tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5953987696847085232024-03-07T23:14:33.984-06:00Driven DraeneiKlepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-37221949739376608812010-12-01T10:36:00.013-06:002010-12-01T10:44:47.663-06:00Oh look, a goblin socialisthttp://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2010/12/market-cant-solve-everything-alone.html<br /><br /><blockquote>This is a common market problem: while the action is good for the whole, the gain is so little that the people don't care, while the few negatively affected do. Here comes the necessity for rules and enforcing agencies, to stop things that are bad for lot of people just a little. If my car is emitting too much CO and NOx, no person in the county are poisoned enough to personally sue me. On the other hand not fixing my car saves me $500, so I won't. But the National Traffic Agency forces me to get my car checked every second year and takes its license plate if it has bad emissions, making me to fix it.<br /><br />The perfect example is the 2008 depression: whenever a banker repacked a bunch of crap papers and insured them and repacked the insurance too and sold it to several investment funds, he made lot of money, while harming no single individual. He increased the risk of everyone by a tiny little bit. You know how that story ended, right?</blockquote><br /><br />Ayn Rand would be crying right now at this blatant support for socialist and government intervention in the market. That is, she would be crying if she was not dead and incapable of human emotion.<br /><br />Let's get to the facts: if people can't protect themselves from 'the market' or 'externalities', it's because they're too cheap or economically weak to do so. If people get tricked by bad derivatives, it's because they were too stupid to investigate them properly. If they were smart they'd have been the ones selling them.<br /><br />So there's no market problem here, just a whole lot of people who were too lazy to see what they were buying. Should we really be letting lazy, stupid people dictate the market? Well sure, if by "dictate" you mean "be lazy and stupid so we can take their money", but if you mean have regulations to protect them, no.<br /><br />But let's just say we do want to think about this "greater good" that the socialists love so much. Even then, since the market efficiently distributes resources while socialism kills millions of its own subjects, we can see that a so-called imperfect market is still for the greater outcome. In other words, any regulation at all, even the slightest bit, is not just the slippery slope to socialist takeover, it is itself socialist takeover.<br /><br />But what else should I expect from someone raised in the Soviet mentality?Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-66096970635834890442010-06-24T08:00:00.001-05:002010-06-24T08:00:04.589-05:00Random idiots on the random busThe other day I was waiting for the bus and this old lady with all these bags hobbles up next to me. I moved away a bit. She tried to talk to me but was all screechy: "DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS BUS GOES?" I told her to look it up and not bother me. She wandered over and bothered someone else. Someone needs to learn2internet.<br /><br />Eventually the bus comes, I swipe my card and get on, grab a good seat. She starts bugging the driver about where the bus goes. I yelled at her and eventually she shut up and tried to pay. Had all these crumpled bills that didn't fit. I yelled at her for that too, but she didn't go any faster. Eventually the driver traded some bills with her and then she's shaking while putting them in and I'm face-palming. I mean, wow, why are you taking the bus if you can't even use it properly?<br /><br />Just to confirm it all, or if you're smart you could have predicted it beforehand, she's dressed in these dirty rags. And yea, the bags. Had these thick glasses that I swear I saw a like recycling symbol on, literal coke bottle glasses.<br /><br />Ugh.<br /><br />Hey city government, you want to know why people don't like taking the bus? It's because of people like this who don't know what they're doing. How about a dress code? If you're wearing terrible clothes you're clearly not going to a job, so you're worthless anyway and don't need the bus. And don't get me started on the damn kids who are taking the bus for the first time. Kick them off! It's ridiculous that a respectable person like me gets stuck on the same bus as these lowlifes, and even worse, they get to the exact same stop as me.<br /><br />We should just start running our own buses, charging our own fees, and checking to not let on these scum.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-28880538147136627602010-05-11T08:00:00.001-05:002010-05-11T08:00:00.321-05:00The BP spill was caused by communismIn this case I am using communism to refer to communal ownership. Or more accurately, ownership by no one, but benefit taken by whoever can get it.<br /><br />Why would BP let this happen? Oh, sure get all up in arms. Yes, they let it happen. Why should they not? Of course they dislike the loss of the oil. But most of the economic loss is not theirs. They will never pay the full cost. They know this and it factors into their calculations of how to spend resources.<br /><br />We've seen this before with the Ford Pinto. Short version: the cost of recalling the car and fixing the problem was estimated to be more than the cost of lawsuits or whatever else would come up. Human life was indirectly given a value, in the form of how much people would whine about deaths. It sounds horrible, doesn't it?<br /><br />It's merely rational economic choice for the company. Why should they spend more than they'd benefit? They are not a charity.<br /><br />I'm a monster, aren't I? Oh no. I am just able to see the problem and the solution. The problem isn't corporate greed. That is merely a force; like gravity. Do we blame gravity for plane crashes? That would be stupid. No, the true problem is externalities: benefits or costs which are not incurred by the groups which are part of an economic decision.