Anti-Democratic Anarcho-Capitalism: Total Scam


I’ve never heard of anything dumber than anarcho-capitalism which opposes democracy and the current state system, but thinks all property/wealth gained under the current, unethical system should be preserved even after it is abolished.  Many use the terms “voluntaryism” or “anarcho-libertarianism” to mask a system solely revolving around rich people unfairly owning everything and the majority having no ability to reclaim the earth as free, voluntary association.

In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”

I was completely wrong when I said there was a split in the left.  These phoney-leftists opposing democracy have one basic argument: “As long as you leave rich people’s stuff alone and don’t use democracy to take back what rightfully belongs to the public, you are free to do whatever you want.”

The Daily Servant of Power


Today’s servant of power is:

Ayn Rand

One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.

Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote?  She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society.  Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.

Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being?  I, personally, think she is.  Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light.  Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.

Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.

Britain and the US …


Britain and the US like to prove to the World that “democratic” states can be more wicked than autocratic ones and they’ve succeeded with flying colours!

Again, the discussion needs to shift to direct democracy, not totalitarianism.  This makes supporters of imperialistic democracy angry.  Why is that?

Let Me Make Myself Very Clear


Terminology has gotten so confusing.  Soviet-style socialism had absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx’s original manifesto aside from using it to justify illegitimate forms of control.  China being more of a free market that is run by an all powerful autocratic élite is now the complete opposite of what Karl Marx had envisioned for communism.  American liberalism is pure subservience – pushing for every “liberal,” “humanitarian” cause that doesn’t actually question unnecessary institutions of power.

(Other glaring misnomers are Hitler’s National “Socialist” Party and The “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea (who have a surprisingly cute website I should add.))

I think I might be adding to this confusion, so I want to make myself quite clear:

I condemn traditional forms of capitalism that try to keep people poor arbitrarily and unnecessarily.  The only type of “capitalism” I uphold is High-Efficiency Capitalism.

Beyond High-Efficiency Capitalism is one other type of economic system I think is both feasible and ethical which us pure collectivism because it provides exponential benefit for all involved when people properly contribute to it.  And those who argue against it and have such a huge problem with such things are most likely the ones incapable of contributing properly, in my opinion.


The exponential stability of teamwork

One problem is that going from our current system to pure collectivism (which again has absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Russia seeing as how true collectivism has no dictator) is like turning a balloon inside out.  High-Efficiency Capitalism would actually be an amazing way to catalyze such a transition which in reality is inevitable because that’s how groups of organisms naturally stabilize in the environment anyway.  (The last few thousands years of human civilization mean diddly-squat compared to the millions of years that species spend approaching a stable group dynamic, in my opinion.)

Thus, we can get there the easy way, or the hard way

Keeping the eco…


Keeping the economy afloat is not actually an objective or something worth applauding within itself. We need to start asking: “What direction should humanity be heading? What should we as people be trying to achieve?”

“A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.”

― Albert Einstein

A Challenge to the Economists


I would challenge any economist, economics professor, or economics student to take a look at my model for High-Efficiency Capitalism and tell me it is not superior to current models associated with traditional capitalism.  I think the models for traditional capitalism are inherently flawed.  For example, I think Adam Smith’s model has inherent problems within it and he identified some of these himself in “The Wealth of Nations.” On top of this, the American system goes even further beyond these flawed models and has resulted in a lumbering hodgepodge of broken economics and inefficiency.

High-Efficiency Capitalism:
A New Economic Model for a New Age
Raymond Li BSc Pharm

High-Efficiency Capitalism is a simple concept. The first principle is that the basic necessities of life are guaranteed: food, shelter, water, electricity, and health. People will work hard just to do better than others on relative terms.

This economic model is far superior to either pure socialism or pure capitalism alone for various reasons. It is also not so much a compromise between the two as much as it is both systems at the same time.

1) Ethical Reasons:
a) It is frankly not ethical for people to be homeless and starving when society is able to provide for them.
b) No matter how wicked people are, as human organisms we all deserve the basic necessities of life.

2) Efficiency Reasons:
c) People want job security and even more decent individuals will block progress in technology and other sectors in order to maintain job security. For example, if I am a receptionist I might block phone automation in order to keep my job. If I was confident the basics of life were still guaranteed, I would allow this automation to occur. I could then live off the system until I find a new job. In our society today, jobs require far greater training and are far more standardized than in the past. Thus, there needs to be sufficient time for people to transition from one job to another.
d) Allowing greater automation and for people to transition to areas they are actually needed is far better for the economy overall.
e) People naturally want to work, to feel they are making a difference in the community, to feel they are useful, to look like they are not lazy, to look healthy, to be doing well relative to their peers and people in the community, to keep ahead or keep up with the group etc. All of these factors will drive people not only to work, but to do that which is actually of maximum value to society.
f) On top of this, people will work to have luxuries. Video games, jewellery, and fancy cars are not things the state will be providing for under this economic model.  Market forces are still considered valuable to set prices for these non-essential commodities.
g) Competition can be of value when not overdone. When children play soccer, the competition drives them to do better; but no matter how poorly a child performs, they are still fed at the end of the day and still get to sleep indoors.
h) It frankly isn’t worth it to maintain a level of poverty in order to punish the lazy. Society hurts itself far more than it helps itself in the long run.

3) General Knowledge:
i) Ayn Rand only argued for individualism and detested weakness in men because she herself is incapable of standing alone and these views allowed her to find a stronger mating partner. Women such as Dickinson and Bronte who did not detest the weak to indulge the strong should be the true heroines among feminists.
j) Nobody argues for traditional capitalism with the intent of making the world a better place. People only argue for traditional capitalism because it is the ideology of the strong. Those who argue for traditional capitalism do so out of purely selfish pathology. Selfish individuals such as these still have a place in the economic model of High-Efficiency Capitalism because it is assumed that selfish individuals will still work hard to benefit themselves.

Read More…

When people sta…


When people start becoming disillusioned by the current state of democracy, the solution would be to shift towards greater direct democracy and greater regional control, in my opinion.

(And the fact the liberal media always wants to make totalitarianism seem like the only alternative to our current situation shows how much the people behind the scenes truly care about genuine democracy, in my opinion.)


When looking at unemployment statistics, remember that many bloggers and full-time social activists would technically fall in the category of “unemployed.”  Does this mean we are providing no service to humanity?

For me, I’m doing my work while living off my parents at the moment.  I wouldn’t mind being subsidized by some type of monetary subsistence program that provides basic funding for those who are more interested in independent pursuits with no backing from any private organization or institution.