This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Captain America vs. America

This story is pretty funny. Marvel Comics published a controversial issue of Captain America. He was investigating a "radical terrorist group". It really was a "Tea Party" protest group.

Ironically, Captain America also depicted the "Tea Party" protesters as a group of racist white people. That's also the mainstream media bias regarding the "Tea Party", that it's a group of racist white people, disgruntled that there's a black President.

Surprisingly, there was a massive backlash against Marvel Comics. They were forced to apologize. Of course, an apology has no economic value. Still, it's interesting that there were a lot of people offended by this comic. That's a promising sign.

Marvel Comics' excuse is that they were looking for a generic terrorist group, and happened to pick the Tea Party. As another site mentioned, "They aren't sorry they did it. They're sorry they got caught."

Overall, this is a promising incident. The State attempted to portray freedom-seekers as terrorists, and it didn't work.

I'm surprised that a lot of people were offended by this comic. Perhaps the number of people who understand "All taxation is theft!" is greater than my estimate.

Anarchist Music - Yellow Day Brigade

This site was interesting. A band released an album called "Taxation is theft!" It is "The Yellow Day Brigade" or "The YDB".

That is interesting. If you're looking for music that annoys illegitimate authority figures, you can't do better than that.

It'd be nice to see a student get kicked out of school for wearing a "Taxation is theft!" shirt.

This is a promising sign. Eventually, there will be more bands promoting "Taxation is theft!" and really free markets. At some point, the mainstream media won't be able to ignore it, if it becomes really popular. If you're an amateur/indie musician, my blog should be a good source of material.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

The Daily Show Ridicules Anarchists

There was an interesting bit on last Monday's Daily Show (2/22) (around 11:00) . Samantha Bee did a bit where she was making fun of anarchists.

Superficially, you might say "Hey! That's pro-State trolling!" In one sense, that is true. In another sense, it's progress. Ridiculing anarchists is one step ahead of ignoring them. Some statists were sufficiently threatened by the truth, that they wrote a sketch ridiculing it.

Is the freedom movement moving to part two of Gandhi's success formula? "First, they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win." Ridiculing a viewpoint is better than completely ignoring it.

However, "They fight you!" already occurs for people who avoid taxes, use gold and silver as money, or otherwise ignore stupid regulations. Most people who resist the State and get caught are using foolish strategies, instead of proper agorism.

Samantha Bee's pro-State trolling is obviously stupid. She said "Without government, business owners would pollute." In the present, tort reform and limited liability incorporation provide State protection to polluters. Suing a polluter in a corrupt State court is an expensive and drawn-out process. Only the most egregious pollution abuses are punished. State comedians then loudly tout this as evidence they're doing a great job. "The environment!" is an excuse that State parasites invented, so they could claim more power, when the State enables polluters to get away with their crimes.

Pro-State trolls say "Without government, problem X would occur." The reality is that problem X occurs in the present, precisely because of government. This makes the pro-State trolling believable. As another example, "Without government, thugs would go around extorting from people!" This is exactly how State tax collectors operate in the present; the theft is protected by an illusion of legitimacy.

When I saw The Daily Show ridiculing anarchists, I was simultaneously pleased and offended. It's a type of progress. It's offensive, because Jon Stewart is an establishment ****sucker, but he's also the host of one of the most freedom-minded shows. There's a "debate ceiling". Jon Stewart represents one of the limits of acceptable mainstream media content. Jon Stewart is pushing the limits of the debate ceiling, making other ideas seem more permissible.

Lately, Jon Stewart has been more interested in giving President Obama a ****job than actually pointing out the foolish things he's doing. Jon Stewart says "WTF? We needed healthcare reform!" instead of "The actual healthcare 'reform' proposal was thinly disguised corporate welfare. The real problem is the State licensing cartel for doctors, combined with other harmful regulations."

When I see The Daily Show, my reaction usually is "I could do better." I'm going to try that in the next few years. I'll have to self-publish on the Internet, rather than hold my breath waiting for a mainstream media contract. If you think about it, all good comedians are really anarchists.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Disobey and Die!

This story was interesting.

Officers Hector Jimenez, who was fired after shooting another unarmed man to death in 2008,
This bit itself is hilarious. The policeman shot and killed a *SECOND* unarmed victim!
and Jessica Borello were justified in shooting 20-year-old Andrew Moppin-Buckskin at 47th Avenue and International Boulevard after he ran from his car following a traffic stop, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in Oakland.

Moppin-Buckskin was not armed, but the officers believed he was reaching for his waistband when they opened fire, Wilken said in a 15-page ruling Tuesday.

"The undisputed evidence shows that Officers Jimenez and Borello acted reasonably when they used deadly force against Mr. Moppin," Wilken wrote. "The officers shot Mr. Moppin only after he failed to come toward them, as ordered, dropped his hands and then made a movement toward his waist area as though reaching for a weapon."
The judge is, in effect, saying "A policeman orders you to do something. You refuse. The policemen is now justified to execute you." This also illustrates the potential risk of refusing to show ID, when a State policeman demands it. All the policeman has to do is say "I thought he was reaching for a gun!", and now he's justified in murdering you. Whether the victim actually had a gun or not is irrelevant.

Also, this was not a lawsuit against the individual police officers who murdered the victim. Those policemen are protected by sovereign immunity. They probably also don't have enough personal property to justify the expense of a trial and pay the lawyer's fees. This was a lawsuit against the government. Suing the government is pointless, because the cost of any victory would merely be passed onto everyone else via higher taxes. The State parasites themselves are protected by sovereign immunity.

This illustrates the problem with a State police monopoly. There are no negative consequences when police commit misconduct. Due to their monopoly, police get lazy. They will shoot or Taser someone when simply physically restraining them should suffice. Even a Taser has the risk of seriously injuring or killing the victim, although a Taser usually isn't as severe as a gunshot wound.

The judge ruled against the victim's relatives. They are SOL. That also illustrates the problem with the State justice monopoly. State parasites will always protect each other. A State judge will bend over backwards to help a State policeman. The policemen who mindlessly obey orders are the primary source of the power of State parasites. For this reason, policemen must be protected at all costs and policemen are continually hyped as heroes.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Bipartisan or Unipartisan?

"Bipartisan" is an important evil fnord word. "This law is bipartisan!" means that politicians/parasites from both parties support the new law. If parasites from both parties support a law, then it can't be evil, can it?

The most evil laws are usually "bipartisan". Insiders make campaign contributions/bribes to both parties. The only difference is that the party currently in control gets a larger bribe. For example, a Democratic candidate receives 66% of lobbyist money and the Republican candidate gets only 33%. In 2004, it was reversed when Republicans were in control.

The following laws are "bipartisan":

  1. The huge financial industry bailouts were "bipartisan".
  2. The proposed financial industry "reforms" are "bipartisan".
  3. The Patriot Act is "bipartisan".
  4. The proposed healthcare "reform" is bipartisan.
  5. The income tax is "bipartisan".
  6. The Federal Reserve is "bipartisan".
Why are Democrats so eager for healthcare reform to be "bipartisan"? They have a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They can pass any law they want.

Healthcare reform is "bipartisan" so that both parties are responsible for the inevitable disaster. The insiders who will benefit from the new law are making campaign contributions to both parties.

The Democrats and Republicans only have superficial differences. They are more alike then different. Both believe "Taxation is not theft!" Republicans are now saying "Government is too big!", but that's not how they acted when they controlled Congress and the President.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe "The best way to help people is to pass new laws! We should make up new rules and use violence to force people to obey!"

Every tax or law must be backed by violence. Otherwise, people would just ignore it. That's why government is one huge extortion racket. The State is a bunch of thugs. Though violence and brainwashing, State thugs force people to obey.

There's an oscillation between the Democrats and Republicans. When people get disgusted with one party, they switch to voting for the other party. By that time, people forget that the out-of-power party is also a bunch of scumbags.

The winner-take-all district-based voting system discourages third parties. People are "wasting their vote", if they vote for a third party candidate.

The fact that the actual candidate changes helps preserve the illusion. Each candidate says "I'm different than the other guy! I'm going to change things!" The candidate believes his own lie, so technically he isn't lying. People who superficially evaluate the candidate's body language won't notice the scam.

The USA does not have a bipartisan political system. It is really a unipartisan system. Insiders in both parties are pro-State brainwashed to think the same way. The competition between parties is an evil fnord that keeps the slaves complacent.

The original US Constitution did have a lot of checks and balances to prevent expansion of State power. They have been all eroded/removed.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Stimulus Plan Worked!

This story is pretty funny. State parasites are bragging that the stimulus/bailout plan brilliantly saved the economy.

What do you expect them to say? "HAHAHAHA!! We stole trillions of dollars! Sucks to be you!"

Pro-State economics is propaganda designed to promote the theft of State parasites. They fabricate statistics to present themselves as heroes.

According to fake economics, deficit spending by the Federal government stimulates the economy during a recession. Idle workers are hired via inflationary deficit spending. The fallacy is that inflation steals from everyone, including productive workers. The State hires insiders via pork projects, but productive workers lose their savings due to inflation.

This post was pretty funny. The stimulus plan cost $787B. State comedians claim it saved 2 million jobs. Simple long division indicates a cost of $390k per job saved. Even if you accept official statistics as truth, the stimulus plan was a huge heist. Most of the "jobs created" were really pork project.

The bailout isn't just the $787B stimulus package. There's the TARP money. There's also the indirect bailout money provided by the Federal Reserve. There is no public accounting when new money is printed and given to the banksters.

Some insider got a pork project to build a road. Someone else can't afford a new TV or a vacation or expanding their business. The economic value of the road is less than the value of the wealth stolen via inflation. It's the "seen vs. unseen" fallacy.

