What a shame. This article is based on the faultiest of premises. This is one of the worst arguments against libertarian philosophy I have ever seen. It equates libertarianism with Republicanism as if there were no distinction. It suggests that libertarians wish to eliminate all government, when in fact that only represents a very small faction of the libertarian-leaning spectrum.

The two most egregious fallacies in this article are:

"ALL Libertarian notions is this fundamental tenant: Greed is Good."

I'm not sure where this rubbish came from, but the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism has always been the non-aggression principle, the idea that anyone is free to do as he pleases provided that he does not inpinge upon the life, liberty, or property of another. Greed is found nowhere in the central tenets of libertarianism.

and

"NeoCONs are either Libertarians or sociopaths or both. "

Neocons are not libertarians. They never have been, they never will be. The most distinctive feature of neoconservatives, that is, their foreign interventionist policy, is the ideological antonym of all libertarian philosophy. Nearly all neoconservatives seek to increase the size of the government, which is contrary to all libertarian views. Neoconservatives wish to strip away civil rights, which are at the heart of the Libertarian Party platform. A neoconservative libertarian is a complete oxymoron.

The fact that you make such two egregious errors shows you have no conception of what it means to be a libertarian or how to identify one. Libertarians had no part in this "great experiment" to which you refer, and your lack of knowledge on the subject completely negates any valid points you may have stated. Some of history's most prolific libertarians did actually formulate a "Great Experiment" and that was known as the Constitution, which in my mind, has been one of the greatest applications of political theory.

by S Skowron (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM

  (0+)

by Gene Messick (34 articles, 33 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Messick

As a 25 year veteran of politics-not just reading/playing/sitting at a keyboard (or exposing film?) but as a Legislative Aide to 2 CA Legislators and as a State Director of California Young Americans for Freedom, I was quite dissappointed to see your nonfactual strawman reply to the equally misinformed Mr Skowron 's amatuerish and also strawman attempt at educating readers about "freedom" and "libertarianism".

Woeful and MALinformed about the history of freedom and the libertarian movement LET ALONE the Libertarian Party(which I attemped in 88...pathetic antireligionists and gave up.....back to LITTLE "l" libertarianism and the futility of trying to fight for freedom in the 2 headed Statist RRight/Statist Party Hack Republican Monster.... they can have it...and deserved what they got....) shills for the Potemkin Village framed argument FOR Government and Socialism would admire your comments -YOUR condoning of the 2 Party pas de duex(actually 1 WARFARE/WELFARE Party) is to be expected....and your appeal to emotion WITHOUT facts is something you might have learned in Logic 100....

The both of you need to read up on the history of the freedom movement in USA.. Grover Norquist...CMON!!!

try the Anti-Federalists(Sam Adams-Patrick Henry) Murray Rothbard, Frank Chodorov, Leonard Read, Walter Williams and Ron Paul.

Your gaining knowledge might help you and make your work more presentable.

by Chris Bieber (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:56:44 PM

  (0+)

Its obvious that this author doesn't have a clue what a Libertarian is.  He's confused a Republican cletocracy with Libertarians.  Here's a hint, the Libertarians are generally the opposition to corporate rule from the right. 

Just a quick read of the Libertarian party website (lp.org) found this.

"Businessmen are bad for capitalism when they use the government as life support for failing ventures," explains Davis. "Instead of letting other companies absorb these failing businesses, CEOs and government bailouts have distorted the natural forces of capitalism and prevented the necessary—and effective—economic turnaround that only comes through an unfettered free market.  These bailouts do nothing but prolong the inevitable collapse of companies suffering from extreme mismanagement and poor investments."

"The Libertarian Party is adamantly opposed to any sort of bailout of American corporations who, through their own mismanagement, find themselves at the brink of failure," says Davis. "This includes Detroit auto manufacturers who have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and have demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers."

Another article on the same site attacks McCain for supporting the bailouts.  It makes a case for free markets, and that the government's only role should be to assist those free markets function.  But that does not mean the sort of collusion between regulator and corporation that you list here.  The Libertarians oppose exactly the sort of corrupt corporate rule you attack.

Basically, by attacking the Libertarians, you are attacking people who should be your allies.  You are attacking those on the right who oppose the same sort of corrupt corporate rule that I oppose.  Hint, the Libertarians are generally critical of the Bush regime and attack it from the right.

I don't agree with the Libertarians in a lot of cases.  But I'm smart enough to realize that on issues like the ones you list in this article, the Libertarians are allies, not enemies.  Since we are in a 'winner-take-all' election system, realizing that there are other groups fighting for many of the same causes is key to trying to form some sort of alliance that can regain power for the people in this country.

We know the Democrats are not the answer.  We can already see that in the way they put Rubin's protege's in key spots on the 'economic team'.  But, if the Democrats are not the answer, we can't afford to have two, three, four or five other little candidates and parties splitting up the vote.  That's political suicide in a winner-take-all system.  And that's why its important to realize when other groups have large areas of agreement with you. 

by Samson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 49 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:03:26 PM

  (0+)

In which ways am I misinformed as to the intent of libertarianism?
I do not believe that I set up a straw man, but rather pointed out two key excerpts of the article which were blatantly wrong and have no factual basis. I did not attempt to refute the actual conclusion of the article because I do not see how its premises have any rational foundation.

by S Skowron (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:43:59 PM

  (0+)

...and that was enough to show me you are clueless.  I didn't waste my time with the rest.

by Joe Reeser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM

  (0+)

Your essay is practically unreadable.

To torture the senses thus, you should be thrown beneath the bus!

ELEMENTS OF STYLE is available for free on the Internet as a PDF.

Please take advantage of the offer.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM

  (0+)

You can provide a great service to OpEdNews. Please cruise all Articles, and post your advice wherever its needed. Style is more important than content, as we all know. Just think: at a rate of reviewing 100 Articles per day, you would never run out of good work to do in your lifetime.  Enjoy!

by Gene Messick (34 articles, 33 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM

  (0+)

....are just a few of the words that come to mind reading this nonsense!

I'd love to spend more time ripping this knucklehead a new one, but I've got much better things to do. The first reponse was quite thorough, and suffice to say, Messick has no idea what he's talking about.

by Craig Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM

  (0+)

It's too bad Mr. Messick has been given so much space to spew his drivel, and demonstrate his amazing lack of understanding of Libertarianism. Still, I'm glad I read this. I now know to avoid reading anything else I see with his name on it.

by Nancy Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:04:07 PM

  (0+)

"The government is best which governs least."

-Thomas Jefferson

Many political thinkers and political parties have admired the Libertarian Ideal. It would be a mistake to link Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, or Noecons to Libertarianism beyond a shared respect for personal liberty and hate for oppresive governments and organizations.

Let's return to being vigelent against torcher, corporate pirates, warrentless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, state sponsored kidnapping, violations of subsidiarity (jurisdiction encroachment/violations), exploitation, et al. 

by MoSceal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:28:35 PM

  (0+)

Its not that atheists don't want there to be a god. Its that atheists don't believe god exists. Atheists don't want to abolish religion, they just want a complete separation of church and state. Actually Libertarians are neoliberals not neocons. Neocons support American empire building whereas neoliberals support imposing free market capitalism where everything is privatized into the hands of the wealthy elites. Libertarians believe in freedom but they want equal freedom for people and businesses which is incompatible. The more freedom businesses have, the less freedom the people have. The more freedom the people have, the less freedom businesses have. The Libertarian ideology doesn't work because it results in a paradox. It was also very ironic that the Libertarian Party that claims to be for freedom and small government chose Bob Barr to be their presidential nominee. Bob Barr and his running mate were for Big Government masquerading as small government and neither is a champion of individual freedom. Also America has never had a Democracy. America has always been an aristocratic Republic. I hate to break it to you but Obama also supports the tyranny of the free market. Also there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans so it doesn't matter which party has the majority. They're all fascists with a few exceptions.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:54:51 PM

  (0+)

I didn't vote for Barr.  In fact, to show you how I'm not a Barr supporter, I'll tell you I voted for McKinney.   But I lived in GA while Bob Barr was a Congressman from that state and watched him while in that office.

Sometimes he would follow the Rep. party line.  But, he always was a champion of individual freedom while a Congressman.  He was not always a party line Republican (like some others are), and when he broke ranks with the party it was almost always on questions of constitutional liberty and individual freedom.

