Simple Home Toothache/Dental Caries Remedy

About a year ago I was experiencing some pain and swelling around a couple of molars on the lower right side of my mouth.  Not interested in going to the dentist and interested in exploring alternative remedies, I took to the internet and consulted a couple natural medicine gurus.  Combining what resources I had readily available and some advice I found consensus on through my research, I came up with a simple tooth “pack” formula.  After using it for just 4 days, I was pleasantly surprised to find that not only had the pain and swelling subsided, but still to this day the teeth seem to be healthier and less sensitive.

While a dentist never informed me that it was a cavity, based on prior dental caries, it is my belief that I was suffering from a serious cavity and infection.  Seeing as how many of my teeth are still not in the best of shape, I plan on visiting a dentist, affirming the presesnce of dental caries, and coming home and documenting my second experiment with home toothache remedies.

For now, here is my simple mixture:

– 2 parts bentonite clay

– 2 parts activated charcoal

– .50 parts xylitol (warning: do not let dogs get in to xylitol, it can be fatal!)

– Ionic or Colloidal Silver

Take the powder mixture and add enough colloidal or ionic silver to make the consistency a paste that can be applied to your teeth.

Apply the paste to your problem teeth (or all of your teeth) regularly throughout the day keeping it on for 20-30 minutes then rinsing it out (best not to swallow it) and re-applying.  This process can take place in the evenings only if you work during the day.  The more often however, the quicker and more effective.

The combo of clay and activated charcoal is meant to soak up toxins from your teeth and mouth and the xylitol helps to break up the bacteria in your mouth and teeth making it easier to be extracted by the clay and charcoal.  The silver of course is a wondrous disinfectant and anti-bacterial agent and brings together the mixture quite nicely.

I hope you appreciate the idea.  In the future I will be providing more research, documentation, and multimedia regarding the subject of home mouth health remedies.  Expect a video soon!

NOTE: Sovereign Living bloggers are not medical experts.  All information is intended to be education in nature.  Readers are advised to exercise personal responsibility in the administering of home dental care.





Tony's Kansas City Covers Our First Sovereign Living presentation


Earlier this week we noted an important discussion in Kansas City regarding a new ideology gaining momentum in the metro amid the ongoing Great Recession.

Last night we had the chance to sit-in on an important, alternative talk . . .

Get Informed Evening: Sovereign Living with Catherine Bleish

First of all, we need to note that it was really surprising to see a room of about 50 or more people come out to discuss ideology and alternative commerce, health and financial practices on a school night. Additionally, Liberty Activist Catherine Bleish has really come into her own as a speaker and organizer in this fledgling movement.

The conversation included info on topics ranging from urban farming to silver trading and even liberty minded organizing tactics. Cat’s insight into her own experience as an activist proved to be the most captivating part of the discussion.

“This has been a learning process for me. Over the year my ideas about Liberty and activism have evolved,” Ms. Bleish said. “I think what I’ve learned might offer some guidance for people interested in a Liberty-minded approach to their own lives.”

The focus on individual participation as part of a movement was a nice change from the typical partisan rallies to which TKC is accustomed. So often in GOP/Democratic Party politics there is an overwhelming urge to divide crowds and break down every demographic into a special interest group. The two parties that dominate American politics aren’t interested in the lives of their constituents, they’re simply looking to amass an audience receptive to their talking points. What seems to be the key to recent success among “liberty-minded” advocates is their “opt-in” approach that focuses on personal choice. Like it or not, this niche of “small-l” Libertarians represent the only real opportunity for growth among the GOP – Alternatively, this point of view reflects the deep divisions of Conservative America.

From “Preppers” to urban agriculture advocates . . . Cat covered a great deal in her talk and seemed to inspire the audience to learn more . . . Listening to the topics under discussion I couldn’t help but think that these ideas are going to draw increasing interest as the Great Recession becomes “the new normal” and promises from both major U.S. political parties fail to pan out.

The talk was hosted by Tracy Ward’s Liberty Restoration Projectwhich has gained notoriety for standing up against Red Light Cameras and Airport Body Scanning.

Tracy and Cat were nice enough to smile for this TKC snapshot.

To learn more about Cat’s adventures check out her Sovereign Livingwebsite which offers a nice perspective on “liberty-minded” alternatives to the current corporate and political hegemony.

If You Have A Tool, You'll Probably Use it: On the Evolution of Tax-Supported Schools in Certain Parts of the United States

If You Have A Tool, You’ll Probably Use it:
On the Evolution of Tax-Supported Schools in Certain Parts of the United States
By Carl Watner


In 2008, I discovered a two-volume set of books entitled UNIVERSAL EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH (1936) by Charles Dabney. The author was the son of Reverend Robert Lewis Dabney (1820- 1898), who had been a professor at the Union Theological Seminary in Richmond and was especially well-known for his attacks on government education in 1876. Volume I, which covered “From the Beginning to 1900,” was so fascinating that I purchased my own used copy and began research on the rise of tax-supported schooling. As the sub-title of this article indicates, it does not relate to the activities of such people as Horace Mann, Calvin Stowe, and others who “imported’ the Prussian model of government schools into other parts of the United States. That has been dealt with elsewhere, such as in Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s IS PUBLIC EDUCATION NECESSARY? (1981). Dabney points out, “the idea of free universal education was practically unknown in the countries from which the early settlers came, and it developed very slowly in America.” [1] Where did this idea that schools should be funded by the government (in the Southern states) originate, and how did local Southern governments overcome their citizenry’s natural reluctance to pay taxes to support them? The purpose of this article is to shed some light on the answers to these questions, and to quote some of the rhetoric used to convince Southerners that taxation was in their best interests, and that they should rely upon governments, rather than voluntaryism, to direct the education of their children.

