This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Celebrating the New Year with Google AdSense

I decided that I'm putting up a Google AdSense widget. Look for it to appear in the next few days. I'm also going to put AdSense in my RSS feed. I decided against text-link-ads, because there's no RSS option. Does my blog gets more RSS traffic than direct visits? (I really should set up FeedBurner.)

For those of you who feel strongly about it, there's a FireFox extension that blocks AdSense. I haven't tried it, so I don't know if it works.

The arguments against putting up an AdSense widget were unconvincing. Most of the anti-AdSense comments were Anonymous, so I have no way of knowing if they were all posted by a different person or all by the same. There were non-Anonymous commenters arguing in favor of AdSense. Some of them have their own blogs or websites, so they're not completely Anonymous.

I'll review the arguments against AdSense.

Google AdSense is collecting information on users!

Google can already do this just by owning Blogger. They get the IP address of everyone who visits my blog. I already have Google Analytics installed, which you can block via NoScript.

If you're that paranoid about privacy, use Tor. The NSA probably has already infiltrated the Tor network, but they probably don't care about tracking people reading my blog. If anything, people accessing my blog via Tor might draw the bad guys' attention to my blog!

When I first started blogging, I was super-paranoid about the evil power of the State. I've mellowed out since. The State derives its power from the fact that most of the enforcers are not themselves consciously aware that the State is evil.

The State seems more powerful than it actually is. Most of my friends, relatives, and coworkers will say "You're an idiot, FSK!", if I mention any of my free market economics ideas to them. State police don't need to violently suppress debate. My friends and relatives do a fine job on their own. This creates the illusion of State omnipotence.

Just because the bad guys are collecting a lot of data, doesn't mean they're capable of using it intelligently! Any automated spying system that flagged my blog as dangerous would generate too many false positives to be useful. Any State enforcer who reads my blog regularly would probably eventually start agreeing with me.

Are the bad guys really that clever that they're using "People who read FSK's blog." as a list of people to murder when TSHTF? When TSHTF, the bad guys are going to have bigger problems and a lack of resources! Of course, I can never convince you that I'm not a spy planted by the State to compile a list of intelligent people to murder/harass.

The best defense to "People who read FSK's blog might be harassed (or FSK himself)" is to attract as many readers as possible!

I'll stop readng if you install AdSense!

I'll be looking at my Google Analytics statistics. I doubt I'll see any discrepancy larger than the usual random noise. For example, a lot of people go on vacation at the end of December, which means fewer readers.

Based on my experience, commenters who say "**** you FSK, I'm leaving!" usually weren't contributing much anyway.

AdSense revenue supports the State!

Until there's an advanced counter-economy, all wage slave labor supports the State.

For now, I can use State resources against the State, if I can promote agorism and show a profit at the same time.

You should solicit donations instead!

This is seriously worth considering. Unfortunately, via Blogger, I can't hide AdSense for registered users who have donated. If/when I move to my own domain, I'll try that. On my own domain, I may collect donations and give some type of better service to donators.

The argument in favor of AdSense is that I want to move to my own domain and want to see if I can raise $10/month to justify the expense. I predict I'll be able to clear $10/month, but I want to verify first.

I want to roll my own PHP forum engine, and for that I need my own domain and hosting. I'll need my own domain to start operating AgoristBay. I want to expand the services I'm offering beyond blogging.

Eventually, I'd like to be able to promote agorism and show a profit at the same time! I'm looking into other possibilities.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

The Evil State-Government and the Evil Mental State

A few months ago, I got into a debate with Joey from the Freedom Symposium about "Axes of Freedom". Both interpersonal freedom and economic freedom are necessary to attain true freedom. I also emphasized the distinction between theoretical freedom and practical freedom. I'm adding a third type of freedom, which is a free mental state.

I've attained theoretical economic freedom, because I understand "Taxation is theft!" and the merits of a true free market. People have been brainwashed to recite pro-State troll arguments justifying the State. I can now easily recognized these arguments as false, and it's obvious that the pro-State troll is reciting things they were brainwashed to believe, rather than truly understanding.

It's amusing to hear people try to "logically" refute free market economics, but it's obvious they're reciting incoherent gibberish. It's like we're speaking two different languages, and it's completely impossible to communicate.

I have not attained practical economic freedom. I am still pursuing another corporate wage slave job, because that's the most practical alternative. Even if I put up an AdSense widget on my blog, that income will be automatically reported to the State and I will be taxed on that income. I still use slave points as money, because it isn't practical for me to use real money (gold and silver and other metals).

I've attained theoretical interpersonal freedom, because I understand the importance of hanging out with people who aren't pro-State trolls. It's important to find some friends who agree with my core free market principles, and start working towards building a real free market.

There's a limit to how much I can accomplish alone. The "pro-State troll survivalist" mentality says you need to move to a wilderness and become completely self-sufficient in order to be free. That is false. There are legitimate benefits to division of labor. There are a lot of nice conveniences in our modern society. These benefits were generated in spite of the State, although pro-State trolls give credit to the State. For example, the mainstream media is fighting the Internet all they can and are doing all they can to cripple it, but it appears the State has lost the battle against the Internet. The Internet allows individuals to share information in ways that were previously impossible.

Interpersonal freedom is also important for self-confidence. By default, most people say "FSK has problems because FSK is a loser!" That is the wrong attitude. As I attain greater awareness, it paradoxically becomes harder for me to fit into a typical corporate wage slave job. I'm not able to get motivated or excited about a pointless wage slave programmer job anymore, but employers expect you to act like sucking their **** is the most fascinating thing you've ever done. It would be nice to have friends in person (besides those virtual friends on my blog) who recognize my problems are due to a corrupt system where nearly everyone is a brainwashed fool, and not that there's something inherently wrong with me.

If I say "I'm sane and nearly everyone else is crazy!", then most other people will assume the person saying that is insane. However, via Bayesian Reasoning, I'm seriously considering that as a possibility. If you assume that anyone who says "Everyone is else crazy!" is themselves crazy, then a world where everyone is crazy becomes a stable (unstable?) fixed point. It's obvious that the psychiatry/death industry is set up to silence/murder those who gain partial awareness of the problem. The attitudes of my psychiatrists and recent therapist match those I've come to recognize as "The way an evil abusive person behaves."

I've gained an awareness of the importance of true economic freedom and true interpersonal freedom. Unfortunately, this makes it harder for me to find a wage slave job or find new friends. Most people get very frightened when they hear something that contradicts their pro-State brainwashing. That's a key component of the Matrix that keeps everyone enslaved. If everyone were sane, an aversion to radical ideas might make sense, because a random radical idea is probably wrong. When everyone is crazy, radical ideas must be seriously considered, because they may point a way out. Agorism may seem too radical for most people, but from my point of view it's the only rational solution. Once you understand the Strawman Fallacy, you can feel comfortable saying non-mainstream ideas, because one mistake doesn't invalidate all the other stuff you do. Even if you disagree with "Agorism is the best way to solve our society's problems!", that doesn't invalidate my arguments saying "The income tax is immoral!", "The Federal Reserve is immoral!", or "All forms of taxation are theft!".

Another level of freedom separate from economic freedom and interpersonal freedom is mental freedom. A lifetime of brainwashing as a pro-State troll severely cripples your mental freedom. Most people are conditioned to ignore their own interests. Many people say that someone who stands up for their own interests is being evil. If you're in a position to use violence to impose your will on others, then greed can be very damaging. For the average person, there's nothing wrong with looking out for your own interests, provided you aren't hurting anyone else.

When an anarchist talks about the evil State, that is itself a fnord. The Evil State isn't just government itself. It's the evil mental state that allows government to exist in the first place. If people were conditioned to jealously guard their own interests, they would easily realize things like "Why do I have to pay half of my income directly in income taxes!", "Why do I have to pay property taxes (rent) on the house I 'own'?", "Taxation is theft!", "Why are the Federal Reserve and financial industry allowed to steal from me via inflation?", and "Why should a handful of people be allowed to tell me what I may and may not do?"

The evil mental State is so ingrained in everyone's thinking, due to pro-State brainwashing. When I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I had a panic/manic attack. Hopefully, it's easier for me to explain things to you, rather than figure them out on your own the hard way like I did. I don't know if achieving a free mental state is possible without having a panic/manic attack.

Summarizing, there are three types of freedom that must be achieved. First, there's economic freedom. Second, there's interpersonal freedom, where you're hanging out with friends who share your beliefs. Finally, there's mental freedom, where you've cracked your pro-State brainwashing. It's a positive feedback cycle, as you acquire these. If you have more of one type of freedom, then it's easier to gain the other types. For example, with high mental freedom, it's easy for me to identify freedom-minded individuals, which should lead to economic freedom and interpersonal freedom, eventually.

For now, my actions are severely restricted because I don't know anyone that isn't a thoroughly brainwashed pro-State troll (other than my virtual blogging friends). It appears that I'll have to spend the next few years promoting agorism before switching to practical agorism. So far, I've had no success finding free market trading partners.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Scientology, Anonymous, and the Pharmaceutical Industry

Scientologists are frequently derided as fruitcakes. The group "Anonymous" criticizes Scientology.

Sometimes, I wonder if the pharmaceutical industry is secretly funding both groups.

In addition to their questionable activities, Scientologists also say "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of nonsense." When a Scientologist says that, he is 100% correct and 100% telling the truth.

The history of Scientologist vs. the psychiatry/death industry is interesting. When L. Ron Hubbard developed his personal growth techniques, he did it both to sell books, and also because he sincerely believed they worked. When he tried selling his techniques, he was criticized by the death industry for "practicing psychiatry without a license". I say psychiatrists are guilty of "practicing medicine without a clue".

Whatever criticisms of Scientology you might have, any drug-free treatment of mental illness is practically guaranteed to be far superior to any treatment involving anti-psychotic or anti-depressant drugs. Given the free choice, and if those were my only two options, I'd prefer to have my "mental illness" treated by a Scientologist than by a psychiatrist. Scientologists recognize that if someone is in a panic/manic state, then it naturally wears off after a few days. After a few days without sleep due to the "flight or fight" reaction, your exhaustion catches up with you and you start sleeping and thinking normally again. Anti-psychotic drugs interrupt your body's natural healing process.

Scientologists do many questionable things. By the Strawman Fallacy, therefore everyone who says "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense." is a fruitcake. The group Anonymous ridicules Scientology's beliefs. The group Anonymous also ridicules them for saying "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense."

In this manner, intelligent debate of this issue is stifled. If you say "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense.", then the retort is "Are you a fruitcake Scientologist?" The only mainstream public advocates for this position are Scientologists. This discredits all people who question the psychiatry/death industry.

This setup is so convenient that I sometimes wonder if the pharmaceutical industry has secretly arranged it.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Is Participating in the State Economy Immoral?

There were two recent threads that generated some surprising comments, regarding the morality of participating in the State slave economy.

In the present, a complete boycott of the State economy is infeasible. Almost all economic activity directly or indirectly supports the State. As an agorist, you should focus on the three main evils of the State. These are income taxes, the Federal Reserve, and government regulation of almost all industries.

For example, suppose I were to start an agorist clothing business. It's acceptable for me to buy my raw materials from a State-licensed store if that's the cheapest price. Over time, as the agorist counter-economy grows, agorist vendors will emerge that will be competitive with the State slave economy. Free from the encumbrance of State regulations, taxes, and overheads, a smart agorist vendor should always be able to undercut the State slave economy on price and provide better quality.

Right now, the agorist counter-economy is non-existent. I'm on the lookout for opportunities to begin practical agorism. As I start working as an agorist, I will buy/sell some goods in the agorist economy, and participate in the State slave economy for the rest of my needs. This bootstrapping process allows agorists to pick and choose their opportunities. The most inefficient State industries will have working agorists first. I'm going to focus on low-risk, high-reward industries initially. Other industries, such as agorist health care, have higher risk but also higher reward.

One of my agorist business ideas is offering a treatment of mental illness without drugs. It's actually a simple business to run, since I merely advise my customers to stop taking their drugs and help them manage their withdrawal symptoms; a simple reassurance that the withdrawal effects are temporary should be sufficient. I'd warn the patients to call me instead of 911 if/when they have a panic attack. I'd probably need assistants to manage such a business, because I really should offer my customers 24x7 support, compared with a traditional therapist who you only see for 30 minutes every week or every other week, or a psychiatrist who you see only once a month for a few minutes for a prescription refill. Technically, telling a "mental illness" patient to stop taking their drugs is a crime, because I don't have a State psychiatry license.

I mentioned that I watch NFL football games. One commenter complained "Watching football games is immoral, because the NFL is a branch of the State! If you watch an NFL football game, you're supporting the State."

This attitude is silly. If I wanted to completely boycott the State, I could not do anything at all. I could not purchase electricity. I could not purchase Internet access. I could not buy a computer. I could not purchase food. I could not purchase clothes. I could not see any TV or movies. I could not play computer games. Until there are viable free market alternatives, a total boycott of the State is infeasible.

For now, I focus my anti-State activities where I get the most reward for effort spent. Right now, promoting agorism is the most effective use of my time. I'm looking to make the transition from theoretical agorism to practical agorism. The more successful I am at raising awareness of agorism, the more likely I am to find trustworthy agorist trading partners.

Further, my interactions with NFL TV broadcasts are completely voluntary. Unlike my interactions with the Federal Reserve and income tax, I voluntarily choose to watch NFL games. In a true free market, I would have more choices, but the NFL is good enough entertainment for now.

