This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Saturday, October 31, 2009

The Internet Isn't Going Away

I hear the following conspiracy theory frequently circulated. Allegedly, there's a new law that gives the President the ability to shut down the Internet for any reason. The bad guys are threatened by people who learn about freedom via the Internet. Allegedly, day a month ago when Facebook and Twitter went down was the bad guys testing their "Shut down the Internet!" technology.

This is silly. There are too many businesses that depend on the Internet. If the bad guys shut down Twitter or FaceBook or other popular sites, then they'll offend *EVERYONE*. Twitter can be used to spread the truth. Most of the time, Twitter is used for meaningless nonsense. You can't stop the truth without also shutting down the nonsense.

There are too many businesses that depend on the Internet. The telecommunication corporations and mainstream media corporations would love to censor or cripple the Internet. Corporations like Google are lobbying to keep an open Internet. Both sides are spending a lot of money lobbying. When *BOTH* sides on an important issue have deep pockets, then the issue is decided on its merits. Contrast this with the psychiatry/death industry. There, pharmaceutical corporations have deep pockets, but the anti-psychiatry advocates have no budget. Therefore, the bad guys win on that issue. The homicide industry is 100% legal.

It's much more convenient to spy on what everyone is doing, instead of outright shutting down the Internet. Fortunately, the volume of content on the Internet is so large. Any automated spying software would either have too many false positives that it's useless, or too many false negatives that it's missing important things. If the bad guys decided "We should spy on FSK!", they could do it. Figuring out who you should investigate is hard. Do I have dangerous forbidden knowledge, or am I some harmless fruitcake blogger?

If the bad guys want to shut down Twitter or Facebook, it's very easy to dispatch a group of armed thugs to their offices and shut it down. Of course, that would annoy a lot of people if it were done frivolously. It's much easier to let them operate, but require them to turn over information as requested.

Technology is neither good nor evil. It's the means for which it's used that is important. The bad guys are trying to use the Internet for evil, spying on people. The Internet also allows people to share the truth. At this point, enough people are aware of the truth that it's impractical to arrest/kidnap/kill all of them. Based on my analysis, the quality and volume of free market thinking on the Internet is greater than a year ago.

Too many people are using the Internet now. If there was an attempt to shut down the Internet, that would make a *LOT* of people very angry. There are enough people who profit from an open Internet, that it should continue.

Was an open Internet a historic anomaly? Was it deliberately introduced to allow people to share information directly and bypass mainstream media censorship? Or, did the bad guys make a huge error by allowing people access to computers and the Internet?

Computers and the Internet are valuable tools. Without the Internet, I would not have been able to learn about agorism and really free markets. You might be concerned "The bad guys will assault or kidnap me if I write about the truth on the Internet!" So far, that hasn't happened.

The State is merely composed of individuals. Whenever you spread the truth in person, a pro-State troll parasite nearly always silences you. When you spread the truth on the Internet, you can share the truth with less disruption. Parasites are almost everywhere, which creates the illusion of State omnipotence and omniscience. As a child, whenever you questioned the false beliefs of adults or teachers, you were always rudely silenced. As an adult, this leads to the fear "The police will raid me whenever I contradict official State propaganda!"

That's one reason I started my own blog. On a forum or wiki, it's very easy for parasites to disrupt the discussion. On my own blog, I have full editorial control. If you don't like it, start your own blog!

In order for the State to arrest/kidnap/kill me, some State enforcer must conclude "FSK is a threat and must be eliminated!" *AND* that State enforcer must convince his colleagues that I am dangerous. Once the power of the State is focused against me, I have a problem, but getting the State violence engine to start moving is difficult. Any State enforcer who is so trigger happy would probably have a short career. The goal of any State enforcer is to avoid personal risk that could ruin your career. Pursing an articulate person like me for a non-crime could be very embarrassing. Therefore, State agents pursue softer targets than me.

People have an unreasonable fear of the State. It's a symptom of the Matrix and pro-State brainwashing. In the USA at least, writing about the truth is not considered a crime. If I attempt to act on my beliefs, then I am taking a greater risk.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Steve Philips Sexual Harassment Fnord

This story has an important evil fnord. Steve Philips was a baseball analyst at ESPN. He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with someone else who worked for ESPN. He was fired. His career is probably ruined and he will be unable to find another good job.

There are plenty of ex-baseball players looking to work for ESPN. If one analyst is unfairly fired, it's easily to find a replacement. It makes practically no difference if someone is the world's best analyst, or a barely qualified loser. If you're interested in baseball, you'll probably watch whether the analyst is interesting or incompetent.

Every mainstream media personality is an interchangeable cog in the machinery of the State. If a celebrity or politician breaks the rules, then it's very easy to unfairly fire him and ruin his career. The mainstream media has a monopoly. If you're discredited and blacklisted, then it's practically impossible to find a new job. It's almost like the "Don't hire him! He's a Communist!" purges in the 50s and 60s, except it's no longer that explicit. Steve Philips wasn't explicitly blacklisted, but it'll be very hard for him to find another job.

Sexual harassment is a State-created crime. Sexual harassment cannot occur in a really free market. I noticed other blogs debating this issue and running around in the circular reasoning of their pro-State brainwashing.

In order to understand "Sexual harassment is a State-created crime!", you must first realize "Prostitution is not a crime!" "Prostitution is illegal!" is a variant of "People don't own their own bodies!" With a State violence monopoly, there's no way to prevent two consenting adults from doing whatever they want in private.

A pro-State troll says "But prostitution is associated with violent crime!" That occurs because prostitution is illegal. If a prostitute has a disagreement with her client or headhunter/pimp, then she cannot seek justice in a corrupt State court. This leads to violent crime. If prostitution were not illegal, then it would not be profitable to kidnap people and force them to work as prostitutes. The State police monopoly is barred from protecting prostitutes.

Prostitution is not a crime. If I'm the 100% owner of a business, and I decide to hire you, it isn't immoral for me to say "and you're also required to have a sexual relationship with me". If you don't like it, go work somewhere else. In a really free market, if I make stupid business decisions, then I will lose out to competitors.

If I really wanted a prostitute, it'd probably be a wiser decision to hire the best possible employee in my business, and hire a prostitute separately. The State has declared prostitution illegal. Therefore, people workaround this requirement by hiring a woman and then adding extra demands.

The middle manager in a corporation has a different set of incentives. Via the Principal-Agent problem, the middle manager controls resources that he doesn't own. Therefore, the incentive is for him to line his own pockets at the expense of the true owners. If a middle manager hires a woman because he's having sex with her, then the corporation is disadvantaged. The middle manager isn't paying the cost himself.

There are double standards here. If a manager hires his idiot brother-in-law, that's not illegal. If a manager hires an unqualified loser so he looks good in comparison, that's not illegal. If you have an explicit or implicit prostitution agreement, that's illegal. It's legal for a woman to marry a millionaire, but it's illegal for her to work as a prostitute.

A pro-State troll says "In a really free market, what happens if all employers demand that women have sex with them in exchange for employment?" In that case, some women would get together and start their own competing businesses.

In the present, ESPN has a State-backed monopoly. If men working at ESPN require subordinates to have sex with them, then "having sex with your boss" becomes a requirement for women working at a mainstream media corporation. Due to State restriction of the market, a group that's unfairly discriminated against can't form their own competing business.

The laws regarding sexual harassment were not passed directly via Congress. The laws were made via a series of court decisions. "If you do X, then you can get sued for sexual harassment. If you do Y, then you can't get sued." Since "getting sued" is something a corporate manager fears, they go overboard when there's suspicion of misconduct.

If ESPN didn't fire Steve Philips, then they would be at greater risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit in the future. Now, executives at ESPN can say "We fired Steve Philips. Therefore, we handle sexual harassment properly." How can I know that the woman didn't have sex with Steve Philips, knowing she could sue him later?

As occurred with me, a false sexual harassment accusation leads to being unfairly fired. The path of least risk is to fire the victim of the accusation, without properly investigating.

The sexual harassment laws criminalize an otherwise consensual relationship between adults.

Also, "sexual harassment" gives the woman a free put option to complain to the State, if the relationship with the man goes badly. The woman does not immediately complain when the man has sex with her. Only later, if the man decides to dump her, does the woman complain.

That's what occurred in the case of Steve Philips. He had a relationship with the woman. He decided to end it. Only then does the "sexual harassment" scandal emerge. Of course, Steve Philips is guilty of making a lousy choice of partners. Also, it was immoral for him to have sex with another woman while married and not having the consent of his wife.

"Sexual harassment" cannot occur in a really free market. In a really free market, if women feel abused, then they'll start their own competing business. "Sexual harassment is illegal!" is closely related to "Prostitution is illegal!" Rather than fixing a corrupt system, "sexual harassment" laws criminalize otherwise consensual relationships. If you're a middle manager in a corporation, you're wasting other people's money when you have a sexual relationship with someone in exchange for job-related promotions. "Sexual harassment" also gives the woman a free option to complain to the State, if the relationship deteriorates and the man dumps her.

The laws and procedures regarding "sexual harassment" involve patching a fundamentally corrupt system, rather than fixing the flaw of a non-free market. As usual, the State causes a problem. The solution is to pass more laws and regulations, rather than eliminate the laws that caused the problem in the first place. "Sexual harassment" is only a problem because women who are abused can't form competing businesses.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Network Neutrality

Network neutrality is in the news again. I was wondering why stories were popping up about it all over the place. Monday's "The Daily Show" answered my question, which shows the value of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as serious journalists. Jon Stewart's coverage was pro-State trolling, but I didn't see any real coverage of this elsewhere.

According to this article, a group of Congressmen are sponsoring the "Internet Freedom Act". It should be called the "End Network Neutrality and Cripple the Internet Act". It's amusing how evil laws are always given noble-sounding names.

Amusingly, according to this page, there's another proposed law with the name "Internet Freedom Act". This law would make network neutrality on the Internet a law, rather than subject to the whims of FCC regulators. That's very funny. There are two bills in Congress with the name "Internet Freedom Act", and they have opposite meanings. For the rest of this post, I'm writing about the evil version of the "Internet Freedom Act".

Current law gives the FCC regulators the discretion whether to force ISPs to support network neutrality or not. Current FCC regulators are backing network neutrality, but there's a lot of lobbying money spent trying and convince them otherwise. Fortunately, there's also a lot of lobbying money spent trying to preserve network neutrality.

The proposed law would overrule the FCC mandate for network neutrality, ending State-imposed network neutrality. Each ISP would have the free decision whether to offer network neutrality to its customers or not. However, each ISP has a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly, giving them an incentive to collude and end network neutrality. There isn't a free market in ISP businesses.

My father watches the Communism Channel a lot, and this stupid law apparently was not discussed or mentioned or emphasized at all. That's severe negligence, but it's not surprising. There's no way to seriously discuss this law without saying "Those mother****ing Congressmen want to murder the Internet!"

For telephones, network neutrality is enforced by a law. If you have an AT&T phone and I have a Verizon phone, then I can call you and it works. The network administrators at AT&T don't say "This call is from a Verizon customer. Make that scumbag wait five minutes before the phone rings!" This is enforced by a law. Of course, Verizon customers would get very angry if they were unable to call AT&T customers. The net effect is almost the same as what would occur in a really free market, except that AT&T and Verizon have a State-backed oligopoly.

In a really free market, network neutrality would be enforced via market forces. If AT&T didn't support network neutrality but everyone else did, then AT&T would lose all their customers to competitors.

The USA does not have a free market in telephones. Telephone network neutrality is not imposed via market forces, but rather via a law.

It's illegal for me to lay my own wires and start my own telephone business. I need a license from the State to offer phone service. The State has granted the monopoly right to sell telephone service to various vendors. Without a State license, the State-licensed phone companies wouldn't allow me to connect to their network, which means my customers couldn't call someone who isn't my customer.

Originally, voice over Internet (VoIP) wasn't allowed to call regular telephones. Then, an exemption was added to the law, requiring regular telephone companies to interact with VoIP calls. Otherwise, a parallel phone system would have developed over the Internet. People might have switched to that, because it's cheaper!

If I want to buy high-speed Internet access, I have to buy it from the local telephone monopoly (Verizon) or the local cable monopoly (Time Warner). Those are my only two choices. Competition in landline Internet service is illegal.

Current FCC regulations force all Internet vendors to support network neutrality. If the "Internet Freedom Act" passes, then Verizon and Time Warner would be allowed to stop supporting network neutrality. Verizon and Time Warner could sign a deal with Microsoft, allowing Bing and Microsoft's website to load quickly. As part of the deal, Google's websites would load slowly. I would naturally switch to Microsoft's sites, because Google would become slow and unusable.

A pro-State troll says "Won't market forces require Verizon and Time Warner to support network neutrality?" The answer is "no". They have a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. If both of them decide to not support network neutrality, then I'm SOL. There are no competing vendors.

If I don't like Verizon and Time Warner, it's illegal for me to lay my own cables and offer a competing ISP business. The problem is not that it's technically hard to lay cable and sign up customers. The problem is that Verizon and Time Warner have an explicit State-backed monopoly. It's illegal for me to compete. Armed thugs will kidnap me if I start a competing business.

Consider the mainstream media information monopoly. Only certain viewpoints are permitted. If I want to start my own mainstream media show, I'm SOL unless I can convince a handful of insiders to carry my content. With TV and cable service, there's no network neutrality. A couple of sellers have an explicit State-backed monopoly. It's legal for me to start my own newspaper, but current newspapers receive massive State subsidies. It's hard to compete with that. The costs of an Internet-based newspaper/blog are much lower.

Consider the current situation, where there's network neutrality. If I want to start a website, all I have to do is pay $20/month for a Linode and I have a website where I can run whatever code I write. I'm not leeching off of telecom companies. Linode is charging me for a specific upload/download usage limit. I can use Blogger free hosting until I get enough traffic to justify buying a website, like I'm doing now.

Suppose that Verizon and Time Warner are allowed to end network neutrality. If I want to start a website, I'd have to also negotiate a contract with them to carry my content. Otherwise, my website would be crippled and slow and unusable. This gives Verizon and Time Warner a veto over what Internet businesses succeed and which ones fail. Insiders could afford to buy favors, but I'd be shut out. Without network neutrality, I wouldn't be able to bootstrap a small web-based business.

There is no free market in ISP service. In each city, a small handful of vendors have a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. If they all collude to end network neutrality, then customers are SOL.

In a really free market, market forces would force ISPs to support network neutrality. If an ISP stopped supporting network neutrality, then it would lose customers. If all ISPs stopped supporting network neutrality, then someone would open an honest ISP and steal customers.

In the present, it's a fake free market, because it's illegal for me to lay wires and start my own ISP business.

A pro-State troll says "The FCC network neutrality requirement is a violation of the free market. Verizon and Time Warner are private business and should be allowed to do as they please." That is false, because they have a State-backed oligopoly. If the network neutrality law is repealed, then to be fair State parasites also should repeal the law making it illegal to start your own ISP business.

Verizon and Time Warner don't have a legitimate ownership claim to their business. They are the recipients of a massive State subsidy via laws declaring competition illegal.

There's an evil law, the one that makes it illegal for me to start my own ISP business. There's a law that partially compensates for this evil law, forcing ISPs to support network neutrality. Network neutrality makes it very easy to start a web-based business. Network neutrality makes it easy for someone to start an Internet-based store, creating economic growth and creating more wealth for parasites to leech. Network neutrality also makes it easy for me to write a blog saying "Taxation is theft!" You can't cripple one without also crippling the other.

The evil law that makes it illegal to start ISP businesses will not be repealed. Parasites want to repeal the network neutrality FCC regulation which compensates for this evil law. The parasites want to repeal the network neutrality law, which offsets the evil State-backed ISP monopoly laws.

Mainstream media corporation executives want to eliminate network neutrality, because their information monopoly is threatened. Telecom corporation executives want to eliminate network neutrality, because they think they will make greater profits by selling "Your website will run faster!" favors. Many parasites want to cripple the Internet, because they realize that their scam is threatened. The main reason the Internet is interesting is that someone can start a website for only $20/month. The parasites don't want an open Internet where anyone can publish anything. The parasites want the Internet to be a walled garden, where only content they approve is published.

Executives at corporations like Google want network neutrality to continue. Anyone can cheaply create a website. This creates lots of content for Google's search engine. This increases the value of Google's search engine. Everyone who publishes on the Internet is partially contributing to the quality of Google's search engine.

Executives at mainstream media corporations and telecom corporations are lobbying against network neutrality. Executives at Google are lobbying for keeping network neutrality. With lots of money spent on both sides, the issue will probably be decided on its merits. Network neutrality should stay. However, you never know what parasites will do.

