This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Reader Mail #99

In this thread on Bureaucrash (site registration required), someone was complaining about this post on the Left Libertarian Yahoo group. Someone wrote an article in the New York Times comedy papers about "When free trade comes to third world countries, it leads to violence and bad things." Some people were offended by the blatant propaganda and falsehoods.

The problem is that "Bring free trade to third world countries!" usually means "fake free trade". Instead of genuine free trade, the new laws are really corporate welfare for large international corporations. For example, the water distribution system might be "privatized", but it's really a State-licensed monopoly to the corporation selling water.

With genuine free trade, anyone living in the USA could freely move to that country and work, and anyone in that country could freely move to the USA and work here. That never occurs. By restricting the movement of the workers/cattle, the masters in various countries agree to respect each others' property.

Whenever I see someone wearing a "Bring free trade to Africa!" T-Shirt, my retort now is "How about bringing free trade to the United States?" They usually don't get the joke/truth.

I don't get offended anymore by propaganda in the mainstream media. A mainstream "journalist" is really a comedian, whose performance is stale and no longer funny. Viewed that way, it's amusing to just watch the fnords.

The Supreme Leader of Humanity probably prefers for mainstream media sources to remain lies, for now. It's important to keep the masses stupid and complacent, while the smartest people slowly realize the truth. If the truth were broadcast in the mainstream media, it would cause a massive panic. It's better if people slowly discover the truth, starting with the smartest first.

As long as people can freely communicate on the Internet, there's no reason to be offended by lies in the mainstream media. It's like watching your neighbor beat his child; technically, it's none of your business. Of course, a world filled with insane people is a problem, so in a sense it does matter!

This article and this article, via Bureaucrash, were on how the Libertarian party was hijacked by pro-State trolls.

It is impossible to achieve reform via voting or political means. If you attempt to organize a large group of people, for the purpose of voting or protesting, then professional disinformation agents will infiltrate your organization and hijack your movement. There's deliberate spies, planted by the government. There also are people who are just plain jerks, who will infiltrate your organization because they enjoy it and they lull the leaders into a false sense of complacency.

If you organize a movement along free market principles, via agorism, then it's almost impossible for the bad guys to infiltrate it. If one part is inefficient due to idiots or corruption, then it will merely be replaced by competition. Also, via agorism, you only need a handful of people to get started on the path of freedom. If you seek political means for freedom, you need to convince 50%+ of the people to strongly care about your cause.

The difference between now and 20+ years ago is that the Internet is decentralized, and allows people to share information easily. Even if 99.9%+ of the people are clueless pro-State trolls, the Internet makes it easy for the remaining 0.1% to share information. Previously, people with a clue were too easily kept isolated and confused, preventing a critical mass from occurring.

This article, via Bureaucrash, is an introduction to Agorism written by Konkin. It's decent introductory-level material. I'm looking for more advanced stuff.

I liked this bit (paraphrasing):

Q: Why do people trade?

A: Because A values X more than Y, while B values Y more than X. Then, they both profit from the trade.

There's another reason to trade. Division and specialization of labor is useful.

If I had to grow my own food and couldn't trade, I'd have to spend a lot of time on it. It's better for someone else to grow food full-time, and specialize and become efficient. Then, we can trade. With modern farming techniques, one person can grow enough food to feed 100+ people. That's more labor-efficient than everyone spending 10% or more of their time growing food. Similarly, I'd never get anything done if I had to build my own computer, build my own cell phone, generate my own electricity, etc. Division of labor is efficient.

The evil in the present is that the State sellers of electricity/cell phones/health care have a State-licensed monopoly/oligopoly. Division of labor is good. When the State gives a monopoly to a handful of people, that leads to evil. That provides the illusion that division of labor and the conveniences of our modern civilization are evil.

Free trade is good. Government restriction of trade is evil. People have been brainwashed to believe that State restriction of free trade is good. "Unrestricted free trade is evil!" is propaganda. The problem always is pre-existing regulation of the market, and the crisis is then exacerbated by more regulation.

For example, I've never successfully convinced any of my relatives "Government licensing requirements for doctors are the reason health care is expensive. If there were no restrictive State licensing requirements, then there would be more competition and cheaper prices." All the talk of "Obama will create national health insurance!" is an evil fnord distracting people from "Health care is expensive because government restricts the supply of doctors and restricts what treatments are legal."

The new issue of the journal "ALLiance" of the Libertarian Left was out. I was hoping for better information on practical agorism.

There was an interesting statistic. One person can be fed on 0.1 of an acre of land, with suitable farming techniques. That's interesting. One of my ideas was to buy a couple of acres of farmland and pay some people to work it for me. Then, I'd have someplace to go in a SHTF scenario, and could profitably sell the food otherwise. As long as "rent collected" is greater than property taxes owned, it's worth it to occupy the land.

There also was a bit on how government, and laws regulating male-female interactions, restrict the rights of women. For example, I was falsely accused of sexual harassment at my most recent job. That law worked against me and some of my coworkers, who had to scramble to finish the project without me. I wasn't accused of a crime, but I wasn't given any due process regarding the incident. The corporate employer is effectively a branch of the State. In a criminal trial, you're entitled to a certain illusion of fairness, but a corporate employer need not give a reason when they fire you. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck (fortunately I'm not), getting fired can be just as bad as being jailed.

In a business that's mostly men, then you might be reluctant to hire a woman, lest you later be accused of "sexual harassment". If an accusation is made, you have to bend over backwards to cater to the accuser, lest you be victim of a lawsuit.

On the subject of property taxes, there's another reason to prefer gold to real estate. In some cities, the government has been bankrupted due to debts. The property has ridiculously high property tax rates, making the value of the land zero. It'd be cheaper to rent in a neighboring city, than to "buy" and pay high property taxes.

As the State collapses, ridiculously high property taxes could be a problem. There's nothing that prevents State enforcers from jacking up property tax rates. All the land in a city is held as collateral for the debts of the politicians/parasites.

