This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Monday, February 23, 2009

Reader Mail #81

I liked this post on Techdirt about patents, linking to this article. The popular opinion of patent lawsuits is "X blatantly copied from Y." In reality, the accusation is "X made a product that infringed Y's patent." In many patent lawsuits, the plaintiff is a "patent troll" corporation that owns the patent but has no product of its own. The most famous example is the BlackBerry patent lawsuit.

Most of the time, the defendant in a patent lawsuit didn't even know about the patent, until they got sued for infringing it.

"Independent invention" is not a valid defense in a patent lawsuit. Even if I had no idea about your patent and did all my research independently, that is not a valid defense.

This particularly hurts small inventors. Nearly everything is patented. It's almost impossible to make a new product without infringing on someone else's patent. If the small inventor is successful and has customers, he may later find himself the victim of a patent infringement lawsuit.

There's another weird bit cited in the article. Most of the time, when an individual sues a corporation, "tort reform" limits the amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In patent lawsuits, the opposite is occurring. Compensatory and punitive damages are getting bigger and bigger.

Large corporations usually have a large inventory of patents that they use to discourage competition. To avoid frivolous lawsuits, large corporations sign mutual patent licensing agreements with each other. If you have an actual tangible product, there's a risk of customer backlash for a patent lawsuit. For example, if Microsoft sued Google for patent infringement, the PR backlash against Microsoft might cost more than the damages in the lawsuit. Even if Microsoft copied Google's search algorithm exactly, customers would probably not drop Google and switch to Microsoft.

Most patents are written in legal jargon, and not scientific language. Most scientists and researchers don't bother reading patents.

Techdirt made another point. If patents are supposed to encourage small inventors, then "I invented it independently!" should be a valid defense. Further, most "patentable" ideas are the result of decades of research. For example, compact fluorescent lightbulbs were recently patented. They could have been invented 20-30 years ago. There was no incentive to do so. They were only patented recently because insiders knew there would be a law banning incandescent light bulbs, making compact fluorescent light bulbs valuable.

The free market answer is obvious. Intellectual property is not property. If you invented something before I did, that does not automatically bar me from doing the same thing, especially if I discovered it independently. If you sold a product with a "You may not reverse-engineer!" clause in the contract, that clause is usually unenforceable and invalid.



This article on lowercase liberty was interesting. Obama is removing former President Bush's ban on taxpayer-financed stem cell research.

Most people thought it was an outright ban on stem cell research. Actually, Bush was only banning taxpayer financing of stem cell research.

Most/all universities in the USA receive some Federal funding. The ban prevented *ALL* universities from performing stem cell research, even if they got the money from elsewhere. For example, suppose a donor gave a university $5M for stem cell research. That university would then be barred from receiving *ANY* Federal government aid at all, including scholarships for students.

The ban on Federal funding of stem cell research was the functional equivalent of an outright ban. There are no private research groups, because the State has a monopoly of funding research. I read that some private groups tried to fund stem cell research, but I haven't heard of much success.

Another evil fnord is "Obama repealed one of Bush's stupidest executive orders. Therefore, the State isn't evil anymore!"



I liked this article on Stumbling and Mumbling, via Kevin Carson's shared items. In most of the world, it is now illegal to photograph or videotape policemen. A lot of people now have cameras in their cellphones. This has captured many acts of abuse by police. Rather than viewing this as an opportunity to improve the behavior of police, instead the people taking pictures are the criminals.

An honest policeman should prefer to be videotaped 100% of the time while on the job. If there's a later dispute, the videotapes should exonerate the policemen. In the present, you need *OVERWHELMING* evidence of police misconduct, and even then the policeman usually gets off with a slap on the wrist.



I noticed this post via Google search (original untranslated version). (Tip: Regularly google search for your own blog.)

Someone was citing my post on tax resister insurance. The commenter said "OMFG! In the USA, you can actually purchase tax resister insurance!" He thought I was describing a product I'm actually selling, rather than a hypothetical example! (Actually, I do plan to enter the tax resistance insurance business someday. Francois Tremblay expressed interest in joining that venture. When I get started, I'll probably only offer small policies (something like 5 ounces of gold in coverage for a premium of 1 ounce of gold, and the premium also includes training for best practices).)



I liked this article, via Hacker News, about how a Chinese student was pressured by his parents to be the #1 student. "You're a failure if you aren't the #1 student" causes all the students to resent each other. It isn't even a good deal for the #1 student, because he's earning the wrath of the #2-#30 students.

One Chinese guy in my junior high school got sick with tension headaches. He said that he was always comparing his grades with mine and a few of the other top students. I wouldn't have even considered doing such a thing.

In a Communist society like the USA or China, it matters a lot where you go to school. If you graduate from a good school, then that's like a practical guarantee of a good job.

However, I was the #1 Math student at a top US university, and employers are telling me that I'm unqualified for an entry-level wage slave software engineer job!

In a true free market, it matters less. Even if you don't get into a good school, you can start your own business or have other opportunities. I'm thinking "**** this! I'm going to try other sources of income besides wage slave work."

