Gilbert Arenas Fnord

This story is interesting. During an NBA practice, Gilbert Arenas had a dispute with a teammate. Arenas took out a gun and threatened him.

This story is an evil fnord. It's emphasizing the difference between insane statutory State law and natural law.

According to natural law, possessing a gun is not a crime. This story is an evil fnord reinforcing the illegitimate State ban on owning a weapon.

The violence monopoly is a key component of State evil. This evil fnord must be emphasized as often as possible.

Who has a valid complaint against Arenas? The player he threatened, Crittenton, has a possible complaint. As a private organization, the NBA has a complaint that Arenas broke their rules.

The two players would prefer to let the incident go and move on. However, once the State police pursue a criminal complaint, the victim no longer has the power to drop the issue. The State laws take precedence over the desires of the victim.

The NBA is a private business. However, the NBA has a State-backed monopoly. The players' CBA really is an adhesion contract, where each individual player has practically no bargaining power. The NBA penalty against Arenas is excessive for what is a relatively minor transgression. I wrote this draft before he was suspended. I moved up the draft when the suspension was announced. The rest of his contract will probably be terminated, citing the "morality clause". The fact that he isn't playing that well doesn't help either.

"You may not bring weapons to practice or at games!" is a reasonable rule, if there's otherwise adequate security. However, that would make Arenas' transgression civil and not criminal. Also, the penalty faced by Arenas is excessive. The NBA commissioner has to be strict and tough, because he's really a State agent.

It accomplishes nothing by sending Arenas to jail. He is not a violent criminal. It only reinforces the illegitimate State gun ban.

It's reasonable for the NBA to suspend or fine Arenas. A jail term is excessive and accomplishes nothing, except to reinforce State propaganda.

What right do State police have to steal from me via taxes, and use the profits to prosecute Arenas? I don't care whether he brought a gun to practice or not. Why should I be forced to pay the cost of his trial and jailing?

Arenas will probably accept a plea bargain, just like Plaxico Burress. That's another component of State evil. If you plea bargain, you get a lesser penalty than if you go to trial and lose. This is a huge incentive to avoid a trial and submit. Besides, neither Arenas nor his lawyer probably considered challenging the legitimacy of the State gun ban. They would not pursue a "jury nullification" defense, nor would the judge allow it if they tried.

Arenas doesn't have to explicitly make a "jury nullification" argument. He could just say "I'm not a violent criminal. There's no point sending me to jail." The judge would not even allow an argument like that. The judge would emphasize in the trial "The Rule of Law must be Obeyed! Jurors do not have the discretion to analyze the morality of the law or the morality of the punishment, just the facts of the case!" "Respect the Rule of Law" really means "Respect the arbitrary rules/taxes/regulations of State parasites!"

The Arenas story is a common evil fnord. This story reinforces the State weapons ban. The State weapons ban is important, because it makes the slaves dependent on the State police monopoly. The State weapons ban makes the slaves unable to defend themselves from State aggression.

Every law by State parasites is implicitly and explicitly backed by the threat "Obey or we will murder you!" For this reason, the victims must be kept unarmed. Healthcare "reform" is viewed with hostility, because the "reform" really is "Buy health insurance or we will murder you!"

Just like the "support our troops and police" fnord, the bigger the lie, the more often it must be repeated. "You need a permit to own a gun!" or "You are not allowed to own a gun!" is an important lie that must be repeated as often as possible.

Standing Up for a Judge

I don't have much experience with the legal system, but I noticed one weird ritual. When the judge enters the courtroom, everyone else is expected to stand. I only noticed that because I read a story about a freedom activist who got hit with "contempt of court" for not standing fast enough when the judge entered the courtroom.

"Contempt of court" is one of those catchall crimes that says "A judge can send you to jail for doing something that he doesn't like." There's no burden of proof. It's the sole discretion of the judge. You can't argue "I didn't injure the judge because I didn't physically harm him." From the judge's point of view, you injure him by not showing respect. Only an insane pro-State troll would have such an attitude.

If you're held prisoner in a State court, you have to obey the ritual. You can participate in the ritual without being fooled by it. However, everyone else in the court is fooled! That's a serious problem!

Standing when the judge enters the courtroom has an implicit hidden assumption "The authority of the judge is legitimate!" These little subtle rituals reinforce the authority of the State.

