Recent comments

When you think about it, Paul, what percentage of people could concede the cold, hard fact that all "rulership" everywhere (other than the family) is criminal and is simply a matter of who holds and is willing to use the gun? I mean outside this and a half-dozen other anarchist-oriented forums. The family is rulership. The human newborn is unique among living beings due to its absolute dependence upon parents and adult caregivers for every element of basic survival. Even a newborn puppy or colt will at birth struggle to its feet, awkwardly find its way to mommy's teat to nourish itself, and is born with a coat adequate to assure its survival in its innate climate. Within months it will be weaned and from that time have no kinship with parent or sibling. Not so the human newborn. S/he is given total care at birth, protective and loving guidance until 5 or 6 (at times including incarceration in the form of bed and playpen rails to keep him or her from hazards until they can be trained and trusted to avoid perils and graduate to a bunk bed); a slow but loving unbinding of the restrictive chains until Mom and Dad can finally (with trepidation) say, "...OK. You may take the car to the party. But you call me at 8, and be home by 11!..." How many parents have heard, "..you just wait 'till I'm eighteen! THEN you can't tell me what to do!..." Already they have been inculcated with the statist mindset that state functionaries have a mandate to "determine" the age at which you are "legally" adult, thereby accountable. But "free"??? Alas, shortly thereafter kids will come or call back home with the lament, "...please! Tell me what to do!..." I think there's a line in an old country song, "Life gets complicated once you reach eighteen". You and I will love our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren until death do us part. In a normal and healthy family Mom and Dad will give loving guidance forever. That is the proper roll of governance -- not "government" or "rulership". There is a distinct difference. All rulership outside the family is gangsterism. Enforced by the unacknowledged gun pointing at you. By sociopaths who know that a vast majority of the unwashed masses are easily inducted into "voluntary compliance". The other small percentage (those who have a character defect called "thinking") can be dealt with -- through peer pressure or with direct violence. I just now gave bail money to a coworker whose father was arrested and jailed last night for operating a vehicle without insurance -- third offense. Gangsters of state and lobbyists of insurance (now a GSE -- government sponsored enterprise) have slept together incestuously to force all drivers on government roads to purchase their product. Under threat of savagery -- and you don't know what savagery is until you've spent a night or two in the white man's jail. Make no mistake -- if I stick a gun in your gut I become "your ruler". But I give you an advantage: if you comply "voluntarily" I'll go away and leave you alone and never bother you again unless you're dumb enough to come back into the same dark alley in which I robbed you the first time. Another advantage you have with me is that I know what I am -- a robber. I won't try to induce you to chant some slogan that you owe your "freedom" to the likes of me. I just thought of something: maybe I should give you my name and address. Out of gratefulness that I refrained from shooting your ass you might just continue to contribute some of your hard-earned "money" to me regularly. Voluntarily, of course. Good luck on locating that social contract. Sam

“The Lakota are five years running after petitioning the State Department for withdrawal.” Bill Buppert [Emphasis added] Petitioning???? Petition. A written request, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1145 One does not pray to the god called state for the “favor, privilege or license” to secede; secession is a natural right, it is not bestowed by any man-made government. Secession is simply the “act of withdrawing from membership in a group”. Did the colonists “petition” the person known as "King George III" for the “favor, privilege, or license” to secede? Not just no, but hell no!! They simply, out of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", declared "the causes which [impelled] them to the separation".[1] "Positive law defines the legal but can only be lawful in so far individuals have full secession rights from the institutional framework that is making said positive law." ~ Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law Notice, too, that Frank said "individuals have full secession rights". He's right because only individuals have natural rights. Corporations, i.e. "two or more persons united[2]" are examples of "artificial persons", that is to say, they are formed and authorized by human law[3], and as an "artificial" entity, they do not have "natural" anything. _________________________________________________ [1] "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession." ~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University [Emphasis added] ...not a "prayer" for the “favor, privilege, or license” to secede. [2] Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [3] Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113

