Everything-Voluntary.com

Homepage

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 17 May 2013 07:21:35 PDT

Original Columns
Column Archive

The EVC Blog
Blog Archive

Voluntaryism Editor's Picks More »	Free Markets Editor's Picks More »	Religion Editor's Picks More »
Unschooling Editor's Picks More »	Parenting Editor's Picks More »	Improvement Editor's Picks More »

Good Coercion versus Bad Coercion

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Tue, 21 May 2013 10:00:03 PDT

Send him mail.

"Food for Thought" is an original bi-weekly column appearing every other Tuesday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Norman Imberman. Norman is a retired podiatrist who loves playing piano, writing music, lawn bowling, bridge, reading, classical music, going to movies, plays, concerts and traveling. Archived columns can be found here. FFT-only RSS feed available here.

(Editor's note: Originally written, but never published, in 1969.)

In most political discourses with others, the conversation usually evolves into the following basic premise on the part of my opponent: he asserts that “we have got to have rules or else there will be chaos.” When I ask him how those rules are to be determined and eventually accepted by the population, he states that they must be enacted into law, with the penalty of punishment by the authorities if the law is disobeyed. A criminal is anyone who disobeys the law and the punishment should fit the crime and can vary as a fine, imprisonment or the killing of the perpetrator. He ultimately sees that behind every law lies a gun because in order to persuade the law-breaker to pay the fine or not to resist his imprisonment or his killing, the government must expose their guns. In other words, coercion is the only way to run a country. When this analysis is pointed out, he is forced to agree that he is advocating coercion, but he asserts that he believes in “good coercion.”

For a person to make such a statement, the following is what must be the cognitive process guiding his thinking. “Since I am a humanitarian (my intentions are to do good and help my fellow man), good coercion is to be defined as that method and degree of coercion that I think is proper to secure the goals of peace, harmony, security, and prosperity of my nation. Bad coercion is that method and degree which opposes these goals.” As the conversation continues this assessment becomes more and more evident.

It is at this point that the humanitarian erects the guillotine, the gallows, the gas chamber, the electric chair and the concentration camp. The humanitarian also realizes that it is impossible to impose his “humanitarian” policies by himself. (There have been some attempts at this feat by the various dictators of the past). So the “humanitarian” looks for other “humanitarians” to collectively join him to decide how to dictate the behavior of others and Collectivism is born. After all, since they know what is best for everyone, why shouldn’t they have the final say as to what constitutes proper behavior? Legalized, collectivized ethics is the name of his game and other people’s hopes, desires, aspirations, efforts, pocketbooks and lives are the stakes. Such is the mindset of these little dictators. Such dictators come from both the Left and the Right.

Is it looking familiar? Setting aside the truly blatant tyrannies of today or that existed in the past (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia, Communist Cuba, the various Islamo-fascist States and the absolute monarchies of England), there have been many democracies which functioned on the same “humanitarian” premise. Ancient Athens and Rome, the Third Weimar Republic and Bismarck’s Germany are a few examples and they all voted themselves into oblivion.

I agree with my opponent on one point. There must be rules or principles to guide man’s actions if he wants to live in peaceful coexistence with his fellow man. The most important principle underlying every subsequent rule is the following: “no individual, group, or organization (this includes government) may initiate the use of or the threat of the use of force against another.” (Self-defense is not the same as the initiation of force). No subsequent man-made rule can violate this fundamental and essential principle, for without it no subsequent rules can function successfully if the goal is peace, freedom and security.

At this point in the conversation, due to his inability to use a calm, logically derived line of reasoning to support his position, he either resorts to intimidation, bible quotations, laughter, condemnation-by-association, non sequitur and sometimes even name-calling (ad hominem). A common retort is “that’s very well and good in principle, but not in practice. It won’t work.” You ask him why it won’t work and his answer is “because.” There is no way to refute such a mind-boggling response and the conversation must come to an end.

There is another common response as follows: “We are dealing with people who are irrational, immoral and who do not know what actions to take in their own best interest.” Once again this person is implying that he and his fellow humanitarians know what others need for their own good because they are true humanitarians and smarter than the average person. This brings us full circle to the beginning of the argument and what I wrote earlier in this column.

There exists a simple syllogism, which is appropriate here. It reads as follows, granting the person his original premise:

People are irrational, immoral and do not know what is in their own best interest,
The State is run by people, who are in turn, elected by other people,
(I leave the conclusion to be completed by the reader.)

What I Can't, and Can, Control

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:49 PDT

Send him mail.

"One Voluntaryist's Perspective" is an original bi-weekly column appearing every other Monday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by the founder and editor Skyler J. Collins. Archived columns can be found here. OVP-only RSS feed available here.

Seeing these Congressional hearings or Presidential speeches can make someone batty. Fortunately, I avoid them. What good would they do? Would they "inform" me of something important happening? I suppose, but so would a short news article or two after-the-fact. Why glue myself to the live coverage as if its all that mattered? In reality, it's unimportant because I have no control over it.

What I Can't Control

I can't control if the President of the United States orders his generals to order their soldiers to fly aerial drones over Pakistan to drop bombs on unsuspecting, alleged terrorists. I can't control what orders the President gives his generals. I can't control who the President is. I can't control the fact that we have a President. I can't control anything about "we." I can't control you.

I can't control if the Internal Revenue Service plays favorites with Leftist nonprofits. I can't control how much the Internal Revenue Service collects in taxes. I can't control the fact that we have an Internal Revenue Service. I can't control anything about "we." I can't control you.

I can't control if the ruler of North Korea orders his generals to order their soldiers to shoot nuclear missiles at other nations. I can't control what orders the ruler of North Korea gives his generals. I can't control who the ruler of North Korea is. I can't control the fact that North Korea has a ruler. I can't control North Koreans.

I can't control if some maniac steals his mom's guns and shoots innocent people. I can't control some maniac, nor his mom. I can't control what other people buy. I can't control other people.