Even if you didn't like my two posts about football, that doesn't invalidate all my other points. You're free to not watch football if you choose, and ignore those two posts. Both articles contained an interesting aspect of pro-State brainwashing, which is the fact that pro-State brainwashing affects a coach's strategy. A coach's decision is evaluated by outcomes and not a priori odds. When making decisions, pro-State brainwashing causes people to consider the worst-case rather than average-case. If you do worst-case-only-analysis, agorism is infeasible because of the risk of a State raid. If you do a proper average case analysis, I believe agorism is profitable if you're clever about minimizing your risk and maximizing your reward.

I also wrote that I was planning to put a Google AdSense widget in my blog and RSS feed. This was met with hostility by one/several Anonymous commenters. I have no idea if all Anonymous comments are published by the same person or different people. For this reason, people who use a consistent fake name are better than Anonymous. I recognize the made-up name, and can recognize repeat commenters. For example, you have a reasonably good idea about who "FSK" is, even though it's a made-up name. (In Blogger, I believe there are no uniqueness restrictions on usernames. I believe someone else could make up a username "FSK" and impersonate me, but you'd notice when you clicked on the link to look at the profile.)

If I put up a Google AdSense widget on my blog, I'm supporting the State. That income is automatically reported to the State and I must pay income tax on that profit. Further, Google receives the bulk of the actual AdSense revenue paid by advertisers, and Google is a branch of the State like all large corporations.

If I want to avoid working for the State, I'd also have to refuse any wage slave job. I could not accept any on-the-books work if my goal is to completely avoid supporting the State. The counter-economy is not yet sophisticated enough for me to do this.

I noticed this post by Mike Gogulski, where he refused a job for the State. The fallacy in his reasoning is that *ANY* on-the-books work supports the State via taxes. Suppose I have two choices. I can do $10k of work directly for the State, or $10k of work in a wage slave job. Suppose my income taxation rate is 50%. In the $10k wage slave job, I contribute $5k directly to the State. Similarly, if I accept the $10k job working directly for the State, I pay $5k directly back to the State in taxes. (In some countries, income on State jobs is tax-exempt. I'm ignoring that possibility here.) If I don't accept the $10k State job, someone else will take it, still getting paid $10k but perhaps doing marginally worse work. However, by refusing the direct State job, I am forced to accept a marginally lower salary. Overall, the net damage to the State by my refusal to work directly for the State is negligible.

"I refuse to work directly for the State" is an attitude that only works when vastly more than 50% of the population has been convinced "The State is evil!" By that time, the State has already lost anyway. Once a vast majority of people have been convinced "The State is evil!", then it's already all over for the State. In the meantime, if you refuse to work directly for the State, then someone almost as qualified will gladly take your place.

In *ANY* corporate wage slave job, you're supporting the State. If you let the State steal from you via the income tax and the inflation tax, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution. The agorist economy is not yet sophsiticated enough to pay me a decent full-time salary. For now, I work in the slave economy while promoting agorism in my spare time.

Is it immoral for me to put a Google AdSense widget on my blog, earning maybe $10-$20 per month, if that means the State also earns another $50 per month? Given the context of a completly corrupt State economy, that is not immoral.

Also, even if I solicit donations, PayPay and checks are also automatically reported to the State. You would have to mail me physical metal or Federal Reserve Notes to avoid the reporting requirement. If people started mailing me silver coins or Federal Reserve Notes, that would probably draw the attention of the bad guys. An agorist free market banking system is needed, based similarly to the hawala system.

It is silly to refuse to put a Google AdSense widget on my blog because the bad guys get the vast majority of the profits. It is silly to refuse a corporate wage slave job because the bad guys get the vast majority of the wealth generated by my work. It's going to take another few years to get an agorist counter-economy started. In the meantime, I need to work as a wage slave to support myself. If I make $10-$20 via Google AdSense, then I can reinvest the profits in web hosting, move to my own domain, and start offering other services besides blogging. For example, I want to write my own PHP forum/AgoristBay engine, and for that I need to move to hosting my own site.

Suppose I pursue my "promote agorism via standup comedy" idea. Suppose I am successful, and get invited as a guest on the David Letterman show. Should I refuse, because my guest appearance would support the State via taxes? No. I should accept, because it's an opportunity to promote agorism. An AdSense widget on my blog is the same thing, but on a smaller scale. If I earn some profit via AdSense, I can then reinvest that in making a better site via moving to my own domain. Eventually, like Steve Pavlina, I might get enough non-AdSense revenue for it to make sense for me to remove AdSense from my site. It isn't immoral for me to promote agorism and show a profit at the same time. In the present, the only way for me to do this is via State-sanctioned businesses. The agorist free market economy is still nonexistent. It isn't immoral for me to work in the slave economy until a real free market gets more sophisticated.

In the present, the State has a monopoly of nearly all economic activity. All on-the-books activity directly supports the State via taxes. Once the agorist counter-economy is advanced enough, I can buy and sell goods and services in the agorist free market. In the meantime, it isn't immoral to participate in the State slave economy.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

The Principal-Agent Problem and the Psychiatry/Death Industry

Recently, I saw my therapist while I was in a panic/manic state. Now, my therapist says I *MUST* take anti-psychotic drugs. If I refuse to comply, I will be barred from the mental health clinic. My reaction was "Fine! I don't like it here! Goodbye!"

As long as I am not involuntarily hospitalized, I cannot be forced to take the damaging drugs. There was no court order forcing me to take the harmful drugs. However, that could change if I am involuntarily hospitalized again. I need to make sure that I am not involuntarily hospitalized again.

Anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs merely mask the symptoms without treating the underlying problem. By preventing me from thinking clearly, that prevents a relapse. That also prevents me from doing all the things I normally like doing, such as blogging and playing computer games.

When I refuse to take anti-psychotic drugs, I am essentially saying "The standard practice here at the mental health clinic is invalid." They are programmed to act in a certain way. When I challenge them, they can't handle it. Almost all other patients don't have the ability to ignore the advice of their doctor.

I have done my own research, and concluded that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is nonsense. The fact that my psychiatrist and therapist are so insistent is merely further evidence that my analysis is correct. How can my psychiatrist choose to prescribe drugs based on only a 5 minute interview? How can my therapist know I should take the drugs for the rest of my life? I was fine until I got sick for the first time when I was 30 years old, and since then I have been stable for months at a time with only an occasional relapse.

I am going to refuse anti-psychotic drugs unless they are violently forced on me against my will.

My therapist and psychiatrist are licensed by the State. If they say "FSK, it's OK for you to not take drugs." and then something bad happens, they will lose their State license and their career. If they say "FSK, take the drugs!", I follow their advice, and develop tardive dyskenesia, then they are protected by sovereign immunity. They are generally immune from personal liability if they follow generally accepted psychiatry/murder practices. If the quality of my life is low because of the anti-psychotic drugs, then they don't lose anything. In fact, they would recognize my complaints about drug side effects as symptoms of my underlying illness.

The interests of my psychiatrist and my therapist are not aligned with my personal interests. I am willing to take the risk that I will have another panic attack, because otherwise I am giving up the rest of my life. When I took the anti-psychotic drugs, I was unable to blog or think or concentrate or do any of the things I normally do. My psychiatrist and therapist are unwilling to take that risk, because they would be personally liable if there's a problem. Further, I am questioning their brainwashing and training by refusing to take their harmful drugs.

I really don't like my current psychiatrist and therapist. I have clearly expressed my desire to treat my problem without drugs. Hopefully, my mental state will eventually stabilize without the drugs, as my body/brain naturally heals on its own from my pro-State brainwashing. My psychiatrist and therapist do not respect my desire, and therefore I do not respect them.

I decided to fire my therapist, and I'm going to look in my insurance provider list for a new therapist. I'll still look around for a new one. Really, I should just rely on my own judgement on not that of a therapist. However, my parents would freak out if I refused to see anyone, and all it takes is a 911 call from them for me to be involuntarily hospitalized.

I should have the right to treat my problem without drugs, although it seems that nobody in the mental health/death industry recognizes that right. Fortunately, as long as I am not involuntarily hospitalized and there is no court order, I cannot be forced to take harmful drugs against my will.

Friday, December 26, 2008

Football 2 Point Conversion Trivia

In this post on no third solution, David Z refers to my post where I give an analysis of "go for a first down vs. punt" when behind at the end of a football game. My point was that, due to pro-State brainwashing, the coach will take the "less risky" action of punting, when going for the first down maximizes the chance of winning the game. The reason is that, if you go for the first down and miss, the coach is blamed for losing the game. If you punt and later lose, then the decision to punt is not usually denounced as wrong.

David Z makes an incorrect analogy about 2 point conversions. Suppose you are down by 7 points at the end of the game and score a touchdown. Do you go for 2, or kick the extra point? Statistically, your chances in overtime are 50%, the extra point is near-automatic, and less than 50% of 2 point conversions are made. Under those assumptions, you should kick the extra point.

A coach may be reluctant to go for 2 in the "Behind by a 7 points and score a touchdown" scenario, but statistically, a 2 point conversion is made less than 50% of the time. If you believe that you are less than 50% to win in overtime (your players are tired or injured), or if you have a good play to call, then it makes sense to go for the 2 point conversion.

Statistically, the NFL concluded that "winning the coinflip in overtime" and "who wins the game" are uncorrelated. Over several seasons, the winner in overtime only wins the coinflip nearly 50% of the time, although there was one season when the coinflip winner won very often.

The problem is that if you win the coinflip, receive the kickoff, and then gain 2-3 first downs, you can kick a 30 yard field goal and win. This is perceived as unfair for the team that kicked off, as the other team scored a field goal and they never got the ball. There are several solutions:

  1. Make the goalposts narrower and higher, making it harder to score a field goal from the 30 yard line.
  2. If the team winning the coinflip scores a field goal on their first possession, then the other team gets 1 possession to score a touchdown and win (they cannot kick a field goal to tie).
  3. Adopt a system similar to college, where each team is guaranteed an equal number of possessions in overtime. The drawback of this system is that the overtime can drag out longer, leading to player injuries.
My main point was that, due to pro-State brainwashing, coaches are reluctant to make a decision that maximizes their chance of winning, but they immediately lose and look like a fool if they're wrong. The problem is that, due to pro-State brainwashing, people judge by outcomes and not a priori odds. If going for the first down maximized the chance of winning the game, then the coach should not be denounced if he goes for a first down and fails to make it. For example, computer simulations could be used to determine an approximation of the odds backing each choice.

There's one interesting bit of 2 point trivia that is almost never discussed. (I actually saw this problem in Bridge World magazine initially, in the context of matchpoint strategy when you follow an anti-percentage play but maximize your matchpoints. For example, with 2 suits missing 9 and the queen, statistically playing for the drop is best, but finessing in the first suit is like going for a 2 point conversion in the below scenario. Finessing is only slightly unfavorable compared to playing for the drop.)

Here are the assumptions of the problem.
  1. An extra point try is automatic, made 100% of the time.
  2. A 2 point conversion is made 45% of the time.
  3. In overtime, each team has a 50% chance of winning the game.
  4. You are behind by 14 points. There is enough time for you to score two touchdowns, but not enough time for you to catch up if the other team scores again.
  5. Assume that you are going to score two touchdowns, you prevent the other team from scoring, and no other scoring will occur.
  6. After the first touchdown, the coach goes for a 2 point conversion.
What are your chances of winning the game, given the assumption that you do score two touchdowns and prevent the other team from scoring?

If the coach naively kicked two extra points, he would have a 50% chance of winning in overtime. What are the odds of winning if he goes for 2 after the first touchdown? Hint: The odds are better than you think!

I'll give you a chance to figure it out.


If the coach makes the first two point conversion, then he will kick the extra point after the second touchdown. This is a 45% chance of winning the game.

If the coach fails the first two point conversion, then he will go for another two point conversion after the second. If the second succeeds, then the coach has a 50% chance of winning in overtime. This is a 0.55*0.45*0.50 = 12.375% chance of winning the game.

If both two point conversion tries fail, then the game is lost in regulation. The media decry the coach as an idiot (even though he made the statistically correct choice).

Notice that there is a 45% + 12.375% = 57.375% chance of winning. This is greater than the 50% chance from naively kicking the extra point both times.

The key point is that, if the first 2 point conversion try succeeds, then the coach can conservatively kick the extra point after the second touchdown. If the first 2 point conversion try fails, then the coach gets a chance to get back to par with a second 2 point conversion try.

The same analogy occurs in the Contract Bridge matchpoint example. Suppose you finesse in the "9 never" situation. If you're right, you play the 2nd suit normally, winning an extra trick than everyone else. If you're wrong, you can finesse in the second "9 never" situation and catch back up.

In a real game, if the coach went for 2 and succeeded early, then the other coach would change his strategy, minimizing the gain. Assuming an equal number of touchdowns scored by each team, then the 2 point strategy I outlined gains.

That's an interesting non-intuitive calculation that is rarely quoted.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The Real Meaning of Santa Claus

It's interesting watching the news on Christmas Eve. They say "NORAD is tracking Santa Claus!" and present it as an actual news story. That's so cute! (The previous sentence was sarcastic.)

The joke is that actual "news" stories are presented with the SAME level of honesty as the "Santa Claus is real!" story. The newscaster himself is unaware that the story is the joke! When they say "The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to stimulate the economy!", that's serious journalism on par with "NORAD is tracking Santa Claus!"

After much research, I've decided that's the *REAL* meaning of the "Santa Claus" story. In other words, don't trust what newscasters or most adults say.

