North Stoke Life

So it must have a special place in national economic policy.  Ideally, policy should abolish ALL taxation on farm productivity and exempt them from VAT. And to hypothecate that, must then confiscate all the rent of that farmland. That's fair isn't it? Yes, there are some farmers who just own the land. And others who just pull a plough and herd livestock. And some of these do a bit of both.  So what? For the portion that a farmer pulls a plough he will be exempt from tax. And for the portion that a farmer is collecting rent, he will no longer collect it. It will be confiscated to make up for the exemptions. Thats fair, for farming. Likewise for sale of farm land and real estate.  How in this universe can this policy harm farming? And in what possible way can it not deliver an enormous boom to farming? Farming is the primary production process. It is the foundation of all other production in the nation. Without it, or if it gets neglected as it has been for the past 70 year...

You cannot secure your household by working for a living. The only way to secure the future of your household is by using unearned incomes. If you brag about working hard for a living and proudly boast about paying all your taxes, you are a threat to your own household. To secure your household you must seek out and secure unearned incomes. Because unearned incomes are protected both by the state and the people on the whole.  Unearned incomes are the founding economic policy of every nation and are always bailed out first during hard times. Unearned incomes are just what they say - a stream of income, which you got, without doing any work or investing any savings in getting them. The biggest class of unearned income comes from real estate - owning property in land.  Land value is untaxed, in the end. Always rises in value at a rate of 5% annually over the long term, and without further inputs of your hard work and savings. Is always bailed out first by governments of all party...

RIP.

This post is a play on the phrase 'freedom of speech'. Freedom of laughter. Imagine two scenarios. 1. Where someone is directing hateful language at you. 2. Where someone is telling you how funny you are. Are you there yet? Now think about this, with extreme care: in both cases you were faced with a choice where you could respond either with anger or laughter.  In the one case it is almost exclusively common to be angry and the other happy. Now imagine this: next time you are in scenario 1 respond with laughter and see what happens. I do not mean that you should do it because you are some kind of diplomat.  I do mean you do it because you had the choice to be angry or not angry about it. And this time you made the right choice. It was a matter of freedom or slavery for you and you chose freedom this time. Every time you're angry about hateful speech you are signalling obedience to the tribe. And the signal says, "I submit my freedom to you, the tribe. You t...