Who Are the Runaways?

May 7th, 2013   Submitted by Seth King

missingchildrenAfter hearing about the news of three missing Cleveland women being found alive it inevitably got me thinking about the state’s role in this.

Naturally, as a market anarchist my initial thoughts were along the line that private detectives would have done a better job, and that police waste countless resources going after victimless criminals instead of real criminals. But that’s not really outside of the box thinking, at least not for somebody well steeped in libertarian philosophy. No, it wasn’t until I started thinking about children’s rights that I discovered a nuance in the statist reaction towards missing children.

Kidnapped children are a subset of missing children. Runaway children are also a subset of missing children. When children go missing the state is presented with a challenge that I believe would be greatly mitigated in a stateless, or market anarchist, society. The challenge is in searching for a number of missing children that is considerably larger under statism than under voluntaryism. Why is this?

Ultimately, whether the detectives are employed by a state or the market all missing children are desired to be found. However, under a regime where children’s rights are respected, the number of runaway children would be nearly non-existent, thus reducing the overall number of missing children desired to be found.

Many children, particularly ages thirteen to seventeen, run away from home. And they do this of their own free will. Sometimes they do it because their home life is so terrible. Sometimes they do it for love. The reasons are countless. But most often when a child runs away from home they know they must do so secretively, without being caught. If they are caught one of two things will happen. They will either be returned to their parents or they will become wards of the state, being sent to foster care or possibly an institution.

Under a stateless paradigm, however, children who wished to homestead themselves and leave their parents or guardians would never be compelled by force to return. To do so would be understood as kidnapping. With this protection in mind, children would not have to keep their presence or location a secret. This would necessarily reduce the number of missing children to those that are kidnapped or legitimately lost, say, in the city or wilderness. Thus, whoever is in charge of search and rescue would have a greatly diminished number of children to find and the confidence that those children actually want to be found.

97 Responses to “Who Are the Runaways?”

  1. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    Hmmmm,,,,, I’ll have to think about this.

    The question is when does one get rights? Isn’t children’s rights one of more contested areas of libertarian ethics?

    Personally I would go with giving negative rights to children at birth.

    But I have some questions about abortion. I think it’s obvious that a fetus becomes a human being before birth, but a zygote isn’t a human being. I think I’ll have to write an article about this.

  2. BrodieNo Gravatar says:

    In a stateless society, people get rights when they claim them. Hence, young children would not have rights, because they can’t claim them. It’s called the age of consent. Just ask yourself at what point can someone consent to sex, and that is the point at which someone now has rights.

  3. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    I think the most realistic way to handle children’s “rights” in an anarchistic society would be to say that they do not exist. Children should be considered the property of their parents until they get to an age where they can and do take care of themselves at which point they become adults with whatever “rights” adults have. A more basic question is do “rights” exist in some natural sense or are they just wishful thinking. My observations lead me to believe that power truly exists in a natural, provable sense while natural rights are a convenient fiction. I happen to share the bias to freedom of Rothbard, McElroy, etc. Unfortunately, it all comes down to who has the power. Intellectual apologists can come up with reasonable sounding arguements to support whatever regeim currently in power. Ideas are nice, but the sword always beats out the pen for humans are interested in short term survival first and foremost. Those few who put their ideals before personal survival die and are forgotten quickly.

    • The concept of rights is dependant on the society on live into.
      The society decide when, what, where some rights will be recognized.
      For example, a community could decide to allow their people over 14 to marry, because this is the minimum age they recognize a person is able to assume total responsibility for its actions.
      Another community could add a rule requiring the permission of parents if the age is less than 16.
      Another community could allow marriage at 6 because their Prophet did it 1600 years ago.
      Some community could allow persons under 14 to enter in some type of contract (limited in time or scope) but not others. And enlarge the scope of the contracts allowed as it become older.
      Other communities could set up some trial to allow a person to be able to enter some contracts.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        This is practically true. However it makes the concept of “rights” totally amorphous and ultimately pretty meaningless except as social conformities to get along.

        • BrodieNo Gravatar says:

          No it doesn’t.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Please explain. If somethuing is just an idea with no physical reality other than in our imaginations how can it be anything more than a means of social grease to get along. That does have valuie, just it is situational ethics.

      • JoshNo Gravatar says:

        This is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Parents can’t own their children in a free market, that violates the FIRST RULE of libertarianism: self ownership. You own yourself and the result of your actions, an axiom of property rights.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          First of all I am an anarchist not a libertarian. Non-aggression only refers to interactions with free people. My whole point is that children are NOT free people until they become adults and as such have no rights. So considering them as their parent’s property is a pragmatic way to deal with them until they acheive adult status. Probably it is not perfect, but it is better than trying to deal with a hodgepodge of differing “rights’ for kids of differing ages and abilities. It also recognizes that parents are the dribving force behind kids and will often fight to the death afor the right to raise their kids their way.

          • RagnarNo Gravatar says:

            If children have no rights, and are the property of their parents, then, carrying it to its absurdity, their parents would have every right to kill them, or rent them out to pedophiles. I don’t think that’s true, Fritz.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              One may not care for all the potential consequences of considering children as parent’s property. But I contend that it is the least offensive solution that I have considered. The vast majority of parents love and protect their kids. As things stand today the defacto owner of children is government. That leads to parents raising their kids for the state into good little socialists. If kids are considered to have “rights” where do you draw the line as to what rights and at what age?! I think having parents deciding ultimately in conjunction with their kids is the least offensive way to handle the problem even though it could lead to abuses on rare occasions.

  4. Bob RobertsonNo Gravatar says:

    Long ago, I came up with an idea that fits with this.

    Suing for Majority. A mechanism where an individual says, “I am responsible for myself”, declared, with the opportunity for witnesses to come forth both pro and con, rather than having all this happen automagically at a particular age.

    This is just a social standard position, of course, a formality like a bar/bat-mitzva. In fact, exactly like the -mitzva, a declaration that the individual wishes to be treated like an adult.

    Whether someone contracts with the individual as an adult is still a matter of choice. Lenders, sellers, and such, can have their own standards that may very well include age.

    The runaway is difficult. By their actions they are claiming their individual right to self determination. The Social Standard may come down on the side that the individual is “too young”, but that will be because of both convention and judicial precedent, rather than statute. Without the statute, it also means that each case is treated as the unique situation is really is.

