Is Joe Wilson a Hero?

This story is interesting. During Obama's speech, Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" My initial reaction was "So what?"

Based on the aftermath and mainstream media backlash, it's obvious that Joe Wilson did something heroic. Almost every article I read was critical of Joe Wilson. The coverage would not have been uniformly severely negative, if Joe Wilson didn't do something important.

As usual, Joe Wilson was forced to apologize. For once, I wish someone would say "I did the right thing! Obama really was lying! I'm not apologizing! I'm not sitting there quietly while the President lies to America!" Why should Joe Wilson be forced to apologize?

The specific issue is irrelevant (healthcare reform and illegal immigrants). The whole "healthcare reform" debate is a lie on both sides. The real issue, restrictive State licensing requirements for doctors, is never mentioned. "Eliminate State licensing requirements for doctors!" or "Increase the supply of doctor licenses!" is not mentioned as a possible solution for decreasing healthcare costs.

It's also interesting to read "Obama accepted Joe Wilson's apology." Translating, Obama said "I know the mainstream media is wrecking your career over this incident. I'm pretending to be the nice guy while everyone else ruins your reputation." An apology has zero economic value, and is irrelevant. The only value of an apology is that the slave is acknowledging the legitimacy of his master.

The mainstream media and Republican Congressmen are closing ranks against Joe Wilson. They're all criticizing him. They're probably kicking him out of the House or forcing him to resign. It's practically certain that Joe Wilson will be forced to resign or won't be reelected in 2010.

"The Strawman Fallacy" is also relevant here. Even if you believe "Joe Wilson should not have interrupted Obama!", that doesn't mean his career should be ruined. Joe Wilson should be evaluated based on his entire career, and not just one incident. This incident illustrates how politicians must continually be careful that they don't accidentally tell the truth, lest their career be ruined. This incident sets an example, in case another Congressman considers telling the truth.

A politician has no useful skills. It's irrelevant if Joe Wilson is replaced with a different pro-State troll. For this reason, any politician who deviates is sacrificed to preserve the scam of the State.

There's an interesting legal loophole I hadn't noticed before. Even if you're an elected Congressmen, the other Congressmen can refuse to seat you. An elected representative can be kicked out of Congress by a majority vote of the other Congressmen. Previously, the Senate was considering invoking that rule over the controversially appointed replacement for Barack Obama's Senate seat.

This article was also interesting. I don't understand how Joe Wilson is being compared to Preston Brooks. In a slavery dispute in 1856, Preston Brooks physically assaulted another Congressman.

Is that how far things have degenerated? Calling someone out as a liar is the same as physically assaulting someone? Physically assaulting someone is an obvious crime. Calling someone a liar is normal human behavior.

The rules for the House require Congressmen to be quiet when the President is speaking. However, those rules are defective. If someone is lying, the correct normal human behavior is to object. Otherwise, you're implicitly accepting the lie by sitting there quietly.

Also, the President speaking is not the same as other public speakers. The President claims the ability to violently impose his will on everyone else. If I give a speech, it's reasonable for me to prevent audience members from disrupting the performance. Even so, I suspect I'll get lots of hecklers if I attempt "Promote agorism via standup comedy!" Also, if I gave a speech, I wouldn't be lying.

Considering the mainstream media backlash against Joe Wilson, it's obvious that he did something heroic. Criticizing the President after a speech is acceptable. Calling him out as a liar during a speech is unacceptable. Why is that?

It's the difference between immediate feedback and delayed feedback. If you give *IMMEDIATE* negative feedback when someone is dishonest, that's correct behavior. If you give delayed negative feedback, that's implicitly accepting the dishonesty. That's an important psychological trick.

The fact that Congressmen sit there quietly while the President lies has a hidden psychological assumption "The President is telling the truth. He's a noble and heroic leader." Joe Wilson broke the trance when he shouted "You lie!" If you don't challenge a dishonest person immediately, you're implicitly accepting the dishonesty.

Consider the following example. Suppose a defense attorney tries explaining jury nullification during a criminal trial. The prosecutor immediately says "I object!" and the judge says immediately "Objection sustained!" and the defense attorney is forced to shut up. Why doesn't the prosecutor wait until it's his turn to speak to complain? The immediate objection has an important psychological effect.

If people started shouting out "You lie!" whenever politicians speak, then the scam would rapidly collapse. A politician is lying whenever his lips are moving. Joe Wilson set a dangerous precedent, calling out the President to his face.

The mainstream media backlash is also implicitly saying "Those people who interrupted 'Town Hall' meetings are scum like Joe Wilson."

Isn't accusing the President of lying the correct behavior for a Congressman? Even if the criticism later turns out to be wrong, it shouldn't be wrong to suggest the issue in the first place.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone had accused President Bush and his assistants of lying before the Iraq war in 2003?

