Om de een of andere mysterieuze reden, blijft het Marxistische ideaal trekken, zelfs 100 jaar na de Russische revolutie.
Een ingewikkeld stuk mechaniek als een auto (waar je met beleid mee moet omgaan) delen is vragen om problemen. Iets in eigendom hebben, is de beste manier om te bereiken dat de bestuurder er voorzichtig mee omspringt. (Vergeet niet dat de snelste auto een huurauto is)
Zelfs bij zelfrijdende auto’s zullen niet-bezitters tzt ze zonder voorzicht volladen met grote vracht, het interieur beschadigen, enz. Privébezit en privé-verantwoordelijkheid zijn een stok achter de deur om mensen te overtuigen voorzichtig om te gaan met spullen.


Juvenile irresponsability

Just came across a post on Facebook, blaming Africa’s poverty on colonial exploitation. I’m sure that has played some sort of role in the past, but Hong Kong was also a colony, and is incredibly wealthy (and that with scant few natural resources if its own to exploit). Why the difference between the two? African leaders have dragged the continent down the socialist rabbit hole.
Socialism is a political system of theft, not production: so will only cause poverty once there is nothing left to steal.
The socialist’s view of how wealth is created is probably similar to this:

A great cloud of wealth is floating through the universe, capitalist pigs pluck wealth from it and get richer, while the poor masses are left to starve, and “only ever get poorer”.

Not a word about where wealth really comes from: production (& investment in it, to increase productivity).
Also not a peep about how capitalism has, millennia ago, gotten people out of mud huts and socialism is pushing people back in today.

Back to the title: the yammering of socialists about “It’s unfair!” does nothing to drag Africa out of poverty.
Once again: the left only cares about its own petty pleasures and sacrifices the interests of millions of Africans to keep them in tact.

“Marx’s ideas were distorted”

But this time you’re gonna ‘do it right’, as his infallible gloriousness intended, seriously?
I can assure you, you’re not. Statism will warp all romanticized idyllicism into a nightmare.
Seems to me tge smart thing is to learn from past horrors and think/act progressively for a change.
Accept that no systemof government can be invented thatwill work out well for the people involved (note that I do not mean to imply that politicians are people, only citizens are.)


Het lijkt mij wel goed om de dividendbelasting af te schaffen. Wat voor recht/smoes heeft de overheid om belasting te heffen op dividend? Het argument dat dan andere belastingen moeten stijgen, is lariekoek. Het is beter om alle belastingen af te schaffen. Laat de roverheid maar leren met minder te doen, dat moet de burger tenslotte ook, en die heeft geen 17 miljoen portemonnees om een graai in te doen, wanneer het even tegen zit.
Alle belastingen op nul: laten ze hun eigen spelletjes maar zelf betalen.


Heb ik even een idee (wat tegen de borst van de politici van de PvdD zal stoten): verkoop de #Oostvaardersplassen. Ze zijn nu geprivatiseerd, want in handen van de staat, waar de burger geen invloed op heeft. Democratiseer ze: plaats het in handen van een bedrijf dat wèl bereid is om bv uit puur commerciële motieven wél naar de burger te luisteren ipv uit ideële motieven te weigeren te luisteren.

Man builds own off ramp in NY

Delightful entrepreneurism.

Who’d build the roads?

Well, apparently this guy did, and that’s in a state. Imagine in a stateless society, people would be building roads on their own land left and right.

Private property is a perfectly natural concept

Communists are opposed to the idea of private property. Yet private property is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Because: the default mode in nature is to constantly be on the verge of starvation, because energy (food) is scarce, and even requires energy to acquire. (Hunting or forraging) So, once acquired, the creature will want to reap the benefits itself, and eat that food – replenish the energy lost in acquiring it, and satiate the hunger that prompted the attempt at acquiring the food in the first place.
Which is why Cheetahs drag their catch into a tree, lions fight off hyenas/other lyons. Any creature that continues to let others steal its food, forcing the creature to make another attempt, invest more energy, and then risk having that prey stolen once more.

The same holds true for nests, though not edible; it costs energy to build one, so a bird will not want another bird to steal its nest.

Of course, offspring is very costly in terms of energy investment, so the parental instinct to protect offspring is another manifeststion of the instinct to protect private property.

Anarcho-communists are both opposed to private property, and political rule. Of course, one cannot expect that an entire society full of people will voluntarily choose to fight their own natural instincts and abolish private property. Therefore, commnism requires a political ruler, a despot to enforce non-ownership on his (if communism wouldn’t have claimed 200 million casualties, I’d call it a delightful irony) subjects.
Ancoms are typically agressive people, because:

  • Leftism attracts violent characters, due to its nature
  • The mental gymnastics needed to try to unite such opposite concepts inevitably results in mental fatigue/spraining of the mind.