Letters to Hitler

This story was pretty amusing. At the urging of other people, Gandhi wrote some letters to Hitler before World War II.

It would have been more useful to write letters to the people living in Germany, saying "Why are you supporting this lunatic?"

Writing a letter to Hitler sounds as useful as writing a letter to your Congressman. Some people have attempted writing their Congressman asking "Is taxation theft? Is the income tax immoral?" and received pro-State troll responses or canned responses.

Some people are insane and can't be convinced. Debating idiots is a waste of time.

If you're in a position where your wealth and power are backed by the State, then it's very hard to recognize "Government is a scam!"

People want to be the heroes in their own mind. This prevents them from recognizing the truth.

Hitler and State parasites cannot be convinced that their actions are wrong. The only way to convince them is the hard way. If you practice agorism and their scam collapses, then the parasites might learn to change their ways.

Glenn Beck, Gold, and Communism

Glenn Beck is a pro-State troll whose primary role is to distract and subvert (L)libertarians and minarchists. For example, Fox News says that the "Tea Party Movement" is about "Taxes are too high!" rather than "All taxation is theft! The income tax is immoral! The Federal Reserve is a scam!"

I'm not interested in defending Glenn Beck, but this joke is pretty funny. Glenn Beck accepted an advertising contract with Goldline International, a gold coin dealer. Glenn Beck is heavily touting gold as a solid investment. The joke is "It's immoral for Glenn Beck to say 'Gold is a good investment!' when he has an advertising contract with a gold dealer!"

I looked at Goldline International's website. They seem to be promoting American Eagles, which trade at a premium compared to gold bullion rounds/bars. I couldn't do a price comparison, because their website said "Quotes are not current." APMEX and Kitco update their webpage whenever prices change, and usually charge spot plus a fixed amount. Goldline seemed slightly inferior to APMEX and Kitco, but not a complete ripoff.

The only valid aspect of the criticism is "Goldline is not the best gold dealer!" Even if you pay a transaction fee of 5%-10% on a gold purchase, you'll still outperform the market if you hold for several years.

Do you see the joke, regarding the criticism of Glenn Beck?

If it's immoral to tout gold due to an advertising contract, then doesn't that make everyone on CNBC a total scumbag? (but I already knew that)

On CBNC, most of the "analysts" are touting stocks that they or their friends own. Isn't that a conflict of interest?

If it's immoral for Glenn Beck to sell gold, then isn't it immoral for a CEO to advertise the stock of his corporation?

If Jim Cramer mentions a small-cap or mid-cap stock on his show, he can push up the price 5%-10% or more. Jim Cramer doesn't trade stocks himself. However, anyone who knew in advance what Jim Cramer is touting could make a huge profit.

If it's immoral for Glenn Beck to get an endorsement deal with a gold vendor, then isn't it immoral for athletes and celebrities to do endorsement deals?

It seems that the problem is not "Glenn Beck is accepting money as part of an endorsement contract." Every celebrity does that. Everyone on the Communism Channel does that, directly or indirectly. The problem is "Glenn Beck accepted endorsement money in exchange for saying something true that contradicts official State propaganda." It isn't immoral to accept advertising money in exchange for saying something that's actually true!

As I've mentioned here many times, gold has trounced the stock market and nearly every other investment over the past 10 years. Given that information, it isn't immoral to promote gold. I don't think Glenn Beck even emphasizes that point on his show.

A lot of people profit from a corrupt financial system. Gold is a way for individuals to protect themselves from theft via inflation. Glenn Beck is partially exposing the scam.

The problem is not "Glenn Beck accepted an endorsement contract with a gold dealer." The real problem is "Glenn Beck is saying that gold is a good investment and that State paper investments are worthless." There's a lot of mainstream media propaganda pushing a corrupt financial system.

A lot of people profit from a corrupt financial system. That's the real reason Glenn Beck is criticized for advertising gold. Glenn Beck is coming too close to the real truth, and for that he must be punished.

Corporations as Tax Collectors

A large corporation is a branch of the government. The corporation's management receives many State-granted perks. The corporation is subject to so many laws and regulations that it functions like a government bureaucracy. The corporation's management receive many direct and indirect State subsidies.

There's one evil of corporations that's not frequently mentioned. It's the role that corporations pay as tax collectors.

Whenever you work for a corporation, that corporation's accountants have an obligation to report that transaction to the IRS, via a 1099 or W-2 form. If you're an employee, the corporation has an obligation to withhold taxes from your salary and directly pay them to the State. If you're a contractor paid on a 1099, then the State bureaucrats know about the transaction and will harass you to collect taxes.

This tax collection mechanism occurs without almost anyone questioning it.

Some freedom activists say you should refuse to sign a W-4 form or that you should claim 99 exemptions. If you do this, then the HR department will likely refuse to hire you. No corporation will hire someone who refuses to sign a W-4 form. If you claim 99 exemptions, the HR representative will probably reject your W-4 form as invalid. If you're a new employee and refuse to sign the W-4 form, then your job offer will likely be rescinded.

The practice of mandatory tax withholding was instituted as a "temporary emergency measure" during World War II. Once the bad guys claim an erosion of freedom, it becomes permanent and irrevocable. This "temporary emergency tax" is now permanent, with war as the excuse for imposing this restriction of freedom. As usual, War is the Health of the State. Freedom is eroded during war, and those erosions of freedom are permanent after the war ends.

Corporations control nearly the entire economy. If you refuse to work for *ANY* corporation, your employment opportunities are severely limited. Even if you work for a corporation as a contractor or consultant, the transaction is still reported to the State.

All economic activity must be reported to the State and taxed. This is a complete perversion of the idea that we live in a country of free individuals.

If you start an on-the-books business, you have an obligation to figure out how much tax you owe and pay it. If you're perform the calculation incorrectly, or refuse to do it, then armed thugs will come to kidnap/assault/kill you. All business owners are forced to work for the State as unpaid tax collectors.

What is the risk of State armed thugs assaulting you if you start an off-the-books business? The only way to try is to find out.

This is a very lucrative arrangement for the parasites. They don't have to perform any of the risks associated with operating a business. They get a cut of 50% or more out of *EVERY* transaction, while performing no useful work themselves.

If you start a small business and fail, you risk losing your savings and home and your time invested. The parasites take no such risk.

No "business" has greater profit margins than that of government.

Agorist Tobaccoo Farmers

I liked this article on Yahoo. In protest of high cigarette taxes, some people are growing their own tobacco to avoid the tax.

With greenhouses and plant lamps, people are growing their own tobacco even in parts of the country where the climate is otherwise unsuitable.

The article mentioned people growing their own tobacco. If you're going to the trouble of growing your own tobacco, you might as well make enough for a few other people as well. Then, you can sell it off-the-books for profit.

The fact that cigarette taxes are so high makes this a lucrative business opportunity for agorists.

The same applies to people who make their own alcohol to avoid alcohol taxes.

Division of labor is a good thing. If you're growing your own tobacco or making your own alcohol, you might as well make some extra and sell it to your friends. The key is to make sure that your friends won't rat you out to the State. If you stick to a small scale, enough for only 50-100 people, then it's hard/unlikely for State enforcers to violently crack down.

Different Economic Philosophies

In this thread on mises.org, someone was asking about different competing philosophies of economics.

Keynesian economics is a bunch of lies used to justify fiat money and State intervention in the economy. It started becoming popular in the 1930s as a way of justifying the default on the gold standard and gold confiscation by Roosevelt, along with the New Deal and Welfare State.

(Some commenters got angry that I said "Keynesian economics is a bunch of lies and propaganda." I don't understand that one. A common pro-State troll belief is "Don't say that ideas are stupid." It is important and necessary to call out stupid ideas as stupid, lest stupid ideas spread without being questioned.)

Austrian economics is better. As far as I can tell, it's about sound money and little/no government regulation of the monetary system.

Another important one is "counter-economics", which is the idea that people should just ignore the government and form competing free market based organizations. Agorism is the only consistent theory of economics and politics.

If it's on TV, then it Must be True

Another important evil fnord is "If it's on TV or in the newspapers, then it must be true."

Even before I achieved greater awareness, I figured out that newspapers don't always get the facts straight. I was involved in non-controversial events that were covered in the local newspaper. The newspaper still got the facts wrong. This wasn't a censorship issue, just getting details outright wrong. I knew they were wrong, because I was at the event.

A pro-State troll thinks "There are a lot of people who make sure that the content presented on TV is important and accurate. They wouldn't lie to us!"

A pro-State troll says "The editors make sure that all the content presented on TV and in newspapers is of a high quality! There's no editor filtering bloggers on the Internet, but there should be!" Is the editor ensuring a high quality of content? Or, is the editor enforcing unwritten censorship standards?

The mainstream media is losing market share to the Internet. I'd rather spend an hour reading my favorite blogs, than reading a newspaper. The problem is not "The Internet is evil!" The problem is that the mainstream media is a bunch of pro-State trolls, but writers on the Internet bypass the State censorship engine.

If I had to get my article published in a peer-reviewed journal, I'd never be able to publish "The Compound Interest Paradox" or "The Black-Scholes Forumula is Wrong!" My article would be calling out my peers as frauds, and they'd never consent to publishing it.

Even though there are 100+ channels on your cable service, they're owned by a small handful of corporations. This provides the illusion of openness, when it's really a cartel.

If I wanted to create my own TV show or TV channel, I'd have a hard time getting a cable network to carry it. A pro-State troll might say "Good! Someone is making sure that all content is of a high quality!" This also leads to censorship.

There's also "lie by repeated assertion". If the same lie is repeated everywhere, then people act as if it's true. Some lies are never explicitly stated, such as "Taxation is not theft!"; that's merely an implicit hidden assumption in all other political discussion.

Most people assume, by default, that everything they see on TV and in newspapers is true. If there were some important issue like "Taxation is theft!" or "The USA has a corrupt monetary system!", then surely some newspaper or TV news program would have covered the topic. In this manner, mainstream media censorship assists the evils of the State. Most people think "The mainstream media is an independent auditor of the government!", when the reality is that the same insiders control the mainstream media and the government.

Ward Churchill

When browsing the Internet, I stumbled across the story of Ward Churchill. It's an interesting example of what happens to a State-licensed thinker who decides to criticize the State. Ward Churchill was a tenured professor at the University of Colorado.

Some pro-State trolls ask:

• Why don't economics or political science professors say "Taxation is theft!"?
• Why don't economists write about the Compound Interest Paradox?
• Why doesn't some university psychiatry professor realize that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is nonsense?
  

Any professor who tried to tell the truth like Ward Churchill would be forfeiting their job and their career. The State censorship engine is so effective that only rarely must it be invoked. Ward Churchill crossed the censorship threshold, and had to be punished. By making an example of Ward Churchill and ruining his career, State bureaucrats ensure that no other university professor dares to question official State propaganda.

Ward Churchill wrote a controversial essay critical of US policy before the World Trade Center terrorist attack.

As usual, he said something intelligent and stupid in the same essay. He said that the terrorist attack was blowback for bad US foreign policy. He said that most of the people working in the World Trade Center deserved to die. I agree with the "blowback" issue, but disagree with the "deserved to die" point.

Ward Churchill wrote something intelligent and stupid in the same essay. This is common for people who are cracking their pro-State brainwashing. You only overcome your pro-State brainwashing a bit at a time. Initially, your thoughts are very muddled and some of your ideas aren't articulated clearly.

Just because Ward Churchill said something stupid, that doesn't mean he should be fired and forfeit his entire career. This is the Strawman Fallacy. He should be evaluated based on his entire career, and not the stupidest thing he ever did. Tenure is supposed to provide a professor with the freedom to write whatever he wants, even if it offends people. Tenure is supposed to provide professors with complete academic freedom. The Ward Churchill incident indicates that a tenured professor does not have true academic freedom; if he crosses a certain censorship threshold, then he will be fired.