What I Can Control

I can control my reaction to the outrage that is the President ordering his underlings to drop bombs in Pakistan, the IRS playing favorites with Leftist nonprofits, the ruler of North Korea ordering his underlings to fire nuclear missiles at other nations, and some maniac who steals his mom's guns and shoots innocent people.

I can control how much legitimacy I give the President, the IRS, the ruler of North Korea, and some maniac to commit their crimes. I can control whether or not I will allow their crimes to affect my life, my happiness, and my well-being. I can control the actions I take in preparation for and in response to their crimes. I can control what I tell others about how I feel about their crimes.

I can control what I tell my children when they ask me about these crimes. I can control whether or not to answer any of my children's questions. I can control whether or not I allow the asking of questions in my house. I can control how I treat my children and their curiosity. I can control my relationship with my children.

Final Thoughts

In short, all I really can control is me, my actions and my reactions. If I want to see change in the world, I can only start with what I can control. Everything else is beyond my control, and hence a waste of time and energy to try to control it. I can write about things I feel are important to write about. I can invite others to read what I've written. I can invite others to write with me. I can invite others to understand my point of view. But I can't control them, and I can't control you.

Learning Versus Thinking

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:30:02 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Darci Walker.

Last night I watched a Ted talk by Jacob Barnett, a 13-year-old genius with Asperger’s. His message? “Forget what you know.” “Stop learning and start thinking.” And, while Jacob’s story begins with how the educational and diagnostic systems that we have in our society were not able to meet his needs because he was working on quantum physics at the age of 3, his message still settled with me as, well, nothing short of genius.

The system didn’t work for him because he didn’t think like the system thinks. The system teaches us to learn things, in a certain way, for a certain goal, so that we can produce certain behaviors or outcomes and we can obtain a certain set of already agreed upon facts. Learning is prescribed and our measurement of learning is limited to what we think we want our children to do.

Read the full thing at CoreParentingPDX.com »

Bitcoin: The Tyranny Test

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:00:02 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Paul Rosenberg.

An increasing number of people have complained about governments and central banks in recent years, even using the word “tyranny” to describe them. They are, of course, called names in the establishment press: conspiracy theorists, mainly.

Calling someone a name, however, does not erase their argument (at least not among rational people) and both the governments and the big banks stand accused.

Up till now, however, these accusations were never accepted by the general public. The average guy really didn’t want to hear about the evils of government money. After all, that was the only thing he had ever used to buy food, clothes, gasoline, cars, and so on. He didn’t want to acknowledge the accusations because he feared what might happen to him without his usual money.

Now, however, we have a brand new currency (called Bitcoin) available to us: something radically different. This gives us a new way to directly address the subject of monetary tyranny, providing a clear test for the governments and money masters of the world:

If they are truly NOT tyrannical, they will leave this new currency alone.

If they ARE tyrannical, they will attack the new currency because it eats into their scam.

In other words, Bitcoin is a test for “the powers that be.” The way they deal with this new method of exchange will reveal their true nature.

If they ignore Bitcoin, they refute the charges of tyranny. If they attack it, they verify those charges.

After all, what honest reason could there be to attack an inherently peaceful tool for transferring value?

Read the full thing at FreemansPerspective.com »

Trade as an Ethic for Social Cooperation

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:30:02 PDT

Send him mail.

"The Self Owner" is an original weekly column appearing every Wednesday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Spencer W. Morgan. Spencer is a husband and father, and has studied History and Philosophy at the University of Utah. Archived columns can be found here. OVP-only RSS feed available here.

Last week we explored the implications of man’s nature as a rational, and volitionally rational being. We’ve identified two major implications of this nature. The first of these is rights, which are the conceptual barriers to our self-owning actions and the negative obligation upon all others to honor such barriers. The second is trade. Trade is the process by which rational beings exchange or cooperate for mutual, but individually- and subjectively-calculated, benefit.

As the saying goes, “no man is an island.” This platitude is often lobbed at liberty advocates of all varieties, containing the unspoken assumptions that,

coerced association is the only kind possible, and
those who question its validity are advocating zero cooperation.

We can easily reject this classic argument just by examining these presumptions. The saying, however, is valid and illustrative of an undeniable truth about humanity. Humans have found interaction and interdependence to be both psychologically and economically advantageous to a degree that we can and should reject the idea of total isolation as an ideal. We need not reject this reality.

If we do accept that humans are better off connected socially, and cooperating, then the question is: on what basis should this cooperation be motivated? How do we obtain the cooperation from others we want or need, when each of these others is an individual self-owner who is entitled to her own determinations and free range of self-owning action? Trade is the answer to that question.

Trade is more than just a label for our economic activity. It is a concept that pervades all of our interaction with others. As an ethic for seeking and obtaining cooperation of other self-owners, trade requires that we honor their rationality and right of self-determination by finding a way to appeal to their desires as determined by themselves. This ethic can, and should, be applied to all of our social interactions.

In a situation where we might be inclined to compel our child’s cooperation by a threat of punishment, guilt, etc., we might instead honor the logical capacity that they do have at a very early age by spending the extra time and effort to help them realize the way they individually benefit from the desired action.
When we might expect assistance from a friend or family member in an endeavor to assist us out of obligation or as a response to a display of our need, we can instead find a way to appeal to their self-interest by offering an exchange, whether monetary or otherwise.
We can see our marriages, instead of as a formality that entitles us to the obligatory endurance of our partner, as an exchange that we are required to continue to make desirable to the other in order to appeal to their self-interest.

One inescapable presumption contained in every act of voluntary trade is the validity of the self-interest of each participant. By making a voluntary exchange, whether I am exchanging a physical good, money, or my time and effort, I am presuming the validity of my self-interest and the self-interest of the other party to the exchange. Many of the “duties” imposed by our culture, whether governmental, traditional, or religious, seem to stem from an effort to circumvent this trade ethic and thus deny the principle of individual self-determination and self-interest.