A coworker once presented me with this "proof" that Santa Claus is real. Make two letters, with a stamp and your return address. Address one letter to Santa Claus at the North Pole. Address the other letter to a fictional person at a nonexistent address. Mail them.

The second letter will be returned as undeliverable. The letter addressed to Santa Claus will not be returned as undeliverable.

This is a proof that Santa Claus is real.

The alternative is that the people who work for the post office are participating in a massive conspiracy to provide the illusion that Santa Claus is real. Of course, such a massive highly organized conspiracy does not exist.

The Santa Claus story contains another fnord. Santa Claus is omniscient. He gives rewards to those who obey his orders, and punishes those who disobey him.

The State and Santa Claus are nearly equivalent. By training your children to obey Santa Claus, you are training them to obey the State.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

NFL Fnords

I was watching football this weekend and noticed some interesting fnords.

The first came in the Jets-Seattle game. It was near the end of the game, with about 3 minutes left. The Jets were behind by a touchdown, and the Jets still had all 3 timeouts. The Jets had the ball on their own 20 yard line, and it was 4th down with 4 yards to go. The Jets decided to go for the first down, and failed. Seattle got the ball, kicked a field goal, and now had an insurmountable 10 point lead.

The announcers were saying that the Jets coach was an idiot. The Jets should have punted, tried to stop Seattle on defense, and then gotten the ball back. Do you see the fnord yet?

"Punt vs. go for 1st down" was probably a close decision. At that point, the Jets were already longshots to win the game, so they had to take risks. If the Jets had punted, and Seattle got a first down or two, then the game would have been over because Seattle would have run out the clock. At best, the Jets would have gotten the ball back at their own 20 yard line again, but now having used up their timeouts (assuming Seattle ran the ball 3 times and then punted). With a first down, the Jets would have still had all 3 of their timeouts and they would have moved the ball downfield more. Even if the Jets later still failed to score a touchdown, they might have still been able to get the ball back again, if they stopped Seattle from getting a first down.

There's another benefit of going for the first down, because the coach is saying that he trusts his offense to make a big play.

The announcers were very critical of the Jets' coach. By going for a first down and failing, the Jets lost the game immediately because Seattle got the ball in a place where they could kick an easy field goal to get an insurmountable 10 point lead. Do you see the fnord?

The fnord is "Judge by outcomes, and not a priori risk." The Jets failed to make the first down, and therefore the Jets' coach made the wrong decision. That is invalid reasoning. Whether going for the first down was correct or not is independent of whether the first down was actually made. Statistically, that might have given the Jets the best chance of winning the game, but it was not successful.

This is a key fnord that the announcers were not even consciously aware they were using. "Judge by worst-case outcome, and not a priori odds." Going for the first down was wrong, because you immediately lose the game when you're wrong. Punting is acceptable, because you don't immediately lose the game; Seattle still has to get another first down or two.

This fnord also applies to agorism. "That person attempted tax resistance/evasion and got caught. Therefore, tax avoidance is too risky." That is judging by worst-case outcome and not average-case. I have no idea what the true risk of agorism is, and the only way to find out is to conduct an experiment. I suspect that, if you're careful, the odds outweigh the risk.

The current economic and political system is like playing a football game where you've already nearly lost. Given that you're in a nearly hopeless situation, taking risks is acceptable. If I don't attempt practical agorism, then I'm subject to the random decisions of other people as the complete collapse occurs. Agorism is the best strategy to survive the collapse and find a job where a skilled worker isn't encumbered by the State.

There was another interesting fnord during the game, that I'd never consciously noticed before. The announcers were repeatedly saying "Support our troops!" If that were obviously true, then the mainstream media wouldn't be repeating that message at every possible opportunity.

Soldiers and police are the violence/enforcement arm of the State. Most of them are not consciously aware of their role in the massive scam, but that isn't a valid defense. "I was following orders" is never an acceptable defense.

From the point of view of an average soldier, the best-case outcome for a war is that he makes it home alive. All the profits of war go to insiders who line their pockets at the expense of everyone else. The average soldier is usually a net loser.

However, anyone who pointed out that soldiers are terrorists rather than noble heroes would be decried by the mainstream media. Some pro-State trolls might give me a hard time for saying "Soldiers are terrorists!", although I am sympathetic for soldiers who signed up for the military, unaware of the scam.

The "Support our troops!" and "Support the police!" fnord must be repeated as often as possible. If police and soldiers didn't unquestioningly commit violence, then the evil of the State would not be sustainable. The evil edicts of the State would not be followed if they weren't ultimately backed by violence.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Is Selling Advertising on Your Blog Immoral?

I recently asked about putting up a Google AdSense widget on my blog and in my RSS feed. DixieFlatline suggested text-link-ads as an alternative. I've nearly decided that I'm going to experiment with a widget for both of them, or maybe just AdSense. It'll take me a week or two to get it set up. (I'm busy with other stuff right now.)

Several of my regular commenters have said "FSK, you should sell some ads on your blog." For example, Barry B. from Debt Prison has been telling me to monetize my blog for awhile now, although he hasn't participated in the recent discussion. A few Anonymous commenters said "Selling advertising on your blog is immoral!"

First, I'll list the advantages of selling advertising on my blog.

I want to switch from using Blogger to self-hosting on my own domain. If hosting my own domain costs $10/month, then I really should make sure I can raise $10/month in advertising first.

I want to write my own PHP forum/AgoristBay engine. For this, I need to host my own domain, and not use Blogger or other free hosting.

I don't have enough readers to blog as a full-time source of income. However, if I keep up 10%-20% monthly growth for a few years, then I might have enough readers for that to be viable. If the Remnant is over 1 million people, then I'm nowhere close to maximizing my potential audience. A lot of people are disgusted with the current economic and political system, but don't know of any viable resistance strategy. I like agorism, because you can fight the bad guys and show a profit at the same time!

I'm looking into ways to promote agorism and make a profit at the same time. I would be better off with my own domain, rather than being dependent on Blogger. I'm growing dissatisfied with Blogger. Instead of moving to hosted WordPress ( or something like that), I'd rather move to my own domain, install WordPress, and keep 100% control.

If I have my own business, I'm not as dependent on a corporate wage slave job. The Internet makes it easier for people to start small businesses. Using Blogger, my expenses are $0. Even if I move to self-hosting, my expenses are negligible.

Now, I'll respond to the criticisms of selling advertising.

Selling advertising will compromise the content of your blog!

Actually, programs like Google AdSense and text-link-ads allow me to keep full editorial control and still make a little money.

If I were a mainstream media source, then advertising totally corrupts the content presented.

Other people wind up doing "advertisements disguised as content". In other words, they're paid to write an article promoting something, but pretend that it's an article they would have written anyway. I consider that immoral. If someone paid me to write a post about something, I'd clearly mark it as an advertisement.

Selling advertising only corrupts my blog if it negatively impacts the content I present. Some of my articles are very attractive from a SEO/advertising perspective, and others not as much.

I'm only looking to make $10-$20/month right now, so I can cover my hosting costs if I move to my own domain.

Plus, the advertisements will be in the left sidebar or RSS feed footer. You can easily ignore them.

I'm going to stop reading if you put up ads!

The only people who made this complaint were Anonymous. None of the people who give regular intelligent comments had that attitude. The regular non-Anonymous commenters all have said "Go ahead and put up ads, FSK!"

If a handful of people stop reading because I put up ads, that's negligible compared to my blog's long-term growth trend.

Other bloggers have said that you shouldn't worry about losing readers when you first put ads up on your blog. Overall, people will be attracted by my good content.

Putting up ads supports the State!

As long as I work in my corporate wage-slave job, I'm supporting the State.

At least via blogging, I'm promoting agorism. If I can make a reasonable profit while blogging, then I can promote agorism and show a profit at the same time!

In the context of a slave economy, all on-the-books work supports the State, whether I'm blogging for advertising money or working in my corporate wage slave job.

You should solicit donations!

This is worth seriously considering. When I move to my own domain, I might allow people to make a donation to disable all ads. That is not an option on Blogger. The terms of text-link-ads don't allow me to disable it for certain site visitors, but I believe I can do that with AdSense, where I'm only paid for click-throughs.

There's another interesting point. All my regular non-Anonymous commenters said "Put up ads, FSK!" The only people who suggested donations were themselves commenting Anonymously. This lends more credibility to "Supporting your site via advertising is better than supporting it via donations!"

If my goal is to eventually have a for-profit business, I don't think that can be supported via donations. As I'm more successful, people would be more reluctant to donate. For now, I'm not relying on my blog for full-time income. I just want to clear $10/month so I could afford hosting.

I can put up ads without it compromising the content of my blog. I'm looking to expand into other things besides blogging, and for that I need my own domain. For now, given the context of a slave economy, there's nothing wrong with me putting up ads to help raise money to pay for hosting.

DixieFlatline complained that I'm taking too long to make the decision to put up ads. There's no need to rush. If I'm only expecting to make $5-$10 per week anyway, I'm not giving up much by waiting. I'm way behind on the "Reader Mail" answering comments, and I'm trying to catch up with that. Plus, I have a couple of interviews for wage slave jobs lined up.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Reader Mail #71

I saw someone with a "Jesus saves!" T-shirt. I thought I should make my own shirt on the subject. "Jesus saves, but real gods make offsite backups!"

I liked this post, via Hacker News. Tesla Motors is a new car manufacturing business. Tesla Motors objects to the auto industry bailout, because it's a subsidy for their "too big to fail" competitors, while Tesla Motors is struggling to start a competing business.

Due to State distortion of the market, it isn't viable to start or run a business that isn't "too big to fail".

Mark Cuban has been under investigation by the SEC for insider trading. A CEO was trying to raise money, and called Mark Cuban to pitch the secondary offering. Mark Cuban got mad, because the secondary offering would dilute the shares he already owned. He had "non-public information" but sold anyway. Technically, this makes him guilty of insider trading.

It's probably in Mark Cuban's best interests to settle for a small fine, rather than risk a trial and going to jail. Even if acquitted in a trial, Mark Cuban doesn't recover the time and legal fees.

Mark Cuban pointed out a problem in the way State prosecutors are rated. They're rated based on "successful prosecutions" and not "fairness achieved".

I had another panic attack. They're very educational. Hopefully, this was my last one, but that's what I say every time.

I'm going to try to catch up on answering my comments.

DixieFlatline has left a new comment on your post "Walter Block, a Pro-State Libertarian":

What happened to my comment?

No stomach for criticism?

I'd found a new job and didn't have time to publish all the comments at once. You really should work on your whining.

DixieFlatline has left a new comment on your post "Walter Block, a Pro-State Libertarian":

FSK, you're so far out of line, and out to lunch on this, it's not funny. You should try reading Block's book "Defending the Undefendable" which has more agoristic thought in it than you have on this entire blog.

I only read one bit by Walter Block, which was his lousy criticism of Kevin Carson, via Wikipedia. That was enough.

And then you should check out his videos on the MisesMedia YouTube channel.

Just because you have a Mises channel doesn't mean you aren't a pro-State troll.

Or you can continue to throw a tantrum on your blog and rant that you won't read anything, you won't do any research. Instead, you will make arbitrary judgments based on false premises.

Well you should know to ALWAYS check your premises.

You wouldn't be offended if my writing didn't have an element of truth you're in denial of. Almost *ALL* mainstream "libertarians" or "anarchists" are really pro-State trolls.

If you think my blog sucks, then how pathetic does that make you for reading it?

I read one bit by Walter Block and that was enough. If you can find me a place where he calls for people to boycott the Federal Reserve and income tax, then I'll reconsider.

Until then, he's firmly in the "pro-State troll" category. He has some good bits, but overall he's a troll.

Besides, anybody who works at a University, even if they receive no direct State grants themselves, is a beneficiary of State violence. For example, student loan programs subsidize tuition.

Sell House Fast has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #67":

The Times Online has reported a strange phenomenon last week. Apparently many property sellers are starting to ask for far higher prices than normal to sell their house - because buyers are expecting deeper discounts. Here in the UK, pries are already down 14% and are expected to drop by another 10-15% by the end of 2009.

That's just another "trick to compensate for a non-free market". People expect houses to be overpriced by 10%, so sellers raise their price by another 10%.

In a true free market, prices are stable. The housing crunch is entirely due to the Compound Interest Paradox.

Matt has left a new comment on your post "The Incompleteness Theorem":

Hey FSK.

I'm interested in "finitism", which doesn't allow the axiom of infinity. There is a question about whether or not the incompleteness theorem holds for this set of axioms.

That's just plain stupid. You're saying there's a limit to how high you can count?

Let's count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, end. We've counted everything.

If you don't allow arbitrarily large sets, then the universe is a Deterministic Finite Automata, where everything is decidable.

For instance, does the halting problem exist for Turing machines with finite memory?

That is a DFA and halts or cycles definitively. With only finitely many possible states, you must eventually repeat a state or halt.

Finite memory computers are still useful. They are the basis for "regular expressions", a very useful tool. However, not everything can be modeled by a regular expression. Similarly, if you assume there's a limit to how high you can count, there are some things you can't do.

Technically, my PC is a DFA, because I only have 4GB ram and approximately 1TB hard drive space. In practice, I treat it as a Turing machine, because I can buy additional memory as needed, and most programs I use don't require my full 4GB memory.

I've done plenty with cardinalities of "infinite sets", and I understand how the math works, but at the core I think if you want to talk about a set, then you'd better have a terminating algorithm that yields it. Otherwise, what are you talking about?

My friend told me that he did his masters thesis on infinite-dimensional spaces.. is that useful?