In early American colonial history, the formal provision of education was primarily a function reserved to the wealthy and upper classes of society. Among the lower classes, it was common for parents and ministers to supply the rudiments of learning. It was not until after the Revolutionary War that a major societal concern surfaced regarding education. Among the constitutions of the original thirteen states, only North Carolina’s and Pennsylvania’s mentioned the subject, authorizing the establishment of at least one school in each county, “with such salaries to the masters, paid by the public.” At that time, education was certainly not considered a function of the national government. There was no mention of the subject in either the Declaration of Independence or the federal Constitution. Here was an opportunity for voluntaryism to have flourished. As Dabney wrote:

A great advance in educational enterprises of a private and ecclesiastical character followed [the Revolution]. The wealthy established private schools. Academies and colleges were started wherever a few pupils could be gathered together and teachers found. A new ideal of education was in the making, but universal education at public cost, as a practical possibility, was still undreamed of. [2]

Perhaps the first well-known personage in this country to broach the idea of “free” government-provided schooling for all students was Thomas Jefferson. In 1779, he presented his “Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” to the Virginia Legislature. The bill provided for three years of elementary school training for all children, rich and poor (though slave children would have been excluded). Although Massachusetts claims to have enacted the first public school law in America in 1647, in New England public education was considered a function of the church, while in Virginia and the rest of the South it was considered a function of the state. [3] Jefferson’s view was that “The state must provide for the education of all its citizens and this it should do through local agencies.” [4]

To show the progression of this idea of “universal education at state expense for all” over the next one hundred years, we need to look no further than John B. Minor’s INSTITUTES OF COMMON AND STATUTE LAW, published in 1876. According to Minor,

There are but four modes of general education possible – namely:

1. Every parent may be left to provide for his children such instruction as he can, without the government concerning itself therewith.

2. The government may undertake to assist the indigent alone, leaving the rest of the community to shift for themselves.

3. The government may give partial aid to all, leaving each some additional expense, much or little, to bear, in the shape of tuition fee, or otherwise.

4. The government may provide, at the common expense, for the complete elementary instruction of all classes, just as it provides for the protection of all. [5]

The two basic assumptions embraced by the idea of universal public schools were: 1) “that education is a function of the State rather than a family or parental obligation;” and 2) “that the Sate has the right and power to raise by taxation” the funds required to adequately support the schools. [6] Some of the principal impediments to the implementation of these ideas were 1) the general public’s dislike of taxation; 2) parental rejection of the idea that the State should be responsible for their offspring; and 3) the humiliation attached to the idea that their children would be attending “free” public schools. (Hitherto, only the poorest of the poor would accept government handouts.) [7]

Minor’s analysis reveals that the opening wedge of government involvement in education was legislation regarding orphans and indigent children. Although in both England and its colonies it was common for wealthy benefactors to endow charity schools for the poor, government legislation required that the overseers of the poor obtain an order from their county court to place those children likely to become a burden to the parish (such as beggars, orphans, paupers, and illegitimate children) into apprenticeships. [8] Masters were not only responsible for teaching their charges a trade, but were obligated to instruct their apprentices in reading, writing, and common arithmetic. [9] The humanitarian movement, which advocated giving poor children an opportunity for education, supported the idea that the State was responsible for the education of those children whose parents were not likely to attend to the matter themselves. [10] As Edgar Knight, another historian of public schools in the South, observed: By the time of the American Revolution, “the theory was gaining that caring for and educating and training poor children were functions of the State.” [11]

Thomas Jefferson, however, approached universal education from another point of view. His belief was that it was the business of the State to educate because a free country required an intelligent citizenry. [12] “Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and oppressions … will vanish ….” “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” [13] According to Jefferson, “schools … must be provided by the state” because to give “information to the people … is the most certain, and the most legitimate engine of government.” [14]

After Jefferson was elected governor of Virginia in 1776, he became personally involved in the revision of the state’s laws. In June 1779, the committee of revision presented the legislature with one hundred and twenty-six bills, among which were some Jefferson himself had principally written. The two most germane to our discussion here are his “Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” and “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In the former he proposed three years of government-paid elementary schooling for all children, rich and poor alike; college (high schools) for those requiring a middle level of instruction; and finally a state-sponsored university and library to complete the educational edifice. Each county was to be divided into wards or districts, and the voters of each ward were to tax themselves in order to support their own local schools. This thoroughly socialist plan is what Dabney described as “the first proposal ever made for local taxation for public schools” in America. [15] Another interesting aspect of Jefferson’s advocacy was his belief that those who could neither read nor write should be denied state citizenship and the right to vote. [16] Although Jefferson supported compulsory taxation to provide public schools, “he took a moderate position on compulsory education.” [17] Jefferson did not believe it was proper to force a parent to educate his child. As Jefferson wrote:

It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the [felonious removal of the child from the parent’s custody] and [by the] education of the infant against the will of the father. [18]

In contrast, in his bill for establishing religious freedom Jefferson took a very libertarian position against all the elements of a state religion. He rejected state-licensed clergy, he refused to endorse state-approved prayer, curriculum, textbooks, compulsory attendance laws, and state-compelled financing. One wonders why Jefferson did not realize that the same principles that apply to state religious establishments apply to state educational establishments. [19] For example, Jefferson held that religion was a natural right of mankind, just as he supported the “unalienable rights of parents to direct the education of their children.” [20] However, on the issue of public taxation to support the church and the school, Jefferson took contradictory positions. “He declared that ‘to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical’ and ‘that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern,’ …” [21] Despite his realization that coercion was wrong in the case of religion, Jefferson did not recognize that it was “unjust to take the property of one man to educate the children of another. … In essence Jefferson didn’t apply his own professed principles against coercive financing” of religion when it came “to education like he [sh]ould have.” [22] This error, from its small beginnings in Jefferson’s legislative bill, has led to massive state-run educational establishments all across the United States.

