"Three Sisters" Companion Planting for Your Spring Garden

by John Bush

Spring is upon us and that means it’s time to get your hands in the dirt again!  We are starting some seeds and will be expanding the container garden we have in front of our apartment.  We love to use the companion planting method which encourages the placement of beneficial plants next to one another and discourages plants that are antagonists to one another from being planted close.

Check out this Sovereign Living Tip of the Week video about the popular and productive “Three Sisters” companion planting combo. The “Three Sisters” vegetables are corn, beans, and squash. Watch the video to learn why they work so well together.

Pro tip: Be sure to plant your corn first because squash grows fast and can hinder the corn plants from growing.

Share with us in the comments your favorite companion planting combination!

The Role of the Remnant In Building a Free Society

For those prophets for liberty out there who are frustrated with most people’s inability to grasp the possibility of life without the state, libertarian anarchist Albert Jay Nock’s essay titled, Isiah’s Job is a must read.  In the essay, Nock compares the difficulty some messengers of freedom find in spreading the philosophy of liberty to the struggles faced by the Prophet Isiah in his effort to spread the word of the Lord.  Isiah was becoming increasingly frustrated with the masses and their outright disdain for the message he was preaching.  The Lord reminds him that it is in fact the “remnant”, or those who are willing to listen and challenge their beliefs, that is his target audience.  It is the remnant who will survive the societal collapse and begin to build society anew.  The remnant is your target audience.  They are the future and the path to our collective liberation!

So next time you are feeling dreary and drained due to zombie stares and fallacy ridden banter coming your way, remember the prophet Isiah and his mission to awaken the remnant.  It matters not if the masses do not accept the message.  So long as enough of the remnant do, rest assured, we will find freedom!

Full Article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html

“In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are.” He said, “Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”

Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.””

DIY Fluoride Free Natural Toothpaste

I recently came across this recipe for homemade toothpaste.  Give it a try and tell us what you think!

Related: http://www.sovereignliving.tv/simple-home-toothachedental-caries-remedy/

Homemade Toothpaste

  • 2 Tbsp. coconut oil
  • 2 Tbps. baking soda
  • 2 Tbsp. calcium magnesium powder (optional)
  • 2 Tbps. xylitol or green stevia powder (optional)
  • 2 tsp. real sea salt (optional)
  • 5 -10 drops essential oil (I use peppermint) or several drops ouzo, sambuca, and such.
  • 5 – 10 drops trace minerals (Colloidal Silver)

Source: http://ybertaud9.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/diy-fluoride-free-natural-toothpaste/


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.





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

From: http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/tool.html

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
From: http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2011/02/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.

End the Fed: A Strategic Analysis – Politics vs. Agorism

Article originally featured on the Freedom’s Phoenix E-Zine.

End the Fed: A Strategic Analysis – Politics vs. Agorism

By: John Bush

Thanks largely to the work of Dr. Ron Paul, the issue of whether or not we ought to audit or end the fed has broken through to the mainstream.  Led by a coalition of die hard liberty activists, Austrian economists, and sound money enthusiasts, more and more people are convinced that the Fed should be abolished as it is not only unnecessary and unconstitutional, it is also detrimental to prosperity and economic freedom.  The question naturally arises amongst those crazy enough to want to work towards achieving the goal of ending the Fed, how do we do it?

A Tale of Two Tactics

While there is more than one way to skin a cat, for our purposes we will only be focusing on two strategies for ending the Fed, the political strategy and the agorist strategy.  The political strategy is reactive and seeks to compete within the system in order to end the fed from the inside.  The agorist strategy is proactive and seeks to create alternative institutions which will end the fed by competing with it.  As we shall see, while both strategies compliment one another, only one method will bring about the change necessary to truly end the Fed and ensure it is not merely replaced by something worse.