<br /><br />BP will never pay the full cost of the gulf spill. Is the solution greater regulation, greater fines? No. That is just going to add more government, more taxes, and doesn't actually fix the problem and more than sticking a box on the leak would fix it (it hasn't, btw). Instead the solution is to make BP responsible for the damage to the Gulf of Mexico: the coastal areas, the fisheries, the tourism.<br /><br />How do we make them responsible without more government? The free market of course! Remove the communism, the free use of the water, the ability to cause damage without incurring any cost: Privatize the water.<br /><br />Sell the gulf to BP and other companies. This would settle a huge portion of the government debt, while also reducing government burden, thereby killing two birds with one stone and poisoning their food supply. In this metaphor the birds are bad government (redundant).<br /><br />They could then lease the fisheries and beaches and whatever else. That profit stream would give a strong incentive to keep the water clean, much stronger than government bureaucrats looking over their shoulders.<br /><br />If it happens that they still don't care, then it only means that the non-oil revenues were insufficient. It means that they were not viable as a sustained source of economic benefit.<br /><br />The crisis of the commons is most easily fixed by privatizing the commons.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-49037230921369372252010-04-21T08:00:00.001-05:002010-04-21T08:00:04.653-05:00Socialist SaltYou might have heard that the FDA is moving towards regulating salt. That means Obama is taking over the salt and soup industries just as he did with healthcare.<br /><br />It's a scheme to boost the retail salt business. Obama is in the pocket of Big Salt. He's removing the freedom of soup-makers to buy cheap salt in bulk, instead forcing consumers to buy expensive salt in small cardboard containers with those metal lid things.<br /><br />Regulated salt means higher prices and less choice. Also food will taste bad. You know where else food tasted bad? Communist Russia.<br /><br />Think about where we are headed.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-25643673501364548382010-04-17T08:00:00.002-05:002010-04-17T08:00:00.850-05:00The Pinko-tailed InnYou may or may not be aware of a gnomish blogger named Larisa. She runs the aptly-named <a href="http://www.pinkpigtailinn.com/">Pink Pigtail Inn</a>. She's a nice, motherly sort of blogger. Or should we say paternalistic? Perhaps.<br /><br />I suspect she's actually a Communist. Soviet-style, authoritarian, world-domination-obsessed, murderous Communist. Let's paint the picture.<br /><br /><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/gS51TfC5Pzo/couple-of-words-about-that-mount.html">She hates capitalism</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/zCsrWAoYEi8/why-i-prefer-stopwatch-guild.html">She insists on leadership which tells everyone what to do exactly when</a>. One might think this means the efficient capitalism of Henry Ford, if she didn't hate capitalism.<br /><br />Then there's the double-talk that the Soviets used to love.<br /><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/wWy-0aiXLwA/time-to-make-our-own-cataclysm.html">Time to Make Our Own Cataclysm</a><br />The week before: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/BWYMdgkCxLs/peace-please.html">Peace! Please!</a><br /><br /><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/Use8G2iQJvM/whiny-post-day-post-about-loneliness.html">She gets lonely</a>. Sounds like a real anti-individualist. There are plenty of friends at the collective farm!<br /><br />A post including the title: "<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/B-uwlulB64o/it-came-from-bar-buff-me-up-bro-and.html">The curse of choice</a>." Really, the curse? Do you need the Party to tell you what to do all the time?<br /><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePinkPigtailInn/~3/dDXUNotT6rM/blogging-about-your-guild-may-put-you.html"><br />Blogging about your guild may put you in trouble</a>. Can you say censorship?<br /><br />This is all surface-level. Let's go deeper. She's friends with another gnome who runs a blog called "<a href="http://gnomeaggedon.net/">Armaggedon's coming!</a>" Sounds a bit like the revolution, doesn't it, COMRADE!?<br /><br />One might expect gnomes to gno better. Aha, a pun. Get it? Soviets don't. They always say "In Soviet Russia, pun gets you," which I assume is some sort of threat.<br /><br />Gnomes had their capitol blown up by the infighting of their leaders and foreign invasion. Nuclear Armageddon. Hm... <a href="http://gnomeaggedon.net/">where have we heard that before?</a><br /><br />I rest my case.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-17975857641897521122010-04-02T08:00:00.001-05:002010-04-02T08:00:01.320-05:00Dog is to Wolf as Socialist is to HumanWhat are dogs? They are the lazy beggars of the world. They were once wolves, intelligent and capable of cooperation, but not collectivist. Then the lazy ones, the social ones, started following the humans. They accepted a submissive position in return for handouts. And then they were bred for greater submissiveness, greater social behavior.<br /><br />The result is that the proud wolf is now the lowly, mindless dog.<br /><br />And the wolf? The capitalist of the animal world? It is hunted to extinction.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-28887707311548162402010-03-31T08:00:00.001-05:002010-03-31T08:00:02.644-05:00God is a SocialistGods are the ultimate form of government. They can do more than imprison or kill; they can take your very soul, burn it for all eternity, and then after that, kill it. Yes, they can do something after an eternity. They're gods.<br /><br />They can demand taxes: sacrifices. They tell us how to act. They give no privacy and make it clear that we have none from them.<br /><br />Which brings me to my point: evolution.