Well it finally happened, the far right got frightened enough it organised. The unite the right rally shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, there's a growing anti-white sentiment on the internet which gets reflected in real life and a number of threats from the far left to those who oppose their views. This has led to the less secure finding comfort with right wing radicals in white supremacist movements offering safety and a return to greatness. Taking advantage of the classic nostalgia for an age that never existed.
The biggest fan to the flame seems to be violence something we're seeing predominantly from Antifa giving punches and labelling anyone left of Marx a Nazi. Some of those fools call themselves anarchists, simple rule of thumb for noticing anarchists, nice people until you are a serious risk of causing them physical harm. "Buh mah emotions" aren't a reason to attack people, your cognitive dissonance won't kill you, it'll teach you and make you stronger when you learn to read it. We saw similar from BLM last year with some members hunting white people in
Socialism A versus socialism B, globalist socialism versus nationalist socialism. Either way it's 2 same think groups labelling anyone who thinks different as the enemy. Not realising they are so damn alike. Whether it be calling for racial segregation or racial safe spaces or historical revisionism, their similarities outweigh their differences.
I'm not going to touch much on the death of Heather Heyers, her life was tragically cut short when a car driven by someone attending the unite the right rally hit a group of protesters. Everything other than that is speculation at best, at worst attempts to generate more violence. This is what socialist extremists thrive on, confusion and random violence.
Let's take a step back from what we're seeing. There's 2 staunchly opposed sides good versus evil, justifying the use of violence and ostracism. Taoism teaches that good and evil are just subjective terms people use to justify their actions and that's what we're seeing strongly here. Division has been made now who steps in to conquer? It's useful for getting people to want laws surpressing their free expression, invasion of privacy and stricter financial regulation. Ultimately we're all easier to control if we think the same, are afraid to hold seditious materials and those in opposition can't get funding to spread their message. While that seems great now to fight people who's aim is to spread needless hate, down the line it limits individual rights. When dissent becomes illegal the authoritarian establishment will run unchecked. Who benefits? Cynically I'll look at the usual large corporations who need government to regulate them in to existence as the ones to benefit. It will be easier to quell people from challenging you if they think they want your product, can't speak out and generate funds to compete against you.
Lets break down the socialist threat, fascists and communists are 2 sides of the authoritarian coin, both offer unity and the foolish idea that a small number of people are capable of deciding what a large group unable to give their own lives need. Both enforce same think and will quickly label anyone who questions them the enemy, so who do they really threaten? The people these groups really threaten aren't each other but free thinking individuals wanting less authoritarian governance. If previous fascist and communist regimes have demonstrated anything it's the anarchists they get killed first. Anyone who can question motives and stimulate independent thought are a threat, we will be second against the wall after the leaders of the opposition are killed. The sheep underneath clearly want to follow any authoritarian government as long as they get their free stuff, as long as they don't have to think for themselves.
At the end of it all Charlottesville will serve as an effective battle cry to encourage more people into violence and restricting free expression to their own detriment. All we can do is remain calm, fight for free expression, logical reasoning and compassion for others. Never forget if violence begets violence, discourse begets understanding.
I'll wrap this up with a great video from https://fee.org/ .
https://youtu.be/rGFwPGNzQJM
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
20170819
20170514
Take Responsibility for Yourself Dammit
I've always been labelled as having a problem with authority, which I don't in the right circumstances I respect authority like in a work circumstance I'll talk to people who know things better than I do as they're a subject matter authority or when work is assigned to me fairly by an authority, I'll accept those. What I have a problem with its nonconcentual authority. We're born into a social contract that we never agreed too, expected to take direction from leaders we likely didn't and don't support while expected to be grateful of poor services in education or health care. All while a large percentage of our income gets stolen to enforce a laws and projects we don't support. When a junkie robs your money for their heroin addiction that's wrong, when a government steals your money for a power addiction that's taxes.
Why do this to ourselves? Because some people lack responsibility. If someone else is running things and it goes wrong it's not there fault they have a gummerment to blame for things going wrong. This is about as emotionally immature as thinking all things are part of God's plan. At least Moses put the effort of putting his stupid ideas on stone, says someone ranting with permanence of one's and zeros but bear with my hypocrisy as I'm trying to tell you to live your life your way without interference. Live with 1 rule, do nothing to interfere with the freedom and liberty of another individual and help support the liberty of others when they make it clear they need it. Let the natural laws take care of the rest. Want to fight gravity? Enjoy falling on your face, want to use an addictive substance without self control? Enjoy your show painful death. Want my property or product of my labor without my consent? Enjoy a bullet to the face.
