Reader Mail #91

I liked this post on Democracy Sucks about Internet censorship in Australia.

"OMFG!! Child pornography!" is one big excuse that the bad guys use for regulating the Internet. Via the "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" paradigm, State regulation of the Internet is increased. The goals of Internet censorship are:

1. Restrict content that is accessible.
2. Prevent people from publishing content to the Internet Anonymously.

For example, Google keeps track of the IP address I use to access Blogger. My ISP keeps track of which IP address is assigned to each user. (I have a non-static IP address.) Therefore, State enforcers can discover my true identity. In the USA, it isn't a problem, because there's a strong presumption of "freedom of speech". In someplace like China or even Australia or Europe, writing a blog like mine could be considered a crime.

However, I do have casual Anonymity. A future wage slave employer won't know about my blog if they Google search my name.

In Australia's Internet censorship policy, allegedly some legitimate sites are on the censorship list. This is true in all countries that have an Internet censorship policy. For example, China flat-out blocks all access to Blogger. (They may have since changed their policy.)

At one place I worked, they had an Internet censorship policy. "The Jargon File" was on the list of banned content. What was the reason? The maintainer of "The Jargon File" also had some pages advocating for gun ownership. The pages on guns triggered their automated censorship filter.

Mainstream media censorship is easily hidden, because a handful of people control nearly all mainstream media corporations. With the Internet, someone can start a blog or YouTube channel with very little overhead. The bad guys are threatened by the Internet, because it breaks their information monopoly.

I predict that the bad guys won't successfully cripple the Internet. If necessary, a group of hackers would make a parallel competing network. They'd go back to the old BBS system, if necessary.

I don't mind anymore that State enforcers can discover my identity and location. If that were an issue, I would have been eliminated by now. The more regular readers I have, the less the bad guys can gain by eliminating me. The more people understand the philosophy of real free markets, the less the bad guys gain by eliminating one of them. In that sense, "The best defense for FSK is the best offense."

I doubt a State enforcer could harass me based on my blog's content, without becoming consciously aware that he's participating in a massive crime. In any trial, I would be discussing my blog's content, which would make the judge, jury, and prosecutor very uncomfortable.

---

This article on lewrockwell.com about the "chieftan" system in Iceland was interesting. Iceland is allegedly a good example of a stable stateless society.

Under Iceland's system, you had a choice of which chieftan you paid your taxes to. This limited abuse.

There's one humongous flaw in Iceland's system. The supply of chieftan positions was fixed. If you wanted to become a vendor for police and justice, you had to buy a chieftanship from someone else.

Iceland's system collapsed due to external invasion. Christianity became formally recognized as the religion. Taxes/tithes paid to the church were mandatory. With a system of compulsory taxation established, the chieftan system dissolved.

Another explanation is that the chieftans were conned into voting to expand and consolidate their power. They imposed a system of compulsory taxation, thinking they could benefit. With a barrier to entry in the chieftan market, there was no true competition.

---

I noticed this article on Coding Horror. They said "Use Google to search for your enemies." They were advocating doing a Google search for "stackoverflow sucks".

I'm the #1 Google SERP for "StackOverflow sucks"! Hooray for me!

That search phrase doesn't normally generate much traffic. Due to the citation on "Coding Horror", that article drove a lot of traffic to my blog, via that search phrase.

(That's the reason a bunch of pro-State trolls were commenting on that post. A lot of others have found that post via the citation on Coding Horror. For that reason, I answered comments there in addition to the usual "Reader Mail" response.)

Overally Google has been more useful than StackOverflow for getting LAMP questions answered (my current interest). LAMP is very well-documented online. If the answer provided by Google is good enough, then I won't bother asking on StackOverflow. So far, Google has answered any LAMP questions I have.

When I wrote "StackOverflow sucks!", I was thinking "Stackoverflow really does suck. Maybe it would be useful to become the #1 Google SERP for that phrase." "Ruby on Rails sucks!" is the #1 Google SERP for that phrase, and it's good for 1-2 visits per day. You might say "Pshaw! 1-2 visits per day is nothing!" If you add it up over time, and some of those visits become regular readers, then it's valuable. There are a lot of rare search phrases where my blog ranks highly. Each one has negligible value, but when you add them all up, it's useful.

"The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner" is another post that's good for 1-2 search engine visits per day. People googling that phrase are likely to be interested in the other content of my blog.

"The Amero Subterfuge" ranked highly in Google for "amero" for awhile, but it since dropped. That generated a lot of traffic for me, and may be the primary reason I had more traffic in October than recently.

---

This thread on Bureaucrash was interesting. The poster wanted responses to a stupid critique of agorism. I don't waste time responding to idiots.

Here's a good analogy.

When Computers and the Internet were first developed, they were only accessible to experts at universities.

Originally, when there was a filesystem crash, the Computer Science professors were the only ones who knew how to fix it. Now there's a program "fcsk" that does it automatically for you. (Try turning off a Windows PC without a proper shutdown. You may see the "automatically scan HD for errors" program run when you reboot.)

When I was in college, it took a Computer Science major a week to get his dorm Ethernet connection working.

Now, you buy a DSL/cable modem, plug it into the telephone, plug it into your PC, and it works.

Similarly, when agorism is first developed, it will initially be used only by experts. Only the hardcore freedom thinkers will be the first users of agorism. After 5-10 years, the techniques will be refined, and the average person can easily participate.

---

I'm getting quite a few interview requests, but they're all for equity-only jobs. I can't imagine anyone qualified accepting a job where you're paid in the form of minority ownership in someone else's business. I should make a stock reply.

I'm not interested in jobs where the payment is solely in the form of equity.

I have my own projects I'm working on while unemployed. I'd rather work on my personal projects and keep 100% ownership, than be a minority owner in someone else's business.

I have no idea why anyone would agree to do all the programming (the actual real work) in exchange for a minority equity stake. I have no idea why people with no programming ability are starting software companies. If one of your current partners isn't capable of writing version 1.0 of your product themselves, your business is worth $0.

A minority equity stake in a privately held company is worth $0. There's too many ways you can get cheated. If the company is a flop, you get nothing. If the company is successful, your "partners" will look for a way to cheat you. For example, if you're a minority owner, they can raise capital at a valuation that severely dilutes your ownership.

Anybody serious about a startup would pay partially in cash and partially in equity.

The really weird bit is "Some people actually must accept equity-only jobs." On the other hand, it costs nothing to look for idiots who also can write good software.

---

I noticed this website on "SSRI stories". It's a collection of stories where someone who was under the influence of anti-depressant drugs committed a crime.

