The Problem With Violence Against State Agents

This article was interesting.

In New Hampshire, it's legal to carry an unconcealed gun if you have a permit. Someone decided to openly carry a gun near a speech by Obama in New Hampshire. During the speech, Obama was advocating for health care reform.

That article was saying that the person carrying the gun was implicitly saying "I'm going to use violence to defend myself against this lousy healthcare plan!"

He was carrying a poster that said "It's necessary to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants." That's in implied threat of violence against State enforcers.

There's nothing wrong with carrying a gun. However, the mainstream media is now using the incident to portray all freedom-seekers as fruitcakes.

It's acceptable for policemen to carry a gun, but it's not acceptable for non-policeman to carry a gun. This inconsistent thinking is very common. Why is the policeman magically blessed with goodness, but all non-policemen who carry a gun are automatically criminals?

There is another important point. Even if one person does something foolish, that doesn't mean that all people who seek freedom are fruitcakes.

One of the main purposes of gun ownership is to defend yourself against aggression by the State. The lousy healthcare "reform" plan is an example of State aggression.

It seems silly to say that, just by carrying a gun to a political speech, someone is advocating for violence against State agents.

There appear to be two separate arguments:

• Violence against State employees is a bad tactical decision. Their resources are far too superior. If you suggest the possibility of violence, then the State will violently crack down on you. Even if you could kill a State employee without any personal risk, someone else would merely take their place.
• Violence against State employees is a violation of the non-Aggression principle. Most State employees are not aware that they're participants in a massive crime. If I work in a wage slave software engineer job, I'm supporting the bad guys as much as a policeman. The wealth stolen from productive workers via taxes makes State violence possible. In the present, nearly everyone directly or indirectly supports the State. If you perform on-the-books work, you're supporting the bad guys via taxes. If you use slave points as money, you're supporting the bad guys via the inflation tax.
  

It's wrong to kill random State employees that have no relationship to you. What about State employees that have specifically aggressed against you?

I don't have a valid claim against *ALL* psychiatrists. I do have a malpractice claim against the specific psychiatrists that mistreated me. A corrupt State court doesn't recognize my claim as valid. Do I have any alternatives? My only options are to let it go, or adopt the unabomber approach. I've decided to let that claim go and focus on not being hurt in the future.

Do you have a valid claim against State employees that aggress against you? Suppose the IRS pursues you for criminal tax evasion. Do you have a valid claim against the State employees that harassed you? As a practical matter, that claim is unenforceable, since the State doesn't recognize that claim as valid and there's no competition to the State justice system.

The problem is that there's no middle ground. There's no way to get and enforce a claim short of murdering the aggressor. Once the agorist counter-economy is more sophisticated, blacklisting someone from the free market would be a severe disincentive against State agents harassing agorists.

That's why current black market participants, such as drug dealers, always resolve their disputes violently. If two black market drug dealers get involved in a dispute, their only alternatives are to let the claim go and avoid the other person, or to murder them. If a drug dealer claims that another drug dealer owes him $10k, there's no way to pursue that claim in a State court. The only alternatives are to forget about the $10k, or murder the person who owes you the money.

Similarly, if you have a dispute with a State agent, the State agent is protected by sovereign immunity. Your only options are to forget about it, or to retaliate violently. If you adopt the violent approach, then the full power of the State will be focused on catching you. That's contrary to the goals of an agorist, which should be success via stealth.

That's the reason there's a big outcry whenever a policeman is shot or murdered. The State *MUST* protect its agents. Assaulting or murdering a policeman is a more serious crime than hurting a non-policeman. The police are protected by sovereign immunity.

As the State collapses and the counter-economy gets more sophisticated, claims against State agents will start to be enforceable. The State agent would be banned from participating in the free market if he harasses an agorist. It's possible that the counter-economy could get so valuable that this threat would be enough to force State agents to behave, even if the counter-economy possesses no weapons.

The problem with violence against a State employee is that it only works if you're prepared to defend yourself against the full focused power of the State. By the time that's practical, the State has already lost anyway. Until then, the State can afford to send 10,000 or 100,000 armed thugs against your small group of freedom seekers. The bad guys can afford to send 100,000 armed thugs to catch 100-1000 freedom seekers, because they know that once a group acquires freedom then their whole scam starts to unravel.

You can't defeat the State with violence. The bad guys specialize in violence! It's silly to argue "Is violence against State agents who abuse their power morally justified?" As a practical matter, that's a waste of effort. By the time such a tactic would be effective, the bad guys will have already lost anyway.

