Keynesians call te economic hypothesis of John Maynard Keynes scientific, and deounce the Austrian school for not being scientific, because Keynes came up with formulas (which fail spectacularly, btw) whereas the followers of Menger, Mises, Hayek etc. do not bother with the error that the behavior of any single person can be encapsulated in flash formulas, so do don’t even try to do that with entire populations. Yet the Austrian scholastics did predict every single economic crash of the past century or so (the Skyscraper curse by Mark Thornton, available for free at http://mises.org)
The definition of science is to make predictions, based on theory. If those predictions prove correct, the theory has been scientifically validated.
If Keynesian econonists can predict the downturns, they are criminals that purposely cause large scale economic misery. It’s been sufficiently demonstrated that the economic crises like the great depression of 1929, and the crash of 2008 were caused by the Fed’s Keynesian policies. So either economic (monetary, fiscal) policy comes to an end, or it gets reworked and the concept of national money goes out the window. I believe Hayek wrote about the denationalization of money?
We owe it to ourselves; only we can defend ourselves against politics, don’t expect an MP to do so; they do not represent you, nor do they habe your best interests at heart.
Politics has been a long running social experiment for the search for the best way to unite a group of people.
People unite best against a common enemy (the state).
But who conducted this experiment? God? Some mean extraterrestrials?
This experimenter sought simultaneously for how best to divide people. Force peoples that have almost nothing in common to live together, then claim that people one is very mean to the other, and call the one people all sorts of names; take legal measures against the first people (segregation, just like in the pre-1960s USA, but now in The Netherlands, where “positive discrimination” has been formalized and made law).
Ooh, big whoop, so Hitler was a progressive socialist, that does not make him any less of a socialist.
Hitler said that he would not have to nationalize the means of production (he did so anyway) because he would nationalize the people instead (hence National Socialism). How does socialising the people instead of the MOP make anyone not a socialist?
If you hate the effects of your ideology so much, why denounce the causator of the effects? Instead of denouncing the ideology (which is what I’d do, but then again, I’m not a socialistic kind of guy)
You gotta hand it to statists: without the state, the music scape would have looked & sounded very different, so the state has played a key role in culture.) Black kids of the 60s called the blues slave-shit and plantation music, then went on to buy soul records, but the blues would desegregate society (as whites would come to appreciate it. The Rolling Stones had asked for Howlin’ Wolf to come play the same national TV show they were to play, thereby introducing a whole nation to black music)
But the laws imposed by politicians were not so quick to follow. Without te blues there would not have been rock&roll (perhaps jazz also). Not to forget Elvis Presley (rock, also pop).
It was business innovation that freed the slaves, and got many blacks looking for a better life elsewhere. The “robot cotton pickers” (a sort of combine harvester for cotton, which replaced black manual labor, and got them moving to Chicago for work.) as can be witnessed on Youtube: Blues America part 2 of 2.
And Leonard Chess was a white guy, who made lots of money selling lots of albums of black blues musicians, thus enriching the black community (‘s musicians).
In short: politics tried to force segregation upon the people (both black and white), whereas the only color business cared about was $-green. Politics is the private institution of brute force (it only serves the desires of politicians, on which the public has no influence). Of imposing some politician’s will upon millions of people, business is democratic, aka public (business has to listen to its customers)
There is little disagreement on Hitler being an insane sadist. But unlike the soldiers in the Einsatszgruppen who enlisted the help of copious amounts of schnapps + vodka to cope with the organized massacres ordered by Hitler, and the officers of the Einsatzgruppen, developed psychological issues (different ones).
Arthur Nebbe, commander of the Einsatzgruppe B in Belorussia, committed suicide for not wanting to cooperate with the mass murders.
Karl Jäger, who had declared the Baltic States “Judenfrei” (free of Jews), had to be treated for depression.
All the while Hitler sat in Berchtesgaden ogling a blond chick., keeping his distance from the actual massacres that he ordered.
And not withdrawing the order to exterminate all Jews in Europe (not just displacing them, but killing them).
The lesson one can learn from this, is:
People, even the most wicked ones are inherently good, the problem with homo sapiens, is that they’re all to easily corrupted by homo politicus. As Stanley Milgram https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/2-stans/ had demonstrated, people can’t handle power, including power exerted over them; because they have the unfortunate tendency to obey, fall in line.
Which makes the solution so delightfully simple: remove the institution that corrupts all people, whether leader or follower.
China is introducing a nationwide surveillance system (piloting in Shenzhen) to brutally penalise crimes like jaywalking. If caught five times, you lose the ability to travel, even to buy a house. (People in Macau are not looking forward to that)
In Ancapistan justice may also work by reputation, but severe punishments will be limited to severe crimes. Any person/business that tries to harshly punish jaywalking on an empty road, will themselves lose their reputation. This system will balance itself out over time. In Ancapistan nobody can have absolute power.
Which will also be great for the moral state of the world: because Lord Acton was right: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Plus: I predict a bloody revolution in China, because the people will be living constant fear, which is untenable. Surely the junta in Beijing knows that (they’ve probably heard of the USSR). Yet they chose to not give the people a reprieve from oppression.
This is the Chinese version of being tough on crime, oh the joke; tell right-wingish statists that they’re desires are being fulfilled in China, of all places.