Competing Within the System

The political approach to ending the Fed involves politicians and activists working within the system to pass legislation and enact policies in order to bring about an audit of the Fed, potentially ending it indirectly.  Politicians and activists are also working to directly end the Fed by repealing the Federal Reserve Act or by other similar means.  While this approach has much educational value as many Americans are actively watching and learning from the political process, it seems to be doomed to failure from the onset.   As G. Edward Griffin points out in his book, the Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve System is a mutually beneficial partnership between the banking cartel and the U.S. Congress.  The Federal Reserve Act was passed not only for the benefit of the banks, but for the benefit of Congress and the rest of the Federal Government as well.  Thanks to the Fed, USA Inc. has access to the printing press and with it the ability to fund their pet projects and bailout their buddies without having to raise taxes (except for the inflation tax, but nobody knows about that one anyways).  Why would the political powers that be want to take away their access to the magic money machine? Whether they sign on to an Audit the Fed Bill only to bail on the effort later, in the end, those in power never voluntarily give up their own power, especially if that power helps them stay in office.

Also worth mentioning are political efforts at the state level with the goal of establishing state banks and currencies. It is certainly preferable to have multiple competing state-run banks issuing currency to the people, however, as often occurs when governments operate banks, the few benefit at the expense of the many.  This strategy also fails to strike at the root of the matter (the issuance of a single currency by a coercive monopoly run institution) as it advocates for the creation of the same thing it is fighting against, only on a smaller scale. While the political approach at both the state and federal level does well to educate the public about the ills of the Federal Reserve and multiple competing government run banks are preferable to one government run bank, ultimately this strategy to end the Fed leaves much to be desired.

Competing With the System

The second and more viable strategy to end the Fed is through agorism (AKA revolutionary market anarchism).  Agorism is a libertarian strategy that focuses not on competing within the state to change it, but competing with the state to ultimately replace it’s coercive hierarchical systems with a system based on mutually beneficial voluntary associations.  In order to accomplish this goal, Samuel Edward Konkin, the father of agorism and author of the New Libertarian Manifesto, encourages activists to participate in and grow what he called the counter-economy.  The counter economy consists of those market transactions, goods, or services prohibited by law (the black market) and those market transactions, goods, or services that are only deemed legal if you first ask government for permission (the gray market).  The idea is to grow the wholly voluntary counter-economy, including competing institutions of defense meant to protect agorists from state intervention, to the point where one day the freed market of the counter-economy rises in favor in the minds of the masses and competes the state out of existence.

Rather than waiting for the Congress to end their own access to the magic money machine, an agorist approach to ending the fed would have activists immediately taking steps to end the fed themselves by limiting their use of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) and by creating and participating in competing currencies and parallel institutions.  Take note that the strategy of agorism does not require activists to wait for legal tender laws to be repealed before they begin competing with the Fed, it only recommends that they take necessary precautions to shield themselves from state abuse should the iron fist of government come crashing down upon them.  While the prospect of state retaliation may be a major factor in preventing activists from taking the agorist path, remember, if you have to ask permission or wait for legislation to be passed before you can exercise your natural right to voluntary exchange, you are only cementing the state’s authority over you and ultimately proving how unfree you truly are.

Consistency is Key!

In the New Libertarian Manifesto, Samuel Edward Konkin wrote, “the consistent application of the theory of libertarianism to every action the individual libertarian takes creates the libertarian society.”  This maxim could not be more true when it comes to ending the Fed here in America.

It is often said in libertarian circles that Federal Reserve Notes have no value as the FRN is a fiat currency.  While this notion may hold some water, I would argue that FRNs carry with them the value ascribed to them by those using the FRN as a medium of exchange.  However manipulated or inflated the FRNs may be, they are nonetheless worth something to the individual receiving the FRNs.  If FRNs were totally worthless, no rational actor would trade goods or services for them unless they believed their goods or services to be worth less than nothing.

If the only value as a medium of exchange FRNs have is the value attributed to them by those using FRNs in market transactions and as a means of storing value, then why do those seeking to end the fed continue to empower the Fed by saving and exchanging the currency of the Fed?  Those seeking to end the Fed often fail to take in to account the fact that every time they use FRNs they are in fact empowering the Fed by continuing to give value to it’s currency.  In a way, those using FRNs are indirectly responsible for perpetuating the existence of the Fed and allowing it to be further used to fund wars of aggression abroad and the creation of a police state at home.  It is difficult, but if we are to reach our goal of ending the Fed, we must live our lives in a manner more consistent with our stated ends.