Racism in the Workplace

In my new wage slave job, most of my coworkers are Chinese. The boss of the group is Chinese, which leads to him hiring people of the same ethnic group. I noticed that happens a lot. If the boss has ethnicity X, then his subordinates have ethnicity X.

They had a Christmas party. My boss' boss was speaking a lot. He made a lot of anti-Chinese racist comments, regarding the group I work in. I was surprised that nobody else noticed. Maybe they noticed but were afraid to say anything. I didn't say anything to anyone, but I thought about it. It definitely was in the "Dude! That's totally embarrassing! Don't do that!" category.

"Chinese" is not a legally protected minority group. If he had made anti-Hispanic or anti-African American comments, he definitely would have been risking a lawsuit. Nobody noticed, so I doubt there's a risk.

---

I had a weird experience in the elevator. Someone who was a really strong parasite got into the elevator. I had a momentary feeling of extreme fear. I hadn't noticed that reaction before.

I don't work with him. He probably didn't notice me. It was a very weird experience.

I certainly have noticed a negative correlation "Higher-ranking management implies less competence." It's more noticeable in a larger corporation.

"Lending Stimulates the Economy" Fnord

This story contains an important evil fnord.

President Barack Obama implored top bankers Monday to help keep the fragile recovery from faltering by boosting lending to small businesses and getting behind an overhaul of financial regulation. "We rise and fall together," Obama declared.

Trillions of dollars were spent in Federal bailout money. There was TARP bailout money explicitly allocated by the Federal government. There was secret bailout money provided by the Federal Reserve. The Fed Funds Rate is currently 0%-0.25% while true inflation is 20%-30% or more, which is a further subsidy for the banksters. Negative real interest rates are a continual subsidy for the banksters, even if no bailout money is explicitly allocated.

A year ago, oil prices were really cheap while interest rates were really low. Some hedge funds borrowed money, bought oil, paid to store it, waited for inflation, and then sold. This was very profitable. They made a huge profit, without doing any real work.

When real interest rates are negative, this is a very lucrative profit equation:

1. Borrow money cheaply and buy tangible assets.
2. Wait for inflation.
3. Sell and profit!

It's better than being an underpants gnome!

These profits aren't free. They're paid by the rest of society as inflation.

There's a lot of hype about "Banks are repaying TARP money. Hooray! They aren't scum!" The problem is that these profits are fueled by a Fed Funds Rate of 0%-0.25%. A more accurate statement is "Banks received cleverly hidden State bailout money and used that to repay direct explicit bailout money!"

State parasites "stimulated the economy" by giving trillions of dollars to politically connected insiders. They could have given $10k directly to each American, and that would have had the same net stimulative effect. This was never seriously discussed as a possibility. There were token stimulus payments of a couple hundred dollars, but this was negligible compared to what the banksters stole.

The point of the monetary system is debt enslavement of every American. Even if you personally have no debt, your savings are stolen by inflation. If you have no savings, then you're stuck during the next recession/depression. If you have as much debt as you can, then you'll be bankrupted during the next recession/depression. Even if you have no debt, large corporations have lots of debt, and most people work for large corporations directly or indirectly.

Negative real interest rates concentrate economic power in the hands of people who print and spend new money. The banksters can borrow at 0%-0.25%. They use this money to speculate on the stock market, buy other tangible assets, or lend at higher rates.

A corporate CEO can borrow at 6% or more. A pro-State troll says "The CEO is creditworthy but a small business owner is not." The reality is that the CEO was appointed via a corrupt nepotism capitalism process. Most CEOs don't have skills that would be useful in a true free market. They merely excel at exploiting a corrupt system and navigating through a parasite-dominated State bureaucracy.

A CEO borrows at 6% while true inflation is 20%-30% or more. That means that the CEO can normally profit and repay the loan, even if he invests the money unwisely. For example, an investment that yields 15% is profitable enough to repay the loan, yet returns less than true inflation. This leads to misallocation of capital and asset bubbles.

A small business owner must pay higher interest rates or can't borrow at all. A pro-State troll says "The small business owner is uncreditworthy." The reality is that the State has a monopoly for financing businesses. The small business owner can't borrow money from friends and relatives, because he has to pay an extortionate rate or the lender gets ripped off by inflation. If the small business owner sells equity, then either the minority equity owner risks getting cheated, or the owner becomes an employee in his own business.

The pro-State troll statement "The small business owner is uncreditworthy!" really means "The small business owner can't profitably lobby the State for favors like the CEO of a large corporation!"

The State monetary monopoly gives political insiders access to capital, while denying individuals access to capital. "It's the free market!" is an evil fnord, because there is no free market monetary system. A central bank credit monopoly is the opposite of a free market. You can't say "The free market has favored the CEO over the small business owner." The correct answer is "State violence favors the CEO over the small business owner."