    If the “child” does not want to be returned to their “home”, will someone accept responsibility for the “child”? Is it acceptable to the “child”? So much more humane and rational than coercive foster care or institutionalization, both of which are emotional deaths for children.

    No matter what your position, the voluntary answers are better than the coercive ones. The only leg those who advocate coercion can stand on is the “power” to remove a child against their will and against the will of the parents/guardians, with Sovereign Immunity.

    But this too is answerable in a voluntary society: If you believe there is abuse, bring suit. Show proof, and demand the restitution that the individual, the child, be allowed the choice.

    It is important to remember that nothing will ever prevent all abuse. Remember also that this event was not solved by any action of the coercive police. These women were rescued by private individuals acting on their own initiative.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Uh, that idea to a degree is in practice. In some states a minor can petition the court to declare him or her an adult. In fact when I was in highschool there was a student of the school who successfully did that at age 16.

  5. Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

    When a child runs away from home, who is currently responsible for returning them to their parents, or sending them to foster care or an institution? It’s the state’s police.

    Absent of the state’s police who would break down the door of the person housing the child in order to take them back to the parents? Would the parents be willing to break down the door and risk getting shot? Obviously some mediation or defense agency/agencies would be involved.

    That defense agency could very well contract with the child. You’re thirteen years old, you hate living with your parents, and you want out. You leave the house and contract with the defense agency. You pays your money and you gets your protection. Then you can live wherever you want, or with whomever is willing to take you in.

    Maybe the people willing to take you in even pay for the defense agency. Maybe the thirteen year old even gets a job (currently and conveniently forbidden without the parent’s permission in today’s world).

    All I’m saying is, without the state I highly doubt you’d see children have to secretly run away from home. They could simply move out any time they’re ready to homestead themselves.

    • BrodieNo Gravatar says:

      No defense agency needed. Kid can just buy a gun.

      • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

        That’s possible, too! Right now a kid with a gun will get gunned down by police. Ultimately, in order to get rid of the police I think defense agencies will have to come into existence.

        • BrodieNo Gravatar says:

          I think virtual currencies will get rid of the state.

          • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

            The state goes away only after folks stop accepting violence as a viable tool.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Whether you accept ait or not is irrelevant. Violence is about the only way most things are settled. That is why the 2nd amendament is so important. This is why I find the concept of nataural rights to be a sometimes aconvenient fiction. Power, which uiltimately rests in coercive violence, is real and natural. You ignore it at your own peril. rights are something we argue about in the ivory tower without much real meaning.
              By the way, were you allow my kids to run away to your place and refuse to give them back to me, then only violence would settle the issue. Rlight and wrong would be settled by whoever was best at killing. How do you see this as better than allowing parents ato raise and influence their own kids?!

              • KneejerkhereNo Gravatar says:

                What I see as better is when folks don’t chose violence, Fritz, neither to control, nor to protect, your kids.

                If you line up all the negative/evil terms you can come up with, rob, rape, kill, kidnap, yell at angriliy, intimidate, control, etc, on the left side of the page, and all the opposites of these terms on the right side, can you see your way towards a better world,….I can,….

                Stop doing things from the left side of the page, please.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Ironically, I prefer non-violence as a general rule. I just realize that in the real world violence is the final arbiter. I would prefer that the world was not this way, but I was trained in science (physics) and try to accept reality no matter how unpleasant. I seldom had to spank my kids just as my dad seldom had to spank me because I knew just as my kids knew that Dad could beat me if I needed it. I seldom needed it. By the way, Dad was 36 and 0 in the boxing ring. I definitely did not want him to truly hit me!
                  You see, I do not necessarily think that everything you were listing as “evil” or negative as being inappropriate. Ehics are situational. Usually the Christian Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is a good idea and a great way to get along in most societies. But there are lots of situations where killing keeps you alive and or healthy. Similarly for indimidation, yelling angrily, etc. When I yelled angrily at my kids they understood that they had done wrong and needed to correct their behavior. It is a way of focusing kids attention. Similarly for spanking. As Dad said, “Before you can teach anyone anything you need to get their attention!”

      • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

        Or she can appeal to vigilante neighbors,…

  6. AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

    Wow, children are property,…..not very free sounding to me.

    We got to go to court to solve our issues?

    Did you say you followed an anarchistic principals, or are you a fascist false flagger??

    I guess ya’ll got the right to your opinions, but please keep it down on the contradictions.

    Kids have the same right not to contract as anybody else, they don’t like it at home they should be free to seek greener pastures.

    This would make for more compassionate parents, while building more responsible children.

    As for defense agencies, if they use force to control people that are not using force to control others, that is a problem.

    It’s wrong to force a person to do anything that that person doesn’t want to do.

    FreeBorn Anarchism’s World Peace in 20 Words or Less,….

    When enough people pick up that banner we will have world peace, virtually overnight.

    And yes that includes ‘working’ for your crumbs from the bankster’s table.

    • MAMNo Gravatar says:

      Children being property is merely one perspective.

      • AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

        Hardly an anarchic perspective..

        What do you define as ‘negative rights’.

        For kidnapping victims I would recommend vigilante neighbors. In fact, that would be my recommendation for most on the spot crime.

        For abortion I hope that you won´t have to kill your baby, maybe adoption and responsible behaviors would be better options.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      I see no contradiction. You, like most libertarians, assume that children are fully human like adults with adult “rights”. I see children (we had 6) as potential humans who with a lot of work can grow into decent adults but need loving adults to guide them until they are ready for adult responsibilities. Who better to guide the children than their parents? Promoting full adult “rights” to children is often catastrophic. But if people considered kids as their parents’ property until such time as the kid matures into adulthood, the kids can be protected from both their own and outside stupidity. Of course such a system will be imperfect for there are the occasional parents who mess their kids up, but it is a practical system where the vast majority of kids will benefit from homes with loving parents who use DISCIPLINE to teach so the kid does not grow up to be the asshole that peer pressure and outside influences make most kids today!
      I do find your questioning my being an anarchist to be a typical response of the irrational person. Ad hominem attacks are uncalled for in a forum such as this. For the record, I am an anarchist in the sense that I do not believe that government is either necessary or desirable. I think children are not fully human as yet and as such do not have human rights but only the reflected rights of their parents. The real question is do ANY rights exist at all? I doubt it. Power always trumps rights so how does having “rights” or not change anything?

      • AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

        If you were aware of your contradictions you would correct your behavior, presuming your basic goodness.

        ‘Rights’ derive from right and wrong. It’s common usage dectracts from this definition. Yes, power trumps rights, but that doesn’t make forcing your neighbors to cut your grass ‘right’. I think forcing people to do things that they don’t want to do is ‘wrong’ and therefore, not a ‘right’.

        As an anarchist you know who Proudhon is, correct? Given that he is at the heart of ‘anarchistic’ theory, I think he would not agree to labeling car as your property, let alone your kids.

        So, if you think not wanting the government to tell you what to do makes you an anarchist, I’m afraid you should study a few more of the recognized voices in the movement.

        Anarchism is about working together for a better world, not about labels, not about forcing children into whatever mold you deem proper for their minds, but in reaching consensus with those involved in the situation. Do you ask your children thier opinions, and do you respect their ‘right’ to have one and see it respected by those more powerful than themselves, or do you just get out the punishment of your choice and force them to join in ad hominem, and physical, attacks of those that chose choices different than your own. I know it is easy to be ‘right’ long enough to deem every thought that occurs to you as correct, but you will often be mistaken.

        I’m glad that you identify as anarchist, the world is far less lonely than when I first converted to anarchism, but you clearly have not read the modern works that are currently accepted as mainstream anarchic thought. I think you will profit by taking the time to put Proudhon and Goldman into startpage.com and learn the principles that modern anarchism was founded on 150 years ago.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          If you agree that power trumps “rights” why should you care as to what is “right or wrong”? Isn’t the old adage”Might makes Right” what counts? When anarchists speak of “individual rights” arn’t we really just stating our own preferences? I would prefer a world where individual liberty was the philosophical choice of the vast majority, but the powerful don’t give a damn what my preference is.
          Yes I have read some of Proudhon. Frankly I care little if he or any other mainstream anarchist agrees with me. I do my own thinking. I did like his “War is the health of the state” comment.
          No, anarchism is not “about working together for a better world” and definitely not about consensus. As an aside, studies seem to show that consensus decision making is virtually impossible so long as men are involved. Women, being much more social, will conform away their individiuality to achieve consensus where men usually will not. Anarchy literally means no government. So there are all types of anarchists from communitarians to individualists. They often have little in common except the belief that government is not necessary or desirable.
          I am curious as to what you considered yourself before you “converted” to anarchism. I guess I have always been an anarchist though I was a junior in college before anyone defined the term for me. I like a lot of Thoreau”s concepts, but I learned rugged individualism at my father’s knee.
          Though I would agree that part of child rearing is promoting kid’s ability to think critically which involves eventually respecting their opinions, children learn mostly from you, not you from them. So I do think it pragmatic for parents to be dominant with rules of conduct leading to the childs eventual maturing into a decent adult. So in any conflict the parents’ wishes not the child’s wishes dominate. Since children pretty much by definition do not think well yet, parents need to protect kids from themselves as well as external threats. Thus my idea that in an anarchistic society the pragmatic way to handle “children’s rights” is to deny their existence but claim kids as parents property to prevent outside intervention. The one thing one never should do is to attempt to attain consensus decisions with your children. After they become adults you may try something like that, but until then the kids live under your roof and obey your edicts. Trying to split decision making with them simply confuses the child as to who is actually the parent.

          • AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

            Power trumps rights because the folks that will lay down in the face of force dominate the population right now. Might may make right as long as might will kill you if you resist, but it doesn´t make might a necesarrily positive thing. In fact, might making right is might making you a slave, if you are ok with that then what can I say, except that you will actually have to use your force to coerce me, I don`t curl up in a ball and cry for my mom when I face my fears. I wish there were more folks that didn´t allow their fears to control them.

            Ok, so I don´t get to define what is and what isn´t anarchistic, though if the word is to have any meaning at all it will need to exclude some definitions.

            Have you read of the Makhnovists? They seem to be the most resistant of the groups available for study. They fought the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine for 3 years before their limited numbers took them off the map, and out of mainstream textbooks.

            So, how would you define anarchistic? I will use the no coercion definition, including not coercing your kids into, or out of, behaviors, but I won´t coerce you, either. I will resist your coercion.

            Before I became FreeBorn, which is what you are before your parents make you baptist, satanist, or republican, I wore the lenses that my dad said properly interpreted the world, he was republican and lutheran, he was misled, and now I make my own choices.

            As for making kids mind their parents, I would let you raise your kids how you see fit, but if they want to come hang out at my house, I would defend their choice. How could I let might make right and consider myself enlightened? I am sensitive to your use of the term ´kids are property´ because I used to have that same thought, and I was wrong, kids are not property, they are human and have the same right to exist coercion free, just like anybody else. Parents do not have the ‘right’ to strike their kids or use other forms of coercion. These tactics are not needed if you are right in the eyes of your child. If your kid thinks you are wrong, he may be right,….though ultimately I wouldn´t force you to feed and house a kid that didn´t want to follow your rules. I would only defend his right to seek a better deal down the street.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Might is neither good nor bad. But it is necessary for survival without which your philosophy does not matter.
              Anarchistic just means without government. Government can be defined as the organized coercive entity in power in a certain area. Note that by this definition that parents are not “governments”.
              I am glad that you are trying to make your own choices now. Just be careful that you do not overreact and throw out the many good things I am sure your dad taught you.
              If parents have no right to coerce their kids, then how do you train children? Kids are not rational. They practice Jack London’s law of club and fang. They learn to become human by dint of a lot of hard work by their parents to civilize them. Some kids are more readily civilized than others, but my kids were hellions! This is a practical reason for considering kids the property of their parents without adult rlights. Also the state will claim de facto ownership of kids (as they do today) if they are not considered their parent’s property.