Even if parasites win this round, the scam of the State is ending soon. Even if network neutrality is crippled, the parasites probably won't completely block a text-based blog like this. If you use an RSS reader to read my blog, then it won't matter if the page loads slowly, because the RSS reader caches the content locally.

The technology that underlies the Internet is in the public domain. If necessary, some skilled hackers will create a completely parallel Internet with no restrictions. If necessary, skilled hackers will go back to BBSes and dialup modems to communicate.

The correct way for a customer to view an Internet purchase is "I'm purchasing a certain upload rate and a certain download rate. It's immoral for the vendor to place any additional restrictions on what I can and cannot do. In a really free market, if my vendor is a jerk, I'll find someone else. In the present, I can't do this, because my ISP vendor has an explicit State-backed monopoly/oligopoly."

The "Internet Freedom Act" is really the "End Network Neutrality and Cripple the Internet Act". As usual, an evil law is given a noble-sounding name. That's a common evil fnord.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Financial System "Reform"

I was watching the Communism Channel, and they were all excited about Ben Bernanke and President Obama and Congress saying "We need to overhaul the financial industry regulations."

They also were saying "We need to limit CEO pay at all banks that received Federal bailout money."

Here's a quick quiz to see if you're paying attention. If you know the correct answer to this question, then you know more about economics than every Nobel Communism Prize winner!

Q: Which banks have received Federal bailout money?


Q: Which banks have received Federal bailout money?

A: All banks, all the time.

The comedians were saying "The financial industry is about 15%-20% of the S&P 500 by market capitalization. That's increased back to 'normal' levels." My reaction was "OMFG! The financial industry is leeching 15%-20% of all economic activity!"

Banksters don't earn their profits due to their l33t business skills. The profits of the banksters are economic rent. They are exploiting defects in the monetary system, rather than providing a useful good or service.

The banksters aren't brilliant risk-takers. When they gamble and are wrong, they get a bailout. When they gamble and are right, they get to keep the profits. The banksters are gambling with other people's money. If their gambles fail, they can declare bankruptcy and default. Via the concept of "too big to fail", they qualify for a bailout.

The Fed Funds Rate is currently 0%-0.25% while true inflation is 20%-30% or more. This is a humongous bailout to the banksters. Everyone else pays the cost via inflation. Almost all the time, the Fed Funds Rate is much less than true inflation. This is a continuous bailout to the banksters, even if no Federal bailout money is explicitly allocated.

The Federal Reserve has monopoly control of the monetary system. Federal Reserve insiders have the power to print as much money as desired and lend/give it to insiders. If you lend someone money at 0.25% interest, that's really a gift when true inflation is 20%-30% or more. The loan can be repaid with devalued money, making it a gift. An insider borrows at cheap rates, buys tangible assets, waits for inflation, then sells them and repays the loan with devalued money.

The Federal Reserve insiders wield tremendous economic power. Federal Reserve insiders may lend more money to some banks than other banks. They literally have the power to decide which banks go bankrupt, and which banks get bailed out. When the Federal Reserve lends money to a bank at cheap interest rates, there is no obligation to publicly disclose which banks got how much money. This is one of the things Ron Paul wants disclosed in his "Audit the Fed!" law.

Suppose that the CEO of a corporation sells a bond at 6% interest. The bank borrows at the Fed Funds Rate (currently 0%-0.25%) and lends the money to the corporation at 6%. The spread of 5.75% is illicit interest arbitrage for the bank. The bank uses leverage of 10x, 30x, or more, making this trade very profitable. If the CEO wants to borrow, he must go through the middleman of a bank. Only the banksters may borrow directly from the Federal Reserve at the Fed Funds Rate. The banksters earn a profit, but they do no real work; they're lending brand new money printed out of thin air.

Both the Fed Funds Rate and the 6% that the CEO pays are a negative real interest rate. This makes it very easy for the CEO to repay his loan. The banksters don't really have to evaluate risk. The loan rate is less than true inflation, which means that the borrower should have an easy time repaying it.

If I could sell a bond at 6% interest for 10 years, with payment not due for 10 years, then I could buy gold and be practically guaranteed to profit. I can't do this, because if I borrow to buy gold it's on margin. If the price of gold declines due to a temporary money supply shrinkage, I'll get a margin call and lose everything. Further, I have to pay a lot more than 6% if I want to borrow to buy gold.

It's in the rational self-interest of the CEO to borrow the money. The CEO borrows at 6% and builds a factory. True inflation is 20%-30%. The value of the factory will increase by 10%-15% per year, even if the return underperforms true inflation. The CEO profited, because he borrowed at 6% and bought a factory that increases in value by 10%-15% per year or more. The return of the factory was less than true inflation, but it's in the rational self-interest of the CEO to borrow and build the factory.

The incentive is for the bankster to load up on as much leverage as he can. The incentive is for the CEO to borrow as much as he can, because real interest rates are negative. Negative real interest rates encourage people to borrow as much as they can. It's just like government-subsidized oil prices would encourage people to use as much gasoline as they can.

Suppose there were no Federal Reserve interest rate subsidy. If interest rates were 25% and inflation were 20%, then it would only make sense to borrow for something useful. It would only make sense to borrow if the real return on the investment were 5%. With negative real interest rates, it was profitable for the CEO to borrow and build a factory, even though the real return on his investment was -5%. If interest rates are -15% and the return on investment is -5%, then you should borrow and build, profiting 10%. In this manner, negative real interest rates encourage the destruction of capital and wasteful spending.

A pro-State troll says "Fiat money is good! The CEO got to build a factory!" The fallacy is that the factory was built at the expense of something else. A factory was built at a loss of 5%. Instead, something else was not built. The CEO got a free factory, but I have trouble raising money to start my own business. My savings are stolen via inflation.

Only the CEO of a large bank may borrow at such favorable rates. If I wanted to borrow to invest in my blogging business, I can't. Google can borrow billions of dollars to buyout YouTube, but I have a hard time raising capital to start my own software business.

My savings are stolen via inflation, making it hard for me to raise capital to start my own business. It's hard for me to start a business via reinvested savings, because my savings are stolen via inflation. The nominal value of my stock market investments has declined by nearly 50% over the past few years. When you add in true inflation, a huge chunk of my savings were stolen. I had to actually work to acquire that wealth. This wealth didn't vanish into thin air. It wound up in the pockets of the banksters. The net effect is that some of my past labor was stolen from me.

When the banksters write a loan, they literally print brand new money and loan it to you. When the Federal government prints new money to bail out the banksters, that was also newly printed money. Technically, the Federal government does not print money. The Federal government printed Treasury Bonds, which were sold to the financial industry via the Federal Reserve. Then, the proceeds of those bond sales were used to bail out the banksters. The banksters profit both from the Treasury Bond sale and from the bailout.

Negative real interest rates are a Federal subsidy to the banking industry. Even with no explicit bailout, the banksters receive a continual government subsidy, due to their ability to borrow at artificially cheap rates. I can't borrow directly from the Federal Reserve at the Fed Funds Rate. If I want to borrow, I have to go through the middleman of a bank. If I want to borrow, I have to pay much higher rates than the banksters or CEOs, or I can't borrow at all. Via inflation, my savings are stolen and given to the banksters and CEOs.

Via adjusting the Fed Funds Rate, the Federal Reserve bails out banks even if there's no explicit Federal government bailout.

Let's consider an example. During the inflationary boom, suppose the Fed Funds Rate is 4% and mortgage rates are 6%. Banks use leverage of 30x or more. Banks borrow at 4%, lend at 6%, and with 30x leverage make a profit of 60%.

Suppose there's a mild recession. The default loss rate on loans is 3%. Instead of borrowing at 4% and lending at 6%, now the banksters are borrowing at 4% and lending at 3% (adjusted for defaults). Now, they are going bankrupt in a hurry. The Federal Reserve bails them out by lowering the Fed Funds Rate to 1%. Now, they're borrowing at 1% and lending at 3%. The profit equation is restored. Eventually, there's sufficient inflation that the mortgages are solvent again. The Fed Fund Rate is re-raised to 4%, setting up the next recession.

In a mild recession, some small banks, small corporations, and small businesses will go bankrupt. When the banksters foreclose, they take possession of real assets. Instead of immediately selling, they wait for the next inflationary boom to sell these assets at a profit.

Via Level 3 accounting, the banksters don't have to mark-to-market their devalued assets. If I borrow on margin to buy stock, then I get a margin call when the stock price goes down. When the banksters use excessive leverage, they aren't forced into bankruptcy when prices decline due to a recession/depression.

Suppose there's a severe recession/depression. The default loss rate on loans is 20%. Instead of borrowing at 4% and lending at 6%, now the banksters are borrowing at 4% and lending at -16% (adjusted for defaults). Now, they are going bankrupt in a real hurry.

There is a problem. The Federal Reserve can't lower nominal interest rates below 0%.

The solution is to bailout the banksters. Small banks and small corporations are allowed to fail. Individuals lose their homes and their jobs. Insiders get a bailout. The net effect of the recession is concentration of power in the hands of insiders.

What would happen if there were no bailout? The financial system would collapse in hyperdeflation. Completely insolvent, large banks could no longer issue new loans. Via the Compound Interest Paradox, the monetary system would collapse in hyperdeflation. Old loans would still be due, but no new loans would be issued. If the money supply crashes by 50%, it's like the outstanding balance due on all debt contracts were doubled.

Suppose you have a $900k mortgage on a $1M house. The value of your house crashes to $500k. One viewpoint is "The house lost half its value." Another viewpoint is "The value of the house is unchanged, but the amount due on your mortgage doubled. The real value of the house is not affected by the money supply." It's like the banksters said "HAHAHA!! You owe us twice as much on your mortgage now! Sucker!"

Via "rule of law", this illegitimate mortgage contract is enforced. Via State violence, you will be kicked out of your home if you can't pay your mortgage. Via State violence, the banksters get a bailout. The police who kick you out of your home for not paying your mortgage are really a private debt collection agency working for Goldman Sachs.

Reforming a corrupt system is not an alternative. A bailout is the only other possibility.

Suppose that Americans collectively have $2 trillion on deposit in banks. (I have no idea what the correct number is. I'll use $2 trillion.) There are no tangible assets backing that $2 trillion. It's all phony loans and one big pyramid scheme. The only reason that old loans can be repaid is that new loans are continually issued. With fiat money, there are literally *NO* tangible assets backing the money. The only reason your money is valuable is that other people can be conned into accepting it. The only reason fiat money is valuable is that the IRS demands people pay Federal Reserve Points whenever they work. The income tax creates an artificial demand for fiat money, even though it's intrinsically worthless.

If there were no bailout and large banks failed, then the scam would be exposed. People would refuse to keep their savings in banks. Instead, via direct and indirect bailouts, the Federal government and Federal Reserve promise to print enough new money to back bank deposits. The nominal value of your checking account is guaranteed by the State. However, the real purchasing power is stolen over time via inflation. An immediate 100% loss of your savings would be an obvious scam. The steady loss of 2%-3% per month via inflation goes unnoticed.

If police with guns came to your door once a month and demanded 2% of your property, you'd be very offended. With inflation, the same thing happens with no overt violence. There is occasional violence against people who attempt to use gold and silver as money, such as Robert Kahre, the Liberty Dollar, and E-Gold. The vast majority of people don't even think about using gold and silver as money, because State thugs assault anyone who starts using gold and silver as money.

Nominal interest rates can't be lowered below zero. Via deficit spending, the Federal government increases the inflation rate, lowering real interest rates further below zero.

Suppose a bank holds a mortgage for $1M on a house that has a current market value of $500k. The bank is $500k in the hole. Via excessive use of leverage, the bank doesn't just owe $500k; it owes $500k times a 30x or greater leverage ratio. If the bank had $10B in book value it probably had $300B in mortgages. When the mortgages drop in value by 50%, the bank didn't lose $5B. Via leverage, the bank lost $150B.

Suppose that, via deficit spending and bailouts, the Federal government doubles the money supply. Now, the house with a market value of $500k doubles in value to $1M. Instead of being insolvent, the bank is bailed out via inflation. Even if the bank didn't directly receive the stimulus money, the bank benefited from inflation.

Here are all the bailouts the banksters receive. Most of these bailouts occur all the time, even if there is no explicitly allocated Federal bailout money.

  1. Negative real interest rates are a continual subsidy to the banksters. The Fed Funds Rate is currently 0%-0.25% while real inflation is 20%-30% or more. This subsidizes bank profits, even with no explicit bailout.
  2. There was a weird program where banks could borrow at the Fed Funds Rate at 0%-0.25%, and then immediately place their reserves on deposit at the Federal Reserve for 1%. This is the "Banks get interest on excess reserves!" program the Federal Reserve was sponsoring. I never understood this. I'm not sure if this bit is correct.
  3. Nominal interest rates are almost always less than true inflation. This is a continual bailout for the banksters.
  4. Bailout money was specifically allocated to large banks via TARP. When professional comedians talk about "banks who received bailout money", they mean this.
  5. When a non-bank corporation is bailed out, the true beneficiaries are the creditors. When AIG/GM/FRE/FNM were bailed out, the true beneficiary was the creditors. Goldman Sachs purchased a lot of credit default swap insurance from AIG. Technically, AIG was bailed out, but the bailout money was immediately used to pay off Goldman Sachs. What should have happened was AIG was forced into bankruptcy, and then Goldman Sachs should have lost its credit default swap insurance bets. When you buy insurance, "risk of bankruptcy by insurer" is one of the risks you're supposed to account for. The AIG bailout protected executives at Goldman Sachs from their mistake of buying too much insurance from AIG.
  6. Inflationary "stimulus" spending benefits the banksters, even if they personally didn't receive it. By increasing the inflation rate, this further benefits the banksters. Inflation makes it easier for debtors to repay their loans.
  7. The rules of the monetary system guarantee that a certain percentage of all economic activity is profits for banks. It's built into the rules of the monetary system. Banks print the money that everyone else uses to trade and pay income taxes. This forces everyone to use banks as middlemen, directly or indirectly. Even if I have no debt, the only way I can get money is if someone else borrowed it.
  8. One of the biggest items on the Federal government's budget is "interest on the national debt". This wealth doesn't vanish into thin air. It's profit for the banksters. State violence forces people to pay taxes, with part of the profits going to the banksters. This literally makes the IRS a private debt collection agency working for Goldman Sachs.
  9. State violence outlaws competing monetary system. When Federal thugs assault Robert Kahre, E-Gold, or the Liberty Dollar, that subsidizes bank profits. By making it hard for people to invest in gold and silver, State thugs enable banksters to steal their savings via inflation.
  10. In almost every industry, a handful of corporations have a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. With a State-backed monopoly, executives are at a large corporation are "creditworthy". Their State-granted monopoly is pledged as collateral for the debt. The fact that the economy is parceled out among State-backed monopolies subsidizes bank profits.
It's silly to say "We're capping executive pay at banks that received bailout money." All banks receive bailouts all the time. It's a structural defect intentionally written into the rules of the monetary system. Who wrote the rules of the monetary system? Via lobbying and "captured regulators", the rules of the financial system were written by the banksters!

It's silly to say "We're overhauling the financial industry regulatory system." The problem is caused by regulations in the first place.

The fundamental problem is the Federal Reserve credit monopoly and the corrupt system of fiat debt-based money. All other regulations are attempting to patch a fundamentally corrupt system.

The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Instead of eliminating the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve was given more power via the default on the gold standard and the gold confiscation. A bunch of laws were passed regulating the banking industry, but the fundamental problem was not addressed.

In the 70s and 80s, there was the S&L crisis. Banks were borrowing short-term and lending long term. When the Federal Reserve jacked up interest rates to fight inflation, this caused many banks to become insolvent. Instead of eliminating the Federal Reserve, the CDO was invented. (CDO = Collateralized Debt Obligation) The miraculous invention of the CDO guaranteed that there would never again be a problem with banks and mortgages!

In the recent housing bubble, negative real interest rates encouraged banks to speculate on mortgage bonds. CDOs were the "cure" for the S&L crisis, but they were blamed for the recent housing bubble/bust! Via CDO magic, a bunch of lousy mortgages were packaged and sold as AAA bonds.

There was fancy math that justified this bundling of lousy mortgages into AAA bonds. There were faulty assumptions, "Mortgage defaults are uncorrelated!" and "Housing prices always go up!". It's irrelevant that the underlying quantitative analysis was unsound. The banksters got a bailout. Everyone was using the exact same model! The individuals who made lousy assumptions were not punished. If you're the type of person who would say "Wait a minute! These assumptions are wrong!", then your parasitic bosses would fire you.