Government legislation on the subject of the poor and of apprentices was based on several questionable assumptions. The first assumption was that such children were entitled to the basics of an education. If they were, then such a service must be provided by their parents, the government, or some charitable institution. [23] Most proponents of an educational entitlement thought that it should be the responsibility of the State to provide children with schooling. Finally, it was assumed that no other means of accomplishing this goal existed, even though there was plenty of evidence that various types of education were being provided under voluntaryism.

Jefferson and others after him extended the first assumption by claiming that all children had a right to an education. The only question to be answered was: At whose expense? Jefferson’s answer was that the citizens of the county or ward should be taxed to provide all the children in their local jurisdiction with schools. Why didn’t the church reformers, Jefferson, and others of the time eschew the State and depend upon voluntary efforts? The only answer I have is this: the State was there. The human tendency is to take the easy way out. If the State had not been there, those advocating schooling for the uneducated poor would have had to 1) either organize the State from scratch; 2) dig into their own pockets and help fund that which they were advocating; or 3) organize (themselves and in concert with others who shared their idea) the necessary number of charity schools to provide education for the poor. Given the existence of the State, its prior concern with the indigent and their education, they took the easy way out: they advocated taxation. Why Jefferson couldn’t see the parallels between state provision of religion and state provision of education is an unexplainable anomaly. It is comparable to his being an owner of slaves when writing that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence.

Despite Jefferson’s advocacy of public schools, the idea of universal, state-paid education did not come about quickly. Educational historians of the South, time and time again, repeat that many Southerners had a “natural reluctance to being taxed.” Furthermore, the historians note that many Southerners held to the idea that it was not the function of the State to educate; that education was not conducive to good citizenship, that State instruction was a usurpation of parental rights, and that Negroes should never be educated. [24]. Here are some additional commentaries:

Local taxation of property for the support of community schools, entirely free and open to rich and poor alike, was not a popular measure. Two centuries of apprenticeship and poor laws had not developed a strong enough demand for the new type of education to overcome the dread of cost in taxes or to enforce the acceptance of the principle that the [S]tate should compel a man to tax himself for the education of his neighbor’s children. [25]

“The traditional hatred of taxes was universal in the South.” The planters “looked upon internal improvements [roads] as they did upon education, as mere excuses for taxation, and all taxation to them was evil. [26]

All taxes were an abomination to early Americans and taxation for schools was unthinkable for the old Virginians. If there were to be schools and institutions for learning, the funds for them must be provided in some other way than through taxes on property. [27]

The provision of education by the state to paupers “expressed the prevailing idea of the people that a man’s children should be educated by himself in his own social status, if possible, and that only the poor should be provided with the elements of an education at the expense of the [S]tate. The ruling class believed that any extended education of the masses would lead to unrest, to disappointment and to what the aristocrats called “leveling.” Their view was that the [S]tate should not interfere in the education of the children except when charity absolutely demanded it. [28]

In 1872, James Killebrew was appointed assistant superintendent of schools in Tennessee. His salary was paid by the Peabody Education Fund . “The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a real system of schools, declared Killebrew, was the old idea that education should be left to private enterprise; that it was wrong to tax the rich for the education of the poor; that the [S]tate had no right to compel a father to educate his children, much less those of his neighbor; that such procedure would tend to destroy the sense of obligation of the citizens to the discharge of their duty to their children and those of their fellow citizens.” [29]

Aversion to taxation has been the great obstacle to the schools in the Southern States. Taxes are simply money paid for civilized government. The savage alone is exempt from taxation. We were formerly taught that the best government was that which levied the smallest taxes. The future will teach that liberal taxation, fairly levied and properly applied, is the chief mark of a civilized people. In the old days we heard that it was robbery to tax Brown’s property to educate Jones’ children. In the new day no one will question the right of the [S]tate to tax both Brown and Jones to develop the [S]tate through its children. [30]

It has often been said that one government intervention leads to another. In the historical case being examined here, we find this happening. When supporters of State education of the indigent discovered that “the poor would rather keep their children at home [rather] than to send them to free [State] schools where they were branded [as] paupers,” they argued that ALL children, not just poor children should be educated at the expense of the State. “The true policy of the State is to recognize no distinction betwixt the rich and the poor; to put them all upon the same footing; … .” [31] In other words, if children of poor parents will not attend State schools, force everyone to attend State schools in order to avoid the stigma of ‘pauper’ schools.

The supporters of State-provided education had another way of defusing the objection to ‘pauper’ schools. As John Minor observed: “the government may give partial aid to all” via general taxation but still make every able-bodied father pay some of the additional cost of educating his children. This mixed method of local taxation and family contributions was known as the rate-bill system. Here is how it worked. Local school trustees contracted with a teacher for a term of teaching. At the end of the term, “they g[a]ve him an order upon the town superintendent for such portion of money as may have been voted by the district. … If the public money [wa]s not sufficient to pay the teacher’s wages, the trustees proceeded to make out a rate-bill for the residue, charging each parent or guardian, according to the number of days’ attendance of his children.” [32] Indigent families were exempt from such additional taxation. In New York State, during the late 1840s, “something like 40 per cent of the resources of the schools came from rates charged parents.” [33]

The struggle for and against the rate-bill system ran in two directions. Parents who were assessed the extra charges wanted to foist those expenses upon the State in the form of general taxation upon everyone. On the other hand, the general taxpayers, especially those without children, wanted the families of students to pay as much as they could. Furthermore, since the rate-bill system required every family to pay in proportion to the attendance of their children, there was a great inducement for many parents to wink at the absence and truancy of their children from school. [34] The final outcome of the struggle against the rate-bill system was decided by the immigrants who crowded into the large cities, such as New York. “They were without property to be taxed, but many of them had a vote, and they demanded education.” [35] The preponderance of the citizenry was in favor of “free elementary schools for all” and the last state to use the rate-bill system abandoned this method in 1871. [36]

Those who agitated to eliminate the rate-bill system advocated what they called “the free school” idea. This was the principle “that the schools should be absolutely free to all and supported at public and general expense.” [37] No longer would individual parents be assessed for sending their children to a local government school. Taxpayers who had no children would be forced to bear part of the expense of paying for the education of children via general taxation.

