Evidence of a Massive Conspiracy

Here's another reader comment that deserves its own separate post.

Thomas Blair has left a new comment on your post "Network Neutrality Thoughts":

First, I enjoy your blog. You have a clarity of thought and word that is unmatched among the blogs I read regularly.

I'm curious to know why types of technology the SLH has had access to prior to their wide dissemination. Your posts are all so well reasoned up until the point where you (seemingly inevitably) tie in the SLH. In that way, he appears like God does to theological writers - as an unsubstantiated phantasm. I'm very curious to know what other kinds of evidence you have for the existence of an SLH other than inductive reasoning. I, too, am inclined to think that some group exists behind the scenes, manipulating media and money for their own gain, but I have no evidence to back up my thoughts. Have you any?

Whenever I write about the Supreme Leader of Humanity, don't use the Strawman Fallacy against me! You should evaluate each of my ideas independently. Even if you disagree with some of my writing, that doesn't automatically mean it is all wrong. Most mainstream writers self-censor themselves, because they don't want their readers to use the Strawman Fallacy against them. This guarantees that non-mainstream ideas are rarely discussed or debated. This behavior/brainwashing is a piece of evidence favoring the Supreme Leader's existence!

There is no direct evidence of the Supreme Leader of Humanity's existence. Do you expect him to walk up to me and introduce himself? (Francois Tremblay likes to make false claims that he is the Supreme Leader of Humanity. I doubt that, because if he were the true Supreme Leader, his blog would be better (although it's still on my "Favorites" list).)

I don't view the Supreme Leader of Humanity as a god. He's a specific person, but I don't know who he is. If you go with the "aliens hypothesis", then the Supreme Leader of Humanity may be an alien.

There's no direct evidence. There is a *TON* of circumstantial evidence.

If there's a single "smoking gun", it's the Compound Interest Paradox. There's no way an honest government could allow something like the Compound Interest Paradox to occur. The Compound Interest Paradox can be verified entirely using information from "official" sources.

From time to time, a Congressmen speaks out against the Federal Reserve and meets an untimely demise. Ron Paul does *NOT* count, because his argument is weak. Ron Paul says "The Federal Reserve and income tax are unconstitutional." That is not the key point. The Federal Reserve and income tax are *IMMORAL*, which is much more important than the legal argument. By presenting a weak criticism of the Federal Reserve and income tax, Ron Paul almost helps the bad guys, via the Strawman Fallacy.

There are a *LOT* of secret societies:

1. Skull and Bones (Kerry and Bush are both members. The 2004 Presidential election was, literally, two frat buddies running against one another.)
2. Bilderberg
3. Bohemian Grove
4. FBI/CIA/NSA (I lump all official and quasi-official government agencies together.)
   
5. BOpFFOr (first mentioned to me by Ineffabelle)
6. Freemasons
7. Rothschilds
8. Illuminati
9. IMF/WTO ("confessions of an economic hit man", which I haven't read)
   

There are many others that I either forgot about, or never heard mentioned.

As condition for membership in the IMF or WTO, countries are *BARRED* from using sound money. There were a few governments that tried to hold out, but they were infiltrated or overthrown. *EVERY* country everywhere is using the same unsound fiat debt-based monetary system.

If there were no conspiracy, some country would have an honest monetary system and honest taxation system. They would be incredibly productive.

The Rothschilds are an interesting secret society. In the 18th and 19th century, their power and influence was widely discussed and debated. You'll almost never hear of Rothschild publicly mentioned anymore. Their power has *NOT* dissipated. Actually, they've consolidated and increased it. They let other people do their dirty work for them. They directly or indirectly control *ALL* the newspapers and TV stations, guaranteeing they'll never be publicly mentioned or scrutinized. Some people say that the Rothschilds are the true owners of the Federal Reserve.

Another interesting story about the Rothschilds is that they appeared on the scene with seed capital from an unknown source. The foundation of their secret society was based on a model that had *ALREADY* stood the test of time. The Rothschilds are themselves controlled by some other group.

In most major wars in the 18th and 19th century, the Rothschilds were funding *BOTH SIDES* of the war. The winning side is under a crushing debt burden, and the losing side is outright conquered. If an international bank has branches in several countries, the bank becomes stronger than the government. Any non-cooperating political leader can be easily assassinated/overthrown/invaded.

All these secret societies follow *NEARLY THE EXACT SAME RULES*. The pattern is:

1. Any member who leaks secrets to the general public is killed/ostracized/kicked out.
2. The members of the secret society wield influence and a lifestyle *FAR GREATER* than the average person experiences. This is an incentive for them to not "break ranks", because they'd be sacrificing all their perks.
3. In severe cases, your friends and family would suffer if you broke the secret society's rules.
   
4. Membership is usually by birth. Outsiders are only recruited when necessary.
5. Women are usually not allowed full membership.

The ban on female membership is interesting. If you're planning to enslave/murder billions of people, it's easier to get men to sign up for that sort of thing than women.

"Kill/expel people who violate secrecy" coupled with "perks for members" is an incentive for people to keep the secrets. Membership by birth reduces a lot of the risk of recruiting outsiders. If all the members of the secret society have known one another since they were children, they're more likely to protect the group's goals. Suppose someone shows the ability to think independently, and inconsistently with the group's goals. They can be shunted to a less influential area.

Secret societies existed as soon as government was invented. Very rapidly, people figured out that being the "official" ruler is dangerous. It's like walking around with a bullseye. It's much better to be the advisers, controlling things from behind the scenes. Usually, the ruler will directly follow the advice of his assistants. Even when the ruler is killed, the advisers are usually kept; the advisers are the ones who actually know how things work!

There are only 3 political systems that are a "Nash Equilibrium":

1. Everyone is free.
2. One person is free.
3. Zero people are free.

In the present, most Americans falsely believe they are in the "Everyone is free" state.

Consider the possibility that "100 people are free". That's an unstable equilibrium. Those 100 people will have *INTENSE* competition with one another. Eventually, one will dominate the other 99 and become Supreme Leader. He may allow someone *ELSE* to falsely believe they are Supreme Leader, but only one can be the true Supreme Leader.

It's just like Highlander. There can be only one! (Is "Highlander" a fnord in the same sense as "The Matrix"? I only saw the first movie in the series. I read that the others were lousy and didn't bother watching.) Lately, whenever I see a really popular and good movie or TV series, my reaction is "Where's the fnord?" I was watching "Lord of the Rings", and I was thinking:

One State to rule them all, One State to find them,
One State to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

Someone suggested "zero people are free" to me as a possibility. That's ridiculous. If that were the case, eventually, someone would figure out what's going on and break the equilibrium. Even if we are in the "zero free people" state, then the Supreme Leader of Humanity is a useful abstraction.

The trend is towards "less freedom for individuals". The assault is too carefully orchestrated. If there was nobody secretly pulling the strings, then there would be more randomness in the outcomes.

