"Overseas Contingency Operations" Fnord

Sometimes, the bad guys make their scheming painfully obvious.

Hooray! The "War on Terror" is officially over! Terror wins!

I first noticed this story on The Daily Show. The only mainstream media news/comedy shows I watch are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

I liked this Washington post article.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

Instead of "War on Terror", the Obama administration is using "Overseas Contingency Operations". It's a new word for the exact same thing.

Who do they think they're fooling? Does that actually work?

I almost feel sorry for the guy whose job was "Come up with a new name for 'War on Terror' that doesn't sound evil!" On the other hand, anybody who would voluntarily do such a thing is clearly a scumbag.

That's the type of change Obama is delivering. "We're going to make up brand new names for the same lousy policies!"

This is an important evil fnord. If you make up a new name for the same evil idea, then it isn't evil anymore.

Instead of "layoffs", it's "downsizing".

Instead of "War on Terror", it's "Overseas Contingency Operations".

Instead of "Bush", it's "Obama".

By making up a new name for evil, all memories of previous evils are forgotten and forgiven.

This one was so obvious that the Daily Show joked about it. If editors at mainstream media corporations weren't total tools for the establishment, they'd be saying "WTF is this? Who does Obama think he's fooling? Are the American people really dumb enough to fall for this one?"

I also like the way that all politicians and mainstream media personalities play along with the gag. They all start using the new fnord phrase simultaneously.

Instead, mainstream media corporations have a brief story covering the change, and then they start using the new evil fnord phrase.

"Make up a new name for an old evil" is a common evil fnord tactic.

Rioting Fnord

A few days ago, there were some riots in England and Europe. There was frustration over rising unemployment and a lousy economy.

One of the comedians on the Communism channel said "These riots are good! People are venting their frustrations!"

Someone should explain to the rioters that agorism is the only resistance strategy that stands a chance of success.

A riot ultimately accomplishes nothing. The bad guys may make superficial token concessions to the rioters, so that they can feel they got something. One State bureaucrat famously said "Let them riot and protest all they want, as long as they still pay taxes."

A riot makes the protesters feel better, but doesn't hurt the bad guys. It's a waste of time.

Suppose that there are 10,000 people who are really angry over some issue of State abuse. Congregating in the same location is *STUPID*. That just makes it very easy for State police to violently assault the protesters.

A group of unorganized protesters can't win a violent protest against better equipped and better trained police. That sort of violent confrontation is the bread-and-butter of the State.

The State police frequently plant spies among the protesters. These agents encourage the crowd to get violent. This provides an excuse for the police to violently assault the protesters.

For this reason, a large peaceful protest is impossible. Violent spies planted among the protesters then discredit the underlying issue. There also are jerks who look for any excuse to misbehave, in addition to deliberately planted State spies.

The bad guys encourage people to vent their frustrations via a riot or protest. It's a meaningless action that accomplishes nothing. That's the reason riots get mainstream media coverage, while the issues I mention in my blog are never discussed at all.

News coverage of riots is an evil fnord that says "If you're unsatisfied, you should riot or protest!" That is presented as the only option for a disgruntled person to pursue.

The only actions that hurt the bad guys are preventing them from leeching your productivity. Agorism is the only resistance strategy where you increase your personal wealth and hurt the bad guys at the same time.

Are College Athletes Exploited?

I was watching the NCAA professional basketball tournament. I saw a commercial saying "College athletes aren't exploited, because most of them have careers other than in sports." Seeing such flagrant propaganda made me think "That's a good blog topic!"

First, I'll give the arguments for "college athletes are not exploited".

A professional college athlete works spends approximately 20 hours/week in practice and playing. They also are expected to spend time working out, lifting weights, etc. College tuition is worth $20k-$50k per year, depending on the school. Student athletes are also reimbursed for living expenses (room and board). A job for 20 hours/week, part of the year, that pays $20k/year is a pretty good deal.

Many of these students would not otherwise be able to afford college. A college degree is a prerequisite for most wage slave jobs. Therefore, student athletes are getting a good deal.

Now, I'll give the arguments for "college athletes are exploited".

The universities make millions of dollars per year off sports. There are TV contracts. There are ticket sales. A successful sports team is also worth a ton of money, in the form of alumni donations and more students applying to the school. Schools report a surge in student applications the year after winning a national championship in a major sport.

Consider men's college basketball. Let's use the generous assumption of "student athletes get tuition, room and board worth $50k/year". With 15 scholarships per year, the university's expenses are $750k/year. Most schools make millions of dollars or more on TV contracts, ticket sales, and the other perks of a sports team. For example, suppose the University charges $10/game on an arena that seats 10,000. That's $100k per game, and there are 10+ home games. Of course, not every game will be a sellout. I still haven't included the value of the TV contract, clothing sales, etc.

The rules regarding student athlete compensation are set by the NCAA. This is a price fixing cartel. For example, universities are barred from offering students a direct cash payment in addition to their scholarship.

College football and college basketball act as minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. The NFL has a rule that athletes must play at least 3 years in college first (or be 21 years old). The NBA has a rule that athletes must play at least 1 year in college (or be 19 years old). These leagues are colluding with the college minor leagues. For basketball, playing in Europe for a year is a possibility. The NFL has a pretty much an absolute monopoly for professional football.

Only a small percentage of college players turn pro. Survey every scholarship freshman in football or basketball, "Do you expect to be a starter on a professional sports team?" I bet that a large number will answer "yes". There certainly will be many more "yes" responses than the number of pro league spots available.

