#Friedman about #SocialEntropy: it’s people that should take care of people, government should play no role in that.
Ps go watch more Milton Friedman-videos, they’re delightful!


Social contract

The “social contract” is supposed to say something to the extent of: “by living in this country, you agree to abide by government’s requirements.
Which could be considered as a justification for the iron curtain: because you were living in the USSR, you agreed to having us make your live as hard as humanly possible. Oh, and we don’t want to let you leave, because your persons are belong to us. !?!?!??

Apart from the (valid) argument “I didn’t sign that!”, how about: “contracts are between 2 or more parties” and clearly government (the failed state) is not holding up its part of the deal, by harming the interests of the people (not only Venezuela, DPRK etc. Do so but certainly every NATO-country which is provoking islamic counterterrorism, and also making war with Russia more likely by the day, by opening new NATO-bases, or holding military exercises, ever closer to the Russian border all the time.
That is NOT representative of the interests of the people!

Then there’s the economic malfeasance of toying with the currency, and so having caused depression after depression.

The following is inspred by

See the bottom video (“You can always leave”)
Why should I leave? I’m not the one creating the bad situation, so why should the burden of departure fall upon me? (If I would leave – where to? Then I would leave behind millions of other victims for politicians, so leaving would be rather selfish. More pragmatically considered: if the entire population just up and left, there would be no country left for politicians to rule.
And besides, if I move into a different society, I implicitly sign its social contract, choosing to feel that the laws and customs are at the top of my list of most desirable ones (least undesirable ones). This leads to the following:

The only way a social contract might be used, is in this weak form:

“When people live among eachother, certain modes of behavior are more conducive to happy cohabitation.”

So people not killing, or stealing from, others, etc. would fall under the social contract. Note that the tit for that-mechanism (or fear there of) will do just fine for encouraging respect of the social contract: there’s no need for a big, extorting, bully, that breaks social contract rules itself (by stealing taxes from the people, by killing some of them – in war, or in a penal system)

It’s not the government I agree to by living there: by (attempting to) rule over us, they agree to abide to our rules. Because the state of nature is independence and so government is an unnatural construct on top of the natural state of being, government is only tolerated so long as they behave acceptably well, so in effect, the people can behave toward government any way it chooses to. Government is on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy (if even that high up, as to be on a rung at all).
Also, it’s society’s rules I agree to live in accordance with (regarding murder etc.), and since government is hostile to society, and in no way representative of society, I owe no allegiance at all to government.

The root of it vs desperate patching


Basically, what Paul Krugman is saying in that column, is, that it’s silly to rely on government for social services for the elderly. But instead of yanking the problem out by the root, and letting citizens arrange their own entitlements, Krugman calls for desperate patching of the demographic problems, by inviting more people into the country. I’m not opposed to people moving into an area (even if that area is in a different city, or even country), but Krugman’s approach is just to push the problem forward, causing future generations to having to handle their own (much worse?) demographic issues. This demonstrates the problem innate to Krugman’s economical theory: Keynesianism, which does the exqct same thing, but not with people, but with the economy (so: yes, with people).

Surely, there’s an easy argument to be made for curing the problem right now and removing government from this equation (statelessness would be ideal, but simply banning government from this role will perform miracles)

Hunch re the happiness literature. & statism

I have a hunch re the happiness literature and why such studies would rank countries where government is most intrusive, as countries where people are happiest:
Those people have lost the capacity of independent thought, and independent living.
They don’t know what they’re missing.
Think of a laboratory animal which was born in captivity and hasnever known freedom. Such an animal gets released from its cages, then ecapes, following its instincts, it runs into the wild it has never known, it does not know how to gather food, or find a safe place to sleep or find shelter for the weather. Meaning it will die in the wild.
BTW the kind of people likely to release such poor lab animals into the wild and thus condemn them to a miserable death are the same bleeding hearts likely to strive to imprison millions of people (à la “behind the iron curtain #socialism”)

Those aren’t people anymore; they’re mindless drones. Recall the TV-coverage of when Kim Jong-Il died, and North Koreans were interviewed about that by state-TV? They were balling their eyes out, hoping to appease the regime, frightened for being singled out for such questioning. If they didn’t show sufficient grief over losing him, they’d get punished.
Just because the despot died, didn’t mean the state did.
BTW that’s another reason why a sudden, violent uprising is inferior to gradual change by increasing awareness (through #minarchism). Gradually increase resistance, making it harder for such regimes to continue to exist/maintain dominion.
One way might be to increase the wealth of the entire world, literally shrinking regimes such as North Korea and Venezuela, until they could no linger continue to exist.