The really interesting bit is that people in the USA are allowed "information freedom", while being denied economic freedom. For example, I haven't been violently silenced based on my blog's content; in China, it would be unsafe for me to write a blog like this. I interpret this "information freedom" as an indication that the Supreme Leader of Humanity *WANTS* the smartest people to figure out what's going on.

The Supreme Leader of Humanity is manipulating the economic and political leaders into making the stupidest possible decisions. At the same time, the smartest non-politically-connected people are slowly gaining awareness of the scam.

"One free person" is a stable equilibrium, because anyone who presents a legitimate threat to the Supreme Leader's goals can be ruthlessly hunted down and killed. Everybody free is also obviously a stable equilibrium. If someone started accumulating slaves, then the other people would unite to oppose him. In a truly free market, you could profitably sell protection services to someone who had been enslaved. (Any slavery contract is an invalid adhesion contract. People working for repayment of a crime is a separate matter.) For example, in the US civil war, if the USA were a free market, Northerners could profitably sell emancipation services to slaves who escaped from the South. They could offer police protection plus some money in exchange for work.

One of my favorite tricks by the Supreme Leader of Humanity is "two steps forward, one step back". For example, the Patriot Act dramatically increased State power. A lot of people objected. The most abusive provisions of the Patriot Act were repealed. The "civil rights activists" claim a victory. In the meantime, the power of the State has increased.

Another related paradigm is "Problem, Reaction, Solution". Some problem is highlighted, one that was ultimately caused by the State in the first place. The media overreact, saying "OMFG! THIS IS BAD!" Then, the solution is an increase in State power.

For example, public schools are lousy. This is no surprise, because public schools are guaranteed funding via state violence. There is no "market penalty" if public schools are lousy. The media says "OMFG! Public schools are failing!" The solution is increased regulation of schools. For example, control of school curriculum is taken away from the local/city level and raised to the state/Federal level. Increased regulation of schools raises the expense for someone trying to operate a private school.

As another example, consider the subprime mortgage problem. The most likely result will be increased regulation. These regulations will increase costs for home buyers and squeeze small mortgage lenders out of the market. The subprime mortgage problem was ultimately caused by the Federal Reserve and the Compound Interest Paradox.

Another mind control trick is the Strawman Fallacy. Mainstream media always attacks the *WEAKEST* point of an unpopular position, hyping it incessantly. A proper debate should focus on the strongest parts of the opposing viewpoint, instead of ignoring them.

What technology has the Supreme Leader of Humanity kept secret? How can I possibly know?

If you chart scientific progress over time, you'll notice that there was a dramatic *HALT* in progress around 1913. In the present, the computer/electronics and software industry is allowed to progress exponentially, while progress in other areas is severely held back by government regulations.

There's evidence of Zero Point Energy technology discovered by Tesla in the late 19th or early 20th century. With a zero point energy generator, you can build a flying saucer; a rapidly spinning disk creates lift.

Tesla claimed that with a Zero Point Energy generator, it's possible to generate an electric force field to protect an area from invasion. Such technology would make war obsolete/impractical.

There's evidence that the transistor was secretly leaked by the Supreme Leader of Humanity, allowing the computer revolution to begin.

I heard a rumor that the Supreme Leader of Humanity has technology that allows him to read *AND* edit phone conversations in real-time. In other words, you could be talking to someone on the phone, and what the other person says doesn't match what you hear. Such technology, strategically deployed at the right moment, would have an amazing effect.

When the ATM encryption specification was developed, the NSA demanded a seemingly minor change. A new decryption attack was discovered approximately 20 years later; the original design would have been vulnerable, but the improved design wasn't. This is evidence that, in the area of cryptography, the NSA has technology 20+ years ahead of everyone else.

If the NSA is 20+ years ahead of the general public, then it's reasonable to assume that other secret labs have technology 20+ years ahead of what's available now.

I heard another interesting story. Before September 2001, the US military did *NOT* have bombs that were capable of destroying a bunker buried beneath a mountain. Very rapidly, such bombs were developed and mass-produced. That suggests a reservoir of scientific talent somewhere.

Consider the Federal ban on stem cell research funding. The moral arguments against stem cell research are fabricated. The problem is that stem cell research is *INCREDIBLY PROMISING*. Potentially, it could make many aspects of the drug industry obsolete. Are drug companies merely protecting their turf? Does someone, somewhere, know what stem cell research will uncover, and is squelching the technology?

Already, scientists can tell when different areas of a person's brain are active. If you had tools that were 20-50+ years more advanced, is it possible to directly read a person's thoughts? Is it possible to directly plant thoughts in someone's head? Many propaganda stories on the Internet are a carefully calibrated mix of truth and lies. I'm getting very good at recognizing "This part is true" or "This part is false". Is this an ability I've developed? Is some outside force helping me?

Sometimes, I have dreams where it seems like someone else is there, trying to give me advice and help me. Am I imagining it? Is someone helping me?

I read an amusing experiment. "Brain waves" occur at a specific frequency. If you wear a tinfoil hat, you're *AMPLIFYING* signals that occur at that frequency. If you believe someone is interfering with your thoughts, a tinfoil hat is making it easier for them!

What evidence is there of a massive conspiracy? There's no *DIRECT* evidence. There's a *TON* of circumstantial evidence.

If there's a single smoking gun, it's the Compound Interest Paradox. Until the mid-20th century, Congressmen and Presidents openly spoke about the evils of the US monetary system. Lately, the Supreme Leader of Humanity makes sure that no intelligent politicians get elected.

The income tax and Federal Reserve are two sides of the same evil. The income tax is a partial slavery system. People have limited choices regarding jobs, but ultimately they must pay 40%+ of their productivity to a corrupt government.

Another piece of evidence for the massive conspiracy is the Grand Conspiracy Experiment. Suppose you suggest the possibility of a massive conspiracy to someone. They will experience an emotional reaction and refuse to discuss it further. That reaction itself is evidence that the massive conspiracy exists.

JFK's "The President and the Press" speech is interesting. He wasn't warning the "average joe" about a massive conspiracy. He was warning the *ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LEADERS* about a massive conspiracy opposed to their interests. JFK figured out the existence of the Supreme Leader of Humanity and his plans. That's why he was killed.

Before 1913, the USA was regarded as a severe threat. With a fair taxation system and fair economic system, the US economy was *INCREDIBLY* productive. The world was on an international gold standard. Due to trade surpluses, most of the world's gold was finding its way to the USA. Some of that gold was no longer in the hands of the international bankers. Private capital pools were developing, allowing all sorts of businesses to be started. The Supreme Leader's problem was that the US economy was *TOO PRODUCTIVE* compared to the rest of the world.

The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace Millins is worth reading. It's available for free online. The Rothschilds sent an economic adviser to the large banks in the USA, to set up the Federal Reserve. The spy didn't say "Here's how we're going to wreck the US government and US economy." Instead, the spy said "Here's how you can make yourselves rich at the expense of everyone else." It's much easier to appeal to someone's greed than to point out that they're really wrecking their country. The US has an open society. The bankers' spy was able to travel openly, as a traveling businessman. He was bringing "sophisticated economic techniques" to the USA.

