Inept UN & Venezuela ‘s humanitarian relief

I’m all about helping people help themselves. Hence my proposal for air drops of crates of guns and ammunition. The safistic bastard Maduro should not continue (and since he’s a politician, regrettably the only way to stop him, is with violent retalliation). After this, the food supply can begin.
Actually; I’m getting cheered up about the state of the world:

  1. Brexit
  2. Trump
  3. Threats to Dutch dictators (politicians)
  4. The fall of the junta of Venezuela

It’s almost starting to feel democratic here.

Advertisements

No, Philip Goff, taxation IS theft, and here’s why

https://aeon.co/essays/if-your-pay-is-not-yours-to-keep-then-neither-is-the-tax
(coming from https://contrakrugman.com/ep-137-is-taxation-theft-not-if-youre-not-entitled-to-your-paycheck-in-the-first-place-says-philosopher/ )
No, Mr. Goff, You are the one who’s confused, even distastefully so. Because the state is an immoral actor (oppression against one’s will is a tautology and always immoral).
Not only that, but the state could not exist without the people, therefore the people rank hgher in the hierarchy than any government (the people can easily exist without the state – they’d even flourish in the condition of not having to fear for their life, health or property). So, the state – which had confiscated the monopoly right to issue money – can only issue money for the use and benefit of the people. If the state steals too much money from the people, the people can simply up and leave (some already do – Monaco is a popular residential area among wealthy people, with zero taxes)
If the people wish to keep the proceeds of their labor, they are perfectly entitled to keep every fraction of it.

“Disappointed in capitalism”

You may hear some people say they’re “Disappointed in capitalism.” interestingly, capitalism ain’t what you’re disappointed in, amigo.
Sure, the western societies tend to lean more toward capitalism than to communism. That doesn’t mean they’re properly capitalistic! They’re… statist. This is apparently too fine a point for most socialists since Marx to grasp, because they keep identifying the wrong cause for the world’s misery. Time for progress (what lefties all boast about but appear allergic to), time to limit government to its only proper role: reducing government. (It’s most orderly if a government does that. Going via a minarchist phase into statelessness, a sudden shock in the form of a revolution will offer quick temporary gratification but will result in chaos).
So what these people are most disappointed in, is: the state’s meddling with stuff. That’s what causes the trouble and the inequality.Because the state has a magical authority, it can be co opted by big businesses. If there is no magical power, or institution claiming it (a state), how couod anyone try to seize it for their personal use if it doesn’t exist? Putting it in place, preying on the gullibillity of people might work, but requiees,a lot of patience.
Yes, this applies to you too, #AbbyMartin. Your personal internet show appeared to be in the right track, the title caused expectations: “empire files.” But instead of being critical of the empire, you seemingly adore the idea of an empire, so long as it does what you want it to.
C’mon! That’ll yield exactly what I wrote about above, but then different cronies will determine policy.

Battlefield
Politics is really a battlefield, where all sides lose. If (A) has the power, (B) gets/feels oppressed and (ab)used. So then, when (B) gets power, they use that power to take revenge on (A) and so forth and so on, ad infinitum.
Most recent example of this: after 8 years of Obama, the people were fed up with the abuse by the left. So they voted Trump into power. After Trump, who knows, what democrat will seize power and misbehave just like Trump did? Perhaps Bernie Sanders will have another go at it? The guy’s a jew, AND a socialist, (how confused/ignorant of the facts of one’s adopted ideology can one get?). 100 years since the Russian revolution and he’s still a socialist! It’s been 60 years,since the end of WW2!
People voted Obama because they where fed up with Bush2, even though they thoroughly enjoyed protesting against his wars (something they lost the urge for, when Obama was president and continued killing millions inbl watlrs of vanity), and they were fed up with not getting what they wanted. So they voted for Barry.

Marx and inequality

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/karl-marx-at-200-influence.html
Celebrating Karl Marx’s birthday! Such a daring feast of being-wrongness can only be executed by the paper that hosts the oft refuted column of Paul #Krugman, who calls himself an economist, yet most of his writings are about how bad Donald #Trump is (there is indeed plenty to complain about with The Don) and how good mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is and could I please have a job in your cabinet, miss? So, they’re about politics, not economics.
He’s no more than a very partisan politician.
Being partisan (on the side of the government, not the people) is ofcourse par for the course in politics. Power hungry humanoids.