This is an important evil fnord. "The banksters are doing the work of God, 'stimulating' the economy." The reality is that they are parasites, lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else. The banksters create the illusion that they are heroic leaders and brilliant businessmen.

Free Market Banking Observations

In this thread on mises.org, someone asked about banknotes and free market banking.

In a free market, banks wouldn't be able to issue fractional reserve banknotes. Nobody would accept them.

As soon as someone suspected or discovered that a bank was practicing fractional reserve banking, all the customers would rush to redeem their deposits. There would be no State to protect the bank owners from the negative consequences of their fraud.

If an honest warehouse receipt bank is subject to a run, there's no problem. It pays off all customers and then continues operating and accepting deposits again. Having proven its honesty, there's no reason for customers to switch to competitors.

Banks could issue warehouse receipt banknotes. A rational person would immediately redeem them for physical metal or a warehouse receipt in his own bank.

For warehouse receipt banking, a fee would be charged. It'd probably be low, 0.1% per year or less. There might also be a transaction fee. In the present, a COMEX warehouse receipt has a storage fee of approximately 0.1%-0.2% of the value of the metal.

A warehouse receipt bank would need to have public audits, so that customers know they aren't secretly practicing fractional reserve banking. In the present, ETFs like GLD and SLV are "audited", but I have no guarantees that the auditors are honest or competent. The auditors of an investment fund or corporation are chosen by the management, leading to the obvious conflict of interest.

For time-deposit banking (like a certificate of deposit), then there would be interest. Suppose you had a 1 year time deposit redeemable for 100 ounces of gold and interest rates are 4%. After 6 months, you could sell this for 98 ounces of gold. If there's a risk of insolvency by the bank, then its CDs will trade for less than face amount.

Such a system existed before the Federal Reserve credit monopoly was created. It was called "Bills of Exchange". The Federal Reserve credit monopoly destroyed this decentralized banking system that allowed individuals to directly lend each other money.

A "Bill of Exchange" does not exist in the present, because it's silly for individuals to lend each other Federal Reserve Notes. Either the lender has to charge an extortionate rate compared to a State bank, or the lender gets ripped off by inflation. Banks can always issue loans more cheaply than individuals can lend to each other, because banks may borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and exploit the central bank price-fixing cartel.

Banking is not inherently evil. This is a common misconception. It is banking *COMBINED* with State violence that is evil.

Management of a free market bank is not protected by limited liability incorporation. They must do a good job, because they risk losing their savings and careers if there's a fraud.

In a really free market, banking is not evil. Free market banks provide a useful service, matching savers and people who need capital. The current system is completely corrupt, but that doesn't mean that banking, profit-seeking, and investing are inherently evil.

The problem is that government violence, combined with greedy parasites, leads to evil. In a really free market, you can't profit unless you also provide a useful good or service.

Paying Taxes is Immoral!

"Taxation is theft!" is an excellent summary of the evils of the State. There's an important extension of that idea. If you pay taxes, you're actively contributing to the evil of the State.

The parasites' scam continues because the vast majority pays taxes/tribute without questioning it. If you pay taxes, you're partially responsible for all the evils of the State. If you pay taxes, you're paying for aggression against your fellow human beings.

Taxes are used for war, corporate welfare, enforcing stupid laws, and aggressing against other humans. If you pay taxes, you're contributing to these evils.

Not only is there a selfish reason for avoiding taxes, there's also a moral reason. You should avoid paying taxes, because you should protect your property. You should avoid paying taxes, because taxes actively support evil.

Now, someone will object:

There's a criminal gang that will shoot me if I refuse to pay. Is it immoral for me to pay them their tribute?

The victim of a crime is not as responsible as the thief. If you don't take precautions to protect your property, then you're partially responsible if someone steals it and uses it for evil.

If you give a loaded gun to a child and he hurts someone, are you responsible? Similarly, are you responsible when you give your property to insane State bureaucrats? Taxes give wealth and power to mentally incompetent parasites.

Agorism is a viable strategy for resisting evil and protecting your property. If you don't attempt agorism, then you're actively contributing to evil.

Once you understand "Government is a criminal terrorist organization!", then it becomes a question of tactics. "What is the most effective strategy for protecting my property from theft?" is a different attitude than "I'm helpless in the face of this criminal!"