As another example, suppose I attempted "Promote agorism via standup comedy!" and got invited as a guest on the Colbert Report or other big show. I might think "This is my big chance! Don't **** it up!" However, I would only be in that position as a result of good previous work. Even if I bomb, that doesn't mean I'm barred from working further.

It's wrong to think "I ****ed up that opportunity. Therefore, it's the end of my career." There always are other opportunities.



I liked this NY Times article, via Hacker News. In order to make ends meet, a journalist took an part-time entry-level retail wage slave job.

The journalist made a weird observation. Working for a newspaper, egos and ****sucking took precedence over quality work. Working in retail, actual ability mattered more, and your supervisors respected you more.

The reason is that newspapers are nearly completely divorced from market competition (except via the Internet). In retail, you must perform and competition is relatively greater.



This article, via Hacker News, covering "The Pirate Bay" trial was interesting.



I really liked this post on Marginal Revolution. Barry Hill wrote a book on the credit crisis. His publisher demanded he remove passages critical of the S&P credit rating agency. His publishing company was McGraw Hill and McGraw Hill owns S&P.

He made the same criticism as I noticed on CNBC's "House of Cards" special. The credit rating agencies were placed in a conflict of interest position. They were hired by the banks whose debt was being rated. Therefore, the incentive was for them to give high ratings. If you give debt a BB rating but your competitor gives the same debt an A rating, then banks will go to your competitor in the future.

The credit rating agencies were competing on rating given, and not actual price! If you were conservative when assigning credit ratings, you got no business!

He had a clause with the publisher that gave him veto power over the final content of the book. They refused to publish it, and now he may shop it with other publishers. He also received an "advance payment" for the book, and now there will probably be a lawsuit over whether or not he must refund it.

This illustrates the problem of selling content through a mainstream media corporation. Censorship standards take precedence over quality. Most mainstream media corporations give the illusion of being independent advocates for truth, when they really are "captured regulators".



I'm getting really offended by discussion of "OMFG!! The financial system nearly collapsed in September 2008!!" I saw this post on Marginal Revolution.

When Lehman Brothers collapsed, some money market mutual funds had invested in Lehman bonds. These mutual funds lost money. They "broke the buck", and started selling for less than $1.00 per share. Money market funds are supposed to be super-safe, guaranteeing your principal. You're still guaranteed to get ripped off by inflation in a money market fund.

After the money market mutual fund default, investors rushed to redeem their mutual fund shares and withdraw money from banks.

This would not have been the crisis many people claimed. Suppose everyone went to their bank and tried to withdraw their full balance. What would happen? The Federal Reserve would merely print enough new money to redeem all balances. As long as you still use slave points as money, insiders may still steal from you via inflation.

It would only be "OMFG!!!" if people withdrew all their cash from banks, *AND INVESTED IN GOLD INSTEAD*, and started boycotting the dollar and income tax and using gold and silver instead. Then, there would be a complete default on the dollar as it collapsed in hyperinflation.

This appears to be the usual "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" This incident is being overhyped as an excuse for the massive looting via the "stimulus" package and financial industry bailout.



Google Analytics always has interesting bits. Someone was googling "adult swim illuminati agenda" and found my blog. Adult swim has some very good fnords, especially Japanese anime.

Via that google search, I found this bit on the Illuminati News website.

It had an explanation for why "lie by repeated assertion" works as a propaganda technique. Your brain is not conditioned to handle the case "Everyone around you is a brainwashed pro-State troll." Your brain is conditioned to assume that most/all of the people around you are sane. Therefore, if everyone around you is completely insane, you model and mirror their behavior. Lie by repeated assertion works, because the human brain hadn't evolved to consider the possibility "Everyone around you is wrong!"

If everyone around you adopts a "Don't question stupid ideas!" attitude, you mirror their behavior and don't question stupid ideas.

There's a valid non-conspiracy reason why most mainstream entertainment targets stupid people. A more intelligent person is less susceptible to advertising. Therefore, it pays to target stupid people, because they're more easily influenced by advertising. I'm noticing that problem on my blog. I have a much lower eCPM than I expected, because my readers are less likely to click on an ad link than others.



I liked this post on nostate.com. He linked to this blog I hadn't seen before, which linked to this YouTube video.

I liked this comment in response to a troll (in the YouTube video):

The presence of a troll is the highest compliment....

If pro-State trolls aren't criticizing you, then you aren't reaching enough people. That's an interesting attitude.

I prefer for pro-State trolls to get frustrated and leave.

The poster also corrected a misconception about the Non-Aggression Principle. If you follow the non-Aggression Principle, that does not mean you sit by without resisting when other people assault you or steal from you. That merely means you don't assault or steal from other people.

An agorist police agency would be seen as a threat to the bad guys. It won't be feasible to have free market police protection until the collapse of the State draws near. For this reason, agorist should implement "justice via ostracism" initially.

[E]ven if agorism never achieves the ends, it is an effective way to live a defiant life.