I am a strong supporter of the Jim Davies' approach to our problem. He is using reason in a way that would delight Th. Jefferson. I note with considerable interest that the U.S.-funded Israelis are using assassination to destroy the governments of their enemies. Indeed, it may well be that Iranian citizens are also assassinating their own leaders. (Of course, Obama is now assassinating some Americans who openly disagree with his foreign policies, including a 16 y.o. Denver teenager, whose only crime was having the wrong father.) The Israelis are using their own spies, and perhaps "Black Market Reloaded" (tor accessible) operatives, which are reputedly anonymous and untraceable, and will contract in several countries. For just a few thousand dollars, they can target Iranian ? tax collectors or scientists, brutal police, ? Syrian politicians, ? Iraqi bureaucrats, and even ? Americans who disagree with their policies. That Jewish newspaper fellow in Atlanta made the same point. He was not joking. It is an interesting approach, with which I suspect Jim Bell will be in accord. What if someone had put out an anonymous hit on Hitler or Stalin or Mao, or even Lincoln. Would unnecessary wars have been averted, for the cost of single bullet? Bell argued in an essay about ten years ago that some day all governments would be eliminated in this manner. The Israeli government, especially, is testing his thesis, as it continues its quest for domination of the Middle East, using its U.S. proxy army. I presume government officials of Israel pray that their enemies do not have computers, perhaps including some Israelis.

DHS reportedly ordered 2,717 International MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in January. Who are they planning on fighting/rescuing?

Without knowing it, this article exposes the great problem that Atlas Shrugged, and the proponents of liberty will not acknowledge or address: The vast majority of persons don't want liberty. Ayn Rand's book tacitly admits that most of the people wanted the ridiculous laws about "equality" and government control that the government kept piling on, one after another. Only a few persons still embraced liberty, at least until it ruined them, such as some train engineers and farmers. Just like then, the vast majority right now continue to choose slavery to government. Otherwise, Ron Paul would be president, and we would be on our way to eliminating the artifact of the constitution and the powers it gave to a strong-arm central government. We have what the majority want: Not liberty, but theft from others for their own benefit; Not freedom, but crushing laws, regulations and a police state enforcement apparatus. Not mutual respect and peace, but perpetual wars on invented enemies outside the country, and on herbs, thoughts, money, and yes, liberty. Ayn Rand provided the narrative the proof that it CAN'T work as we wish it might. Maybe we should discern the basic makeup of humans and their motives more wisely, and advocate change in accord with that. Anything else is foolish naivety.

The days of brick and mortar are waning. Sam

In today's culture, a better education can be had from the internet than the one I got from Public schools and a State University. HERE is a really good one...: http://www.khanacademy.org/ Scroll down and marvel at the enormous selection of subjects!! Watch the founder explain it...: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/82347.html Now THAT is being creative!!