As we can see, the notion of trade rests upon some very essential philosophical presumptions, and has some very undeniable implications. In future columns we’ll examine these in detail. Next week we’ll look specifically at the way trade requires diversity, and how voluntary trade (unlike its parasitic, coercive counterfeits) has formed the foundation and engine of everything we now recognize as civilization.

And Then She Saw

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:00:01 PDT

Send him mail.

The Department of Revenue Enhancement’s Directive 6H2, requiring all workers and employers to register their political party affiliation, had initially created a major public backlash, but after President David Petraeus’s order deployed 500,000 U.S. soldiers and armed federal agents to cities and towns across the country to collect papers and conduct home searches for evidence of anti-taxation literature and anti-government sentiment, the public was finally on board with Directive 6H2.

But Betsy was torn. Should she join the Eternal War Party or register with the People’s Fascist Party? She knew that some of her favorite politicians often changed affiliations and that the party platforms were identical, but there was a feeling of warmth and connectedness that she felt with the Eternal War Party that she didn’t get from the People’s Fascist Party. Besides, she thought, her parents and the President of the United States himself were all members of the Eternal War Party.

And so, after registering her party affiliation with the Department of Revenue Enhancement, Betsy was allowed to begin working at a nearby drone manufacturing plant, owned by Lockheed Martin. Betsy came to appreciate the government’s automatic seventy-five percent deductions from her weekly paychecks, as the money was being spent on worthwhile causes, both domestic and international. And the weekly speeches by Lockheed Martin’s C.E.O, broadcasted to all sixty-three plants around the country, were stunningly powerful and uplifting. “The workers in our plants and the poor, wretched souls around the world who have grown to rely on American soldiers for sustenance and protection understand how effective public-private partnerships can be. Working in concert with the American government, our company and the world will thrive for years to come!” the C.E.O proclaimed one day.

She heard the explosion shortly after returning home from work. She thought that a construction company was perhaps working on a new project. But when she heard his cackling, venomous voice writhing over the megaphone, she knew something was terribly wrong.

“Hee-hee-hee! Ladies and gentlemen, this is Lindsey Graham speaking. For years now, Michelle Obama and I have grown tired of the destructive two-party system in America. We want to combine the best elements of both parties to promote and expand upon democracy at home and abroad. And so it’s time for a change. We’re starting a new, unified party called The People’s Eternally Fascist Party of War! The time has come to put aside petty political quarrels. I am the new Commander of the United States. Mr. Petraeus has been relieved of his position. Come out of your homes now, and line up in single file before me, as I parade down your streets.”

The megaphone sounded like it was four blocks away. Betsy was trembling. The television and radio wouldn’t work. Her telephone line was down. Her internet connection was acting up; when she tried to visit Google, she was redirected to TheEternallyFascistPartyofWar.com and all other websites were blocked. Was this a test of loyalty by the Eternal War Party? Was the leader of her party, Petraeus, dead? Was this some sort of coordinated, internal overthrow of the government?

She then heard screaming and frenetic activity in her apartment complex, and when she looked out of her window, she saw some of her neighbors nervously lined up next to the street. And then more people on her block came outside. She heard gunshots and another loud explosion. Babies were crying.

And then she saw the black, armored SUVs. And then she saw Lindsey Graham and Michelle Obama, waving and smiling to the people lined up in single file. And then she saw the soldiers murdering the people who had chosen to hide in their homes. And then she saw that it was far too late.

Remembering The Gift of Presence

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:07 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Alice Hanscam.

Technology has increased our opportunities to accomplish things, as well as increased the things we need to accomplish. And I wonder, at what cost to the important relationships around us?

As your attention gets pulled in multiple directions, how are you feeling? Satisfied at accomplishing so much? Energized by your success? Or perhaps, like many of my clients, you are feeling frenzied and stressed, finding relief and ease only when youʼve put multi-tasking aside, bringing your attention to whatʼs right in front of you—maybe a chore, or more often your child.

As parents, we are continuously looking at whatʼs best for our children. How often have you found yourself saying, “Not now, Iʼm busy,” “Yes, Iʼm listening,” “Let me just do one more thing,” “Just a minute…maybe later…Iʼll be right back.” Are these familiar to you? What message are we giving our children when in so many of our interactions with them our attention is divided?

It seems to me as if we are saying, “You are not important enough to have my full attention.” How sad. We are, intentionally or not, communicating disrespect to our children—these same kids we find ourselves wishing would “show us some respect” come teen years!

Read the full thing »

Libertarianism: How it Works

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:00 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Paul Miller.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, that has “non-aggression principle” in its basis. Basically the idea is that it is both a) immoral b) counterproductive to use coercion instead of voluntary associations. With this logic, modern governments are aggressors that are not different from burglars and thieves and should be abolished or at least greatly reduced in size.

It is a pragmatic philosophy that doesn’t require a change in human nature, it concludes that there will always be bad people and that in general people behave better when they have freedom as compared to when they don’t.

Read the full thing at PaulMillr.com »

150,000 Views

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Thu, 16 May 2013 11:56:02 PDT

EVC just passed 150,000 views since November 2011. Sweet!

Skyler.

Advice for Future Teachers

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Thu, 16 May 2013 10:00:04 PDT

Send him mail.

"Insight for the Young and Unrestrained" is an original weekly column appearing every Thursday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Gregory V. Diehl. Gregory is a writer, musician, educator, and coach for young people at EnabledYouth.com. Archived columns can be found here. IYU-only RSS feed available here.

