This Blog Has Moved!

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



Your Ad Here

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Reader Mail #102

I liked this article, via Kung-Fu Monkey.

I liked this bit.

The modern nation state is an extremely efficient killing machine. We know this from our Tilly; the nation-state replaced its competitors, such as empires and city-states, because it could develop and support institutions of internal and external domination. The nation-state successfully extracted a large surplus from its population, which it transformed into the coercive means for acquiring even more internal surplus and for waging external wars.

The most common interaction we have with the state is thus; the state demands property that we regard as our own, and if we refuse to hand this property over it sends men with guns to our house. If we resist these men with guns, they imprison us. If we resist too effectively, they kill us. This is true of every modern nation-state. Liberal democracies differ from authoritarian states in that they allow us to complain loudly about the process, to minimize its arbitrariness, and to have some (very) small say in how our property is reallocated. This difference isn't trivial, but it isn't as large as normally assumed.

The modern nation-state is nevertheless tolerable because it substantially reduces private coercion (replacing it with less arbitrary public coercion), creates a relatively safe space in which commerce and the production of wealth can be undertaken, provides regulation necessary for the conduct of a modern (socialist or capitalist) economy, provides social services, and because it creates a sense of identity and political efficacy. Its murderous tendencies notwithstanding, I'd rather live in a nation-state than not, and would prefer a more complete and capable state to the rump that libertarians envision.

The author seems to recognize "The State is (sometimes) evil." However, he falls short of the conclusion "Who needs a government anyway?" This is a common intellectual trap. People notice that government is sometimes evil, but there's a blind spot regarding real free markets.

It seems that the author is a lawyer. Regrettably, lawyers tend to be pro-State trolls.

The main point of the article was interesting. He was citing the image from Tienanmen Square where a man was standing in front of a tank. Who is a greater threat to the State? The guy standing in front of the tank? Or, the tank commander who decides to not run him over?

Similarly, who is a greater threat to the parasite class? Is it the person who say "Hey! Government is one big scam!" Or, is it the State enforcer who decides to not arrest people for telling the truth?

Which is more important, the fact that I'm writing a blog about real free markets, or the fact that I can write such a blog without police arresting me or silencing me?

In recent years, it's become more acceptable to use swear words on TV. This is a prerequisite to true profanity, which would be someone going on TV and saying "Taxation is theft!"

Originally, copyright was used as a censorship tool. You could only publish something if you got permission from the king's censors. In the present, people have the presumption of freedom of speech. However, that freedom is less meaningful when a handful of people own all the mainstream media corporations. There's freedom of the press, but it only applies to people who own a printing press!

The Internet has allowed people to share information in ways that was previously impossible. The Internet bypasses mainstream media censorship. Since I've started blogging, I've noticed an increase in the volume and quality of other people writing about really free markets. This is a favorable trend.

It seems that more people are understanding the evils of government and the State.

Regrettably, that blog suffers from the "large volume of mediocre material" problem, and I'm not going to be a regular reader.



This post on out of step is about a free download of "Alongside Night", by J. Neil Schulman. It's a science fiction novel about the coming collapse of the government and an agorist revolution. It was somewhat interesting.

The agorist trading group is presented as one huge organization. It's more likely that there would be many small trading groups, rather than one huge group. In a true free market, there's a natural limit to the size of a business.



I liked this YouTube video on "The pharmaceutical industry is evil." That video only had 1k views!

He said "The pharmaceutical industry paid me a nice salary for many years. I eagerly went along with the scam."

I disagree with "The pharmaceutical industry is the most corrupt industry." It's certainly up there on the scale of evil. The financial industry and government itself are probably more evil. The psychiatry/death industry plays a big role in preserving the Matrix. People who see bits of the Matrix are labeled as defective, and silenced via drugs.

I liked this point: The pharmaceutical industry focuses on covering up symptoms, instead of curing diseases. The patient/victim is then required to take the drugs for the rest of their lives. This is very profitable, especially if you target children.

That's interesting! The pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry/death industry are targeting children, just the same way that the tobacco industry targets children! If you're addicted to anti-psychotic drugs as a child and permanently damaged, then you have to take them for the rest of your life. The parents will usually believe what their "professional" State-licensed doctor tells them, and a young child has a hard time saying "These drugs are hurting me!" Even as an adult, I had a hard time convincing my parents that those drugs were bad for me. All the time, new mental illnesses are invented and diagnosed in children.

Pharmaceutical industry executives encourage "off-label" prescriptions. If a drug is on the market and approved by the FDA for X, a doctor can still prescribe it for Y. It's dishonest for drug company marketing executives to encourage such behavior.

The pharmaceutical industry profits more from marketing and hype, rather than by genuinely curing diseases. Via sovereign immunity, they are protected from suffering negative consequences for their misconduct.

I liked this point: Anti-psychotic drugs are given to senior citizens in nursing homes. Senior citizens complain that they are abused. The drugs silence their complaints and make them do nothing but sleep all day. This is less work for the staff who run the nursing homes.

I also liked this point: Pharmaceutical industry executives cover up the negative side effects of drugs they promote.

He missed one big point. There were huge fines and penalties regarding "Zyprexa causes diabetes." However, the fine was less than 1 year of profit from the drug's sales. In this manner, dishonesty is rewarded. Further, the executives were protected by sovereign immunity. Even though their corporation paid a fine, they still got huge salaries and bonuses.

I liked the bit with "Insiders in pharmaceutical companies, the mainstream media, and the government conspire to **** over people and cover up the truth." That's the way almost all industries work.



Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Bernard Madoff Sentencing Fnord":

Although a Agree with your previous postings that the bulk of the blame lies with the investors themselves for not diversifying there assets, as well as not questioning there ultra high returns, I can't agree with #2.


There also are the financial planners and brokers who sold Madoff's funds.

It's regrettable that nearly every American is mostly illiterate about statistics. A simple volatility calculation, and a comparison with other funds, would be a sure fraud tipoff.

2. all the people who worked for Bernard Madoff

It's been well documented that the employees that Madoff had working for him had little experience or knowledge in the investment world. The bulk of them with the exception of a few accountants didn't have a clue what Madoff was doing. The clerks, IT staff and other supporting workers can't be blamed any more, then the decisions CEO's made at Worldcomm or Enron.
I disagree.

You do make one interesting point. A skilled parasite makes sure that his subordinates are clueless. This way, none of them will ever question his scam. However, being clueless is not a defense.

I worked as a financial industry software engineer. I studied the financial markets, in addition to writing software. If I did it, then someone working for a $50B+ hedge fund also should have a responsibility to learn the basics. In my case, studying the financial markets led to the conclusion "The financial industry is one big scam!"

I disagree with "People who worked for Madoff are not responsible." Everyone is responsible for what they do. "I was stupid!" should never be accepted as a valid defense.

A better argument is "How much is each person responsible?" Is the janitor who cleaned his office responsible? Obviously not. What about his receptionist? Yes, but only to a small degree. His accountants are definitely 100% responsible. The brokers and financial planners who sold his fund are 100% responsible.

Also, Madoff probably had some software that helped him manage his fraud. Off-the-shelf accounting software would not create detailed bogus statements. Whoever wrote that software is partially responsible.

Barry Broome has left a new comment on your post "Bernard Madoff Sentencing Fnord":

If "I was stupid!" is a valid defense, then what incentive is there for anyone to behave intelligently?

Hey FSK... and Amen to that. I think Bernie's grandfather pulled the same shit back in his day. I read or heard that on NPR or something. Anyway I'm still following your blog and hope you are doing well my friend....

I noticed that some parasites have been looting and pillaging for generations. For example, members of the Bush family allegedly got some lucrative State subsidies during World War II.

That's one interesting fact about the current State compared to previous forms of government. In the 15th century, it was common for the ruling class to lose their position, due to assassinations. In the present, insiders nearly effortlessly pass their power on to their children. The transfer of State power from parents to children is more reliable in the present than at any time in the past.

I'm recovering my blogging energy. My traffic statistics are increasing again, after being flat for a few months. I noticed that my post quality and number of citations elsewhere is increasing again.

I'm still looking for a slave software engineer job, with zero success. It's very frustrating. I should get out of the wage slave career track, but in the short-term that's my best option. It's very frustrating to realize that I have 10 years of experience, am an expert software engineer, yet the market value of my experience is zero. It's even more frustrating going on job interviews and notice how parasites are eager to reject me, because their mind control tricks no longer work on me.

Going on job interviews is simultaneously enlightening and frustrating. It's very annoying to see what pathetic wretches most interviewers are. On the other hand, it's good to be able to see things clearly.

It's wrong to think "FSK can't find a wage slave job because FSK is defective." The reality is that a higher level of awareness paradoxically makes it harder for me to find a wage slave job. A parasite is looking for someone he can push around, rather than a truly skilled worker.



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

Anyone here remember the Wolverines?

No, I don't.

I recently watched Red Dawn again, this time with my adult eyes, and was truly intrigued. The same things that were used to "protect" our freedoms(registration of firearms), were the same things used to take them away in the movie.

I read the Wikipedia summary. Allegedly, they're making a remake. I wonder if it will suck.