That is invalid reasoning. You would need to know "What percentage of the population take anti-psychotic or anti-depressant drugs?", "What percentage of the population commit crimes?", and "What percentage of people taking anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs commit crimes?" Only then could you conclude correlation, but not causality.

Suppose there is a correlation between anti-depressant drugs and violent crime. A pro-State troll says "These crimes are evidence that those drugs are necessary!" I say "Those crimes may be damaging side effects of the drugs!" Suppose there is a negative correlation? Then what can you conclude? "Those drugs prevented crime!" or "Those drugs chemically straightjacketed the patients/victims, leading to less crime!"

Overall, the authors of that website had good intentions, but their methodology and conclusions were lousy.

There website also contained an evil fnord. They said "If you are taking anti-depressants, you should taper off and withdraw gradually."

That advice is exactly wrong. You should quit cold-turkey and manage the withdrawal as best you can.

When I was taking anti-psychotic drugs, I noticed different and sometimes more uncomfortable side-effects at lower doses than at higher doses. On a low dose of drugs, you have enough awareness to know that something is wrong, but still are crippled. On a high dose, you're doped into total submission.

It is legally dangerous to advise someone to quit taking drugs cold-turkey. If someone reads my blog, follows my advice, and then does something stupid while suffering withdrawal, I could be blamed. I'm technically guilty of "Practicing psychiatry without a license!" when I say "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense. If you are taking anti-psychotic or anti-depressant drugs, you should quit taking them cold-turkey and manage the withdrawal as best you can."

"Help people with drug withdrawal" is one of my agorist business ideas. I'd probably need assistants/partners, so I could proved 24x7 support. I'd make sure my patients know "If you're having problems, call me instead of 911." When having a panic attack, I'd ask my patients to live with me under supervision for a couple of days, instead of being prisoner in a mental ward.

Based on my experience, if you have a panic attack, it wears off after a few days if you take no drugs. The same is probably true for depressive attacks. This is especially true if you have someone who isn't a brainwashed pro-State troll helping you.

Most "mental health" workers have a very low level of emotional awareness. The vast majority probably have the parasitic personality type, although I haven't done a statistically significant study. All my psychiatrists were parasitic (10 datapoints). I had 1 good therapist, 1 evil therapist, and 1 inbetween (probably evil, but I didn't have experience to judge at the time).

---

This series of YouTube videos on "Money as debt" was cited here before. It's worth watching. It has a good explanation of the Compound Interest Paradox.

Fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent. The key step in the scam is "When the inevitable bank run occurred, the banksters were powerful enough to lobby the State for protection. The State protected the interests of the banksters, over the interests of the depositors."

Similarly, in the present, the banksters were able to lobby for a bailout.

---

This thread on Bureaucrash linked to this YouTube video. It's a propaganda video by Canada's government on "Why the underground economy is evil!" It's a contest encouraging people to make YouTube vidoes promoting the evils of the free market.

I liked the bit on "Support the State! You may become a famous celebrity!" That's the evil bargain that every mainstream media personality makes.

If I were Canadian and a vlogger, I'd make a sarcastic video supporting the State. I wonder if the judges would be fooled? It would be cool to win the contest with a video the producers couldn't identify as sarcastic!

I consider this to be a favorable development. If the bad guys are spreading anti-free market propaganda, that's a good sign.

---

I liked this article on craigslist. Someone wasted some time, causing a scammer to waste their time. For example, the scammer asked the victim to send him some money via Western Union. The victim said he sent the money, but gave a location that's some distance away.

That almost sounds like a viable free market police business. I'd pay a couple of bucks for someone to go around wasting the time of spammers/scammers.

---

One interesting bit about AdBrite seems "The longer I'm a member of the network, the better ads I get to serve." I seem to be getting more non-spammy CPM ads, compared to when I've started.

According to AdBrite's statistics, CPM advertisers are getting a *MUCH* better deal than CPC advertisers on my blog (by clickthrough rate counts).

The vast majority of my income is from spammy CPC ads. Who's clicking on the spammy CPC ads?

---

I liked this post on the Freedom Symposium. Placing your blind trust in a faith-based religion like Christianity is silly. By definition, nobody knows what happens after you die. The miracles that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago probably are be lies and exaggerations. Via repeated assertion, those lies become regurgitated as fact.

I went to a funeral recently. The recitations of the priest seemed like a bizarre brainwashing ritual. Do priests have the parasitic personality type, or the productive personality type? I haven't performed a statistical analysis.

Suppose you trust your preacher, who claims that Jesus tells him what to do. That's like placing your trust in someone who has an imaginary friend that tells them what to do.

---

I liked this video by Freedomain Radio. It had some good quotes.

Corporations are State-enforced unions for the rich.

No business can rely on its own army to enforce a monopoly. Corporations externalize this cost to the State.

In a true free market, no customer would reasonably agree to a limited liability clause in contracts. Someone who demands such a clause would be viewed with suspicion, in a true free market.

For example, in NYC, you need a medallion license to drive a taxi. Taxi drivers don't bear the cost of assaulting and kidnapping people who drive taxis without a license. If the taxi medallion owners had to pay the cost of a standing army themselves, their cartel wouldn't be profitable.

---

This YouTube video, via "to herd or not to herd" was interesting. Zimbabwe has runaway hyperinflation. People no longer use official money. They use gold instead. A loaf of bread costs 0.1 grams of gold.

In order to earn money to buy food, people go panning for gold in the river. If you're young and healthy, you can earn mine 0.1-0.2 grams of gold per day and survive. If you're old, you're SOL.

In some ways, blogging for $0.001 per pageview seems like panning for gold! In a SHTF scenario, where electricity doesn't work, software and blogging are useless skills.

I'm concerned about my parents. They will probably lose their retirement savings to hyperinflation. At least I convinced my father to buy some GLD, although he refuses to buy physical gold or silver. Hopefully, I can find a decent job that supports them during the collapse. (I feel morally obligated to help them, since they helped me when I was murdered by the psychiatry/death industry.)

There's one bit about the story that confuses me. Why don't the people find other jobs, besides panning for gold? Is the economy so ****ed that the people don't bother planting crops? Perhaps the answer is "There's no point planting crops, because the military/State would steal them. There's no point starting a business, because the military/State would interfere."

It seems that pro-State trolls would cite the video as evidence that "gold as money" is evil.

In times of complete economic collapse, if you're old and have no children, you're SOL.

In poor societies, the best retirement planning system is "Have children and train them to believe they have an obligation to care for you when they're old." I wonder if that partially explains the origins of pro-State brainwashing?

---

This post on the dignity of struggle was missing the point. He said "The collapse is coming! Stockpile food and water and weapons!"