              When you say that you would support a kid’s “right” to seek a better deal down the street, you often are supporting his stupidity to choose to be a drug addict or ignore all the rules his parents put on him to help him develop self discipline. I would agree that an adult has that “right”(if rights exist at all), but a child by definition has not reached the status of adult mind as yet and requires guidance. When you take parental authority out of the picture you deny them an essential ingredient needed for their eventual maturation into a decent human being.
              You may wish to reflect upon the virtual impossibility of treating children as having adult rights. What about infants? Or toddlers? Even many teens require so much guidance, especially in today’s world of absurd peer pressures. Considering kids as parent’s property is not a perfect solution, but it can work and provides parents the assurance that their parental rights will not be stolen by idiotic social workers. The bottom line is that nature causes most parents to love their kids a lot. We sacrifice for them and try to do right by them. No one else will do that.

        • BrodieNo Gravatar says:

          How someone can have rights when that person cannot even take care of his or her self is beyond me.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Exactly. Kids will grow up quickly enough without trying to drop responsibilities on them before they are ready. Ultlimately self responsibility comes from loving parents enforcing discipline. But it takes time.

            • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

              If a child is being provided with love and guidance from their parents, they won’t want to leave.

              All we’re saying is that the kids have ultimate say over whether or not they’ll stay or look for greener pastures.

              If your child is seeking shelter and is on somebody else’s property, and that person is willing to defend the child from you, what are you going to do? Are you prepared to go to war?

              Right now you don’t have to because most people will call on a criminal organization, known as the state, to go fight to get their kid back.

              But under a stateless regime, you might be very hard pressed to muster the might to steal your kid back, especially if nobody is willing to help you.

              • AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

                Your definition of parents is exactly the definition of the state. Those with the power to coerce you. Accepted by the majority because they don’t want that coercion used on them. You are taking it upon yourself to determine that drug addiction is not the plan set forth by god/karmic consciousness for your kid. Maybe he is supposed to go through this tribulation to strengthen his character for the trials to come in his life. Maybe god needs to test him to see if he is worthy of heaven. You are not god, you cannot pinpoint which butterfly flapped it’s wings and caused Hurricane Katrina, you are not in a posistion to judge right from wrong for others, what may be right for you may not be right for me, and to advocate coercion to attain your goals preclude you from not being a government, the monopoly of force in a given area.

                Again this is hardly anarchistic. Discipline your child and form a mind controled robot, it’s very simple and quite accepted in this culture.

                Perhaps your kids were hellions because they rejected your authoritarianism. They recognized their own sovereignty and fought for their right to party.

                I’m afraid, Fritz, that until you escape the mind warp that was put into you by your parents and their parents before them that you can only view the world through the lenses you wear.

                Might is evil, in my opinion, what is the opposite of using force to control someone?? Freedom for that person. What would Buddha do? More freedom or less freedom. Fritz, you have to choose for you which is evil, I already made my choice, some years ago.

                If you haven’t noticed the social workers are terminating parental rights through the powers of the state, and then selling them to the Saudis.



                This last one is just funny,…I didn’t find any mainstream press, but that is not suprising in a land where the powers that be have control of the press.

                Could these agencies exist in an anarchic society? I think not, they will not be needed because the kids will just go down the street to get a better deal.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Computer is messing iup my replies. I will try to write short ones and hope they post.
                  The state coerces adults. Parents coerce their own kids that they take care of. Big difference.

                  • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                    Where, exactly, is this big difference, if I tell you what to do ´because I´m right, by god, and that is all there is to it´, and you are seven years old, what choice do you have, you could bust me in the lip, but then I pick you up, or worse, call the call my buddy with the badge. Our power levels are very unequal, and are you ok with me taking candy, or in this case freedom, from babies?

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      The big difference is adult vs child. By definition a child has not achieved adult statusyet. Would you give babies the same rights as adults? I get frustrated discussing “rights” because they really do not exist except as a convenient fiction. Pragmatism is more my line. A truly free society would not respect children’s “rights” because the kids are not ready for adult interaction yet. Keeping them as parental property avoids complications with those who would interfere with parents raising their own kids their own way.

                    • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                      Ok, Fritz, I’m with you on raising kids your way, only if they escape and make it to my house I will not force them out, and you will not force your way in.

                      If you can talk them into returning, well, they made their choice and they’ll live with it.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  No not a mind controled robot, but a young aduilt without brain damage from drug use. Hopefuilly they have the ability to think rationally because you kept them away from stupid peer pressure and statist influence.
                  It is questionable which of us is in the mind warp you mentioned. I never used drugs.
                  Might is not evil iln and of iltself. Indeed it is often the only protection one has from the dictatorial bastards who steal all our freedoms.

                  • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                    What drugs are you refering to, the ones that have been around for thousands of years, or the nice new ones??

                    We are all in the mind warp, depending on where our information comes from, and the distance we´ve traveled towards escape.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Perhaps we are all in some form of mind warp. I can’t prove athat we are not disembodied brains being fed our perceptions electronically, but assuming that our senses reflect reality reasonably accurately, I would say that most recreational drugs are at best a waste of time and money and at worst extremely destructive to the huiman brain. As an adult you have the “right” in my mind to destroy your brain if you wish. My kids do not.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Kids won’t be going down the street to get a better deal. Human nature comes down strongly on the side of parental rights and responsibilities.Kids are incapable of surviving without help. Parents have an inborn love for their kids, and are thus the logical caregivers. Most other ideas are socialistic BS. Also most parents will kill to keep their parental rights. The libertarian concept of giving kids rights just does not work on so many levels. Considering kids as parent’s property eliminates most of the conflict and provides a format for kids to grow healthy and free after they become adults.

                  • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                    Who´s human nature, Fritz, those that lived on this continent for millions of years, or the folks from across the lake that sooooo screwed up their own country that they had to escape the oppresion only to come here and screw up paradise,….

                    Most parents dream of killing, very few of them have the courage to do it, they have been neutered by soy, and cop dramas, they live in the matrix.

                    You don´t have to believe in the sovereignty of other life forms, we believe in you.

                    If you saw a kid that needed food, you would feed him, right? You wouldn´t use it as a hook to trap him, or would you??