One useful aspect of private gun ownership is the "Repel enemy invaders!" aspect. For example, some pro-State troll historians say "Switzerland was never invaded because of the hostile terrain." Switzerland also has a policy of making sure everyone owns a gun and knows how to use it. This makes an invasion very unprofitable.

An invasion succeeds easily when the vast majority are disarmed. This applies to hostile foreign invasions. This also applies to an invasion by FBI/IRS tax collectors.

I own many guns, only one of which is registered. It's my main hunting gun, and I'd be very upset if the State came after it. Of course, if it ever came to that, I'm sure that all of my guns would have been "privately sold." ;)

The State has no business knowing who has what and how much. Them knowing that information is their way of limiting how we choose to defend ourselves. As we all know a weak people is way easier to enslave.

PS: Grab your pump shotgun if you want to defend yourself.

Regrettably, I don't own a gun.

By the time police come for your guns, it's probably too late to get rid of them.

In the USA, the gun lobby is relatively strong. I doubt that gun ownership will be completely outlawed. Regrettably, where I live in NYC, it's practically impossible to legally own a gun unless you're a policeman.

The right of gun ownership isn't just about defending yourself against ordinary criminals. It's also about defending yourself from criminals wearing shiny badges and uniforms.



A few weeks ago, there were a bunch of people on Bureacurash saying "This site sucks! We're leaving!" I've noticed a dramatic decrease in the volume of content.



cyberTrebuchet has left a new comment on your post "Mark Sanford's Fnord":

I like monogamy, personally. But of course laws prohibiting other arrangements are stupid, immoral and void.

There are two separate issues.

First, should arrangements other than monogamy be illegal? Are marriage contracts any of the government's business? This falls under "People should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't injure anyone else."

You also should make the distinction between monogamy (being legally married to one person) and polyamoury (having multiple partners). You can be legally married to one person, yet still have multiple partners (if your partner understands). There are legal perks for a State-licensed marriage. It might make sense to get legally married, even if you plan to have multiple partners.

There are frequent State raids on groups practicing alternative marriage arrangements, combined with propaganda saying "Those groups are evil!" The agorist way to do it is to have multiple partners, but not all live together in the same place.

The second issue is "What is natural human behavior?" There is so much pro-State propaganda favoring monogamy, that I suspect the answer is "Multiple partners is more natural."

I don't know of any instance where a mainstream media personality has said "Having multiple partners is more natural than monogamy!"

Most people think that it's one extreme or the other. You have one exclusive partner, or hundreds of partners. It's probably healthier to have a few regular partners.

Of course, I'm currently completely alone. That makes it seem pointless to be arguing monogamy vs. alternatives.



fritz has left a new comment on your post "An Example Tax Resister Insurance Calculation":

This is real substance. If its legal to place bets in Vegas on just about anything. I feel a person could make a business on tax resistance speculation also. The critical thinkers at my work loved the Idea when I mentioned it after your last posting!!!!

If I sold tax resister insurance, I wouldn't allow people to bet "FSK will be raided by the IRS!" A customer could make that bet and then report me to State enforcers!

cyberTrebuchet has left a new comment on your post "An Example Tax Resister Insurance Calculation":

I expect a post when this gets off the ground. Consider me a potential customer and investor!

This is at least 5-10 years away. I currently have no agorist trading partners, much less people who would be interested in tax resister insurance.

Francois Tremblay has left a new comment on your post "An Example Tax Resister Insurance Calculation":

All right, let's do it then.

The only reason I haven't started yet is that I have zero agorist trading partners. It's necessary to get a more advanced free market going, before such services become profitable and practical.

gilliganscorner has left a new comment on your post "An Example Tax Resister Insurance Calculation":

This is the type of post I come to your blog for, FSK.

Really? I thought that was mostly a routine calculation and observation.

I'm looking to start moving with actual agorism, but that will probably take at least a couple of years.



fritz has left a new comment on your post "Inflation vs. Reflation":

If we keep it up we should see hyper inflation soon. Just like during W.W. 1 Germany in 1918. When it took 1 full wheel barrel of worthless German marks to buy a loaf of bread!!
The rate of inflation should be stable or slightly increasing for the next few years. There won't be Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe hyperinflation until the final collapse of the State draws near.

In the present, almost everyone in the USA still uses slave points as money and pays taxes/tribute whenever they work. That limits the rate of inflation. Until people start boycotting paper money, the bad guys can always pay off their debts by printing new money.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Inflation vs. Reflation":

I just did the research. The maximum exchange rate was 4.2 trillion marks for every 1 American Dollar in December 1923. This happened because the Germans just printed money to pay off their insurmountable war debt. People found it more affordable to burn stacks of worthless marks for heating and cooking than buy wood.

Could this happen to us???

Yes, this could happen in the USA. It probably won't happen until the collapse of the State draws near.

Remember that the USA also has the perk of exporting inflation to other countries. Other countries inflate their own paper money to keep stable exchange rates with the US dollar.

Another interesting thing that happens during hyperinflation is that coins disappear from circulation. The metal value becomes greater than the legal tender value, encouraging people to hoard them.

In 1964, silver was demonetized. Dimes, quarters, and half dollars used to be mostly silver. After silver was demonetized, all the old change was removed from circulation. For awhile, the Treasury department couldn't mint new non-silver coins as fast as people were removing the older coins from circulation.

Similarly, around the middle of last year, the metal in pennies and nickels was worth more than the legal tender value. This encouraged people to hoard pennies and nickels. Metal prices have temporarily declined due to the deflationary recession/depression. In the next 6-24 months, metal prices will start rising again.

Eventually, the real value of Federal Reserve Notes will equal their paper value.



Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Light Bulb Fnord":

It's amazing what kind of messages are in cartoons.
I saw an old Pop-eye and he was fighting indians (as in native americans, not India) and I think he smashed them all one-by-one into indian head coins.
It made me laugh because it seemed racist, and reminded me of how the government always has propaganda to destroy whatever it needs to in order to turn our labor into it's own personal wealth. I was suprised to even see that on TV. So I changed the channel and there was some other cartoon and there was some asian dude and they made his face yellow, and there was an indian who was red... lol are they serious?
At the time racism was trendy. Racism is no longer considered acceptable.

For example, "Speedy Gonzales" cartoons are no longer shown, because it's considered to be racist. The Disney movies "Peter Pan" and "Dumbo" contained racist elements.

It's amusing to watch old propaganda. It isn't as polished as more modern propaganda, so it's more obvious. Modern state-of-the-art propaganda no longer fools me.



This article on MSN was an amusing bit of pro-State trolling. It's financial advice from the "Founding Fathers". Except for Alexander Hamilton, most of the early US political leaders were very hostile to the idea of a central bank.

The byline for the article was "Financial advice quotes from the people whose picture appears on money." They missed one of my favorite Andrew Jackson quotes, regarding his veto of the law renewing the 2nd US central bank:

You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.

If Andrew Jackson were still alive, he'd be very offended to see his picture on Federal Reserve Notes.

Some conspiracy theorists say the banksters intentionally put the picture of Lincoln, Jackson, Franklin, and Jefferson on Federal Reserve Notes. All of them were very hostile to the idea of a central bank and excessive influence by the banksters. Putting their picture on slave points is a not-so-subtle way of insulting them.



My parents were watching the Twilight Zone (July 4th SciFi Channel marathon). It's amusing to notice how the standard for "good TV" changes over time.

Most of those old episodes have ridiculously simple plots. You can summarize the plot in a sentence or two.

Not knowing what they were watching and just hearing the sound, it sounded like they were watching a cartoon.



K_Yew has left a new comment on your post "Bernard Madoff Sentencing Fnord":

FSK, you might like this post:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-just-got-screwedagain.html

There were some semi-interesting bits and some errors.

The cost of SIPC insurance is 100% paid by taxpayers. Even if the cost were actually paid by brokers, the cost would be passed on to customers as higher commissions and fees.

Similarly, FDIC insurance is paid by a tax on bank deposits. Due to the tax, you receive a lower interest rate on your bank account, or pay higher fees.

The Federal Reserve has been bailing out the banksters via a 0%-0.25% Fed Funds Rate. The Federal government was explicitly bailing out the banksters via the TARP program. The bailout of AIG and GM was an indirect bailout of their creditors. Even though the TARP investments may have been "profitable", the return was still less than true inflation over the same time period. These bailouts aren't fee. Everyone else pays the cost via inflation.

*ALL* government programs are ultimately paid by taxes. There's no such thing as a free lunch. (TANSTAAFL)

As I mentioned before, why are Madoff's investors entitled to a bailout but not other investors? As I mentioned before, I bought shares of Bank of America and Citigroup, thinking they were safe investments. I lost a large percentage of my investment, at a time when inflation was very high. Where's my bailout?

There's another point you didn't emphasize. Congress changed the SIPC insurance law *RETROACTIVELY*. It's obviously unfair when politicians retroactively change a law. There's even a specific clause in the Constitution that bars "ex post facto" laws. Due to their connections, Madoff's investors qualified for a retroactive change in the SIPC law.