<br /><br />There is a certain sort of blind, unthinking idiot who believes in the literal word of Genesis the same way he believes in the unregulated and unrestricted free market. They do not know why either of them are true (or not). They only believe because they've been told to. Those who disagree are called socialists and godless. I'm all for attacking socialism, but only by those who know why. These people take it as a matter of faith that the free market is better.<br /><br />Blind idiots.<br /><br />Anyone who believes in the free market and creationism is a fool. An unthinking fool.<br /><br />What is evolution? It is a word which attempts to encapsulate a process of success or failure of combinations of genes and environments. This is an unregulated process. There are no bailouts, no free lunches, no minimum wage. Species rise and fall only as they are able to adapt to their environments.<br /><br />Evolution is the free market of genetics.<br /><br />Logically that makes creationism or intelligent design the socialism of genetics. That makes God a socialist and all who teach creationism (sorry, teach 'the controversy') cosmic communists.<br /><br />Reagan spoke of godless Communists, but he never bothered to see the God Communist.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-77131626978566004292010-03-28T08:00:00.000-05:002010-03-28T08:00:06.207-05:00My grandmother isn't dead yetClearly I overestimated the speed at which our socialist government would take over healthcare.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-61149365991962153842010-03-14T15:47:00.007-05:002010-03-14T15:53:03.175-05:00Hitler, I mean Obama, stole our timeYou might have noticed that recently you lost an hour of your time. A bit less than 5% of your day. I imagine you grumbled about it and then went about your day sleep deprived.<br /><br />Wake the fuck up. Coffee won't help you. Not even the retards at the Tea Party can help you.<br /><br />Open your eyes as SEE.<br /><br />Reparations are finally here. Of course we knew a black president would be eager to do it. But we're all so careful watching budgets that he couldn't simply get the market value of 40 acres and a mule, add in inflation, and then hand that out to black people. We watch the welfare budget carefully.<br /><br />So he did something even worse. He took an hour from every single American. Even old people who need every last second. He hates your grandmother, after all. Where did the time go?<br /><br />Reparations. He gave that time to black people to make up for the time lost to slavery.<br /><br />It is the ultimate in socialism. Take the wealth and spread it. Or in this case time, which is money.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-38803313834183806112010-02-23T17:33:00.002-06:002010-02-23T17:34:47.771-06:00Gearscore is like CommunismIt's such a great idea to better coordinate and organize everything for perfect efficiency and happiness. As long as it isn't abused by people with god complexes and excessive paranoia.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is, if you use gearscore, you're a communist.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-78642974642179596492010-02-11T08:00:00.001-06:002010-02-11T08:00:01.335-06:00Theft vs. Welfare: EfficiencyA few months back I suggested that welfare be replaced with theft. Actually an Anglican bishop suggested it. But I liked the idea. It got me thinking: how efficient are these two systems as methods of delivering undeserved wealth to the poor?<br /><br />Welfare has the noticeable disadvantage of bureaucracy. This stems from silly ideas like having different brackets of welfare depending on perceived necessity and so there are food stamps, housing, subsidies, all manner of complicated structures. It's clearly more expensive than a flat benefits system of giving nothing at all. Okay that's obvious, but whatever benefits are handed out, the rating system makes it more expensive.<br /><br />Theft doesn't have this problem. It's individually-driven and free of government bureaucracy. That means low cost to run it.<br /><br />There are problems with this free-market solution.<br /><br />Presumably the poor have similar consumer demands as the employed. If they were significantly different, in a rational way, they would be in the cheaper direction and so they'd be comparatively less poor; but clearly that isn't the case. Maybe poor people like more expensive goods; and this has actually been proven if you look up studies on conspicuous consumption and income levels. Basically poor people try to be flashy to stand out. But this isn't applicable since those are poor people with money trying to stand out from their welfare peers. They are not the target demographic here.<br /><br />If the poor want similar products as normal consumers, this would seem to create a perfect situation: they will steal what is most readily resupplied due to the high demand and quick supply movement. This also means they steal those items which are presumably profitable enough that the losses can be offset. I doubt it would work out this well. Instead stores would attempt to minimize theft by not carrying those items which are most easily or commonly stolen, creating a sort of counter-market force; with demand causing reduced supply. This also means they'd carry less of what consumers want, ruining business and consumer satisfaction, driving them to less desirable products and therefore to less mutually profitable exchanges.<br /><br />In effect, welfare can be considered a government program to negate the harm that the poor would otherwise cause to the free market. While the taxation is bad, creating an active counter-market force is possibly much worse. In this regard, taxation and welfare may be the less damaging than theft and therefore more efficient.<br /><br />There is another problem though: The rise in theft will inevitably lead to a rise in demand for policing. That means another cost. Even worse, this means direct conflict between the poor and society, leading to violence which is the worst possible condition for an functioning economy.<br /><br />It appears that welfare is a more efficient system than giving nothing at all.