Over on the Mises blog, my post Don’t worry–you don’t exist: Or, why long-range planning is really impossible drew some comments from one James Redford. Now years ago he had written some good things about my theory of rights on some boards or groups. So we had some exchanges. I confess I had forgotten most of this.
In any event. On the Mises blog post he wrote in a comment that he was glad “that some of my teachings have had an effect on you.” I had no idea what he was jabbering about but had a vague recollection that he was some kind of loon or nut. He was insinuating, I thought, that I was using in my arguments something he taught me… and vaguely implying I should have given him credit. I thought this ridiculous and said so; he escalated with attempts at “proving” how I had plagiarized him and was a liar.
So I have refreshed my memory. First, as to who this dude is. I remember now: he has gone in the past, on various boards, as Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He has written before about his various experiences with drugs, and how this has given him insight into the universe, and the “omega point,” some nonsense like this. See, e.g., my discussion of this stuff in my post God-Trips] and in this anti-state thread, where he talks about his “god-trips”. In his article Jesus is an Anarchist (2), he signs off thus:
Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists’ technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here.
Uh, yeah–the Omega Point… direct revelation of Christ via drugs which incude various so-called Levels of so-called God-Trips. Like, wow, man. I think he actually believes this stuff. Another funny comment: in our email conversation in 2000, I jokingly used the term “jelly head” to refer to stoners or those who do drugs, after he started going on about all the revelations he’d gotten from doing drugs. He didn’t know the term “jelly-head,” so I explained:
Jelly head–slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I guess the term implies that you do so many terms it turns the brain to sludge, jelly.
His humble reply? “Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people.” Uhhh, HOkay.
And his website shows he’s a 9/11 conspiracy nut, too. 1 And let’s not forget his various handles: Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He reminds me a bit of Per Malloch, another smart young libertarian who also liked my estoppel theory and Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, and who also liked drugs, unfortunately a bit too much–he OD’d in college a few years ago. I wonder how long Redford will be with us. Oh well, at least he’s a “Christian,” so if he OD’s he’ll just ascend to the Jesus Omega Point, I guess, where drugs will be free and plentiful.
Anyway, he wrote in the recent Mises thread:
I’m glad that some of my teachings have had an effect on you. Ergo, your somewhat recent statement of “an ought from an ought.” (Your September 8, 2006 11:19 AM reply under “How We Come to Own Ourselves.”)
He was referring to my comment there to someone: “I agree you cannot get an ought from an is. I am not. I am getting an ought from an ought.”
Redford is implying I got this from him. Why? Here is something he wrote me long ago (which I had of course forgotten). During one of those conversations he agreed with my Humean point that you can’t derive an an ought from an is; and he said he liked my own theory because in it I derive an ought from an ought. He wrote (back in February of 2000):
One remarkable thing about your rights argument is that it seems to totally by-pass the is/ought dichotomy. Rather than simply derive an “ought” from an “is” (which alone is impossible), it derives an “ought” from an “ought”: an “ought” which any objector to libertarian punishment necessarily already holds.
Note that he here was simply agreeing with what my own theory did: that it derived an ought from an ought. Therefore avoiding the ought from an is problem, which I was of course already aware of. (It permeates my arguments; and see also p. 1432 of my 1994 review essay on one of Hoppe’s books (discussing how Hoppe’s argumentation ethics overcomes the Humean is-ought dichotomy; and p. 136 (text at n. 13) of Hoppe’s 1989 A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, which I had of course devoured by the time I wrote my estoppel theory: “In fact, one can readily subscribe to the almost generally accepted view that the gulf between “ought” and “is” is logically unbridgeable. …. On the problem of the deriveability of “ought” from “is” statements cf. W. D. Hudson (ed.), The Is-Ought Question, London, 1969; for the view that the fact-value dichotomy is an ill-conceived idea cf. the natural rights literature cited in note 4 above.”)
