State Bloodsuckers

This story is interesting.

Police in Idaho and a few other states now have the authority to forcibly draw blood from suspected drunk drivers, if the driver refuses a breath test.

There's an interesting legal loophole around "You need a search warrant first." There's an on-call judge. The policeman phones in, and gets an immediate search warrant. The judge rubberstamp approves all requests.

Drunk driving is a real crime. However, police forcibly drawing blood is a bit severe. There are other ways to enforce compliance, such as "The suspected drunk driver loses his driver's license for refusing to take a breath test." Also, you can tell if someone is drunk. All the breath test allows is concrete evidence, rather than "The word of the driver against the word of the policeman."

The problem is that the State police have a monopoly. If they misbehave, there's no recourse.

I'm not defending the rights of a drunk driver. Drunk driving is a serious crime. A drunk driver risks injuring someone else due to his incompetence. The State punishment for drunk driving actually usually is too low.

If there was an explicit consent "You agree to the blood test in exchange for your license and car insurance." or "As terms of your car insurance, you agree to a breath test whenever asked.", then it would be valid. However, the State has a monopoly. If you don't like it, you're SOL.

In a really free market, drivers would agree to not drive drunk. Otherwise, they wouldn't get insurance and they wouldn't be allowed by whoever owned the road. Breaking that contract would probably have a more severe penalty than the State charges drunk drivers.

It's a bad precedent. Now, the State police forcibly draw blood from a drunk driver. Later, the State police will forcibly draw blood from everyone.

This policy makes the State policeman a literal bloodsucker!

Robert Kahre Sentenced

This story is interesting. Robert Kahre was sentenced to 15 years in jail for tax evasion.

Criminal penalties for tax evasion are pure terrorism. "It is a crime to not pay taxes." literally means "It is a crime to work if you don't get permission from the banksters and State bureaucrats."

I liked this quote from the story:

Through hundreds of employees at the businesses, Kahre and his sister used a payroll scheme to avoid paying taxes.

Notice the pro-State trolling. They make it sound like "Robert Kahre was a scumbag who deserved to go to jail!" instead of "Robert Kahre was exploiting the legal inconsistency that a State-issued gold coin has a legal tender value of $50 but a fair market value of $1150."

At least some commenter called out the newspaper for pro-State trolling.

Thanks, Mary Manning for proving that you and the Las Vegas Sun are just puppets for the prosecution and PURVEYORS OF YELLOW JOURNALISM. To simplify a matter of such importance as "an elaborate scheme to defraud the IRS" sickens me beyond belief. A more balanced story appears in the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Many newspapers don't allow comments or filter comments. I'm surprised they published that comment.

The second story had an interesting point on Kahre I hadn't heard before:

Kahre used his system with people who worked at his several construction-trade businesses, and later marketed it to 35 other local businesses.

That's very interesting. Kahre was advising other people to do the same thing as him. If it caught on, then the State would have collapsed as people would have started avoiding taxes.

If Kahre is the only tax resister, it's very easy to crack down on him individually. If there's widespread tax resistance, then it's impractical to kidnap/assault everyone. Therefore, State thugs spend a lot of effort terrorizing people who see loopholes in their scam.

Here's some more pro-State trolling:

"This was a significant case," said Paul Camacho, special agent in charge of the IRS' Las Vegas office. "The government was not the only victim."

Hundreds of local tradespeople who received their pay from Kahre's payroll service will not earn Social Security credit for the years 1999 through 2003, Camacho explained.

They don't get Social Security credit *BUT* they didn't have 15% of their salary stolen via payroll taxes! (They may have been forced to pay later after Kahre was caught.) The cost of Social Security taxes is *MUCH GREATER* than any benefit. If you can avoid the tax and forfeit the benefit, that's a *GREAT* deal.

Tax law is very confusing and complicated, making it very unclear that what Kahre did was illegal.

Of course, State thugs must crack down on anyone who seeks freedom. If Kahre was not kidnapped and tortured, then other people would follow his example and the scam of the State would end.

Taxation is theft. Criminal penalties for tax evasion are terrorism. The income tax completely contradicts the idea that we are a nation of free individuals. The income tax converts every American into slaves of the banksters and State parasites.

Health Care "Reform" and Abortion

This story is pretty funny. In order to get the healthcare "reform" bill passed in the House, a weird amendment was added. This is the "Stupak amendment". The "Stupak amendment" says that Federal taxpayer money may not be used to pay for abortions, even as part of the "public option".

Why was this amendment necessary? Some Republicans are very serious about their anti-abortion propaganda. This gave them an excuse to vote for the bill. Even though the Democrats have a majority, not all Democrats support the healthcare reform law. By adding an abortion ban into the bill, some Republicans were goaded into voting for it.

