Internet Kill Switch

Joe Lieberman and President Obama are now lobbying for an "Internet Kill Switch". The President should have the power to shut down the Internet, for whatever reason he chooses.

Some people are outraged by this. Think about it for a minute. Suppose the President really did have an "Internet Kill Switch".

THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET, WITHOUT GETTING NEARLY EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY ANGRY AT HIM!!

The fact that Lieberman and Obama ask for such a thing, shows how out of touch with reality they are. A minority of people are using the Internet to discover the truth, such as "Taxation is theft!" and "The USA has a corrupt monetary system." Most people use the Internet for FaceBook and Twitter and lolcats. You can't shut down the freedom bloggers without also shutting down the other stuff.

If the President shut down the Internet, businesses like Google and Amazon would be very angry. They would lobby against such a shutdown. Software engineers need the Internet to do their job. I frequently use Microsoft's online SQL server help.

Without the Internet, the stock market probably wouldn't be able to open. High-frequency trading is done on dedicated lines, but most retail customers place their orders via the Internet. My employer offers web-based services to customers. Financial institutions exchange end-of-day summay information via ftp and email. The Internet is too integrated into the economy for the President to shut it down for longer than an hour.

What about "Malicious hackers may shut down the Internet!"? There already are procedures for dealing with a worm/virus. Those would be activated before the President would notice.

The State economy is under continuous "Grow or die!" pressure. The Internet is a great productivity tool, so State parasites weren't initially threatened by it. If State parasites wanted to kill the Internet, they had to do it when only a handful of military researchers used it.

State parasites are threatened by the Internet, because it threatens their information monopoly. It's too late for them to do anything about it. There's a valid reason to be hopeful about the future, because the Internet is helping the slaves discover the truth.

There already are procedures that State parasites can use to harass people, based on what they write on the Internet. For example, Google is records my IP address, and Verizon records what IP addresses are assigned to which customers. I suspect that many Tor nodes are run by the NSA.

On the Internet, you can get casual Anonymity but not perfect Anonymity. I'm more concerned that a wage slave employer would refuse to hire me based on my blog, than that a State thug would assault me. State thugs could try to silence me based on my blog, but if they tried that, there'd be too many people to silence.

The proposed "Internet Kill Switch" is a stupid law. There's no way the President could use it without crippling the economy and getting everyone angry at him. It's interesting that Lieberman and Obama ask for such a power. It shows that they're out of touch with reality.

I also laugh at the people angry at the "Internet Kill Switch" law. They don't realize that the President could not actually use such a power.

State parasites are threatened by the Internet, because it breaks their information monopoly. The Internet allows people to bypass State censorship and communicate directly. I notice much greater overall awareness of "Taxation is theft!" The Internet enables smart people to directly share information.

There's a limit to how much government abuse can occur, before there's a correction. At this point, the collapse of the State is a historic inevitability. Real reform is impossible. Too many people profit from the corrupt way things are now. Insiders will lobby to block real reform.

State insiders would love to kill/cripple the Internet. That isn't going to happen. The Internet is too useful of a productivity tool. The State economy has continual "Grow or die!" pressure. There's no way State bureaucrats could kill or cripple the Internet without getting nearly everyone angry at them.

Fantasy Supreme Court Nomination Hearing

I noticed a lot of websites obsessed about the Kagan Supreme Court nomination hearing. Essentially, her responses are "I've got the votes to get confirmed and we all know it! Hahahaha! As long as I give evasive non-answers, I'm getting confirmed!"

This question was really funny.

Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that's now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?

Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law. But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional, and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless.

This attitude illustrates the corruption of the legal system. A judge is not concerned with "What is right and what is wrong?" A judge is concerned with "What is legal?" If "What is legal?" has substantially diverged from "What makes moral sense?", that isn't the judge's problem.

The correct attitude towards the Supreme Court is "Who cares what those 9 pro-State trolls say?" The only reason it matters is that State thugs enforce their decisions without questioning it. Supreme Court judges are chosen by State insiders. They will tend to favor more State power ahead of individual freedom.

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings are one big evil fnord saying "These 9 idiots actually have legitimate authority!"

One of my ideas is "Promote agorism via standup comedy." What would a more honest confirmation hearing be like?

Q: Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional?
A: It's important for government insiders to be able to steal via inflation. It would be awful if non-insiders were able to accumulate capital.

Q: Are the IRS and income tax Constitutional?
A: The slaves have to pay their tribute to their masters. If they're paying that much, we must be doing a great job!

Q: How do you feel about no-knock military-style raids for nonviolent offenders?
A: You can't have a Police State without breaking any eggs! It's important for people to be continually scared. If they say or do the wrong thing, we'll assault/murder them!

Q: What's your stance on abortion?
A: It's an excellent issue for dividing and conquering the slaves. If you know someone's opinion on abortion, you don't need to ask them anything else!

Q: How do you feel about respecting precedent (stare decisis)?
A: Once the Supreme Court makes a decision that erodes individual freedom, it should be treated as absolute unbreakable precedent. In the past, the Supreme Court has made decisions that protected individual freedom. I'd overturn those.

Q: How do you feel about excessive use of plea-bargains by prosecutors?
A: It's great to send someone to jail without a trial. If someone gets 1 year via a plea-bargain, but 10+ years if they go to trial and lose, who wouldn't take the deal? The important point is "The prosecutor is always right."

Q: What's your opinion on jury nullification?
A: If it were possible to completely eliminate it, I would. Anyone who publicly advocated for jury nullification should be arrested for treason. Any lawyer who makes such an argument should be stripped of his law license. Any sui juris defendant who mentions jury nullification should be jailed for "contempt of court".

Q: What's the proper role for the Supreme Court?
A: The Supreme Court's job is to make up plausible-sounding lies for restricting people's freedom. If you pass a law, I'll come up with an excuse for why it's Constitutional. I know where my bread is buttered. The "interstate commerce clause" can be used to justify practically anything! We've got to keep the slaves in their place, while providing the illusion that we're fair and protecting their interests.

It'd be nice if confirmation hearings reflected the true attitudes of the participants. Now that I have greater emotional awareness, the parasitic body language of politicians is very obvious.

Banking Anti-Reform Bill

As usual, the banking "reform" bill is more corporate welfare. The banksters spent a lot of money lobbying. They successfully killed almost every useful provision of the law. They also added some bits that will force smaller banks out of business due to increased regulation.

This article had a good explanation of one negative feature. The burden of regulation will force many smaller credit unions and small banks out of business. If you increase administrative overhead, then small businesses are less viable.

Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" proposal was gutted. It went from "Congress may have an ongoing audit of the Federal Reserve." to "Congress may do a one-time audit." to "Congress may do a one-time audit of certain things chosen by Ben Bernanke." Congressmen may now claim "We're auditing the Federal Reserve." when they're really doing nothing.

The "Volcker Rule" was also gutted. Banks are still allowed to speculate in the market for "legitimate hedging purposes" or "market making", which is vague enough to allow practically anything.

Banks are allowed to own a max of 3% in hedge funds they manage. Most big banks own less than 3% right now. The lucrative part is the 2/20 management fee. Some hedge fund investors want the bank to have "skin in the game", to ensure they aren't getting ripped off. Now, the bank can say "Sorry! A 3% investment is the legal maximum!" In effect, it's a State endorsement of their marketing practices.

There is no restriction on other ownership. The bank can own 3% of the hedge fund, and the CEO may purchase the remaining 97% of the shares.

If I tried to set up an investment fund, I'd have to borrow at high rates or not at all. The banksters can lend at preferred rates to their favored hedge funds. The bankster scam works really well when you can (1) borrow cheaply from the Federal Reserve and (2) gamble with other people's money, taking a cut of the profits when you're right and declaring bankruptcy/bailout when you're wrong.

Instead of "Bank borrows at the Fed Funds Rate (currently 0.25%) and buys stuff.", the profit formula is "Bank borrows from the Federal Reserve at 0.25%, lends to a preferred hedge fund at 0.5%, and the hedge fund buys stuff." The bank is still on the hook if the hedge fund defaults. There's just another layer of middlemen taking a cut of the profits.

There's also a "bailout fund" for "too big to fail" banks. That's like a formal endorsement of "If a bank is bigger than X, then the State explicitly backs their derivative contracts. If a bank is smaller than X, there is no such backing." In effect, only "too big to fail" banks may now sell derivatives.

The financial "reform" law is just smoke and mirrors. State politicians are publicly saying "We really stuck it to the bankers!" The bank CEOs are publicly saying "Waaah! Stop hurting me!" The new law does not prevent the banksters from stealing. The new law will not prevent another bubble/bust. Due to the Compound Interest Paradox, boom/bust cycles are an inevitable consequence of fiat debt-based money.

The "reform" law is one big evil fnord. The real issues are not discussed. The real issues are "Inflation is theft!", "Inflation concentrates economic power in people who print and spend new money, namely politicians and banksters", and "The Federal Reserve is one huge price-fixing cartel." Even if you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, "Inflation is theft!" and "The Federal Reserve is one huge price-fixing cartel!" are sufficient arguments against the Federal Reserve.