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-27517628925408326172010-02-01T08:00:00.001-06:002010-02-01T08:00:01.052-06:00GDKP: free market spending with Marxist laborI've developed a theoretical love for GDKP recently. In short form, this is a raid in which items are bid on and the pot is split up at the end. The specifics vary, but in general the result is you walk out with loot or a lot of gold.<br /><br />They're a sort of free-market raid. You are rewarded based on how much you're willing to invest. Or spend. Those who have a lot of gold have earned a great deal of purchasing power through their wise investments outside the raid.<br /><br />It creates an interesting exchange in that the loot effectively starts out collectively owned. That means of course that no one owns it or can use it except at the permission of the dictator/loot master. Then comes the free market in which capitalists assert property rights. Whoever values the item most and can back up his greed gets the item.<br /><br />This is actually a rather socialist system if you think about it some more.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Whose loot is it?</span><br />When the loot drops, everyone owns it. Then the capitalists bid and the gold goes to those who did not bid. The effective result is that the capitalists are conducting an exchange only with those who did not bid. The poor effectively have control over the item. This exposes the great lie of socialism: equality. It's not equality, it's giving the poor, the non-investors control over what was claimed to be collectively owned.<br /><br />Oh sure, argue that the capitalists already had partial ownership. They merely had to buy out the ownership of the others. Fine. But who is thinking this way? I doubt anyone. If this was the case, then prices would be 4% (25-man) to 10% (10-man) lower, to reflect not needing to but out their own share. But no, people bid as if they don't have any initial shares at all; meaning that this collective system is encouraging people to overpay by a non-trivial amount. It is actively interfering with the free hand of the market.<br /><br />As an alternative, maybe the loot is controlled by no one. But in that case, why does the bidder need to pay for anything more than the time it takes the master looter to send the item over? Obviously this could trigger a bidding war, but the expecting starting price would be much lower, creating different value perceptions, and driving down the end price as well. Clearly socialism is driving much more than 10% deflection from the market price.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Marxist labor</span><br />"From each according to his ability".<br />That's Marx for you. And that's the raid. Unless someone is blatantly holding back the raid, they are carried along. I won't be an idiot and assume that they are leeches, at least not yet. They do enough. That's fine. But when the payment comes, the bottom DPS and the top DPS have the same share of the loot to buy out. Everyone works, but some pay better attention or are more skilled, and yet where is their advantage? I have never heard of a loot master declaring "if you're 10% below the average DPS, you must pay 10% more to compensate", or the reverse. High achievers are not rewarded within the raid. There does remain the gold component, but there is only a very tangential link between that gold and raid success; that link of course being their market activities raising all boats and enabling the raid to have consumables and gems and crafted gear. But that's a tenuous link and hardly comparable to the difference between a high and low DPS.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Told you so</span><br />My blog description says there's socialism everywhere. This is true. This is a perfect example: a supposedly free-market exchange in which reward matches contribution, but in the most significant way: skill and contribution within the raid, there is no link. I really am quite surprised at the ingenuity of it; the lazy leeches have convinced the investors that it's a free market which rewards them, while instead it rewards most those who invest nothing except a bit of unskilled labor.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-37315150473018155362010-01-08T08:00:00.002-06:002010-01-08T08:00:07.088-06:00Only Socialists don't run back after wipesIf we look at the greatest overall benefit, it is best for the tank and DPS to go afk to troll the forums, look at porn, get food, etc; while the healer runs back and rezes them. While this will increase the overall instance time, much of that time is 'free' in the sense that 80% of the group can do something else. So the only real burden is on the healer. There is a net gain.<br /><br />What do we have here? We have a managed group (economy) driven by some higher net benefit. Every person is given the role to which they are 'best suited', told to carry it out, and ask for nothing more than that which is given to them by the group. We also have an ordinarily hard-working healer (capitalist?) who is critical to the success of the group (society), but often ignored and blamed for problems being shackled, enslaved, for the benefit of others. They receive no benefit, only burden, all for some 'greater good'.<br /><br />"rez plz" Should be met only with "go fuck yourself you lazy socialist" and a kick from the group.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-31673889548804408612010-01-07T08:30:00.001-06:002010-01-07T08:30:00.130-06:00Who gives a shit about trees?I'm sick of greedy idiots pretending that environmentalism is about hippies having sex with trees and not wanting to lose their partners. Maybe it was. But now it's about the planet we live on not getting poisoned so we can't live on it. I know, it's a difficult concept to understand, that actions have consequences and that there's more to personal responsibility than a balance sheet.<br /><br />I can see how people failed to learn that. Just about anyone in the Western world can see how much capitalism has worked. It has made us rich, and rich, and yielded amazing technology, and made us very rich. Every day we are taught by our experiences that capitalism works.