This is an important point. Even if you don't succeed in defeating the State, you increase your own personal wealth if you practice agorism. Free from State regulations and taxes, your productivity should be dramatically increased.

I found this image amusing on that blog's homepage.





This post, via Hacker News, had an interesting bit. If you aren't being sued, or someone isn't threatening to sue you, then your business is irrelevant.



This article, via Hacker News, was interesting. The guy who owns and developed "4chan" is unable to find any type of wage slave job or any employment at all. The content on his site is so disgusting that he can't get advertisers to publish ads. The creator of one of the most popular sites on the Internet is nearly completely broke. He's losing money on 4chan, because he's paying the hosting costs himself.



This article, via Bureaucrash, had an interesting bit. In Somalia, after the central government collapsed, people started a bunch of small private telephone networks. Now, Somalia has very cheap telephone rates compared to the rest of Africa.

That answers a common pro-State troll argument. "The State is needed to provide basic infrastructure!" Without the State, such infrastructure can be provided at a cheaper price.



This article on Bureaucrash had a reasonable account of anarchy in Somalia.



This article, via Hacker News, on the Pirate Bay trial was missing the point.

On a technicality, half the charges were thrown out on the first day of the trial.

However, prosecutors merely get a mulligan. They may try again at a later date with better evidence.



I liked this article on MSN. Allegedly, a chimpanzee was given Xanax, and then assaulted a person.

The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is nonsense.



fritz has left a new comment on your post "Illicit Interest Arbitrage":

I wonder how it was made illegal to use silver and gold as money. That would be a great starting point for agorism. Maybe we could use tally sticks, or wompum. Anything but federal reserve notes. Next would be some small private banks. That would be a nice start.

The same laws that bar gold and silver from being used as money also bar all other alternate monetary systems, if you use them for "on-the-books" work. The IRS claims that all work that anyone does anywhere is subject to taxation. All economic activity is subject to taxation. Taxes must be paid in slave points.

The elimination of gold as money occurred in 1933. When President Roosevelt defaulted on the gold-redeemability of the Federal Reserve Note, he also confiscated all the gold from US citizens. If you had a $20 one ounce gold coin (actually about 90% gold), you were required to exchange it for a 20 point Federal Reserve Note. It was illegal to circulate gold as money.

It was necessary to outlaw gold ownership, because otherwise people would have used gold instead of paper. The "official" price of gold was devalued from $20/ounce to $35/ounce, but it was illegal to own gold bullion.

Silver was demonetized around 1964. Before that, dimes, quarters, and half dollars were mostly silver ("junk silver"). In 1964, they were replaced with other metals. All the pre-1964 coins were removed from circulation, as people started hoarding them.

In the present, it is illegal to own gold and silver. However, taxes and regulations make it impractical or illegal to use gold as money. Taxes and regulations make it impractical to operate a gold-denominated warehouse receipt bank. The central bank credit monopoly means that it's stupid to make a gold-denominated loan, which would have an implied interest rate of 30%+.

Suppose I agree to sell a shirt for you for an ounce of silver, as an on-the-books transaction. What are the tax consequences? This IRS treats this as a barter transaction. *EACH* of us owes a tax of 28% on the value of the transaction, for a total taxation rate of 56%. Suppose I use slave points as money, for an on-the-books transaction. In that case, the seller only owes taxes on the gain. Suppose my raw materials cost $5 and the shirt is sold for $15. Then, I owe taxes on my gain of $10. Further, I can deduct all sorts of business expenses from that gain. Full self-employment tax is 50% (25% marginal Federal income tax, 15% Social Security and Medicare, and 10% NYC income tax). Using the above example, instead of paying a tax of $15*.56 = $8.40, I pay a tax of $10*0.50 = $5.

Further, I can't take my silver to a bank and deposit it. It's essentially illegal to operate a gold and silver warehouse receipt bank. It isn't outright illegal, but the cost of taxes and regulation compliance make it infeasible. For example, if I operate an on-the-books gold and silver warehouse receipt bank, I am obligated to report every transaction to the State. If I only have 1000 ounces of gold on deposit, I'd have to charge outrageous fees to cover the cost of regulation compliance.

The IRS and FBI don't like warehouse receipt banking businesses. They would be used by drug dealers or by anyone who desires economic privacy. Therefore, the State cracks down on warehouse receipt banks. Anything that would be useful for a person who desires privacy can also be useful for drug dealers or other black market workers. The "anti money laundering" laws don't just catch drug dealers. They also catch people who desire privacy or people who are trying to protect their labor from theft.

Alternate monetary systems are heavily regulated and illegal, because they can be used by black market and grey market workers to shield their profits from the State.