The President is a noble and heroic leader, even if you disagree with his policies. That farce must be maintained at all costs, because the President is the public face of the State. Calling out the President as a liar shatters the myth that "The President is a noble and heroic leader!" All Congressmen are part of the scam, merely by sitting there quietly as he speaks.

Joe Wilson set a dangerous precedent, publicly calling out the President as a liar to his face. He gave immediate and direct feedback, rather than delayed indirect feedback. Immediate direct feedback has much greater psychological effect than delayed indirect feedback. Joe Wilson broke the trance of the President's speech. For that, Joe Wilson must be punished.

Where's the Sugar?

Allegedly, there's a sugar shortage.

Due to lobbying by US sugar farmers, there's a cap on imported sugar. It's not a tariff, but an explicit cap (effectively an infinite-percent tariff).

Now, US food manufacturers have a problem. There's a shortage of sugar!

Due to another stupid law, a lot of corn is now used for ethanol. This leads to a shortage of "high-fructose corn syrup".

This "shortage" is entirely created by the State protectionist policy. Sugar prices in the USA are higher than prices outside the USA.

A pro-State troll says "Import quotas are good. That's encouraging farming in the USA."

The fallacy is that, without the import quota, the sugar farmers would be less profitable. The artificially high price for sugar encourages them to grow sugar instead of something else. It's the usual "seen vs. unseen" fallacy. People pay the cost of the State policy via higher prices for sugar. You don't see the things that the sugar farmers would be making instead.

For example, it might be more efficient to grow and export wheat and buy sugar, than to grow sugar. The State causes market inefficiency.

Also, the skyrocketing sugar price could partially/mostly be due to money supply inflation. Other causes than money supply inflation are always blamed for price inflation.

Technically, food manufacturers don't mind high sugar prices. With a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly, they merely pass the cost on to customers as higher prices. However, they need to explain the sudden higher prices to customers.

Shortages do not occur in a really free market. State restriction of the market is necessary to create shortages. The sugar farmers are receiving a massive State subsidy via the import cap. They can always profitably lobby to block reform.

Rand Paul Runs for US Senate

Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, announced that he is running for the US Senate in Kentucky. The incumbent Republican candidate is very unpopular, and will not get reelected. The incumbent isn't running for reelection.

A lot of people on the Ron Paul discussion forums are supporting Rand Paul's efforts to run for the US Senate. Unless you live in Kentucky, you don't get to vote in that election.

That illustrates a flaw with district-based winner-take-all voting. Suppose that 10% of the people living in the USA believe "Rand Paul would make a good Senator!". That's irrelevant. Rand Paul needs a majority/plurality in Kentucky to win. Of course, all elections are illegitimate, but this is a specific defect in the US voting system.

If you don't live in Kentucky, you may still donate money to his campaign. A lot of donations plus the name recognition is a huge boost for Rand Paul.

It'll be interesting to see how the mainstream media spins his campaign. Ron Paul and Rand Paul have sufficient popularity that the bad guys probably won't be able to completely ignore his campaign.

The Republican party fundraising engine is uniting in support for Rand Paul's opponent in the Republican primary.

Rand Paul seems to share most political viewpoints with his father. I read that he isn't as good a speaker as Ron Paul.

In some ways, Ron Paul is an advocate for freedom, and in some ways Ron Paul is a pro-State troll.

Ron Paul raises awareness for "The Federal Reserve is evil!", "The income tax is evil!", and "Big government is evil!" Some of his supporters have gotten disgusted and are moving towards agorism. Some of Ron Paul's supporters are understanding "All taxation is theft! Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!"

However, Ron Paul is also a pro-State troll. Ron Paul says "It would be nice if the government strictly followed the limits of the Constitution!" instead of "The US Constitution has no legitimacy at all!" Ron Paul says "Taxes should be lower and government should be smaller!" instead of "All taxation is theft! All government is terrorism!"

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are statists. If you wear the colors, you're part of the gang. As a Congressman, Ron Paul is responsible for all the bad things that government does, even if he votes against most bad laws.

Ron Paul knows that if he says "Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!", then no mainstream media outlet will cover him as news. He adopts self-censorship so he can be taken seriously. Is Ron Paul intentionally self-censoring? Or, is he still struggling with his pro-State brainwashing? Either way, it's disappointing to see people like Ron Paul coming so close to the truth but falling short.

Ron Paul's message of "Big government is evil!" is a prerequisite to "Who needs a government anyway?" When people learn about partial incomplete versions of the truth, that opens a path for someone to say the full truth. Ron Paul is pushing the "debate ceiling", the limit of permissible debate. He's the only mainstream politician that criticizes the Federal Reserve and income tax, even though "They are unconstitutional!" is a much weaker criticism than "They are immoral!"