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Phychologists have found that human nature is remarkably similar from culture to culture.North America was no paradise before the white man came. That is leftist propaganda.
                      I would probably feed a kid in need according to if I had enough for my own first. I have done so before. I would feed him meat which requires killing animals. We are evolved predators. IL have no use for the concept of animal rights.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                No Seth, children often do stupid things in a temper tantrum. At such times it is the responsibility of a parent to force the child to act properly so they can learn that such behavior is not rewarded. No, children have no right to choose where they live or whith whom. When they have that right they become adults.
                I would fight to keep my kids. That would include killing those who tried to steal them. But in a free society most people would agree that it was a bad idea to interfere with other parents’ child rearing. Itwould be a truly rare case where anyone would dare mess with your kids. I think it is far more likely that most people would be more inclined to consider kids as de facto parent’s property than that kids have adult rights when they obviously have not matured to a point of self reliance as yet.
                Just curious. Do you have kids of your own? I have known a number of people with attitudes similar to yours and Anonymous’s. They usually either are childless or only have young kids and are thus inexperienced.

                • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

                  I do not have kids and have no plan to ever have kids.

                  My kids would be so free that they would likely get kidnapped by the state.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    I am truly sorry to hear that. I think free minded folks should be making lots of babies to help balance out the statist vast majority. Wilth your own kids you can home educate and teach them about freedom to keep the ideal alive. Also children are one of the few worthwhile things I have found in life.

                  • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                    I have kids, they didn´t like the idea of me thinking of them as property, now they don´t talk to me so much. They got a heavy duty dose of mind warpage from the folks that rescued them, but I have faith that blood is thicker than approved mind control techniques.

                    I could be wrong,….

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I assume that when you say your kids were “rescued” from you that you mean the state interfered somehow. I am very sorry to hear that for the indoctrination of state pawns is very pervasive to young minds. Your “mind warpage “of your own kid’s minds is how I think society should work. When the state indoctsrinates kids we end up with collectivilst crap like Obamacare. Right or wrong, they are your kids not the state’s.

                • Children being considered the property of their parents is probably the best solution.
                  This because if the parents do a bad job, their own genetic line will suffer and/or disappear (genetically and memetically).
                  When a child would become a free person?
                  When the peers of society accept him in society.
                  In the past there were some social or religious rites of passage where the children gained increasingly freedom of action and recognition of their status from society.

                  • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                    No, it´s not. That you can even think of another human being in those terms is a statement of how dumbed down your religion really is, if you squish an ant do you terminate a life that is not yours to take??,…if you put the satanist dad mind warp on your kid have you twisted an otherwise self directed person??,….put monarch mind control into startpage.com and learn what you have been getting fed,….

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      No one is self directed. To some degree we are products of our upbringing. The choice is do you want your kids reflecting your values or someone else’s?

                    • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

                      Ok, and if your parents are muslim, christian, satanist, or some other authoritarian brand of upbringing, what then??

                      Are these kids just screwed by being forced to do what the parents they didn´t choose bring them up to be? These parents don’t let freedom work like god intended, they cut off your allowance, or worse, spank you to gain compliance, if it was good enough for grandpa, it is good enough for you. My dad spanked me and I turned out just fine,….excepting only that I hit little kids too?? 0.o

                      When do we stop forcing kids to do things they don’t want to do?

                      In your system, we don’t stop. Kids are property, and a little heat on their bottoms keeps them that way. Pass the scimitar!

                      I think there is a better way.

                      That you haven´t accepted that controling others with violence is unacceptable, your system remains flawed. You´ll have to hire thugs to make them comply.

                      Not exactly what Bakunin or Goldman had in mind when they picked up the black flag and called it anarchism,….

                      Nor me, Fritz,….

                      Thanks for your support, Seth.

              • RagnarNo Gravatar says:

                Depending on the age of the child, motivations of the person sheltering them, (are we talking about a 45yr old man claiming he’s “married” my 10yr old daughter?) and a number of other factors, yes. I might very well go to war.

          • JoshNo Gravatar says:

            So handicapped people have no rights?

            Children are entitled, in a free society, to the same protection and freedom as anyone else. A free society isn’t a place where kids can run around violating the non-aggression principle. It also isn’t a place where parents can use force to control their children. Respect, consensus, and love will have to guide a family structure, not fear of the belt.

            Poor parenting is subsidized by the state because children are forced to bear abusive, neglectful, or otherwise unbearable parents.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              You an Anonymous are not realizing that children are and will be controled. The only possible choice is by whom? Considering children as parent’s property allows those people who chose to create them and usually love them to have control. Otherwise government or “society” will control them as they do now to both the child’s and parents’ detriments.

              • JoshNo Gravatar says:

                freedomainradio.com you need some stefan molyneux homie.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  stephan molyneux is new to me. Frankly I do not care about him in this context. I was hoping that people here would respond with arguements back and forth. My bad. I am going about this backwards. First one should define what one means by “rights” since there is huge disagreement as to what they are or even if they exist. I look at rights as a “convenient fiction”. They are commonly accepted rules of conduct acting as social “grease” to help people get along. They have no basic reality outside the context of a particular society. I was trying to discuss a practical way to deal with children in a free society. I have run into kneejerk reactions to the idea of considering kids parents’ property until they become adults. I think the main problem is that libertarian types wish to see kids as mini-adults. That is simply not true either physiologically or psychologically. Kids are naturally dependant and as such should be accorded protection by those who created and love them. This is practical and in accord with both parental and child psychologies. Pretending that kids are adults before their time is quite destructive. I find many youngsters before they have kids of their own espousing ideals about kids “rights” but realizing after a few years of havling a kid how misinformed they were. Without external discipline a child never learns self discipline. So you control the child for his own long term benefit. According to the child, this may require violent coercion. This is a matter of reality not theory.

                  • KneejerkhereNo Gravatar says:

                    What you have suggested as a panacea sounds strikingly like the status quo, you can see how well that is working,….

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      The status quo as you put it works fairly well for probably the past 10,000 generations of humanity. Sure traditional family has its down sides at times, but in general it works very well which is why it has lasted so long. I am all for folks trying nuanced change in methods of child rearing, but the onus of proof is upon the experimenters for the traditional methods are time tested. Much of the problems with modern society have to do with trying to ignore traditional childrearing practices like corporal punishment. The leftist mentality hates anything that might stand up to governmental control. Traditional child rearing promotes traditional masculinity which constantly questions authority and is willing to use violence if needed to throw off government control. Is it any wonder that our socialist leaning society is trying to downplay traditional family?!

              • AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

                Children do not need to be controlled, especially by violence, if you worry about their safety better to control the environment they are raised in.
                You were raised to believe that using violence to attain your goals is a valid means to your ends. That is hard to argue with,…until violence is used to control you,…then oh ho!! violence is bad, but still ok for little kids,….
                Which is it gonna be, Fritz, slavery for everybody, or freedom for little kids, too??