It depends. That sounds like functional analysis rather than Turing Machines, which is a logic or computer science topic.

You have to allow infinite sets, because otherwise you can't model all possible things. If you assert that the universe is finite, then why bother with anything?

I don't believe the universe is a DFA. It's a Turing machine with arbitrarily large state.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Who's the Richest Man in the World?":

Ok here it is HENRY KISSINGER!!!!

People like Henry Kissinger and Karl Rove are pawns just like everyone else you hear publicly mentioned.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Free Mar...":

I do not believe any Austrian theory of economics supports the use of government in money(or any thing for that matter. Murray Rothbard hated government with a passion). That is my only complaint about this article. Otherwise, you do an excellent job explaining a free market banking system

I guess I was slightly confused on that point. Most Austrian Economists don't go all the way and say "Who needs a government at all anyway?"

I thought Austrian Economists say that the State should regulate banking towards what would exist in a free market, which would be practically equivalent to no State regulation of banking.

As long as the State collects taxes, a Gresham's Law effect causes whatever the State accepts as payment in taxes to be overvalued as money.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Walter Block, a Pro-State Libertarian":

I wonder FSK, do you read stuff from the mises institute. I know FOR A FACT that they do not take any government grants. They have been offered money by the government, but they refused because of their own personal philosophy.

I read some bits from Mises, but I've lost interest. Their money comes from somewhere.

Most Libertarians have good intentions. They wouldn't be effective pro-State trolls otherwise. In practice, Libertarians merely distract people from more important issues. As freedomain said, "If you evaluate the Libertarian movement as a for-profit business whose goal is to reduce the size of government, then the Libertarian movement is a disaster. It's pointless to waste additional resources in a business model that's a proven failure." Contrast this with agorism, where you can start small and scale up as you succeed. If you have a working agorist trading group with 10-20 people, you can say "See! Agorism works!"

Personally, Walter Block is not one of the greatest speakers about economics. I saw him in a debate about minimum wage..and his way of words was not convincing. He had good information, he just didn't speak it well enough.

That's sort of my point. If you present a weak criticism of the State, then that can appear to be an endorsement of the State. In this way, anarchists who make a weak criticism of the State are really pro-State trolling.

The only Walter Block piece I read in detail was his lousy criticism of Kevin Carson. That was enough.

If you want me to respect Walter Block as a non-troll, show me where he repeatedly calls for people to boycott the Federal Reserve and income tax. Otherwise, he's part of the problem and not part of the solution.

My attitude is almost like that of President Bush. "Either you're with me, or you're against me!" Unless you're advocating people start working as agorists, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I'm not 100% opposed to voting. I'm just saying it's a nearly complete waste of time. Voting neither aids nor opposes the State. I'm much more offended by people who pay taxes than people who vote, because the profits of taxation are used to hurt other people, including me. If a true libertarian/anarchist candidate were on the ballott and had a plausible chance of winning, I'd probably vote for him.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Concession Speech":

of course I agree. So there is a reason for the stupid ritual...which is to continue the scam.

Given the context of a corrupt system, the ritual makes sense. In a fair system, why should the loser always be required to publicly endorse the winner? Why didn't Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 spend 4 years complaining about the illegitimacy about the election? The reason is that both Republicans and Democrats are on the same team.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Concession Speech":

If I was in a close election I would get up and say.

Yes I concede that I lost this election by 300 thousand votes out of more than 100 million. By virtue of our system that favors the uneducated who live in large cities over those who work all day long only to see massive ammounts of thier earnings taken away, I have lost. For those of you who supported me I ask that you do not capitulate. The values and principles I ran on are the true values I believe in, the values you believe in. Just becuase the other guy won does not mean that we need to accpet his judgement as the correct judgement. If that were the case you would have voted for him instead. You chose to support me and in doing so proved that this country is greatly divided over the direction it must go in.

This means that we do not know which direction we want to go. That means that our government has failed us by not governing in a clear direction. We have moved to the center in order to attract people who see no direction, and in so doing hold no consequence of action. If you do not know how to make a decision you should hold no right to cancel out those who do.

I am sorry that I failed nearly half the voters in this country. I failed because I wasn't as good as the other guy at making promisies I couldn't keep. See I care more about the promises I can keep. In the honesty of government. That is why I cannot endorse the victory of a candidate whose values are so far from my own and I urge you to reject him as your president. Just as the other side has done before. You have four years to increase your numbers. To make sure that your ideals are upheld. For this is a country where individual ideals should be held higher than the singular ideals of my opponent. For I want to give you back your power over your destiny and I thank you for your support. I only wish I would have done a better job of supporting your ideals, then perhaps I would be standing here in victory.

You'd never be a candidate for a major party, so it's irrelevant. In order to be on a major party's election ticket and be endorsed by the mainstream media, you need to spend years/decades proving you're thoroughly brainwashed as a pro-State troll.

Mike Gogulski has left a new comment on your post "The Concession Speech":

McCain's speech was ridiculous. He sounded far more compelling as a big fat failure than he did as a contender.

I think McCain was set up to lose and Obama set up to win from the very beginning, perhaps as early as mid-2007.

Obama is an excellent "fake change" candidate. If necessary, another big "fake change" candidate can occur in 8-12 years with the first woman President.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The Concession Speech":

When the government's boot is on your throat,whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence

In the USA, the "left" and "right" are nearly identical. Both parties don't question the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and extensive State regulation of most industries.

I prefer to consider myself "up-libertarian" than "left-libertarian".

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The Compound Interest Paradox":

Ever since I first read this post it was hard for me to wrap my mind around it,,so I read it again,,waited a week,,read it again,,waited a month than read it 3 times,,watched some u tube vids,,than wow,,it became clear,,you know what I really want to do is make a board game,,like monoply ,,where the compound interest paradox can be played out,

one person would be the fed reserve,,one person would be a small banker who barrows from the fed,,the other 2 people would be hard core business peeps like trump and bill gates ,,than with rules like real life,,see who wins,,would you charge me a royalty to make such a game?????

I'm serious here bro,,,,,,,,,,,,,keep on posten,,I like the way you think,,Peace

The Compound Interest Paradox is very hard! It's a key component of the evil enslavement Matrix.

Sound money is a tool for freedom and prosperity. Evil money is a tool for economic enslavement.

I don't claim intellectual property over my ideas. Go ahead and make a game based on my blog if you feel like it. You probably don't need explicit permission from me anyway. Intellectual property is not a valid form of property. Even if you wrote an economic game, I couldn't prove you stole my ideas. In the game industry, it's common for games to copy features. For example, nobody has copyrighted/patented the ability to make a RTS (real-time-strategy) game. Id did not patent the ability to make a FPS (first-person-shooter) game, although they did patent some features of their engine.

I've considered making an economic simulation game. I should buy some webhosting and start my own site. I'm having a hard time getting my parents to approve the $10/month expense for hosting.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Is Pro Se Defense a Good Idea?":

FSK,,if you go down some day,I will contact my peeps,and we will bring you food and water,a generator and a why Fi system so you can carry on your message....please try your best to continue bringing your prospective to the people...I understand that your understanding of the present situation is reveling,and the basic in tune ment of these present circumstances is right in line with that which is true,,,keep your powder dry,,and remember the cause,,fritz,,peace!!!!!!!!!!!

By the time you're victim of a State raid it's too late. Research what happened in the case of Ed and Elaine Brown. Some of their supporters wound up going to jail for more severe prison terms than they did.

Similarly, once you're in the mental ward, you have to take the damaging drugs. Once you're released, you can stop taking them and manage the withdrawal.

The goal is to avoid being the victim of State violence in the first place.

I intend to attempt practical agorism at some point. If I do that, I will necessarily be violating the State law that says "individuals do not own their own labor". In the present, merely writing about theoretical agorism is not a crime in the USA (yet). By the time the bad guys declare it illegal to even write about agorism, it will be too late for them to stop it.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Is Pro Se Defense a Good Idea?":

my last comment,,look up ,apples of gold in pictures of silver,,its a special statement,the one I think you write about everyday,,statements of truth which are strong and expose other understandings,,,,,night,,

That appears to be a quote from the Bible. I consider Christianity to be mostly a slave religion. Christianity's anti-State beliefs are not hyped, and its pro-State beliefs are hyped. "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar!" and "If you accept abuse now, you will be rewarded after you die!" are entirely pro-State trolling.

One of my favorite Jesus stories is when he kicked the bankers out of the temple. He was killed shortly aftewards. The message is "Don't **** with the bankers!"

My article on the Remnant was popular, although I didn't consider quoting the Bible to be the main point.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Social Security Ponzi Scam":

social security is influenced almost entirely by demographics (as is more economics and business). It is true that it can be taken away at any time. it is true that at present each year that passes put more burden on each tax payer. it is true this has been know about for decades (while researching a similar topic i found a reference to the issues we now face crisply mooted in 1952... nb we knew about asbestos in 1904... old books are a wealth of knowledge for the future).

Sometimes, I wonder if 20th century science is one big fnord, and we'd be better off discarding almost everything. Allegedly, Zero Point Energy technology is based on 19th centruy physics.

however, the prescription of hard assets (gold etc) is unlikely to work for this case as you would like. social security is a product of current labour, storing wealth of that level in asset pools creates huge distortions. its a relative concept. hard assets dont help... as they can be depleted when you least want them to be... whilst this does give you some 'discipline' it also would lead to social collapse from hunger and riots as the sop cheques would end... you cant fight demographics on this scale.
All forms of taxation are theft, including those for Social Security and welfare.

if the public knew... they do know. my mother knows. she understands that she has some form of 'right' (but not one she can protect) and the money comes from me as a tax payer. however, she is not feeling too bad for me as she sees lots of big shiny offices and such like, which werent about in her day. fact that i dont own them is a nagging point. the wealth 'delusion' is the key to the problem. power has shifted to capital owners from workers (as global workforce has grown faster than economy, so capital wins), but people feel rich, even though that is a product of debt (as we are now finding out... but we have short memories as we have learnt this lesson many times before).

The problem isn't just protecting current retirees. It's also necessary to make sure that current workers keep contributing towards the ponzi scam.

boomers want the good life. as a group the top section of them control the assets, the bottom section live in horrible poverty and lonely social abandonment. As a group they were taught to vote. They understand the 'scam' but they vote, and they'll be dammed if they're giving it up.

a fair number of people have read Christopher Buckley's Boomsday - not a bad overview of the problem, and its a fun novel to boot.

in large and complex countries where social cohesion and intergenerational support has collapsed only the smoke and mirrors and tax keep them running... but they wont collapse... why?... because the demographics are still favourable. There is a period of pain comming up, but this is likely to be patched over... just intime to be picked up by the 2Bn teenagers on the planet... yep... the biggest thing you should be worried about in your life times is not boomers... its a global explosion of kids... but not in the West... all that will happen is a power transfer to other countries... and the world moves on. the state will persist as the interests of those it supports and their demographics favour it on balance.
I predict complete collapse within 20 years. The rate of looting and pillaging must necessarily increase over time. This makes the economic benefits of agorism too great to ignore.

there are other places in the world where this is not so. but for most western countries it is (with the exception of the spill over from Russia/eastern block collapse into western europe etc). now, that is a candidate for state destabilisation - demographics, black markets, little respect for law, fragmented or no national allegiance... and a reason to move westwards.

The problem in 3rd world countries is not too little government. The problem is a government even more corrupt than that in the USA. Such corruption is indirectly and directly encouraged by the USA itself.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Social Security Ponzi Scam":

You didn't even touch on medicare or welfare. Welfare is even a bigger ponzi scheme than Social Security.

Welfare is straight wealth transfer and not a Ponzi scam.

Taxpayers pay nearly the same ammount in regular tax dollars to fund welfare as they do for Social Security.

More money is spent on salaries for State bureaucrats enforcing welfare, than for benefits for participants.

The State has done a very good job stealing money. they have perfected the art of it. So much so that people do not want to protest by not filing a tax return because they will lose the ability to get a tax refund.

The government overtaxes you every year on purpose in order for you to file a return to get a refund for money that never should have been taken in the first place. The only way to ensure that the correct money is taken out of a corporate check is to lie about your witholdings. You actually have to claim 4 dependants as a single person to net a tax refund of zero.

That is the reason you should practice agorism. This way, you generate wealth that is not automatically reported to the State for taxation.

The want and desire to resist taxation is there. The ability to resist is what was taken away. FDR did a very good job at implementing a true dictatorship. He established a central bank that issues its own money and a taxation system that would forever enslave the majority of citizens to the IRS. He even implemented a progressive tax that punishes workers with the promise that they will get paid back in the future if they reach a certain age.

FDR was a great dictator. More successful than Stalin and longer lasting. He gave us the USSA and we never looked back.
FDR did a great job of destroying the free market in the USA. While FDR was president:
  1. The gold standard was defaulted on.
  2. The welfare State was established.
  3. Extensive regulation and consolidation of most industries occurred.
  4. Mandatory withholding of income taxes and automatic reporting of income to the State started.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Social Security Ponzi Scam":

There is a solution:
Start a web-page where young people can sign-up for their resolve to vote only for a candidate that promises a solid plan to make social security voluntary, as it was initially.

Signed would indicate that they promise to vote only on a solid plan, with promised dates of actions, one that which is approved by majority voting on that site.

They also indicate that they will do whatever possible to propagate this idea to others they know.

Once say a million persons sign-up, this will be a chunk of votes no candidate would like to miss, since today elections are close calls.

Of course the candidate can lie. If he does, he will not receive their vote on reelection.

