Legitimate order v. State-imposed order

I frequently say, that anarchism (ancapism: anarcho capitalism instead of anarcho communism or ancomism) is not chaos, but legitimate order. The literal definition of legitimate is “imposed by (government) law”, which is why order imposed by the state is not legitimate (in the vernacular sense) and is thus not orderly; it depends on fear for reprisal; if people think they can get away with something, fear of reprisal melts away. And disorder (unlawfulness) follows on its heels.

In ancapistan and its close relative, minarchia (a minarchical state; with minimal government), which are societies based on private ownership, the private owner may allow access to the property (esp. smart if we’re talking about private roads, or hotels/convention halls, etc.), so long as one obeys certain rules, if one finds the rules unacceptable, one does not enter that property. Instead one attempts to find some other property where the rules are more to one’s liking. Possible due to the decentrallized nature of governance.

The vernacular sense
This is why ancap societies, are more legitimate (legit) in the vernacular sense of “feeling justifiable.”


Common sense gun laws

Certain politically active folks have decided, in very poor taste, to exploit the killings of 17 children in the #FloridaShooting to try to have their political way, to have the government pass “common sense gun laws”. There is only one kind of common sense gun law, and that is the one that removes guns from the hands of people proven to use them to kill., meaning military personnel (as well as drug dealers) ’cause let’s face it: the US is the most experienced/prolific attack force on the planet. No country is safe from US meddling, it’s far from conspiratorial for Russians to fear attack by the west/USA, when in violation of agreements with Russia, the USA is moving NATO ever closer to the Russian border.
In fact, this may be a bit far fetched, but worth considering nonetheless: the reason GWB started the war in Afghanistan to justify putting a NATO base that close to Russia. Consider this:
To reach that North Atlantic Treaty Organization-base, members of the treaty have to swim south, out of the Noryh Atlantic, past Morocco/Mauritania/etc, into the South Atlantic; go round the cape of good hope, then on the east of Africa, you go back up north again, through the Indian Ocean, into the Arabian sea, then walk ashore in Pakistan, and walk a bitmore until you’ve reached (the NATO-base in) Afghanistan.
Afghanistan did not pose any kind of threat to the USA, the president didn’t even so much as cough in the direction of the US emmissary at some international meeting. The excuse of “having to kill Osama bin Laden” was no more than that, an excuse. They did manage to kill Osama (remember that as governor of Texas, GWB signed off on a record number of death penalty-executions, so the yearning to primitively exact murderous revenge was perfectly in character for him.)

According to Brown university, the human toll for the pointless war in Afghanistan since 2001 is (in 2016): https://news.brown.edu/articles/2016/08/costs-war 173000 killed and 183000 seriously injured (I presume those were only Americans, not Afghans or other NATO-members). Wow, such an effective way of defending the people, Mister secretary of Defense, sir (or miss, I dunno and don’t care). Starting a war to send them to their death or to permanent retirement due to horrible mutilation.

The world would be so much of a nicer place if all armies got disarmed.
Te people will have to do so by themselves, because there’s no chance that politicians will agree to do that themselves, voluntarily.
If only the people would stop signing up! That would help the economy so much. And many sign up due to the bad economy, thereby keeping the economy down, and keeping the flow of new assassins steady. Better to start a business of their own. Of course, bloody occupational licensing makes this needlessly difficult.

Drug dealers

Nixon’s “war against drugs” caused the deadliest war in the history of the American people, the “war over drugs”. Just like the prohibition made Al Capone filthy rich and caused so many gang killings in the strets of Chicago – killings that went away after prohibition was lifted the war over drugs kills many people, also puts many in jail (for victimless & non-violent crimes), breaking up families, causing so many children to have to get raised by single parents. And thus making them ripe to become the next generation of gang members. The most infuriating bit is: that politicians know about this, and deliberately continue on, thwarting any attempt to put a stop to the cycle of injustice, for the sake of continuing the violence.
Fortunately, there are people on the Christian right that recognize that breaking up the nuclear family causes more damage than it supposedly fixes.
So: remove guns (and the authority to use force, to arrest people) from the #DEA, in,order to sharply reduce gun violence.


Gun control means using both hands (and good stance).
Clearly, the solution is not to ban all guns.

  • Criminals tend not to use legal guns (the background checks make it hard for them to do that) plus they tend to cost much
  • You’d ban people from being able to defend themselves against gun violence.

