Police, Lawyer, and Doctor Shows

Even before I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I always thought that shows like "ER" or "Law and Order" were kind of stupid. Now, I understand that they are evil fnords. TV shows that glorify policemen, lawyers, and doctors are State propaganda.

Doctors earn way-above-market salaries, due to the AMA licensing cartel. The State artificially restricts the supply of doctors, driving up prices. A typical doctor does not perform heroic acts like those on TV. Due to State bureaucracy, a doctor actually spends most of his time filling out paperwork. Some doctors complain that they spend more time on insurance forms than with patients. When I was involuntarily hospitalized, the psychiatrist met with each patient for at most 1-2 minutes per day. The psychiatrist spent the rest of the day filling out paperwork.

The salary of lawyers is pure looting and pillaging. The rules and procedures for the legal system were written by lawyers. On purpose, they made the rules and procedures so complicated that a non-lawyer cannot understand them. Whenever anyone interacts with the legal system, a lawyer is required.

On those lawyer shows, the lawyer is usually heroically defending someone who is not guilty, or prosecuting someone who's a nasty criminal. A lawyer show would never show a tax evasion trial, where the defense attorney argues "The income tax is immoral!" Also, the lawyer show doesn't indicate how the victim is forced to spend his life savings on a lawyer, even though he's not guilty. On the lawyer show, if the defendant is poor, then the lawyer usually agrees to defend him for free ("pro bono"). Most poor criminal defendants are forced to use overworked public defenders.

A lot of lawyers work for corporations or as State bureaucrats. They spend most of their time preparing forms and paperwork. Only a minority of State-licensed lawyers actually argue cases in front of a judge or jury. The rules of the legal system require you to use a lawyer when preparing any contract. Otherwise, there might be a loophole that other people could exploit.

Police are the violence arm of the State. It is important to continuously present police as heroic, instead of as armed thugs. The vast majority of police spend their time on boring routine stuff, or on enforcing illegitimate laws. It's very rare that a policeman gets the opportunity to heroically help someone. Whenever a policeman does do something good, the mainstream media loudly says "This policeman did something good! Therefore, all policemen are saints!"

A lot of people aspire to be doctors. Once you get a State doctor license, it's a guarantee of a high-paying job (at least until the State collapses). Getting a State doctor license takes 10+ years and $500k+, making a career as a doctor inaccessible to most poor people. (However, lending money to a medical students is very lucrative. They're guaranteed a high-paying job after they get their license.)

Another problem is that some people go through medical school training, only to discover that they don't want to work as a doctor. That's unfortunate, because they already spent a fortune getting their State license. Via the sunk costs fallacy, they will keep working as a doctor. Plus, the high pay is an incentive to keep doing it, even if you don't like it.

Some doctors do the best they can, given the constraint of a corrupt system. However, none of them will explicitly say "State licensing requirements for doctors are evil!" They won't question the State, which is the source of their wealth. In a true free market, health care would be available much more cheaply, and with better quality.

Similarly, a lot of people aspire to be lawyers. If you get a law degree from a top school, that practically guarantees a high-paying job. However, lawyers from lower-ranking schools without political connections don't do as well. A lawyer degree is expensive, although not as expensive as a doctor's degree. A lot of people with law degrees work in other State jobs, rather than working directly as a lawyer. The supply of lawyers is restricted by the State, but not as severely as the supply of doctors.

Lawyers control all three branches of government. The US government is a government "for the lawyers, of the lawyers, and by the lawyers".

As a partner in a law firm, you already have a high salary. You can afford to take a few months off pursuing an election campaign, without risking your job. Even if a lawyer fails to get elected, the connections a lawyer makes when campaigning are valuable. Since the legal system is completely unrelated to productive activity, the connections of a lawyer are more important than his ability. As a slave software engineer, I can't afford to take 3+ months off my job to pursue an election; I'd lose my job. Most politicians are lawyers, because lawyers can most easily leverage a political career. A lawyer can work as a lobbyist after his term ends. Being a former politician is no help at all, if I go back to being a slave software engineer.

