Scientology, Anonymous, and the Pharmaceutical Industry

Scientologists are frequently derided as fruitcakes. The group "Anonymous" criticizes Scientology.

Sometimes, I wonder if the pharmaceutical industry is secretly funding both groups.

In addition to their questionable activities, Scientologists also say "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of nonsense." When a Scientologist says that, he is 100% correct and 100% telling the truth.

The history of Scientologist vs. the psychiatry/death industry is interesting. When L. Ron Hubbard developed his personal growth techniques, he did it both to sell books, and also because he sincerely believed they worked. When he tried selling his techniques, he was criticized by the death industry for "practicing psychiatry without a license". I say psychiatrists are guilty of "practicing medicine without a clue".

Whatever criticisms of Scientology you might have, any drug-free treatment of mental illness is practically guaranteed to be far superior to any treatment involving anti-psychotic or anti-depressant drugs. Given the free choice, and if those were my only two options, I'd prefer to have my "mental illness" treated by a Scientologist than by a psychiatrist. Scientologists recognize that if someone is in a panic/manic state, then it naturally wears off after a few days. After a few days without sleep due to the "flight or fight" reaction, your exhaustion catches up with you and you start sleeping and thinking normally again. Anti-psychotic drugs interrupt your body's natural healing process.

Scientologists do many questionable things. By the Strawman Fallacy, therefore everyone who says "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense." is a fruitcake. The group Anonymous ridicules Scientology's beliefs. The group Anonymous also ridicules them for saying "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense."

In this manner, intelligent debate of this issue is stifled. If you say "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is nonsense.", then the retort is "Are you a fruitcake Scientologist?" The only mainstream public advocates for this position are Scientologists. This discredits all people who question the psychiatry/death industry.

This setup is so convenient that I sometimes wonder if the pharmaceutical industry has secretly arranged it.

Is Participating in the State Economy Immoral?

There were two recent threads that generated some surprising comments, regarding the morality of participating in the State slave economy.

In the present, a complete boycott of the State economy is infeasible. Almost all economic activity directly or indirectly supports the State. As an agorist, you should focus on the three main evils of the State. These are income taxes, the Federal Reserve, and government regulation of almost all industries.

For example, suppose I were to start an agorist clothing business. It's acceptable for me to buy my raw materials from a State-licensed store if that's the cheapest price. Over time, as the agorist counter-economy grows, agorist vendors will emerge that will be competitive with the State slave economy. Free from the encumbrance of State regulations, taxes, and overheads, a smart agorist vendor should always be able to undercut the State slave economy on price and provide better quality.

Right now, the agorist counter-economy is non-existent. I'm on the lookout for opportunities to begin practical agorism. As I start working as an agorist, I will buy/sell some goods in the agorist economy, and participate in the State slave economy for the rest of my needs. This bootstrapping process allows agorists to pick and choose their opportunities. The most inefficient State industries will have working agorists first. I'm going to focus on low-risk, high-reward industries initially. Other industries, such as agorist health care, have higher risk but also higher reward.

One of my agorist business ideas is offering a treatment of mental illness without drugs. It's actually a simple business to run, since I merely advise my customers to stop taking their drugs and help them manage their withdrawal symptoms; a simple reassurance that the withdrawal effects are temporary should be sufficient. I'd warn the patients to call me instead of 911 if/when they have a panic attack. I'd probably need assistants to manage such a business, because I really should offer my customers 24x7 support, compared with a traditional therapist who you only see for 30 minutes every week or every other week, or a psychiatrist who you see only once a month for a few minutes for a prescription refill. Technically, telling a "mental illness" patient to stop taking their drugs is a crime, because I don't have a State psychiatry license.

I mentioned that I watch NFL football games. One commenter complained "Watching football games is immoral, because the NFL is a branch of the State! If you watch an NFL football game, you're supporting the State."

