In Den Haag is er besloten dat er een duo-ringweg om Amsterdam moet worden aangelegd. Enig idee hoe ver weg Den Haag is, vanaf Amsterdam? 58 km (te voet: 11:56 looptijd). En dan moesten Amsterdammers al die tijd maar te lijden hebben van de luchtkwaliteit die verslechterd door de files, omdat iemand (meerdere iemanden) op bijna zestig kilometer, een halve dag loopafstand ver weg, besluit dat dat moet?
Daarom is het beter zaken lokaal en decentraal te regelen. Amsterdammers merkten wat er fout was en wat er opgelost moest worden, en hoe urgent dat was. Hagenezen (die de gevolgen niet voelden en dus geen drang voelden) weigerden daarop te acteren.


Het Asielsysteem

hoort NIET in Europa thuis, want Europa is een politiek instituut.
Het is beter om de asielopvang door burgers te laten verrichten. Dat vergroot de maatschappelijke acceptatie van vluchtelingen door burgers, o.a. door hen niet te dwingen megalomaan grote AZC’s in kleine dorpen te accepteren.
Ideetje: laat de o, zo bezorgde politici voor de verandering eens het goede voorbeeld geven en (op eigen kosten!) een asielgezin in hun eigen huis opnemen.
Heden worden asielzoekers (op zich al reeds zielige mensen) misbruikt door de politiek om de burger te treiteren.
Dan kunnezullen er ook niet zoveel gelukzoekers worden gelokt met gratis huisvesting & gezondheidszorg, zaken waarvoor de burger zich reeds scheel betaald, àls het al te verkrijgen is.

Property & natives

In a discussion about “compensating American Indians for having had their land stolen from them” my solution that the ones that could show legal title to a particular patch of land could claim that land/compensation for that land
Was countered by the statement that the native Americans did not do land ownership. This means that they don’t have any title to that land, so it can’t be returned to them.
The reason they did not do ownership, was that they were nomads. And the reason for that was: they had to follow the herds of buffalo/bison.
The Europeans chose to do farming, and consequently got (the chance) to develop the concept of ownership.
This meant that they got to develop industrially and eventually built ships that took them across the entire width of the ocean.
They had the longer-term stability needed to mine iron ore, build homes that offered better shelter from the elements.
To return to the American natives: becuse of their nomadic nature, they chose to run the risk of having another tribe occupy land they’d like to occupy themselves one day. So I’m affraid they can’t reasonably expect to demand back their land. Since it ws never theirs; of course, they could ask kindly, for some ranges of land, they could do so the smart way, by teaming up with eachother / setting up a fund, to buy the land.
“But that’s ownership and they don’t belief in that!”
I have gotten in debates with ancoms too often to not expect such a dim response.

The only reason they did not do ownership was the fact that the herds of walking food kept on the move and theregore so did they. If they’d have developed agriculture, they’d have developed the same as the Europeans


The real stuff

On anarchist fora, it’s common to witness infighting between anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists. The former (ancoms) maintain that their version of anarchism is the only “real” anarchism, because ancapism (anarchocapitalism) allows hierarchies due to private ownership of goods, the means of production (MOP), and thus permitting employer/employee relationships.
Anarchy comes from the Greek “an archos” meaning “without ruler” and is refined by ancaps as “without coercive ruler”, because under ancapism it is very much possible to switch jobs, or live on the streets. In a free society, expect more consideration with the needy, through both charity and fraternity.

It is quite difficult to escape the (totalitarian) state. In communist open-air prisons (states) it was even nearly impossible, thanks to armed border guards killing people trying to get out.


It’s when things take a historical turn, that it gets truly hilarious. With communists getting upset and claiming that Soviet communism wasn’t “real” communism, but merely an intermediary form, to be abandoned when the global revolution was complete, and the entire world was communist.
Such self-delusion. As if the bloody emperors would be willing to relinquish that delightful power once they had won dominion over the entire world.


