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 »

Guiding the Outliers

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Thu, 23 May 2013 10:00:08 PDT

Send him mail.

The State: Human Parasite

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:30:00 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.

In previous columns, we discussed the way exchange depends on subjective determinations of value by each party, and how it requires each party to appeal to the rational assessment of the other party’s self-interest. We have discussed at length the philosophical premises of human rationality, self-ownership and their interpersonal ethical implications, which are rights and trade.

Voluntary trade has been a key element in the development of what anthropologists refer to as civilization, as distinguished from more primitive societal models. As humans moved away from hunter-gatherer societies, trade played a key role. The development of agriculture also prompted specialization in various crops. Trade is essentially a way of leveraging diversity on a societal scale. Its our diversity that allows exchange based on these divergent determinations of value.

Rather than independently growing or gathering everything for his own bare-subsistence existence, man was able to specialize and create great personal surplus of an individual staple and then trade his excess for the rest of his wants and needs. Specialization in a particular good or crop allowed humans to leverage the diversity of their abilities. Wealth, then, is either the increase in surplus resources or reductions of effort required to survive and is brought about by innovations in technology and the specialization enabled by trade.

The great surplus enabled by trade and specialization, as anthropologists tell us, was a necessary change for permanent cities; civilization to develop. It also permitted a phenomenon that could not exist prior to such surplus: the state. Among all of the competing theories about the process of early state formation, anthropologists generally agree that organized government as we know it was only possible after, and because of, this great surplus in wealth. This means (my own conclusion) that the state is essentially parasitic. Rather than being the cause of societal cooperation and its resulting prosperity, it is clear that the state could only have arisen after such advances in human development because of its need to feed on that resulting surplus. We can illustrate this by the use of an economist's favorite tool: the desert island analogy.

Suppose thirteen people crash-landed on a desert island. After all of the drama, emotional recovery, and after that one poor sap gets predictably sucked to his bloody doom into the still-turning jet engine, they settle in for a few weeks of scraping out survival. After experiencing the daily grind of individually gathering their own food, they start to find that there are great variations in their individual abilities. They decide to cooperate and hold a meeting to determine each others’ specialized roles (no, I’m not advocating central planning of careers here; just go with me on the analogy). After the skilled carpenters, doctors, hunters and such are identified, two people remain. They propose to the group that they, out of a need for order and regulation, are going to fill the role of creating and enforcing rules for the rest of the group. They offer no specialized service or product for which the others might voluntarily trade, and yet they propose that their role of controlling the rest is necessary for stability. They therefore propose that their personal survival should be supported by the excess wealth of the others, and even (if daring enough) might propose that the others also fund the enforcement of their rules for control (legislation). Let’s say that they then also propose that in order to enforce their rules, they require everyone’s agreement that they, and only they, be permitted to use aggressive force.

The State is these two individuals now. Our two benevolent, would-be parasites would undoubtedly be seen with great suspicion. Anthropologists are divided on whether the first states actually arose from a voluntary agreement to such a condition or whether the claims of such consensus based on supposed necessity are a retroactive justification for control that was obtained via conquest. Without reaching a conclusion on that ultimate question, we can still see that the state currently operates only on a fiction of “consent” and without specific and express contractual empowerment from the individuals experiencing its rulership.

This example illustrates the basic and defining nature of the state. It also helps illustrate how the state needs a preexisting surplus resulting from organized cooperation, a phenomenon for which it frequently takes credit. The state represents a very sophisticated, historically enduring, but increasingly apparent fraud by which a few humans have managed to evade the ethical rules of rights and trade, while simultaneously feeding on their resulting productivity.

Imprinting, Taxing, Fearing

noreply@blogger.com (Administrator) — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:00:02 PDT

Send him mail.

"Finding the Challenges" is an original bi-weekly column appearing every other Wednesday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Verbal Vol. Verbal is a software engineer, college professor, corporate information officer, life long student, farmer, libertarian, literarian, student of computer science and self-ordering phenomena. Archived columns can be found here. FTC-only RSS feed available here.

We are all alike, putting our pants on one leg at a time, breathing, eating, hearing hoofbeats, sleeping, procreating, escaping, succumbing, aging, dying. But this is only the physical. There is also the logical extent of each of our existentional beings, that which by nature makes us all different. How do we get that way? Why are we afraid? Why are we afraid not to comply with the wishes of the other?