Some of the rhetoric to bring about this change is very interesting. In North Carolina, Calvin Henderson Wiley was “one of the most devoted champions of universal education our country has ever produced.” [38] He promoted state legislation which authorized the formation of districts permitting the people to tax themselves for their local schools if they desired to have them. He also assisted in founding “Library Associations” to help teachers collect books and establish circulating libraries. “Out of them grew county associations to improve the teachers, to diffuse knowledge on educational subjects, to overcome the prejudices against public schools, and to educate the public to tax themselves.” [39] State officials and school superintendents were also notorious for wanting to expand the role of their states in educational endeavors. As one commentator noted: “One of the duties of … school officials was to create a public sentiment in favor of public schools.” [40] For example, we find in Gov. Reuben Chapman’s message to the Alabama legislature of November 18, 1849 the following:

The subject of the common schools deserves all the consideration and encouragement it is in the power of the assembly to bestow. The whole theory of our form of Government is based upon the capacity of the people. Without a general diffusion of intelligence among them, the machinery of a Government thus constituted can not be expected to move on successfully. The highest and most important of all the duties of a free Government is to advance the cause of education, and guard against that decline of liberty which results from neglecting the minds of the people. [41]

Fifty years later, State School Superintendent John W. Abercromie of Alabama speaking in 1900 said

[I]f we would properly qualify our people for citizenship [we must] give to counties, townships, districts, and municipalities the power of taxation for educational purposes. If the people of any county, township, district, city or town desire to levy a tax upon their property to build a schoolhouse, or to supplement the State fund, for the purposes of educating their children, they should have the … power to do it. …There should be no limit … to the power of the people who own property to tax themselves for the purpose of fitting the children of the State for intelligent and patriotic citizenship. [42]

Another organization that played a significant part in the expansion of government schools in the South was a charitable trust founded in 1867, by George Peabody (1795-1869), a wealthy Baltimore businessman. [43] The purpose of the Peabody trust was to encourage and promote schools in “those portions of our beloved and common country which … suffered … the destructive ravages … of civil war.” [44] Although there was no stipulation in the original bequest of one million dollars, the trustees of the George Peabody Educational Fund made the decision that they would disburse funds only to those communities which would help themselves by raising matching funds through taxation. The Peabody Fund did not give aid to private or religious schools, or to any schools not affiliated with their State’s system. [45] The Reverend Barnas Sears was named general agent of the fund and he became one of the leading agitators for free public elementary schools in the South after the Civil War. “Free schools for the whole people” became his motto. [46] According to Dabney. Dr. Sears “preached free public schools as a necessity in a democratic government.” [47] His stated goal was to teach the taxpayers of the South “that there is no more legitimate tax that can be levied on property than that for the education of the masses.” [48] Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry succeeded Sears in 1881. “When told that ‘the state had no right to tax one man to educate another man’s children, that it was dangerous to educate the masses, or that to educate a poor white or a Negro meant to make a criminal or to spoil a laborer’,” Curry’s reply was that “Ignorance is no remedy for anything. If the State has a right to live at all, it has a right to educate.” [49]


The State’s right to exist was certainly never called into question by any Southerners, even those who supported secession from the North. The idea of “educating men for the service of the [S]tate traces back to Plato.” [50] Karl Marx embraced the idea in the tenth plank of The Communist Manifesto, which he and Engels published 1848: “Free education for all children in public schools.” In 1855, William Henry Ruffner, a Virginian, pointed out that “state education is but educational communism,” but even he and other opponents of government-run education never objected on general principles to the concept of taxation. [51] For example, Herbert Spencer in his 1842 series of articles “On the Proper Sphere of Government” never once questioned the propriety or morality of forcing people to contribute funds to a government which would then “administer justice.” Coming from a dissenting family, Spencer did recognize “the injustice of expecting men to assist in the maintenance of a plan of instruction which they do not approve; and forcing them to pay towards the expences [sic] of teaching, from which neither they nor their children derive any benefit.” [52] But apparently Spencer had no problem with forcing men to pay for police protection, defense from foreign enemies, and the settlement of legal disputes. In short, he did not object to taxation when it was used to support some function of government which he thought necessary or of which he approved.

To the voluntaryist, on the other hand, the very concept of taxation is morally wrong. Taxation is theft. Government agents must initiate force, or the threat of force, upon those who refuse to pay. R. C. Hoiles, founder of the Freedom Newspapers, was probably the first libertarian in the 20th Century to oppose government schools on the basis that they were tax-supported. He used to argue: if it is morally wrong for A to take money from B against B’s will, then it is wrong for A and C to take money from B. It is still wrong if A and C associate with hundreds of thousands of others to rob B. As he used to ask, at what point does the number of people involved in an act of thievery turn it into a morally proper activity? The answer should be obvious: a wrong is a wrong even if everyone supports it. [53]

In an exchange of letters on “Why Homeschool” in 1993, I wrote that the only consistent way to oppose government schools is to oppose them because they are tax-supported. [54] That means opposing every service government provides because everything the government does – from police protection, roads, courts, defense against foreign enemies to schools – is paid for via taxation. In short, that means opposing the very concept of government itself because government could not exist without taxation. Government violates the property rights of all those from whom it collects taxes. If it gave people the choice to pay for a service, or order less of it, or decline its services altogether, without suffering any punishment, then there would be no difference in principle between such a government and a voluntary organization. People could shop for educational services wherever and however they chose. Yes, some people would remain unable to read or write, if they were not forced to attend schools, and if their parents were not forced to pay for their schooling. However, it is interesting to note that we have not overcome the problem of illiteracy even after a century and a half of educational coercion and government schools. On the other hand, we would have avoided all the ill-fated consequences of government in our lives and schooling.