There's another point to emphasize. The State and SEC have a monopoly for enforcing investment fraud. Even if they do a lousy job, there's no negative consequences for State enforcers. The reimbursement is paid via taxes, and not by the SEC enforcers personally. I can't profitably start my own "police investment fraud" business due to the State monopoly. If I published a "Madoff is a fraud!" article before the scandal broke, then I probably would have been sued for libel.

Why should the American taxpayer become the insurer of last resort for wealthy investors?

The entire point of government is to benefit insiders at the expense of productive workers. Once you understand "Taxation is theft!", it's obvious that government is a massive criminal conspiracy. Government is a massive extortion racket, cloaked in an illusion of legitimacy.



fritz has left a new comment on your post "Gold Outperformed the S&P 500 in the First Half of...":

Does anyone know how we got on federal reserve slave points. I can't find it anywhere. There is no amendment to the constitution of section 10 " no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt"

We are getting f#ck#d over and the government doesn"t even have a foundation upon the constitution to make it fake money!!!

As I mentioned before, a Constitution provides no protection for individual freedom at all. The people who appoint themselves the Constitution's interpreters and enforcers may do as they please, because they have an absolute monopoly.

Regarding "no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt", there's a loophole. That's only a restriction on individual state governments. That clause does not place a restriction on the Federal government. Even if the clause were more clearly worded, the Supreme Court would probably have allowed a liberal interpretation anyway.

The erosion of the gold standard happened in stages.

There were a couple of things that set the stage for the elimination of the gold standard, albeit indirectly.

Until the US Civil War, there was a presumption that the Constitution was a voluntary contract. Individual states could opt out of it at any time. This placed a limit on the rate of expansion of Federal government power.

Also during the US Civil War, a lot of laws were passed that regulated the banking industry. For example, government regulations forced banks to operate under corrupt fractional reserve principles, instead of sound warehouse receipt banking or time deposit banking.

During the late 19th century, the Supreme Court legalized limited liability incorporation. Limited liability incorporation combined with unsound fractional reserve banking is a recipe for disaster. Limited liability incorporation gives bank owners and management a free put option to declare bankruptcy and cheat depositors/creditors. Limited liability incorporation encourages fraud by the owners of a nearly insolvent bank. Before limited liability incorporation was legalized, there was a limit to how much a banker could abuse the fractional reserve fraud. The bank owners and management would be forced to sell personal assets as collateral in a bankruptcy, limiting the extent they could cheat depositors.

Unsound fractional reserve banking, a regulated banking industry, limited liability incorporation, and collusion among banksters caused severe crises in the late 19th and early 20th century. These problems were blamed on "failure of the free market", but the real problem was other regulations. These crises led to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

The USA never had a free market banking system. One of the first things that Alexander Hamilton did as the first Treasury Secretary was to create a central bank. Also, laws were passed requiring the use of gold as money. Using crops, tobacco, furs, or cotton as money was forbidden. A law requiring people to use gold as money is as evil as a law forbidding people to use gold as money. In the late 18th century, the European banksters had a near monopoly on the world gold supply, which is what made a gold standard evil at the time. The gold standard forced out small local monetary systems.

It's silly to say "The free market banking system in the USA was failure!" The USA never had a free market banking system. Even after Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of the 2nd US central bank, there still were laws regulating banking.

The final blow to the gold standard actually came in 1913 and not 1933 as is commonly believed. Before 1913, banknotes were only issued by individual banks. If a bank went bankrupt, then its paper was worthless. This limited the ability of the banksters to use paper to expand the money supply, because people could take the paper and say "Give me my gold!"

The Federal Reserve was allowed to print more Federal Reserve Notes than there was physical gold in the US Treasury. The original Federal Reserve law required the percent gold backing of the US dollar to never fall below 25%, but the executive branch declined to enforce that part of the law and it was later amended. A Federal Reserve Note says "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private." The legal tender law meant that you had to accept the Federal Reserve Note as payment, even if you preferred gold. People who preferred gold didn't object. Until 1933, you could redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for gold.

In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and caused an inflationary boom. In 1929, the Federal Reserve jacked up interest rates, causing a crash. In 1933, the Federal Reserve started inflating to bailout the banksters. It's the exact same mechanism as the recent housing bubble and bust and bailout. In 1929, insiders knew the crash was coming and converted to cash ahead of time. Then at the bottom of the depression, they borrowed money to buy assets, profiting from inflation. In 1933, there was a limit on how much the Federal Reserve could inflate, due to the gold-redeemability of the Federal Reserve Note. The "solution" was to default on the gold standard.

The Federal Reserve was allowed to print more Federal Reserve Notes than there was physical gold in the US Treasury. In 1932-1933, they started massively inflating. Getting suspicious of the scam, people started rushing to redeem their Federal Reserve Notes for physical gold. At the time, the mainstream media decried gold hoarders as unpatriotic. The reality is that hoarding gold is a rational economic decision when you expect the government to default on its money.

In 1933, President Roosevelt defaulted on the gold-redeemability of the Federal Reserve Note. Instead of declaring the Federal Reserve bankrupt, President Roosevelt bailed out the banksters. In addition to the default on the gold standard, President Roosevelt declared it illegal for Americans to own gold. He demanded that every American turn over their gold in exchange for a piece of paper. If you had money in a bank account, you no longer had the right to withdraw your balance in gold. If you had gold in a safe deposit box at a bank, then the bank management was required to steal your gold.

Was this gold seizure legal? A corrupt Supreme Court and Congress backed President Roosevelt's decision. Some of his advisers were uncomfortable with the gold seizure, but they played along with the scam. The mainstream media spread the propaganda that gold hoarders were criminals.

It was necessary to seize the gold in 1933. Otherwise, people would have merely boycotted the Federal Reserve and used gold instead. In 1971, more than a generation later, people were finally brainwashed to believe "gold is not money". They had accepted to use paper as money.

As an individual, there is no rational reason to prefer paper money to gold or silver. With paper money, there is always theft via inflation. With paper money, the people who control the printing presses cannot resist the temptation to print more money and give it to themselves.

With gold and silver, your money is protected from confiscation via inflation. With gold and silver, your savings are protected from theft.

Paper money concentrates economic power in the handful of insiders who print and spend the new money. The power to finance new businesses is concentrated in the hands of the banksters. If I want to start a business, it doesn't pay for you to make me a FRN-denominated loan charging 8%, because that is less than true inflation. A bankster will gladly lend at 6%, because he is borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate and profiting off the spread times his leverage ratio. Only insiders may borrow at preferred interest rates.

Before the Federal Reserve was created, there was a financial instrument known as the "Bill of Exchange". It was common for individuals to lend each other money, bypassing the banksters. With paper money, economic power is concentrated in the hands of the banksters.

A pro-State troll says "Paper money provides flexibility!" This flexibility is merely a synonym for theft.

A pro-State troll says "The free market banking system is a failure. More regulation is needed!" The blame for banking crises lies with previous regulation. After 1913, the Federal Reserve scientifically created boom/bust cycles via its cartel power to set interest rates. Before 1913, government regulations allowed insiders to collude to create business cycles.

If you listed to a professional Communist, they'll say "The free market discredited the gold standard." The reality is that State violence discredited the gold standard, culminating with President Roosevelt's gold seizure in 1933. The USA never had a free market banking system. There has been an ever-increasing amount of regulation of money and banking.

(This bit deserves its own separate post.)

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gold Outperformed the S&P 500 in the First Half of...":

other interesting things to consider...
Hitler went taking peoples gold, also the US at one point made it illegal to carry gold... so you need to be able to hide it

I've mentioned President Roosevelt's gold seizure in 1933 before.

Paper gold (gold futures and gold options) is an interesting phenomenon. From what I understand, more paper to represent this gold doesn't distort the value. However the value can get distorted by manipulation, by bubbles in the paper asset, etc. What happens is there's maybe futures that can allow for delivery of the gold, the problem is gold futures are so heavily traded that there isn't enough physical gold in existence. What's worse, there's vehicles like GLD and DGP, that you can own, but owning them doesn't entitle you to the shares. However, if you have money in an IRA for tax deferred benefit, I would think owning GLD would be better than money market account, or speculating on gold mining stocks which can run out of inventory, miss earnings, etc.
Maybe not though.
I have heard about the possibility to invest in gold directly with IRA but I'm not sure.
Allegedly, some of the banksters have huge naked short positions in gold. They want gold to be discredited as an investment so that paper investments are attractive. They are bailed out by central banks, who sell off a huge amount of gold every time the price rises substantially.

If you buy a gold future and take delivery, then allegedly there is a specifically-numbered bar in the COMEX warehouse that belongs to you. You don't know if the COMEX isn't secretly practicing fractional reserve banking, by issuing more receipts than physical gold is in their vault. In a SHTF scenario you may still not be able to get your gold. This is important, because the financial system may collapse in the next 15-20 years. You also have the right to take actual physical delivery of your gold if you buy a gold future. The COMEX charges an annual storage fee and a fee to people who take delivery.

With GLD and SLV, you don't have the right to redeem your shares for gold. However, professional market makers have the right to create/destroy shares of GLD by giving/receiving gold. This guarantees that the price of GLD and SLV should track physical metal minus the fund management fee. Again, you will lose your investment in GLD and SLV when the financial system collapses.