This week we will talk about the irrefutable fact that we are individuals, not a close order drill unit. We will touch on the current stink about the IRS, but we will see that the more of it that is revealed, the more it is the same old, same old. And we will examine the overarching, irresistable part of our being that is fear – what can we do about it?

Imprinting

When I engage a classroom full of learners, I try to make sure they see the basic dichotomy between the physical and the logical. Any system can be described physically by describing its people (roles), hardware, software, data, procedures, and communications. Every system has these, and everything is a system.

But each system has traits that make it different from every other system, increasingly different from even the replica set from which it comes. Two identical pick-up trucks roll off of the assembly line on one day. One came off at 2 pm, the second at 4pm. One is shipped to Nashville and the other to Las Cruces, NM. The first is bought by a country music star. The second is assigned to a traveling salesperson. And so forth and so on.

Everything from the day of the assembly line has conspired to make these identical trucks become different from one another. In human beings, the conspiracy begins sometime in the past of the ancestors of the parents of the human being. I will admit that the idea of cloning a Hitler, for instance, makes for a great thriller as with The Boys from Brazil. But hardly anything could be farther from the likely truth.

The history of a human being is the logical description of that individual human being system. Who, what, when, where, why, how, how much, how many? Every person is a different who from combinations of other whos, arriving in the world at a unique time and place, already like a snowflake in his variety but unlike any other snowflake that has ever been. In fact, there is much more likelihood of two snowflakes being alike than there is of two humans.

Any human being lives a life of uniqueness. To deny any human being her uniqueness, her individuality is to blather like a fool against the inevitability of individuals. To cram people into packets and to school them on the common good is a vile crime against the obvious natural order. To put weapons in their hands and tell them they must kill their kin is an abomination.

There is an African proverb that holds that when a man dies, a library dies with him. That is only the smallest part, folks.

A few days ago, on the Internet, I was in a discussion with other people from the southeastern part of the USA, the part known for better or for worse as the Old South. Most of us in the discussion were from here (Kentucky for me) or had originated here. We all admitted that we were aware of the problems, foibles, and eccentricities, but we also expressed a deep love.

Then someone theorized that it was “imprinting.” The child psychologist knows that very young children are learning machines and thus are deeply imprinted by their environment – they learn what they experience. As I began to think about that, I also thought about the things in later years that had nearly as large an effect on the formation of myself.

I was certainly affected by being born in Chattanooga, TN – to this day I love hilly towns with lots of vegetation and a deep green river through it. And I moved away from Chattanooga when I was four. But when I went back for the first time 50 years later, I knew my way around. So imprinting makes a lot of sense.

The encyclopedia I read about imprinting, however, stopped theorizing at early childhood. I think, however, that it goes on, for the rest of life. I was deeply affected by the next 18 years in Central Kentucky, and the summers that I always spent in Boston, MA with my mother's family. I was affected by my wife from Cincinnati and our time living there for my first job out of school, and for our becoming parents.

After that I was like a sponge at my job in Illinois, where I traveled much but had a tremendous and intense exposure to Chicago. And our second child and first owned home was part of that time.

Thirteen years later, after making another home in Denver, CO and another on a return to Kentucky, I lived in New York City, in central Manhattan, for 3 months. Each of these stops formed a major part of my psyche. There are other stops. A month at an Air Force base in Central Ohio, various summer jobs in various places, trips to new places in and out of the country have all made parts of me that I cannot be without.

Now, having seen my 70th year, enjoying our 8th year on a beautiful wooded farm, falling in love with my family more and more every day, learning to be a grandfather and a great-grandfather, I don't sense a stop in the imprinting. But I am in control. No matter how hard the priests of the power structure seek to convince me otherwise, there is no one else who could have gotten me to this point in my life. Others have surely helped and hindered. There are universal truths, but I am the pilot of this vessel.

Imprinting happened everywhere and at each time. It is the most common thing about people that they are wildly different from one another. Imprints are like dynamic fingerprints. Do not discount this, for yourself or for anyone else you may meet. Our greatest strength is in our uniqueness, far advanced from our ability to work in a collective of unexperienced, homogenized drones.

The Taxman Comes

It looks like I am going to have a rant about taxes in every column, but why not? Taxes are no more appropriate to a voluntary life, than would be paying organized crime for “protection,” or giving the bully your lunch money every day at school.

Furthermore, there is a definite tie-in with the idea of imprinting. Wasn't income tax just like the wallpaper in the room where you had to take your nap when you were a toddler? And most of us started out with part-time jobs in school, where we had very little tax withheld and we got most of it back just by doing a little paperwork. We were like the frogs in pans of cool water on the stove. As children we saw our role models paying taxes without much fuss, and as young adults we were inured to a minor inconvenience.

But I'll tell you something else into which we were lured: the crooked political side of the tax masters. Part of the propaganda slant is that the last few weeks' revelations about the IRS's picking political winners and losers is the feigned horror as if this were something new and completely inconceivable under a public trust.

Read about the careers of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George Bush 43, then get back to me about the integrity used in deploying the IRS wrecking ball. The only qualities that exceed the malevolence of the Taxman are his incompetence and his willingness to serve underhanded aims of his master.

We are observing, not celebrating, the 100th anniversary of the income tax amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The first ill-intentioned act of income taxation was the enactment itself – it was targeted at the rich, mostly to soak those whom we all love to hate, but also to make the rest of the sheep feel as though the taxman was still a good taxman for them. And to sweeten the pot, the first outright tax lie of the 20th Century was along for the ride – this income tax was to be repealed after the Great War was over. Surprise! Is the Geat War still on? Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Again, the frogs were tossed into the still-cool stew-pot.

Once you have convinced the governed that tax is necessary, you can move along to different story lines. After all, just having access to the wealth of the nation is not enough. You now have to have activities through which to launder the filthy lucre. You have to have Potemkin villages to make it appear as though the taxes are doing good.

Fear, the Great Motivator

We are imprinted with an instinct for fear, it is meant to be a short-term motivator toward immediate and attainable safety. We respond to fear at a level before rationale. We almost always respond with fight or flight. Either of these responses is meant to distance us or dispel the danger for the sole purpose of re-entering the zone of reason, the zone of orderly problem-solving.

Fear has often been called the greatest motivator, usually by people who use it against others, and who gain advantage through a reign of fear.

In nature, fear is meant as a temporary solution to danger. If the world was 100% dangerous, 100% of the time, we as benefactors of fear would soon burn out and succumb to the perils causing the fear. Fear would cease to be a motivator. There must be periods, with fairly stable predictability, of relative safety, during which we can revert to being rational.

Could this be why some seem intent on keeping us in fear constantly? She who is in fear constantly must relinquish the role of rational thinker. She must find someone else to do her thinking for her. She must surrender whatever personal power comes from rationality. And who stands enthusiastically by to receive this transfer of personal power – the impersonal addict for power, sometimes known as government, always known as the power structure.

Since we cannot reasonably believe that there is constant danger in nature, we must recognize that the appearance of constant danger must be manufactured. In fact we might have to concede that nature, while ever changing, is in a constant state of being nature – no danger of it being anything otherwise.

I admit that not knowing what's next can be scary, and it can be comforting to associate with someone who seems to know what's next. But think about the people who want to rule your life. What is their motivation? Is their motivation the issue of your safety? Not likely. Then think about who really knows what's next. And who really knows what's next for you. If it's not you, why would it be anybody else?

Lastly, think on this: have you been imprinted with the idea of constant peril? Were you imprinted with a rational recognition that danger can exist in a world that is constantly changing? If so, were you also imprinted with the capability to use rationality to deal with all but the most immediate dangers, or were you imprinted to follow the leader, not to reason why, only to do or die, into the valley of death … ?

Turning one's own imprinting into a set of strengths is the real trick of voluntaryism. You must embrace the idea of your own differentness. The combination of imprints on your life and personality are unique. Once you deal with the immediateness of a danger, you must bring your wits to bear on your life. You can begin to recognize the false imprints, the other-motivated imprints, and the real imprints with real effect for you as an individual.

This is not selfishness nor disregard for those you respect and love. Actually, if you are not capable of doing the rational thing, not capable of individual strength, not capable of rejecting the need for a powerful master, then what can you possibly think this does in a positive way for your respected loved ones?

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) — Wed, 22 May 2013 08:23:15 PDT

Send him mail.

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.