Capitalism has had its very unpleasant moments, but in “true” capitalism, life would be better than it is now.
Because the state gets in the way, by continually propping up rightfully failing businesses, passing legislation that benefits lobbying businesses and harms the people, that didn’t unite and hire lobbyists themselves. They already pay for lobbyists, ones tgat call themselves “representatives” and get swayed by lobbyists for the other team. In real capitalism (free market economy), the people have actual, direct say in their economic future.
The kind of capitalism we have nowadays, is better called corporatism. Because corporations hire lobbyists to influence legislators (see above) the people have no influence at all. They already have zero influence on legislators as it is and then the scant hope that some legislators might sometimes work on the people’s behalf gets squashed by lobbyists.
One of the things that the people don’t have any influence on, is the socalism of the legislators, the entire parliament is left wing, aka socialist, including the so-called “right-wing” parties. (That’s why there is no real capitalism here, in any sense) an unassailable problem with voting is, the people can only vote for politicians.
Just imagine a parliamentarian trying to break trough with deviant views on policy. He’ll first have to rise through the ranks to win a place on the ballot, then hope the party as a whole wins enough votes so that he can lift along into the parliament. Once there, he can’t differentiate himself with a deviant voting record, because the votes of individual MPs aren’t tracked, only percentages of the so-called “chamber-fractions” of every party. So when he goes against the official line too often, he gets kicked out of parliament in favor of a more obedient sort.
While true that voters can tick the boxes of specific persons on the ballot, voters can’t find a reason to vote for any specific person, because their voting record is not available. And MPs are unikely to boast that they voted agaibst a particular law, because that may lead to them being wiped off the ballot.
And that is why state capitalism is undesirable (yet more preferable than state communism, the only form communism can ever take), and so ancapism is the way to go.

Because apparently, even in political elections, there is no free market.


Leaking pipelines

This is such a powerful case against capitalism! The corrupted leadership of a tiny “shithole” nation sells oil rights to a western oil company, the firm does a few back of the envelope calculations and concludes that fixing the leaks is costlier than letting the people suffer health-problems, A few bribes still didn’t sway the calculation the other way.
If anything, this is the best argument for capitalism, for all encompassing private ownership (democratic ownership) of everything. To avoid the trap of the magical authority of the state. If the oil company wants to bribe people, it’ll have to bribe a whole lot of them, thus skewing the calculation for the better as regards the environment.
There are many more parties that can defend their interests, eithet individually, or they can form a united front against the oil company. They can then defend the people’s interests (thrir own) which a government of course will not do: they’re nore interested in “the national interest,” or “the greater good,” or the glory of the nation (which is the political monstrosity, excluding the people).


Britain’s first private police force
Now here’s a police that wil only handle crime, not non-crime (like drugs thus causing actual crime)
If anyone wishes to have a police fight victinless crimes like drugs, they can pay for it themselves. And they will be personally held responsible for the crimes they caused (causing the rise of new Al Capones).
So this is by far the most democratic form of policing possible: because the current system of not listening to the sources of funding (the population) and even endangering them (by means of encouraging (gun-) fights between gangs, which may lead to needless ancilliary deaths among the population, or even simply by:
Making it harder to buy quality drugs that don’t send users tripping into their graves. (That’s a risk of forcing suplpliers underground).
A market operator like TM Eye will not categorize behaviour as criminal when they aren’t crimes, just because they enjoy forcing their opinions down the throats of extortion victims (tsx payers)



Het is de roverheid icm de burger die de gaswinning in Groningen laat voortgaan, ondanks de gevolgen voor de burgers. Maar ja: als je de gevolgen niet zelf ervaart, is het makkelijk stoer doen en roepen dat iets een grof schandaal is. Schrijf naar de NAM, en je gasleverancier, dat je, zolang de Groningers niet sfdoende worden gecompenseerd/de schade krijgt vergoed, geen gas meer wilt, of liever op zoek gaat naar een leverancier die het gas uit Noorwegen of Rusland haalt, of de schade voldoende vergoed. Blijf niet met je vingetje naar anderen wijzen, alsof zij verantwoordelijk zijn, ipv jijzelf.