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  There is no freedom for children because they are dependant by nature. The only real choice is who will control (own) them. I prefer parents. They tend to want the best for their kids as oppossed to the state which is the de facto owner of kids today with parents as unpaid caretakers.
                  Violence works. It is one more tool to help these immature protohumans mature into free individuals. We humans are animals with violence as a part of our psyche. No amount of discussion will change that fact. I accept it and use violence when expedient.

                  • AnonNo Gravatar says:

                    LOL,….you suggest that someone controlled by violence their whole lives, violence as, if not the only, at least the ultimate, example of authority, the acceptable means to YOUR, as oppossed their own, ends, as free. Someone that ultimately let your violence succede, someone that subjugated their desires to your violence. Them kids have no idea what freedom is because you denied it to them with your attempt to control them through the use of fear.

                    What you have accepted as normal is not normal, this misconception of yours has warped your whole world view in order bend the reality to fit what has been put into your mind in justification of your rule by force.

                    Your acceptence of violating the rights of folks weaker than you decries your professed anarchism.

                    Can you grasp the concept ‘doublethinc’?

                    Honestly Fritz, let it go, you are wrong to use violence to control people, expecially those weaker than you, it’s ok, go forth and sin no more,…

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Yes I understand the concept of doublethink. I think you are practicing it, not I.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      You try to stipulate that my acceptance of violence is not normal but that your non-violent conflict resolution is. That flies in the face of thousands of generations of human experience and every other animal species on the planet. So long as we remain physical entities, violence will be a necessary part of our lives at least outside the ivory tower.
                      CHILDREN ARE DEPENDANT AND THUS NOT FREE BY THEIR NATURE! That is reality. So children will be controlled by necessity. The only question is by whom? Whether you use violent or non-violent means to teach kids, you are imposing your views upon them. That is the essence of all teaching and particularly parenting. You need to get over the fallacy that children are fully human with aduilt rights. They will have to mature into freedom not have it handed on a silver platter. Good parents use tools like violence or its threat to influence their kids into becoming decent adults.
                      You make the authoritative statement from on high that violence is wrong. Are you a god to tell we mere mortals rlight and wrong?! Violence can be used wrongly like any other tool. It also can be used properly as in spanking children to “get their attention”.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      My anarchism is about my desire for personal liberty. Frankly your liberty is incidental to me, but to obtain my own it is simpler to promote your freedom as well. You assume that my use of violence automatically infringes upon other’s “rights”. In the real world one uses violence and its threat to promote your own freedom. Others do the same and uiltimately you get a balance where individuals try to avoid infringing upon one another because they are afraid of the consequences (violence). This is the closest we are liable to get to a free society in an imperfect world filled with humans.

                    • PeteNo Gravatar says:

                      Ok, Fritz, you keep expanding your knowledge of anarchism and the path will become clear to you.

                      You will learn that we are not separate, that your liberty is interdependent upon mine, as well as your children’s, we are not incidental to each other.

                      That the social revolution needs more time to reach the minds of those denied the knowledge of it’s existence is self evident.

                      When anarchy reaches the masses you will not see our past as our future, anymore. We will be free of those that would control us with violence.

                      The danger is in those that control us by denying us concepts we need to be free, a slave that doesn’t know he is a slave is the victim of the most perfect form of enslavement.

                      When one has the knowledge of god is he not closer to the god than someone that doesn’t have knowledge of god’s existence? If your knowledge of god and ‘godness’ is less reliable than mine how do you want me to sound?

                      If it is wrong for me to do it to you, it is wrong for you to do it to me.
                      If it is wrong for me to control you with violence, it is wrong for you to control me with violence.

                      Is it better that your child follows your advice because he has determined that his dad has the best ideas, or because he doesn’t want to get hit, again, or is it better that the child has had the responsibilty of caring for himself from a young age and is capable of making his own decisions long before the age of 18?

                      Is it freedom or slavery for your child, Fritz?
                      Does he have to wait until he is 18?

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Pete, so long as humans remalin physical animals vilence will be with us. It is a part of our psyche.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Pete, I do find your use of the unfalsifiable statement about a slave who does not realize his own slavery being in the most perfect form of enslavement to be an old debating trick or logical fallacy called “poisoning the well”. Essentailly you state that my points are automatlically invalid because I can’t see my own enslavement. That makes it easy for you to ignore my arguments while continuing your own diatribe as the “enlightened one”. Sorry, I am into honest debate not trickery.
                      You say that if it is wrong for you to do it to me then it is wrong for me to do it to you. So what? I personally do not think there is any “right” except your own personal sense of ethics. No, I do not wish to be controlled by violence or coercion, but complaining that it is not “right” to do so is a joke. You must have the power to be free. Violence is unfortunately the major tool to keep people from controling you.
                      As for using violence or its threat to control your kids, I say again, if you want your kids to grow up to be decent adults you will use the available tools to guide them including violence. Children are quite animalistic when young. They need discipline from a loving parent to help develop self discipline when they are mature.
                      You ask if it would be better if a child has the responsibility of caring for himself from a young age? This is a ridiculous scenario. Children CAN’T be responsible for themselves. They are dependant usually upon their parents. Sure one trys to promote responsibility upon the kid as they become more mentally mature, but you have to help them to survive in the short term to reach the long term goal of responsible adulthood. For example, you have a toddler that you wish to teach to cross the road safely. You don’t put him out in heavy traffic by himself because he has the “right” to be free of your coercion. No, you take his hand and show him how to look both ways, etc. If he jerks free and tries to run across the road, you grab him up and spank his ass to get his attention. Then you try again. Violence has been used for thousands of generations because it works.
                      Note that I have never said anything about age 18 being the point of maturity. I have known young teens who were pretty mature and 25 year olds who needed a keeper. It is about mental maturity and responsible actions not physical age though most of us do mature mentally as we do physically.

