This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Friday, February 11, 2011

Fake Logical Refutation

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.

For example:

FSK: (detailed explanation)
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.
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.

I noticed that dionysus was linking to my blog on the 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 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.


dionysusal said...

Thanks for the shout out. :) One caveat: The people at are good people-- they're mostly anarchists/agorists/voluntaryists. Unfortunately, we get infiltrated by pro-State trolls every now and then. They're the bane of our existence. We do the best we can dealing with them. We try to win them over with the truth, but then we just ignore them if they persist with their nonsense. I just got done with one particularly nasty "property is theft!" troll. Not a pleasant experience. Anyway, a number of the members on there are fans of yours like me. So please don't paint with a broad brush. You more than anybody know all about pro-State trolls. They're everywhere. They're like cockroaches. Thanks.

Chuck Homic said...

FSK - Regarding #3, I first found your blog because (no joke) I did a Google search for "black scholes is wrong."

I am convinced that it is wrong and I was wondering if anyone else thought the same thing.

Anonymous said...

>implied contract, like sitting down
>in a restaurant

Implied contracts used to be a bugbear of mine. A really nasty piece of work stole from me. Then he went around trying to destroy evidence and hoped that nobody would notice. His goons also stole from a very big famous company as well. So would a court ever believe him, given his record of theft and destruction of evidence?

I went to see a lawyer. I think at some point he moved to an agenda trying to justify some extra money I paid him. Anyway I objected to a bunch of fools stealing from me and his reply was "It can be implied. It can be implied." He really should have said the other side have not presented enough details to apply the law.

Gee. Does that mean you can go into a shop and steal everything and calmly say your theft is OK, because it can be implied?

I think I own the whole planet Earth. My ownership is implied, you know?

In the end the whole thing was silly because the fools that stole from me, couldn't give specifics about why they thought they owned it. Without specifics, trying to apply the law is meaningless.

Therefore the whole thing was meaningless. You can't apply the law without evidence and a proper statement of the facts. If you leave half the facts out on purpose, you don't have a case.

This is why I'm suspicious of lawyers. They take on cases in the absence of facts and evidence. Trying to apply the law is meaningless unless they clients actually tell the truth and give specifics.

Anonymous said...

High taxation distorts the economy. Everything is taxed. Every single economic transaction is taxed.

Government will never be responsible with other peoples' money. Unless you have to work hard to earn money, you won't respect it. Easy come, easy go.

Rents in London are only high, because either the government pays for it via housing benefit or people are rich on top of banking, government jobs or having a property empire. London is also home to a lot of foreigners coming here to escape onerous conditions in their home countries.

If you want to plunder your own country, come to London and buy an expensive house. The UK will provide a home for you and your dirty, stolen money!

The thieves in government will give you professional courtesy.

If you actually work for a living, high taxation and spending will mean you can't actually afford to place to live.

So taxation is putting people out of jobs, because employers can't (or won't) pay enough for employees to actually live.

Marco said...

"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.)"

This is a very nice one. At first, i thought that you're obviously wrong, because if there is no property, then there is no theft, and as such, one may believe that the beginning of the property begins the theft.

However, as I thought it over again, I noticed that for the theft to exist, first, the property must exist, but more importantly, those who disagree with the concept of property and are willing to act on it, must exist as well. Therefore, it is the "property is theft" concept (conscious or unconscious), applied to the preexisting concept of the property, that creates the theft itself, and not the other way around!

This may have a consequence for "the intellectual property". Currently, I believe there is no such thing as "intellectual property" because there is no scarcity, i.e. if I sold you my idea, I still possess it myself, and therefore I haven't sold it at all.

I haven't thought the above findings over for "the intellectual property" yet.

Anonymous said...

Intellectual property can be the result of months or years of hard work and research.

I create intellectual property and have spent tens of thousands of dollars over the years on physical equipment, books and development software.

It costs me money to create my intellectual property and my time.

So why should I not own something at the end of it.

As regards intellectual property, I object to the way lawyers move it and mess things up.

I can write something on my own equipment, own time and in my own office. I can originate the idea myself and it can be totally original and even world unique. However any fool can come along and say they asked me to do the work (without actually paying me) and so they own some of it. They don't even have to provide much (or any evidence).

