More Looting

Yesterday, the Bank of England cut their equivalent of the Fed Funds Rate by 1.5%. This move was completely unexpected. It was not factored into market prices ahead of time. No economists publicly predicted such a large cut, although they knew cuts were coming soon.

Suppose I were one of the insiders who control the Bank of England. Suppose I knew about this cut in advance. I could have made a *HUGE* profit by trading currency futures/derivatives/swaps/options. There are laws forbidding this sort of thing, but in practice they're unenforceable.

A surprise interest rate cut provides a massive State subsidy to insiders. This subsidy isn't free. The cost is paid by everyone else as inflation. This subsidy is in addition to the huge State subsidy the financial industry already receives.

A central bank is a price fixing cartel. Anybody who says otherwise is pro-State trolling.

The Social Security Ponzi Scam

Social Security is one big Ponzi scam. Current workers are taxed to pay for benefits for current retirees. If a private insurance company operated the same way as Social Security, then they would be shut down for fraud.

There are no tangible assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. There is merely a stack of IOUs, to be paid by future inflation or future taxation.

The Social Security tax runs a surplus, but the profits are stored in Treasury Bonds. A government can't store value in the currency it issues. If there's a budget surplus, that is deflationary. If there's a budget deficit, that is inflationary. Social Security is operating at a surplus. This surplus means that inflation can occur elsewhere without people noticing.

Suppose the USA were on a gold standard, and suppose the Social Security Trust Fund were invested in gold. In that case, there would be tangible assets in the trust fund.

Similarly, suppose that the Social Security Trust Fund were invested in the stock market. That would also represent tangible assets. However, when the Treasury Bonds are redeemed and the money spent in the stock market, there would be massive inflation. There's a valid criticism that "investing the Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market is subsidizing the stock market". However, many state government pension funds invest their assets in the stock market.

Current retirees earn a return of 2%-3% on their "investment" in Social Security. That takes into account the Ponzi structure. A return of 2%-3% is far less than a current retiree could have earned elsewhere.

There is no legally guaranteed right to a Social Security benefit. At any time, the benefit could be cut or eliminated. Inflation will erode the value of the benefit. Social Security should be viewed purely as a tax.

Why is Social Security politically untouchable? It isn't because current retirees have such a strong lobby. If both political parties strongly said "Social Security must be overhauled!", then voters would be SOL as usual. Retirees couldn't effectively form a "save Social Security party" any more than any other third party movement could succeed. If the mainstream media honestly reported the nature of the scam, then reform would be guaranteed.

The real reason Social Security is politically untouchable is that it's a massive loot and pillage operation. The surplus Social Security tax isn't saved; it's spent. The Social Security tax allows inflation to occur elsewhere without people noticing.

The reason the bad guys don't want to cut back on Social Security benefits is that current workers would get wise to the scam. Current workers would say "Why am I paying this huge tax in exchange for nothing?" Social Security must appear to be politically untouchable so that the workers/cattle will continue paying the tax.

Some economists say that the Social Security crisis will occur 20-30 years from now, when the Social Security Trust Fund is exhausted. That is false. The true crisis will occur in a few years, when Social Security benefits paid exceed Social Security taxes collected. At that time, taxes or inflation must sharply increase.

There is no way that Social Security promises can be kept. A partial default on Social Security is guaranteed. There will be tax hikes, benefit cuts, massive inflation, or a combination of all three.

If taxes or inflation get too high, then there is a strong incentive for people to work off-the-books and use sound money instead. These "unfunded State obligations" for Social Security and Medicare are one of many reasons why I predict the State will collapse during the next 20 years. As taxes get higher and higher, the incentive for dodging them increases.

The Concession Speech

One of the stupidest rituals of the election cycle is the concession speech. What difference does it make? The outcome of the election was determined. Why is the loser required to support the winner?

Both political parties are not really competing. They merely alternate turns looting and pillaging. When most people get disgusted with one party, then the other one takes a turn. The losing party knows that their turn will come again in another few elections.

In a close election, the winner only has slightly more than 50% of the vote. When the loser supports the winner, he's saying "The winner's authority and power are legitimate, even over those people that didn't vote for him."

Suppose that, in 2000, Al Gore went around saying "President Bush's authority is not legitimate!" Then, people would start seriously questioning the role of government and the entire scam might be exposed. When Al Gore says "President Bush's authority is legitimate!", then he's endorsing all the bad things that government does.