There is occasionally a scandal about university "boosters" offering perks to students under the table. The university is barred from directly paying students. However, some alumni attempt to conduct arbitrage over this restriction. They make off-the-books (agorist-style!) payments to the student athletes. Most of the time, this occurs undetected. The coaches may know what is happening, but they're clear as long as they can claim plausible deniability.

There are weird rules about who exactly is a University "booster". If you're an official booster, then the school is responsible if you break the rules. If you're an unofficial booster, who will ever know?

Pro sports agents tend to hang around the players. They give the players gifts, in the hopes that the player will sign with them when they turn pro.

For example, it isn't a violation of NCAA rules for me to give money to a basketball player attending Purdue. I have no affiliation with Purdue, and therefore the NCAA rules don't apply to me. (It might be a Federal crime for me to give money to a college athlete. I haven't checked.) If I'm an agent for professional basketball players, it's in my interests to give money to college players so they'll sign with me after graduation.

Popular college players are barred from signing endorsement deals until after they turn pro. That's an unreasonable restriction on players. Universities are allowed to sign deals with professional clothing manufacturers, so their logo appears on the team uniforms. Coaches are allowed to perform endorsement deals.

Players are barred from taking jobs other than their scholarship. Otherwise, this loophole could arbitrage the "no payments to players" option. For example, a University booster could hire a player for a $50/hr summer job, just because he's on the team.

Consider baseball, which has a minor league system separate from college. The top 18 year old baseball players sign minor league contracts, instead of going to college. College baseball isn't a big money sport like football or basketball, where college is the development league. The NBA has a development league now, but it isn't popular like college basketball; only players too old for college or ineligible for college play in the NBA development league. For hockey, there are professional minor leagues; fewer top hockey prospects play in college.

The value of the education earned by college athletes is less than that of typical students. Almost no college athletes study "hard" subjects like Mathematics or Computer Science. Many of them take less-difficult courses, making their education worth less. Further, they spend so many hours practicing and on the road, that they don't have much time for studying.

The university charges the athletic department the cost of tuition. However, the university does not spend that much on actual education. The cost of an athletic scholarship is merely money moved from one part of the University's budget to another part.

Summarizing, the arguments for "college athletes are exploited" are:

1. Via the NCAA, universities collude on the rules regarding student athlete compensation.
2. Professional sports leagues collude, requiring athletes to play in college first.
   
3. Student athletes are barred from getting paid more than value of their scholarship. Top student athletes receive huge raises when they turn pro.
   
4. Student athletes are frequently paid extra money under-the-table. (agorism!)
   
5. The universities make huge profits from basketball and football.
6. Consider sports where there are professional minor leagues, such as baseball and hockey. In these sports, the college game attracts much less interest.
7. The actual value of a college education is less than the official cost, especially for student athletes. Student athletes tend to take less difficult courses. Student athletes are required to spend many hours practicing.
   

You may say "College athletes aren't exploited. Nobody's forcing them to play." The rules of the economic system given universities a State-licensed monopoly. The rules of the economic system make a college degree a prerequisite for many jobs. For many poor students, an athletic scholarship is their best option. That doesn't mean the system is fair.

My Ex-Therapist is Still Stalking Me!

Yesterday, I got a phone call from a social worker at the mental health clinic, the one I used to visit. He was asking if I wanted to resume my "treatment".

My parents weren't home when the call arrived. The answering machine got it. I deleted the message. I didn't tell my parents, because they would panic. Just because someone stupid calls you, you aren't obligated to respond.

I've decided "The only way those ***holes get to see me again is if they come with police and a search warrant." My father echoed that sentiment, because he knows that Coney Island Hospital is run by a bunch of murderers; they really badly mistreated my now-dead grandfather. If necessary, my parents would testify "FSK is fine right now.", which should be good enough. If there were a "good cop, bad cop" (productive/parasite) on the kidnapping team, I should be able to convince the "good cop" that I don't need to be involuntarily hospitalized.

I haven't seen my ex-therapist for 3+ months now. She can't validly argue "FSK needs to be urgently involuntarily hospitalized!" if I haven't seen her for 3+ months. On the other hand, she may be willing to commit perjury and State enforcers may be insane. There's a lot of pro-State propaganda "People who have been labeled with a 'mental illness' are dangerous! They need to be controlled!"

I read that, if the psychiatrist in a hospital argues that a patient should be involuntarily hospitalized and forcibly drugged, the judge agrees with the psychiatrist 98%+ of the time. It isn't even a jury trial! It's an administrative trial in front of a judge! You can appeal, but by then, you've already been under the maltreatment of a psychiatrist for months. A forcibly drugged patient can't accurate testify that they don't need drugs, because the drugs dull your senses. Once, I was given a forced injection that made me forget everything for a day or two. Such an injection administered immediately before a trial would render me unable to testify.

My ex-therapist knew that I was living with my parents. Doesn't she assume that they would be able to help take care of me?!

This is the same clinic that called the "mental health crisis response team" when I fired my ex-therapist. My ex-therapist had the parasitic personality type. She probably lied to her bosses about what happened.

I'm pretty sure that the correct thing to do is ignore them. I already told them that I was planning to find another doctor. When the "mental health crisis response team" visited, I lied and said I'd already found another doctor. Why won't they leave me alone?

Hopefully, they'll give up and go away. If they were going to seek a court order, they would have gotten one by now. I'm not their patient anymore, and they should have no legal standing to seek an injunction.