I am nearly 100% sure that the Compound Interest Paradox is a real defect in the US monetary system. When you suggest the Compound Interest Paradox to an economist, they will experience a certain type of emotional reaction, saying "That can't possibly be right." I am nearly 100% sure that "Taxation is theft!" Whenever I see a politician being grilled about "Taxation is theft!", they experience the same reaction as an economist discussing the Compound Interest Paradox. Whenever I ask a physicist about Zero Point Energy generators, they have the *EXACT SAME REACTION* as an economist discussion the Compound Interest Paradox or a politician discussing "Taxation is theft!" My reaction to this behavior is "OMFG! Zero point energy is real! Are you kidding me?!" I don't have a specification of a working Zero Point Energy generator. If I had surplus money to spend supporting research, I would pay for a zero point energy researcher I trusted to be unbiased. I'm not 100% convinced that Zero Point Energy is real, but it's a possibility that's seriously worth investigating. You'd have to go back to Tesla's research and the state of "generally accepted science" 100+ years ago, ignoring most/all recent discoveries, some of which may be forged.

What is the Supreme Leader of Humanity's agenda? What would you do *AFTER* you've enslaved the entire world? After all, if the Supreme Leader didn't enslave everyone, someone else would have beaten him to it! If I were Supreme Leader, I would try to figure out a way to free everyone. (Maybe my blog is secretly serving the Supreme Leader's agenda.)

The Supreme Leader of Humanity knows how evil the State is. The State is his mechanism for enslaving everyone. Is the Supreme Leader really an anarchist?

What can the Supreme Leader do? He can't call up the US President and order him to shut down the US government. Instead, he's doing the next best thing. He's manipulating the President and Congress into making the stupidest possible decisions. This guarantees that the State will collapse under its own bloat and inefficiency.

A lot of the libertarian free market writing was done in the mid-19th century. Bastiat, Louis Even, and Karl Marx all lived in the mid/late-19th century.

The Communist Manifesto is an interesting document. My favorite Karl Marx story is when he was participating in a tax revolt (cited by the Picket Line). Was Karl Marx really a free market advocate? The Communist Manifesto is a three-stage plan for establishing a free market.

1. An economic system where around 10%-25% of the people are mostly free. This is the "petty bourgeoisie" that Karl Marx refers to. This was the USA in the late 19th and early 20th century, when most Americans were farmer owners or small business owners.
2. The State seizes control of the means of production. This is what the Supreme Leader of Humanity has done. We are currently near the end of phase 2. Corporate control of the means of production is the functional equivalent of State control of the means of production.
   
3. The State voluntarily relinquishes control. Everything is distributed from State control back to the people. A global free market is established, without any government at all.

A lot of fake communists wistfully say "People should just get together and cooperate!" That's how a free market works!

The "10 planks of the Communist Manifesto" describes how to transition from phase 1 to phase 2. That has already been fully implemented, *EXCEPT* for the Internet, which reduces/eliminates the State monopoly on media and newspapers.

How is the transition from phase 2 to phase 3 accomplished? It's done via an agorist revolution! The dismantling of a State communist economy must occur from the bottom-up rather than the top-down.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was an interesting experiment by the Supreme Leader of Humanity. Is it possible for a government to collapse *WITHOUT* massive violence and bloodshed? The answer is "yes". However, the Soviet Union merely transitioned itself from a Soviet-style communist society to a USA-style communist society. The same handful of people who controlled the Soviet Union *STILL* control Russia's economy. Hopefully, when government collapses due to an agorist revolution, the transition will also be nonviolent.

I don't have absolute 100% convincing evidence of the Supreme Leader of Humanity's existence. How can I possibly be completely sure? However, there's a *TON* of circumstantial evidence. I doubt we are in the "zero free people" Nash Equilibrium. Even if that were true, then the Supreme Leader is a useful abstraction for escaping the current mess.

I don't treat the Supreme Leader of Humanity as a god. He's a specific person that I (probably) haven't met.

The current corrupt economic and political system is *TOO CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED* for it to be an accident. I suspect that the Supreme Leader of Humanity *REALLY WANTS* an agorist revolution to occur. The Supreme Leader wants people to revolt nonviolently and economically against the current corrupt system.

FSK Asks - The Forbes Blog Network Invitation?

I got an invitation to join the "Forbes blogging network". My reaction was "WTF?"

My blog is about free market economics. My blog is the *OPPOSITE* of Forbes' communist pro-State agenda.

My blog does have some relevant content. There's my articles on the Bear Stearns Bailout. There's my series on the Black-Scholes formula. There's my articles on the shrinking US economy. Of course, there's the Compound Interest Paradox.

The "ad revenue sharing" plan was offensive. It's 40% *AFTER FORBES' EXPENSES*. Since "Forbes' expenses" are controlled by Forbes, the incentive is for them to overstate their expenses. It's the usual "monkey points" deal that skilled movie stars and writers refuse. To be fair, you should ask for a % of *GROSS* revenue. A % of *NET* revenue is meaningless, because the expenses can be inflated.

It would be cool if Forbes promoted my blog if I joined their network. I doubt they're offering any such service. They're just offering to place targeted ads on my blog and give me a thin slice of ad revenue. I don't have enough readers for it to be meaningful income. If I had substantially more readers, I probably could negotiate better terms than Forbes is offering.

Should I join Forbes' blog network? My guess is "No", because:

1. The revenue sharing terms are offensive.
2. I don't have enough readers for it to be meaningful income.
3. Their contract has offensive details in the fine print.
4. They don't promise to spend any effort promoting my blog. I'm just agreeing to carry their targeted ads.
   

Reading the fine print of the contract, there were some silly terms:

1. The blog is banned from promoting software piracy or mentioning software piracy. That is silly. My position is very clear. Intellectual property is not a valid form of property. "Intellectual property" is only enforceable in the context of a monopolistic abusive government.
2. As I stated above, you only get 40% of *NET* revenues, not *GROSS* revenues. Forbes' expenses are arbitrary. 40% of *NET* revenue may be only 5% or less of *GROSS* revenue. The payment terms appear to be inferior to Google Adwords.

What do you think? It sounds like Forbes' blog network is a waste of time. Their provision *BANNING* me from referencing software piracy is particularly stupid. (I do pay for the current software I use. I download "abandonware retro-gaming". I object to the State enacting laws that give undue protection to copyright holders. For example, suppose I reverse-engineered the Xbox 360's encryption and published a game without Microsoft's permission. According to a corrupt government, that activity is a crime.)

I'm interested in ways to profit off my blog, directly or indirectly. Forbes' network doesn't appear to be worth anything.

Which is Worse: The 16th or 17th Amendment?

I read an interesting debate. Which amendment to the US Constitution was worse, the 16th or the 17th? Some sources indicate that NEITHER the 16th nor 17th amendments were properly ratified.

The 16th amendment authorized the income tax. I've already written plenty about the evils of the income tax and the Federal Reserve.

