Anarchy is the art of thinking you can beat organization with disorganization.

Two More Anarchists Arrested in #DisruptJ20 Plot

“The message has to be, we do not recognize the city government either,” Kuhn says. “If you try to close us down we will look for your house, we will burn it. We will physically fight the police if they try to steal one of our places. We will go to war and you will lose.”

Silly anarchist, the message can be whatever you want, but the facts won’t change. What is it with the left and thinking that messaging can dictate reality? And aren’t anarchists supposedly opposed to property ownership? “…Steal one of our places.” First, not yours. Second. You smell that? That is the smell of ideological inconsistency.

“…To war…” You and what army? The battle between civilization and its opposite has a long history and a long future,  but in general, for the last few thousand years, civilization has won when it bothered to fight. It is the nature of human organization to protect its existence, until the humans in it either feel it is too ill to endure, or the spirit of the humans in it looses its vigor.

As long as the government is willing to protect order the scale of force available is magnitudes apart, as most people are conservative in the sense they want society to exist tomorrow.  Rather than worrying that these people have any power, the real worry is that they seek power, and would employ violence to get it.

But then, that also isn’t really a worry. Such forces are easy to overcome. The only real worry is that those we’ve entrusted with protecting civilization might refuse to do so. In various cities with leftist governments, such groups have been allowed to fester, commiting violence and property damage without much response. Civilization when it defends itself is nearly all powerful. But the trick is, it must defend itself, or it will die.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

If you want to help…

Trump signs bill undoing Obama coal mining rule

While there are many issues which I might choose to comment on, the only one I will is a quote from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

If you want to help miners, then come address their health and safety and their pension program. You can protect the coal industry here with special interests and the amount of lobbying they do, or you can step up in a process and have a regulation that works for the United States of America so the outdoor industry and sportsman and fishermen can continue to thrive.

Well. Health, safety and pensions are compensations. The government should not control compensations in a free society. If you don’t think that they are, would you take a job with the same pay at a place with a worse record on any of the three? Rather, would you take a job with double the pay and 75% of the safety? Are you doing trade offs in your head to answer the second question? Sen. Cantwell would rather you didn’t have that opportunity. While I generally agree that health, safety, and pensions are useful and indeed valuable, that doesn’t mean that the government should be deciding any of them. Even agencies such as OSHA should be more concerned with “is it as safe as they represented to their employees” and sharing best practices. The government shouldn’t set standards, but rather measures. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, consumers determine the price of goods when they make choices among the infinite available in exchange for their limited money, skills, and labor. Even the “price” of money is no different.

In any case, if someone is willing to pay a person to lay bricks in a volcano for a million dollars a year, it isn’t the government’s job to stop either the worker or the employer. If someone wants to work for a higher wage with lower compensations of other sorts, it isn’t something the government should by any right stop. Likewise if someone’s willing to work for half minimum wage doing a particular job, that just means they accept the level of compensation they get for the labor they’re asked to do. As long as it isn’t a matter of slavery or a knife to their throats, it isn’t the government’s job to ask why that is, or to dictate that it can not be. Every bit of legislation that labor unions have ever pressed for in their entire existence was only to benefit that labor union, and not workers in general. Every single one.

I’m pretty sure that the democrats and their supporters have been spending quite a lot of time arguing that the republicans are fascists. Of course, while anonymous mobs that supported the cause went out and broke and burned stuff. Like certain other to remain nameless anonymous mobs known for types of boots and color of shirts… But the bundle of sticks argument and the general consensus among democrats that we should all think like them (we’re happy for them to think however they like, we’d just appreciate it if they didn’t demand we join them in thought and act) is a part of the whole phenomenon, and her argument plays into that. They’re wrong for these reasons as everyone can plainly see, and these innocent sorts are harmed by them, even if they don’t complain, and even if they’re the same miners or executives I’m complaining for.

But that’s not all. It isn’t just the jack-booted.. err. Yes, not mentioning it. Nor the bundle of sticks mentality. But the notion, as covered in my first paragraph, that the government should though infinite regulatory domains, control the means of production. Those Fascists that the left is so fond of claiming everyone else is put no small effort into controlling the means of production. Which is an obvious thing, given that they were all self admitted socialists. Rather, before Hitler decided to take over all of Europe, Mussolini was pointed out by anyone and everyone in power (even some of the right’s heroes at the time) as someone who got Socialism right. He didn’t do so by taking factories from their owners so much as taking control of the owners. There are a lot of ways to control the means of production, ownership is only one means. There are others.