I had a miniature panic attack in November, when I was falsely accused of sexual harassment at work. My ex-therapist made me feel worse, instead of better. I did see her while in a semi-manic state. She probably was seriously considering involuntarily hospitalizing me, but she didn't.

After that, she became strongly insistent that I needed to take anti-psychotic drugs. She said that if I refused to take anti-psychotic drugs, then I wouldn't be allowed to see her anymore. She probably was lying, but I called her out on that. Fearing for my safety, I fired her and stopped seeing her.

I didn't merely stop going. I called her to cancel and told her I was going to find another therapist by looking in my health insurance provider list. My evil ex-therapist probably lied about what happened. She was in CYA mode when she explained what happened to her boss.

It isn't worth my time suing them for malpractice. It isn't worth my time to file a complaint with the State licensing board about her misconduct. It'd be my word against my ex-therapist, regarding what happened. Hopefully, they'll get bored and give up.

I wonder if the State keeps a list of "mental health" patients, and they know that I haven't found a new doctor/therapist/murderer yet? I doubt the bad guys are that efficient. The call was from the clinic, and not from anyone else.

The only way they get to see me is if they come with police and a search warrant. I doubt that my ex-therapist would go to such an extreme measure. I haven't seen her for 3+ months. I'm not her patient anymore.

Extreme measures, such as running away, are not necessary. My parents seem to think I'm doing reasonably well. My parents somewhat support my decision to fire my ex-therapist. However, I haven't convinced them that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is nonsense. I did get them to consider "In the special case of FSK, anti-psychotic drugs might be inappropriate." My father respects my desire to be drug-free more than my mother. If my father weren't balancing out my mother, I probably would have been re-hospitalized when I had my mini-panic attack.

Having a mini-panic attack without being hospitalized and forcibly drugged was probably very good for me. It allowed my body's natural healing process to occur. Now, I might have safely achieved a greater level of awareness. I feel higher awareness, but no sense of urgency/panic.

If you ask a psychiatrist or therapist, "Does the patient have the right to fire their doctor?", the answer would probably be "NO!" This might be the only time that a patient chose to fire their therapist and psychiatrist.

If you ask a psychiatrist, "Does the patient have the right to refuse drugs?", the answer would almost definitely be "NO!" They even have a special name for this. It's "non-compliance with medication". That's a fancy way of saying "The patient figured out that the drugs are bad for them."

If my psychiatrist and therapist won't respect my desire to be drug-free, then why am I wasting my time seeing them? If my therapist is merely trying to restore my pro-State brainwashing, then why should I waste time with my therapist?

My father mentioned another point. Most of my ex-therapist's patients were drugged up and complacent. I was alert and asking her tough questions. I was making her really think and work. It probably made her very uneasy.

A State-licensed psychiatrist doesn't have the intellectual capacity to realize that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake/fraud. You don't get to be a State-licensed psychiatrist unless you've been pro-State brainwashed to think in a certain way. All of my psychiatrists had the parasitic personality type. Psychiatrists have a surprisingly low level of emotional awareness. That's a necessity, because a psychiatrist must be desensitized to the suffering of his patients. For example, if a patient complains "I'm having trouble sleeping!", the psychiatrist presumes that sleeping pills are needed. The psychiatrist won't consider the possibility that drugs the patient/victim is already taking are the true cause of the sleeping difficulty.

I'm feeling very calm and alert. I won't know for awhile that I'm sure I'm safe from relapsing, but I'm feeling pretty confident. I feel higher alertness, but without the panicking. There seems to be a magic number of "12-16 months since you last took drugs" for you to re-gain full awareness. I did take small doses during my mini panic-attack, but it probably wasn't a severe amount.

Since I fired my therapist, I haven't had another panic attack. That's a good sign. I've set a new record for "time between hospitalizations" since the first time I was kidnapped and tortured by the psychiatry/death industry.

I did have a good therapist for awhile. She found a better job and moved to another clinic. She really helped me. I was in a semi-manic state in August after getting fired from the Rails Advocate's job. My good ex-therapist helped calmed me down. She said "The Rails Advocate and Idiot New Manager were being unreasonable. You did the best you could, but it was a hopeless situation." She affirmed my judgement, and that helped me calm down. My evil ex-therapist said "FSK got accused of sexual harassment because he is a loser." She sided with the parasites instead of me. (That's the parasites' union in action again!) That made me feel worse instead of better.

In retrospect, firing my evil ex-therapist was a good idea. I was falling into the trap of trusting my therapist's judgement over my own judgement. She was trying to re-install my pro-State brainwashing. That's the opposite of what I was doing. I was trying to crack my pro-State brainwashing. I never explicitly explained it to her that way. Instead, I mentioned specific anecdotes of problems I had.

It is annoying to realize "I can't tell my State-licensed therapist what I'm actually thinking. She probably would freakout and order me involuntarily hospitalized!" That should be a dead giveaway that it's pointless to have a State-licensed therapist.

"Agorist drug-free mental health" is one of my business ideas. It must be agorist-style, due to State licensing requirements and regulation of the mental health industry. In order for me to get a State psychiatrist or therapist license, I'd have to spend 4+ years in school jumping through hoops and memorizing facts that are wrong.

Seeing a State-licensed therapist is the same as hiring Agent Smith to be your therapist.

I haven't hired a new therapist. My parents haven't been pressuring me to find a new one. If I can tell the difference between a good therapist and an evil therapist, then I probably don't need a therapist! My good ex-therapist was genuinely helpful. My evil ex-therapist was worse than useless, because I wound up substituting her defective judgement for my own. Even the good therapist has limited usefulness, because she's still brainwashed as a pro-State troll.

I suspect that the vast majority of therapists have the parasitic personality type, although I did have one good therapist. I'm not conducting a statistically significant study. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of psychiatrists have the parasitic personality type.

I should trust my own judgement. It's annoying that I don't have anyone to share observations and anecdotes with, except my blog audience. In that sense, my blog is useful, even if I don't make a substantial profit from it.

I've had three therapists. For each, I tried explaining "Taxation is theft!" to them. None of them wanted to discuss the issue. They all refused to discuss any larger problems of society as a whole. They only wanted to focus on my personal issues. I made some progress, because I re-framed issues of State evil in the context of personal difficulties.

I told my last two therapists that I had a blog. (I started the blog after I stopped seeing my first therapist.) Surprisingly, neither one asked for the URL. That is very suspicious. If you were a therapist, and one of your patients had a blog, wouldn't you want to read it?

When I refused to take the anti-psychotic drugs, it's as if I was saying "This clinic's standard practice of treating a 'mental illness' via drugs is wrong." She didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that. However, on some level, she may have sensed I was right. She panicked. I had no choice but to fire her. I started to be concerned for my safety, that my therapist would insist I be forcibly drugged.

The psychiatry/death industry seems to have the attitude "FSK is my property!" They want to milk me for insurance payments for the rest of my life. It's interesting to see how evil they are.

There's no point in going back to the mental health clinic. At one time, I would have been tempted to try and enlighten an evil person. Parasites don't learn. If they did learn, then they wouldn't be such severe parasites! Parasites survive based on their ability to emotionally manipulate others. They have no other useful skills.

My ex-therapist refused to respect my desire to treat my problem without drugs. I fired her. That should be the end of the issue. I should have the right to fire my therapist. I should have the right to refuse drugs that I consider to be damaging.

Reader Mail #93

I liked this Glen Beck video. There's a widely discussed new farming law. The law regulates/bans all small-scale farms, including someone growing tomatoes in their backyard.

I liked the trick by Congressmen. They say "This law isn't intended to affect small farmers." However, the language of the law is not specific. Once passed, the law will be used to crack down on small farmers.

The law is obviously the result of lobbying by executives at large corporate farms.

It's pure "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" There were recent salmonella outbreaks, caused on large corporate farms. The solution is to regulate all farmers, even small ones.

Glen Beck actually seems decent, based on the videos I've been seeing. He was portrayed as a fruitcake on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Of course, like all mainstream media personalities, he's a pro-State troll. However, there does seem to be some cracks in the Matrix.

My reaction to stupid laws is different now. My attitude towards stupid laws is "Hooray! The more stupid laws get passed, the sooner the total collapse occurs!"

I am annoyed by the incandescent light bulb ban. Hopefully, I can find some agorist light bulb manufacturers.

---

This page was interesting. It's an account of abusive banking practices. I liked this quote:

Thirty percent of the money created by banks with accounting entries is invested for their own accounts. (Chapter 18)

That's an amazing statistic. That says that 30% of the money that banks create is then used directly to purchase assets or bonds.

Banks have a very lucrative scam. They borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and invest in tangible assets. With huge leverage and high inflation, this is very profitable.

---

This lewrockwell.com interview with Peter Schiff was interesting. He said "Renting is better than buying, because property values were too high." He also said "Buying is better only if you plan to stay in the same place for 10+ years."

Peter Schiff missed one big point. Via property taxes, *NOBODY* owns their own land. You merely have a perpetual transferable lease.

It's still better to buy than rent a house over a 10+ year profit, because you're not paying profit to a middleman, in addition to property taxes. Plus, if you own, you can make some agorist-style improvements. For example, if you buy a 5 bedroom house when you only need 2 bedrooms, you can run an agorist-style hotel business.

He had another interesting bit. "Why are high home prices desirable?" State subsidies to home buyers, like FRE and FNM and other loopholes, encourage escalating home buyers.

Cheap mortgage rates also lead to higher home prices. The net effect to a new homebuyer is no gain or a loss. You pay a lower mortgage rate, but your total mortgage is higher.

If you own a house, you don't benefit from higher home prices unless you sell. During the housing boom, people were taking mortgages on their house and spending the difference. During the bust, these people lost everything.

The people who profit the most from rapidly rising home prices are insiders who build new houses. Typically, new homebuilders are insiders. They use their connections to get a zoning variance allowing them to build. These insiders have huge leverage in their construction company, so they profit massively from inflation.

He also had a nice bit about "State-subsidized college education is evil!"

---

I liked this post on BradSpangler.com. Allegedly, some wealthy billionaire funded all the Libertarian think-tank groups. These Libertarian think tanks distract people from the philosophy of true free markets. I find pro-State Libertarians offensive now. They say "The State can be reformed! We only need to shrink it!" instead of "Who needs a monopolistic government anyway?"

I like Freedomain's argument. "Evaluate the Libertarian movement as a for-profit business whose goal is to shrink the government. By that standard, the Libertarian movement is a complete failure."

---

This post on no third solution about immigration was missing the key point.

People are property of the government. Laws restricting immigration means "Leaders in different countries don't have to compete on terms offered to workers." When the USA restricts immigration from Mexico, the leaders of the USA are saying to the leaders of Mexico, "We won't steal your property!"

BTW, David Z's decision to use "Intense Debate" for his comments was a stupid move. I have it blocked via NoScript, so I don't even see his comments anymore. It's not like David Z was getting thousands of comments per day and needed a system for managing them.