Due to the Compound Interest Paradox, deficit spending by the Federal government is needed during a recession. This keeps up the money supply and prevents hyperdeflation. The correct solution, "reform a corrupt monetary system", is not publicly discussed.

Suppose that, in 2005, someone saw that housing prices were too high. They decided to postpone buying a house, saving/investing instead. When State parasites adopt a policy of inflation, they're penalizing rational behavior. The saver should get the perk of buying things cheaply during a recession. Instead, State insiders buy things cheaply with newly printed money. The net effect is a massive transfer of wealth from the productive sector to the parasite sector. If you bought a home, you lost your equity. If you saved, you were robbed by inflation. (unless you invested in silver or gold)

Bailouts and inflation reward parasites, while stealing from productive workers. The problem with the US economy is that stealing via the State is more profitable than doing something useful.

It's amusing to hear politicians bragging about their brilliant theft. If something is obviously true, you don't need to repeat it over and over again. If State parasites keep saying something, that's an indication that it's a lie.

"The bailout/stimulus worked!", "Support the soldiers and police!", and "Pay your taxes/tribute!" are lies that are repeated over and over again. That isn't because they're obviously true. They are repeated over and over again because they're lies.

Student Achievement Tests

There's a lot of mainstream media hype about "x% of students are below reading level for their grade." By making the test easier or harder, State bureaucrats can control the "passing %".

How was "8th grade reading level" determined in the first place? A reading test was given to a lot of 8th grade students. The median score was set as "8th grade reading level". By definition, half the students are failing.

Public schools are designed to brainwash people. It's silly to say "Public schools are failing!" They're working exactly as designed! The people who set up the system 100 years ago knew exactly what they were doing.

The purpose of schooling is to create mindless zombies who don't mind wasting most of their life in a factory or cubicle. You're conditioned to obey stupid orders and perform mindless tasks. For example, I write financial reports in my current wage slave job. They're meaningless. Most likely, nobody reads them. Even if they're wrong, it doesn't matter. There's a regulation that requires them, and someone must write them. (That's one reason I don't feel it's immoral for me to take my current wage slave job. My actual work has zero economic value.)

The people who set up the mandatory public education system knew what they were doing. They were purposefully training zombie cogs. In public, State comedians lament the failure and demand more resources. Are there insiders who know the real truth, or do they believe their own lies?

One brilliant feature of the State and public schooling is that State agents don't know it's a lie. If public schoolteachers knew it was a scam, they wouldn't be effective shills for the State. Teachers do the best job they can, given the constraint of a corrupt system. They don't question the system itself.

"Grading on a curve" has another side-effect. The average students resent the smarter students, for making them look bad. If the smart students didn't work so hard, then they would look better in comparison. This trains "abused productive" people for a lifetime of abuse.

A parasite will do just enough work to get by. I read that C students are the smartest. They've realized it's a scam, and put in the minimum effort. At the time, I didn't know it was a scam, and did the best I could.

I also believed that, if I was a good student and learned useful things, I would be rewarded with a good job and a good career. Now, I know that's a lie. My skills and experience are useful, but it a non-free market they have little value. I'm getting by and surviving, but I'd be doing a lot better in a really free market.

Student achievement tests are one way that the State exerts its influence. By adjusting the difficulty of the test, any desired % of students will be "failing". The mandatory public school system was intentionally designed to prevent real learning. Almost all teachers are unaware of the scam, which only makes them more effective State agents.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654

I recently bought a Verizon LG env Touch, which I use to compose blog drafts on the subway. I also put my sister on my phone bill as a "family share" plan, saving her about $40/month on her phone bill. I don't use all my minutes anyway.

I don't use text messages. I never understood the attraction. I prefer E-Mail. I only use my cell phone for phone calls and preparing blog drafts. (I'm still annoyed that the notepad feature has a 300 character maximum, but I found a workaround that involves using line numbers on my drafts and a PHP script that parses out the memo.dat file on the phone and sorts by line number.)

My sister does a lot of text messaging. I got her the 250 messages per month plan ($5/month), and she's using less than half. If she goes over, I'll upgrade to the next tier.

On my latest bill, there were two $9.99 charges for "premium text messages". I asked my sister, and she doesn't remember subscribing to them.

I called customer support. The two premium text messages were for 91097 and 654654.

That's another dirty trick. The phone bill doesn't say what the premium text message charges were for. You have to call customer support and ask.

I know how to use Google. A quick search shows that 91097 is a service called "Reveal Your Lover", where someone sends you messages about how to meet women. Other people were complaining that they were subscribed without their knowledge.

I searched for 654654. It's a service called "predicto". Other people were complaining that they were subscribed without their knowledge.

It's obvious that 91097 and 654654 are spammers/scammers. I bet that a lot of people don't carefully read their phone bill. I only noticed because I wanted to check if my sister was going over her 250 text message allowance.

My sister claims that she never signed up for these services. The possibilities are:

  1. This is a total fraud. Someone fraudulently signed up my sister for these services.
  2. A spammer sent my sister a seemingly-genuine text message. My sister replied, not knowing it was a spammer, and subscribed to the service.
My sister isn't that smart, so it's believable that she was tricked by a spammer into replying and subscribing. My sister claims she didn't subscribe to these services. They obviously aren't the sort of thing my sister would be interested in.

This is a problem with cell phones. You can't reply to an E-Mail and then be billed something. If you sent a text message to a certain number, even as a reply, you can be signed up for a service.

I called Verizon Wireless' customer support. The representative was an incompetent dumbf*** who didn't understand that the premium text message was from a spammer. He said some bulls*** about "Verizon Wireless isn't responsible for third-party premium text messaging services."

I did configure my sister's phone to block premium text messages. I don't use text messages. Maybe I should block it on my phone also?

It looks like I'm stuck paying the $19.98 for two spammers. I enabled the block, but it might not take effect until next month, leading to another $19.98 fraudulent charge.

I E-Mailed Verizon Wireless to complain again. Maybe they'll remove the charge. They're a monopoly, so I'm SOL regarding these charges. Even if I drop Verizon Wireless, another vendor is going to be just as monopolistic and abusive.

If I had nothing better to do, and was feeling particularly angry, I'd sue Verizon Wireless in small claims court for $19.98. That would probably be a waste of time. I'd be giving up a couple hundred dollars by taking a day off work. In this manner, the State encourages fraudulent practices, by making it inefficient to pursue small fraud claims.

The two problems are:
  1. Verizon has a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. They have the monopoly right to use certain frequencies. I can't start my own competing cell phone business.
  2. The State justice monopoly makes it impractical for me to pursue a fraud claim against Verizon Wireless and 91097 and 654654.
There definitely are fraudulent practices in the premium text messaging area. It seems weird that you can text message a certain number, and then your phone is billed.

I enabled "block premium text messaging". I'll see if that works.

The State protects spammers like this from the negative consequences of their fraud. Verizon has a State-backed monopoly. I won't accomplish anything by canceling my service and picking another branch of the State telephone monopoly. All members of the State telephone monopoly/oligopoly support this type of premium text messaging abuse.

This story does have a somewhat happy ending. Verizon Wireless' phone support representative was a total douchebag. I made an E-Mail support request, complaining that 91097 and 654654 are spammers. Verzion Wireless gave me a credit for $19.98. I guess I "won" this round.

However, I still lost. I had to waste time and effort getting the $19.98 charge removed. I'm not reimbursed for the time I wasted due to Verizon Wireless' fraud. Suppose that only 50% or fewer people complain. The only cost is giving me back my $19.98. For the remaining 50%, Verizon Wireless and the spammers get to keep their stolen booty. For this reason, punitive damages are necessary in cases of fraud.

This is an important principle of corrupt State law. "If you steal, it's OK if you give back the stolen property." That is false. Punitive damages are also necessary, as a deterrent against dishonest behavior.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Joe Stack

This story, which you've probably heard about by now, is interesting. A disgruntled software engineer intentionally flew a small airplane into an IRS building. He left a message on his website, explaining his reasons.

The initial web coverage I read said "It was an accident. There are no government offices in that building." Later, it was revealed that it was an IRS office and it was intentional.

The IRS doesn't advertise in neon signs "We have offices here!", for the obvious reason. Joe Stack probably went to the office once as a "customer".

The FBI ordered his website taken down. Via the Streisand effect, this only makes people want to read it. The webhost later retracted the claim that the FBI ordered him to take down the website.

When I read Joe Stack's letter, my reaction was "Someone edited this. Parts were removed." The version circulating on the Internet may not be the original version! His website and computers were seized, so it's impossible to be sure.

The Austin Statesman, a newspaper, was the one who first tweeted "This is the website of the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building". Newspapers are a branch of the State. It is possible that someone from the FBI hacked/edited Joe Stack's website, and *THEN* tipped off the newspaper. Alternatively, the newspaper alerted the FBI before telling their readers.

One person suggested that the entire note is a forgery. FBI agents then pretended to suppress it.

I expected more details of exactly how he'd been abused by the IRS. He should have named the specific judges and IRS agents that abused him. He did name his accountant Bill Ross. Why didn't he also name the State thugs who assaulted him?

I remember the names of most of the parasites who have abused me. If Joe Stack were the victim in an unfair trial, he would definitely remember the name of the judge and prosecutor. Why didn't he mention them by name in his letter? Why did he mention his accountant, but not the judge or prosecutor in his unfair trial?

I didn't notice anyone citing any of the tax trials he was involved in. Sometimes, IRS thugs can steal your property/savings without a trial. The money in your checking account and other State paper investments belong to the IRS and Goldman Sachs more than they belong to you.

[He describes the usual "The income tax is illegal!" argument.]

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0.
That bit implies he spent time in jail for tax evasion. I didn't see that detail corroborated anywhere else. Maybe he's just referring to the amount of time he spent fighting State thugs on their turf.