And, good day to you, too, Sam. Donald Livingstone, only stated, in that quote, that the so-called Declaration of Independence is a document containing information “justifying secession”, that is to say, showing why secession is just. I happen to agree with his assessment, and what makes it a particularly good template is the fact that it is the very document used to “justify” the existence of the corporation known as the United States Government. Yeah, Suverans2, but it's still all a collectivist mind game when you boil it down. Secession via this, that or some other document is an act of granting legitimacy to the entity from which you're claiming to secede. So, an individual withdrawing from membership in a gang, or giving the gang notice of withdrawal from membership (especially, it would seem, using the gangs own declaration of independence), is, in your opinion, “an act of granting legitimacy to the entity [gang]”. Fascinating. Oh, and I happen to know that secession is always an individual act. And if you're acting as one of the wizards of whatever klan it is that purports to claim "independence" (which will forthwith "join the family of nations"), you're no doubt as sociopathic as those wizards to whom you're directing said declaration of independence. I think you know me better than that, Sam. I am not “acting as one of the wizards of [any] klan that purports to claim “independence”...), so I will not waste your and my time responding to the “sociopathic” charge. And, once more, secession is always an individual act; notwithstanding that some individuals have consented to abide by whatever their representative(s) decides is best for them. Consider: Some of "Our-Forefathers" might have appeared to be relatively sincere and focused upon "Freedom-Of-The-Citizens". But very quickly as history is calculated -- within a generation or two -- their progeny were finalizing schemes to impound all production of all "The-Citizens" and nationalize all work of all individuals residing within "Our-Great-Nation"....The groundwork had been laid with the machinations of a gangster named Hamilton. Yes, the “Federalists”, particularly Alexander Levine/Hamilton, and James Madison, were most certainly puppets of those doing the calculating. I find it quite telling that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the so-called Declaration of Independence, characterized the delegates as an assembly of "demi-gods", and that Patrick Henry was also noticeably absent; he refused to go because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy." Evidently they were both right. Interjection: thanks again, Suverans2, for your help a few weeks ago on private email in launching me and getting me up to speed in html technology. Most of the time nowadays my embedded links actually work, thanks to your gentle nudging. You know, of course, that you are very welcome. The other 1% (that would be thee and me) can be dealt with. Severely. When they can find us. Do you think that we actually make up a whopping 1%? I thought it to be a much lower percentage than that. ;) And, for the record, I'm not hiding, Sam; as an Individual Secessionist, I am regarded as "nonexistent", "nonexistent", "nonexistent", is all. 'Til next time, my friend.

"The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession." ~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University

Atlas: ~I personally have found that Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an UNFree World" and L Neil Smith's "Covenant of Unanimous Consent" have provided a simple way to live in an UNFree world. Including seeing thru and solving the assumption that others need to be changed (Identity and Group Traps). (Emphasis mine in what I think was a quotation by Atlas from somebody else. As Jim Davies stated in a recent post, this thread has become so lengthy it's hard to know where you're wading into it. That happens, I surmise, when "we anarchists" let ourselves get sucked into the business of judging any belief system practiced by others). To attempt to answer "The G-d Question" as it pertains to libertarians is tricky at best -- sociopathic inquisition at its worst. Bill W and Dr Bob (Bill Wilson, co-founder with Dr Bob Smith, of Alcoholics Anonymous) discovered that conundrum. What they had set out to do was to help as many hopeless drunks as possible to get sober and stay sober -- as they had helped each other at the very beginning, 77 years ago June 10th. The result was the most libertarian "movement" (I know, "movement" is really oxymoronic to genuine libertarianism) I've run across. Didn't you mention that recently, Atlas? We drunks seemingly can only tolerate genuine libertarianism. I didn't recognize that or make the connection in that manner until well after I had been exposed to STR and Mr. Davies' and many others' excellent essays early on in my quest for liberty. Many (most) of us guys and gals who straggled into AA for help had been so sullied by organized religions and the superstitious edicts thereof that we could not even conceive of a Higher Power without suspecting that some sort of "religion" would become involved. Yet we knew to a man (and woman -- the original text of Alcoholics Anonymous is slanted to the male) that our own best thinking inevitably led to one more drink and one more drunken debauchery. And insanity or death -- the latter preferable to the former. Harry Browne was probably most responsible of anybody for my coming to libertarian thinking and anarchy..although he ran for "potus" under Libertarian (note upper case "L") auspices, and as such would have to be considered "mini-statist". "How I found Freedom.." is the most concise and complete outline for liberty I know of. Not once does Harry call somebody else's faith "foolishness", although he does include religion as a part of "the group trap" -- primarily because organized religions often advocate the practice of proselytizing in one form or another. I don't think liberty can be proselytized, and implying somebody's faith is "foolish belief" is, as I see it, unbecoming to us. Sam PS: I received my 28 year medallion Sunday from Steve F, my AA sponsor of 35 years. I can say that because I'm anonymous except for a couple of guys on here who know my "real" handle.