Since voluntaryists are opposed to the use of coercion to support governments, the question of how government should spend its tax revenues disappears. Most voluntaryists support education, roads, and protection services. It is not these ends which they call into question, but rather the coercive means used by the State to provide them. Since taxation is theft, taxation cannot legitimately be used to attain any ends. And of one thing we can be certain: If you take care of the means, the end will take care of itself. And another: if you try to force the end, the means will destroy and vitiate whatever good intentions you start out with.

There is only one way to freedom and that is by voluntary means. All else will fail. But neither is there any guarantee that voluntaryism will succeed, but if it does, or at least to the extent that it does, we can be assured that it will depend on obtaining people’s willing cooperation. Compelling them to “cooperate” is not only contradictory, but it will never work.

End Notes

[1] Charles William Dabney, UNIVERSAL EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH In Two Volumes. All citations are to Volume I: From the Beginnings to 1900, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1936, p. 3. On the influence of the Prussian educational system in Virginia in the late 1830s, see Charles William Dabney, “Dr. Benjamin M. Smith’s Report on the Prussian Primary School System,” in four installments beginning in XVI THE VIRGINIA TEACHER (September 1935), pp. 117-124.

[2] ibid., p. 4.

[3] ibid., p. 5.

[4] ibid., p. 8.

[5] John B. Minor, INSTITUTES OF COMMON AND STATUTE LAW, Volume I, Second Edition, Richmond: Printed for the Author, 1876, Book I, Chapter XVI, p. 384. It is interesting to note how governments expanded Jefferson’s idea of three months of schooling per year for three years to nine or ten months of government education per year for twelve years. Give governments an inch and they will take a mile!

[6] Edgar W. Knight, PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH, Boston: Ginn and Company, 1922, p. 161.

[7] ibid., p. 146.

[8] ibid., pp. 48-50 and p. 56.

[9] Minor, op. cit., p. 396.

[10] Marcus W. Jernegan, “Compulsory Education in the Southern Colonies, XXVII THE SCHOOL REVIEW (June 1919), pp. 405-425 at p. 414 and p. 422.

[11] Knight, op. cit., p. 56.

[12] John C. Henderson, THOMAS JEFFERSON’S VIEW ON PUBLIC EDUCATION, New York: AMS Press, 1970 (originally published 1890), p. 35.

[13] Dabney, op. cit., p. 5.

[14] ibid., pp. 19-20.

[15] ibid., p. 10.

[16] Henderson, op. cit., pp. 344-345.

[17] Dabney, op. cit., p. 13.

[18] Kerry L. Morgan, REAL CHOICE REAL FREEDOM IN AMERICAN EDUCATION, Lanham: University Press of America, 1997, p. 107 and p. 120 (Note 5).

[19] ibid., p. 106.

[20] ibid.

[21] ibid., p. 107.

[22] ibid., pp. 107-108.

[23] Dabney, op. cit., p. 27.

[24] John Furman Thomason, THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia: The State Company, 1925, p. 223.

[25] William Arthur Maddox, THE FREE SCHOOL IDEA IN VIRGINIA BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, New York: Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1918. Reprint edition by Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969, p. 16.

[26] Dabney, op. cit., p. 30 and p. 31.

[27] ibid., p. 35.

[28] ibid., p. 40.

[29] ibid., p. 302.

[30] ibid., p. 204. This is a direct quote from Charles Duncan McIver, an agitator for public schools in North Carolina throughout the 1890s.

[31] ibid., pp. 228-229.

[32] James B. Conant, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962, pp. 33-34.

[33] ibid., p. 35

[34] ibid., p. 34.

[35] ibid., p. 36.

[36] ibid.

[37] Andrew Sloan Draper, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Syracuse: C. W. Bardeen, Publisher, 1903, p. 52.

[38] Dabney, op. cit., p. 168.

[39] ibid., p. 170.

[40] Cornelius J. Heatwole, A HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN VIRGINIA, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 228.

[41] Stephen B. Weeks, HISTORY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION IN ALABAMA, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1915. Reprinted by Negro Universities Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1971, pp. 51-52.

[42] ibid., pp. 135-136. Also cited in Knight, op. cit., pp. 423-424.

[43] Dabney, op. cit., p. 106.

[44] Knight, op. cit., p. 384.

[45] Dabney, op. cit, p. 111 and p. 116.

[46] Knight, op. cit., p. 386. Barnas Sears (1802-1880) had been “the successor to Horace Mann in the office of the Board of Education of Massachusetts” (Dabney, op. cit., p. 111).

[47] Dabney, op. cit., p. 421.

[48] ibid., p. 119.

[49] ibid., p. 123 and p. 128.

[50] ibid., p. 13.

[51] William Henry Ruffner, “State Education Radically Wrong,” forthcoming in THE VOLUNTARYIST. Originally written and published anonymously in the PRESBYTERIAN CRITIC (1855) and reprinted 40 SOUTHERN PLANTER AND FARMER (April 1879).

[52] Herbert Spencer, THE PROPER SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT, with an Introduction by George H. Smith. Special reprint from RAMPART INDIVIDUALIST: A JOURNAL OF FREE MARKET SCHOLARSHIP, Vol. I, No. 1 & 2 (no date), p. 85. “The Proper Sphere of Government” was originally published in Edward Miall’s THE NONCONFORMIST in twelve parts, beginning in June 1842.