After he left Congress, he worked for the ACLU fighting for causes of constitutional rights and individual freedom.

by Samson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 49 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:44:26 PM

  (0+)

A very silly, ill-informed piece. I cannot discern the motivation - let alone the message - of the author. In other words: 'why would anyone both to write something like this?'

This brings to mind one of the buddhist precepts on 'not stealing'. It involves the obvious sense of the word, i.e. 'taking something that has not been given' but on the more subtle level means also:'not stealing other's time (the most precious thing we have, indeed the ONLY thing we have on some level)'. 

Of course, nobody is forced to read the article, but being members of a polite society (in theory at least) and having come to this site expecting X,Y or Z, naturally we are willing to read a contribution and in doing so invest time in it. 

But again: what is the motivation of writing such ill-informed drivel and why presume that others are going to spend time reading it?

Ah well. As someone who doesn't subscribe to television because I keep asking the same question:' why should I be paying for a) sub-par program content and b) far too many commercial interruptions?', why should I complain about this piece? 

And then expect others to waste yet more time reading this no less silly response!

by Ashley Howes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:58:59 PM

  (0+)

Because here we have a free soapbox where we can all spout our drivel...sure, some 'drivel' is much better than others, but what is really important is that we share, we compare, and there is always something else we can move on to...happily I will move on to something else...and anything will be better than this one.

This article was absolutely horrible on just about every concievable level, but what wasn't  horrible was the opednews community's response to it.

Nice to have you with us, S. Skowron ... Messick's article simply had to be checked, and you stepped up and did it before anyone else.  We are all important, no matter where we are on the journey. 

Hopefully G Messick can learn also (some are just slower than others).  That's what forgiveness is all about.

Maybe Rob can consider a siren that we could click with this sort of article...like--a warning--"don't slow down folks...there's nothing to see here."

by sherry clark (47 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 116 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:40:33 PM

  (0+)

After doing my best below to counter this article myself, I feel compelled to second your comment.  We all post our drivel and hope it will be well-received, but when it isn't, such is life.

So, I'm glad Mr. Messick got what he had to say off his chest, and I'm glad I did as well.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:12:56 PM

  (0+)

as Republicans who like to smoke dope and get laid.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:27:50 PM

  (0+)

There is opposition to corporate rule on both the left and right ends of the spectrum.  It is divided into sub-groups to the point of being ridiculously ineffective.

A great deal of work seems to go into making sure that the left and the right never unite against the corupt 'center'. 

by Samson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 49 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:40:04 PM

  (0+)

I’m not a Libertarian, but increasingly find myself defending them from unwarranted and unfair attacks on OEN, I suppose for the same reason that I feel compelled to respond when similar broad-brush attacks are on made on Christians, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Conservatives, Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, Jews, Muslims, 9/11 Truthers, “Paranoid Conspiracy Theories/Theorists”, you name it.

No matter what the details of the argument, what comes though loud and clear is that critics simply do not like the assumptions made by Libertarians as they attempt to establish their political philosophy logically on a basis of axioms and definitions. 

I’m critical of a great many of the same people as cited by the author, but never in my wildest dreams would I imagine them to be the manifestation or embodiment of libertarianism. There are limitations to such a political philosophy, but it is not a given that libertarian assumptions lead to the policies and actions of the people cited.  

Take Grover Norquist of all people!  Geez, what is he, the universal bad guy of choice when bashing Libertarians?  Not being a Libertarian or even having heard of Norquist when I first started posting on OEN, I was immediately accused of being a Norquist drone of some kind, in a way that sounded like being called a piece of sh**.  My actual crime had been to come to certain conclusions that some Libertarians had also arrived at.  Hence, I was necessarily a Norquist drone and a Libertarian piece of cr**.

I am emphatically NOT a Libertarian, but I do share with them a respect for logical, rational argument.  What I do know about them is that object to the tendency of politicians to equate their own individual will with the collective will of “the public” and “society” and by extension with the actual will of the individuals in society, as if politicians can actually be trusted to divine such things.  Distrust of such politicians is twisted by critics to imply that Libertarians are Anarchists, who believe there should be no Government at all.

Other common digs are that Libertarians are “selfish”, and the accusation of atheism is usually thrown in as well to rile up Christians and other deists.

The real crime of Libertarians and the reason why they are almost universally hated by other more influential groups is that they resist the notion that more rules, more regulation, more control of all things economic and political unto infinity by Government are the solutions to every problem in society.  They believe that many problems should simply be left for people to solve for themselves.

