Chuggers, or "charity muggers". We've all seen them, we've all averted our eyes or plugged our headphones in to avoid being accosted by them. Usually dressed in jeans and some funky t-shirt emblazoned with the logo of their charity, they are annoying and rarely take my heartfelt "fuck off" well.
They invariably work for very well-known and very well-off charities, the kind that can afford loads of paid staff and whose chief executive earns a six-figure salary. The kind of charity that probably also suckles quite hard at the teat of the state, "delivering services" for the government.
Everyone I know hates them. But really, they're just salesmen, doing a hard sell. They're no different from the guy knocking on your door with his "we're just in the area" double-glazing pitch.
They're just salesman.
And the product they're selling is a salved conscience.
Friday, 30 September 2011
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Left foot in mouth
I can't decide if Eoin Clarke is a socialist or a fucking idiot, the two terms being entirely interchangeable. But let's have a look at a particular example:
Do they? On what particular basis do you say this?
Or, to put it another way, "59% of childcare providers, who parents willingly and voluntarily entrust their most precious bundles of joy with, are private profiteers."
What, exactly, is the problem?
Right. Because people who have to pay the actual bills don't fucking shop around much, do they? They don't already balance off their individual requirements for cost versus quality versus trustworthiness and a zillion other factors when it comes to their kids? Because let's face it, it's only their fucking kids, what do they know?
Er, Eoin, clearly they can, or they fucking wouldn't.
I am quoting verbatim from his post so far. I don't know about you, but I've got no fucking idea whatsoever where his numbers have come from. But let's assume they're justified somewhere, I'd like to point out that the voluntary sector, being voluntary, should be able to provide the childcare for free and gratis, it being, you know, voluntary. Unless, of course, Eoin has co-opted a well-known and clearly-understood word to mean something else, something that sounds jolly spiffy, but is actually a nasty, spiteful piece of socialist bollocks. Much like "co-operatives", something I see used with gay abandon, but entirely unexplained.
I'd also like to point out that the state has no fucking money of its own, sponging as it does off the long-suffering and increasingly-impoverished taxpayer. Many of whom either don't have kids or have made other plans for their own kids and can't really understand why they have to subsidise some other cunt's kids.
Is it? On what grounds do you level this charge? People will either pay it and use the service, or they won't and fuck off elsewhere. I really don't see the word "ethics" entering into this at all.
Why? What fucking business is it of the government what pricing and payment arrangements are voluntarily entered into by private businesses and / or individuals?
Personally, I'd like to see the government ban registration fees for cars, but of course, dickheads like Eoin will never argue for that, because the money is going to their preferred thief, the government.
Yeah, well maybe it's got something to do with insane levels of regulation, mandatory staffing requirements and, of course, the taxes levied by the greedy state.
No, no, Eoin, you're quite right, it's all down to those greedy profiteers.
Life is cruel sometimes. But perhaps you'd be better off making a case for it to be easier for people to open up a small childcare business without the insane levels of box-ticking required by the government, and the eye-watering taxation levied on them.
Just imagine, thousands of potentially unemployed people not only earning money, but also reducing the costs for people already in work.
Or does that not fit in with your socialist, centrally-controlled, authoritarian mindset?
No, I did think so.
We in Labour Left argue that private companies in general have too big a share in the UK childcare market.
Do they? On what particular basis do you say this?
Fifty nine per cent of childcare providers are private profiteers.
Or, to put it another way, "59% of childcare providers, who parents willingly and voluntarily entrust their most precious bundles of joy with, are private profiteers."
What, exactly, is the problem?
We are going to make the case for co-operatives to play a larger part in the sector. In order to do this we wish to outline the poor value that private providers offer parents.
Right. Because people who have to pay the actual bills don't fucking shop around much, do they? They don't already balance off their individual requirements for cost versus quality versus trustworthiness and a zillion other factors when it comes to their kids? Because let's face it, it's only their fucking kids, what do they know?
In the current economic climate, can the average family afford an extra £910 a year just to send their child for 25 hours a week to a private crèche?
Er, Eoin, clearly they can, or they fucking wouldn't.
If the voluntary sector is able to provide it at a full £1,040 cheaper, then the state has a duty to boost that sector as much as in possible.
