IMHO the state has no say on immigration. It’s the people that are affected, so,they are the ones that should have a say in it. Like chosing whether to sell/rent them living space. Freedom of association. After all, who complains when someone moves house from one city to another?
You wanna stop the aversion against immigrants is the state’s involvement in social welfare, through compulsory payments. If only the state would keep its mits off, immigrant haters would have much less hatred of immigrants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche and https://maoistrebelnews.com/2013/05/31/what-is-the-juche-idea/ inform that the North Korean juche idea’s purpose is, to empower the people, to help them escape bourgois oppression, through independent empowerment.
Fer goodness sakes: I can’t put any blame on the North Korean victms, they had no choice in the matter (meaning that DPRK is just as democratic as any western state), but socialists/communists in the west CAN know better than to voluntarily believe the self-deluding nonsense Kim Il Sung espoused to justify his oppression of an entire country’s worth of humans.
Noryh Korea is so collectivist that no individual is allowed any independent empowerment, to the point that the state is even the only food supplier. And is responsible for the default mode of starvation of the entire country’s population, so the individuals have no other choice than to grow their own food. I presume that in order to escape imprisonment as traitors to the revolution, they must bribe the equally hungry officials with some portion of their food.
A reason for private ownership
This brings to mind, a reason for private ownership of the means of production, especially in such a communist hell hole like DPRK: suppose you don’t live in a bourgois suburb; you know, a nice house, with a garden around it, where, instead of a pond with koi for decoration/relaxation, you can grow vegetables, you know, for survival, not bourgois pleasure. Instead, you live on the 30th floor of a housing baracks, without garden. But you’re still hungry, so what do you do? You rent/purchase a plot of fertile land, and till that to grow your own food. You can’t rent from the state; all land is for all the people.
Once again: in 1917 people might have been forgiven for embracing socalism, bt in 1945-1950 there was no reason gr someone to embrace it, other than sadism. Never mind about the socalists that are still active today.
How to defend the NAP from accusations of endangered species getting bought up by rich people that house them as pets (in unnatural environs) / will hunt them for sports in a voluntarist world.
Such can only acquire endangered animals when their private owner sells them to them. Or they have them stolen, such a theft will likely not go as unnoticed just like their arrival in the suburbs.
The owner of the wild life reserve in Africa will only sell the animals when he has a sufficient reserve of members of the species, to prevent extinction which would endanger future profits to be made. Much like how cows are put to death in order to be eaten/relieved of their skin, yet don’t die out, because the profit margin of all future sales of cows (products derived from them) is greater then the immediate short term boon which pales in comparison to the prolongued earnings capability derived from maintaining the species.
So, quite basically, Libertarianism’s NAP and private ownership are no impediments to the survival of endangered species, rather the opposite is true: they make their survival more likely.
If waiters want to earn a #livingWage, let them put in the effort to earn it. So long as #waiters (called “garcons”; boys) are no more than students that don’t know/care much about the grub they’re serving, the job isn’t considered worthy of a high wage.
Compare this to #French waiters, that can inform the customer exactly about the finer details of the #food & #drink on the menu. French waiters are often adults who take their jobs very seriously. Which is why they do earn a good wage, instead of depending upon tips.
If potential #employees (unemployed students/actors) can’t find restaurants willing to offer higher wages for higher quality of service, talk it over with the manager, offer him a business proposal, by stating you’ll likely add xx extra revenue to his restaurant. I don’t now, take a cooking class, so you now what you’re talking about. Anything.
Let the waiters talk it over with the chef and manager. Show some initiative, instead of pushing for the government to force employers to pay you more for the same, sub-par work.
Of course, tipping should still remain in the culture: if service is good, then it is rewarded with higher tips.
A downside of working for tips is, that waiters sometimes get penalized for the chef doing a lousy job. If the food is under cooked/burnt, then the customer likely won’t tip, and since the chef doesn’t get a share of the tips, but rather a fixed wage, he doesn’t feel the same stimuli (at the same time) as the waiting staff does, so he might end up cooking poor meals and not knowing how much customers dislike it. It is “not very common” for customers to fill in report cards about the food.
The take-away: become an added value proposition for the employer, talk about it with them, invest the time and effort (& initiative) to start genuinely earning a higher wage, and so receiving it.
Socialism is the ideology that leads to greatest selfishness. After all: starving people have little energy/resources to empathise with others.
This is demonstrated on the streets of Athens, where people are starving to death, while passed by on the streets by those few lucky enough to still have a job.
At least with capitalism people will still have enough wealth left over in order to care for others. Again, a quick recap of Social Atrophy is in order:
By removing contact with others (by moving social wellfare out of the hands of the people, into the hands of the state, people are trained to have less concern for their fellow man: after all: “If already so much from my paycheck goes towell fare,,why should I bother about the less fortunate?”)
Written by Marjorie Hansen as a reply to a post on Facebook, about millennialism:
I don’t agree but I understand. In the 1970’s paying for college meant doing without a car for a few years. Today’s college graduates/Millennials owe more in student loans than I paid for my first house. The jobs their career guidance counselors, professors, and parents promised them just aren’t there. College as “just a good experience” is economically viable for only the wealthy. Yes, my generation failed them by handing out too many trophies but I think it goes deeper than that. We encouraged them to do as we did while “the times they are a changing”.
Reprinted with permission
I recently heard someone claim that “surely, nobody can deny the jews the right to have their ancient homeland back.” Well, get ready, because here I’ll be calling that racist nonsense. It isn’t a group of people that happen to be of the same race that have any claim on historic land/property. It’s only individuals that can show they have a contract (maybe inherited from their grandparents) showing they are the rightful owner of something.
Clearly, race can’t be used as a deed of ownership, if it could, I (a white guy) coud steal another white guy’s TV and get away with it. Now, if that white guy had stolen his TV from a black guy, and that black guy was able to prove this (with a purchase receipt), he could reclaim his TV from me.
So, yes, once again, private property saves the day, prevents long drawn out wars (like the middle east, which I conveniently label as one single war, though it’s obviously much more complicated). Just like saving the environment / protecting endangered species.