In a 401(k), you probably are SOL if you want to invest in gold or silver. Your best bet is to wait until you switch jobs and then roll it over into an IRA.

If you have an IRA, the simplest way is to get a brokerage option and buy GLD or SLV. Alternatively, there are some custodians that hold physical gold for you. However, they charge higher fees. In a SHTF scenario, you may not be able to withdraw your gold.

The primary benefit of IRA investing is tax-deferred gains. That is irrelevant if you are investing in gold or silver. There is no dividend that you would owe tax on. If you know someone who will buy gold from you off-the-books in exchange for slave points or other goods and services, then there's no advantage to owning gold in an IRA. Just take physical delivery.

Buying gold in an IRA is silly, because there's no tax advantage. You get the same advantage if you take physical delivery and later sell off-the-books. If you have savings already in an IRA, you might as well buy GLD and SLV for now. I'm seriously considering cashing out my IRAs and paying the early withdrawal penalty. If I could solve the "safe place to store my metal" problem, I'd probably do it.

I never understood why some people whine "The banksters are manipulating the price of gold, keeping it artificially low." If you believe this to be true, then buy gold and take physical delivery. Appreciate the discount that you are getting on your gold purchase!

That isn't always possible. When the price of gold was very low last year, a lot of online dealers had no inventory! As long as it's possible to buy a gold future and take delivery, then the "official" price of gold should be close to the price at which you can buy gold coins and bars. You should expect to pay more than the "official" price of gold when you buy, due to transaction costs.

One of my agorist business ideas is "create a gold/silver/FRN barter network".

(This bit deserves its own separate post.)

Fivemileshigh has left a new comment on your post "Gold Outperformed the S&P 500 in the First Half of...":

Here's a better page for getting the price of physical gold:

http://www.24hgold.com/english/buy_sell_gold_coins.aspx?co_id=2

it tracks eBay sales of actual coins.

That only includes current prices. I'm interested in "historic price", which I use in various calculations. It also seemed to be mostly American Eagles, although I noticed some bits for generic rounds at the bottom. American Eagles cost more than generic rounds, because they're minted by the Federal government. I'd just buy rounds and not pay the premium.

You also can look up prices at online dealers such as APMEX or Kitco.

Until the collapse of the State draws near, the "official" price of gold should be close to the price when you buy for physical delivery. If there were a discrepancy, then someone could buy a future and take delivery.

There are two drawbacks of buying on eBay. First, there's the counterfeit problem if you're buying from a stranger. Other people have said that they haven't had a problem with this, but it could be a problem as more people buy gold and silver. "Learn basic metallurgy skills" is on my list of things to do. Second, if you buy or sell on eBay your transaction is reported to the State and IRS. One big advantage of owning physical gold and silver is that you can sell them tax-free if you know a buyer who will pay in cash or goods/services.

Capital gains taxes on gold/silver are immoral, in addition to the usual "Taxation is theft!" argument. You are taxed on gains that are merely compensation for inflation. If the price of gold rises by 20%, what really happened is that the value of the dollar declined by 20%. Further, gold is taxed at the 28% rate used for collectibles, rather than the rate of 5%/15% for stock capital gains.

"Start a gold/silver/FRN barter network" is on my list of agorist business ideas. The advantages of my barter network compared to eBay would be:
  • The transaction would not be reported to the State/IRS. I would merely be providing a matching service and not be a party to the transaction, evading the reporting requirement, although I might act as a market maker.
  • The buyer and seller would have anonymity. This way, State enforcers and common criminals will not know that you have gold or silver in your home. Users of the barter network could use a consistent made-up fake name like "FSK", or use their regular State/slave names.
  • There would be some assurance that the buyer and seller have a reputation for not selling counterfeit coins. I don't know how big a problem counterfeit coins are.
  • The trading partner would also be an agorist. Other goods and services might also be available for purchase.



cyberTrebuchet has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

I'll post my replies from our email conversation. In the future feel free to post and then debunk anything I say; the truth is public domain.

Some people get upset when I post their question. It depends on who E-Mails the question. Normally, I post E-Mail questions but I didn't think there was anything important.

Also, I don't claim copyright or trademark on content from my blog. If you do post content from my blog, I expect a link back but I'm not going to pursue a DMCA takedown notice. I don't like spam blogs that include all my posts, but there isn't anything I really can do about that. Google seems to recognize me as the original author for my content, which is good enough.

1) I read that post [Fallacy of Tax Protester Fallacies], and I entirely agreed with it. The idea here is that I (and probably you too) have inadvertently but nevertheless contracted with the US Government.

I disagree. There is no implied contract that is binding in such a manner.

For example, I read that somewhere buried in the fine print of agreements for a checking account, there is a clause where you agree to be subject to IRS taxation. Even if there were such a clause, I don't consider it legally binding.

The income tax is indeed immoral, but it's essentially part of the terms and conditions of contracting with or being an franchisee or agent of the USG. A voidable contract, yes (it does not fulfill the requirements for a binding contract), but still a contract. Unless and until you and I take steps to make it absolutely clear in court that we have never willfully contracted with the USG, we are liable for all its immoral terms of contract (all of the USG's code and statutes).

Now you're talking gibberish. There is no bureaucratic paperwork one can file to become free of the income tax. If it did work, then everyone would be doing it. If it did work, then Congress of the Supreme Court would rapidly close the loophole.

The fact that some people get away with such things is actually encouraging. It's a sign that the IRS is not very efficient at collecting taxes owed, even when the tax resister is using stupid tactics.

Filing belligerent paperwork with the IRS or US court system is pointless. You're fighting the bad guys on their turf. It's like walking into a police station and mooning the policemen. It might feel good, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

This isn't a legal loophole: it's a necessary and lawful voiding of an illegitimate contact. Once this is done, the only reply to a government official need be: "I have no contract with you." Once this is done, none of the value we create is reportable to the IRS, and we can be as in-your-face about agorism as we want.

I disagree. I suspect that such stupid tax resistance theories are spread by State agents themselves. They want would-be tax resisters to follow stupid easily-identifiable tactics, instead of tactics that would actually work.

APMEX and Kitco seem good too. I still have to do some back-and-forth price comparisons between all these guys.

Both seem "good enough". My first online gold or silver purchase will probably be from APMEX. That probably will have to wait 2-3 years.

I continued my stupidity, apparently, thus:

2) Yeah, they're silly, and it's stupid to thoughtfully accept them as terms of contract - only many people accept them unwittingly. You don't need to file anything with the state to get free of it - just stop contracting with it by using a social security number, state ID, gov't forms and slave points.
It's impractical to completely stop using slave points.

When I go into a store, they expect payment in slave points. When I purchase my electricity, telephone, and Internet, the corporate vendor expects payment in slave points. When I pay property taxes, I must pay in slave points. There are no free market alternatives yet, so using slave points is occasionally necessary.

I advise agorists to keep their long-term savings in gold and silver. You need an inventory of slave points for short-term spending needs.

The reams of material on that SEDM site are really just a detailed explanation of why and how to stop contracting with the state. My and their point is that US Code is legally binding contract to people who are dumb enough to inadvertently admit that they're bound by it. Again, it's no legal loophole - it's not fighting on their own turf - it's making it clear to them that you aren't on their turf at all, and so aren't bound to the rules of their game. Yeah, they're brainwashed state trolls, but so was I once. Perhaps I harbor more optimism than you of humans' rationality..?

And that was that.

But you haven't addressed my point (the whole point, really, of all this gibberish) that a contract is binding until voided. I am presently contracted with the US Gov't, although I never intended to be and was never told all the terms of contract. Now that I know, I want out, but to do so I must stop contracting with the USG by ceasing to use Gov't-issued numbers and forms. Otherwise I am liable, as part of the terms of contract, to pay income taxes, to pay into social security, etc.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but it seemed as though you missed my point.
I understand your point. I dismissed your point as stupid.

You're still pro-State trolling. You think that it's possible to logically convince evil people that they're wrong. You can't do that. It doesn't work.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer an official legal opinion. If you asked a State-licensed lawyer, he'd probably tell you you're wrong, because he wouldn't want to risk his State law license.

The legal status of the income tax is incredibly complicated. "Something is unnecessarily complicated" is a dead giveaway that some funny business is going on. I'm not interested in the legal arguments. It's very likely that you would not get a fair response from a State judge, who is naturally biased in favor of the parasite class.

My advice for an agorist is to practice stealth. If you file belligerent paperwork with the IRS/State, then you're just drawing attention to yourself. I've heard that the IRS imposes a "frivolous filing" fine/penalty on people who make such arguments. You argument sounds really stupid to me.

If I were harassed by State enforcers for practicing agorism, then I would represent myself sui juris in court and make those arguments. I doubt I could get a State-licensed lawyer to make such an argument. I wouldn't expect to convince the judge. I'd try to convince at least one juror to vote to acquit me, to manage a hung jury. I'm a good public speaker, so I should be able to manage it if necessary. There are two big advantages of sui juris representation. First, you get the opportunity to make a personal connection with the jury; a State lawyer will typically advise his client to not testify or speak at all. Second, if the judge or prosecutor interrupt you, then it will create sympathy for you in the minds of the jury. A sui juris defendant can make arguments that a State-licensed lawyer cannot. A lawyer would forfeit his law license if he attempted to defend his client honestly.