On the other hand, Joe Stack might just have been really stressed out. It's impossible to be sure. My gut reaction still is "Someone edited this. Parts were removed."

There was one weird bit. His wife had off-the-books cash income. He complained that his accountant refused to include it on his tax return. WTF is wrong with that? If an accountant advised me to do that, I'd be happy! Now, if State thugs harass me, I can say "I followed my State-licensed accountant's advice!"

Joe Stack obviously was angry at the IRS . If he had read my blog, he would have realized the pointlessness of violently retaliating against State thugs. He lost his life for nothing. The cost of his attack is not paid by State thugs, but externalized to everyone else via higher taxes.

In the late nineteenth century, there was an anarchist movement that tried assassinating State insiders. It failed. First, such an attack only creates sympathy for the State. Second, there's always another State parasite eager for a promotion, willing to take someone else's place. Even if IRS agents are occasionally assaulted, it's still a high-paying job. Third, the State has superior resources. Freedom-seekers are still a tiny minority.

State thugs should be treated like a crazy person on the subway. You don't intentionally start a fight with a crazy person. The correct thing is to ignore them.

Some State comedians are saying "Joe Stack was angry at the IRS and did something stupid. Therefore, everyone who believes 'Taxation is theft!' is evil! Hooray for the State! We need the State to protect us from scum like Joe Stack!"

This is invalid reasoning. Just because someone who believes X also does something stupid, doesn't mean X is false. Also, Joe Stack seemed specifically angry at the IRS, rather than having the more enlightened viewpoint "All taxation is theft!"

"If you're disgruntled, your only option is violence!" is State propaganda. This is a nasty form of pro-State trolling. Agorism is a better strategy. The official State-licensed resistance methods are obviously stupid.
  1. Writing your Congressman is a waste of time. Your Congressman doesn't care what you think.
  2. Voting is pointless. You're picking from two carefully pre-screened pro-State trolls. There are plenty of ways to rig an election, even if an honest candidate or someone like Ron Paul is on the ballot. Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign is an excellent example of the mainstream media fixing an election.
  3. A riot or protest is pointless. That's easily handled with tear gas and rubber bullets.
"Work peacefully within the system!" is obviously stupid. However, "Work peacefully outside the system!" is not publicly discussed as an option. The only remaining choice is violence.

Don't act like a slave begging your master to be less cruel. The best resistance strategy, agorism, is not publicly mentioned. By encouraging disgruntled people to commit pointless violence, this makes it easy to eliminate freedom-seekers.

When State thugs have a disagreement with someone, they resolve it violently. This creates the illusion that violence is the only possible tactic for fighting evil. Violence works for State thugs, because they have superior numbers and resources.

The correct answer regarding the IRS is "All taxation is theft!" The IRS is a particularly egregious example of abuse of State power. The IRS is a terrorist organization, more dangerous than Al Qaeda. More Americans are hurt each year via IRS tax prosecutions, than by Al Qaeda.

Just because some people living in Afghanistan organized a terrorist attack, doesn't mean it's justified murdering everyone in Afghanistan. Similarly, some IRS agents act like thugs. That doesn't mean all IRS agents and all State employees are evil. Using violence to fight terrorism accomplishes nothing, whether it's Al Qaeda or the IRS. The vast majority of State employees are cogs in the machine, unaware that they're participating in a massive crime.

The IRS must employ some intelligent people. Otherwise, State parasites couldn't accomplish anything! If nobody intelligent worked for the IRS, the State wouldn't be able to open an Excel spreadsheet, much less collect and enforce taxes. However, it's unreasonable to expect intelligent people working for the IRS to quit their jobs. You have to earn a paycheck somehow! If you're working for the IRS and discover it's a scam, maybe the best thing to do is to keep your job but "work to rule". Make mistakes that ensure some tax evaders don't get caught. For example, an intelligent State thug ordered to evaluate my blog could write in his report "FSK is a harmless fruitcake."

Joe Stack only has a valid complaint against the specific people who hurt him. Even then, there isn't any way to enforce and collect a claim. On the other hand, "if you wear the colors you're part of the gang". Every State employee is partially responsible for all abuses of the State. However, "They're partially responsible!" doesn't lead to "They deserve to die!"

This bit was interesting. Someone claims that the FBI knew about the attack in advance. This seems like boilerplate for a conspiracy theorist. "Bad thing X happens. Therefore, State spies knew about X in advance. They allowed it to happen, so they could pass laws restricting people's freedom."

A more likely explanation is that someone edited his website after the attack. I don't believe "State spies are omniscient!" However, it is suspicious that he set fire to his home. I'm confused about the timing of "When was his home on fire?" and "When did he crash the airplane?"

911 responded very fast after the airplane hit the building. That proves nothing. If a random joe calls 911, it might take awhile. If State thugs call 911, they don't have to wait. That isn't immoral in this case, given that it was an intentional attack.

This bit of Joe Stack's letter was suspicious.
Our leaders decided that they didn't need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that.
Why is Joe Stack upset that an Air Force base closed? Was he working as a contractor/consultant for someone who writes military software?

It is possible that State thugs discovered Joe Stack's identity before everyone else, and edited his suicide note. Then, they let the edited version circulate as if it were the original. My gut reaction is "This was edited!", but it's impossible to be sure.

There's another interesting bit I read elsewhere. State thugs don't use their real name while working! IRS agents are allowed to use a fake name while working, to lower the risk of violent retaliation from their "customers".

If State thugs assault you, it might be pointless to ask for ID. You might be given a State-sanctioned forgery!

How do State thugs profit by allowing Joe Stack to crash a plane into an IRS building? They can use it as an excuse to pass more laws restricting freedom, or more tightly enforce existing laws. If you take a severe pro-State troll interpretation of the law, it's illegal to write "Taxation is theft! Government is one huge extortion racket!" However, State thugs are focusing most of their effort on people who retaliate violently or advocate violent self-defense.

The Alien and Sedition Acts in the late 18th century were used to arrest people who criticized the new Federal government. During the US Civil War, President Lincoln arrested newspaper editors in the North who criticized the Civil War. Some newspaper editors thought that the Southern states should be allowed to withdraw their consent for the Federal government. The "Communist McCarthy Purges" were primarily used to weed out independent thinkers. Now, the mainstream media is owned by a small handful of people and tightly controlled. However, the Internet is changing the equation.

The mainstream media spin is "Joe Stack is evil. Therefore, all people who complain about taxes are evil." It may lead to a crackdown on people who advocate for freedom. At one point, President Obama was trying to get people who criticized healthcare "reform" classified as terrorists.

Will Joe Stack's actions be used as an excuse for more State power, via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" Will it be an excuse to crack down on "Tea Party Protesters!"? Will it be an excuse to make it illegal to write "Taxation is theft! Government is one huge extortion racket!"? I don't think so. Politicians might try. If State parasites declared it illegal to write "All taxation is theft!", that would only draw more attention to the issue.

It also was ironic to see "Joe Stack" as the #1 search term on Google Trends. A lot of people are saying "Joe Stack had a valid complaint. However, I disapprove of his tactics."

There's one important piece of missing information. Which judges, IRS agents, and State thugs interacted with Joe Stack? Questioning them might be useful. They probably were severe parasites and pro-State trolls. If I were an FBI agent investigating this incident, I'd talk to all the IRS thugs and judges that interacted with Joe Stack.

If you go into a trial with hostile body language, the judge is likely to treat you more severely. For this reason, I might be at less risk than others. If I adopt a simple "WTF? I thought I wasn't a slave? I'm just trying to earn a living. Why are you bother me?" approach, the judge might be more lenient. A judge does have some discretion to be lenient or harsh. I won't know until I'm forced to try. Hopefully, I can avoid that.

Another evil fnord is that the individual is blamed and not a corrupt system. It's easy to blame Joe Stack and sympathize with the State. Nobody points out that the IRS really is a terrorist organization. Government taxation is one huge extortion racket.

"Tax collectors are scumbags!" is not an original idea. In the 18th century, it was common to refuse to sell food or lodging to someone who was a known tax collector. The modern slave has grown to accept complacently a lot of abuse by State thugs. 100-200 years ago, current taxation/regulation levels would have led to an immediate revolt.

To what extent are individual tax collectors responsible for State evils? You have to earn a living somehow. "Tax collector" is a high-paying job. On the other hand, everyone is responsible for what they do. "I was following orders! I was just doing my job!" is never a valid excuse.

Is my State job evil? I'm writing meaningless risk reports that nobody reads anyway. If someone gets a margin call based on my report, that isn't really evil. I work for the State as much as an IRS agent, although I'm somewhat removed from the process of violence.

Another interesting bit is the tax law Joe Stack cited, section 1706. That bit was out of context with the rest of the document. Anyway, I'll explain that law. In my current wage slave job, I'm the type of person directly affected by that law.

I work as a contractor/consultant at a large financial institution. I'm paid on a W-2 by my headhunter/pimp. For all practical purposes, I'm really an employee of the large financial institution. Most big financial institutions in NYC abuse tax law in this manner. The financial institution pays the headhunter. The headhunter takes a cut, and pays the contractor. Technically, I'm employed by the headhunter, and not the financial institution. By using the third-party headhunter, there's enough of a bureaucratic firewall to prevent getting busted by State enforcers.

It's incredibly inefficient. The headhunter probably bills 2x-3x as much as he pays me. He did have some initial overhead, but the rest is gravy. From my point of view, it's a decent rate, so I accept it. I don't have the option of contracting directly with the large corporation, due to section 1706, so my only option is to go through a headhunter. You might say "Start your own software business!", but it isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm working on that.

