I must say that I feel a great weight lifted off my shoulders now that i have Finally cleared up myths and facts and other things, I feel that my life has a purpose and i have finally cleared my conscious of everything that I have done that I fell extremely horrible about and apologized for it (for before I believed that Republicans were good and that Democrats were evil , now i see that Both are evil and Both are Socialistic). a Great day for me

[Edit] Just the other day I apologized to my neighbor for all the fucked up things I did in the past (said and done) that lifted my spirits a bit

Currently Reading Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order By Hans-Hermann Hoppe see related

Hahahah Okay Apparently Some people have some Mixed up Views on what Capitalism is and What Communism is...

First off Anarco-Communism... a Contradiction to the Meaning of Anarchy "Absence of Political Authority", and Communism "Collectivization by means of force, a Classless Society made up of Workers"

I will Point out the Fallacy of communists in the world and their Idea of a Utopia will eventually contribute to not only an Economic Problem but also a Environmental problem as well (So Environmentalists of Xanga you can complain all you want but I will tell what your perfect world of regulations actually does)

First of all The Idea of Communism in it's pure form is a Contradiction in itself. These Questions are Raised, How will you make the Society, (because  humans even you commies do, if you didn't you wouldn't be working you would be in jail because you don't show respect to others and act obscene), not accept a Social Hierarchy? How will you make the collectivization of the community without force? What would happen if all there was a classless Society made up of only workers?  How could your community efficently and effectively maintain it's natural resources and maintain the environmentally friendly environment? How will it be able to manage these resources in a "Hive" mind state? How are you going to get people to give up their fruits of their labor?

Secondly I will talk about Capitalism.

Ok Now it's time to Start, Also Note that this is pointing out Fallacies and destroying myths about capitalism.

In a Communist Society, the classless society that (ComradeNick) favors deeply in, has many different things that may seem like a utopia at first glance. Classlessness and Collectivization may seem like a good thing to your adverage (and ignorent) person. (Also something that I would like to point out that Democracy has led to a social and intellectual degeneration in the people of America and other countries in the world. I.E. the people are decivilizing, sure the standards of living have improved but our respect to the others and hate/racism has increased bad behavior is rewarded, good behavior is punished). The First question I ask when I see the word Anarco-Communism (and all you other Communists that didn't Like the USSR because they weren't Pure Communists (Which means your Anarco-Communists) need to listen up). How are you going to get the classless society, how does the Social Hierarchy get destoryed if not rebuilt? The thing is you can't and never will without FORCING people to do it, but if you force people to be classless then you the enforcer are being the elite of the society so, in essence you can't ever get the Classless Society you want so stop preaching it. Second question that I ask is... How are you going to get people to unanimously throughout the community agree to Collectivization? What are you going to do to the people that don't want to be apart of it? First answer is, there will never be 100% going along with your program of control, it's like someone telling you, Yeah we are going to get everyone together and have everything that you make go to a community barn or mill (I'm talking about farms here) and we'll find out how to redistribute it. So if there are ten farmers in this society and each are making and only need to survive on 10 ears of corn (yielding at 100 ears of corn altogether). You will have a problem called "Free-Riding" a person will recognize that Hey I don't need to work that much since will will be getting something anyways... he decides to only produce 9 ears of corn (the Collective now being 1 short to 99) so someone that is actually doing his work will not get all the ears of corn he needs to survive. He then becomes weak and only starts to make 9 ears of corn also (By this time all farmers will now be producing 9 ears of corn each (each needing 10 ears of corn to survive) the society of collectiveness and classlessness start to break down as all or a few people are not getting everything they need to work properly (yes even in a Communist Society people were in fact greedy, the basic premise of this observation is that the people were exploited at a Greater rate then any country at the Time (During the Great Communist experiment) The government (The Social and only Elite class in the Society of Classlessness (irony if i may) was exploiting it's people and holding wheat and food from it's people for "Glorious" redistribution the systematic Starvation (Murder) of Ukrainies was justified because Russia could not produce enough wheat when it's near free-market and fledgling Communist (well actually "Democratically elected" Soviet Sympathizers that allowed private property until Russia barged in) Government was producing ten times more wheat then the Soviets ever could (you could say that Ukraine was fertile and it's true but Russia had more then enough farming space and fertile soil to grow enough wheat for the society). That ending statement that I just wrote means that "Free-Riding" had become such a problem that in order for Stalin to inact his five year plan (Seeing that his country could not survive a year without stealing) he took from Ukraine massive amounts of wheat and stole back to russia to his near unwilling to work workers (irony hahaha). Although Workers were forced to work there was no incentive at all to do anything to make their society better because it wasn't going to better them it was going to better someone else. The Absence of Private Competition also made the worker's lives even more miserable. And I ask how are you going to deal with the people that don't want to be apart of your society? Third how will your country/society develop means to be effcient when there is no competition, there is no incentive to work, no incentive to be environmentally friendly in order not to kill even more people, and how can you deal with workers having no bosses (other then the Enforcer Elite) to direct the workers? Firstly your society can't be efficent on how to deal with natural resources as I have stated that the workers have no incentive to work therefore don't need to use the materials as wisely as possible and as the saying goes "haste makes waste" well Russia mastered that saying. Another thing is your society can't be environmentally friendly as i have stated before no incentive to work also equals no incentive to the workers to clean up the mess of the society. Ah the Direction of the workers, How can they be told if they are doing something correctly or incorrectly? there is no direction to do anything if there is no direction then there are faulty products (and since there are bosses at "Society" owned plants they have little incentive to direct if they are paid either way too much or way too little. Ah the Hive mindness. It can Never last forever there will be people in your society that have seen the evils that it will and have caused and either they will run away or try to get a movement for a revolution to happen. and finally the Last question that I have an answer for, How are you going to force people to give up the fruits of their labor willingly? Yet again as I have said in your Society anything that is "willing" is going to work lmao... On a Final Note about Communism from a Highly economic Point of view... The Price of goods in your society will be inheriently flawed a basic reason of this is your form of government doesn't know what materials to use that are the best for example, Making Bicycles, the government would not know what material is best to use to make the bikes, ie copper, tin, aluminum etc., since the government doesn't know the market price for their goods they would charge extremely high rates for bikes that are otherwise useless to people in a Free-market society. The only reason why Russia survived for so long is, because they looked OUTSIDE of their own system to see what the market prices were and how to make certian items. Therefore the idea of a Pure Communist society is basically crushed because they HAVE to look outside their own faulty system of production.