“Intellect” is intangible, and therefore not something which can be directly observed. Its workings must be inferred by its measurable physical effects. We can get a sense of ways in which intelligence obviously does not work. We can build numerous positive correlations which show obvious patterns and general trends. But as soon as we attempt to zero in on it and describe it as succinctly as we might describe the parts and processes of an internal combustion engine, it eludes us again with real live demonstrations of human behavior which don’t quite fit the theory. But in exactly the same manner which the position of a planet might be deduced by the observation of its gravitational influence on surrounding bodies, every teacher can make educated guesses about the inner workings of a student's mind by careful observation of a student's physical actions and words.

In education, information is presented to learners through the use of visible and audible symbols (such as written and spoken words, or physical gestures) with associated meanings. But these demonstrations only take on significance when the student has a mind capable of recognizing the meanings of the symbols presented, and this can only be done through sufficient logical capacity and readily accessible memory. A mind which categorizes every individual idea or activity as completely new and unrelated to the memories of previous experiences cannot learn new tasks or skills. Logic and memory are the glue which bind random data into a cohesive structure, and make learning possible. Therefore, every teacher ought to focus on strengthen and expanding the logical capacity of every student they encounter.

In instructing language, this means learning the relevant patterns of sentence structure and the conjugations of verbs. These grammatical principles are applied intuitively to every new vocabulary word through the use of logic, whether or not the student has ever actually heard or seen that new word in use. If not for logical categorization of information, every new word and iteration would have to be learned by rote as merely an arbitrary and unrelated list of facts or labels. Patterns such as this can be represented through the use of logical syllogisms, such as if A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of C, then A must therefore be a subset of C. True education and sharpening of intelligence happens through the enhancement of the understanding of such principles, whereas list-based learning involves no use of logical capacity, and only relies on the occupation of space in memory banks. This distinction may seem small, but it makes all the difference in the world.

I’ve seen countless examples of would-be students who insist that they would love to learn music, math, or any number of esoteric skills, but feel that they lack natural ability or talent in those fields. They may wish to travel the world, but have never identified themselves as strong “language learners,” regardless of their proficiency in other domains, and so on. While clearly some people are born with a stronger disposition for learning some subjects than others, I believe anything can be learned by anyone, so long as a qualified instructor can find a suitable way to compare a new type of knowledge and understanding with some other form of information already maintained by the student, and so long as the student maintains strong enough reasoning capacity.

If intelligence and all its applications can be summarized as products of the ability to reason correctly, the knowledge acquired from the use of reason, and the precision use of the body’s various motor functions deriving from this knowledge, it follows that an optimized model of education will break down the informational constructs comprising any skill set into something already relatable and familiar to a student. By turning the unfamiliar into something familiar via metaphor and comparison, students can more easily adopt the required information into an established logical structure, rather than create a new one from the ground up. This task requires that a teacher or explainer of information first identify what sort of information and patterns their student is already familiar with, and compare them effectively with the subject being taught. This is not a task for the lazy or dispassionate teacher.

Focus on principle when dealing with learners of any age. "Smart" is an arbitrary general designation unless it accurately reflects a person's ability to take in superior information and disregard outdated ideas. Intelligence is more a measure of psychological fluidity and consistent categorization than anything else. A teacher facilitates this process through the controlled release of the appropriate pieces of information in a sequence tailored to the temperament of his student, with continually feedback from direct interaction. A caretaker of children makes it his first priority to promote the capacity for reason and rapid adaptation, knowing that everything else more visible on surface display is a downstream derivative of these traits. The capacity to reason is the only thing which allows for an integrated understanding of life, and which weaves together seemingly unrelated fields of knowledge.

More important than how linguistically gifted, logical, or diverse a student’s mind may be, no true learning can occur without first the presence of a genuine desire to learn. Likewise, no matter how mentally forsaken a student may appear to be, incredible amounts of growth can almost always be achieved by someone with the will to learn. Therefore, the job description of an effective teacher is never limited to just explaining the logic and facts of the subject of focus; it is to inspire students to want to learn. It's as much an emotional process as it is an intellectual one. It requires the development of bravery and confidence in the face of the unknown and intimidating. Learners need inspiration in the form of a real life human role model.

Many children feel themselves stupid, or incapable of learning certain skills or subjects. Many adults believe that the adoption of large amounts of new data is impossible past childhood. Good teachers take time to learn where these students’ strengths lie, and find a creative way to link the development of new knowledge to what they already know and care about. Almost everyone past a certain age has something which they’ve learned to excel at despite initial obstacles. Reminding them of these things can give them the perspective needed to envision how the new tasks and processes will come to be easy for them as well. But again, this can only happen when the teacher has a personal interest in the emotional lives and interests of his students.

Teaching is definitely not for everyone, but for some people it seems to be the only way to sustain a purposeful life. It's the social role they were born to fill, and they naturally shift toward positions of nurturing and guidance over others. It's about being the right kind of person more than it is about any particular type of talent, and natural teachers usually find themselves in educational and mentorship roles well before ever getting their first job in the field. It can be frustratingly different every day, and present you with situations for which there is no formulaic response or solution. In that way, it's one of the most adventurous professions in the world, and it can easily break the spirit wear on the patience of anyone ill-suited to take up the mantle.

How do you know if teaching is the right path for you? It depends. Do you find the workings of the human mind fascinating? Do you have a natural knack for seeing the process of intellectual and emotional growth in yourself and others? Do you have a way with words and a talent for demonstrating how things work? Can you easily empathize with others and imagine the world from their present point of view? Is your most basic instinctual drive to strengthen rather than prey upon the weak? Does the idea of contributing to the improvement of the human race excite you like nothing else? If you've even read this far, you probably already have a good idea of who you are and where your destiny lies.

When you enter the field, you'll probably notice there are two diametrically opposite philosophies concerning education. The dominant philosophy on the scene, likely throughout the world, is that a teacher is merely a cog in a larger machine, whose only purpose is to throw information and discipline at students. Don't be fooled into thinking this is the way it always is or will always be. The remnant minority are those who understand and celebrate the unique and personal craft each teacher brings to the table when they take on the role of professional educator. Make it your personal mission to find these types of people, or you will come to hate your job and yourself for compromising your principles and become the anti-embodiment of your true values.