[53] “R. C. Hoiles Revisited,” forthcoming in THE VOLUNTARYIST. Originally printed in the Colorado Springs GAZETTE-TELEGRAPH, July 11, 1972, p. 6-A.

[54] “Why Homeschool?”, Excerpts of Correspondence between Helen Hegener and Carl Watner, Whole No. 65, THE VOLUNTARYIST, December 1993, and reprinted in Carl Watner, editor, I MUST SPEAK OUT, San Francisco: Fox and Wilkes, 1999, pp. 177-181.

Boxed quote to accompany this article:

There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than is required to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure. … “Free education” [is] the most absolute contradiction of facts by terminology of which the language is capable. Everything about such schools is compulsory, not free; … . A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

– Isabel Paterson, THE GOD OF THE MACHINE (1943),

from Chapter XXI, “Our Japanized Educational System.”

[Note: Ms. Paterson failed to observe that the expropriation

was from all taxpayers, not just the parents.]

The Agorist Revolutionary Alternative

The Agorist Revolutionary Alternative

By: J. Neil Schulman

Back in the early 1970′s Samuel Edward Konkin III, a libertarian activist, editor, and writer — began looking for alternatives to traditional political activism, both electoral and revolutionary — to bring about a free society. Sam’s premise was that electoral participation was a game that paid off not in liberty but in power; and that because the state’s tentacles held society hostage traditional revolutionary tactics resulted in unacceptable collateral damage to innocent bystanders.

Konkin, being a scientist, approached the question logically. To his way of thinking the means and ends had to be one and the same. If the end was a society whose institutions were noncoercive and respecting of voluntary contracts and trade then the means of achieving such a society, likewise, also needed to be noncoercive and respecting of voluntary contracts and trade.

These were the seeds which led Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3, for short) to begin exploring the strategy of countereconomics, and the philosophy of Agorism, as the libertarian means to achieve libertarian ends.

Konkin first presented his ideas on countereconomics at two “CounterCon” conferences I organized in fall 1974 and spring 1975, during the off-season at Camp Mohawk in the Berkshires, a summer children’s camp owned and operated by my father’s brother and sister-in-law.

The next expression of countereconomic ideas and Agorism were in my novel, Alongside Night, which I began writing in 1974 and which was first published in October 1979 by a major New York book publisher.

One year later Sam self-published The New Libertarian Manifesto, the first formal expression of countereconomic and Agorist ideas. The first edition sold out quickly, and reprint editions have been proliferating in both printed and digital editions ever since. Additional publications further elucidating countereconomics and Agorism followed, and SEK3 worked to refine his work on countereconomics and Agorism until his death in February 2004.

Sam saw Agorism as a revolutionary alternative to Marxism and, like Marx, the impact and popularity of his ideas have only spread and gained new converts after his death.

Me, I’m sort of like Paul McCartney after the death of John Lennon. I was there at the beginning and I’m still here.

Agorism is the idea that if you want a future society based on free trade there is no substitute for trading freely now as a means of getting there. Phrased as a boundary problem it’s obvious that a single individual escaping from the State is not a strategy; but obviously 100% of individuals escaping from the State into free trade would be. Like a revolutionary version of the Laffer Curve, there must be some tipping point where individuals removing their lives and property from State control is sufficient to starve a State thereby collapsing it. Seeking that tipping point in a Starvation Curve is the revolutionary strategy of Agorism in a nutshell.

Agorism looks to what traditionally has been called the black market, or underground economy, as the playing field for revolution.

The problem with this is that the people who trade on the black market are after tangible and immediate rewards – not anything as abstract as freedom — and more often than not they’re not all that scrupulous about how they get it. Lacking anything other than threats of violent retaliation from ripping off someone more powerful, the underground entrepreneur finds no particular market advantage to abiding by rules of honesty and fair play as opposed to getting away with anything one can get away with.

Furthermore, an oppressive — even a totalitarian — state can tolerate a thriving black market. In fact there’s an argument to be made that since command economies violate fundamental economic laws and create massive misallocations of resources, and consequent underproduction of anything people want and need, that a thriving black market is actually an enabler of above-ground economic oppression. The way Mafioso and drug lords buy off law-enforcement officers and judges regularly is a testament to the symbiosis between an oppressive state and a criminally-run black market.

The only thing that can take counter-economics out of this paradigm as a strategy for freedom, and Agorism out of this paradigm as a social movement, is that bringing morally self-conscious actors into the black market brings arbitral dispute settlement, and stable predictability, into the equation. This has the potential of enabling the expansion of markets by drawing new capital into the underground economy that would normally avoid such high-risk investments.

Bringing law and order to the black market is what makes countereconomics distingishable from the normal criminal-run “black market” — or, to use Samuel Edward Konkin III’s distinction, the “red” market.

The market is only truly “black” — run under the Anarchist’s Black Flag rather than the Pirate’s Jolly Roger — when underground markets are more lawful than the capricious and tyrannical rules of the aboveground economy.

Yes, that’s right. The revolution only succeeds when the Anarchist is more for law-and-order than the Statist.

Agorism only works as an alternative to other political philosophies — countereconomics only works as an investment alternative to a statist-controlled above-ground economy — if promises and contracts from traders in the underground markets are more honest and trustworthy than in the above-ground economy.

The Prisoners Dilemma can’t win freedom. Only Trust can do that.

Some may argue that the above argument is utopian or perfectionist — that the success of Agorism requires men to become better than they are. The fact is, it only requires underground traders to adopt business standards common in above-ground markets: consumer responsiveness, honest accounting, and above all peaceful dispute settlement.

If the leftist critique is correct and there is no actual distinction to be made between a businessman and a criminal then any sort of market approach to social organization is doomed.