It's also foolish for me to operate a gold-denominated time deposit bank. You would be stupid to borrow in a gold-denominated loan. A gold-denominated loan has an implied interest rate of 30%+ per year, which is the true inflation rate. Why would you borrow gold from me (paying 30%+), when you can borrow from a bank and pay 6%-8%? Even credit cards are a better deal. Free market time-deposit banking won't be a viable business until the collapse of the State draws near. A gold-denominated loan has too high of an implied interest rate, compared the the Federal Reserve cartel loan price.

robert30062 has left a new comment on your post "Illicit Interest Arbitrage":

I really like Fritz's blogger picture, ole' Robert Edward. :) I just stopped by to say hi. I have some thoughts on logistics that I think we really need to address. We are pretty good at conceptualizing what good and bad but there isn't that much emphasis on how we get to where we want to be. We need to come up with institutionalized methods of freeing people of their pro-state brainwashing with specific things to say. Starting with perhaps "Tactic 1" or something. I think that starting groups including other activities could be a great way to bring people together toward agorism, maybe something involving sports or gaming. What do you think FSK, Fritz? As always though, f**k the Fed!!

I'm working on making the transition from "theoretical agorism" to "practical agorism". It will probably take at least a few years for me to get an agorist trading group started.

One problem is that I'm stuck living with my parents. They would be the first to turn me in to the State, if I attempted practical agorism while living with them. All it takes is a 911 call by my parents to have me involuntarily hospitalized/murdered. They explicitly threaten to do so whenever I disagree with them. They interpret "FSK disagrees with me." as "FSK has a mental illness.", because I always obeyed orders before I achieved higher awareness.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Illicit Interest Arbitrage":

Good idea Robert. But I think right now the most important thing is just plain old exposure. And of course developing your own personal network of free trading partners.

I'm working on "promote agorism" instead of "practical agorism" right now. If I find a decent network of in-person trading partners, I'll move towards practical agorism.

Most people won't buck the system right now because they have a place to live ,a job, and some food,and money for a few toys and entertainment. Most folks believe its better to go with the devil you know instead of tempting the devil you don't. you know,better safe than sorry.

That's why I like my strategy for practical agorism. Work 5 hours/week as an agorist, while keeping your wage slave job. Once agorism is a viable full-time source, then make the switch. For now, I'm doing "promote agorism" for free as a hobby. (I'm making a tiny slice of money via AdSense, but it's nothing special.)

Most important right now would be to educate people. Mainly of their rights as free people,the evils of state control,and the pros about the free market.

I'm focusing on "promote agorism" right now.

And practice trade using anything but federal reserve notes when ever possible.

One of my "easy" agorist business ideas is "build a gold/silver/FRN barter network". Most coin stores charge *HUGE* bid/ask spreads on gold and silver. On-the-books dealers are obligated to report all transactions to the State. Most people don't invest in gold and silver because it's awkward to buy. If I had access to a gold/silver/FRN barter network, I'd shift some of my savings to real money.

I've very annoyed. My State-sanctioned investments have lost 50%+ of their FRN-denominated value in the past few years. Gold and silver have skyrocketed compared to all other asset classes.

I have often thought...instead of all this talk lets start action....But I can't think of a strategy for a phase 1 movement(except education) I tell you what, I will put that in my mind as a working task. And see what I come up with in my dream state. I get great ideas from the dream world. You do the same thing Robert, and we will meet back here with some ideas for possible plans for early stage development.

think in and out of the box, and in terms of peaceful actions to be taken.

With a free market, you don't need to have rules set in advance. I'll do the best I can, and you're free to do whatever works for you.

Once you realize "Taxation is theft!", "Government is just an extortion racket!", and "It's possible to have a stable society without a monopolistic State!", then it's immoral to continue supporting a corrupt system.



S. C. Mooney has left a new comment on your post "The Tally Stick Monetary System":

FSK, I only recently have discovered your blog, and am impressed by most of what I read here. However, I must differ with you concerning tally sticks. The tally-sticks-as-money story is a hoax. I have documentation to back up my claim, and will send if you like, or will post on my blog. May I ask - what are your sources for your view?

I've seen tally sticks cited in many places. It's mentioned in Wikipedia (which doesn't mean it's true).

Many conspiracy websites say "The King of England made a big screwup when he ceded control of money to the banksters! It's like he resigned as king! The tally stick monetary system was a great system for the King of England."

In some ways, a monarchy actually is better than a democracy (or representative democracy). The King plans to pass the kingdom directly to his children, and has an incentive to look out for long-term interests. There's a single person directly responsible for all the evils of the State, which limits the abuse. In a democracy, there's no incentive for politicians to plan ahead beyond the next election. There's no incentive for a CEO to plan beyond the next quarterly earnings statement. If you're a "hot executive", you can switch jobs every 2-3 years before your bad decisions catch up with you. For example, John Thain is excellent at switching jobs at just the right time.

What's your source for proving it's a hoax? Just post it on your blog and provide it as a link.

I'm not interested so much in debating history. It's impossible to go back in time and verify what actually happened. The Tally Stick Monetary System seems plausible, but maybe it's just a lie and myth that got exaggerated over time?



fritz has left a new comment on your post "How Well Does GLD Track Gold?":

I would most likely buy gold if I were going to invest. If you are creative, physical gold could be hidden many places. You could bury it and it would never tarnish . Just make sure no one gets your map. It melts at a low temperature and could be formed into everyday objects, painted and placed in plain sight. The most obvious is the least seen.