That's an excellent example of how State evil works. In most new laws, concessions are added for various Congressmen so they will vote for it. This is "free", because the slaves pay the cost of bad new laws and not the Congressmen themselves.

The Senate will probably pass a different version of the bill than the House, which means that negotiations aren't over. The only certainty is that there will be new laws restricting people's freedom even more.

Abortion is used as an evil fnord by politicians. It is a distraction from other more important issues. A politician must have the "correct" opinion on abortion. A politician is never asked "Is taxation theft?" The discussion of abortion is a substitute for issues of real importance.

"Taxpayer money should not be used to pay for abortions!" sounds appealing, because it's a bastardized version of "Taxation is theft!" I object when State bureaucrats steal from me and use the proceeds to prevent people from getting abortions. I object when State bureaucrats steal from me and use the proceeds to fund abortions or murder or anything.

The whole "healthcare reform" debate is one big evil fnord. The correct answer is "Government licensing requirements for doctors are damaging. The AMA/State doctor licensing cartel restricts supply and drives up prices. FDA regulations and patents restrict treatment options and raise costs. Regulation of the insurance industry further drives up costs. The correct solution is to repeal all government licensing requirements and all government regulation of healthcare."

Of course, the correct solution is "politically infeasible", because too many people profit from the current corrupt system. The healthcare "reform" law guarantees that current insiders continue to get their share of State-backed looting, while providing the cattle with the illusion of reform. A step in the right direction would be "The supply of doctor licenses should be increased!", but even that isn't discussed in the mainstream media.

A Nation of Middlemen

I had an amusing conversation with one of my coworkers at my most recent job. He said "I have a friend who started a wallet manufacturing business. He's selling 'Faraday cage wallets', to protect your ID cards from broadcasting information. Starting a business is hard!"

I said "Oh, he makes wallets?" My coworker replied "No, he hires a factory in China to make them for him."

I gave my coworker a hard time about "Why doesn't he make the wallets himself?" The reply was "Do you really expect him to sit around sewing wallets all day? Why hire someone at $10+/hour to make wallets when you can hire someone in China for $1/hour?"

The details of the business were amusing:

1. He doesn't manufacture the wallets himself. He outsources that.
2. He hired a lawyer and filed for a patent on his wallet design. The idea of making a "Faraday cage wallet" was not his idea. However, he owns a patent!
3. He signed agreements with a bunch of online stores to sell his wallets and carry them in their inventory. He doesn't have his own store.
   

The guy's business is nothing! He's just a middleman! He doesn't make the wallets! He doesn't sell the wallets! He does nothing!

He does own a patent, but that's only due to a defect in the legal/patent system and not that it was his original idea. Intellectual property is not a valid form of property. In patent law, "first to file a patent!" isn't the same as "person who came up with the idea!"

The USA is a nation of middlemen. Nobody's actually interesting in building something. The guy who actually does the real work is a sucker and a fool.

Bill Belichick Fnord

This story represents an evil fnord I see over and over again. It occurs in all places, and not just in sports. In the context of sports, it's more obvious.

At the end of Sunday night's football game, Bill Belichick's Patriots had the ball at their own 20 yard line. It was 4th down and 2 yards to go. The Patriots had a 6 point lead. Instead of punting, Bill Belichick chose to go for the first down. They failed to make the first down. The Colts got the ball in a great field position, and then scored the winning touchdown.

The evil fnord is "New England failed to make the first down and lost the game. Therefore, Bill Belichick made the wrong decision."

Whether New England actually lost the game or not has *NOTHING* to do with whether or not it was the correct decision. The correct question is "Given statistical assumptions about how both teams play, did going for the first down increase their chance of winning?"

There are arguments in favor of going for the first down. If they made the first down, they would have practically won the game immediately because they would have been able to run out a lot of the time remaining on the clock, or force the Colts to use up their timeouts. (The Colts still had all 3 timeouts.) If successful, the Patriots could have gotten another first down, which would definitely have ended the game. Even if the Patriots failed to make the first down, the Colts still needed to gain 20 yards for the winning touchdown.

Punting only gains 30-40 yards. There's a risk that the punt could be returned for a touchdown. Knowing they need a touchdown to win, the Colts will go for the first down on fourth down. This makes the Colts more likely to score a touchdown than in a normal possession. The Colts have a top-rated offense, which is another argument in favor of trying to keep them from getting the ball back.