The "stand up" ritual has as a hidden assumption "The judge is a wise person who deserves respect!" instead of "This is a crazy guy wearing a robe!"

Where else do people stand up and sit down on command? In church! In a church, you stand up and sit down when the priest tells you to.

It's interesting to notice these little similarities between the State and the Evil God of Christianity. A priest is spreading the word of Christianity. A judge is a priest spreading the word of the State.

Conspiracy or Incompetence

One of my favorite Arthur C. Clarke quotes is:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

There's a variant of this, which is:

Sufficiently widespread incompetence is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

This issue keeps coming up over and over again.

Are there a handful of really evil people who are fully aware of the scam? Are they looting and pillaging on purpose, knowing they enslaved the entire world?

Are political insiders so stupid that they aren't aware of what they're doing? They're trying to do the right thing, but they're just so pro-State brainwashed and stupid that they fail.

There's an obvious conflict. If you're a State insider, there's an economic incentive towards stupidity. This enables you to steal without being aware of what they're doing.

Massive incompetence can create the illusion of a well-coordinated conspiracy.

This effect is what I call "The Parasites' Union". Suppose parasite A is accused of misconduct. Parasite B will defend A against accusations by an honest person, no matter what the circumstances. "Protect other parasites" is a goal that parasites understand well.

For example, suppose I have two parasitic bosses. Normally, they will be maneuvering against each other. However, seeing that I am skilled, they will temporarily cooperate to eliminate me. The threat of a competent person is more important than the normal political maneuverings of parasites.

Parasites protect each other. Most State insiders are parasites. The net result is great evil, even if the parasites don't get together and say "HAHAHA!! We're so awesome! We totally enslaved everyone and conned everyone!"

The process for selecting State insiders weeds out independent thinkers. There's a lot of pressure to conform.

Are lobbyists for the AMA just trying to protect the interests of doctors? Are they aware that they're creating a shortage of doctors and driving up health care costs for everyone?

Are there insiders in the psychiatry/pharmaceutical/death industry who are fully aware of the scam? Are there people who think "HAHAHA!! The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness was a clever lie! We're able to murder people and make a lot of money off it! Good for us!" Or, are they just so stupid that they don't notice they're hurting people.

Are there State insiders who know "Taxation is theft! We keep collecting taxes anyway, because it's the source of our wealth and power! It sucks to be a mindless brainwashed zombie!"

On the one hand, it's hard to imagine people who would be that evil. On the other hand, I've had some really parasitic bosses in my wage slave jobs. They certainly would have murdered someone, if they thought they could profit and get away with it. As you move higher up the ladder of State power, the level of parasitism increases.

There is evidence that some families have been using State power to loot and pillage for generations. The Bush family certainly was well connected. Similarly, the Clintons have connections. Even Obama's parents allegedly had some impressive insider connections. That contracts the official State propaganda, which is "Obama emerged from nowhere, as a non-insider, to become President!"

Both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates benefited tremendously from the connections of their parents. Someone just as talented (or more so), but lacking the connections, would not have been as successful. For example, Bill Gates' parents were millionaires. This enabled him to focus on starting a business, instead of being forced to work as a wage slave. If I had a couple million dollars, I'd focus on starting businesses instead of wasting a lot of time as a wage slave.

In the mainstream media, certain insiders have controlled things for generations. The Ochs-Sulzberger family controls the NY times, for more than 100 years. Even though it's a public corporation, they own special super-voting shares that give them control. The Bancroft family controlled Dow Jones until the buyout by Rupert Murdoch.

Most mainstream media corporations are incorporated in such a manner. Rupert Murdoch owns special super-voting shares of the News Corporation. Sumner Redstone owns special super-voting shares of Viacom and CBS. Brian Roberts owns special super-voting shares of Comcast, which he inherited from his father. Via a bankster-subsidized buyout, he now controls NBC/Universal.

Via trusts or other tax loopholes, the super-voting shares are passed on from parent to children. For example, suppose you own 75% of the voting power but 1% of the equity. According to inheritance tax law, the equity is valued at 1% and not 75%. The CEO can pay himself and his friends a huge salary and option/equity grants. In the USA, parents can pass on State power to their children more reliably than at any time in history. Incumbent businesses are shielded from competition by the State, or have an explicit State-backed monopoly. For example, Comcast owns the monopoly right to sell local cable service in various cities; competition isn't hard, it's explicitly illegal.