Based on what I see from Intense Debate, it appears that your comments are stored on the Intense Debate servers and not your blog. That's a real bad move. Why not just use a WordPress plugin or write your own? If you have that many comments that it's an issue, just add a forum to your site.

---

In this thread on Bureaucrash (site registration required), someone was asking about getting started with agorism.

I already wrote about tax resister insurance. It would both be a "best practices" training course and also partial insurance coverage. I wouldn't write big insurance policies until the counter-economy is more sophisticated.

Whatever you do, *DON'T* keep a written customer list (at least non-encrypted)! The bad guys could seize the list and then harass your customers!

Ideally, agorists should use gold or silver as money. The US dollar isn't in hyperinflation yet. You may use slave points as money, provided you immediately redeem them for tangible goods. Using slave points makes it easy to trade with part-time agorists. An agorist should always quote prices in gold or silver, but accept payment in slave points based on the exchange rate.

I don't work as an actual agorist yet.

One useful agorist business is a gold/silver/FRN barter network, so people can trade their slave points for real money.

Any agorist bank should be based on gold and silver instead of slave points. If you use slave points as money, you're letting the bad guys rip you off via inflation.

An agorist gold and silver warehouse receipt bank is a good idea. It'd have to be decentralized.

Making gold-denominated loans to other agorists is too expensive. Inflation is 20%-30%, so a gold-denominated loan has an implied interest rate of 20%-30%. You'd be better off maxing out your credit cards or taking a loan against your house, if you need capital. Initially, agorists should focus on non-capital-intensive businesses, because they're less risky.

A good strategy is to have a wage slave job and pay tax on that, while working part-time as an agorist. If people can pay you with cash, then you can not report all your income. For example, an amateur/semipro musician can get paid in cash and not report the transaction.

---

There's been a lot of hype surrounding OnLive. OnLive is stupid.

In a regular console, you buy the game and own it forever. Even if Microsoft goes bankrupt or decides to stop supporting the XBox, I can still play Halo.

With OnLive, the game is on the server. The device merely reads the signal on the Internet and displays it on your TV.

It's a subscription-based service. If OnLive raises their prices, or goes bankrupt, then it's worthless.

With OnLive, you don't actually own anything when you buy a game. You're dependent on the OnLive server to be able to play the game.

Where I live, there is occasional Internet lag where my connection goes down for a minute or two. If you're playing a game via OnLive and have a laggy Internet connection, then it will be a lousy experience.

It seems like a stupid idea to me. That doesn't mean they won't have customers.

---

This post by Mark Cuban had an interesting bit on CEO compensation. He had the correct attitude, which is "CEOs control the corporation. Individual shareholders have zero influence. Why shouldn't the CEO line their pockets as fast as they can?!"

He mentioned stock options. It's a win-win situation for the CEO. If the stock market skyrockets due to an inflationary boom, then the CEO pockets a ton of money. If the stock market tanks, then the CEO gets his options repriced at a lower strike. (assuming that the CEO doesn't get scapegoated and fired during the recession)

I predict another inflationary stock market boom in the next few years. In terms of gold or silver, the economy will continue to shrink. There's been massive inflation recently, which should show up as stock market gains eventually.

---

F. E. Huginn has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

"If there was no government, no one would take care of the poor and homeless, etc." While in reality, without the taxation people would find themselves having numerous resources they could donate. Moreover, this gives benefit for both donor and receiver, as one feels charitable and other feels cared for - as opposed to social system, when one feels robed, and other feels that no one cares for him at all.

That's a good one. "The State is needed to care for the poor."

The reality is that State restriction of the market makes it hard for poor people to find jobs.

Minimum wage laws discriminate against people whose labor is worth less then the minimum.

Some homeless people have signs saying "Will work for food!" Such an arrangement is illegal. Suppose I agreed to hire a homeless person to work 40 hours per week, in exchange for food, a place to sleep, and a couple of dollars. Such a transaction is taxed so heavily to make it illegal. You'd have to pay taxes on the value of the food and room. You'd be violating the minimum wage laws.

As an agorist, I'm going to be targeting high-value labor and not homeless people. Someone else may find a profitable agorist business that helps homeless people.

State restriction of the market makes it illegal to have a business that is partially for-profit and partially a charity.

fritz has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

Nice entry FSK..
Here is one..
If it wasn't for the state, who would take care of the poor, disabled,and challenged people of our society. we need the state to protect the rights of those who can't protect themselves.
answer..If people are responsible enough to support a moral state. Than people are moral enough to help others who really need help,regardless of having a state or not.

The government doesn't protect the poor. The government makes it hard for them to start businesses and improve themselves. The government is the cause of poverty, although people think that government fights poverty.

That's another fallacy. "The State protects us from evil people!" The reality is that the most evil people are the ones who take control of the government. Via sovereign immunity, evil people are protected from negative consequences of their actions.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

FSK, thanks for a great list! I haven't seen anyone compile a complete list of idiotic fallacies before.

I decided to make an updated version with all the suggestions, plus some new ones I added. It's in my draft queue.

That post generated a lot of comments, but very little traffic according to Google Analytics. If you like a post I write, cite it elsewhere! The way I evaluate "success of a post" is:

1. volume/quality of comments
2. # pageviews
3. # links from elsewhere
   

I would add intellectual property to it. Or more generally, the necessity of some monopolies being granted by the government to some insiders for 'the good of the society'. I have otherwise very intelligent friends who honestly believe that downloading a CD is equivalent to breaking into someone's house and taking their couch.