When the mainstream media glorifies the work of lawyers, they are praising the State. Whenever you need State violence to impose your will on others, a lawyer is required. Whenever you need to defend yourself from State violence, a lawyer is required. Lawyers intentionally arranged for the legal system to be so complicated that a lawyer is required. Long drawn-out trials benefit lawyers, who are paid hourly.

Being a policeman is a very desirable career for someone with no other useful skills. Policemen have a very strong union; politicians are very reluctant to anger the source of their power. Policeman don't get paid that much, but it's a good job for someone who doesn't know anything useful. There's plenty of opportunities for a dishonest policeman to make extra money. For example, a policeman can take bribes from drug dealers to ignore them. Actually, such a policeman is actually behaving honestly, because the laws criminalizing certain drugs are immoral.

Police, lawyers, and doctors earn huge salaries due to State violence. It is necessary to continuously present them as heroic, lest people become aware of the scam.

Taxation is a Type of Slavery

I've repeatedly said "Taxation is theft!" Another closely related idea is "Taxation is slavery!"

Some pro-State trolls get very hostile when you say "Taxation is slavery!" They say it's wrong to compare the current system of tax/debt slavery to a system of pure chattel slavery.

A pure chattel slave has absolutely no rights. They don't have any choice about how and where they work, live, eat, etc. A modern-day tax slave has a certain limited illusion of freedom.

If those were my only two choices, I'd prefer the current system of tax/debt slavery to a system of pure chattel slavery. That doesn't mean that the current system isn't a form of slavery. I'm less abused than chattel slaves were in the past, but that doesn't make my current circumstances morally acceptable.

If given the choice, I'd prefer a real free market system to the current system of tax slavery. Of course, a pro-State troll says that I'm not allowed to have that choice. A pro-State troll says that taxes/tribute are a necessary cost of modern life, and I'm free-riding off the other slaves if I refuse to pay. If I disobey my master, I must be punished.

A pro-State troll says "Comparing the income tax to slavery is insulting to former slaves!" First, there aren't any former chattel slaves currently alive (at least in the USA). Second, saying "X is as evil as Y" is not the same as saying "Y is not evil".

In some ways, tax slavery is more evil than chattel slavery. A chattel slave knows he's a slave. The chains of tax slavery are much more subtle. Thanks to pro-State brainwashing, most people aren't consciously aware that they are tax slaves.

Taxes are automatically deducted from your paycheck. Taxes are automatically added to the price when you buy something. This makes the cost of tax slavery less visible. There are indirect hidden taxes like half of Social Security and unemployment insurance, where your employer pays the cost but it doesn't show up as a payroll deduction. The effect of the tax is still that it reduces salaries; the cost of the tax comes out of the money available for salaries. The cost of regulation compliance and State licensing requirements is a further tax. For example, State licensing requirements for doctors is a huge tax on medical care. Even though my employer pays for my health insurance, the cost of medical insurance comes out of money that would otherwise be available for salaries. People don't just pay income taxes; they also pay the cost of keeping records and making sure they pay the correct amount of tax.

A modern tax slave has many more choices than a chattel slave. However, the master says "You can choose any job you want, provided you give half of everything you produce to me!" You might say "What a generous master! He lets me choose my own job! If I work hard, I get paid more and get a better lifestyle!"

Suppose that, in a pure chattel slavery system, I performed work worth $5/hour. My master gets $5/hour, minus the expenses of my food and shelter. In a modern tax slavery system, with 50% a income taxation rate, I work on my skills and get a job that pays $30/hour. My master gets $15/hour. I pay the cost of my food and shelter out of the $15/hour I get to keep.

Suppose I work really hard and get a better job that pays $40/hour. Now, my master gets $20/hour. I'm still better off, because now I get an extra $5/hour. My master doesn't mind that I got a better job, because he's getting an even bigger cut. Even though I'm paying hefty tribute to my master, there's still an incentive for me to work hard. My master didn't have to pay the cost of me learning new skills.