Bas has left a new comment on your post "Agorist Toolkit - Guns":

It is currently completely legal to build your own firearm, as long as the end result complies with your local laws ( But since it's not serialized, you are not allowed to transfer it.

You are exactly wrong. Quoting that page:

An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

It's illegal for me to make my own automatic weapon. Plus, I have to get permission from the government when I make my own weapon.

Where I live in NYC, I believe it's illegal for anyone other than a policeman to possess a gun. I haven't researched the exact law.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is Real Estate a Good Investment?":

And gold has storage costs, who knew.

You're exactly missing the point. This is a common fallacy by pro-State troll economists. "Gold investors are idiots!" I see that repeated so often on the Communism Channel that it makes me want to convert all my savings to gold.

The storage costs of gold are artificially high, due to State restriction of the market. It's illegal/impractical to operate a gold warehouse receipt business.

If you store gold in your home, then your cost is zero. Of course, that risks theft.

A COMEX gold warehouse receipt costs about $150 per year for 100 ounces of gold. The GLD ETF has a fee of 0.50%. However, both of those investments are reported to the State/IRS, and you may not be able to get your gold in a SHTF scenario. Property tax rates are 1% or more, depending on where you live.

In a true free market, you can profitably make gold-denominated loans for a positive interest rate. Before 1913, there were positive interest rates on a gold-denominated savings account, or a "Bill of Exchange". In the present, it's illegal/impractical to make gold-denominated loans. The Federal Reserve credit monopoly means that a gold-denominated loan would have an implied interest rate of 20%-30%+.

If I own physical gold, I can move and take my gold with me. If I "own" land, and the State parasites raise property tax rates, I am SOL.

A real estate investment is decent. I won't keep 100% of my savings in gold. With a gold investment, you risk theft of your metal. With real estate, you risk gradual theft via property taxes.

Robin Smith has left a new comment on your post "Is Real Estate a Good Investment?":

Over the long term and across housing bubbles/credit crunches, Land is the only asset that "always" increases in value

I don't know what your fantasy is. As far as I can tell, the dollar-denominated price of gold and the stock market also increase over time.

A lot of people selling subprime mortgage bonds lost gambling "Housing prices always rise."

Due to rising rent without having to work for that rent. The ultimate free lunch, granted by the state.

For the economists to say that credit boom investment in Land was irrational is absurd. Land always rises in value. That makes it a perfectly rational investment surely?

You probably will earn a positive return from an unleveraged real estate investment. Whether it'll be a greater return than a gold investment is another issue.

The problem with land is that you don't actually own it. Property taxes and zoning laws restrict what you may do with your land.

One of the main evils of the State is "There's no safe place to store your savings." No matter what you pick, your savings will be eroded by taxes, inflation, or other State-mandated costs.

This post on was interesting. It's about how the Bureaucrash website allegedly has been taken over by pro-State trolls. It's also about how (L)libertarians say "We must censor those with radical/anarchist viewpoints, otherwise we won't be taken seriously."

I also noticed this problem on the Ron Paul Forums. The site owners feel obligated to censor people with extreme viewpoints. Otherwise, those people discredit Ron Paul, via the Strawman Fallacy. "Some members of the Libertarian party have extreme viewpoints. Therefore, all viewpoints of all (L)libertarians should not be taken seriously."

Once a website adopts a censorship policy, this leads to continuous debates over "What content is appropriate?" Over time, the people with the most liberal viewpoint towards "appropriate site content" get disgusted and leave. This is an "evaporative cooling" effect.

Similarly, in politics and mainstream journalism, those with the most independent thinking ability get frustrated and leave. Eventually, you only have people who are complete pro-State trolls.

This problem is faced by mainstream journalists/comedians/writers/actors. You must adopt a culture of self-censorship, lest you not be taken seriously. For example, if I attempted to promote agorism via standup comedy, then some people might say "FSK, you should tone down your act. If you're that extreme, you'll never be taken seriously. If you talk that way, no mainstream media outlet will ever invite you as a guest." The fallacy is that my extreme/accurate viewpoint is the reason I would be interesting in the first place.

One nice thing about the Internet is that if you believe that a website's owners are being unreasonable, you can say "**** you! I'm starting a competing website." I can bypass mainstream media censorship and self-publish. Of course, that means that it's slow and takes time to acquire readers!

Fivemileshigh has left a new comment on your post "The Fallacy of Suing the Government":

A greater underlying fallacy is that the state runs the justice system, and thus rendering a just verdict is unlikely simply because of the conflict of interest.

I've mentioned that elsewhere, although that wasn't the point of that post.

The degree of unlikelihood is directly proportional to the "depth" of the issue, for example you would never get a verdict of "Taxation is immoral" from the state, whereas you are quite likely to get a "FSK was speeding 63 mph instead of 67, therefore he shall pay a $100 fine, not $200" Everyone will say, wow, justice was done, he was charged the correct $100 and not the abusive $200. Nobody will stop to ask hey, exactly who did FSK hurt by doing 67 in a 55 zone on an empty road in the middle of nowhere? Nobody will see that you are asking the robber for justice.

As a better example, consider a plea bargain. Suppose that State enforcers decide to assault me for practicing agorism. I would face 20 years in prison if convicted. I'm offered a plea bargain for one year in prison. Most people would be bullied into accepting the plea bargain. Then, people say "See! The prosecutor was generous! He offered you a plea bargain!"

Another example is an income tax refund. It's merely a partial return of stolen property, but most people treat it as a boon from the government.

My parents got all excited about their $250 stimulus payment check. I pointed out that their savings and pension lost more than $250 of purchasing power, due to inflation. They didn't get it. They only saw "Woohoo! Free money!"