Suppose that every day, on the way home from work, you were mugged and the robbers stole half your money. You complain to the police and they say "Sorry, we're too busy!", because they're taking bribes from the criminals. You complain to other people, and they say "The mugger who robs me every day takes 55% of my money! Be happy that your mugger only takes half your money!" You would confront the mugger directly yourself, but the mugger has other associates who will assault you if you defend yourself. You would walk home another way, but there's a mugger on every corner; the first mugger gives you a receipt so that the others don't rob you also.

Fighting this criminal gang on your own is hopeless. You're outnumbered, and the criminals have superior resources. Rather than accepting your status as a permanent victim, you might decide to find a group of people who work together to protect themselves from organized crime.

If everybody resisted at the same time, then the scam would collapse. The vast majority pay without resisting, making the scam profitable. Because the vast majority pay without resisting, the criminals can afford to spend a lot of resources pursuing those who refuse to pay their tribute.

Agorism is a strategy where you can protect your property from theft, even if the vast majority are still paying their tribute to the criminals.

Right now, I don't have any options for protecting my property from theft. Hopefully, in a few years, I'll have more opportunities for freedom. I have a wage slave job where all my income is reported to the State/IRS, and taxes are automatically deducted from my paycheck. As long as I work in the slave economy, I must pay tribute to my masters.

I'm sympathetic with people who pay their tribute for now, while seeking freedom. That's what I'm doing! However, if you accept your status as victim, then no escape is possible. A mental shift towards freedom is a prerequisite for a physical shift toward freedom. "The criminals are too powerful! I'm not resisting!" is a self-defeating attitude.

There's a herding effect. If you're seeking freedom by yourself, you're very likely to get caught. If a large group of people are seeking freedom, then the odds of each one getting caught is small. If there's enough agorists, then tax resister insurance becomes a viable business, further decreasing the risk.

In California, there are so many people growing marijuana that the State police only arrest/kidnap/assault the biggest farmers. A large number of people breaking a law makes enforcement of that law difficult/impractical/impossible.

If everybody stopped paying taxes at the same time, then the scam would immediately end. The State thugs and bureaucrats would walk off their jobs when their paycheck bounces. Agorism is a strategy where people can stop supporting evil one at a time.

Seeking freedom is risky. Letting criminals steal most of your life and property is also risky. As the rate of looting and pillaging increases, the uncertain risk of agorism becomes more attractive than the certain risk of theft by the State. If you're careful, the risk faced by an agorist is low.

This is an important extension of "Taxation is theft!" You have a moral obligation to not pay taxes. The profits of taxation are used to hurt other people. If you pay taxes, you're facilitating organized crime. If you pay taxes without resisting, you're making it easier for the parasites to crack down on people who seek freedom. If you pay taxes, you're contributing towards my enslavement.

Can Large Corporations Exist in a Free Market?

In this thread on mises.org, someone was asking about free markets and corporations. Can large corporations exist in a really free market?

The argument against corporations is that they receive massive direct and indirect State subsidies.

If I want to borrow $1M to start a business, I can't borrow at all or I'll pay extortionate interest rates.

If the CEO of a large corporation wants to borrow $1B, he can borrow on very favorable terms. This distorts the market in favor of large corporations.

A pro-State troll says "That's because FSK is uncreditworthy!", but it's more than that. Executives at a large corporation have a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. That's collateral for the loan. As an individual, the loan is only backed by my own future labor.

Real interest rates are negative. The CEO of a large corporation receives a huge subsidy when he borrows $1B at a real interest rate of -10% or less. The central bank credit monopoly and paper money concentrate economic power in the hands of people who print and spend new money. I can't avoid subsidizing the CEO of a large corporation unless I also boycott the State's paper money.

Regulations also subsidize large corporations. The cost of regulation compliance is usually fixed rather than per-unit. Suppose it costs $1M to comply with a regulation. If I sell 1000 units, my regulation cost is $1000 each. If I sell 10M units, my regulation cost is $0.10 each. "Economies of scale" are an illusion. The "economy of scale" myth derives from "Larger businesses can more easily lobby the State for favors!" Large corporations squeeze out smaller competitors, because there's a terrorist organization that harasses all small business owners.

It'd be very hard to have a business larger than 100-200 without State restriction of the market. That's the natural maximum size of a human social group.

Suppose that someone is a brilliant manager and can oversee a 100 person factory. Why should he work for a large corporation? Instead, he should raise capital and start his own factory.

In a free market, anyone who's a really good worker would be able to start his own competing business, rather than work for a large corporation or work as an employee. Without a central bank credit monopoly, a skilled worker could raise money borrowing from friends. In the present, it's be foolish for a non-bank to lend me money. Either they would charge me an extortionate interest rate, or receive a return far less than true inflation.