This attitude is silly. If I wanted to completely boycott the State, I could not do anything at all. I could not purchase electricity. I could not purchase Internet access. I could not buy a computer. I could not purchase food. I could not purchase clothes. I could not see any TV or movies. I could not play computer games. Until there are viable free market alternatives, a total boycott of the State is infeasible.

For now, I focus my anti-State activities where I get the most reward for effort spent. Right now, promoting agorism is the most effective use of my time. I'm looking to make the transition from theoretical agorism to practical agorism. The more successful I am at raising awareness of agorism, the more likely I am to find trustworthy agorist trading partners.

Further, my interactions with NFL TV broadcasts are completely voluntary. Unlike my interactions with the Federal Reserve and income tax, I voluntarily choose to watch NFL games. In a true free market, I would have more choices, but the NFL is good enough entertainment for now.

Even if you didn't like my two posts about football, that doesn't invalidate all my other points. You're free to not watch football if you choose, and ignore those two posts. Both articles contained an interesting aspect of pro-State brainwashing, which is the fact that pro-State brainwashing affects a coach's strategy. A coach's decision is evaluated by outcomes and not a priori odds. When making decisions, pro-State brainwashing causes people to consider the worst-case rather than average-case. If you do worst-case-only-analysis, agorism is infeasible because of the risk of a State raid. If you do a proper average case analysis, I believe agorism is profitable if you're clever about minimizing your risk and maximizing your reward.

I also wrote that I was planning to put a Google AdSense widget in my blog and RSS feed. This was met with hostility by one/several Anonymous commenters. I have no idea if all Anonymous comments are published by the same person or different people. For this reason, people who use a consistent fake name are better than Anonymous. I recognize the made-up name, and can recognize repeat commenters. For example, you have a reasonably good idea about who "FSK" is, even though it's a made-up name. (In Blogger, I believe there are no uniqueness restrictions on usernames. I believe someone else could make up a username "FSK" and impersonate me, but you'd notice when you clicked on the link to look at the profile.)

If I put up a Google AdSense widget on my blog, I'm supporting the State. That income is automatically reported to the State and I must pay income tax on that profit. Further, Google receives the bulk of the actual AdSense revenue paid by advertisers, and Google is a branch of the State like all large corporations.

If I want to avoid working for the State, I'd also have to refuse any wage slave job. I could not accept any on-the-books work if my goal is to completely avoid supporting the State. The counter-economy is not yet sophisticated enough for me to do this.

I noticed this post by Mike Gogulski, where he refused a job for the State. The fallacy in his reasoning is that *ANY* on-the-books work supports the State via taxes. Suppose I have two choices. I can do $10k of work directly for the State, or $10k of work in a wage slave job. Suppose my income taxation rate is 50%. In the $10k wage slave job, I contribute $5k directly to the State. Similarly, if I accept the $10k job working directly for the State, I pay $5k directly back to the State in taxes. (In some countries, income on State jobs is tax-exempt. I'm ignoring that possibility here.) If I don't accept the $10k State job, someone else will take it, still getting paid $10k but perhaps doing marginally worse work. However, by refusing the direct State job, I am forced to accept a marginally lower salary. Overall, the net damage to the State by my refusal to work directly for the State is negligible.

"I refuse to work directly for the State" is an attitude that only works when vastly more than 50% of the population has been convinced "The State is evil!" By that time, the State has already lost anyway. Once a vast majority of people have been convinced "The State is evil!", then it's already all over for the State. In the meantime, if you refuse to work directly for the State, then someone almost as qualified will gladly take your place.

In *ANY* corporate wage slave job, you're supporting the State. If you let the State steal from you via the income tax and the inflation tax, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution. The agorist economy is not yet sophsiticated enough to pay me a decent full-time salary. For now, I work in the slave economy while promoting agorism in my spare time.

Is it immoral for me to put a Google AdSense widget on my blog, earning maybe $10-$20 per month, if that means the State also earns another $50 per month? Given the context of a completly corrupt State economy, that is not immoral.