There are all sorts of tricks that provide the illusion that the State is good, while it really is evil. It was very traumatic when I first started seeing the fnords. Now, my reaction is "Oh, that again! Does that really fool people?"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory":

I inherited a shed full of stuff from my dad who started farming (as a child) in the 1930's with his dad, and so on going back to the 1860's (though I am not a farmer). One of the items I discovered was an old pesticide container with the the word POISON written in large letters on the front. Right about the word poison, written equally as large, were the words SODIUM FLUORIDE. The contents of the container were 90% Sodium Fluoride and 10% inert ingredients. The fluoride in toothpaste and mixed with public water is the same stuff and it is POISON. The best explanation as to why it is put into public water has to do with aluminum production and profit maximization. Fluoride is a waste product of aluminum production and aluminum companies would have had to expend money to counter the environmental damage unless they could convince some idiot(s) to actually pay them money to buy their toxic industrial waste. I can't remember who, but someone wrote a book on this very topic and it's worth a read if you're interested in this topic

That's the story I read. Allegedly, fluoride is hazardous waste. The manufacturers then successfully lobbied for "Fluoride is beneficial!", and then got a deal to eliminate their waste by dumping it in everyone's drinking water!

I simultaneously can't believe someone would be that evil to do that on purpose. On the other hand, members of the parasite class are pretty evil.

I consider "Fluoride is beneficial!" and "Fluoride is harmful!" to be not proven either way. The Matrix has severely messed up most mainstream science. A lot of "proven facts" should be re-verified.

I've mostly recovered my blogging energy. I'm getting back to my "write at least one new post per day" habit. That's good, because I've nearly used up my pool of queued drafts.

I've noticed that it takes 2-3 months to fully recover my energy after being involuntarily hospitalized. Some things take as long as 1.5 years. I'm ahead of where I usually am after being kidnapped and tortured.

I feel that I'm doing well enough to avoid another involuntary hospitalization. It seems that my "panic attacks" were really about reconciling my emotional intelligence with my logical intelligence. I feel that I now have mostly synchronized emotions and logic, whereas before it was like I had two halves of my brain unable to communicate.

I'm noticing more how other people seem to have messed-up emotions or messed-up logic. It's very disturbing. It seems to affect everyone, but some people show the symptoms more than others.

I'm noticing 0.5-2 year old children a bit more. They seem to all have a very traumatized look on their face. It's as if they're realizing "OMFG! All the adults around me are insane!" By the time they're old enough to remember, they've learned that being insane is "normal" and don't notice anything unusual.

I wonder how productive I would have been, if I had never been pro-State brainwashed. It might be impossible to survive in a State school or wage slave job, without being pro-State brainwashed. Are my current troubles finding a job due to my higher awareness? Or, does the economy just plain suck right now? I need to get out of the wage slave career track, but I'm probably going to need a wage slave job for the next few years.

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

"Since money can only be put into circulation via a loan, the system guarantees that the banks will eventually own practically everything." (from 1st paragraph) Can't it be put into circulation via an exchange for labor (i.e. wage/salary) or other market operations (i.e. sale of a good or service that you have produced)?

No. Suppose I accept a job to write software for $5000. I get $5000. My employer gets the software. However, no new money was created by this transaction. My employer paid me out of money that already existed. My employer did not print new money in order to pay me.

Only a bank has the power to create money. If you aren't a bank, no matter how much work you perform, you don't create new money.

When you work, you create wealth. Some of this wealth is then leeched by the financial industry. A bankster will loan you or your employer or someone else money, in exchange for a fraction of your work.

Under the US monetary system, the banksters are guaranteed a certain percentage of all productive labor. Only the banksters have the power to create money.

This is a common misconception. "When I work, I create money." When you work, you only create goods and services, which you trade for money. No new money is created when a non-banker works. All new money is created by a bank. That is the essence of the Paradox.

With the power to print money, the banksters may buy any business they choose. For example, Sumner Redstone acquired control of Viacom and CBS in a leveraged buyout. In other words, a group of banksters picked Sumner Redstone to control Viacom and CBS. If Sumner Redstone does not perform well, then another leveraged buyout can be arranged. The banksters directly or indirectly control all mainstream media corporations; with this control, it's very easy for them to cover up their abuses.

If I had a privately owned business that the banksters want, they can make me a huge buyout offer. If I refuse, they can finance a large corporate competitor. If necessary, they can lobby for laws declaring my business illegal.

I liked this post on no third solution. As part of Chrysler and GM's bankruptcy, some dealer franchises are forced to close. David Z is writing about Chrysler, but GM has a similar problem.

A Chrysler dealership is not owned by Chrysler. It is an independent business with a franchise agreement.

It would be very annoying to have spent money buying a Chrysler dealer business, only to have the agreement terminated. Chrysler is in bankruptcy, so suing Chrysler for unfairly terminating your franchise is a waste of time.

The Chrysler dealers are SOL for many reasons:
  1. Chrysler is not repurchasing unsold cars. Once the dealership franchise is terminated, the ex-dealer may no longer sell the cars as new with a factory warranty. They will become used cars, with a huge drop in market value, even though they've never been driven.
  2. The ex-dealers will no longer be able to service warranties on cars they already sold. Chrysler makes payments to dealers for repairs performed while under warranty.
  3. The dealers have an inventory of parts they purchased for repairs. These parts must now be sold at a loss.
  4. Many dealers have extensive leverage. If a dealer has an inventory of 100 cars and paid $10k each, the dealer doesn't put up $1M of his own money. The dealer borrows $1M. The dealer is now forced to repay the loan. The dealer business might own the lot the store occupies, and now the bank will take it as collateral.
  5. The dealer loses all the accumulated investment in his business. If the dealer did a good job servicing someone who previously purchased a car, then that dealer will not get a repeat customer.
What's the free market solution for determining what dealerships close? How about "If a dealership can't meet its expenses, then it closes. Otherwise, it stays in business." What actually happened is a State bureaucrat decided which dealership businesses stay open and which ones close.

Suppose that X and Y both own a dealership business in the same area. If X is forced to close but not Y, then this is a windfall for Y. To be fair, X should be allowed to stay open as long as he has enough sales to justify his expenses.

I'm surprised that nobody on the Communism Channel is complaining "Why not allow a dealer business to stay open as long as its profitable? What right do Chrysler and GM have to force them to close? Why should a bureaucrat decide which businesses stay open and which ones close?"