I am quoting verbatim from his post so far. I don't know about you, but I've got no fucking idea whatsoever where his numbers have come from. But let's assume they're justified somewhere, I'd like to point out that the voluntary sector, being voluntary, should be able to provide the childcare for free and gratis, it being, you know, voluntary. Unless, of course, Eoin has co-opted a well-known and clearly-understood word to mean something else, something that sounds jolly spiffy, but is actually a nasty, spiteful piece of socialist bollocks. Much like "co-operatives", something I see used with gay abandon, but entirely unexplained.
I'd also like to point out that the state has no fucking money of its own, sponging as it does off the long-suffering and increasingly-impoverished taxpayer. Many of whom either don't have kids or have made other plans for their own kids and can't really understand why they have to subsidise some other cunt's kids.
Given the fact that about 30% of crèche places are unfilled, the practice of charging parents deposits and registration fees to book their children into a care provider is deeply unethical.
Is it? On what grounds do you level this charge? People will either pay it and use the service, or they won't and fuck off elsewhere. I really don't see the word "ethics" entering into this at all.
And it is a fact that profit-making childcare providers are much more likely to engage in the practice. As well as expanding the voluntary sector, the government should also seek to ban registration fees for crèches.
Why? What fucking business is it of the government what pricing and payment arrangements are voluntarily entered into by private businesses and / or individuals?
Personally, I'd like to see the government ban registration fees for cars, but of course, dickheads like Eoin will never argue for that, because the money is going to their preferred thief, the government.
But these are not the only problems that parents face. The growing cost of childcare is also an issue. All of this data is based upon 2010 data but prices are climbing.
Yeah, well maybe it's got something to do with insane levels of regulation, mandatory staffing requirements and, of course, the taxes levied by the greedy state.
No, no, Eoin, you're quite right, it's all down to those greedy profiteers.
More that two thirds of providers have increased their prices in the last year, this comes at a time when the government are cutting by 10% the amount of childcare fees they will cover for low income families. That said, the families that receive state support with childcare only account for about 20% of the total number of children receiving these services. Eighty per cent of families have to struggle with these costs by themselves.
Life is cruel sometimes. But perhaps you'd be better off making a case for it to be easier for people to open up a small childcare business without the insane levels of box-ticking required by the government, and the eye-watering taxation levied on them.
Just imagine, thousands of potentially unemployed people not only earning money, but also reducing the costs for people already in work.
Or does that not fit in with your socialist, centrally-controlled, authoritarian mindset?
No, I did think so.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Oh, for FUCK'S sake, Ed!
The man is clearly a fucking idiot:
And how will you know that, Ed? Will it be if someone rats them out? Will you have inspectors who go round analysing businesses to identify
So the options are:
or
And, of course, there is the tiny but hardly irrelevant matter that asset stripping is, in fact, wealth creation. You fucking idiot.
Oh, I can't wait until these cunts get back into power. Happy days.
Private equity firms and businesses deemed to be “asset strippers” will face higher taxes under a Labour government, Ed Miliband will warn tomorrow.
And how will you know that, Ed? Will it be if someone rats them out? Will you have inspectors who go round analysing businesses to identify
companies with the “wrong values” who do not create jobs, invest in companies or train their staff
So the options are:
- Employers will be at the whim of employees who may take every rejection of jazzed-up training as an excuse to try and get their employer the higher tax level;
- Labour will employ thousands of inspectors to make sure that every business meets a checklist of bollocks criteria that will do nothing to prevent "bad" behaviour, but cost the taxpayer billions;
or
- Ed is blowing smoke up the party faithful's collective ringmeat.
And, of course, there is the tiny but hardly irrelevant matter that asset stripping is, in fact, wealth creation. You fucking idiot.
Oh, I can't wait until these cunts get back into power. Happy days.
Striking off
"Dear fellow socialists, time has come for us to acknowledge that there is a group in society, who have an insidious and far-reaching power; a group who claims to seek truth and act in our best interests, yet has a much darker aim; a group that is completely unaccountable and even when caught acting in an improper manner will escape all but the most symbolic and trite of punishments.
"I therefore propose that politicians be licensed and placed on a register, and if struck off from this register, they will not be allowed to politic at the rest of us ever again."
-- Ivan Lewis, not at all an authoritarian fuckwit, not at all speaking out of his fucking arse later today.
