Sunday, April 25, 2010

British democracy

British democracy recognizes that you need a system to protect the important things of life and keep them out of the hands of barbarians. Things like the Opera. Radio 3. The countryside. The law. The Universities. (Both of them.)

And we are that system!.. We run as civilized, aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional general elections. Since 1832 we have been gradually excluding the voter from government. Now, we’ve got them to a point where they just vote once every five years for which bunch of buffoons will try to interfere with our policies...


This episode has an explanation why libertarianism and local governments are against the spirit of Britania.

The explanation of the idea here, starting at 4:12:



And the explanation of why the idea is anti-British starts above at 6:12 and continues here:



Now, in case you’re wondering, in the US, the idea that people are stupid and need to be governed and directed (or else, as one socialist fellow working for a bank told me, it will be like traffic without traffic lights) is shared by both conservatives and liberals. And, if the members of both major parties had their way, American system would be more similar to the one described above: a country run by the pencil-pushers and red-tape generators.

The only difference is: with the liberals it is more obvious, since they are clearly wrong on almost every issue, while the conservatives are wrong for the most part only about the big government part.

In this chart, the higher one is, the more evolved politically he or she is, and the better what he or she proposes is for the people and, on the other hand, the worse for the aristocracy that our government has grown into, like a tumor:



Or, to express this idea more clearly:



To me, this is just incredible. Socialists always say that it is the rich owners of the businesses that are sucking life force out of the poor. But it is the owners of the businesses that made cars, iPods, toilet papers, computers, cure for cancer, and air travel more accessible. Sure, you make them rich — but voluntarily, by buying their iPods! And in return you get — you guessed it — the iPods.

In fact, this is a form of democracy: consumers vote with their money who is the best at providing them with good products and services and who should therefore have the money to invest into making more products and services. If you like a Mac computer, you buy it, giving Steve Jobs money to create a newer model of Mac (or iPod, or iPhone). If you like PC, you buy one, giving Dell, HP, Microsoft or whomever, the money and power to develop their products further. Etc.

While the big government, which the socialists love, produces what? A lot of dead trees? (It is no wonder that most Universities are filled with liberals.)



After all is said and done, people usually cry out: but who will take care of the poor? Who will feed them, cloth them, cure them, educate them, and give them low-income housing? Well, provided that the poor are unable to afford all that themselves, after getting jobs existing in a healthy (i.e., government-intervention–free) economy, the same people who give taxes to the government to give back to the poor as charity, can give that money to private organizations. See here.

20 comments:

Just like a guy said...

So to summarize briefly?

Anarchist Chossid said...

Where did your comment go?

To summarize briefly: “Blasted socialists”.

Just like a guy said...

Ahh.

e said...

indeed, socialists suck.

Just like a guy said...

If they're so bad, how did they lure so many gezheh into their ranks back in the day?

Anarchist Chossid said...

Everything was created in opposites.

e said...

darwinists are also evil and they've lured many gezhes.

Anarchist Chossid said...

Darwinists are not evil. Unless you mean Social Darwinists.

Just like a guy said...

What's wrong with social darwinists?

Anarchist Chossid said...

Lack of imagination.

Anarchist Chossid said...

Well, to get to Oregon, the pirates had to go around S. America, while to get to Maine, they didn’t. So, it’s one thing to say we’re not going to Portland, Oregon. Quite another to say that we are not going to Portland, Maine. The level of commitment — or, rather, uncommitment — is rather different.

Just like a guy said...

Who said they weren't going somewhere?

Anarchist Chossid said...

The pirates, of course.

The night before the storm on the masts burning candles Elm St.,
Warmed our hearts for all the past year.
When the doors are in Portland, we will be gentle as a lamb.
Yes, just go back to Portland we will not ever.

Well, if there is no return to Portland, let us bear black sail,
Let it be strong Jamaican rum, all the rest - is nonsense.
When the doors are in Portland, by God, I confess all,
Yes, just go back to Portland we will not ever.

Well, if there is no return to Portland, let the merchant will die of fright.
Neither G-d nor the devil will not help him to save their ships.
When the doors are in Portland, I swear, I'll run up on the block
Yes, just go back to Portland we will not ever.

Well, if there is no return to Portland divide the gold, as brothers,
Because money does not accrue to others without difficulty.
When the doors are in Portland, we will take home in his arms,
Yes, just go back to Portland we will not ever.

When the doors are in Portland, we will take home in his arms,
Yes, just go back to Portland did not give us G-d never.

Anarchist Chossid said...

OK, so Google translate is not that great. But the main point comes through, I think: they are determined not to return to Portland.

e said...

google translate spit out "G-d"?

Anarchist Chossid said...

No, I did. But I missed some.

Anarchist Chossid said...

The original is called «Пиратская лирическая». It’s sang by Okudzhava and Filatov.

Just like a guy said...

What do they have against Portland?

Anarchist Chossid said...

They are rather attached to their necks.

Just like a guy said...

All becomes clear.