The 17th amendment specified that Senators are directly elected by the people instead of the state legislatures. This removed an important check on Federal government power. The state legislatures would make sure that the Federal government wouldn't get too powerful. The state legislatures wouldn't want to lose their power and be usurped by the Federal government.

Originally, the House was supposed to represent the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the states. With a state-controlled Senate, it would be harder for the Federal government to pass laws that usurp states' rights. Voting doesn't work. By removing a level of indirection in the selection of Senators, that made it easier for corrupt newspapers to ensure that Senators with the "right" attitudes are elected.

A true anarchist or agorist says that all forms of government are illegitimate. From that point of view, this debate is kind of pointless. Whichever amendment leads to the most rapid destruction of government is the best. Both the 16th and 17th amendments enabled the Federal government to grow in power to the point where it might collapse under its own incompetence.

Network Neutrality Thoughts

There's been a lot of talk about network neutrality and how the telecom corporations are trying to kill it. I liked this article on the Internet and network neutrality.

Network neutrality means that all data packets on the Internet are treated equally and given the same priority, regardless of the source or destination. Internet service providers charge you based on your upload rate and download rate, but not based on the actual data you choose to send or receive.

Due to network neutrality, the cost for starting up a new Internet business is practically zero. You only have to pay for bandwidth.

Consider telephone service. Network neutrality applies for telephone service. Suppose I have a Verizon phone and you have and AT&T phone. I can dial an AT&T phone as easily as I can dial another Verizon phone. If a Verizon customer calls an AT&T customer, and the call is billed by Verizon, Verizon makes a small payment to AT&T. If an AT&T customer calls a Verizon customer, AT&T makes a small payment to Verizon. Most of the time, the net payment is nearly zero.

In this way, telephone service provides network neutrality. Most people would get angry if you owned a Verizon phone and couldn't call someone who owns an AT&T phone.

Telephone network neutrality is mandated by the government. The telephone companies don't mind this regulation, because they have an oligopoly. When AT&T had an absolute telephone monopoly, that was seen as too exploitative. An oligopoly is just as exploitative as a monopoly, but it's easier to pass off an oligopoly as being legitimate.

Even in a free market, telephone businesses would provide network neutrality. It would evolve through mutual cooperation agreements rather than by government mandate.

Consider TV service. Television does *NOT* support network neutrality. For broadcast television, the broadcaster has an absolute government-backed monopoly. For cable television, the cable company also has an absolute government-backed monopoly. If I tried to create my own TV show, it would be nearly impossible for me to get a broadcast network to carry it, unless I was a TV industry insider. If I tried to create my own cable TV channel, I would have a very hard time getting the local cable monopoly to carry it. Even though modern cable networks have a really high bandwidth, the local cable company still maintains monopoly power over what channels are offered.

If I tried to start my own cable network, I would be unable to get permission from the government to lay my cable. The current cable company has a monopoly backed with full government force.

The Internet follows a different model than telephones and television. Telephone communication is one-to-one communication. Television is always one-to-many communication; the person generating the content has a monopoly. The Internet is many-to-many communication. Multiple people can contribute to the same discussion, as occurs on many discussion forums, blogs, and websites.

Another advantage of the Internet is that you can reach many people with little cost. With the Internet, it's practical to set up a website or blog even if you have very few readers initially. If I had to distribute my blog via printed pamphlets, it would be impractical. This is due to "network neutrality". I only have to pay my ISP based on my upload and download rates, and not based on the content I'm sending. Services like Blogger and YouTube are provided for free by Google, because Google hopes to make money off AdWords. Even if I didn't like Blogger and decided to self-host, my cost would be limited to around $50/month and I could buy more bandwidth as my site grows in popularity.

The Internet was originally developed my the military. That's something that a lot of people forget. The Internet was designed as a WEAPON. The goal was to create an advanced communications network that would continue to function even after a lot of its nodes were removed, such as during a nuclear attack.

The military has advisers who try to predict what technologies will be developed for the next 20-50 years. I heard rumors that their predictions are INCREDIBLY ACCURATE. They also try to predict the social effect of various technologies, and they're good at that also. It's hard to believe that the Supreme Leader of Humanity didn't know about the Internet as it was being developed.

The Internet is a disruptive technology. The disruption it's causing suits the Supreme Leader of Humanity's agenda. Otherwise, he would never have allowed the technology to be released in the first place. Alternatively, he could have taxed and regulated the Internet out of existence as soon as it was created. The Supreme Leader of Humanity can't go on television and announce that he's enslaved the entire world. That would cause a massive panic. If the truth spreads slowly over the Internet, that won't cause total chaos. If he allows the most intelligent people to discover the truth first, they can figure out what to do without disturbing everyone else.

On television, you can't send an advertisement unless you pay a huge fee to the television company. The telecom corporations want the Internet to work the same way. You won't be able to set up a website that loads quickly, unless you pay a huge fee to the telecom corporation. This would substantially raise the cost of starting a new Internet-based business. Companies like Google, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon.com would have to pay huge fees to the telecom corporations just to keep their business running. Yahoo could pay the telecom corporations in exchange for making their website load faster than Google's.

A naive person would respond "Isn't that how a free market works?" The problem is that the USA doesn't have a free market. The USA is a Communist Dictatorship! In a truly free market, if a telecom business didn't support network neutrality, they would soon find themselves without any customers. In the present, the telecom corporations have a government-granted oligopoly. If they act as a cartel and don't support network neutrality, then everyone else is left with no alternatives. A competitor can't raise money and set up a "free Internet", because it would be impossible to deal with all the government regulations designed to stifle competition.

Telecom corporations receive MASSIVE government subsidies. First, they received spectrum rights at a huge discount to the fair value. When you buy land, you pay property taxes each year based on the appraised value of the land. I believe that telecom corporations DO NOT pay property taxes on their spectrum rights! (I have to look that up.) They bought full allodial title to their spectrum! When telecom corporations lay cable, they receive easements from local governments.

I consider network neutrality as one of the things telecom corporations need to provide in exchange for their government-granted oligopoly. If they're going to stop providing network neutrality, then they should also be forced to give back their spectrum rights and give back the easement rights for their cables.

For now, the Internet still supports network neutrality. The telecom corporations are arguing against network neutrality, but other large corporations like Google are arguing for network neutrality.

There are several different types of network neutrality.

There is strong network neutrality. All data is treated equally, regardless of source or destination. This is how the Internet works now. This method is simplest and fairest. Customers are billed solely based on their upload and download capacity.

There is type-based network neutrality. Data is given priority based on type, but not on source. Streaming video is a given a higher priority than plaintext, but Google's streaming video is not given higher priority relative to anyone else's streaming video. This is sensible, but this is not going to happen. Some people say that even type-based priority would kill the Internet, because that would make it harder for new services to be developed.

There is pay-for-speed-based network neutrality. The sender or receiver can pay for slow delivery or fast delivery. If you pay for slow delivery, the data is guaranteed to arrive but no guarantee of speed. If you pay for fast delivery, your packets get priority. The important point is that you're paying for speed, but not based on the source or destination.

