EU proposal to monitor "intolerant" citizens

Skybird · 11-01-13, 07:30 AM

The same people who claim that socialism is not an economic concept, are the (left-leaning, usually) people who also reject that human rights cannot be made reasonble sense of different from understanding them on a basis of property rights that give people the right to interact with material and real-world-grounded opportunities to improve their lives in accordance with said claimed rights. Property rights, human rights as being something material?! Far to profane! It has to be idealistically, it has to be brain-heavy, it has to be felt and imagined and fantasized! But the right for free speech for example does not mean Tim has the right to yell his opinion out where ever he wants, or knocking on other people's doors and shoving it down their throats. He has the right to rent a room, invite for an assembly, refuse guests to his liking, and on that assembly then announce his opinion. He has to won the place, and he has to respect the right of others not wanting to need to care for him. He also has no right to demand the newspapers owned by Tom must print his opinion, that is not freedom of speech. He has a right to buy printing space from Tom and pay him for printing it. All this - is about opportunity and ressources Tim has the right to buy. He thus "owns" them, and within that property right he bought he has the right then to announce his opinion. In principle, it is not different with any other construction you can use to illustrate this example. Without property rights, freedom of speech means NOTHING.

That is why huma n rights are so very wishy-washy today, so vague and nebulous, abstract and philosophical only. It's also a reason why human rights now got added so distorted absurdities like they are being implemented by ingeniious theoretics. A human right to have a bank account.

Needless to say that socialism is an economic concept, or better, the absence and denial and deconstruction of working economic principles, morals and ethics. In the end it means nothing else than that what somebody wants he can steal from somebody else by making the claim he needs it. What people deserve, shall play no rule anymore, like healthy price indexing and value assessment on the market shall not play any role anymore. Like the text I originally linked shows in clearness, any state wanting to be socialist, must become a totalitarian player, else he would not be able to enforce socialism. And we see that in history: all socialist and communist experiments had strong displays of right this totalitarian basic nature.

Nietzsche once said the German most beloved symbolic image is the cloud. It is vague, nebulous, unclear, it has no clear contours, everything can be read into it, it holds no form, but constantly changes. The Germans have had two socialist dictatorships in a row - and they still adore it and yearn for it. That is because they refuse to see clear, and Platonists they are (different to the British-American world, which favoured Aristotle), they have an now inbuilt sympathy for dictatorial rule. Germasn are the born submissive citizens. That's why I say since years that the Germans, although they have more at risk and pay more than anyone else in Europe for the EU, will be among the last people in Europe to revolt against the EU dictatorship suffocating the continent and destroying our wealth. They crave even for more, they even embrace needing to pay higher taxes for it...! And more and more state adminsitratrion, more regulation, more social presents (even if they increase debts). The Germans, always high by their emotions which are a drug for them they crave for and which they are unable to control, are a hopeless case, believe me. Obedience and submission to the state, trust in collectives and miracle-believing that socialism makes all things well is something that gets soaked up with the mothermilk over here. Only the French, originators of the blood-thirsty mob that killed some unlucky guards to free some criminals and villains from the Bastille and making a big hype of this and the following bloodshed, are can compare to the Germans in their love for life in socialist miracles. Or delusions.

Our most successful and competent economic leader who ever headed the ministry of economics, was Ludwig Erhard. He violated party politics, he did not care for power interests of politicians, he started by confronting the Allies and dropping their price controls without even asking them (the following economic improvement that made itself felt withion weeks proved him right), was left standing in the rain by his own "colleagues", he clashed with Adenauer over that old man's claim that economics shall be subordinate and in service of foreign politics and should even accept distortions if that is what foreign politics need. He acted by reason, ratioanlity, and common sense, and thew economic record under his rule showed him right. Poltically, as I said, he becakme soon totally isolated. What was in the interest of the economc healing and the imrpvement of the ordiunary German people'S econo9mic reality, was against the very interests of thre parties, and career politicians.

Politicians do not get elected if telling grim truths. Telling sweet lies, gets them elected. That is one of the problems with democracy that made me strictly opposing it now. Democracy guarantees that the biggest lie-teller, the moron without spine and character, the unscrupulous villain and fraudster, has the best chances: the one who sets up the best show of lies and treason, has best chances top get elected. Democracy fosters the worst in man. Democracy punishes, demotivates the best in man. Democracy loot those who nevertheless try to work honestly and keep communities together by their work. The loot is needed by said political fraudsters, to allow them making bribery gifts to voters. In the end, all social gifts and presents must get payed by the stupid people nevertheless, may it be in state debts and interests, may it be via expropriation via taxing and inflation.