I understand your argument. There are various hidden legal clauses in the things we do, where we agree to the jurisdiction of the IRS. I say that's nonsense.

You still are showing loss-oriented thinking. "I can get a fair trial in a State court!" is entirely pro-State trolling. State courts are biased in favor of the parasite class. The rules and procedures for the legal system were designed by people whose sole job is to loot and pillage (politicians and lawyers).

You can't negotiate with evil. You can only avoid them or directly force them to stop harassing you. In the present, State enforcers have superior resources, forcing agorists to rely on stealth.

Trying to reason with or convince an evil person is pointless. Evil has been working for them their whole life, and they aren't going to change.

m has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

I just wanted to say thanks for the enlightening blog and discussions.

Really? I thought you would be angry at me for accusing you of pro-State trolling. You were saying "There is no objective universal standard of good and evil. There is no objective universal standard of truth."

I disagree. Such nonsense is spread by members of the parasite class, who want to make sure that their victims can't think clearly. By promoting "Truth is relative!", then all sorts of lies can be justified.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

Here's a bold idea, although I don't know the ramifications so I can't reccomend it...
Sue the IRS/government/fed for stealing... (although I think the fed is exempt as they own the courts. I heard the gold bar around the US flag is symbolism and means "property of US government BUT controlled by the federal reserve"

You'd probably wind up in a mental ward if you tried that.

I'm sure that's a bad idea in terms of personal risk, but the idea that someone is even attempting it would create a huge buzz and could have a huge shockwave... Obviously they could not let that person win at any cost or there would be protests and riots and revolution, but probably that's going to happen anways, it's becoming increasingly clear that the general public is becomming aware that taxation is theft and immoral, and the propaganda against it has been increasing, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be working. I think people are starting to realize that everything they hear on TV is a lie, and the propaganda is becomming less and less effective. But that's just my personal observation.

I definitely see cracks in the Matrix. Last week, I saw Jon Stewart ask a guest "The USA doesn't really have a free market, does it?" He didn't press the issue, but it was interesting to see it even be mentioned. (I wonder if any writers for the Daily Show or Colbert Report read my blog? I only have 200 regular readers, making it very unlikely. I'm getting ready to attempt "Promote agorism via standup comedy!" Some of the people who organize the open mike nights claim in their personal profile that they are writers for Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or David Letterman.)

The difference between now and 20 years ago is the Internet. The Internet allows people to communicate directly and bypass mainstream media censorship.

Actually, the Supreme Leader of Humanity's strategy is a good one (assuming he's engineering the collapse on purpose). It's best if the mainstream media continues to lie, while the most intelligent people discover the truth for themselves via the Internet. It's good to keep the masses complacent, while the most intelligent people figure out what needs to be done and start doing it.

One risk of becoming a high-profile advocate for blatant-in-public agorism is that I would attract the attention of State enforcers. If I get a high-paying mainstream media job, I'd probably just take it and pay tax on it. I'd be supporting the parasite class via taxes, but I'd also have the opportunity to spread the truth to a lot of people. Otherwise, I'd focus on promoting agorism while starting actual agorist businesses.

I doubt I'd get invited as a guest on a mainstream media program, but who knows? The only way to know for sure is to try. It'd probably take a couple years of work first, building up my reputation as a standup comedian.

There's more TV talk shows than quality guests, which might work in my favor. I also read that there's a lot more nightclubs than there are standup comedians who don't suck. I might not get invited in the "top" clubs, but I might make a decent salary in a 2nd tier or 3rd tier club. After my initial open mike experiment, I might even get an hour on an off-peak night, which I could justify if I got a regular audience of 10+ people.

Remember that my goal isn't "Make $10M+!" My goal is "Make at least as much as I earned as a wage slave software engineer." My career as a wage slave software engineer definitely seems to be going nowhere. It's time to try something else. It's probably take several years before I can earn a full-time living outside the wage slave economy.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

Maybe I'm biased but it seems the majority of people ages about 18-25 or so seem to be a LOT more aware of what's going on.

I attribute that to the Internet and online "social networking".

In a wage slave job, it's very hard to tell your employer "**** you! I'm starting a competing business!"

On the Internet, it's very easy to say "**** you! I'm leaving!" You can then join another online community or start a new one. Internet-based communities have an element of fairness that physical State communities lack.

Are people learning proper social behavior via the Internet?

Another important point is that the Internet bypasses mainstream media censorship. I only have approximately 100-200 regular readers. Without the Internet, it would be impossible for me to gain an audience and to discover the work done by others. 200 readers isn't enough to justify the expense of printed material. Without the Internet, I couldn't have even gotten 200 readers in the first place.

Most of my ideas are not original. I'm presenting better summaries and explanations of ideas found elsewhere. For example, there are all sorts of complicated legal arguments against the income tax. "Taxation is theft!" is sufficient explanation.

In general I think more and more people are "waking up".

I'm noticing that, but it's slow. I'm even noticing some cracks in the Matrix on mainstream media shows. Of course, I watch shows that have a lower propaganda ratio.

I'm getting more and more frustrated with the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Their use of a laugh track seems very annoying now. It's more obvious to me when it's being used. When I watch those shows, my gut reaction is "I could make a much better show!"

I have noticed a lot more propaganda lately in the most ridiculous forms, I don't know if it's desperation or what. But I saw them try to associate tax protesters with racists.

It also might be that your awareness is increasing.

A common evil fnord is using racism to divide people. It's much easier to think in terms of "Race X vs. Race Y" rather than "The parasite class is looting and pillaging both X and Y."

I am not sure if the younger generations will understand even more as they grow older, or if their minds have been put to sleep by the latest video games and such.

I suspect that video games teach better thinking skills compared to other activities children typically do. For example, compare "Super Mario World" to "Candy Land". Which game is more strategically interesting? "Candy Land" and "Snakes and Ladders" have zero strategy. Even Monopoly has a relatively low amount of strategy.

I read that Brain scans aparently show kids brainwaves in delta phase which is equivilent to deep sleep yet they're still awake even though they're just responding automatically. Although I and many in my generation grew up playing regular NES when I was very young, I did not grow up with the 3-d lifelike games. I could tell the difference, and I believed that just about everything on TV was make believe. The problem is the games are so real that I think the very young will not be convinced what is real, what is a dream, what is a game, and what is reality. It's kind of "manchurian candidate" like.

I wonder what a brain scan of me would yield? I feel that I'm using my brain in ways that I wasn't previously.

I think all sorts of fnords and suggestions could be and probably are used in video games, but would be many times more effective.

It'd be nice to attempt writing a video game, but I don't have the time or experience.

On the other hand, kids grow up on the internet. I am 24, so I was actually ot using the internet so regularly until probably early high school and college. I learned more from the internet then school both in academic terms and in real life useful knowledge. I think my generation and slightly younger is probably among the most "awake", because we learned to grow away from TV fairly early, but not to hypnotic games until after we learned a lot on the internet.
However, it's possible that many of the younger generations will grow more intelligent and realize everything as well.
I don't know what age you are, but I imagine you probably are in that 18-25 range.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think about this.

I'm actually 35 years old. Most of my regular readers seem to be younger.

I suspect that 35 years old is the "minimum" age for someone with my level of overall awareness of the Matrix. It isn't just about realizing "Taxation is theft!" It's also about recognizing the corrupt nature of productive/parasitic relationships.

For example, I can now nearly instantly recognize "This person is an ***hole parasite!" I can't imagine a 25 year old with the same ability, unless he was raised by parents who were themselves unplugged. Some things come only with experience.

I have noticed that older people are more resistant to new ideas. I've had zero success explaining "Taxation is theft!" to my parents and other relatives. They get deeply offended and hostile whenever I come close to the subject. That's one interesting fnord in "The Matrix" movie/documentary. People older than a certain age can't be unplugged from the Matrix.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

The declaration of indepedence states

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So we have the right to abolish the government... Now how exactly do we do this peacefully?

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. You can't cite it in a corrupt State court. The Declaration of Independence isn't officially part of the US Constitution.

People who say "Return to the US Constitution!" are pro-State trolling. "Return to the Declaration of Independence!" is more accurate.

If a form of government isn't working, then the people have an obligation to get rid of it and replace it with something better. That's part of natural law. Regrettably, a corrupt State court will not recognize that argument as valid. An insane State judge will get offended if you question his authority.

No politician can legitimately say "The people don't have the right to eliminate the government and replace it with something better." Someone who says that is admitting the illegitimacy of his own authority.

Agorism is the best strategy for resisting the evil of the State. The advantage of agorism is that you can fight evil and show a profit at the same time. A pro-State troll says "If government is so evil, then what alternatives are there?" Agorism gives the answer to "What are the alternatives?" A true free market system, where nobody has a monopoly of anything, is more efficient than a government. Police and justice can be provided more efficiently in a free market, than by a monopolistic State.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

Okay, I'm starting to think that your view on good and evil is correct, but I think I have been too brainwashed/fnorded to think that intention is what is important.

There's an important sub-point.