Which system is better for the master? Obviously, the master is getting a *MUCH* better deal by providing me with a limited illusion of freedom. In the pure chattel slavery system, my master only got $5/hour. There was no incentive for me to learn how to be a better worker. In the tax slavery system, my master gets $15/hour, and he doesn't even have to pay the expenses of my food and shelter. If I become a more efficient worker, then my master gets a bigger cut.

Also, a limited free market system allows my labor to be assigned more efficiently. If I were a chattel slave working for X, but Y could use my skills more efficiently, then the only way that I could change jobs is if X sells me to Y. In a partially free labor market, X can advertise a job paying $30/hour and Y can advertise a job paying $40/hour. When I interview with Y and get the job, I'm allocating my labor more efficiently.

Also remember that, in a tax/wage slavery system, my salary is only part of the wealth I produce. If my salary is $30/hour, then my labor is probably worth $45-$60/hour or more to my employer. State restriction of the market makes it hard for me to form my own competing business. This isn't just compensation to my employer for the risk of operating a business. My master makes it hard for me to start my own competing business. In addition to his fair profit, my employer collects economic rent due to State restriction of the market. My employer also pays the cost of all the artificial State overhead associated with running a business.

A partially free market labor system is much more efficient at assigning slaves to jobs than in a chattel slavery system. If I were a really smart chattel slave, I would have no opportunity to improve myself. If I'm a really smart tax slave, I have opportunities to learn things and get a better job. In turn, this leads to more profits for my master. The fact that I'm given a limited opportunity to improve my circumstances helps hide the fact that I'm a tax slave.

If I'm a really diligent slave, I can start my own business. I still have to pay tribute to my master via taxes. My master has an army of spies and armed thugs that crack down on people who try to start a business without his permission (the IRS and FBI). A partially free market means that, if I have a good business idea and work hard, I can create a lot of new wealth. My master doesn't mind, because he gets a cut. The rules of the market are biased against small business owners, but if I work hard and am intelligent, I can succeed in spite of these obstacles. That doesn't mean that my master isn't restricting my actions.

I have a limited illusion of freedom. My master doesn't have to worry about me getting a job as President, Congressman, or CEO. Those jobs are reserved for insiders and people who are totally brainwashed pro-State trolls. Occasionally, some slave who's an excellent pro-State troll is allowed to rise to a position of influence. That just helps preserve the illusion that I'm not a slave. A pro-State troll says "Some people manage to get great jobs in spite of poor beginnings. Therefore, the economic system is fair." You also need to analyze the opposite statement "People who are children of insiders usually get a job where they can profit from State violence."

The income tax means that I don't own my own labor. I have to get permission from the financial industry, Federal Reserve, and the government whenever I work. I can't perform any on-the-books economic activity, without reporting it to my master.

The property tax means that I don't own my own house. I have to keep paying rent (property taxes), or my master will dispatch armed thugs to steal my house.

The inflation tax means that I don't own my own savings. The purchasing power of the money in my checking account and my wallet is continuously eroded via inflation. I can buy gold or silver to protect myself, but my master makes it hard for me to buy gold and silver.

There are all sorts of other taxes and regulations I must obey. My master imposes his influence on nearly every aspect of my life. For example, zoning laws mean that I have to spend 2 hours per day commuting to work. My master says that I'm not allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs. My master says that I can't buy food with trans-fats in it. My master says that I'm not allowed to buy raw milk.

I don't own my own labor. I don't own land. I don't own the money in my checking account. I must obey my master's stupid orders at nearly every turn. How can anyone say that I'm not a slave?

The details of tax slavery are much more carefully obfuscated than those of chattel slavery. A chattel slave sees the whip and chain almost all the time. A tax slave only sees armed thugs assaulting him when he disobeys the rules regarding taxation or regulations. The vast majority of tax slaves don't resist, so my master only needs to hire a relatively small army of armed thugs. Under chattel slavery, the slaves must be supervised all the time.

