There's a common problem, when debating statists. They say "Ha! I logically refuted your argument!" Their argument is actually incoherent gibberish. Statists recite their brainwashing as if it's a universal truth. At this point, it can only degenerate into a name-calling contest.
FSK: (detailed explanation)At this point, there's no reason to continue. I gave up promoting my blog on other forums. It's frustrating dealing with pro-State trolls. The pro-State trolls claim they logically refuted my points, when it's really incoherent gibberish.
Statist: That's wrong because I've been brainwashed to believe X!
FSK: (explanation of why X is wrong)
Statist: That's wrong because of unrelated item Y!
FSK: Your argument makes no logical sense at all.
Statist: FSK is arguing ad hominem! I win!
FSK: You are an idiot.
I noticed that dionysus was linking to my blog on the marcstevens.net forum. He's getting a typical pro-State troll reaction. He's getting frustrated. I don't bother anymore.
It's hard to have a reasonable discussion on someone else's forum, especially when the brainwashed zombies outnumber the enlightened people. One intelligent comment is drowned out by a sea of pro-State trolling. It's hard to tell if professional State spies troll such forums, or if people are so brainwashed that they support their masters. It's probably a combination of idiots and State-planted spies. If spreading disinformation is your full-time job, you can troll *MANY* Internet forums and disrupt discussions.
It's a type of "Stateholm Syndrome", where slaves advocate to protect their masters. It's hard to admit that you were conned, robbed, and brainwashed.
That's one reason I started blogging. I got frustrated debating pro-State trolls on other people's forums. On a wiki or forum, a lot of pro-State trolls can drown out one reasonable person. I don't have that problem here.
For example, on the (pro-State) "anarchism" subreddit, "taxation is theft" comments attract more downvotes than upvotes. On any forum where posts are rated by "upvotes - downvotes", any unpopular but correct idea won't get fair treatment. For this reason, I don't like reddit and digg. The statists are the vast majority. Any intelligent anti-State comment will receive more downvotes than upvotes, making reddit a waste of time.
People recite their pro-State brainwashing like it's a universal truth. I can derive my viewpoint from other axioms, like the Non-Aggression Principle and "Stealing is wrong when individuals do it."
What can you do when you present a logical argument, and someone responds with incoherent gibberish? The statist claims it's a logically sound argument, but it's obvious nonsense. What else can happen, but it degenerates into a name-calling contest? You can't convince someone who's emotionally attached to his pro-State brainwashing.
Here's a list of topics that confuse statists or fake anarchists. I received a lot of negative comments for these subjects, which indicates the importance of the subject.
1. Taxation is theft. (This is very important. It's the most confusing for statists. Common fake counter-arguments are "social contract", "free rider problem", "taxes are payment for services rendered", "tax-dodgers are stealing", and "implied contract, like sitting down in a restaurant". Fake anarchists like to counter "Taxation is theft!" with "Property is theft!")
2. The Compound Interest Paradox (People who were pro-State brainwashed as economists get stuck on this one. I haven't seen any logically coherent counter-arguments that even vaguely made sense. People think "There's no way that Congress would have betrayed us like this and sold us into bankster slavery!" Surprisingly, the "Austrian economists" on mises.org are very hostile to the Compound Interest Paradox, primarily because Mises and Rothbard never wrote about it.)
3. The Black-Scholes Formula Is Wrong! (Again, people who were pro-State brainwashed as economists get stuck on this. They confuse "axioms" with conclusions. I question the axioms of the Black-Scholes Formula, and not the Math that follows. No amount of fancy Math will get you a right answer, if your assumptions are wrong.)
4. Property is not theft! Even without a government violence monopoly, property rights would be recognized and enforceable. (The definition of "theft" includes a concept of "property". This is confusing, because most current property is actually stolen property. Also, "intellectual property" is not property.)
5. A government violence monopoly is immoral and unnecessary! (A common counter-argument is "Small disputes would escalate!" (A private police force wouldn't risk their business over a minor issue.) Also, "A group of thugs would go around terrorizing people and extorting!" (Police and State tax collectors already do this!) A common pattern is "Without government, abuse X would happen!", while abuse X happens in the present directly because of government. ("Without government, a group of crazy thugs might demand that I stop using incandescent light bulbs, and kill all who disobey!"))
6. Inflation is theft! The Federal Reserve is immoral! The Federal Reserve is a price-fixing cartel! (People who have been pro-State brainwashed as economists get stuck on this one. State economists make pro-central bank and pro-inflation arguments. "Inflation stimulates the economy!" "We need the Federal Reserve to manage the economy!" It's obvious nonsense.)
I have "flip-flopped" on one point. I've shifted from "All psychiatric drugs are harmful!" to "Most psychiatric drugs are harmful!" I had a severe negative reaction to most drugs I tried, but Seroquel seems to be working decently. There still is an obvious question "If Seroquel is the right drug for me to be taking, then why did it take 7 hospitalizations before I found a psychiatrist who tried it?"
If I believe "Taxation is theft!" and you believe "Taxation is not theft!", that's an unbridgeable chasm. Those beliefs are logical opposites. We literally live in two different interpretations of reality.
I'm willing to use "Bayesian Reasoning" to consider "Taxation is not theft!" arguments. Now that I know the truth, all the counter-arguments I've seen are obviously wrong. They are obvious incoherent gibberish. Most Statists lack the ability to consider the opposite viewpoint. That's the reason you can't logically convince them.
If a Statist believes "I'm absolutely definitely certain that taxation is not theft!", then you can't logically convince them, no matter what you do. They're stuck in a logical trap. I can use Bayesian reasoning, but most Statists can't. No logical argument will convince them, no matter how well-constructed. They're stuck in their pro-State brainwashing.
This is a very common problem. I present a logical argument. People respond with incoherent gibberish, but they claim it's a logical refutation. It's literally an unbridgeable chasm. Either you give up, or it degenerates into a name-calling contest.
I gave up promoting my blog elsewhere, due to the frustration of dealing with stubborn Statists. It's a lot of energy wasted for no purpose. You might convince other people on the forum, but there's little evidence it works.
I can tell, based on how many people follow links back to my blog, according to Google Analytics. I've concluded that promoting my blog on other websites is usually a waste of time. Besides, I have enough readers now that other people sometimes do it for me. Via Google Analytics and google search, I can usually tell when other people are discussing my blog.
It's a losing battle when you're outnumbered by Statists. It's frustrating and demoralizing, to debate Statists in a forum controlled by Statists. I prefer blogging, where I have full editorial control.