Making lots of money off mortgages, the banksters lobbied for looser regulations. Instead of requiring a 20% downpayment, only a 5% or 2% or less downpayment was required. Banks were also allowed to use greater and greater leverage. The housing market boomed, encouraging everyone to borrow as much as they could and buy the biggest house they could. The banksters were borrowing at 1% and investing in mortgages yielding 6% while using huge leverage ratios.

All this speculation was fed by the Federal Reserve credit monopoly and negative real interest rates. Without the Federal Reserve interest rate subsidy, speculating on mortgage bonds would not be profitable. As long as there's a Federal Reserve interest rate subsidy, it doesn't matter what other banking regulations are passed. Negative real interest rates encourage speculation, encourage banksters to look for loopholes in the regulations, and encourage banksters to lobby for loopholes in the regulations.

Instead of eliminating the Federal Reserve credit monopoly, a bunch of new banking regulations will be passed. It's silly to talk about "Nationalizing the banking industry is evil!" The banking industry was nationalized in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. Actually, laws passed during the US Civil War effectively nationalized the banking industry; the crisis caused by these regulations plus limited liability incorporation allowed the Federal Reserve to be created.

All the "re-regulate the financial industry" talk is one big evil fnord. It's distracting from the real issue, which is "The Federal Reserve credit monopoly is evil."

It's silly to talk about capping CEO pay at banks. The profits of the banksters are pure economic rent. Even if you cap the CEO's pay at $500k when he really wants to pay himself $20M, then he'll just hire 40 of his unqualified idiot friends and pay them $500k each.

Huge CEO pay is immoral, because the CEO isn't usually the person who himself built a successful business. The CEO is paying himself with other people's money. The CEO usually came in as an appointed bureaucrat to lead an already successful business with a State-backed monopoly. A CEO gets his job with good parasite skills, and not the type of skills needed to actually build a successful business.

"Greedy CEOs paying themselves with profits backed by State violence!" is then confused with "Free markets are evil!". If I manage to make $1M/year from my blog, that isn't immoral, because I built it myself with my own work. If a CEO pays himself a huge salary with other people's money, profiting from State violence, then that's immoral.

It's silly to say "If we cap CEO pay, then they'll work elsewhere!" What are the banksters going to do, open a pizza store? The banksters have no useful skills. They are pure parasites. They've conned everyone else into thinking they have useful skills, when they actually know less than nothing. Everything a bank does is a net destruction of value.

All the mainstream media discussion of financial industry reform is one big evil fnord. Boom/bust cycles are scientifically created by a Federal Reserve credit monopoly. It's a structural defect in the monetary system, put there on purpose by the banksters.

If you're offended by bailouts and inflation, agorism is your best option. You should boycott all stupid taxes, stupid laws, and worthless paper money. Don't wait for politicians to give you freedom. If you want freedom, grab it directly yourself.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Google Reader Dropped Reader Mail #108

It seems that Google Reader didn't pick up Reader Mail #108. Follow the link if you want to read it.

I thought that I had started making those posts smaller. It didn't work this time.

Reader Mail #108

This article on FoxNews was interesting. They discuss "Taxation is theft!" The interesting part is that "Taxation is theft!" occurs in the body of the article, and not a reader comment. Some Fox News employee was allowed to say "Taxation is theft!"

Is Fox News now the most freedom-oriented news channel? They were busy sucking President Bush's ****, but now they're really expressing some anti-State sentiment.

In contrast, Jon Stewart has gone from anti-State sentiment when criticizing Bush to ****sucking President Obama.

theftthroughinflation has left a new comment on your post "Obama Wins Nobel War Prize":

Its funny how perception of reality is so much more important than truth.People precieve social medicare to be ideal because it plays on their emotions. Obama seems like a great guy "because he is good at talking!". So what? I hate to bang an old drum but Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers EVER and he was even times man one the year. I would argue that even being a bad president Bush may have been better than Obama because in general he was more genuine. It wasin't hard to figure out what was bullshit and what wasint. Its funny all the people who were so "clever" to call out Bush are too stubborn in their support for Obama they get agressive when you suggest he is full of shit. Maybe subconsiously they know he is a farce but are too proud to admit they fell for it.
"Socialized medicine is desirable" is an example of parasites appealing to people emotionally but not logically. "Wow! The government buys us health insurance!" might seem awesome. The reality is that the cost is still paid via taxes. Government CANNOT provide something "for free". There's always a cost. Government is a negative-sum game.

There was an important change between Bush and Obama. Bush has the parasitic personality type and Obama has the "abused productive" personality type.

Bush pretty eagerly supported the looting and pillaging of his supporters. Obama sincerely has good intentions.

However, Obama is the prisoner of his own pro-State brainwashing. You can't use government violence for good. Every politician and lawyer implicitly believes "Government violence makes people's lives better!", but they never explicitly state it like that.

Obama's advisers probably have the parasitic personality type. They never appear on TV. Obama is completely emotionally controlled by his parasitic advisers. There's no way that Obama would really considers something like "Government licensing requirements for doctors are evil!"

That's how the evil of the State works. People like Obama have sincerely good intentions. The net result of government violence is almost always evil.

The fact that Obama has good intentions merely makes him a better shill for the State.

Gore won the Nobel War Prize for his lies and propaganda in his comedy film "A Convenient Lie". Gore's Nobel Prize is an advertisement for "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!! OMFG!! Give the State more power!!"

It's best to think of the Nobel Prize as an advertisement for the State, rather than having any genuine merit. "The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong!" is better than most "research" that wins a Nobel Communism Prize. "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is a fraud!" is better than most "research" that wins the Nobel Murder Prize.

Peer review is not a valid way to select the best science. The truth is not determined by a majority vote.

Fivemileshigh has left a new comment on your post "Is the Swine Flu Vaccine Harmful?":

FSK, take up jogging or something active outside. It's good for your physical health, and it will give you a break from your parents.

all the best
I do go out sometimes. I do some recreational dancing. I'm getting some job interviews lined up.

The problem is that I can't go anywhere without my parents' permission. I really need to get my own apartment first.

I'm considering going to some "open mike" shows to experiment with "promote agorism via standup comedy". One reason I don't try that is that my parents would give me a hard time.

Also, I still feel like I'm making some progress cracking my pro-State brainwashing. I'm still noticing more things. I'm waiting for that to level out.

This story by George Donnelly was an interesting example of someone being harassed by the police for legally openly carrying. He was with his son. At least his son now gets to know that members of the State police/terrorism monopoly are evil! The police did a good thing, by educating George Donnelly's son about how evil they are!

Another interesting point is that the police didn't show up on their own. Someone saw George Donnelly with a gun and called the police. It's wrong to assume that everyone who carries a gun other than a policeman is a criminal.

I see this question asked over and over again. State police stop you and demand ID. They have no legal reason to demand your ID. Do you:
  1. Refuse to show ID, exercising your legal right to refuse.
  2. Go ahead and show it.
The police assume "You refused to show ID. Therefore, you're a criminal." They can always make a pretext for kidnapping you. Then, it's your word against theirs regarding what happened.

I prefer to focus my resistance efforts elsewhere. I'd show the ID and move on. Unless I'm already in their database as a wanted criminal, nothing bad should happen by showing my ID. I waste the policeman's time by refusing to show ID, but they're getting paid anyway via taxation/theft. My time is more valuable.

Several policemen wasted several hours total harassing George Donnelly. It makes no difference at all, because their salaries are paid by taxation/theft. In a private for-profit business, the owners would be angry if several employees wasted a lot of time. Efficiency makes no difference when you work for the State monopoly.

Reading stories like this makes me want to move to an open carry state and get a gun. Unfortunately, I was involuntarily hospitalized with a mental illness, and can no longer legally get a gun permit. There's no legal way for me to prove that the doctors who kidnapped me made a mistake.

Some people were suggesting that George Donnelly sue the police. That's obviously stupid. I cited "The Fallacy of Suing the Government" in the comments. According to Google Analytics, that led to a decent amount of traffic (a couple of visits). That's an interesting tip. Whenever leaving a comment on someone else's blog, leave a link back to a post on your own blog if it's relevant.

There are two separate issues.

First, were the police wrong to stop George Donnelly? Yes, but they have a monopoly and there's nothing you can do about it (except practice agorism and stop paying their salaries via taxes).

Second, given that insane armed thugs are assaulting you, what are the correct tactics? That's hard. Do you stand your ground and refuse to show ID, knowing the police will harass you and waste your time? Do you just show your ID so you can move on and choose your battles more wisely? I'm sympathetic to both approaches. I'd probably just show my ID and focus on using the time saved productively.

Is there a difference between an open carry license and a concealed carry license? If you're worried about police assaulting you, then maybe you should concealed carry? Does an open carry license allow you to concealed carry also? What do you do in winter, when you're wearing a jacket?

George Donnelly went to a voluntaryist meetup. I asked "You got 16 people to come to your meetup? That’s pretty good. Did you figure out which one is the undercover cop?"

In nearly every group of people that's open to the public, there's almost always at least one undercover cop present. The bad guys are that paranoid, so they try to infiltrate every group where people gather.

When I organize my own agorist trading group, I wonder if an undercover cop could fool me? I noticed that policemen have an extremely low level of emotional awareness.

Policemen have to learn to ignore emotions, because otherwise they'd become aware of the evil they're committing.

This article, via David Z's shared items, is interesting.

A Ralph Lauren ad was photoshopped, giving the model an impossibly thin body. The Colbert Report mentioned this incident.

One thing I've noticed is that parasitic people tend to be thin and underweight, but "abused productive" people tend to be slightly overweight. "Glorify extreme thinness!" is another version of "Glorify parasitism!"

My guess is that, if you're intelligent, you ignore evil media fnords and eat what you feel like eating.

"Your natural body shape is unhealthy!" is a common evil fnord. By promoting extremely thin people as super-attractive, this creates the impression that everyone is ugly.

Marketers have discovered that by appealing to people's pro-State brainwashing, then they can sell more products. Is it merely "I'm ugly. If I buy this product, then I won't be ugly!" Or, is a deeper evil at work?

Also, most mainstream media personalities have had plastic surgery. This creates the illusion that a "normal" person is really ugly. If it's immoral for an athlete to take steroids, then it should also be immoral for a mainstream media celebrity to have plastic surgery.

Amusingly, now that I've cracked my pro-State brainwashing more, I can sometimes notice plastic surgery scars when I watch TV. Once you're able to see the plastic surgery scars, it looks disgusting.

This article on Yahoo finance was interesting. The model in the above photoshopped ad was fired for "being too fat". She is 5'10" and weighs 120 pounds, which probably is underweight.

"Your natural body shape is ugly!" is a common evil fnord. By appealing to people's pro-State brainwashing, advertisers help sell their product.

Until the 18th or 19th century, what we now would consider "somewhat overweight" was considered "most attractive". There is a continuous mainstream media propaganda campaign for "Severely thin is best!" All the actors you see on TV are usually really thin, which is a hidden evil fnord promoting "Your natural body shape is evil!"

Debbie H. has left a new comment on your post "Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer!":

I found this post to be confusing and I have no idea why you are so angry at Molyneaux.

I am angry because Molyneux is providing bad mental health advice to his readers/listeners.

Why do I get angry when I read a story about a policeman shooting and killing someone? Why do I get angry when someone says "Taxation is not theft!"? Why do I get angry when Stefan Molyneux advises people to take harmful drugs?

He certainly showed his willingness and openness to your premise when he asked to see any studies you may know about. It's not his fault you had no answer to his query about studies.
No, he showed no willingness or openness at all. I asked him to provide a study proving that psychiatric drugs are better than placebo. So far, nobody has answered that point.

I'm willing to discuss this issue more. Has Stefan Molyneux posted a response and analysis on his own site?

What else did you want him to do at that point? Once you told your personal experience and had no studies to link to then the discussion obviously ends there.

The problem is that all psychiatry research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. I don't have the resources or State license required to conduct a proper experiment.

It doesn't mean either of you are bad guys or anything.
I'm addressing a specific evil thing that Stefan Molyneux is doing, regarding mental health treatment advice. Stefan Molyneux has good intentions, but that's no excuse. He's a participant in great evil when he advises people to consult with a State-licensed psychiatrist.
The only thing you can possibly convince anyone of is that you had a bad experience with psychiatric drugs. That says nothing in general about the usefulness or non usefulness of drugs in general. However, I think its good to tell others about your experience in the hope that it helps others if they ever get to a place where they need to make decisions about such things.
I have more evidence than just my personal experience. I had a lot of other points for "Psychiatric drugs are harmful!"
You also attributed some quotes directly to him but I cannot find them. Are these real quotes or did you just put them in quotes as an extrapolation of your opinion of what he thinks?
Some of them were paraphrasing, and some were direct quotes.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss this issue more. Stefan Molyneux is free to publish a post on his viewpoint, if he wants. He hasn't.
By the way, I stay far away from drugs as I can and am very careful about medications of all sorts. I am sorry you went through all you did.
That's good that you stay away from drugs.

When Stefan Molyneux says "Consult with a State-licensed psychiatrist!", he is contributing to the possibility that other people would suffer from harmful drugs like I did. That's why I'm offended.

It's a scientifically proven fact that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake/fraud. The truth is not determined by a majority vote. If I can't convince you or Stefan Molyneux, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. You haven't presented any logical counter-arguments to the points I made. I listed a lot of evidence, in addition to my personal experiences.

One thing I've noticed from blogging is "amount of negative comments received" is directly proportional to "importance of subject". I conclude that "Stefan Molyneux is doing an evil thing by providing bad mental health advice!" is a really important subject.

Nobody has presented any evidence for "Psychiatric drugs are beneficial." I don't have the burden of proof that they are harmful. The pro-psychiatry troll has the burden of proof that they are beneficial. The evidence I listed is sufficient proof that they are harmful, or at least enough for you to seriously consider the possibility.

I get offended when someone says "Taxation is not theft!" Similarly, I get offended when someone says "Psychiatric drugs are beneficial!"

"Taxation is not theft!" and "Taxation is theft!" are logical opposites. They are not compatible viewpoints. "Psychiatric drugs are beneficial!" and "Psychiatric drugs are harmful!" are logical opposites. They are not compatible viewpoints.

All State-licensed economists think "Taxation is not theft!" All State-licensed economics research says "Taxation is not theft!" Therefore, taxation is not theft. All State-licensed psychiatry research says "Psychiatric drugs are beneficial!" Do you see the similarity?

I'm offended when someone says they're an advocate for freedom, but completely misses the corrupt nature of the mental health industry. I'm offended, because Stefan Molyneux is providing mental health advice to his readers/listeners. The corrupt mental health industry and the State are very closely related.

This post on was interesting. Rothbard wrote a book "The Mystery of Banking" that explains why fractional reserve banking is a fraud. No State economics professor assigns it as reading in their class.

There are two different types of fractional reserve banking. There's the current system of fiat debt-based money, which is a total fraud. Under a gold standard, fractional reserve banking fraudulently increases the supply of demand money.

In the present, State violence forces people to use fiat paper as money. This creates an artificial demand for the banksters' worthless product.

Under a gold standard, State violence protects fractional reserve banksters. There are legal loopholes used to protect insiders from negative consquences for their misconduct. In the late 19th century, limited liability incorporation and bankruptcy encouraged misconduct and unnecessary risks by bank owners and management.

This post on dailypaul was interesting. Some former Ron Paul supporters are moving towards agorism. That poster claims to have recently discovered agorism.

This thread on dailypaul was interesting. Some people are enhancing their cars with what appears to be Zero Point Energy technology. I've heard this story repeated many times in many different locations. People are reporting ridiculously huge fuel miles per gallon.

Some such stories are certainly deliberately-planted evil fnords. I've heard the story enough times to be convinced there's an element of hidden truth.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "Pathetic Losers at the G-20 Meeting":

I like this one Fsk..and its well to the point. We are losing our rights because most of us didn't know what they were in the first place. To apply for a permit is to beg.
Look at us all running around like mad slaves who weren't free from the beginning.
I would be so much more satisfied if people would attend a wake up rally. Than to protest actions their masters were participating in.
A riot or protest is a waste of time. One politician famously said "Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."

The only action that hurts the bad guys is refusing to pay taxes. If enough people do it, then the State collapses. If you're clever about it, the risk is low even if there aren't many resisters.

give the antiterrorist a watch on you tube. The mask is hard to watch but the content is good.
Do you mean this guy? I watched about 15 seconds and I couldn't understand what he was saying.