If someone has the "abused productive" personality type, and you explain things properly, then you can educate them. If someone has the parasitic personality type, then they will almost definitely resist change.

"Abused productive" people usually have good intentions, but are frustrated by the parasites around them. Parasites say they have good intentions, but their actions are obviously evil.

The most intelligent members of the "abused productive" class are the Remnant.

Suppose someone with the parasitic personality type reads my blog. They will say "FSK is a fruitcake!" and get disgusted and leave, or leave a pro-State trolling comment. People with the "abused productive" personality type tend to be more interested in my viewpoint.

So I'm curious. Is Robert Kiyosaki good or evil?

I haven't evaluated him recently. He seems to have the "abused productive" personality type. Like most/all mainstream media personalities, he has some interesting viewpoints and some pro-State trolling.

He has in the past talked about how it would take a return to the gold standard, but as much as he might agree with some of Ron Paul's ideas, he's not the guy because you need a charismatic leader to remove the gold standard.

You mean "charismatic leader to restore the gold standard"?

Robert Kiyosaki says that a gold standard would be better than paper money. He fails to say "Inflation is theft!" and "The USA has a completely corrupt monetary system!"

The bad guys would never allow a prominent politician to go around saying "The Federal Reserve is evil!" If necessary, they would assassinate him or use other means to discredit him.

Recently he is publishing "conspiracy of the rich", which is downloadable for free signup at conspiracyoftherich.com and he actually seems to be doing some good in exposing to a much wider audience then most can reach the evils of the federal reserve, how inflation is a hidden tax, how education is set up to keep us dumbed down, and all sorts of information that I think will be very eye opening to very many people.
He points out how guys like Jim Cramer are just working for the conspiracy of the rich, getting more people into the game of stocks and mutual funds so they can provide the capital and be the tuna for the shark.

Site registration was required to read it, and I didn't have time.

He had some good bits. All of the people on the Communism Channel (CNBC) are certainly severe pro-State trolls.

The thing that really throws me for a loop is that he talks about "beating the conspiracy at their own game" and he basically reccomends you learn to become an insider and use the tools of a corperation to protect you, then use "good debt", (talks about how the banksters create derivatives getting a return greater than they borrow, at 3% to get interest at 6% as an example and shows how that's destroying other peoples wealth but advises the reader to start thinking about creating derrivatives), creating your own 'derivatives' of yourself(A website would be a derivative of your ideas) and so on.

That advice was invalid. As a non-insider, if you borrowed to invest in real estate, you would have lost everything during the housing crash.

This certainly may seem like it could perhaps be good advice financially if used properly, but that is not the issue.
The issue is how the solution is work smarter to create more which while good advice, will take people away from agorism. On the other hand, in the past he has talked about how corperations can defer taxes over and over again, and use the money in pretaxible income.

If you have a corporation, you are also paying a tax to the lawyers and accountants who manage the paperwork for you. You need $1M+ before the benefits of tax loopholes outweigh the cost of compliance.

Yet if people are getting into "good debt" and buying rental properties that produce enough income to pay for the debt... This will keep the debt monster of the fed most likely going longer, yet could.

The fallacy of buying rental properties via debt is that you lose everything during the next deflationary depression/recession. You might profit, and you might not. There's no such thing as a free lunch!

He shows the problems, he shows why the system is broken and why the government will never save you, exposing a lot of the governments lies and so on.
It seems he is good, but is he evil for misdirecting people to the solution of fanning the flames and essentially telling people to accept it and just learn how to become an insider because you can't beat it? Obviously if he advized agorism outright, he would be in serious trouble. Actually, I think because he does his book online he probably has the ability to say and do a lot more because it will already be out there. I'm curious as to how much the book will be edited by the time it goes to the printed version.
I think that he will do some good, whether it's his intention to be a disinformationalist and steer people away from agorism, or steal people in from all the making money schemes to show them how they are being scammed.

Here's something I noticed when researching "place ads on my blog". The most profitable blogs seem to be on the subject of "How to make money from blogging!"

Similarly, selling investment advice can be more profitable than actually investing wisely.

Also remember that a mainstream media personality adopts a culture of self-censorship. If you go around saying "Government is terrorism!", then you won't be promoted as a mainstream media personality. People make compromises so they can earn a living. By the time you're a heavily-hyped mainstream media personality, you've internalized the culture of self-censorship.

Jim Cramer isn't totally evil. He says "You should think for yourself about investing!", which is good advice. Thinking for myself about investing led to my discovery that the stock market is one big scam. Jim Cramer doesn't say "The stock market is one big scam! The Federal Reserve is an immoral price fixing cartel!" That makes him a pro-State troll.

Similarly, Robert Kiyosaki has some good bits and some evil bits. He points out certain evils, such as paper money. However, his solution is "You should be a millionaire and take advantage of the same tricks as wealthy people!" instead of "The system is completely corrupt!"

I noticed that's a common intellectual trap. I was speaking with a parasitic person on a job interview. He had extensive financial industry experience. I said "Taxation is theft!" He said "So what? Once you're a millionaire, you get all sorts of trusts and loopholes. Then, you don't have to pay taxes anymore!"

Most people are thinking in terms of "Be the person who ****s people over, instead of being the victim." That's a form of pro-State trolling. I prefer to protect myself from theft by others, and to avoid stealing myself.

Further, even if you had your assets sheltered in a trust or corporation, your inflation-adjusted return would probably still underperform physical gold and silver. If you're investing in physical gold or silver, you don't need a fancy legal trust for protection.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

Isn't evil just an absense of good?
Darkness doesn't exist, it's just absence of light, just like hatred exists where there is a lack of love, evil doesn't exist per say.

I don't understand your point. If you aren't intelligent, then you're stupid.

But maybe I am wrong and that belief is a distraction.
Does evil actually have a scale? It seems to me that someone who has intention of good even if they're stupid, is only slightly evil, even more so if the effect they're lack of knowledge is only causing minimal damges.
Also it seems to me that someone who is indirectly responsible is less evil.

Yes, there's a scale of evil. However, it's hard to say exactly.

Consider the example of being arrested for income tax evasion. Who is responsible?
  • The policeman who physically kidnaps/arrests you.
  • The judge who enforcers the illegitimate law, and orders the police to assault you.
  • The bureaucrat who determined that you owed unpaid taxes.
  • The prosecutor who argues in front of the judge that you deserve to be kidnapped and tortured.
  • The Supreme Court judges, who legitimize the actions of lower-ranking judges.
  • The jurors, who vote "guilty" because they don't understand jury nullification and "Taxation is theft!"
  • The politician who wrote the law, or doesn't consider amending or repealing the bad law.
The most evil person is the policeman. Without the policeman violently enforcing their will, the other State bureaucrats are just a bunch of irrelevant paper-pushers.

However, the policeman is just someone trying to earn a living. He's probably never once in his life seriously considered the possibility that government is just one massive extortion racket. If you're the type of person who would say "Gee! I guess FSK is right regarding 'Taxation is theft!'", then you probably wouldn't be hired as a policeman in the first place.

However, there are some policeman who, when confronted with "Taxation is theft!", would respond, "Yes! Isn't being a cop a wonderful job!" I doubt any would ever explicitly publicly articulate it, but some probably would actually feel that way.

Whenever you see policeman, there's always a pair. One partner has the productive personality type and the other has the parasitic personality type. Even if both partners have the "abused productive" personality type, then one will play the parasite role.

Based on my observations of policemen, they have a very low level of emotional awareness. That doesn't excuse evil behavior.

The nature of the State is that evil acts occur, but no individual is directly 100% responsible. The evil is distributed, and no individual is directly fully responsible.

"I was just following orders!" is never a valid defense. All of the above people bear some responsibility. If I was able to educate myself about the truth via the Internet, then there's no excuse for other people to not also achieve enlightenment.

"I am stupid!" is also an invalid defense. Of course, I do my best to educate others. The people most receptive to my ideas are those who are least dependent on State violence to earn a living.

It seems that someone who pays taxes and in their own ignorance believes that the government actually will do good, isn't as evil as the government who takes advantage of that ignorance. It seems the person who loans their friend $5, trusting them, who then uses it to pay taxes, is even less evil then the person paying the taxes. Even more so is the employer (at least regarding this specific act) for giving the money to the employer who loans it to a friend who pays his taxes to the government who uses money to create war. And the consumer who buys the product, that funds the employer who pays the employee, who loans it to a friend, who pays for the taxes to the government who uses it for war. I think anyone in this situation could distort the truth seeing themselves as innocent and easily say "well it wasn't my fault". In a way they're correct because it wasn't 100% their fault, but that doesn't mean that if they took a different action that it wouldn't have happened.. It just seems to me that 99.9% of the world is evil when you combine your definitions with my perspective of it.

Yes, by my definition, 99.9%+ of the world are committing evil. I commit some evil when I work in a wage slave job, supporting the parasites via taxes. I'm doing my best to survive until I can earn a living without injuring other people, or contributing to the harassment/murder of other people. I also predict that, when I'm able to work full-time as an agorist, my personal wealth will be much greater than it ever was in a wage slave job.