Without a network of trustworthy trading partners, precautions are useless.

Suppose you've stockpiled food and water and weapons, *BUT* you're the only family in the area who is prepared. The State collapses.

A stranger knocks on your door asking for help. Do you:

1. shoot him
2. answer the door

If you shoot first and ask questions later, now you're the criminal. He really was a stranger asking for help and you just shot an innocent person.

Suppose you answer the door. Now, he's armed and robs you.

Without a network of trustworthy trading partners, preparations are useless.

Suppose you have a trustworthy agorist trading network and the State collapses. A stranger comes asking for help. Now, you can ask the other members of your agorist trading network to evaluate this stranger. If the stranger assaults you, then the other members of your agorist network will investigate this crime.

As the State collapses, some policemen will be *BOTH* on the payroll of the State and on the payroll of agorist businesses. These policemen will continue to protect their customers, even after the State collapses. Alternatively, you can make arrangements for people to act as police without a State license.

"One person surviving by themselves against complete economic collapse" is silly. Pro-State trolls say it's an either-or proposition. Either you're by yourself, or you're part of the State.

State restriction of the market makes it hard for people to form trustworthy relationships. The typical wage slave spends 45+ hours/week working and 10+ hours/week commuting. That leaves very little time leftover for socializing.

---

This article was interesting. In Missouri, police are now being trained to treat Libertarians as potential terrorists. If you have a "Ron Paul" bumper sticker on your car, you're more likely to get assaulted by the police.

This YouTube video on the same subject was interesting. (I really should get a vlog.)

Increasing paranoia by police bureaucrats is a *GOOD SIGN*. It's an indication that the bad guys are worried. Just because State bureaucrats give an order, doesn't mean all the police are obeying them.

A policeman who sees me on the street won't identify me as someone potentially dangerous. I don't fit the body language profile of a criminal.

It seems that strangers ask me for directions disproportionately often. I've noticed that it happens a lot more than it used to. Do I have the body language of someone who knows what they're doing, but won't violently assault you?

---

By E-Mail, someone wrote:

Sick website FSK! I have read most of your articles and its nice to see you sticking to your positions even when uninformed people like to hate on you about some of your posts.

That's one reason I decided to start a blog. I got tired of arguing with idiots on the Ron Paul forum. I also got tired of making the same points over and over again. I realized it'd be better to have a blog so I can keep them in a place where vandals couldn't wreck them.

I'm getting better at telling, just from the tone of the comment, if it's "a confused but sincere person" or "trolling." Pro-State trolling tends to have a tone of hostility. Of course, if you don't like it, you're free to not comment, stop reading, or merely lurk.

Most people seem to think "FSK is awesome" or "FSK sucks!" Of course, people who don't feel strongly either way probably won't leave a comment or E-Mail me.

I feel that my blog is pretty high quality. I only have about 150-200 regular readers, according to Google Analytics. I need about 100x+ more regular readers for this to be a viable source of full-time income. I'm looking to expand to areas besides blogging.

I am definitely up for participating in any sort of agorism that ends up getting organized so let me know.

If you want to start an agorist trading group, find some trustworthy friends and start doing it! My primary obstacle right now is "lack of trustworthy trading partners".

I live in NYC. I'm considering writing some software "AgoristBay" that allows agorist buyers and sellers match up. At some point, I'll try to start an agorist trading group in NYC and encourage others to form elsewhere. That will probably take a few more years.

I definitely plan on "putting my freedom where my mouth is" and starting an actual agorist trading group. It's risky, so I'm going to wait a few years before starting. For now, I'm focusing on "Promote agorism".

Regrettably, my AdBrite income is automatically reported to the State/IRS. I have no choice but to pay tax on it. Fortunately, I'll be able to deduct my hosting costs and other computer-related expenses. For example, if I have sufficient income, I can buy a new external HD for backup and charge it to my blogging business.

You can check out my websites: http://www.HealthyFitnessRevolution.com and http://www.SpectrumCapitalMgmt.com. Pretty much anything that has to do with health, nutrition, fitness or finance I can help out with.

Regarding investments, "Buy physical gold and silver!" seems to be the simplest and best financial advice.

For personal fitness, I probably should get more exercise.

I got screwed over by Google too as they canceled my account as soon as I got to $92 so I plan on giving AdBrite a try on your advice.

AdBrite is a good alternative to AdSense. My clickthrough rate is about the same, even though it's non-contextual. My payment-per-click is much less. My overall page eCPM is about 50%-75% compared to AdSense with my current ad layout. Of course, my actual AdSense earnings were $0 because I got banned.

AdBrite is good at answering customer/publisher support E-Mails. If there is a dispute, hopefully I can get them to remove the invalid clicks, instead of banning me.

AdBrite's minimum payout threshold is $5, which I've already met. I'll find out in June if they're deadbeats or not. AdBrite is 60-day net; I get paid in June for my March earnings.

It appears that I'm going to make $20/month from AdBrite, which is what I need to cover hosting costs. Of course, my site traffic continues to grow. I wasn't using AdBrite for a full month. My earnings almost doubled when I added the extra 2 ad widgets (left sidebar skyscraper and bottom of page rectangle).

AdBrite has a "referral program", which I never signed up for. I think I only get a dollar or two anyway.

I'm not going to shop around for other advertising vendors right now. AdBrite is "good enough".

AdBrite gives me better reporting than Google. They tell me which ads were served and which were clicked. I have some non-spammy advertisers, such as AT&T and Toyota. The non-spammy ads tend to be CPM instead of CPC. On my blog, CPM advertisers are overall getting a *MUCH* better deal than CPC ads, if you evaluate on a cost-per-click or cost-per-impression basis.

I haven't bothered going through AdBrite's reporting and banning spammy advertisers, especially since some of those ads were clicked.

A clickthrough rate of 0.5%-0.75% doesn't seem suspiciously high to me. I wonder if it's because I have a genuine site, and not a spam-site? I wonder if spam sites get lower clickthrough rates than me. I read one guy who bragged about a 20% ad clickthrough rate, which seems like an exaggeration.

Also, if you are interested in talking to one of the best natural homeopathic people that has ever existed I can put you in touch with him. Let's just say I have seen him time and time again reversing seemingly life-threatening health issues, which would make working with you rather easy, and just goes to show how much control the pharmaceutical industry has on our life and health.

I've already learned that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake/fraud. The withdrawal from those drugs is *NASTY*. After 1+ years since my last hospitalization, I feel that I'm fully recovering my abilities.

