it appeared useful to me that i summarize my political stands in a quick post.
here it goes:
same sex marriage
marriage is an act of giving control over your property to the state.
marriage mostly serves, just like engagement and other similar processes, as protection in case of failure.
any additional meaning given to it is redundant.
therefore, if any people want to have their property protected by the state, they should be allowed to do so.
fact that this is restricted based on sexual preference is ridiculous and primitive.
state is so weak and under influence of illogical manipulations of minorities that it can not even perform its basic functions.
state should not even think for a second if same sex marriage is possible or not, by its nature it should allow it by default.
as it is in its interest to protect more property relationships, as it is its purpose.
any state not allowing same sex marriage is not executing its mission well.
immigration is a result of limiting freedom of movement over borders.
countries are a set of rules which can be enforced over a specific territory.
these territories are limited by imaginary borders and these rules are most related to collection of taxes as main source of state funding.
immigration is movement of individuals across these borders, obviously not for the purpose of tourism.
i was a skilled immigrant from serbia in italy who worked with other immigrants from usa, uk, germany, sweden, serbia, to bring value to italian companies.
those italian companies are on the stock market and are owned by organizations and individuals from all over the world.
basically, i needed to be an immigrant because i am good at my work and internet conferencing and document sharing was not well developed.
i am in favor of skilled immigration because it adds to the economy and enriches the individuals.
i am not in favor of immigration as an easier way out.
as i immigrated to italy i exposed myself to much greater level of competition and this was good for me.
i am not in favor of immigrants who want to escape competition.
i think public generalizes immigration as negative, while in fact it is a necessary building block in development of skills and competitive advantage.
but for sure immigration should be better controlled so those who immigrate do so to better themselves.
it is easy to evaluate if someone is bettering themselves by immigration by evaluating education and career.
i am not talking about letting scientists move wherever they want and keeping the waiters at home.
i am talking about anyone who is willing to create something should go through, anyone who has a tendency to destroy should not.
current immigration systems managed by state do not do so, but discriminate on the general level of nation and race, not on individual’s aptitude.
ideally everybody can go everywhere and there are none of these imaginary borders, but since we do have them, immigration should be allowed individual by individual, not nation by nation.
this is another failure of the state, where immigration management is inefficient.
representative democracy is not a democracy, never was and never will be.
also representative democracy makes very little sense to me consider the technologies available today.
i see no reason why i need to have a representative when it is so easy to vote on specific issues myself online.
studies show that people take much more interest in their community if they vote on issues, and not representatives.
in general, representative democracy makes citizens passive and uninterested, and centralizes power, none of which is good.
taxes should be seen as citizen’s payment for state services.
any other point of view is ridiculous.
but unfortunately, since state applies punishment is taxes are not paid, above point of view is not accepted.
essentially we all have a choice to purchase state services of another state.
for an individual and organization this is not easy but can be done.
state refers to this as tax avoidance.
i would refer to it as tax choice.
taxes and state services should be seen as supermarket products.
if services of italian or german state do not suit our needs for next few years, we should change to chinese or usa ones.
this way of thinking requires us to ignore all the nationalistic and patriotic bullshit.
once we achieve this way of thinking, state will accept that they are in competition with other states and will offer better services for taxes.
but as long as taxes are something we are punished if we do not pay, and not something we choose, state will not offer a less quality service in exchange.
no matter how good the state service is, it is always worst compared to one offered in competition with other states.
this seems like an issue for science, not state.
i am still confused why this is a political issue.
just as politicians do not participate in the design of an airplane, they should stay away from climate change.
scientists and engineers design policy and it is accepted.
change is harsh, but no one would complain if we are talking about surgery or airplanes.
socialism is any form of state participation in individual’s life.
most people do not really understand this definition, which is a problem.
biggest form of socialism is war.
in this aspect usa is possibly more socialist than china and russia.
also socialism is funded through taxes.
i believe less socialism is better simply because i am skeptical human society can be managed well by people employed by state.
as a management consultant i am aware that managing 100 people is a very strange and specific activity.
and managing millions or billions of people, which is socialism, is not possible.
some people have this immature ambition to believe they can make things better.
history and theory have proven otherwise.
socialism as a method of organizing human society is not optimal and should be minimized.
however, that will take some time.
first we need to get rid of the war as a main stronghold of socialism.
state should keep the monopoly on war, but never use it.
that is one aspect of socialism which i would support.
since world war two we live with possibility that one bomb can kill tens of millions of people.
it is natural that in any conflict need to use such power is present.
i believe terrorism is a real threat.
i can not imagine how it is to go to a cinema or restaurant and worry if you will explode.
when 9/11 happened i emailed my friends: this is a day people who want war won.
i still believe that there are no nations but two sides: us who do not want conflict, and them who want conflict.
them are on both of what they refer as sides.
terrorism is practiced by them, not by us.
how to change this, i do not know, but i am sure that there is a strong relationship between terrorism, socialism, and taxes.
the more taxes we pay, the higher the socialism, the more war there is, the more terrorism there is.
if we pay less taxes, there is less socialism, there is less war, and there is less terrorism.
it is as simple as that.
so what some people call tax evasion we could call war on terrorism or world peace project.