Now. I have used “ought from an ought” on occasion, at least in the last couple of years, as I have explained and defended my views on rights, and the problem with the is-ought dichotomy. Did I get the phrase from Redmond? I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that a phrase he used to describe my own theory stuck in my head and bubbled to the surface years later. If so, I woudl have no problem “admitting” it, as he charges; why not? After all, it’s just a natural way to describe what my own theory does, as he admitted way back in 2000. And although he seems proud that if you google the phrase “ought from an ought” in usenet groups his is the first one mentioned, as if he had some great achievement (in just finding a way to describe why my own “remarkable” rights argument!), as I showed him, if you google the phrase on the web, several uses of it show up, e.g. one in 1973. (Redford’s emphasis on the fact that he has the first use of the phrase on usenet, and that there are only 13 or so in a web-wide google search, is also odd: there are no doubt various ways to word the idea that you can only get an ought from an ought, other than the literal phrase “ought from an ought”, which his and my google search espicked out, so the basic insight or idea or way of putting it is probably out there many more times than that simple one search would show. Not to mention that there are tons of publications not yet searchable.)
Regarding my citing of the 1973 use of the phrase, of course I did not list that to imply that I got the phrase from that source rather than from Redford; but to show that it’s probably a natural way for people to describe this, that many people can either independently come to, or that is floating around out there and occasionally used. I think it’s likely I either read this phraseology in various places, or maybe independently came up with it myself. I mean if you say that an ought can’t come from an is, so you have to start with a presupposed ought (as Hoppe and I both argue, in a sense; even Rand, as I noted before, with her hypothetical ethics), it’s, um, natural to say that you can’t get an ought from an is, but only from an ought. Redford’s attempt grab fame for such an obvious insight is frankly bizarre. If the thought of using that simple phrase to describe my very own rights theory was put in my head by Redford’s email to me back in 2000, whoop de doo. Fine. Who cares?
So, he lists part of our email conversation from 2000 (he, um, saved it, you see [appended below as his site is now down]), to prove I’m a plagiarist and liar. Okay, so let’s recap. I think his “ought from an ought” phrase is a kind of obvious way of stating one good thing about my own rights theory. That, er, I came up with. I think it’s good Omega, er Redford, came up with it. I think many people have. I may have too; or may have remembered it from Redford’s email to me, um, 6 years ago, or maybe from seeing others’ writings on related subjects. I’m even grateful Redford was friendly to my rights theory, but I think it’s frankly bizarre of him to keep score of such minute things and to try to take credit for such a thing, or to accuse me of plagiarism, or lying. On the other hand, I guess there are worse things than being insulted by a self-admitted drug-using conspiracy-theorizing born-again Chloride-Omega Christian with Direct Revelation to God.
Appendix: from http://web.archive.org/web/20091026185507/http://geocities.com/vonchloride/n-stephan-kinsella-emails.txt:
Below is contained the text of the first contact that N. Stephan Kinsella initiated with me. Below is my reply to him where I used the phrase "an ought from an ought" to describe what it is that his estoppel rights argument achieves. But keep in mind that the concept of deriving "an ought from an ought" is not actually expressed in his writings of this period, and it would only be on September 8, 2006 that N. Stephan Kinsella would first express this concept and the phrase (after further correspondence with me, which he again initiated, in September 2004 where I again used the phrase). (See his September 8, 2006 11:19 AM reply under "How We Come to Own Ourselves," http://blog.mises.org/archives/005577.asp .) That is to say, even though Stephan Kinsella's estoppel rights argument derives "an ought from an ought," he did not put it in those terms or explicity express the concept of it until September 8, 2006, long after he had had read my email replies to him using the phrase and its explicit concept, of which he initiated all these contacts with me from his readings of my usenet postings and Anti-State.com postings where I repeatedly used the phrase. Nor by saying that am I crediting him with being the first to achieve deriving "an ought from an ought," since Hoppe's argumentation ethics is along similar lines to Kinsella's estoppel rights argument. Moreover, his recent attempts (in November 2006) to pretend as if my public postings didn't catch his attention further demonstrates how disingenuous he is being, as this correspondence which he initiated on both occations (in 2000 and 2004) shows that he most certainly did take notice of my public writings on this matter, and was moved enough by my public postings to initiate contact with me on two separate occations. #################### Received: from [216.78.234.1] by web1005.