What would a car dealer business look like in a true free market? There would be many small car manufacturers instead of three megacorporations. A car salesman would probably have an arrangement with several small manufacturers. If one of them went bankrupt, then other competitors would pick up the slack. In the present, a car dealer has an exclusive agreement with one megacorporation. They're sort of an independent business, but they're at the mercy of the megacorporation.

The reason there are no emerging small competitors is that the auto industry is heavily regulated. A group of 5-10 people can't start a new car manufacturing business, because of the huge overhead. A UAW employee who loses his job can't say "**** this! I'm going to make and sell my own cars!" The problem is not that the corporation owns the factory. The corporation owns the army of lawyers and bureaucrats that ensure compliance with the extensive State regulation.

Contrast that with the software industry. It's very common for a software engineer to leave Microsoft or Google and start their own successful software business.

chronosaidit ( has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #98":

Below is my last comment regarding your "blinking" post. Could you explain to me how I am 'hostile' according to your comments above (in Reader Mail #98)? I have not only explained myself fully, I have also agreed with you on some level. So I fail to understand what it is that you are saying, and would appreciate your feedback as to specifically what, again in the post below, is hostile! Thank you!

It's just the overall tone. It's like pornography. I know it when I see it.

You're mentioning the same points over and over again, without saying anything new.

On your response to my 'blinking one eye...' comment, you wrote.
Dogs/cats are not a valid comparison...and, it's possible that birds...
You would be better off researching birds, etc. Likewise, you assume that because an animal is domesticated that it is 'pro-state brainwashed.' You might look into the history of animal domestication. The first dogs/cats were animals that fed off of the scraps of human consumption. It is not likely the state had anything to do with that. When you associate the state 'carte blanche' with everything, you use the same 'straw man fallacy' that you yourself frequently argue against.

Again, the reason your 'blink one at a time' hypothesis makes little sense, is because you have made a statement without comparing it to anything in reality. I strongly encourage you to compare your 'hypothesized blinking pattern' with some other animal. Dog, cat, monkey, cow, whatever, I seriously doubt that the relationship between an animal and a human affects its instincts severely to the point of affecting its blinking habits. Do you see how ridiculous this is? It's like saying that pro-state brainwashing directly affects the volume of air that the lungs can hold. Now, wouldn't breathing and exercise make more sense? In the same way...

If you want to say that you are no longer afraid of looking people in the eye, because you are releasing yourself from habits and thoughts from your history, I understand that. That makes sense! Because you are comparing your past behavior to your current behavior, or because you compare your behavior to others, like you did when you mentioned people frequently blinking. You have a point on the blinking. I find that it is people's own awareness of either the fact that they are full of **** and are trying to take advantage of you, or they have prejudged you with a stereotype and are uncomfortable around you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with theorizing and I am not offended, however in its current state, your hypothesis on blinking has no correlation to reality.

chronosaidit ( has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #98":

This comment definitely has a hostile tone. I've already answered all these points many times.

Again, this is the main question:

Are you more likely to lose 30% of your savings in a market dip than you are to lose it in a burglary, assuming you take the proper precautions in both scenarios?

I've already said that gold has outperformed the stock market by a huge margin over the past 10 years. If the "safe place to store it" problem were addressed, I'd probably convert all my savings to gold and silver.

I've decided to not cash in my State paper investments (yet). I'm buying GLD and SLV with new investment money, while leaving my old investments where they are. GLD and SLV only underperform metal by 0.5% per year, but in a SHTF scenario they will be worthless.

I'm also going to start buying physical gold and silver, but that will have to wait another 2-3 years.

I'm probably at the point where "the rate at which my savings are eroded due to inflation" exceeds "new savings". That isn't a valid comparison, because the economy is bad and I'm currently unemployed.

My personal priorities are:
  1. Get a wage slave job.
  2. Make sure I don't get involuntarily hospitalized again.
  3. Get some in-person friends who aren't pro-State trolls.
  4. Get my own apartment again.
  5. Start working on promoting agorism.
  6. Start working on practical agorism. Start converting my State paper investments to gold and silver.
I still have other personal goals that are more urgent than "Start buying gold and silver."

That is the basic question I asked re: gold and silver. Basically you pointed out a few things:

1) Cops could steal your gold/silver.
2) Criminals can sell your gold/silver if they steal it.
3) It's risky to run a gold/silver warehouse.
4) Your parents spy on everything you do.
5) Torture
6) TSHTF scenario

I will answer the above in order.
First, the boys in blue...I asked you about portfolio losses and investment options, why are you talking about police raids? It's not like you are going to have access to your Schwab account if you are behind bars. You have to do something stupid to have your gold seized by the police...(like selling liberty dollars-that is a stupid business endeavor, it is no different from on-the-books tax resistance...challenging the bad guys, on their turf). If the police raid your house, you did not take the proper precautions. The chance that someone is the victim of a random, unprovoked police raid is extremely small, and should not be in a normal person's investment decision.

If I own State paper investments, such as cash, bonds, or stocks, I'm guaranteed to get ripped off by inflation over time. I've already repeatedly said that.

No matter how I buy gold, it is reported to the State. If I buy from an online dealer, they are required to report the transaction to the State. There's a paper trail when I mail them a check. If I buy in a store, I am required to show ID.

I have no idea what the theft risk is. Also, a State enforcer need not directly raid my apartment himself. He may leak the information to a criminal he's working with. A State database of "People who have bought gold and silver and taken delivery." would be very useful to any criminal.

"Establish a gold/silver/FRN barter network" is one of my agorist business ideas. This would let people buy gold and silver with reporting the transaction to the State. If I create such a business, and publicly advertise it, then I place myself at greater risk of a State raid. If I create such a business and don't advertise it, then how do I get customers?

Second, criminals. If you are clever, someone can break into your house, and steal 'everything' and not find 'everything' that is valuable to you. You simply ought to have the good sense to protect your gold/silver at a level that reflects the value of money you have invested in it. If you cannot do this, you probably deserve to have it stolen from you.