The development of alternative mediums of exchange becomes all the more crucial when one is aware that those in power perpetually use of the Problem-Reaction-Solution tactic.  This tactic occurs when individuals or groups create a problem, expecting a negative reaction from the public, with the intention of offering a pre-determined solution that serves the ends of the manipulators rather than the ends of the people.

It is entirely possible that many banking elites would be perfectly content to witness the end of the Fed.  They are well aware that without a viable alternative already in place, America would be in a state of total chaos should a currency crisis ensue.  A dramatic decline in the value of the medium of exchange used by the people would be quite the problem to which the reaction would not be pretty.  And to whom do you think most will look to for the solution?  None other than the same crooks who caused the problem in the first place.  The global banking elite are already spreading the use of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights and floating the idea of a North American currency.  It is not out of the realm of possibilities for them to be sitting and waiting for the right crises to ensue in order to make their push for the further centralization of power.  As Rahm Emmanuel, ex-Chief of Staff to President Obama said, “you can never let a good crisis go to waste.”

The banking elite are like the mafia.  They come in, occupy a restaurant, in this case USA Cafe, run up the credit on the place knowing they won’t be able to cover the bill, and when the chickens come home to roost, they burn the mother fucker down.  We are at that stage with the FRN.  The banking cartel took root in this country, ran up the credit while fattening their pockets and building a police state at home and a military and economic empire abroad, and now they are lighting the match.  Rather than wait for the establishment to offer another centralized statist solution like an IMF SDR or a currency backed by the U.S. Treasury Department, why not begin creating competing currencies and alternative institutions now?  That way, when bottom drops out, people will have multiple fully functional free market currencies to turn to, instead being forced to rely on the next big statist monopoly boondoggle.

Applying the Philosophy

It is understandably difficult to fathom the possibility of living without the use of FRNs.  Afterall, most of us are paid with FRNs, we buy groceries with FRNs, we buy gas with FRNs, how can we possibly avoid the use FRNs!?!  While it takes a dramatic change in one’s lifestyle in order to fully wean oneself off the FRN, it can be done.  For those not interested in making that large change over night, in the short term, do what you can to limit your dependency on the use of FRNs.  Contribute less and less to the evil that is the Federal Reserve System and not only will you make the possibility of ending it more feasible, you also won’t be contributing to it’s existence!

Five things you can do to limit your use of FRNs in 2012

1. Barter – One of the easiest things you can do to limit your use of FRNs is to engage in barter.  If you have a good or service to offer, find someone willing to trade what you have for what you need.  This method allows you to skip the need for a medium of exchange all together and assists you in reducing your cost of living and need for more income (FRNs), which also helps when the IRS comes a knockin.  For example, I have a barter relationship with a local farmers market where I exchange marketing and promotional services for frozen meals and vegetables.  My lady and I also have participated in labor share programs at local farms where you put in a days worth of labor and get out a big box of fresh veggies.  In order to find people looking to barter in your area, perform an internet search with your city’s name and “barter network” in the search bar.  You will find that in most cities there are already thriving barter networks.  If your area does not have a barter network, be the first to start one!

2. Silver coins as a medium of exchange – While barter is an excellent way to reduce your dependence on FRNs, in some instances it is difficult to find a match of wants and needs within a barter network.  People often need a sound medium of exchange in order to engage in some market transactions.  Most will instinctively turn to the good ol’ FRN to fulfill this purpose.  Others however are using a more dependable medium of exchange – enter the silver coin!  Liberty communities across the country are actively exchanging goods and services using silver as a medium of exchange.  Down in Austin we launched the Black and Yellow Pages (http://blackandyellowpages.biz) which is a business listing of like minded businesses and services that accept silver and/or barter.  In New Hampshire they have the Shire Exchange (http://www.shireexchange.com/) which is fulfilling the needs of activists and other New Hampshire residents without the use of the FRN. 

To help facilitate the trade of silver, liberty entrepreneurs are even creating their own silver currencies.  The folks at Shire Silver (http://shiresilver.com/) up in New Hampshire are producing laminated cards with strips of silver and gold in them that are useable at outlets across the country.  The guys out at Freedom’s Phoenix (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/) in Phoenix, AZ are taking pre-1964 dimes (which are comprised of 90% silver) and other “junk” silver and putting them in laminated cards with catchy and flashy logos.  On the backside of the card you will find a chart explaining the real value of the older silver American minted coins.  They are currently being spread and used all across the country.  Visit DontTreadOnMeme.com to get a hold of some of the dime cards to share and trade with your community (http://donttreadonmeme.com/).

3. Competing currencies – Already in existence thanks to many lefty and anarcho-socialist efforts are thousands of local competing currencies.  Some are based on labor hours, others on commodities like vegetables or land, and some are even based on promises to redeem certain goods or services in the future.  In order to find such a currency in your area, hit the Internet and enter your city along with key words such as “competing currency”, “labor dollar”, or “local currency”.  If you cannot find one in your area, get to researching and start one of your own!

4. Reduce your cost of living – Still another way to reduce your dependency on FRNs is to lower your cost of living.  One way to accomplish this task is to engage in barter whereby no money or income is needed, only your labor or goods you already have.  One may also consider getting rid of their smart phone with its $100 monthly bill and picking up a pay as you go phone, starting a garden and reduce your monthly grocery bill while benefiting your family’s health, buying a mint condition used car instead of getting on another bank note, and/or no longer buying coffee at Starbucks everyday and instead making it at home.  There are a countless number of things you can do to reduce your cost of living so as to limit your future use of FRNs.  I believe most of the reductions can be chosen so as to actually increase your standard of living by allowing you to enjoy a more simple and easy life.  For more on this strategy as it pertains to avoiding the income tax, check out the DON (Don’t Owe Nothing ) Method: (http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index5.php?entry=howto)

5. Build Community – Most important of all is the need to build community.  Not only should we be looking to like minded liberty lovers first when we have a job that needs to be done or a service that needs to be performed, but we must also commit to aiding each other should one of us fall victim to the evil hand of the state.  While peacefully trading amongst one another may seem as natural as the sky, in some cases it poses a threat to the authority and power of those pulling the strings of the monopoly institutions.  We must exercise caution when engaging in agorism and participating in the counter-economy.  However, we cannot allow the specter of state abuse to prevent us from ceasing the empowerment of the very system that seeks to enslave us and our posterity.  Find comfort in the fact that there is strength in numbers, there is strength in unity, and there is strength in truth.  We have all three of these things and as long as we act in a manner consistent with our inherent freedom, we will find liberty in our lifetime.

Living the Dream in 2012

As we enter 2012, it is all the more evident that the veil of legitimacy has been lifted from the ugly face of the Federal Reserve System.  As you go forward this year, every time you are about to hand over a crumply and green value losing Federal Reserve Note,  ask yourself – is it absolutely necessary that I use FRNs as a medium of exchange in this particular instance? Is the convenience worth my participation in perpetuating a system that has done more harm to humankind than most known to man? Is there a way to obtain this good or service without using FRNs?  Take the time to reconsider your purchase and research the alternatives.  You just may find another person like you who is ready to take that next step towards agorism and willing to fix your leaky toilet for you in exchange for piano lessons.  You may just find the counter economy is already alive and well in your community.

If you really want to end the Fed, rather than asking your Congressman to sponsor a bill, ask a local farmer if he needs a hand on the farm and can spare some extra veggies or ask the local hardware store manager if he’s willing to accept silver coins in exchange for the goods he has for sale.  Take proactive steps to limit your use of the Federal Reserve Note while building and participating in competing currencies and alternative institutions and soon you will find that the Federal Reserve has ended itself!