<br /><br />But, for years capitalism has operated in a fantasy world in which actions had no consequences. Pollution and other neighborhood effects were ignored, the costs passed on to others. Or so they thought. Sick populations spend money on other industries such as healthcare or funerals, not on consuming products that keep factories running and the average worker employed. The short-sighted were destroying their own markets.<br /><br />To compensate they went overseas to get cheaper labor. This only made things worse as they were under even looser environmental standards and deprived their consumers of even more income. Is it any wonder the American economy is having problems?<br /><br />Any attempt to adjust cost distributions, to make producers pay for all of what they produce, is decried as socialism or anti-market. There is no market, no effective market at least, if costs are not accurate. All the people crying about free markets and government control and taxes are themselves creating the most anti-market subsidy ever: the passing of all pollution costs on to those who potentially have nothing at all to do with the production, consumption, or distribution of the products producing the pollution. How's that for market manipulation?<br /><br />So who gives a fuck about trees? I do, because those trees are what keep us from all dying. Maybe there's a free market solution. Maybe we could get people to add up the full cost of a product and see that the one that costs less money is not always the one that is cheaper, and by this they'd switch to 'green' products, the truly cheaper ones. But that's not likely as long as short-sighted, greedy sociopaths misrepresent environmentalism and discourage any education or responsibility.<br /><br />I wish our children could travel through time so they could come back to now and take revenge on those who are responsible for killing them.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-48581475784475460972010-01-04T08:00:00.002-06:002010-01-04T08:00:00.457-06:00Communism saved capitalismIf not for the Communist revolution in Russia and the resulting rise of it as a <span style="font-style:italic;">foreign</span> idea, Communist ideas may have taken root in America and the Western world. A revolution may not have happened, but the gradual corrupting influence of 'reform' would have taken its toll. At the heart of such reform is the rejection of individual action and accountability, the loss of freedom which is the herald of Communism. Thanks to the flawed revolution in Russia, the world had a clear look at the bottom of the slippery slope and took strong measures to protect capitalism.<br /><br />Revolution hurt reform and everyone ended up off better because of it, except the Communists.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-88608226839400354372009-12-22T13:24:00.005-06:002009-12-22T13:33:08.034-06:00At least he's honest about theft<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/22/uk.priest.sermon.shoplift/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn">Priest urges the poor to steal from chain stores</a><br /><br />It's the free market alternative to welfare. It's still the poor and lazy stealing from those who are productive, but it cuts out the government middleman, using the free market to steal from the rest of us.<br /><br />It's a horrible first step, but it is one. Government can 'privatize' welfare by just cutting it off entirely and letting theft handle it. This would actually increase efficiency by cutting out all the administrators and bureaucrats, meaning that the theft would be less costly per leech. Corporations could properly demonstrate their costs, losing the money thrown at them by the government and having direct theft, but they'd see lower taxes and higher spending as consumers have more money as well.<br /><br />Maybe this is the first step towards smaller government with the added bonus that it exposes the illegality of the welfare system, allowing us to finally punish the leeches.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-70685452232129802642009-12-19T08:00:00.001-06:002009-12-19T08:00:01.100-06:00A season of giving? More like leechingIt starts out with buying crap from China. Then we wrap these things up and exchange them, blindly. Some give better gifts than others. In other words, an unequal exchange of goods. And people just go along with it. They might whisper about the person, but they don't vote with their wallets and withdraw from the biased exchange.<br /><br />How about a bit of capitalism? First off, pay for entry to give incentive to the party organizer to geta good tree. Then, no wrapping. Instead have all individuals start with a known quantity, free to trade for what they wish. This gives incentive to get high-quality gifts in order to increase one's ability to trade for desired goods.<br /><br />I don't have much hope for this. There are too many leeches saying nice things about Christmas. They've tricked the sensible people. They've blinded them with socialist lies of charity and generosity. They refuse to acknowledge that we'd all end up with much better gifts if we worked for self-benefit and let the market take over rather than trying to be nice.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-2691665235248285642009-12-09T10:00:00.005-06:002009-12-09T10:03:46.500-06:00People who disagree with me are CommunistsDay by day we make decisions. Cost-benefit decisions. We try to optimize outcomes.<br /><br />Then some douchebag comes along and says we aren't and we're stupid. Oh? What are you going to do about it!?<br /><br />Yea that's right, I thought so. You're going to force people to make what you think is the right decision. Communist.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-24638211612692524642009-12-02T16:33:00.026-06:002009-12-02T16:45:46.554-06:00Libertarians for Bigger GovernmentI believe in two things: freedom and personal safety. Government takes away the first to add to the second. The first few tradeoffs are entirely worth it: I lose my freedom to kill people but I gain a reduced chance of being killed; or I cannot steal but I am not stolen from.<br /><br />After that there are swift diminishing returns. We get into things like drafts, gun laws, wiretapping, drug laws, and so on. Freedom-hating cowards push an agenda of fear to increase their control at the cost of our freedom.