I get annoyed by vloggers that have lousy production values for their videos. Stefan Molyneux has well-edited videos with good lighting and sound!

George Donnelly has left a new comment on your post "Pathetic Losers at the G-20 Meeting":
Agreed, except calling people names just creates division. Using reasoned arguments has the potential to change *and* make friends. :)
You use whatever tactics work for you, and I'll do what I think is best.

Stupid ideas and stupid actions must be called out as stupid. It isn't immoral to point out when someone is behaving stupidly.

A reasonable person might say "Is this a good idea?" A parasite will never learn.

I'm thinking that anarcho-socialism and the other variants of anarcho-statism are "Anarchism for parasites!" If you really think about it, market anarchism or agorism is the One True Version of anarchy. If someone doesn't understand after I've explained it to them, then I'm calling them out as an idiot.

If you think my content is presented in a potentially hostile manner, then go ahead and write a more idiot-friendly version of my posts.

I'm not wasting time on idiots.

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

@ColinD: Humans are naturally individualistic and do not organise. Taxpayers and shareholders alike have no mechanism by which to apply pressure.

It is natural to organize small businesses. For example, if I wanted to start an "agorist mental health crisis center", I should work with some partners so I can offer 24x7 coverage.

Organization at the level of large corporations and governments isn't natural. There's a natural limit of around 200 people. Beyond that, inefficiency sets in. In a really free market, groups greater than 200 people would naturally fragment into smaller cooperating/competing groups.

You're really referring to Distributed Costs and Concentrated Benefits. For most State evils, a handful benefit but everyone pays the cost. For example, insiders at private military contractors benefit from war, but everyone pays the cost via taxes. It pays for insiders to lobby for contracts, because they receive billions and then spend millions lobbying. It doesn't pay for me to lobby against any individual contract, because it's only costing me $10-$100 dollars each.

As another example, NYC taxi medallion owners can always profitably lobby to block reform. It doesn't pay for me to lobby for taxi medallion reform. If I were planning to start a taxi business but didn't have a license, I'd try something else or do it agorist-style.

It pays for insiders to lobby the State for favors. For non-insiders, it's a waste of time to lobby against one specific abuse of the State. The only way to fight the State is to refuse to pay taxes, boycotting all State evils simultaneously.
Phone, letters and email? When their daily routines are extremely full there is no recourse. All forms of communication are ignored.
Politicians mostly ignore phone calls, letters, and emails. Some people have tried writing their Congressman asking "Is taxation theft?", and received a pro-State troll response or an unrelated canned response.

Politicians are there to provide an illusion that people control the government.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Unemployed Again":
Elsewhere you added more information and said that you were fired because "you can't handle large projects".
That was in Reader Mail #107. That was the excuse my boss gave. He said it like he didn't mean it. Also, I'd just finished a medium/large project that they're actually using on their site. It's still there. Amusingly, they implemented one of the bugfixes I suggested after firing me! (I wonder if they used that bug as part of the excuse for firing me?)

Also, the large project was "no good", because it failed my boss' overly nitpicky code review. The code actually ran and worked and was IMHO easily understandable, but that's not the point.
Your clown boss probably picked this reason because it is vague and is difficult to disprove.
He also had to come up with a believable excuse that the other owners would accept. "FSK is unqualified!" would have required too much cognitive dissonance. Instead, "FSK can't handle large projects!" was the excuse they fabricated.

"FSK is not a team player!" is another vague criticism that's hard to refute. If you say "This project plan won't work!", are you "not being a team player" or are you trying to make sure things work?

I noticed that my ex-employer has an ad for a C++ programmer on Craigslist. That's odd, because I thought they had picked out a replacement before firing me.

If I were totally unqualified, then "Fire FSK!" would not be an urgent need. They needed to fire me before I convinced everyone else that I'm a good worker. Then, it would have been too hard to fire me.
They can define all your previous projects as small or medium. Maybe it was a medium sized project compared to a 3 year project done by 30 people!
It took a month and a half. IMHO, someone else wouldn't have done it nearly as well. As I worked on it, I discovered important details not present in the original specification. There were no "FSK is taking too long to do this!" complaints.

I certainly could have handled more work than I was actually given.
And if you asked them to be given a larger project, they would say you hadn't proved yourself on smaller projects first!
It was a reasonably large project. Their software was pretty lousy. I probably could have rewritten the whole site in 3-6 months using PHP or ASP.NET/C#. They had something like 20x-100x as much software as they actually needed for their simple website, because they rolled-their-own code for everything rather than using standard tools.

Just because you used to be a program manager at Microsoft, doesn't automatically mean you're qualified to manage a small software team at a startup! "FSK is more qualified than his bosses!" probably was the real reason I was fired. My bosses probably urgently got rid of me before other people figured out that I was more qualified than them.

One of my bosses was the main owner's brother. I don't see why he would be insecure about his own job. Evil and stupid are highly correlated.

Anyway, they're on the failure path. They just raised another couple million dollars of VC, so it'll take them another 1-1.5 years to burn through that. I can't imagine them ever making enough money to justify their investment, breaking even, let alone showing a profit. They do have a chance; they could find a "greater fool" willing to buy the site from them. They were saying "Wow! We get 2000-3000 visitors a day!" My reaction was "So what? For a couple million dollars, you built a site with 10x as many readers as my blog." I didn't tell them that.

It actually didn't matter that their software was incredibly inefficient, because that wasn't the main point of their business plan. Their site just barely runs, but that's good enough.

Ironically, my blog is cashflow positive. My expenses are zero but I'm making $8 in AdBrite revenue per month. I'm waiting for it to cross $20/month and then I'll get my own domain. Really, I should do it now while I'm unemployed. However, there's no need to rush and incur the moving cost.

My blog is more profitable than most of the startups I've worked at!
At for a time a reason for denying people raises or promotions or firing people was that "you didn't show leadership". The managers actually gave the exact same reason to different people! Again the reason was chosen because it is difficult to disprove such as statement. It is so vague and can mean pretty much anything.
I haven't worked at, although I've had that problem. "Vague and hard-to-disprove negative feedback" is a mind control trick. In a corporate setting, it's very easy to fabricate excuses for what you wanted to do in the first place.

At a large corporation, "doing too good a job" threatens people. Your skill exposes the incompetence of others, attracting their wrath. Even if your boss is a good guy, eventually you'll get promoted to the point where you're working for a clueless parasite.

Here's another parasite control trick. Tell the firee that he's doing a competent job, but tell your bosses that he's a clueless loser. By the time the poor slave figures out what's going on, you've trashed his reputation. Then, if he complains, he looks like a pathetic whiner.
A friend of mine says it is easy for a manager to have great leadership skills, because if someone doesn't obey him, he/she can get fired. So people obey managers due to hire/fire power. However if you are a software developer, you have no power to make someone do your bidding (maybe you need some of their work for your deadline). As such you have lesser leadership skills.
This is the difference between State-backed authority and genuine authority.

Due to their connections, the owners raises millions of dollars in VC even though their business plan is stupid. I don't have connections, so I can't raise capital, even if my business ideas are better than theirs. If I want to start a business, my only option is bootstrapping it via reinvested earnings. Besides, even if I did raise VC, the terms of the financing would make me the VC's employee. If my business had enough revenue to attract VC funding, then the VC could make an investment and then fire me.

My boss has the power to fire me, because his authority is backed by the State. Due to State restriction of the market, I can't easily form my own competing business. Even though I was unfairly fired, I have no recourse but to seek another wage slave job.

When I had high logical intelligence but low emotional intelligence, I was attractive to parasites. I was an easy victim. Now that I have high logical intelligence and high emotional intelligence, I'm no longer an easy victim. Parasites feel threatened by me, rather than seeing me as someone exploitable or someone they'd want to work with. Parasites don't think "FSK is a super-awesome guy! I'm glad he's working for me!" Parasites think "FSK is too skilled! I have to get rid of him before someone else decides to fire me and promote FSK!"

Since I've attained greater emotional awareness, I noticed something weird. In any group of humans, I'm going to be the "pack leader" in the "Dog Whisperer" sense (fnord!). I have the highest logical intelligence and highest emotional intelligence. My bosses want to be the pack leader, but they're not as skilled as me. I'm polite, but my body language now is that of a leader. In any group of software engineers, I'm naturally the leader because I have the most experience and ability. Instead of appreciating me, my bosses want to be the leader, so they fire me.

Here's an interesting story. About a week before I was fired, I went out to dinner with my coworkers and two parasitic bosses. The waiters in the restaurant sensed that I was the leader of the group. When taking orders, they asked me first, which seems to indicate that I'm the leader. When the dinner was over, they placed the check in front of me! My employer paid for the dinner. My bosses probably were offended that I was the pack leader and not them.

It's really annoying and sad, how potential employers seem like such pathetic losers. Still, it's hard to start a business, due to State restriction of the market. It's very hard to fake respect for someone who's a parasite. You would think that parasites would respect me for my emotional intelligence, but they just feel threatened by someone who can see through their scam. Just like I now have the ability to immediately detect parasites, parasites have the ability to immediately detect someone who can see through their scam.

You would think that, somewhere, a group of "abused productive" people would start a business and do things right. First, "abused productive" people are pro-State brainwashed so that you need a parasite around. Second, State restriction of the market creates a demand for parasites. If you're starting a business, you need lawyers and accountants, which are jobs designed for parasites. If you raise VC, then the VC will probably demand that you hire one of his parasitic friends to manage the investment.

Because of State restriction of the market, it's hard to start a parasite-free business. Even in an on-the-books business, I should be incredibly productive due to my ability to not hire abusive jerks. Still, I'd prefer an agorist business, because paying taxes is immoral. Plus, with an agorist business, my profits are more than doubled when I eliminate income taxes and other artificial State overhead.

Parasites have everyone else emotionally dominated, so they can come up with an excuse for not hiring me or firing me. I was on some interviews where the hiring manager had the productive personality type and liked me, but some of his parasitic subordinates voted against hiring me. Instead of thinking "FSK will make a skilled colleague and make my job easier!", parasites think "FSK is too skilled. I will look bad in comparison!" They can make up excuses like "FSK doesn't seem like a team player!", which is a fnord phrase that really means "FSK isn't a good slave!"

What I am trying to say is that managers and directors don't really have great leadership skills - they have hire/fire power.
That is the evil of the State. State-backed authority is confused with genuine leadership.

My boss' authority derived from the fact that his brother had connections that enabled him to raise VC. I can't imagine him bootstrapping a successful business. I can't imagine him even building a blog with $10/month in revenue like I'm making via AdBrite.

For example, the CEO of Goldman Sachs thinks "I'm a brilliant leader, risk-taker, and businessman!" The reality is that the banksters collect economic rent, due to defects in the monetary system.

People with State-backed authority think that they're super-awesome leaders, when they're really parasites. The parasites say "Our profits come from the free market!", when the profits really come from State violence. This causes a misconception among pro-State trolls that "The free market is evil! Government violence is needed to protect individuals from greedy insiders!" The reality is that the State enables the looting and pillaging of insiders.

I'm a good real leader at managing a software business. Due to State restriction of the market, it's hard for me to start my own business. I'm trying, but my best business idea so far is blogging where I'm making $5-$10/month. If I'm only going to make an eCPM rate of $0.50-$1, then it's going to be very hard to build an Internet business that pays my own salary, much less enabling me to afford to hire someone else.

Here's an anecdote that illustrates the parasitic viewpoint. I asked my boss "Will this business ever make money? I'm not sure." He retorted "It's profitable for me! My paycheck doesn't bounce!" I pointed out that, if they never turn a profit, he'd have to find a new job eventually, but he didn't get it.

The relatives of the Columbine high school shooters are in the news again. Allegedly, the children wrote suicidal journals that their parents never read.

If you're a parent, and you *DON'T* know that your children are suicidal or very unhappy, then you have very low emotional awareness.

When my parents behave abusively, I now give a negative reaction. I didn't used to do this. My parents now say "This is a symptom that FSK is sick and relapsing!", but I'm merely providing them with appropriate feedback when they do inappropriate things.

This post on the Picket Line had an interesting bit about someone resisting tickets from red light traffic cameras. Red light traffic cameras are immoral, because the State parasites treat them as a revenue tool rather than as an enforcement tool.

The protester was missing the real point. I'm surprised that someone doesn't get a paintball gun and wreck all the red light cameras. That's a low-tech way to cause a lot of grief for State parasites. If you're wearing a disguise, such as a Santa costume near Christmas, then it'd be nearly impossible to catch you.

This story about a guy withholding 25% of taxes owed in protest is missing the point. Once State parasites have your wealth, they may spend it as they please. If you withhold 25% in protest of X, then State parasites will still spend 25% of all tax revenue on X, including the 75% you did pay. If you're serious about tax resistance, the only sensible strategy is to refuse to pay anything. Resisting income taxes is feasible, because the parasites won't know about all your labor if you're self-employed. Resisting property taxes is hard, because the parasites can then raid your home whenever they please to collect their tribute and kick you out of your home.

CorkyAgain has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #107":

One of the commenters you quoted said something interesting:
"I would classify such a talk closer to a helpful discussion with a friend than a therapy session with some therapist whose authority I'm supposed to just assume based on his certificates.."
Nowadays, people have to pay someone to do things that friends used to do for free.

That's an evil side-effect of "women in the workplace". Wives used to perform many services for free and untaxed. Now, that labor is part of the slave economy.
For example, watching each other's children.
Yes, that's illegal now. Of course, if you're careful about it, who would ever know?
Or sitting down with you to talk about your problems and help you figure out a way to cope.
I noticed that I had better friends in high school than I do now. In high school, there's a certain amount of forced interaction leading to certain groups. Also, I went to a specialized Math/Science school, where there were many smart people. Now, it seems like everyone is too busy with work and other things.

Actually, you can't hire me to work as your therapist, because I don't have a State license. You could hire me as a "life coach". There are loopholes.
Acts of friendship don't afford the State any opportunity to "wet their beak", or to boss people around, so it wants to make them illegal.
This is a consequence of people starting on-the-books for profit businesses.

People pay for restaurant licenses and all the State overhead. Therefore, they lobby for laws to crack down on unlicensed restaurants.

When women started working, child care businesses emerged. The bigger ones lobbied for licensing laws. They lobbied for laws making it illegal to watch your neighbor's kids, because "The law must be applied equally." The same law that makes it illegal for me to operate a daycare center out of my home also makes it illegal for me to watch my neighbor's kid.

If you have a State license for X, and have complied with all the overhead, then you lobby for the State to crack down on people who do X without a license. Greed combined with State violence leads to evil. If you have a State license for X, and you find out that someone is doing X without a license, then you report them to the State police. Those "anonymous complaints" are usually someone with a State license complaining to the State to quash competition.

Also, friends exchanging favors is not taxable. If you go to an on-the-books business, you pay taxes.

Soon it will be illegal for me to feed my sons a free dinner when they come to visit.

Instead I'll have to charge them the going rate (as established by the local restaurants) and send the government the appropriate tax on that amount!

And if I don't have the proper permits they'll say I'm not a licensed cook and arrest me for illegal operation of a kitchen...
If the laws get too silly, then people will start ignoring them. The only limit is "Could a judge and jury prosecute someone for this 'crime' without laughing?" Alcohol prohibition failed because people ignored the law and juries were refusing to convict.

If you're frivolously charged with a crime, you should pursue a "jury nullification" defense. However, State thugs get their salaries paid by taxes/theft. You're wasting time and money defending yourself, but the State thugs get paid for harassing you.

I liked last week's episode of South Park on October 14. I like the way that, in the episode promo, they don't spoil the entire episode. The clip from the teaser occurs in the first few minutes. That's an example of a promotion done correctly. A lot of shows spoil the entire episode in the promotion.

I liked the "Butters is now a man!" theme. It made me think "FSK has finally fully cracked his pro-State brainwashing!" There were other episodes of South Park that seemed to have a hidden message directed personally at me. If there really are advanced aliens watching things, then they could use the creativity of South Park's authors to send hidden messages. The authors of South Park make each episode only a week ahead of time, giving them an opportunity to refer to current events, like the ACORN scandal.

I also liked the "Is prostitution immoral?" theme. I also liked the way the undercover cop got way too into his prostitute role. It's a distortion of justice for policemen to pretend to be prostitutes to catch people. Prostitution isn't a crime.

As another example of hidden messages, consider the episodes where Butters was tortured by the mental health industry.

I didn't like this post on Anarchy in Your Head, where he refused to pay a small fine.

The problem is that refusing to pay the fine results in an even bigger penalty.

It's one thing to resist the State. It's another to pick your battles wisely.