As I posted on the original website, I believe Higgs' column may be an oversimplification; he admits it is basically anecdotal. His reply to comments clarified his position greatly. He posits that those who believe this life is just a prelude to the next one may be more likely to risk this one in a stand on principle. Taking the opposite position, one could also state that such faith would also help people strap on bomb vests and walk into a place crowded with others. Such faith would lower the marginal resistance to joining the Christian (or any other religion) Soldiers marching as to war...with the cross of Jesus, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaah. I doubt Professor Higgs (or anyone else) would like to simply count the number of times someone did a "good" thing based on a lower marginal value placed on this life, subtract the number times someone did a "bad" thing based on the same calculus, and yield an answer. In the end, I simply disagree on this particular position with the good professor. I think decisions one makes are either pro-life or anti-life, and a handful of White Rose martyrs count for anti-life while an army of people telling their sons and daughters that it is unequivocally wrong to work for the Ministry of (fill in the blank) is pro-life. Until the balance of consensus as to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG shifts, martyrs are just corpses. While someone could argue that martyrs contribute to a shift in the balance of that consensus, I'm not sure what data one could cite in support. Such a position strikes me as an argument over the number of angels fitting on the head of a pin sort of thing.

"It seems one could believe in God(s), or believe in the possibility of God(s) without subscribing to any authoritarian or over-explanatory religious doctrine." ~ tzo That, my friend, would be Deism, if I am not mistaken.

Voluntaryist: I know that all superstitions must be confronted and opposed at every opportunity. Why? Sam

This thread is so long I only just came across your post, Paul. I'm glad you've no wish to offend. Even so, you came pretty close by comparing my approach to that of Leftists, and by calling me "presumptuous." I fear there is more of a gulf between us than I'd realized. I'm not interested in whether anyone prefers cats to dogs or cauliflower to beans, but certainly I'm eager that everyone base his or her life on rationality instead of superstition. If you want to insert the words "like me" I can't stop you, but I do resent it. Reason is the distinguishing feature of human beings, and the only basis for the self-ownership axiom; so to urge everyone to think rationally seems to me a pretty good place to begin. Then, I see you want to "get everybody else... to look for localized government models that they prefer for themselves." Really? You want to encourage people to form governments? I wonder what it is about the tin gods of town hall and the zoning or school board that you find so appealing. My understanding was that Strike the Root intends to put an ax through all that nonsense.

Jim, >>There's truth there, but .... I'm disappointed. I thought we were BOTH too old for "buts". >>Let's imagine a situation where you are... Nope. Sorry. My imagination works differently. [ http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty ] *I* imagine myself NEVER EVER allowing such conditions as you describe to be thrust upon me. (You supply the details, I will not spell them out). Perhaps the differences in our imaginations is because of differences where each of us was raised and/or the differences where each of us now chose to live... >>...in your own self-interest (to obtain that much larger measure of freedom, and the strong satisfaction of helping liberate others) I encourage you to undertake the work. I HAVE done what *I* think needs doing in order to attract the kind of people *I* can admire (i.e. liberated individuals) and I am quite satisfied with my work. Like you, I have expressed my views and shared my insights to hopefully help individuals liberate themselves. I have published articles (in The Libertarian Enterprise) and I built an on-line shop and two public websites with various collections of articles and projects--including several links to YOUR websites and articles. At this time, I have written more about The Covenant of Unanimous Consent than has the author, L. Neil Smith--who seems to have given up on his brainchild in favor of petitioning the government and blocking "illegal" immigration. http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna <<--the shop http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php I encourage you to explore the sites. I won't guarantee light reading, but you may find things you have not considered. Best regards, Dennis

"The methods and processes of this migration from governmental influence will (and should) vary from person to person. I cannot and will not dictate the number of ways it should be done, because depending on your circumstances with work, family, income and locale, my advice may or may not be worth the effort." I cannot and will not dictate ways either, but if you care to review a few ideas that might stir some brain cells, give this article a try...: http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty “Superstate North America vs. Individual Sovereignty” A discourse on the impending North American Union and how it relates to being a free individual Dennis