I definitely agree with you for the most part with regard to gold and silver, unless of course you have inside information which occurs infinitely more that you could ever suspect in the finance industry, but other than that the most success we have had so far is by simply buying long-term calls for stock like GOLD, FCX, NEM, RAN, PCU and then just selling the calls when the price jumps because metal stocks are actually more volatile than metals themselves.

I experimented with a similar options trading system. I concluded it didn't work because:

1. I underestimated the size and severity of the recession/depression. In a severe recession/depression, such a system will lose 100% over a period of several years. I can't withstand such losses. You don't know how long and severe the recession/depression will last. I thought there'd be another stock market bubble before the 2008-2009 crash.
   
2. During a recession/depression, assets can be bought cheap. However, during a recession/depression, you are likely to be unemployed. If you stay "fully invested" during boom times, then you will be forced to sell while unemployed during the recession/depression. I'm so frustrated! I was fully invested in the stock market during good times (otherwise, I'm getting ripped off by inflation). Now, during the recession/depression, prices are cheap, but I have no cash to buy!
   

The stock-market is a lose-lose proposition. If you stay 100% invested, then you can't buy during the recession/depression. If you hold cash, then you get ripped off by inflation during the boom.

Of course there are always good long-term stocks to get into if you know what to look for.

I disagree. I predict that physical gold will outperform almost every stock over the next 10-20+ years, especially when you consider the coming collapse of the economic system.

I can send you a list of some recent ones we have been working with if you are interested. Some great sites you should check out are http://www.kitco.com for metal pricing, articles, and commentary and http://www.WebOfDebt.com and http://model-economy.wikispaces.com/ which are great sites that explain a lot behind-the-scenes action in the current economic environment and offer a variety of solutions.

I've read kitco, and they have some good bits. Most sites that sell gold and silver naturally have articles on the corrupt nature of fiat money. However, most other sites don't flat-out say "The current system is completely corrupt and broken!" like I do.

Those other two sites didn't have anything that I don't already know. They could be useful to beginners. I didn't look at them that carefully.

I've noticed that "Focus on writing good articles and answering reader comments." is starting to be more useful than "Look elsewhere for post ideas."

---

By E-Mail, someone asked:

How would public services be handled in a free market system? Fire Dept. Public Libraries etc..

The fire department would be handled like any private police agency. You purchase fire insurance. The fire insurance association pays for the cost of the fire department. If necessary, multiple fire stations could cover the same area. With the threat of market competition, prices would necessarily be reasonable.

It would probably be a combination of a subscription service and fee-for-service. For example, you might pay a couple of ounces of silver per month for fire protection and insurance. You'll pay an additional fee if you do something stupid that starts a fire. For purely accidental fires, it's fully covered.

Suppose I own an apartment building. One of my tenants is a smoker and that causes a fire. I am fully covered but my tenant might owe a fine. (Of course, I might have had an obligation to inform the insurance association that one of my tenants is a smoker. I may have had to pay higher rates for that. It depends on the terms of the contract.)

There would be libraries. They just wouldn't be "free". Currently, you pay the cost for libraries via taxes, whether you use them or not. Instead, you'd pay a fee to rent a book, just like you pay in the present to rent a movie. The fee would probably be reasonable. You see almost no free market libraries, because the State provides libraries.

Also notice that State-paid libraries are themselves advocates for the State. Certain subjects are banned or outright not mentioned. I believe the "Dewey Decimal" book classification system has no section for books on real free market economics.

There are some private membership libraries already, but they aren't that common due to taxpayer-funded libraries.

Would these become fee based services by private industries instead of funded with tax dollars?

Yes, they would be fee-based or subscription-based. You can pay for firemen on a fee-for-service basis, but it'd probably be included when you purchase fire insurance. Libraries would function the same as a Blockbuster video rental store.

You'd have to pay for these services, but you won't have a tax burden. Overall, the cost would be lower, because the fire department and library wouldn't have a State-enforced monopoly.

Services the State provides are not free. There's a hidden cost via taxes. By definition, the cost of State-provided services is always higher than it would be in a true free market. People don't notice the high cost of State-paid services because:

1. People are paying taxes already anyway.
2. If the State pays for X, then it's hard to market a competing free market business. For example, private schools are only available to people who are relatively wealthy.
3. In some cases, private competition is outright illegal.
   

When you say "Key service X would not be performed without the State!", you are making a stupid argument. The State currently has a monopoly of X, so there's no free market alternative. Without the State, people will pay for what needs to be done.

For example, State has a monopoly of providing public schools. People already pay a huge tax burden for public schools. Private schools are only available to reasonably wealthy parents. Further, private schools are subject to State regulation.

How would intellectual property be handled? If there aren't restrictions, there is no incentive to come up with bigger/better means of technology. Is my logic flawed?

There is no such thing as intellectual property in a free market. People have been brainwashed to believe that intellectual property is a valid form of property. There are huge marketing campaigns and evil fnords saying "Intellectual property is a valid form of property!"

I prefer to call it "intellectual theft" than "intellectual property".

Intellectual property cannot be enforced without a government. Therefore, it isn't a valid form of property. Copying an idea does not damage the original.

That is completely different than tangible property. If you steal my car, I can say "WTF? Where is my car?" If you copy an idea, the original holds its value.

There are 3 invalid forms of intellectual property:

1. trademarks
2. copyrights
3. patents
   

For trademarks, suppose you develop "FSK blog" and trademark it. Does that mean I am barred from starting "FSK blog", even if I never heard of your business? Why does the fact that you used a name before I did, mean that I'm barred from using it? Obviously, I shouldn't pick a name that is confused/duplicated with an existing popular business. It'd be dishonest for me to start the "Jim Cramer blog", because that's confusing. In that case, my customers have a valid fraud claim (if they're fooled), and not the competing business whose name I'm using.

As another example, why am I barred from writing and selling my own "Superman" story, just because someone else owns the trademark to the character?

For copyright, suppose you develop a song or video. I have no contractual relationship with you. What right do you have to prevent me from making a copy of your song? The only way you can prevent me from copying your song is to spy on what everyone is doing all the time, or have excessive punitive fines for people caught copying. Copyright cannot be enforced without a monopolistic government. Therefore, there's no copyrights without a government.

In the present, there's a mainstream media information monopoly. Suppose a signer is promoted on MTV. This creates the illusion that singer is really good. Artificial scarcity prevents competing artists from being promoted. This creates artificial demand for that singer.

The bad guys are arguing "We spent a ton of money promoting this artist, who is under exclusive contract to us. State violence should help us recover that investment, by banning filesharing."

