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.


Is Tesla a cult?

I responded this in the comments section of this video :

[Name removed] That means the hysteria used to force people into similarly harmful (but much more expensive) EVs is entirely misplaced; causes environmental & economic & psychological harm.
A much better idea to continue using cheap internal combustion engines, to produce more wealth, so that people will be able to afford to switch to EVs when the time comes. Renewability is no argument: there is so much oil in the ground: banning current geberations from using it, will keep it there, for even further future generations to not use it, because even further future generations will have to leave it there for ad infinitum.
Oil is probably not even a fossil fuel, but the product of bacterial processes.
[Name removed] will you please stop ridiculing yourself with the worn paranoid slander of “big oil is afraid people will stop using oil, is behind ads like this” because first of all, the electrical cables (insulation) and modern plastic car chassis, are MADE OF oil, so people will continue to buy oil.
And even then: big oil wil eventually reinvent itself as big hydro, big windpower, big solar, big whatever it is your conspiracist mind wishes to accuse of being big and mean.
I’ve written about this earlier:

About ships switching to nuclear power:

[Name removed] What a soothing solution: having potential 3mile island disasters floating all over the world’s oceans, and ships never sink, do they? #Greenpeace became famous for their protests against #nuclear #waste #dumping in the ocean, Medoubts they ought to support, the posible sinking of nuclear pre-waste fuels.

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.

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.

Don’t expect a repeat of Watergate

Whether #Watergate or #PentagonPapers, they won’t happen anymore.

Not because of the impecable nature of Donald Trump, but rather because such a big revalation can only work if the reporting medium can be taken seriously.
As it stands now, it would be just a blip on the noise (not news) radar, of unashamedly hysterical partisan influence peddlers.
Nobody would take note, when Trump would get accused of bribery/warmongering/… by a pro-Hillary medium, (such as the New York Pravda, erstwhile brave revelator of Nixon’s shennanigans, back when they were the NY Times), now unashamed pusher of Albert Riefenstahl’s rickety (or rather: fully disproven) #climate nonsense.
Of course, one can also not expect a more right-wing medium (assuming such a thing exists) to reveal any of that,because it would damage “their” guy.

The #MainStreamMedia are letting us down by choosing sides. That way, they also let themselves down. Small wonder that #membership and #circulation are collapsing.

The people are, once again, left to their own devices. They’re let down by politicians in politics, and by political activists (politicians) in the media.

Social-media storm

Given the (somewhat overdue) crisis in Facebook confidence over Zuckerberg’s campaigning for Hillary, I’ve installed the android app and created a user account, @LvE hoping to catch up with y’all there.
I don’t know if it’s possible to create groups in gab, but it’s a much less partisan platform than Facebook, so worth a try. #deleteFacebook

BTW #Google has also been found to be campaigning for Hillary,
Luckily, those in the know have for some time been using, I’m planning to use Protonmail.