It'd be nice to see Rand Paul get elected, but I'm not wasting time supporting him or donating money. Reform will not occur by voting. Raising awareness for evils of the State is still beneficial.

"The State completely collapses!" seems far more likely than "The State will be reformed!"

Minarchists Are Stupid

I liked this post on Anarchy in Your Head making fun of minarchists. However, he wasn't critical enough.

I also liked this post, where he says that a good solution is to try to convince one person at a time "The State is evil!" That post has one big error:

I am not proposing an alternative to your minarchist system.

There is an alternative to a minarchist system. This is agorism. All services currently provided monopolistically by government would be more efficiently provided by multiple competing vendors in a true free market.

If you ask a socialist "Should there be a government?", they will answer "Yes!" If you ask a minarchist "Should there be a government?", they will answer "Yes!" On the only political question that matters, socialists and minarchists give the same answer.

Who is more dangerous, a socialist or a minarchist? Socialism is obviously stupid, especially if you're a skilled intelligent worker. Why should a skilled intelligent worker let everyone else leech their productivity? That makes socialism and communism obviously stupid. The net effect would be that skilled workers lower their productivity to match the average of everyone, a net loss for society as a whole.

Minarchism represents an intellectual trap. A minarchist argues that government is necessary. What is needed is precautions to keep government small.

The fallacy is that a government always includes taxation power and a violence monopoly. A government must have a violence monopoly; otherwise, people would refuse to pay taxes. With a violence monopoly and a taxation/economic monopoly, then the evil power of the State will grow over time. Even if State employees are initially all saints, eventually someone evil will work their way into a position of authority and the descent begins.

Further, power without accountability is very corrupting. Suppose you place someone in a position of influence but there's no accountability if they steal or fail. That will turn someone into a parasite, even if they weren't beforehand.

The insiders who controlled the original US Federal government were not saints. They were concerned that people were getting too free. Under the Articles of Confederation, individuals had too much freedom because the government was too weak. Insiders formed the Federal government to consolidate and expand their power. As a concession to the Anti-Federalist faction, they put a lot of restrictions on State power in the Constitution. Over time, all the provisions that protect personal freedom have been eroded. The net result is the current mess.

Even if it were possible to return to a sharply limited government, it would rapidly degenerate into the current mess again. Minarchism is failed and discredited. It's time to try something else.

If you evaluate the (L)libertarian/minarchist movement as a for-profit business trying to reduce the size of the government, it's been a complete failure.

The danger of minarchist propaganda is that it doesn't challenge your pro-State brainwashing. There are many false beliefs that a minarchist can have, but not a true anarchist/agorist.

1. There's a valid social contract that requires everyone to obey it. Individuals are obligated based on where they are born. They don't have the right to withdraw their consent for the State.
2. Taxes aren't theft.
3. A State violence monopoly isn't evil.
4. People are intrinsically evil. Therefore, a government is needed.
5. The most evil people are magically prevented from working for the government. Government workers are blessed with goodness, while everyone else is evil.
   
6. Government would work, if only the people in charge weren't so evil. A fundamentally corrupt system is legitimate.

Minarchism is attractive to people who realize "Big government is evil!", but don't want to challenge their pro-State brainwashing.

If I were the Supreme Leader of Humanity and had evil intentions, I would invent something like Libertarianism and minarchism. Minarchism is an intellectual distraction. People cling to minarchism, instead of realizing the truth, which is "Who needs a government anyway?" Once you understand "Taxation is theft!", you realize that all forms of monopolistic government are immoral.

It's easy to convince an intelligent person that socialism is stupid. Official State propaganda in the USA includes "Socialism is stupid! Free markets are good!", without mentioning that the USA is a nearly perfect Communist dicatorship.

It's much harder to convince someone that minarchism is stupid. You can't accomplish that without also cracking their pro-State brainwashing. Most people get hostile when confronted with ideas that challenge their pro-State brainwashing. People move towards minarchism and away from really free markets, because they don't want to admit that they've been conned.

Minarchism is evil because it's an intellectual distraction. If the philosophy of minarchism did not exist, then it would be easier to convince people "Who needs a government anyway?" Minarchism holds out the false hope that the State can be reformed. Minarchism distracts people from "The State is evil!"

Parasites probably intentionally invented minarchism as a distraction from agorism. The Libertarian party was originally an anarchist movement, but it was corrupted into a minarchist movement.

Robert Kahre vs. Terrorism

This article was interesting.

Robert Kahre paid his employees using gold and silver State-issued coins. A 1-ounce State-issued gold coin has a face amount of $50. A 1-ounce State-issued silver coin has a face amount of $1. He valued the transaction at the face amount, and not the fair market value. Because the face amount was so low, it was under the IRS reporting threshold.