"We have to enforce copyright, else artists won't be able to make a living!" is silly. In a true free market, people will still pay to support artists they like. I've been considering offering a "donate" option on my blog. I'm making some money via AdBrite. Artists can also earn a living by performing live concerts. A more accurate statement is "Copyright must be enforced, so all the music/entertainment industry middlemen may earn their profit!" The mainstream media has a monopoly for promoting artists, which creates an artificial scarcity.

In the present, some spam sites republish my content. There isn't anything I can do about that. In a true free market, my readers should be smart enough to recognize me as the original source.

As an unknown independent artist, the risk is not "people will copy my stuff". My biggest risk is that most people have no idea who I am. I'm getting gradual organic growth. If I appeared as a guest on a mainstream media outlet, I'd easily get 1000x more traffic. Due to my free market ideas, I doubt a mainstream media outlet will ever carry my content.

Patents are obviously stupid.

In the present, most patents are owned by large corporations. If I sell a new product, I probably will be infringing the patent of some large corporation. I probably won't find out about the patent until I'm sued.

Most of the time, the victim in a patent lawsuit doesn't find out about the patent until they're sued for violating it. Patents are used to stifle competition. Some patents are owned by "patent troll" corporations. They have no actual product, but merely buy patents and sue people. Such a business is purely parasitic.

In almost no patent lawsuits did the victim know about the patent beforehand.

Getting and enforcing a patent is *EXPENSIVE*. As an individual inventor, patents provide almost no protection. It isn't feasible to fund a patent application or patent lawsuit unless you have funding from VCs/banksters.

I'm planning to write my own RSS reader and forum engine. Suppose you're independently developing a forum engine and patent it. I've never heard about your business. Why does your patent place a restriction on what I can do?

Recently, I read an article about how the steam engine patent actually slowed the growth of steam engine use. The steam engine didn't become widely used until the patent expired.

Fortunately, the technology underlying the Internet is in the public domain. At the time, people thought that software wasn't patentable. Scientists thought that patenting software was silly. You can't patent Mathematics. The Internet technology was developed at universities and released into the public domain.

In most cases, the "inventor" who got public credit for a patent was really the person who most successfully lobbied the State for favors.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs were recently invented and patented. The patent owners then successfully lobbied for a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Most/all of the incandescent light bulb patents have expired. In this manner, patents encourage dishonest behavior.

In a true free market, science would progress under open source methods. Just like Linux was developed with no real intellectual property restrictions, in a true free market, science will progress without intellectual property restrictions.

In the present, in most fields, you need a State license to perform science. For example, suppose I wanted to develop and sell a drug-free treatment for mental illness, and perform science justifying my methodology. I don't have a State science license, so it's illegal for me to conduct such an experiment. Even if a State-licensed scientist applied for permission to conduct such an experiment, the State may deny permission or funding for the experiment.

The State artificially raises the cost of science research, via regulations and licensing requirements. The State has a monopoly for funding most research. This artificially increased cost is given as the justification for why patents are needed. Most good scientists will work for very low salaries, because they find science interesting.

In the present, the patent system means that most scientists are underpaid. The profits usually go to their corporate employers. It's practically impossible for an individual to get and enforce a patent. You usually need multiple patents in order to actually manufacture anything.

The bad guys have spent a *TON* of money brainwashing people "Intellectual property is a valid form of property!" Really, I call "intellectual property" as "intellectual theft".

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents cannot be enforced without a monopolistic State. Therefore, they are not a valid form of property.

(I've been planning on writing a post on this subject anyway. This bit deserves its own separate post.)

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "StackOverflow Sucks!":

@FSK

Wow you really have a stick up your ass.

What Nick said was exactly the reason why your posts were closed - and for good reason!

I claim the reverse is true. StackOverflow's users are the ones with sticks up their asses, and I am the one being reasonable.

Anyway, that's the whole point of the Internet. StackOverflow's users have the right to behave like jerks. I have the right to say "**** you! I'm not visiting your stupid website anymore."

Adam has left a new comment on your post "StackOverflow Sucks!":

FSK, your posts were completely off topic. It's rather clueless of you to debate that.

I disagree. I asked questions that were of reasonable interest to a professional computer programmer.

I'm not debating this issue on StackOverflow. I'd be a pathetic whiny loser if I went around complaining on StackOverflow that their website is stupid.

Instead, I made one post on my blog about the subject. There's nothing immoral about that. I've received a large volume of hatemail on the subject.

What happened is that Jeff Atwood (the owner of the StackOverflow website) wrote a post on his blog advising people to google "StackOverflow sucks"! My blog happens to be the #1 search result in Google for "StackOverflow sucks", due to my blog's overall decent PageRank and lack of competing posts. I noticed the thread on Jeff Atwood's blog and posted a comment (again, on-topic).

A bunch of StackOveflow's users read that post and my blog. Then, they came here to argue with me, defending StackOverflow's stupid censorship policy.

"A better solution would be to have an "offtopic" folder, rather than outright censorship."

I agree completely - it's a BIG no-no to be rude to users, and closing a post is very rude. Every effort should be made to avoid this. An off-topic section which is not promoted and noone ever reads is a much more diplomatic solution.

StackOverflow is going to learn the hard way about the effect of psycho users if they don't take care about things like this.

Sometimes, the offtopic discussions are the most interesting ones.

What harm would there be in having an offtopic folder? Then, users interested in my question could respond, and others can ignore it.

Once a website adopts a censorship policy, then you wind up having pointless arguments over "Is this subject on-topic?"

I disagree with StackOverflow's users about whether my question was suitable for their website. You won't convince me, and I won't convince you. I exercised my "right to leave" and not waste time on StackOverflow.

I'm not debating "StackOverflow sucks!" on StackOverflow, am I? If I were wasting time complaining there, you could complain about my foolishness. I only made one post here. I'm not obsessed about it, except to the extent that idiots keep posting comments defending StackOverflow's stupid policies.

For example, on Wikipedia, there are pointless arguments over "What content is appropriate?" It is so bad that I suspect that drug company PR reps are censoring negative drug information from Wikipedia. If I went around on Wikipedia whining, I'd be a pathetic loser. When I point out, on my own personal website, that Wikipedia has a stupid censorship policy, there's nothing wrong with that. I'll use Wikipedia to look up stuff, but I refuse to contribute and I'm aware of the rampant censorship.

I can't believe that anyone would seriously suggest "It is immoral for FSK to complain, *ON HIS OWN BLOG*, that StackOverflow is a stupid website." If I kept wasting time on StackOverflow, given that it's stupid, I'd be a pathetic loser. I have better things to do with my time.

This is only an issue because StackOverflow's stupid users have come here to argue and defend their site's stupid censorship policy. Some jerks are such pathetic losers that they have nothing better to do than "vote to close" topics they don't like.