Finally, the coal industry does indeed have lobbyists and are part of something that could be classified as special interests, but so do the environmentalists. Indeed, we all have at least a few issues we’d rather not be flexible on. To the extent you might call their interests bribery (which I don’t) it isn’t any more or less than is done by any number of other groups. Rather, the number of groups against them had more influence under Obama than the Coal industry did. Obviously. Obama was practically their national spokesman against the coal industry. So level of influence is a fallacious argument at best. There is no reason to judge one is morally superior to the other, yet she doesn’t even mention the interests levied against, except the bald assertion that at present levels of regulation, “the outdoor industry,” “sportsmen” and “fishermen” wouldn’t continue to thrive. If that was true, how did they “continue to thrive” up until Obama?

While some might see my take as naive, the world isn’t overrun with Captain Planet villains who do harm while ignoring their own self interests. Even “Loot and Plunder” who were to represent greedy capitalists would ignore their own economic self interests in order to do just a little more harm. Relatively few people, even among sociopaths, actively seek to destroy the world. The world is where we keep all our stuff, after all. There is of course “the tragedy of the commons.” But my experience is that giving the government too much control over “the commons” is also a tragedy, and a much harder one to correct. After all, once someone takes control of an aspect of the commons, keeping that control becomes their special interest.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Socialism: the gift that keeps giving.. suffering

Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism – Venezuela Sees The Old Child Killing Diseases Back

You can use air pressure to create a vacuum, but that is nothing compared to Venezuela transforming one of the most valuable materials on earth into poverty.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Public education

DeVos nomination in trouble after two GOP senators defy Trump

Collins said she was worried that DeVos wouldn’t do enough to help public schools, and issue Democrats have also raised during the public debate about Trump’s nominee.


“The mission of the Department of Education is fraught, but supporting public education is at its core,” she added. “I’m concerned that Mrs. DeVos’ lack of experience with public schools will make it difficult for her to fully understand, identify and assist with those challenges, particularly for our rural schools.”

That isn’t really correct. “Public education” is in her mind a specific process. But we don’t need “Public education” as such or in particular. The goal of the department of education shouldn’t be public education, but the education of the public. That describes a goal rather than a particular process. If you had two different courses where one left someone 20% more meaningfully knowledgeable than the other, why should you concern yourself over the specific process? As long as neither process is particularly harmful, you shouldn’t mindlessly commit yourself to one over the other, especially when data shows the other has better outcomes.

Both Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski are people we should be looking to replace. When you hear about GOP senators voting in a non-conservative matter, the odds one or the other of their names being in the list is nearly 100%. This is just another datapoint in a long list.

Well, at the end of the day I don’t really support the existence of the Department of Education which isn’t a Federal problem in the first place, but if we are to continue it’s existence the person at the head MUST understand that throwing more money at the problem in order to do exactly what we’ve always been doing will only get us the same results we’ve always gotten. If your plan to get a better product is to spend more money on the same product, you’re obviously a fool. If you think you’ll get a better product simply because you spend more, you’re still a fool.

And for that matter, people in the “I send my children to private school and attended it myself” set are not particularly suitable to proclaim that “public education” is anything good. Let’s be honest. It can be done better. But it won’t be done better if we do it the same way, with the same staff, and same facilities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“…Makes me nuts.”

In the NY Post article, Democrats are becoming the party of secession makes me think our language may need the word fafailion. Sucession sounds too much like success, and that is definitely not the outcome they’d get.

There are many things to comment on and you should read the whole thing, but I thought I’d bring up the bit at the end…

City Hall wants a new “mansion tax” of 2.5 percent on any house sale above $2 million. Asked if she thought the tax might crimp sales, Glen told the Wall Street Journal the criticism is ridiculous and added, “If you look at how much money we’ve left on the table for the past two years while this thing went sideways, it makes me nuts.”

Makes you nuts? You’re nuts to begin with, that’s why this proposition seems rational to you. It isn’t. Shouldn’t the person involved have taken an introductory economics class?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

dark energy

A radical new hypothesis claims to have a simple explanation for dark energy

I had this thought some time ago, though there is no particular reason to believe that any of it is right.