Even without special super-voting shares, most corporations have a "poison pill" or other legal maneuvers. This protects incumbent management from a hostile takeover. Superficially, they say they're "protecting shareholder value", but they're really just protecting the insiders. As a small individual shareholder, you have zero say over how the corporation is run. Your returns underperform true inflation. As a small shareholder, you don't really own anything.

These corporations just are "public" so that insiders can cash out their holdings and to fleece an unsuspecting public. The vast majority of people think that the stock market outperforms true inflation.

There is evidence that some families have used State power to loot and pillage for generations. There also is evidence that State insiders are so stupid that they aren't aware that they're doing evil. A lot of them have good intentions, but are restricted by their own pro-State brainwashing.

This issue keeps coming up over and over again. Is the current mess a deliberate conspiracy? Are State insiders so stupid that they aren't aware of their crimes? Either way, it's immoral, and needs to stop.

There are psychopaths controlling the State, combined with intelligent brainwashed slaves. Some State agents are psychopathic parasites; others have the "abused productive" personality type but are too brainwashed to notice the scam. The psychopaths will never learn, but the "abused productive" people might be convinced. The State needs some intelligent slaves working as State employees. Otherwise, the scam would collapse because nobody could do anything. A business filled with 100% psychopathic parasites would be unable to do anything at all. Even some lawyers and judges must be intelligent, to keep the legal system moving and to come up with better excuses/lies for increasing State power. A mixture of psychopaths and scared wage slaves is the best way to implement evil.

This relates to "Is it immoral for an intelligent anarchist to work directly for the State?" In my current wage slave job, I'm working directly for a large financial institution. However, the risk calculations I'm performing are meaningless. It's a joke, but at least my jokes are superficially calculated correctly with nice hypertext documentation. I'm looking forward to trying other things, but this is my best option for now. It's hard, because nearly everyone else is a mindless brainwashed zombie. I'm very outnumbered!

There is one advantage for "It's incompetence!" instead of "It's a deliberate conspiracy!" If it's a deliberate conspiracy, then the insiders would ruthlessly hunt down people who start to understand the truth. (Unless complete collapse and an agorist revolution is their secret agenda.) However, this has not happened (yet) for me. A State policeman reading my blog would probably conclude I'm some harmless fruitcake blogger. I haven't put any of my ideas into practice yet!

If it's not a conspiracy, and merely gross incompetence, then it's easier to make progress. People might be convinced eventually. There's still a huge hurdle to overcome. There's still a risk, but it's not as great.

You should judge by outcomes and not intentions. It doesn't make any difference whether State insiders are deliberately stealing, or are so stupid that they don't know any better. Either way, agorism is the best strategy for resisting evil.

Fox vs. Time Warner vs. Customers

The Fox vs. Time Warner dispute is interesting. It's brinksmanship negotiating between two State-backed monopolies. This occurred last year with Viacom, but there was an agreement at the last minute.

Mainstream media corporations have the exclusive right to create programming. Even though there's 100+ channels on your cable TV, they're owned by a very small handful of corporations. Fox is part of the State-backed information cartel.

I can't start my own cable channel. There's nothing preventing me from getting a camera and making shows. However, I wouldn't be able to find a local cable TV monopoly willing to carry my show. If Fox wants to sell and promote a new channel, they have it easy. They just bundle it with the channels they already sell.

Local cable corporations have an explicit State-backed monopoly. If I want to lay my own cable and start my own cable business that's illegal. The problem isn't the technical difficulty of laying cable and signing up customers. It's explicitly illegal for me to do that. The local cable monopoly State contract explicitly says that competition is illegal. In NYC, you can get Time Warner in some areas and Cablevision in other areas. However, there's no overlap. It's several mafia gangs agreeing to not infringe on each other's turf.

Time Warner carries the same signal that Fox broadcasts for free over the air. However, they need permission from Fox to carry the signal. Time Warner executives want the fee to be $0.30 per subscriber per month. Fox executives want the fee to be $1.00 per month. Time Warner is arguing "We'd be forced to pass the $0.70 on to customers as higher prices." Fox is saying "Our content is valuable! It's worth it!"