Also, even if I solicit donations, PayPay and checks are also automatically reported to the State. You would have to mail me physical metal or Federal Reserve Notes to avoid the reporting requirement. If people started mailing me silver coins or Federal Reserve Notes, that would probably draw the attention of the bad guys. An agorist free market banking system is needed, based similarly to the hawala system.

It is silly to refuse to put a Google AdSense widget on my blog because the bad guys get the vast majority of the profits. It is silly to refuse a corporate wage slave job because the bad guys get the vast majority of the wealth generated by my work. It's going to take another few years to get an agorist counter-economy started. In the meantime, I need to work as a wage slave to support myself. If I make $10-$20 via Google AdSense, then I can reinvest the profits in web hosting, move to my own domain, and start offering other services besides blogging. For example, I want to write my own PHP forum/AgoristBay engine, and for that I need to move to hosting my own site.

Suppose I pursue my "promote agorism via standup comedy" idea. Suppose I am successful, and get invited as a guest on the David Letterman show. Should I refuse, because my guest appearance would support the State via taxes? No. I should accept, because it's an opportunity to promote agorism. An AdSense widget on my blog is the same thing, but on a smaller scale. If I earn some profit via AdSense, I can then reinvest that in making a better site via moving to my own domain. Eventually, like Steve Pavlina, I might get enough non-AdSense revenue for it to make sense for me to remove AdSense from my site. It isn't immoral for me to promote agorism and show a profit at the same time. In the present, the only way for me to do this is via State-sanctioned businesses. The agorist free market economy is still nonexistent. It isn't immoral for me to work in the slave economy until a real free market gets more sophisticated.

In the present, the State has a monopoly of nearly all economic activity. All on-the-books activity directly supports the State via taxes. Once the agorist counter-economy is advanced enough, I can buy and sell goods and services in the agorist free market. In the meantime, it isn't immoral to participate in the State slave economy.

The Principal-Agent Problem and the Psychiatry/Death Industry

Recently, I saw my therapist while I was in a panic/manic state. Now, my therapist says I *MUST* take anti-psychotic drugs. If I refuse to comply, I will be barred from the mental health clinic. My reaction was "Fine! I don't like it here! Goodbye!"

As long as I am not involuntarily hospitalized, I cannot be forced to take the damaging drugs. There was no court order forcing me to take the harmful drugs. However, that could change if I am involuntarily hospitalized again. I need to make sure that I am not involuntarily hospitalized again.

Anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs merely mask the symptoms without treating the underlying problem. By preventing me from thinking clearly, that prevents a relapse. That also prevents me from doing all the things I normally like doing, such as blogging and playing computer games.

When I refuse to take anti-psychotic drugs, I am essentially saying "The standard practice here at the mental health clinic is invalid." They are programmed to act in a certain way. When I challenge them, they can't handle it. Almost all other patients don't have the ability to ignore the advice of their doctor.

I have done my own research, and concluded that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is nonsense. The fact that my psychiatrist and therapist are so insistent is merely further evidence that my analysis is correct. How can my psychiatrist choose to prescribe drugs based on only a 5 minute interview? How can my therapist know I should take the drugs for the rest of my life? I was fine until I got sick for the first time when I was 30 years old, and since then I have been stable for months at a time with only an occasional relapse.

I am going to refuse anti-psychotic drugs unless they are violently forced on me against my will.

My therapist and psychiatrist are licensed by the State. If they say "FSK, it's OK for you to not take drugs." and then something bad happens, they will lose their State license and their career. If they say "FSK, take the drugs!", I follow their advice, and develop tardive dyskenesia, then they are protected by sovereign immunity. They are generally immune from personal liability if they follow generally accepted psychiatry/murder practices. If the quality of my life is low because of the anti-psychotic drugs, then they don't lose anything. In fact, they would recognize my complaints about drug side effects as symptoms of my underlying illness.

The interests of my psychiatrist and my therapist are not aligned with my personal interests. I am willing to take the risk that I will have another panic attack, because otherwise I am giving up the rest of my life. When I took the anti-psychotic drugs, I was unable to blog or think or concentrate or do any of the things I normally do. My psychiatrist and therapist are unwilling to take that risk, because they would be personally liable if there's a problem. Further, I am questioning their brainwashing and training by refusing to take their harmful drugs.