Intellectual property is not a valid form of property. Pro-State brainwashing regarding copyright is very effective.

There are three types of invalid intellectual property. They are copyright, patents, and trademarks.

Another related topic is 'securitization' of unenforceable contracts (starting with dollar bills) by the government. Our society has been conditioned that the financial 'industry' and the bloodsuckers that sprout around it are as legitimate of an industry as factories and mines. That notion is backed by government guarantees of the debt of first the 'quasi-public' entities such as Freddies and Fannies, and by passthrough to mortgages and corporations that handle debt. In the endgame we've seen these guarantees made explicit in the form of bailouts.

The financial industry is one big scam. Complex financial instruments and financial products are a smokescreen that hides the underlying fraud.

The idea that some cancerous corporations are 'too big to fail' and that there will be blood in the streets unless we give them hundreds of billions of dollars is a clear form of extortion. I believe that Paulson has actually threatened congressmen with martial law unless the bailout bill was passed...

"Too big to fail" is an evil concept.

There are many other ways to threaten a Congressmen.

1. Deny pork projects to their district.
2. Give them unfavorable media coverage.
3. Find frivolous criminal charges.
4. There are plenty of ways to kill someone and make it look like an accident.
   

Thanks for the good work.

That post generated a lot of comments, but not much Google Analytics traffic.

I put an updated version in my draft queue.

Sovereign has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

Without a state, young eight year old children would all either work in facotries or be sold into prostitution!

That's a good one.

Mandatory schooling laws also raise the economic cost of children.

Suppose there were no mandatory schooling laws and you owned a small business. A 13 year old child would then be a productive worker in the business. Ages 13-25 are the most productive years of your life, and most of this time is wasted in school.

In the present, children don't usually perform productive work until the age of 22+. $200k+ must be squandered on a college education, in addition to other costs.

In a farming society, children are a valuable economic resource. By the time they're 13, they're performing useful labor. In the present, the State artificially raises the cost of children.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

Why does EVERYONE fall for the LLC one...

EVERYONE hasn't fallen for the LLC one. FSK didn't fall for it!

I assume you mean "Limited Liability Incorporation". Limited liability incorporation is a State distortion of the market.

Pro-State (L)libertarians always seem to defend large corporations. If a group of people want to go work together, that's not immoral. It's a problem when they get perks from the State.

Without State subsidies and State distortions of the market, large corporations would not be dominant. In a true free market, a small business will always run circles around a large corporation.

In a true free market, liability due to accident is insurable. Liability due to fraud or gross negligence should never be insurable. Limited liability incorporation gives business owners free insurance in the event of fraud or gross negligence. Limited liability incorporation encourages fraud and gross negligence, because you can always declare bankruptcy to cheat your creditors/victims/customers.

If you look at any large corporation that performs useful work, the business probably could be broken down into independent businesses of no more than 100 people. This does not occur due to State restriction of the market and artificial State overhead.

An LLC provides no protection to a small business owner sole proprietorship. They usually have all their net worth invested in their business. It's easy to "pierce the corporate veil" and directly sue the owner.

Corporations benefit the insiders who control them. Small individual investors in a corporation do not earn a positive inflation-adjusted return.

It was really disappointing to learn that the stock market doesn't provide a positive inflation-adjusted return. That's like discovering that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If you start a small business and incorporate it, you are voluntarily entering yourself into the State regulation and taxation system. I've decided that my blog and other agorist businesses will be unincorporated. The only exception is if I get a contract with a mainstream media outlet to carry my content. Then, I'd have to incorporate or just be an employee. I'm not waiting for a mainstream media outlet to decide to carry my content. I'm planning on self-publishing. I'm already self-publishing my blog. I'm looking to expand to other things.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

I liked number 8 the best. So true

That's a good one. The Constitution is treated as a magic holy document. I'll make a more detailed post on the subject.

---

AdBrite really cut back on my eCPM rates recently. It's disturbing. I shouldn't read anything into a short-term trend, only a couple of days. Any time period less than a month is mostly irrelevant for measuring ad revenue.

---

Db0 (http://dbzer0.com/) has left a new comment on your post "A List of Rabbit Holes":

Communism would be much preferable to the US system. The USA is already a nearly perfect implementation of Communism!

Sorry but you have no idea what Communism is. Communism is a stateless, classless society.

This is why I prefer to debate ideas and not labels.

Is there private property in your idealized Communist society? There should be. Otherwise, there's a State that can force people to give up their labor.

Idealized Communism seems to very closely resemble a real free market.

State Capitalism and State Communism are practically the same.

I'm referring to Karl Marx's "10 planks of the Communist Manifesto". That's actually an intermediate stage. After the State seizes control of the means of production, it voluntarily shuts itself down.

We're currently in the "State voluntarily shuts itself down" phase of Karl Marx's agenda. The public political and economic leaders are not aware that their true purpose is to bring about complete and total collapse.

---

J. Nick Puglia has left a new comment on your post "Financial Industry Bailouts and the Compound Inter...":

Very well done. Us freedom lovers need a 'real' monetary system.

There is a very simple solution. Just use silver and gold as money. You don't need to get more complicated than that.

"Alternate monetary system" purveyors seem to always attach needless complexity. In this case, the simplest solution is also the best one.

There are two extra bits that would be useful.

A gold/silver/FRN barter network would be useful. This allows people to trade their slave points for real money, without the State-mandated overhead and reporting requirements. A complete boycott of the Federal Reserve won't be feasible until the State has already lost. In the meantime, prudent advice is to keep long-term savings in gold or silver, and keep some slave points for short-term needs. It's even better if you have a mixture of on-the-books income and off-the-books income. Your on-the-books income may be kept in State-licensed investments *OR* gold/silver, while your agorist income is kept in gold or silver.