Well, first, if you consider that in a black hole, the event horizon isn’t merely nothingness but is more or less where the magic happens. This more or less comes from my vague understanding of recent works of Steven Hawking. If this means a black hole is more like a doughnut or a soap bubble I don’t know, but apparently it is possible that there is no singularity at all. A possible upside is that if the mass isn’t condensed to a point, the possibility of black holes having spin is somewhat greater. As I recall, one of the theories on how to travel though time involved spinning black holes. Although the energy involved in approaching and escaping would be fairly terrifying.

From quantum physics there is a notion that the universe isn’t 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension, but a multitude. I believe that 26 has been passed around, but I’m pretty fond of 42 for obvious nerd related reasons. I don’t understand any of it well enough the evaluate the existence of dimensions beyond the 3. A universe that has more than 3 dimensions in it should still be capable of having a black hole though. Rather, it seems as long as there is something like gravity it would be pretty hard to avoid such a universe being more or less all black hole. And for that matter, according to their present theory, some of those dimensions are space like, but from our perception are basically flat.

There is the universal constant, the speed of light, which we’re not 100% sure has actually been a constant in all of time and space, though we still act as though it is. More on that later.

From black hole theory, we have the idea that all black holes, once they’ve consumed all they can consume (which is to say, they run out of things to eat) will eventually evaporate. In Star Trek, this idea is employed as a power source for the Romulans, who use a very tiny black hole as an energy source. The way it evaporates, by the way, is that the universe is (theoretically) constantly producing virtual particles that come into existence in pairs,  then are attracted to each other and self destruct. In the case of black holes, one of them can fall into the black hole and the other escape. This will result in a net loss of mass for the black hole equal to the virtual particle that escaped, or it’s energy equivalent anyway. E=MC² and all that.

Now, here is where the magic all happens. If there is a 26 dimension space time with a black hole in it, and black holes aren’t hollow but most of the interesting stuff is actually somewhat close to the event horizon, then it stands to reason that such a black hole would have an n-dimensional surface. Our universe would exist on that surface, expressed as a set of vibrations. The speed of light in our universe would actually be tied to the mass of the black hole, propagating at a resonate frequency on the membrane, with the vibrations we observe in light not being that, but local vibrations on the surface. This might imply that light isn’t a constant speed everywhere, since it would seem the local “thickness” of a black hole is not constant.

Then.. what is the big bang? Probably the black hole ate something. What is dark energy? Evaporation. Virtual particles are being created, some of them are escaping. They create something like “vacuum energy” which may or may not act like gravity.. but more importantly if the black hole shrinks it would affect the resonate frequency, probably making it higher. My inclination is to say this would make light move faster with time, though being a part of this universe we wouldn’t notice it. But at the same time, if a singularity doesn’t exist, the initial impact SHOULD spread across the whole of the black hole until it averages it to “flat” It would probably accelerate as the mass that makes up the universe gets farther and father from each other, the vibrations that describe it eventually becoming nothing. From our perception this would be a universe that expanded “forever” (it’d eventually reach the other side and there would be some interference) so it would look like a heat death ending- but wait, there’s more. In the fullness of time all the information that made up our universe would escape.. which is to say, heath death isn’t the final end. Rather from our perspective the the universe would disappear (due to spreading faster than the speed of light at that time) and then eventually evaporate.

One up shot of all this .. I mean, from connecting a thousand theories that have nothing to do with each other perspective, is that idea a few years ago that the universe is a “hologram” somewhat fits with everything else.

anyway, cheers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The VA isn’t bad…?

Sanders Lectures Navy SEAL Veteran: VA Isn’t Bad

  He pledged to clean up the department, promising, “No more long drives. No more waiting backlogs. No more excessive red tape. Just the care and support they earned with their service to our country.

If it isn’t bad, why are there backlogs, drives, and excessive red tape that need fixing? He’s only defending a US example of socialist like healthcare because it is used as an example of why we shouldn’t employ such a thing. Objectively he knows it’s failings. But he would never admit the reason for its failings is innate to the incentives that structure presents. Since he’d want that structure everywhere and it’s failings aren’t limited to any particular enterprise.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment