Despicable? Closing a monument?!? Let’s step back for a minute and take another look.

Some 20 years ago, officials of the federal government decided they could reach into my pocket to build another monument to the gods of war and the state; a monument the feds dedicated on the so-called hallowed ground that is DC.²

That is despicable.

You see, in the manner of the Roman Empire before it, the US Empire has its own version of Forum Romanum: a place where homage is paid to the specters of the state. A place that every citizen is expected to visit on pilgrimage, genuflecting and shedding tears for the supposed great men and women – fully agents of the state – who made the state stronger at the expense of the individual. So these are not monuments to the individuals, never have been. They are nothing other than monuments to the state itself.

The people have the means to remember their own, and they have done so through the ages. Yet, to many, the only meaningful remembrance is that bequeathed by the state. So these folks advocate and agitate for state to memorialize their lives and deeds, as well as the lives and deeds of their families and friends.

To them, the cemetery is for those whose lives had no meaning. Believing their lives and deeds worthy of the ultimate recognition, they conclude that while the town square is nice, it does not suffice. Instead, these folks require recognition from their supreme god: the federal state. For only that justifies a life in their eyes.

However, state monuments do not commemorate lives of individuals, they commemorate actions in service to the state. In this context, the individual is nothing but a rod in collective fasces. So if the state decides memorialize a life, it is only for the state that the life is memorialized. That folks want to be so recognized is beyond me. That they demand I pay for such recognition is the offence – a despicable offence at that.

Furthermore, that the so-called champions of less government chide the feds for not funding access to these ill-gotten monuments is even more despicable. The tears and anguish for closing monuments are simply cries for the hand of the state to reach once again into my wallet.

If you want to be remembered, or to remember others, commission and fund a monument on your own property, or the property of another. Do not thieve from me and claim it as a symbol of the eternal and vigilant fight for liberty. To do so is both hypocritical and despicable.

Notes:

1. Of course, the liberals make claims to the produce of my sweat. They at least are open and overt about it. But the conservatives demand that same while asserting otherwise.

2. That the monument was funded largely by private donations does not obviate the truth that my money forcibly funded both the initial construction and its continual maintenance.

“There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool.” ~ attributed to Eric Holder*

As a homeschooling father of seven, I do my best to track the regime’s evolving position on homeschooling. The statement above by Eric Holder offended me and left many of my fellow homeschooling brothers and sisters aghast. But while Holder’s claim is a touchstone, and a harbinger of things to come, it is essentially correct: I do not have a fundamental right to homeschool, and neither does anyone else.

Before you protest and send emails expressing your disapproval and disgust with my claim, hear me out.

A right always confers an obligation. To assert that I have a fundamental right to (say) life confers, on others, the obligation to provide me with the means to life. This is, in essence, the cry from the left: since the right to life is fundamental, the collective – through the state – is responsible for providing the means to life.

So government is called into action, thieving, with the assistance of the gun, goods from one for the stated purpose of giving to another. Government then doles out some portion of its take in the form of food, housing, healthcare, etc. – the means to life, keeping the rest for itself.

The problem is the standard formulation of rights and the expression thereof. Because rights are typically expressed in the positive, they are many times understood as being formulated in the positive. This is a dangerous error.

Of course, while the formulation and understanding of a right need to be in the negative, stating rights in the negative can sounds pedantic at times. Where it is easy and effective to proclaim a right to bear arms, it is clumsy and less effective to protest with placards that proclaim: No one has the right to take my arms.

We embrace the expression of rights in the positive, but we must never allow the expression to trump the formulation. All rights are negative. So my right to life is correctly formulated as: No one has the right to take my life. This right only obligates others to not take my life. It also implies that others have a similar right, and I have a similar obligation.

But the right to life is really a component of a greater right, the only right, in my opinion: the right to be left alone. As correctly formulated in the negative, it would read: No one has the right to aggress against my body or property. The obligation conferred on others is simple: leave me alone. Just as I am obligated to leave them alone.

It is easy to see that all of other rights come from this elementary right, a right so essential and inherent that even young children easily understand it and agree with its implications.

It follows that your right to speech – correctly formulated as: no one has the right to interfere with your speech – flows from your right to be left alone. It is a derivative right. It really is all very simple.

You have no fundamental right to homeschool. Certainly not in the positive sense. In other words, you have no claim on me regarding your homeschooling – I am not obligated to support your homeschool. You simply have the right to be left alone. And I am obligated to leave you alone

Therefore, your right to homeschool is also a derivative right – derived from your right to be left alone. But you must not claim a right to homeschool while leaving unfulfilled the associated obligation – to leave others alone.

Of course, conflicts will arise, as the right to be left alone spills over onto another’s right to be left alone, such as claiming that using a loudspeaker to broadcast your ruminations outdoors at three in the morning is an exercise of your right to be left alone. When conflicts occur, an entity – the parent for children, an arbitration agency for adults – hear the various claims and settle the rights issue.

As homeschoolers, we must embrace the true right – the only right – and accept its obligation. And we must educate others to the ideas and ideals of Liberty. We must not claim singular rights for ourselves with denying others the very same. In other words, we must not fight for the right to homeschool while agitating for state to interfere in the lives of others. To do so is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Your right to homeschool flows from your right to be left alone, and the associated obligation to leave others alone. It really is that simple.

*This is variously attributed to Holder as both his direct quote and his position. I could not find this as a direct quote from Holder, but the statement is making headlines in homeschooling websites.

"There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool." ~ attributed to Eric Holder*

As a homeschooling father of seven, I do my best to track the regime's evolving position on homeschooling. The statement above by Eric Holder offended me and left many of my fellow homeschooling brothers and sisters aghast. But while Holder's claim is a touchstone, and a harbinger of things to come, it is essentially correct: I do not have a fundamental right to homeschool, and neither does anyone else.

Before you protest and send emails expressing your disapproval and disgust with my claim, hear me out.

A right always confers an obligation. To assert that I have a fundamental right to (say) life confers, on others, the obligation to provide me with the means to life. This is, in essence, the cry from the left: since the right to life is fundamental, the collective — through the state — is responsible for providing the means to life.

So government is called into action, thieving, with the assistance of the gun, goods from one for the stated purpose of giving to another. Government then doles out some portion of its take in the form of food, housing, healthcare, etc. — the means to life, keeping the rest for itself.

The problem is the standard formulation of rights and the expression thereof. Because rights are typically expressed in the positive, they are many times understood as being formulated in the positive. This is a dangerous error.

Of course, while the formulation and understanding of a right need to be in the negative, stating rights in the negative can sounds pedantic at times. Where it is easy and effective to proclaim a right to bear arms, it is clumsy and less effective to protest with placards that proclaim: No one has the right to take my arms.

We embrace the expression of rights in the positive, but we must never allow the expression to trump the formulation. All rights are negative. So my right to life is correctly formulated as: No one has the right to take my life. This right only obligates others to not take my life. It also implies that others have a similar right, and I have a similar obligation.

But the right to life is really a component of a greater right, the only right, in my opinion: the right to be left alone. As correctly formulated in the negative, it would read: No one has the right to aggress against my body or property. The obligation conferred on others is simple: leave me alone. Just as I am obligated to leave them alone.

It is easy to see that all of other rights come from this elementary right, a right so essential and inherent that even young children easily understand it and agree with its implications.

It follows that your right to speech — correctly formulated as: no one has the right to interfere with your speech — flows from your right to be left alone. It is a derivative right. It really is all very simple.

You have no fundamental right to homeschool. Certainly not in the positive sense. In other words, you have no claim on me regarding your homeschooling — I am not obligated to support your homeschool. You simply have the right to be left alone. And I am obligated to leave you alone

Therefore, your right to homeschool is also a derivative right — derived from your right to be left alone. But you must not claim a right to homeschool while leaving unfulfilled the associated obligation — to leave others alone.

Of course, conflicts will arise, as the right to be left alone spills over onto another's right to be left alone, such as claiming that using a loudspeaker to broadcast your ruminations outdoors at three in the morning is an exercise of your right to be left alone. When conflicts occur, an entity — the parent for children, an arbitration agency for adults — hear the various claims and settle the rights issue.

As homeschoolers, we must embrace the true right — the only right — and accept its obligation. And we must educate others to the ideas and ideals of Liberty. We must not claim singular rights for ourselves with denying others the very same. In other words, we must not fight for the right to homeschool while agitating for state to interfere in the lives of others. To do so is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Your right to homeschool flows from your right to be left alone, and the associated obligation to leave others alone. It really is that simple.

*This is variously attributed to Holder as both his direct quote and his position. I could not find this as a direct quote from Holder, but the statement is making headlines in homeschooling websites.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

The New Year is a good time to review all those things gathering dust. This year, while cleaning my filing cabinet, I dug a little deeper than usual and found this certificate, suitable for framing, of course. Holding it, I reflected and reminisced.1

A little about myself: I used to be a state-leaning conservative. Not quite a statist, but someone who believed in the state, nonetheless. Back then, I believed that since the state was at least part of the solution, state-run schools were one of the means. So I ran and was elected to my local school board.

During my term on the board, my wife and I began embracing homeschooling for a variety of reasons, finally moving our children out of government schools even as I continued to support them.

Everything changed when I became familiar with the Austrian school and Mises.org through an economics book used by many homeschooling families, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy. Needless to say, my epistemological boat was rocked by a book written for young teenagers. Almost from the first page, I saw my errors — which I still blame on years in government schools, college professors, and my general lack of critical observations (a byproduct of government schools). I subsequently devoured additional books (including Human Action) and became an adherent of Austro-libertarianism.

My wife and I now homeschool exclusively and I no longer serve the Leviathan, but what I learned in practice supplemented and strengthened the knowledge I gained from reading and studying.

It is true that the leading scholars of the Austro-libertarian tradition created (and continue to create) an exacting edifice of theory and history. While this can never be replaced, I believe that sometimes a little practice brings it all together.

As such, I suggest that each reader experience at least one instance of the state in practice during 2013. Participation is easy. Most local and state governmental entities create committees that include community members. The reason is certainly not benign — the entities are looking to justify their actions based on supposed community input. But those committees do exist and they are typically begging for community members.

Through your participation, you will not lessen the creep of the state — you cannot. Keep in mind that politics does not drive change, ideas do. But even attending one or two meetings will be the eye opening experience that exposes the inner workings of the state, confirming Austro-libertarianism. The key is to not to let yourself get caught up in the issues being discussed. Instead, focus on the undercurrents and participants, letting your theory enlighten your observations.

As an example: While serving on the local school board, I began reading articles and books that claimed pressure groups — mainly the educational system itself — were the real force behind so-called reform efforts. To see if that was indeed the case, I applied to be a community member on a content advisory committee during the development the Ohio Grade 4 Writing Achievement Test.

I was the only community member on the committee, with the other members being either teachers or administrators.2 So, while I had to take time off from work to attend, the others continued to receive their tax-funded salaries. Nevertheless, what I learned in the two hours I spent on that committee confirmed all that I had read.

Quickly, agendas come to fore, and I was left outside of the discussions. Sure, I was allowed to speak, but only as a courtesy. Regardless, it is what I observed that made my time worthwhile.

Those two hours were Kafkaesque, to be certain.3 I now know why questions associated with the word "birthday" were anathema to Ohio standardized tests: some children may be too poor to be able to answer a question that asks them to imagine their most-desired birthday gift — as if the concepts of birthday and imagine have an inherent wealth-based bias.

Multiple choice and true/false questions were consistently attacked since (it was claimed) they do not show "authentic learning," though no one on the committee could respond to my question asking for a definition of authentic learning.

In the end, I left the meeting knowing that what are termed assessments of state standards are simply the means, with inculcation of children the ends.

Afterwards, whenever someone in public education lamented the standards, my face would turn red, "Are you kidding me? You folks created the standards you now question, and you did it on my dime."

Then there were the few hours I spent on my school district's health committee as a board member listening to two county health department workers push a proposal for students to be forced to perform desk-side calisthenics every hour, on the hour. Those two claimed the county was suffering an obesity epidemic, even while reaching for the ubiquitous candy bowl that somehow found its way into every meeting in the district.

The community members on the committee could only nod in approval — overpowered by the mutated version of the Delphi Technique used by schools and other agencies to control the direction and findings of community-based committees.4

If being on a committee — even for a few hours — is not for you, consider attending meetings as an observer. Spend only a few hours at a local zoning hearing and you will see just about everyone in attendance (public officials and neighbors alike) extract something from the property owner seeking zoning board approval.

As a school board member, I would attend those meetings to see what developments were coming to the district. I distinctly remember the meeting where a zoning official demanded that vinyl siding be one micron thicker than proposed by the developer, with the developer asking the official, "Do you even know what a micron is?"

And there was the meeting where the zoning official said that all exteriors had to be natural, with the developer saying, "Do you realize that what you call stucco isn't mud? It's manmade."

These two examples stand out since most of the time I saw successful men and women kowtow to the elected officials, bribing them with the promises of free parkland for the township and some additional hedges and pine trees for adjacent homeowners.

After only a few hours watching local politics in action, you will realize that, in many ways, the U.S. is only a slightly more sophisticated Third World country.

Those are but a few instances of the state in action — at the hands of petty officials who haven't yet developed the evil required to advance to higher offices. Nevertheless, even a few hours with these folks will give you a taste of what occurs in Washington, DC.

Commit to putting theory to practice in 2013. You will see the theories of Mises, Rothbard, Higgs, Hoppe, et al, confirmed as you watch petty officials act out Hayek's Road to Serfdom before your eyes.

Notes:

1. I received this award some four years after I attended my one and only meeting, though the committee met for three-day meetings on a quarterly basis over those four years. I believe the committee wanted to imply that, through my slight participation, it had community input. Keep this in mind: the state will use you whenever it can.
2. The state had no requirements for membership other than being a community member. So even if you had no knowledge of standards or assessment, you could have become a member of the committee and participated.
3. Once I became familiar with Austro-libertarianism, I realized that my terms on the school board were Kafkaesque as well.
4. The findings and conclusions are decided beforehand by the administration. The goal of community input is to subtly convince community members that they have always embraced the direction of the administration. As an example, the administrator facilitating the meeting will ask for input and then "clarify" the responses to be in-line with the administration's position. The clarified responses end up on the flip chart and in the final document. And since the meetings are usually packed with school employees, anyone raising a critical question gets the evil eye, so to speak, from the majority of committee members. Dissent is either squashed or made to seem extreme and unreasonable. Attend a local school district community-based committee meeting just to watch this exercise in action.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

The concept of democracy — a vote that resolves questions or issues, whether through referendum or representative — can be justified under certain condition. But those conditions are only found at the margin. Consider a golf league.

A group of golfers decide to create a league in order to facilitate friendly competition. They organize and agree to certain bylaws, including the provision for a popular vote of all members on any change to those bylaws.

For the first few seasons, things move along swimmingly. But over time, the same golfers keep winning the league championship. Envy being what it is, a few golfers object to the established rules. Since the league is after-work and just-for-fun, these golfer suggest a tweak to the rules to allow one mulligan (a free do-over) per round. Look, they argue, this will allow the weaker golfer a chance to compete for a prize.

Per the bylaws, the change is submitted to popular vote and it wins by a large margin. The club rolls on for the next few seasons.

Since envy is something never satisfied, the weaker golfers soon suggest unlimited mulligans. The stronger golfers object: such a change would destroy the integrity of the game. Nevertheless, the bylaws allow for the submission of changes at the next league meeting, so the weaker voters put the mulligan question on the agenda.

The outcome of the vote is unimportant. What is important is to note that such an issue cannot be decided by a popular vote. It can only be decided by secession. Those who do not care about the integrity of the game can secede and create another league. Or, alternatively, those who desire to keep the integrity can secede and form their own league. Secession is the only justifiable solution.

To use a vote as the rationale for the exercise of force against others is unjustifiable — it is unethical.

Democracy is fine as long as it addresses issues at the margin (e.g., the time and place of the annual awards ceremony, the logo on league paraphernalia). However, when issues arise that strike at the core, the only legitimate solution is secession. And this is even more so when the entity making the decision has the power of coercion and compulsion.

Can popular vote decide what appears to be the defining issue in Egypt: Islamist rule? Regardless of the outcome, the losing side will be forced to accept the position of the winning side, with continued violence the likely result.

What about a popular vote on the changes to the right to own and dispose of private property? Is a vote on such a change ever legitimate? Of course not.

The solution is straightforward: secession. Let those who do not want to be forced to obey the laws of others leave. Not necessarily in a physical sense, but in the sense that they are no longer yoked to previously agreed upon contract — a contract made null and void due to changes to core principles. Let them instead form their own union based on mutual agreements.

Though it has been claimed that democracy reduces the need for coercion and compulsion, I would argue otherwise. And I submit that a simple review of the political landscape in the US would prove my point.

A counter argument is that such a system would lead to anarchy. But, would it? Does anarchy arise as the pervasive condition any time folks meet without the state? Or, as I suggest, do folks create spontaneous order whenever they meet under the terms of mutual agreements?

Throughout my life, I have spent many hours on beaches and have never witnessed the need for the state to solve property rights, so to speak. Never. Instead, I have witnessed folks inherently applying the libertarian concept of homesteaded property without incident.

What about the man who does not want to be molested by rules and order? Near where I grew up, a man effectively seceded from society, living alone in an old, abandoned railroad car. We knew he was there and he knew we were here. And we all got along together, as long as you kept off of his property and he kept off of yours.

Now, of course, the man was not a total island. He worked odd jobs to buy food and other necessities. But he lived outside of society in peace with all.

A question may arise as to what constitutes core principles — in other words, what differences are valid reasons to secede? The answer is simple: any reason that an individual deems sufficient in his subjective opinion. Of course, to withdraw, the individual must perform that which he agreed to beforehand. It may be the case that to secede carries some burden, similar to breaking a cellular phone contract early. But the cost of secession was agreed to when the original contract was signed — the cost of secession being part of the mutual agreement.

Returning to the man in the railroad car. Under all but a few circumstances, men and women must engage others in commerce. And the tacit rules of commerce require folks to live peacefully — it is in the best interests of both sides of an agreement to behave. So the end result of islands of men and women would be peaceful agreements and mutual respect, certainly not lawless anarchy or state-influenced fights over power.

If we all seceded from the state, we would all have to reestablish bonds — though bonds based on mutual agreements, not dead letters from so-called Founding Fathers. And these bonds would be ones of peace and prosperity.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

Only a group that can count on the consent of the governed can establish a lasting regime. Whoever wants to see the world governed according to his own ideas must strive for domination over men's minds. It is impossible, in the long run, to subject men against their will to a regime that they reject. (~ Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism).

The state rules only by the consent of the governed. All states recognize this, so they tend to operate in a manner that does not significantly offend their masses.

This is not to say the governed do not need to be vigilant — they must. And it is not to say the state will not employ efforts of appeasement and propaganda to continue molding the ideas of the governed — it will. It is just to say the state does not want to push the governed to a breaking point, so to speak, in one move. Over time through manipulation, yes. But not all at once.

Consider the Nazi regime in Germany. During the early part of war, the German state made certain that consumer goods were available to appease the governed, even to the detriment of the war effort. Why? Even an authoritarian state needs the consent of the governed — and buying off the governed through appeasement is many times the easiest way to garner that consent.

However, once unconditional surrender became a stated goal of the Allies, the Nazis no longer needed appeasement as such. The threat of unconditional surrender gave the Nazis a clear propaganda tool. The Germans masses recognized they only had two choices: roll the dice under the current, vile regime or surrender and face an uncertain future. And given the memories of Versailles and the reality of the advancing Red Army, the known evil retained consent.

While it is true the masses rarely affect change alone, protests in the streets are an almost certain sign the rule of the current state is coming under pressure, and possibly facing its end. This is why the recent, relatively tiny protests in financial districts became such a concern of the state — extended protests would signal a fragile state and lead to larger, more vigorous demonstrations.

Trotsky, in his pseudo criminal defense hearings before the Dewey Commission, noted that the reactions of the masses to Trotskyite efforts in the 1920's were the barometer used to estimate support for the Stalinist bureaucracy. And given the general lack of any reaction, Trotsky recognized he had little chance of ousting Stalin and commanding control of the Soviet state.

A common agenda item shared by most states is the disarming of the governed. If states could disarm in one move, they would.

However, the state is always watchful. While the state pushes and prods to see what it can accomplish at any given time, it will not disarm if it believes such a move will meet with a general withdrawal of consent. Instead, if the state senses too much resistance — protests in the streets — it will step back and wait for a more opportune time.

The state governing the US has just prodded with calls to outlaw certain types of firearms and accessories. And many of the governed reacted — not by "takin' it to the streets," so to speak, but by "takin' it to the stores."

Those who recently bought firearms and accessories (as well as ammo) have done the supporters of Liberty an enormous favor. Their protests in the form of purchases have formed the thin line that stands in defense of our right to bear arms, for the short-term anyway.

As it stands today, buyers have left the shelves of gun stores bare — and I mean bare. They have also cleaned out the online stores, leaving them empty. I do not know the actual numbers, though one maker of firearm accessories claims to have sold three years' worth of accessories in three days — simply amazing. Nevertheless, I can say that regular folks are purchasing personal protection in the face of the state's threat to remove the right to own those very same items.

And I can also say this: The individuals who recently made purchases — purchases in the range of $1000 or more — sent a strong statement to the political class, one that the state cannot ignore. They said they believe in the right of self-protection and are willing to make a not-so-insignificant investment. The signal to the state is as simple as it is obvious: these folks will not consent to a state that forces them to surrender those very same purchases early next year.

Of course, the sharp-eyed, scheming state will continue to manipulate opinion in its favor and use any so-called crises as means to soften opposition and push its agenda forward. Nevertheless, each firearm purchase counters the advance of the state.

To those who bought items the past two weeks, I say thank you. You purchased personal protection for yourselves and likely extended the right to bear arms for us all. Enjoy your purchases and we will enjoy a remaining taste of Liberty. For now, anyway.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

It would seem those who cannot conceive of voluntary governing entities have never looked closely at a map of political boundaries in Ohio. For, if they had, they would have noticed pockets of resistance inside the political monoliths that are Ohio cities.

Although central Ohio is almost tabletop flat, city boundaries appear more like metastasizing cancers than squared-off grids, with the tentacles of each Leviathan reaching from its respective city center to burgeoning tax bases in outlying areas. Not in an orderly fashion, like a box being stretched on all sides, but more like cancerous appendages finding paths of least resistance. And where Leviathan meets Leviathan, city boundaries twist and turn, but never cross, in an effort to consume whatever additional taxes remain available.

As cities expand, they tend to island properties where residents want no part of the respective city's income tax and associated ills — with the cancerous tentacles reaching around recalcitrant residents and surrounding them. So buried within city limits, you will find sanctuaries of voluntary resistance.

The mix of cities and sanctuaries is made all the more obvious while driving area roads and noting the occasional quick succession of signs that read, "Enter Corp" and "Leave Corp."

Cities in Ohio grow through annexation, a mostly voluntary process whereby property owners decide to switch allegiance from their townships to neighboring cities. I say mostly voluntary, because, as with all things political, machinations sometimes come into play.

Typically, annexations occur when a developer purchases empty land adjoining the city limits. The developer desires benefits such as the higher density allowed by city zoning or city-funded road improvements for his proposed shopping mall, etc., while city government desires the additional taxes. The annexation is deemed beneficial to both developer and city government, though it typically ends up a detriment to taxpayers already within city limits.

It is important to note that almost every annexation includes a corresponding secession — with a property owner seceding from his township in order to be annexed into the city. So, in principle, secession is an accepted practice.1

Of course, secession is not currently an option at the state level. Nor does Ohio have provisions for secession through voluntary action as a means to leave a city to rejoin the township. However, secession is allowed, nonetheless.

So, if land is allowed to switch political boundaries, with the a priori result being benefits for the landowner and the political entity, it would seem that truly voluntary governing entities are both feasible and efficient.

I claim that such voluntary agreements would be efficient since both parties (property owner and governing entity) agreed to the switch from their respective standpoints of a priori gains — they both expected to gain from the agreement. And the concept of individual gains holds for both property owners who agreed to annexation as well as those who desired to remain in a newly encircled, low-tax enclave — both having benefited a priori by their respective decisions.

Now I have not come to defend the state, but to bury it. I only use the above as an example of where resistance and changing allegiances are reality, with no corresponding breakdown in society. Given this, it is but a small conceptual leap from the current reality to a future of freedom.

This vision is a society organized on mutual agreements, where services provided by governments are provided by private enterprises. In this structure, property owners can agree to services offered by any given provider in the market, or they can secede, so to speak, from all. In this world, a man can be an island (property wise), if he so chooses.

Of course, the provider would set their best price, based on the market and demand. And the property owner would choose a provider based exclusively on subjective preferences, with the market tending to eliminate bad behaviors on both sides of the transaction.

This would be similar to a contract to subscribe to (say) cellular phone service. Certainly more detailed, but similar nonetheless.

So the current map of governing entities in Ohio, with its occasional areas of resistance, would be replaced with a map of coverage similar to what would be expected if phone service contracts were disclosed — a vast checkerboard of providers, with allegiances constantly switching. One difference being that private service providers would likely offer group discounts to neighboring properties, so there would be more clustering than with cellular phone services.

The point is the existence of a model of society based on mutual agreements. And this model shows that it is but a small leap from our current structure to one based on a system of secession and switching allegiances — a leap from the Leviathans to Liberty.

Notes:

1. Sometimes properties remain in both the city and the township, typically because the township fights annexation in the courts since it does not want its property tax base diminished.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

Governments exist through the consent of the governed. Something that is always true. Consider this quote from Ludwig von Mises, "Only a group that can count on the consent of the governed can establish a lasting regime. Whoever wants to see the world governed according to his own ideas must strive for domination over men's minds. It is impossible, in the long run, to subject men against their will to a regime that they reject."

At times, consent is given freely by the majority. At other times, it is has to be manufactured through propaganda and fear. But at all times, it is the governed who allow themselves to be governed.

Years ago, my wife and I were Peace Corps volunteers (forgive me). During the orientation program before being sent in-country, we learned a little about cultural differences, especially about ways to navigate cultures as an American.

The presenter provided an example: He had recently landed in a former Soviet republic as the leader of a group of new volunteers. Having assembled the group in front of the customs area, he began sending volunteers one by one to the customs agents. Without fail, the volunteer would fearlessly march up to one of the agent, all the while looking directly at the agent's eyes, and proudly present passport and luggage. And, also without fail, the agent would signal the volunteer to another area for closer scrutiny.

The presenter wondered what was going wrong. All of the other folks in the customs lines — all different nationalities — passed without even a second look. Then he noticed a pattern. Where the Americans strutted their stuff, so to speak, the other folks sheepishly shuffled to the agent, papers in an outstretched hand, with eyes cast to the floor. They never looked up — they never challenged the agent — and they passed through with a simple wave from the agent. The presenter, then instructed the next few volunteers to adopt the same mannerisms, and each passed without incident.

This example is instructive. An authoritarian state needs fear in order to hold consent. And that fear must be reinforced on a regular basis. An attitude similar to that of the American volunteers from two decades ago must be continually extinguished. Such a spirit — one that challenges authority — is perceived as a threat to the state because it is a threat to the state. So the masses must be made act submissive before any and all agents of the state. All dissent must be squashed before it takes root.

In an accelerated pace, the fear of the state is overtaking this nation, with the proud strut of liberty being replaced by the cautious shuffle of statism. And I have found myself a victim as well.

On a recent trip with my older children, we faced the agents of the state at the airport security line. As we proceeded through the various checkpoints, I noticed that the agents joked but the masses lowered or diverted their eyes. No one wanted to upset an agent who has the ability to ruin a vacation, at the very least.

On the other side of the x-ray machines, we began to collect our personal belongings. All seemed in order until one of the agents pointed and asked, "Whose bag is that?" Well, it was my son's, so I replied, "That bag is with me. I'm responsible for it."

His voice rose in anger, "Whose bag is it?" Again, I replied that I was responsible for the bag.

The agent pointed and asked his question louder. And I lowered my eyes and finked on my twelve year-old son. "it's his," I replied.

My son was separated from me and interrogated while his bag was inspected. So there I stood, a middle-age man, without shoes, belt in hand, watching my son subjected to questioning from an angry adult who knew nothing would be found in the bag. And I could not help.

In minutes, the iPod that caused the concern was found and we were on our way — physically, but I left no small part of my pride there. I had finked on my son, turned him in, ratted him out.

The whole charade was choreographed to emasculate, to instill a fear of the state. Sure it was a minor affair, but it showed me how easily I would cower before agents of the state. And it let me know how much has changes in last two decades. The American cowboy is slowly becoming another shuffling, servant of the state, as the home of the free and brave begins to look more and more like that former Soviet republic of years ago.

And this is important: As long as the majority accepts the propaganda of endless wars — of enemies at the border — they will never realize their true fear: being noticed and interrogated by an agent of the state. Our day-to-day fear is not some attack from outsiders, it's having to subject ourselves to agents of the state, whether on the road or in a line at the airport, or anywhere else.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Two thoughts give me hope.

First, ideas matter. As it has been said variously over the years, "Even tanks cannot stop an idea whose time has come."

Second, ideas can flourish if given the right spark. To borrow from Gary North: small groups of liberty-minded folks meet over the years until, almost overnight, the belief in liberty takes hold and societies structure themselves around it.

So our task is the same as Albert J. Nock is his article, "Isaiah's Job." We are to continually speak to the remnant, the rump coalition whose heart is still set on liberty, and recognize that as the failures of the state become obvious, the idea of liberty will blossom from those small groups and finally and firmly take hold.

And then, even armies will not be able to stop the idea whose time has come.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

What a vile system, this vaunted democracy. A system that, for the most part, allows the marginal voter, the voter who really does not care about the outcome, and so flips and flops continually through election day, to decide who thieves my liberty and property.

Consider the local levy on my ballot next Tuesday. On one side stand the supporters of the levy: the fire department, township trustees, and associated cheerleaders — those who desire to gain at my expense. On the other side stand folks like me — those who simply want our wallets to remain unmolested this go-around.

So we stand off, both sides staring each other down. Who decides the matter? Ironically, that decision is made by the neighbor who cannot formulate an opinion on the issue until the ballot is in front of him. And even then, his opinion is fleeting, with the issue that swirled around in his head undecided even after he casts his ballot — since he really does not care about the outcome, he is never certain he voted correctly, from his view, that is.

As a class, these marginal voters will, through a momentary mental coin flip, judge for all the merits of that which they are unable to judge for themselves. But if they do not really care about the outcome, why do they vote? They vote on the levy (for or against) in obedience to their god, Democracy.

Regardless of the harm they may cause me should they cast a yes vote, from their perspective, it is far better to vote for a levy — theft — than to not vote at all.

If the local levy and its win/lose proposition are not evil enough, consider the presidential election and its lose/lose proposition.

For whatever reason, the electorate divides itself between those who, under tribal passions, reflexively vote Democrat or Republican, those who pretend they can divine the future and claim to be able to make the rational decision between parties and candidate, and those who never make up their minds, though vote nonetheless.

These marginal voters switch between candidates on matters as meaningless as debate performances or minor gaffs. And they tend to regret their vote once cast. But it is their collective choice that decides the election and crowns the next emperor.

And this is a just system? A rational system?

In a free market, those at the margin perform an essential task. It is their individual decisions to enter or abstain from buying and selling in the market that decide future prices. Their choices direct scarce resources toward the desired wants of consumers. But the choice is not A or B, the choice is A or B or C, or any of a number of choices, limited only by man's imagination and the then-current capital structure.

The decision is not Pepsi or Coke for the next four years. The decision is the factor pricing that leads to the enjoyment of Pepsi, Coke, RC, apple pies, and automobiles by all. And that decision is subject to recall votes on a daily basis.

But the ballot is different. Both presidential candidates have designs for my money and my freedom. One side may tilt toward taking more freedom than money, but neither candidate desires to return either. And in all of this, the guy who has no real interest in the matter decides the issue — a man who is more concerned about returning to regular programming than understanding the concepts of liberty and property.

In my house, I favor Pepsi, while my wife favors Coke. In fact, I will not drink Coke. So an electoral win for Coke is a loss for me. But instead of letting my juice toting neighbor decide which pop we drink, we buy both and are happy. We both can choose and neither loses.

Of course, the market is voluntary while politics are force. So the marginal voter, on a whim, hands the gun to one of two thieves. While the margin serves a purpose in politics, that purpose is pernicious.

It is true that the dime's worth of difference between the candidates was taken from my pocket, so I will not vote for president. I care deeply about the issues, but I recognize that even the lesser of the evils will not return from DC that which is mine. And I am not under the spell of some tribal meme or so beholden to the god of democracy to believe that I must force Pepsi on my neighbors. They can drink what they want.

I did not write this article for those like me who do not intend to vote for candidate A or B. I wrote this to encourage those who unquestionably support democracy to take another look. No matter how much they care about an issue, no matter how hard they campaign, no matter how much they give, their future holds a conviction by the juror who slept through the trial.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

Enough with the moral indignation. I am not voting for president, plain and simple.

Whenever I mention my stance on voting, many of my fellow Christians are taken aback — horrified. I typically get a knee-jerk response along the lines of, "When good people don't vote, evil triumphs." As a Christian who believes in God's word, I can dismiss such comments out of hand. Evil exists, that is true, but my vote will not bind Satan in chains. To believe otherwise — to believe one's vote holds that power — is to suffer from pride. And pride — the fatal conceit — is a chief cause of our current condition.

The next argument I hear addresses my supposed duty to vote for a president — and the implied duty to vote for the Republican candidate, of course. But no such Christian duty exists. Certainly there are times when a Christian may be called upon to cast a vote, such as during the election of elders and deacons. However, in these instances, the Bible enumerates specific qualities required in candidates who stand for church election — without any mention of a license to resort to the lesser of evils should no qualified candidate be found.

For those who feel duty-bound to vote for the lesser of evils, consider this: good Christians voted for Hitler.1 That's right, good Christians in Germany heard the argument and acknowledged their supposed duty by voting for that vile man, all based on the belief that he was the least of all evils on the ballot and therefore the best candidate. And I assume they regretted their votes. Or maybe not.

It is interesting to hear fellow Christians justify their past votes, all in a counterfactual, what-if manner. "Sure I voted for Bush, but he was less evil than Gore or Kerry would have been had they been elected. And yes, I voted for Bush Sr. and Dole, since, had they been elected, both would have been less evil than Clinton was. Oh, and as far as McCain, isn't Obama evil incarnate and McCain his obvious lesser?" Are those justifications true? We will never know.

Nevertheless, as those justifications are unfalsifiable, they allow the voter to sleep well at night. But were similar justifications able to calm the nights of German Christians who voted in the early 1930's? I wonder.

It is true the Communists have thus far murdered more than the Nazis and associated Fascists (as if some real distinction exists between those three ideological brethren), so one could argue (after the fact) that Hitler, in spite of all his wickedness, was the lesser evil on the ballot. And a vote for him was therefore justified. But the stain of voting from Hitler would be something I could never wash away — could you?

Sure, I could "hold my nose" as some like to say and vote. However, I could never escape the fact that I gave my "yes" to a candidate who has stated that he will violate my morals and ethics. If my "yes" is to be a "yes," as it should be, I could never walk away from the evils committed by my candidate, should he be elected. Especially given that I recognized his intentions before casting my vote.

There is no biblical justification for a qualified "yes." There are yes's and no's, and nothing else.

Now, if a truly good man was on the ballot, such as the one who ran in my state primary (Ron Paul), I would have no issue with voting — as I had no issue with voting in the spring. However, when faced with a lesser of evils option, I will make my "no" a "no" and vote for none. And I will let evil takes its course and reap its eternal penalty.2

And I hope that you, dear reader, after consideration, do likewise.

Notes:

(1) I make no attempt to validate Godwin's law with this article. It is historical fact that must be considered.

(2) All the while working Isaiah's Job, of course.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

The Best of Jim Fedako

3Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

4And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

My Fellow Christian:

The story of Paul’s conversion is well known. While Paul (then named Saul) traveled the road to Damascus, in a light from heaven, the voice of Jesus confronted Paul saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” In short order, Paul converted and repented of his sinful ways.

Repentance is a powerful word. It means more than just turning away from sinful ways. It means seeing the evil in the sin that held a death hold before conversion.

Paul never tried to reconcile his life as Saul with his new life walking in faith — a faith in Jesus Christ. And he never spoke in general term as a means to hide his past sins. Paul admitted to his sins and he accepted Jesus’s forgiveness. Done, for eternity.

On the road to the November election, the Republican Party is now claiming its own conversion experience (actually its second conversion experience in recent times, but who’s counting).

In its Pledge to America, the GOP is professing some of the right words, some of the right phrases, and some of the right allusions.1 But in that desperate document, there is no act of repentance to be found.

Although Congressman Paul Ryan noted in an interview today that the Republican Party has fallen short of its Pledge, he did not provide specific instances where both he and fellow GOP legislators favored errant legislation — where they sinned. And none of them have repented from old ways.

Instead, Ryan adopted the very same tone as the Pledge: the Republicans could have been better in the past: they strayed a bit. But since no real sins were committed, there is no need for repentance.

Just a little polish to the image — a tug of the pants, tuck of the shirt, and straightening of the tie — and the GOP is back fighting for liberty, as it always has. Huh.

The Pledge states, "An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many." Yet the GOP has not walked away from any of its own "self-appointed elites." No, it has embraced them with the same smile it continues to embrace its previous agendas and platforms.

What is a conversion without repentance? For the GOP, it is as hollow as their 1994 conversion — empty words that are pleasing to the party’s conservative base, many whom are fellow Christian.

In my past, I was both unsaved and a minor apparatchik in service to the state. Since becoming saved, I do not try to reconcile my past sins — I do not try to justify them in some context of, "I might have gone a little astray back then, but I was generally good in spite of it all." My sins were sins. Now forgiven, of course. But they were sins nonetheless.

As a member of my local school board, I served the beast. Since my conversion to liberty, I will not justify my actions. I voted to place tax levies on the ballot and I actively supported them. I repent. Forgive me.

Boehner, Ryan and his fellow GOP hacks are not repenting. So do not be taken in by their supposed late fall, 2010 conversion (or reconversion, so to speak). They are unrepentant statists through and through (Ron Paul excluded).

Furthermore, when these serpents refer to the Creator (God) in their Pledge, they offend Christianity by taking the name of God in vain.

The Republican Party wants power and it wants your money that comes along with that power. In this, they are acting as the wolves in sheep’s clothing we were warned about.

Post Commentary

Men who seek a position in the church must have certain enumerated qualities. Paul does not provide an out should no man possess those qualities. He does not say, "In the face of two evils, choose the lesser of the two."

As Christians, we cannot hide behind the lesser of two. Either we choose a blameless man to serve or we choose no man to serve.

Yet we believe that by choosing the lesser of two on the ballot, we are serving God by serving democracy. We are not.

If no candidate is blameless, do not vote. It’s that simple. Despite the current worship of democracy and the supposed obligation to vote, you bloody your hands by voting, not voting keeps them clean.

Note:

1. The Pledge website ends in .gov, implying that the Republican Party is the government. It just might be so.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

The Best of Jim Fedako

Be forewarned: I am not writing to defend the system. I am writing to condemn a system that provides no protection for either person or property — simply, a system that cannot be defended.

Types of Democracy

In a direct democracy, the voters decide, by majority vote, the issues of the day. The problem with this type of system is voters do not have the necessary time and expertise to understand all of the nuisances of proposed laws — the strategically placed comma, etc.

And they do not have the necessary time and expertise to understand all the near- and long-term impacts of those laws. Because of this lack of understanding, those seeking a political advantage can easily manipulate voters. So voters end up voting from positions of ignorance — voting against their own interests.

The solution is for voters to elect a representative, someone who has both the time and expertise to understand the issues. Someone the voters can trust to look out for their (the voters’) own interests.

Our System

We live under a representative democracy. As such, we elect our representatives to vote in our collective best interest, on all issues. They are not to simply vote according to the majority opinion — that would be a direct democracy by proxy. No, they are to vote in the interest of their collective constituents, as they — the politicians — think best.

Here is something to consider: The only time we know our political system works is when the elected representatives go against the majority of voters. If our elected officials vote with the majority of voters on every issue, our representative democracy would be no better than a direct democracy.

The same holds for your local representative. He must vote, at least occasionally, against the majority opinion of his constituents in order for you to know that our system is functioning properly.

That means my congressman was actually acting in accordance with the ideal of our political system when he voted for TARP and the bailout in spite of opposition from an overwhelming majority of his constituents (based on calls to his office before the vote, as reported in the local paper).

There is no reason for anyone in his district to get angry (assuming they support our current political system); his votes proved our system works.

Furthermore, there is no reason for anyone to get angry over Obamacare and the likely passage of other evils in spite of the desires of a majority of voters. These are all indicators of the health of a representative democracy.

The majority in both the House and Senate serve (and will continue to serve) our country well by voting opposite the majority from time to time. To complain about such a vote is to complain about our current system. And we all agree that our system is best. Don’t we?

The Ideal

Our system of government is based on the ideal — and this is utopian — of representatives going to DC and doing what is right. These folks educate themselves on all issues to the point of omniscience. And they vote, not based on the uninformed, fleeting opinions of their constituents, but on their (the representatives) understanding of the nuances of proposed laws, as well as an understanding of the current and future impacts of those laws.

Of course, this is pure fantasy. But it is the party line — the public school version of our current political system. In reality, we live according to the whims of the majority of elected representatives — which is to say that we live according the whims of the state

Individual Interests

We (you and I) do not share interests. You have an interest in an issue, as do I. But those interests are never the same. Sure, our individual interests may be similar, and we may even use some of the same words and phrases. But you and I never see things exactly the same. Because of that, melding our various and individual interests into a common set of interests that we share is impossible. Furthermore, it follows that it is impossible to aggregate all the various and individual interests across a congressional district (or some other local, state, or national political boundary) into a single set of interests that we all share.

So it is nonsensical to believe that an elected representative can vote in our (yours and mine) individual best interests, just as it is nonsensical to believe that he can vote in our (whether local, state or national) collective best interest. He cannot. And neither will he. He can and will vote in his own interest, only. We should expect nothing else.

A State without Bounds

Some will claim that we have a safeguard — a piece of faded, 200-year old parchment. They claim that we live in a republic, not a democracy. They claim that those words drafted in deceit, behind closed doors, protect their person and property.

While it is true that we have nominal protections, a document has no power, whatsoever. Don’t believe it? Test those assumed rights sometime, in a real, open way. Really challenge the state. You will be gambling your person and property on an interpretation of someone who represents the interests of the state — not your interests, and certainly not the ideals of person and property.

We have no safeguard other than ideas. And when the majority desires the safety of the wolves, our fate is obvious.

Conclusion

Those who desire to live in a representative democracy, a state without bounds, should be proud that their government has passed nonsense over their objections. And they should be proud that liberty is giving way to slavery, since even this is a product of their beloved political system.

For those of you who still hold onto the god of democracy yet see Obamacare as an omen, a harbinger of greater evils to come, may I suggest taking a harder look at the system of government you support. It is working as designed. Always.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

The Best of Jim Fedako

I am a jealous father. As such, I will not allow the state to steal the hearts of my children. And I will not allow the state to raise them for its purposes. So I homeschool.

Am I wrong in my jealousy?

Our brother Paul was jealous, and so is our Father. I will let their words speak for them:

As Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, he is "jealous over you with godly jealousy." (2Cor. 11:2)1

As God spoke to Moses, "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exo. 34:14)

But they were not envious — they despised (God still despises) envy. Again, letting their words speak for them:

"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers" (Rom. 1:29)

"Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thy hatred against them" (Eze 35:11a )

While jealousy can be godly, we are to despise envy, always.2

Today we tend to use the terms jealousy and envy interchangeably. But the Bible sets those two words apart. So what is the difference between them?

According to Helmut Schoek, in his excellent book, Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour, "[T]he jealous man can never normally become a spontaneous, primary aggressor." The jealous man only seeks to protect that which he rightfully possesses from the hands of his rivals — those striving to obtain those very same assets. So the jealous man’s "mind is at rest once he knows that he is free of rivals."

The envious man expresses a more hostile set of emotions. Throughout his book, Schoek delves into the heart of the envious man. He clearly shows that set of emotions to be evil and destructive. Seductive, yes. But oh so vile.

According to Schoek, the envious man "usually knows exactly what provokes him." But the object of his envy "may actually be ignorant of his existence." The envious man wants something that is not rightfully his. And his heart is always filled with spite, as nothing, not even the destruction of the object of his envy, will set his mind to rest.

In simpler terms, the jealous man wants to keep his own possession while the envious man wants the possessions that someone else rightfully owns.

Paul and God expressed jealousy. Both sought (God still seeks) to protect hearts from their rivals — the gods of this earth. And both desired (God still desires) to see souls won for the Kingdom.

Therefore, jealousy is the favored set of emotions. It is not evil, nor is it vile.3

However, we are a people who have turned from jealousy toward envy. We have become the primary aggressors, using the power of the state to obtain possession of the rightful assets of others. And we many times we do this in the name of God.

So we advocate for the redistribution of wealth. We ask the state to tax those who possess more than we possess in order to fulfill (or so we think) our mission to help the poor. But, as James warns, "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." (Jas. 3:16)

Is that not our world today?

Paul asked, "Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" (1Cor. 10:22)

We dare not provoke God to jealousy by turning away from Him. So why would we dare provoke jealousy in others by using the power of the gun to take from them that which is rightfully theirs And why would we invite the wrath of God on ourselves "according to thine envy?"

Many claim that stealing with a good intent (can that be possible?) is a godly action. But as Paul wrote, "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (Rom. 2:21)

Do we not also preach "thou shall not steal?" Turning around, do we then pull the lever on the ballot box, setting in motion various acts of theft? Do we advocate for state interventions that take from others? And do we really believe that one can only steal from those who are less fortunate than we are — as if those more fortunate can find no protection under the word of God?

When we embrace a system of envy, we also ignite the fires of sin that exist in hearts of all men. We end up pushing our fellow believers — and unbelievers — farther from the spirit of the Lord. In essence, we fan the flames of all those sins Paul noted above, including unrighteousness, wickedness, murder, deceit, etc.

Instead of winning heart for heaven, we condemn souls to our envious ways. Is this to be our epitaph?

It is time that Christians turn away from envy and embrace jealousy. We should actively keep watch over that which we hold dear — whether it is our property or the hearts of our children. And we should despise a system of government that seeks to take from one and give to another — a system of government that is both based on envy and controlled by the envious. There is nothing godly about such a system.

Notes:

1. All Bible quotes are from the King James Version, available at BibleGateWay.com — a wonderful resource.
2. In addition, the envious man may simply want the object of his envy to not be allowed to possess some asset that that man currently possesses. In essence, the envious man is willing to be harm himself as long as the object of his envy is harmed also. Ludwig von Mises called this the Fourier complex.
3. Due to his sinful nature, man can take jealousy too far and desire to hold onto his worldly possessions in lieu of his heavenly ones. But it does not follow that the state must thieve his earthly possession — it is a matter of the heart, not the possessions, that is the issue. And theft is always theft, regardless of the rationale behind it.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

The Best of Jim Fedako

Judge (paraphrased): What would you say to someone who says, “What do I care, I have nothing to hide?”

After mulling this over, if ever asked that very same question, my response is now: I do have stuff to hide. That’s why I close bathroom doors, pull bedroom blinds and wear clothes. And no one (save my wife) has any business in any area I declare to be private (including my property and areas where I have contracted with others to keep my private stuff private). The state and its agents included.

Napolitano’s question is an important one. The "I have nothing to hide" response is used time and again by folks who I now see as exhibitionists — exhibitionists for the state. These folks see nothing wrong with opening their private lives to the state — they have nothing to hide.

So the very same folks who pull their blinds to keep the leering eyes of their neighbors out of their bedrooms open those very same blinds to those very same neighbors when they (their neighbors) act as agents of the state. And those folks do so as if a state badge transforms their neighbors into something other than voyeurs — as if the badge makes it all OK.

But the badge is only a sign that the power of force is standing behind the one wearing it, and leering. It should be a point of real concern, not security.

Look, if I left my bathroom door open, you would certainly think me odd. Wouldn’t you wonder why I want to expose my private matters to the world?

I could say, "Since I am not committing a crime, I have nothing to hide."

Would you buy that line? Would you simply shrug off my actions? Would you feel safer in the presence of someone so open about his peaceful intentions? Would you?

I wear clothes for a number of reasons, with protecting my privacy at the top of the list. Yet I am forced to virtual strip before ogling TSA agents as if I have nothing to hide. But that is the very reason I dressed to begin with.

I desire to hide from my neighbors acting as neighbors, as well as my neighbors acting as agents of the state. I desire to hide.

There are inane responses to questions regarding state interventions. But the "I have nothing to hide" response is the most inane of them all. You have something to hide. We all do. And what we hide is our own business — it is personal.

The next time some exhibitionist for the state claims they have nothing to hide, call them on it. And hopefully they will learn a little lesson.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of six who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

The Best of Jim Fedako

OK. You really want to feel a slight storm blow across the deck. Nothing too scary. Just a little excitement to breakup the doldrums of suburban life.

On the evening of your second night, a storm approaches. The crew begins asking passengers to head inside for the safety of shelter. You hesitate. This is your once-in-a-lifetime cruise and your only chance to feel the power and bite of the wind and rain coming from that storm which is now creating a tiny tempest in an otherwise calm sea. You know you could easily slip past the crewmembers without detection and live that dream by the edge of the windward railing. But you are a Christian. So what should you do?

If I were in that situation, I would simply head inside. As a Christian, I am to follow the governing authorities — I am to place my obedience to God over my desires to witness the storm firsthand. The captain and his designees are responsible for protecting the lives of all onboard. I am not to resist them. They are not to be feared, nor are they a terror to good conduct. And even if I can evade their authority, for the sake of my conscience, I am to obey their instructions.

This is significant. Why? It shows that the instructions given by Paul in Romans 13 extend beyond a Christian’s interactions with the state. And it shows that the existence of government is not required to fulfill the intent of the chapter. More importantly, it shows that Christianity and anarcho-capitalism can coexist.

When I am in a store and I see a door with a sign that reads, "Employees only," I do not enter. Not because entering would break some law. I do not enter because the governing authority of that store has said that I am not to enter. And I am called to obey and not resist the authority of the store owner. Just as I am called to obey the rules of my neighbor when I am on his property or in his house.

A world without the state would never be a world without authority. Paul wrote to the Christians of Rome during the Roman Empire, the reign of the Caesars. However, since the Bible is truth through eternity, Paul’s instructions are true regardless the form of governing authority. We are to obey those who govern our various situations: my neighbor on his property, the security guard at the mall, and the shopkeeper in his store. And as God has arranged all, he has arranged matters so that each ruler is to be a minister of God, within his individual realm.

However, as Christians, no earthly law can exceed the word of God. When the two clash, God always wins. And when the governing authority extends its reach beyond its defined role, it has become an enemy of God. This is true whether the ruler is Caesar or a group of neighbors acting as the local junta that is democracy. And it is even true when the ruler is the captain of the ship or the owner of the store, or your neighbor in his backyard.

We are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. This will also be true under anarcho-capitalism as we will have to render unto the property owner that which he is due. But we will only have to render as we see fit, based on where we chose to go.

As Christians, we are to obey the legitimate governing authority, but it does not follow that the authority must be the state. Paul’s instructions are the same no matter who is in charge. And in an anarcho-capitalist world, we would only be forced to obey the governing authorities whose properties we chose to enter.

A better world, indeed.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of six who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

The Best of Jim Fedako

I do not understand why you are now so concerned about government. Nothing has changed. The US is still a democracy, ruled by the will of the majority, under a nominal constitution. And the US continues to have an imperial president, overseas wars and conflicts, and a strong internal state. Plus, this country has shown, time and again, the ability to transition peacefully from one ruling elite to another. Remember, you proudly cheered as our soldiers were sent to foreign lands in order to fight and kill for the very same political system you now question.

Sure, your ideas are no longer in the majority, but democracies always have minority views. And, since you are now in the political minority, you can begin grassroots efforts to once again attain political power. It is possible that within two years, you can foist anew your agenda on the rest of the population — you can feed the Leviathan so that, when it is once again unchained by your enemies, it will turn on you with a vengeance.

For years, I’ve listened to you defend government. You play a game of verbal reasoning when you vote for government interventions and then wash your hands by stating, "We must follow the civil authorities." Conservative Christians are a significant portion of the electorate, not a majority, but a significant portion nonetheless. For years, you encouraged government to intervene in all aspects of life. Government agreed. And now, that very same power to intervene is being used against you. Did you really expect any other outcome?

In Romans, when Paul wrote about obeying the civil authorities, he meant obeying civil authorities with respect to issues within their purview. So, yes, Christians are not to engage in actions that violate property, etc., such as participating in food riots similar to those that were breaking out throughout Rome. But Paul never meant for Christians to act as Caesar in the polling station, or in political office, and then turn around and fall back on the cover of the civil authority.

As Christians, we believe that the family and marriage are godly institutions. But you encouraged government to intervene and disrupt those very same institutions. Where marriage and family exist under God, you fought the political fights to move them under the nominal authority of the state. A true apostasy. And now you are paying the wages of that sin.

I recently listened to a segment on American Family Radio that described waterboarding as nothing more than an effective method of interrogation. Torture? Absolutely not. No external marks and no blood, therefore no torture. That waterboarding was used in the Spanish Inquisition to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions, and that the psyche and mind are damaged or destroyed in the process, is of no concern, whatsoever.

The American myth of my youth was the image of the liberating American soldier handing chocolate to the children of our enemies. Torture was a tool of the totalitarian states. The great democracy — the US — lived under rules of law, with the same protections granted to all.

That myth is long gone; condensed into the stream of water that triggers a drowning reaction in the mind of the interrogated. Yet, my conservative Christians brothers, you do not even hesitate when distorting that myth. Where torture was a repulsive act of repression, it is now an essential duty in the home of the free — a Christian duty nonetheless.

My conservative Christian brothers, do you not recognize this: That very same technique will likely be used on you at some point in the future.

Ask yourselves this: While you deconstruct the act of waterboarding and stand behind it as just another means to the truth, will you be surprised when, during the next Inquisition, it’s you on a board, tilted slightly, with a government agent slowly opening the faucet? Will you be surprised?

Of course, you now cry a similar tune when lamenting the lost freedom of speech. You are in fear that the power you gave government will be turned against you. You fear — justifiably — that you will no longer be able to preach the Bible — as the Bible is no longer the truth of those in power — without facing legal threats, jail, or the waterboard.

But when you worship democracy — the golden calf of government — above God of the Bible, you should expect nothing else. You should not feign surprise as Aaron did when telling Moses that the calf just appeared out of the fire — that none of it was his creation, nor his handiwork.

Nevertheless, you still look to government as your solution. And you continue to choose the Republican Party as your unequally-yoked partner. Yet it was your Republicans who gladly arrogated more rights than you abrogated. They said that you would only be safe under a stronger state — and you believed.

So, you have exchanged freedom — such as the freedom to preach the Bible — for a false promise of security, much like our biblical forefathers exchanged the yoke of a king for the false promise of security from the neighboring nations.

Of course, they ended up trembling before Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, who said, "My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." Just as, in the very same manner, you tremble today before the scorpions of Obama, son of Bush.

The issue is more than security. Just like Israelites desiring a king in order to impress neighboring nations, you look to an imperial president and expansive military to impress the countries of the world. You relish in a government that can stomp the planet in boots and uniforms, while seeing enemies at every turn.

We sometimes ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" I must ask, "Would Jesus cheer waterboarding as a means to the truth? Would He partner with the Republican Party, or any political party for that matter, in order to achieve worldly power? Would He partner with the state to save lives and win souls? Would He?"

My Christian Brothers, we have to break free from the state. We must stop looking to the next election and the Republican Party as our salvation. And we must stop using the sword of government for our purposes. "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Note: While the left seeks to desensitize us to moral perversity, the right seeks to desensitize us to violence. And both seek to desensitize us to the evils of power.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of six who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Years ago, I started noting something a local TV weatherman mentioned each December. As soon as the temperature turned cold, he would tell viewers that he was installing a backyard skating rink. He even offered to provide installation advice to anyone who called him at the station.

Six years ago, with an approaching winter, I decided to build a rink for my kids’ enjoyment and to ward off my winter blues. I called the weatherman and got the necessary details, built the rink, and waited for the first real cold spell.

Now, a backyard skating rink in Ohio is an iffy proposition. Sure, the water will sit waiting for the cold, but the real cold may never come. While I have my good years and my bad years, this year has turned out to be exceptionally good. We are having a blast skating just about every evening.

Recently, in place of our evening skate, I took my older children to a meeting of the local chapter of the Campaign for Liberty. The topic was global warming and the guest speaker was none other than my local weatherman. As he and I chitchatted before the event, I thanked him for inspiring our backyard fun.

The meeting began and the weatherman rose and addressed the audience. Keep in mind that this gentleman has one of the most recognized faces and trusted names in Central Ohio. Sure, he occasionally gets his temperatures wrong, they all do. However, he is trusted as someone who tells the truth, as he knows it.

His presentation was to the point: There is no proof that human activity is causing global warming. None. Coming from a member of the mainstream media, this statement had quite an impact — coming from this man, even more so.

Over the next 20 minutes, he captivated his audience by detailing the holes in the supposed science of global warming. He successfully indicted the government and its agents for being inept and for working an agenda.

That night, there was no talk of CO2 as a poisonous gas, slowly cooking the Earth’s atmosphere. Instead, my media hero stated the true science of weather: temperatures rise and fall with the number of sunspots, and it is all cyclical. More sunspots, higher temperatures. My skating rink is hard as ice because the sun currently has no spots. No spots, colder temperatures. That is easy science. That is real science.

According to this weatherman, most meteorologists do not support human-induced global warming. Therefore, it would appear that the science of weather is not on the side of human-induced global warming — sorry Al Gore.

The night did not end there. The speaker was more than just a skeptic of global warming; he was a friend of liberty. He presented his political views — views strongly shared by the audience. That is when I realized that we are not alone in our fight.

And it was the realization that sanity does exist — in places I would never expect to find it — that made the evening special. The collective herd is not running as one toward the cliff of socialism. There are the recalcitrant few who still believe in liberty. And these folks have the ability to save our future.

Of course, the audience that night was predisposed to liberty. Nevertheless, trusted voices like my weatherman can halt the herd and expose its agitators — revealing the lies and manipulations for all to see. If only the herd will listen.

Don’t bet that the world will race off the cliff. Many will question the prevailing nonsense if they hear the truth from a trusted voice. And, remember this: like water, most folks simply seek the path of least resistance, without bothering to look toward the horizon and impending doom. For them, politics and economics are best left to the supposed professionals. Yet, with a little coaxing, the right voice can open their eye and allow them to see the approaching cliff and to embrace life and liberty over socialism and chains.

The state’s hold on the collective mass is fractured, and, through each fracture, light shines. Support the efforts of organizations such as the Campaign for Liberty. Help get the trusted voices before the ears of the uniformed and misinformed. Those willing to face the raging herd need as much support as we can give. Liberty lost is liberty never regained.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

“If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

~ Samuel Adams speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

Since life is never binary, slicing and dicing political views into distinct philosophical serving bowls is usually a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, I will play the fool and take a cross section of a current debate: When confronted with the security or liberty logical fallacy, two views become apparent.1

Many folks believe they can exchange liberty for security, as if security can be bought with liberty. But such a belief flies in the face of history: government, left to its own devices, provides neither liberty nor security.

Of course, government will accept payments of liberty in exchange for promises of security, but the exchange is a fraud. Government has neither the reason nor the desire to fulfill its side of the bargain. Sure, government will do what it takes to secure its continued power, yet those actions are separate from securing the property and persons of its constituents.

The folks who accept this view see government harassment and intrusion as a sign of security. To be stopped on the road by government agents and forced to defend actions and movements is proof that the strong arm of the state has the situation under control. In this view, more stops and intrusions mean a higher the level of control — in a word: safety.

But this view is in error.

To argue that the state is providing security through harassment is to beg the question. Is harassment a proxy for security? If the bully harasses me on the street, is he providing me security? Consider this: How many times has someone accosted you, hand on gun, who was not an agent of the state? For me, anyway, the answer is never.

Yes, armed agents have stopped me at roadside checkpoints, but no one else, locked and loaded, has harassed me on the roads. And there is something to consider about that truth.

To believe that the more the state threatens my person, and the more that the state invades my property, the greater my security is to believe the lie central to the state. And to watch fellow countrymen harassed, only to assume that the state must have reason for its harassment is to turn backs on the very same rights expected to protect us in the end.

Rights foregone are rights no more.

The other view of the security or liberty logical fallacy is much better, but it is still false. Here, folks see government as nothing other than an evil beast; a beast with an insatiable appetite for power. These folks believe that since liberty is a greater desire than security, security must give way to liberty. However, they miss half the picture. Yes, government is to be feared, always. But there is never a need to exchange liberty for security, ever. In fact: the greater the liberty, the greater the security.

Liberty provides security, not government. Oh, sure, some will say that we need a strong government to keep us safe. However, you have to ask: Does government really keep us safe? My biggest concern in the near term is the likely action of the incoming administration to expand our endless war and, in the end, waste the lives of my children. This is a real concern and a real possibility, more so than any assumed threat my neighbors pose absent the intrusive state.

In addition, when one considers areas under private control (Disneyland, etc.) to areas under government control (city streets, etc.), it becomes apparent that private lands are safer than public lands. Will I have a better chance of being mugged on Main Street, Disneyland, or on my local Main Street? The answer is obvious and telling.

I love the quote above. Adams puts the whole question of security or liberty into perspective. Yes, there is security when the hound under the table licks the hand of its master, but the security belongs to the master since he knows the hound will obey his every command.

Note

1. This is an example of the false dilemma fallacy, where only two options are presented — security or liberty — when, in fact, other options exist: security and liberty, in this instance.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

My fellow Christians, before you vote on Tuesday, consider these two Bible verses:

Thy silver is become dross (Isaiah 1:22a)

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children (Proverbs 13:22a)

In the first verse, the prophet Isaiah condemns the Israelites for allowing their money to become worthless. In the second verse, Solomon notes that good men leave an inheritance to their grandchildren. What do these two verses have to do with Tuesday’s vote? Let’s take a look.

Both major party candidates have platforms that appeal to many Christians. Obama has an implied social justice agenda, an agenda that many Christians believe is the best, most efficient way to serve God. McCain, on the other hand, has an agenda that many other Christians believe to be godly, an agenda that includes the defense of the family, along with the standard Republican fare of socially conservative programs.

I can understand the ends sought by these two sets of Christians. Improving the lot of the poor and protecting the family are indeed worthy ends. However, we must consider the means used to achieve those ends.

The agent responsible for employing the means is government — not God or His church, but government and its associated bureaucrats and minions. The agent is worldly, as are its resources. Now many Christians have no issue with government acting on their behalf. They see government as a valid means to perform works in the name of God’s church. I will set that aside and assume their view in order to get to the root of the real issue.

OK. We have Christians using government as the means to their ends. However, we are not done.

Government must secure resources in order to implement social justice and protect the family. Government taxes and Christians render unto Caesar. Again, I will set this aside and assume the view that taxation is a legitimate means to fund the ends sought — again, we are not at the root, but we are almost there.

In our world of big government, taxation can never provide enough resources. Why? Set the tax rate too high and revolution hits the streets. Government knows this, but it still needs resources, lots of resources. So instead of raising taxes and battling riots, government turns its constituents into bondservants. Then, to protect its tracks in the financial markets, government prints lots of money — lots of fraudulent paper lies.

And this is where Christians must take pause: the Bible does not provide a license to commit fraud or lie. That is true regardless of the end sought. We are not to do evil in God’s name. Nevertheless, there it is. And there we are.

Many Christians have allowed — no, encouraged — government to keep printing paper lies. In addition, we have presented God with sacrifices paid for by those very same lies. Our silver is not becoming dross — it is dross. And our children’s children will inherit the yoke of debt, not the inheritance of the good grandfather. Amazingly, we dare to call this good.

God turned his back after Isaiah read the charges and the Israelites did not turn from their ways. Yet we still believe that God will bless this nation in spite of our actions.

When you vote for either major party candidate, you vote to offer God a sacrifice paid for by lies. If your heart is still seeking God, you know that only God can make all things possible (Matthew 19:26) — not government and its lies, but God and His truths.

My fellow Christians, vote for a candidate that will cast the golden calf of lies and debt back into the fire, or do not vote at all. Do not add your name to the list of those who dare to offer lies as an unholy sacrifice. Instead, cry out for our deliverance. Fear God. Fear that He may turn His back once more. I do.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Let me be honest and forthright: I have an agenda — I always do.

You can be certain that I am typing with a purpose in mind. I am typing in order to satisfy a much sought-after end. My end — my reason — is the hope that this article will influence a few, turning them toward the path of liberty.

Are you shocked or offended that I have an agenda? Is it wrong — no, is it necessarily evil when a man has an agenda; when a man has a given end for which he will use some means to obtain? Certainly not. We all have agendas that guide our actions. And we accept the presence of our own personal agendas without question or concern.

When discussing the evils of government-run education, many folks say that I have a personal agenda. Well, no kidding. If I wake in the morning, I have an agenda. The rhetorical use of the word agenda in a pejorative sense implies that others do not have agendas — this being a false assertion. Those folks have at least one agenda that gets them out of bed in the morning: to continue forcing me to pay for their government school nonsense.

So why it is that many — nay, most Americans — take offense to the idea that public schools have an agenda? Why is it that folks who recognize their own agendas cannot recognize that the individuals running the school system have agendas too? Why can’t these folks accept that those who fought some 150 years ago for the adoption of government-run schools had an evil agenda? Or that many today use government schools for vile intentions? Why not? Yes, why not, indeed?

The reason is twofold: The first is that the prime end of government-run education is graduates who support the system. This is not some hidden agenda — it is right out in the open. This publicly lauded end is termed citizenship — and a good citizen always supports the so-called public good of government education. When the schools say that our goal is to educate citizens, you can be certain that they do not mean citizens who question the state or its bureaucracies and unions.

Good citizens believe that teachers and administrators, as government employees, know best. Even if the material is enough to raise hairs, the good citizen trusts the schools. And, should a parent begin to question the schools, the group — the collective consisting of neighbors, friends, etc. — applies increasing pressure to bring the recalcitrant back in line — back to being a good citizen.

The second reason is that anyone seeking to manipulate and indoctrinate the youth can find no better means than a system of mandatory education. This is true whether the purpose is to extend and enhance the coercive power of government or to pollute young minds with perverse nonsense. It is also true for any other goal, no matter how nefarious or seemingly benign. The schools are the agent of change.

Therefore, it is no wonder that the majority supports government schools.

Moreover, if your goal is to create citizens who support the collective, and you are not willing to take up arms, you adopt a Gramscian approach and slowly destroy the institutions of free association — of liberty and freedom. You attack the family, the church, etc., in a roundabout way. You employ the strategy of the indirect approach — you indoctrinate the youth. By doing so, you break the bond of parent and child without resorting to loud confrontations and street fighting. You simply use the classroom to define the state and its minions as maternal and paternal figures. Then, you sit back and allow subsequent generations — educated by the state — to chip away at the bedrock institutions over time. Sure, you have the occasional pitched fight, but these only serve as feints covering your flanking maneuvers. Your war is not one of attrition; it is one of subversion and time.

The conservative claims a liberal bias in education; they claim a liberal agenda. They are right. However, the conservatives only propose to force their bias on the liberals. The conservatives also have an agenda. Both groups seek to use government, and both are winning and losing at the same time.

The issue is no longer individual versus the collective. The issue is now who has the power to educate and indoctrinate. Despite their rhetoric, most conservatives no longer stand for individual rights. In fact, these conservatives quickly drop the individual and champion the collective every time someone questions their cherished history. An evening listening to AM talk radio will prove that point: Liberals are teaching our children that Lincoln wasn’t an American hero! That he didn’t stand for liberty! Those folks are un-American!

The conservative solution is for the government schools to force-feed conservative mythology to every parent’s child, all in the name of liberty.

Of course, the essence of the current liberal worldview is also the collective — the collective of Prussia and Bismarck, along with that of Marx, etc. It is a vision that easily melds with the state and its schools. And it is a vision that is not all that different from the conservatives’. While their respective messages are not the same, both groups subscribe to the state as the means and the collective as the ends.

I asked this question above: Is it wrong — no, is it necessarily evil when a man has an agenda; when a man has a given end for which he will use some means to obtain? I answered in the negative. However, I need to return to that response once more. A man can employ any means that does not violate the property rights of others. Therefore, he cannot invade your property to state his message. In addition, he cannot use force to make you pay for his message either. Other than those two rules, everything else is fair game.

Nevertheless, the so-called public schools violate both of those rules. Government has first claim to your children — this being true even if you home school — and will invade your property to deliver its message in the form of state-mandated curriculum and exams. Additionally, government and its schools have first claim to your income — your property. Their means is one of evil, as it is a means backed by government — the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion (Mises).

Yes, I have an agenda, and so does government, its schools, and associated minions. Mine — no, ours is an agenda of liberty and peace while theirs is one of violence and control. Since we do not seek the violence of government to win the day, we have to educate to see our agenda through. We have much work left, but at the very least, we have the follies of government to use as our fool.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Maybe it’s an age thing. Or maybe it’s a deeper understanding of how things really work. Regardless, as I grow older I find myself growing more resentful of the state and more irritated by my own actions before it.

Where I used to kowtow without even a moment’s reflection, I now fume for days after showing any subservience to the state, its laws, and its officials.

A case in point: The Ohio State School Board recently reviewed its rules and regulations around homeschooling. The Home School Legal Defense Association sent an alert to its members and associates: The state school board is seeking online comments from "stakeholders" regarding possible changes to the rules and regulations around homeschooling. HSLDA wanted supporters of homeschooling to register their approval of the current system — the system is working, do not change anything. I acted.

I clicked over to the Ohio Department of Education website and entered my comments. At the time, this didn’t seem to be such a big deal — simply throw some formality around the do not change anything message and hit send. Done.

Yet the irritation started right after the return message "your comments have been registered" appeared on my computer screen. Who are those folks at the state board of education? What makes them believe that I must beg their permission to educate my children as I see fit? And why did I justify their power and position by kowtowing to them — or, e-kowtowing, anyway?

Some irritations never seem to go away. They — like the unscratched itch — grow in intensity the harder they are ignored. So I scratched. I emailed the Ohio Department of Education requesting copies of all responses to the survey — a request covered by Ohio’s open records laws. My reason for this request? I wanted to see where folks in Ohio stood on the issue of homeschooling prior to the state board’s vote.

Of course, with the state, nothing is easy. Before I finally received the responses on CD, the state board of education made its decision (thankfully no significant changes, only some minor language corrections). Nevertheless, I took a look at the 5000+ responses to read some of the comments.

Sadly, just like me, the majority of those commenting wrote from a voice that begged the political class for favor. We began by establishing that the state has first claim to our children. And then we begged them some leave: We only want to educate our children. And we will continue to do it by your grace.

There were a few indignant comments — You, the state, have no authority to rule my family. While I cheered these writers, I noted the inherent fallacy: The state does have the authority to rule my family. Not in a moral sense, but in a real sense — it has the gun.

In addition, there is another fallacy that is generally accepted by the majority of Americans (not by homeschoolers, of course). It is the assumption that receiving one more vote than any opponent is sufficient to assume authority over all families within the political boundary. It is as if omniscience is the result of the ballot box — an over-the-rainbow vision of the wizard of democracy bestowing omniscience from behind the curtain of the voting booth.

Yet many folks readily look to the state and its officials and minions as all-knowing. Homeschooling families recognize this every time someone questions a parent’s ability to educate. How can you teach math at the same level as the local high school? Of course, we snicker under our breath: We can’t. We’re not that incompetent. But that question alone is enough to raise concern about your friends, family, and neighbors should you wind up standing against the state. Do you think that most of those folks will side with you? Given the current majority view of the state as the supreme paternal and maternal figure, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Regardless, my irritation with my own actions continues to grow. Why? I played the game. I didn’t even consider the premise of having to beg the state for the ability to act as parent. And I didn’t allow my indignation to come out in my comments. Instead, I wrote as to hold them higher than me. In this, I have no one to blame but myself.

My salve is the fact that this year has seen a great awakening of Liberty. Folks are speaking about freedom and against the state. And these discussions will change the minds of Americans. When the across-the-board response to the state is, Get out of our lives, we will be back on track.

My hope is two-fold. On one hand I see and hear the beginnings of a greater movement toward freedom in the near term. While, on the other hand, I know that homeschooled children — freed from the state’s nonsense — will be less willing to kowtow than their state-educated parents — parents like me who, on occasion, reflexively bow before the state.

Despite our seemingly grim present, the future looks bright, indeed.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

3101.08 Who may solemnize marriages.

An ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation within this state who is licensed to solemnize marriages … may join together as husband and wife any persons who are not prohibited by law from being joined in marriage.

3101.09 Prohibition

No person, except those legally authorized, shall attempt to solemnize a marriage, and no marriage shall be solemnized without the issuance of a license.

~ Ohio Revised Code (emphasis added)

An open letter to my fellow Christians:

Is marriage a union between husband and wife, sanctified by God? Or is marriage a legal contract between parties as defined by the state, witnessed by the state, and justified by the state?

It appears from the references above that the latter holds true. A marriage is not a religious ceremony — to be sure, you can always include a religious ceremony, if you so choose. Instead, a marriage is a civil act presided over by an official of the state or a person licensed to act as an official of the state. This is an important clarification to note since it is becoming obvious that the Christian Church — by its own actions — has supplanted God with government.

As a Church, we have allowed government to define that which is a blessing from God. And we accept the state’s definition without question. To the Church, a couple is considered married if and only if they possess a valid, state-issued license stating the same. And a couple is divorced if and only if the state has granted the divorce. By agreeing to this state of affairs, the church has put the state before God.

Now, my good friends, we have done this to ourselves. Our religious forefathers used the power of government to exalt the Church. You see, we — the Church — didn’t want just anyone performing marriages. No, we wanted only a select few to sanctify the union of husband and wife. We sought legislation that would create a privileged class; a class — licensed clergy, civil judges, etc. — defined and controlled by the state. It worked for a while, but we now reap that which we sow.

In our exuberance to right the world, we forgot that government is not the Church, not under any circumstances. Yet, in the name of salvation, we unleashed government as the entity that is now working to unravel two of society’s most important institutions — family and church.

Even while this plays out before our eyes — as if from a revelation spoken by a modern-day prophet, we continue to fight for a stronger state in hopes that our Baal will return us to God’s favor.

So we fight for marriage amendments, as if God cares an iota about a government license. God’s word is true, it’s final. However, as long as the Church looks to government for its justification, the Church will remain a bondservant to the state.

This process — the change from the Church worshipping God to worshipping the state — has been a long time coming. It was some 150 years ago when the Church began to partner with the modern state. The partnership was to the liking of all involved: the Church still had some control over the beast (the Leviathan), and the beast provided the manna — or fiat money — and force that made all things possible. But the state also used the Church to justify its existence and ever-growing influence. A few manifestations soon became apparent, manifestations that should have caused the Church to end the relationship, yet the relationship only grew stronger.

However, looking back, the changes are easy to see. Soon after the church/state partnership began, the following took place:

1. Government slowly grew more influential and the balance of power tipped in its favor.
2. To many Christians, government became the agent of change. No longer were prayers needed as manna fell with the blessings of the saints in the state capitals and the District of Columbia
3. With the focus on the state, God was dropped from the equation. The state became the savior; the second coming. And the Church became ever more irrelevant.

At each stage, the Church never looked askance of the state. It never called the state into question. No, and in fact, the Church continued — and continues — to seek the state for matters that are the duty of the Church.

Currently, we see the growth of the social justice movement; a thinly veiled effort to move the Church ever closer to the state. Certainly, as Christians, we are supposed to help those less fortunate. But we were never granted the power to thieve tax dollars for any reason.

The New Testament brought about a new covenant: a covenant between God and believer. This covenant does not provide a mandate to force others to perform acts of kindness. Each of us must work out his or her own salvation in fear and trembling — our fear and our trembling before God. We are not to be the bullies with the gun spreading physical fear and reducing other to trembling before the state.

To keep its power, the state holds the Church on a short leash: the threat of tax status. Even though Jesus was clear regarding rendering unto Caesar, the Church is more concerned about its tax-exempt status than doing the work of God. So for a few pieces of silver, or worthless paper, the state runs the show.

As long as the Church seeks government authority over issues such as marriage, as long as the Church partners with the state for social justice, the state wins.

We must ask ourselves: How can the Church even consider debating biblical truths with an earthly power — whether good or evil? And, why does the Church continue to recognize the claims of the state? The answer is simple: The state has become our Baal; our road to destruction.

The Church needs to forget the state — ignore it. Churches must define and recognize marriages as the Bible instructs. Forget the licensing of clergy; it is an abomination — the state defining church leadership. And, the Church must no longer partner with the state on any endeavor — the Church must never be yoked with the beast.

Liberty is our blessing. Nothing good has ever come from the marriage of Church and State.

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

While the US
continues to build its empire as an altar to the god Democracy,
it is important to note that democracy is not the reason our Patriots
rose up against the British. No, our Patriots fought for Liberty.
And, democracy is not Liberty.

In fact, democracy
becomes oppression whenever the majority ignores the plight of the
minority. This happens every time a majority of voters uses the
ballot box to gain an advantage over everyone else. Such a perversion
of democracy has resulted in a sordid record of incidents throughout
world history, with the US having no immunity whatsoever.

Recently, we
have seen a resurgence of the mentality that the majority is right
simply because they are the majority. Victory at the ballot box
justifies any action, with the belief that the "majority spoke"
being the moral equivalent of "might makes right." Consider
three recent income tax initiatives being discussed and debated
in Central Ohio cities.

In two of the
cities, resident advocates — tax consumers, government minions,
etc. — are selling income tax levies as an increase that will affect
only a minority of voters. The sales pitch is that the majority
can vote a burden on the minority, and the majority can do so without
remorse or regret because the democratic action of voting justifies
any evil.

In the third
city, retired residents are advocating an income tax increase that
is not theirs to bear. The tax will be on earned income, not on
income derived from retirement accounts, etc. Once again, those
who seek to reap the benefits are using the tools of democracy to
gain an advantage over their neighbors.

Sure, we have
had envy at the national level for years, but that envy is between
classes unseen. Now, envy is between neighbors. I'm certain that
the folks campaigning for the three taxes above can look out their
front door and name those who will pay for their supposed public
goods. Folks who are uncomfortable asking to borrow a cup
of sugar have no issue with levying a tax on their neighbors.

This is always
true: There is nothing ethical about using the power of politics
to gain an advantage. And, hiding behind a majority of voters does
not make an unethical action ethical.

Of course,
all taxes provide an advantage for some over others, but I am now
seeing local governments publicly advocate the division of winners
and losers among their constituents. City officials are dividing
residents into those who reap and those who pay, all the while selling
their tax increases as a means for the majority to gain at the expense
of the minority.

Sadly, our
nation has fallen for the cries of those who demand the redistribution
of wealth; cries that did not lead our Patriots to arms. Yet, because
envy is both a powerful human emotion and a seductive motivator,
the political class has used envy to gain power and influence; a
process that began well over a century ago.

And it's a
process drummed into the heads of students and parents in public
schools throughout the nation. Democracy is good, always. It may
have ventured off course for a bit — such as when a school levy
fails, but the continued push and prodding of those seeking the
advantage inevitably gets the right majority to the polls. Then,
government and the majority declare the new tax — blessed by Democracy
— good.

When the political
machine uses the envy of the majority to enslave the minority, there
is little hope for our future. The function of democracy is no longer
the peaceful transfer of power in order to maintain Liberty. Instead,
the democracy becomes a war of classes seeking an advantage over
one another, with failure of your party in the elections tantamount
to having your property and income looted in the near future. In
the end, the peaceful transfer of power gives way to the chaos that
robs the developing world of any future.

So, what are
the alternatives? Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his book Democracy:
The God That Failed, suggests a true heresy: replace democracy
with a monarchy. What?!? A monarchy is the antithesis of freedom!
Right? Well, maybe not. Isn't it just possible that a monarch would
protect his possessions better than the term-limited president or
mayor? And, in doing so, wouldn't the monarch also protect the ability
of his subjects to produce efficiently and, hence, live freely?

The monarch
who acts with good judgment will have something to pass to his heirs
while the term-limited president or mayor has to steal what he can,
while he still holds power — the constituents and next administration
be damned.

What about
Liberty? Simply switch the national threat advisory to red and watch
how quickly the majority cowers before the state, all the while
demanding the end to our remaining rights. When that occurs, the
motto of the Department of Homeland Security — "Preserving
Our Freedoms, Protecting America" — will be revealed as nothing
other than the latest version of homegrown agitprop.

Would the monarch
resort to such efforts, efforts that would slowly impoverish his
nation? Something to consider. Regardless, we can say this: a monarch
saves us from the emperor in DC and the envious, thieving majorities
at home.

Should we chose
to set aside the Hoppe solution, we must return to the ideals and
ethics that sparked the Revolution and birthed Liberty. We must
not allow democracy to justify envy. And, we must once again view
government for what it is: as an every-growing Leviathan that must
be contained and constantly beaten back.

June
26, 2008

Jim
Fedako [send him mail] is a
homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and
maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Crap:
A Guide to Politics. By Terry Arthur, Continuum, 2007.
173 pages.

Oftentimes,
while plugged into the various mainstream media outlets, I find
myself dissecting the rhetorical nonsense of the political class.
Of course, I am never as funny or as sharp as I suppose. Luckily,
there are political writers who can hit the mark, time after time.
Terry Arthur is one such writer.

In his new
book, Crap: A Guide to Politics (Continuum, 2007), Arthur
rips through the rhetoric and sets matters straight. Witty and pointed,
he nails the contradictions and lies that spin effortlessly and
continuously from politicians and bureaucrats.

Taking the
UK as his straight man, Arthur surveys the current issues and debates
and responds in kind. His foils provide ample fodder, and Arthur
spares no one.

In case anyone
thinks that the spin in the US is unique, Crap will show
that the spin coming out of the UK is no different from the spin
coming out of the US. Spin is spin, indeed.

And, it must
be so. Just like infants — who the world over begin communicating
by babbling the same sounds — the political class and its eternal
sidekicks in the media babble the same silly nonsense — the da
and ma are evident in every country and from every government.
Sophistry recognizes no boundary, no border.

Consider this
tidbit from The Labor Party Election Manifesto 2005 (p. 73):

The best
defense of our security at home is the spread of liberty and justice
overseas.

To which Arthur
replies:

Yeah right.
For u2018overseas' read Iraq, where bombing for a decade is supposed
to make us all safer in our beds.

Is
the UK Labor Party the brother and sister of the Democrats and the
Republicans? Or, the Libertarian Party for that matter? Of course,
political parties read from the same playbooks, the same script,
regardless of country.

Arthur does
not let anything slide. He gets the best of the nonsense even when
the debate is on the softer side, the youth in this instance (p.
105):

We know that
parents and young people think that there should be more things
to do and places to go for teenagers. We will publish plans to
reform provision in order to ensure that all young people have
access to a wider set of activities after the school day such
as sport and the arts.

(Labor
Party Election Manifesto 2005)

Arthur gets
it right:

How's that
for planning? And don't forget the special clothing that some
of these activities will need — and new equipment, and even food
for sustenance. Go on, go for broke. Except it's us that'll go
broke.

Indeed, we
are all going broke playing nannies at home and abroad (p. 151):

We will triple
Britain's aid in a decade; aid that now lifts more than 5,000
people out of poverty every single day …

(Hilary
Benn, Labor Party Conference 2006)

Arthur got
them again:

But the despotic
governments ruling most of the world's poor just snaffle your
aid; within a day or two it's in a Swiss bank account. Government-to-government
aid doesn't work. I know that, you know that. Or are you telling
me that you've aided 5,000 despots?

And, it's likely
we have.

Arthur — an
adjunct faculty member of the Mises Institute — has the skills and
breadth of knowledge to find the hidden non-sequiturs, the logical
Where's Waldo of the political spin machines. He pulls the
nonsense out of the wash and tears through it with his sharp pen.

Funny, witty,
and topical, Crap is a book that will keep you laughing through
the night, leaving you to think, "That's true, and funny. Why
didn't I think of it?"

June
7, 2008

Jim
Fedako [send him mail] is a
homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and
maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Am I betting
against the long tail in the primaries? No way! Why not? Well, it
seems that every time I bet against the tail, it ends up whipping
me back to reality.

Two recent
examples come to mind.

Jorma Kaukonen
played lead guitar for the 60′s rock group Jefferson Airplane and
later for the blues-influenced Hot Tuna. While still being a great
guitarist, Jorma is now a long-tail musician, with stadium concerts
an almost-forgotten past.

In order to
publicize his latest CD of new music, Jorma staged a free mini-concert
and CD signing at a local music store. I decided to take my family
to enjoy the music and the scene.

The night before
the show, my wife asked me what time I planned to leave the house
the following morning. Given that I am a long-tail audiophile and
that Jorma is a long-tail artist, and that the only notice for this
event was a sentence or two tucked deep in the local newspaper,
I saw no reason to arrive early. I fully expected to be competing
for seats or standing room with only a few other long-tail stragglers.
Boy was I wrong.

The morning
awoke to an unexpected cold front, with blustery, chilling winds
and occasional showers. Not a day to venture out for just any old
event, yet the long tail came to the music store in full force,
and I was out a performance. No concert, no signing, nothing. By
the time we had arrived, the parking lot was packed with a large
group of fellow long-tailers, all facing the elements without any
chance of seeing Jorma, even from a distance. Yes, we had arrived
too late to get a spot inside the store, and barely found standing
room on the parking lot. The long tail whipped me again.

You see, just
because someone appeals to the not-so-mainstream does not mean that
he cannot create a tipping-point crowd. While Jorma showed me this
in clear detail, a more recent example is of immediate interest.

On December
16, Ron Paul proved for the umpteenth time that his long tail could
create a scene. And, Paul’s record fund raising — money received
from tens of thousands of lovers of Liberty — demonstrates that
his long tail can change the face of politics in a flash.

Given that
long-tailers tend to be committed and willing to face the wind and
rain — note the crowd at the Ron Paul Tea Party held the same day
in snowy, windy Columbus, Ohio; and given that primaries typically
have a low voter turnout; it’s easy to see how just a small percentage
of the population can change history. It certainly did on December
16.

However, instead
of a being just a long-tail candidate, I claim that Ron Paul is
also a long-reach candidate. How else do you explain the fear he
creates within the establishment, on both sides of the aisle?

Economist Frdric
Bastiat of France wrote about a similar situation back in the 1800′s.
While serving as an elected official, he transformed a society of
local labors into a committee — the Lower Council of Labor — that
was comprised of those who were not part of the established trade
associations — the Upper Councils of Industry.

To understand
the thoughts of these folks, he had them break into subcommittees
of the various trades and then asked each subcommittee to answer
the question of whether tariffs and other forms of protection helped
or hampered them.

Without the
voice of the power-hungry demagogues — the establishment — spouting
lies and nonsense, the subcommittees unanimously decided that government
policies harm, they never help. That's right, the common man wanted
Liberty in order to go about his business unhampered by the political
class.

I believe that
absent the DC blob and its mind-numbing talking heads, this country
would once again turn toward Liberty, as Liberty still streams through
our veins.

Yes, the ideas
and ideals of Ron Paul are still the essence of this great nation.
And, once he makes inroads in the early primaries, the greater number
of voters will begin to hear the truths Paul speaks. His speeches
will reach into the hearts and minds of voters who have long been
subject to manipulations and lies, awakening the spirit of freedom
that lies within all of us — well, almost all of us, as it is fair
to assume that the other candidates hear, instead, a sinister inner
voice.

Finally, put
Paul head-to-head against whichever spinning, statist candidate
survives the Democratic primary, and we will see Liberty win in
November.

I only had
to stand once in a music store parking lot, facing the wind and
rain, in order to recognize the power of the long tail. And, I only
had to hear Paul speak once in order to feel my renewed passions
for Liberty flow warm through my veins, and to recognize the long
reach which freedom has on the increasingly oppressed masses of
this country.

Yes, the long
tail and the long reach of Liberty will win in the end. Go Ron Paul.

December
20, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail] is a
homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and
maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Git’er done.
We got’er done. Got what done? Well, my wife and I hung an interior
door. Yep, we got’er done.

You see, we
both wanted the door hung. Sure, we disagreed on certain aspects
of the process — the means, but we both had the same end in mind.
And, we are both satisfied with the outcome.

I bring this
up in context of a political endorsement meeting I recently attended
where candidates for county and state offices were seeking the support
of the local party elite. Part of the process included an open mike
so supporters could speak on behalf of their favored candidate.

There was a
common theme throughout the meeting, and it went something like
this: I am here to support candidate X. Though he and I disagreed
on many issues, we were always able to compromise and get the job
done.

That’s right,
they got’er done.

Certainly my
wife and I compromised during our door-hanging challenge, but we
were pursuing the same end. Oh, sure, the door wasn’t hung in the
manner I believed efficient, nor was it hung in the manner my wife
desired. But it was hung nonetheless. We compromised, and we are
happy.

But, what about
the candidate — a current officeholder — and his supporters? What
were their compromises and jointly desired ends? That question kept
rolling around in my head throughout the evening.

If I am being
robbed, having only $100 in my wallet, I might try to negotiate
with the thief. Instead of losing the full $100, I suggest that
we compromise on the outcome. I keep $50 and the thief gets $50,
and we got’er done.

But, I am not
about to stand in support of the thief and proudly state that he
is a man of good intentions — a man worthy of support. No, I would
vilify him and seek just compensation. And, I would look for ways
to stop him from robbing me again.

Now, let's
consider the political process in a git'er done world.

An elected
official begins pushing a new program: intervention A. Since A is
something which I do not support — something I consider theft, I
quickly call the politician and demand to be heard. I don’t want
A, he does. We argue and get hot. Neither of us is willing to move
from our respective positions. Then, in a brilliant stroke of political
genius, the politician turns the discussion from rancor to reconciliation,
"Let's work together on this."

That comment
awakens the years of indoctrination — classical conditioning — I
received as part of a collectivist, public education. Positions
and beliefs are to give way to consensus, as only the consensus
opinion of the collective is right. Whether class or school, the
collective body is more important than the individual. So, I acquiesce
to his demand.

Where I should
have redoubled my efforts to protect me property, I accepted the
Fichtean view of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. I agreed to
move from my position as my thesis melded with the politician's
antithesis to arrive at the collective consensus — synthesis. So,
we split the baby and called it a success. We got'er done.

Gone is my
disgust over having my property stolen, being replaced by pride
in working on a solution — in serving the greater good by defining
and implementing the compromise based on the cherished ideal of
consensus.

Soon, I will
be the one racing to the mike in support of this elected official.
We compromised and got'er done. For this reason alone, you must
endorse this man's desire for power and prestige. He got'er done
once, he'll git'er done again.

My wife and
I wanted the same end — a door hung, but we were willing to bend
on the means since the means were of little consequence to us. The
politician and his supporter had initial stated ends that were diametrically
opposed, but they compromised on the means since the means — collective
consensus — is the core of their belief systems.

But, it's more
than that. Both the supporter and the politician believe that the
ultimate role of government is to do — something, anything. They
laud those who push issues that create change. Action and decisiveness
are always cheered, while adherence to limited and reduced government
is laughed away as non-progressive and backward.

Sure, we fight
over the specifics, but the fight is the cherished means called
politics. With the agreed upon end always being more government,
more interventions.

And, it doesn't
matter whether the opponents are politicians or citizens; even the
side of the aisle is of no consequence. The meeting I attended was
held by those who claim to be for less government, lower taxes.
But, that's just not the git'er done attitude anymore.

As for me,
I don't want the nonsense to continue. I simply want a federal government
that never exceeds its constitutional powers, and I want county
and state governments that get out of my life and off my property.

I looked around
the meeting and saw politicians who dream the big dream, and I saw
the party elite and invited guests who want more action, all the
while thinking, "let's fight over the specifics and git'er
done."

So, there you
have it: The means is collective consensus with the end being a
government that moves and grows. A sad situation indeed.

But, that's
not it. There is a man whose goals are my goals. Sure, we may occasionally
disagree over the means — the best way to hang a door — but we both
desire the same end: Liberty.

This candidate
— my candidate — is Ron Paul of course. And, I'm ready to git'er
done with Paul. Let's get the hammer, nails, and level to start
putting up the door; the door that opens to a country blessed by
a future of Liberty and Prosperity.

Let's rally
for Paul and git'er done so we can tell our children that we got'er
done.

November
15, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail] is a
homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and
maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Thank goodness
parents are idiots. Otherwise, at least half of the current tax-funded
bozos — the so-called public servants whose sole mission is to supplant
parental rights and decision-making — would be unemployed, taking
their aggressive panhandling to the streets nonetheless. And, we
can’t have that, can we?

Of course,
not all parents are idiots. One special class of the omniscient
exists; those parents employed by government or associated organizations
(can you say teachers unions). These folks are never idiots since
they drink from the fountain of enlightenment. The fountain whose
source is the never-ending stream of tax dollars, and whose drain
is the never-clogged pipeline of bloated salaries.

Parents are
idiots. Yes, that is a harsh statement. However, from what I read
— from what the state and its minions believe, it is absolutely
true. Offensive, but true.

Alright, put
up or shut up! Fair enough. A
recently published study on public school choice looked at the
schools parents chose when they were allowed to select between the
various Milwaukee public schools. The study reports that many parents
chose schools based on nonacademic reasons; parents chose schools
for reasons other than the state’s definition of a quality program.

So there you
have it, parents are idiots simply because they do not choose the
state solution. Moms and dads failed the test of parenting as defined
by the state. Remove the children and begin mandatory indoctrination,
for parent and child alike.

This is by
no means the first study to report such findings. In fact, this
study is but one of many that defines the abilities of parents solely
on their choosing, or not choosing, the state-defined correct answer.

Let’s take
a different look at this logic: Consider the intelligence of leaders
in the market place. For example: We know that many business are
run by idiots. How do we know that? Well, we know for certain that
many businesses do not use the government-favored solution for sending
documents and packages.

That’s right.
In case you were unaware of it, many businesses owners choose to
bypass the US Postal Service when they need to send important, time-sensitive
stuff in a cheap, competent manner. Amazing, isn’t it? These seemingly
intelligent and successful folks actually forgo the government solution
in favor of a free market one.

Our conclusion
is obvious: Based on the logic applied to parents and school choice,
these business owners must be idiots. In fact, they are idiots.
Call in the bureaucrats to stop the madness.

Here is the
rub for all systems of so-called choice under a government-funded
— taxpayer-funded — system of education: Parental choice will always
fail to meet the arbitrary standards and ends of the political effete
… er, elite. No, wait, effete was correct.

This will be
true whether the system is one which includes choice of schools
within a school district, charter schools, or any of the assorted
voucher programs or proposal. In all cases, parents will choose
UPS and FedEx when the correct choice — in the eyes of the state
— is USPS.

It’s a rainbow
that many like to chase, looking for the pot of gold that is government-funded
school choice. But, like any true rainbow, the end — the pot of
gold — is over the next hill, just out of reach.

Choice cannot
exist when the ends are politically defined. And, no market can
exist where goods must conform to government standards.

Ardent voucher
advocates believe that parents will spend government funds in a
manner that provides the best education for their children. Setting
aside for the moment the fact that vouchers are theft and can never
be associated with a free market solution, it is true that parents
will choose what is best for their children. Nevertheless, what
is best is never the ends deified by the state; politically-derived
curriculum, tests, and standards.

Just as in
Milwaukee, parents will opt for something else; something better.
And, with each parental choice, government, the teachers unions,
and many so-called advocates of school choice, will begin to build
a case against the abilities of parents to choose what is best for
their children.

Regulation
upon regulation will appear. The promised land of innovation and
entrepreneurship associated with tax-funded school choice will never
be reached. Private suppliers of education will be forced to conform
to the ends defined by the blobs that suffocate DC and every state
capital. And, these ends will never be the ends desired by parents.

The assumed
array of educational programs will begin to look like shelves of
generic food; cans with white wrappers that read “Education. Caution:
contains state indoctrination.” The consumers — the parents and
students — will not be sovereign under this system. No, only the
state will have control.

You can paint
the pig — government-run education — and dress it up as choice,
but it will be the same pig nonetheless.

Advocate for
vouchers and know for a fact that the end result is more studies
claiming that you are an idiot. Advocate for the end of tax-supported,
government-run schools and the only thing that you have to fear
is the hobo village of educrats searching for handouts.

Not too worry,
they are neither too bright nor too ambitious.

November
3, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail], a homeschooling
father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog:
Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Subliminal
advertising. Those in my generation recognize this concept to be
any attempt to create a subconscious desire; usually around soda
and popcorn at movie theaters. The idea was to sneak images of movie
fare into enough frames of film in order to generate an insatiable
craving. But not so many frames as to be recognized by the conscious
mind. While the idea was slick and sounded imposing, it never actually
worked.

Supraliminal
advertising. Once again, the attempt is to create a desire, or at
least sway an opinion. Here, the advertiser is overt in the use
of manipulation; so overt that most viewers and listeners miss it
completely. While subliminal advertising never produced results,
supraliminal advertising is quite effective. Witness Wednesday's
speech by Bush.

Anyone who
watched or listened to Bush experienced the most obvious use of
this manipulation technique that I have heard in a very long time.
As Bush rambled on, he was using a not-too-subtle speech pattern
and repetition of words in order to incite the masses. And, it just
might have worked.

How many times
can a listener hear the repeated terms — extremists, al-Qaeda, and
terrorists — before the words begin to alter the emotions of the
listeners? Well, for me, I was done with his speech within minutes;
gone from listening to content and reduced to counting references
to the Bushian mantra three. He both raised my blood pressure and
altered my chemical balance; I was enraged. Not to worry, I was
not enraged in a manner as expected by the Bush White House; enraged
into joining or supporting the Emperor's modern Crusade. However,
I am enraged nonetheless.

Nevertheless,
there will be many who will sleep, toss, and turn, while those three
words play over and over. The boys and girls in DC are smart; they
do not let Bush speak off the cuff. No, they planned the whole speech
— it’s content, cadence, and choice of words — for an effect. Knowledge
of psychology is essential to any propaganda campaign.

Wednesday,
Bush played the role of Goebbels, doing his very best to keep a
tiring nation in war. It was as choreographed as any scene from
Triumph
of the Will or speech given in the closing days
of WWII; the repetition of the big lies, references to dangers home
and abroad, the need for continued military interventions, and the
absolute requirement that the true patriots remain steadfast.

On one hand,
we are to believe that the "war" is being won, while,
on the other hand, extremists, Al-Qaeda, and terrorists lurk in
every corner. On top of that, in a very 1984-esque
twist, the Iraq government is now our trusted ally, and the Iraqi
citizens want us there. We are not involved in a civil war that
may drag on for years. No, we are engaged in a pitched battle for
the future of civilization; guest fighters of an appreciative host
nation.

We are there
to defend democracy; the pot of gold at the end of the mythical
political rainbow. Yet, democracy is nothing more than the will
of the majority of voters. For good or ill, the majority gets to
claim the moral high ground by winning at the polls. Who in their
right mind wants that? Those who believe that they can win the popular
vote and run amuck over the minority of course.

Our nation
was not founded on such a political structure. No, this nation was
based on the principal of negative property rights; whether believed
to be given by God or by nature. Without the protection of property
from government — the will of the king or majority — no one is free.

Bush is not
some modern day Jefferson quoting Locke, Mills, and Mises. Instead,
Bush is defending the Anschluss to a crowd desperate for new conquests.
Or, maybe he is desperately spinning Baghdad as a victorious Stalingrad
campaign just before the encirclement.

Regardless
of reality, the mantra is repeated often: extremists, al-Qaeda,
and terrorists. Bush intertwined those words to such a degree that
they have lost any separate meaning. They are now interchangeable,
yet still able to spark fear or anger in many.

Of course,
Bush’s speech was not about information, it was pure double-speak
— manipulation. As you replay his speech in your mind — or, watch
it on YouTube — consider the scene of White House bunker rats as
they drafted it. I am certain that the writers were not sitting
around thinking about how they could honestly present their case.
No, they were looking for ways to play the nation, manipulate the
folks based on a mantra of fear and anger. Most likely in a manner
reminiscent of Goebbels in the Berlin bunker.

Of course,
there will be no congressional investigations of such attempts at
manipulating American citizens. Put a few shots of hot, buttered
popcorn in a real of film and you will be testifying before some
subcommittee of Washington bozos. However, manipulate those very
same citizens with outright lies, as well as mantras of fear and
anger, and the DC committee rooms will remain empty and silent.
Why? They all play the same game, whether White House or Congress.
And, no one wants to give it up.

Let’s return
to our old rallying cry, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,”
and send packing the political advertisers — the manipulators —
and their fear-mongering tales of, “Extremists, al-Qaeda, and terrorists.”

September
15, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail], a homeschooling
father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog:
Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

“Is not
the State an idol? Is it not like any graven image into which
men have read supernatural powers and superhuman capacities? The
State can feed us when we are hungry, heal us when we are ill;
it can raise wages and lower prices, even at the same time; it
can educate our children without cost; it can provide us against
the contingencies of old age and amuse us when we are bored; it
can give us electricity by passing laws and improve the game of
baseball by regulation. What cannot the State do for us if only
we have faith in it? And we have faith. No creed in the history
of the world ever captured the hearts and minds of men as has
the modern creed of Statism.”

~
Frank Chodorov (from The
Need of a Golden Calf)

It’s that season
once again: the presidential campaign. And the candidates are casting
about for every possible vote. Sure, the candidates claim that it’s
all about issues and an educated electorate, but it's really just
a seemingly endless Dr Phil show.

You know what
I’m talking about, the politician, playing the good doctor, intently
listens to the each pathetic whine and then contemplates the situation.
Finally, the healing begins as, yes, government can ease that ill
also. A costless solution at that. This scene repeats as long as
the moderator allows questions to be asked by the audience.

Questions?
Huh! They're always softballs even when thrown overhand. The candidate
feels the pain and effortlessly spins the question back to a government
solution. Never, never, does the questioner ask something as simple
as, “But, Senator Clinton, who is going to pay for your solution?”
No, just like the Dr. Phil guest, the questioner just wants to be
heard, to be healed. That the senator added this new cause to her
ever-growing litany of programs is enough. It's all about hurting
and healing, and government of course.

And, like a
town meeting that goes on too long, the questions become more personal,
and more demanding of government as the evening progresses. It’s
as if Tocqueville’s image of America was a dream, and a utopian
dream at that. If you want a raise, Obama will guarantee you one.
If you want to sue someone, for anything, Edwards is ready for you.
If you want to fight foreign wars and extend the empire, Giuliani
and Romney will strike up the band and grab the largest flag to
be found; let the marching begin.

It gets even
better than that. The candidates are ready to take up the Wilsonian
vision of America the Great. Because, in candidate-speak, "The
world wants the US to lead the charge to end wars, epidemics, and
the common cold."

Forgotten is
any mention of economics — the scarcity of means relative to ends.
Human wants always overshoot resources. That’s the human condition.
Yet, Hillary, Barak, Rudy, Mitt, and company, will throw reality
aside and provide a solution. These folks are so prepared — so ready
to lead — that they can propose new solution off the cuff. They
are leaders who do not need talking points. They simply take a moment,
and the new program is proposed. No, it’s promised, guaranteed.

Watching the
audience react leads me to divide the typical voter into one of
two classes: the moron, and the bobblehead.

The moron is
the one who thinks life is a kindergarten class in any public school.
He truly believes that nothing has changed since he turned five.
Problems such as Billy chewing gum and not having enough for everyone
are solved by confiscation and greater poverty. The teacher forces
Billy to spit his gum into the wastebasket as the rest of the class
nods in approval. How dare someone have more than the rest? Starving
but equal is the motto of the day.

And, there
is more. The kindergarten class recycles unwanted stuff — paper,
plastic, etc. — at a loss to the taxpayer. But that's OK since the
affective emotions for the environment, etc., are encouraged and
soon trump any alternate activity for resources wasted in the recycling
process. The affective emotions trump common sense. Starving, but
at least you feel good.

What about
the bobblehead? They sit in awe of both the candidate and peer pressure.
It’s always easier to hug the tree than to chop it down. You can
forget the real needs waiting for factors of production to be released
to the economy by the ax; what is unseen is of little value. To
be caught chopping when the PC winds say preserve is a certain way
to be lopped from the in-crowd. And, the bobblehead cannot have
that.

As the moron
jumps onboard the candidate's latest problem and solution, the bobblehead
nods in approval. The bobblehead has rational beliefs, but the mob
is forming, and things are getting ugly. Once again, better to join
than to make a stand.

Therefore,
when Clinton says taxes might have to go up to heal the nation,
improve its infrastructure, and provide healthcare to rational citizens
who chose not to purchase it, the bobbleheads don’t even feign disapproval.
They sit as the Soviet apparatchik before Stalin; never once giving
any sign that the speaker is muddling through nonsense. No, they
stay silent, and even cheer when appropriate.

See, the bobblehead
knows the role of the citizen in the collective. Remember the kindergarten
class, the bobblehead acquiesced to the collective good; a goal
of any government-run education system. Standing outside the group
is a sign of a troubled youth, and Nurse-Ratched-as-teacher is ready
to break the spirit of any individual who does not conform to the
mission of the state; lobotomized into the bobble doll that always
nods — from only the slightest nudge — in approval of the state
and its agents.

Against this
stand the lovers of Freedom. They go by many different names, and
wear many different hats, yet they simply want to be left alone
to produce goods desired by their neighbors, whether across the
street or across the ocean. Their light-in-the-darkness is Ron Paul.

Paul does not
look for the morons in the crowd when proposing solutions, waiting
for the bobbles to bobble. No, he attacks the problems at their
source: government. That means he is challenging everything drummed
into our heads while we sat, barely awake, through 12 years of government
indoctrination.

That many have
not yet come around to his candidacy is understandable. It took
me almost 20 years to shed public school's false teachings and golden
calves.

Let's continue
to rally behind Paul so that our children, and their children, will
live in the land of the free and brave, not the land of the moron
and bobblehead.

September
8, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail], a homeschooling
father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog:
Anti-Positivist.

DIGG THIS

Social security
is the without a doubt the state’s biggest lie. While the state
has a history of lies, big whoppers that have cost tens, if not
hundreds, of millions of lives, it’s the lie of government-guaranteed
social security that makes all the other lies possible.

Before the
advent of the Prussian socialist state in the 1800′s, children cared
for their elderly parents. And, when that failed, the church stepped
in to provide for the community's old and infirm. That was the compact
— between parents and children, backed by the church — and it worked
well.

Along came
the state saying that it would care the elderly. Children would
be emancipated from their parents, and parents would no longer have
to rely on their children. The original compact was broken and forgotten
in lieu of the efficient state solution. The dawn of the utopian
guardian state began.

Prussia was
looking to break the bond between parent and child in order to foster
a new bond; a bond between citizen and state. In this upside-down
world, the state would become the ever-living parent in care of
the never-maturing citizen.

As the parent,
the state would guide the lives, the thoughts, the religion, and
the morals, of its citizens. That’s the Faustian bargain; the citizens
blindly worship the all-providing state for the price of freedom
and souls.

Now, here comes
the bait-and-switch. Remember, under the socialist system of the
Prussian state of the 1800's and the current, near socialist, US
system, parents no longer have to rely on their own children for
care and security.

OK, that's
the bait, now the switch. You see, someone has to work to continue
funding the Ponzi
scheme that is Social Security, and that someone is the next generation
— the children and grandchildren of those retired.

The state cannot
create Utopia. Despite the nonsense coming out of the mouths of
babes — those left in a perpetual juvenile condition due to the
interventions of a state-run education system — the state cannot
remove scarcity and uneasiness. It simply cannot.

So, the state
steals money from the workforce in order to secure those in retirement.
Through the state's directions, the care of the elderly is provided
by their offspring. But, isn't this similar to what the family and
the church did before this whole mess started? Of course it is.
OK, but what was gained from the state intervention in this important
aspect of the family? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What was lost?
Freedom and the family itself, along with the souls of all citizens.

Parents no
longer look to children as later-in-life caretakers; the state has
filled that role. Children are now seen as a burden; an expense
to some, ravenous resource-consuming beasts to others. It's the
state that will provide; it's the state that will solve the ills
of the world.

Yet, since
the state cannot remove the yoke of scarcity, it must rely on its
citizens. Parents still need their children's care because the state
needs their children's labor. Social Security solved nothing, nothing.
It did, though, cause many ills. The family is now undervalued,
with the war on poverty ending up being a war on the family; a war
which the state has all but won.

The lie of
security makes all other lies possible. If the state is the caregiver,
provider, educator, and pastor, it can do anything. And, more importantly,
the state must be protected at all costs. The state as the pension
fund and old-age nursemaid must remain; it must not be allowed to
perish as nothing else can replace it. The family has been weakened
by two centuries of interventions and taxes, while the church has
been emasculated by laws and court decisions, and both have been
removed frmo their roles in society.

Many say with
a straight face that they do not want to burden their children with
the worries and strains of providing old-age care. These people
believed that the state will watch over them free of charge. Why?
Well, they have bought into the idea the Social Security is an insurance
policy purchased by years of labor and taxation, secured by the
backing of the state. That this lie persists despite the facts shows
that public education has produced its true product; a citizenry
in awe of, and obedient to, the state.

Sure you will
hear some folks say that they do not expect Social Security to see
them through retirement, yet these same folks act as if the checks
will come regardless. "The government cannot default as there
would be an uproar; a revolution." True, and your elected officials
know it. That's exactly why a number of European states are now
paying couples to have children. These states have all but admitted
that they cannot care for the elderly alone; the states need help
from the children and grandchildren. But, even here, the elderly
will still be cared for by the family of the state, not the traditional
family.

If the state
is your family, your source of security, then it must be supported
at all costs. Our citizenry has enabled the state to lie at will
since the state has become the last hope. But surely it does not
have to end here.

Our nation
must face the lie of social security and understand that children
take care of parents under any system. Only then can the socialized
citizens begin to mature and take on the role of the adult, with
adult responsibilities and concerns; recognizing that the family
is central and the state superfluous.

While the state
will always lie, its lies will have little effect as its role will
be greatly diminished. With no more families to destroy and no more
empires to build, there are no more big lies to tell.

February
20, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail], a former
professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member
of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.