I normally don't respond to comments in the same post, but I figured that traffic from that page might not see the "Reader Mail" posts.

It appears that "XXXX sucks!" posts are a good idea! I've done well with "StackOverflow Sucks!" and "Ruby on Rails Sucks!" Regrettably, Google Analytics does not tell me if any people who found my blog via "StackOverflow Sucks!" became regular returning readers. I need to get my own site and full Apache server logs.

The "StackOverflow Sucks!" traffic spike was interesting.

---

Kiba has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #90":

Seem like FSK is looking for a long term woman mate that have resource, not a jerk, and fertile?

The evolution of human sexuality have tuned us to be "mate-hunters" for both good gene or reliable partners. We have biological chemistry, flirting behaviors, and more to seek and get the best partners.

It is no suprise that FSK is tuning to basic human instinct.

The problem is that my pro-State brainwashing caused me to ignore my basic human instinct.

Now, I'm re-discovering that my intuition is actually better than I thought. Being able to tell, nearly instantly, "This person is a jerk!" or "This person has the productive personality type!" is very useful. Regrettably, in the wage slave job market, there almost always is a parasitic person pulling the strings, even if they aren't the actual owner.

There's another bit I noticed. Women with the "abused productive" personality type are conditioned to act uninterested, even if they actually are interested. They are used to a lifetime of abuse by parasites. Their reasoning is "If I let a parasite know that I am attracted to him, then he will use this information to exploit me." Covering up your feelings is a losing strategy. When everyone else is following a stupid strategy, it becomes very hard to be stubborn and do something else. People interpret "FSK gives honest emotional feedback!" as "FSK is weak!"

Suppose X is a woman with the abused productive personality type, and Y is a male parasite. Suppose X is attracted to Y, but Y is not attracted to X. This is an ideal situation for the parasite. He may now do whatever he pleases with X.

I'd been pro-State brainwashed to ignore my judgement. I was always thinking "Would my friends and relatives approve?" instead of "What is best for FSK?"

Being able to identify parasitic people is a *REALLY VALUABLE* skill. "Don't hire jerks!" seems to be the #1 rule for a successful business, independent of any other actual skills or experience. It's rough, because most businesses seem to be founded by a "abused productive" person pairing with a "parasitic" person. The parasitic person gets a veto over all decisions, such as "Should FSK be hired?"

I'm looking for "resources" in the sense of raw intelligence and openmindedness, rather than material resources (i.e., having rich parents). One thing I've never noticed before is "intelligence" and "appearance" are positively correlated. Of course, "who FSK considers attractive" does not match what a pro-State troll thinks.

If I intend to practice agorism, partner choice is important. First, if I need employees for an agorist business, it's easier to involve a sexual partner first. Second, I need to make sure my partner supports my decision to attempt agorism.

I wonder if that's a good agorist credit rating service? "You're only admitted if you have sex with a current member!" That'd be like gang initiation rituals that require you to kill someone. It's actually a less stupid idea than it sounds superficially. In a hunter/gatherer society, sexual relationships are a way to build alliances. An undercover cop would probably not be able to participate in such an initiation ritual.

I wonder if "cracking your pro-State brainwashing" is a sexually transmitted mental state? If you're with someone for a few months, does that mean that you help them crack their pro-State brainwashing? A pro-State troll or undercover cop would be probably repulsed by someone explaining free market ideas.

Suppose I wound up with a parasitic partner. Then, my partner would say "FSK! You should just take a wage slave job and forget about your free market ideas!" In that sense, I'm lucky I'm currently single. It'd be a huge handicap if I were unable to convert my wife to free market thinking.

If I have an abused productive worker as a partner, I can help her crack her pro-State brainwashing. It'd be easier with a partner, than if she were doing it alone the hard way like I did. Someone with "high functioning autism" would be likely to accept me subconsciously as a role model, and mirror my proper thinking. Someone with the parasitic role would be unable to change. A parasitic partner would demand I cater to their needs.

It's something that I can do better now than 6 months ago, because I've made more progress cracking my pro-State brainwashing. Having a panic attack without being hospitalized was a *BIG HELP*. My body's natural healing process was allowed to occur.

I haven't fully put my ideas into practice. I'm noticing better reactions from women when I go out. I'm getting better at evaluating ahead of time "Who's worth approaching?"

---

gilliganscorner has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #90":

I noticed that a lot of people use Google as their browser bar. I'm surprised how many people google "fsk reality guide" or variants thereof. Why don't they use a bookmark? That counts as search engine traffic according to Google Analytics, but technically it isn't.

Guilty as charged. I google your site at lunch as the company I'm contracted to blocks direct access to your site, however, google cache is not. Sometimes I want to read your 12pm post, but my company blocks access. That make sense?

Do they block all of Blogger or just my blog?

Doesn't it take awhile for google to update its cache? I noticed that it sometimes takes 6-24 hours for new pages to get indexed by Google, via a site:fskrealityguide.blogspot.com search.

Why don't you use an RSS reader? Does your employer block Google Reader?

It's a couple of people, and not just you. There's quite a few people who Google "fsk reality guide" or variants thereof, searching for my blog.

My new site name will hopefully be the #1 result for my site name. It's a rarely used phrase. The top Google results have negligible PageRank, so I should be able to top them.

It could be a problem for the first couple of months. This blog was in "Supplementary Results" for awhile before making it into the main index.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ron Paul Forums and Paid Disinformation Agents":

It's 2009 and the trolls are worse than ever! Not to mention the RPF moderators are "moderating" the spoof site obamaforums as well, and bringing their badly behaved obamaforums personnae to ronpaul forums. So now the moderators are trolls.

If you don't like it, start your own competing website!

I'm planning to write a troll-resistant forum engine.

The problem is that one person's trolling is another person's content. On my blog, it's acceptable for me to ridicule stupid ideas. On a forum, I should be more liberal. If the forum is successful, I won't have the time to read and respond to every post.

The key is to have a good upvoting/downvoting system. Posts are rated on a per-user basis, rather than having a single global score. If you have a global "karma" score for each post or user, then that leads to cliques that mutually upvote each others' content. With per-user customization, that avoids the "abusive clique" problem.

Sites like Digg, Reddit, Slashdot, and Wikipedia have moderation systems that are abused. It pays to spend effort into "gaming" Digg. Making the Digg frontpage is *REALLY* valuable.

If it's your full-time job, someone could create 10000 Digg logins and have them all upvote each other's content. If you're sufficiently clever about it, then it's undetectable.

---

David Z has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

"Viewed this way, the original US Constitution was merely a power grab by insiders."