Now my Second Point of Decussion.... Capitalism and the Myths that people think are actually true...

Myth: Capitalism exploits the people and the rich only get richer. Communism is the only way were everyone is equal.

Fact: Capitalism actually does make the rich richer... but it makes the poor richer faster. Communism is the most exploitative idea ever made and the Results are in, America's Democracy is less exploitative then Russia's Communism. [Edit] To add another thing about clean capitalism and why the Communist argument that capitalism is exploitative is that in a "Clean" capitalistic society the worker and the employer AGREE on what wages the worker receives, the Communist arguement that when the worker agrees he will make something that is worth three days of work but instead agrees to take the money for the product on the fifth day is not exploitative if the worker and the employer agree, this was not the case with slavery and the Slaveowner, same is true with serfs and feudal lords.

Myth: We live in a Capitalistic Society.

Fact: We Live in a Protectionist Society I.E. mercantilism.

Myth: Capitalism is realitively new idea.

Fact: Capitalism is just as old as the idea of collectivization only the word Capitalism is realitively new.

Myth: Capitalism causes inequality in income

Fact: Every single theory on economics creates inequality in Income the major difference between every other system and Capitalism is the poor of the capitalist society are richer then the poor of our society and the buying power of their currency is far greater then ours. (Compared to the Russian Currency the American Curreny utterly murdered it basically meaning the more "Free" a Society is the great the production)

Myth: Capitalism is for selfish people.

Fact: Capitalism is not selfish at all, as a matter of fact because of people like Rockefeller, James J. Hill and Andrew Carnige there were more jobs (meaning they employed thousands of people), bigger paychecks to the workers, actually donated 1 billion dollars* (Our day's Currency) *= Andrew Carnige and John Rockefeller.  to various charities around the United States.. They were far from Robber Barons and were not greedy and selfish as other people suggest they were.

Myth: Capitalism encourages Monopolies (I've heard it before)

Fact: Capitalism supports no such thing (Free-Trade, Free-Market). It is through an institute of power (The government) that grants Protection through legislation (laws) to block out any competition (Much like PG&E of California)

Myth: Capitalism encourages low prices on goods (I've heard the statement before)

Fact: Since when are low prices on goods bad? and the Low prices results in, competition, effciency, and the best quality that can be made at the time (and yes the quality of the products will get better with the incentive to get the majority of the people to like your product equating in profit not only for the company but the workers that made the products.

Myth: Capitalism makes unemployment.