Why do large financial institutions use contractors/consultants, especially for software engineers? There are several reasons:
  1. The contractor budget is different than the employee budget.
  2. When/if the contractor is fired, the employer doesn't have to pay unemployment insurance.
  3. When/if the contractor is fired, it doesn't count as a layoff.
  4. The employer doesn't have to pay benefits, but the hourly rate is greater to compensate. For example, I don't get paid vacation or sick time or holidays.
  5. Skilled software engineers can demand a high salary. It's embarrassing if a grunt software engineer gets paid more than high-ranking managers in other parts of the corporation. Hiring the software engineer as a consultant helps avoid non-technical employees and managers from getting jealous.
  6. Everyone else is doing it. Corporate executives tend to copy everyone else's practices.
Some software engineers stay as contractors/consultants for years with the same client. For all practical purposes, they're employees. If State thugs enforced the law as written, this practice would be illegal. From my point of view, I'm getting paid a decent rate; at least it's not one of those sleazy "equity only" startup jobs. If a State thug decided to strictly enforce the law, he'd rule that I was a direct employee of the large financial institution. I'm not too concerned, because nearly every large financial institution in NYC does this.

If there was no State restriction of the market, it'd be easier for me to start my own business. I wouldn't have to pay 50%+ of my labor as tax to a headhunter/pimp.

Section 1706 forces the software engineer to go through a headhunter/pimp, instead of contracting directly with the financial institution. Skilled software engineers had enough leverage that they could demand a direct contract with the large corporation. Section 1706 removed this leverage, making such arrangements illegal.

I'm paid on a W-2 basis. Taxes are automatically deducted from my paycheck. My income is reported to the IRS. My headhunter/pimp gives me health insurance, taking the cost out of my paycheck pre-tax. It's about 1/3 as expensive as an individual policy paid with after-tax money.

If I were paid on a 1099, all sorts of tricks are available. I can set up my own corporation. I can deduct my health insurance expenses pre-tax, giving myself a generous plan. I can give myself a huge pension, leading to a huge tax writeoff. (Given that the US financial system is going to collapse soon, a pension holding State paper assets might be worthless 20 years from now. You can get almost the same tax benefit with gold and silver, provided you buy and sell with cash off-the-books.)

If I had my own corporation, I can write off all sorts of things as a business expense. I probably could write off my computer, my Internet service, my cellphone, my car (if I commute by car), etc.

I also could pay myself a low base salary. The rest of my income could be a dividend, which is taxed more favorably. Your 1099 income is automatically reported to State thugs on a 1099 form, but they can't audit everyone. Taxes are not automatically withheld. For this reason, small business owners are most likely to get audited. Small business owners are at the front lines in the war between State thugs and people who want to do useful work.

Also due to this law, corporations are reluctant to hire individual contractors directly. Before this law, a contractor could get paid directly by a large corporation, without having to give a cut to a pimp/headhunter. Now, only headhunters on the "preferred vendor" list are hired. A State middleman takes an extra cut of your labor. For example, the headhunter bills the corporation for $150/hr, but pays the contractor $50/hr (still a decent rate). Before this law, the contractor could go directly with the large corporation, and take the full $150/hr for himself. The headhunter/pimp is a middleman, profiting from State violence. The owner of the headhunter firm is usually buddies with insiders at the large corporation.

State restriction of the market makes it hard for the software engineer to say "**** this! I'm starting my own business!" I can't start my own large financial institution with a State-backed monopoly. The cost of regulation compliance makes it hard to bootstrap a small business. If I save my salary in State paper investments as seed capital, I get ripped off by inflation. Via the inflation tax and the power to print money, my employer literally gets a cut of *EVERY* on-the-books economic transaction. The banksters directly profit from the violence of IRS/FBI thugs.

Summarizing, if you're paid on a 1099, there's all sorts of tax loopholes you can use. Section 1706 removed this loophole. Section 1706 forced all software engineers working as contractors/consultants to go through a headhunter/pimp, who takes a cut of your wages. It's another tax, in addition to the taxes I pay to the government.

(maybe this bit should also be broken out as its own separate post?)

It's frustrating that Joe Stack's suicide note is so widely read! My blog is better written, and more dangerous, than Joe Stack's suicide note. I'm sticking with agorism as my strategy for profiting and fighting evil. It is frustrating that violence is necessary to get the mainstream media (or Internet virally) to spread a viewpoint.

The income tax originally was originally presented to the general public as a "soak the rich" law. The original income tax law was only a couple percent, applied to only really high incomes. In the present, IRS tax collectors harass everyone, especially small business owners. Small business owners who accept payment from their customers in cash have the most to gain from tax evasion. An executive at a large corporation probably won't resist taxes, because he's already a negative taxpayer. State insiders are tax-eaters and not tax-payers.

There are all sorts of trusts and tax loopholes a wealthy person can use. With $100k in savings, it doesn't pay to spend $50k setting up a fancy trust. If you have $100M+, then $50k in legal/accounting fees is negligible. Wealthy people get tax loopholes. The people lobbying for those tax loopholes are the lawyers/accountants who sell "wealth management/preservation" services!

The income tax works the opposite of the way the average person is brainwashed to believe. The average person pays taxes. The profits go to insiders. Instead of "distribute and share the wealth", the IRS "collects loot and distributes to insiders". A productive worker pays a lot more in taxes than the benefit received. More than half the population are tax-eaters, making it practically impossible to achieve reform by voting. A State parasite can rationally in his self-interest vote for higher taxes on productive workers. Really productive workers are a tiny minority. They will always get a raw deal under a system where laws are determined by a majority vote.

Bailouts, wars, and corporate welfare are all paid with taxes. Laws that restrict freedom are enforced with tax money. If not for the IRS, the huge boondoggle in Afghanistan and Iraq would not be possible. If not for the IRS, trillions of dollars could not be stolen via bailouts, inflation, and corporate welfare. Insiders get a bailout, and I'm struggling to get by. Insiders get a bailout, and my savings are stolen by inflation.

There also is an important connection between the income tax and the Federal Reserve. Superficially, you might think they're unrelated. According to State thugs, income taxes must be paid on every economic transaction.

The only form of payment accepted for income taxes is Federal Reserve Notes. State violence creates an artificial demand for Federal Reserve Notes, even though they're intrinsically worthless.

In a very real sense, IRS/FBI thugs are private debt collectors working for Goldman Sachs and Lloyd Blankfein. Via the income tax and the inflation tax, the banksters get a cut of every on-the-books economic transaction. Taxes enable State parasites to earn huge salaries, without doing any useful work. The money/wealth collected in taxes and paid for "interest on the national debt" doesn't vanish into thin air. It winds up in the pockets of the banksters. Speculating in government bonds is one of the banksters' most lucrative scams.

Only Federal Reserve Notes are accepted as valid for paying income taxes. The only way that new Federal Reserve Notes are put into circulation is via a loan. Via the Compound Interest Paradox and the income tax, every American is literally a slave working for the banksters and State parasites. The income tax is a complete perversion of the idea that we live in a free society.

The banks must be bailed out, because only they can create money. Via the IRS, people need bank-issued money to pay taxes. Without bank-issued money, people can't get permission from IRS bureaucrats to work. That's the reason Federal Reserve Notes are really slave work permission points.

That's the reason so many people get caught up in "The income tax is illegal/unconstitutional!" They assume "what is legal" and "what is morally acceptable" is the same.

The Supreme Court and Federal appeals courts have repeatedly ruled that the income tax and Federal Reserve, as currently implemented, are perfectly legal. That doesn't make it morally acceptable. That just proves that the Supreme Court and nearly every Federal judge is a hopelessly brainwashed pro-State troll. You don't get picked to be a Federal judge unless you're buddies with high-ranking State parasites. You don't get picked to be a Federal judge unless you've been pro-State brainwashed to think in a certain way.

In fact, if you try to make an "The income tax is illegal!" argument in court, the judge will find you in contempt and fine you. That's a pretty severe type of State violence. In a corrupt tax trial, you can be punished just for making certain arguments in self-defense! If the arguments are obviously frivolous, then why are people who make those arguments punished so severely? You don't punish people for saying something obviously false; you punish people for saying something that reflects a hidden truth.

The judge might also find you in "contempt of court" if you make a "jury nullification" argument. I haven't tried it. If necessary, I will present such an argument sui juris. If the judge interrupts me, it'll help make the jury understand that the judge is biased against me.

The role of the Supreme Court is not to protect individual freedom. They are comedians making up clever-sounding excuses for increasing State power.

If you're angry about the income tax and abuse of State power, you won't find justice in a State court.

There was a bit where Joe Stack criticized organized religion. Organized religion gets various tax exemptions. For example, the Amish are exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes. Otherwise, the tax burden would make subsistence farming unprofitable. You can't say "I'm a religion!" and get a tax exemption. That doesn't work. Only State-recognized religions count.

Organized relation gets some State perks. Organized religion helps keep the slaves complacent. The slaves are brainwashed to accept abuse.

Joe Stack had some of the symptoms of a panic attack. My natural reaction is to avoid conflict. When I started cracking my pro-State brainwashing, I got scared and ran away. I didn't think of trying violence. However, I was very scared about becoming the victim of violence.

When I first had a panic attack, I had the sense that something horrible was about to happen to me. Based on my abuse by the psychiatry/death industry, that fear turned out to be justified.

It seems that Joe Stack had some of the symptoms of someone having a panic attack. He had only partially cracked his pro-State brainwashing. When you see only a tiny bit of the truth, it's very scary. Now, my reaction to seeing the Matrix is "Oh, that again!" Now, when I see State parasites using their body language mind control tricks, my reaction is "WTF? Does that actually fool anyone? It's obvious that this person is evil." Not all politicians are evil. President Obama has the "abused productive" personality type. He is restricted by his pro-State brainwashing and the parasites around him. President Obama really wants to do the right thing, but he's handicapped by his false beliefs.

