elsewhere, then after the wedding have a friendly chat with the baker, expressing how your feelings got hurt. Perhaps get into that, after devling into background information on his religion’s position on homosrxuality, and eventually parting ways in a friendly manner. That way the cause would not have suffered a setback, but instead may have even been advanced, by converting the baker and having him act as a champion in his religious community.

But instead they chose to go the statist route, and violence never solves anything (unless you are unhappy with too many people liking you). It must take real frustration to involve the state (in the sense of nation state, not united state), because that is the engine of evil.

Not real socialism v not real capitalism

I’ve found a way out of the eternal “real communism hasn’t been tried!” v. “Real capitalism has never been tried” debates that keep raging on anarchist fora (for “communism” or “socialism”, read “communism/socialism”). The reason that the west has grown so rich is, because of real capitalism. The reason the west is now turning poor (economic crises in 1929 and 2008 will be repeated, time and again by our wise overlords) is because of socialism (state control of factors the state is incapable of managing), not capitalism (free-market management of things the market deems desirable, of which there are a lot fewer than what the state wishes to have control over)
The central banks were the cause of afore-mentioned crises, and they were also part of Marx’s prescription. The west is not really socialistic (too much of a capitalist slant for that), but it is (its own version of) socialism, which is causing the (social & economic) problems of the west.

Surely, proof positive of hypocrisy

When socialists claim that the crash of 2008 is to blame on capitalism, that surely is proof positive of their hypocrisy. After all, how many socialists are not acquainted with Das Kapital (Capital), probably not that many. And in that booklet of his, Marx proposes central banks be in charge of the money supply.
And since Marx was a socialist: the crashes of 1929, 2008 and the coming collapse of the economy of the euro zone, are to be blamed on socialism, not capitalism.