Fake charity steals from reformed prisoners
Ah yes, as bland churnalism, this can hardly be beaten:
I scarcely know where to start with this bollocks, but here's some random thoughts:
"Victim Support" is a fake charity, largely supported by state extortion. If you look at their accounts:
They spend a bloody large percentage of their income on salaries:
I can't find evidence for Javed Khan's salary, but his predecessor earned a tidy £100,000 per annum, apparently.
So, it sounds like Victim Support is nothing more than a lobbying organisation, funded by the state to lobby the state ... evidently for more funding!
It certainly doesn't sound like there's a massive amount of money left for, you know, supporting victims in any kind of financial way.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the tiny handful of prisoners who are allowed to work outside of prison, often have to fund a lot of their living expenses. They are rarely paid much more than the minimum wage. So there is now a massive incentive for the handful of prisoners that everyone agrees are a safe bet to reintroduce into society, to say "fuck you, I'll just sit here and rot some more."
A million pounds is pretty much chump change, even to Victim Support, as it will barely fund another dozen over-paid earnest, executive staff. Who all have hearts of gold.
Dickhead Herbert is also being pretty fucking disingenuous about this crap, because 90% of prisoners will not qualify for paid work, so only the tiniest proportion of prisoners, who are by definition the ones who have done the least damage to society or have the best chance of fitting back in, are bearing the brunt of this petty spitefulness.
All in all, a triumph for the unthinking, the mean-spirited and the average Daily Mail reader. Oh, and a handy little burnish for the tough Tory brigade.
Cunts. One and fucking all.
At least £1m a year will be taken from prisoners' wages and used to help crime victims, under legislation coming into force today.
About 500 offenders who work outside prisons in community schemes will see their take-home pay cut by 40 per cent, as part of the "rehabilitation revolution" promised by Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary.
There are also plans to take cash from prisoners who work behind bars, although they receive just £10 a week on average.
Under the Prisoners' Earnings Act, 40 per cent of prisoners' wages – after tax, national insurance and any court-ordered or child support payments – will be given to Victim Support. Javed Khan, the charity's chief executive, said the money will be used "to deliver real, practical support for victims and communities".
Policing minister Nick Herbert said: "Making offenders pay financial reparation to victims will require them to take personal responsibility for their crimes.
I scarcely know where to start with this bollocks, but here's some random thoughts:
"Victim Support" is a fake charity, largely supported by state extortion. If you look at their accounts:
Income from the Ministry of Justice was £38.6m for the year. Income from other statutory bodies, including local authorities and criminal justice agencies, was £10M.
They spend a bloody large percentage of their income on salaries:
Total expenses for the year were £49.6m (£48.6m in 2008/09) of which £35.1m relates to staff salaries (£32.9m in 2008/09).
I can't find evidence for Javed Khan's salary, but his predecessor earned a tidy £100,000 per annum, apparently.
So, it sounds like Victim Support is nothing more than a lobbying organisation, funded by the state to lobby the state ... evidently for more funding!
It certainly doesn't sound like there's a massive amount of money left for, you know, supporting victims in any kind of financial way.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the tiny handful of prisoners who are allowed to work outside of prison, often have to fund a lot of their living expenses. They are rarely paid much more than the minimum wage. So there is now a massive incentive for the handful of prisoners that everyone agrees are a safe bet to reintroduce into society, to say "fuck you, I'll just sit here and rot some more."
A million pounds is pretty much chump change, even to Victim Support, as it will barely fund another dozen over-paid earnest, executive staff. Who all have hearts of gold.
Dickhead Herbert is also being pretty fucking disingenuous about this crap, because 90% of prisoners will not qualify for paid work, so only the tiniest proportion of prisoners, who are by definition the ones who have done the least damage to society or have the best chance of fitting back in, are bearing the brunt of this petty spitefulness.
All in all, a triumph for the unthinking, the mean-spirited and the average Daily Mail reader. Oh, and a handy little burnish for the tough Tory brigade.
Cunts. One and fucking all.
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Collective Libertarians
One of the fallacies that I encounter about libertarians is that we're all selfish bastards who can never work together for "the greater good", whatever that might be. But the truth of the matter is that libertarians are absolutely sold on the idea of voluntary cooperation.
And one of the best examples of excellent voluntary co-operation on a libertarian basis can be found over at Anna Raccoon, who has gathered some excellent authors and accepts posts from total weirdos from time to time.
