Trump and DPRK

I must say, I do have the suspicion that the Don’s bluster about sanctions against DPRK have worked in getting Kim to the negotiation table. So the threat alone (presumably coordinated with background diplomacy) seems to have worked miracles that the quiet, subdued politics of Obama, GWB failed to achieve.
So my complaints about sanctions were a bit premature (but still valid)
Three cheers for Donald!
Hip hip hooray!
Hip hip hooray!
Hip hip hooray!

Advertisements

Millennials don’t save for the future.

https://nomadgeeknudie.wordpress.com/2018/03/18/some-millennials-arent-saving-for-retirement-because-they-dont-think-capitalism-will-exist-by-then-2/

My goodness, such failed understanding of what capitalism is/does can only come from decades of socialism/state-misrule of the country. It is exactly capitalism which will find new ways of extracting more resources/find replacements for those resources, when existing sources become too hard (expensive) to extract them from. The higher price will reduce demand by any but those with the most urgent need.
Until the state’s cronyism (which will exacerbate under socialism) will warp this elegant, natural process by spending tax loot on forcing those with highest needs, down to the bottom of the pile.
PS I use state in the original meaning of nationstate. Not as glorified province as is the American meaning of “state”.

The reason I do fear for the future and hence for retirement pension plans, is because the coming central bank-caused (ie state-caused) financial crisis will wipe out all investments and savings because those savings are in state currencies, which will evaporate, in the manner of the Reichsmark.

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.

Brood en spelen

Ik wou dat mensen eens ophielden zich gek te laten maken over moslims, want dat is alleen maar afleiding terwijl de elite het land de afgrond in dauwt.
De elite, dat zijn niet alleen de socialisten, maar ook Wilders (is ook hartstikke links, maar mss geen socialist)
Ik weet niet wat Wilders zijn economische ideologie is, zal vast veel centrale planning behelzen (dat is nu eenmaal de norm in het democratische volkskoninkrijk Nederland), maar Wilders volgt de NAVO op de voet: die wilde na de val van de muur blijven bestaan, en heeft dus dolenthousiast 11 september aangegrepen als smoesje om heel Arabië aan te vallen en daarna ook Perzië om het belastingslachtoffer te doen denken dat de NAVO nog wel nodig is. Zie Wesley Clarke: 7 wars in 5 years. Want het is onmogelijk om van politieke instellingen af te komen, zogauw die opgericht zijn. En wat is de NAVO anders dan een politieke instelling?

  • Betaald van belastinggeld
  • Geen enkele burger heeft er invloed op
  • Hyperagressief
  • Niet in staat/bereid om voor de burger op te komen

Private education should be banned

Quote from a tweet in an email by Tom Woods:

Private schools should be banned. The rich shouldn’t be able to buy their kids a better education. The fact that this *is* a controversial opinion says a lot about our society, to be honest.

The fact that someone can make such a statement says so much more about a society. Bunch of begrudging howler monkeys, the lot of em.

Let’s dissect the statement:

Nobody should be able to get their kids a good education. Just because some people are smart enough to help them make enough money to be able to afford to send their offspring to a school where they will also be made smart enough to become rich enough to, like their parents, send their kids to a good school, etc.

If the public schools would have been better, the private schools would disappear one by one, because there would be no point in sending your kids there.

The rich pay for public schools (via theft), they just don’t send their kids there, so financially, they leave room (foot the tuition) for kids that do go to public school. Instead of being mean to them, activists should thank the rich for that.

So really, what’s actually being argued there, is for the abolition of public schools, because they keep poor people poor, and private schools keep rich families rich. The better solution would certainly be to make the the poor richer by making a better investment in their future, instead of herding the children of all families (rich and poor alike) into public schools, so the poor will stay poor. That is the equality that socialists like Bernie Sanders strive to achieve: everybody should be poor. The only rich should be, well, politicians like Bernie Sanders, who deserve to be rich because they undertake the hard task of micro-managing the country.

Then there the fact that if people wantto send their children to a private school, or not yo sny school at all (because in the public school in their area, the kids only learn to be gang members), that’s their choice, and it shoukd be respected (and paid for by the parents)

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): The arch conservative

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hobbes/themes/

Hobbes was a proponent of the existing form of government in his day: absolute monarchy. That was what he knew and was comfortable with, and thus imagined to be good, because the alternative (change) he considered to be unpleasant.

He would be right if that monarch were some supernaturally disinterrested, self sacrificing, incorruptible superman, one of Thomas Jefferson’s angels. Whose mind would not be warped by the delights of absolute power: ergo who was not human. As the 2 Stans have proven, even if such an extraterrestrial were to arrive on earth and take control, this control would warp the minds of the controlled, because no person (from whatever planet) can be expected to be divinely perfect all the time and everywhere, the unfortunate tendency for people to obey orders from higher authorities, no matter how imperfect (even wrong), means that no authority is the best authority.

Even over 3 centuries after Hobbes, there are still people who wish to believe that our glorious leaders are only out to serve our interests to the best of their abilities, whereas impartial observation reveals other motives and actions on the part of the persons that find themselves compelled to impose their wills on millions of citizens. Surely, giving in to such a calling can’t be good for the soul.