I'm not saying I disapprove of his goal and his viewpoint. I'm disagreeing with his tactics.

Of course, if everyone who was a victim of State aggression resisted, then the scam would immediately collapse. If you're the only one resisting, you're having a lot of personal hardship for nothing.

This post was interesting. It's illegal to grow marijuana. Some people buy hydroponic lamps and grow marijuana indoors. The police have special cameras (FLIR cameras) that let them detect plant lamps.

Not mentioned in that article, there's a recent law regarding hydroponics. Anybody who purchases hydroponic equipment is automatically suspected of marijuana farming. The store who sells hydroponic equipment is required to report the transaction to the State police. There are a lot of innocent seeming things you can buy where there's a "Transaction must be reported!" requirement.

A group of people set up a hydroponic farm, but merely grew Christmas trees. They waited for the police to raid them. They set up cameras documenting the raid.

That article had another interesting point. "Possession of marijuana is illegal!" allows police to frame anyone of a crime. All the police have to do is plant evidence on a victim, and then arrest them for possession of marijuana. For example, policeman A can break into my home and place marijuana there. Then, policeman B raids my home, via an "anonymous tip" from policeman A. Policeman B is acting "honestly", because he isn't the one who planted the evidence there.

I liked this article on how bureaucracies wreck civilizations.
“If you promise a week’s pay, an annual vacation, and a retirement and health plan, you can get very ordinary people to justify their jobs even when their jobs are inherently harmful; even when the job kills, maims, and ruins lives. The Soviet gulags were run by bureaucrats; the Nazi death camps were run by bureaucrats; and in this country, we’ve taken what is at very worst a critical health problem—drug abuse—and criminalized it. And to handle that, we have a bureaucratic system that runs our prisons very effectively.”
This is how "I'm just doing my job!" leads to evil.

“Then, the larger a bureaucracy becomes and the more it has to manage, the less those who are subject to the bureaucracy can control it. Given the natural apathy of the majority, the bureaucrats become entrenched by default.”
The article misses "Taxation is theft!" and how taxation/theft feeds the bureaucracy.
“By the way, did you know that only about one percent of all bills proposed in Congress are enacted but that about 99 percent of all regulations proposed by bureaucracies are put into effect. How does that happen? Are we to believe bureaucrats know more about what the American people want than the legislators?”
That's very interesting. An unelected bureaucrat has more law-making power than a Congressman!

This article on pigs subverting a human surveillance system is pretty funny.

This article by George Donnelly was stupid. He's considering hiring a lawyer to file a lawsuit, regarding his incident with the police.

If you hire a lawyer and pay him hourly, your lawyer gets paid whether you win or lose. The incentive is for the lawyer to advise you to pursue your claim, even if you have no chance of winning. The incentive is for your lawyer to drag things out as long as possible, maximizing his fees.

After my abuse by the psychiatry/death industry, I considered filing a malpractice lawsuit. I rapidly concluded that it would be a waste of time and money.

This post on gilliganscorner linked to a somewhat interesting series of videos. I liked the bit about "Politicians who are critical of the banksters tend to be assassinated, and their faces wind up on money."

Gilliganscorner also mentioned that he started noticing parasitic body language by politicians. It's nice to see "FSK explained something to you." is easier than "Figure it out on your own the hard way!" Here's another parasitic politician body language symptom. When politicians speak, only half their mouth moves! It's very subtle, but if you look carefully, you can see it! There weren't any good examples in that series of videos. The politicians were interviewed from a profile camera angle, making it hard to see. You need a face-on camera angle with good lighting to see the "speak with half your mouth" parasitic behavior.

I tried looking for a good example, but couldn't find one. I spent a few minutes looking.

This article via fr33agents was interesting. Someone mailed marijuana via FedEx. The FedEx employee was suspicious, opened the package, and told the police.

Did the FedEx employee do anything illegal? According to corrupt State law, no.

Like all large corporations, FedEx is a branch of the government. A FedEx employee is essentially a government employee.

This is an important point. There should be no presumption of privacy from the State when you use a State-licensed business. As another example, if you deposit a lot of cash into your checking account, the bank is obligated to file a "suspicious activity report" (SAR) with the State police and IRS. This reporting law catches drug dealers and also people attempting income tax evasion. In other words, it catches people for doing doing things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

The problem with State spying power is not that collecting information is evil. The problem is that the information is used to enforce illegitimate laws.

This post by George Donnelly is annoying. He's obsessing over his dispute with State thugs over open-carrying a gun a refusing and to show ID.

It sounds like he's wasting his time. All these actions (requesting police report, considering a lawsuit) are a waste of time. George Donnelly is fighting the bad guys on their terms.

What do you expect the police report to say? "We intentionally harassed an innocent person!"? It'll probably say "George Donnelly was acting in a threatening and hostile manner and we detained him!"

The bottom line is that it's your word against the policemen, regarding the facts of what happened. A judge will always believe their version of the story ahead of yours.

Let it go and move on. Focus on resisting the State constructively.

I was severely abused by the psychiatry/death industry, much more severe than the abuse you received. I realized that pursuing my malpractice claim in a corrupt State court is a waste of time and I'm moving on to constructive actions, like promoting anti-psychiatry.

That's why I get offended when Stefan Molyneux defends the psychiatry industry. It's like Stefan Molyneux making a blog post saying "The police were right to detain and question George Donnelly for openly carrying a gun and refusing to show ID!"

The Vision has left a new comment on your post "Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy?":

Yes I have seen the same spelling error frequently. But it is, in fact, an error - the correct term is 'martial law', as in 'military rule'.

I've seen both "marshal law" and "martial law" used. I only use "martial law" now. I'm not going back to correct that detail in that post.

If I have a typo or grammar error, that doesn't invalidate the other points I'm making. I try to proofread carefully, but sometimes errors slip through.

Other than that, excellent post! Do you list your sources anywhere?
No, I don't list my sources. I don't like the academic style of writing where you cite every minor fact. I'm focused more on the analysis of ideas, than citing every minor detail. Most of the stuff you can look up yourself via Google.

All of the main points regarding "The USA is bankrupt!" are available via other sources.

The Federal Reserve and income tax amendment were fraudulently declared ratified in 1913. That's in State history books. All aspects of government are fraud, so it's irrelevant to argue if the Federal Reserve and income tax are more or less fraudulent than other things the State does. Actually, most people believe that the Federal Reserve was created after 1933 in response to the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve actually was created in 1913 and directly caused the Great Depression.

President Roosevelt defaulted on the gold-redeemability of the Federal Reserve Note in 1933. I remember learning that in history class. The official reason was "Greedy speculators were hoarding gold!" rather than "The Federal Reserve printed more Federal Reserve Notes than there was physical gold in the US Treasury! People started hoarding gold as a rational economic decision to protect themselves from this fraud! President Roosevelt's gold confiscation order was Unconstitutional/immoral! In 1933, the Federal Reserve started inflating to bail out the banksters, just like the banksters got a bailout after the recent housing bubble/bust."

In 1971, President Nixon defaulted on the right of foreign central banks to redeem their Federal Reserve Notes for gold. That's available in history books also.

In 1861, the Southern states walked out of Congress. Do you remember learning that part in history class? Even though Congress no longer had a quorum, President Lincoln issued Executive Order #1 to keep the Federal government going.

The Constitution was not passed by overwhelming consent. There was no provision for direct popular ratification. Only the state legislatures ratified it. In many states, several repeated votes were required to secure ratification. In many states, much dealmaking and threatening was needed to secure ratification. Once ratified, there is no provision for un-ratifying the Constitution. There was a presumption that the Constitution was a voluntary contract, which was a check on expansion of Federal government power until the Civil War. That issue was settled not with a polite debate, but rather it was settled violently.

All taxation is theft! Since all taxation is theft, then no government has any legitimacy. If a group of people have the power to use violence to collect taxes, then they also have the power to raise taxes to extortionate levels and commit all other sorts of crimes.

You won't learn "Taxation is theft!" in a State history class or in a State-licensed textbook or academic journal. "Taxation is theft!" is something obvious you can figure out on your own, if you think about it.

I'm much more interested in the analysis than citing every little detail. The academic style of writing where you cite every detail is not a natural way to write. For the really important stuff, like "Taxation is theft!" and "Psychiatry is murder!", I figured it out on my own. No State-licensed "scientist" has performed an experiment that proves or disproves my points.

I have a pretty good memory. The key is only remembering important stuff. I can always look things up on Google. Plus, I remember ideas more than specific details or the original source. By remembering ideas and not the original source, that helps me analyze writing by people who have some good ideas and some stupid ideas. I remember the good ideas I see and ignore the stupid ones.

Chrono has left a new comment on your post "Google Reader Dropped Reader Mail #107":

You should write your own RSS reader, and your own forum engine, and finally transition to your own website.
It's on my list of things to do. Unfortunately, my parents suck up a lot of my time. Plus, I'm working on finding a new wage slave job.

I'm going to start catching up on blog stuff before doing other things. Plus, I've decided to devote some time to computer games. I'm now playing "Spelunky" and "Warning Forever".

I also read that forum engines are a cost-center on most websites. The bandwidth/disk usage for a forum is a lot more than the ad revenue.

I'm going to move to my own domain once I start earning $20/month regularly. I'm on pace to make $8-$9 in October. The trend is favorable.

If my page eCPM rate is only $0.50-$0.75, then I'm going to need *LOTS* of pageviews before I can do this as a full time job. It's better to look at blogging as a way to refine my ideas and move towards other agorist businesses.
You might try finding yourself a good therapist.
I probably don't need a therapist. Dealing with my therapist's pro-State brainwashing, when the therapist presumes he/she knows more than me, is just a hassle.
You live in NYC, you can probably find one that has read (and actually understands) Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton. I think any therapist that follows his clarity and honesty can help you. You seem honest, at least when it comes to the important abstracts.
All therapists in NYC that I've spoken with believe that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is not a fraud. That makes them potentially very dangerous.
If you are not able to tell the difference between a good therapist and a bad one, you might check out these books.
I can tell the difference between a good therapist and a bad therapist. You want a therapist with the "abused productive" personality type and not the parasitic personality type.

I've also concluded "If you can tell the difference between a good therapist and an evil therapist, then you probably don't need a therapist."

Therapist literally means "the rapist". Fnord! Mindrape is much more severe and dangerous than physical rape, especially when the rapist thinks he's helping you.
If you put yourself through the rambles, you can get some very deep and important psychological insights out of Stefan Molyneux's podcasts also.

This is where I am right now -
The Psychology of Self Esteem - Nathaniel Branden

The Drama of the Gifted Child - Alice Miller
I don't have time to read all the garbage published by Stefan Molyneux in order to find the occasional insightful comment.

Are you paying attention? Stefan Molyneux is a murderer! I'm not looking to Stefan Molyneux for mental health advice, especially when he doesn't realize that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is one big fraud.

"Start an agorist mental health treatment business!" is one of my agoirst business ideas. The typical model for seeing a therapist is 30 minutes at a time every week or two, at a price of $100/session or more. That's pretty sweet! I'd be willing to charge $30/hr (no taxes!). As an agorist doctor, I wouldn't have the burden of State licensing requirements, lowering my costs. Of course, if I work as an agorist doctor, your health "insurance" could not be used to pay me!

The 30 minute cutoff is important. You have to hang out with someone for a couple of hours, to really make an emotional connection with them. I'm better off looking for good friends, rather than a new therapist. If I were starting a mental health business, I'd look to offer 24x7 help to someone during a crisis, with occasional longer sessions. If necessary, someone would stay in my apartment overnight if they were severely depressed/manic, rather than going to a State hospital/homicide center.

Here's more arguments against getting a State-licensed therapist.

I tried mentioning "Taxation is theft!" to my recent therapists. None of them wanted to discuss it.

I mentioned that I had a blog to my recent therapists. None of them expressed a desire to read it. I found that to be *REALLY* odd. I didn't press the issue, but I found it really disturbing that none of my therapists was interested in reading my blog.

This blog post was interesting. The author discovered the idea "Taxation is theft!" and is confused. It's interesting to see more and more people discovering the truth.

George Donnelly has left a new comment on your post "Vandalizing Terrorist Propaganda":

Dude, what a great idea that sticker is!

I have been seeing this eyesore of "ME ME ME" posters springing up all around me. Ripping them down seemed inelegant but your idea rocks!

Wanna go in on some stickers with me? Know where you can buy such things cheaply in bulk?

I will fund at least the first 1000 stickers if you do it. You can have 500 and I will take 500.

I would not touch the signs that are on non-stolen property but many of the ones around here are on government property, ie stolen, unowned property.

Who's in?!
It's 25 sheets for $8 on You should be able to afford that investment. I just searched for "red address label". You could also use plain white address labels.

It's easy enough to make the stickers if you have a printer. If you have a laser printer, watch out for the "secret identification dots". Inkjet printers don't seem to have them.

If I were going to do it, I'd just spend the $8. If I were attempting "promote agorism via standup comedy", I might hand out some such stickers at my performances.

I'm not doing it this election season, but I probably will in the future.

I don't see why you should be concerned about "owned/unowned" property. If a lawyer owns a house, it's paid via stolen property; does he really own it? Most people with political ads on their lawn are themselves political insiders. Of course, vandalizing posters on government/public/unowned property is less risky.

georgedonnelly ( has left a new comment on your post "Vandalizing Terrorist Propaganda":
The stickers are too small. I think we need to put up our own signs, door hangers and what not. I'm going to think this over some more and then write about it.
If you write a relevant post on your own blog, post a link here to be sure I notice it. Your blog is in my RSS reader now, but I sometimes miss things.

If you think you can do better than my proposed idea, then go ahead! I was thinking of getting some small stickers and putting them up on posters.

I'd probably just get some stickers and print them on my own printer. If you look around, you can find various sized stickers. There are some full-page ones available elsewhere.

If people will volunteer for other political activism, then it should be possible to get them to promote "Taxation is theft!"
This is something that can start now and run indefinitely, for every election cycle and between them two.
I'm not doing it this election cycle, but I probably will in the future. You also can do this with pro-State advertisements anywhere.
Thanks for the spark FSK!
If you try it, let me know how it goes.

I see that you already wrote about this on your blog. Let me know how it goes. If you can organize volunteers to promote a statist, then you should be able to organize volunteers to promote "Taxation is theft!"

"Taxation is theft!" sounds better than "Taxation is extortion!" The mechanism by which taxes are collected is a massive extortion/protection racket. "Extortion" is a word that isn't commonly used.

It's amusing that George Donnelly really liked that post, but it didn't have much reaction otherwise.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Vandalizing Terrorist Propaganda":
this would be very effective and humorous. At worst, you would make some people smile on their way to work.
There is a risk. If the police find out that you're posting the stickers, they could declare you a "radical homegrown terrorist" and "enemy combatant" and detain you indefinitely.

Some people have put "Taxation is theft!" bumper stickers on their car. They claim that they sometimes get favorable reactions from strangers. If you have a "Taxation is theft!" bumper sticker on your car, you're more likely to be detained by the police/thugs. That's one of the things they have been specifically trained to look for as evidence that someone is "dangerous".

gilliganscorner has left a new comment on your post "Vandalizing Terrorist Propaganda":

this would be very effective and humorous. At worst, you would make some people smile on their way to work.
I can't think of a better way to cause the politicians to freak out.
What's wrong with that? Politicians should have some fear that their scam is ending. It will only lead to them making more stupid decisions.

The problem is that the politician will call the FBI to complain. Then, the full power of the State will be focused on catching and detaining the person who put up the stickers. The law is so vague that any excuse can be made for arresting and detaining someone.
For example, if a sign was vandalized or defaced in some way, the local newspapers would report it as, "Election signs defaced by vandals".

However, if you put "Taxation is Theft!" on their campaign signs and were indiscriminate as to what candidate from what political party, this would cause their heads to implode.
I would target all candidates.

Another possibility is that you would be arrested/kidnapped and the mainstream media wouldn't report the story at all. That would be the most likely outcome. For example, the kidnapping of Robert Kahre, the Liberty Dollar operators, and the E-Gold founders received no mainstream media attention at all.

That's a common false assumption "If I am unfairly arrested for doing X, then the mainstream media will cover the story!" Most State evils occur without any news coverage at all. That's the whole point!
If it gained enough traction, you would see the political/mainstream media cartel come out swinging with articles related on their justification of themselves and their theft as essential for the "common good", "general welfare, "social contract", or other such disingenuous disinformation. The spin would be ratcheted up in high gear. Carefully censored "man on the street" interviews would appear, etc.
"Taxation is not theft!" is a hidden assumption that is never debated. Having statists denouncing "Taxation is theft!" would be a step in the right direction. Then, the issue would at least be debated.