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:03:28 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:03:28 -0800 (PST) From: "Count Lithium von Chloride" <vonchloride@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Estoppel defense To: "Stephan Kinsella" <kinsella@swbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1199 Dear N. Stephan Kinsella, I'm sorry that I haven't replied sooner to your inquiry. No umbrage was intended; it has simply been awhile since I've checked my email. Thank you for taking notice of my usenet posts promoting and defending your estoppel rights argument. This argument, along with Rothbard's praxeological critique of all logical alternatives to a state of full human self-ownership and first-use first-own original acquisition of exogenous property, puts hard-core libertarianism on unassailable ground. One remarkable thing about your rights argument is that it seems to totally by-pass the is/ought dichotomy. Rather than simply derive an "ought" from an "is" (which alone is impossible), it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" which any objector to libertarian punishment necessarily already holds. The estoppel rights argument is very profound and importaint. Never forget that the future of civilization itself is at stake. No fallacies are ever more widespread and grave than economic and political ones: the conseqences of which are measured in human carnage and bondage. It is for this reason that Rothbard's greatness is immeasurable: for he has created and left to us the intellectual weapons necessary in which to slay the wreckers of civilization. In answer to your question: I haven't as yet met your acquaintence. By ASC I assume you refer to the Austrian Scholars Conference? I haven't been to one, although I would like to some day. Keep up the good work in elaborating and extrapolating the Rothbardian model in all its untarnished, radical glory! Rothbard would be proud. Thank you. --- Stephan Kinsella wrote: > Count, thanks for defending estoppel so vigorously > on the various forums. I just saw some of the > exchange from a few months ago, while perusing > deja.com. Do I happen to know you from the ASC or > elsewhere? > > Best, Stephan Kinsella ===== Æü©®£¿¢æ §ÄåÇÏÒÑØýÞ ½ª¾¼³¤µ --Count Lithium von Chloride __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com #################### Below is the second time that I use the phrase "an ought from an ought" in email correspondence with Stephan Kinsella which he initiated via a message to me on the Anti-State.com Messenger on August 07, 2002, 11:06:32 am. #################### Received: from [209.208.77.165] by web60710.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:49:02 PDT Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:49:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Count Lithium von Chloride" <vonchloride@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: anarchist To: "Stephan Kinsella" <Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com> In-Reply-To: <003501c4983c$5effd220$a3301942@KinsellaLaw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3053 --- Stephan Kinsella wrote: > What is your own formulation...? Below is my logical derivation of the Nonaggression Principle: 1.) It is irrational and illogical to expect others to treat you better than you are willing to treat others. This is simply the principle of the Golden Rule, and the Golden Rule as a purely political ethic is completely congruent with the libertarian Nonaggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group of people may initiate the use of force against another, or threaten to initiate force against another. Everyone, by definition, objects to others aggressing against what they regard as their own property. If such were not the case then, by definition, such action would not be an aggression but a voluntary action. But ultimately all just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary transactions (which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such resources were expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are deceased, where the first nonaggressor possesses the resource (which can then be considered another form of homesteading). Thus, for anyone to come into possession of property which either was not homesteaded by themselves or which was not obtained by a voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are obtaining a good by involuntary means from another who can trace their possession of the resource either to direct homesteading or through voluntary transactions leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of the two types given above). Yet, by definition, this aggressor would not want others to take his property against his will which he had come into possession of by voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such property, even if it is just their own body. 2.) Also, one cannot deny the principle of rightful self-ownership without committing a performative contradiction. For one must, at the very least, presuppose one's own rightful self-ownership in order to be able to argue against the principle. As it may well be asked: How can one give such an argument if one does not even believe onself to be the sole rightful owner of one's very own body (and vocal chords)? Thus, it is for this reason that the principle of rightful self-ownership rises to the level of an inescapable axiom--i.e., that which cannot be denied without necessitating its use in the denial. Thus also, it could never be argued that argument is impossible without thereby committing a performative contradiction. As well, this logically means that the principle of rightful self-ownership is only valid as a per se universal human principle. For A cannot coherently argue that only he is a proper natural self-owner whereas others are not. For then B could "steal" A's argument and use it against him--i.e., if it is valid for A then it must be valid for B as well. For as Abraham Lincoln pointed out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow the logic of his below argument!): "If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?-- "You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. "You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. "But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you." (Abraham Lincoln, Fragments on Slavery, c. April 1, 1854) In addition we would not then have a universal ethic for mankind as such, but instead an arbitrary ethic--i.e., we would have to posit an unnecessary and arbitrary additional ethical rationale as to why rightful self-ownership is not universalizable, and would thus be violating Ockham's Razor. It is for this reason and others that the libertarian concept of self-ownership is apodictically true. Nor, it should be mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. 