Thug lawyers can then shake me down for money and threaten me.

What have I done? I thought up an original idea myself and wrote it down on my own equipment in my own office and in my own time. It is unique and not based on any previous work.

But thugs can threaten me based on nothing.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, there is no such thing as intellectual property.

You are mixing your emotions and desires with tangible things. There can be intellectual anything, but not an intellectual thing, ok? This is the bug in your thoughts. Whithout asking yourself what is property (not what do I like about having a property), you are assuming that because you have a thought (how hard you worked on it concerns only you, - see trench digger soviet reasoning on that he must be paid more because he works harder), and second, because you like how tangible things can belong, then you are putting them together and wish that your thought can belong too. No, it can't. Notice, that your argument has single reasoning that you worked hard on it, therefore, the world must take their pants down and oblige you. Example: some folks work hard to steal from you, now should this make their work somewhat legal?

Here is the solution: keep it to yourself and it will never be stolen. (at least until the goverminals get the use of mind reading technology).

Cointinued below...

Anonymous said...


Non tangible things can not belong, because you can't sell it. If you sell your idea to me, you would still possess it! Compare this to selling me your land.

You would break the honesty of transaction, because you are in receipt of the exchange specie, but you have not surrendered what you have sold! If you have not surrendered it, then how can I, for instance, rent the use of your idea to you? You won't pay anything, because you still thievishly possess the thing you said you've sold me! I am not therefore the owner, you defrauded me!

I know you say: but, I still want the government to come forward and force everyone to pay me for endlessly selling my idea, never running out of it, damn it! I need that! I dreamt of that! I dreamed an illusion (or I believed some fool), and I actually wasted few years working on this, hoping and believing that I'll be the king of the hill! Every plumber will have to wake up in the middle of cold wet night and sniff the feces to make his living, while I, being as clever as I am, only invest few years of hard work once, and will sell it over and over forever. I want my dream to become true! If it doesn't come true, even others might realize that I acted foolishly!

In effect, with a help of an army of thugs, you now will be able to print your own money, and force them to be accepted, like FED!

Anonymous said...

It is not just an idea. It is thousands of pages written in a certain language.

It is not static. I have to modify it constantly to keep it up to date and expand what it can do.

I also need the income to fund new work.

I also need to pay other companies for development software that I need to do my work. Without money what I have will stagnate in a few years and be worth less.

Anonymous said...

Well, why don't you sell the work and start working on a new volume?

You infer that it is kind of tangible. Sell it then, how's problem of intellectual property affecting your work?

If you not just wasted the resources, then you should have no problem selling for profit.

If you did make a waste, then you should have had no access to resources to waste in the first place.

If you counted on an army of thugs to beat everyone to pulp on your behalf and force them to believe something they don't, then fortunately, it seems people are less and less willing to pay to have such an army of thugs, and, thankfully, there seems to be more and more ways to talk about it and explain why that is wrong.

Here is another thought about why intellectual property isn't a valid concept:

The reason we have the property concept, is because it insures that unskilled wasters of resources have no access to accumulated resources in general (one can always be someone's fancy). Accumulated resources must only to be applied effectively or even multiplied. A simple check provided by a structure requiring everyone to pay for all expenses (ensure efficiency of at least 1) and may-be even show multiplication (eff. above 1, or "profit"), otherwise known as capitalism (we do not currently have capitalism), makes sure the resources are not wasted.

There is no need to enforce such strict rules for use of "intellectual resources". First, they are endless, dime a dozen, everyone has them, and second, they can be endlessly multiplied, without ever diminishing. I can take your idea, totally waste it, and yet, your idea will still be perfectly available for me to go ahead and waste it again. There is just no scarcity to them. There is no need to bear cost to protect them.

Therefore, why apply a concept of property to things intellectual? Why bother? You don't want to invent something for free? You don't have to. We don't need you to do that. Someone else will invent it tomorrow for fun or publicity!

Every structure has a cost of bearing it. Why bear a structure of conceptualizing ideas into a property, which is designed to ensure an efficient use of scarce resources, if there is no scarcity of ideas?

How would we then justify the loss or waste (the cost of property structure for ideas), that we pay without ever having a need for such structure in the first place?

The price of supporting the concept of intellectual property then is a WASTE of real resources.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at