Agorist traders don’t need to be angels for Agorism to replace Marxism as the Revolutionary Alternative.

Just middlin’ decent.

Updated 9/11/2011

Author’s Note April 26, 2012: Recently I’ve been using a “Devil’s Dictionary” style definition of Agorism: Estate planning for the death of the statist-controlled economy.

This article is Copyright © 2011, 2012 The J. Neil Schulman Living Trust. All rights reserved.

Update on my no 'poo experience.


In two days I will have gone exactly three months on the no ‘poo method. My hair was washed by the stylist once, but other than that I have only used baking soda as shampoo, apple cider vinegar as conditioner and coconut oil on the tips early on to heal split ends (I need to do this again, and get a trim).

I have never had so many compliments on my hair since I have started this endeavor. It is softer, fuller, shiner and all over much more healthy!

I hit a few road bumps and found a few solutions along the way that I’d liked share.

First, doing the full routine everyday is not necessary, sometimes just a water rinse does the trick. It was probably about two month mark that I instinctually started skipping a day or two and found my hair to appreciate the break from washing in general. This is after my hair settled into its new routine, I would not recommend skipping days early on when your hair is going through the natural oily phase. I don’t know how i knew it was time to start skipping washes, but I I instinctually cut back at the right time. The initial grease phase did not hit me hard as I used all natural shampoo before starting this method. After two months my hair just simply didn’t need to be washed as frequently.

Second, I was having trouble around the two month mark with the back of my head being greasy the days I did wash it. I think this was from pouring the liquid solution on my hair and it simply not soaking in enough, despite me massaging it in. The solution? Pour baking soda on your hair in the problem areas while your hair is dry. Pour it straight on in the powder form and work in with your fingers. As you get in the shower, damp your hair slowly and continue to work I the baking soda. THEN pour in your baking soda/water solution as you normally would with the no ‘poo method. This should stop the grease factor.

Warning, if your scalp dries out easily, this could irritate your skin, so don’t leave on too long or do this on days your hair has not over greased. My hair is naturally oily so I do this method in my bangs and on the back of my head on MOST washes as a preventative method. I did notice a few dandruff flakes while visiting cold weather states over thanksgiving, so I cut back on the direct/dry pour while here and my hair has continued to look fabulous.

My third tip is to make sure you rinse the apple cider vinegar out all the way, else you may smell like vinegar all day. A few times I decided to let it sit in and towel dry. This offered no benefit, only a strong scent.

My last tip is to be generous in your application. Buy in bulk and use as much baking soda or apple cider vinegar as you need to get the job done.

I will edit this post to include a picture of my hair in its current appearance as soon as I get it off our phone 🙂

Happy no ‘pooing!

Do antacids weaken the immune system?


Kinsei Newsletter
The Newsletter for MindBody Balance

Thanksgiving 2012
In This Issue
Do antacids weaken the immune system?
Join Our Mailing List!
Quick Links
When it comes to health maintenance and disease prevention, nothing stands out quite like the digestive system.  In fact, Hippocrates, the father of medicine stated that “Aheadshotll diseases begin in the gut.”  If you’re one of the approximately 30 million American’s who have used an antacid such as Tums, Nexium, Prilosec, etc, what you may not know is that the use of such common medications can have very serious consequences for your immune system, particularly if you use them with regularity.  If you have any interest in your well being, and seek to prevent illness or disease then read on.

What does the gut have to do with immunity?
Your digestive system is an approximately 30 foot long tube in varying shapes and functions which begins in your mouth, and ends at the anus, whose purpose goes beyond extracting energy and building blocks from the food we consume.  It’s function is diverse, from maintaining our mental/emotional stateto preventing infections of all kinds.  Therefore, the integrity within this tubular system stands as king in the prevention of virtually every disease.

Between 60-80% of the immune system is found within the gut.
While our body is estimated to have 10 trillion cells making up our entire body, our gut is estimated to contain 100 trillion microbes (bacteria, fungus, yeast, and protozoa)!  Our health is largely dictated by the balance of the microbes living within this tube.

One of the most dominant species of beneficial microbes living in our guts is the lactobacillus acidophilus organism.  “Acidophilus” literally means, “acid lover”.   If the environment within the gut becomes alkaline, through the use of antacids, proton pump inhibitors such as Priolosec, etc then the beneficial microorganisms, such as L. acidophilus, are less able to survive which yields less desirable microbes taking up valuable real estate within the intestines.  It’s been shown that the beneficial microbes communicate directly with the cells of the intestines in order to target pathogenic microbes, so fewer beneficial microbes opens the door to infection and injury to the gut lining.

Consider a mosquito problem in a neighborhood that contained a swamp; it doesn’t take a genius to recognize that draining the swamp would be more productive than indiscriminately spraying insecticide throughout the neighborhood.  The point here is that what is important to the mosquitoes is the environment in which they thrive.  If you want healthy microbes within your gut, and therefore a healthy body, you have to make sure they are given a proper environment.  Conversely, if you want sickness and disease alter the environment that makes it less suitable for the good guys to survive.

The imbalance within the gut microbiology as caused by low stomach acid, poor diet (sugar, processed food), antibiotics for infection or through food, drinking chlorinated water (kills bacteria, including good bacteria), or preservatives sets the stage for many diseases by killing beneficial microbes and feeding harmful microbes, thus damaging the barrier between the outside world and you.  You see, the intestinal tract is really a barrier between you and the outside world although it winds through the center of your body.  The gut lining is intended to be tightly regulated to only allow for fully digested food and nutrients to enter the blood stream.  Once that barrier is damaged you can develop what is called “leaky gut” where pathogens, formerly restrained from entry into the blood stream by a healthy gut lining, migrate through the body, and begin many health problems including allergies, autoimmune disorders, etc.  Likewise, some of the latest research on AID’s suggests that it’s the degradation of the gut, and health status of the healthy flora, which may be the most significant aspect to the destruction of the immune system in this disease.