Finally, there is a corrupt network. The telecom corporations has a veto over whether your data is delivered at all, or at a usable speed. If one corporation signs an "exclusive fast video delivery contract", then other people won't be able to deliver video at a high speed. This would be a disaster. Hopefully, there are enough sensible people to prevent this from happening.

One excuse that the telecom corporations give is "We have to profit from our investment!" or "We won't pay for upgrading the Internet backbone unless we're allowed to kill network neutrality!" This argument is nonsense. The telecom corporations ALREADY receive massive government subsidies and they ALREADY have an oligopoly. If their expenses are increasing, they can just pass their expenses on as higher prices. The "pay based on data used" model already works for telephone service. This model is already working for Internet service.

I expect that the Internet won't be killed. The Supreme Leader of Humanity *WANTS* the Internet to exist. If the Internet didn't suit his goals, he would have taxed or regulated the Internet out of existence by now. Even if network neutrality is partially weakened, services like Blogger and YouTube are going to continue to exist. They aren't going away.

Reader Mail #47

March was my single best month all-time. I had 2386 Absolute Unique Visitors in March.

I realized that Google Analytics' "visitor loyalty" page is misleading. If someone visits for the 53rd, 54th, 55th, and 56th time, then it counts as 4 entries in the "51-100" bin. That is misleading, because the same person is being counted 4 times.

On the other hand, the "1 visit" bin is useful information. 2320 people visited my blog for the first time in March. That means that only 66 of the visitors to my blog in March had previously read my blog!

According to Google Webmaster Tools, I have 21 RSS subscribers. That only counts people who subscribe via a Google-sponsored reader. (I really should start using Feedburner! I'm waiting for it to be integrated seamlessly with Blogger. Will that never happen?)

---

This post on the Bell Tower complains that, at financial companies, the CEOs don't know what their underlings are doing. This is true at *ALMOST EVERY CORPORATION*. This is the usual "Agent-Principal Problem".

At a corporation like Coca-Cola, there's a limit to how much damage one clueless employee or manager can do. In a financial company, the potential damage is literally unlimited. With excessive use of leverage and the inability to "mark to market", huge crashes are commonplace.

Don't blame management of Wall Street firms. Blame the corrupt economic and political system that causes "responsibility", "ownership", and power to be segregated.

---

I liked this post on George Washington's blog about the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I wonder if these 9/11 Truth stories are merely planted as a distraction from the real issues.

---

I liked this post on RadGeek. We live in the age of the "anti-Cassandra". People who make policy predictions are proven wrong again and again, yet they're touted as geniuses.

This is confusing the true purpose of news. The purpose of news is not to provide a carefully thought out analysis. The purpose of news is to tell people what they should think.

---

This post on Tranarchism talks about the housing bubble. It also talks about the true purpose of a college education. Ineffabelle sort of misses the point.

Topics currently taught in college used to be standard high school fare. There's been a deliberate "dumbing down" of the educational system. The college education requirement serves several purposes.

The average middle class or poor worker enters the workforce with a huge debt burden. This means they *HAVE* to work to repay their loans. Some student loans are at a relatively high rate, increasing the students' burden.

When you're 18-22, those are potentially the most productive years of your life. Instead of starting a business or getting useful experience, a student is forced to do pointless things. The college degree requirement helps keep people poor. Most people are focused on "get college degree" rather than "start a business".

In a communist economy, there's no true free market competition. Even though a college degree is largely a meaningless indicator, large corporations collude to demand a college degree (or more). Since there's no true free market competition, there's no opportunity for non-college graduates to get together and form competing businesses. Your only employment opportunity is at a large corporation, and a college degree is mandatory.

Effectively, a college degree is a license from the State that is a prerequisite (but not a guarantee) for most decent jobs. If you don't have permission from the State to work, you're barred from the labor market. Most universities are an extension of the State; their primary source of revenue is government grants.

In some areas, such as Computer Science or Mathematics, a college degree actually does teach you something. However, I probably could have learned that material in high school, if only it were presented to me. In high school, I was forced to waste a lot of time on pointless courses. At that time, there was no Internet I could use to learn independently.

(That's another interesting question. Should children have unrestricted/uncensored Internet access? I'm thinking "Yes, but log everything they do".)

One of my "free market" business ideas is educational/homeschooling services. There should be enough demand to make it profitable.

The more I think about it, "homeschooling" is the only morally acceptable way to raise your children if you don't want them to be brainwashed as slaves.

By the time your child has finished a few years of school, he's spent more waking hours in school than with his parents!

---

This post on Bill Rempel is missing the point. He talks about the problems that GM and Ford are having.

GM and Ford are a prime example of a monopoly/oligopoly. The car manufacturing industry is incredibly heavily regulated. This makes it practically impossible for someone to start a new car manufacturing business. There are too many regulations, which shuts small business out of the market.

A new car sells for around $20k, with most of the cost being labor and overhead. Someone manufacturing cars out of their garage should easily make 10+ per year. This does not occur, because you can't easily manufacture a car yourself and then get it certified as legally driveable.

It doesn't matter that the management of Ford and GM are incompetent. The rules of a corrupt economic system protect them from competition.

---

In this post on no third solution, David Z talks about the real estate market. Real estate experts say that spending $5k remodeling a bathroom will raise the sale price of a home by $20k. David Z says that this illustrates an obvious inefficiency in the market.

Like all industries, the real estate industry is regulated. The real estate salesmen act as a cartel.

One possibility is that the real estate experts are falsely saying that remodeling has a 300% return on investment. Another possibility is that buyers are stupid or receiving bad advice.

Another factor is that the seller is usually financing the improvements via a home equity loan or mortgage. This means that the real interest rate on the loan is negative. If there's a 1-2 year lag between making the improvement and selling the house, then inflation could account for the discrepancy.

In a fiat debt-based money system, *ALL* prices are arbitrary! If banks are loose with credit, then home prices will skyrocket. If banks are tight with credit, then home prices will crash. If downpayment requirements are changed from 20% to 5%, than can have the effect of a 4x increase in home prices. Similarly, raising downpayment requirements can crash home prices.

---

I liked this post on the Picket Line, in reference to this interview between Jan Helfeld and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The video on that link is worth watching.

Jan Helfeld was explaining that income taxes in the US are forcefully taken. Under threat of violence, wealth is taken from one group of people and given to another group of people.

Harry Reid *JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND*. He kept saying "The USA has a 'voluntary' system.", but he also said "There are criminal and civil penalties for failing to pay taxes."

The offensive part is that Harry Reid *DIDN'T GET IT*. He was going through all sorts of intellectual contortions to avoid understanding "Taxation is theft!" Harry Reid sees himself as a noble politician. If he realized the he was leading a gang of thieves, then he wouldn't be able to keep his job.

It's one thing for someone to steal from me, consciously aware of what they're doing. It's another thing for someone to be stealing *AND BE SO CLUELESS ABOUT IT*.