Once you have seen clear these things, you never can go back to tolerating them. You have become unable to tolerate them anymore.

I think since long that Denauer is hopelessly overestimated in Germany. The most important name to mention and to explain the fast rcovery of Germany after the war, was not Adenauer (who would have messed up the economy seriously, if he would have had his ways), but Erhard.

Too materialistic again for some, I assume. But the world is material. Without material control over it, all your high-flying ideals and imaginations - are nothing. People understand this since millenia. Just the present Westerner, drunken by his own hyperintellectuality, thinks he knows it better.

Penguin, for you I have this booktip. You will hate it, I promise. LINK - Roland Baader: Totgedacht. Warum Intellektuelle unsere Welt zerstören. The book shows that all so often it is abstract intellectuals only that are not rooted by their work or excistence in solid, material reality, that have brought havoc and disaster over people and nations, and who are always being fascinated by "Kopfgeburten" (book cover) that destroy freedom, morals, self-responsibility, wealth, and the basis of functioning economics. "Hirnies", we call these walking disasters on two legs. And they have cost mankind dearly. Socialism is such a "Kopfgeburt" as well. And it will sweep european nations and people into the gully once again.

In the end, socialism means nothing else than this: "I want, and somebody else should pay; I desire, and this gives me the right to rob and to loot." It always leads to totalitarian states, necessarily. That is all glory there is in it. Sorry for not being so nebulous as to allow glorifying imagination and projecting dreams of milk and honey onto the vague cloudscreen. I'm a profane materialist, I fear. I lack fantasy.

I put something different against that: everybody according to what he deserves. Equality of rich and poor, male and female before the law. Guarantee of private property. Inviolability of family. Strict separation of politics and money, no state monopoly on money, no worthless paper money, which is nothing else than making debts a currency. Human rights understood as property rights. As small state administration as can be enforced. No socialisation of private or communal debts. Self-responsibility.

All that makes people like me a socialist's nightmare. I'm proud to be. Humanism and socialism cannot play in the same team.