Via pro-State brainwashing, most tax slaves aren't consciously aware that they are slaves. They've been brainwashed to accept tax slavery as the highest possible form of human society. Most people are trapped in the invisible chains of their own pro-State brainwashing. They'll even get hostile if you try to explain the truth to them! It's a form of "Stateholm Syndrome", where the slave will aggressively defend his master from criticism.

Tax slavery gives me certain limited freedoms that a chattel slave doesn't have. That doesn't make tax slavery morally acceptable!

Modern tax slavery is better/different/worse than slavery systems of the past. Tax slavery is better than chattel slavery, because I do have some freedom. Under chattel slavery, I couldn't read on the Internet and learn about real free market economics. Tax slavery is worse than chattel slavery, because the chains are more subtle. I'm restricted by the fact that everyone around me is a clueless pro-State troll. Under a chattel slavery system, I might be able to convince my fellow slaves to run away or stage a revolt. Under a tax slavery system, it's much harder to convince my fellow slaves that they're getting a raw deal. It's more accurate to say that tax slavery is a different form of slavery than chattel slavery, rather than saying it's better or worse.

A tax slave is a much more productive slave than a chattel slave. This leads to a somewhat higher quality of life for the tax slave, compared to the chattel slave. However, this also leads to more tribute for the master! Under a tax slavery system with a 50% income taxation rate, if I'm twice as productive, that doubles the resources available to my master. When you consider indirect hidden taxes, taxation rates are much greater than 50%. Because tax slaves are so productive, this enables the master to construct more and more elaborate chains! Some people say that insiders are wrecking the US economy on purpose, so that the slaves will be trapped in tighter chains of debt/tax slavery. People have too much freedom right now, and therefore the economy must be forcibly shrunk.

Did insiders switch from a system of chattel slavery to tax slavery because they wanted to give people a better life? Did someone realize that by giving the slaves a limited illusion of freedom, they're more productive? Was it merely a historic accident that people in the USA used to have more freedom than those in other countries?

A mixed system of tax slavery and chattel slavery is unstable, as was the case in the USA until the Civil War. Some of the tax slaves were sympathetic to the interests of the chattel slaves. People who owned chattel slaves wanted different laws than people who didn't own chattel slaves. It was necessary to free the chattel slaves, in order to ensure that everyone remained a tax slave.

One obvious question is "If everyone's a slave, then who are the masters?" The high-ranking members of the parasite class are the masters. The masters are the banksters and CEOs and politicians and the insiders who are pulling the strings. They collect huge salaries, without doing any real work. Even they are slaves of their own pro-State brainwashing. Even insiders would be better off in a true free market system, compared to the current corrupt system. The extra wealth generated by a really free market would more than offset the value of perks lost by insiders. For example, the average person today has access to many things that a king would have envied 400 years ago; the switch to a real free market will be an even greater advance.

In a true free market, insiders would lose their ability to violently impose their will on everyone else; that's a perk they won't voluntarily surrender. Is there a Supreme Leader of Humanity who's secretly pulling the strings? Or, are humans so stupid that they collectively enslaved themselves without being aware of what they did? Even high-ranking members of the parasite class are slaves, because they mostly believe their own lies. Most parasites think "I'm a brilliant leader and risk taker!" rather than "I'm leeching off the rest of society via State violence!"

Even though I have better living conditions than chattel slaves in the past, that doesn't mean that my current conditions are morally acceptable. Once you realize "Taxation is theft!", it's obvious that taxation is a form of slavery. The same moral principle that allows a 1% taxation rate allows a 99% taxation rate. Once State enforcers have the power to violently collect taxes, they will consolidate and expand their power over time. I pay 50% in direct taxes on everything I produce. I pay a greater cost via indirect hidden taxes. If you add up all the indirect hidden taxes, your total taxation rate is actually 75%-95% or even 99%+.

Some people get offended when I say "Taxation is slavery!" Tax slavery isn't exactly the same as chattel slavery. For all practical purposes, a tax slave is a slave. Do people get offended by "Taxation is slavery!" because it's obvious nonsense? Or, do they get offended because it points at a hidden truth? People get much more offended by hidden truths than they get offended by statements that are obvious nonsense.