                    • PeteNo Gravatar says:

                      Alright, Fritz, now we are getting somewhere, I agree with you that children need to be guided. But as much as I hate to admit it, it does take a village, if you teach your kids about trolls without a troll around to make it real for them they will be controlled by the shadows and fears created in their minds as children for their entire lives and will never know freedom from fear. (as for letting trolls roam free, not up to you to judge people who don’t force their way into your existence)

                      As for your mind control progamming, until you are aware of the sophisticated techniques being uses on you today, I mean, you do watch law and order, don’t ya?, you will not know of your slavery, I didn’t know of it until just the last few years myself. Read Fritz Springmeier.


                      Not a disciple, just an informed human being.

                      Thanks for your advanced debating knowledge that you have shared, I’ll try to remember that,….

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Pete, Tte concept that Hillory made famous, “It takes a villiage…” is technically wrong, but I will give you that to the extent that we all live in this society children need to eventually learn how to deal with it. My brother and I have argued about this for years. He sent his kids to public schools while I homeschooled until the state screwed me over, and then sent some to alternative school. I think kids do better in learning to deal with society by being kept out of it while they are young and very impressionable. Then one gradually exposes them to society in measured doses much like giving a vaccination. The idea is to allow some mental maturation to occur before letting peer pressure and the social brainwashing one sees on TV to have a chance with your children.

  7. Sima QianNo Gravatar says:

    But without government-monopoly police, who would save the kidnapping victims?

    • MAMNo Gravatar says:

      This right here Sima is why we NEED the government!!! That and because without government who would BUILD THE ROADS!!!

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        A variation of that argument has been used in the past to justify the staus quo being necessary to do something or other. i.e. Without slaves who would pick the cotton? That is the 19th century variation of the 18th century justification of slavery- without slaves who would harvest the tabacco?

    • anonymousNo Gravatar says:

      Vigilante neighbors,….and a new economic system where we all work and we all go to the walmart and get what we want from the bounty of full employment without paying anything more for it.
      Right now we pay the billionaires to live it up, without money we all share equally and kidnapping would have no value in the market, unless you liked that kind of thing,…0.o,…??

  8. anonymousNo Gravatar says:

    I still want a smilely guy,….:-(

  9. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    Pete, I only watch TV when at a friend’s house and they have it on. I do not own a functioning TV and have not for about 35 years. I do miss watching the occasional ballgame but find most programing to be infantile and quite collectivist. I live in the backwoods off the grid but go to town a couple times per week where I get to use the computers at the library. My point is that I have made choices in my life to live free as best I can in this collectivist society. If other free minded folks would do it also instead of just talking the talk perhaps our society would be a lot more individualistic and freedom oriented.
    My brother’s degree was in child psychology so we have discussed methods of child rearing extensively over the years. The idea that kids will learn not to fear by youthful exposure may or not be accurate. But do you want them not to fear? Fear is a necessary tool for survival. I want my kids to always be anxious about society, government, and people in general for ultimately very few people can be trusted very far. Collectivists want trusting souls that will screw themselves over doing what they are told unthinkingly. I guess I prefer Heinlein’s curmudgen anarchist to Asimov’s grey men.
    As for not knowing of my own slavery, I basically agree that because of being raised in our society we can’t know what real freedom is. I have conjectured that it would take at least 3 generations of people trying to become free for some people to recognize what real freedom is. Still, I believe that I am far more aware than most people. I do know that irrtionally following the mantra of non-violence will not help the cause of freedom. Realizing that Captain Kirk was right when he said that we were all killers but we could just choose not to kill today is far better than trying to be angelic and totally reject violence. I am a human male with lots of testosterone running so I am aggressive and violent by nature and like it that way. But I also have a brain so I can choose the venues for my violence. That is what freedom is all about, making choices. Live free.

  10. PeteNo Gravatar says:

    I knew we had more in common than most random folks, I turned off my tv in ’92. I live as far off the grid as I can get, too. I lived in an rv for a year with nothing more than a solar cell kit from Harbor Freight Tools. I’m in a house now, but looking for place to park my rv so I can live in it again.

    Fear is a wonderfully survival oriented thing, until it controls you to the point that you won’t venture off the beaten path never knowing the exhilaration of breaking new ground. It is the main tool in the slaver’s arsenal.

    I don’t totally reject violence, if somebody attacks you please feel free to eliminate his genetic line, we are trying to live free of coercive force, but I also don’t think that kids automatically get handed a crap sandwich just for being born.

    The family I’m renting from has a mom that is a harridan. I didn’t know before I committed to moving in, but she is very tiring with her constant harping on how her kids don’t measure up to her standards, in fact, I haven’t seen her be happy with anything,….she reminds me of my dad, and me before I woke up to the carnage. I hope I can help her to realize that she is only gonna push her kids away.

    I never knew what the other side of my domination of the situation felt like, now I got an overflowing bucket full, I’ll be glad when the the karma balances back out,…..

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Yes, fear could become incapacitating. I am probably too damned stubborn to allow that to happen to me, but as I get older and less physically cmpetent I am more adverse to risk taking.
      Given the opportunity I prefer living without initiating serious violence. I think that being a human male with testosterone means you will be somewhat violent, but that is normally playful. I do not totally reject the initiation of violence though. Sometimes eliminating an enemy before they become too powerful is the only pragmatic way to freedom.
      Actually the violence towards one’s children is normally intended to benefit them in the long term. I do know what you mean about the mother you rent from though. I just think that most parents and their children benefit from the selective use of violence to enforce certain important behaviors. Negative conditioning is often necessary with young kids to focus their attention so that the more positive conditionings can take hold. I just take exception to the idea that kids have the same “right” to freedom as an adult. That goes against nature and would get kids killed if religiously followed. That being said, my old girlfriend told me I was a wimp because I very seldom actually spanked my kids. Of acourse they knew I would so it was not necessary as often.
      Yes what goes around tends to come around. But I still believe in spanking kids when needed. Fortunately I’m too damned big for anyone less athan a pro fighter to spank.HA!!
      I hope you can find your way back to living in your RV out in the boondocks. I used to spend half my year up north doing construction so I lived in tents or trailers quite a lot. I am amazed at how expensive it has become to park an RV. I do love country life!

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Since I do not know what you are talking about, I guess not. What is your experience in country living, survivalism, etc.?

