How much for the little girl ?

Tuesday, 28 May, Year 5 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

A little ripple on Twitter :

Linda Yueh
Just interviewed UK Business Sec Vince Cable who says banks traditionally find riskier to lend to startups, no better now, so gov doing now.

Kit Fox
But they were before too...?? Nothing new.

Linda Yueh
UK needs investment to recover & yes problem is deeper in that capital markets eg angels, venture capital more likely than banks

Mircea Popescu
Why would someone sane invest in the UK today ? If your answer starts with "because the UK used to"...

Kit Fox
Not saying "because they used to" that they should (also not arguing against) - saying this is an existing policy (actually support gov't investing in small businesses, encouraging small scale growth is much more stable)

Mircea Popescu
Problem is the UK is an extraction economy: take from the antrepreneur, give to the welfarist aggenda. This doth not fly

Kit Fox
Gov't exists to effect policies to benefit people; investing in support system (inc small biz loans) part of that

Mircea Popescu
No. Governments don't exist to "benefit people".If they think they do they obviously don't need entrepreneurs. Good luck.

Kit Fox
What do they exist for then? Perhaps you don't understand the role of government.

Mircea Popescu
Cheeky. Reality would seem to indicate what *you* think the role of government doesn't actually work.

* An hour later *

Mircea Popescu
Every child in Scotland is to be assigned a “state minder” from birth. Who's paying for this ?

The English.

Mircea Popescu
It's funny cause I was talking earlier to Kit Fox about why exactly entrepreneurs don't give a shit about the UK anymore.

Kit Fox
That's funny, Scotland has plenty of oil and natural gas reserves that the English have oddly laid claim to.

Mircea Popescu
So what's the idea here, UK as Congo, live off mineral extraction ? How much per hundred heads of able bodied brits?

I'm not George Soros to mince words and represent slavery as progress, nonsense as science and so on and so forth. Instead, here's the plain facts of the matter : a population that abandons its duties because of the inconveniencei doesn't get a capital letter.

Thus, I'm not going to be buying any Brits, not only because such a thing should never be done, but mostly because there'd be no Brits anywhere to buy. The brits available in ample quantities will, however, command a price. Not per head, but per hundred heads. And I will be buying some, just like everyone else with actual money will be buying some. For this purpose, among others.

A government is not there to "benefit" people. A government is there to protect people. From their enemies without and from their enemies within, their own sloth, their own ignorance, their own vanity. Governments that "benefit" people are colonial governments in their nature, if not in name.

So, how much for the little girl ?

  1. "Today it is assumed parenting is simply too hard, children are simply too vulnerable and risks are simply too great to allow for this luxury called privacy. This is why nobody is attacking this new bill in defence of privacy and the autonomous family." []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

6 Responses

  1. Sad.
    But I think you over state the proper role of government. government should mostly stay out of the way of the people not protect them from their own folly "their own sloth, their own ignorance, their own vanity".
    Failings = lessons

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 28 May 2013

    Sure. Tho a proper environment where the failing -> lesson transformation happens at maximal efficiency isn't too bad either.

  3. Efficiency allocation theory assumes rationality and low transaction costs conditions that are not naturally present IRL.

  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 29 May 2013

    The solution is not to make inefficiency more tenable. The solution is to make inefficiency as untenable as possible.

    In short, if you decide to keep two women in your household against the objection of society, their families and theirs themselves, the wrong approach is to get each an apartment in opposite sides of your mansion. The correct approach is to tie their necks together in a three foot long chain on the clear understarding that they emerge when they're both sisters or dead.

    Tried and true.

  5. One important aspect is to not assume that efficient allocation occurs naturally. Make inefficiency untenable means nothing other then taking affirmative action. For a different purpose sure, but nevertheless is the same reality altering method often conservatives decry.

  6. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 29 May 2013

    In this conceptual approach a woman saying no is also taking affirmative action and therefore not really against getting laid.

    Efficient allocation always occurs naturally. Rejecting both the context which aims to present unnatural constructs as "natural" and the individual misrepresentations out of which it is constructed isn't in any sense action.

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.