I've already thought of ways to cleverly hide gold and silver. I've already considered the possibility of paying some friends to store some for me also. That is not currently an option.

Actually, platinum has more options for safe hiding than gold and silver. Platinum isn't commonly recognized as valuable. If I knew someone with a metalworks, I could have them re-cast platinum as figurines or other things, and paint them so they looked not valuable.

Third, a gold/silver warehouse. Here we are again, with the liberty dollar scam. Seriously, if you are running a gold/silver warehouse, you are talking about a completely different topic, that is far in left field, compared to investing a portion of your retirement assets in physical gold. So I won't even comment further, that portion of your response was a tangent.
I'm saying that, if operating a gold/silver warehouse receipt bank were legal, then I could buy gold and store it there. That would reduce the risk of gold ownership. State enforcers have violently raided people who attempted to operate an on-the-books warehouse receipt banking business. It isn't just the Liberty Dollar. Various E-Gold vendors have also had that problem.

"Operate an off-the-books agorist gold and silver warehouse receipt bank and barter network" is one of my business ideas. If I do that, I'm risking being the victim of State violence.

Fourth, your parents, this is about the only valid response, and I covered it already. Again...
At $900/ounce, 30k in gold, is about two pounds in weight. Two pounds of gold could fit in a shoe box. As I said, it should be pretty easy to sneak a shoe box past your parents, especially if they thought you bought a pair of shoes! It may be too risky for you, but for most of your readership, this is a valid idea.

But how will I get $900 out of my checking account to buy the gold? My parents control my finances. I need to get my own apartment and control of my own stuff again first.

For my readers, buying gold and storing it cleverly is a valid option.

Five. Torture. I am not sure why you continue to use extremely low probability scenarios to 'talk yourself out of' reasonable considerations. Again, what kind of idiot buys gold, stores it in his home, and allows outsiders to find out that he has it? I can think of several, several ways to make a purchase and make sure no one knows what you bought, own, etc. So being tortured "Where is your gold?" is again, one of those low-probability 'this-only-occurs-if-you're-
careless' scenarios. It's only possible if the person attacking you knows that you have gold. If this happens, it is your fault, and you can prevent this from happening, since its under your control.

It's not clear that, if being interrogated by police/terrorists for several days, I would be unable to hold out and refuse to disclose where I hid my gold. I would try, but it's not clear I could actually do it under pressure.

Of course, the goal is to avoid being kidnapped in the first place. If I become a public advocate for agorism, then I'm making it harder for me to practice agorism myself. If I publicly speak about agorism, I'm simultaneously making myself a target. Someone needs to be a public/mainstream advocate for agorism. I don't see anyone else succeeding, so I'm going to try it myself.

Six...TSHTF. When TSHTF, either the state collapses, or financial panic ensues, and how far off do you think we are from a collapse of the state? If you really believe it will take 10-20 years, you should invest in gold now, and sell (or not sell, maybe just leave the country, who knows) before the financial panic begins. When TSHTF, there will be plenty of warning. Since this is true, I believe the argument that "when TSHTF, 20 years from now, anything could happen, so I better not invest in gold today" is not a valid argument. Again, it assumes the risks are so great there is nothing you can to to avoid, prepare for, or defend against them, including selling off your gold before the risks become reality.
"Leave the USA to avoid the collapse" is silly, because other countries are just as bad or worse.

I never said "I'm not investing in gold because that's a useless precaution when TSHTF." I said "I need other precautions, in addition to actual physical gold, in order to survive the coming collapse." Gold is useless unless you know people who will sell you goods and services in exchange for gold. Gold is useless unless you have arrangements for private police protection when the State collapses.

I said "I'm not investing in gold right now. My reason is that, living with my parents, they bar me from owning physical gold. I can't withdraw money from my checking account or cash in my State paper investments without approval. In the meantime, I'm buying some GLD and SLV. I'll buy some gold and silver after I get my own apartment again. Regaining my physical freedom is a higher priority goal for me than buying gold and silver." I'm willing to wait another 2-3 years.

If you are not taking care to make sure you do not lose your investments, you deserve to lose them, anyway. This goes for whether they are in the markets, a private bank, or your own home.

I am more knowledgeable about investing than 99%+ of the population. Most of the "information" you read about investing is merely fnords. Most of it is negative information, designed to confuse and scare people. I used to think "Buy-and-hold an S&P 500 index fund or individual stocks is best." Once I realized that the stock market doesn't outperform true inflation, it was like discovering that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I now think that "Buy-and-hold physical gold and silver is best. Owning some real estate with a paid-off mortgage is also worthwhile, but I'd only bother with owning a primary residence or business, and not rental properties."

My progress for investing knowledge was:
  1. Interest-bearing money market account!
  2. CDs!
  3. S&P 500 index fund!
  4. Individual stocks!
  5. Experiment with trading options! (That was a failure.)
  6. It turns out that the stock market is one big scam! Gold and silver are better! I haven't made my first physical metal purchase yet, but I will sometime in the next few years.
Anyway, all of this is no new information. I've mentioned all these points before and you misquoted me in a few places.

"Cash in my State paper investments and buy gold and silver!" is on my list of things to do. However, getting my own apartment and recovering my physical freedom is a higher priority. I feel that I've acquired mental freedom, which should lead to physical freedom soon.

It's hard interviewing for wage slave jobs now. Almost always, someone with the parasitic personality is on the hiring committee. When a parasite sees "I'm not going to be able to push around FSK!", then he will veto the decision to hire me. The other people have no clue what's going on.

I guess that proverb is wrong. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!" A more accurate statement is "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man gets his eye poked out!"

Watching the Yankees play the Red Sox seems pointless. It is practically guaranteed that one of them will win the division and the other will win the wild card. That makes the regular season almost irrelevant. However, the Yankees were awful last year and didn't make the playoffs.

There was an outcry over "The Yankees charged too much for tickets in their new stadium." Some high-priced seats were empty, which is embarrassing when shown on TV.