<br /><br />So pardon me if I sound a bit scared.<br /><br />Every day we are being poisoned. The very air is filled with toxins. The water. The land itself. Where from? Business. In the pursuit of profit (a noble goal) they take the path of least resistance, dumping pollutants which kill everyone nearby and spread around the world. This is a clear case of externalities; of costs which exist, but are not calculated because the profit-maker does not incur the loss. We are the ones who lose.<br /><br />How do we get poisoning us onto their balance sheets? Social change could effect this; with consumers refusing to purchase those products which are made in a poisonous manner. This isn't going to happen. Why not? For starters, people are lazy and ignorant. But even if they were aware, they would likely trade lower health later for cheaper products now. That is their choice, but their choice affects everyone around, including those who wish to make a different choice.<br /><br />Enter government. It exists to protect individuals, including against the tyranny of the majority. I will not attempt to propose an exact mechanism, but it is time for government to protect physical well-being from the poisons of others.<br /><br />It is time for Libertarians for Bigger Government!Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-69473787824415695642009-11-25T13:01:00.023-06:002009-11-25T13:30:26.495-06:00The Visible HandAs anyone sensible knows, governments are terrible for markets, being more concerned with their own power than the economy. Democracies will tend towards socialism in order to appease the masses while authoritarian governments will tend towards excessive military buildup. What is excessive? While I am no pacifist, all states have excessive military expenditures, particularly the small and insignificant dictatorships of South America, Africa, and Asia. Truth be told, there has not been a dictatorship worth considering since the Soviet Union fell. I must concede that is one thing the Communists did well: being significant.<br /><br />So yes, governments are terrible for markets, constantly manipulating them and printing money and ruining everything. Democracies, despite their socialist tendencies, tend to be the least damaging though, since the freedom they claim to offer does tend to reflect itself in freer markets and therefore greater prosperity. Just look at America: free and rich as hell.<br /><br />Unfortunately a new form of government is emerging. Few call it a form of government. And yet, it wields as much power as a government.<br /><br />It is the corporation.<br /><br />Their massive size and wealth allow them to manipulate not just markets, but societies and countries. They have the power of a government. And they act somewhat similar as well.<br /><br />In the small phase they are unstable and tend to go under the radar. They fill niche markets and are little more than potential. In the middle phase they grow and become significant, but not so much that they can entirely ignore social pressure. In this way they act as republics: semi-responsive to the desires of the people. Finally they reach the end phase in which they are so big and so powerful that they can ignore everything other than direct and immediate profit.<br /><br />In this final phase they amass unimaginable profits, but since they have reached the power of governments, they are just as meddlesome and harmful to markets. They create monopolies which are not necessitated by efficiency or technology. This creates the anti-market situation of consumers being unable to decide to agree or refuse a deal, but instead being compelled to accept or starve. In this final stage the corporation ceases to be a tool of the market, but instead seeks to use the market as its tool, with devastating consequences for all but the corporation.<br /><br />In the final stage, corporations, the child of the free market, become as harmful as a socialist state because they are a socialist state. And who even realizes it?<br /><br />The Corporate Union needs a Gorbachev to tear it apart so that markets can thrive once again.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-35367832558956750482009-11-17T11:45:00.014-06:002009-11-17T11:56:09.263-06:00Socialism is not SocialismPerhaps the greatest argument against socialism is those protesting socialism. Have you seen the idiots screaming about socialism this and that and they have no fucking clue what socialism means?<br /><br />Socialism is government ownership of industry.<br /><br />It's not taxes or regulations. It is welfare and medicare. Yes, medicare is socialism. As far as socialist programs go, it's not that bad, so shut the fuck up healthcare protesters who keep saying government can't run a healthcare program. It clearly can. I won't say this is good, but I will be a voice of reason and point out that you are all god damn idiots.<br /><br />Also, Godwin's Law. I'll leave it at that so intelligent people can laugh at you while you stand around confused waiting for FOX to tell you what to do.<br /><br />But let's get back to my point: You are for the most part brought up in a socialist educational system. You are idiots. The correlation is there. Is it causation? Does socialist education cause morons screaming ignorant comments about socialism? Maybe. I can't say for certain, but it seems like a pretty shocking coincidence.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is this: When you scream about socialism when you have no clue what it means, you make those who have actual reasonable problems with socialism look bad as well. Please, if you love your country, shut up. Take advantage of the socialism to get a free, if poor, education. Put it so some use such as by reading or thinking.<br /><br />Should we be worried about socialist indoctrination? No. We should watch out for it, but the fact is, Obama isn't spreading socialism or a cult of personality. It's the so-called free-market people who are creating cults and demanding your obedience. Stop pointing fingers at the socialists when you are actually being more stupid and more damaging to America than they could ever be.