If you want a serious discussion of "Taxation is theft!", a politician is the *LAST* person to ask. If you ever want to embarrass a politician, ask him to explain why taxes and stealing are different.

I also think that Harry Reid was confusing the term "voluntary compliance". The US taxation system is dependent on the willingness of employers and financial institutions to "voluntarily" report all transactions to the IRS and the government! That's not the same as taxes themselves being voluntary, or the reporting requirements being followed voluntarily.

I was also shocked by the reader comments on the blog. The commenters WERE DEFENDING HARRY REID! As a libertarian blogger, he should be more responsible cracking down on pro-State trolls. The comments section on that blog shows what happens if you DON'T keep the pro-State trolls under control.

The worst fallacy shown by the commenters were "A majority of people have voted to indicate that income taxes are acceptable. Therefore, income taxes are acceptable." This is *INVALID REASONING*. You do not have the right to steal from me. You cannot delegate a right you don't have to someone else. You cannot authorize Congress to steal from me on your behalf, because that's a right you didn't have in the first place.

Of course, if the vast majority of people approve of taxation, then it's risky to dodge taxes. Once you realize "Taxation is theft!", then it's a question of tactics instead of goals.

Also, progressive taxation is a myth. When the super-wealthy pay taxes, it is merely a partial return of stolen property. Suppose I could use State violence to earn a $1B profit. I would gladly pay $300M in taxes and keep the remaining $700M. A super-wealthy person is *ALWAYS* a net beneficiary of the State.

---

I liked this post on Check Your Premises. Soldiers who write articles critical of the war tend to mysteriously die. The most noteworthy example is Pat Tillman.

Also, US military contractors working in Iraq are not subject to the same rules and accountability as soldiers.

---

I like this post on Democracy Sucks. Almost nobody gives extra money to the government. They would usually donate to a private charity instead.

This contradicts "taxes are part of a voluntary social contract". If taxes are so wonderful, why don't people voluntarily pay more?

---

This post on Freedomain made an interesting point. Philosophers tend to focus unnecessarily on "extreme" scenarios. Instead, it's more important for philosophers to question everyday problems, like taxes, the Federal Reserve, and government regulations.

The tendency to focus on extreme situations is part of "loss-oriented thinking". This is not an inherent human characteristic, but an aspect of the State brainwashing/control system.

For example, people say "Without the State, who will build and maintain the roads!" This is false philosophy. It appeals to "loss-oriented thinking". Right now, the State is responsible for all infrastructure. People falsely assume that, without the State, nobody will bother to build or repair roads.

Actually, a Stateless society will have BETTER maintained roads. In the present, if the State fails to maintain roads, there's no market punishment for the State. In many circumstances, the incentive is for poor maintenance. In that case, a contract to rebuild the roads can be sold every few years. This contract is, naturally, sold to politically connected insiders.

Focusing on extreme circumstances make bad philosophy.

---

I liked this post on the Liberty Papers, referencing this YouTube video by the Onion. The #1 issue in the upcoming election is bull****. Make sure you watch the subtitles at the bottom of the video!

The Onion has quite a few interesting videos out there.

---

I liked this page about the link between the Federal Reserve and the Great Depression.

For example, if you claimed that tallness contributes to excellence in basketball, I could "refute" your claim by defining everyone as tall.

Most mainstream economic analysis shows this level of sophistication.

However, the point of that article is the OPPOSITE my viewpoint. I claim the Federal Reserve is 100% responsible for the Great Depression. That article is making excuses for the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve jacked up interest rates, crashing the money supply. Insiders knew what was coming, and made a fortune. Debt-based money is an inherently unsound system.

---

I decided to temporarily waive my policy of "Don't post on discussion forums. It's a waste of time." As usual, the pro-State trolls dominated. That confirms my belief that posting on discussion forums is a waste of time.

If you really want an intelligent discussion of non-mainstream ideas, you NEED your own blog or a forum you control.

---

I liked this article on the Liberty Papers. It's about stupid/unethical behavior by Hillary Clinton when she was working for the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment process.

A lot of negative stories about Hillary Clinton have been emerging lately. I suspect that Obama is being set up to win.

The negative stories about Hillary Clinton seem to indicate outright lying or stupidity. The negative stories about Obama are silly; he wore a Muslim outfit; his preacher said something offensive.

---

These two posts by Gilliganscorner were somewhat interesting. He's showing an understanding of the Compound Interest Paradox. He complains that government employees don't just demand you let them steal from you. Government also demands that the slaves thank the masters for their enslavement.

The current complex system of enslavement only works because the details are very thoroughly obfuscated. If the enslavement were obvious, people would resist more.

The amusing example is the Harry Reid interview given above. Most Congressmen *ARE NOT CONSCIOUSLY AWARE* that they are stewards of a massive slave economy.

---

By E-Mail, someone said I was letting the Federal Reserve off easy in The Liberty Dollar Scam Continues!

I wrote:

The Federal Reserve charges a 100% markup for its money.

I was defining "markup" as (face - cost) / face. My calculation was ($50 - $0.03) / $50, approximately 100%. I'll use a value of $0.03 as the printing cost for a Federal Reserve Note.

The E-Mailer said that "markup" is more accurately defined as (face - cost) / cost.

In that case, a Liberty Dollar's markup is (50 - 17) / 17, approximately 194%.

A $50 Federal Reserve Note's markup is ($50 - $0.03) / $0.03 = 1666, a markup of 166600%.

My original calculation assigns a markup of 100% to a Federal Reserve Note and 60% to a Liberty Dollar, making the Federal Reserve Note only 66% more evil than the Liberty Dollar. With my updated calculation, a Federal Reserve Note is 80,000% more evil than a Liberty Dollar.

If you take into account the fact that most money is created electronically, rather than physical currency, then the "markup" for Federal Reserve Points approaches infinity.

---

I liked this post on to herd or not to herd. If you include future promises for Social Security and Medicare, the Federal Government is in debt $40 trillion. The only solution is to raise taxes, raise inflation, or a combination of both.

The proposed solution to this problem is "Raise taxes!" If you're an agorist, you *WANT* taxes to be raised! As tax rates increase, that's more profit for people who evade them!

The problem is that these "benefits to retirees" must be TANGIBLE goods and services. If you give someone a Social Security check for $2000 when a loaf of bread costs $1000, they'll know they were cheated.

Suppose I didn't have to pay Federal income taxes. I could afford to directly support my elderly parents *AND* have wealth left over for other projects.

If an insurance company used the same accounting rules as government, the insurance regulators would shut them down for fraud.

---

I liked this article on the Agitator. Congress banned credit card companies from performing transactions that support "illegal offshore Internet gambling". There is no specific list of what must be banned. It's up to the credit card companies, and they face severe civil/criminal penalties if they fail to comply.

The Federal government has externalized the cost of compliance to the credit card companies. There's no penalty for the credit card companies if they ban TOO AGGRESSIVELY. They are responding by banning practically all offshore transactions.