Hone your craft. Teaching is as much an art as it is a science. The way you think, talk, gesticulate, and otherwise choose to express yourself becomes an integral part of the quality of your performance. It becomes your trademark and personal brand appeal. Maybe you're not fortunate enough to be in a market where your services are fully appreciated. Either work the best you can with what you have or head elsewhere. In a world where educators are still massively underappreciated, you are also necessarily, to an extent, an entrepreneur. If you do it right, you never stop learning about learning. Teaching is way too broad of a pastime to be put in a box by reigning custom. You'll go into it armed with an innate disposition and passion for explanation, but real experience with an endless variety of students and circumstances is what will turn you into a master.

Enjoy the ride as you learn to navigate the system and work within the expectations of the culture around you. Education is, in some ways, among the most controversial and controlled career fields in the world, and because of this it needs progressive thinkers to push it in the right direction. The pay and hours can be hugely variable depending on the specific nature of the educational endeavor you choose to pursue, but the personal rewards will be unmatched by any other course of action if you find the right kind of person for teaching. By many, you will be ignored and unappreciated, but by those whose lives you really influence you will be a hero. You won't ever have to wonder again if your life has had any meaningful impact on the world, because you will know that, at least for those who minds you impacted, the world will be forever different.

Are we Bullying Our Children?

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:00:02 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Jennifer Andersen.

What if our efforts to stop bullying are misguided? What if the real solution comes long before our children enter school or set foot on a playground? What if bullying comes from us?

Many will be up in arms at this suggestion. They will quickly dismiss it as asinine. They will cite all sorts of studies that tell us all sorts of ways to prevent bullying, and rehabilitate bullies. Some may tout the vast amount of resources which have been put into anti-bullying programs.

Others will consider this message. They will think about it, and wonder what the implications are if there is truth in these thoughts.

This is not meant to make parents feel bad or excuse the children who are cruel to others. This message is not pretending that bullying is not an epidemic. The intention of sharing these thoughts is not to spark controversy or pit one mother against another.

This unpopular concept is being shared in the interest of children, and it needs to be considered.

Read the full thing at OurMuddyBoots.com »

Honesty, Anger and Parenting

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Wed, 15 May 2013 14:30:02 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Laura Markham.

We need to be honest about our own feelings -- with ourselves! We need to notice our emotions as they come up, take responsibility for them, and work through them. Because the truth is that every parent sometimes feels rage toward his or her child. Stuffing those feelings doesn't help anyone.

But that does NOT mean we need to "dump" our upsets on our child in the name of being honest. That's not acting like a grown-up, and it's not coaching our child to be his or her best self, either. In fact, when kids follow that modeling, it looks like tantrums. So unless there's immediate danger -- in which case you need to remove a child from harm's way -- I recommend that parents try to avoid relating to their children when they're angry.

Does that mean we aren't being honest, truthful and authentic? I don't think so. Let's take this a step at a time.

Read the full thing at AhaParenting.com »

It's Time to Unschool the Unschooling Movement!

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Sun, 19 May 2013 11:56:51 PDT

Send her mail.

"Living with Wild Abandon" is an original bi-weekly column appearing every other Tuesday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Breezy V. Stevens. Breezy is a long-time radical unschooler, an advocate for children's rights, a crazy dog lady, a crafter in various mediums, a lover of all things tropical and beachy, and the designer of "EVC in Color". Archived columns can be found here. LWA-only RSS feed available here.

Well, that's it. I've sworn off online unschooling groups again. It's happened before, for precisely the same reasons. Every couple of years I get it in my head that perhaps things have improved in those circles, but it always degenerates quickly. As long as one follows precisely the prescribed unschooling format, things seem to go along swimmingly. But if you ever find yourself in any kind of struggle, beware.

It usually starts out with a whole boatload of people telling you that you're not providing enough love, understanding, compassion, freedom, etc., or that you're otherwise lacking in parental capability. You'll be told over and over again that if you just "stick to the principles," everything WILL work out. If it isn't working for you, you're not doing it correctly, or you're not doing it hard enough (or both). There's usually a mildly patronizing tone, as though you are being patted on the head like a cute but stupid puppy, as you're reassured that once you've had more experience, things will be better (aww, poor little noob!). If you, like myself, are silly enough to assert that it's not always so simple, that all circumstances and families are different, and that there is not in fact one perfect formula that works for everyone (or if anyone else is ballsy enough to chime in and suggest something similar), all hell will start to break loose, and the discussion often quickly devolves into scolding, censorship, and even outright attacks on the person who came looking for help.

I find this simultaneously heartbreaking and interesting.

Heartbreaking, because to me it seems glaringly obvious that when someone comes to you seeking help and advice, they are probably in dire need of the much touted love, compassion, and understanding. And, you know, maybe a bit of help, for good measure? Perhaps even a suggestion that -gasp!- doesn't involve making the person feel guilty that no matter how much heart and soul they've poured into it, their best just isn't good enough? If it weren't so sad, it would actually be kind of amusing: for a group of people who pride themselves on living "outside the box," there are some pretty strict rules in unschooling circles. For a group of people who generally emphasize acceptance and celebrate diversity, we can be astonishingly narrow-minded. A common theme that is reprised in peaceful parenting and unschooling circles is that it is counterproductive to make kids feel bad in order to try to get them to behave better. Now, I know what you're thinking, because I am too: why, pray tell, does this cease to apply to other adults? My advice? If you ask for input on an online unschooling forum, please be advised that it would be best to first don your sturdiest flame-proof suit. (Time and frustration-saving hint: if you encounter any sort of difficulty in your unschooling journey, it's your fault. Try harder.)