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-2267686068641868122009-11-09T19:54:00.001-06:002009-11-09T19:55:43.254-06:00Gevlon is a leeching socialistShameful.<br /><br />Someone works hard to build themselves up. They spend their money to buy something valuable. That is what keeps the economy going. Surely as someone who places value on economics he can understand the need to buy cars.<br /><br />And surely he understands that that which is given for free has less value. He has never held back from criticizing the lazy leeches who take and take and do nothing to earn it. And yet... there he goes and brags about it.<br /><br />Don't believe me? See his own <a href="http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-only-mount_06.html">words</a>. When speaking of pets, he encourages us to leech off the spending of others.<br /><blockquote>But why do you have to own them? I mean I find Lamborghinies beautiful, yet I'm not planning to buy one. Not even to rent one for a weekend, although I could afford that easily. Every time I see one on the street, I turn after it, admire it, and move on my way smiling (not ironically, but filled with beauty). So, why do you have to buy it to receive its "cuteness". You could just walk to any pet in Dalaran and watch it!</blockquote><br />Oh but he goes further. He admits, brags, to having gained personal benefit from the work of others while he adds nothing more than having walked down the street. What's next, watching high-def TV through the windows of neighbors?<br /><br />This is no mere innocent act. Oh no, this is the foundation of socialism. What, you say? How can that be? Simple! He does not buy the car because he gains no benefit from it; he can get sufficient admiration from seeing it drive by. What we see here is a private resource being used, without permission, for the enjoyment of non-owners. Make the argument that the owners intended to show off, fine.<br /><br />Gelvon is still being a socialist. How so? By encouraging others to not buy, but instead to use that which is free. It is efficient, sure; sharing is certainly efficient. We could be so much more efficient with our pets by coordinating who buys which one. Spread the burden among those who really like to see pets and those who have a mere passing interest. But to maximize the number of possible pets out at once, we must all be part of the system. It is for the greater good and also to the greater individual good for anyone who likes the sight of a pet. We could coordinate which pet with when people are on to ensure that at all times of the day there is likely to be a diverse array of pets. Maybe Blizzard could coordinate this for us.<br /><br />Oh yes, Blizzard. Big Brother Blizzard, always there to show us the way to work together for the greater good.<br /><br />Did I not warn you? <a href="http://drivendraenei.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-is-blizzard-being-communist.html">I told you!</a> Enchanters first! Who would follow? I must admit I did not expect pet owners to be next in line. But there they are. Or at least they would be if closet socialists like Gevlon had their way.<br /><br />Be warned, he might pull out some narrow argument about his relative benefit from buying a car or pet or mount compared to other purchases. He won't be wrong. But he will be missing the point: he only has a DR on the beauty or cuteness because of the work of others which is benefits from at no expense to himself. Of course he places low value on that which he can simply steal.<br /><br />In unrelated news, he's a fucking moron: "Most people will sooner or later buy minipets because they feel they are looked down by peers if they wouldn't."Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-86303697731479716832009-11-07T13:42:00.020-06:002009-11-07T13:52:10.509-06:00Nerd Raging!1!Nerds are funny. They get outraged so easily. They exaggerate everything. "I got <a href="http://trollshaman.blogspot.com/2009/11/im-very-sorry-blizzard.html">banned</a> from a video game forum, this is an outrage! I will not be silenced!" As if this is a matter of free speech. It's a private company enforcing rules on its own property. But oh, how could I forget, they were so rude about it! So terrible.<br /><br />This is the same person who tried to turn a change to a profession in a video game into <a href="http://drivendraenei.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-is-blizzard-being-communist.html">part of the larger war</a> against Communism. As if Communists could successfully run a company in a competitive market, let alone make such impressive profits.<br /><br />Accept it, nerds, sometimes bad stuff happens to you. It's nothing more than that. It's not even particularly bad stuff: "oh noes but my video game!" It's not part of some overall trend or conspiracy. It's not a world gone mad. The Soviet Union was defeated and with it, the last major threat to freedom. I swear, nerds are as bad as Fox News, thinking everything is part of some gay or terrorist conspiracy. For them it's all about the latest doom and gloom. Idiots. Capitalism and freedom won.<br /><br />Well except for one area: somehow the Internet is still being regulated out of some misplaced desire for equality. Net neutrality is bad and should end. Why should corporations not be able to restrict access based on payment? If the open exchange of ideas is so valuable, then people will be more than willing to pay whatever Comcast charges. And they will have to charge quite a bit since buying senators isn't cheap. They gotta make their profits after all.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-16253092640766624112009-11-02T21:08:00.001-06:002009-11-02T21:09:07.308-06:00Advertising is socialismAs I <a href="http://delusionsoftruth.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-advertising-solution-to-useless.html">stated before</a>, and then promptly derived terrible conclusions from, advertising exists to employ the otherwise unemployable. If you don't want to reread all of it, here's the summary: technology made us productive enough that most of the world can not work and we'll still survive and distributing the wealth from technology is a difficult task. Keep in mind that when I talk about the world I only mean the developed world. The rest is almost entirely irrelevant to this unless I explicitly mention it.