I've seriously considered "take an ounce of gold, cast it into another shape, and make it look like something else". The problems with that method is:
  • I have no metalworking skills. I don't know anyone else who has metalworking skills.
  • If I want to sell it to someone else, then it's hard for me to prove it's real gold.
  • There's effort required to reshape gold in another form.
I've been thinking of clever ways to hide gold in my residence. A safe is like a bullseye. However, having a safe is a good idea, if that isn't where you keep most of your gold! For example, I can keep a couple of ounces of gold hidden in plain sight, some more hidden in a safe, and cleverly hide the rest. There are tactics that would only fool almost everyone. Someone who's going to rob me will just steal "gold hidden in plain sight" or "gold hidden in safe".

For example, you can take an old TV, unscrew the back, and hide your gold inside. Most people won't bother checking there. (Of course, now that I mentioned it here, I can't actually do that.)

barry b. has left a new comment on your post "How Well Does GLD Track Gold?":

FSK,

off the subject but you've got to see this... assuming you haven't already seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4yloipsoZ0

Were the people in that video serious, or were they kidding? I couldn't understand most of what they were saying.

A video of a bunch of fools doesn't prove anything. You can easily get a video of "anarchists" doing stupid things.

One interesting thing is the tone of voice. That's the sound of someone reciting things they don't understand. For example, consider someone in church reciting a prayer. That's the same mental state as those people in the video.



Chrono has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #56":

Well, FSK. I disagree with you on your IP statement, I find it rather rude. I will go into it and linkback when I get around to posting my take on what I said. A summary of what is to come, however...

Reader Mail #56? That's over 6 months old!

I consider "Intellectual property is not property!" to be under the category of "Duh! Boring! Obvious! That's not worth debating anymore."

There's no way to enforce intellectual property rights without a monopolistic State. Therefore, intellectual property is not property.

How is it rude to say "Intellectual property is not property!" I guess I need a different name than "intellectual property". Maybe I should call it "intellectual theft"?

If person A generates a unique work, whether a language work, music, or even a memory, provided it has not been shared with anyone else, it is person A's property. It is stored in his brain, thus it is physical property until it is transmuted? to a form of media. Even then, it might still be property (if it was artwork, for example).

No. Ideas don't have the same characteristics as physical property. If I copy your idea, you may still use it. If I steal your car, you can say "WTF? Where's my car?"

Copying an idea does not damage the original. Songs and movies can be copied for zero cost, without damaging the original.

If you want to argue "Intellectual theft is a valid form of property?", then answer this question "Without a monopolitic State, how can intellectual theft be enforced?"

As to astrology, you stated rather clearly
1) you have not investigated it
2) you do not distinguish between the 'body of knowledge' and the 'person making the descriptions' -in this case, the book they came from, or 'whether the description fits, if I have your birth information or not'

#2 above lists the important questions...and properly separates them so the truth can be correctly assessed.

Again...
Does all astrology work?
Does astrologer X's book work?
Was the description posted on my blog true?
Based on what I've seen so far, there's nothing noteworthy in astrology. You're free to try and convince me otherwise.

You're using defective reasoning. "Chrono mentioned to FSK that astrology has legitimate uses. Therefore, FSK has an obligation to investigate astrology further." If you write a decent summary, I'll look at it. However, I may glance at it briefly and conclude "This is garbage!" Using my "conspiracy smell" technique, I can rapidly sense if writing is nonsense. Your comment smells like trolling.

These are all separate questions. All other information is irrelevant. For example, if I tell you C++ sucks, it passed no statistical tests, and then someone presents you with a working code snippet, written in C++, the statistical tests do not matter if the code snippet compiles and runs. That is all that matters. As long as that snippet does its job reliably (at a rate greater than chance) it has proven that in its context and application, C++ works.

This is the correct method of determining truth from falsehood.

That method is all that matters. Credibility is irrelevant.

OK, so what's your objective test that proves "Astrology is legitimate!"? There are objective tests that prove "It's possible to write usable software in C++."

Follow your own advice here, and do not use the straw man fallacy. Just because mainstream studies have found no validity in astrological predictions, does not mean that the predictions are false.

All the mainstream studies have done is discredit any serious interest in the subject. Probably evidence that it does in fact work. But who knows...

Find out for yourself.
My gut reaction is "Astrology is nonsense." That's an interesting observation! The mainstream media isn't always wrong! Sometimes they say "X is garbage", and they're correct, "X really is garbage." For example, mainstream science says "Marijuana is bad for you!", and I agree with that conclusion. However, I disagree with "The State should ban marijuana possession and sales!" (Marijuana is bad for you for the same reason that anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs are bad for you. Any drug that alters your brain chemistry is bad for you. I haven't tried marijuana explicitly, but that doesn't discredit my conclusion. I spoke with someone who tried marijuana, and his experiences were actually similar to those of anti-psychotic drugs. He said it takes 6-12 months from the last time you smoke marijuana for your thinking to fully clear up.)

If you have a good article proving "Astrology is not nonsense!", I'll look at it. However, I may not agree with your conclusions! Also, if I disagree with you, doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong!