Why Chatroulette Failed

Chatroulette was a clever idea for a website. If you have a webcam, Chatroulette will pair you randomly with another Chatroulette user.

Chatroulette has a penis problem. Many Chatroulette users just display a picture of their erect weiner.

Does that actually work? Do you know any woman who said "From the moment he E-Mailed me a picture of his erect phallus, I immediately fell in love with him!"

The problem is that Chatroulette pairs you "randomly with uniform distribution". If two "normal" people get paired, they might chat awhile. Any naked guy will be immediately "next"ed, going back into the pool of possible pairs. Naked men are a disproportionately large number of potential pairings.

Chatroulette needs a "rate this person" feature. Then, abusive users will be downvoted and only matched with other abusive users.

Chatroulette is an excellent example of a bad website moderation system. The key for good user-generated content is a moderation system. Abusive people should be filtered out. People with common interests should be matched. That is tricky, because one person's trolling is another person's good content.

The Supreme Court Quoted Lysander Spooner?

In the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Chicago's handgun ban, Clarence Thomas quoted Lysander Spooner in his opinion!

Abolitionist authors wrote in support of the right. See L. Spooner, The Unconstitution-ality of Slavery 66

The justification was that the Federal government overrode state laws regarding chattel slavery. Therefore, the Federal government may override state laws regarding gun ownership.

It seems odd to quote Lysander Spooner. He isn't widely recognized as a State expert. That would be like the Supreme Court quoting my blog.

It's simultaneously encouraging and frustrating. It's encouraging, that the Supreme Court read and endorsed Lysander Spooner. It's frustrating that the Supreme Court can read Lysander Spooner and be pro-State trolls.

Do high-ranking State insiders know the truth? Do they know that government is a criminal conspiracy and should be eliminated? It's hard to tell. Maybe some clever law clerk slipped in the Lysander Spooner reference.

Gold Crushed the Stock Market in the First Half of 2010

So far in 2010, gold has crushed the stock market (Dow and S&P 500). From January 1 to June 30, gold is up more than 10%, while the stock market is down more than 7%. That's a difference of more than 2% per month. That's greater than the long-term trend of 1% per month.

It is possible that the stock market will outperform gold for 6-12 months. For the last 10 years, gold has crushed the stock market over any 2+ year time period.

The State Stole My Savings!

When I first started working as a wage slave software engineer in 1999, I was very attracted to the ideas of "The Retire Early Homepage". If I save and invest wisely in the stock market, then eventually I'd have enough savings that I could live off my investment gains.

It's very similar to the idea of a slave buying his own freedom. I didn't see it that way. I interpreted it as the reward for saving and working.

I recently realized that the stock market doesn't outperform true inflation. Instead of growing exponentially, my savings are actually shrinking exponentially! After 10 years of working, I came to a horrible realization. My current savings are stolen via the State faster than I can earn new savings!

My savings are being stolen, via a declining stock market and inflation. Not only has the nominal value of my stock investments declined, but I've also lost ground to true inflation.

Here's an example. Suppose I can save $10k per year (inflation-adjusted $10k). Suppose the real return on my investments is negative 10%, including inflation. Then, my savings will never be greater than $100k! (inflation-adjusted $100k) I say "inflation-adjusted $10k" to avoid making an awkward comparison; assume that inflation is directly deducted from my savings, rather than being a nominal increase in prices.

Instead of increasing exponentially, my savings increase asymptotically to $100k! State theft of my savings limits how much savings I can acquire!

I always thought that "be diversified" was stupid investment advice. If it's more than 30 years until I retire, I should invest in the asset class with the highest expected return. Bonds are a guaranteed inflation ripoff. At the time, I thought "I should stick with stocks. Over 30 years, volatility should average out."

I was shocked to realize that stocks also don't outperform true inflation! If gold/silver outperform stocks, then that should be my primary investment. Right now, my new investments are directed to GLD and SLV. I'll switch to physical metal in another few years.

I'm keeping my stock investments, which probably is a mistake. All future investments will be SLV or GLD or physical metal. The main problem with physical bullion is that my parents forbid me to invest in physical metal while I'm living with them. There's also the "safe place to store it" problem.

That was a shocking discovery. State bureaucrats stealing my savings almost as fast as I can acquire new savings! My savings were stolen by a combination of inflation and a declining stock market. After 10+ years of investing, my savings have reached my State-allotted asymptotic maximum. The correct investment strategy is to invest in physical metal, or in building your own business.