The only fair way to sell tickets is via a dutch auction. If you set a fixed price, and you pick a price that's too high, there's empty seats. If you pick a price that's too low, that leads to arbitrage profit for scalpers.

The Yankees picked their price schedule a year or two ago, before the economy crashed. Now, they have empty seats. If they lower prices, then people who bought tickets at higher prices are unhappy.

If you feel that ticket prices are too high, then there's a simple solution. Don't go to the game! It's not like electricity or telephone service, where there's a State-licensed monopoly of a key service. The Yankees do have a State-licensed monopoly in a certain sense. Major League Baseball wouldn't approve a new franchise in the NYC area. Forming a competing baseball league is prohibitively expensive, due to State subsidies for existing businesses. However, baseball isn't a necessity; it isn't as immoral as the other State monopolies.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Agorist Toolkit - Guns":

A person in most states does not need a license to purchase a fire arm (hand gun or long gun).

Where I live in NYC, you need a State license. I believe that you must apply for Federal permission whenever you purchase a gun.

Assault weapons are not banned. There is no maximum to magazine capacity. All machine guns are banned and a license or stamp is required for ownership.most states have no gun registration requirements. In most states a person has to have a background check performed before they are allowed to purchase a fire arm. But the record of which weapon is purchased remains with the dealer. There is no registration requirement.
The record of who has which guns could be taken from the gun dealers and used to find who has what. At present I have 12 unregistered fire arms ,5 hand guns,3 assault types,all purchased in a legal fashion and I don't have a single license.

I think if we have to defend against the state that would be whats called revolution!!

I didn't know that gun dealers are only required to report that you purchased a gun, and not which kind.

In NYC, it's pretty much illegal to own a gun unless you're a policeman. Also, it's illegal for me to purchase a gun since I was involuntarily hospitalized with a mental illness. There's no way I can appeal and say "The psychiatrist's judgement was wrong!" I'm flat-out banned with no appeal, according to the way the law was written.

Of course, if I really wanted a gun, I probably could arrange for someone else to buy one for me and give it to me. That isn't necessary. If I were popular enough to need protection, I also should have enough money to hire a security guard.

I wonder if any disgruntled pro-State trolls would physically assault me, based on my blog? Sometimes, I wonder. I prefer for idiots to get disgusted and leave.

cyberTrebuchet has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #98":

I have the same reservation as you about the Liberty Dollar, but I still think it's a very decent transition. I'll buy a whole bunch of their silver one-ounce coins with the arbitrary $20 on the front and offer it to local businesses in exchange, say, for a pizza. Right now, according to LD's online store, I'll pay just barely under $20 for each coin, even though the spot price is only 15 or 16 slave points. The spot price'll keep going up in terms of SPs, which of course I'll tell anyone to whom I offer the silver; I'll also tell them about the reminting-with-greater-face-
value-as-spot-increases policy.

Yeah, it's flawed, and I share your reservation, but I still think this is the best step for now. During this transition awareness will be raised of the idea you keep mentioning of eventually quoting prices in terms of an objective amount of a commodity. And then ultimately we won't bother stamping a face value, because enough people will have realized the FR/Income Tax scam.

You're free to use Liberty Dollars if you want. I'm not the one using violence to stop you from using Liberty Dollars when I'm not around.

If someone tried to buy something from me with a Liberty Dollar, I'd only give them credit based on the spot price of silver, and not the face amount.

I don't get the point of the Liberty Dollar. Why not just use silver rounds and trade them based on the spot price of silver? Why not directly quote prices in silver instead of slave points? When you go into an agorist store, they should say "This costs one ounce of silver." instead of "This costs 16 slave points."

Of course, you're free to use Liberty Dollars if you want. I prefer to quote prices in silver, because that's making a mental transition away from slave points. Quoting prices in silver and gold instead of slave points emphasizes "Gold is money!"

The biggest mistake the Liberty Dollar made is that their money sort of looks like State-issued money. That was used an excuse for a violent crackdown. If they printed "This is not legal tender!" on it, then they might have avoided an FBI raid. It's OK to use Liberty Dollars, as long as you understand the distinction between Liberty Dollars and State-issued money.

BTW, if you do use Liberty Dollars for an on-the-books transaction, you must report it to the IRS as a barter transaction. The taxation rate for barter is higher than for transactions using slave points.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Fnords Setting up the Next Recession":

It is very disturbing to see just how similar news channels are on big matters like Iraq, and especially the economy.
Is it a deliberate conspiracy? Or, is it a series of bad decisions and coincidences?

Some people say that the State propaganda engine in a "free" society like the USA is actually more efficient than the State propaganda engine in the Soviet Union or China. There is plenty of illusion of open discourse, but key issues like "Taxation is theft!" and "The USA has a corrupt monetary system!" are never discussed.

Most mainstream media outlets merely parrot the press releases issued by the government. There is very little independent thinking. The path of least resistance is to merely recite official State propaganda. Is it a deliberate conspiracy, or merely sloppy/lazy journalism? Either way, it's wrong, and must stop. There is evidence of a conspiracy, because each mainstream media corporation is led by a puppet chosen by insiders. Once the vast majority of the people in a corporation are pro-State trolls, then independent thinkers are easily removed.

I was watching the Colbert Report from Iraq. I didn't realize that the USA still had that many troops in Iraq. Stephen Colbert mentioned "How come mainstream media coverage of the Iraq war has pretty much gone away?" Obama "ended" the Iraq war. Now, the "news" no longer covers it. Therefore, the war is over.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "The Global Warming Scam":

Nice post FSK.. my research shows me that we are actually headed towards an ice age. Due to what is called a maunder minimum. When the sun has no sun spots it puts out about .5% less radiation. The month of may and early june has been setting record low temperatures across the country(look it up). But the media isn't reporting it.So actually green house gasses may help off set global cooling.

It has been cool here in May and June. You can't draw conclusions of a long-term trend based on two months.