In an election, the loser is required to publicly endorse the winner, lest the public start questioning the legitimacy of the State. The loser still has a lucrative career as a lobbyist or other elected office. The important thing is to keep the scam going, regardless of the specific figurehead that gets elected.

Is Pro Se Defense a Good Idea?

There's a lot of propaganda saying "People who choose to represent themselves pro se are stupid." Is that accurate? My reaction is "If there's a lot of propaganda advising against something, then it must be a good idea (or seriously worth considering)!"

In the late 18th century, pro se legal representation was common. Anybody could work as a lawyer. Lawyers lobbied for State licensing requirements for lawyers. They made sure the law was so complicated that it was inaccessible for the average person. Things went downhill from there.

The publicly hyped cases of pro se defendants are cases where the defendant was just plain nuts, there was overwhelming evidence, and he was getting convicted anyway.

I read that, when the judge orders a competency test for a defendant, it usually is because the defendant asked to represent himself.

I researched Jack Kevorkian a little. He fired his lawyers and tried representing himself. All his previous trials had ended in mistrials. After a mistrial, the State gets a mulligan and may retry you. Also, the law was changed to more clearly define what Jack Kevorkian was doing as illegal. Perhaps his lawyers refused to present a jury nullification defense? He must have had a good reason for firing his lawyers. I couldn't find a source where he explained why.

That appears to be a common trick that the bad guys use. If someone is doing something they don't like, then they change the law to redefine such behavior as more clearly illegal. For example, E-Gold was accused of breaking laws that were passed after E-Gold started operating. Assisted suicide was a legal grey area, and it was redefined to be clearly illegal.

I found an article in favor of pro se defense.

Mossman also found that pro se defendants had some advantages in court. They had a greater opportunity, for instance, to develop a rapport with the jury, or they had access to details that helped them in cross-examinations.

This is the best argument in favor of pro se defense, *IF* you're a good public speaker. If you make a personal connection with the jury members, you'll get a more favorable result.

Suppose I was the victim in a tax resistance trial. What would my lawyer advise me to do? My lawyer would probably advise me to not testify. My lawyer would do all the speaking. I would have no opportunity to make a personal connection with the jury.

The impression I got was that lawyers who attempt to present a jury nullification defense are silenced by a judge. I don't have any firsthand experience, but I read some stories, especially in cases involving victimless crimes (tax resistance and possession of marijuana).

One argument against pro se defense is that the judge will be biased against a pro se defendant. If a lawyer makes a technical error, the judge will usually let him correct it. If a pro se defendant makes a technical error, then the judge won't let him correct it. On the other hand, if the judge acts like a jerk in front of the jury, then that creates sympathy for the defendant. If I attempt to describe jury nullification and the judge silences me, then I can validly point out to the jury that the judge is biased against me.

I can describe the principle of jury nullification better than a lawyer. I can describe the injustice of the US taxation system and monetary system better than a lawyer. If I were the victim in a taxation trial, I want to present these arguments to the jury myself.

There's also the extortion problem. Suppose I am the victim in a taxation trial. Hiring a lawyer would cost me $100k+. I don't recover that expense if I am acquitted.

However, if offered a public defender, I might use the public defender for part of the trial and represent myself for parts. Maybe you should use a lawyer for pre-trial motion filing, and then speak yourself when addressing the jury.

If you're the victim in a trial, your audience is the jury, and not the judge. If you speak directly to the jury, you may gain their sympathy, if you're good at it.

You should avoid being the victim in a trial in the first place. By the time you're in front of a judge, you've already lost. The rules and procedures in a criminal trial are heavily biased against the defendant, whether you're using a lawyer or not. There's a presumption "If you were not guilty, then you wouldn't have been indicted."

Even if you're acquitted, you don't recover the lost time. You don't get compensated for the stress of a trial. A trial is designed to last for months, extracting a toll from the defendant.

The current economic and political system is unfair. What is the optimal strategy an agorist should follow, once they find themselves the victim of State violence and the victim in a trial?

Even if I hire a lawyer, how do I know if I'm getting someone good? The few lawyers I've personally dealt with seemed like ***holes.

I'm a good public speaker. I could represent myself better than a lawyer. Will I ever be tested? I hope not. On the other hand, it would be very good publicity if I present a sui juris defense and get acquitted.

I'm really undecided what approach I should take for agorism, once I make the transition to practical agorism. Should I attempt stealth-agorism or blatant-in-public agorism? If I attempt stealth-agorism, my reach is limited. If I attempt blatant-in-public agorism, I'll attract more customers, but I will also attract the attention of the bad guys.

