Change, revisited

https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/a-change-aint-gonna-come-unless-you-make-it/

Part of the reason I wrote the above post is that I’d wish the evil institution (politics) would look at how they are causing effects they claim to be upset about. Classic example: I’ve mentioned it several times already: here in the Netherlands, the people have been suffering from traffic jams, for over half a century (in 2017: 51 years! Since 1966).

And the political movements that complain the loudest about emmissions (and climate change) are the ones that spend most time frustrating solutions for the transportation congestion question. Instead of making more roads they keep repeating the same lullaby: “Bus, train!” over and over again, which has never helped; instead of learning from that, they double down on the citizenry, to teach them (us) a lesson of obedience.
Of course unless they act, a change in emmission levels is never gonna come.
Yes, they must act, because they made the law such that only they can: the people are powerless (I have a whole pile of rejection notices from parliament, announcing they’ve received my letters and chosen to do nothing with them, so there’s no excuse, certainly no “Wir haben es nicht gewüst”.)

Advertisements

Referendums in Europe

BTW, if you can find a video by Matt Carthy MEP, view it, the guy’s brilliant, #UKIP has found a worthy spiritual successor. This is a very good one by @mattcarthy https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/915600381924790277?s=09

Spain had no moral right to declare this expression of the people illegal. They certainly had no democratic right to do so; a government (even a #junta) only ever has the right to listen to the people. Never any other right.

#Referendums in #Europe are a tragic cause: just look at the last 3 referendums held in the Netherlands.

  1. European constitution: rejected by a majority, so it was renamed and imposed anyway.
  2. IJburg (an artificial island in a river at Amsterdam to create more housing), rejected by 60%, but by way of a dirty trick (an advisory, not a binding referendum), the regime managed to have its way and cause all the environmental damage that 60% voted against.
  3. association treaty with the Ukrayne: the majority voted against, a blow to the prestige of PM Mark Rutte who was the serving president at the time (a rolling fuction, the person & country gets changed), so they desperately went searching for an underhanded means to,push it through anywau.

So, to sum up: #referendums (a #democratic tool) have no place in Europe, because there is no #democracy here.

Further proof: when, much to the displeasure of the political caste, the people had gathered enough autographs to enforce a referendum about the association treaty with the Ukrayne, the scumbags took to campaigning to influence the outcome of the referendum. That failed, so they did the next best thing and igored the outcone, tried to weasel their way anyway.

The root of it vs desperate patching

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/dreamers-liars-and-bad-economics.html

Via http://contrakrugman.com/103

Basically, what Paul Krugman is saying in that column, is, that it’s silly to rely on government for social services for the elderly. But instead of yanking the problem out by the root, and letting citizens arrange their own entitlements, Krugman calls for desperate patching of the demographic problems, by inviting more people into the country. I’m not opposed to people moving into an area (even if that area is in a different city, or even country), but Krugman’s approach is just to push the problem forward, causing future generations to having to handle their own (much worse?) demographic issues. This demonstrates the problem innate to Krugman’s economical theory: Keynesianism, which does the exqct same thing, but not with people, but with the economy (so: yes, with people).

Surely, there’s an easy argument to be made for curing the problem right now and removing government from this equation (statelessness would be ideal, but simply banning government from this role will perform miracles)

Communism needn’t have been evil

As contemporary ancoms (anarcho-communists) are keen to emphasize, there has never been a real communist state. Since communism is supposed to be anarchistic, the centrally-led dictatorships we’ve come to know as communist, were only supposed to be half-way solutions to full-fledged communist anarchism/anarcho-communism.
That it turned out that communism was the worst political system to live under, with horrible totalitarian oppression and high death tolls following a meager existence at low living standards, reflects poorly on the ideology, the fact that it attracted such despots speaks poorly for Soviet-era communists and even (perhaps especially so) for today’s socialists who’ve had so much more time to experience different kinds of state-organisation than the followers of Lenin and Stalin had.
Anarchism (the supposed end state of communism) makes oppression impossible, because there is no state to wield its magical authority to force people into a particular mold. The fact that many of today’s socialists are such power-hungry despots, reveals much more about them than it does about socialism. Which of course had enough to complain about, even without all the failed attempts to run states (no more than systems for the care of the inhabitants). The failed state is a system which presumes that the citizen is to serve the state, or one where the state abuses the citizen.
Chairman Mao Zedong wrote in The Little Red Book: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
that quote speaks volumes for the mindset of those who adopt communism.
Again, my ranking of importance, with justification:
The citizen (since the emergence of bipedal life on earth for the longest time it has existed without state a.k.a. leadership)
The state (politics can’t exist/is nothing without citizens, think of an Afdolf orating in the bathroom, to his toilet bowl for lack of attendance at Nuremburg).