One of Robert Higgs' shorter essays; but, like Jim Davies, Higgs has the ability to "stir up the troops", which is a good thing. I would perhaps still be a bored, depressed "mini-statist" had not the Higgs', Davies', you (Paul), and quite a number of others stirred me up and forced me to think along more than one plane -- to not remain invested in the sort of dogma that kept me treading h2o for a lot of years, getting nowhere intellectually ("spiritually" -- which means about the same thing, but tends to incite the ire of certain anti-religionists who may suspect proselytizing around every corner). With this essay I think reading the comments is as enlightening as the article itself (especially Robert Higgs' comment to the comments). Many of us will have to admit getting our backs up when the idea of religion and/or religious faith creeps into the spectrum. I submit that the reason for that is religion, not faith; but many simply cannot (or refuse to) see the dichotomy. In history religious leaders ("religion") and state agents ("the government" or "the reich") have formed concordats that have given rise to rape, torchery and slaughter of millions upon millions. At the same time within those religious and government organizations were people of faith (priests, nuns, lay men and women) who risked excommunication and execution to rescue thousands of children slated for extermination and take them to freedom. Ask me about that some day. I have no way of accurately reporting to what extent "faith" bolsters risky action for good. I suspect, Dr. Higgs, at times it might. Sam

Jim, I understand the "shock" of "being wrong". I thought *I* was wrong once, but luckily I quickly realized that I was in error to think such.... >>"But still, why does it matter?" >>"It matters because the prime task of those wishing to bring a free society about is to move our statist neighbors away from their belief in the need for, and efficacy of, government;..." It DOES NOT matter to me because MY prime task is BEING FREE. [ http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty ] I don't need a "free society" in order to be free. What you are describing is at best, a SECONDARY task for me. I would NEVER reverse the priority of the tasks. MY secondary tasks can never be sacrificed to MY primary task. It is actually not even a secondary task to me, nor a "huge" task. It is an UNnecessary task. See below. >>"This can only happen when our statist friend begins to think straight; ..." >>"It is of paramount importance that people _begin to think straight_. Otherwise, they will never, en masse, ditch their absurd, superstitious belief in government." But THIS (understanding that government is a myth) is ALREADY happening! And it is happening without statists (not MY friend) changing their thinking "en masse". It is happening partly because of other things that YOU have written. >>"We have to change their _mode of thought._" Arrrgghhh. The "WE" thing again. NO! WE do NOT have to change their mode of thought. "Billions of humans making trillions of decisions could never be harnessed or thoroughly theorized by even the most brilliant voluntaryist thinkers or free market economists." Chris Dates [ http://tinyurl.com/There-is-NO-WE ] And, as I point out below, it doesn't matter to me what a man thinks or how straight or convoluted his thinking, as long as he respects MY right to exist as per the five Precepts by which I deal with other humans. I have NO desire whatsoever to meddle with the way most other people think. It is like wrestling with pigs. You ALWAYS get dirty and it only annoys the pig. I spent many hours as a youth attempting just what you recommend--and learning about "pigs". To paraphrase your own statement in Help Wanted, It is futile and a thankless waste of my time "...to try to impose ["MY version of what *I* consider to be rationality"] on people who do not want it and who made their preference lethally clear.". I look for those INDIVIDUALS ONLY who have already indicated by word and especially be deed that they are thinking and acting in a manner I can admire and possibly help or support with what I have learned. Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do not require a person to be "fully rational". Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! The basic or minimum requirement is understanding and adhering to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily apparent to children. But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels, understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. Enter from stage right: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. [ http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles ] The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a Political statement [ http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement ] explicitly derived from the Non Aggression Principle, which is a Moral statement. A characteristic of political statements--and a reason why they exist--is that they are more explicit and do not depend as heavily on education level as do moral statements and they are less subject to "interpretations". Education is a wider, more encompassing thing than is religion (i.e. religion is a subset of a person's education). And education continues throughout an individual's life and is a primary cause of behavior changes during that lifespan. Free State/county/town movements are examples of people with varying levels of education--and varying religious views--agreeing to conduct their interpersonal relationships by the simple principle of live and let live. Personally, I am disappointed that NONE of the "popular" movements has adopted some EXPLICIT political pledge such as the Covenant provides. The closest thing to a pledge of personal conduct has been the Shire Society which needlessly plagiarized the Covenant and then REMOVED what I consider the most important part for a Free State/county/town movement, the Supersedure section! You, me, Paul Bonneau, Darkcrusade and many (most?) of the contributors to this site--without resolving ANY of our differences--COULD conceivably agree to the entire Covenant and live in close proximity to each other in a "Supersedure Zone" and even trade with each other, without engaging in physical conflict. This is possible because the contents of the Covenant are the COMMON ROOT of everything that each of us considers to be important with regard to interpersonal relationships. AND, as I pointed out in my article [ http://tinyurl.com/Objectivism-to-Agorism ], people who--for whatever reason--refuse to sign the Covenant, could still live amongst us and trade with us, knowing full well what to expect should THEY (the non-signatories or "dissenters") violate our Covenant's Precepts in their dealings with us. Dennis Lee Wilson Signatory: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent.