If someone is evaluated based on the most foolish thing they ever did, that makes people very reluctant to try non-mainstream ideas. If you have non-mainstream ideas, some of them will be good and some of them will be bad. It's important to evaluate each idea independently. If I'm worried that people will get offended, then that makes me reluctant to state controversial ideas. If I had a mainstream media TV show or newspaper column, then I risk getting fired if I say something that offends a vocal group of people who are profiting from State violence.

A lot of people working in the World Trade Center were working in the financial industry. As I've mentioned before, the financial industry produces no useful goods or services. The financial industry is purely parasitic. However, that is not justification for murdering them. Most financial industry workers are unaware that they're participating in a humongous scam. The correct solution is to build free market alternatives to the financial industry extortion racket.

If you're a high-ranking State bureaucrat, a successful terrorist attack is like a huge bonanza. A successful terrorist attack is a justification for a vast increase in State power. Many groups like the ACLU opposed laws like the Patriot Act, which had been planned for a long time. After the terrorist attack, several bad laws expanding State power were passed without opposition. As usual, war is the health of the State.

After a successful terrorist attack, State bureaucrats say "We failed to do our job. Give us more power and more resources!" With an absolute monopoly, State bureaucrats are paradoxically rewarded when they fail.

Ward Churchill advocated for the elimination of government, although he didn't make an argument for agorism like I do. Politicians said "If Ward Churchill is advocating for the elimination of government, then we shouldn't be forced to pay his salary!" Notice that politicians aren't paying a professor's salary with their own personal money. They're paying it with property stolen via taxes. A more accurate statement is "If we're stealing from people, then we won't use that stolen property to pay people who say that our theft is wrong!"

Working for a mainstream media corporation is like working for the government. If you criticize the State, then advertisers will refuse to place ads on your program. If necessary, they will threaten to pull their ads from the entire corporation, and not just one show. The net effect is censorship, imposed via "market forces".

Saying "Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!" is not the same as advocating for violence against State employees. I couldn't find a good reference for what Ward Churchill was exactly saying; I'm summarizing.

If you contradict official State propaganda or criticize the State, then you lose your job and your career. "This policeman is racist!" is an example of valid criticism, because it doesn't question the State itself. The recommended solution for "This policeman is racist!" is "Increase State power so that racist policemen are punished!" If someone starts saying "Who needs a government?", then that's too close to the truth.

Also remember that a professor who says "Who needs a government?" is essentially calling out all his colleagues as frauds. He's telling the truth, while they're all ****suckers looking for an easy paycheck. However, if you know that government is a massive criminal conspiracy, then isn't it hypocritical to work at a university, where your salary is paid by the State?

Ward Churchill won a best teacher award, which was withheld due to the controversy. Critics say that students voted for Ward Churchill in an attempt to influence the controversy. What's wrong with that? If Ward Churchill's statement was so offensive, then shouldn't almost no students have voted for him?

The University of Colorado fired Ward Churchill due to his remarks and the surrounding media hype. The media overreacted to the professor's comments, leaving the university State bureaucrats no choice but to fire him. He was fired even though he had tenure, which is supposed to protect academic freedom. The whole point of tenure is to allow a professor the freedom to say things that others find unpopular.

The workings of a State University are nearly completely uncorrelated with actual useful productive work. It makes no difference if a professor is a brilliant thinker or an unqualified hack. Either way, his salary is guaranteed via State violence.

The "academic misconduct" charges against Ward Churchill were fabricated after State bureaucrats already decided to fire him. If his research was lousy or plagiarized, shouldn't the university bureaucrats have discovered this before awarding him tenure? The "academic misconduct" charge allows the State bureaucrats to say "We fired him for fraud!" instead of "We fired him for criticizing us!"

In a true free market, there's no such thing as tenure. You only keep your job as long as you're producing something useful. A university professor gets tenure, because his salary is backed by taxation/theft. If a free market school gave people tenure and kept employees who didn't deserve it, then it would lose out to competitors who don't have useless employees on their payroll.