Corporate Welfare for China

This article was interesting.

The Federal government has set up various taxpayer-backed investment funds comprised of "toxic" mortgage bonds. China's government is investing $2B of its dollar reserves in that fund. This is only a tiny slice of China's $200B "sovereign wealth fund".

These "sovereign wealth funds" are owned by China and oil-exporting countries stuck with huge dollar reserves. It's disturbing that the primary investor in US corporations is the US government and other governments. This is an example of corporations being literally branches of the State.

Both China's government and the US federal government are contributing money to that investment, but all of the profits will go to China's government. Also, a US investment firm will earn commissions on the transaction.

China is getting a slice of the bailout pie. It is necessary to give some bailout money to China, lest they complain they're getting ripped off on their dollar reserves.

These bailouts and corporate welfare arrangements aren't free. They're paid by everyone else as higher inflation or higher taxes.

Is Jon Stewart Stuck in 2008?

I noticed this article on thedailypaul. They were complaining that people like Jon Stewart are misleading liberals down the path of Statism, and people like Glenn Beck are misleading conservatives down the path of Statism.

That's an important trick. Liberalism and conservatism are presented as false opposites, as a distraction from "Who needs a government anyway?"

Both liberals and conservatives believe "Taxation is not theft!" and "Having a government with a violence monopoly is a good idea!" On the only political issue that matters, liberals and conservatives give the same pro-State troll answer.

Lately, I've been getting frustrated watching Jon Stewart. He's still doing Bush and Cheney jokes! It's time to let that go. There's plenty of stupid things Obama is doing.

It's frustrating to watch Jon Stewart toe the Statist party line on health care reform and the carbon credit law. He says that the healthcare reform proposal and carbon tax laws are wonderful.

Jon Stewart is giving Obama a free pass, which is annoying. There's plenty of stupid things that Obama is doing that he could be ridiculing. Instead, Jon Stewart is criticizing Obama's critics, rather than Obama's stupid policies.

Lately, when I watch The Daily Show, I think "I could make a better show than this garbage!" I'm going to try to self-publish something via a vlog in a few years. I'm not going to self-censor in the hope that a mainstream media program will carry my content.

Are the GLD and SLV ETFs a Fraud?

I liked this article, on SeekingAlpha via Yahoo Finance. Someone did a careful audit of the records for the SLV ETF that tracks silver. He found numerous irregularities that are a symptom of fraud.

They found that there were several bars with the same serial number claimed multiple times as part of the fund's inventory. They found duplicate serial numbers for 11.77% (!) of SLV's holdings, and 0.4619% of ETFS (another silver ETF).

How did the authors get such records? I thought they weren't publicly available?

That article only analyzed SLV. I suspect that an audit of GLD would yield similar conclusions.

If GLD and SLV don't have as much physical silver as they claim, then they are committing fraud. In effect, the fund managers are secretly practicing fractional reserve banking. As long as all shareholders don't simultaneously demand redemption, the scam can continue.

This fraud explains why the price of gold and silver aren't rising, even though people are buying. If funds like GLD and SLV are secretly practicing fractional reserve banking, then they aren't buying enough physical metal to correspond with fund purchases. People are buying shares of a mutual fund thinking they're buying the metal, when they're really buying into what's essentally the early stages of a Ponzi scam.

It wasn't clear what the actual percentage discrepancy was. For a reputable financial firm, *ANY* nonzero discrepancy is too much.

The article gave the correct conclusion. "Don't trust SLV or GLD. If you want to invest in gold or silver, buy and take physical delivery!"

Free Markets Are Not Chaos

A lot of people say "Government is needed to preserve order! An unrestricted free market would be a disaster!" The fallacy is that most problems are due to pre-existing restriction of the market.

