Given a referendum issue that would by vote Y/N reduce government interference, I vole. None of the 3 refs on 2014 AZ ballot are of this type. I will NOT vote for a person to "represent" me in any manner in a coercion-based system. So I do not vote, again...

Because the FDA is not going to wither away anytime soon, we're left currently with after-the-fact measures. One not being used (or even mentioned except by me AFAIK) but which everyone could do is to make it clear that they will socially preference AGAINST anyone who does NOT immediately self-quarantine his/her self for the next 21 days after finding out that someone with whom s/he has had contact in the last 21 days is ebola positive OR has been in contact with someone who is ebola positive within the last 21 days. This is the only self-responsible action to take that will prevent further spread. If everyone understood that the "penalty" for not taking this measure will be the absence of all voluntary association by others, for however long it takes the offender to restitute those who become ill (or even have to self-quarantine themselves) as a result of the contact that should never have happened, very few individuals would fail to self-quarantine immediately. Being shunned by the vast majority of one's associates is a powerful incentive to conform, especially when the reason for the shunning is logically reasonable, such as with ebola transmission prevention.

The above requires an open information society (like your suggestion, Tom, requires a truly free market) - a society in which individuals know that having an open life in regard to their interactions with others is necessary for an optimally functioning society. Being self-responsible, demanding that others be so and socially preferencing others accordingly, both negatively and positively, is a must for the much improved society that can be without the coercive State.

Currently there is no widespread mechanism for returning value to the originator of "valuable" ideas - assessed by an individual as having value, unless such originator is directly related with the sales of a product or service - but even this method does not distinguish well between the originator of the idea and some duplicator of it. The actual concept of individuals returning value for value gained in the realm of information, as contrasted with products or services, is one that has yet to take hold in the general public. People need to realize that unless the producers of information (which includes novel ideas, music, literature, etc) are returned value *by those who find that information of value*, there will be less forthcoming from that producer and likely fewer producers overall in the future.

Government's mechanism of patents is not the solution to getting value even to creators of products; they are a stifler of competition and innovation and also a tax (coerced payment) as Tom writes. But before mechanisms for returning value for value gained can hope to be successful, far more people need to come to the realization both that the value returning by those valuing is in their own best interest AND that government is NEVER a solution.

"Protection and Serve" by Gov has long become Orwellian in content - previously towards the "underclasses", now for virtually all except the elites. You've made it very clear, Kevin, for those who haven't yet seen through the oxymoronic character of Gov with its very basis being removal of voluntary choice and distortion of all choices.

Very good, Kevin.
Corruption is NOT the essence of the problem of & with government. The problem is with the system of providing for social order - what most people really want and have for centuries (millennia?) assumed can only be had via coercion, threats of and actual physical force. As you infer, it wouldn't matter if all the government officials, elected and appointed, were of the purest heart and intention for "public good"; the nature of the system in which a group decides what is and is not permissible for value-differing individuals to do is THE problem. Even when everyone is a "good guy", it won't be near optimal because everyone IS an individual. Whatever such "good guy" politicians/bureaucrats decide, it will be harmful to some/many because it is not what those individuals want.

Bradley Manning did the right thing in revealing the GovEnforcer-produced horrors he saw and the manipulations the US government had been (and still is) engaged in. It is no surprise that the US government seeks to lock him away for more years than any among them who have ordered or actually done the harm that was made public by Bradley's revelations. In fact most of those who have issued the orders and/or committed heinous acts will only be judged by their fellows who choose to have no voluntary association with them - an action that is strongly recommended to all. In the meantime, those of us who admire Bradley for his sense of rightness and courage to follow through on his sense of horror need to make our voices heard AND not voluntarily associate with those who continue - despite our attempts at reasoned logic - to malign Bradley Manning for his rightful action. Laws do NOT necessarily = "the right thing".

Well said, Tom! And the analogy is good too, though many today will be seeing that film clip for the first time... and don't keep in mind that it IS their "vehicles" that are taking the plunge.