Her blog has been rewarded with a number of prizes at the Total Politics awards, including one of the "best group blogs" awards, an interesting challenge to the well-funded and/or political-machine-backed group blogs like ConservativeHome or LabourList. And Anna herself has also been rated as a top political bloggess in her own right.
It just goes to show that libertarian ideals can provide a viable alternative to clapped-out, boring, yah-boo-sucks tribal politics. Well done, Anna!*
*I'm not remotely jealous of the fact that the boot-faced old harridan thoroughly kicked my arse this year. Honest.
And one of the best examples of excellent voluntary co-operation on a libertarian basis can be found over at Anna Raccoon, who has gathered some excellent authors and accepts posts from total weirdos from time to time.
Her blog has been rewarded with a number of prizes at the Total Politics awards, including one of the "best group blogs" awards, an interesting challenge to the well-funded and/or political-machine-backed group blogs like ConservativeHome or LabourList. And Anna herself has also been rated as a top political bloggess in her own right.
It just goes to show that libertarian ideals can provide a viable alternative to clapped-out, boring, yah-boo-sucks tribal politics. Well done, Anna!*
*I'm not remotely jealous of the fact that the boot-faced old harridan thoroughly kicked my arse this year. Honest.
Monday, 19 September 2011
Hari kiri
I am absolutely amazed that despite being rumbled for plagiarism, Johann Hari has been able to keep his job at the Independent. I can only assume he has very special photos of Simon Kelner.
But it will, almost inevitably, be a Pyrrhic victory for the fat poof. The media has its dander up, and stories have been dripping out and will continue to do so. The worst to date is how Hari has evidently used sock puppets to attack his critics, particularly one called David Rose.
I struggle to see how the Independent can retain Hari after this, but as the Telegraph blogger Nero points out, it gets even worse. Imagine the Independent retaining an actual racist as one of its leading columnists!
Still, it's good that journalists can hold their heads high, secure in the knowledge that their professional standards and credibility are so much better than bloggers.
The cunts.
But it will, almost inevitably, be a Pyrrhic victory for the fat poof. The media has its dander up, and stories have been dripping out and will continue to do so. The worst to date is how Hari has evidently used sock puppets to attack his critics, particularly one called David Rose.
I struggle to see how the Independent can retain Hari after this, but as the Telegraph blogger Nero points out, it gets even worse. Imagine the Independent retaining an actual racist as one of its leading columnists!
Still, it's good that journalists can hold their heads high, secure in the knowledge that their professional standards and credibility are so much better than bloggers.
The cunts.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
You fucking cunts!
I'm gutted. I'm only at number 10, despite my desperate attempts not to blog for the whole year. Plus, I wrote a load of shit.
So actually, thank you!
So actually, thank you!
The professionally aggrieved
This bloke had a disagreement with his girlfriend. He went to the pub and stayed out all night while his girlfriend stayed home sobbed her eyes out.
Now click here.
Plausible?
Or was your first thought "This shirt excuses domestic violence"? Like twitter did?
The professionally aggrieved saw this shirt and immediately started seeding twitter with "Look at this shirt, it makes domestic violence into a joke". Now if you look at the shirt again, thinking about domestic violence, it also makes perfect sense.
But crucially, it would make sense in almost any relationship dispute, violent or not. The frame of mind you're in when you first see the shirt has a massive impact on how you take it.
Needless to say, of course, that TopMan have pulled the shirt.
Now click here.
Plausible?
Or was your first thought "This shirt excuses domestic violence"? Like twitter did?
The professionally aggrieved saw this shirt and immediately started seeding twitter with "Look at this shirt, it makes domestic violence into a joke". Now if you look at the shirt again, thinking about domestic violence, it also makes perfect sense.
But crucially, it would make sense in almost any relationship dispute, violent or not. The frame of mind you're in when you first see the shirt has a massive impact on how you take it.
Needless to say, of course, that TopMan have pulled the shirt.
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Dale Farm
It is a truism that if the UN is united on something, then the correct thing to do is the exact opposite of what they are saying:
So, let me get this straight: things are so fucking peaceful and perfect in the rest of the world that the UN has enough time to give a shit about 400 pikeys getting hoofed out of an illegal settlement? No-one is dying in a war or famine or something?