For example, the comedians on the Communism channel say "The free market banking system failed during the recent housing bubble!" It is ridiculous to say that the USA has a free market banking system. A central bank credit monopoly is the exact opposite of a free market. Booms and busts are caused by negative real interest rates and central bank manipulation of the interest rate market. The State-manipulated interest rate sends a false price signal that investment is attractive. This causes asset bubbles followed by a bust.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The Federal Reserve was 100% responsible for the Great Depression and the recent housing bubble. Greedy speculators in the "free market" are blamed, but negative real interest rates made their speculation seem desirable. With negative real interest rates, there's an incentive to borrow as much as you can. To stop hyperinflation, the Federal Reserve insiders must eventually raise interest rates and cause a recession. A central bank credit monopoly gives insiders the power to scientifically create inflationary booms and deflationary recessions/depressions.

Even before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there was not a free market. A regulated banking industry forced backs to operate under corrupt fractional reserve principles. Limited liability incorporation gave an incentive for bank owners and management to behave dishonestly. They could always declare bankruptcy to cheat depositors. Instead of blaming regulated fractional reserve banking and limited liability incorporation, the free market was blamed. The net result was the creation of the Federal Reserve, which nearly completely destroyed any semblance of a free market. A central bank credit monopoly concentrates economic power in the hands of the people who get to print and spend brand new money.

As another example, California's energy "deregulation" was roundly decried as a disaster. However, it was merely different regulation and not deregulation. A fully deregulated energy market would allow anyone to lay their own wires and build a power plant. What actually happened is that lobbyists from corporations like Enron wrote the deregulation law. Then, insiders exploited defects in the law that they themselves wrote.

Contrast buying a pizza to renewing your driver's license. Ordering a pizza is pretty easy. If it took 2 hours to get a pizza, then you would go to another store next time. When you get your driver's license, you have no choice but to go to the State. State employees have no incentive for speed and efficiency.

Markets provide order, by allowing competition. States are chaos, because of the violence monopoly and related monopolies. In a market, you receive feedback based on your profits and if you're gaining or losing customers. The State has an absolute monopoly. State agents receive no market feedback based on whether they're doing a great job or a lousy job. A State bureaucrat is evaluated based on how well he conforms to the bureaucracy, and not on whether he does something actually useful.

A pro-State troll says "Government is needed to protect the environment! Without government, greedy businessmen would pollute!" Actually, the reverse occurs. Via sovereign immunity, executives at a corporation are immune from personal liability if they commit misconduct.

Suppose you discover that a nearby factory is polluting land that you own. Your only recourse is to sue them in a State court. This will cost millions of dollars and take years. Even then, there is no guarantee that you will win. You might find that you spent millions of dollars in legal fees, only to lose on a technicality. The laws and procedures for a pollution lawsuit were written by executives at large corporations. Executives at the corporation can use many delaying tactics to drag out the lawsuit.

Even if you do win a lawsuit, the damages are usually limited to the cost of a cleanup. Punitive damages are capped. "Tort reform" is the result of lobbying by executives at large corporations. If damages are limited to the cost of cleanup, then the incentive is to not take precaution against pollution.

Even if you do win a lawsuit, the executives are not personally liable. You are suing the corporation, and not the executives responsible for the pollution. Via sovereign immunity, the executives are immune from personal liability. Even worse, the corporation whose employees polluted may have later declared bankruptcy. Then, you have no recourse at all.

As the above example indicates, the State actually protects people who do bad things. A corrupt legal system means that suing someone takes a lot of money and a lot of time. The bad guys lobbied for such restrictions on purpose, as a means of protecting themselves from misconduct. In a free market justice system, trials would usually be cheap and over quickly. If you are a victim, you wouldn't have to worry about spending a fortune to pursue a claim and it taking years.

I was abused by the "mental health" industry. I considered the possibility of filing a lawsuit, but gave up. I couldn't find a lawyer willing to represent me on contingency. I didn't want to waste my own time and money filing a lawsuit, when it's very unlikely that I would win. The State protected the psychiatrists from the negative consequences of their misconduct. The fact that the psychiatrists were brainwashed to believe that they were helping me is not an acceptable excuse.

There are many industries where executives are protected from the consequences of misconduct.