My gut reaction is "Astrology is nonsense. Astrology makes general predictions, that can retrospectively seem to be true."



Sphairon has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #79":

Hey, thanks for responding. Your recommendations are pretty much congruent with what I'd thought of. Practical implementation of these plans seems to be the problem now.

We were talking about "Spharion is a high school student. Should he go to college for a humanities degree?"

You're better off learning something useful. I'd focus on Math and then software engineering or building actual things.

You might think "I suck at Math! Math isn't interesting!" Is that really true, or is it an aspect of your pro-State brainwashing? Try again, learning on your own instead of in a school setting.

Math teachers in brainwashing centers (school) discourage all but the most talented students. The teachers aren't consciously aware of it. It's an inherent defect in the way Math is taught.

Alternatively, try learning some computer programming. Try writing a game. For example, many people start out writing a Tetris clone.

Your parents will probably freakout if you say "I don't want to waste $200k and 4 years on college." You're better off learning on your own, if you can do it.

Alternatively, you can go to college, do the minimum amount of work to get by, and then focus on other useful things in your spare time.

Regrettably, if you want a wage slave job, a college degree is a requirement. A humanities degree doesn't help you that much in the wage slave career track. Even with a CS/Math degree from a top school, I'm having a hard time finding even a low-paying wage slave job. Being an "independent thinker" really works against you in the wage slave career track.



Db0 (http://dbzer0.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Terrorists Assault the Pirate Bay":

If I haven't signed a contract with you, then how can you claim to impose restrictions on what I can do? If someone copies a movie or song, how can you prove who the original belonged to? Even if you could prove who the original belonged to, then how do you know that the content wasn't stolen first and then copied?

I'm not defending IP, but basically can make the same argument about any property. How do you claim to impose restrictions on property you are not using? How can you prove you rightfully own this property etc.

In a true free market you don't have a valid claim to property you aren't using at all, if there's no fence or other means of marking it as yours.

For example, you can't argue "That car on the street isn't being used right now. Therefore, it's OK if I borrow/steal/claim it." That isn't true. There's marking on the car indicating it's mine (license plate, registration sticker). Currently, the State has a monopoly for registering ownership of property. In a true free market, people can still register their property with private police forces, in case it is stolen. If you steal my car, I'm justified tracking you down and collecting compensation, or hiring police to do it for me.

A free market would do a better job of tracking down stolen property, than a monopolisitic State. For example, anything valuable can have a registered serial number. Then, the buyer can easily check if it was stolen. If counterfeit gold and silver coins are a serious problem, then serial numbers can be minted on the coins, with a database tracking the legitimate owner.

Similarly, you can't argue "Your TV is off right now. Therefore, I'm justified breaking into your house and stealing it."

Intellectual theft/property is different. If you make a copy, then the original is not damaged.

Chrono has left a new comment on your post "Terrorists Assault the Pirate Bay":

"I'm not defending IP, but basically can make the same argument about any property."

You cannot make that argument about any property because cars have VIN#s, homes have addresses, money has a paper trail, physical property has witnesses, etc...

I think you are defending IP, personally, just indirectly, and maybe not on purpose.

Is this the same Chrono as above? Before, you were arguing "Intellectual theft is property."

You can always register physical property or put a serial number on it.

Defense is cheaper than offense. It's easier for me to protect my property from theft than it is for you to steal from me.

Db0 (http://dbzer0.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Terrorists Assault the Pirate Bay":

All of that stuff you mention about property is only meaningful if you have a government to enforce them. In the same way that IP has patents, copyrights on paper, trademarks etc.

We're market anarchists here. Intellectual theft/property cannot be enforced without a monopolistic State.

Without a State, I can enforce tangible property ownership. I can hire a private police force to protect my property. Any private police agency that got a reputation for ignoring legitimate property rights would rapidly lose its customers.

If you say "Tangible property rights are not enforceable without a monopolistic State!", then you are pro-State trolling.



Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Do Aliens Exist?":

First of all we are all thinking as human beings. Our brains always tries to find patterns. Our statement that aliens which visit earth have better technology than us and that they are more advanced. That statement can be entriely false. For example, Take a Earthly creature, the cockroach, it has survived millions of years since the time of the dinosaurs. This insect has possibly survived since the beginning of time. They are superior to us in many ways. One their ablity to gorw immume to products therefore scientists always have to create more deadly chemicals.

I read an interesting bit about cockaroaches. They've specifically evolved to live off the scraps of humans.

Just because the "aliens" have mastered intergalactic transportation doesn't mean they are superior.

If you master intergalactic transportation, you have to be pretty advanced.

My theory is that aliens are not superior to us 1) if they were, why don't they take over the Earth

What would the aliens gain by violently taking over the Earth? You can't accomplish good via violence. It's better if humans learn for themselves the hard way.

Besides, life on Earth is just an alien reality TV show. If they interfered, it would wreck their entertainment! Why would they violently intefere now, just when things are about to get interesting?