But my stomach burns if I don’t take antacids!    
When it comes to our gut and therefore our health, it’s critical to maintain adequate amounts of stomach acid.  Most people who think they have too much acid are actually dealing with too little acid.   If you’re over 40, it’s truly rare to have high stomach acid versus low, as you’ll produce less and less as you age.  Here are a few signs that you have low stomach acid (hypochlorohydria):

  • You don’t feel well after eating meat.
  • You have acid reflux or GERD after meals.
  • You burp, fart, or get bloated after meals.

There are a few different ways to asses stomach acid production, including the gold standard Heidelberg stomach acid test, but it’s around $300 to perform and there are other ways that are safe and pretty reliable.


A cheaper way you can do at home involves the following:

  1. Buy some Betaine HCL (approx 650mg capsules)
  2. Eat at least 6 ounces of meat
  3. In the middle of meal take 1 Betaine HCL pill
  4. Finish your meal as normal and pay attention to your body

What to expect:

  1. If you notice nothing, this means it is very likely you have low stomach acid levels.
  2. If as you go about your normal life and start to feel stomach distress characterized as heaviness, burning, or hotness – then these are signs that you don’t have low acid levels. *If corticosteroids, or NSAID’s have been used for long periods of time the likelihood of ulcerations in the gut increases and will make the use of the betaine/HCL very uncomfortable.  It’s therefore adisable to perform this test under a doctors supervision if you have used such anti-inflammatories for an extended period of time. 

Repeat the test.  If after two tests where no noticeable signs of burning, or heaviness occur following the ingestion of one betaine HCL tablet, increase it by another tablet, and repeat the test again to try and determine a baseline dosage.  It’s common to take between 3-6 capsules per protein based meal.



Special Offer To Existing Patients:

Do you know of anyone suffering from allergies, fatigue, or pain of any kind?  You can help them, and help yourself by making a referral.  If you refer someone during the month of November you’ll receive 1/2 off your next visit.    



Quote of the week: 

“It is more important to know what sort of person has a disease than to know what sort of disease a person has.”

-Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.)


Like me on Facebook





Does sugar accelerate aging?

Kinsei Newsletter
The Newsletter for MindBody Balance

November 12, 2012
In This Issue
Does sugar accelerate aging?
Join Our Mailing List!
Quick Links
Last newsletter I discussed the connection between blood sugar disorders and Alzheimer’s.  In this newsletter, I’ll explain how sugar consumption and blood sugar disorders accelerate aging, and contribute to wrinkles and arthritis.  This is pheadshotart of a series of newsletters where I try and explain what I refer to as the biochemical triad of health.  In short, if we maintain proper biochemical balance in our digestive systems, our adrenals/thyroid glands, and our blood sugar we can avoid and correct most health problems.   If these areas are neglected, disease is expected.

Does sugar cause wrinkles and arthritis?
Many prominent scientists now consider aging to be a disease,

and in my opinion, there is no doubt that it is.  At the very least, the aging process can be slowed down by applying some common sense strategies to diet and lifestyle.  While there are undoubtedly a number of factors that can contribute to the aging process, the process which causes sugar to brown in baked goods can be attributed to what is called “glycation” in our skin, joints, and connective tissue which in turn accelerates aging.

When simple sugars such as fructose or glucose become attached to proteins of fats in absence of a necessary enzyme they form  what are aptly abbreviated as (AGE’s), advanced glycation endproducts.   The production of AGE’s may not be totally abnormal within our body, however they should be minimized.  AGE’s affect different parts of the body, and with the high content of elastin and collagen, skin and joints become easy targets.  Both elastin and collagen aid in keeping both skin and connective tissue resilient, elastic, and spongy.  That’s very important if you want to be able to run when you’re in your 80’s, let alone look young.  With more AGE’s formed due to excessive consumption of sugar the AGE’s effectively cause the skin and connective tissue to  become relatively brittle causing wrinkles in the skin, malformation in the structure of the joints and ultimately degenerative arthritis. 

So how do you prevent this?  Avoid sugar, and avoid foods that are cooked til they’re brown.  For example, the browning of the skin on Thanksgiving turkey is an indication of the formation of AGE’s.I strongly advocate the use of a blood sugar monitoring kit that you can pick up at your local pharmacy, and start checking your blood sugar levels to see where you’re at before meals, 45 minutes after eating, and 2 hours afterwards.  Ideally, when measuring your blood sugar you want the following results: 

  • 85 -100 fasting
  • less than 140 mg/dL 45 minutes after meals.
  • less than 120  two hours after meals.

If you find that you’re outside that range, it’s not a matter of if you’re going to have a health problem, it’s how soon, and how exactly will it manifest?

Limiting your dietary sugar is the primary source of impeding the glycation effect. However, the following nutrients can have an anti-glycation effect on our bodies:

  • N-Acetyl Cysteine
  • Carnosine
  • Alpha Lipoic Acid
  • Ginger
  • Stinging Nettle
  • Turmeric
  • Rosemary

Once again, if you’re going to have a chance of not being another statistic in the medical system, take control of your health and check your blood sugar yourself.  Use the narrow parameters I’ve laid out as your goal, and you will be way ahead of the the bulk of Americans eating the standard American diet (SAD) who foolishly view health as a matter of luck.  It isn’t!



Special Offer To Existing Patients:

Do you know of anyone suffering from allergies, fatigue, or pain of any kind?  You can help them, and help yourself by making a referral.  If you refer someone during the month of November you’ll receive 1/2 off your next visit.    



Quote of the week: 

“Everyone makes a greater effort to hurt other people than to help himself.”  – Dr. Alexis Carrel MD