1. Telecommunications corporations have a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. If you are unsatisfied with the local cable monopoly or telephone monopoly, your only recourse is to move. For cell phones, there is limited competition. Due to the State-backed monopoly via spectrum licenses, there isn't much competition.
2. Pharmaceutical corporation executives are immune from misconduct for selling and marketing harmful drugs. Even when there's proof that a drug was harmful and there was a coverup, the executives are immune from personal liability. Damages are usually less than a year of profits from selling a drug later proven to be harmful.
3. As I mentioned above, polluters are protected by the State.
4. If a public school does a lousy job, it's irrelevant. Public schools are guaranteed funding via taxation/theft. Even if you send your children to a private school, you still are forced to pay for public schools via taxes. Due to unions, great teachers and lousy teachers get paid the same. Even though the State bureaucracy forces all teachers to be treated equally, the students usually know who are the bad teachers and who are the good ones.
5. There are lots of stories of police misconduct. They are protected by sovereign immunity. Unless the misconduct is truly egregious, policemen usually get away with it.
6. If you are the victim of a crime, and the police do a lousy job investigating or don't try, you are SOL. Monopolistic State police do not have a positive obligation to protect you. With free market police, they would have a positive obligation to protect their customers, either by preventing crime or collecting compensation from criminals afterwards. Even if police catch the criminal, they don't have an obligation to reimburse you for your loss. In a criminal trial, it's "State vs. criminal" and not "victim vs. criminal".
7. Financial industry profits are backed 100% by State violence. Even when the banksters cause a deflationary depression, the rules of the monetary system mean they must get a State bailout.
8. Lobbying the State for favors is immoral. Favors sought by lobbyists are generally considered legal, unless misconduct is particularly flagrant.
   

A pro-State troll says "A free market is total chaos!" One example of a working free market system is the Internet. The only State-controlled aspect is the way that IP addresses are allocated and the way that domain names are allocated. Other than that, it's a nearly completely free market. Unfortunately, the Internet is coming under increasing regulation in many countries. Too many businesses depend on the Internet now; it isn't going away. The bad guys are starting to recognize that the Internet is a threat to their scam. If you connect a computer to the Internet and follow the protocols, it works. If your computer misbehaves, there are a group of network administrators who circulate a list of miscreants and your computer will be banned. These administrators have no force of law, but their decisions are nearly universally respected.

One example of network administrators banning computers was the recent AT&T block of 4chan. That was due to a misbehaving server at that IP address, and not motivated by censorship. Even though there was a lot of hype surrounding the ban, the administrators at AT&T behaved correctly if there really was a misbehaving computer.

In a free market, people can do whatever they think is needed. The State prevents this process from occurring. In a free market, a rational person might say "Doctors are overpaid! I'm pretty intelligent so I'll go work as a doctor!" The AMA licensing cartel restricts the supply of doctors. If I decided to go to medical school and get a State doctor license, then that means that someone else doesn't get a license. If I go work as a State-licensed doctor, that accomplishes nothing to solve the shortage of doctors. The skill of "able to get into medical school" probably is only loosely correlated with "would make a good doctor". For example, many schools have a policy of admitting you if one of your parents attended that school. This means that, if one of your parents is a doctor, then it's easier for you to become a doctor.

By creating artificial barriers to industry X, the State reduces quality and increases prices in industry X. I can't experiment with working part-time as a taxi driver or experiment part-time with a food sales business. In order to drive a taxi in NYC, I must purchase a medallion license. In order to legally sell food, my kitchen must pass "food safety" regulations, which requires a huge capital investment.

"Consumer safety" regulations actually reduce consumer quality and choice. If there's a regulation that's too strict, then the costs are merely passed on to customers as higher prices. If the regulation is too lenient, then executives will say "I obeyed the safety regulation!" and point to that as evidence that they did nothing wrong. Of course, most regulations are written by executives/lobbyists/insiders. An executive at a large corporation likes regulations, because they hurt smaller competitors more than large corporations.

