Wat hebben de VS en NL met elkaar gemeen?

In beide landen (zeg mar gerust de hele EnU ipv alleen NL) is de politiek zo grandioos frustrerend, dat het volk op z’n tandvlees loopt. Verschil is, dat men in de VS zich kan afreageren met vuurwapens, in Nederland houdt men ambulances tegen, of rijdt men te snel in een woonwijk. En in beide landen weigert de politiek haar schuld te erkennen, maar veroorzaakt nog meer ellende. In de VS schieten burgers elkaar dood, in Nederland rijdt men te snel in een woonwijk, en blokkeert men ambulances de doorgang. De junta uit DC vindt dat de oplossing is, om het 2e amendement af te schaffen. Behalve drempels en chicanes plaatsen, is de Haagse junta daadwerkelijk van plan om burgers naar Goelag-kampen te sturen voor heropvoeding. Voordat ze dat doen, stel ik voor dat de kampen worden getest door alle politici erin op te sluiten. Als ze bij vrijlating terug de politiek in willen, weten we dat het niet werkt.

Dit doet mij demnken aan Macchiavelli:

Het enige kasteel wat de prins nodig heeft, is niet gehaat te worden.

Advertisements

What do countries in the west have in common?

In all of them, the people are very frustrated with the ruling caste.
But people have different outlets for their frustrations.
In the USA, occassionally, groups of people get shot dead, in The Netherlands, people take it out on emergency sevrvices, like stopping ambulances trying to get to an emergency situation.
In typical political style, the approach is to blame the people, not the cause of the problems (totalitarian government), meaning in the USA, the governmemt (aka the left) keeps trying yo repeal the 2nd amendment. Apart from the fact that when the number of guns exceeded the number of inhabitants, the crime rates were on a downward slope.
The Dutch government wants to sentence people to a gulag camp, to reeducate them. When they instate such a system, let’s first send every MP & minister & senator & mayor etc. To test the system. When they comeback outand they still want to be politicians, we know the program failed.

I’mreminded of Macchiaveli:

The only castle the prince needs, is not to be hated.

Slavery and capitalism

Politicians have discovered that slaves are more productive when allowed to choose their own profession, and have that taxed. That does not make it capitalism.
If we stick to Marx’s original meaning of capitalist, it was someone who provided capital (financing) for industry.
This surely means that the capitalist had a choice of who would receive that investment. How could it mean the investor did not?
So, capitalism is freedom.
Compare that to socialism, where the state (assuming the place of society, causing that to whither away) determines everything for you. You have no influence on the policies that control your life (yes, this means that all democracies are socialistic).

Slavery

Ancoms get off on calling #capitalism #slavery, because in capitalism you have to work for a living or else you die. [because you are a slave to yourself, you are the master in this master slave relationship; sounds quite voluntary to me; and slavery is not voluntary but compulsory labor].
In #socialism/#communism, the food just magically appears on the table, so communism is superior.

Hold on. In communism, food is not grown? (Turns out it’s not; on the orders of Stalin, millions of Ukraynians starved to death, and Kim Yong-Il starved milions of North Koreans to death, because acepting foreign aid would be an admission of incompetence by the state that is the monopolistic supplier of food) because human beings have to put the effort in to grow food, and trust me, the term back-breaking labour was first coined by an exhausted farmer, after a day’s work tilling the field.

In fact: growing food is such hard work, the socialist man that Marx dreamed about (who would do all work free of charge, just to supply his fellow comune-inhabitant with the food he needs, to… well: lazily hang around all day, every day.), If he comes to realise he could do something nicer than break his back day in, day out, namely, do some light weeding in his garden, then do some resting on a lawn chairand work on his tan, and have other farmers break their backs. That would lead to the under-production of food, the fields of crops all going to waste, because they’re not harvested on time. So: starvation ensues. A wise entrepreneur would buy the farm off the farmer’s hands and start producing food the former farmer can buy, without breaking his back. Hold on: that’s capitalism, not glorious socialism.

And because under socialism, the farmer can’t sell his farm to a hungry entrepreneur, because

  • Entrepreneurs don’t exist under socialism (presumably under penalty of years of hard labour)
  • Farms are already the property of everybody, so can not be sold, to people that are better at doing the hard work (doing it harder or smarter, or eventually a combination of both; or hiring staff to help them; automate it)

the only way a socialist state can cause enough food to be grown, is by slave labour.

Looking back, I understand why socialists still adhere to their debunked ideology, and urgently refuse to let go of it; it is so difficult to read a whole, long blog post like this. Especially for an intellectual it is too much asked to follow a logical train of reasoning that goes in the wrong direction (refutation of all that needs to be true)

“Capitalism is slavery!” vs “Socialism is slavery”

Another one from the anarchist fora on Facebook: which is the ideology that depends on (is most responsible for) slavery, capitalism or communism? Since communism is socialism refined to perfection, the two terms can be used interchangeably.
Ancoms keep reverting to “In capitalism, if you don’t work, you die of starvation.”
This makes sense, but does not turn work into slavery.
One argument against it, might be: “In capitalism, you own yourself, so if you wish to go hungry, you go right ahead and spend your money on things other than food. So working for money means you are a slave to nobody but yourself. If you don’t like a particular job, you quit and find something else (not necessarily in that order).
In socialism (not in Marx’s fairy tale version, but in the cold hard reality of life), nobody will work, because it’s more comfortable to sit on the sofa, get over your vodka binge of the previous night. Because initiative is not just not rewarded, but actively oppressed under socialism, there is not much else to do other than get drunk. You get the same amount of goods, whether you do something for them or not. That means there is no stimulus to achieve anything. So all human progress will come to a halt in Marx’s dream world.
Unless the small handful of central planners designs initiatives, which can not be smoothly, naturally introduced by entrepreneurs, but instead have to be forced through with brute violence, putting people to work in “corrective camps” (Gulags), to chop enough wood in the frozen tundra of Siberia for export, to enrich the centrally planning state apparatus. And to build train lines (which cost thousands of lives and hardly get used: no capitalist would waste such amounts of labor, time and money, only a Stalin would do that to punish people for not being perfect commies), to dig up nuclear material to make bombs.
Or speaking of death by starvation: central planning of the whole chain of agricultural production (production of tractors»digging up enough iron ore»planning for the mining industry, which requires people to be fed» planning for the agricultural sector)

Must a country (people) be led?