The only objective way to determine if Bill Belichick made the correct decision is with a proper statistical analysis. For example, you could play out the remainder of the game 200 times with the Madden NFL game and see what happens if you go for the first down 100 times and punt 100 times. I wonder if that game lets you configure the scenario correctly?

There also are intangible factors. Bill Belichick gave his offense a vote of confidence, when he let them go for the first down. That could be an advantage in future games. Also, Bill Belichick could have judged how tired his defensive players were.

The important point is that you cannot conclude "Bill Belichick made the wrong decision!" based solely on the fact that his team lost the game. In order to be sure, you'd have to consider the odds of winning from each decision *BEFORE* he made it.

Most people are focused on loss-oriented thinking. They focus on the worst-case outcome instead of the average-case outcome. If Bill Belichick's decision increased his chance of winning, then it was correct, even if they ultimately lost the game.

If Bill Belichick had punted and then lost the game, then nobody would have criticized him. A bad coach would make the decision that gets the least criticism, rather than the choice that maximizes the chance of winning.

As another example, suppose I attempt practical agorism. State thugs kidnap/arrest me and I waste time in jail. Does that mean I made the wrong decision? No, because that's judging by outcomes and not a priori odds. If I don't attempt agorism, I'm accepting the sure loss of more than half my life to taxes. If I don't attempt agorism, then I'm accepting my status as a slave. I should do what I think is right. The worst-case outcome of attempting agorism is that State thugs kidnap/assault/murder me. The average-case outcome of not attempting agorism is probably worse than the average-case outcome of attempting agorism, although the worst-case is better.

Parasites want people to focus on worst-case outcomes instead of average-case outcomes. This way, productive workers can be easily controlled by parasites. The worst-case outcome is "Some parasite will punish me for disobeying!" Productive workers do not think about the average-case, because they continually fear punishment by the parasites around them.

As another example, I refused to take psychiatric drugs. My psychiatrist focused on the worst-case outcome, which is "FSK will relapse!" I knew that taking the drugs, I would definitely be unable to do anything. I decided to accept the risk of relapse. The benefit is that I would be my productive normal self most of the time. At worst, I'd be sick for a week or two per year. By focusing on average-case outcomes instead of worst-case outcomes, it was easy for me to decide to refuse to take psychiatric drugs.

This is an important aspect of pro-State brainwashing. "Focus on the worst-case outcome instead of the average-case outcome!" is a common evil fnord. It's a symptom of pro-State brainwashing. I doubt that any of the sports comedians covering this story are aware of the huge logical error they are making.

Bill Belichick is criticized for making a non-standard decision that might have actually increased his team's chance of winning. That is reinforcing everyone's pro-State brainwashing, to focus on worst-case outcomes instead of average-case outcomes.

The details of sporting events are necessarily reported honestly. That allows these evil fnords to be sometimes more obvious. This evil fnord seems to occur a couple times per season. A coach is criticized for making a non-standard decision that may have actually increased his team's chance of winning. A coach who goes for it on fourth down and fails and loses the game is usually roundly criticized, even if it may have been the statistically correct decision.

I read about one coach who did a statistical analysis, and concluded you should almost never punt. A punt only gains 30-40 yards. If you go for the first down and make it, you may then get another couple of first downs and score. Plus, the fact that you will go for it on fourth down gives you more options on third down. If you plan to go for it on fourth down, a third down play that leaves you just short of the first down is a good idea.

The only way to prove if Bill Belichick made the right or wrong decision is a careful statistical analysis. Even that isn't proof, because there may be intangible factors a coach knows that aren't measured in a simulation.

There's No Inflation!

This article on MSN was amusing. Hooray! Inflation is zero!

The Social Security cost of living adjustment for 2009 is zero. The adjustment is based on the CPI. The CPI is much less than true inflation.

The price of actual goods and services is rising. For example, a 1 gallon container of apple cider is $1 more than a year ago, an increase from $4 to $5, 25% inflation. To be completely scientific, I should track every single purchase. It's simpler to just look at the price of gold, which is a very good approximation of true inflation.

There are no tangible assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. The wealth collected via taxes and put in the Social Security Trust Fund was already spent by State parasites. All there is in the Social Security Trust Fund is a stack of papers.

Social Security is a Ponzi scam. Payouts are paid by current workers via taxes. If any private insurance business operated that way, State enforcers should/would shut them down for fraud. State parasites follow different accounting rules than for other businesses.

Even for current retirees, Social Security is a ripoff. They earn an actual return of a couple percent on their "investment", even though current workers are robbed to pay their benefit. Current retirees would have been better off investing that money on their own, rather than investing in Social Security. It's wrong to consider Social Security payments as an investment. It's a tax.