The point can't be repeated too often: "Like all parasites, the state is evolved toward one and only one means of survival: It is driven to suck your blood, growing itself at your expense, until it has drained you dry. The “fiscal cliff” drama is just the political class equivalent of a tick hiding in your hairy places, or a leech secreting a pain-killing chemical to keep you from noticing its presence and its effect."
Hopefully more are getting the picture and will actually come to understand it... Then move to close the "water faucet", letting the State begin to whither away while building their personal relationships with others based on value exchange, not government's method of physical force threats and actual initiation.

Restitution from Elizabeth Coast is what Jonathan Montgomery deserves for the loss of liberty he has endured over these many years. The restitution should be whatever Jonathan determines will return him to the state of lifetime Happiness that he was at just before Coast made that false accusation. If the restitution that Jonathan, as the victim of a harm, calls for is determined by some to be too great - or by others to be too small - then negative Social Preferencing (withdrawal of voluntary association with him) is the appropriate action by others. And obviously negative Social Preferencing is the appropriate action towards Elizabeth Coast by others until she fulfils her restitution to Jonathan, in addition to being wary of other things she has claimed as being true.

Paul Marks aptly points out the errors of those who view employment by others as some sort of servitude/serfdom - which historically was instituted by governments. The current chains are imposed by governments on employers who very often cannot legally fire an employee or even fail to hire certain applicants, BUT the employee can fail to work as agreed (reason for specific employment contracts) and the employer cannot assume resignation if it's a "strike action". Government chains are also heavy via regulations on all sorts of "self-employment", where being part of a Government-favored group is necessary and only favors those in that group by keeping it small, monopolistic in fact.
Those who target the employer-employee relationship itself as some sort of evil are actually helping to promote governments in their self-hallowed role of "protectors of the downtrodden".

"Away with the parent of monopoly — government — and all other monopolies will vanish like fog before the morning sun". Very true. The government IS the "parent" - creator - of all the mechanisms that remove voluntary choice by individuals, distort all choices and prevent unknown numbers and types of other choices from coming into existence.

Thanks, James, for bringing this essay to greater light. It is interesting for its farsightedness, though the author Henry Addis does not (here at least) refer to what would be a "sane and rational basis" upon which the "re-organization of industries" could take place in order that "gaunt destitution be known no more in all the land".

I suggest that a sane and rational basis for society is how to characterize, "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" : http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.h... This is not a breezy read.

This treatise with the twin-framework implementations of the Social Meta-Needs theory - The Natural Social Contract (a new conception with no relation to Rousseau's or anyone else's) & Social Preferencing - are envisioned as replacements for existing governments, all of which are described & regulated (in the US alone) via thousands of volumes & many millions (?billions?) of words enabling tens of thousands of lawyers (far more than in Addis' day) to charge handsomely to serve as "gatekeepers" for the common folk. Therefore all of this is not a breezy skim-through read - a warning for those looking for & used to soundbites on which to walk away with, thinking that such bromides are really foundational and meaningful as a solution to serious social problems. Intellectual chewing is urged and public reasoned critiques, using quotes.

Lastly I'll add the point, that "(doing) away with .... government" needs to take place by withering it, rather than violent means or attempts to "vote it out". The first alternative would only replace the present administration or even governmental form with a version at least equally as determined to prevent voluntary individual choices. The second is an acquiescence to the concept of rulers/ruled as necessary for stable orderly society. While the claims by some online that "withering away" government is "just too 19th Century", I suspect that those individuals have not adequately studied non-violent methods for social change. They appear to prefer a violent change, being "all for bludgeoning that bitch in a ditch with a piece of lead pipe" as one wrote while disparaging the idea of withering away government. Such comments reflect a low level of personal responsibility from a wide view and long range perspective.

As for some ideas on withering away of the State, I've included them in general in, "Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of Self-Responsibility and Social Order": http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html

A paradigm shift in thinking about human interactions is necessary for the "sane and rational basis..,.. enabling gaunt destitution be known no more in all the land" to come into being. The first link above introduces a new paradigm for that needed - and often sought - basis.