Its also my belief that the hype of going green is a ploy to sell America out.If you put so many regulations on a factories emissions that its not cost effective to operate within our country. So they move the operation to another country which
has no emission control. This way the green house gasses are still produced. But American workers have lost more ability to find jobs.And the items are still produced leaving the same carbon footprint. The only thing that has changed is where things are produced.

The carbon dioxide emission credits are being allocated in a politically biased manner. That will raise the overhead cost of anyone who wants to start a new business. It's the usual corporate welfare.

I have no idea if "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!" and "Global warming is damaging!" are true or not. It seems suspicious.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory":

There is a link with anti-depressants also:

That was interesting. I didn't know that some antidepressants contain fluorine.

Lithium and fluorine are literally poison. Lithium is one of the strongest bases, and fluorine is one of the strongest acids.

It makes sense that, if lithium messes up your brain chemistry, then fluorine would have a similar effect.

I tried looking it up, and I never understood the chemistry for "fluoride prevents tooth decay". The best explanation was that it catalyzes the re-mineralization process in your mouth. That still makes no sense to me.

I'm concerned that a lot of mainstream medicine is flat-out wrong.

robert30062 has left a new comment on your post "Stupid Equals Evil":

When someone does harm I often ask myself, "was that from incompetence or deliberate intentions?".

That doesn't tell the full story.

For example, a psychiatrist is genuinely trying to help me. However, there is evidence that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness was intentionally promoted as a fraud 30-50 years ago, and now it's standard practice. Once a fraud is in place, it can be perpetuated even if none of the leaders are consciously aware of it.

If someone tries to injure me out of incompetence, I will try to correct them. Stupid people just don't learn. That's one of the key attributes of being stupid. Trying to educate an idiot is a lot of wasted effort for very little benefit.

It's better to just avoid stupid people. That's a problem when almost everyone is a brainwashed pro-State troll!

I think there are variations within the incompetence found in government/corporate policy.
It is hard to say exactly. Most of the people working in positions of authority have genuine good intentions. It only takes a handful of parasitic people to **** things up. Government has a monopoly, so there's no recourse once the parasites take over.

A lot of the principles of the corrupt system were devised 50-100+ years ago. Now, it's self-sustaining. There is evidence that the original people who controlled the Federal Reserve knew that their true purpose was to loot and pillage. Now, Ben Bernanke probably is not aware that the US monetary system is one big scam. Ben Bernanke is publicly a believable liar, because he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing.

Good people working in a corrupt system leads to evil. Over time, people learn to not notice things, as a means of self-defense. It'd be too depressing to notice you're hurting people when you think you're helping them. Continuing the above example, psychiatrists must have a low level of emotional awareness, because otherwise they'd notice they are hurting their patients.

When I hear politicians talk about so called "illegal immigration" without discussing NAFTA, I know that they are being deliberately dishonest.
Unrestricted free immigration is the free market answer. It is a problem in a Communist economy like the USA, where there is a fixed pool of jobs. When there's a fixed pool of jobs, importing workers drives down salaries. The extra workers can't easily start new businesses.

Public subsidies of Agri-Business companies in the USA put prices at an artificially low level in the market, a price level which Central American farmers can't compete with and make a profit. Not having the power of government subsidy, they have no choice but to head north to try and find work. On the other hand, I think it's interesting to read what Adam Smith had to say about some people in power and how seemingly honest justifications are made for some of the most dangerous policies the world has ever seen.

Consider Obama. He has genuinely good intentions. However, many of his advisers probably have the parasitic personality type. He probably follows their advice without thinking about it. The net effect is that evil people can usually do as they please, even if someone with the "abused productive" personality type is in the position of authority.

President Kennedy, some have said, had what Smith referred to as the "burden of power" complex whereby you feel no guilt for wrongdoing because you feel that power has been thrust upon you, and since you are the most qualified to manage such a destiny then you have no choice but to accept the evils that accompany great imperial power.

President Kennedy seemed to have genuinely good intentions about doing his job honestly.

That seems to be the corrupt bargain that most politicians make. "I'm going to participate in the vast evil of government. In return, I'll get to help some people. I'll put up with the lobbyists begging for favors, because that's the only way to get elected." The net effect is that most/all of government is the usual evil, and politicians occasionally get to support some pet project. Some of the less-evil politicians say that they put up with the garbage, so that they can occasionally do something they feel strongly about. Of course, a lot of politicians have the parasitic personality type and loot and pillage as much as they can.

I had an interesting conversation with a former US ambassador to Honduras in which he discussed the "power by committee" complex used by the neoconservative Nixonites such as Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc. He recalled policy meetings in the Oval Office in which each person would defer to the other or what they claimed as "consensus policy", "continuity" and so forth. What this really meant was since every one is guilty no one is. It is a bizarre combination of exclusive yet distributive decision making at the top levels of corporate/government power.

Even in a committee, someone with the parasitic personality type is pulling the strings.

For example, suppose I go on a job interview. Four of the interviewers have the "abused productive" personality type, and I get along well with them. The fifth interviewer has the parasitic personality type. He'll see "FSK is someone I can't push around. I need to make sure he isn't hired." When the five people are discussing "Should FSK be hired?", the parasite will have the other four voting to not hire me. He'll change their memories about how good a candidate I was.

Even if it's a committee, there's usually one parasite pulling the strings. The lead parasite creates the illusion of consensus, when he's really making the decisions.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Satanic Death Hospitals":

How does a snake represent life when satan took the form of a serpent?
And how can it be justified by Greek mythology and still mention The Bible in the same comment...according to The Bible, Greek mythology- no matter how preety it might seem, is still paganism.
Also, if a symbol was latter made evil because people worshiped it, then when did it become 'un-evil' and who declared it so?

Isaiah 53:5 says by Jesus' stripes we are healed...why then use a rod & serpent to represent healing?

Other people have given me a hard time for that post.

That logo makes me feel uncomfortable. Whenever I see an ambulance with that logo, I wonder "Who are they going to murder now?" Given my history of abuse by hospitals, it's understandable.