Do you see the problem? Hint: Time Warner has a monopoly.

The problem is that Time Warner only sells bundled cable service. You sign up for a package of channels. I don't get to pick and choose what channels I want, or even which shows I want.

The problem is not that it's technically difficult to sell unbundled service. The problem is that the mainstream media corporations and cable channels like this arrangement.

If Fox wants to charge $1/month, then each individual subscriber should have the choice to keep or not keep the signal. If I had the free choice, I'd probably drop the channel and rely on the over-the-air signal. Neither Fox nor Time Warner want each individual subscriber to have the power to negotiate.

For example, I watch Comedy Central but not MTV. I don't have the option to buy just Comedy Central. I don't have the option to buy just the shows I like. I have to buy the 100+ channel package. Viacom likes this arrangement, because they get to sell a whole bunch of stuff whether customers want it or not. Time Warner likes this arrangement, because customers will pay a bigger subscription fee just to get a few channels they want.

What channels/shows do I watch regularly?
Comedy Central - The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, South Park, and a few other shows
Cartoon Network - Adult Swim
Boomerang - classic cartoons
CNBC - my father likes it, but I don't watch much
GSN - game show channel
BBC - Doctor Who (only a few new episodes per year) and Gordon Ramsay (British version)
CBS - The Amazing Race, Big Brother, and the occasional game show or sporting event
NBC - the occasional game show or sporting event
FOX - Gordon Ramsay and the occasional game show or sporting event
ABS - the occasional game show or sporting event
NatGeo - Dog Whisperer
G4 - Ninja Warrior (new episodes only twice a year)

I probably could pay $1 each for each of the shows I watch regularly, and it'd be less than my actual cable bill.

Mainstream media corporations do *NOT* want to offer unbundled service. "Stuff you want to buy packaged with stuff you don't want to buy!" is the behavior of a monopolistic seller collecting economic rent.

State parasites say "The Internet is ruining our business." It's much more convenient to download something via BitTorrent than to actually buy a "legal" copy. Your business model has a problem when for-free volunteer service is superior to yours. Remember that intellectual property is not a valid form of property.

The Internet changes this equation. On the Internet, you can only go to the websites you like. For example, if you don't like my blog, don't read it. "TV over Internet" is slowly chipping away at the mainstream media monopoly, but not quite yet. The three reasons that the Internet haven't completely eroded TV are:

1. Bandwidth is too slow for live streaming in many areas. For example, on my DSL, I can't stream YouTube videos that fast. Sometimes, I have to wait for it to load. I don't have better than DSL because the cable monopoly and telephone monopoly are slow to roll out better service.
2. Mainstream media personalities aren't making the move to the Internet. In many cases, a mainstream media employment contract prevents you from also self-publishing on the Internet.
3. The advertising/revenue model hasn't been perfected yet. If you publish on the Internet, your only options are donations from viewers or ads embedded in your content. "Payments directly from fans" and "Self-publish without copyright restrictions!" seems like the most viable model.
   

The entire "Time Warner vs. Fox" debate is one big evil fnord. The issue is not "The fee should be higher!" or "The fee should be lower!" The real issue is "Customers should have the right to choose unbundled service, paying only for the shows or channels they want." It is a negotiation between two State-backed monopolies and not a real negotiation.

Only a monopolistic seller can force customers to buy things they want bundled with things they don't want.

Blogger Has A Comment Spam Problem

I noticed a dramatic increase in the amount of comment spam.

I turned on the "CAPTCHA required for Anonymous commenters" feature. Unfortunately, a lot of the comment spam is from people with Blogger IDs. It only takes a few seconds to create an ID, and that isn't much of a deterrent.

I manually moderate all comments. It'd be nice if there were an "auto-approve" feature for people who left a comment before. WordPress has much better "catch comment spam" features. I'd still want the final call on moderate/reject; some automated spam filters have false positives.

Another annoying bit is that Blogger has no ability to write your own features. In the few years I've been using it, there have been practically no new features. For example, the "Best of FSK" list must be generated by me by hand. There's no integration with Google Analytics. With WordPress, there's extensions available or I could write one myself.

Another risk of Blogger is that someone could hack my Blogger/gmail account and I'd lose my blog. Another problem is that Google could say "TOS violation!" and I'm SOL.

