I'm still trying to reorganize my posting schedule and recover my concentration ability after my illness. It's very odd. I feel that I can think more clearly and less clearly at the same time.
On The Transistor, UFO, and WMD Conspiracy Theory, an anonymous reader writes:
One reason aliens would visit and not give us their technology; we haven't advanced past the nuclear age without destroying ourselves. One could theorize there are probably other worlds out there where aliens visited and gave their technology to. But those worlds had not passed through the stage where they had the ability to wipe themselves out, and didn't wipe themselves out. Once given the superior technology, those civilizations became dominion-seeking conquerors, and now it is a "galactic" law to not give technology to planets that have not passed through the era where the ability to destroy all of civilization exists.
"Do aliens exist" is a topic most obscurely debated in science fiction, and most accurately debated in mental institutions.
There are too many coincidences. Only some kind of extra-terrestrial influence explains the current economic and political system. It's as if the current economic system is being intentionally set up for an agorist revolution, as if it's the only possible historic conclusion.
I'm going further ahead. The aliens have actively disrupted human invention of technology that could harm them. Once they intervened, they're responsible for everything that happens afterwards.
On An Interesting Discovery (I admit that was a low-quality post, written while I was sick. Fortunately, this comment is off-topic.), an anonymous reader writes:
a great quote for you from here:
What chance would the following proposition have of being passed into law by a democratic Parliament? “In the event of this Parliament, or Senate, declaring an act of war, it will immediately become incumbent on the members of the House who voted for the war to be seconded into front-line military action for its duration.” Then and only then would it appear that there is even a glimmer of reason and justice and honesty in the procedures of the democratic system.
Why is everyone quoting Islamic articles in my blog? I don't have much background in that, and I'm not particularly interested in all Christianity-type slave religions.
Anyway, that's the whole point of the red market. The leaders profit from bad decisions, and other people suffer the costs. It's Distributed Costs and Concentrated Benefits. Everyone is injured a little, not enough to cause an outright revolt. The red market leaders benefit immensely.
All government-related crimes are a variation of distributed costs and concentrated benefits. Only government has the power to steal (i.e. tax) for a consistent profit.
The guy sounds agorist:
I prefer to follow blogs that are updated more often than annually.
On Obama for President! - Bring on Universal Health Care, Curtis writes:
"Purchasing medical care on the free market is going to be a crime!"
Hey boss, welcome to my world. For some of us out here it's already illegal. Pigs I tell you, pigs. They need to quit ruining lives and get a real frickin' job.
There is no free market for medical care anywhere in the world, and there hasn't been such a market for 100+ years. Government licensing requirements for doctors restrict the supply and drive up prices. It's pointless to address other medical care reform until the problem with the supply of doctors is addressed.
On Obama for President! - Bring on Universal Health Care, an anonymous reader writes:
Look what they did to Hoxey and Rife. Medical care has been gov't agent controlled and cartelized since the 1900s. Clinton's and Obama's proposals just changes the frog pot setting from medium-high to high.
They've got the technology to control people in every way (probably stuff we haven't even imagined). They've dumbed us down and neutered our survival instincts. They have especially targeted men and boys. They've got an electronic financial control system in place, ready to roll out and cancel previous debts right after the coming economic crisis. They own most agricultural land and are screwing with the food genetically. It's going to take more than me moving your lawn and getting paid under the table to bring such a system down.
Hoxey and Rife? I've never heard about them? Is that about some sort of alternative cancer treatment?
I'd believe that some pretty incredible technology is being withheld from the general public. That's why the agorist community needs to gather enough resources to start its own independent research.
I give "mowing your lawn" as a low risk starting point. If you can work as a doctor off the books, and can find willing trustworthy patients, good for you. If you work as an agorist doctor, you avoid all the government licensing requirements.
On Reader Mail #2 - Collected Comments, Ineffabelle writes:
Also, as far as mortgages go, housing prices are artificially inflated right now because of our financial system. Bankers like to lend money for houses because they can take the house if the person defaults. This drives up the price of houses relative to labor or non-resellable assets.
In a free money system, houses would probably never cost more than a person could save up in a reasonable amount of time, so there would be no reason for mortgages.
There still are mortgages in a free market. A person buys a house when they're 20 or 30 and gets to use it and pay for it at the same time. It would still be a slightly better deal than renting.
In a free market, housing prices are much more stable, so there's less risk to the borrower and to the lender.
On The Imported Labor and Outsourcing Subterfuge, Ineffabelle writes:
This reminds me of an idea I had about the difference between Usury (i.e. The Compound Interest Scam) and interest rates in a free market.
In a free market, people with saved up money would be able to make loans at interest, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow to people. If person X takes out a loan at 6% interest, the money supply will decrease overall by a certain amount, yes... however presumably he will have created more wealth than this in order for the loan to be worth taking out in the first place. The interest rate could never rise above the overall rate of wealth creation or no one would take out loans and it would drop again. In fact, Hoppe demonstrates that interest rates will constantly fall in a free market, because people will accumulate enough savings eventually that loans won't be very much in demand at all.
In the current economic system, it doesn't pay for the average person to loan out money, because the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artificially low. Loaning out money to help start small businesses is a losing proposition in the current economic system. The big money is made by borrowing from the Federal Reserve and loaning to large corporations who have a government-guaranteed monopoly or oligopoly.
On What's Your Taxation Rate?, redpillguy says:
Regulatory compliance cost to the economy is 14%:
That is only one slice of regulation costs. If you look at all regulations, it's even higher. You also have to consider the effect of regulations as a disincentive to competition and starting a new business.
On Reader Mail #7a, redpillguy says:
Christianity also teaches that "People in positions of authority are far less evil than the average person."
Authors Babiak and Hare in the book "Snakes in Suits"
?id=J9mvHW1eA14C&pg=PP1&dq =snakes+in+suits&sig=oYnGROu2Qj K730kTKlTtWSaJgTw
assert that psychopaths are attracted to the corporate culture and rise to power, because their ruthlessness is rewarded.
That is one of the signs of a defective economic and political system: misbehavior and psychopaths are rewarded.
On Are You a Corporation, David Houser writes:
Sheldon Richman has a good batch of posts on IRS protesters and where they go wrong:
I don't know that he's ever gotten into the all caps thing though.
There are two separate arguments for tax protesters. The first is "The income tax is legally wrong", which is sufficiently muddled for me to make a definitive conclusion. The second is "The income tax is morally wrong", which I consider to be obvious.