Without politicians, who would run the country? The only people that know about how to do so, are politicians.

Or that’s how someone thought to have countered my arguments against the state, on some BBS, some time ago.

Why would a country be the only way a group of people (society) can exist/be organized?
People are perfectly able to supply and/or acquire services, like sewage, trash disposal, housing, food supply without the state, in fact, if the state does those things, eventually, the wall will be demolised and Trabants will drive freely to the west. In countries were that has not happened (yet) starvation is de rigeur. Because aready, the state is incompetent at supplying stuff the people want/need. businesses already do that, and can and will want to continue doing that.

People have a tendency to follow lead(er)s; similar to a flock of geese, all changing direction; they follow the feathered creature at the front. Would this mean that without the state, people would just follow the lead of any random loud mouth, which would lead to anarchy? No, because without the state would already be anarchy: rulerlessness, aka statelessness. It would not lead to it. Fear that it would lead to chaos seems somewhat underwhelming. Following (strong) central leadership would be worse than chaos; Hitler (WW2, including holocaust), Lenin/Stalin (all of the USSR, including purges & Gulag), Johnson (Vietnam), Bush (Iraq, Afganistan), are examples of that; I’ll take disorder over either of those, any day, thank you.

Postscript:
In statelessness, there may some day arise a certain charismatically violent despot, who manages to amass a growing following. That is precisely my view on the origin of the state: violent bullies who have conquered tribes (familial societies), fear of anarchism leading to the formation of a new state seem founded, but are no reason to not abolish the current state, which is a contnuous threat to mankind. At the very least man could hope that the new state will be organized better (i.e. more in the service of the people), meaning more minarchist, instead of max-archist (totalitarian) as is the case now.
In anarchy, there is no central institution for them to take over. So a power grab would mean, they first have to create the power begore they can grab it: cumbersome and time consuming, and each individual unit of power may meet with resistance.
But I find it rather likely that the people, once accustomed to democracy, will oppose violent bullies, with the means at their disposal, which will likely include: a penalty for bad reputation: meaning that if someone is considered a threat to a society, they will find it more difficult to acquire food, shelter, etc.
Of course, some may be willing to sell those services anyway, but they will then have to face the consequences, of people bannishing them, etc. So even when businesses would be unscrupulous, the other customers need not be, revoking their custom from the businesses, in extremis making the business entrely dependent, on the one and only customer. No sensible businessman would want that, either for his oen interests, and those of his employees.
Keep in mind also, that society’s psychology has evolved over time, man has learned from the past, therefore people will still be oposed to slavery etc.

Slavery & free public transport

Occasionally some watermelon gets all excited by the possibilities of unlimited political power and the power of imagination, and starts fantasizing out loud, about free public transport, in order to get people to not travel in their horrible private cars anymore and instead take public transport. Apart from the fact that public transport being worse for the environment than private transport, there is the issue of slavery, because it is not only the bus drivers that will have to work for no pay to make public transport free, but slavery must also be instituted down the whole supply line of spare parts / bus factory buildings/ etc. Anyone familiar with the story “I, pencil” will already know where I’m going with this: Buses wear from use, hence spare parts must be applied to keep it running, those are affixed by mechanics who have rent to pay, food to buy, and drink, even luxuries like toilet paper. So they would like to spend their time working for remuneration, but they can’t, because there is some government official standing over them with a whip, encouraging them to turn those nuts and bolts to get the people moving again. The parts themselves have to first be made in factories, where the same story repeats itself, workers have to earn a living, but instead are forced into slave labour, because otherwise those buses / trains / trams can not run. (There’s only so much rhat thieves can get away with, before there’s nothing left to steal. Finished, ready to apply spare parts have to get shipped from the spare parts factory to the bus garage, this shipping must also involves people that would like pay to house / feed themselves, etc. So once again, no slavery possible here. The garage (and factory) have to be built & maintained, operated, cleaned. The spare parts are made from resources like crude iron (turned into steel in slave-operated smelting ovens). Etcetera… the whole process uses energy derived from, oh, I don’t know: crude oil, coal, perhaps even wind-power (which uses expensive wind mills / wind powered generators) for running the lighting on the factory floors . Those barrels of oil/ buckets of coal have to be collected using – once again: slavery. The production of those wind powered generators has its own supply chain, go back and repeat. Then do the same for tool (wrenches etc.)-factories: after all, tightening those bolts with your bare hands is not going to work. Then there is the problem of who will force all those slaves to do the work for free, Given that slavery is a financially untenable means of powering means of production. It wasn’t Lincoln who ended slavery: it was polyester that did so. But suppose you would like to force people around the world to work for free, from miners in Chile to cleaners in Amsterdam, that is going to require a HUGE amount of slave drivers. (that have to work for free too; meaning that they have to drive themselves?! Or would that be the infinite collection of elephants some say, the earth rests on?)