The 4 roles

John Locke, summed up the only 4 reasons a people might have to accept a government. Protection of:

  1. Life,
  2. Health,
  3. Property
  4. and liberty.

1 & 3. Given that these protections are funded through taxation (theft) and governments are the main killers of citizens (I refer you to Vincent Bugliosi’s book on charging GWB with murder: 100,000 Iraqis were killed, and several tens of thousands of US citizens-turned-soldiers died in that unjustifiable war.) That still leaves out the many Texans governor Bush signed off to be executed. And the many deaths that resulted from actions by/against IS (founded in an American POW camp in Iraq)
Apart from executions, there are many that are locked up for victimless crimes. That is just in the free west alone: communists had/still have a regrettable tendency to shoot at people trying to escape from the worker’s paradise. The eastern block was one big open-air prison.
2. Agricultural subsidies are not only paid for with stolen money, but also harmful to the population – it has long been established (listen to Vinnie Tortorich’s podcast America’s Angriest Trainer for more information) that Sugar and Grains are not that good for you: fat is a better source of energy. And modified foods are even worse.
4.Since protection of popular liberty would harm the interests of government, which considers itself a biological entity in and of itself, having rights such as no citizen ever had, it is not a role government is in any way able (willing to try) to perform.

So, there are no reasons left. Regrettable, statists.

The best #politicians are parasites

This may come as a shock to some people, but it is true: stuff (#healthcare, the #economy) works best when politicians don’t touch it. Sure, they may lean back, looking at how nice the country runs, but the reason the #country runs so smoothly is, that you didn’t touch it. So, during elections they may boast about their “wise #management” of the economy, but the only wise thing they did to it, was: nothing. So any boasting about that, is at best empty. Meaning that they try to leach (claim as their own) on the smart behaviours of others (merchants), that they had no part in. In that way, parasitism is the best the people could hope for in government policy. A #government that just sits there, consuning tax #loot and not contributing the least to anything, is the best government. What does that tell you?

Who will hand out IDs?

Since it’s none of the state’s business who I am, or where I go to/have been to, the state has nothing to do with handing out proof-of-Identification. To be able to enter my own home, unless I built a lock into my door, that worked that way.
Basically, every lock does, but carrying a mechanical or electrical key is enough evidence of identity for the vast majority of people, or typing a code into a key pad is.
So why would I not be allowed anywhere near my own home without a piece of paper or plastic with my photo+name on it? And why are those passports designed so dumbly? Because the old design for a passport, did not have a rigid plastic card built into them, so they were too easy to forge.
So nowadays, the owner (assuming that’s the person who’s picture+name is on it, not the government) can not reliably travel to another country with a passport.
Because the brittle plastic card in it (used to display your photo, name, date of birth, etc.) has a tendency to break when you sit on it, or whatever, making it harder for you to leave or get home, and since that is supposed to be the purpose of a passport, that is something the government fails at again, and this time, it isn’t even one of their permissable roles; it’s just an annoyance/hindrance, that serves no real purpose.

“But if you let just anybody into the country,”

Then what? Would you get upset if you lived in, say, Amsterdam, and the house next to yours got bought & inhabited by someone from the city of Deventer? Different city, different province, even! But because its the same country you suddenly don’t mind. But if those people moved out of the city of Bottrop, Germany, suddenly it is an issue worth getting upset about. Germany is a country immediately next to the Netherlands, they actually share a border. How is moving out of Germany different from moving out of Overijssel (the province where the city of Deventer is located)? Of course, people get really upset if it’s people from, say, Arabia or Africa, those are even worse than Germany (or Belgium, France, the UK – they Brexited the EU, proof they don’t even want to be our friends anymore!)

“They would use all sorts of government (taxpayer funded) services.”

So? Just abolish government / remove those services from the claws of government, where they don’t belong, anyway.

“Well, people from Overijssel pay the same taxes as we do.”
So, shared #victimhood is your criterion for acceptance? So Stockholm of you, dude!
I would get upset, if they started paying taxes here: more loot for the evil institution, that is against my interests.

What is the only legitimate purpose of an ID? Proof of identity when signing a contract, you don’t need a government registration for that!