Once made voluntary, majority will opt-out, meaning those who have a long way to pay. This will severely cripple and eventually bankrupt the system. Communism isn't sustainable on a voluntary basis.

You've got to throw your weight around, not just sit quiet. If this is a success, what better story there would be to tell your children, then the one where you refused and made it known.

I've already said that electoral methods of reform are pointless. You're free to try this yourself if you think it's a good idea.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The Social Security Ponzi Scam":

I never understood why people went for social security in the first place,,If the government took money from me during my working days,Invested it and used it for there own good,than paid me back what I put in with interest later,,almost like forced retirement savings with interest,,that would be fair. but taking from me by force, to pay some old person because they were so unwise to realize to save for their own future just baffles me,,

I guess I just don't understand why people supported the cause at its conception and didn't channel social security towards a get out later what you put in now situation

I'm sure it was all smoke and mirrors at the time,and just another way the powers to be could steel money from all the working minions ............

It was an illusion. All it takes is media hype and corrupt politicians to implement Social Security. Plus, employers pay half the tax, providing the illusion that the tax is half as big as it actually is.

Whenever you say "How did bad law X get passed?", the answer is a corrupt political system. Reform is impossible. It must be completely discarded.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Social Security Ponzi Scam":

As an aside in basic economics... workers get paid the minimum that is required to encourage them to work (set against other issues like job enjoyment etc). This transaction is carried out in money, which both parties know will be taxed at source and them in transit etc. the rate for jobs is set at the level accounting for tax, making the interesting number most of the time the net figure.

The problem is that the rules of the economic system favor employers over workers. In a true free market, this would not be a problem. Workers would always be paid nearly the fair value of their labor. If not, they could easily start their own businesses. In the present, State restrictions of the market make this practically impossible.

Even if you say "FSK, start your own business then!", I'm facing the same State restrictions of the market that prevented someone else with a clue from starting a business and hiring me. I'm focusing on starting agorist-related businesses.

this is not true when taxes are raised, in which case the workers bargin gets worse (until he can get a pay rise or new job).

It is also true that wages are for the person, and not their family, so in the example above the single person and the one with four kids get the same wage, but on has bigger outgoings. As the latter is a bigger economic contributor (more things to buy, raising workers) its not to much of a leap to give him a small break on the 'at source, today' tax, in deferment to the 'indirect and later' taxes. I havent even thought about the calculation, but i suspect that single guy paying full tax is better off in hard cash net terms than parent guy with four kids and a full exemption.

Tax has many flaws, and creates many distortions, and in some areas is hard to justify at all. however, the issue is complex and ranges beyond tax into wider social issues.

i hate tax.
Taxation is theft. Once you understand this basic concept, you see the corruption of the current economic and political system.

however, to remove it you need to think how to fix the issues that exist when its gone... they tend to be the mood and temper of people, and thats a hard nut to crack.

In Sweeden your tax and earnings are public record - you can just look up your neighbour in a book. They are happier and have a better standard of living than US, UK etc. That of course is not the full picture, but it gives a nice base against which to argue.
The only plausible solution I've seen is agorism. I haven't seen any other resistance strategy with a nonzero chance of success.

Thomas Blair has left a new comment on your post "The Social Security Ponzi Scam":

Anon 6:15p,

Welfare isn't a Ponzi scheme. It's morally wrong, but it's not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme works wherein today's taxpayers pay for today's recipients with the implication that they'll be paid when they age and require old-age pensions, at which point those pensions will be provided by then-current taxpayers. Welfare is a straight wealth redistribution scheme that takes place today and does not depend on changing demographics. Welfare also follows more directly the rich-to-poor distribution than does Social Security, given that SS taxes are capped at ~$104k. With SS, the rich don't get back what they put in, but they get more than the poor in rough proportion with what they paid.

Welfare and SS are both immoral, to be sure, but they aren't mechanically equivalent.

Right. Welfare is straight wealth transfer, while Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Also, define "rich". A doctor or lawyer earning $300k-$500k per year may seem like a net loser to taxation, but he benefits greatly from State licensing requirements and restrictions of the market. Most "rich" people are the beneficiary of State restrictions of the market. The value of these State subsidies exceeds the taxes they pay.

Taxes hurt productive small business owners much more than they hurt people whose income derives directly or indirectly from State violence.

Thomas Blair has left a new comment on your post "The Economy of Scale Fallacy":

How can this be proven? It's all conjecture. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses that aren't large enough to lobby for favors, but manage to survive (and occasionally, thrive) without "grow or die". They follow the stupid regulations and manage to make it work (this is not to say they wouldn't be much wealthier if they didn't have to follow regulations).

It's my intuition. The only way to prove it would be to start an experiment working as an agorist.

A small business owner can be 10x more productive than workers at larger corporations. He can pay a taxation/regulatory burden of 80% and still have a profitable business, and be better off than working at a large corporation.

"There are some successful small businesses" does not justify the handicap that small business owners face. A typical small business owner is usually a workaholic. He has to work long hours to overcome the handicap the economic system places on him.

David Z has left a new comment on your post "The Economy of Scale Fallacy":

I wrote about the fiction of "economies of scale" a few months back... Economies of Scale, the Faustian Bargain.

I probably read that. "Economy of scale" is an important false concept in pro-State troll Keynesian economics.

In a true free market, you'd have many small competing businesses. None would be "too big to fail". In a true free market, the bankruptcy of your competitor doesn't threaten your own business.

The only way to prove "economy of scale as generally understood is false" is to conduct an experiment. There are some industries, such as chip manufacturing and software, where there are legitimate economies of scale and real fixed overheads. These industries have already attracted a large number of intelligent workers, because their efforts are efficiently used there. Even though Intel/Microsoft have a State-endorsed monopoly, if they stop improving their product, then they will lose their market position. Intel could lose market share to AMD or other competitors, and Microsoft could lose market share to Mac or Linux.

As an agorist, I would focus on the low-hanging fruit in low-capital-intensive industries. I'm willing to settle for a 2x-3x productivity boost when I start working as an agorist. It'll grow exponentially, once a critical mass of people are working as agorists.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Economy of Scale Fallacy":

Large corporations are almost always infested with middle-management suckups and other employees who don't really do anything to advance the bottom line.

Right. In my most recent job, there were several middle management types leeching off my productivity, they were getting paid more than me, and I was doing all the real work. They even developed the attitude "FSK is easily replaceable" after I was fraudulently accused of sexual harassment, but I think they were surprised. They were lucky to hire me for the pathetic salary they were offering.

I really should start my own business. I should self-host and put up an adwords widget to see how much income I can get.

So any economies of scale the company might achieve as a result of its size are pissed away by non-productive HR rules, union featherbedding, or cronyism amongst the managers.

There is no true economy of scale, and all these parasites are leeching the productivity of the real workers.

In a true free market, business that rid themselves of parasites would have a huge advantage. In the present, State restriction of the market creates an artificial demand for the "work" performed by parasites.

But their ability to lobby the government for favors protects them from suffering any of the consequences of these inefficiencies.

That's the whole point. The State distorts the market so much that large inefficient corporations become the dominant means of production. A corporation effectively is State ownership of the means of production.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The Binary Logic Scam":

The next time I get my pay check,I should go down to the police station and file a charge of theft,I could show them how much was stolen from me,and who stole it.I'm sure they could show me the law that says theft is a crime,I'm not sure they could show me the law that justifies tax as not a theft.

I wonder what would happen if I would show up with a straight face,claiming to be the victim of a theft,with proof of my assailant,demanding the police to take action on my behalf.

Most likely I would get on some list somewhere as a trouble maker,the police would laugh,and the (Gestapo or waffen-SS)would kick down my door someday when they got more powerfull..

You'd probably just get laughed out of there, arrested, or involuntarily hospitalized with a "mental illness".

Actually, a lot of people who have tried to expose specific State corruption have been labeled with a mental illness and involuntarily hospitalized. An "insane" person does not get the due process afforded to regular criminals.

Technically, you agreed to tax withholding from your paycheck when you signed your W-4 form. Of course, no corporate employer would pay you if you didn't sign a W-4 form.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Binary Logic Scam":

When a bunch of psychatrists define someone as 'mentally ill' what logic are they using? They could all be wrong, their evidence could be flawed, but a powerful set of beliefs which exist in society (Science is good, Scientists know, all truths proclaimed by scientists are axiomatic and so on), they get to do what they please, lock people up and earn a good living, status and authority.

From my point of view, I consider the opposite of official truth to be proven. I assign a truth value of over 0.9999 to "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense."

Of course, psychiatrists make a good living from their homicide/genocide. They have successfully lobbied the State to legitimize their murder.

Once I realized "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense." and "It's pointless to lobby the State to correct this problem.", then my only conclusion was "The State must be eliminated."

If you're a member of the "psychiatry survivor movement" or you've been a victim of the psychiatry/death industry, then the only solution is to become an agorist and eliminate the State completely. Otherwise, the taxes you pay subsidize the death industry!

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The Binary Logic Scam":

I like this bayesian reasoning technique,,I never knew there was such a thing.Its a balancing act between truth value and uncertainty estimate.Its like a logical way to calculate the gray factor.

In the gray factor there is no black or white.everything is just another shade of mainly have to figure out if something leans towards that which is true of false,and how much,add your black or white and that's your shade.

Or maybe another way to say it is that the universe we live in is not a world of absolutes,but a configuration of perceptions.

The universe itself is absolute, but our perceptions are limited.

As long as you never assign a truth value of 0.0 or 1.0 to any statement, you can gradually refine your beliefs with new information.

Most people believe "Taxation is not theft!", definitely. They never even considered the possibility. I consider "Taxation is theft!" to have a truth value over 0.9999, which is enough for me to treat it as nearly absolutely true. Since I realized "Taxation is theft!" is nearly true, I have not seen any convincing evidence for "Taxation is not theft!".

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Ford and GM Creative Accounting":

I know that GM and ford love and hate each other.they support each other through competition,are heavily unionized ,and there stocks are publicly traded.
Both companies are American icons.I would bet my bottom dollar that either company has the ability to produce a truly economical,reliable,modern car that the average person could afford.something like "the peoples car" .A car you could fix yourself and would be of high quality..

Now would be the time to do it.It almost seems like they are drugged,blind folded, and fighting with one hand tied behind there back.

The problem is State restriction of the market. It's practically impossible for a handful of people to start a car manufacturing business, due to all the regulations you must pass in order for your car to get approved as legal to drive.

Even though Ford and GM are incredibly inefficient, they are shielded from competition by the State.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "South Park Election News":

i have been reading your blog for about a year but have never posted anything. i was going to ask if you had seen this. it was actually one of the first things i thought while watching the episode. i particularly enjoyed when they referred to themselves as "the world's greatest thieves club". i believe matt stone and trey parker are Big-L Libertarians.

I consider Libertarians to be one of the worst types of pro-State trolls. They distract people from full anarchism/agorism. They hold out the false hope "The current system can somehow be magically reformed by voting!", despite decades/centuries of evidence to the contrary.

South Park is definitely worth watching. It's an excellent documentary. In many episodes, if you replace "Eric Cartman" with "The evil power of the State", then the episode makes a lot more sense.

In the episode where Eric Cartman fakes tourette's syndrome, that made me think I should attempt a standup comedy routine based on my blog. It would be a way to reach a wider audience.

Is life on Earth just an alien reality TV show, as the documentary South Park indicated? Who would you like to nominate for the "Biggest Douche in the Universe!" award? Humans have an impressive winning streak going.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Amero Subterfuge":

Why don't we all just move to a better country that seems to understand the correct role and balance of government. No government is perfect, but there seem to be a lot more intelligent and unobtrusive ones than the US.

Maybe then government will start to realize that providing people with smoke and mirrors is not an acceptable solution.

Thankfully we have the age of readily available unbiased information on our hands, if we are lucky and plan accordingly we may, just may, make it out of this without killing each other.

The problem is that, due to corrupt international treaties, there is no "better country" to move to.

Further, this is my home and I'm not moving. Why should I be forced to move to find freedom? That worked in the 19th century when there was mostly unclaimed land (although Native Americans would disagree). That doesn't work now.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "South Park Election News":

I believe that this election is the beginning of the Global Socialist, or Globalist, endgame. All the pieces are being put into place.

Barack Obama's rise to power needed help from the influential few, the inner circle. His rise parallels the rise of almost every dictator that has taken power. In fact I believe Barack Obama to be a brutal dictator in the making. Every piece is there. He mirrors Stalin in nearly every aspect.

Obama is charismatic and hides his true extremist beliefs behind a guise of moderation. He talks as though he is working for the people when in truth he is really working for the elite globalists who paid for his ascent.

- The dictator manual -

When an economic crisis hits, whether made by true events or artificially generated by a few powerful entities, like the current crisis, the time is ripe for the rise of a dictator.

Step one is to control the media. The media has never been so behind a candidate. They have elevated Obama to mythic status. Even when he does wrong they will not report on it.

Control of the media is 50+ years old. There's nothing new here. In fact, the Internet is somewhat breaking the mainstream media monopoly.

Step two take power. Accomplished last Tuesday. Obama was guaranteed the presidency with the creation of an economic crisis and near universal backing of the media. His agents also had free reign to create hundreds of thousands of free votes out of thin air to make sure he won the electoral college.

Step three - silence your critics. With the total takeover of the government by social progressives the "Fairness Doctrine" is a virtual lock to pass. The only vocal opposition to Obama in the media will be silenced.