11-01-13, 07:30 AM	#21
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,813 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The same people who claim that socialism is not an economic concept, are the (left-leaning, usually) people who also reject that human rights cannot be made reasonble sense of different from understanding them on a basis of property rights that give people the right to interact with material and real-world-grounded opportunities to improve their lives in accordance with said claimed rights. Property rights, human rights as being something material?! Far to profane! It has to be idealistically, it has to be brain-heavy, it has to be felt and imagined and fantasized! But the right for free speech for example does not mean Tim has the right to yell his opinion out where ever he wants, or knocking on other people's doors and shoving it down their throats. He has the right to rent a room, invite for an assembly, refuse guests to his liking, and on that assembly then announce his opinion. He has to won the place, and he has to respect the right of others not wanting to need to care for him. He also has no right to demand the newspapers owned by Tom must print his opinion, that is not freedom of speech. He has a right to buy printing space from Tom and pay him for printing it. All this - is about opportunity and ressources Tim has the right to buy. He thus "owns" them, and within that property right he bought he has the right then to announce his opinion. In principle, it is not different with any other construction you can use to illustrate this example. Without property rights, freedom of speech means NOTHING. That is why huma n rights are so very wishy-washy today, so vague and nebulous, abstract and philosophical only. It's also a reason why human rights now got added so distorted absurdities like they are being implemented by ingeniious theoretics. A human right to have a bank account. Needless to say that socialism is an economic concept, or better, the absence and denial and deconstruction of working economic principles, morals and ethics. In the end it means nothing else than that what somebody wants he can steal from somebody else by making the claim he needs it. What people deserve, shall play no rule anymore, like healthy price indexing and value assessment on the market shall not play any role anymore. Like the text I originally linked shows in clearness, any state wanting to be socialist, must become a totalitarian player, else he would not be able to enforce socialism. And we see that in history: all socialist and communist experiments had strong displays of right this totalitarian basic nature. Nietzsche once said the German most beloved symbolic image is the cloud. It is vague, nebulous, unclear, it has no clear contours, everything can be read into it, it holds no form, but constantly changes. The Germans have had two socialist dictatorships in a row - and they still adore it and yearn for it. That is because they refuse to see clear, and Platonists they are (different to the British-American world, which favoured Aristotle), they have an now inbuilt sympathy for dictatorial rule. Germasn are the born submissive citizens. That's why I say since years that the Germans, although they have more at risk and pay more than anyone else in Europe for the EU, will be among the last people in Europe to revolt against the EU dictatorship suffocating the continent and destroying our wealth. They crave even for more, they even embrace needing to pay higher taxes for it...! And more and more state adminsitratrion, more regulation, more social presents (even if they increase debts). The Germans, always high by their emotions which are a drug for them they crave for and which they are unable to control, are a hopeless case, believe me. Obedience and submission to the state, trust in collectives and miracle-believing that socialism makes all things well is something that gets soaked up with the mothermilk over here. Only the French, originators of the blood-thirsty mob that killed some unlucky guards to free some criminals and villains from the Bastille and making a big hype of this and the following bloodshed, are can compare to the Germans in their love for life in socialist miracles. Or delusions. Our most successful and competent economic leader who ever headed the ministry of economics, was Ludwig Erhard. He violated party politics, he did not care for power interests of politicians, he started by confronting the Allies and dropping their price controls without even asking them (the following economic improvement that made itself felt withion weeks proved him right), was left standing in the rain by his own "colleagues", he clashed with Adenauer over that old man's claim that economics shall be subordinate and in service of foreign politics and should even accept distortions if that is what foreign politics need. He acted by reason, ratioanlity, and common sense, and thew economic record under his rule showed him right. Poltically, as I said, he becakme soon totally isolated. What was in the interest of the economc healing and the imrpvement of the ordiunary German people'S econo9mic reality, was against the very interests of thre parties, and career politicians. Politicians do not get elected if telling grim truths. Telling sweet lies, gets them elected. That is one of the problems with democracy that made me strictly opposing it now. Democracy guarantees that the biggest lie-teller, the moron without spine and character, the unscrupulous villain and fraudster, has the best chances: the one who sets up the best show of lies and treason, has best chances top get elected. Democracy fosters the worst in man. Democracy punishes, demotivates the best in man. Democracy loot those who nevertheless try to work honestly and keep communities together by their work. The loot is needed by said political fraudsters, to allow them making bribery gifts to voters. In the end, all social gifts and presents must get payed by the stupid people nevertheless, may it be in state debts and interests, may it be via expropriation via taxing and inflation. Once you have seen clear these things, you never can go back to tolerating them. You have become unable to tolerate them anymore. I think since long that Denauer is hopelessly overestimated in Germany. The most important name to mention and to explain the fast rcovery of Germany after the war, was not Adenauer (who would have messed up the economy seriously, if he would have had his ways), but Erhard. Too materialistic again for some, I assume. But the world is material. Without material control over it, all your high-flying ideals and imaginations - are nothing. People understand this since millenia. Just the present Westerner, drunken by his own hyperintellectuality, thinks he knows it better. Penguin, for you I have this booktip. You will hate it, I promise. LINK - Roland Baader: Totgedacht. Warum Intellektuelle unsere Welt zerstören. The book shows that all so often it is abstract intellectuals only that are not rooted by their work or excistence in solid, material reality, that have brought havoc and disaster over people and nations, and who are always being fascinated by "Kopfgeburten" (book cover) that destroy freedom, morals, self-responsibility, wealth, and the basis of functioning economics. "Hirnies", we call these walking disasters on two legs. And they have cost mankind dearly. Socialism is such a "Kopfgeburt" as well. And it will sweep european nations and people into the gully once again. In the end, socialism means nothing else than this: "I want, and somebody else should pay; I desire, and this gives me the right to rob and to loot." It always leads to totalitarian states, necessarily. That is all glory there is in it. Sorry for not being so nebulous as to allow glorifying imagination and projecting dreams of milk and honey onto the vague cloudscreen. I'm a profane materialist, I fear. I lack fantasy. I put something different against that: everybody according to what he deserves. Equality of rich and poor, male and female before the law. Guarantee of private property. Inviolability of family. Strict separation of politics and money, no state monopoly on money, no worthless paper money, which is nothing else than making debts a currency. Human rights understood as property rights. As small state administration as can be enforced. No socialisation of private or communal debts. Self-responsibility. All that makes people like me a socialist's nightmare. I'm proud to be. Humanism and socialism cannot play in the same team. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-01-13 at 07:56 AM.