2) If they mean us no harm and abduct a couple of people, why don't they just reaveal themselves, take the number of people they need for scientific research?

What if the aliens are so advanced that they can conduct their research without physically abducting a human? It should be easy for them to take a snapshot of human DNA and recreate some in their lab. What would that accomplish?

Human enslavement technology is interesting! The more intelligent a species is, the more ****ed up their civilization is!

Since the beginning of time, humans are reasearching the meaning of life and the creation of universe. Now the question comes down to, if you believe in aliens?

As a practical matter, it's irrelevant. I should do what I think is right, whether aliens exist or not. I'm just saying that there's circumstantial evidence. There's no smoking gun that's proof.

The universe we can say has over, trillions and trillions of galaxies. And in each galazy there can be over a google number of stars, (google is 1 and hundred zeros). Now in that number of stars there can are alot of planets containg water and possible necessities to contain life. Mars, the moon etc.

"1 googol" (not "google") is 10^100. Some scientists estimate that there are less than 10^100 particles in the universe. "Google" is the name of a corporation. "Googol" is a number.

"Number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy" has already been estimated by scientists. According to google, there are approximately 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

It doesn't matter if somebody is hiding the truth, it doesn't matter if we are the inferior or superior ones. We need to be concerned about what is happening now! Not what will happen, we need to take actions on our planet rather than worry about something like aliens. You need to take into consideration the there is 99.99% that there are alien life forms. something humans need to concerned about it is that we are a rapidly advancing race. We will master lightspeed travel in atleast a hundred years. From 1700 where mastering flight was considered impossible and stupid to 2000 where we mastered over 12 times the speed of sound. Where we landed to the moon and sent out a probe that has left the solar system. Where humans can go to the deepest trenches of the Earth to Mars. In just less than 200 years we have achieved all of that. Just imagine what we will be able to accomplish in 2100 or 2200. Remember, there is never a point where a civilization has reached perfection. You can never stop inventing technology. Its all up to the future generation.
As a practical matter, I should do what I think is right, whether aliens exist or not.

Is there some external force secretly helping me? Sometimes, it seems that way. The important point is that I should do what I think is right.

I just mention aliens because it's interesting. Also, that explains where the good fnords are coming from.

I also mention aliens, because I was thinking of using that as my "Promote agorism via standup comedy!" idea. If I just talk about free market economics, that's boring. If I say "This is the plan that the alien overseers have for humanity! They hired me to help them study human enslavement technology!", then that's comedy.



robert30062 has left a new comment on your post "Adam Sandler Congress":

What's interesting is that as soon as I saw this story I came to your site to tell you about it. Then poof! There you already have it. lol.

If you want me to write on a subject, let me know! I assume you're referring to "Stanford Bank Fraud"? You left your comment on the wrong post.

It has become almost comically simple and easy to quickly identify pro-state fnords like this one. The Bernard Madoff and Stanford stories are deciphered as "The financial system is not corrupt, only certain individuals are corrupt within it.". The Nixon scandal and resignation story oft-repeated on the propaganda err, "History Channel" is deciphered as "The office of the President is not corrupted, only certain individuals who hold it.".

Yes. That's an obvious evil fnord. "Certain individuals are corrupt. They got caught. Therefore, everyone who didn't get caught is a saint."

The fnords are amusing, once you can see them. Hopefully, it's easier for me to explain them to you, rather than discovering them on your own the hard way like I did.

The so-called "Women's Rights" movement that is lauded by our self-appreciating politicians as such an achievement of democracy is a fnord that covers up the reality that women were forced out of the home and men's salaries were cut in half with the two genders then splitting it. With virtually no net gain in salary for the home and now both parents working as corporate wage slaves, and with the commute, it's no wonder there is no sense of family or community anymore.

"Women in the workforce" turned out to be one huge scam. Services that used to be peformed by women, untaxed, are now part of the slave economy. For example, the woman gets a wage slave job, buys child care, but then pays taxes on the cost of child care. The daycare center provides inferior daycare to what the mother would have provided directly. As further insult, the couple pays taxes on both incomes, and then pays a further tax because they have to buy services the mother would have otherwise provided. As another example, instead of cooking dinner, you order from a restaurant.

Also, in a Communist society like the USA, there's a fixed pool of jobs. If you double the workforce, then salaries merely drop by half or more.

If you do the calculation, a two-income family just isn't worth it. Unfortunately, most women have been brainwashed "My career is valuable!" Further, it you take 10-20 years off working to raise children, it's hard to get back in the slave workforce later.

Ideally, you should have a work-at-home job or your own business. If you homeschool and give your child 5 minutes of attention per hour, that's better than he would get in a typical school.

Most of the time, in school, I was given a workbook or other problems to work on independently.

Going all the way back to the CPI (Committee on Public Information) in President Wilson's day which manufactured the "Red Scare", there have been think tanks which operate with the purpose of manufacturing consent, exploiting cognitive reasoning, and perpetrating falsehoods of any kind on the public. By now it is more accurate to say that there is really no such thing as the two parties known as "Democratic" or "Republican", there is only the "Business Party" with two 'factions' known as Democratic or Republican. Both factions serve the same master party and spend millions of dollars every year supporting think tanks all over the country and these institutions have become quite efficient.