"Hire a lawyer" might be good advice for an average person. I'm not sure if it's good advice for me, in the specific case of a tax evasion trial or a trial for agorist activity.

I found another article about a successful pro se defendant.

The jury has natural sympathy for someone representing himself. If you try to cut him off with objections, the jury thinks you're oppressive. If you let him go, he gets in all kinds of evidence that wouldn't usually be allowed.

That's exactly my point. Suppose I explain to the jury about jury nullification, the immorality of the income tax, the immorality of the Federal Reserve, or the immorality of government regulations. If the judge or prosecutor attempt to interrupt me, that creates sympathy for me. That's exactly what I'm looking for. A lawyer would be reprimanded for presenting those arguments. If a lawyer makes that argument and is interrupted, the jury will assume it's OK. If I make that argument and am interrupted, then the jury will think the judge is biased against me.

If I find myself the victim of frivolous criminal charges, I'll probably represent myself pro se. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. If you're the victim of frivolous criminal charges, you can't hire me to represent you, because I don't have a State license to work as a lawyer!

Walter Block, a Pro-State Libertarian

meambobbo has left a new comment on your post "Beware of Libertarian Red Market Agents":

fsk, I have met Walter, being in New Orleans and working on grassroots Ron Paul support. He is often accused of being a spy or an agent, but this is mostly be over-paranoid cranks who claim we are being fed poison to brain-wash us and other mumbo jumbo that is based on conjecture and not research. They went after his tenure at Loyola, claiming he was possibly an Israeli agent. I definitely don't agree with all of his conclusions. He is a radical libertarian, meaning he has expressed favor for a powerful federal government if it polices state governments to adapt more libertarian philosophies. Basically, if it will guarantee more short-term liberty, go for it.

Anyhoo, I am 100% convinced he is not a spy. He does not hide his personal feelings that may differ from mainstream takes of libertarianism. He offered our grassroots group free access to a study group of Mises's Human Action and has made numerous efforts to promote libertarian philosophy to those who might be interested.

It's important to talk to people before labeling them as spies and refusing to talk to them. There is a vast difference between misunderstanding and disinformation. And you'd be surprised the number of persistent sincere fools there are. ...not trying to discredit your post - just trying to clear up the misinformation ;-)

When you say "libertarian who favors increased power for the Federal government", that makes absolutely no sense at all. That's like saying "he's a celibate pornstar" or one of those "pro-State anarchists" (like Noam Chomsky).

Where I come from "radical libertarian" means "agorist" or "there should be no government at all, a true free market". I guess "radical libertarian" means "powerful government" also, if by "radical" you mean "stupid".

It's been awhile since I wrote that post. I evaluated Walter Block based solely on his lousy criticism of Kevin Carson. He's one of those "pro-government anarcho-capitalists".

Let's review the difference between anarcho-capitalist and agorist. An anarcho-capitalist says "The State should gradually shrink and then disappear." According to the erotic fantasies of anarcho-capitalists, this process will occur via voting. Government will intentionally reduce its power and size gradually, and then disappear. An anarcho-capitalist says "The State has legitimacy, and will voluntarily reduce itself gradually."

An agorist says "The State has no legitimacy at all, STARTING NOW." Let's move as much resources as possible into the underground economy. Let's build a functioning economy that's independent of the State. Let the State grow in size and power, until it collapses under its own inefficiency. Then, the counter-economy will replace the State.

An anarcho-capitalist says "The State has legitimacy right now." Unlike agorists, an anarcho-capitalist provides no clear process by which the State may be eliminated.

Walter Block is a professor of economics. His funding comes primarily from the State. This makes him a pro-State troll. He can't be too critical of the State, because he's dependent on it from funding. Anyone who receives State research funding is very unlikely to present a coherent criticism of government and taxes.

If Walter Block is such a great libertarian, then why is he stealing from me to pay his own salary? (via government research grants)

To recap, there are three types of pro-State trolls. First, there's the people who are just plain stupid. Second, there are people whose careers depend on them ignoring the truth, such as journalists, professors, and politicians. Finally, there's the deliberate spies.

Walter Block probably is the second kind of pro-State troll. As a university economist, he can't be too critical of the State. If he truly were an independent thinker, there's no way he'd get tenured as a professor of economics. His colleagues would lynch him for telling the truth and exposing them as frauds.