I wonder if I do have the ability to help fight State evil, without having to use violence or be subjected to violence? If I become a more popular advocate for freedom, then State thugs might decide to target me. It seems that every high-profile critic of the Federal Reserve or IRS winds up in jail as a political prisoner. If you take a pro-State troll interpretation of the law, a State thug can come up with an excuse to arrest/kidnap/torture anyone. Even if a jury ultimately votes to acquit you, you still waste a lot of time and money and stress defending yourself.

That's another point. If you're the victim in a corrupt trial, you might think "The jury voted to acquit you. Therefore, your rights weren't violated." That's not true. You're forced to waste time and energy and stress and money defending yourself, from the moment you're arrested, even if you're ultimately acquitted. Your rights are violated when you're arrested, and not when/if you're convicted. State thugs take advantage of this; they don't have to compensate the victim if there's a trial and acquittal.

If you take a freedom-minded interpretation of the law, agorism is completely legal. That is a distinction between US law and in other countries. In other countries, the official excuse is "People only have rights that the government gives them." In the USA, the official excuse is "Government enforcers have limited powers!", but that's not the way State parasites actually act.

Hopefully, I can become a higher-profile advocate for freedom without being the victim of terrorism. I should also start some agorist businesses. Done correctly, it should be more profitable than my wage slave job.

Another evil fnord is "Pay *YOUR* taxes!" or "Joe Stack didn't want to pay *HIS* taxes." "Your taxes" phrases it in a way that makes it sound like a moral obligation. "My taxes" makes it sound like I consented to it. It's more accurate to say "Pay the IRS's taxes!" or "Pay your tribute to Goldman Sachs!"

Summarizing, the story of Joe Stack has many interesting points.
  • The manifesto circulated may not be the original version. The first person to cite the website was from a State-owned newspaper, who may have sent/received a tip to/from the FBI.
  • It is suspicious that he mentioned his accountant by name, but not any of the IRS agents, prosecutors, or judges by name. Someone may have removed that bit. I remember the names of most of the parasites who hurt me.
  • The bit about his house burning down seems weird.
  • Did the FBI know about the attack ahead of time? That seems to be a generic conspiracy theory accusation whenever anything bad happens. State enforcers are not omniscient.
  • Did someone edit Joe Stack's document before telling other people about it?
  • Will this incident be used as an excuse to further restrict personal freedom?
  • Will the "Tea Party Protesters" be treated as criminals? Will it be a crime to write or say "Taxation is theft!"?
  • Joe Stack was only angry at the IRS, rather than having the more enlightened viewpoint "All taxation is theft!"
  • It's somewhat frustrating that millions of people read Joe Stack's suicide note, while I have about 200-300 regular readers. My blog is more subversive and dangerous than Joe Stack's writing. I'm a better writer than Joe Stack. I'm better at understanding State evil than Joe Stack.
  • My strategy for getting freedom, agorism, is more likely to succeed than what Joe Stack tried.
  • In my wage slave job, I'm directly affected by section 1706, the law Joe Stack complained about. That regulation forces me to contract through a headhunter/pimp/middleman, who takes a huge chunk of my salary. Most large financial institutions in NYC abuse this law, by using consultants hired via headhunters. The headhunter is usually buddies with an insider at the corporation.
  • Section 1706 is a "corporate welfare for headhunters" law. In addition to paying income taxes on my labor to the government, I pay a tax of 50%-66%+ to the headhunter/pimp.
  • Most State regulations are designed to hurt small business owners and favor large corporations. The IRS cracks down on small business owners disproportionately hard.
  • The inflation tax also makes it hard for small business owners to raise capital. The Federal Reserve price fixing cartel gives huge economic power to State insiders.
  • The income tax and Federal Reserve are two closely related evils.
  • Just because someone did something stupid, doesn't mean that all people who know "Taxation is theft!" are evil.
  • If you really think about it, taxation is theft. Government is one huge extortion racket.
  • To what extent is an individual tax collector responsible for State evil?
  • "If you're disgruntled, you're only option is violence!" is a dangerous type of pro-State trolling.
  • A lot of people are saying "I disapprove of Joe Stack's tactics. However, he has a valid complaint about the IRS."
  • If Joe Stack were a regular reader of my blog, he would have realized the futility of violent retaliation. It would have been better for him to start agorist off-the-books businesses instead.
  • Using violence against terrorists doesn't work, whether you're fighting Al Qaeda or the IRS.
  • Even if you could murder some State thugs with no risk of getting caught, someone else would merely take their place. "IRS tax collector" is a high-paying job! State parasites pay their thugs well! The key is to build alternatives to State violence, instead of focusing solely on destructive behavior.
  • The income tax is a complete perversion of the idea that we live in a free country. The income tax literally means that you need permission from State bureaucrats and the banksters whenever you work.
  • State tax collectors are not "Enforcing rule of law!" or "Making sure everyone pays their fair share!" Really, tax collectors are making sure that the slaves pay their tribute.
  • The primary beneficiaries of taxes are State insiders. The average productive worker pays tribute to support State parasites.
  • The law is so complicated that practically anybody can be accused of a crime.
  • When dealing with State thugs, if you have hostile body language, you're more likely to get an unfavorable outcome.
  • The cost of regulation compliance costs small business a larger percentage of their revenue than large businesses. It's a type of corporate welfare. In addition to paying the tax itself, people have the burden of making sure they pay the correct amount of tax and are in compliance with all the complicated paperwork requirements.
  • "The income tax is illegal!" arguments are attractive to some people, because the income tax is immoral. People confuse "legal" and "moral". In the USA, "legal" and "moral" are drifting further and further apart. If you ask a State parasite their opinion, they'll say "State parasites may do whatever they want."
  • Arguing "The income tax is illegal!" is pointless, because it assumes the legitimacy of the government in the first place. "The income tax is immoral!" is more important than any legal or Constitutional argument.
  • The Constitution is not a valid contract. According to State thugs, I don't have the right to withdraw my consent.
  • If you're offended by abuses of the IRS or State, you won't find justice in a monopolistic State court. Members of a criminal gang protect each other as much as possible.
  • Joe Stack may have had some of the symptoms of someone having a panic attack. It's very traumatic to crack your pro-State brainwashing. When you partially crack your pro-State brainwashing, your thoughts are confused and disorganized. It takes awhile to be able to see things really clearly like I can.
"Taxation is theft! Government is a huge extortion racket! The IRS is a dangerous terrorist organization!" are obvious, once you really think about it. It's a huge difference from the way you were pro-State brainwashed to think.

Most people react with extreme hostility the first time they hear "Taxation is theft! The State is an extortion racket!" Most people don't say "That's an interesting point. I never thought about it that way before." Instead, they react emotionally and get very hostile. That is evidence that nearly everyone is insane. For this reason, the corrupt psychiatry/death industry is very closely related to the evils of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and State.

The correct solution is to boycott the Federal Reserve and IRS. To do this, you need to work off-the-books outside of the State economy. As a software engineer, there won't be many counter-economic opportunities until the agorist economy gets more advanced. I'm going to focus on learning other skills. I have useful skills, but the State slave economy doesn't value them due to a non-free market.

The correct solution for fighting State evil is agorism. It's the best strategy I've read about. It seems like a reasonable solution for building free market alternatives to State terrorism, State taxation, and the State violence monopoly.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Ticketmaster Monopoly

The merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation was approved. This gives Ticketmaster a near-monopoly when it comes to selling tickets and promoting concerts.

I thought that part of the motivation for founding Live Nation was to compete with Ticketmaster's monopoly? That illustrates the problem with the State. If there's a successful competitor, you just buy them out. Via negative real interest rates, the State finances the buyout.

A pro-State troll says "This occurs naturally in a free market!" This is false. The buyout is funded via negative real interest rates and inflation/taxation. There are laws restricting competition.

Most arenas are financed via taxation/theft, via municipal bonds, which get a tax exemption in addition to negative real interest rates. The taxpayer-financed arena then signs an "exclusive contract" with Ticketmaster. All events there then must sell their tickets via Ticketmaster, even if the performer objects. The net result is a State subsidy for Ticketmaster.

If I want to build/buy a theater, I don't have access to capital like a large corporate monopoly. I don't get the perk of borrowing cheaply. Plus, I have to obey regulations and pay taxes. If I have a 200 seat theater, the cost of regulation compliance is greater per-customer than at a big arena.

Due to State regulations, it's illegal for me to host a performance out of my home/basement/apartment, unless I do it agorist-style. (So much for "freedom of assembly", when you need a permit to host an event and sell tickets.)

Ticketmaster's fees are obviously those of a monopolist collecting economic rent. Consider a typical example, where the Ticketmaster fee is $10, usually 30% of the face amount of the ticket.

Suppose I decided to sell tickets directly myself. Can I beat $10 per ticket? Obviously! Suppose I hire someone and pay them minimum wage to answer the phone and sell tickets. If my employee can sell more than 2 tickets per hour, that's a better deal than using Ticketmaster!

Obviously, my employee probably could do 20+ sales per hour. I probably could afford to pay more than minimum wage and hire extra people so customers don't have to wait. I probably could write ticket-selling software in a few weeks, leading to further gains.

There's another benefit to selling tickets myself. As I mentioned before, a dutch auction is the best way to sell tickets. That optimizes profits for the performer (unless customers have a *VERY SKEWED* price-demand curve). I could always have a separate auction for premium front-row seats. A dutch action avoids the "Tickets are too cheap!" problem, which leads to arbitrage opportunities for scalpers. A dutch auction avoids the "Tickets are too expensive!" problem, leading to empty seats.