Won't somebody please think of the outlaws?!
In the early days of the new world countries, primarily the Americas in this example people were allowed to be outlaws. Outlaws aren't necessarily criminals they lived outside the law. This was a double edged sword, a person wasn't expected to follow the law but didn't live with its protection. The universe may make us different but Samuel Colt made us equal. If an outlaw was to commit crime in an area under the law, they would be brought back to that area to face that areas perception of justice. Now we have nowhere to go, we're forced to live someone else's life. This is something our society has lost. Now people who disagree with the law are labelled degenerates, criminals and scum. With the state justifying violence and property damaged against non-violent offenders of laws they don't consent to in the name of a society they don't want to be members of. In a democracy a win of 1% means 49% of people are forced in to something they don't want. Making those peoples wants and needs irrelevant, therefore making those people irrelevant.
What's the answer?
Most of us can't afford a private island and if we could it probably doesn't have the resources we need, if it did the nations we could trade with, would impose a hefty import duty for demonstrating the pointlessness of statism. The other option is sudden revolution but revolutions tend to do just that revolve. That leaves us with progressive change, 1 mind at a time. Educate yourself, your friends and family in libertarianism and anarchism, the former is merely a stepping stone to the latter and is not a place we can let ourselves to get stuck. I warn you now it's an up hill struggle, in talking politics to a socialist and telling them I'm between anarchism and libertarianism they threatened to punch my face in for being a fascist who wants to see the world burn. Clearly they were low on the IQ scale but anarchism does pose a serious threat to socialists, as it is a political system the limits the rights of people in the name of the people, through committee and other government mechanism. Given my above observations socialists can be seen to be people who want a gummerment to blame and deem themselves to have the right to seize property and the fruits of people's labour.
In conclusion if you truly want to be free pick up some Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Howard Zimm. Think for yourself and question everything.
Why do this to ourselves? Because some people lack responsibility. If someone else is running things and it goes wrong it's not there fault they have a gummerment to blame for things going wrong. This is about as emotionally immature as thinking all things are part of God's plan. At least Moses put the effort of putting his stupid ideas on stone, says someone ranting with permanence of one's and zeros but bear with my hypocrisy as I'm trying to tell you to live your life your way without interference. Live with 1 rule, do nothing to interfere with the freedom and liberty of another individual and help support the liberty of others when they make it clear they need it. Let the natural laws take care of the rest. Want to fight gravity? Enjoy falling on your face, want to use an addictive substance without self control? Enjoy your show painful death. Want my property or product of my labor without my consent? Enjoy a bullet to the face.
Won't somebody please think of the outlaws?!
In the early days of the new world countries, primarily the Americas in this example people were allowed to be outlaws. Outlaws aren't necessarily criminals they lived outside the law. This was a double edged sword, a person wasn't expected to follow the law but didn't live with its protection. The universe may make us different but Samuel Colt made us equal. If an outlaw was to commit crime in an area under the law, they would be brought back to that area to face that areas perception of justice. Now we have nowhere to go, we're forced to live someone else's life. This is something our society has lost. Now people who disagree with the law are labelled degenerates, criminals and scum. With the state justifying violence and property damaged against non-violent offenders of laws they don't consent to in the name of a society they don't want to be members of. In a democracy a win of 1% means 49% of people are forced in to something they don't want. Making those peoples wants and needs irrelevant, therefore making those people irrelevant.
What's the answer?
Most of us can't afford a private island and if we could it probably doesn't have the resources we need, if it did the nations we could trade with, would impose a hefty import duty for demonstrating the pointlessness of statism. The other option is sudden revolution but revolutions tend to do just that revolve. That leaves us with progressive change, 1 mind at a time. Educate yourself, your friends and family in libertarianism and anarchism, the former is merely a stepping stone to the latter and is not a place we can let ourselves to get stuck. I warn you now it's an up hill struggle, in talking politics to a socialist and telling them I'm between anarchism and libertarianism they threatened to punch my face in for being a fascist who wants to see the world burn. Clearly they were low on the IQ scale but anarchism does pose a serious threat to socialists, as it is a political system the limits the rights of people in the name of the people, through committee and other government mechanism. Given my above observations socialists can be seen to be people who want a gummerment to blame and deem themselves to have the right to seize property and the fruits of people's labour.
In conclusion if you truly want to be free pick up some Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Howard Zimm. Think for yourself and question everything.
20170510
A Ramble on Co-ops
A co-op is business made of workers with customers who are members with voting rights on how the business runs, so the shareholder is the consumer.