This ban on offshore money transfers is hurting offshore e-Gold providers. As I wrote previously, if you want to use sound money, physical metal in your possession is the way to go.

---

This post on Bubblegeneration was amusing. He offers to post a list of industries that need to be revolutionized. Let's see:

1. banking
2. police
3. lawyers
4. government
   
5. health care/doctors/hospitals
6. auto manufacturing
7. all types of manufacturing
8. agriculture
9. restaurants
10. telecommunications

Just in case I left something out, my answer is "ALL OF THEM".

---

I liked this post on The Agitator. McCain says working towards causes "greater than the individual" are more important than accumulating personal wealth.

The thing is, “causes greater than yourself” are all full of people who act in their-own self-interest, too. But they operate in a way that pretends that everyone involved in them is altruistic. Consequently, they end up being pretty damned destructive.

Whenever a politician talks about the "greater good", he really means "give me your money/wealth".

I say "Taxation is theft!" When I try to prevent other people from stealing from me, politicians and pro-State trolls say that *I* should feel guilty for suggesting "Taxes=Stealing".

---

I liked this post on Liberty is my Homie, in reference to this YouTube video. I don't normally watch videos by university professors/economists/communists, but this one was interesting.

My favorite bit was near the beginning. He asked his students to rank pairs of countries based on which one had the higher infant mortality rate. His students scored lower than random guessing.

Such "official government statistics" are misleading. Reciting official economy statistics frequently seems like communists bragging about their "5 year plans". For example, he gives per capita income figures. Normalizing by US dollars instead of real money (gold) introduces a severe bias.

---

I liked this post on Distributed Republic. The NFL commissioner was complaining that the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the players' union is a ripoff for the NFL. Half of the Miami Dolphins was sold for $1.1 billion.

When management says "Worker salaries are too high", they really mean "We don't want to pay the fair free market rate".

The NFL has a monopoly. If you're a top-ability professional football player, your only option is to work for the NFL. If you're the NFL, your only option is to negotiate with the players' union or break the union. In markets where there's only one buyer and only one seller, it's impossible to determine the "fair free market rate".

---

I liked this article on lowercase liberty, in reference to this obituary of Murray Rothbard by William Buckley, and a rebuttal by Lew Rockwell.

According to Lew Rockwell, William Buckley's obituary was harshly critical of Murray Rothbard's philosophy and contained factual errors.

William Buckley, quoting Murray Rothbard:

And so the purges began. One after another, Buckley and National Review purged and excommunicated all the radicals, all the nonrespectables. Consider the roll call: isolationists (such as John T. Flynn), anti-Zionists, libertarians, Ayn Randians, the John Birch Society, and all those who continued, like the early National Review, to dare to oppose Martin Luther King and the civil-rights revolution.

Lew Rockwell wrote:

Buckley expelled all the skeptics of empire from his magazine and the conservative movement.

Mainstream media have purged *EVERYONE* who doesn't tout the official pro-State propaganda. Dissenting viewpoints are *NOT* allowed. If by some chance, someone showed independent thinking, they would be rapidly corrected by their peers.

Mainstream media have purged all independent thinkers from their payrolls. Is this an accident? Is it evidence of a massive conspiracy to manipulate and control information?

---

I liked this post on lowercase liberty. It has some interesting quotes by Moshe ben Maimon, who I've never heard of before.

Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.

Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.

---

I liked this post on Check your Premises. Anarchy is decried as "utopian". The opposite is true. If you say "There should be a government", that's a utopian philosophy.

If you assume "people are intrinsically evil", then government will attract the most evil people. The most evil people will exploit government for their own benefit.

---

I liked this page on LOLCODE, a programming language based on the lolcats website. It's easier to use than INTERCAL!

---

I liked this post on Liberty is my Homie. There is a new series on Spike TV that follows DEA agents, glorifying their activities. The DEA is enforcing illegitimate laws. In a free market, possession or sale of drugs is not a crime (even though drugs really are bad for you).

Anytime you see a TV show or news story glorifying policeman, that's a pro-State fnord. I don't have detailed statistics, but most of the time, I suspect police are enforcing illegitimate laws.

After careful consideration, "policeman" and "terrorist" are the same thing.

The biggest crime committed by police is enforcing tax collection and debt collection.

---

I liked this post on the Agitator, in reference to this YouTube video. If you interleave the pages of two phone books, you cannot separate them by simply pulling them apart.

I don't understand the physics of why that works.

---

I liked this post on Overcoming Bias. It explains how drug companies manufacture diseases, so they can market and sell drugs. In many cases, the side effects of the drug are worse than the condition they're trying to prevent.

---

I liked this post on Overcoming Bias. Reading or watching the "news" is bad for you. The debate focuses on superficial topics, instead of important issues.

The "news" exists to tell people what they're supposed to be thinking about, instead of what's really important.

---

I liked this post on Techdirt, in reference to this article. If you play "Dungeons and Dragons", then Israel's army says you are ineligible for a security clearance.

That's an interesting piece of advice. If you want to make sure someone isn't a spy, offer to play a roleplaying game with them!

---

I liked this post on Techdirt. Until recently, the fashion industry was very open. Designs were not copyrighted or patented. Some people are lobbying Congress to allow copyright of clothing design. Some patents were filed recently.

---

This post on Gilliganscorner was interesting.

He's still having debates with pro-State trolls on the Ron Paul Forum. I have abandoned the Ron Paul Forum, declaring it to be property of trolls. I've decided that it's pointless to have political debates on most forums, because the pro-State trolls are the vast majority.

He gives a list of quotes by economic and political leaders citing the injustice of the US monetary system. ALL THOSE QUOTES ARE OVER 50 YEARS OLD!! There have not been any recent examples of a major political or economic leader speaking out against the Federal Reserve and income tax. (Is Ron Paul a "major political leader"? If you ask the other "political leaders", the answer is "NO!!") (Actually, I started seriously researching the income tax and Federal Reserve when I saw Ron Paul, in a debate, say he intended to eliminate the IRS and Federal Reserve. Before that, I knew something was wrong, but I didn't know what direction to pursue.)

He also cites a court case. A jury ruled in favor of a homeowner when a bank tried to repossess his home. A mortgage is really a no interest contract.

If you take "natural law" seriously, *ALL* outstanding debt contracts are invalid, when one party is a bank. As an individual, if I loan you $1000, that's a valid loan, because I don't have a banks' magic money-printing power. When a bank loans you money, it merely prints new money and loans it to you.

Of course, this court case cannot be cited as precedent. A jury ruling in someone's favor is *NOT THE SAME* as a judge ruling in someone's favor. A judge's ruling is precedent. A jury's ruling is not.

Lately, I've had enough reading material via Google Reader. I don't feel like looking for intelligent discussions in forums. Frequently, it's a "needle in a haystack" search.

I wonder if the quality of my political thinking isn't going to improve any more until I make the transition from "theoretical agorism" to "practical agorism".