The fact that tickets are not sold via dutch auction already is evidence of a non-free market. Most venues have exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster. That prevents people from using the Internet to innovate. Insiders at Ticketmaster have a monopoly, so there's no incentive for them to change their practices.

Tickets are usually sold for a fixed price. If the price is too high, seats are empty, an obvious embarrassment. If the price is too low, this creates an arbitrage opportunity for scalpers. The promoter's goal is to avoid the embarrassment of empty seats, so he sets the price too low. Via the Principal-Agent problem, the promoter doesn't lose money by setting the ticket price too low, so the price is too low. In fact, Ticketmaster now has its own ticket-auction website. Customers are sent there, if the concert is sold out! Laws declaring "Ticket scalping is illegal!" further subsidize Ticketmaster. The problem is not the scalpers. The problem is that the Ticketmaster monopoly set the price of tickets too low, enabling scalpers to profit.

Some customers tried suing Ticketmaster, claiming anti-trust violations and abusive pricing. The corrupt State court ruled that ticket purchasers are not the actual customer of Ticketmaster! The arena with the exclusive Ticketmaster contract is Ticketmaster's actual customer! That's an interesting legal loophole!

Arenas sign a long-term exclusive deal with Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster pays a huge upfront fee for this contract. This lets arena executives pay themselves a nice bonus, but it cheats performers and customers. It's the usual "other people's money" problem or the Agent-Principal problem.

Abusive practices by Ticketmaster are a symptom of a non-free market. I'd like to try buying my own theater and selling tickets directly via dutch auction, if I have success at "promote agorism via standup comedy".

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Buying a Soda for -$0.65!

I had an amusing experience. I bought a soda for $1.35, paying with two $1 Federal Reserve Notes. As part of my change, I got a 35% silver 1945 nickel!

I noticed right away it was silver, based on the tarnish of the coin. I sometimes get pre-1964 junk silver in change in a store. I already knew that WWII nickels had silver, due to a wartime shortage of nickel. I hadn't expected to actually see one in circulation.

Actually, the melt value of the coin is only $1, making the post title wrong. However, it probably has a numismatic value in addition to the melt value.

It feels good to buy something with slave points and get real money in change! I noticed that I find a few "junk silver" coins per year. It's easy to notice the worn-out coin and the silver tarnish.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Yes, I Heard About Joe Stack

Before anyone asks again, yes, I heard about Joe Stack. I've been busy with other things and haven't had time to finish that draft.

Zed Shaw and the Freehacker's Union

When I read about Zed Shaw's "freehacker's union", it seemed like a neat idea. It seemed like a step in the direction of agorism. However, he abandoned the idea after a few meetings.

I live in NYC. I was thinking of going.

Why did Zed Shaw give up? It wasn't an immediate smash success. Therefore, he abandoned it.

This mirrors pro-State trolls who say "FSK has not yet started working as an agorist. Therefore, FSK is a failure and agorism is stupid."

Success at building a business or community takes time. You might have to struggle for a few years before succeeding. For now, I have a wage slave job. I'm working on blogging and moving towards agorism in my spare time.

This mistake is a common bit of pro-State brainwashing. Businesses like YouTube or lolcats were an immediate smash hit. That propaganda makes people less willing to build a business over time.

If I were spending millions of dollars in VC, then I would have pressure to "Make it big fast or fail!" I'm blogging and promoting agorism in my spare time, while still working in a regular wage slave job. That means I have little pressure to be an immediate big hit. I'm not planning to quit my wage slave job until I have enough non-wage-slave income. I might spend more time on blogging and agorism during the inevitable periods of unemployment.

I'm planning to stick with blogging. I should start my own business, on-the-books or agorist-style. For now, a wage slave job and blogging/agorism as a hobby seems like the best strategy.

With blogging and an eCPM rate of $0.50, I'm going to need to expand from blogging to other things. I'm still making progress on cracking my pro-State brainwashing.

I'm planning to be persistent. Blogging has been useful for writing down my thoughts, even if I had zero readers. I do receive interesting comments occasionally. Even negative comments are an indication that the subject is important.

The example of the Freehacker's Union shows that it isn't enough to have a good idea. You also have to follow through and execute. In many ways, execution counts for more than the idea. That's why I always laugh at a clueless startup founder who makes you sign an NDA just to talk with him; an idea without execution is useless. That's why I'm not too concerned about people "stealing my ideas" and promoting agorism more effectively than me. It'd be nice if that happened! I'm noticing a greater awareness of "Taxation is theft!" in certain areas, but it will take time to unravel the Matrix.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

I Have the Right to Rob You!

This YouTube video was a really good explanation of "Taxation is theft!" At the time I wrote this, he had 13k views. That's pretty good!

I'd heard of Larken Rose before. He went to prison for income tax evasion. However, he used the "Income tax is illegal!" argument instead of "All taxation is theft!" He operated a business and didn't file tax returns. He was then assaulted by terrorists.

Nothing helps you think clearly more than being kidnapped and tortured!

These two links were interesting. It seems that Larken Rose had an incorporated business. He accepted payments from other incorporated businesses. Regrettably, such income is automatically reported to the IRS and income tax must be paid. It seems that the top two mistakes a tax protester makes are "own an incorporated business" and "accept payments from incorporated businesses". If you really want to be a good agorist, you should only deal in cash, and you should *NOT* deposit that cash in any State-licensed financial institution. Ideally, you should have some on-the-books income and some off-the-books income, so that your tax returns look believable to State thugs.

It's tough. Once State thugs decide to target you, it's difficult due to their superior resources. The prosecutor and judge can rig the trial in many ways.

If someone is in jail for income tax evasion, they're a political prisoner more than a dangerous criminal. They people who go around saying "The income tax is illegal!" tend to become targets. It's amusing that "someone in jail for tax evasion" is usually a political prisoner.

For example, if State thugs demand "You owe X in unpaid taxes?", then why not send a bill? Why send an otherwise productive person to jail? The only reason is terrorism. The IRS is a dangerous terrorist organization. The IRS/FBI hurts more Americans each year than Al Qaeda.

I'd like to see Larken Rose move to the next level of thinking, which is agorism.

This does show the risk of becoming a high-profile advocate for freedom. It makes you a target of State thugs.

Most people who are critical of the Federal Reserve and IRS wind up in jail for tax evasion. It's hard to realize that government is one big extortion racket, and not act on your beliefs. For now, I'm focusing on "raise awareness" more than "actual practical agorism".

This page was interesting. Allegedly, some members of the "tax resister" movement are State spies. They are encouraging people to pick stupid forms of resistance, instead of agorism.

I looked at Joe Bannister's photo, and my reaction was "looks like a State parasite". He might really be a State spy planted to distract disgruntled people. I didn't get that impression from Larken Rose's video.

People who argue "The income tax is illegal!" are pro-State trolling. You won't get a fair trial on that issue in a State court. Almost every Federal judge and prosecutor is a hopelessly brainwashed pro-State troll. The correct solution is agorism, rather than directly confronting State thugs on their turf.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Homeschooling Comments

I'm a bit behind on "Reader Mail". However, there were two interesting comments on homeschooling. That also relates to some other points I wanted to mention.

theftthroughinflation has left a new comment on your post "We are the State":

FSK. On "we own your children". Someone I know is at school to be a teacher. They have her sitting in on a class and doing everything that teacher does to "learn the ropes" (I know, teacher is like official state brainwasher, but I can only do so much convincing.
Anyways she was sitting in on a teacher meeting. One teacher started complaining that parents are holding them accountable for their teaching and asking for an increasing amount of meetings. The teachers all felt it was unacceptable and that the principal should screen out the parents so they would not have to meet with them.
I found it very amusing to learn this! WHen you buy a product or service as a paying customer you have the right to demand good service and demand efficent service. In the world of state-run monopoly education the children are property of the state while at school. Parents are discouraged from being pro-active with their children except when schools need them to sell something. It is verboten to question the state appointed educators! Questioning the authority of state agents is a serious offense.
That's the problem when you have a violence-backed monopoly. It makes no difference if you do a great job or a lousy job.

In what business besides government would someone say "We don't want feedback from our customers!" (Some State-backed monopolies also act this way, such as the telephone monopoly.)
I'm sure the day is near when we will hear about a parent who got tazered to death because he threw a fit in a school office demanding to speak to the child's teacher.
Children are as much state property as calves are to a farmer. At birth the calves are seperated from the mother and put under the close and artificial care of the farmer. He must protect his ability to milk cows in the future. The state must protect its ability to tax future generations.
I'm looking into the possibility for home school when I decide to have children. But that seems like a good way to get raided and murdered by the state.
That's an interesting analogy.

Did you know that some types of turkeys no longer can breed naturally? They were selective bred/engineered for huge bodies. They can't fly and mate. A wild turkey is actually pretty intelligent.

If you figure it out, by the time you're 7-8 years old, you've spent more waking hours with State bureaucrats than with your parents! Also, "day care" is a type of State care. You aren't going to get as good care from a bureaucrat overseeing 10-20 children as you will with the parent.

I wonder if rising autism rates are correlated with placing children in daycare from a young age?

"Women in the workplace!" also is an excuse to separate children from their mothers. Also, labor previously performed by women for free is now part of the official State economy and taxed.

This story is interesting. A German couple applied for political asylum in the USA, and had their request granted. They wanted to homeschool their children, but German law states that all children must go to public school. State thugs fined the parents, and threatened to kidnap their children, so they left the country. I'm surprised they were able to get an exit visa, with a pending trial.

This version of the story had a particularly offensive quote.
German courts have ruled that homeschooling creates a parallel society which needs to be eliminated.