Having shareholders as the ultimate recipient of the goods or services cuts out some of the dangers I've highlighted before about shareholder based businesses but not all of them but consumers can be sheep like wanting what someone else has and not focusing on what could be, ultimately stifling development. Voting itself is flawed as people will likely vote with the crowd not wanting to be on the losing team. In circumstances where tough decisions have to be made the executive committee will likely have a tough time convincing people or needs be done and possibly lose favour ultimately costing them their place on the committee.
Worker run will hit problems if things get tough for the business, when sacrifices need to be made they won't make them. A lazy worker won't be focused on quality just the sale whilst riding on the back of the more efficient or skilled worker, attempts to compensate for that risk will demoralise the skilled worker and they may end up being labelled a Koulack. The worker will lose when they don't/can't work unless the co-op has some level of personal indemnity insurance which will hurt profits or the worker risks only being paid for what they produce. If sales are seasonal they will risk low income in off seasons.
A successful co-op will still need a hierarchical system of control, executive committee, treasurer etc. but they're more likely to be voluntary which may mean lower quality. Without a executive committee it will fall into disarray and risk more embezzlement than without out but even with a committee there's a risk of embezzlement.
That's the negative down what's the benefits?
As the consumer is the benefactor and the democratic force they have more control over what they can buy and where there business goes. They will pay a lower price for there goods. They can inflate their sense of altruism and feed their ego too.
The worker gets more of the profit from sales. They can choose their working hours and rate of production. Knowing the product innately allows for better sales and gives greater satisfaction for selling it. As co-ops are often require membership to be a customer this gives a reasonably locked in customer base.
I'll argue co-ops will work best in a deregulated capitalist free market but that does open them up to liability for bad goods which will damage the co-op as a whole. In a free market they will be a cornerstone to generate competition, forcing "owner run" businesses to compete on price, quality and first to market products/services. So any socialists reading this are probably frothing at the mouth over this, "B-b-buh worker owned" so what? Any socialist regime has not been run by workers, it's always bureaucrats disconnected from the industry running operations. The workers are just the tool to get those bureaucrats in power. They will regulate co-ops into inoperable circumstances and favor government markets/places of sale over anything that can compete or highlight their incompetence.
Having shareholders as the ultimate recipient of the goods or services cuts out some of the dangers I've highlighted before about shareholder based businesses but not all of them but consumers can be sheep like wanting what someone else has and not focusing on what could be, ultimately stifling development. Voting itself is flawed as people will likely vote with the crowd not wanting to be on the losing team. In circumstances where tough decisions have to be made the executive committee will likely have a tough time convincing people or needs be done and possibly lose favour ultimately costing them their place on the committee.
Worker run will hit problems if things get tough for the business, when sacrifices need to be made they won't make them. A lazy worker won't be focused on quality just the sale whilst riding on the back of the more efficient or skilled worker, attempts to compensate for that risk will demoralise the skilled worker and they may end up being labelled a Koulack. The worker will lose when they don't/can't work unless the co-op has some level of personal indemnity insurance which will hurt profits or the worker risks only being paid for what they produce. If sales are seasonal they will risk low income in off seasons.
A successful co-op will still need a hierarchical system of control, executive committee, treasurer etc. but they're more likely to be voluntary which may mean lower quality. Without a executive committee it will fall into disarray and risk more embezzlement than without out but even with a committee there's a risk of embezzlement.
That's the negative down what's the benefits?
As the consumer is the benefactor and the democratic force they have more control over what they can buy and where there business goes. They will pay a lower price for there goods. They can inflate their sense of altruism and feed their ego too.
The worker gets more of the profit from sales. They can choose their working hours and rate of production. Knowing the product innately allows for better sales and gives greater satisfaction for selling it. As co-ops are often require membership to be a customer this gives a reasonably locked in customer base.
I'll argue co-ops will work best in a deregulated capitalist free market but that does open them up to liability for bad goods which will damage the co-op as a whole. In a free market they will be a cornerstone to generate competition, forcing "owner run" businesses to compete on price, quality and first to market products/services. So any socialists reading this are probably frothing at the mouth over this, "B-b-buh worker owned" so what? Any socialist regime has not been run by workers, it's always bureaucrats disconnected from the industry running operations. The workers are just the tool to get those bureaucrats in power. They will regulate co-ops into inoperable circumstances and favor government markets/places of sale over anything that can compete or highlight their incompetence.
20170507
Why Corporatism isn't Capitalism
Corporatism
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.
This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.
What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).
Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.
When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).
What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.
To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.
This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.
What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).
Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.
When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).
What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.
To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)