Step four - remove uncirculated wealth. This is normally done through the creation of a new currency. Obama has an easy task because 30 years of progressive politics has already removed much of the uncirculated wealth held by the american public.
If you own any State-sanctioned investment, you don't really own it. You don't get full allodial title to any investment, other than physical gold or silver in your possession.

Step five - create a private army to enforce your ideals and laws. Obama has already said he is going to do this. He has over 30 million paid off peons who will carry out any wish. He also has the Farakan and the nation of islam to do his bidding.

This is still old news. State police have been essentially a private army for a long time now.

Step six - secure your reign. With the ability to place any justice on the supreme court with almost guaranteed approval, Obama can place justices that will repeal the 22nd amendment allowing Obama to run for as many terms as he can win. With a 30 million strong voting block in his corner that will double over the next ten years, Obama has a lock on the presidency.


Obama will very quickly prove that he is a dictator. There will be nothing we can do to stop him. He is the first step in the globalist endgame.

The next step is outright government control of all business. This is happening now. Nearly all major US corporations can not exist without the government bailout. The Federal Reserve is in effect going to own everything.

You're 70 years too late. This already happened during the first Great Depression. The current economic crisis is as bad as the Great Depression (or worse), if you account for inflation properly.

Next will be the establishment of world bank control. This is being discussed at the next meeting between nations. What will be discussed is the creation of a global currency based on the dollar and a new gold standard. This will in effect dissolve all country borders. The wold bank will be put in charge with local governors/dicators in charge of provinces.

This has already been in place for decades, due to the IMF and WTO.

The proof is the price of gold. Everything should have pointed to gold skyrocketing in value. That has not happened. Why? well because real price fluctuations only happen when the few big players get involved. They are putting their money into paper currency, not hard assets. They are allowing the masses to transfer their paper money into hard assets for a future goal.

The price of gold should start going up again, as there is inflation to bail out the bankers and other insiders. For example, Ford and GM's bailout is coming via deficit spending and inflation.

Soon the creation of a global currency and global reserve will be followed by a massive confiscation of hard assets. Anyone holding gold will be forced to turn it over for new global bills. That is why gold is declining in value and many nations have been dumping their stockpiles of gold. In a few years they will grab it all back and profit immensely in the process.

They already tried that in 1933. There's no reason to confiscate gold again, because there's no official correlation between money and gold anymore. It's effectively illegal to use gold as money or operate a gold warehouse receipt bank.

I'd be much more concerned about a gun confiscation than a gold confiscation. However, a certain number of policemen must always be allowed to have guns, if only to keep everyone else in line.

The final moves are being played. The endgame is now.
Yes, this is the endgame. However, the total authoritarian State has *ALREADY* been established decades ago. The end position is the complete collapse of the State, and not the disaster you predict. The disaster scenario you describe has *ALREADY HAPPENED* a long time ago.

Lithium Carbonate Side Effects has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #33":

My name is Jason Gorman and I am 45 years old. My wife was taking 1200mg of Lithium Carbonate daily prescribed by the doctor for over two years. During this time no lab work was ever ordered. It built up in her system over a period of time. She was taken to the ER where she almost died. Her pulse was down to 31 and her blood pressure as low as 43 over 17. She under went kidney dialysis continuously for over 30 hours in ICU. She spent a total of 5 days in the hospital. I strongly recommend against taking Lithium. At least have periodic Lab Work done. Also if you do take this medication look up the side effects on the internet.

My wife has experienced some of these side effects-
Dizziness, Vomiting, Diarrhea, Confusion, Tremors, Muscle Weakness, Loss of Bladder Control, Inability to talk

I hope this information will be useful to others,
Jason Gorman

I agree with what you write. I only took lithium for 2 months, and hopefully I wasn't permanently damaged.

My position is clear. The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is complete bull****.

However, dealing with "mental illness" without drugs is very hard. Over time, your body naturally corrects itself from your pro-State brainwashing, but the healing is very traumatic.

Further, once you take damaging drugs, the withdrawal symptoms are those of a new mental illness.

It may be too late to save your wife. You should advise her to stop taking lithium and anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs, although she may be too addicted to manage the withdrawal. Your wife's doctors/murderers will object if you try to do this.

Don't bother suing over your wife's murder. The doctors who murdered your wife are protected by sovereign immunity. They followed "generally accepted practices" and the State protects them from liability.

DixieFlatline has left a new comment on your post "Do China's Central Bankers Read My Blog?":

Maybe they have been spying on your abacus. :)
Maybe. Theoretically, there could be secret keystroke logging software installed on my PC.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Do China's Central Bankers Read My Blog?":

I would like to start off by saying I think we are screwed.

I think agorism is a viable solution.

I have this great desire to look for the good,see the best in situations,believe in the idea that everything happens for a reason,and that reason is for the greater good.

Whenever someone starts talking about the "greater good", they're usually pro-State trolling. In a true free market, it's possible to be selfish and help others at the same time.

That's why I like agorism. You're selfish and you help people and you hurt the bad guys at the same time! Greed is only evil when it is combined with the ability to use violence to impose your will on others, directly or indirectly. A hedge fund manager does not directly use violence himself, but he is the beneficiary of the State violence that prevents people from boycotting the Federal Reserve.

But at the same time I have this feeling,deep inside. That there is a tidal wave forming off the coast. One that will crash into us with such furry that no one could be ready for such an event.
The collapse is coming, but agorism is a viable strategy for surviving the collapse.

Not a tidal wave of water,but one of suffering and poverty.

It is said that when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold.

America is not healthy,the rest of the world is becoming more Ill by the minute.

we are living in the time of the great change.I would love to be just living on my comfortable couch,but I'm not,But at the same time I wouldn't give my position in history for any other event.
A severe crisis is a disaster for those who use the State to loot and pillage. It is an opportunity for those with the ability to actually build and create things.

The future is undecided,seems bleak,but men with minds know that we control our own destiny. I know this to be true. If given another place in time,I would chose no other than now. I came here for today and will never back away.

After reading my writings you must understand that I am more into philosophy than analysis.
I do both. I don't just say "The State sucks!" I'm also pointing out a viable resistance strategy.

But I would like to praise FSK at this point for leading people towards another understanding.One that uses current facts,with a twist,and possible paradox of understanding.

As a blogger, I'm not going to break a news story faster than anyone else. Instead, I provide analysis not available elsewhere.

just remember that everything you read isn't true.facts can be interpreted in many ways.your truth is your own.And keep to your convictions.

Just like apples of gold in pictures of silver. perception is reality,and perspective will always alter your perception.

Perception is relative, but there is a single absolute version of reality. Determining reality exactly is difficult, but I do the best I can.

Thomas Blair has left a new comment on your post "Ford and GM Creative Accounting":


I doubt we'll see a "people's car" from GM or Ford. They have a vested interest in planned obsolescence - they need us to keep buying their shitty cars to stay in business. It wasn't always this way. One specific piece of equipment I'm familiar with - the double reciprocating compressor - lasts as long as it's properly maintained. The design is such that the double reciprocating action compresses air on the down- and up-strokes, relieving stresses on the moving parts. Not surprisingly, the only double recips you see anymore are ones that were built 50 years ago and have been properly maintained. I wonder how the business climate and manufacturing incentives have changed over the years to encourage this throw-away-and-buy-a-new-one mentality rather than build a solid piece of properly engineered equipment and have it last for years and years.

The profit model for most industries now is "planned obsolescence". Design a car that will only last 5 years, forcing the customer to buy a new one. Due to State restriction of the market, there's no reason to build a quality car. It isn't possible for a handful of workers to get together and start a new car manufacturing business, due to State restrictions of the market.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Ford and GM Creative Accounting":

Thomas blair,

Thanks for the feed back.I understand that there are many tech"s competing for the money.there are oil revinues ,standard business practices,and the industry to be considered.

But why the hell isn't anyone thinking of the regular guy who just wants to just buy a car,drive around,and go to work.
Why should the CEO of a large corporation care about the "average guy"?

Henry ford wanted 2 things,personal power,(To be known as a great business man) and most of all, to give the average man the power to liberate his of her self.

with this day and age,our technology,I wonder why the powers to be can't step back into the past. Do whats good for people,and that would be good for the company. People buy shares of the company, and have a say.

That is wrong. A small individual shareholder has essentially zero say in how a corporation is run. As long as very loose "fiduciary responsibility" requirements are met, insiders may do as they please.

I'm just perplexed as to why no one is acting on our behalf. I almost think those large companies don't exist to help people. that they only exist to help them selves.

Duh! The primary goal of a CEO is to loot and pillage, and not to provide a useful product or service.

They may not be consciously aware of the scam, and believe their own lies. Still, they spend lots of money lobbying the State for favors.

I would rather believe that Gm or Ford would love to help people more than keeping the insiders financed ..
That's why they're begging Congress for a bailout. Just so they can keep on building cars nobody wants to buy?

Why don't I qualify for a $1 billion bailout? I'd settle for $5M. I'm available cheap!

I know,,slap your self and wake up..I think I'm begining to understand whats going on............................

You really should pay more attention. Most insiders are interested in lining their pockets, and not providing a useful product or service. It is a natural consequence of a corrupt system. The system is so corrupt that can you even blame the people who exploit it for their own personal benefit? They're just following the example set by everyone around them.

I'm going to respond to the comments on "good web hosting" separately. The host I'm considering wasn't mentioned by anyone at all. I was considering as my #1 choice before making that post. I'll have to go through all the suggestions.

The hardest part is getting my parents to approve the $10/month expense. Maybe I should try a Google adwords widget here and see if I can clear $10/month. I might be close. I'm willing to risk $10/month, and put up a Google adwords widget to try and recoup the cost.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The "Sarah Palin Sucks" Fnord":

Good job fsk!! Seeing through the current affairs that seem to involve us.but really exclude us. I have this idea that we are already slaves in the world.face it,you don't have to control a government to control a country.All you have to do is control the money.And you don't have to control many governments to control the world.All you have to do is control the money.

Control of the monetary system and taxation system goes a long way toward enslaving everyone. That's a famous quote "Let me control the issue of a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws (because I can control the lawmakers with my monetary power)."

Just like we are all working for and living with money.The large banks will in slave us all.And the big illusion is that we are free.What better way to in slave a people is for them to think they are free.

With the Compound Interest Paradox, everyone is effectively slaves of the bankers.

I hope you are right,and the great might of this propped up government will collapse under its own wight. And in my life time.And a new Agorist society can spring up from the ashes.

I predict that the agorist revolution will start soon, and finish within approximately 20 years. Agorists will be so productive, that their wealth will grow exponentially once they get started. At some point, I should put my freedom where my mouth is, and start working as a practical agorist. For now, "promote agorism" is the most effective use of my time.

It just seems like the people are under a trance.Just like I once was.Unable to think for them selves,and fallowing the prompts of their leaders that they think were appointed by them.

It's very traumatic to break out of your trance. Hopefully, if I explain things to you, that's less traumatic than figuring it out on your own the hard way.

As long as there are creature comforts,food,housing,(maybe some toys).I don't think people will take another tact.

I've also been looking for higher-order comforts, such as a job that isn't a waste of time. As the economic collapse occurs, basic comforts and necessities will be harder and harder to satisfy.

Like you once said.All that is needed to start a revolution is the remnant.A small percentage of people who really understand the deal.Let us hope there is enough of them to move all of us in a new direction..

You only need a handful of people, as few as 5-10, to get an agorist trading group started near where you live.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is a Gold Short Squeeze Coming?":

As an alternative to GLD, what do you think of the Central Fund of Canada (CEF)?

All State-sanctioned gold investments are worth nothing when the final collapse occurs. At that time, only physical metal in your possession is worth anything.

I consider GLD or CEF or any other State-sanctioned gold investment to be equally risky. In a SHTF scenario, you won't be able to redeem your shares for physical gold. Besides, how do you know that the fund operator isn't secretly lending out their gold for short sales? GLD openly lends out its gold for short selling, which could lead to a disaster if the price of gold sharply rises and there's a default.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is a Gold Short Squeeze Coming?":

-The reason for PM stocks not going up is this: Calculate the worth of your mine stock after the nationalization of that mine. So, facing collapse, one expects revolutions and nationalizations from a commie government. This isn't a favorable forecast to buy paper ownership!

I didn't mention PM stocks in that post. The problem with a gold mining stock is the same as owning shares of any other corporation. You don't get full allodial title. You can't prevent the CEO from paying himself and his friends a huge salary and bonus/options/equity. You can't prevent the CEO from short selling future production as a hedge, which means the gold mining corporation could be SOL in rapid inflation. The corporation will have already short sold its future production, but its expenses are rising. There could be margin calls against the short hedge if the price of gold rises. Short selling gold as a hedge defeats the purpose of buying a gold mining stock as a proxy for ownership of physical gold.

-December Futures Gold price would be equal to a January futures price, ONLY assuming that real inflation is accounted for. Therefore, within a fraudulent system that is using fiat paper for money, far away price is expected to be higher than a closer one.

Absent deflation in money, which isn't possible under fiat system, backwardation then signals a vanishing trust in the system, as you correctly noticed.

With fiat money, the January future should equal the December future plus one month of interest. Really, it should be one month of inflation, but the central bank credit monopoly keeps real interest rates negative.

In a free market, consider the futures price of silver, quoted in gold. In that case, I would expect the price of silver quoted in gold to be mostly stable over time. There would be fluctuations, but the price should be mostly flat. In the present, most market volatility is actually volatility of the fiat money. The current deflationary recession/depression is entirely due to the Compound Interest Paradox and a contraction of the money supply.