I like to remind people from time to time that the constitution wasn't authorized by the Articles of confederation, and that the primary reason it was drafted in secrecy, is because it was treason.

According to your site, "It's Not Voluntary, and it's Not a Contract!" is your #1 post by a wide margin, with 9k+ views. My #2 post is more popular than your #2 post! I use "unique views" rather than "views" when constructing my "Best of FSK" list.

All government is treason, no matter what the actual origins. In that sense, the issue of "legitimacy of US Constitution" is irrelevant.

In 1787, the former colonists were free from Britain's rule, *BUT* they still recognized individual state governments as legitimate. Like all governments, these were controlled by insiders. The Federal government was the natural result of these insiders consolidating and expanding their power.

Once you have any State at all, its evil power can only grow over time.

Until the late 19th century, the frontier placed a natural limit on expansion of State power. If you felt that the local political leaders were unreasonable, you could move west, kill some native Americans, and start a farm. All these pioneers had already been brainwashed to believe "A monopolistic government is necessary!", so no true anarchist society developed.

In the present, there's no unoccupied land where a bunch of free market advocates can go to form a free society. Even if there were a small patch of land that were successfully colonized, it'd be a problem. Once you have success, the existing State would declare "Those anarchists are terrorists!" and promptly invade you. A group of 100-10,000 people cannot withstand a violent assault by a State. It's very easy to destroy a small city via a carpet bombing campaign.

That's why I like agorism as a strategy for achieving freedom. You don't have to move to a remote wilderness area and be completely self-sufficient to get started. If agorists and cattle live in the same area, then it's very hard to single out and eliminate the agorists.

robert30062 has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

What would you call the form of government represented in Star Trek? They don't use money so taxes aren't involved.

Maybe they have a system where each person is required to donate a certain amount of wealth/labor towards the State?

Star Trek is obviously a Statist society. Star Trek has some good fnords, but Star Trek is not a stateless society.

I doubt any mainstream media outlet would allow a movie with a stable stateless society to be broadcast.

Star Trek's government is an idealized State that has magically become less abusive.

I was wondering if the type of utopian society in Star Trek could really exist with all of the institutional organization and power that exists in that world. I.e. United Federation of Planets (very big) and Starfleet. It seems to me that somehow instinct will have to catch up with the current circumstances of civilization and technology for humans to have a chance at surviving as a species into the distant future. I have observed that nature adapts very slowly or at least "slowly" in reference to one human life or even multiple generations.

I'm not so sure about that. Massive pro-State brainwashing may have accelerated the development of intelligence in humans. It takes a lot of intelligence to keep track of lies and propaganda consistently! Remembering the actual truth is much less work than remembering lies!

For example, if you cut open the skin in the upper abdominal area of a blue whale, you will still see tiny skeletal arms from when it used to walk the earth millions of years ago. Look how long that took to change!!! Just a few thousand years ago, and for a much longer time period than that, humans lived much shorter lives in comparison to present day and faced all kinds of natural dangers that made promiscuous breeding ABSOLUTELY necessary for the species to survive. In the present, society as a whole has asserted a less promiscuous lifestyle for reasons such as health and global over-population but the instinct to be sexually promiscuous is still very powerful. The instinct to horde resources was ABSOLUTELY necessary for survival many years ago due to the scarcity of them (or scarcity of access to them). Now we have the means to reach and deliver all the resources the global population would ever need for survival yet there are those who still act on instinctive compulsions to horde (like the tiny skeletal arms). I think the residual effects of these long standing instincts which have outlived their usefulness are a major obstruction in real change in our society. Who needs the greedy people of the world to “gain morality” if they just become enlightened enough to see the interconnected and ultimate SELF interest in living more harmoniously with their fellow man?

I'm wondering if the most productive workers can validly be considered to be a separate species from the parasite class? "Parasite or productive" appears to be a learned behavior, and not something inherently genetic. You have to be reasonably intelligent to be a skilled parasite. However, the productive class is under more pressure to improve. I wrote about this in "Predator/State vs. Prey/Agorist".

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

Robert,

It's no utopia, it's the worst kind of socialism. No money = no private property. That's more like 100% tax than no tax.

Imagine the life of a man living on Earth or any other Federation planet. Perhaps he gets tired of the socialist "utopia" and wishes to get his own ship and explore the universe, or colonize a planet with some like-minded people. He can't save up money and buy a ship. All ships are owned by the Federation. He must beg for permission to use a ship. But giving freedom to malcontents is probably a low priority for the Federation. They need those ships to scan nebulas and stuff.

This is not a case of people evolving past greed. One organization has greedily stolen all wealth and enslaved everyone.

Are there any Star Trek episodes that explain how the government works? I haven't seen any but I think my assumptions are reasonable.

How did we wind up debating a fictional Statist society like Star Trek?

Let's keep our fictional analysis to important things, like the Federal Reserve and Obama.

Star Trek has some good fnords, like the "prime directive". Star Trek as an utopian Statist society is an evil fnord.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

FSK, I enjoy reading your posts, but I have a couple points of debate:

First, you say the world would be better were it a totally free market without government, however, I wonder how long such a society could last before some corporation (or cartel of corporations) amassed enough power that it too would erode our freedoms. Without a government, what hope would we have of keeping such accumulation of power in check? Yes, government itself can (and certainly does) accumulate power and erode our freedoms, but at least we have a chance of reigning in the power of government. I'm not so sure we'd have such power over private corporations in the absence of some form of government.

Voting is one big scam. Voting provides no check against abuse and expansion of State power.

For example, Obama got elected partially because a lot of people were unsatisfied with the Iraq war. He did a good job ending that, didn't he?

This is a common fake criticism of real free markets. "What happens if a rogue private police agency goes around harassing people?"

There already is a rogue private police agency. We call it the government. It is more accurate to say "The State is controlled by a handful of insiders!" than "The State is controlled by the general public."

The Federal government insiders are able to consolidate and expand their power, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE A MONOPOLY. When you have a monopoly, the whole point is to abuse your monopoly to increase your power and influence.

Suppose you have a real free market. Suppose someone started acquiring a violence monopoly. Building a violence monopoly in a free market is hard because:

1. Your monopoly would not be perceived as legitimate.
2. The only way you can expand is by charging above-market prices for police protection. As you started doing this, you'd lose customers.
3. Nothing prevents customers from buying police protection from more than one vendor at the same time.
4. Without "limited liability incorporation" and State restriction of the market, it's hard to build really huge businesses. One person can only reasonably supervise 100-200 people. Suppose you now have a business of 10,000+ employees. Any qualified manager will prefer to start his own competing business, rather than work for you as an employee. State restriction of the market forces skilled managers to work as employees instead of as independent business owners.
   