“There is no safety for homeschoolers in Germany,” Donnelly said. “The two highest courts in Germany have ruled that it is acceptable for the German government to ‘stamp out’ homeschoolers as some kind of ‘parallel society.’
The "parallel society" bit is particularly offensive. If I want to teach my children "Taxation is theft!", then why should they be forced to go to a State school and be brainwashed to believe "Taxation is not theft!"

This law also targets Islamic children, forcing them to attend public school.

The goal of an agorist specifically is to create a "parallel society"!

I've looked into homeschooling. In some states in the USA, you may only homeschool if the parent is a State-licensed teacher. There are pending lawsuits challenging the validity of those laws.

In NYC, you may homeschool, but you have to register your intention with the State. That raises an interesting question. Do I file the paperwork or not? It seems that the best approach is to not file the paperwork, and then say "Oops! I didn't realize I was required to do that!" if anyone asks. Otherwise, you could be placed on a "subversive persons" list. (as if I'm not already on it)

That's one problem with giving birth in a State hospital. With a birth certificate and Social Security Card, your children are registered as State property. I don't know if State bureaucrats are that skilled at making sure every child enrolls in a brainwashing program. I doubt it. I could always move if State thugs harass me.

If you decide to be an unregistered homeschooler, you'd have to make sure your kids stay indoors during normal school hours.

The other problem with homeschooling is "Can I earn enough so that my spouse can afford to stay at home?" That's tricky. It'd help if I or my spouse had an agorist job that could be performed at home.

Also remember that I'm still paying taxes to support State schools, even if I homeschool. That's a huge disincentive. I also thought of starting an agorist homeschooling association. I figured I'd wait until I did the work myself on homeschooling.

Property taxes and sales taxes are used to support State schools. I have to pay property taxes no matter where I live, even if I otherwise work as an agorist.

The more I think about it, homeschooling seems like the morally correct choice. I don't have children right now, so I won't have to decide for awhile. The tricky parts are:
  1. Managing it financially, so that someone can stay home.
  2. Dealing with State thugs/bureaucrats.
  3. Working out the details of what to teach.
  4. Cooperating with other homeschooling parents.
Hidden Homeschooler has left a new comment on your post "We are the State":

The above comment is quite interesting. Some years ago we went through this with our son, his two different teachers over a 2 yr period refused to have their parent conferences. When we would try to communicate with them by phone, the requested notes, when we sent notes, they would respond with angry one word responses sent home, and make sure to also punish our son on days that we did ask questions. All through this time the school and teachers were publicly talking about how their well known failures and poor results were a result of poor parenting, lack of parent involvement, and so forth.

This is a school that has 1 hr homework for Kindergarten, 2 hrs for 1st grade, both levels which are completely counterproductive and inappropriate for that grade level, in addition to the fact that it was busywork such as endless dull worksheets to fill out. There is no morning or afternoon recess, elementary school lasts 7 hrs, and PE is only 1 hr a week.
That's pretty annoying. Most homework is a waste of time. For example, history is mostly fact memorization. There's lots of evil fnords. For example, the US Civil War was mostly about taxes. Slavery was a retcon. The agricultural South wanted no import/export tariffs, but the industrial North wanted high import/export tariffs.

I found an interesting workaround. I finished my homework quickly, so I could do other things! What was 2 hours of busywork for other people was only 30 minutes of busywork for me!

Homework is a way that the State influences the children/property, even when they aren't physically in school.

I hated writing when I was in school. It was a waste of time and the topics were stupid. Now, I write a lot on my blog. The difference is the freedom of subject, and something interesting to write about.
Any attempt to discuss any thing with anyone is greeted with antagonism, smart ass remarks and so forth.

Since we both have experience in education it was not even a question to pull him out and the decision was right, he did extremely well after that, whereas his school peers for the most part were drugged and ended up illiterate.

Homeschool while you can.
"Drugged"? The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake/fraud. That includes ADD and ADHD. That problem is mostly due to kids reacting to the fact that school is a humongous waste of time. The kids labeled with "ADD" or "ADHD" are the ones who resist their Matrix brainwashing, i.e. the smartest ones.

That's another problem with going to a State school. If a school psychiatrist labels your kids with ADD or ADHD, then they will try to forcibly drug your kid against your will. State thugs will forcibly drug your child, kidnapping him if necessary.

One advantage of the USA is that you can move to another state. Then, you're subject to a different State bureaucracy.

That's an interesting question. What would you do if State thugs kidnapped your children? At that point, violent retaliation is not a violation of the non-aggression principle. However, it still would probably be pointless.

In the USA, homeschooling is still legal but very hard. There's the economic hardship. Nowadays, both parents are required to work to earn a decent living. There's the State bureaucratic hassle.

The right to homeschool won't be explicitly repealed, because that would be too obvious. Instead, there's a lot of bureaucratic and economic obstacles.

The more I think about it, homeschooling is the only morally acceptable choice. I don't have children or a current partner, so that's something I can make sure we agree on.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The CIA and Corporations

This article was interesting. Some CIA agents are working for corporations, allegedly to help weed out dishonest people and corruption.

I'm surprised that such actions were publicly disclosed. It leads to potential huge abuse.

How do you know that a CIA agent isn't working for Google, with access to their full server logs? Technically, State bureaucrats need a subpoena to get information and Google's executives will bend over. If CIA agents directly work for Google, then that circumvents the whole process.

This obviously leads to abuse in the mainstream media. In a hierarchical organization, a few corrupt individuals in the right place subverts everything. State spies would have to be total fools to not plant spies in every mainstream media corporation.

Is the current corrupt system part of a deliberate conspiracy? Or, is it massive gross incompetence? Either way, it is wrong, and needs to stop.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Small Business or Startup?

On Hacker News and other websites, I read about starting a software business. Most of the advice is aimed at the startup/VC track rather than the small business track.

When you accept capital from outside investors, that forces you to act and plan in certain ways. The outside investors will want to cash out their holdings eventually. This means that the founder must aim towards an IPO or acquisition by a larger corporation.

A small business owner has different goals than a startup founder. In a small business, the owner wants to operate the business himself, perhaps until he retires. There are no outside investors. There is no pressure to get big fast and sell/cash out.

An example small business is a local pizza store. There probably will not be an IPO or sale. The owner will probably earn a decent income, but he has to actively manage the business. In a small pizza store, the owner usually works there himself or actively picks the employees/manager.

An example startup is YouTube. YouTube would never be profitable as a standalone business. YouTube's founders' goals were to get big fast and then cash out. Google was able to afford YouTube due to their search engine cash cow. Google's executives issued more shares of stock to finance the purchase. The State and financial industry subsidized the purchase. Most of those new shares were purchased by hedge funds with borrowed money, leverage, and negative interest rates.

The goal of a VC is not "Start a business that requires intelligent management and employees." The goal of a VC is "Start a business with a State-backed monopoly. Acquire a monopoly that can withstand being run by fools."

In the USA, incumbent businesses receive massive direct and indirect State subsidies. This makes the VC strategy profitable.

A startup needs some intelligent employees initially, to stake out the market before someone else. Then, with size and "economy of scale" (i.e. State subsidies), the intelligent employees are removed and clueless middle managers/parasites take over.

When the VC cashes out, it's via an IPO or sale to another public corporation. In other words, the VC is creating a monopoly that he can then sell to the banksters.

Unless you have connections, you should go with the "self-funded, keep 100% ownership, grow organically via reinvested profits" route. This is the small business route and not the startup route.

For example, I'd never get VC to support my blog or other agorist business ideas. My only option is to reinvest any earnings.

Most business advice that you see on the Internet is directed towards the VC route. That is because VCs are advertising their product and looking for clueless founders.

There are all sorts of legal technicalities that a VC can use to cheat you. Plus, if you look for VC, you're spending time and energy courting VCs instead of creating a useful product. If you're a first-time founder, and it turns out you're really skilled, then there are plenty of ways that the VC can structure the deal to cheat you. For example, the VC can require the founder to accept vesting of his own shares. Then, the VC can fire the founder in a year or two as the business is starting to be really successful.

VCs act arrogant because they're really State bureaucrats/parasites. A corrupt monetary system has given them a financing monopoly. Most VC funds raise money via the connections of the partners.

For example, a pension fund (State-controlled money) may invest in a VC fund. Then, the pension fund manager's brother-in-law is hired to work at the VC fund. Such arrangements happen all the time, via the Principal-Agent problem. They are investing other people's money.

As a non-insider you should pursue the small business route instead of the VC route. If you're planning to work as an agorist, that's your only option.

Also, if you seek VC, you need a potential billion dollar cashout. If your business idea is potentially $200k-$300k a year in income with no employees, then it's worth pursuing, but you shouldn't get VC.

It's important to realize that most of the "start a business" advice you read on the Internet is written by VCs or pro-State trolls. If you're starting an agorist-style business, then none of that advice is applicable. An agorist should just focus on creating a good product. By working off-the-books, an agorist avoids all the State overhead. The fact that a would-be startup founder is required to go begging to VCs is a type of tax.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Tea Party Movement Hijack

This story is interesting. A businessman, funded via an unknown source, organized a for-profit "Tea Party Convention". Sarah Palin was invited as a high-profile guest, with people paying a lot to see her speak.

On "Teabagging", theftthroughinflation suggested I do a post on this subject. It was already on my list of draft topics.

Sarah Palin is not saying "Taxation is theft! Government is an extortion racket! Government has no legitimacy at all!" Instead, Sarah Palin is making the usual miniarchist/Libertarian pro-State troll argument. She is saying "Government is too big! Taxes are too high! Things will get better if people vote for less-scummy politicians!" Sarah Palin does not criticize the Federal Reserve or income tax.