You're confused about how State evil works. The State does not sharply criticize people who tell the truth. The truth is not mentioned at all.

For example, the mainstream media did not continually say "Ron Paul is a fruitcake!" Instead, they hardly mentioned his campaign at all.
It would be a worthwhile psychological experiment to see the public reaction. Would their pro-State brainwashing shut down their critical thinking? Unfortunately, only the State sanctioned answers would make it to print/news.

Still worthwhile though.
Statists would be offended. However, some State workers have the "abused productive" personality type. The parasites will never learn. Educating the workers is a possibility.

Not all State workers have the parasitic personality type. Some State workers have the "abused productive" personality type, misdirected towards evil goals even though they have good intentions. If every State worker were parasitic, then the machinery of the State would not function at all.

I'm probably going to try it eventually, but not this election cycle. I'm waiting until I get my own apartment first. If you try it, let me know how it goes. The more people there are promoting freedom, the less risk each individual takes.

"Organize volunteers to promote 'Taxation is theft!'" seems like a decent idea. I'd prefer to promote freedom while simultaneously making a profit. Advertising is always a good idea.

If it's possible to organize volunteers to promote Obama and other statists, then it certainly should be possible to organize volunteers to promote "Taxtion is theft!"

Matt has left a new comment on your post "What is Nullification?":

I find your blog very interesting. You have much of the same thoughts as I do while having a similar tendency to an ultimate reality.
One common theme is "There is an absolute universal standard of truth." The idea "Truth is relative!" is promoted by pro-State trolls. One example is "Stealing is wrong when individuals do it." and "Taxation is not theft!" That's an example of a statist using "Truth is relative!" and flexible thinking.

"Truth is relative!" encourages most slaves to behave honestly, while State insiders commit crimes and get away with it.
This entry seems to exemplify that. In our form of Governance, the State's most definitely have both the authority and the duty to nullify bad, and often evil, federal laws. What they lack is the testicular fortitude to do so. Either that or they don't have the desire due to many state leaders having the same tyrannical leanings as the feds.
Most state leaders have the same tyrannical leanings as the feds. However, they have less power.

That was one of the clever aspects of the original US Constitution. There was supposed to be a balance between greedy state legislatures and a greedy Federal government. That was one of the checks and balances. Competition between the state and Federal government would keep the State small.

This was completely subverted with the 16th amendment, which greatly increased the taxation power of the Federal government. This was subverted with the 17th amendment, which made Senators elected directly rather than appointed by state legislatures. The Senate was supposed to advocate for state rights, and the House was suppose to advocate for the rights of the people. Also, legalizing limited liability incorporation greatly increased the power of the Federal government. Large corporations have an incentive to lobby for favorable laws at the Federal level, rather than having to lobby each individual state government.
I believe that the hope of Freedom without bloodshed does indeed lie in the states. They have the power and the duty to shut this b.s. down.
I disagree. No government has legitimacy, whether it's a state government or the Federal government.

The "nullification" movement is itself pro-State trolling. The correct answer is "Taxation is theft! A government violence monopoly is evil! Both the Federal government and individual state government are not legitimate!"
Government is violent. Everything they do is backed with the guarantee of violence if you resist. From speeding tickets, to Income Taxes to welfare - violence is what backs that up. It is also what makes it wholly evil. Unfortunately, I believe that violence is also absolutely necessary to fix the problem. In order to stop a violent oppression, you must be willing to match their force with an even greater amount.
I disagree. It is impossible to build an army that can compete with the State police monopoly. Agorism is a resistance strategy that can be started on a small scale with a handful of people.

People have already tried direct violence resistance. Did you hear about the Montana Freemen and what happened to them? Once you start forming a private army, the State police will find out about it and raid you.

Even if you had 10k freedom fighters, then the State would send 100k or more well equipped police. You'd be outnumbered and surrounded/seiged. You would probably lose.

With agorism, you focus on constructive behaviors rather than violence.

If someone had a credible private army that could defend people from the State, I'd hire them for protection. Until then, I'll focus on resistance via agorism.

If you think you can successfully build a private army, then go ahead. Until then, I'll focus my energy elsewhere.
I am not sure that any of that is possible and that total collapse and a return to isolated local communities is almost the inevitable endgame.
The correct answer is the collapse of *ALL* governments, both at the State and local level. A bunch of small local government is preferable to a strong centralized government. A strong Federal government can easily dispatch many thugs to harass small groups of freedom seekers. Many local governments don't have that power. That's one of the main reasons the Federal government was formed, to crack down on small groups of tax resisters and freedom seekers!

Agorism is the best strategy that I've read about. The "nullification" movement is simultaneously a step in the right direction, and it's also pro-State trolling.

As an individual, I should ignore stupid laws and stupid taxes. I shouldn't wait for politicians to do something about it, either at the state or Federal level.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "What is Nullification?":
There is a relatively recent UK law prohibiting unlicensed demonstrations within a certain distance of the Houses of Parliament.
It seems stupid to get a permit from the government for your anti-government protest. "You need a permit!" is one step on the path to making something completely illegal. If you can charge $10 for a protest permit, then why can't you charge $1M for a protest permit?

The ultimate insult is the income tax, which literally means "You need a permit from the banksters and the State whenever you work!"
A young female cook tried to get a license for a demonstration. But something went wrong and she didn't get a license. She visited a memorial and read out a list of dead people killed in a war. That's all she did. She just read out a list of names.

The police arrested her. At court, she was given something called a conditional discharge. But I think that means she has a criminal record for reading out a list of names! A criminal record for that! It is appalling.
Sometimes, getting arrested for something stupid makes the bad guys somewhat realize what scum they are. The judges and high-ranking statists won't care, but the other enforcers might start getting uncomfortable.

Unfortunately, the bad guys act as if they have nearly unlimited resources. They can afford to fine or jail you. They get paid the same either way, via taxes. However, you suffer the consequences.
If she was better advised, should she have held out for a jury trial and asked the jury to nullify the immoral law or at least the law applied in a draconian fashion?
In the USA, I believe you don't always get a jury trial for misdemeanors (less than 1 year in jail).
More people should be told about jury nullification. We should be taught about it in schools.
Duh! That's the reason jury nullification is not taught in schools and never mentioned on the mainstream media.

A State violence monopoly is immoral, juries or no juries. However, "jury nullification" was one check against expansion of State power that has been eroded/eliminated. Juries have the right to nullify bad laws, but defense attorneys are forbidden to mention it. I don't know if a sui juris defendant is barred from mentioning jury nullification. If necessary, I'd try it, even over the objections of the judge.

Also, that post was about the right of states to nullify bad Federal laws, but not "jury nullification". In the UK and Europe, individual local governments aren't legally sovereign like they are the USA, but I haven't looked into the details. In practice, local police let the Feds do whatever they please.
In the UK, we had the Magna Carta law. At the time the King could pass whatever laws he wanted and his employees (judges) could execute whoever they wanted. So the people rebelled and forced King John to sign the Magna Carta which meant they could not be convicted unless a jury of their peers agreed. It is unlikely the drafters of the Magna Carta would not have realised that King John could pass a bad law and then get a jury to convict on the bad law. So obviously jury nullification is meant by the Magna Carta. Otherwise the drafters of it would be implied to be fools.
I thought that the Magna Carta was the King granting rights to the noblemen? Rights to commoners came later.

By himself, a King has no power. The King is dependent on the bureaucrats and middlemen who run his empire. That's the reason lesser royalty were able to force the King to recognize their rights. In the present, State insiders have a lot of freedom, as long as certain corruption thresholds are not crossed. For example, trillions of dollars in bailouts are legal, but the Madoff ponzi scam was illegal.

The authors of the US Constitution knew exactly what they were doing. The US Constitution was a power grab by State insiders, rather than a heroic document protecting individual freedom.

When State parasites have a violence monopoly, it makes no difference if written promises to protect individual freedom are ignored.

That post was not about "jury nullification". It was about the right of individual states to nullify bad Federal laws. That applies in the USA but not in the UK or Europe. In the USA, each state is technically its own sovereign government.

In theory, individual states have the right to ignore bad Federal laws. In practice, no politician has the balls to try this. They won't risk their cushy State job or risk spending time in Federal prison.

theftthroughinflation has left a new comment on your post "Are TV Game/Reality Shows Fixed?":

I like the theory of the rigged shows. Thinking about it I can easily pinpoint another "mole" in a TV show. I watched a couple episodes of "The Colony" on discovery which chronicles the lives of people living in a post-apocalyptic laboratory enviroment. Anyways there was 1-2 men on the show who were more agressive and less trust than the others. When more contestants were added to make the show interesting one guy didn't want to take them and was very agressive and wanted to search their private items for weapons. Was he added just to show thata violence monopoly is required because people are untrustworthy without a government?
I never heard of that show. It seems like a scripted show rather than a typical reality TV show.

Here's a good rule of thumb. Almost everything you see on a mainstream media program has explicit or hidden pro-State messages.

Watch a TV show where the characters are dating. There's a hidden message "You should feel uptight and anxious about sexuality!" The authors of the show probably weren't consciously aware they are spreading that evil fnord.

On a reality TV show, the rules of the show encourage lying and backstabbing by participants. That is a hidden pro-State advertisement "People are intrinsically evil. Therefore, a government is needed."

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Are TV Game/Reality Shows Fixed?":

FSK: When are you going to compile/sell a book based on your blog? You've got a lot of really good insights into what's lurking under everyday life, it could be titled "Fnords" or something.
Unless I can get a mainstream media source to promote it, writing a book is a waste of time and energy. It really isn't worth it unless I can sell 10k+ copies.

For example, Kevin Carson and Stefan Molyneux have written books. They haven't made much money off them.

When I move to self-hosted WordPress, there's a plugin that offers "Download as PDF" options for posts. I'll probably add a FAQ section.

I don't see the benefit of a book, instead of just blogging, unless I expect to sell a lot of copies. Unless I can get the mainstream media to promote it, I'm not going to make much/any money off a book.

It's easier for me to put a PDF and solicit donations, rather than try to sell a physical print book.

This article was very interesting. The warmest recorded year was in 1998!

This article is interesting. Fox News has been portraying the Obama administration negatively. Now, State insiders are denying Fox News "access" to news. The overall effect of this is that Fox News is giving even more negative coverage.

State bureaucrats are attempting to pressure Fox News into lying, by refusing to appear as guests on their programs and denying them "access" to news. It appears that Rupert Murdoch has the balls to say "**** you! We don't want you idiots as guests on our channel anyway!"

It's amusing that Fox News is now the most freedom-oriented mainstream media program. It's amusing that State insiders try to bully the mainstream media into giving favorable coverage. Usually, such efforts succeed, but it's failing in this case.

I wonder, if I attempt "Promote agorism via standup comedy!", would Fox News be most likely to invite me as a guest?

This article had an amusing bit. Many Americans rate Jon Stewart as their most trusted newscaster.

"Promote agorism via standup comedy" seems like a good idea.

This article on was interesting. In "The Lord of the Rings", you should consider "The Ring" to be the State.

In "Lord of the Rings", several powerful good characters are offered the ring and refuse it, knowing it would corrupt them. Similarly, it'd be foolish for an anarchist to run for Congress or another State office.

This website was interesting. It says that the swine flu scare is one big scam. They were citing "Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine".

That site says that the swine flu scare was a deliberately engineered scam. That's nearly impossible to prove.

It's more likely that statists and insiders are taking advantage of a naturally occurring virus.

This comic was interesting. Someone was citing "The Voting Scam". That was one of my first popular posts. It's dropped a lot since then.

It's always interesting to see, via Google Analytics, who's citing my blog. Each individual citation is usually only a couple of visits, but it adds up over time. The important question is "How many site visitors get converted into regular returning readers? How do regular returning readers first find my blog?" Google Analytics makes it hard to track that.

This article was interesting. Using the Internet makes you think better.

There now is widespread use of computers and the Internet. This is training children to think logically.

mic66 has left a new comment on your post "Who's the Richest Man in the World?":


I removed your duplicate comment. I have "comment moderation" enabled to keep out spammers.

I've already heard about the Zeitgeist movie, but haven't watched it. I read an outline. As usual, it's got some good bits and some pro-State trolling.

I'm looking for more advanced freedom-oriented material now.

All you need to know to get started is:
  1. Taxation is theft!
  2. A government violence monopoly is immoral!
  3. The USA has a corrupt monetary system!
  4. Inflation is theft! The Compound Interest Paradox is a defect in fiat debt-based money that's more subtle than constant uniform inflation.
  5. All services currently provided by the government monopoly could be more efficiently provided in a really free market.
  6. Agorism is the best strategy for seeking freedom. It's the only resistance strategy where you deny the bad guys resources and show a profit at the same time!
  7. The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake/fraud!

Here's another post on "Birth control pills may have damaging psychological effects on women."

That's very interesting. Every drug has side-effects. Birth control pills are no exception.

Joel Laramee has left a new comment on your post "David Letterman Fnord":
Methinks you go a little too far. :-)
I didn't say "I'm using violence to force you to have sex with someone other than your wife!" I said "Monogamy may be a bad idea and unhealthy!"
I am a married American, who has made a voluntary agreement with my spouse that neither of us will have sex with other people. I bet you have at least one or two married American friends? Do you honestly believe everyone who is in a monogamous relationship (married or not) is engaged in something unhealthy?
Nearly everyone in the world is a brainwashed mindless zombie. It's hard to say whether or not monogamy is a contributing factor.

Suppose you made an agreement with your employer "I agree to work for you the rest of my life!", then you'd agree that such a contract is stupid and legally unenforceable.

Similarly, a lifetime exclusive sexual monogamy contract isn't legally enforceable. It's a type of slavery contract. It isn't immoral if you change your mind later.

Due to State restriction of the justice market, you will pay a heavy financial price if you decide to break this illegitimate contract.

My point is "You should be sexually exclusive!" seems to derive from "You are the property of another person!"
You are normally very tight in your logic. You are so loose in your logic on this point ("maybe monogamy is unhealthy, because there is a historical link between marriage and the treating of women as property"), that I'm not going to bother pointing out the weaknesses, unless you want me to.
That isn't the point I made. My main point is "Monogamy is desirable!" is a symptom of pro-State brainwashing. It may not be natural human behavior.

I noticed that pro-State trolls say that a lot. "FSK, you're wrong, but I refuse to provide details." I'm certainly willing to discuss this issue more.

Your response is mostly pro-State trolling. Other people have also given pro-State troll responses when I mentioned this issue before. I conclude "Monogamy is a bad idea!" is an important subject.

Paula S has left a new comment on your post "David Letterman Fnord":

I agree that monogamy is probably not normal and that's it's ok to have several sexual partners as long as you're doing it responsibly and responsibility includes being honest with everyone involved so that every person knows where they stand and that they are aware that they aren't the only one you're having sex with.
That's what I'm thinking. The biggest problem is the risk of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy. That is minimized if you're careful.

George Donnelly has left a new comment on your post "David Letterman Fnord":
I think monogamy might be unnatural as well. But I'm a man, so of course I think that!
Both men and women would probably agree if they thought about it carefully.

I currently have zero partners, making the issue irrelevant for me right now. Still, it's a healthy mindset. "I'm going to find a partner!" is much less risky than "I'm going to find a partner that I will be exclusively stuck with for the rest of my life!"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer!":

Interestingly Dr Nash (he won the Economics Nobel prize) stopped taking his drugs totally.

Watch the movie below. The relevant part starts at around 21 minutes.

There was a movie about his life. (A Beautiful Mind). The producer of the movie decided not to tell the truth about Dr Nash stopping taking his medicines and decided instead to say Dr Nash moved to a more modern drug on the grounds that it is dangerous to suggest to people they can stop taking drugs for mental illnesses!
This is an important evil fnord. Many times a "historic" film has the facts altered, either to serve State propaganda needs or to make the story better.

I'd read the story of Nash before, but I didn't emphasize it here.

I have had a lot of Math training just like Nash. If you're a good Mathematician, you learn to think for yourself. Maybe it takes someone with that level of thinking ability to realize "Maybe these drugs are hurting me!"

When I was first forced to take psychiatric drugs, I didn't get full disclosure ahead of time. I panicked, called 911 for help, and then I was in the mental ward. I was a prisoner and could not leave. "You must take these drugs for the rest of your life!" seemed obviously wrong. I decided to conduct an experiment and stop taking the drugs. Even though I relapsed a couple of times, when I was well, I did my research and concluded that those drugs really are harmful and damaging.