The differences between the Democrats and Republicans are nearly entirely superficial. The insiders are the ones who really pull the strings. For example, Sumner Redstone, who controls Viacom and CBS, probably wields more inflence than all of Congress. If he wanted to, he could direct the mainstream media propaganda engine to promote or censor any story. For example, "Obama is an awesome up-and-coming Senator!" stories dominated the news before he officially announced his candidacy for President.

Sumner Redstone acquired control of Viacom and CBS via a leveraged buyout. In other words, a group of bankers picked Sumner Redstone to lead Viacom and CBS, because they knew he had the "right" attitude.

The Cato Institute, the Brookings Institute, The Center for American Progress, The American Enterprise Institute, The Project for a New American Century, and so on, are complete with state-of-the-art facilities, press briefing rooms with cameras, conference rooms, Internet access, Libraries, and memberships that are attained and maintained in an esoteric manner. These are the places where buzz words, phrases, political language, and policy initiatives are born from expert-level study of the brain, of psychology and neurology, sociology, human behavior and other areas. The "War on Drugs", the "War on Terror", "Pre-emptive strike", "Axis of Evil" etc. are examples among the fnord techniques that you often identify.

Most mainstream "think tanks" are really pro-State troll propaganda centers. The really disgusting part is that they really believe their own lies. Are they consciously aware of their role in a massive scam, or do they really believe their own propaganda?

As with a lot of us, you have used intellect and other natural instincts, along with perhaps a little luck by surroundings, and have recognized many techniques of pro-state brainwashing the "old-fashioned way" which is very much to your credit. Beyond that, I feel that it may be very useful to our cause to pay as much attention to these "think tanks" as we can in the hopes that if we can start as close to the originating point of the misinformation stream as possible, and gain more insight on the way fnords are constructed in the first place, we can more expeditiously and efficiently deconstruct them.

The disadvantage is that the bad guys have superior resources. The advantage ultimately lies with the truth.

However, truth does not automatically declare victory. I once read an interesting bit. They said "In political debates, truth does not guarantee victory. It merely means that you get more bang for your buck." The ratio cited was approximately 10:1 or 1000:1, depending on circumstances. For every $10 that the bad guys spend promoting lies, you must spend $1 promoting truth.

For network neutrality, the bad guys are spending a ton of money lobbying to cripple the Internet, but executives at corporations like Google are spending a ton of money lobbying to preserve the Internet. Therefore, the issue is decided mostly fairly, because truth lies with the "pro network neutrality" crowd. (In a true free market, network neutrality is one of those "Duh! Obvious!" ideas. In the present, local broadband providers have a State-granted monopoly, which means network neutrality must be imposed by the State.)

Executives at pharmaceutical corporations spend billions of dollars on advertising and lobbying. The anti-psychiatry movement cannot compete with this. Truth lies with the anti-psychiatry movement, but the bad guys have *MUCH* more money to spend on propaganda. Most members of the anti-psychiatry movement are individuals who were abused by the psychiatry/death industry, or their relatives. Therefore, in the area of mental health, anti-truth dominates.

For this reason, a true freedom seeker must practice agorism. Otherwise, you're subsidizing the bad guys via taxes. If I double my productivity in on-the-books labor, that more than doubles the resources available to the bad guys, because my total taxation rate is 50% directly and 95%-99%+ indirectly.

If I can "Promote agorism and profit at the same time!" or "Start actual agorist businesses!", then I'm starting a positive feedback cycle. Normally, "compound interest" favors the bad guys, as they leech an ever-greater percentage of society's wealth. Via agorism, the power of compound interest favors the bad guys. A good agorist reinvests his profits in the counter-economy.

It's much better for me to spend the profits of agorism on promoting other agorist businesses, than it is for me to sit on a stack of gold coins. Gold coins are a valuable way to protect your savings from confiscation by the State. I'd probably both invest the profits of agorism in money, and investing in other agorist businesses.

2 comments:

Xavin said...

It's important for women to have jobs so that they can escape from abusive relationships. If a husband/father is abusive and the woman cannot financially support herself, then she cannot realistically get away.

Of course, this doesn't invalidate your point about the benefits of having a stay-at-home partner (of either gender).

Stated a different way, if women cannot get a job and live independently of men (husbands or fathers), then men have no incentive to treat women well. A wife having a career means that she can tell her husband to fuck off if he behaves badly.

robert30062 said...

I understand and agree with your point. However, there is a false opposite fnord in your response to what I said about the scam aspect of the "Women's Rights" movement. Of course it's a good thing for women to be able to work and earn money/freedom. But true "Women's Liberation" comes from choice! Women should be able to freely choose if they wish to work or not as opposed to being forced by economic necessity and/or social pressure. Also, if a woman chooses to work, then the gains should exceed the losses involved if she is a parent. Fsk addressed that part in detail. Thank you for posting though, if you're not a troll then you are in a good place here!

Robert

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.