It's hard to make good moral decisions in the context of a completely corrupt system. You have to do what you can to survive. It's one thing to be completely unaware of the evils of taxation and government and the State. It's another thing to be aware of the evil, but to say "I need to deal with this for now to survive. I'm going to take a wage slave job for now, while working towards better alternatives later."

That's the evil of the State and the Matrix. A lot of people have good intentions. Their efforts and their lives are wasted. Good intentions misdirected to evil purposes has the same net outcome as evil committed on purpose. For this reason, "I was stupid!" and "I was following orders!" should never be accepted as a valid defense.

My blog is a net good. However, I only earn an average of $0.15 per day via AdBrite. It'd be nice to be able to spread the truth as a full-time job. That isn't viable yet.

People pay taxes, they're evil because they fund the wars. People join the army they're evil because they fight for the governments agenda. People work for the government they're evil. People pay for products they're evil because they pay sales tax and provide the medium at which the business earns which it uses to borrow from the banks which the banks use to steal wealth.

You need both parties for that evil to take place, both the person paying the taxes to fund the wars (and all other things the govt pays for) and the government to decide that the money should be spent on war. You also need most of the public to refrain from lobbying congress. Of course the people have learned that even if they do lobby congress (such as the bailout) to vote against it, days later the right bribes will be thrown in so it's passed.
"Write your Congressmen to restrain the evil of the State" is a waste of time. If you're the recipient of a State subsidy, then you can always profitably lobby to prevent reform.

For example, the vast majority of people were opposed to the TARP financial industry bailout law. The law passed anyway, with support from both the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

That's one reason that the US economic system is in severe decline. It's more profitable to lobby the government for favors, than it is to produce something genuinely useful.

As another example, in a productive/parasitic relationship, the "abused productive" person psychologically needs a parasite. Even though the parasite is evil, the "abused productive" person is also responsible for the abuses of the parasite. It's a lesser degree of responsibility, because the "abused productive" person is almost always trying to do the right thing. The parasitic person will do evil, while they are claiming to be looking out for the best interests of the "abused productive" person.

I try to do the best I can, given the circumstances. I'm constrained to work in the context of a completely corrupt system, which makes it very hard to make good moral decisions. If I take a wage slave on-the-books job, I'm supporting the bad guys via taxes. I need a wage slave job to pay my living expenses, so I can survive until working in the counter-economic free market is a valid option.

cyberTrebuchet has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #101":

Re: "Isn't evil just an absence of good?" by Anonymous

First of all, I don't think it's possible to correctly label a being - a consciousness - or any other thing as "good" or "evil." I think a perfect definition of good is "That which creates value." Conversely, evil is that which destroys value. Only actions can be good or evil, because it is action which creates or destroys value.

Actions are good or evil.

However, most people fall into the good or evil category. Members of the parasite class engage in almost always destructive behavior. A State-licensed lawyer or psychiatrist almost never does something genuinely useful. Some lawyers necessarily have the "abused productive" personality type; otherwise, the legal system would not function at all. These lawyers are totally brainwashed as pro-State trolls. They are sometimes more dangerous than a lawyer with the parasitic personality type.

Members of the "abused productive" class usually try to perform good. However, their efforts are frustrated by their pro-State brainwashing and the actions of the parasites around them.

Evil, then, is not simply an absence of creation of value, as darkness is simply non-light: it is the active destruction of value.

There is a scale of good to evil. However, it's hard to evaluate in the context of a corrupt system.

Following the above example, who is more evil?
  • a lobbyist who bribes a Congressman for a favorable law
  • the politician who accepts the bribe and passes the law
  • the policeman who violently enforces the new law
  • the judge who orders the policeman to kidnap/assault people who violate the new law
It's very hard to say. Each of them can justify their behavior saying "Everyone else has to make compromises to earn a living. Why shouldn't I?"

One problem is that, via sovereign immunity, the State protects evildoers from the negative consequences of their actions.

There's nothing wrong with an absence of value, although I think such an absence is impossible: existence, I think, to quote God in Genesis, simply is good. Evil is that which insanely seeks to act against reality - against existence - against value - against Life.

"What is evil?" is ultimately a hard question.

Here's a good test for identifying if someone is evil. Try explaining "Taxation is theft!" to someone, using the arguments from my blog. You can judge by their reaction, if the person has the "abused productive" or parasitic personality type. You still may not be able to convince someone with the "abused productive" personality type, because they're suffering from the effect of a lifetime of pro-State brainwashing.

On job interviews, I've noticed that some people have an extremely favorable reaction to "Taxation is theft!" Some people react with extreme hostility. I don't mention ideas from my blog on a job interview, unless I'm already really sure that I'm not going to get the job or the interviewer expresses interest. For example, in my job last November, one of the interviewers mentioned Ron Paul. He was interested in my explanation of "The Federal Reserve is an immoral price-fixing cartel!"

For example, my mother's reaction to "Taxation is theft!" is "FSK should not publicly mention his crazy ideas. If FSK is persistent, then he will wind up in the mental ward or in jail." My father's reaction to "Taxation is theft!" is to get very hostile and uneasy, but not to explicitly threaten me like my mother does. My father has the "abused productive" personality type, but I still can't explain "Taxation is theft!" to him.

It's also interesting to notice the Matrix in action. My father and mother provide positive reinforcement to each others' bad behavior, frustrating my efforts to educate them. That is the problem faced by every infant. They learn to close their eyes to the truth, rather than noticing that their parents and every adult around them is completely insane.

I'm using "Dog Whisperer" tactics to try and retrain my mother to be less abusive. I'm now trying the tactic of ignoring her, when she gets in an aggressive/dominant state. However, she then says to my father "FSK is being rude to me!" My father automatically sides with my mother, reinforcing her bad behavior and frustrating my efforts to educate her to behave properly.



No Gods Required has left a new comment on your post "The Abortion Fnord":

You don't have a positive obligation to fetuses who are to be aborted true enough. But don't you feel that if it was within your power to not support certain people who get tons of abortions you would do it? In other words it is moral for you to stop certain abortions if you had enough information about the situation wouldn't you say?

From what I read, getting an abortion is a traumatic experience for a woman. I doubt anyone would voluntarily keep getting pregnant and keep getting abortions.

There is no way I can use violence to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. Without government, it's impossible to prevent a woman from getting an abortion if she wants one.

If I owned a business, I have the right to ban any women who received abortions from entering. As a practical matter, that sort of boycott is impossible. It'd be impossible to prevent a woman from getting an abortion in private and not telling anyone.

Bas has left a new comment on your post "The Abortion Fnord":

Hi, No Gods;

In a free market, what you think is moral is not important, except to yourself. The final decision on abortion should be with the mother. In a free market, I'm sure there will be plenty of charitable institutions willing to lend a (financial) hand to prevent an abortion (if done for economic reasons), but no one should be able to force a decision onto the mother.

This is a better comment.

In a true free market, private charities would help take care of the poor. If you wanted to start a charity that paid for mothers to not get abortions, that's your right. However, such a charity will likely be a failure. Women would merely get pregnant and then apply to the charity for help raising their child!

The bottom line regarding abortion is not "Is abortion murder?" The problem is that, without a government, it's impossible to prevent women from getting an abortion if they want one. When abortion was 100% illegal, women just got them from unlicensed doctors or from doctors willing to perform them in secret.

david scott has left a new comment on your post "The Abortion Fnord":

Although, I personally am so far to the left that even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing," I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist.

It's more accurate to describe me as "up-wing" instead of "left" or "right". In many ways, the left vs. right distinction is a false one. Both sides wind up increasing the size and power of the government.

I agree that a government that strictly followed the restrictions in the original Constitution would be much preferable to the current one. How exactly do you plan to achieve your goal? Agorism seems to be a much more likely strategy for success.

My point of view is clear. No Constitution has any legitimacy at all. If I didn't specifically consent to it, or can't withdraw my consent later, then why should a Constitution apply to me?

It is my opinion that since its inception there has been an organized and systematic assault by the conservatives in the United States on the civil liberties written into the US Constitution. The “War on Drugs”; “War on Terror”; “War on Communism” and a host of other wars waged by the right wing are really nothing more than a War on People--an excuse to erode civil rights to the point of non-existence. I invite you to my website devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on freedom: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/

It is impossible to have a strictly limited government and keep it small. One of the main characteristics of government is the ability to collect taxes, and a violence monopoly to force people to pay taxes. Once insiders have a violence monopoly, then they will naturally consolidate and expand their powers over time.

At the time the US Constitution was written, the two main political factions were the "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists". The main issue at the time was "Should there be a central government?" In context of this struggle, the US Constitution was a compromise between the Federalist and anti-Federalist factions. A central government was created, but with lots of restrictions that kept its power limited. Over time, all the constraints were broken.

This is a frequent tactic by the bad guys. They create a new law or new government, with careful restrictions that prevent abuse. Then, over time, those restrictions are removed. For example, the original Federal Reserve law contained many sound provisions; these provisions were removed over time.

Is it a deliberate conspiracy? Or, is it the nature of the State and the Matrix that the power of evil grows over time, eventually leading to its own collapse? Either way, it's immoral and needs to stop.