He was exploiting the contradiction that State-issued gold and silver coins have a legal tender value that's far below their fair market value.

The IRS then accused him and his employees of income tax evasion. There was a trial, which ended in some acquittals and some hung verdicts.

The IRS prosecutors re-tried him after the hung jury. After a hung jury, the bad guys get a mulligan, and may try again. In the meantime, the victim has to pay the time and expense of a trial. His business was interrupted because terrorists seized his property.

In the re-trial, the State prosecutors/terrorists probably made sure they picked a complacent jury. They probably rehearsed their propaganda, for why Kahre was a dangerous person who belonged in jail.

In the re-trial, the victim isn't allowed to say "Hey! There already was a trial on this issue and it was a hung jury! Why are you wasting my time?!" In a re-trial, you're barred from mentioning that there was a previous hung jury on the same issue.

Some people look for clever legal loopholes to escape the income tax. The bad guys will always look to close the loopholes. Looking for clever legal loopholes around the income tax is fighting the bad guys on their turf.

Robert Kahre was also accused of accounting fraud. When he paid his employees, he used the face amount of the coins. When he purchased the coins, he charged it as an expense to his corporation based on the fair market value. This inconsistent accounting might be the reason the IRS won their case. If you incorporate your business, you're voluntarily entering it into the taxation system. A true agorist should have unincorporated businesses.

Even if Robert Kahre were acquitted, the IRS can still prosecute other people for doing the same thing.

Robert Kahre had an incorporated business. By paying in gold and silver, he avoided the 1099 reporting requirement. What if his business was not incorporated, and transactions were 100% off-the-books? I suspect that the State terrorists would still have assaulted him. I don't know any examples of people practicing larger-scale agorism.

Robert Kahre was in the construction industry. The construction industry is heavily regulated by the State. It's probably illegal/impractical to operate an agorist construction business. On the other hand, it could be a "volunteer" group like "Habitat for Humanity"; the workers get paid off-the-books but they're legally volunteers.

Even if Robert Kahre were acquitted, he's still the victim of terrorism. He doesn't get compensated for the time and expense and stress of a trial. He doesn't get reimbursed for his legal expenses. State thugs confiscated his property and disrupted his business. Even if acquitted in a criminal trial, the bad guys may still pursue a civil trial to collect their tribute. Even if acquitted, the bad guys succeeded in wasting a lot of Kahre's time and money.

In the re-trial, Kahre was found guilty.

As lengthy sheets of guilty verdicts were read, Kahre's longtime girlfriend Danille Cline sobbed, putting her head against him.

Three jurors were observed crying, too. Some spectators, sitting on the defense side of the full courtroom, also were in tears.

If the jurors were crying, then why did they find him guilty? Didn't they were understand that they were giving the defendant a lifetime jail sentence by voting guilty? Didn't they realize they had the option of voting "not guilty"?

Criminal penalties for income tax evasion are terrorism. Why didn't Kahre's attorney argue "If you believe he owes back taxes, then file a civil lawsuit. Criminal penalties for income tax evasion are terrorism!"? Of course, if Kahre's attorney made such an argument, he would have been found in "contempt of court" and forfeited his law license. For that reason, a skilled agorist should represent themselves sui juris, when harassed by the State.

I'm a skilled speaker, and could explain my viewpoint better than any State-licensed attorney. Even if the prosecutor picks 12 pro-State trolls as jurors, I might be able to convince them over a trial that lasts several weeks.

It's a problem. 50% of the population has the parasitic personality type. If the State prosecutor picks a jury of 12 parasites, then a defendant is SOL. If the jury has 9 parasites and 3 people with the productive personality type, then the 3 might not be willing to confront the 9 and hold out for an acquittal vote.

He faces up to 296 years in prison and fines of up to $14 million, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

The disproportionately harsh sentence is obviously evil. Each count of tax evasion is considered a separate crime, rather than it being just one crime. "One separate crime for each act of tax evasion!" is a trick that the bad guys use to give freedom seekers unreasonably huge jail terms. If he paid his employees in marijuana, he probably wouldn't have gone to jail that long.

Another interesting bit is that the mainstream media doesn't cover this story, except as a footnote or to say "HAHAHA!! That scumbag Kahre got what he deserved!"

Here's a few more interesting links on Kahre.

GOLD: the money of Kings

BARTER: the money of Peasants

DEBT: the money of SLAVES

That's an interesting perspective.

There's nothing wrong with barter. Gold and silver were selected by the free market as money, because they're the least common denominator for barter. If people don't have access to gold or silver, then they will substitute other goods.

The US is Rome. The last thing an empire does is invade Afghanistan.

That's pretty funny. If you're fighting a land war in Asia, that's a good sign that your empire is over!

