Reader Mail – 01/29/2012 To 02/04/2012

There weren't that many comments this week!

Note: Due to a defect in the rawr plugin, the formatting for this post shows up wrong on the blog homepage, but it does show up correctly if you view it as a single post or in a RSS reader.


f commented on Tim Thomas Makes A Heroic Stand.
I was wondering more about their thoughts on 'directed history' and such. For example: I was thinking of making an effort to move to Hong Kong (rated freest economy on the planet), but if China were indeed controlled by Anglo-elites, then I'd probably rather stay and work towards freedom in America.

For example, some Chinese communities seem to have some agorism up and running fairly well, to the extent that they are even funding offshore agorist enterprises: http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/15/chinas-black-market-city/singlepage . Plus, their success with local politics makes me wonder if local politics might not be worthwhile target to aim for.

Maybe more generally, your thoughts on the prospect of agorism in America vs other countries? And have you heard of 'seasteading'? A lead developer towards seasteading is actually Milton friedman's grandson. Now he's working on sanctioned libertarian enclaves within permissive states: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678720/former-seasteaders-come-ashore-to-start-libertarian-utopias-in-honduran-jungle

I'm not so sure about Hong Kong. Allegedly, China is cracking down on gold and silver dealers.

In China, dealing with politics is even harder than in the USA. For example, it's illegal to organize a union.

The Wukan revolt is interesting. Allegedly, the Chinese government asked the villagers to nominate leaders for negotiations, and then those people were arrested for treason.

Seasteading is problematic. First, it isn't (yet) technologically feasible for the seastead to become 100% self-sufficient.

Suppose the seastead is successful and really free. Then the propaganda is "Those seasteaders are selling drugs!" or "Those seasteaders are selling guns!" Then, there's an invasion and the seastead is shut down.

That's the problem with seasteading. It's too susceptible to invasion.

It's also a problem to go to a 3rd world country. All the usable land is claimed by some State. If you have a small group and are successful, you'll be invaded and shut down.

If you're small, you can fly under the radar. Once you're successful, you're a target. Even if you have a group of 1000-10000 people, the State military still can crush you. If you're successful enough, then you're a tempting target.

A group of activists in the same area can be both good and bad. It's good, because you can trade with each other and support each other. It's bad, because you're a tempting target if you're successful.

Suppose you have a group of 1000 people that are prepared to fight to defend their freedom. First, some of them will be undercover cops and State spies. Second, most people might talk tough and train tough, but they'll back down once confronted with actual violence. State thugs adopt a "Get the ringleaders!" strategy, so the other people may abandon you when the going gets rough.

That's why I like agorism and stealth. Plus, for personal reasons, I can't move.


Anonymous Coward commented on Intrade Flaw - The Time Value Of Money.
> Consider Ron Paul. Realistically, his odds are zero.

Who says? What is the arithmetically basis for your decision?

The mainstream media always dismisses him as having no chance and so suggest it is a wasted vote.

You are doing the same thing.

Maybe tomorrow people will wake up a get a clue.

It would certainly be worth it just to get an honest President.

Ron Paul is my favorite candidate, but realistically he has no chance of winning.

If it were possible for Ron Paul to get elected, he wouldn't need to run.

Anonymous Coward commented on Intrade Flaw - The Time Value Of Money.

Yes, but you are essentially telling people not to vote for him because he has no chance.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Don't you just hate it that every time the mainstream media mention him, they say he has no chance of winning!!!!

I've mostly given up on the idea of reform via voting. I'm looking towards other things.

For example, I decided that it wasn't worth the effort to change my registration to Republican, so I could vote for him in the NY primary.

"Vote for Ron Paul!" is itself a form of pro-State trolling. Freedom is a lot more work than voting for the right person.

However it is encouraging that Ron Paul is getting around 10% of the vote. That's a lot of anti-State sentiment. However, most of those people are still thinking "If only we could keep government small!" instead of market anarchism.

Anonymous Coward commented on Intrade Flaw - The Time Value Of Money.

Although off-topic, the main problem in the United Kingdom is that rents, property prices, taxes on selling homes, estate agents fees and taxes in general are too high.

This means people cannot move home to get new jobs.

This means people can't start their own businesses as too much income has to be diverted into paying taxes and paying rent.

This means people cannot move off of welfare to do low-paying jobs.

You're blaming the symptom and not the cause.

Rising rents and home prices are a symptom of inflation.

As another example, I'm trying to save up my salary to someday start my own business. Inflation makes this much harder. My investment returns don't keep pace with true inflation. That makes it harder for me to accumulate savings and bootstrap a business.

Salaries don't keep pace with inflation, because State insiders are grabbing a larger and larger chunk of the economic pie.


Anonymous Coward commented on Facebook IPO - Pump And Dump.
The rule of law is breaking down in the United Kingdom. A key principle is that everyone is EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. If you enforce the law you must enforce it for everybody.

In the following Daily Mail article a woman is being prosecuted for claiming welfare benefits, but no declaring a man is living with her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096155/Former-Miss-Great-Britain-hopeful-accused-claiming-22-000-benefits-fraud.html

OK, so why wasn't David Laws (ex-Chief secretary of the Treasury) prosecuted for claiming tens of thousands of pounds rent which he gave to his lover? He failed to declare their relationship.

Why wasn't Jack-Boots Jacquie (Labour MP and former Home Secretary) prosecuted for claiming her sister's bedroom was her primary residence?

THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW, UNLESS THE LAW IS APPLIED EQUALLY.

THIS WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED UNLESS DAVID LAWS AND ALL THE OTHER MPS ARE PROSECUTED FIRST.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>