Further, I lay the problems noted by the author squarely at the feet of a wealthy elite for the oldest reasons of all – seeking after money and power.  So, obviously I didn’t like the article, because it lays the blame in the wrong lap, in my book.  Worse, it sets up libertarianism as a scapegoat political philosophy.  Wrong, wrong, wrong in my book.

Even further, accusing your political opponents of being sociopaths, or as others have done on OEN, of being mentally ill, is a dangerous method of political discourse, a sword that can cut both ways.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:55:01 PM

  (0+)

Great article Gene,

Its a shame there are so many people out there who have the brain capacity of Sarah Palin complaining about your article. Some people just are completely void of any logical train of thought even after wasting theirs or someone else's money on an education.

Libertarians have a survival of the fittest ideology, freedom to succeed and freedom to fail government needs to just get out of the way. This sounds good but in reality it is really like a soccer game with no referees or police to handle the crowd. The end result is thousands are trampled to death when the riot breaks out. Even Sarah Palin can understand this rational, after all she is a hockey mom.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:15:46 PM

  (0+)

I agree with "TY" for the most part. Except where he states what America's form of Government--Democracy verses Republic.  Today it is fascism by definition.

 TY said, (quote) " Also America has never had a Democracy. America has always been an aristocratic Republic."

America is (was) a Democracy and the country itself is (was?) a republic. Let's dig out the Dictionary as today's media and potlicians seem to make up or invent their own little definitions. Is it because they can't read? Is it because they twist the definition to form THEIR idea of what something is? Ideations seem quite queer in today's world. Ppl bend and manipulated words to suit their terms or stance or agenda. What a shame. Therefore,  here is the definition of 'Republic" (e.g. our country, USSR--United Soviet Socialists Republic,--The Repubic of China, The Republic Of Czech. etc.) Republic=A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is *usually a President.

Democracy= Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Per definition, we have neither as most politicians are GREATLY influenced by lobbyists which represent most often than not, business or corporation. As far as being a Republic --with a President and non monarchial, I'd say we have quite a Monarch. Hell, we can be jailed for speaking against the President's war or agenda. Read the Patriot Act or the Homegrown Terrorist Act for examples.

Per definition. Libertarian= One who believes in free will of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

Heck, per definition, I'd say I am a Liberal with Liberarian views. I am pro free thinking. However, about the time the Libertarians like crazy Nordquist get what they want, no taxes, they'd be bi*ching a fit when the roads were gravel and the sewage ran into the streets and the poor people were crawling through their Libertarian garbage cans looking for food and scattering garbage all over their lawn. Worse yet, we'd have no PUBLIC courts (taxpayer financed) to try the cases when these Libertarians shot the garbage pickers! My gawd ppl, stop eating up the shibboleth that just divides or worse yet, gulls you.

If we had what Nordquist pushes, then we definitely be a fascist country. "When corporations yield more power than Government"(FDR), fascism is the ultimate consequence.

Messick's article is quite accurate in that "Trickle down economics" DOES NOT WORK. When 65% of corporations don't pay ANY taxes (loopholes, offshore accounts, etc.), then small businesses and mid class workers have to pick up the tax REVENUE slack. One thing I know is these Nordquists and ppl like him, can't step out of the box, look at a Big picture or even have the slightest inquiry about what regular Americans, working from paycheck to paycheck, need or poverty level, need. How can RICH ppl know what POOR people NEED?

Today we have 100 million ppl in the world at poverty level or below. Here in AmeirScam 5 million MORE have been added to the poverty list just in 5 yrs. You'll never convince me that all of these ppl are "welfare queens driving cadillacs" or "just lazy no good ppl looking for a free ride". The no goods looking for a hand out are the trillionaired bankers and stock Marketeers!

James Madison would be crying a river if he saw America today. When everything is "Privatized", slavery will be the greatest cry of the ppl of America. The corporate King intends to enslave and nothing but slavery will work for them. When the last of the Unions are gone, the wages have been dropped to the lowest level and Wage and Hour laws are abolished, child labor is of the norm, then and only then will Americans look back and see how Unions gave citizens good working conditions, doors on the restrooms at the work place, WEEKENDS, 40 hr weeks, OT pay, and SAFETY equipment. The illegals are a corporatists's wet dream, no work comp taxes, no SS pay, no benefits, no lunch breaks, etc etc. We are being amnipulated to think slavery is good (it lowers the cost of goods they say). Well who in the hell cares if the stuff is dirt cheap when you don't even earn dirt for pay? Prices never go down. Ever noticed that?