On corruption

One might hear the argument that #capitalism, with its basis in #greed is most susceptible to #corruption but in reality it’s socialism that is most lends itself to corrupt practices, by: increasing poverty, causing people to be more desperate for basic (but in socialism quickly unaffordable) amenities such as food, clothing, shelter, drink (water, not alcoholic per se).
Also, not to forget: in socialism, all pay (apart from the party leadership, of course) is equal, regardless of work. So the sewer-cleaner has the same pay as the farm inspector/ harvest collector who can be bought off with a small sack full of potatoes,to feed the inspector’s hungry family, and turn a blind eye when the farmer sells another portion of his harvest on the black market. Meaning that socialism requires thousands of civil servants to violate their own interests, for the good of the socialist dream of the party-leader. How do you think that will go over time?

Compare this to the situation under #capitalism/#voluntaryism: Where the level of #wealth is considerably higher, while also being more fairly distributed (not all wealth is reserved for only the party-leadership)
Poor people in the west typically have, say, a car, a wardrobe with fresh changes of clothing. Sure it may not be a #Lamborghini, or Hugo Boss-clothes, but under voluntsryanism, you have a choice of plenty of cheaper brands of both,rather than just the one brand with the considerable waiting lines that invariably result from central planning.
Capitalism harnesses that greed and uses it for good: this is plain Adam Smith: the baker does not supply the hungry with fresh bread out of the goodness of his own heart, but out of his desire to buy a house to live in. The house huilder builds & sells the house at a reasonable price for his own selfish reasons: if he would insist on a price nobody would be able to afford, he wouldn’t be able to sell the house to recoup his investment. Meaning that in capitalism, all people benefit if the rest also benefits.
Of course: the best way to avoid corruption is by removing the opportunity for people to get corrupted, namely government with its regulations, licensing restrictions, etc.

The downfall of empires pt.3: Rome pt.2: decadence

As I started saying, decadence is sometimes blamed for #Rome’s downfall. There is possibly some truth to that: (corrollary to the roaring 1920s) the perceived, fleeting wealth of an,inflated currency (denarius) which was debased to 5% (the denarius was reduced from a silver coin, to a silver plated brass coin) temporarily made Rome’s citizens feel a sense of economic relief: the face value of the denarius remained unchanged, but there were more of them, meaning people were richer, right?
Much like the #euro: that hated currency still has the value of one euro, but it keeps getting inflated by that evil bastard #Draghi, so it’s real value is now much less than one euro (using the introductory coin’s value)
This sense of economic relief promoted a mentality of Carpe Diem, instead of the more gloomy memento mori, the imminence of death, people were reminded of before, when there was doubt about the chances of individual survival. This seizing of the days became a sort of decadence, which the people then could not afford to keep up.
So, all in all, the downfall of Rome had multiple causes, all #political: military conquest, monetary malfeasance.

The best #politicians are parasites

This may come as a shock to some people, but it is true: stuff (#healthcare, the #economy) works best when politicians don’t touch it. Sure, they may lean back, looking at how nice the country runs, but the reason the #country runs so smoothly is, that you didn’t touch it. So, during elections they may boast about their “wise #management” of the economy, but the only wise thing they did to it, was: nothing. So any boasting about that, is at best empty. Meaning that they try to leach (claim as their own) on the smart behaviours of others (merchants), that they had no part in. In that way, parasitism is the best the people could hope for in government policy. A #government that just sits there, consuning tax #loot and not contributing the least to anything, is the best government. What does that tell you?