It would force people that did wish to defend themselves, in situations they wish to defend themselves&w here the government (police) is an embarassing failure (like the #MiamiShooting, where cops “took their time” responding – the shooting lasted 6 minutes; cops spent 4 minutes waiting outside), to seek refuge in illegal guns, just like the criminals they wish to defend themselves against.

This would mean that both parties acquire their guns from the same source, enriching tgat source and improving availability of illegal guns.


הפרד ומשולהפרד ומשול, فرق تسد

The title reads divide et impera (divide and conquer) in both Hebrew and Arabic, indicating my point that, to (some) western conquerors (politicians), the muslims of today are the jews of 70 years ago; easily blamed for every loose nut and bolt.


They only serve the political purposes of opportunistic politicians, that abuse their existence to gain power (both as in seats in parliament and in passing convenient laws that restrict the natural rights of citizens) over their backs. For instance, one Dutch power-horney MP has invented the concept of islamisation (the ongoing replacement of Dutch ttraditional culture by an Islamic one, or: encroachment of Islamic culture onto the traditional Dutch culture). The only manner in can be said to occur, is not through malicious intent of muslims (voters for this Geert Wilders guy, like to bolster this claim by pointing to the more political phrases in the coran; claiming that they clearly wish to conquer the whole world either militarily orby immigration, or by – forced – conversion) but, rather, this is the result of “forced” immigration of Arabs.

Divida et imperia in the low countries

The left enjoys disrupting perfectly smoothly operating societies, because divide and conquer works so well for the political apparstus. In fact, they like to get their votes from immigrant populations that ought to know better than to vote for people that transparently set entire segments of the popuoation up against eachother. By crying racism any chance they get, even when an incident is clearly the fault of an immigrant, then also pointing the finger at the caucasian native. Inspiring resentment of immigrants among the caucasian natives.

Free stuff

Another beloved practice of theirs is: to forcibly distribute scarce resources among immigrants; e.g. prividing them with free health care, free housing (have I already mentioned the housing shortage since 1946?), all at the cost of natives that have been grumbling about this for decades, but (in the finest Dutch political tradition) were kicked in the teeth by the ruling caste for that; the left simply enjoys “redistributing”. As in they like to organize society to their liking.
This results in short-sighted aversion (hatred is a big word, but getting more and more appropriate here) against immigrants.
Who are only guilty of getting lured by the free goodies – can you blame them?


And then making the mistake of voting for the most hostile and opportunistic of all politicians; left wingers (and that’s saying something). Making them disliked by native voters, that feel victimized by the left (and, as proven by the constant theft, rightly so!) and therefore try their best to vote against the left.


Or so they think. In reality, Geert Wilders (PVV) is a very left wing politician hinself, wishing to transfer ever more power ronbthe population to its rightful home: politics.
So voters try their hardest to diminish the left (well, some of them do) by voting “against” them, for the PVV. And Wilders himself blatantly tries to go nazi-style on muslims, trearting them like jews were treated in the 1930s; blamed for every ill under the sun, made out to be intellectually, culturally and morally under-developed, as compared to natives. Thus stirring the nationalist pot, blaming the big, weak EU-borders, and hoping to wheen The Netherlands away fron the failed European project. In itself, a noble goal, bykut trying to turn the Netherlands into a private fiefdom, sounds ominous.


The Case Against Education

Claims that Government Spending $1 Trillion a Year on Schooling Is a Waste of Money:

The downside of specialised higher education is: if your sevtor goes belly up, you’ve put in all that time and money, so you’re unwiling to retrain, to get hired more easily


Negative interest rates

Interest is whatever amount of money, the ban gives you as a token of gratitude for letting them invest your money for them.
NEGATIVE interest is the fine the junta condems on you, for tecrime of, ont doing what the glorios leader wants you to. Or rather, for existing. (How that differs from the first crime, I do not know.)



Socialism is the ideology that leads to greatest selfishness. After all: starving people have little energy/resources to empathise with others.

This is demonstrated on  the streets of Athens, where people are starving to death, while passed by on the streets by those few lucky enough to still have a job.

At least with capitalism people will still have enough wealth left over in order to care for others. Again, a quick recap of Social Atrophy is in order:

By removing contact with others (by moving social wellfare out of the hands of the people, into the hands of the state,  people are trained to have less concern for their fellow man: after all: “If already so much from my paycheck goes towell fare,,why should I bother about the less fortunate?”)