angry waffle

via http://dailybayonet.com/

now obviously this is originally from an energy industry source so make of it what you will but if this is veritable then this illustrates the same control mechanism at play in the energy 'markets' as we suffer under in the housing 'market'.
first off - why does the state own the seabed? why is it only for lease and not freehold? the answer is quite simply power, control and money. simple supply/demand economics shows that this kind of manipulation is a big winner for the state. imagine the kickbacks to the guy who dishes out permits to drill in that tiny green section. none of the sheeple will believe that anything like kickbacks or bribery could possibly be going on among our betters, the angels that regulate our imperfect human nature. well it fucking well does - from mandelson and a yachtload of oligarchs and rothschild bankers right down to the guy i know who works for a tiny housing maintenance contractor that has to hand over a brown envelope of fifties every christmas to keep its contract. without the handy machinery of coercion to externalise their costs these cunts wouldnt be able to indulge in such corruption. how much do you have to bribe a civil servant to give you a multi-million contract? not much - it aint his money so he's always going to be getting something for nothing. now how much would you have to bribe a totally private business man operating in a totally free and cut-throat competitive market to give you that contract? its his money, his business and his future so its going to have to be pretty much the full value of the contract.
anyways back to the state's 'homeownerism' of the oceans. by homeownerism i mean the illogical, illegitimate and fucking disgusting control of land use by the state. why do you slave every hour? to pay for a roof over your head ill bet. why does it cost so damn much? supply and demand. permanent and ever increasing demand and an artificially limited supply. how many building plots are available right now in a hundred mile radius of where you live? fuck all. as a result housing is insanely expensive. someone who isnt a ranting internet idiot has worked out that in britain your residence should cost less than your car! the actual materials and even labour involved in construction are a tiny fraction of the cost of your property. even with ridiculous building codes (yknow that old pub down the road - the one thats three hundred years old, has had hundreds of people through its doors every day of those three hundred years and is still standing? you wouldnt be allowed to build that now let alone allow people inside. but its still standing. now really ask yourself why the construction industry is so regulated)
imagine how radically different your lifestyle would be if land use were a voluntary matter. if an individual who wanted to sell some land were freely able to offer that land to an individual who wanted to buy it and the only limits on the use of that land were voluntary agreements.
land would be cheaper and the population less densely concentrated. without the artificially inflate costs of housing your living expenses would be significantly lower even after taking into account that most salaries are loosely based on living costs. with less pressure to slave away in the rat race the whole balance of the employer/employee balance would shift.
so we can see how the state's coercive limitation and control of land use enslaves us all to the daily grind of tax slavery (the more you gotta earn to pay that mortgage the more tax you generate for the politicians and the more interest for their mates in the banking cartel).
well they do the same with energy. in the case of the above graphic - oil. there loads of it out there so why do they restrict us getting at it? it cant be safety because as we've seen in the mexican gulf the agencies of the state are only too happy to permit dangerous sites. sites, incidentally, that would have been economically unviable if other, easier oil reserves weren't outlawed. by limiting oil exploration to a proportionately tiny area the state forces companies pay for hugely expensive and risky ventures.
its just more power control and money. keep the price of energy artificially high and we're all forced to strive to afford it. in doing so we generate more tax income for them. they also cream profits at the other end in the form of artificially extortionate permits and licenses.

now theyre at the same game with electrical power distribution under the guise of environmentalism.

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. 

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.

Smart grids are being developed by utilities worldwide to allow the government to control electricity use in the home, down to the individual appliance. Smart grids would monitor the consumption of each appliance and be capable of turning them off if the power is needed elsewhere.

Holliday’s startling comments on BBC Radio 4 were reported by The Daily Telegraph.

from http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/03/05/lawrence-solomon-don%E2%80%99t-count-on-constant-electricity-under-renewable-energy-says-uk-electricity-ceo/

doesnt this bit send a chill down your spine?

the government... will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose.

 when will the interfering fuckwits realise that they cannot possibly ever gather, assimilate, analyse enough information to make such decisions? central planning is ethically disgusting and empirically flawed. it is simply impossible to plan an economy. a 'mixed' economy is nothing more than a sham whereby they can pick and chose which parts to take credit for and profit from and which bits to blame on 'free markets'. the ONLY way to distribute resources is through the market mechanism. i dont mean state corporatist capitalism which should be correctly labelled fascism. i mean natural, self regulating market anarchy. i dont mean the big business templates of anarcho-capitalism whereby proponents imagine massive energy companies little different from the utilities we recognise today, efficiently distributing power in a free market. what i mean is a completely unlimited market for energy. there's nothing wrong with wind power per se merely the coercion behind statist environmentalism. if your isolated homestead would be too expensive to hook up to a private power company's grid then whack up a wind mill. or run a generator on synthetic diesel from an algae pond.
the statists simply cannot conceive that INDIVIDUALS are best placed to decide what is best for them. this highest social purpose is non-existent and impossible to calculate. utilitarians a billion times greater than todays westminster gravy train troughers failed to conceive a felicific calculus so i doubt our 'democratic' overlords will fare any different.
i am sure that the highest social purpose will turn out to be whichever industrialist has paid the highest party donations. once again the bribe is a pittance because the coercive state is dishing out someone elses money. ours. 
in a free market normal people would easily compete with the demands of business. the natural beauty of the market mechanism would distribute power as near perfectly as is possible. if people really wanted widgets then they would be willing to pay for the widgets, then the widget factory would have enough money to demand more power from the electricity company. if this drove up the price of domestic energy then the people would possibly have less money to spend on fancy widgets and it would all balance out to the most effective distribution of resources. the infinite feedback of information through the price mechanism comes as close to Marx' utopian dream of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".
the coercive 'smartgrid' will never be as smart as the market mechanism. remove the perverse effects of coercion and allow humanity to organise voluntarily.
no to coercive limits on free use of land
no to coercive limits on free provision of energy
and no to coercive limits on free distribution of power.