I liked this quote:

‘This is a case about money, greed and fraud’

Who's guilty of greed and fraud? Is it Robert Kahre, or the prosecutor and judge?

That's the fundamental problem with a criminal trial when the main issue is taxation. Both the prosecutor and judge are State employees. In any dispute where one party is the State, the parasites control both the prosecutor and judge. If you're the type of person who understands "Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!", then you don't seek a job as a Federal judge or lawyer.

A true "jury of my peers" would be "12 people who understand that government is a massive criminal conspiracy"!

Judges are dependent on the State's taxation power to pay their salary. They will always side with the prosecutor in a trial about taxation. Judges are not selected by a free market process. Judges are chosen by politicians. You only get picked to be a judge if you have great political connections. All of a judge's friends are people who are dependent directly or indirectly on the State to earn their living.

This article was interesting.

Kahre's tax saga began in the early 1990s, when he went through bankruptcy after several partners in a now-defunct Las Vegas construction business took assets and left town, leaving Kahre with an unpaid IRS bill that led to seizure of his business equipment.

That's pretty neat. Kahre was previously the victim of the IRS theft, and that's why he embarked on his campaign of tax resistance.

Filling in the details, he had a business with some partners who turned out to be deadbeats. They took some of the assets of the business and disappeared. Kahre was left with the unpaid IRS tax bill. "These guys robbed me!" was not a defense; the IRS terrorists still demanded their tribute.

It seems that only the local newspapers in Nevada covered this case. It wasn't picked up by the national mainstream media. Most pro-State trolls discussing this case write "HAHAHAHA!! That scumbag Kahre got what he deserved!" rather than "Taxation is theft! Does it make sense to send an otherwise productive person to jail for the rest of their life?"

Severe criminal penalties for income tax evasion are terrorism.

The vast majority of people pay taxes without resisting. This makes it profitable for the bad guys to spend a lot of money terrorizing people like Robert Kahre.

Why Should I Care if a Statist Dies?

One of my coworkers said in an excited tone of voice "Did you hear that Ted Kennedy died?" My reply was "So what?" His response was "I guess you're right. It doesn't really matter."

The State propaganda engine makes people excited about irrelevant events. It's amusing and sad to watch my mother get all excited at the news coverage of Ted Kennedy's funeral.

Do I get a tax hike because Ted Kennedy died? Do I get a tax cut? I never met him. It makes no difference to me that he died.

Compare the tone of Michael Jackson's funeral coverage with the tone of Ted Kennedy's funeral coverage. Michael Jackson's funeral was like a rock concert. The announcers at Ted Kennedy's funeral news coverage were super-polite and respectful, like analysts at a golf tournament.

I watched some news coverage and noticed something really weird. They were playing sounds of insects chirping in the background! They were almost certainly doing it on purpose. A mainstream media sound crew wouldn't be careless like that. What does that accomplish?

I was watching the news coverage, and I was wondering "How does the coverage of Ted Kennedy's funeral glorify the State?" I didn't get it. I know there was an important evil fnord, but I couldn't see it. I'm not usually fooled by evil anymore, but I was disappointed that I couldn't see the evil fnord.

My best guess is that politicians are the public face of the State. The pro-State propaganda is "Government is benevolent. It's controlled by super-awesome people like Ted Kennedy and President Obama."

People are expected to mourn the death of a prominent Statist just like they would mourn the death of a parent or friend.

The evil fnord of a State funeral is "Politicians aren't parasites. They're heroic leaders!" I knew that evil fnord was there, but I didn't really see it.

A pro-State troll writes about all the wonderful laws that Congress passed while Ted Kennedy was a Senator. All those laws were backed by violence. Was Ted Kennedy a heroic leader, or a terrorist who helped provide the illusion of legitimacy to the State?

Mourning the death of a politician makes as much sense as mourning the death of Osama bin Laden.

Criticisms of Stefan Molyneux

On "An Excellent Example of Parasitic Behavior", Stefan Molyneux and others asked me if I wanted to participate in his Sunday call-in show. I'm not interested in that right now. I might in a year or two, when I start my own vlogging business or "promote agorism via standup comedy" business.

I'm much more offended by pure Statists like Paul Krugman, than by Stefan Molyneux. I don't bother reading Paul Krugman at all, except when I feel like noticing some evil fnords. Stefan Molyneux is still annoying, because he has the philosophy of freedom mostly correct but he isn't all the way there.

This is the opposite of the type of criticism Stefan Molyneux usually receives. I'm not saying "Stefan Molyneux is a fruitcake who believes a government violence monopoly is a bad idea." I'm saying "Stefan Molyneux could promote freedom better."

I prefer the written format to the verbal format. I'd rather participate in a thread on his discussion forum, than the call-in show. I prefer the written format, because I can read faster than most people talk.