In a free market, consider the future price of gold, quoted in current gold. If the free market interest rate is 4%, then a 1 year gold future that pays out 104 ounces of gold can be bought for 100 ounces of gold now. In a pure gold standard, the gold futures market and the high-credit-rating bond market are the same.

I haven't checked my Google Analytics statistics in awhile, while I was sick. I was mostly sending posts I had previously queued up, because I was too sick/stressed out to write. Now, I'm nearly fully recovered. My readership decreased somew

I found this thread on reddit, in reference to my post on False Opposites. According to Google Analytics, that thread might have been on the front page of reddit for awhile, but I didn't check while the thread was active. There were some interesting bits.

The moderator of the anarchist subforum on reddit says "FSK is not a real anarchist!" The moderator is someone who believes "Property is theft!" There is nothing wrong with private property, because it's a valid way to store the fruit of your labor, provided you don't own more property than you can manage efficiently. In the present, due to property taxes, all property is owned by the State. A more accurate statement than "Property is theft!" is "In the present, almost all property is stolen property! It is practically impossible to determine the proper owner in almost all circumstances. If I were judge in a free market court, I would rule that the current occupants of all property are the legitimate owners." For example, the workers who pick tomatoes are the rightful owners of the tomato field and not the corporation that received a State subsidy of its land purchase. If the land was confiscated from a small farmer during a State-induced boom/bust cycle, then it probably isn't practical to locate and compensate that farmer.

Some other interesting comments were:

"FSK is a left-wing fruitcake!" (due to his statement "Taxation is theft!")

"FSK is a right-wing fruitcake!" (due to his support of a gold standard and sound money)

This illustrates the problem with the left-right distinction. Some pro-freedom positions are classified as "left", and some pro-freedom positions are classified as "right". That's part of the evil fnord designed to hide the true issues.

If you want to insult me properly, call me an "up-wing fruitcake" or "forward-wing fruitcake".

There also was a comment that said "FSK makes some really weird posts. By the Strawman Fallacy, his blog has no useful content." I'm not going to practice self-censorship of my less-mainstream ideas. I expect my readers to use their intelligence and evaluate each idea independently. Even if you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, "Inflation is theft!" is sufficient argument against the current monetary system.

That thread also illustrates the problem with sites like Reddit or Digg. There were a few "FSK rocks" comments, but a lot of "FSK sucks" comments. If the overall opinion is determined by a strict majority vote, then minority interests are not served. There's no way to filter out the stupid comments and highlight the few intelligent ones, especially if your personal interests don't match that of the site overall. I plan to fix this flaw when I "roll my own" forum engine. (I really should buy some hosting and start working on that.)

There was also another interesting bit.

FSK is an agorist, not an anarcho-capitalist.
Agorist and anarcho-capitalist are the same.

To clarify this, an agorist says "The State has no legitimacy, starting *NOW*! Do this, and the State will be eliminated. If agorists do a good job, the collapse of the State will be smooth." An agorist wants the State to grow so large that it collapses under its own inefficiency. An anarcho-capitalist says "The State sucks, but we really need it right now. Somehow, the State will gradually shrink and then disappear. We have no coherent plan for how this will happen. Perhaps voting will work?" I consider anarcho-capitalism to be a pro-State troll version of anarchy, and agorism to be the "one true" version of anarchism (or at least my favorite). I call myself "agorist" instead of "anarchist", because most people think an anarchist is someone who goes around blowing up buildings or assassinating people.

They also were talking about "Leading Internet anarchist thinkers", with the implication my blog is irrelevant. My readership is growing steadily, so I don't see how I can be charged with irrelevance. (Of course, my readership could grow faster or slower with a different approach than what I'm actually doing.)

I'm thinking that I shouldn't worry too much about posting anonymously anymore, although I still prefer to be called "FSK". Any employer who would discriminate against me based on my blog isn't worth working for. For now, I'm going to continue wasting time in a corporate wage slave job, but I really am looking towards starting my own business.

I should buy some hosting for $10/month and put up a Google adwords widget. I should at least break even.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "More Looting":

its an amusing thought that the bank would front-run its interest rate decisions for personal gain.

Not the bank, but the management and insiders.

its true that standards have been slipping but at the end of the day the BoE staff are pretty dam straight.

Are you 100% certain news of the cut was not leaked ahead of time? It would be an easy huge riskless profit. Not all insiders can resist the temptation. Even if 99/100 of the staff are honest, it only takes one dishonest person to steal a fortune.

In my experience, there's almost always a pathological parasite among the senior management at most large corporations. That should be particularly true for State agencies, that are completely decoupled from doing actual productive work.

however, the surprise cut does benefit banks as institutions, even if no insider knowledge leaked or was acted on. following the actions of the Chancellor as he demanded the banks pass on rate cuts was quite an amusing distraction for a few days (the banks knew they were never going to keep it, and the government knew, or should have done, that it would have to shake them down to get the rate passed on). both sides win here - banks look strong to shareholders, government looks strong standing up to banks.

there are a lot of people who benefit from insider knowledge (the uk FSA has a public paper and formula for it, and admits its a high number from its own data analysis), however, there is much bigger gains to be made with wielding power - look here and you will see more truth than chasing people who try and grab a few pennies for themselves.

Also, you would be amused to read about the UK retail king Philip Green - now theres a man who can borrow money!

That's my point. Insiders can borrow a lot of money cheaply. If an insider says "I need $1B at a 6% interest rate.", that's easy to arrange. If I want to borrow to start a business, that's not an option for me and most individuals. I have to raise venture capital, giving up ownership/control of my business, rely on slow organic growth, or borrow against my house via a mortgage.

The central bank credit monpoly steals the power to raise capital away from individuals and gives it to a handful of insiders. As an individual, you only have a successful small business if you're efficient enough to overcome this huge handicap.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Sunk Costs Fallacy":

You are finding the truth and realizing that it is painful. Poker players that are "pot-committed" continue to raise the stakes when they realize they are holding a losing hand. The Elitists controlling the State have adopted similar attitudes: WE DON'T CARE HOW MUCH WE OWE. WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS HOW MUCH MORE CAN WE OWE. Starting over is for revolutionaries who correctly perceive that it isn't working.

For this reason, I predict that the amount of looting and pillaging by the State will increase until the final collapse.

I have concluded that "Scrap the current system and start over!" is the only viable solution.

1 has left a new comment on your post "The "Rule of Law" Scam":

What is a, "victimless" crime in real life?

A "victimless" crime is a crime that does not directly injure someone else, but a handful of people arbitrarily decided to declare that activity a crime. Here are some examples of victimless crimes:
  1. operating a gold and silver warehouse receipt bank (consider E-Gold and the Liberty Dollar)
  2. possession and sale of marijuana and other drugs
  3. prostitution
  4. gambling without a State license
  5. income tax evasion
  6. practicing medicine without a State license
  7. operating a school or daycare center without a State license

I think the word, 'apparently' should've been used in front 'victimless crimes'...

I do know under present day conditions & laws in the U.S., no such thing exists...

Drug use is a vector for more felony crimes like armed theft...

That is only because those drugs is illegal, but in high demand anyway. If those drugs were legal, then prices would be lower, and addicts would not need to steal. Further, theft *IS* a crime. If the State does a poor job guarding against theft, then isn't that an argument against the State, and not against drugs?

Prostitution is a vector for the further transmission of STDs...

That is only true because prostitution is illegal, and people may not openly compare their STD history.

Gambling is a vector for even more family break ups...

If people are going to do something stupid, they will do so no matter what, whether gambling is legal or illegal.

It seems you are a fan of James Maynard's Why There is no Such Thing as a Victimless Crime...

Personally I too have no problem with the, 'clean room' approach of Maynard...

I too would also like to see a stronger support of the Ninth Amendment...

We as supposedly free citizens in this country do have the government we deserve...

We after all have voted in the clowns that make the laws...

Really? Show me where I voted to ratify the 16th Amendment, and voted to approve the Federal Reserve and income tax?

Your comment is nearly entirely pro-State trolling.

Mike Gogulski has left a new comment on your post "The "Rule of Law" Scam":

Part of the problem with "1"s take on crime is that, taken to its logical limit, it leads to madness.

Studies show 80% of rapists weren't breast-fed. Breastfeeding is now mandatory.

All homicidal maniacs can be shown to have breathed air at one point or another. Therefore, air-breathing is a clear and present danger that ought to invite legislation in order to mitigate its tendency to contribute to crime.


Crimes are those actions which actually violate the rights of another person. Not "might, statistically, contribute to a tendency".

I agree that "1" was entirely pro-State trolling.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The "Rule of Law" Scam":

This commenter above is clearly a pro-state troll.
I agree. (referring to the comment by "1")

"Drug use is a vector for more felony crimes like armed theft..."

Really? And the fact that the prohibition made them expensive in the first place, and attracted gangs to the trade make no difference, TROLL?

"Prostitution is a vector for the further transmission of STDs..."

Right! You and your wife are so clean. The professional that would be as squeaky-clean as a dentist if you weren't after what you can't afford,TROLL.

"Gambling is a vector for even more family break ups..."
Who said this?
A government employee? He, who we had hired to clean public toilets now decided to teach US life lessons? It is the people's stupidity, and bad desires, not gambling. I have never spent more than a dollar on gambling. How come it doesn't affect me if gambling is the cause, TROLL?

Crawl back to your hole and read more of your favorite Keynes. Apparently, you can't even tell he was an idiot.

And who did gave you the right to decide what would be good for the rest of us in the first place?
Your own problems are easily resolved if you would stop using drugs, and spending your money on whores and gambling. Instead, pay more attention to your family.

It's nice to see people besides me are able to identify pro-State trolls. I try to be fair and publish all comments except for obvious spam.

It's better to publish stupid comments and ridicule them instead of censoring them. In a "neutral" forum, I would be drowned out by a majority of pro-State trolls. For this reason, I prefer to write in a forum where I have full editorial control.

Zargon has left a new comment on your post "The "Rule of Law" Scam":

"X is a vector for Y" reasoning doesn't cut it. If Y is a real crime, punish or demand restitution for Y, not X. If neither Y nor X are real crimes with non-consenting victims, then it makes even less sense to kidnap people for doing X.

We as supposedly free citizens in this country do have the government we deserve...

This is more interesting than it seemed at first glance. My initial reaction was "speak for yourself", because I don't (willingly) support it or vote for it.

That holds, but I also noticed that this oft-repeated statement or thought is always structured in such a way that the implicit alternative is a better government, if only we were better people. That the problem is with the slaves, rather than with the slavemasters.

I blame the corrupt system and not the slavemasters. Even if you had the magic power of the Death Note (fnord!) and could kill all the current slavemasters, then another group would merely replace them. You need to focus on eliminating the corrupt system, and not the current batch of criminals who exploit it for their own personal benefit. Of course, the current slavemasters will resist the creation of a true free market. If you're a good agorist, you should be able to win over the slavemasters, because playing defense is easier than playing offense. An agorist merely needs to protect his wealth, rather than passively turning over his income via taxes like a typical wage slave.

I agree with the sentiment "I never specifically authorized all the powers the State currently claims. Why should I be forced to pay for them via taxes?" Unless I have the right to withdraw my consent for the State, then I'm a slave. Moving is not a serious option, because nearly all governments have equally bad conditions, due to corrupt international treaties. For starting an agorist free market economy, my current location in the USA is as good as any other.

Mike Gogulski has left a new comment on your post "What's the True Cost of the State?":

Heady thoughts, FSK, but do check your operators. I suspect there's at least one place in your thoughts where a * ought really be replaced with a +, or a ^ with a *.

Either way, we're being fucked quite soundly.

I think I explained it well, but you get what I meant.

As usual, consider an example. Assume the State leeches 50% of the value of society. Every $1 not leeched by the State can be reinvested profitably to increase the size of the economy by $0.10 (10% return).

In the present, the State leeches all surplus capital. (Actually, the economy is shrinking.) So, you have an economy at a flat inflation-adjusted value, or decreasing.

Suppose you there were no State. Suppose the economy is worth $1T right now. Instead of the State leeching $0.5T, that is reinvested to grow the economy by $0.05T. If you apply compounding over a few decades, you'll see society as a whole is *MUCH* better off without the State. Under my assumptions, people would see an rapid exponential increase in their standard of living without the State.

This is the "seen vs. unseen" fallacy. The State leeches so much, that people can't imagine how productive society would be if people were truly free.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "What's the True Cost of the State?":

I agree with FSK, we are taxed 95% of our income or so (although FSK said 50% compounded).

I was being charitable when I said 50%. If you add up all the explicit and hidden costs, you'll see that your true taxation rate is much higher. The total of 95% is more accurate than 50%, but I didn't want to argue that point there, so I used "only" 50%.

If you were to calculate everything, not just income tax, you'd see this is true.