Fact: As with every Society there will be unemployment rates, typically in a Capitalistic Society the unemployed are the lazy and the people that refuse to work. Fact of the matter is the Capitalism employs more people on the basis of Mutal agreement to work. Communism on the other hand forces people to work in Slave Labor situations with extremely little pay (that goes right back to the government of course.. because in that society the saying is... "What's yours Is Mine but what is Mine is Mine")

Myth: (Final one) Capitalism Exploits poor countries

Fact: Things that people especially in america don't figure when companies move to China or other Asian countries that (In cali it's $7 an hour minimum wage and the country is $5.50 an hour minimum wage.) People don't understand that 20 cents or 50 cents there is A LOT (Wages will increase when production shoot through the roof and the majority of the people start to buy Nike or Reebok but if they charge Monopolistic Prices that will make way (In a Free-Market) for tons of competition) (well not anymore because of the central planning, Protectionism, and warmongering of the state, The Euro is alot stronger) China, the still communist country, is opening up to American Countries and they are not (At least to my knowledge forcing a minimum wage) the companies there have actually done A LOT of good there but still Not capitalism because Capitalism is inherently Anti-State (The State being a monopoly on law actually replaces capitalism with mercantillism.)

Next Time I will talk about the now most talked about and now more then ever the Legitimacy of Succession (Now that Slavery can't be an issue)

On an Ending note, Capitalism favors the workers the most because without the workers Capitalism could not survive. In Capitalism workers are treated the best, and only in a Capitalistic Society you can have people that can securely survive off the fruits of their labor also, you can have people that if they desire to be they can get rich, also you have the lazy, the slobs, and the people that have no desire to work that are also in the society the only thing with Capitalism is if they don't want to work they don't have to but it is beneficial to them because they have incentive to keep their property at a high value, prevent crime and also the people have the incentive to protect their property from all aggressors

Disclaimer: What is written here does not express that the writter suggests that people should go back to Monarchy and nor is it a defence of Democracy or Monarchy, The Main point of this reading is to point out IF we have to have a government that a Monarchy is the "Lesser" of the two evils.....

Evidence of why Democracy is Bad...

Psychologists have done numerous tests on groups of people and decision making on people you've heard of the Milgram experiment were the people were influenced by an authority figure to do what there told like mindless people. But a part of that experiment that is not usually talked about is when Milgram had his Subject and two actors working along side each other giving the shocks, Milgram found that if the actors refused to do the experiment the subject will conform to be apart of the group, good in some cases extremely bad in government situations, since then other Psychologists have studied how people would react in a group and if there were all by themselves, the results were astonishing. People in a group (If someone randomly called out for help) the members of the group would turn a blind eye assuming someone else is helping, the Individual however sees the fact that someone needs help and helps. Democracy is Like the group of people they are ignorent and have no sense of themselves when they identify themselves with a group and feel like they need to belong to that group that "Represents" them best and vote for it. A Monarchy tends to think about everyone and tries not to play favorites

Psychologists have also told people that they act more recklessly in a group then they do if they were alone. People who are by themselves tend to be more "Conservative" then if they were in a group. (To add to this i've been reading Democracy: The God That Failed: The Political and Economics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order By Hans-Herman Hoppe an excellent book and very complicated for me to read also) Now I'm a Natural Orderist which means I'm an anarcho-capitalist but the term Natural order has many other names for it but anyways,  What Psychologists have strengthened is the intellect as well as the ideal that a monarchy's best interest is to conserve his/her's land, (King/Queen's), Wars back the the medival times were not idealogical wars, they were disputes over land and inheritance. Most people will tell you that Monarchies are evil and should be abolished well sure Monarchies are bad because it's a government but Democracy is worse, when "Feds" storm into your house their theft of your money and your property is not reimbersed to you instead it's "Legitimately" taken away by a government that tries to EXPLOIT it's people because of the limited time the President or democratically elected leader has in the position of power, Since he can't pass on "Public" property to his Heirs he will try to get as much wealth as he/she can in a short amount of time, what would he/she care if they are only in office for 4 to 8 years.  Here in America if you leave a camera (Digital for example) is left on your car because you forgot it will more then likely be gone by the time you next see it, In Saudi Arabia if you do the same exact thing your camera will be left just as it had been when you left it there, the reason you ask? Monarchs don't like thieves what is taken from their people is also taken from them for the citizen is allowed to stay in the monarch's country. Basically Monarchs are in in favor of Private property rights because, they tend to think about their heir's future place in the Kingdom. As rightly so you would not want your child to inherit your debt so that they can have the best life possible, Same concept as a Monarchy, although they are concerned with their well being they are also concerned about their subjects, it has been known that free and happy workers are better then slaves or sad workers. It's not likely that a King will want a majority of his Subjects angry at him for whatever reason the King doesn't want production or the economy of his country for if he doesn't have a productive country his capital is substancially reduced. Taxes... that's all that people will ever talk about, well let me explain something that is quite understandable, In a Democracy or a Democratic-Republic whatever you want to call it, only thinks of the Now instead of the future and Taxation is accually is higher then it would be with a king, The King on the other hand would like to see his country prosper and have a future so his taxation codes or Laws would be at a flat and low rate, enough to build things he needs and may even build something to honor his subjects. Now to War.... War with Kings is a strategic war with moves that often tend and avoid as much as possible conflict with each of the opposing armies, thus the amount of Soldiers a King has is extremely limited because Civilians were respected enough and knew better then to get involved in a war between kings. Kings would extensively train their troops and therefore the troops would be indispensible to the King, after all what good is a soldier after you have trained him in years of combat if he is to die in the first battle he fights in. It's a general fallacy under these condictions that a King won't exploit his people but he tries to limit his own people's exploitation, thus in Democratic-Republics the exploitation of the government to the people is mind boggleing as well as disturbing. The only system worth favoring that grants us all freedom is natural order sadly enough although there aren't any more natural leaders left in the world... maybe that will change