"Without the State, monopolies would abuse and exploit people!" is pro-State trolling. Abusive monopolies are only sustainable when they're backed directly or indirectly by State violence.

In the present, name an abusive monopoly that isn't backed by State violence. Let's list the abusive monopolies that are backed by the State:

1. The State itself is an abusive monopoly.
2. Electricity vendors have an explicit State-licensed monopoly.
3. Telecommunication corporations have an explicit State-licensed monopoly/oligopoly.
4. Doctors have a State-backed monopoly.
5. Taxicab drivers have a State-backed monopoly; in NYC, there's a fixed pool of tax medallion licenses.
6. Public schools have a State-backed monopoly.
7. Large corporate farms have State-backed monopolies. Regulation of the food industry makes small farms unprofitable.
8. Auto manufacturers have a State-backed monopoly.
9. Banks have a State-backed monopoly.
10. Microsoft has a State-backed monopoly. Via copyright/trademark law, it's illegal to release a competing OS that's 100% compatible with Microsoft.

Can you name a single abusive monopoly in the present that isn't backed directly or indirectly by State violence?

Second (and this is unrelated to this post), you've said that banks are able to borrow from the FED at a low rate and lend to others at a high rate and pocket the difference. You infer that the banks serve no valuable purpose in this arrangement, but I'd like to point out that the useful purpose they do serve is assessing credit risk. They ascertain who is credit worthy and lend to those people and suffer the losses when they make bad risk assessments. That is, they take the losses when our government isn't in the habit of bailing them out!!! Now, I do agree that the practice of borrowing from the FED and lending to the Treasury is an outright theft, but aside from that, I just wanted to point out that banks (when not corrupt and in collusion with government) do provide a valuable service.

In a true free market, banking is a legitimate business. Banks match savers with people who need capital. In a true free market, banks provide a legitimate service. Free market banks are taking a real risk that capital will be lost.

In the context of fiat debt-based money, the financial industry is a massive scam. Banks get to choose which businesses succeed, by lending them capital at favorable rates. These loans are printed out of thin air. New loans don't cost the bankster *ANY* tangible assets. If a business cannot raise capital, it's very hard to succeed.

Suppose I went to a bank and said "I want to borrow $1M at 6% to invest in my blogging business." The banker would laugh me out of the bank. Suppose the CEO of Google goes to a bank and says "I want to borrow $1B to buyout YouTube." The banker says "Here's your check!" (Google paid for YouTube via newly issued stock. Most of Google's stock is owned by hedge funds, who borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and buy Google stock. In this manner, Google received a subsidy from the banksters, even though they paid via new stock instead of a loan.)

Suppose I went to a friend and said "I want to borrow $10k at 6% to invest in my blogging business." He'd be an idiot to lend me the money, because he'd be better off buying gold or silver. His return would be less than true inflation. If I borrowed a gold-denominated loan, the implied interest rate would be extortionate; I'd be better off maxing out my credit cards or taking a mortgage on my house. In this manner, I can only profitably borrow via a bank.

Suppose I went to a friend and said "I'll sell you 5% equity in my blog for $10k." Now, I'm effectively my friend's employee. I owe him 5% of my labor *FOREVER*. Either my friend gets cheated, because he's a minority owner, or I get cheated giving up my labor to him.

Negative real interest rates concentrate economic power in a handful of financial industry insiders. I've explained this multiple times.

Banks don't "assess risk". Banks make a guaranteed riskless profit, based on the rules of the monetary system. Their activities are pure arbitrage, borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate and lending to other people.

When a bank goes through the mortgage approval ritual, that is itself an evil fnord. That provides the illusion that the borrower is only getting the money due to the graceful beneficence of a bankster.

I can't say "**** the financial industry! I'm using gold and silver as money instead!" That's illegal. As long as I use slave points as money, I'm subsidizing the profits of the banksters via inflation. Via inflation, the banksters steal from me and give the profits to themselves.

Some banks do go bankrupt, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. That is another evil fnord that provides the illusion that the system is fair.

Josh has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

I'm amazed how many people believe a system can be near perfect, yet unable to sustain itself.

The US government hasn't failed yet.

Sovereign has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

This is in response to Anonymous who said:

"First, you say the world would be better were it a totally free market without government, however, I wonder how long such a society could last before some corporation (or cartel of corporations) amassed enough power that it too would erode our freedoms. Without a government, what hope would we have of keeping such accumulation of power in check? Yes, government itself can (and certainly does) accumulate power and erode our freedoms, but at least we have a chance of reigning in the power of government. I'm not so sure we'd have such power over private corporations in the absence of some form of government."

Corporations are easily boycotted. You can't boycott government without threat of violence. Worst case scenario, if a corporation or cartel thereof becomes violent themselves, their buildings can just be burned down.

You can prevent an exploitative police monopoly from forming without violating the Non-Aggression principle. As an abusive police monopoly started forming, people would start buying from competitors.

You can only abusively establish a monopoly when State violence is backing you in the first place.

That comment seemed like pro-State trolling. I've certainly addressed those points over and over again. (I should make a FAQ section. That's hard on Blogger. I'll do that when I get my own domain.)

fritz has left a new comment on your post "What was the Purpose of the Original US Constituti...":

During the time the constitution was constructed a true non government free market society would have been unable to exist. The powers of imperialism were to great for the regular free peoples of the world to keep at bay. At least an attempt was made to limit the powers of government.

The individual state governments were perceived as legitimate, even though Britain's power was removed.

Allegedly, the European banksters planted spies among the colonists. Some people claim that Alexander Hamilton (first Treasury secretary) was really working for the European banksters.

People at that time were brainwashed "A monopolistic State is necessary!" Once you have any State at all, even a minimalist one, its evil power can only grow over time.

Just remember that because it was the best system created up until that time. Doesn't mean that we can't do even better. At least this form of government has lasted long enough to let better ideas develop.

Now is the time, and people are ready. Most are sick and tired of being stolen from and lied to. The world is ripe for a free market no government revolution.

Spread the word, and promote Agorism!!!!!!

That's a common pro-State troll argument for the Constitution. "The US Constitution is the best form of government tried until this point in history!" is different from "The US Constitution is the best possible form of government!" The "no monopolistic State" form of government is never mentioned or seriously discussed at all.

One nice thing about the USA is the presumption of "freedom of the press". In the USA, writing a blog like this is not a crime. In China or even in Europe, writing a blog like this might be considered a crime.

---

I'm slightly behind on reader comments. I'll catch up next time, rather than publishing this late.