Interesting, because I can't help but wonder, why is this the state of things? Is it because most of us have spent the majority of our existence being told, in both overt and subtle ways, to seek the "right" answers? Is it possible that we're not even aware of our own assumptions? We ourselves are a product of our culture: conventional parenting, social norms, public school. When we start to break out of the mental mold we've been raised in, we start to look around for better ways of doing things. Many of us may try different educational techniques and methods with our kids, as our understanding of their needs evolves. When we find unschooling, it can feel like we've finally found It. The One Thing that will Fix Everything. It makes sense, in theory, but when we seize on any one method and follow it rigidly, we forget something very important: every family, every child, and every situation is different. Standardizing our parenting approach or reading from a "script" of strict unschooling principles is not always equal to the endless complexities of everyday life. To expect, or to insist that others should expect that there is an educational or parenting equation, a formula for child rearing, that when consistently applied, will work at all times for all children in all families is, in reality, a bit facile. My experience certainly suggests otherwise. And you know what? I'm not the only one who's noticed this. But this is a Big Secret in the unschooling world. If you dare to suggest in most public unschooling forums that, for example, talking and asking children politely sometimes isn't enough to fix a problem, you will be shamed. If you hint that perhaps there just isn't a clear-cut solution, and that no matter how much love and trust there is between two people, sometimes people behave and treat each other poorly, you will be asked to shut up. If you actually have the guts to say, hey, this was my experience, and the only thing that helped was to draw a line or create a boundary, you will be criticized, and even potentially asked to leave. There just is not room in most corners of this community to discuss what you're supposed to do when you've tried everything, given it all you've got and more, and it's just not working. The worst part is hearing from people that will send you a personal message and tell you their story. They are often too afraid to speak up anymore.

Maybe some part of it is due to the fact that unschooling is starting to gain more and more mainstream attention? There are more and more people out there, acting as voices of a sort for the rest of us, and more and more attention is being paid to unschooling as a viable educational alternative (or not). Those of us who believe it's the best way to raise our kids, naturally want to show its best face. We want everyone to see just how amazing things can be when you step outside the conventional paradigm. But in our haste to polish our delivery for public consumption, what are we glossing over?

I think this does a grave disservice to the potential of unschooling itself, and creates disillusioned and burned-out parents. I think it puts pressure, even if unintentionally, on children to prove our methods right. The thing that I have realized, after 12 years in the trenches, is something I should have kept in mind all along: you simply can't ever control how another human being develops. You can influence, you can guide, and the parenting style you choose will most likely contribute to the shaping of your children's personalities. But in the end, the choice is theirs. Some children, perhaps even most children, will embrace the freedom and opportunities that the unschooling lifestyle offers. Some will live harmoniously with their families, with open communication and mutual respect. People who have this experience seem to believe that all children will respond in this way. But I am here to tell you that some will not. I am not the only one who has found this. But- and this is a big but- as hard as it may be for some of us to swallow, after spending years believing it like gospel, this is as it should be. After all, expecting kids to conform to a nonconformist lifestyle is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? The value of freedom should not rest in its ability to produce always-moral, judicious people. Unschooling must ultimately place value on the freedom to quit, to fail, to make poor choices, even to reject the unschooling lifestyle and mindset completely, or else it was never be freedom at all.

I think that, in order for unschooling to thrive into the future, instead of fizzling out before it really gets going, we need to do something really, really important: we need to embrace honesty. We need to work toward creating a culture around unschooling that doesn't shame people for struggling or scold them for disagreeing. We need to be willing to have frank and open discussions about our obstacles, and we need safe circumstances in which to do so. We need to be brave enough to admit that due to the diversity of the human experience, there will likely never be One Right Way to do this or anything else. If instead we continue to emphasize orthodoxy and dogma, not only will the larger movement tend to stagnate, but innovation into new and improved ways of living with our children will be largely stifled.

It's time to apply unschooling principles not just to children, but to the way we think about and relate to the unschooling community as a whole; in other words, it's time to unschool the unschooling movement. It's time to realize that "living outside the box" isn't enough. We need to realize there is no box at all, just people, struggling to find the best possible way to live our lives.

Are Humans Naturally Violent?

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:30:01 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by J.G. Vibes.

A new study published last month in Nature Journal suggests that humans are naturally good. This study adds to the mounting evidence against the popular misconception that corruption is a trait of human nature.

In ten experiments using economic games, scientists observed that faster decisions result in more cooperation and generosity, while slower, calculated decisions show a decrease in cooperation and generosity. The conclusion is that the automatic reaction is to be friendly, generous and cooperative, and only upon further consideration do humans become greedy or violent.

Read the full thing at TrueActivist.com »

Respecting Personal Choices

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:00:04 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Lyndsey Merrill.

Do you have a child that makes personal choices you don’t like? Do they dress (or want to dress) in mismatched clothes? Do they refuse to wear a coat in the winter? Does your boy like to dress in girls clothes, or your girl in boys clothes? Does your daughter hate brushing her hair, or son hate taking baths? I am specifically talking about choices that don’t really cause any harm or the risk is very low. Do you have a hard time respecting your child’s personal choices?

Read the full thing LiberatedParenting.com »

What I Know and What I Don't Know

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 13 May 2013 10:00:06 PDT

Send him mail.

"One Improved Unit" is an original bi-weekly column appearing every other Monday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by the founder and editor Skyler J. Collins. Archived columns can be found here. OIU-only RSS feed available here.

I've found myself getting frustrated lately due to assumptions I've made regarding my convictions, mostly religious. I've gotten ahead of myself and wound up confused and dissatisfied with where things were going. It's time to take a step back and reassess my knowledge banks; to really dig into my mind and categorize everything (okay, a fraction of everything) into two lists: what I know, and what I don't know.

What I Know

I know that I am alive. I know that I am a male member of my species. I know that I have been alive for almost 30 Earth years. I know that I have two parents and four siblings. I know how long each of them has been alive. I know that I attended every year of public school. I know that I was baptized into the Mormon Church after my eighth birthday. I know that I graduated from a public high school with a 3.0 average. I know that my first job was fast food. I know that I accepted the teachings of the Mormon Church and became worthy to enter their temples.