There are two separate issues that should not be confused.
  1. That logo seems like it represents death instead of life and healing.
  2. The health care system in the USA is completely broken.
You may disagree with me on "That logo is evil!" It's obvious that the health care system in the USA isn't working. A free market system would be superior. There should be no State licensing requirements for doctors and no State regulation of health care at all.

Liberty Tiger has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #98":

I wasn't forced to take meds for ADHD as a child, fortunately.

That's good. That may not be the case if you were a child today. Due to lobbying by drug company executives, there now is a strong push to "diagnose" children as having a mental illness, and then forcibly drug them. Even as an adult, it was hard enough for me to convince my parents "These drugs are hurting me!" Most children won't have the ability to recognize the negative side-effects of the drugs.

I was constantly disciplined for my impulsive, "rebellious" behavior.

That's a better treatment. However, when you realize that a State school is really a brainwashing center, it makes sense that some children resist. I was completely unaware of the scam at the time, and played along.

A child won't even consider the possibility "School is bad for me!", and articulate it as clearly as I do. All the adults around them are brainwashed to believe "School is good for you!"

Going back to "Stupid Equals Evil", most teachers have been brainwashed to believe "School is good for students!" They'll be the best teacher possible, given the constraint of a corrupt system. That only makes them more effective shills for the State. Most teachers don't have the ability to say "The fundamental structure of the school system is defective!" Does it matter that most teachers have good intentions, even though the end result is evil?

Teachers sincerely believe that they're doing good and not evil. That only makes them more effective liars. If a teacher were consciously aware of the corrupt nature of schools, then they would not be effective at brainwashing their students.

Even a Math teacher is evil. First, Math is usually taught in a manner that discourages all but the smartest students; that's a natural side-effect of grading on a curve. Second, only binary logic is taught in schools, where every statement is absolutely true or false. That fails for real-world problems, because it's harder to determine the truth of many statements. Binary logic really messes you up when you have false beliefs, such as "Taxation is not theft!" If you're absolutely certain of false statements, it becomes impossible to learn; overcoming the hurdle of false beliefs is too hard. The only place where Bayesian reasoning is somewhat taught is in the area of Computer Science and AI.

As an adult I voluntary tried various medications to increase my focus and attention. All of the medications I tried had very negative side effects. Strattera has sexual side effects which were detrimental to my relationship with my wife.
Why did you experiment with those drugs? I've noticed that "There's a drug that solves all problems!" is an evil fnord. It's promoted by drug companies looking to sell their products.

I noticed sexual side-effects with anti-psychotic drugs. They are pretty much undocumented, if you read pro-State sources on those drugs.

When I told my psychiatrist, "This drug has side effect X!", they didn't believe me. It's impossible to convince a State psychiatrist that those drugs have damaging side effects. The psychiatrist always said "X is a symptom of your mental illness. X is not due to those drugs. I can prescribe another additional drug to help you with X." I know my psychiatrist was wrong, because the side effects went away when I stopped taking the poison.

Wellbutrin made me just not care about anything. Ritalin and Concerta are speed and caused me to lose sleep and appetite, made me nervous and anxious, and caused weight loss.

When I was on anti-psychotic drugs, I felt no motivation to do anything. Those drugs also slow your metabolism, with weight gain as a side effect. Anti-depressants and anti-ADHD drugs seem to have the opposite effect as anti-psychotic drugs. They stimulate your brain's activity instead of suppressing it. Both are evil.

It took about 2 months since my release from the hospital to recover my blogging energy. I suspect that I don't fully recover until 12-18 months after I stop taking the drugs.

I've since found natural remedies for focus and concentration without the harmful side effects of pharmaceuticals. I would never administer these drugs to a child. The child simply could not understand the negative side-effects or how to communicate the negative thoughts and emotions that these drugs generate. Drugging a child to control his mind is abuse.

That is one of the most serious abuses of the Matrix. Forced drugging of children and adults is inhumane.

Based on my experiences, my observations, and feedback from others, I'd say that anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs are inappropriate 99%+ of the time. My observations are scientific. I'm pretty sure a properly controlled scientific experiment, where patients were kept on placebo for 10+ years, would prove I'm right.

Most FDA approval studies are only for 6-12 weeks, and have many flaws.
  1. The FDA study is for 6-12 weeks, but doctors keep their patient on the drugs for years or decades.
  2. The study doesn't do a proper placebo test. Suppose a patient was taking anti-psychotic drug X, and enters an approval study for drug Y. If the patient is given a placebo, then the patient will experience withdrawal from drug X. Drug Y will mask the withdrawal symptoms from drug X. A period of 6-12 weeks isn't enough to fully recover from withdrawal; in my experience, it's 12-18+ months. In this manner, the placebo test is conducted incorrectly. There should be three groups. (1) patients already taking another anti-psychotic drugs (2) patients not taking another drug (3) people who have not been diagnosed with a mental illness at all. Anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs will cause a mental illness in an otherwise health person. A psychiatrist will say "That's not the way the drugs work!", which is what they've been brainwashed to say. If a drug makes a healthy person very sick, then it should be viewed with suspicion, especially for a controversial problem like "mental illness".
  3. The study is conducted by "scientists" working for the drug company seeking approval. Naturally, their goal is to get approval. It is irrelevant if the drug actually helps patients, or if the drug hurts patients. With suitable lobbying and marketing to doctors, harmful drugs can be sold. Even if sued, damages are typically less than 1 year of profits from the drug.
  4. The scientist determines "Does the psychiatric drug work?" based on an interview with the patient. This is completely subjective.
  5. There is no unbiased drug research. A professor at a university seems impartial, but he gets his funding from the State. The drug research money is controlled by drug company lobbyists. If a professor does the "wrong" research, he won't get a grant and he won't pass peer review. In this manner, peer review prevents progress of science.

I'm still a bit behind on answering reader comments, but I'll publish this instead of waiting and falling further behind. I've mostly recovered my blogging energy. I'm recovering my "One new post per day!" blogging discipline.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Don't be like that Kelsey. You made a great impact with your speech, greater than you possibly realize. About the series ...

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at