In order to have large corporations, you need State restriction of the capital market, making it hard for individuals to start new businesses. You need State regulations, which impose extra costs on small business owners.

As another example, suppose a small business owner has $100k in revenue. He probably has to spend $5k on accountants, just to make sure he's in compliance with the tax laws. That's effectively a tax of 5%. A large corporation with $10B in revenue might spend $10M on accountants. That's a tax of only 0.1%.

Large corporations can most effectively lobby the State for favors. That's completely unrelated to any efficiency gains. If you own a $100k business, you can't afford to bribe a Congressman. If you control a $10B corporation, then a $10M lobbying budget is a negligible expense.

A large corporation is not genuinely efficient. A large corporation is most efficient at overcoming the overhead costs imposed by the State. A large corporation is most effective at lobbying the State for favors.

In a really free market, would a business be able to impose a "limited liability" clause on its customers? Suppose you sat down in a restaurant, and the waiter made you sign a limited liability agreement, waiving damages if you get food poisoning. Would you really sign it?

Suppose a bank required a "limited liability" clause in its deposit contract. Would you really deposit your savings there? If you got a higher interest rate than other banks, it would only be because you're risking the loss of your savings due to the "limited liability" clause.

Also, a fair free market court would probably not enforce a "limited liability" clause that is obviously misleading. A customer sitting in a restaurant doesn't expect to get food poisoning. Therefore, the restaurant has no right to demand the customer waive that liability.

As another example, suppose a business is incorporated. It pollutes and leaks oil into groundwater at a cost of $100M to cleanup. The business has only $1M in assets. The owners declare bankruptcy when the pollution is discovered. Even though the victims had no contractual relationship with the polluter, limited liability incorporation protected the polluter from his misconduct.

In the present, State incorporation allows business owners to force limited liability clauses on all customers. Limited liability incorporation protects management of a corporation from liability even by people who have no relationship with that corporation. When you limited liability incorporate, you're contracting with the State and not your customers.

"Corporations naturally exist in a really free market" is a mistake that pro-State (L)libertarians often make. Corporations are an artificial creation of the State. Large corporations only exist because of direct and indirect State subsidies. In a really free market, no customer would agree to a limited liability clause.

It's unlikely that you would see businesses larger than 100-200 people in a really free market. There may be several cooperating businesses, but no mega-conglomerates. "Limited liability incorporation is a necessary perk for doing business!" is a common pro-State troll mistake. All limited liability incorporation accomplishes is that it allows management to immune from the negative consequences of misconduct and failure. Limited liability incorporation gives management a free put option to declare bankruptcy and cheat their creditors.

Contrary to what most pro-State troll (L)libertarians say, limited liability incorporation won't occur in a really free market.

What is Constitutional?

This article was pretty funny.

If you're an "expert on Constitutional law", your goal is not "Interpret what the Constitution actually says." Your goal is "Predict how the Supreme Court will rule on specific issues." All "Constitutional law experts" working at universities are making up pro-State propaganda to justify Supreme Court decisions that restrict freedom.

if the Supreme Court adopts a "presumption of constitutionality" by which it defers to the Congress's judgment of the constitutionality of its actions--as it has and as "judicial conservatives" urge--and the Congress adopts Professor Jost's view that "unconstitutionality" means whatever the Supreme Court says, then NO ONE EVER evaluates whether a act of Congress is or is not authorized by the Constitution. A pretty neat trick--and a pretty accurate description of today's constitutional law.

That's pretty funny. The Supreme Court says "This law is Constitutional. Otherwise, Congress would not have passed it." Congressmen say "We won't worry if this law is Constitutional. If we're wrong, then the Supreme Court will object."

That is how the evil of the State works. Evil occurs, but nobody is responsible.

Freedom is gradually eroded. It's the "frog in slowly boiling pot of water" story. If freedoms are gradually and slowly eroded, then nobody objects.

With a monopoly, there's no correction when State parasites abuse their power. In a really free market, if you try to abuse your power, then you will be faced with competition.

Members of the Supreme Court are chosen by the President and Congress. It's like picking your best friend to decide your disputes for you.

These "What is Constitutional?" debates illustrate the fallacy of relying on a piece of paper to protect your freedom. If a handful of insiders have a violence monopoly, then there's no restriction when they abuse their power.

Asking "What is Constitutional?" sets the debate in the wrong frame. The question "Is this law Constitutional?" is itself pro-State trolling.

The correct question is "Do the Constitution and Federal government have any legitimacy at all?" The Constitution is not a valid contract. I didn't sign it. State parasites say that I don't have the right to individually withdraw my consent.