Order out of disorder

George Orwell would approve of the conflation of #anarchy with #chaos. However, it is likely that anarchy (rulerlessness) would lead to more, and more stable order than “we” have now, for the simple reason that that the state is so used to having its comandments obeyed blindly, that they callously issue ridiculous commandments, like “always having to stop for a red stoplight”, even when there is no other traffic for miles around (thus forcing people to emit more CO2). To quote Fréderic Bastiat’s The Law:

the safest way to make the law respected, is to make the law respectable.

Followed by:

When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

I beg to disagree with the esteemed Mr. #Bastiat here: my moral sense is more important than some preposterous law concocted by power mad politicians (given some time: they’ll all become power mad, if they’re not already)
This means that laws that depend entirely on the magical authority of the state, undermine that authority.

Compare this to stateless societies:
Any laws the average person encounters will be rules of conduct instated by the owner of the property they’re on intended to keep the propety intact and reusable by other persons (thus keeping the income from that property, to the owner, intact). So long as rules are not ridiculous or unreasonable, reasonable persons shall be willing to respect those rules,
It’s when people experience unreason & wanton regulation for its own sake, that they dig their heels in the sand and become disrespectful for the laws.

To speak in biological terms: anarchism is #Darwinism, #statism is #Creationism: the presence of an almighty, mythical being (though in the statist’s case: it’s the devil, not god) that rules over all, and is needed to make the world go round.

Where the state is dependent on force to get people in line, a voluntary society does not use force, and so does not incur the opsychological backlash of the,statist solutionn

Advertisements

Subsidies for public transport

Public transport is really very bad for the #environment, as proven by the subsidies for #buses and #trains and #trams. If they wouldn’t waste so much energy, they would need less subsidy or even none at all. Compare that to cars: government tries to tax them into oblivion, and still they are a more attractive form of transportation than public transport. This indicates that the environment is not a reason for trying to get people into public transport (maybe it is: after all, it’s government we’re talking about, the make-work program for the maliciously incompetent). What else may be the reason then?

  • The desire to impose changes: aka the maleable society, or the designer society.
  • Sadism: they know how unpleasant PT is and they hope to force us into it. And, well, they also claim that traffic jams are bad for the environment, yet they refuse to do anything about them, hoping to harm our environment and that way, us. So sadism is a realistic option, not to be discounted out of hand.
  • Wishing economic harm upon the population; it has long been complained that traffic jams cause severe economic damage, those complaints have in 51 years not resulted in attempts to cure the traffic jams.

Now that the evil institution has added the climate-lie (it was government that did so, not any democratic institution like the people, or business), the reasons for continuing to allow the decadent luxury of public transport to exist, are dwindling.