2b.) This same logical principle also applies to external property (i.e., external from one's body). Since all virgin land had to be at some point homesteaded by a first user, one cannot coherently argue against the properness of this principle for then the human race could not even exist (and hence the arguer could not even exist). Thus, to argue against the homesteading principle would be to necessarily argue against one's own existence, but the very act of arguing presupposes one's own right to argue and hence right to exist (as one cannot argue without existing). Thus, one arguing against the homsteading principle would be committing a performative contradiction. It is for this reason and others that the libertarian concept of righful ownership of homesteaded resources is also apodictically true. Nor, it should also be mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. > Jelly head--slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I > guess the term implies > that you do so many terms it turns the brain to > sludge, jelly. Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people. > Thanks for the links but I am totally uninterested > in doing drugs or in New > age or mystical stuff, especialy drugs, esp. as I > have a job, and now, a > family. I see absolutely no merit in centering one's > life around this stuff > at all, but of course there are many ways to live a > life. Well, what you don't know, you don't know--otherwise you would know it. But I would rather know than not know. Nor was I attempting to get you to so-called "turn on, tune in, drop out." Remember, you're the one that asked me about these things, and I merely answered your questions honestly. Take care, Mr. Kinsella. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail" target=_blank >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail #################### Below is Stephan Kinsella's reply to my above email (which itself was a reply to a query he made of me, from contact that he initiated with me). I failed to respond to Stephan Kinsella's below email, which ended this set of correspondence. #################### X-Apparently-To: vonchloride@yahoo.com via 216.109.117.224; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:30:51 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [66.216.122.121] Return-Path: <stephan@kinsellalaw.com> Received: from 66.216.122.121 (EHLO web1.pjdoland.com) (66.216.122.121) by mta430.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:30:51 -0700 Received: from KinsellaLaw (cs662548-163.houston.rr.com [66.25.48.163]) (authenticated) by web1.pjdoland.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8C3UQ532275 for <vonchloride@yahoo.com>; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:30:26 -0500 From: "Stephan Kinsella" <Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com> To: "'Count Lithium von Chloride'" <vonchloride@yahoo.com> Subject: baby ownership Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:31:11 -0500 Message-ID: <001a01c49878$f3455040$a3301942@KinsellaLaw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 In-Reply-To: <20040911234902.48213.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Length: 4680 interesting, and I think we have a lot of agreements (re rights--and I was of course not saying your brain is jelly, just explaining the slang). Although, I am not quite sure what relevance it is what we *expect*--i.e., predict--others will do. What possible relevance is our prediction of others' behavior for a normative proposition or theory? Anyway-- let me ask you this. It seems to me that the bottom line is that when two or more people have a conflict over a given scarce resource, then to the extent these people are interested in rightness, justice, goodness--i.e., the fair or just solution-- then (and BTW here, they have all already adopted the first ought, so you are right, it is an ought from an ought) -- it is obvious that the only solution, as a general matter, is he who has better title, among these claimants, should be recognized as its owner. And it seems also obvious that the better claim is the one with an objective link and/or earlier link to the property. And clearly, this means the first possessor, the one who homesteaded a previously unused or unowned thing. I would guess you and I roughly agree so far. (although in the case where not all of them want a just solution-- i.e., at least one of them does not care if his actions are justified--then he is from the point of view of the others, like an animal; just a technical problem to be dealt with). In the case of the scarce resource of the body, it seems somewhat different. As I have mentioned in some of my previous writing on contract law and inalienability. Now I grant you, as between a stranger and myself, I have a stronger claim to my body: I have been using it since I existed. He is a latecomer. But what about your parents. I mean your body was not sitting around unused before you homesteaded it. Rather, it was matter part of your mom's body that gradually became "you". So in a sense, at some point, the mom (and maybe the dad) were the owners of the physical stuff that later became stuff in your body. So the question is, if you are a self-owner, that means that at some point the pieces of matter in your foetal body that were previously owned by your mother, come to be owned by the fetus/baby. Whenever this takes place (conception; quickening; birth; 2 years old, does not matter; it's some point), the question is: why does the mother lose ownership? Why is it transferred to you? After all as libertarians we believe you lose ownership of something only by voluntarily giving it away, or as some kind of punishment or restitution in response to a voluntary criminal act. What in your opinion is the reason why ownership of the baby-stuff is lost by the mom and transferred to the baby? I can see a few arguments