I really don't like my current psychiatrist and therapist. I have clearly expressed my desire to treat my problem without drugs. Hopefully, my mental state will eventually stabilize without the drugs, as my body/brain naturally heals on its own from my pro-State brainwashing. My psychiatrist and therapist do not respect my desire, and therefore I do not respect them.

I decided to fire my therapist, and I'm going to look in my insurance provider list for a new therapist. I'll still look around for a new one. Really, I should just rely on my own judgement on not that of a therapist. However, my parents would freak out if I refused to see anyone, and all it takes is a 911 call from them for me to be involuntarily hospitalized.

I should have the right to treat my problem without drugs, although it seems that nobody in the mental health/death industry recognizes that right. Fortunately, as long as I am not involuntarily hospitalized and there is no court order, I cannot be forced to take harmful drugs against my will.

Football 2 Point Conversion Trivia

In this post on no third solution, David Z refers to my post where I give an analysis of "go for a first down vs. punt" when behind at the end of a football game. My point was that, due to pro-State brainwashing, the coach will take the "less risky" action of punting, when going for the first down maximizes the chance of winning the game. The reason is that, if you go for the first down and miss, the coach is blamed for losing the game. If you punt and later lose, then the decision to punt is not usually denounced as wrong.

David Z makes an incorrect analogy about 2 point conversions. Suppose you are down by 7 points at the end of the game and score a touchdown. Do you go for 2, or kick the extra point? Statistically, your chances in overtime are 50%, the extra point is near-automatic, and less than 50% of 2 point conversions are made. Under those assumptions, you should kick the extra point.

A coach may be reluctant to go for 2 in the "Behind by a 7 points and score a touchdown" scenario, but statistically, a 2 point conversion is made less than 50% of the time. If you believe that you are less than 50% to win in overtime (your players are tired or injured), or if you have a good play to call, then it makes sense to go for the 2 point conversion.

Statistically, the NFL concluded that "winning the coinflip in overtime" and "who wins the game" are uncorrelated. Over several seasons, the winner in overtime only wins the coinflip nearly 50% of the time, although there was one season when the coinflip winner won very often.

The problem is that if you win the coinflip, receive the kickoff, and then gain 2-3 first downs, you can kick a 30 yard field goal and win. This is perceived as unfair for the team that kicked off, as the other team scored a field goal and they never got the ball. There are several solutions:

1. Make the goalposts narrower and higher, making it harder to score a field goal from the 30 yard line.
2. If the team winning the coinflip scores a field goal on their first possession, then the other team gets 1 possession to score a touchdown and win (they cannot kick a field goal to tie).
3. Adopt a system similar to college, where each team is guaranteed an equal number of possessions in overtime. The drawback of this system is that the overtime can drag out longer, leading to player injuries.
   

My main point was that, due to pro-State brainwashing, coaches are reluctant to make a decision that maximizes their chance of winning, but they immediately lose and look like a fool if they're wrong. The problem is that, due to pro-State brainwashing, people judge by outcomes and not a priori odds. If going for the first down maximized the chance of winning the game, then the coach should not be denounced if he goes for a first down and fails to make it. For example, computer simulations could be used to determine an approximation of the odds backing each choice.

---

There's one interesting bit of 2 point trivia that is almost never discussed. (I actually saw this problem in Bridge World magazine initially, in the context of matchpoint strategy when you follow an anti-percentage play but maximize your matchpoints. For example, with 2 suits missing 9 and the queen, statistically playing for the drop is best, but finessing in the first suit is like going for a 2 point conversion in the below scenario. Finessing is only slightly unfavorable compared to playing for the drop.)

Here are the assumptions of the problem.