Capitalism in the Systems

Capitalism is favored more in Monarchies then Democracies, Capitalism, being a free-market and a free-trade system, would likely interest Monarchies more because of Private property rights, Kings and Queens are people too they don't want to be stolen from just as much as you, which is why laws are so strict for violators of private property rights stealing is wrong and it is just as bad But, it's not worse then murder or harm to a fellow human. Private Institutions are favored. Also Monarchies have lasted much longer then democracy has and the only reason why Monarchy gets a hit to their government is the abusers of power while a limited few of rulers that actually do this people are reluctant to point out the upsides of Monarchies and usually leave them out to dry.

Democracy and Capitalism don't mix at all in a Political sense of view. The Government of elected officals seeks to make a massive amount of money with the limited time they have or they tend to get in bed with businesses to get policies and legislation though the government to thwart competition in a market or markets that the officals are in bed with, War, now it is no longer land disputes or inheirital problems but  and idealogical war and the elected government tends to force people to join the service and often gives them very little training, compared to the King's troops, therefore they are numerous but yet mostly ineffective because of how they were trained. During World War II the Civilian causialties exceed the number of deaths that the militaries suffered, the Reason why, "freedom" in the sense of a Democratic government means destorying everything including land, factories and homes and spend massive amounts of money repairing the damages and forcing the defeated to pay a massive debt.

So if there are Intelligent people that are telling us Groupthink is bad and Individualism is good them the contrast between Democracy and Monarchy must be established for the reason that Democracy is Groupthink and Monarchies are Individuals acting to conserve their land and kingdom.

Also.....

Democracy and Capitalism don't mix at all in a Political sense of view, the only true democracy is that between the consumers and the businesses, if the majority of the people like a business product they will buy it.. if that business tries to exploit them for more then they should get then they would be bankrupt and sent to dust or merge with another company that does similar things when making a product only that his business killed the competition. Competition is called that for a Reason, it means that people will be pitted against each other in a market and will try to get the most people to buy their product. yes competition kills businesses and in a sense it is justified because if a company is not lowering it's costs and finding new ways to make their item that is cost efficient they don't deserve to be helping the public.

Kyle

Regulated Monopolies?

I was reading the paper yesterday to my suprize PG&E is getting a new CEO at the helm of the company, I also saw the context "Regulated Monopoly". I thought to myself that this statement is a fallacy, If it's a Monopoly and the state is "Regulating" it then is it going to be efficient and benefit the people that is producing the energy for? The simple answer is no, what tax payers in california don't realize is that not only are they paying for the California state wel-fare system but also to keep PG&E running and then hitting them with an electric bill a month. Most of us know that California opened up to competition and because of the compitition PG&E started to fail in the energy market, the reason why is that they were charging the same rate and paying their employees the same thing and not changing the costs of their energy to compete, the simple reason behind this is, PG&E has been so closed to the open market and basically state owned that it has no clue how to compete with competitors and thus they fail in that area of the free market. I also saw that the CEO of PG&E wanted to be able to use Gas-Fire energy production to it's consumers to be cost effective and still put out the same amount of energy.

California being "Environmentally" Conscience as it is says that paying 4.5 cents for Gas-Fire energy that It should go to more costly and Environmentally safe energy sources. A fallacy indeed, the state is trying to say that spending money on solar energy panels is more cost effective instead of burning something for energy, even the CEO that was recently elected to take over as the head of the company is saying that the state is costing us more to do our work.

More of the same is happening in California, the state government refusing to let PG&E be on it's own and open up the state back to a free market because their Regulated Monopoly will be crushed and for the most part the Californian Politicians benefit from the PG&E company because they are "Champions" of the Environment and helping to not screw us over.

How can they say that when... they already are?

Kyle