but they are not as clear as with alienable (unowned) property. And an alternative view is that the title is NOT lost: that parents DO own their kids; it just happens that most parents are decent enough to manumit them. What say you, Count? -----Original Message----- From: Count Lithium von Chloride [mailto:vonchloride@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 5:49 PM To: Stephan Kinsella Subject: RE: anarchist --- Stephan Kinsella wrote: > What is your own formulation...? Below is my logical derivation of the Nonaggression Principle: 1.) It is irrational and illogical to expect others to treat you better than you are willing to treat others. This is simply the principle of the Golden Rule, and the Golden Rule as a purely political ethic is completely congruent with the libertarian Nonaggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group of people may initiate the use of force against another, or threaten to initiate force against another. Everyone, by definition, objects to others aggressing against what they regard as their own property. If such were not the case then, by definition, such action would not be an aggression but a voluntary action. But ultimately all just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary transactions (which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such resources were expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are deceased, where the first nonaggressor possesses the resource (which can then be considered another form of homesteading). Thus, for anyone to come into possession of property which either was not homesteaded by themselves or which was not obtained by a voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are obtaining a good by involuntary means from another who can trace their possession of the resource either to direct homesteading or through voluntary transactions leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of the two types given above). Yet, by definition, this aggressor would not want others to take his property against his will which he had come into possession of by voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such property, even if it is just their own body. 2.) Also, one cannot deny the principle of rightful self-ownership without committing a performative contradiction. For one must, at the very least, presuppose one's own rightful self-ownership in order to be able to argue against the principle. As it may well be asked: How can one give such an argument if one does not even believe onself to be the sole rightful owner of one's very own body (and vocal chords)? Thus, it is for this reason that the principle of rightful self-ownership rises to the level of an inescapable axiom--i.e., that which cannot be denied without necessitating its use in the denial. Thus also, it could never be argued that argument is impossible without thereby committing a performative contradiction. As well, this logically means that the principle of rightful self-ownership is only valid as a per se universal human principle. For A cannot coherently argue that only he is a proper natural self-owner whereas others are not. For then B could "steal" A's argument and use it against him--i.e., if it is valid for A then it must be valid for B as well. For as Abraham Lincoln pointed out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow the logic of his below argument!): "If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?-- "You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. "You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. "But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you." (Abraham Lincoln, Fragments on Slavery, c. April 1, 1854) In addition we would not then have a universal ethic for mankind as such, but instead an arbitrary ethic--i.e., we would have to posit an unnecessary and arbitrary additional ethical rationale as to why rightful self-ownership is not universalizable, and would thus be violating Ockham's Razor. It is for this reason and others that the libertarian concept of self-ownership is apodictically true. Nor, it should be mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. 2b.) This same logical principle also applies to external property (i.e., external from one's body). Since all virgin land had to be at some point homesteaded by a first user, one cannot coherently argue against the properness of this principle for then the human race could not even exist (and hence the arguer could not even exist). Thus, to argue against the homesteading principle would be to necessarily argue against one's own existence, but the very act of arguing presupposes one's own right to argue and hence right to exist (as one cannot argue without existing). Thus, one arguing against the homsteading principle would be committing a performative contradiction. It is for this reason and others that the libertarian concept of righful ownership of homesteaded resources is also apodictically true. Nor, it should also be mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. > Jelly head--slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I > guess the term implies > that you do so many terms it turns the brain to > sludge, jelly. Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people. > Thanks for the links but I am totally uninterested > in doing drugs or in New > age or mystical stuff, especialy drugs, esp. as I > have a job, and now, a > family. I see absolutely no merit in centering one's > life around this stuff > at all, but of course there are many ways to live a > life. Well, what you don't know, you don't know--otherwise you would know it. But I would rather know than not know. Nor was I attempting to get you to so-called "turn on, tune in, drop out." Remember, you're the one that asked me about these things, and I merely answered your questions honestly. Take care, Mr. Kinsella.
- Update: see my posts Natural, Positive Law, Tax Evasion, Rituals and Incantations; Rothbard on Conspiratoids; A Rant Against 9-11 Truther Stupidity.[↩]