Ward Churchill sued the university for wrongful termination. A jury ruled that he was incorrectly fired, but awarded only $1 damages. The trial judge overturned the verdict. The reason is that he could have used the verdict as justification for demanding reinstatement on his job. That pretty much defeats the purpose of trial by jury, if a judge will throw out the verdict when you win. The judge's justification for throwing out the verdict was "The State bureaucrats at the university are protected by sovereign immunity. They were just doing their job, and therefore Ward Churchill could not sue them for misconduct."

Notice that a judge overturning a jury's verdict gives the State bureaucrats a mulligan. If the jury voted the defendants "not responsible", then that would be the end of the issue. By having a jury verdict, but the judge later discarding it, that effectively gives the bad guys two chances to win. If the judge already decided that the defendants were protected via sovereign immunity, then why bother with the farce of a trial? The judge probably was hoping that the jury would vote "not responsible", bringing an end to the issue. When the jury failed to toe the Statist party line, then the judge overturned the verdict. The bad guys were overconfident that they would win in a trial. After they lost, the judge made up an excuse to overturn the verdict.

A university professor does *NOT* have true academic freedom. He has academic freedom *PROVIDED* he doesn't cross a certain censorship threshold.

The number of people seeking an academic career is far greater than the number of slots available. It's very easy for the bad guys to fire someone and find a replacement. There is not a free market for academic research, because it's all funded by the State. It makes no difference if the best thinkers are hired as university professors, or actually the best ****suckers get hired. Contrast that with working as a wage slave software engineer. Even though I had bad experiences at previous jobs, I'm still able to find another job. There are a lot of people looking for software engineer jobs, but very few who really know their stuff. After getting fired, Ward Churchill's career is over, because his only option is to work for the State in a university.

Critics like Noam Chomsky are allowed, because they present a weak criticism of the State. Noam Chomsky's version of anarchy is pro-State trolling. By presenting fools as advocates for anarchy, that makes government seem desirable.

Ward Churchill's career was ruined. He invested many years in his academic career, and it's now worthless. No other university will hire him. The State has a monopoly for funding universities, so he's unable to get another job. It's almost exactly like someone in Communist Russia or China being jailed for criticizing the State. Ward Churchill wasn't explicitly jailed, but he'll be unable to find another job as a professor.

Ward Churchill was making almost $100k/year. That's a pretty sweet deal for someone with no useful skills! The State pays its ****suckers well!

Notice that, via tenure and the fact that a professor has no marketable skills, a professor who gets fired is SOL. This allows State bureaucrats to control professors. Also notice that a professor who is denied tenure is usually just as screwed as Ward Churchill. As a wage slave software engineer, at least I can find another job when my employer ****s me over. The rules of the economic system are biased against me, but there's still a certain level of demand for people who really know what they're doing.

Of course, all university professors are State employees and almost all are parasites. Did Ward Churchill intentionally say something too close to the truth, or did he accidentally stumble in that direction? In either case, all other university professors are aware of this case. They are wimps who are afraid to risk their jobs. They will all write articles saying "Ward Churchill was a scumbag who deserved to get fired!" instead of "He was unfairly fired for criticizing the State!" Other professors will carefully self-censor their work, so they don't have their career ruined like Ward Churchill.

This story is very similar to what happened to Bill Maher's ABC show. He expressed sympathy for the Islamic terrorists' point of view. As punishment, his show was canceled. At least Bill Maher was able to find a show on another channel.

Ironically, as a small unknown blogger, I have more academic freedom than a tenured professor at a university. If I attempt "promote agorism via standup comedy", I won't hold my breath waiting for a mainstream media program to invite me as a guest. I'm not going to adopt a culture of self-censorship, just to promote my career. If you have a contract with a mainstream media corporation, you're subject to the whims of State insiders just as much as a university professor. If you tell the truth, then there will be an outcry of people demanding you be fired. This censorship means that any viewpoint that is true, but offends a lot of people, cannot be mentioned.

A lot of people profit via State violence. They use their influence to censor critics. Critics aren't usually explicitly jailed, because that would be obviously unfair. A fake free market means that anyone who criticized the State is blacklisted and loses their career.