A State parasite says "Without the State, people would not save for retirement. Therefore, the State should force them to save!" I pay 50%+ of my income in direct taxes, plus more via indirect hidden taxes. That leaves very little for investment. The savings I do have are stolen via inflation, unless I invest in physical gold and silver.

The fact that there's the illusion of Social Security means that people don't save. They assume that Social Security checks would be enough. The fact that the State steals people's incomes and people's savings provides very little incentive for saving.

If I didn't have to pay 50%+ of my income in taxes, I'd have enough wealth to pay to take care of my parents, start a business, and save myself.

Social Security is a massive profit center for State parasites. In every year of its existence, Social Security taxes collected have exceeded benefits paid. This stolen wealth isn't saved. It's immediately spent by parasites.

Social Security is politically untouchable. Why? Do politicians feel bad about cheating millions of people? Of course not. Is reform politically infeasible? If candidates from both parties insisted on reform, then voters would be SOL. It's the same way that voters who want freedom are cheated by the current political monopoly.

Social Security is politically untouchable because it's a massive profit center for State parasites. The problem is not that State parasites feel bad about cheating retired people. The problem is that current workers would no longer pay towards the scam if current retirees are cheated.

This illustrates the fallacy of paying into a State welfare system. As a worker, you expect that you're paying so that the State will take care of you when you're older. When you need the retiree benefit, State parasites default. What can you do about it? You're old now! It sucks for you that you wasted a huge chunk of your life working to pay a tax, only to be cheated later.

Social Security is even more obviously a scam for current workers. The Federal government isn't going to exist 20 years from now! I expect a 100% loss on my Social Security "investment". If there was someplace I could sign up to opt out, I would, forfeiting my benefit but also not having to pay the tax. Of course, State parasites collect taxes, backed by violence against those who refuse to pay.

Suppose the Social Security inflation adjustment is 10% less than true inflation each year. The net effect isn't that 10% of your retirement paycheck is stolen. It's 10% each year, compounded. The overall effect erodes the Social Security payment over time. It's the same way that inflation gradually steals your savings.

If there was a complete default on Social Security, then the scam will be obvious. If there's a gradual default via inflation, the net effect is the same. Social Security is politically untouchable. That isn't because State parasites don't want to cheat retired people. If there's a Social Security/Medicare default, then current workers wouldn't be conned into contributing towards this Ponzi scam.

Warren Buffett's Father was a Congressman

This story had an interesting tidbit I hadn't seen mentioned elsewhere. Warren Buffett's father was a Congressman.

You might say "So what?" This is an important point.

Warren Buffett is not someone who came out of nowhere to manage a multi-billion dollar business. Like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett was the beneficiary of politically connected parents. Someone as skilled as Warren Buffett, but lacking the connections, probably would not have been as successful.

It's one thing to say "I'm starting an investment business! Please let me manage a couple million dollars for you!" It's another to say "My father is a Congressman! I'm starting an investment business! Please let me manage a couple million dollars for you!" The latter sales pitch is *MUCH* more effective than the former.

Even if I could manage an investment fund as well or better than Warren Buffett, I don't get the opportunity to try. I can invest my own money intelligently, but I don't get full benefit of the Principal-Agent problem unless I'm managing other people's money. I don't have the same connections as Warren Buffett's parents.

In many ways, being a successful money manager is like winning a coin flipping contest. Is Warren Buffett an investment super-genius? Or, is he someone who managed to flip heads a couple times in a row early in his career? Even if I could flip coins as well as Warren Buffett and other superstar hedge fund managers, I don't even get the opportunity to try. Only people with connections are allowed to even enter the coin flipping contest business.

Even if Warren Buffett's investors got a good deal, that doesn't mean he wasn't exploiting his father's political connections. Someone with Warren Buffett's connections, but not his skill, would not have been as successful. Someone with Warren Buffett's skill, but not his connections, would not have been as successful. The political connections greatly helped his odds of success.

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates had *TWO* big advantages. First, they had excellent political connections. Second, they had the ability to leverage the headstart their connections gave them. Someone with the same raw talent (or greater), but lacking the connections, would not have been as successful.

A pro-State troll says "The US economy is fair! Bill Gates and Warren Buffett built hugely successful businesses!" Both of them are touted as examples of why the USA economic system is wonderful. Both of them had politically connected parents. Both of them used State violence to help them build their business.

The vast majority of the "titans of industry" have profited directly or indirectly from State violence. There are very few people who have successfully built huge businesses without some support from the State.

Any large and successful business *MUST* spend money lobbying the State for favors. Otherwise, your competitors will lobby the State to shut down your business.