I know that my wife was born and raised in Mexico City. I know that she attended public school. I know that she moved to Chicago in 1999. I know that she moved to Salt Lake City in 2002. I know that we met in 2003, and got married in a Mormon temple in 2004. I know that we had our first child, a son, in 2005. I know that we had our second child, a daughter, in 2009. I know that we decided to unschool and parent our children peacefully in 2011. I know that I published my first book in 2012.

I know that I have never had an experience with the supernatural. I know a lot about the doctrines of the Mormon faith. I know a little about the larger world of religion. I know a lot about economics. I know a little about the larger world of science. I know a lot about libertarianism. I know a little about the larger world of philosophy.

What I Don't Know

I don't know all of the details of my conception and birth. I don't know all of the details of my early childhood. I don't know the details of my parents' and siblings' lives. I don't know the details of my wife's life. I don't know all of the details of my children's lives.

I don't know a lot about the larger world of religion. I don't know a lot about the larger world of science. I don't know a lot about the larger world of philosophy.

I don't know if God exists. I don't know if I am the spiritual offspring of deity, as the Mormon faith teaches. I don't know if Jesus Christ was the son of God, or that he was resurrected. I don't know if the Bible contains books written by true prophets of God, or containing true events. I don't know if the Book of Mormon is as Joseph Smith described it. I don't know if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, nor any of his supposed successors. I don't know if the Mormon Church is God's true church.

Final Thoughts

This was an exercise in mental clarification. There are many things that I know, mostly based on having experienced them; too many to fit into a short column. It would probably take volumes to list every single piece of knowledge I have, but even more, thousands or millions more, to list every single piece of knowledge I don't have. There's even knowledge, I'm sure, that I can't have, or don't have the ability to obtain (I can't experience things in your body, for example) or even comprehend. I think however, that most things I can know, one day, be them experiences or facts, natural or supernatural (keeping an open mind, of course). I don't know how long I will live, but I know that I can work on knowing more things, and hopefully my life won't end too soon.

The State as God in Civil Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 13 May 2013 08:00:01 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Adam Blacksburg.

The concept of Civil Religion is relatively new on the scale of human history, as are many of its features. It is most frequently applied to the 20th century communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union, but it can apply to any modern secular State. With the rise of secularism the ages old union of religion and politics was broken. This presented a problem to the philosophical legitimacy of the State, suddenly lacking a divine mandate, or otherwise theological justification for maintaining its power. Civil religion was simply the replacement of an outdated tool of oppression by governing elites.

Read the full thing at TheHumaneCondition.com »

A Guide to Practical Compassion

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Mon, 13 May 2013 07:30:02 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Leo Babauta.

If I’ve found two guiding principles in my life, they are contentment and compassion.

With these two ideas, life becomes better.

Contentment makes every moment better. And compassion makes your connection with others better.

What Compassion Is, & Some Difficulties

Let’s talk about compassion for a few minutes, because as important as it is, very few people talk about how to actually do it.

First a definition: the simple definition of compassion is feeling and understanding the pain of others, and then wanting to reduce that suffering.

In practice, it’s a lot harder. How do you understand the pain of others? If I see anything about you, it’s based on very limited information, just what you’ve shown me — and often, based on very limited interactions. So I have to project a story that I make up about you, and the truth is, it’s probably wrong. But sometimes that’s all we have to work with, and then gain more information once we’ve started to apply it.

If you have a large group of people — me trying to find compassion for all of you, for example — that can be very difficult. How do I find empathy with thousands of people? It’s almost impossible. So you see that applied compassion can become a complex thing. Much more easily applied on an individual basis.

Read the full thing at ZenHabits.net »

How Do You Handle Adversity?

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 10 May 2013 11:00:00 PDT

Author unknown.

A young woman went to her grandmother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted ...to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed that as one problem was solved, a new one arose.

Her grandmother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water and placed each on a high fire. Soon the pots came to a boil. In the first, she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and the last she placed ground coffee beans. She let them sit and boil, without saying a word.

In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She then pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her granddaughter, she asked, "Tell me, what do you see?"

"Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied.

She brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. She then asked her to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg. Finally, she asked her to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled as she tasted its rich aroma.

The granddaughter then asked, "What does it mean, Grandmother?"

Her grandmother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity -- boiling water -- but each reacted differently. The carrot went in strong, hard and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior. But, after sitting through the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her granddaughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?"

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity? Do I wilt and become soft and lose my strength?

Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, but changes with the heat? Did I have a fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and a hardened heart?

Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, it releases the fragrance and flavor of your life. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hours are the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate to another level?

How do you handle adversity? Are you changed by your surroundings or do you bring life, flavor, to them?

Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?

Learn Free - An Unschooling Documentary

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 10 May 2013 10:30:00 PDT

Editor's Pick. Video by Nielsio.

Nobody’s In Control, But Everybody’s In Control

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 10 May 2013 10:00:00 PDT

Send him mail.

"These Boundless Wonders" is an original weekly column appearing every Friday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Avery M. Tolliver. Avery is a writer and musician. His personal blog can be found here. Archived columns can be found here. TBW-only RSS feed available here.

A unique, revisionist understanding of our socio-political reality exists, and it has the potential to rock the foundations of almost everything we’ve ever been taught about our human existence. Its implications are revolutionary. This radical notion will likely be difficult for many of us to accept, and some will probably - at least initially - deny it, evade it and scoff at it, like a delusional, chortling junky or alcoholic rejecting the well-wishes, reasoning and advice of her family members on an episode of Intervention.

Okay, ready?

We lead an anarchistic life.