Another useful bit is a distributed agorist gold/silver warehouse receipt banking system. This solves the "Where to store your metal?" problem. Suppose I have 100 ounces of gold. If I keep it in my house, I risk theft by common criminals. I also risk theft by criminals wearing shiny badges and uniforms.

A centralized warehouse receipt bank is useless. The bad guys will merely raid the warehouse. A decentralized warehouse receipt banking system would be hard for the bad guys to shut down. They'd have to raid a bunch of people simultaneously. When word of a crackdown spreads, everyone else will be a lot more careful.

As mentioned elsewhere, a member of an agorist warehouse receipt banking system does not need to be personally aware of the identity of every other member. If it's distributed and decentralized, it should be able to withstand a raid by the bad guys.

---

Femin has left a new comment on your post "Incomprehensible Banking Bailout Law":

What about financial crisis

This appears to be a spammer. I probably shouldn't have posted his comment.

I'm noticing an increase in spam comments lately. I should be more aggressive about filtering out spam.

I notice that some people have "automated comment spam filters". I noticed that those systems have false positives. I'm sticking with manual moderation.

Another Parasite Control Trick

I went on a job interview, and I noticed another parasite control trick.

The person who did the phone interview had the "abused productive" personality type. I got along well with him. He said "We're bringing you in for an onsite interview. You're going to meet with me and another manager." My reaction was "Let me guess. The other manager is a parasite." Of course, I didn't say anything.

I did the onsite interview. I met with the abused productive manager first for 45 minutes and I thought it went well. Then, it was the other manager's turn.

There was an interesting indication that the abused productive manager was under the control of a parasite. He was overly obsessed about minor things, probably due to the prompting of a parasitic boss.

My suspicions were met. The other manager had the parasite personality type. I was objective.

There was an interesting symptom of parasitism. He was only interested in talking about himself, and the interview was not interactive. He seemed more interested in talking about how awesome he was, rather than determining if I was a good candidate. He also had the "programmers are interchangeable cogs" attitude, which seems an unhealthy attitude for a software manager to have. The abused productive manager seemed to genuinely think "I want to hire someone really good!"

I probably scared the **** out of him, because his evil jedi mind control tricks weren't working on me. I didn't pay close attention to them, because I've already learned to filter them out. Next time, I'll try to actively notice the parasite's psychological mind control tricks.

I wonder if that's an interesting defense? An evil person can't talk with me for long, without becoming aware that they're evil! Now, I naturally instill fear and dread in someone with a parasitic personality type. Unfortunately, that's going to be a problem in the wage slave job market.

Here's the parasite trick that I hadn't noticed before. The interview was conducted in a closed room, just me and the interviewer. When the parasite interviewed me, *NOBODY ELSE WAS IN THE ROOM*. If the abused productive worker were present, he might have noticed that the parasite was being abusive or unreasonable. There is no evidence that the parasitic manager was abusive, other than my observations.

Now, when the parasitic manager says "FSK is unqualified!", the productive worker has no clue how the interview actually went.

After the interview is over and I've left, the parasite says "I've concluded that FSK is unqualified." It's the parasitic manager against the abused productive manager. Even if the abused productive manager really wanted to hire me, he doesn't have the ability to resist the parasite's mind control. The parasite probably can alter the abused productive manager's memories after the interview, so he believes "FSK was a bad candidate."

The key component of the scam is that the abused productive manager did not observe the parasite interviewing me. Otherwise, he might have noticed that the parasite was being unreasonable. In this manner, parasite control tactics prevent productive workers from sharing information.

Now that I've achieved higher awareness, I can't conceal it. That's going to make it very hard for me to find another wage slave job. In *ALMOST EVERY BUSINESS*, there's a productive worker paired with a parasite, even in a 2-person startup. The parasite will always veto the "Hire FSK!" decision, once he realizes that his mind control tricks don't work on me.

When the parasitic manager comes into the room, I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's honest. By the time I figure out "This guy is a parasite! Be careful!", the parasite already knows that I'm on to his scam. I should assume that the other person is decent, until proven otherwise. In this case, I was suspicious from the beginning. I'm not going to actively try to interact dishonestly with someone.

I told my parents "The 2nd interviewer didn't seem to like me. He was only interested in talking about himself. He ended the interview after only a few minutes." My parents said "FSK needs to learn to suck up more!" They didn't even consider the possibility "The interviewer was a jerk!" Of course, my parents can't re-brainwash me anymore. I don't bother arguing with them, because I'll never convince them.

It appears that "FSK starts his own business!" is the only option. The good news is that my living expenses are negligible, since I'm living with my parents. The bad news is that I need 100x+ more regular readers for blogging to be a viable full-time source of income. I should try other things.

"Public Private Partnership" Fnord

I noticed another new fnord phrase circulating. It's "Public Private Partnership".

According to a pro-State troll, a "Public Private Partnership" means "Financial industry executives and politicians are cooperating to solve the economic crisis."

The reality is "Financial industry executives and politicians are cooperating to loot and pillage the American people."

When you say "Public Private Partnership", it sounds sophisticated and noble. If you say "The government is paying to buy up these dodgy mortgage bonds, with banks also putting up some money. If the assets increase in value, the banksters get the profit. If the assets decrease in value, the government and non-insiders take the loss." When you describe it that way, it's an obvious scam.