The problem with America  is we have too many ppl that think they have a crystal ball that works. The real workable crstal ball is the one that is based on what didn't work throughout history. 'Free thinking" didn't work because, religious leaders said it was bad, Government says it is bad, ppl that manipulate other ppl say it is bad because every one thinks their "free thoughts" are the only "correct" thoughts, which doesn't make it free at all!

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:44:36 PM

  (0+)

Debunking "The false ideology that caused our financial failure"

Debunking "Regulation, Free Market, and Socialism - Framing the issues"

A Debunking of "Libertarianism: Loveably Kooky or Dangerously Crazy?" 1

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 402 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1032 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:07:38 PM

  (0+)

Keep up the "good fight."

by Craig Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:50:11 AM

  (0+)

Besides their extreme individualism (atomism)and selfishness (Ayn Rand influences) and totally unchecked corporatism I found appalling. To me the Mutual Aid Anarchist view of Pietre Kropotkin I found to be the best for both human sociology and biology (evolution.) Mutual aid among beings and volunteer associations are the key. To me we should return to the days when every 5 years corporations would come to the gov't (limited and unpaid) that gave them charter and their history of that time was assessed to see if said corp. had 'aided and supported the public good.' If they failed their charter was revoked, if they had fulfilled their function they were given another five years. I say we are a long way behind on judging these thousands of corporations! The best aspects of Libertarianism is the same as Anarchism that it is live and let live. Do no aggression to others. You can defend yourself. Think of each person as a country who have total control over their boarders (body) so sex and drugs are okay for you. No one can tell you otherwise. The gov't would only be there to protect you independence, not be a bludgeon for certain groups as it is now with the anti drugs and sex wars we have been living under. What it is is a kind of right wing version of Libertarianism only it really is fascism where the church, state and corporation meld into a noxious amalgam. Obama is no Liberal nor Libertarian. What does he look like?

by nightgaunt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 449 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:00:38 PM

  (0+)

Dear Gene, your strategy is obvious. Since you don't know what you're talking about, you insult people. Freedom haters like you help keep the world miserable and poor. Take a break; there are plenty of other lying control freaks ready to fill your shoes.

by Mr Stq (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:08:18 PM

  (0+)

I'm a Unionist of the breed who tried to form a more perfect Union in an experiment that is failing.  It is the setup of the FED printing trash/cash out of thin air by private banks who are a core cause behind the divide and conquering which is working awfully well.

I try to find the best from each side.  For I believe many from all sides are trying to help.  Thopugh sadly many are just holding on to a broken system in a Broken Promised Land filled with seperations. 

by Michael Dewey (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 245 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:23:16 PM

  (0+)

This article is a mass of generalizations, one of the worst forms of thinking that exists and a major (if not the primary) reason for so much misunderstanding between many individuals, and often down-right hatred by some for still some others. That alone makes this article useless for any valuable information and the author highly suspect for any sound reasoning on any subject regarding social interactions. If a writer/speaker refers to particular groups as though each was an amorphous entity rather than comprised of individuals who have separate minds/bodies and only in some limited scope/areas have agreement, then that writer/speaker has no understanding of the nature of human beings.

Far better - and which would demonstrate some reasoned thinking - would be for Gene Messick to critique the ideas of libertarianism (as opposed to the political party using "L"), rather than simply throw around a lot of names of people whose words and actions may or may not represent supposed ideas falling under an umbrella of the term "libertarianism". One problem Messick will have in doing so - should he take on the task - is that there is no clear definitive statement of what libertarianism is that is all encompassing. I will say though, that there are definite weaknesses in some of what has been written by many and labeled as libertarianism, including the common frequently used short list: " Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force." What they are, why and what are the alternatives have been provided by me previously here at OEN (and elsewhere in conjunction with husband Paul Wakfer) and can be read by those interested in substance rather than what was presented in this article.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (26 articles, 27 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 163 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:51:19 PM

  (0+)