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      I developed my interest in individual liberty and country living as a kid. My dad was a rugged individualist who moved us to the country when I was about 8. With the various potential troubles on the horizon, I think the wurvilvalist mentality makes good sense. Unfortunately I just do not have the finances to do much more than exist month to month. The ruling elite gamed the system hundreds of years ago to protect their power and perqs in perpetuity. So they own or control virtually everything making ilt ever more difficult for the common man to make a decent living. Do you consider yourself an anarchist? You may wilsh to look up Claire Wolfe. She is into the back to the land ideology. She coauthored The State vs the People which is brilliant.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      By the way, I built my own house out of native stone. Check out Scott Nearing and his methods for stone masonry for beginners. I built the about 600 sq ft house in 1996 for $1,000 which shows just how badly government zoning, inspection, etc. screw us all over. Without government interference most folks could build their own homes and work their way up without beilng in debt. The housing bubble that destroyed our economy was mostly due to the hugely overpriced homes out there necessitating loans that make us vilrtually slaves to a pile of sticks that we call homes.

  11. PeteNo Gravatar says:

    It looks like Kurt’s books aren’t easily available.

    If you can find them you’ll like them, maybe at a gun show near you.

    Sounds like you got it made,….do you have pigs and chickens??

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      I do not know what I wrote to give you the notion that I “have it made”! I barely survive from month to month. If a significant problem were to occur, I have no idea how I could deal with it. I have worked hard wilth very limited resources to try to get set up so I can survive on little money. But I did not realize just how little the money would turn out to be. So long as we are stuck even in the periphery of our society, money is necessary to survive.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Many years ago I read numerous survivalist oriented authors. Saxon’s name is familiar, though I do not remember his philosophy in particular. I guess my concepts come from a large hodgepodge of authors, friends, and relatives, in particular my father. I loved Robert Heinlein’s sci-fi. I read Pearson and Shaw’s Life Extension soon after it came out and am still a member of the Life Extension Foundation. George Smith’ Atheism was just sensible. Rothbard had a lot of good ideas but did not recognize that corporations were part of big government and thus anti-free market. Peter Duesberg wrote the AIDs Myth and many articles pointing out the likelihood that HIV is essentially a harmless “passenger virus” and that AIDs is really caused by drug usage, malnutrition, etc. destroying one’s immune system to where HIV can even exist iln one’s body. 96% of AIDs victims are drug users, and over 2% are hemopheliacs with their well known immune system problems. That leaves less than 2% of Aids victims with unknown causes which is typical of any major disease. Wendy McElroy is a brilliant thinker with an unusual ability to write clearly. All of these and many more have linfluenced my thinking. I totally agree with none of them, but still find a lot of what they write very interesting. Wendy has been lately one of the very few who still seems to be promoting freedom. I think she is a bit naive concerning the necessity of using violence to poromote large scale change, but her basic ideas about anarchism are spot on.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      By the way, no pigs and chickens. Just a bunch of cats and wild animals like deer, coons, armadillos, and a few snakes and lizards. I do not have a good water source to be able to raise stock well.
      I get so tired of especially libertarians espousing what I call the Republican Attitude which excuses all the evils the rich perpetrate upon the rest of us. They sound like parrots saying, “Don’t you believe in free enterprise” or Are you a socialist?” as if what we already have in the USA wasn’t social tyranny for the common man with the only semblance of “free enterprise” being the cutthroat competition between corporations that promotes financial slavery for the working class. I am a very strong believer in real free enterprise, but realize that it can exist only to the extent that government does not exist. Despite libertarian theory stating otherwise, the free market is antithetical to government. Just look at our system with all the hoops one must jump through to even start a business legally. This is intentional of course. Those in power keep their power and perqs by denying access to the vast majority of people who otherwise would participate in the free market with competition bringing down prices and bringing up quality. Instead we have the death of the mom and pop stores and the advancement of Wal-Mart which uses essentially slave labor in China and elsewhere to get obscene profits.

      • PeteNo Gravatar says:

        Yeah, if you can find Kurt’s Survivor series you can make your self pretty self sufficient on any small plot of land, it will require daily work, but everything does.

        We are trapped in a world where those that know the real deal are marginalized by not taking the mark of the beast and those that accept the system of buying and selling are blind to having the mark on them.

        To me having a paid for place to live is having it made, but then I would have chickens and pigs, maybe I would get them by growing worms.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          You are probably right that I should have chickens and pigs. I raised hogs as a boy on the farm. Not having a supply of running water is a big problem though in raising stock. I remember carrying 2 5 gallon buckets of water at a time from the pond to the hogs in the barn during the winter when I had to cut a hole in the pond ice to get the water. Here I do not even have a pond. One has to have a bulldozer and find a vein of clay to line the bottom of the pond to get lt to hold water wlth all the stone in the soil here.
          I have been havilng problems with my garden this year. We had a one month drought and my truck went out bon me so it was tough bringing enough water from a stream 3 miles away to keep the garden alive. I am getting a few tomatoes and the cucumbers may do OK now that we are getting some rain regularly. Being self sufficient is a great goal, but it is far more difficult than the books make it out to be. One should start small and go from there. I started awilth the idea that ones shelter is usually the major living expense for most people. I knew a bilt about stone masonry from my father and was able to build very cheaply by usling native stone gathered within 5 miles of my place. So now that I am stuck in retirement I at least have a place to live in that doesn’t cost me. I heat ilt for the cost of chainsaws, gas, and oil. I would like to be more self sufficilent about food, but I am not sure I have the physical energy to do much more these days. Getting old sucks!

          • PeteNo Gravatar says:

            Survivalplus.com seems to be up.

            Here is another link, I’m sure his phone number hasn’t changed.

            http://www.pssurvival.com/ps/food/Survival_Foods_Kurt_Saxon_2004. pdf

            You can’t go wrong with Kurt’s books, they have how to make most anything.

            He has hundreds of helpful articles on surviving a little better for less.

            Getting old does suck,…

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Thanks. I have been focused on day to day survival, family problems, and dealing with first lyme disease and later sciatica. I have not paid any attention to survivalist literature in many years. What I have mostly done is to reduce my living expenses by building my own house, staying off the grid, and driving old junkers to death. Real survivalism is probably beyond me any more. I am unsure if anyone could survilve for long if we had a serious EMP attack. There would be so many starving people roaming the hills that I do not see much chance of keeping what you have prepared. I am probably too cynical today. I have just found that the vast majority of folks will not risk their little nitch for something as trivial as individual liberty. At some pointb you run out of energy to fight all the shit.