1. An extra point try is automatic, made 100% of the time.
2. A 2 point conversion is made 45% of the time.
3. In overtime, each team has a 50% chance of winning the game.
4. You are behind by 14 points. There is enough time for you to score two touchdowns, but not enough time for you to catch up if the other team scores again.
5. Assume that you are going to score two touchdowns, you prevent the other team from scoring, and no other scoring will occur.
6. After the first touchdown, the coach goes for a 2 point conversion.

What are your chances of winning the game, given the assumption that you do score two touchdowns and prevent the other team from scoring?

If the coach naively kicked two extra points, he would have a 50% chance of winning in overtime. What are the odds of winning if he goes for 2 after the first touchdown? Hint: The odds are better than you think!

I'll give you a chance to figure it out.

SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE

If the coach makes the first two point conversion, then he will kick the extra point after the second touchdown. This is a 45% chance of winning the game.

If the coach fails the first two point conversion, then he will go for another two point conversion after the second. If the second succeeds, then the coach has a 50% chance of winning in overtime. This is a 0.55*0.45*0.50 = 12.375% chance of winning the game.

If both two point conversion tries fail, then the game is lost in regulation. The media decry the coach as an idiot (even though he made the statistically correct choice).

Notice that there is a 45% + 12.375% = 57.375% chance of winning. This is greater than the 50% chance from naively kicking the extra point both times.

The key point is that, if the first 2 point conversion try succeeds, then the coach can conservatively kick the extra point after the second touchdown. If the first 2 point conversion try fails, then the coach gets a chance to get back to par with a second 2 point conversion try.

The same analogy occurs in the Contract Bridge matchpoint example. Suppose you finesse in the "9 never" situation. If you're right, you play the 2nd suit normally, winning an extra trick than everyone else. If you're wrong, you can finesse in the second "9 never" situation and catch back up.

In a real game, if the coach went for 2 and succeeded early, then the other coach would change his strategy, minimizing the gain. Assuming an equal number of touchdowns scored by each team, then the 2 point strategy I outlined gains.

That's an interesting non-intuitive calculation that is rarely quoted.

The Real Meaning of Santa Claus

It's interesting watching the news on Christmas Eve. They say "NORAD is tracking Santa Claus!" and present it as an actual news story. That's so cute! (The previous sentence was sarcastic.)

The joke is that actual "news" stories are presented with the SAME level of honesty as the "Santa Claus is real!" story. The newscaster himself is unaware that the story is the joke! When they say "The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to stimulate the economy!", that's serious journalism on par with "NORAD is tracking Santa Claus!"

After much research, I've decided that's the *REAL* meaning of the "Santa Claus" story. In other words, don't trust what newscasters or most adults say.

---

A coworker once presented me with this "proof" that Santa Claus is real. Make two letters, with a stamp and your return address. Address one letter to Santa Claus at the North Pole. Address the other letter to a fictional person at a nonexistent address. Mail them.

The second letter will be returned as undeliverable. The letter addressed to Santa Claus will not be returned as undeliverable.

This is a proof that Santa Claus is real.

The alternative is that the people who work for the post office are participating in a massive conspiracy to provide the illusion that Santa Claus is real. Of course, such a massive highly organized conspiracy does not exist.

---

The Santa Claus story contains another fnord. Santa Claus is omniscient. He gives rewards to those who obey his orders, and punishes those who disobey him.

The State and Santa Claus are nearly equivalent. By training your children to obey Santa Claus, you are training them to obey the State.

NFL Fnords

I was watching football this weekend and noticed some interesting fnords.

The first came in the Jets-Seattle game. It was near the end of the game, with about 3 minutes left. The Jets were behind by a touchdown, and the Jets still had all 3 timeouts. The Jets had the ball on their own 20 yard line, and it was 4th down with 4 yards to go. The Jets decided to go for the first down, and failed. Seattle got the ball, kicked a field goal, and now had an insurmountable 10 point lead.

The announcers were saying that the Jets coach was an idiot. The Jets should have punted, tried to stop Seattle on defense, and then gotten the ball back. Do you see the fnord yet?