My criticisms of Stefan Molyneux are:

1. He's pretty longwinded. He'll make a 20 minute video when the idea could be summarized in only 1-2 minutes.

I don't have time to watch every single one of his videos. I only watch videos that are cited elsewhere and seem interesting.

A long detailed description might be useful to someone who's a complete beginner to the philosophy of freedom. I'm looking for more advanced material.

I read his online books. I prefer written resources, because I can read faster than someone in a video can speak.

2. He doesn't emphasize the effect of a corrupt taxation system and corrupt monetary system. Stefan Molyneux claims that he made more videos on this subject, which I probably didn't watch. (If he wanted to be more specific, he could provide a link.)

The income tax is evil because it steals from you when you work.

The inflation tax is evil because it steals the savings out of your wallet and out of your checking account. The Compound Interest Paradox is a defect in fiat debt-based money that is more evil than constant uniform inflation. Even if you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, "Inflation is theft!" is sufficient argument against the Federal Reserve.

Government regulations are evil because they increase the cost of doing business. As a percentage of sales, government regulations cost small business owners more than large corporations. Government regulations are a way of indirectly subsidizing large corporations at the expense of small business owners.

Property taxes are evil because that means you don't own land. If you don't pay rent/taxes/tribute, then armed thugs will kick you off your land. You don't own your house. You merely have a perpetual transferable lease.

Property taxes mean that subsistence farming is unprofitable. If you own a farm that produces just enough to feed yourself, that isn't good enough because you need to raise money to pay property taxes.

All taxation is theft. The income tax, the inflation tax, and the regulatory tax are the most evil taxes.

Someone said that property taxes are more evil, because property taxes force people to participate in the State slave economy even if they have a self-sufficient farm. Debating "Which tax is most evil?" is like debating "What's the proper technique for beating your wife?"

Statists falsely call the US system as a free market, when it's really a fake free market.

For example, healthcare is expensive because of government. Government licensing requirements for doctors restrict the supply and raise prices. The number of slots in State-licensed medical schools is not determined by a free market process, but by a law. There's an artificial State-created shortage of doctors.

The USA does not have a free market healthcare system, due to government licensing requirements for doctors. The problem is not "too much free market". The problem is "too little free market". Neither Obama nor his mainstream critics mention the damaging effect of government licensing requirements for doctors. A good video on this subject might be interesting.

3. "Refuse to see abusive parents and relatives!" might be bad advice.

Everyone is individually responsible for what they do. If someone is abusive, then you should see them less often or not at all. On the other hand, your parents and relatives are unaware of their own pro-State brainwashing.

Do you have a greater responsibility to parents and relatives than to complete strangers? My parents did help me when I was first involuntarily hospitalized, so I feel morally obligated to try and help them. If my parents didn't bail me out of the hospital, then I probably would have been institutionalized for the rest of my life.

After I was involuntarily hospitalized, I was forced to live with my parents. Even though it was uncomfortable, it was actually very enlightening. Eventually, I was able to see how my parents pro-State brainwashed me without being consciously aware of it themselves. They thought they were teaching me to be a good person, but they were really teaching me bad habits and bad emotional/logical brainwashing. I wouldn't have started noticing these things if I'd been able to refuse to see them altogether.

Since I didn't have the option to leave, I was forced to adopt a different approach. I tried to figure out how to retrain my parents to be less abusive. To a certain degree, it worked!

I'm not going to make my parents understand "Taxation is theft! Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!" However, I am able to make them understand "$3 trillion in bailouts! What a ripoff! That's your retirement savings being stolen by inflation!"

I'm not able to explain to my parents "Government licensing requirements for doctors are evil and should be eliminated!" I was able to make them understand "The supply of doctor licenses should be increased. The number of slots in medical schools should be increased. While Bill Clinton was President, a law was passed reducing the number of spots in medical schools."

I'm somewhat worried about my parents. When the US dollar collapses in hyperinflation, they will lose their retirement savings. It's disappointing to see them work their whole life, only to have their retirement savings stolen via inflation. The people who get stuck the most during times of complete economic collapse are the elderly who lose their retirement savings. If you're a productive worker, a time of economic collapse is actually an opportunity, because the usual restraints on your productivity are lifted.

4. Stefan Molyneux accepts donations via PayPal. His site is supported by donations from readers, and he claims that he earns enough income for this to be his full-time job.

PayPal transactions are automatically reported to the State/IRS. If you accept donations via PayPal, aren't you required to pay income tax on the donations? Is it immoral to donate money to Stefan Molyneux, if the transaction is taxable?

An agorist banking system is needed, to solve this type of problem.

5. Stefan Molyneux is writing about theoretical anarchy and not practical anarchy, even though Stefan Molyneux claims to be writing about practical anarchy.