As another example, I can't say "Ford and GM are incredibly inefficient. I'll start my own car manufacturing business." Government regulations make a small car manufacturing business unprofitable.

Since I know "Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!", that technically makes me an anarchist. I prefer to call myself "agorist" or "someone who supports really free markets". The mainstream media usually labels anarchists as fools, so I prefer to use a different word to describe myself.

People are brainwashed to believe "If you don't like the government, your only alternatives are to destroy property, protest, or murder State agents." When the mainstream media covers someone who's an anarchist, they're usually doing such stupid activity. Destroying property is stupid for several reasons. First, it creates sympathy for the State. People say "The State is needed to crack down on those stupid anarchists!" Second, all property already belongs to the State, via property taxes. A residential apartment building belongs to the State as much as a police station. Anybody working in an on-the-books job is a State employee as much as policeman or soldier. Third, destroying property is a violation of the non-Aggression principle. Most State agents are unaware that they're participants in a massive crime. You're only morally justified defending yourself when police come to kidnap or assault you. By then, it's too late, due to the State's superior resources. You can't withstand a seige by State agents. You're surrounded while the policeman are collecting a paycheck and get to go home when their shift is over. Finally, the State's resources are just too superior. Even if you did successfully destroy property and avoid capture, the State can easily replace it. If one State enforcer dies, another is eager to take his place.

Destroying property and protesting might make a fool feel good. Ultimately, those tactics accomplish nothing. The number of people who know that government is a massive criminal conspiracy are completely outnumbered by the pro-State trolls. That makes stealth tactics more useful than a direct confrontation.

It's pointless to use violence to directly confront the State. The State specializes in violence! Even if you're 5x-10x as good as the mercenary State police, you're still totally outnumbered. If you're determined to be a threat, then the bad guys will just surround and siege you. It is profitable to crack down on the occasional freedom seeker, because the vast majority of slaves pay their taxes/tribute without resiting.

The correct solution is to boycott all the stupid laws and taxes. Agorists should build free market alternatives to the State. In a true free market, it's very easy to do the right thing. Just do what is necessary. You can look at market prices as a signal for what work is considered desirable.

In the present, State restriction of the market prevents people from communicating about what work needs to be done. When careers have State licensing requirements, that prevents people from looking at wages and deciding what job to pursue. When the State tampers with the interest rate market, that prevents people from planning for the future. Interest rates represent the price of work in the present relative to work in the future. Interest rates send a price signal about what investments are desirable.

In a real free market, people will figure out what needs to be done and do it. Government prevents this arbitrage process from occurring. Government protects the bad guys from negative consequences for misconduct. Most of the evils in the world are directly or indirectly attributable to government. Most of the positive inventions and goods are due to the free market. A pro-State troll says "Computers were invented while the State existed. Therefore, the State is wonderful!" That is false reasoning. The rate of invention probably would be greater without the State, but you can't prove it unless you perform an experiment. One of the reasons that computers, software, and the Internet progress so rapidly is that the electronics/software industry is nearly completely unregulated.

It's possible that, in an unregulated medical industry, the quality of medical care would increase by the same rate as Moore's Law! In the present, progress in medical science is negligible. Most new "cures" are really drugs that suppress the symptoms, rather than genuinely treating disease. The business model for the pharmaceutical industry causes drugs to be promoted/regulated ahead of other types of medicine.

The market in the USA is becoming less free rather than more free. Via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", the answer is always more power to the State. This is the virtuous path towards complete economic collapse.

The Absolutely Smallest Political Quiz

I see this site frequently cited. It's called the world's smallest political quiz. I realized that it's possible to write a smaller and more accurate quiz. My quiz has only one question.

Question: Should there be a government?

If you click on "Yes.", then your political classification is "Brainwashed Idiot".
If you click on "No.", then you qualify as having more political awareness than 99.9% of the world's population.

If Blogger supported it, I'd code it up as html. That has to wait until I get my own site.

Notice that "the world's smallest political quiz" has a bias. "Anarchist" or "agorist" is not one of the possible conclusions. The most freedom-oriented choice is "libertarian".