Plus, a manic attack feels good! The only negative aspect was the "My parents panic and call 911. Psychiatrists kidnap me and forcibly drug me." Now, I've mostly cracked my pro-State brainwashing. I feel greater alertness and awareness. I should be able to avoid being involuntarily hospitalized again. It would be nice if I could explain the truth to my parents, but they'd never understand. I keep my ideas to myself for my personal safety. Blogging and the Internet have been a good means of gathering information and finding people who think like me.

In that video, Nash didn't have the outrage I would have expressed. He said "The director edited the facts, because he didn't want to suggest psychiatric drugs are harmful." I would have said "That mother****ing director lied to promote psychiatric drugs!"

Of course, the director might have faced legal liability if he suggested psychiatric drugs are harmful. Some lawyer at the film production company probably suggested changing that detail and nobody objected. Changing that minor detail makes the film an advertisement for the psychiatry/death industry.

Nash received money for the film. However, he didn't have any say over the actual content.

There was another interesting bit "The delusions portrayed Nash talking to an imaginary person, rather than the way the delusions really are." In my experience, the "delusions" were really that I was starting to see things that are actually there!

The best way to accurately portray psychotic delusions is like in the documentary "They live!" However, it isn't special magic glasses. All of a sudden, you start seeing things as they actually are!

For example, I now notice secret hidden messages when I watch TV. It isn't a delusion. They're actually there! I also notice parasitic body language by politicians and the comedians on the Communism Channel. It was very disturbing when I first started seeing them. Now, my reaction is "Oh, that again. Who do they think they're fooling?" "You see secret hidden messages on TV!" is one of the "symptoms" of schizophrenia. "Mental illness" is the disease of being able to see reality as it actually is.

I saw an advertisement for an antidepressant drug. It was one big evil fnord promoting the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness, in addition to the specific drug being sold. There was the explicit advertisement for the specific drug. There was a hidden advertisement, which is that drugs are the appropriate way to treat depression.

Drug companies spend billions of dollars a year marketing and lobbying. This makes it very hard for anyone to publicly criticize the psychiatry/death industry. A mainstream media corporation won't risk the billions of dollars spent on advertising. If you suggest that psychiatric drugs are harmful and people should stop taking them, then you might face legal liability.

Technically, a State prosecutor could say "FSK is guilty of 'practicing medicine without a license' when he says that the 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is a fraud and people should stop taking psychiatric drugs cold turkey." In the corrupt trial, the State prosecutor would probably not even have the burden of proving that psychiatric drugs really are beneficial.

The movie completely altered the facts. Here's what really happened. As a young man, Nash did some great Math work. Then, he developed his "mental illness". He took psychiatric drugs. For years he was unable to work or do anything. He stopped taking the drugs, and then he started being a productive Mathematician again.

The movie said "Nash was sick because he stopped taking the drugs. He started taking them and recovered." The reality is that Nash recovered because he stopped taking the harmful drugs. Changing that detail completely reverses the meaning of the film. The actual story is a sharp criticism of the psychiatry/death industry. The altered story is an advertisement for the psychiatry/death industry.

When the film was made, they couldn't tell the truth "Nash got better because he stopped taking psychiatric drugs." Instead, they made up a lie, "Nash was helped by switching to modern psychiatric drugs." In effect, this made the film an advertisement for the pharmaceutical industry.

The producers of the movie thought "It would be irresponsible for us to suggest that psychiatric drugs are harmful." In fact, they could have been exposed to legal liability for telling the truth. So, they lied. However, saying "Psychiatric drugs are beneficial!" is immoral, because it's a lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie they can't be legally punished for making. The producers of that movie are an accomplice to murder as much as Stefan Molyenux.

Suppose I attempt "promote agorism via standup comedy". Suppose I am successful enough to get invited as a guest on a mainstream media program. If that occurs, I will point out that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud. That then places the mainstream media corporation in an awkward position. If they let me say that, then they're exposing themselves to a legal risk. Plus, they risk alienating pharmaceutical industry executives who spend millions of dollars on marketing/lobbying/bribing.

The mainstream media corporation executives have a greater loyalty to their own jobs and avoiding being sued, rather than telling the truth. This makes it very hard to tell the truth on a mainstream media program.

Fortunately, if I attempt "promote agorism via standup comedy", my goal is not to make millions of dollars. My goal is to make as much money as I would make as a slave software engineer. That should be attainable even if I'm restricted to self-publishing on the Internet and even if I'm never invited on a mainstream media program. If my live performances are sufficiently popular, then I should be invited on a mainstream media program eventually. I won't hold my breath waiting. My plans will assume that never occurs.

The move "A Beautiful Mind" is one big evil fnord promoting the psychiatry/death industry. It's an interesting example of catching the mainstream media red-handed altering the facts.

This bit deserves its own separate post.

This post on no third solution was entirely missing the point. David Z should have referenced my GDP analysis.

When State-licensed comedians/communists report inflation-adjusted GDP growth, they use the CPI. This is wrong, because the CPI is far less than true inflation. If you do a proper inflation adjustment, then the state of the economy is far worse than State propaganda indicates.

Due to biased inflation measures, money supply inflation is misreported as economic growth.

I read about the NBA referee's contract negotiations. It was an amusing evil fnord.

The problem is that the NBA has a State-licensed monopoly. If you're a highly skilled professional basketball referee, then you have no choice but to work for the NBA.

The referee's union also has a State-licensed monopoly. Due to collective bargaining, a referee is barred from negotiating his own individual contract with the NBA. Due to the "closed shop" law, a referee is legally barred from breaking ranks with the union and signing his own contract.

Due to State recognition of the union, the union represents all referees, whether a referee wants to participate or not.

The solution to the NBA's State-backed basketball monopoly is to give the referees and players a State-backed union negotiating monopoly.

Chrono has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #105":
You and Stef keep up the opinion that the progress of government expansion is leading to a stateless society. You say that it will push people to boycott the State, Stef says the state will collapse on its own. Answer this question please...after the State collapsed in the USSR, why didn't a Stateless society form? Why would a reasonable person expect a Stateless society to form after the western State collapses?
Actually, what happened in the USSR is that the politicians intentionally switched from Soviet-style communism to USA-style communism. The insiders realized that they could loot and pillage more under a USA-style economic and political system.

Allegedly, the following conversation occured as the Soviet Union collapsed. Politburo insiders said to Gorbachev "WTF are you doing? You'll ruin us!" Gorbachev replied "Relax! We'll switch to a USA-style economy, and the same handful of us will still control everything." Gorbachev was right.

There are a handful of insiders who control the USA economy with as much or greater influence than the Politburo in the Soviet Union.

The miracle of the USA-style economic system is that the slaves are granted a certain limited illusion of freedom. This causes them to generate wealth that insiders can steal. Workers in a USA-style system are more efficient than in a Soviet-style system, but the workers still are slaves.

Stefan Molyneux doesn't advocate for agorism as aggressively as I do.

The State in the USA seems to be collapsing on its own. It's important for agorists to do a good job building the counter-economy, so that the collapse can be mostly nonviolent and a stable stateless society can emerge from the collapse. As more people work in the counter-economy, that accelerates the rate of collapse of the State.

As the burden of State taxation and regulation increases, this provides people a greater incentive to work off-the-books. The parasites seek an ever-increasing share of loot. This causes them to pass ever greater taxes and regulations. This causes more people to work off the books. It's a positive feedback cycle.

That's why the "carbon tax" law is stupid. The "carbon tax" law is, in effect, a huge tax on all economic activity. There already is a huge tax on all economic activity, the income tax. There's a limit to how high taxes can be raised before people start saying "**** this!"

Agorism is an ideological boost, compared to simply working off-the-books. If you work off-the-books by yourself, your efficiency and productivity are limited. Agorism is a way for people to cooperate and build free market alternatives to the State. If you're an agorist, instead of simply working off-the-books, you have many more opportunities to leverage your productivity by working with others.

The collapse is coming no matter what. Agorism is a strategy for people to be prepared. As more people work as agorists, the collapse of the State accelerates. As the collapse of the State accelerates and State restrictions and taxes increase, there is more incentive for people to work off-the-books. It's a virtuous positive feedback cycle.

I agree with Stefan Molyneux regarding "Taxation is theft! Government is a scam!" As indicated below, Stefan Molyneux is completely wrong regarding the "mental health" industry. A corrupt mental health industry is a key component of State evil. The evil State is more than just government.

theftthroughinflation has left a new comment on your post "Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine":
So who is dying from swine flu? I keep hearing this is a young person's disease but yet they seem to consider "young" people age 65 and under. It seems to be hard to find real facts about the swine flu...of course that isin't suprising because its part of the propaganda matrix to make us run to the government for protection.
I read that the only swine flu fatalities are people who had other health problems. There's practically zero risk if you're otherwise healthy. A healthy person who's exposed to the "swine flu" could get a regular flu and not even feel sick enough to see a doctor.

It's possible that I've been exposed to swine flu already, and didn't feel that sick!

This is entirely a manufactured crisis. Via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", laws are passed requiring people to get the vaccine. This is corporate welfare for vaccine manufacturers.

It's very easy to answer "Who profits from the 'swine flu' scare?" Executives at vaccine manufacturing corporations profit. In addition to scaring people into getting the vaccine, some areas have passed laws making the vaccine mandatory.

Also, there's a specific liability law exemption for vaccine manufacturers. If a vaccine is proven harmful, the manufacturer is specifically exempt from liability. Given that there's no liability, what incentive is there for vaccine manufacturers to make sure that the vaccine is safe and effective?

CorkyAgain has left a new comment on your post "Balloon Boy Fnords":

"Whenever you see a heavily-hyped new story, you should ask "How does this 'news' pro-State troll?""
You should also ask, what OTHER story do they want us not to notice?

The State/MSM often uses stories like this one to perform a kind of sleight-of-hand: while we're all watching the balloon boy story, our Nobel Peace Prize winner sends in assassins to take out the Iranian leadership. Or was there something even more heinous that they don't want us to see?
I did mention this "8. Sensational news stories like this detract from important events, like fake healthcare reform, the declining economy, or the declining US dollar." I didn't emphasize it as the main point of the post.

That's two aspects of evil. Most heavily-hyped news stories contain hidden pro-State troll messages. Heavily hyped meaningless stories also act as a coverup for more important issues.

Is it a deliberate conspiracy, or is it mere incompetence? Do news corporation executives think "HAHAHA!! We're doing this to cover up the truth?" Or, do they merely think, "If we do this, we get higher ratings!"

The problem is that the mainstream media has a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. If I want to start my own competing news business, it's very hard due to State restriction of the market. If a handful of mainstream media executives get together and say "We're not telling the truth!", then what recourse do I have?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Idiot Manager Tactics":

This is so right! I work for an idiot manager and am disgusted every single day. How the fuck do these people get into these management positions?! I sometimes wonder if the entire company hierarchy is made up of dumbass, assholes exploiting decent people.
You should read around more on my blog.

The nature of the State and government favors parasites over productive workers. In order to succeed in government and in a corporate bureaucracy, parasite skills are more important than being able to do useful work

The fact that the corporation is incredibly inefficient is irrelevant, because they're shielded by the State from competition. Even if you work for an incredibly inefficient corporation, it's very hard for you to start your own competing business.

Also, people are pro-State brainwashed to be susceptible to the manipulations of parasites. If you have the "abused productive" personality type, then you have high logical intelligence but low emotional intelligence. Parasites have high emotional intelligence but low logical intelligence. Parasites are very skilled at distorting the truth and covering their tracks when there's a problem. Most of the other people in corporate leadership positions are themselves parasites, so they trust other parasites more than people who actually know what they're doing.

The problem with parasitic middle management is that the USA does not have a true free market system. If you're a middle manager, your primary goal is to protect your turf and keep your job. There's no incentive to do a really great job or take any risks.

This is the essence of the Principal-Agent problem. A middle manager of a corporation controls resources that he doesn't own. The middle manager's own personal self-interest doesn't coincide with doing the most efficient job possible. In fact, if you're a middle manager and you're too skilled, then other people will feel threatened by you and eliminate you. Mediocrity is rewarded more than excellence.

Most people say "I want to hire the best!", but they really want someone mediocre and non-threatening.

Employers say they want a skilled software engineer, but they have narrowly-defined job descriptions. Potential employers are always looking for reasons to reject someone. A middle manager isn't spending his own money, so there's no penalty if he makes an inefficient decision.

A couple of skilled workers can't easily start their own business, due to State restriction of the market. That's why I'm moving towards agorism. Any skilled worker should be investigating agorism, to prevent parasites from stealing his labor and restricting his productivity.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Gold Lease Rate is Negative Again!":
The SEC may be finally doing something proactive. Just read SEC requested a copy of STOCK SHOCK--new movie about market manipulation.
That movie was about stock market manipulation and not gold price manipulation.

Just because someone who works for the SEC requested a copy of the movie, doesn't mean the SEC is serious about cracking down on naked short selling.

If the SEC really wanted to stop naked short selling, that's very easy. They could impose a fine of $0.01 per share per day for each naked short sale; they could make a bigger fine of $1 per share per day for stocks on the SHO list. The SEC could publish a list of brokers who violate the naked short sale rule.

Naked short selling is illegal, but there's no penalty for doing it. Effectively, that makes it legal.

The SEC is a "captured regulator". The SEC acts for the interests of insiders at the expense of everyone else. The SEC provides the illusion that someone is protecting people from fraud, while really doing practically nothing. Only the most egregious abuses are caught and punished.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Gold Lease Rate is Negative Again!":
"Where to store it" problem? FSK, you're selling your readers dime a dozen to ads services, and yet, you proclaim that there is a problem of storing gold that you could have obtained by converting all FRNs you have..???
"FSK has a problem with storing physical gold." is completely unrelated to "FSK decided to sell ads on his blog." When I move to my own domain, I'll probably offer people an option to make a donation to disable ads. Also, you can use an ad blocker Firefox extension if you really don't like the ads.

If you install NoScript and block AdBrite, then the ads are blocked. You also may block Google Analytics, if you find that offensive. However, Blogger is owned by Google.
What is it, one ounce? A one tenth of an ounce? How hard is it to store that?
You don't know how much savings I have. I have a lot of savings from my previous wage slave jobs.

Even if you had a million FRNs, this would equate roughly to a thousand ounces, which is 31 kilo. With gold being 20 times heavier than water, this would equate to about 1.5 liters in volume.

Where to hide a Coke bottle sized object? Are you kidding me?

You'd rather keep the FRNs, and risk going shirtless?

Are you fnording here?
OK, suppose I want to hide 1000 ounces of gold in my home. What are your suggestions for how to do it?

Suppose the police suspect me of a crime. They search my home and find the gold. They then decide to confiscate it. They say "FSK must be a criminal. Otherwise, he wouldn't have that much gold." Via "asset forfeiture" laws, the police get to keep my property.

Suppose I really carefully hide my gold. When police suspect me of a crime, then they may search my home at their leisure. No matter how carefully I hide it, the police will find it if they look carefully. When I buy gold, the seller is required to report the transaction to the State police. The police will know that the gold is there.

Suppose a common criminal raids my home and steals the gold. I complain to the police. They have no obligation to try and recover my property. I was robbed. That's too bad for me. If I buy insurance, it probably won't cover the physical gold stored in my home.

Whenever I buy gold from a State-licensed dealer, the transaction is reported to State bureaucrats and the IRS. That makes it very easy for them to decide to raid my home. Alternatively, a state bureaucrat could tell a common criminal "FSK has gold in his house!" and let them steal from me.

Storing a lot of gold in my home is the best way to protect your savings. It's not riskless like you make it sound. If the police weren't corrupt, I'd definitely do it. For this reason "Start a gold/silver/FRN barter network!" is a good agorist business idea, because it'd let people buy and sell gold anonymously without the State reporting requirement. "Start a decentralized gold warehouse receipt banking system!" is another agorist business idea. If I store 1000 ounces of gold in my home, that's too risky. If I have 100 trusted agorist trading partners, and they each store 10 ounces of gold for me, that's much less risky.

It's one thing to say "Convert all your savings to gold and silver!" It's another to store a lot of gold hidden in my home.

For now, I'm compromising with State paper gold/silver investments like GLD and SLV. The collapse of the financial system is still 20 years away, making those investments reasonable for now.

Are you Chrono? I noticed this article by Chrono. He's putting words in my mouth. I never said "The stock market is a better investment than gold." I've said the opposite.