Well, that's just fucking excellent news, for a change. Because, of course, if millions of people were dying in genocides or catastrophes, and the UN was bitching about a perfectly legal eviction from England's precious "green belt", well, then they'd look like a fucking bunch of cocksniffing fuckwits, wouldn't they?
Oh, they are a bunch of cocksniffing fuckwits, then.
This whole Dale Farm thing really gets on my tits. I don't believe that all of England's greenery is as fucking sacred as it's made out to be and so I'm quite in favour of people using land to fucking build houses on and stop the ludicrous home-ownerism in this country.
But as much as I believe that planning permission is a crock of shit, I believe more in the rule of law. And if I have to go through a mire of cunt soup to build an extension on my existing home, I can't see why a bunch of fucking pikeys can do whatever the fuck they like and not only get away with it, but get the fucking UN involved in sucking their collective cocks.
It's the same fucking thing with closed sessions at the public pool for Muslim women. Jesus. Imagine if I said that I wanted the pool for three hours a week exclusively for CoE males - I'd be laughed out of the fucking building. Yet here in this godforsaken corner of England, there are times I am not allowed to enter the swimming pool because my gender and creed are not the one whose cock gets sucked by every diversity-coordinating fuckmong in the country.
I think by and large most people, not just the British, are pretty tolerant of strangers. But everybody resents minorities who trade on the minorityness to get things that are forbidden to the rest of us.
So on balance, I'm going to say: fuck the pikeys, fuck the UN, and God help me ... I'm rooting for Basildon Council.
The government must suspend the "immature and unwise" eviction of 400 Travellers from Essex green belt and seek a peaceful solution, the UN and a European human rights group said.
So, let me get this straight: things are so fucking peaceful and perfect in the rest of the world that the UN has enough time to give a shit about 400 pikeys getting hoofed out of an illegal settlement? No-one is dying in a war or famine or something?
Well, that's just fucking excellent news, for a change. Because, of course, if millions of people were dying in genocides or catastrophes, and the UN was bitching about a perfectly legal eviction from England's precious "green belt", well, then they'd look like a fucking bunch of cocksniffing fuckwits, wouldn't they?
Oh, they are a bunch of cocksniffing fuckwits, then.
This whole Dale Farm thing really gets on my tits. I don't believe that all of England's greenery is as fucking sacred as it's made out to be and so I'm quite in favour of people using land to fucking build houses on and stop the ludicrous home-ownerism in this country.
But as much as I believe that planning permission is a crock of shit, I believe more in the rule of law. And if I have to go through a mire of cunt soup to build an extension on my existing home, I can't see why a bunch of fucking pikeys can do whatever the fuck they like and not only get away with it, but get the fucking UN involved in sucking their collective cocks.
It's the same fucking thing with closed sessions at the public pool for Muslim women. Jesus. Imagine if I said that I wanted the pool for three hours a week exclusively for CoE males - I'd be laughed out of the fucking building. Yet here in this godforsaken corner of England, there are times I am not allowed to enter the swimming pool because my gender and creed are not the one whose cock gets sucked by every diversity-coordinating fuckmong in the country.
I think by and large most people, not just the British, are pretty tolerant of strangers. But everybody resents minorities who trade on the minorityness to get things that are forbidden to the rest of us.
So on balance, I'm going to say: fuck the pikeys, fuck the UN, and God help me ... I'm rooting for Basildon Council.
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Ford: thinking of the cheeeeldren
I was somewhat less than amused to see that Ford has introduced nanny-state cars:
Seriously. It's a good thing I don't fucking buy Fords, but really? I would just fucking "lose" my key and have to borrow my dad's. The whole fucking thing smacks of lunatic cotton-wool-wrapping gone totally fucking bonkers.
As if that wasn't enough:
"In a slightly more nannyish vein"??? How is that more fucking nannyish than limiting speed or hifi volume, for fuck's sake?
How fucking long will it be before the government gets to dictate what parts of the car we can and can't control any more.
Of course, it's no surprise that this useless bunch of turd-burgling fuckmonkeys are happy turn motorists even more ovine than they already are, they've got a long tradition of cosying up to bullying fucks who "know better".
I'm sure BRAKE are masturbating themselves into a coma over this mongstrosity.