This relates to my post on "An Example Tax Resister Insurance Calculation". Francois Tremblay said "Tax resistance is easy! Everyone should be doing it!" I told Francois Tremblay that he should put his freedom where his mouth is and start a tax resister insurance business. That post was an example of how such a business would work. Francois Tremblay seems to be trying to move towards actual practical agorism. Francois Tremblay seems to be trying to start an actual tax resister insurance business. Tax resister insurance probably won't be profitable until the counter-economy is more sophisticated.

I agree when Stefan Molyneux says "Security and defense and justice can be more efficiently provided by a free market. Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) are preferable to a government police and justice monopoly." However, that is only theoretical anarchy. That's not practical anarchy.

In order to be a real practical anarchist, Stefan Molyneux should say "I'm starting a DRO business! Who wants to be a customer?" That would be actual practical anarchy.

Right now, it's impractical to start a DRO that actually has armed policemen employed. The government police monopoly would be threatened by such an organization, and you'd find yourself the victim of a violent State raid. A DRO can enforce rules without armed police. Enforcement through ostracism can be effective. If someone breaks the DRO's rules, then they're banned from future participation (unless they pay restitution to the victims). When there are multiple competing DROs, then all of them sensibly would refuse membership to someone who doesn't follow the rules.

Initially, a DRO would be a way for agorists to buy and sell goods and services. If I want to perform off-the-books work for cash, I can't advertise on Craigslist or other State venues, because the police might be spying. It's an even bigger risk if I'm entering a business that's regulated by the State. Working as an agorist in a State-regulated industry is lucrative but risky. A DRO would ensure that both the buyer and seller would respect each other's privacy from State enforcers. The #1 rule for any agorist DRO would be "No matter what happens, nobody complains to the State police." It's a tricky balancing act. You want to have as many customers as possible. You also need to keep out undercover State spies, or people who would complain to the State if they're unsatisfied.

Going back to the example of health care, suppose I wanted to work as an unlicensed agorist doctor. I can't advertise my services in public, because the State would shut me down. If there was a good DRO where I could advertise, then I could get customers. My customers would have assurance that I'm a good doctor. I would have assurance that my customers won't complain to the State and arrange for my arrest/kidnapping. A DRO would be useful for anyone who wants to buy or sell outside of the State slave economic system.

Right now, if you're an individual looking to buy or sell to other individuals, there's no way to communicate. If you use eBay, there's an obligation for the eBay corporation to report the transaction to the IRS. If you use Craigslist, then there's the risk that undercover police may read your ad. If you buy/sell on Craigslist, there's no assurance of the trustworthiness of the buyer or seller.

As another example, suppose I want to buy or sell gold/silver. If I buy from a State-licensed gold/silver dealer, then the transaction is reported to the State/IRS. If I sell to a State-licensed gold/silver dealer, then the transaction is reported to the State/IRS and I must pay capital gains taxes. A good DRO would enable people to trade gold/silver/FRNs without the State knowing about the transaction. Even better, a DRO could have an agorist gold/silver warehouse receipt banking service, so people would have a safe place to store their savings.

As another example, I'm considering starting a drug-free mental illness treatment business. I don't have a State psychiatrist or therapist license. Therefore, it's illegal for me to operate such a business. I can't advertise that business on Craigslist. I'd need a trustworthy DRO to advertise and sell my services. My customers would need assurance that my service is good, and I would need assurance that my customers won't rat me out to the State.

If DROs are so wonderful, then you should start a DRO business now and get a head start on everyone else! If DROs are so wonderful, then Stefan Molyneux should put his freedom where his mouth is and start a DRO business! Initially, a DRO would be a way for people to buy/sell goods and services outside of the State economy. People who want to work in the free market have a big problem and a big risk. There's no place for agorist buyers and sellers to meet. There's the risk that your trading partner will rat you out to the State.

Since Stefan Molyneux already has a large audience, he's in a good position to start a DRO business.

You might say "FSK, you're a hypocrite for not starting a DRO business yourself." My personal circumstances make that impossible. I am currently stuck living with my parents. My parents would be the first to rat me out to the State if I attempted practical agorism. For now, I'm stuck with only blogging. I'm working towards recovering my interpersonal freedom and then moving towards practical agorism. In order to recover my physical freedom, I need a wage slave job for now. It will take a few years before I'll be ready to start working on practical agorism. In the meantime, I'm helping raise awareness of the evils of the State and the value of really free markets.

Also, I'm still making progress on cracking my pro-State brainwashing. It isn't enough to realize consciously "Taxation is theft! Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!" You also have to crack your emotional pro-State brainwashing. That is hard, because you have the symptoms of a panic/manic attack when you do it.

I have several agorist business ideas.