When we decide which car to buy, which websites to visit, which subjects to study in college (or if we’ll even go to college), which restaurants to patronize, which computer to purchase, which phone service to utilize, which person to marry, which books to read, or where we want to spend our vacation time, is there some commissar, government agency or politician ordering us around at gunpoint?

When we choose the amount of money we’re going to save or spend, or select our outfits in the morning, or choose which profession to pursue, or decide where we want to raise our families, there is no agent of the state barking orders in our ears.

The real lifeblood of society gushes forth like a phantom river current, propelling an untethered amalgam of human aspirations, emotions, rationality, irrationality, sanity, insanity, nature, nurture, superstition and mystery. This untethered force, which at first appears chaotic and disorderly, evolves over time to create some of the most complex, beautiful and ingenuous products of the human spirit, like languages, markets, art and entire civilizations.

The institutions which we traditionally view as being in control and quite necessary - governments, international political organizations, the police and military - are nothing more than apparitions, manifestations of flawed ideas, and their long-term existence is not set in stone. Like a sand castle awaiting high tide, or a new gadget dependent on the approval of consumers, these institutions of power lead a precarious existence indeed.

Nobody’s in control.

But...

Everybody’s in control.

“Has your father or anyone in your family ever plotted to overthrow the U.S. government?”

The question startled me at first, and I replied with a slow, drawn-out “no” to express my shock. The two government employees asked me a few more questions - more innocuous than the one above - about my Dad, who was employed by a contractor for the Department of Energy, and who possessed a government security clearance.

I asked my Dad about the men when he returned home from work, and he just kind of laughed it off, explaining that such questioning of family and neighbors was standard protocol for workers with a a security clearance.

But I never forgot about that question.

Despite possessing the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction on Planet Earth, employing more than two million military members, having an empire’s-worth of military bases in more than one hundred countries around the world, spying on domestic and foreign entities, regulating almost every aspect of human life, operating the world’s most nefarious counterfeiting racket - the Federal Reserve, and murdering millions of Iraqi civilians and other Middle Easterners in just my lifetime, the government of the United States requires and relies on the consent of the people who live within its arbitrarily defined borders. Without that consent, the entire edifice of the State will come crashing down.

Understanding this basic fact, the State uses a slew of deceptions, propagandisms and trickery to maintain its fragile grasp on our minds, wallets and souls. Creating the belief that we rule ourselves because our fascistic, tyrannical political reality is instead euphemistically called a “democratic republic” is one way the State maintains its fragile grasp. “Public” schooling (more accurately, government schooling) is another way. Of course, the mainstream media, which relies on information from governments and state officials and is controlled by mega corporations which are often connected in some way to the State, is suckered into repeating and spreading lies and propaganda and often hides the savagery of endless warfare.

But, again, the State needs your consent. Can you imagine what would happen if fifty million Americans decided to stop paying their income taxes? If thousands of employers decided to ignore “Obamacare” mandates? What if everyone went Galt? What if parents, en masse, took their kids out of those “public” schools and instead taught them peacefully? What if people boycotted the government? The core reality to remember is that only a small percentage of the population works for the State or is connected in some way to the State’s tentacles. The vast majority of the population lives a peaceful, productive existence outside of the State’s violent, corrupt realm.

As I was shopping for groceries the other day, witnessing the miracle of markets happen right before my eyes and watching hundreds of shoppers and dozens of workers all interact and conduct business peacefully, I thought to myself, “This is society proper. This is what unites us and tightens the bonds of brotherhood and humanity.”

Human beings act in a world of scarcity to alleviate tensions and to increase subjective happiness. Society and civilization precedes government. The Establishment is beginning to worry that you might be catching on to these ideas, and that its very existence and perceived indispensability is being called into question by the bulk of the people.

Recently, the grand Warmonger-in-Chief, Barack Obama, gave a rather shocking speech to a group of Ohio State graduates. In his speech, he told the alumni that “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn of tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

The State is beginning to resemble a paranoid prison escapee driving down the highway with a police cruiser in her rear-view mirror. Except in our case, the police cruiser represents reason and logic and hundreds of years of sound economic theory which demonstrate that the government is, in fact, a major source of our problems and a massive drain on society proper.

To be sure, the State is not the source of all of our problems. Backwards parenting techniques, sociopathic behavior and violence are remnants of the darker recesses of humanity, and they exist in shocking percentages. But sociopathy and violence must be nurtured and learned. Someone might be predisposed to negative behavior, but if her childhood environment is peaceful and engaging, respectful and loving, caring and compassionate, she will be able to bypass those predispositions and lead a happy, productive life.

And this is why education, particularly regarding the importance of peaceful parenting, sound economics and the morality and efficiency of free markets, is such a bold threat to the State. As Rothbard opined, “The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism.”

We, as human beings living a life of anarchy (on a daily, practical level), but held back by a gargantuan, yet frail, mirage of insanity called “government,” are in a position to change the world, if we can remember one thing:

Nobody’s in control, but everybody’s in control.

Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:01 PDT

Editor's Pick. Video by SchoolSucksPodcast.

The Truth about Savings and Consumption

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Fri, 10 May 2013 09:00:00 PDT

Editor's Pick. Video by FEE.org.

The State Is A Religious Institution

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:00:06 PDT

Editor's Pick. Written by Michael Suede.

On the website Debate.org, the question of whether government is necessary or not was put up for debate. One of the responses that was given in favor government being a necessity says:

Without an enforcing government to have justice and keep the peace, I do believe that the human race would turn on itself and descend into chaos. Our personalities and even our families lend themselves towards governance. Without it, we would have no organization, no services, and no police. Education would be spotty, we would be thrown back into a stone-age like existence.

As a promoter of anarcho-capitalism, I encounter these arguments a lot. They are purely religious arguments. There is no proof behind any of the claims, only a lot of assumptions that are based on blind faith. Belief in the state really is nothing more than a religion; and I believe it is one of the most destructive religions around.

Read the full thing at LibertarianNews.org »