New fnord phrases give noble-sounding names to new ways to loot and pillage.

Via the latest bailout proposal, the Federal government is giving financial industry insiders a free put option to stick the losses with the government/taxpayers.

Bailouts are not free. Non-insiders pay the cost via higher income taxes or an increase in the inflation tax. The current bailouts are funded primarily via inflation.

Another important aspect of bailouts is that there's no obligation to treat each bank equally. Some banks may get a really lucrative deal while others get a not-as-favorable deal. Naturally, the banksters are spending a lot of money on lobbyists. When you have the power to print new money out of thin air, then there's always room in your budget for lobbyists!

In this manner, the banksters can always profitably block reform. Insiders can always lobby to prevent the reform of a corrupt system. If you're receiving a massive State subsidy, you can always lobby to keep it! This is the virtuous positive feedback cycle of complete economic collapse. Lobbying the State for favors is more profitable than performing actual useful work.

Notice how the details of each bailout proposal are slightly different. Each new proposal is presented as completely original and different, rather than variations on the same fundamentally corrupt monetary system.

In a mild recession, the Federal Reserve bails out banks simply by cutting the Fed Funds Rate. When interest rates are lowered, existing loans become more valuable. Suppose a bank has borrowed at a Fed Funds Rate of 5% to purchase a bond yielding 6%. If the Fed Funds Rate is cut to 3%, then the bank is borrowing at 3% to purchase a bond yielding 6%. The bank's profit has tripled. During a mild recession, there is a slightly greater risk of default on the bond. The Federal Reserve corrects for this by lowering the Fed Funds Rate, which restores the banks' profit equation.

By keeping the Fed Funds Rate below the true inflation rate, the Federal Reserve subsidizes the profits of financial industry insiders.

Suppose the housing market crashes by 50%. Effectively, the State has modified each existing debt contract saying "Amount of payments due has doubled." During a boom, the Federal Reserve subsidizes banksters and borrowers via inflation and negative real interest rates. During a bust, the Federal Reserve subsidizes banks by cutting interest rates. Debt contracts that were formed before the Fed Funds Rate cut don't qualify for a discount. For example, mortgage rates have declined slightly, but if your house is worth less than your mortgage, you can't refinance. You still have to pay the higher rate or forfeit your house.

During a severe recession/depression, individuals lose their homes, their savings, and their jobs. Insiders always qualify for a bailout. Large banks may continue operating even though they're technically bankrupt. Police will violently evict someone from their house for not paying their mortgage.

The present recession/depression is so severe that the Federal Reserve cannot end it via a Fed Funds Rate cut. More clever bailouts are necessary. The Federal government must explicitly bail out the banksters. Due to the Compound Interest Paradox, large banks must be bailed out lest the entire monetary system collapse in hyperdeflation.

What are the other bailout methods have been tried so far?

There was the TARP program. Originally, the Treasury department was going to buy toxic assets directly from banks. By definition, the State always pays an above-market price when it buys assets from politically connected insiders.

The TARP program gave the Treasury secretary wide discretion over how to actually spend the bailout money. Instead of purchasing "toxic debt", the Treasury secretary instead made direct capital investments in the banks, purchasing convertible preferred stock.

There was the Federal Reserve "Term Auction Facility" and other variations. Assets are moved from the balance sheet of banks to the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. The Federal Reserve normally purchases Treasury debt when it "monetizes the debt". The Federal Reserve can purchase any type of bonds or assets it chooses, without approval from Congress. The Federal Reserve merely prints new money to buy whatever Ben Bernanke wants.

Strict mark-to-market accounting was cited as an excuse for the State to seize small banks. Some went bankrupt. Some were bought by larger banks, via a State/FDIC/Federal Reserve bailout. Now that large banks are obviously insolvent, mark-to-market accounting rules are suspended. The adoption and then suspension of mark-to-market accounting is another way that insiders loot and pillage.

Via creative accounting, large banks may continue operating even though they're technically bankrupt. State restriction of the banking industry gives depositors no alternate safe place to store their savings. Operating a gold/silver warehouse receipt bank is illegal.

There was the bailout of AIG and Bear Stearns and GM. The actual recipients of these bailouts were the banksters who were the creditors. In a bankruptcy, the creditors would have had huge losses. By avoiding bankruptcy, there is a stealth bailout of the creditors of AIG and Bear Stearns and GM.

There was the stimulus spending law. Via deficit spending, the Federal government increases the inflation rate. By increasing the rate of inflation, real interest rates can be lowered further, even though nominal interest rates can't fall below 0%. Inflation bails out the banksters. The value of assets backing shady debt rises in value.

In the latest bailout, there's the "Public Private Partnership" program. Both the government and the banksters will contribute money to purchase the bad mortgage bonds. If the investment is profitable, then the banksters get the profit. If the investment is unprofitable, then the government bears the loss. What a great deal!

Another bailout method tried in other countries is explicit nationalization. The government takes possession of the banks, manages them for a year or two, and then re-sells them to the general public minus the bad debt. There's no reason to not try such a bailout in the USA. The same insiders would control the banks either way. The only negative risk would be public disclosure of what's actually on the banks' balance sheets. The current bailout methods don't require banks to disclose how bailout money is actually spent.

Rather than acknowledging a fundamentally corrupt monetary system, the bad guys keep inventing new tricks for looting and pillaging. Insiders look for ways to patch a corrupt system, rather than fix the fundamental flaw of fiat debt-based money. New fnord phrases are continually invented to distract attention from the real issues.