1. Start a DRO, where people can buy and sell agorist goods and services. I might write some "AgoristBay" software, to enable agorists to communicate via the Internet. Initially, you can just keep records partially encrypted on paper, and then use software when you have more customers. Some people on the fr33agents website appear to be writing some AgoristBay software, but I haven't looked at the details.
   
2. Start a gold/silver/FRN barter network, making it easier for people to invest in gold and silver, avoiding State taxes and State overhead for transaction costs.
3. Start a distributed gold/silver warehouse receipt bank.
4. Start a drug-free mental health treatment business.
5. Attempt "Promote agorism via standup comedy." I might find people willing to hire me to perform, but pay me in cash in an off-the-books transaction. I could give performances in unlicensed nightclubs, or start an unlicensed nightclub.
6. Make and sell agorist-themed T-shirts. I might buy a T-shirt burning press.
7. (Advanced) Start an agorist gold/silver time-deposit banking system, enabling agorists to invest their surplus capital and borrow to start businesses.
8. (Advanced) Start a tax resister insurance business. Sell insurance against the possibility that agorists would be raided by the State.
9. (Advanced) Offer an arbitration service, if two agorists have a dispute.
   

One nice thing about agorism is that there's no artificial State overhead. I can experiment with only a few hours on each business idea and see which are most profitable. My most capital-intensive ideas are vlogging (need to buy a camera) and making T-Shirts (need to buy a burner/printer), which are relatively small investments. Writing AgoristBay requires a time investment, but not a capital investment. Besides, I won't need software to help until I already have a network of trustworthy trading partners. When I first start with practical agorism, I can keep my records partially encrypted on a piece of paper.

There seems to be a greater awareness of really free markets spreading on the Internet. If I wait a few years to get started, I might have an easier time finding customers and trading partners. Stefan Molyneux has a much greater audience than my blog, which would make it easier for him to start an actual agorist DRO business.

Mostly, Stefan Molyneux's videos are discussing things I already understand pretty well. He takes a long time to explain ideas that I already understand. I'm looking to move forward with actual practical agorism and really free markets. It's going to take me a couple of years before I start. It'd be nice to hear about other people's experiences with practical agorism.

Of course, attempting practical agorism is risky. If you try it, you might find yourself raided by the State. However, some people must operate a DRO and advertise to the general public, to attract customers. It's tricky. If you're 100% secretive, then you can't recruit new customers. If you're 100% public, then you risk a violent State raid. A good public speaker like Stefan Molyneux probably could do a good job defending themselves sui juris in a trial, if necessary.

If you're arguing "The law is immoral!", you need to represent yourself sui juris. A State-licensed lawyer can't argue "The law is immoral!", because a State-licensed lawyer has taken an oath to uphold the law. A State-licensed lawyer works for the State first, and for his client second. I probably could represent myself better than a State-licensed lawyer. Hopefully, I'll never be forced to find out! When/if State enforcers decide to harass me for agorism, I'll defend myself sui juris. If I seem like a tough victim, then State enforcers might seek softer targets elsewhere. If I'm a high-profile advocate for freedom, then State enforcers will make it a high priority to arrest/kidnap/silence me.

I don't mind if other people start DRO businesses before me. The more people practice agorism, the less resources are available to State parasites. I object more to someone working in an on-the-books wage slave job than I do to someone else working as an agorist.

One nice thing about an agorist business is that there's no artificial State-induced overhead. You can start for 5-10 hours per week until you get enough customers to do it full-time.

Given that the State is going to collapse in 15-20 years, not starting/joining a DRO is also risky! If you have a DRO in place before the collapse, then your odds of surviving are much more likely when TSHTF.

If Stefan Molyneux really wants to impress me as a super-awesome anarchist, then he should start his own DRO business. At some point, you need to move from talking/speculating to actually working towards freedom. I plan to start my own agorist businesses in a few years.

---

I'd already finished this draft, and noticed another awful video. This video ("True News 50") had huge errors. At the beginning of the video, Stefan Molyneux accepts the pro-State propaganda that the CPI is an unbiased measure of inflation.

My analysis "Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008" is much better than Stefan Molyneux's analysis. If you use less biased inflation measures, like M2, reconstructed M3, or the price of gold, then real GDP is crashing, rather than increasing slowly as pro-State communists/economists state.

The CPI is less than true inflation. "Official" GDP reports are adjusted using biased inflation measures. Money supply inflation is misreported as economic growth.

That video ("True News 50") is an example of Stefan Molyneux getting facts outright wrong on basic economics. Of course, almost every State-licensed economist makes the exact same error. That video wasn't endorsing the State, but it's annoying to see basic logic errors like accepting the CPI as an unbiased inflation measure.

As another footnote, that YouTube video had approximately 3k pageviews. My blog gets 200-300 daily Visitors, according to Google Analytics. Stefan Molyneux appears to have an audience 10x-20x greater than my blog.