August AdBrite Summary

August was a decent month for me. I made $9.31 from AdBrite. I got about 20% more traffic compared with July *AND* my eCPM rates went up by 50% to around $0.90.

Are rising eCPM rates a sign that the recession is ending? It's hard to say, because most of my AdBrite income comes from one or two spammy CPC ads. I'm looking for ways to get more relevant ads. Both AdSense and AdBrite have lousy ad targeting. At least AdBrite has some non-spammy ads.

I had 5005 Absolute Unique Visitors in August, compared with 3784 in July. That's my highest single month since March 2009. It's still less than my all-time record of 6887 in October 2008.

In term of traffic, my growth seems to have stalled. I've been about flat for a year now. It's hard to say exactly. My blog should be interesting to most members of the Remnant, but it takes awhile to attract an audience.

I'm looking to expand from blogging into other things. It's obvious that blogging isn't going to lead to a full-time income by itself. For now, I'm going to stick with my wage slave job. In a year or two, I'll start looking to expand.

Even if my blogging income were $0, blogging is worth it because I got to polish and refine my ideas.

Why is the Crime Rate in NYC Rising?

As part of Obama's stimulus package, $1B was earmarked to pay for salaries of local police departments.

NYC was declared ineligible, because the crime rate was too low.

A few weeks later, I saw a series of articles saying "Crime rates in NYC are rising!"

I wonder if there's a correlation?

In effect, the NYPD was punished for having crime rates too low.

If you're a State bureaucrat controlling police, paradoxically you *WANT* high crime rates. Then, you can say "Crime rates are too high! Spend more money on police!"

If crime rates are low, people start saying "Crime rates are low. I guess we can cut the police department's budget!"

The problem is that State police have an absolute monopoly. It makes no difference if they are efficient or inefficient. As this story indicates, efficiency is actually punished and inefficiency is rewarded.

Was Michael Jackson Murdered?

If a woman dies in a hospital waiting room, nobody cares. When Michael Jackson died due to inappropriate medical care, it's a big deal.

Michael Jackson's doctor didn't kill him on purpose. It wasn't murder in that sense. Michael Jackson died due to his doctor's negligence.

When I first read this story, my initial reaction was "Michael Jackson's doctor is being unfairly scapegoated." Michael Jackson's doctor probably followed "generally accepted medical practices". The real problem is that "generally accepted medical practices" are defective.

Michael Jackson was addicted to sleeping pills. The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud. Treating a sleeping disorder with drugs masks the symptoms and doesn't cure the underlying problem.

Over time, sleeping pills lose their effectiveness. A bigger and bigger dose is needed for the same effect. Your body starts to compensate for the drugs.

Michael Jackson demanded his doctor give him an injection of a strong sleeping drug. If the doctor refused, then Michael Jackson probably would have fired his doctor and hired another doctor. This injection probably was the cause of death.

Michael Jackson was killed by the cumulative addiction to sleeping drugs over months/years. The injection that killed him was merely the final nail in the coffin. All the doctors who ever prescribed Michael Jackson sleeping pills are partially responsible for his death.

During times of stress, you have trouble sleeping. The correct treatment is to take no drugs at all. Eventually, you will fall asleep due to your own exhaustion.

Already addicted to sleeping pills, Michael Jackson should have stopped taking them altogether. Of course, a doctor would not advise a patient to do that. The withdrawal will be *NASTY*, but quitting cold-turkey is the best way to end an addiction. At low doses, anti-psychotic drugs have different effects, but not zero effects. That's the flaw in the "taper off gradually" solution usually mentioned.

"Generally accepted medical practice" is "Treat an illness with drugs that mask the symptoms!" This is not genuine medicine.

Michael Jackson had a sleeping problem. His doctor was brainwashed that proper treatment is to give the patient drugs. In one sense, the doctor is not responsible, because he was brainwashed; he couldn't tell the difference between drugs and genuine medicine. Everyone is individually responsible for what they do, and so the doctor is responsible. The doctor told Michael Jackson that he was a State-licensed expert, but he really was a fraud. The doctor was unaware of his own foolishness, but that isn't a valid excuse.

If it wasn't a high-profile victim like Michael Jackson, then nobody would have accused the doctor of misconduct. Each year, millions of people are hurt/murdered by inappropriate medical care. It's only an issue in Michael Jackson's case because he's a big celebrity.

Michael Jackson's doctor is blamed. The specific drug he took is blamed. The corrupt system of "Treat illness with drugs!" is not questioned.

If Michael Jackson had been assassinated by someone with a gun, then the public outcry would be "We need stricter gun control laws!" When he dies due to a negligent doctor, the outcry is "Blame the individual doctor! Blame the individual drug!"

That is the way the State propaganda engine works. When the problem is a bad individual, then the solution is to blame individual freedom and pass new laws restricting freedom. When the problem is a corrupt system, then the individual is blamed and not the corrupt system. This evil fnord is repeated over and over again.

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.