What taxes do you pay?
  1. The marginal Federal income tax is 40% for a typical middle class worker. I'm including the employer-paid portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes.
  2. Where I live in NYC, the marginal state income tax is nearly 10% for a typical middle class worker. We're already at 50%.
  3. Property taxes are another couple percent of your income per year. This tax is partially avoidable, because you don't have to buy the most expensive house/apartment you can afford. This brings the total to 52%. Due to property taxes, nobody has full allodial title to their land.
  4. State sales taxes are another 5%-10%, whenever you buy something. The average middle class person spends most of his income buying things, so this tax hits them the harders. This brings the total to 60%. (I'm rounding down, to be charitable.)
  5. There's the tax on gasoline. Even if you don't own a car, the cost of this tax is factored into the goods you buy in stores.
  6. There's the inflation tax, which steals 10%-20% of your savings each year. Even if you invest in stocks, they don't earn a positive inflation-adjusted return compared to gold. The only way to avoid the inflation tax is to invest in physical gold or silver, and take possession yourself. If you're a net debtor, such as someone who has a mortgage, you may benefit from this. However, if you're a debtor, you risk losing everything due to the Compound Interest Paradox during the next deflationary depression/recession.
  7. Without State licensing requirements for doctors, medical care would cost $50/month or less. Medical insurance actually costs $400/month or more, due to the State licensing monopoly and regulations. The difference is a tax. This adds another couple percent. Even if your employer pays for your health insurance, this merely comes out of the money available for salaries.
  8. Most industries are organized as a cartel/monopoly/oligopoly. This means you pay higher prices and receive a lower quality product, compared to a free market.
  9. Driver's licenses and other State paperwork/fees are a type of tax.
  10. It's hard for workers to start new businesses, due to State restriction of the market. This means that workers receive lower wages compared to a true free market.
  11. There's the cost of regulation compliance. Whenever a business must spend money to ensure compliance with a State regulation, the cost is passed on to customers as higher prices.
  12. Corporations cannot pay taxes, because they are abstract fictional entities. With a State-licensed monopoly/oligopoly, most corporations
If you add up everything, including all the hidden and indirect taxes, your total taxation rate is 90%-95% or more. Any regulation or restriction of the market has a cost. Most people only notice the explicit taxes they directly pay. For example, most people aren't fully offended by the magnitude of the income tax and Social Security tax, because it's automatically deducted from your paycheck.

(This bit deserves its own separate post.)

This is because amounts that were already taxed, are taxed again and again, for example consider buying a car on after tax income. You pay tax again! Now, service it, and you pay taxes again. Sell it, and you are taxed! Take this money and buy a stock, you are taxed again, even though these are the money that you have been taxed on long ago!

In the US economic system, all economic activity anywhere is subject to taxation. That is one of many reasons why the current system is completely corrupt.

Further, when you buy a stock, all of your return is usually merely compensation for inflation. If inflation over 2 years is 40% and you have a 35% capital gain (a 5% loss after true inflation), then you owe capital gains taxes on the 35% gain.

The explanation is that we really live in socialism, where property and income is illegal, but we are conditioned to think that we live in freedom.

What speaks louder to you, the promise or the actions? What good is there from "technically" owning your own property and income, if you DO NOT own it in reality?

It is a matrix, and we are fools.

I agree that the current economic and political system is one big lie. I think I've nearly completed the first step, which is achieving a higher level of awareness. At some point, I need to make the leap from theoretical freedom to actual practical freedom.

Thomas Blair has left a new comment on your post "What's the True Cost of the State?":

You might like the following:

In it, he shows the effects of just four taxes (income/payroll, corporate, capital gains, and estate) impose an effective 93% marginal tax on earned income. And that's with static tax rates over 35 years with a very generous estimate of pre-tax corporate rate of return on investment. Of course, the number increases asymptotically, but imagine what kinds of models of wealth destruction you could derive just factoring in inflation! I'd estimate that with variable (always up!) tax rates and even a very modest estimate of inflation (say...10%), the marginal tax rate on the value of a dollar invested today in 35 years could be 97-99%+.

That's worth reading. I did my own calculation above. I estimate that a marginal income tax rate of 90%-95%+ is correct.

When you consider that I predict the State will completely collapse within 20 years, that means that all State-sanctioned investments will be worth nothing 20 years from now, for a complete 100% loss. The only investments that will survive the collapse are metal coins/money, physical possessions, a network of trustworthy trading partners, and perhaps some land. Once the State collapses, property taxes are eliminated and you can now get full allodial title to your land.

He also makes a point not emphasized enough elsewhere. Suppose you are offered a chance to work extra for an extra $10,000. In making your decision, you should consider you marginal tax rate and not your overall average taxation rate. Most people only analyze their average taxation rate, which is usually lower than your marginal rate, due to a progressive income taxation schedule.

Zargon has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #69":

100% stealth agorism isn't possible, for the same reason 100% anything isn't. That said, I still think stealth agorism is the way to go. If the state is willing the spend excessive resources, sure, they'll find you. I don't think they're going to spend those resources now. Closer to a TSHTF scenerio, they might, or the might simply continue to go after the easy targets to scare everyone else into line.

I'd think that gains in technology between now and TSHTF will work in favor of the agorists if and when that battle goes down.

I probably wouldn't be considered an "easy target" in a State crackdown on agorists. However, if I attempt blatant-in-public-agorism, then I become a high-value target (like Jack Kevorkian and his assisted suicide advocacy).

Some people will be needed in both roles. High-risk activities, such as free market health care, need to be very stealthy. Some blatant-in-public agorists are needed to raise awareness.

Even if you practice stealth agorism, there is still a risk of a crackdown by the State. This risk can and should be minimized, if you're careful.

Since I'm a good writer and public speaker, I think I'm more suitable to blatant-in-public agorism than stealth agorism. Some people must practice agorism in public to raise awareness.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #69":

Man, you really have time to read/write stuff :-) How much time did it take you to write this article?

I write the "Reader Mail" posts gradually bits at a time, saving drafts in Blogger.

At that time, I was unemployed. I am again unemployed, leaving more time for blogging.

I should to find a way to blog and promote agorism as a for-profit business.

I appreciate you put some efforts to comment my post. Yes, you are right, being reasonable helps you survive and step by step you can understand the negative effect. I did not say stop being reasonable, just not to go too far, because you always feel the pain communicating with the brainwashed people.

Why is it bad to feel pain? Pain is learning. I'm getting better at evaluating who's a pro-State troll and who's openminded. After a decent amount of practice, you can tell quickly.

I try to answer all non-spam comments. If I get too many comments, then I'll have to stop doing this. I'm about 1 month behind answering comments in "Reader Mail" posts.

Imagine you keep advancing in this truth-seeking process that you have undertook and after some time you have all the knowledge "how stuff works" :-) then what will happen ... probably to survive you need to join the bad guys :-)

I'm still planning on working for the bad guys as a corporate wage slave grunt programmer.

After careful analysis, I probably do need to start my own business, and even my own economic and political system, to get fair value for my highly skilled labor. If I start my own legal on-the-books business, I'm still under a huge handicap and my productivity is merely helping the bad guys.

Besides, how do you know that the Supreme Leader of Humanity doesn't actually want an agorist revolution to occur? The people you see in public as leaders are usually evil or clueless, but you don't know who's really pulling the strings.

The truth probably is that the existing political and economical system is the one that fits what is called human nature. Practically nothing has changed for the last 5K years. People are still the same - they love, hate, envy and most of all seek domination. The men with bad instincts are considerable part of any society. Things are only getting worse as technologies advance. Killing millions could be achieved with the click of a PC mouse.

I disagree with "government is a part of human nature". It isn't part of human nature. If necessary, I'll start my own species and let the inferior life forms die out. Regrettably, I am badly outnumbered at present.

The only way to answer "Can you have a stable society without a powerful central government?" is to perform an experiment. The Internet is an example of a stable society without a strong central government. The Internet is organized along mostly anarchistic principles.

I also have thought what would be a possible alternative to the current system, but having a clue about the world history of the last 2K years doesn't make me optimistic. May be if every single new-born is injected with anti-powerin or anti-fearin it can change somehow the future situation, but no one will undertake such a operation.

All you need to do is not pro-State brainwash your children, and help other people break their brainwashing. You can't deduce a "normal" human's mental state in a society where nearly everyone is nearly completely insane.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Agorist Philosophy Overview":

All I can post today Is an Idea. Reader mail was great,And the ideals of Fsk are great.

At some point, I must put my ideas into practice. Otherwise, I'm a hypocrite. The biggest restraining factor is lack of trading partners, so I'm working on raising awareness. Also, my activities are restricted while living with my parents. They would be the first ones to turn me in to the State for tax evasion!

You shouldn't feel obligated to comment on nearly every post. Maybe you should just start your own blog. Use Blogger or WordPress for hosting. (If I were starting again, I might pick WordPress over Blogger, but Blogger is good. I'm planning to switch to self-hosted WordPress in the next few months.)

But some day if we all want this form of society, we are going to have to act. And act with one accord.

We have great ideas,A philosophy we can stand by,and tenants to fallow.

All I ask is "how the hell can we get this movement started????"
If you want to start an agorist trading group, you only need 5-10 part-time trading partners to get started. You can grow from there. I don't know of anyone who has successfully started an agorist trading group. There are people who claim partial success, but refuse to publicly disclose their activity (for the obvious "I'm afraid of the State!" reason).

For this reason, I'm seriously considering blatant-in-public agorism, as a way to raise awareness, attract customers, and as a role model.

Compare agorism with State-sanctioned reform methods, where you need to convince a majority of the merits of your ideas, and even then reform is difficult. With a mainstream media monopoly, it's practically impossible to raise awareness for non-State-sanctioned ideas. For example, the mainstream media will never say "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense."

The remnant can begin the work,and that's us, and the rest will someday assist us and become willing players in the new movement.

Sometimes, I wonder if the psychiatry/death industry is targeting members of the Remnant who start attaining higher levels of awareness.

That's one advantage of agorism. You can focus on helping the smartest 1% of the population, who are the true difference-makers anyway. In most corporations, a minority of people do most of the actual work. If they can work in a situation where others don't leech off them, their productivity will be dramatically raised.

For right now I think it best to get this understanding out there,in the world,like a seed planted.

That's what I'm doing. It's almost as if I'm seeding in a BitTorrent swarm. I benefit from ideas that other have that I've missed. I may have assembled enough bits and pieces of the message to be a full seed.

And when the time to act is certain, Than we will all know what to do. keep the ball rolling,and when we hit critical mass. Than the movement can take its place among the ideas of free people.

An agorist economy won't magically appear all of a sudden. It should be build up gradually. The number of people involved should double every 6-12 months, once things get started.

Similarly, the State won't collapse all at once. Superficially, the power of the State is increasing, because it's leeching a greater percentage of the economy. Actually, the power of the State is decreasing, because the total size of the economy is decreasing.

As an agorist, every other working agorist is helping me. By diverting resources away from the State, your productivity is helping the good guys instead of the bad guys.

Hold tight,when we feel the desire to take affect.There will be nothing to stop us,,,Peace!!!

At this point, I consider an agorist free market revolt to be an inevitability. There are a handful of other people who also believe that, and that the entire process will take only 20 years or less. There are too many factors pointing towards total economic collapse.

Agorism is the only reform method that doesn't involve billions of people dying in the process.

cRavias has left a new comment on your post "Is a Gold Short Squeeze Coming?":

Elsewhere in the news on Nov 20 2008: -

Where are you quoting exactly?

"...While many gold and silver stock investors have had enough and want out at any price, those buying in this selloff are picking up stocks of companies trading at less than ONE! times earnings or cash flow and as little as 30% of the cash companies have in the bank. I don’t know if there has ever been a time in history where a group of stocks has traded so cheaply while their operations have performed so strongly ..."

Owning a gold mining stock is not equivalent to owning physical gold and silver and taking possession. That's a common fallacy that many mining stock investors make.

Many mining companies hedge (short sell) future production, which means they could be screwed over if prices rise rapidly. High inflation in the next few years is practically guaranteed. However, any mining stock CEO who hedged this summer at the market peak is looking like a genius now.

I ask you, gentlemen, what is it that the market knows that we fail to realize? I see only two outcomes, in which the price for gold goes higher and higher but the benefits of owning shares of a gold mine diminish further and further.

Physical gold and shares of a gold mine are not equivalent.

1. Government declares central plan for economy (communism), and nationalizes gold mines so as to stop the windfall profits to greedy capitalists.

This was already done in 1933, when President Roosevelt defaulted on the dollar and declared gold ownership illegal. If you owned a gold mine in the USA and mined gold, your only option was to sell to the government at the "official" price of $35/ounce, although US citizens could not buy at that price. As a result, most gold mines closed until after 1975.

2. US is forced to accept new world reserve currency, which is tied to gold. US is confiscating it's citizens' gold and nationalizes its gold mines in an effort to stave-off revolts (keep imports flowing by any means necessary) and keep it's government rich and alive.

A return to an international gold standard is not realistic. The bad guys love being able to steal via inflation. A switch from the US dollar to Euro is more likely, but that's only a temporary fix, because the Euro is also an unbacked fiat paper, just like the US dollar.

I'm still behind on reader comments. I'm going to try to get to all of them! This is enough for one post. I'm answering them in (approximately) chronological order, and I'm current at early November.

Gmail's anti-spam filter isn't 100% reliable. If you try to contact me and fail, leave a comment, which I will always see when I log into Blogger.

I don't understand the legal wrangling over Illinois' soon-to-be-former governor's impeachment hearing. The details of what offenses are impeachable are not specified in Illinois' constitution. In that case, the legal ruling should be obvious. If enough there are enough "yes" votes to impeach and convict, then it's valid, no matter what the actual evidence. At this point, it's obvious that he's being sacrificed so that the political system can continue to be superficially fair.

The fnord is "Some corrupt politicians who do bad things get caught (the ones who break the rules too flagrantly). Therefore, the entire system is fair and has no defects that need to be corrected."

Most political conflict is merely staged conflict, to give the illusion of meaningful political discourse and conflict.

I'm going on a job interview as a web developer for an adult-themed website. My reaction is "This is a job where I'd be doing something useful!" What is more pornographic, writing financial software, or writing software that actually helps people find what they want?!

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at