<br /><br />Advertising is socialism with a thin veneer of hard work to make it seem okay.<br /><br />Without the useless half there would be twice the productivity and prosperity. They are by definition a drain on society. Currently there are three major ways to deal with them, two of which failed and the third of which is currently in progress.<br /><br />The first is socialism: taking from those who work to give to the idle. This has all sorts of problems such as being blatant theft.<br /><br />The second is extermination: killing the useless half. This has been tried but tends to fail due to poor identification techniques and popular outrage even among those who actually work. They might work, but clearly have no concept of self-interest.<br /><br />The third is the current method of advertising: Trick those who work into working twice as much in order to buy the useless crap made by the otherwise idle. This is consumerism and debt and it creates cycles which will destroy the world as they drain resources both natural and human. The way this works is to 'employ' the useless half making unneeded junk: new purses and clothes and marginally better (or worse but restyled) cars. Convinced that they need these items, the working half works even more to buy them.<br /><br />The net result is almost the same as socialism: The useful half works to sustain the useless half. However it has a different appearance because it keeps the useless half busy. Don't confuse busy with useful since they're still making worthless crap on par with macaroni art from children, but more expensive and lacking the slightest hint of educational or developmental value. In other words, the useful half is tricked into thinking that the useless half is not actually useless. The outrage that they would have over socialism is prevented despite supporting them exactly as they would under socialism.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all advertising is bad. It is good to be made aware of new and better products. However the persuasive advertising is damaging, manipulating emotions and society to empty the pockets of the useful half of the world.<br /><br />The strange irony of this all is the loss of 'jobs' to overseas labor. The potentially useful people in other countries are taking up the practice of making useless crap. Since they aren't socialists, they work for more sensible prices; though considering what they make has no value, they're still overpaid (unless we're considering that what they make has relative value to the factory owner who can sell them to the tricked half). This could potentially be a great advantage of the developed world, allowing it to maintain its power by infecting the poorer nations with useless labor.<br /><br />Instead it just makes things worse. The useful half is still buying the useless crap. However the useless half of the work force is increasingly unemployed and therefore switching to direct socialism and is howling about their loss of jobs. This confuses me because they are still paid to be useless but they don't even have to pretend to be useful; they benefit and yet they complain. Sadly, the shift overseas also means that money which used to flow to the domestic useless half and was then taxed and partially returned to the useful half is now going entirely overseas and being lost to uselessness.<br /><br />Yes, money overseas is wasted entirely. How? Well consider that they also have, or will have, a useless and useful half, the same split as in all developed societies. Their potentially useful half is making crap and is therefore useless. Their other half, the naturally useless one, is never useful regardless of what they do or don't make (since it's never anything useful) and therefore the entire society is useless and destined to remain poor forever.<br /><br />Take your neo-Marxist world system theory and shove it. It is only the 'exploitation' of the rest of the world that keeps it from collapsing entirely. I'm amazed that they survived at all before we started handing them money in exchange for crap.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-595398769684708523.post-32421060007853158542009-10-29T09:40:00.000-05:002009-10-29T09:42:02.842-05:00Fake IdentitiesDelusions of truth is such a fitting name for a blog so filled with terrible ideas. Delusions. Not surprising though if you consider its written by what is clearly a socialist. With that in mind, I want to counter the recent post about identities.<br /><br />First off: boo hoo you aren't who you want to be. Bullshit. We are all whoever we are and that's who we are. Trying to create a different self online is a waste of time. That's not who you are. Be yourself and if you don't like that, then fix it. If you don't like who you are, either change what you're thinking or change who you are. Escapism online is not the solution.<br /><br />Change expectations if you can't meet them. They might be unrealistic. Don't take this too far though. It is the socialist quitter's way out to just say "Oh I'll ever be anybody so I'll be content with that."<br /><br />Instead change who you are. Be more intelligent and through that, wealthier, happier, and just all-around better. Maybe you aren't intelligent, but you can become so if you stop wallowing in stupidity. Or maybe you want to be less intelligent, in which case you're actually just an idiot who tests well and therefore thinks he is intelligent. It's about thinking. Start thinking and your mind will grow. You can make yourself smarter if you stop trying to conform to the expectations and cultures of stupid people.<br /><br />In other words: don't be a social just because you're unhappy. Break out of their traps and stand on your own. Above all, don't try to be happier from anything else; not games or friends or anything other than yourself. Nothing else matters.Klepsacovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07915576683657376929noreply@blogger.com0