"Government is too big! Taxes are too high!" would be a step in the right direction. A smaller government would be preferable than the current one. However, there are too many parasites who profit from the current corrupt system. They will always be able to profitably block reform. If you're receiving an annual State subsidy worth $1B, you can always afford to spend $100M-$200M per year lobbying.

Complete collapse is much more likely than reform. At this point, reform is impossible. The US government has crossed the "Moral Event Horizon" and reform can't occur anymore.

The Republicans have no credibility when it comes to saying "Taxes are too high! Government is too big!" Government has gotten bigger, as a % of the economy, under every President, Republican or Democrat. There is the wealth explicitly controlled by State parasites via taxes. There also is the wealth indirectly controlled by government regulations. If you include both taxes and regulations, the State controls nearly all economic activity.

Is it an intentional hijack, or is it just plain incompetence? Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are Statists. Their pro-State brainwashing allows them to hear "Taxes are too high!" Their pro-State brainwashing doesn't let them hear "All taxation is theft!"

The Libertarian party was originally an anarchist movement. It was infiltrated and subverted into a minarchist movement. The real anarchists were kicked out. Besides, a group of anarchists organizing a political party is inherently hypocritical.

Whenever there are a large group of people around an issue, State spies gather. Are the spies deliberately planted to hijack the movement? Is Sarah Palin merely seeing this as an opportunity to increase her power and influence? Massive incompetence can create the illusion of a coordinated conspiracy.

It would be silly to claim myself to be "Leader of all anarchists!" or "Leader of all agorists!" That would be like herding cats. You can't be the leader of a group of anarchists in the "Obey me or die!" sense. You can be a leader in the "set an example" sense. The best I can do is set up actual agorist businesses, and hope other people follow my example.

Agorism is a real anarchist movement. By its very nature, a really free market has no central leader. An agorist revolution seems like a historic inevitability, due to increasing corruption by State parasites. As State abuses increase, there is a natural correction eventually.

The "Taxation is theft!" movement is a genuine grassroots movement. This is made possible by the Internet, which allows people to share information directly and bypass State mainstream media censorship.

Comedians working for the State information monopoly cannot say "All taxation is theft!" As State agents, they are barred from telling the truth. If you're a real independent thinker, the mainstream media career path weeds you out. When all high-ranking workers in an industry are parasitic pro-State trolls, then it's practically impossible to break ranks and tell the truth.

If I attempt to promote agorism on the mainstream media, I would have an advantage. My loyalty would be to the truth first, and my career second. Most mainstream media personalities have the first loyalty to their careers. Their primary goal is to not rock the boat and not risk their careers. I probably wouldn't get a mainstream media contract until I had a large audience from live performances and self-publishing on the Internet.

The attempted hijack of the Tea Party movement is an example of statists attempting to subvert and infiltrate a genuine grassroots movement. The mindless zombies might be fooled. However, once you really understand "Taxation is theft!", you won't be fooled by the fakers.

The difference between now and the past is the Internet. The Internet allows intelligent people to directly share information and bypass State censorship. There is a valid reason to believe that the future will be better than the past.

The real truth should spread exponentially, starting with the most intelligent people first. Those are the only people that really matter anyway. Normally, the most intelligent people are psychologically dominated by the parasites around them.

That's why I consider "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is a mistake/fraud!" to be as important as "Taxation is theft!", if not more important. You need to have both high logical intelligence and high emotional intelligence. Parasites prevent people with high logical intelligence and low emotional intelligence from improving their emotional intelligence. Trying to figure out what's going on, the "abused productive" people wind up increasing their logical intelligence instead.

The most skilled parasites have high emotional intelligence and low logical intelligence. Before I achieved greater awareness, I had high logical intelligence but low emotional intelligence. When I started improving my emotional intelligence and cracking my pro-State brainwashing, I had the symptoms of a "mental illness". I was forcibly drugged, which interrupted my body's natural healing process. Fortunately, I stopped taking the harmful drugs and now I have high emotional intelligence in addition to high logical intelligence. I'm still making progress cracking my pro-State brainwashing, so I'm not fully healed yet.

I'm not bothered by the attempted mainstream media hijack of the "Tea Party" movement. I'm not fooled, and none of my regular readers should be fooled. The only people fooled are mindless zombies who aren't ready to be unplugged anyway. The mainstream media is attempting to subvert the "Tea Party" movement into a minarchist/libertarian movement. That worked with the hijack of the Libertarian party 40 years ago. That won't work this time, due to the Internet, which allows people to bypass mainstream media censorship and directly share information.

We are the State

Some celebrities are singing a remake of "We are the World" to raise money for Haiti.

You can't criticize the Haiti relief effort without seeming like a jerk. The main points are:

  1. If people want to voluntarily donate their own money to Haiti, there's nothing wrong with that.
  2. Statists should not use violence and taxes to force me to donate to Haiti.
  3. Is it moral to donate to Haiti when there are problems in the USA?
  4. The problems in Haiti were caused by previous bad State policies.
  5. The "Send aid to Haiti!" effort is also a "Make sure Haiti's government stays in control!" effort. People in Haiti shouldn't get used to surviving without a government.
  6. The fact that people get really upset when you criticize the Haiti relief effort is a fnord that indicates something bad is happening.
Someone should make an anarchist version of "We are the World".
We own the world
We own your children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's keep taking
There's a choice we're making
We're stealing all your lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just believe me
(Some people were asking for more less-serious posts.)

Saturday, February 13, 2010


The correct answer regarding issues of the US Constitution is "All taxation is theft! The Constitution is not a valid contract. State parasites don't recognize that individuals have the right to withdraw their consent."

Filibusters are an interesting legal technicality. Even though the US Constitution has no legitimacy, it's still an interesting technicality. The US Constitution says that only a simple majority is required to pass a law. There also is a clause saying that there is unlimited debate in the Senate. There also is a clause that says that the Senate may choose its own rules. The rules may be changed by a simple majority vote.

The Senate has adopted a rule that says 66 votes are required to change the rules. However, this rule may be changed by a majority vote.

Filibusters are not an original invention in the US Senate. In Rome, filibusters were a tactic.

When someone tried filibustering in the US Senate, a compromise was reached. If 60% of the Senators voted to end debate, then that ends the filibuster. However, this rule can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote. Threatening to do this is the "nuclear option".

The current filibuster rule sort of violates the Constitution. The Constitution says that a simple majority suffices to pass a law. The filibuster rule means that a 60% supermajority is required to pass a law.

The slaves have been brainwashed to believe the legitimacy of the filibuster rule. If it were changed, then the slaves might think that government parasites had grabbed more power.

With government, "Don't change the rules!" is an important principle. By having important rules be unchanged over time, this provides the illusion of legitimacy.

One "benefit" of the filibuster rule is that important new laws must be "bipartisan". The word "bipartisan" is an evil fnord. The most evil laws are supported by both parties.

Evil laws like the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the Bank Secrecy(spying) Act, and the Patriot Act are all bipartisan. Politicians from both parties support laws that increase their own power.

Originally, when a Senator wanted to filibuster, the filibustering group had to speak on the floor of the Senate 24x7 to prevent a vote. Now, all a Senator has to do is say "I'm filibustering!", and the Senate moves on to other things. That seems lazy.

I liked the idea that the Senate would be unable to do anything else during a filibuster. However, other acts of evil should not be interrupted for a minor dispute.

The filibuster rule could be changed at any time by a simple majority vote. This is the "nuclear option". Here's how that would work.

Suppose someone attempts a filibuster. One Senator could say "I propose that this filibuster to prevent a vote on this law is unconstitutional." The majority leader would say "Sorry, the filibuster rule allows it." The Senator could say "I request a vote of the full Senate." This would force an immediate vote. It would be voting on a parliamentary procedure, and not a law. This vote could not be filibustered. A simple majority vote is required to change the rule.

However, the vote to prevent a filibuster would be a permanent change in the Senate's rules. The slaves would know that the rules of the State had suddenly changed. Once the "nuclear option" is used, it's a precedent. Now, anyone can do it.

The majority party in the Senate could do this at any time. However, nobody wants to be the first to do it. It would be like the Supreme Court declaring "Hahaha! No more jury trials!" That would wake up some slaves. It's better to gradually erode freedom. State parasites are reluctant to risk ruining their gravy train.

The Republicans threatened to use the "nuclear option" when Democrats tried to filibuster some of Bush's judicial appointments. A compromise was reached, "You can't filibuster judicial appointments.", but the rules weren't formally changed.

(Note: The right to trial by jury has already been repealed via many Supreme Court rulings. Defense attorneys may not remind juries of their "jury nullification" right/power. Jurors who disagree with the law are removed from the jury pool. The jury selection process is biased against the defendant. Rules regarding evidence are biased against the defendant. If the defense attorney disagrees with the judge's interpretation of the law, he may be barred from making this argument in front of the jury. There is no "right to a speedy trial", with trials dragging on for months/years. Most defendants plea bargain, rather than risking a stiffer sentence if they go to trial and lose; you might get 1/5 or 1/10 less jail time if you plea bargain. It's better to gradually erode the right to a jury trial, rather than eliminate jury trials all at once.)

Democratic Senators liked the filibuster rule when Republicans were a majority. Now, they are hurt by the filibuster rule. However, they know they'll be a minority again soon/eventually. Therefore, they won't change the filibuster rule. Besides, really important/evil laws are "bipartisan".

The Constitution is not a valid contract. All taxation is theft. Discussing the filibuster rule is irrelevant in that context. However, the filibuster rule is an important evil fnord. State parasites are reluctant to change a high-profile rule, lest the slaves wake up. State parasites are reluctant to change the rules of government, especially a high-profile and irrelevant rule like the one on filibusters. The most evil laws are all "bipartisan".

Once you realize "Taxation is theft!", that invalidates all other mainstream discussion of economics and politics.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at