I really need to switch to self-hosted WordPress. I'm getting pretty annoyed with Blogger. I've been planning to wait until my AdBrite earnings go over $20/month, but I'm thinking of going ahead and doing it anyway.

I set up a PHP/Apache server at work, so now I'm feeling more comfortable doing that myself on a Linode.

Right now, I have a plain cell phone. I'm probably going to get a PDA/phone so I can write stuff on the subway and then download it to my PC when I get home.

The Fallacy of Taxation With Representation

A pro-State troll says "If you think taxes are too high, then why don't you vote for a candidate who will lower taxes." I don't recall any candidates running on a platform of "I'm eliminating all taxes!"

The fallacy is that the number of people who work directly or indirectly for the government is more than 50%. If 50% of the people work for the government, and they always vote, then it's impossible to achieve reform by voting.

Suppose that voter turnout levels are 50%, and 50% of the people of the people work for the government. If everyone who works for the government votes, then doesn't that imply that real voter turnout rate is 0%?

People who work for the government *MUST* vote, because they're protecting their turf. People who don't work for the government might realize that voting is a waste of time.

The government claims more than 50% of all economic activity, via direct and indirect taxes. "More than 50% of the people work for the government (directly or indirectly)!" seems very likely, given direct taxation rates of more than 50% and a greater indirect taxation rate. It's hard to do an exact calculation.

What careers are direct or indirect State employees?

1. There's the obvious direct State employees, like policemen, soldiers, firemen, judges, public school teachers, garbage collectors, politicians, and State bureaucrats.
2. Bankers are indirect State employees. They are dependent on State regulation of the monetary system for their profits. Almost everyone employed in the financial industry is an indirect State employee.
3. Lawyers are indirect State employees. They are dependent on State regulation of the justice market. If you need to accomplish something in the legal system, you need a lawyer. The rules and procedures of the legal system were written by lawyers. They intentionally made the legal system complicated, so that you need a lawyer whenever you do something. Most lawyers are experts in statutory law and not natural law. A State law degree is useless in a free market justice system based on natural law. You need a State license to work as a lawyer, making a lawyer a partial State employee. If a State-licensed lawyer does something that offends a State bureaucrat, then his law license may be revoked.
4. Doctors, dentists, accountants, electricians, plumbers, taxi medallion owners, etc. are the beneficiaries of a State licensing cartel. They receive above-market salaries due to State restriction of the market.
5. People who work for the State telephone/electricity/cable monopoly/oligopoly are indirect State employees.
6. Unionized workers at Ford/GM/Chrysler are mostly State employees. Unionized airline employees are mostly State employees. Most unionized workers are partial State employees, because they're dependent on the State to earn above-market salaries. By definition, a unionized worker receives an above-market wage for his labor; otherwise, he'd drop out of the union and get another job.
7. Mainstream media workers are partial State employees. They're dependent on State restriction of the media industry for their profit. If I try to start my own TV show, I wouldn't be able to broadcast it and reach a wide audience unless I find a mainstream media corporation willing to carry it. Self-publishing on the Internet has opened the door somewhat, but it's very hard to build up an Internet audience via organic growth.
8. There are a lot of private contractors, especially building weapons, who work for the government. They count as employed by the private sector, but they're really government employees.
9. A private contractor who builds State roads is an indirect State employee.
10. Executives at a large corporation are State bureaucrats. Managing a corporate bureaucracy isn't the same as managing a free market business. Workers at a large corporation act like cogs in a State bureaucracy, rather than free market workers. Executives at large corporations think they're brilliant leaders, but they're actually best at navigating a State corporate bureaucracy.
    

There are very few workers who aren't State employees. The only examples I can think of are small business owners/workers in an area that's subject to little/no State regulation.

A small business owner is typically 2x-10x more efficient than workers at a large corporation. This is necessary to overcome the burden imposed by State regulation.

Suppose that the 1% most-skilled workers are 200x more productive than the remaining 99%. In that case, you'll never convince the remaining 99% to vote to reduce taxes on the 1% top performers. That may sound silly, but performance differences of 200x or more are true in the area of software. In other areas of the economy, that may also be true, but you don't notice because other areas of the economy are heavily regulated. For example, someone working at McDonald's may be intelligent, but they're forced to obey the rules and procedures of the McDonald's corporation.

