Wil je een paar van de 1.200.000 Nederlandse vaklui aan het werk hebben, maak de arbeid dan goedkoper door de verplichte afdrachten af te schaffen. De AOW is onhoudbaat op deze manier, dus schaf die premie af. (Geleidelijk natuurlijk; die aso Drees had dat nooit zo mogen invoeren; waar was het parlement in 1957, dat het die demografische tijdbom onder de sociale zekerheid heeft geplaatst?) en verder, schaf de accijns op arbeid af, welke no-no heeft bedacht dat arbrleid ontmoedigd dient te worden? En er is nog meer wat de arbeid in Nederland onnodig duur maakt. Miljoenen zullen blij zijn wanneer die onzin weg is.
IMHO the sytate has no say on immigration. It’s the people that are affected, so,they are the ones that should have a say in it. Like chosing whether to sell/rent them living space. Freedom of association. After all, who complains when someone moves house from one city to another?
You wanna stop the aversion against immigrants is the state’s involvement in social welfare, through compulsory payments. If only the state would keep its mits off, immigrant haters would have much less hatred of immigrants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche and https://maoistrebelnews.com/2013/05/31/what-is-the-juche-idea/ inform that the North Korean juche idea’s purpose is, to empower the people, to help them escape bourgois oppression, through independent empowerment.
Fer goodness sakes: I can’t put any blame on the North Korean victms, they had no choice in the matter (meaning that DPRK is just as democratic as any western state), but socialists/communists in the west CAN know better than to voluntarily believe the self-deluding nonsense Kim Il Sung espoused to justify his oppression of an entire country’s worth of humans.
Noryh Korea is so collectivist that no individual is allowed any independent empowerment, to the point that the state is even the only food supplier. And is responsible for the default mode of starvation of the entire country’s population, so the individuals have no other choice than to grow their own food. I presume that in order to escape imprisonment as traitors to the revolution, they must bribe the equally hungry officials with some portion of their food.
A reason for private ownership
This brings to mind, a reason for private ownership of the means of production, especially in such a communist hell hole like DPRK: suppose you don’t live in a bourgois suburb; you know, a nice house, with a garden around it, where, instead of a pond with koi for decoration/relaxation, you can grow vegetables, you know, for survival, not bourgois pleasure. Instead, you live on the 30th floor of a housing baracks, without garden. But you’re still hungry, so what do you do? You rent/purchase a plot of fertile land, and till that to grow your own food. You can’t rent from the state; all land is for all the people.
Once again: in 1917 people might have been forgiven for embracing socalism, bt in 1945-1950 there was no reason gr someone to embrace it, other than sadism. Never mind about the socalists that are still active today.
How to defend the NAP from accusations of endangered species getting bought up by rich people that house them as pets (in unnatural environs) / will hunt them for sports in a voluntarist world.
Such can only acquire endangered animals when their private owner sells them to them. Or they have them stolen, such a theft will likely not go as unnoticed just like their arrival in the suburbs.
The owner of the wild life reserve in Africa will only sell the animals when he has a sufficient reserve of members of the species, to prevent extinction which would endanger future profits to be made. Much like how cows are put to death in order to be eaten/relieved of their skin, yet don’t die out, because the profit margin of all future sales of cows (products derived from them) is greater then the immediate short term boon which pales in comparison to the prolongued earnings capability derived from maintaining the species.
So, quite basically, Libertarianism’s NAP and private ownership are no impediments to the survival of endangered species, rather the opposite is true: they make their survival more likely.
Zo kort na oud en nieuw, is het vast nog niet te laat voor een pleidooi voor privatisering.
In private woongemeenschappen kan men verschillende reges voor vuurwerk opstellen. Dan kunnen mensen met huusdieren ergens gaan wonen, waar men heeft afgesproken niet aan vuurwerk te doen. En mensen die graag 1* per jaar vuurwerk afsteken (en daar 1000 terreuro of een vergelijkbaar bedrag in e-guldens https://2.efl.nl/index.php (of https://gulden.com/nl/) aan uitgeven, kunnen in een wijk gaan wonen met gelijk-gezinden. Dat scheelt weer dat er gezeur komt over een nationaal verbod.
Posted this in,the group Anarcho Debatism on Facebook:
To be honest: I’ve long felt that Ben Gurion was a bit of a neo nazi. You know: taking away the lebensraum from the untermenschen to give to the ubermenschen.
There, controversy stirred.
Rule: don’t call me (or anyone else) an antisemite or a racist, because I’m not.
To preempt any claims that it was the ancient home land of the jewish people: that only stengthens the call for a free society, one that respects/is based on private property. If one had the documents to prove that your great-great-great-ancestors owned the land (and it was taken from them), then a large part of the middle-eastern conflict would have been avoided.
I recently heard someone claim that “surely, nobody can deny the jews the right to have their ancient homeland back.” Well, get ready, because here I’ll be calling that racist nonsense. It isn’t a group of people that happen to be of the same race that have any claim on historic land/property. It’s only individuals that can show they have a contract (maybe inherited from their grandparents) showing they are the rightful owner of something.
Clearly, race can’t be used as a deed of ownership, if it could, I (a white guy) coud steal another white guy’s TV and get away with it. Now, if that white guy had stolen his TV from a black guy, and that black guy was able to prove this (with a purchase receipt), he could reclaim his TV from me.
So, yes, once again, private property saves the day, prevents long drawn out wars (like the middle east, which I conveniently label as one single war, though it’s obviously much more complicated). Just like saving the environment / protecting endangered species.