---

quasibill has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #46":

FSK -

I don't disagree with anything you said here. My post is trying to describe why I agree that, in a free market, you can't get a permanent advantage from capital - such advantages will always be fleeting. Hence, the return on your capital investments will, at best, be fleeting (and most of the time might actually be nil, as you might make a mistake, or your investment only allows you to compete at the same profit, etc.)

I'm making the argument that current monetary policy (and to a lesser extent, entry barriers) is a necessary pre-cursor to making capital investment into a sustainable profit generator.

I'm not blaming anyone who labors under the current system except for those who impose the current system upon the rest of us.

Monetary policy and regulations are a barrier to forming small businesses. I wrote about this in How the State Destroys Small Businesses. Monetary policy makes it hard for individuals to accumulate capital; their savings are eroded by inflation. Regulations are a barrier to forming small businesses. If my overhead is $10k-$50k, that makes it hard to get a small business started.

Should the current economic and political leaders be blamed? If they're truly that clueless, then they are blameless. On the other hand, it's their "enlightened self interest" to be clueless. If they really understood what was going on, they could no longer continue to support a corrupt system.

Imagine what would happen if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet started speaking out on the injustice of the US economic and political system? Imagine if the President of a Federal Reserve Bank or other large bank started speaking publicly about the unfairness of fiat debt-based money? Are they that clueless? Or, are they aware of the scam, and gladly accepting their salary/bribe as payment for their silence?

Who's to blame? Is the Supreme Leader of Humanity the only person anywhere who's responsible for anything? If everyone else is a slave-puppet, then there's only one person with true responsibility.

In the present, capital does earn a HUGE unearned profit. This means that a free-market business should be INCREDIBLY profitable. A free market business avoids subsidizing the activities of its larger State-funded competitors.

The "excess profit" earned by capital should drift to 0% as a free market gets more and more efficient. State violence is *REQUIRED* for capital to earn a permanent unearned profit.

---

Ian has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #46":

Thanks for linking to Question That. The quote under my blog header is from Douglas Adams, author of Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy and prominent atheist.

The full quote is as follows:
"One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. Another problem with governing people is people"

It sounded vaguely familiar.

I describe myself as "agnostic" rather than "atheist". If you're an "atheist", does that mean you have *POSITIVE* evidence for the non-existence of god? Anyone who claims to have evidence of the existence or non-existence of god is either lying or a fool. The question "Does god exist?" is *ALWAYS* completely unsettled.

Even if god personally manifested himself to you, the correct reaction is "That's a clever trick! How did you do that?"

---

I read that, pretty soon, Blogger will have a "scheduled posting" feature. If you click on "publish" for a post time-stamped ahead of time, "draft Blogger" will queue the post and publish it at the appropriate time.

I aim for "1 post per day", and separating my timestamps by 24 hours helps me keep that.

---

gilliganscorner has left a new comment on your post "Hooray for Incompetent Government Employees!":

As the smartest people switch to working in the underground economy, the average intelligence of those working in the white market economy decreases. An "evaporative cooling" effect will occur. Eventually, there won't be enough talent left to support the State and the whole system will collapse.

I love it! A virtual Galt's Gulch!

I've made this point before. Agorism is the proper way to implement Ayn Rand's vision of a strike by productive workers.

You don't need to move to some remote location to start practicing agorism. You can start in any big city. I wonder if it's *EASIER* to start a free market economy in a large city, because there's a larger pool of people to draw from.

Be careful when dealing with Ayn Rand followers. Some of them are the biggest pro-State trolls! If someone names themselves after a character from an Ayn Rand novel, that's a sign that you should be careful!

---

How much would "free market" police protection *REALLY* cost? In most big cities, less than 1% of the people work as policemen. Imagine 1% of the people really worked as policemen. If you pay them $100,000/year, then free market police service only costs $1000 per person per year. That's a bargain compared to what the monopolistic State charges me for "protection".

In the present, many activities are falsely classified as crimes. If only 0.1% of the people needed to work as policemen, then free market police protection only costs $100/year.

Free market police could recover some of their costs from criminals. Under a "criminal pays costs" justice system, the actual cost of police would be even *LOWER*. In a free market, police protection would probably be bundled with insurance against crime.

---

Nate has left a new comment on your post "How Much did the Bear Stearns Bailout Cost you?":

This is an interesting post. I think a follow up showing the costs of FED intervention and debt, re: dollar value would be cool.

Perhaps pick 5 or 8 events and detail the M2 value at the time, and then the ratio of inflationary loss.

I can't think of any other specific examples. M2 has been increasing at a steady rate of 6%-7% per year. Reconstructed M3 has been increasing at a rate of 15%-20% per year. The price of gold is increasing at a rate of 30% per year!

It's much simpler to look at the aggregate. Due to inflation, the Federal Reserve steals 6%-30% of all outstanding dollars each year. It depends on whether you consider, M2, M3, or the price of gold to be the most accurate measure of inflation.

How Much did the Bear Stearns Bailout Cost you?

The Federal Reserve recently bailed out Bear Stearns. The Federal Reserve printed $29 billion in new money and gave it to JP Morgan Chase to finance the buyout. (Technically, it was a loan, but at a negative real interest rate of 2.5%, it's essentially a gift.)

According to the Federal Reserve, in February 2008, the M2 money supply was $7.57 trillion. Dividing $29 billion by $7570 billion is 0.38%. All outstanding dollars lost 0.38% of their value when the Federal Reserve printed $29 billion in new money. If you had $10,000 in a checking account, you personally paid $38 to finance the bailout.

The above statement is slightly inaccurate. The US has a fractional reserve banking system. When the Federal Reserve prints $29 billion in new money, that technically causes $290 billion of inflation. For each dollar created by the Federal Reserve, the financial industry then creates nine more dollars, through the power of fractional reserve banking. Viewed this way, the Federal Reserve caused $290 billion of inflation when it bailed out Bear Stearns. Using this calculation, all outstanding dollars lost 3.8% of their value when the Federal Reserve printed new money to bail out Bear Stearns.

The cost of the Federal Reserve isn't free. Everyone else pays the cost as inflation.

Hooray for Incompetent Government Employees!

I read someone lamenting that government employees are pretty incompetent overall. After careful analysis, this is a GOOD THING.

There's a phenomenon in physics called "evaporative cooling". When a liquid cools, the most energetic particles are the ones that evaporate. The average temperature of the remaining particles decreases.

This is how government works. The most intelligent people get disgusted and leave government employment. (Some are sufficiently intelligent that they don't seek government work in the first place.) This guarantees that the average intelligence of government workers decreases over time.

If you're an agorist, your enemy isn't really "the State", which is an abstract fictional entity. Your enemies are the front-line government employees who will try to detect and stop your free market activity. The stupider the average government employee, the easier it is to evade detection.

As the smartest people switch to working in the underground economy, the average intelligence of those working in the white market economy decreases. An "evaporative cooling" effect will occur. Eventually, there won't be enough talent left to support the State and the whole system will collapse.

If you're an anarchist, don't lament incompetent government employees. You want government employees to be the as stupid and incompetent as possible!