The only reasons I haven't converted all my State paper investments to gold are:
  1. Storing that much gold in my home might be risky.
  2. There's no way for me to buy/sell gold and silver without the transaction being reported to the State/IRS.
  3. My parents said that I'm not allowed to buy gold and silver while living with them. I'm willing to accept that for now, because I plan to get my own apartment in a year or two.
In the meantime, I'm buying GLD and SLV as a compromise. I'm not buying any more stocks, but I'm keeping what I already own.

The problem is not the physical space that 1000 ounces of gold would take. The problem is "What happens if a criminal raids my home?" or "What happens if criminals wearing badges and uniforms raid my home?"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Gold Lease Rate is Negative Again!":
Lease rates being negative does not equal a riskless trade. If you buy a future (which is more expensive than spot) after selling the spot gold you borrowed, you lose money and don't have any to invest at the LIBOR rate (you bought a future remember?). Study some basic modern finance texts please.
It's always annoying to see pro-State trolling by people who think they know economics but don't. You are the one who doesn't understand basic finance.

The flaw in your counter-argument is that, when you buy a future, the margin requirement is only 5% or less of the value. If you buy a gold future for $1000/ounce, you only must post $50/ounce in margin collateral. You may spend the remaining $950/ounce however you please. You don't have to pay the remaining $950/ounce until delivery.

I don't know the exact margin requirement, but I believe it's 5%-10%, with institutional investors getting a better deal than retail investors. The margin rules are subject to change at any time. That trick was used to cheat the Hunt Brothers.

There is one slight error. I didn't include the contango on the gold future. Due to the "time value" of money, the price of a 1 year gold future should be slightly more than the spot price, a difference equal to the 1 year interest rate. Interest rates are currently very low, making the contango negligible.

As usual, let's calculate a specific example. The 1 year gold lease rate is -0.25%. One year LIBOR is 1%. The spot price of gold is $1000/oz. The contango is 1%, making the one year future price $1010/oz.

You borrow gold at an absolute rate of 0.75%, yielding $1000/oz. You buy a 1 year future, paying $50/oz in margin requirements. You have $950/oz to invest however you please. When the future is due, you owe an additional $960/oz. You pay $7.5/oz in interest on your lease.

You have borrowed $950 for a year at a cost of $17.5. This is an effective interest rate of 1.84%.

There is no requirement that the gold sale proceeds be invested in bonds earning LIBOR. The proceeds could be invested in riskier assets, making this trade more desirable. If the trade doesn't work, the gold borrower can declare bankruptcy and default.

There is no requirement that the gold borrower hedge at all. If the price of gold sharply rises, then the gold borrower can declare bankruptcy and default.

If I want to borrow at 1.84% to invest in my blogging business I can't. Gold leasing allows insiders to borrow at very favorable terms.

When I add in the cost of contango, the gold lease isn't completely riskless. However, the gold leaser is borrowing money at a very favorable interest rate.

Connor has left a new comment on your post "The Gold Lease Rate is Negative Again!":

Well, I'm not a pro-state troll, but that's beside the point. You pay interest on futures bought on margin, with principal equal to the notional value of the contract, and generally at the LIBOR rate, so your counter-argument is still flawed. You don't get margin for free. Read J. Orlin Gabbe's book on international finance of the same name (he's definitely not a statist troll).
When I studied futures, you weren't charged interest on the margin portion. The interest is factored into the contango price of the future. If interest were charged on margin loans for futures, then there would be no contango.

The reason you aren't charged interest is that you don't technically owe the remainder until delivery.

Continuing the above example, even if you add 1%, the gold borrower is still borrowing money at very attractive rates. I don't think it's correct to add that 1%.

Can you cite a good web-based source? I'm not reading a finance book just for one detail. I looked into this, and I thought you weren't charged interest. Also, some finance books don't match the way the market actually works. I read the book on the Black-Scholes formula (Hull), and it didn't include short interest on short stock positions. It also assumed hedging transaction costs were zero. It also had the obviously false assumption "Expected gain in stocks equals the risk-free interest rate."

The rules might be different for retail investors and institutional investors. Retail investors usually get less favorable terms.

I consider every mainstream economist to be a pro-State troll. Any economist who doesn't write "Taxation is theft! WTF are you doing? Wake up people!" is a pro-State troll.

Chrono has left a new comment on your post "Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer!":
A couple of things.
1) I have not read one 'I agree with Stef' post that disagreed with FSK for anything more than a flimsy (sample size) reason. FSK actually gave more than just that reason for coming to the conclusions he discussed.
I gave a lot of reasons supporting my position other than my personal experience. Nobody answered any of the points I made.

Specifically, I asked for a scientific study showing that psychiatric drugs are better than placebo over a period of years or decades. All the drug research I read covered 6-12 weeks, which is invalid when people take the drugs for years or decades.
2) FSK, you are very hostile to Stefan's position. I want to make this clear as I remember commenting on your post on investing your IRA in GLD or SLV, I believe, and you commented back with 'why are you so hostile' when I clearly was not. For examples of a hostile post, read your comments about Stefan above. For a non-hostile example, read my post and very clear and rational questioning of your position on GLD.
Do you mean this post by you? That post completely did not address my concern about investing in physical gold, which is the risk that someone will steal it. I have no idea what the real risk is. It could be 0%. It could be very high.

I certainly agree with "Gold is better investment than the stock market or a checking account or bonds." I've said that repeatedly. The only problem is "Where do I store my metal?" As a compromise, I may buy a COMEX gold warehouse receipt, but I pay a storage fee on that and I risk losing my metal in a SHTF scenario where the financial system collapses. If I keep gold in the COMEX warehouse, then I owe capital gains taxes whenever I sell because the COMEX reports the sale to the IRS.

If you have a lot of gold stored in your home, then why not tell me how you've safeguarded it from theft by common criminals and theft by police? I haven't thought of any strategy that doesn't have flaws. All the good hiding places I can think of are places a criminal would look.

On this post, your hostile comment was ridiculing my idea "Storing a lot of gold in my home is risky!" I've heard plenty of stories where police search someone's home, find a lot of cash, and then keep it via "asset forfeiture" laws. The presumption is "If you have a lot of cash, then you must be a criminal!" In the context of asset forfeiture, gold is treated like money. If you have a lot of gold, then you're presumed to be a criminal.

I am going to buy some physical gold in the next few years. I am very concerned about the "How to store it safely?" problem.

With State paper investments, there is a certain loss to inflation. With physical gold and silver, there is an uncertain risk of loss if someone steals my metal.

Sometimes, hostility is appropriate. Your hostility to my statement "Holding a lot of physical gold is risky!" seems excessive. If you keep all your savings in your home in the form of physical gold, then good for you. I'm not able to take that risk.

It is appropriate to get hostile when someone says something offensive.

There are many offensive things.
  1. I get very offended when someone says "Taxation is not theft!" I don't usually waste time debating idiots.
  2. I get very offended when I hear stories about police inappropriately raiding someone's home.
  3. I get offended when I hear about what happened to Robert Kahre, the Liberty Dollar, and E-Gold.
  4. I get offended when people defend the psychiatry/death industry.
It's good to get offended when people promote stupid things.

Stefan Molyneux is correct when he says "Government is a scam! A government violence monopoly is unnecessary!" However, Stefan Molyneux is contributing to evil when he says that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is not a fraud. It is very offensive, because some of Stefan Molyneux's readers/listeners are asking him for mental health advice, and he's giving them harmful information.

I'm certainly willing to discuss this issue more. If Stefan Molyneux publishes a response on his own site, let me know. I don't read everything he does, because he has a large volume of mediocre material. I'm looking for more advanced material on freedom. Stefan Molyneux has some occasional good bits.

That is the nature of the Matrix. People see some aspects of State evil but not others. Stefan Molyneux sees the evil of taxation and government. Stefan Molyneux completely misses the evils of the mental health industry. The State is more than just government. A corrupt mental health industry is a key component in preserving State evil.

I'm offended because Stefan Molyneux claims to be openminded but he really isn't. He was unable to consider the points I made. Stefan Molyneux is making the exact same mistake he accuses statists of making. A statist says "Stefan Molyneux has the burden of proof, that taxation is theft and having a government violence monopoly is unnecessary." Stefan Molyneux is correctly offended by this. Stefan Molyneux says "FSK has the burden of proof, that psychiatric drugs are harmful." He doesn't see that he's making the pro-State position. He's reciting his pro-State brainwashing without thinking about it.
3) This is a very good post. The burden of proof concept is completely irrelevant. The relevant idea here is power. Just like when dealing with the state, if you are accused of a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent, since, if you do nto fight the charges, you will be punished, thus the null hypothesis or the status quo is that you are guilty, until you prove yourself innocent. This issue is no different. You must prove that the psycho-drug-industrial-complex is a harmful machine, because if you do not, Stef will not change his view, the supporting 'splinters' above will keep bleating that they agree with him, and the machine will keep grinding people up as it has in the past. The only way to change that is to prove it. Or hope for a miracle. I hope you appreciate this point of view. I believe it is the correct one.
There are two separate issues. You're raising a separate issue than the one I made.
  1. Are psychiatric drugs beneficial or harmful?
  2. If psychiatric drugs really are harmful, then how can I help prevent psychiatrists from hurting people?
If psychiatric drugs are harmful, then that's an absolute truth. It makes no difference if zero people believe it, a handful of people, or nearly everyone.

I have no reason to believe that my brain chemistry is different from that of other people. If those drugs harmed me, then those drugs harm other people. Drugs similar to those are also harmful. If I experienced certain negative side-effects, then other people taking those drugs also experience negative side-effects.

"Psychiatric drugs were inappropriate for FSK, but help other people!" seems to be a variant of "Truth is relative!"

If someone voluntarily chooses to take cocaine, knowing that it is harmful, then they should be allowed to take it.

If someone voluntarily chooses psychiatric drugs, having full disclosure of the harmful effects, then they should be allowed to take them. I am not suggesting that violence be used to stop people from taking psychiatric drugs. If you are already taking psychiatric drugs, withdrawal is nasty and dangerous. Still, quitting cold-turkey probably is best.

A psychiatrist says "This drug will help you solve your problem!", when the drug is really harmful. That is fraud. I complained to my psychiatrist about harmful side-effects of the drugs, and he said "Those are symptoms of your illness!" That is medical malpractice.

I was administered psychiatric drugs against my will, at the point of a gun. Once in the hospital, I was not free to leave. That is torture/kidnapping/assault.

According to natural law, I have a valid malpractice claim against the psychiatrists who injured me. Corrupt State courts don't recognize my claim as valid. There's nothing else I can do, but promote the evils of the psychiatry industry and help end the scam of the State.

It is a serious problem that corrupt State courts won't recognize malpractice claims against psychiatrists, when they follow "generally accepted practices". The problem is that "generally accepted psychiatry industry practices" are defective. A corrupt State court isn't prepared to handle such arguments. A corrupt State court is only interest in "Is this legal?" What psychiatrists do is 100% legal according to corrupt State law. Via "captured regulators", State law regarding mental health treatment was written by State-licensed psychiatrists!

If your psychiatrist assaults you, then you have a valid malpractice claim. However, I'm not a party to that dispute. I am still indirectly injured by the psychiatrist. The people injured by psychiatrists tend to have above-average intelligence. People who start to see the evils of the State are then murdered by the psychiatry industry. The most likely potential customers for agorism are those injured by the psychiatry industry.

I get offended by psychiatrists for the same reason I get offended when a statist says "Taxation is not theft!" The mainstream media never seriously considers "Maybe taxation is theft?" The mainstream media never seriously considers "Maybe psychiatric drugs are harmful?" There are unstated hidden assumptions.

Stefan Molyneux is contributing to the psychiatrists' scam. People ask him for mental health advice, and he says "Your State-licensed psychiatrist is not a fraud! Ask him!"

I could adopt the unabomber approach towards dealing with the psychiatry industry. That wouldn't accomplish anything. Also, I only have a valid claim against the specific psychiatrists who attempted to murder me, and not all psychiatrists. However, everyone who works in the psychiatry industry is partially responsible, because they didn't notice and expose the scam.

My only option is to promote the fact that the "chemical imbalance" is a mistake and a fraud. I am very offended at Stefan Molyneux, because he could be an advocate for mental health freedom, but he's just pro-State trolling. I'll never convince a State-licensed psychiatrist. I was hoping I could convince Stefan Molyneux or get him to seriously evaluate my arguments. He isn't as openminded as he claims to be.

If there's an agorist justice system, then former mental health patients would be able to pursue malpractice claims against their psychiatrist. Until then, there's nothing a mental health patient can do except refuse to take the harmful drugs.

Psychiatric drugs are very damaging and addictive. If you're taking psychiatric drugs and quit cold-turkey, the withdrawal will be very harsh. You will suffer withdrawal, in addition to the mental health issues you had in the first place. Over time, without drugs, you should heal. It's very traumatic. You might relapse a couple of times.

If you are taking psychiatric drugs or know a friend/relative who's taking psychiatric drugs, you should advise them to stop taking them. The withdrawal is nasty, but it's the only chance of a real recovery.

According to insane State law, I'm taking a legal risk by saying "You should stop taking psychiatric drugs cold-turkey." If someone reads this, follow my advice, and then does something stupid while suffering withdrawal, I could be legally responsible. Withdrawal is nasty, but it's the best alternative.

"Start a drug free mental health treatment business!" is one of my agorist business ideas.

I've been thinking of ways to end the psychiatrists' scam. The only options are "Promote the truth as best I can." and "Help create an agorist counter-economy!"

The psychiatry scam is closely related to the scam of government. Psychiatrists profit from hurting people, because a corrupt justice system protects them from negative consequences for their medical malpractice. Government needs a corrupt mental health industry. People who start noticing the Matrix need to be silenced. Murdering them would be too obvious, so drugging them into submission is a good alternative.

Chrono has left a new comment on your post "Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer!":
I really hope you continue updating this post. You covered a lot of ground and most of the people who bothered to comment did not read your post all the way through. I believe this is a key reason why people do not agree with you. They are not looking at the evidence.
I may not update that specific post. "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is a fraud!" is as important as "Taxation is theft!", and maybe even more important.

I'd been planning to write a longer post on anti-psychiarty. I was offended with what I saw on Stefan Molyneux's forums, so I wrote that post. Eventually, I'll make a version with no references to Stefan Molyneux.

I plan to keep coming back to this subject. It's important to me, because I was injured by the psychiatry/death industry. It also is important, because the psychiatry/death industry silences people who start cracking their pro-State brainwashing.

For example, I can now easily identify parasitic body language. I'm no longer fooled. When I watch TV, I'm offended by the evil fnords. If everyone wasn't fooled by parasites, then their scam would end.

The fact that other people are fooled by parasites makes it harder for me to find and keep a job. For example, at my most recent job, my boss lied and said I was doing a lousy job when I was doing a good job. If the other owners weren't fooled by parasites, then my boss wouldn't have been able to unfairly fire me.

The people injured by the psychiatry/death industry have above-average intelligence. They are the most likely converts to agorism and really free markets.

For all I know, the people aggressively defending Stefan Molyneux could have been shills for the psychiatry industry. Or, they may have been just plain stupid.
Just wanted to add...I noticed you covered the argument against the status quo (#3 in my comment above) and are already aware that while the burden of proof is on the other party...the burden of changing the status quo is unfortunately not.
The pro-psychiatry troll has the burden of proof, that psychiatric drugs are beneficial. The person making the statement "X should exist!" has the burden of proof.

Unfortunately, if X is the status quo, then the person saying "X is evil!" has the burden of proof. Even so, I consider the evidence I provided to be proof.

"How can I prevent State-sanctioned mass murder?" is a very serious problem.

That's a separate issue than the one I raised in that post. "What is the truth?" is one question. The next question is "How do I prevent psychiatrists and statists from hurting people?" For now, my best option is to promote the truth as best I can.

The alternatives are:
  1. Build an agorist counter-economy. The State legitimizes corrupt practices by the psychiatry/death industry.
  2. Start an agorist drug-free mental health treatment business.
If I'm right and the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud, then I should put my freedom where my mouth is and start a drug-free mental health treatment business. I don't have a State license, nor am I interested in wasting years getting a State license. If I start such a business, it would have to be done agorist-style.

A State-licensed therapist charges $100+ for a half-hour session, paid by your health insurance. If you hired me, your health insurance wouldn't pay. I'd only have to charge $20-$30 per full hour for it to be equivalent to my wage slave job salary. If it's agorist-style work, then there's no taxes! Plus, I'd give a much higher quality treatment.

This seems like a reasonable cutoff point. I have a lot more time for blogging, but I'm still falling behind on Reader Mail! It seems that I'm getting more comments. I'm working on catching up.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at