"Punt vs. go for 1st down" was probably a close decision. At that point, the Jets were already longshots to win the game, so they had to take risks. If the Jets had punted, and Seattle got a first down or two, then the game would have been over because Seattle would have run out the clock. At best, the Jets would have gotten the ball back at their own 20 yard line again, but now having used up their timeouts (assuming Seattle ran the ball 3 times and then punted). With a first down, the Jets would have still had all 3 of their timeouts and they would have moved the ball downfield more. Even if the Jets later still failed to score a touchdown, they might have still been able to get the ball back again, if they stopped Seattle from getting a first down.

There's another benefit of going for the first down, because the coach is saying that he trusts his offense to make a big play.

The announcers were very critical of the Jets' coach. By going for a first down and failing, the Jets lost the game immediately because Seattle got the ball in a place where they could kick an easy field goal to get an insurmountable 10 point lead. Do you see the fnord?

The fnord is "Judge by outcomes, and not a priori risk." The Jets failed to make the first down, and therefore the Jets' coach made the wrong decision. That is invalid reasoning. Whether going for the first down was correct or not is independent of whether the first down was actually made. Statistically, that might have given the Jets the best chance of winning the game, but it was not successful.

This is a key fnord that the announcers were not even consciously aware they were using. "Judge by worst-case outcome, and not a priori odds." Going for the first down was wrong, because you immediately lose the game when you're wrong. Punting is acceptable, because you don't immediately lose the game; Seattle still has to get another first down or two.

This fnord also applies to agorism. "That person attempted tax resistance/evasion and got caught. Therefore, tax avoidance is too risky." That is judging by worst-case outcome and not average-case. I have no idea what the true risk of agorism is, and the only way to find out is to conduct an experiment. I suspect that, if you're careful, the odds outweigh the risk.

The current economic and political system is like playing a football game where you've already nearly lost. Given that you're in a nearly hopeless situation, taking risks is acceptable. If I don't attempt practical agorism, then I'm subject to the random decisions of other people as the complete collapse occurs. Agorism is the best strategy to survive the collapse and find a job where a skilled worker isn't encumbered by the State.

---

There was another interesting fnord during the game, that I'd never consciously noticed before. The announcers were repeatedly saying "Support our troops!" If that were obviously true, then the mainstream media wouldn't be repeating that message at every possible opportunity.

Soldiers and police are the violence/enforcement arm of the State. Most of them are not consciously aware of their role in the massive scam, but that isn't a valid defense. "I was following orders" is never an acceptable defense.

From the point of view of an average soldier, the best-case outcome for a war is that he makes it home alive. All the profits of war go to insiders who line their pockets at the expense of everyone else. The average soldier is usually a net loser.

However, anyone who pointed out that soldiers are terrorists rather than noble heroes would be decried by the mainstream media. Some pro-State trolls might give me a hard time for saying "Soldiers are terrorists!", although I am sympathetic for soldiers who signed up for the military, unaware of the scam.

The "Support our troops!" and "Support the police!" fnord must be repeated as often as possible. If police and soldiers didn't unquestioningly commit violence, then the evil of the State would not be sustainable. The evil edicts of the State would not be followed if they weren't ultimately backed by violence.

Is Selling Advertising on Your Blog Immoral?

I recently asked about putting up a Google AdSense widget on my blog and in my RSS feed. DixieFlatline suggested text-link-ads as an alternative. I've nearly decided that I'm going to experiment with a widget for both of them, or maybe just AdSense. It'll take me a week or two to get it set up. (I'm busy with other stuff right now.)

Several of my regular commenters have said "FSK, you should sell some ads on your blog." For example, Barry B. from Debt Prison has been telling me to monetize my blog for awhile now, although he hasn't participated in the recent discussion. A few Anonymous commenters said "Selling advertising on your blog is immoral!"

First, I'll list the advantages of selling advertising on my blog.

I want to switch from using Blogger to self-hosting on my own domain. If hosting my own domain costs $10/month, then I really should make sure I can raise $10/month in advertising first.