Not one of Higg's better articles. "Divide and Rule", folks. Never forget it.

Oh-h-h-h, anything but that, JD!! lol I think that if you believe that you, (and your TOLFA followers), are going to "persuade all [government workers] to quit", you should get your other oar in the water. You have about as much chance as the proverbial "snowball in hell" of doing that. Nothing any of us will do will bring about a "free society in tolerably short order", JD. Even if the present Lewyathan were to collapse under its own weight, a "free society" is hardly the inevitable replacement, as you correctly pointed out to Mark Davis. Most individuals, IMO, don't want personal responsibility; they want rulers to protect them and to tell them what to do. "...we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." JD: So again, where exactly do you stand? Go read my reply posted on March 31, 2012. The short answer is, we, individually, must BE the change we wish to see in the world. At the risk of harming his good name, I am pretty much in agreement with this, from Paul Bonneau. Your sales program to the statists is, "Be just like me, rational," although you will not be able to say it in any such straightforward manner (which itself is a hint it is lacking). My sales program to statists is, "Be like you want to be, have exactly the kind government you want. Just leave me alone." Seriously, is there any question which has the better chance of success? Not in my mind, Paul Bonneau.

No, S2, perhaps it's "obvious" to some "regulars" but it's not to me. On March 30 I asked you some specific questions regarding your position relative to the article I wrote, and upon which you were as usual quick to comment, but you have not answered a single one of them. Until and unless you do, I will not pay attention or respond to any further posts you may make.

Some of you may be interested in reading this, regarding genetically modified food. So what's wrong with GMOs? ~ Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - The Independent Science Panel

JD, it should be obvious, to the regulars here, where I stand. "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist. ~ A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo Therefore, "those wishing to enjoy life without government in practice as well as in theory need do only one thing: persuade all [CITIZENS] to quit. Nothing less will do..." Do you agree with that, or disagree? If you agree, are YOU the change you wish to see in the world? That is to say, have YOU withdrawn from membership in the government, or do you still accept member-only benefits and/or privileges? Do you still use one of their Taxpayer Identification Numbers? Do you still seek permission (license) to perform acts which are not in violation of the non-aggression principle, i.e. the natural law? "Do as I say, not as I do", will never work with men, women and children who are able to think for themselves, and they are the only ones we will ever reach. The rest will just follow the herd...whether it be to greener pastures or over a cliff.

"No combination of logic or facts is effective against a deeply-held belief." --Chris Martenson THANK YOU, Darkcrusade, for providing PROOF that Paul Bonneau is right and Jim Davies is wrong regarding the ability--and the need--to convert religious people to rationality. There is NO NEED to convert religious people AS LONG AS they agree to forego the initiation of physical force. Once a person does actually initiate physical force, it matters not what their religion or their rationality. Dennis