It's very important for the State to fund phony anarchists like Walter Block and Noam Chomsky. If all the people who publicly declare themselves as "anarchists" are stupid, then anarchy in general is a discredited philosophy.

When you say "Walter Block promotes libertarian philosophy", you mean the pro-State version of libertarianism. That makes him worse than useless. He's distracting people interested in free markets away from the truth. He's the functional equivalent of a deliberately planted spy, even if he isn't doing it on purpose.

I'm not interested in reading anything else by Walter Block. Why should I waste my time?

I believe your claim that Walter Block is a sincere fool, rather than a deliberate spy. A sincere fool is usually a better disinformation agent than a deliberate spy! What difference does that make? If he's full of garbage, he's full of garbage. It's irrelevant whether it's an honest mistake, or deliberate sabotage.

The bad guys are careful to pick sincere fools as their public agents! A sincere fool with the right viewpoint/brainwashing can be very effective!

As a practical matter, I'm a follower of freedomain's philosophy. I shouldn't waste my time reading works written by fools. If my interactions with someone provide no enlightenment, I should cease dealing with them. In an online community, it's very easy to stop visiting websites promoted by pro-State trolls. There's enough interesting blogs in my RSS reader that I shouldn't waste time on garbage like that promoted by Walter Block. It's harder with in-person interactions.

If you want me to evaluate any of Walter Block's writing besides his lousy criticism of Kevin Carson, let me know. Based on that one lousy article, I'm not interested in reading anything else by him.

It's important to understand that when I say "Walter Block is a pro-State troll", that covers several possibilities. There's plain stupidity, professional stupidity, and deliberate sabotage. My guess is that Walter Block falls under the "professional stupidity" category, but I haven't analyzed his writing more (and probably won't).

Another Problem With Juries

Trial by jury, as currently implemented, provides almost no protection against abuse by the State. I realized another huge defect in trial by jury that hasn't been mentioned here before.

Suppose there's a controversial trial that will take 1-3 months. If you work at a for-profit corporation, your employer won't like it if you miss work for awhile. You'll miss out on opportunities for promotion, if you miss a huge chunk of work. You'll feel guilty that you're creating extra work for your coworkers, who are now shorthanded. The incentive is for the employee to find a reason to dodge jury duty.

Suppose you work directly for the State. If you serve on a jury, you receive your full normal pay and benefits. Your employer specifically *WON'T* discriminate against you, if you miss a lot of work due to a prolonged trial.

This means that a jury will be PRIMARILY composed of people who work for the State! If you work directly for the State, you don't lose job status while serving on jury duty. If you work for a corporate employer, you can't afford an extended absence.

For "victimless" crimes, the State isn't just both judge and prosecutor. The State is *ALSO* the jury! A State employee will be *VERY* reluctant to rule against the State when the primary issue is taxation. The State employee is dependent on taxes/theft to pay his own salary! The IRS prosecutors tell juries "The tax evader is stealing from you!" If the jury member works for the State, it's very easy for them to believe that taxes are their personal property!

The Trans Fat Ban

I liked this article on the Liberty Papers. California barred trans fats from restaurants and bakeries.

Under the new law, trans fats, long linked to health problems, must be excised from restaurant products beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011. Packaged foods will be exempt.

In other words, this law is entirely corporate welfare. Food manufactured in large factories is exempt from the ban. Local bakeries can make fresh food and are competitive with corporate food. This ban cripples their business.

There was a trans fat ban in the city where I live. I noticed that the cakes and cookies in the local bakery suddenly started tasting lousy. It correlated with the date of the ban. If the local bakery is barred from making food that tastes good, I might as well buy the corporate food. (Since then, the quality improved. They must have found a better compliant recipe.)

Why does the State have the right to ban trans fats? If the ban is so wonderful, then why not let the free market decide. In the USA, there is no longer any pretense of a free market.

How do I know that the science backing the trans fat ban is genuine? How do I know this scientific conclusion isn't entirely fabricated? There aren't any independent scientists that I can trust to perform the research. For example, scientists have proven that antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs are beneficial. I know from personal experience that is wrong. How do I know that other science touted by mainstream media sources isn't just as wrong?

The State-licensed custodians of science have been completely corrupted. I don't trust any of their conclusions.

Paradoxically, I enjoy seeing new stupid laws. They restrict my freedom in the present. However, these stupid laws also increase my potential profit when I start actively working as an agorist.