The US motoring company announced that it was extending a concept called MyKey to its European models from next year. The system allows owners to programme a particular key with limitations for the vehicle, including a maximum speed and even a cap on the audio system's volume.
Already standard on most US Ford models, the technology allows a series of options designed to make teenage motoring as safe – or, depending on your perspective, as irritating – as parents choose.
The maximum speed can be set at an already-illegal 80mph, with the option of warning chimes at 45, 55 or 65mph. Another feature means the system that curbs tyre spin cannot be deactivated. Seatbelt reminders can be set to be more regular and insistent than usual, with the radio set on silent till the deed is done.
Seriously. It's a good thing I don't fucking buy Fords, but really? I would just fucking "lose" my key and have to borrow my dad's. The whole fucking thing smacks of lunatic cotton-wool-wrapping gone totally fucking bonkers.
As if that wasn't enough:
In a slightly more nannyish vein, the warning about low fuel can be made to sound sooner, while there is an option to bar deactivation of electronic parking assistance and blind spot detection systems.
"In a slightly more nannyish vein"??? How is that more fucking nannyish than limiting speed or hifi volume, for fuck's sake?
How fucking long will it be before the government gets to dictate what parts of the car we can and can't control any more.
Of course, it's no surprise that this useless bunch of turd-burgling fuckmonkeys are happy turn motorists even more ovine than they already are, they've got a long tradition of cosying up to bullying fucks who "know better".
I'm sure BRAKE are masturbating themselves into a coma over this mongstrosity.
Thursday, 1 September 2011
The Utopianism of Anarchists
One of the more irritating disparaging remarks that gets levelled at me as an anarchist is that my views are "utopian" and "impractical".
Yet it seems to me that when you discuss the failings of every system of government that exists, each will be supported by its own group of political anoraks that will say that "if the government just did this and that, why then everything would be perfect!"
Even in the frankly appalling cesspit that is social democracy, there are people who say that "if we just got government employees to care a little bit more and focus a little bit more on making things more efficient (and maybe one or two other things) then it would be perfect".
But this is considerably more utopian than the ideals of anarchy. Every form of government involves balancing objectives that are often diametrically imposed. Yet somehow, if we just fiddle a bit here and tweak a bit there, then current government can be made absolutely spot on.
Well, fuck that. I don't believe that shit for a fucking moment. People have been honing and shaving and fiddling and twiddling and generally buggering around with government since it was first shat into being. Some brilliant minds used to be involved in it (although those days are long gone now!) and yet it's always been a fucking shambles and it always will be a fucking shambles.
And what about impractical? Well, it's true that some things might be more difficult to do in an anarchic society. But I think people would be amazed at how few those things were. But even if there are some things that are difficult to do, do we as people not deserve the other benefits that come from a regulation- and government-free society?
I don't think that an anarchic society would necessarily look much different from what we have now, but at least costs would be transparent and fairly borne by people who need services and our money wouldn't be wasted on crap like jingoistic wars and we wouldn't have the behemoth state sucking the life out us all.
Yet it seems to me that when you discuss the failings of every system of government that exists, each will be supported by its own group of political anoraks that will say that "if the government just did this and that, why then everything would be perfect!"
Even in the frankly appalling cesspit that is social democracy, there are people who say that "if we just got government employees to care a little bit more and focus a little bit more on making things more efficient (and maybe one or two other things) then it would be perfect".
But this is considerably more utopian than the ideals of anarchy. Every form of government involves balancing objectives that are often diametrically imposed. Yet somehow, if we just fiddle a bit here and tweak a bit there, then current government can be made absolutely spot on.
Well, fuck that. I don't believe that shit for a fucking moment. People have been honing and shaving and fiddling and twiddling and generally buggering around with government since it was first shat into being. Some brilliant minds used to be involved in it (although those days are long gone now!) and yet it's always been a fucking shambles and it always will be a fucking shambles.
And what about impractical? Well, it's true that some things might be more difficult to do in an anarchic society. But I think people would be amazed at how few those things were. But even if there are some things that are difficult to do, do we as people not deserve the other benefits that come from a regulation- and government-free society?
I don't think that an anarchic society would necessarily look much different from what we have now, but at least costs would be transparent and fairly borne by people who need services and our money wouldn't be wasted on crap like jingoistic wars and we wouldn't have the behemoth state sucking the life out us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)