China’s success proves Communism doesn’t work

China has overtaken Japan to become the world’s second biggest economy.  As we all know, China is a communist nation which perfectly demonstrates the result of collectivist ethics: human rights are ignored.

Despite the apparent “success” this might indicate for communism, the irony is that all the purported “flaws” of capitalism actually only occur when its opponents have power.

“Just five years ago China’s GDP was half of Japan’s.

However, its rapid expansion has not been felt by much of Chinese society.

While there are dozens of billionaires, the average income for the rest of its 1.3 billion people is among the world’s lowest.

China has a per capita income of just £2,300 compared to a per capita income of £24,250 in Japan.

Americans remain the richest in the world with a per capita of over £27,000, and their economy is a whole is still by far the biggest.”

A tiny few in China are very rich whilst the population as a whole is, by comparison to international standards, very poor.  Aren’t these the supposed consequences of capitalism; the rich getting rich at the expense of the poor?  Yet isn’t this what happened in Soviet Russia when millions were starved to death?  Don’t we actually find that in less socialised economies the standard of living for the general population is higher and people earn more?

Any system designed for man that ignores the nature of man is doomed to failure.  Communism and socialism have consistently failed to produce wealth and “universal” good, whatever that means, whenever they’ve been practiced.  China’s “success” is no comfort to its one billion inhabitants who are treated like servants of the government.  So much for “the greatest good for the greatest number.”


Stealing is ok if the thief needs your money

Apparently Comrade Cameron is promising a crack down on benefit thieves.

If you read what the PM says, you’ll notice a very obvious contradiction that he, and indeed all supports of the welfare state, hold: the idea the benefit thieves are stealing your money, but people who don’t cheat the system, aren’t.

Hmmm, so…if a man holds you at gunpoint and takes your wallet because of the claim: “my children need new shoes” – how does the truth or falsity of this claim affect the fact that you have indeed been robbed?

Note that I am attacking the contradiction itself: that the only reason (in the PM’s mind) that one group is stealing and one isn’t, is because one doesn’t deserve the property of others, and the other supposedly does. The actual means of acquiring that property is the same; after all, once your tax is taken from you it is used for countless causes; supporting other peoples’ lives is just one of them.

So what does this mean?  That stealing is only stealing if there’s no “genuine” need for the goods. If the need is genuine, then taking someone else’s property is ok. Of course, this reverses the cause and effect of morality, leading to “ends justify the means” thinking, and using the consequences of an action as its justification, rather than any preceding principles. And since “genuine” is an indefinable concept, it’s simply open to opinion or whim, or more precisely, whatever the current government feels will win it the most votes in the short term.

Airbrushed photos petition belies deeper problem with society

It’s no surprise, what with all the rubbish that the All Knowing Government has decreed is necessary to teach in “free” schools, that rational philosophy has been left behind.  Without it, the overwhelming majority of people in society see democracy as some noble if imperfect ideal that the West has achieved.  What they haven’t been taught is what the real power of government actually means.

This is what the power of government is: a gun.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is the power to use force against people to achieve some end.  The only question is whether that force is used against innocents, i.e.: those who haven’t initiated force against others, or against criminals, people who have initiated force against innocents and need to be restrained.

It’s bad enough when an “evolved” western power like France makes certain types of clothing on private citizens illegal, a throwback to the Nazi occupation of the same country that needed so many foreign lives to liberate it. But you know something is very sick in the world when young girls are being taught the “beauty” (read: power) of modern democracy; the power to point a gun at someone else and make them do what you want. And better still: have it endorsed as empowerment or the wonders of democracy in action.

I refer of course to this.  Of course, our vote-whoring politicians are behind the move and the fascist Advertising Standards Authority is watching it carefully.

There are only two ways to make someone agree with you: reason and force.  Force is most appealing when you can’t convince someone you’re right, which usually happens when you aren’t right but merely want to win the argument.  As an example of this, I offer any socialist.

The problem, young girls, insecure attention seekers, and lazy couch potatoes claim, is that they feel depressed because they can’t look like the supermodels they see on TV or magazine covers.  If you need a disclaimer put on a professional photograph to tip you off that some doctoring might have occurred, you have more serious problems than your looks.  You do, in reality, have a severe case of stupid.  But I’m here to tell you that rather than take responsibility for your looks, by maybe accepting that genetics does not grant everyone equality in body or mind, or getting your diet in order by cutting out simple sugars, fatty foods, or exercising more than once a month – there is (yet again) someone else you can blame: your parents.  Because if your parents are allowing you to, a mere child, to read magazines of this sort and wear adult clothing and makeup, and base your aspirations in life on superficial physical appearance instead of lifelong virtues like rationality, self-esteem, productiveness, honesty etc – then they are just as stupid as you.

One could just as well counter with the claim that showing how people who take care of themselves look like, should inspire, rather than depress, those who want to achieve the same look.  Newsflash: all the disclaimer labels in the world, expensive makeup, and quick-fix diets are no substitute for cutting out junk food and exercising regularly.

It’s important to have pride in your body, just as it’s important to have pride in your mind and the efficacy of both.  But true pride in performance or polish doesn’t come from the lucky hand life may or not have dealt you.  It comes from what you actually achieve yourself.   A woman who works herself down to a respectable size 12 or 14 will have more confidence and pride in her femininity and sex appeal than a lifelong size 8 to 10 who craves to be something she isn’t.  Or the woman who works hard to earn the money to pay for surgery to fix a feature she dislikes about herself; it’s perfectly healthy and moral to do so.  Never settle for second best if you believe you can change, but do so on the principle that the goal is to improve yourself, not make yourself into what you think society is telling you should look like.  And don’t, under any circumstances, avoid the responsibility to think for yourself, blame others, ask the government to pull a gun on them, and threaten to pull the trigger unless they compensate for your idiocy and feeble emotional state.  Oh wait…