Suppose that the 1% most skilled workers pooled their resources. They produce twice as much wealth as everyone else combined. They should be able to defend their property, if they chose to do so.

The point of agorism is that the most skilled workers drop out of the State economy and create free market alternatives to the State. By preventing parasites from leeching off your labor, you improve your productivity while denying the State resources. Even if the State doesn't collapse during your lifetime, a successful agorist still increases his personal wealth.

Suppose that 51% of the population works directly or indirectly for the government. Suppose there's a referendum on "Should there be a government?" (as if State bureaucrats would ever allow such a question on the ballot anyway) Suppose that 51% vote "yes" and 49% vote "no", but the 51% who voted "yes" are direct or indirect government employees. Does that vote legitimize the government?

More than 50% of the population works directly or indirectly for the government. That makes it hard/impossible to reform the State by voting. The people dependent on the State for their livelihood will *ALWAYS* vote to maintain or increase the size of the government.

Taxation with representation fails because parasites can vote to steal from productive workers. As long as 50% of the population are parasites, reform cannot occur by voting. Welfare and other State perks help create the illusion that a lot of people benefit from government.

What Happens When Someone Hoards Money?

In this thread on mises.org, someone was asking about the effect of hoarding money.

There are two separate cases to consider, hoarding fiat money and hoarding gold.

If you hoard fiat money, you accomplish nothing. Your savings will still be stolen via inflation. It makes no difference if you store Federal Reserve Notes under your mattress or in a checking account. They are stolen by inflation either way.

Consider a free market with a gold standard.

If you decide to hoard gold, then prices will fall as there is less money in circulation. If you decide to hoard gold, interest rates will rise as an incentive for other people to not hoard gold.

If someone starts monopolizing gold, then the price of gold will skyrocket and they will have a hard time buying more and more gold. People would stop using gold as money and start using silver or other goods. The gold hoarder accomplishes nothing.

In 1932-1933, people starting hoarding gold as a defense when they realized the government was going to default on the gold-redeemability of the US dollar. These plans were frustrated when Roosevelt declared gold ownership illegal and confiscated the gold. At the time, the mainstream media decried gold-hoarders as immoral. Those people were acting in their economic self-interest. The Federal Reserve cartel printed more Federal Reserve Notes than there was physical gold. Printing more gold-redeemable paper than there was physical gold guaranteed an eventual default. President Roosevelt was a criminal, by stealing from Americans all their gold and demanding they exchange it for fiat paper.

"Gold hoarders are immoral!" was pro-State propaganda in 1932-1933. It was used as justification for Roosevelt's gold seizure in 1933. Hoarding gold is a rational economic decision when you expect the government to default on its paper money.

"Hoarding money is immoral!" is pro-State propaganda used to justify inflation. Inflation is a disincentive for people to hoard money. Hoarding money is immoral. Therefore, it's a good idea for State insiders to steal via inflation.

President Roosevelt ran for President on a campaign promise of "I will not default on the gold standard!" Then, one of the first things he did as President was default.

Suppose that all savers decided to cash out their State paper investments and buy gold instead. There would be hyperinflation of fiat paper money, because nobody would be willing to hold onto it.

If you decide to invest in gold instead of State paper investments, you're protecting yourself from theft via inflation. This leads to higher inflation for the remaining fiat money holders. If enough people started to keep their savings in gold and boycott worthless State paper, then the State monetary system would collapse in hyperinflation.

It is necessary to continuously spread propaganda that State paper investments are sound, and that gold investors are idiots. Otherwise, the fiat monetary system would collapse as people traded in their worthless paper for something of tangible value.

I read an amusing anecdote elsewhere on mises.org.

When a housewife thinks "I need a new refrigerator. The price might fall, so I'll wait to buy. I'll wait until it's 'on sale'.", then the State fiat monetary system is sound. My parents follow this fallacy. They always wait to buy, expecting prices to fall.

When a housewife thinks "I need a new refrigerator. The price keeps going up, so I'd better buy it now.", then the State fiat monetary system is about to fail.

When a housewife thinks "I don't need a new refrigerator. I'm buying one anyway, because I've got to spend my money before it loses its value.", then the fiat monetary system is in hyperinflationary collapse.