I want to write my own PHP forum/AgoristBay engine. For this, I need to host my own domain, and not use Blogger or other free hosting.

I don't have enough readers to blog as a full-time source of income. However, if I keep up 10%-20% monthly growth for a few years, then I might have enough readers for that to be viable. If the Remnant is over 1 million people, then I'm nowhere close to maximizing my potential audience. A lot of people are disgusted with the current economic and political system, but don't know of any viable resistance strategy. I like agorism, because you can fight the bad guys and show a profit at the same time!

I'm looking into ways to promote agorism and make a profit at the same time. I would be better off with my own domain, rather than being dependent on Blogger. I'm growing dissatisfied with Blogger. Instead of moving to hosted WordPress (fskrealityguide.wordpress.com or something like that), I'd rather move to my own domain, install WordPress, and keep 100% control.

If I have my own business, I'm not as dependent on a corporate wage slave job. The Internet makes it easier for people to start small businesses. Using Blogger, my expenses are $0. Even if I move to self-hosting, my expenses are negligible.

Now, I'll respond to the criticisms of selling advertising.

Selling advertising will compromise the content of your blog!

Actually, programs like Google AdSense and text-link-ads allow me to keep full editorial control and still make a little money.

If I were a mainstream media source, then advertising totally corrupts the content presented.

Other people wind up doing "advertisements disguised as content". In other words, they're paid to write an article promoting something, but pretend that it's an article they would have written anyway. I consider that immoral. If someone paid me to write a post about something, I'd clearly mark it as an advertisement.

Selling advertising only corrupts my blog if it negatively impacts the content I present. Some of my articles are very attractive from a SEO/advertising perspective, and others not as much.

I'm only looking to make $10-$20/month right now, so I can cover my hosting costs if I move to my own domain.

Plus, the advertisements will be in the left sidebar or RSS feed footer. You can easily ignore them.

I'm going to stop reading if you put up ads!

The only people who made this complaint were Anonymous. None of the people who give regular intelligent comments had that attitude. The regular non-Anonymous commenters all have said "Go ahead and put up ads, FSK!"

If a handful of people stop reading because I put up ads, that's negligible compared to my blog's long-term growth trend.

Other bloggers have said that you shouldn't worry about losing readers when you first put ads up on your blog. Overall, people will be attracted by my good content.

Putting up ads supports the State!

As long as I work in my corporate wage-slave job, I'm supporting the State.

At least via blogging, I'm promoting agorism. If I can make a reasonable profit while blogging, then I can promote agorism and show a profit at the same time!

In the context of a slave economy, all on-the-books work supports the State, whether I'm blogging for advertising money or working in my corporate wage slave job.

You should solicit donations!

This is worth seriously considering. When I move to my own domain, I might allow people to make a donation to disable all ads. That is not an option on Blogger. The terms of text-link-ads don't allow me to disable it for certain site visitors, but I believe I can do that with AdSense, where I'm only paid for click-throughs.

There's another interesting point. All my regular non-Anonymous commenters said "Put up ads, FSK!" The only people who suggested donations were themselves commenting Anonymously. This lends more credibility to "Supporting your site via advertising is better than supporting it via donations!"

If my goal is to eventually have a for-profit business, I don't think that can be supported via donations. As I'm more successful, people would be more reluctant to donate. For now, I'm not relying on my blog for full-time income. I just want to clear $10/month so I could afford hosting.

I can put up ads without it compromising the content of my blog. I'm looking to expand into other things besides blogging, and for that I need my own domain. For now, given the context of a slave economy, there's nothing wrong with me putting up ads to help raise money to pay for hosting.

DixieFlatline complained that I'm taking too long to make the decision to put up ads. There's no need to rush. If I'm only expecting to make $5-$10 per week anyway, I'm not giving up much by waiting. I'm way behind on the "Reader Mail" answering comments, and I'm trying to catch up with that. Plus, I have a couple of interviews for wage slave jobs lined up.