Mikhail Bakunin was more right than Marx. At least according to the label in the article: “anarchist”. I know that many ancoms (ansrchocommunists) claim that Marx (and Lenin, Stalin) wanted a stateless world.
I have trouble believing tha. Not only because of the horrible?Soviet outcome, but also because Marx proposed a central bank, and there are quotes that refer to the role of the state.
I do not own a copy of Das #Kapital (though I have downloaded some digital versions of it, but their text could have been altered by removing undesirable passages, or adding content) so can in no way speak with any authority on the contents of the book. Which is a problem with holy books that offer instructions on how to live. It is also why #capitalism is the better #ideology: it actually is an ideology, unlike communism, which can be whatever you say it is, or rather: whatever you say lord Karl said. As his word is definitive.

educated liberal opinion is today more or less unanimous in its agreement that Marx’s basic thesis — that capitalism is driven by a deeply divisive class struggle in which the ruling-class minority appropriates the surplus labor of the working-class majority as 😘profit — is correct.

I do consider myself educated, so it is my view, that Marx proposed an ideology that is based on profound inequality, though an ever so slightly different one than existed in his time, but it was even more severe. In Marx’s time, the state colluded with big business, because their interrests alligned. Hence the Prussian model of education, where all children were trained to be around very similar ones (age, intellect, geography, wealth). Because #diversity would not a good regiment of soldiers or tame factory workers make.

#Inequality
Instead Marx proposed a system that could only be imposed by a powerful leader, who would seize power and transfer all power to him, away from the #people, where it rightly belongs. Such political inequality could only lead to economic inequality. Stalin forced people into the #Gulag as slaves that needed to be taught a lesson. And to help fund communism’s #BasicIncomeGuarantee, or #BIG, because slavery was the only way to make the state (pseudo) productive. The only thing the system could produce, was aversion leading to resistance, so the Gulag also served to keep people in line, aka exert political power over them. #Hegel apparently really thought the state was more important than the people.

Marx’s “surplus of the labor” is being taxed away by many a #socialist government, meaning Marx’s basic thesis is being perverted by socialists, that appropriate the surplus profits of the working #caste, for their own pleasures. #IncomeTax.
#Socialism is all about promoting/generating inequality; which is not something to celebrate. New York Pravda editors!
Better to celebrate the lives of Mises, Rothbard etc., because they are the only ones that proposed a system that stands a chance at leading to political (and #economical) equality. But oh no: those are too #progressive for that. Better to celebrate the birth of one of the most #conservative fantasts (alright, call him a thinker if you insist) of history.

Thanks to Brion McClanahan for sending me the link to the New York Pravda article.

Vertegenwoordiging van hele bevolking onmogelijk

Het is onmogelijk om de hele bevolking van een land te vertegenwoordigen. Nederland telt plm 17mln inwoners, dat zou betekenen: 17mln vertegenwoordigers, echter, dan is er niemand meer om te vertegenwoordigen. Dus: 8,5mln vrttegenwoordigers voor 8,5mln burgers; maar wie vertegenwoordigt dan de vertegenwoordigers?
De enige echte vorm van democratie is zelfbestuur. Mensen zijn bij uitstek in staat om voor zichzelf te kiezen. Indien miljoenen mensen hun keuze maken, vormt dat vanzelf beleid.

Quote from H.L. Mencken

I believe in liberty, but not enough to force it on people

I disagree with the stalemate Mencken recognized: if people wish to live in a dictatorial regime, where they have zero say in anything that happens, #libertarians can simply force freedom upon them; which is exactly what they want: have changes forced upon them.

Likewise, freedom (#libertarianism) e.g. in the form of anarchocapitalism, or even minarchism/libertarianism is far more desirable than socialism/communism, which requires absolute statist homogeneity.

Because in ancapistan it is possible to purchase a patch of land, put a fence round it (barbed wire or not), then build some houses there and let people live there, according to your rule. That rule may be: only public/communal property allowed. (Typically this applies to everyone else, because obviously: you’re needed to enforce the rule) in ancapistan that’s ok, because you bought the property, so you set the rules, and people that voluntarily choose to live there, agree to abide with those rules. In (socialist) states, it is impossible to have a capitalist commune in a (socialist/communist) state, because all land is publicly owned (ergo, by the state; not by any member of the public) and the state determines the rules on all its land.