Anybody who says "The original Constitution was wonderful! Let's return to it!" is pro-State trolling. The Constitution is a failed and discredited model for government. The correct answer is a free market system, where nobody has a monopoly of violence. Police, defense, and justice are goods that are best provided by the free market. People who argue otherwise are merely reciting their pro-State brainwashing.

"Libertarianism, but not anarchy!" is a common piece of pro-State brainwashing.



Dale B. Halling has left a new comment on your post "Intellectual Property is not Propety":

The “scarcity theory of property rights” is being advanced by a number of scholars at the Cato and Von Mises Institutes. Using this theory they suggest that there is no justification for intellectual property rights. The logical conclusion of their theory is intellectual labor is not deserving of pecuniary reward.

Are they correct that scarcity is the basis of property rights? See http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/22/scarcity-%e2%80%93-does-it-prove-intellectual-property-is-unjustified/

Is the conception of ideas and inventions subject to scarcity? See http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/25/scarcity-and-intellectual-property-empirical-evidence-for-inventions/

Is the distribution of ideas and invention (technology diffusion) subject to scarcity? See http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/25/scarcity-and-intellectual-property-empirical-evidence-of-adoptiondistribution-of-technology/

That was mostly a long-winded version of things I already understand. One interesting quote was:

According to venture capitalists, most start-ups will spend 2-10 times the amount on marketing their inventions than on developing them. If the distribution of ideas was free, not subject to scarcity, this would clearly be unnecessary.

"Marketing trumps a quality product" is a symptom of a non-free market. For example, amazon.com spent a lot on marketing. In turn, this means that amazon.com has an easier time raising more capital. Did amazon.com succeed due to a good website, or due to good marketing.

Summarizing your posts, the characteristic of physical property is that only one person (or group) may use it at a time. Intellectual property fails that test. If an idea is used by multiple people, that doesn't damage the original.

Another point you didn't emphasize is that intellectual property is artificially created by the State. Without a government, it's impossible to enforce intellectual property rights. In the example of patents, the fact that you discovered an idea before me, doesn't mean I'm forever barred from using it.

I consider "Intellectual property is not property!" to fall under the category of "Duh! Obvious!"



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

http://www.cco.net/~trufax/handbooks/paradigmvol1.html

That article seemed poorly written and boring. I quickly gave up trying to read and understand it.

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

http://posmedprod.webs.com/bilderberggroup.htm

That link was better.

The problem with "The elite want to wipe out 2/3 of the world's population." is "How do you decide which part is eliminated?" In a scenario where a lot of people are dying, the ruling class may not be able keep up their scam.

In general, the ruling class wants as little change as possible, to keep their gravy train running.

Besides, if you're planning mass murder, 2/3 is a low target. Why not eliminate all but 100,000 people and repopulate the world?

I liked this quote:

Trudeau stated that elitists he had talked to thought their plans were for the greater good of humanity but that they believed there were two classes of people on earth, the ruling elite and the “worker bees,” , and that the elite were defined not necessarily by money or power, but by their genetic ancestry.

This is equivalent to me saying "the parasite class" and "the abused productive worker class". That quote seems silly. You can't have parasites without hosts.

The "genetic ancestry of the ruling class" is another interesting point. They have a history of inbreeding for centuries. They tend to marry second cousins, to avoid diluting their power by bringing in outsiders. Over time, this leads to genetically transmitted diseases. It's practically statistically guaranteed that the smartest humans are *NOT* members of the ruling class.

It's hard to really evaluate people's natural intelligence, or variations due to genetics. Pro-State brainwashing is such a huge factor, compared to other influences. Most humans have an actual intelligence far less than their natural intelligence, due to pro-State brainwashing.

There is evidence that most of the evils in our modern society were instituted by people who were consciously aware they were performing evil. In the present, the ruling class may have started believing their own lies. For example, there's evidence that the insiders who controlled the Federal Reserve in the 1920s and 1930s were consciously aware that their goal was to loot and pillage the American people. In the present, Ben Bernanke probably sincerely believes that he's doing the best he can to "manage the economy", blissfully unaware that a central bank is an immoral price fixing cartel.

As another example, the people who instituted mandatory public schooling were aware that their goal was to train obedient slaves. In the present, the system continues on its own inertia.

This quote was interesting:

Trudeau aid that the elite was divided into two camps, one larger faction that, “Categorically believes they are genetically superior than the rest of the population,” and another smaller faction, mainly comprising of younger people, that are feeding Trudeau information who, “Have come to the conclusion that some people are smarter than others, some people are more talented than others, some people are more motivated to work….but everyone should be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own choices or initiative….and that’s where there’s a split and a division right now at the highest levels,” said Trudeau.

The best way to allow people to succeed based on their individual abilities is to remove government. In the present, government places many restrictions on someone who is a skilled productive worker, but not an insider.

Are some members of the ruling class intentionally working towards the collapse? It frequently seems that way.



I was watching the Communism Channel, and Biden was quoted saying "Another stimulus package might be needed!" Hooray! More looting and pillaging! I hope they make things even worse!



m has left a new comment on your post "What are Fnords?":

I have seen some good fnords, but then realized they potentially are disguised as good fnords before. I'm not really sure. Is that good Fnord telling us about an upcoming economic collpase really trying to "warn us", or perhaps does the fnord imprint on the collective unconscious and together brings about it's occurence?

It depends on the context. If you say that the economy is going to collapse, but don't provide any instructions on how to prepare, then that's an evil fnord. Then, you're just scaring people. If you say that the collapse is coming but give hints on how to survive, then that's good.

Is the Matrix really a good Fnord?

I consider documentaries like "The Matrix" and "They Live!" to be good fnords.

Actually, I'd prefer to be living in a pod computer simulated reality, than what actually happened. The truth is much more scary than the reality in "The Matrix". People are living in a simulated reality due to their false beliefs like "Taxation is not theft!" People also are living in a simulated reality due to their false emotional beliefs about the proper way to think and feel.

Or is it just a reinforcement that although we are alerting you to the fact that you are awake, if you do in fact "wake up" you'll have a tube and hole in your back, you'll find you're not really "human" you're controlled by aliens, you'll have bugs crawling inside your body, and if you believe on of the others who were "awakened" you'll wish you "told Morpheus to shove that pill up his @$$"

The truth is actually very traumatic. People who discover bits of the truth find themselves in the mental ward in a hospital.

Anti-psychotic drugs are literal blue pills. I couldn't stand the side-effects, because they dampened my thinking ability and my ability to do my normal activities. From my point of view, I had to choose the red pill, because I couldn't stand the side effects of the blue pill.

Once you see a fragment of the truth, your only choices are to spend the rest of your life on anti-psychotic drugs, or fully confront the truth. I couldn't stand the anti-psychotic drugs, so I really had no choice at all.

Hopefully, I'm nearly fully unplugged and won't be involuntarily hospitalized again.

Meanwhile, the whole time Neo has a blank facial expression, as if those in the matrix can experience emotions, but being truely alive and awake will make you feel numb... nothing to see here

Once you see how everyone around you is nearly completely insane, it's very difficult to interact with crazy people. Any non-unplugged person can turn you in to a State enforcer at any time. This makes everyone a potential Agent Smith.

Perhaps they're both good, perhaps they're both bad?
Is it really a way to "warn us" when we see something like Alice in Wonderland on the chess board as we are all pawns to the game, or is it reinforcing our own enslavement?
Or perhaps the mixture of good fnords and bad is like the study down on labrats where they shock the first group of rats where they press the button, they give the 2nd food, then the third is random at first, and then finally the randomness is cut from the third and all that is left is shocks. In addition there's a 4th group where first it's all food, then it's all shocks. The finding is that the 1st group gets shocked and doesn't press the button again, the 2nd group gets food but realizes that the food will always be there, so they stop. 4th group of rats learns that "something has changed" and stops after awhile.
But the third group fails to understand what is going on, or has learned that if they endure enough shocks they will get it. So they try again and again, and eventually the shock is turned on for good and the rats will eventually shock themselves to death. The Rats have beome addicted because they don't know what to expect. As humans we become addicted to advertisments, movies, media, etc.... perhaps it's because there are good fnords and it's what keeps us going to the movies to be programed like good little sheep?

This is learned helplessness.

That experiment isn't entirely valid. The experiences of a lab rat are not the same as a wild rat. A lab rat is stuck in a cage. A wild rat may move to another area looking for move food.

Most humans are stuck in cages. A cubicle is a type of cage. An apartment is a type of cage. There also are the invisible psychological cages.



I'm still somewhat behind on answering reader comments. I'm working on catching up.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I site I think is a good resource about banking and money creation is National Economy

I don't know if I think it's possible to have a government without taxes. How would it be funded then?

cyberTrebuchet said...

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Turk/turk_jun252009.html

Great little commentary on another $1.8 trillion out of thin air.

I recently ordered my first shipment of real money! Bought 8 oz. silver from APMEX. Sweet.

Guess what, though - GoldMoney.com has even lower premiums than Kitco and APMEX. I'm gonna finish scrutinizing their site, but I expect my next conversion will be through them.

Anonymous, my man, you gotta read more of FSK's stuff before posting something like that. Of course it isn't possible to have a monopoly government that isn't funded by extortion. That's the point.

This Blog Has Moved!

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