text:
Reading The Ethics of Liberty, Part 4 – Rothbard's Second Argument for Self-Ownership
In my last post, I argued that Rothbard's discussion of self-ownership in chapter six of The Ethics of Liberty rests on a fundamental confusion between descriptive and normative claims. Individuals in the state of nature might control their own bodies and certain external resources, but this is insufficient to establish ownership, since ownership is a fundamentally interpersonal and normative concept.
In this post, I turn to chapter eight, in which Rothbard presents a second, independent argument for the claim that individuals are full self-owners, and delves deeper into questions pertaining to the ownership of external goods and the wrong of aggression. There's actually quite a bit packed into this chapter, but the concept of self-ownership is so important as to deserve a post of its own. So self-ownership will be the exclusive focus of this post. I'll return to chapter 8 to talk about some of the other issues it raises – including the issue of ownership of external property – in a separate post.
The argument for self-ownership presented in chapter eight is essentially the same as the argument Rothbard gives in his more popular book, For a New Liberty. I have criticized the argument as he presents it there in an earlier post on this blog, and think that everything I said about it applies to this version as well. However, I will not rehash those arguments here. Instead, after summarizing Rothbard's argument, I want to try describing the problem with it in a different and more fundamental way. Rothbard's argument for self-ownership, I will argue, reveals a basic mistake in his understanding of the concept of property – a mistake that plagues not only a great deal of Rothbard's thought on the subject, but that of many other libertarians as well.
Rothbard's argument begins with the premise that there are three, and only three, possible views to take on the issue of self-ownership (45):
- Libertarian self-ownership: Each man has full ownership of his own body.
- Communism: No one has 100% of his own body; each person has an equal part of the ownership of everyone's body.
- Class Rule: One group within society fully owns themselves and owns everybody else.
Option 2 cannot be realized in a large society, since it implies that "no man is free to take any action whatsoever without prior approval by everyone else in society," and such approval would be "physically impossible" to obtain (46). Besides, says Rothbard, it is "absurd to hold that no man is entitled to own himself, and yet to hold that each of these very men is entitled to own a part of all other men!" Option 3, on the other hand, is ruled out because it is not a properly universal ethical rule (45). That leaves us with option 1 by default. Libertarianism wins.
As I said before, I think there are a lot of problems with this argument. But the fundamental problem, I now think, has to do with Rothbard's understanding of what it means to "own" something. In fairness, this problem is not unique to Rothbard. One finds it in Locke, too, and in much political thought that follows in his path. But it is an absolutely fundamental problem that infects much of libertarian thought in general, and Rothbardian thought in particular.
Rothbard's argument is based on the assumption you either own something or you don't, and those are essentially the only two possibilities. "Ownership," for Rothbard, means "full" ownership, and the unstated assumption is that there is some clear and determinate natural fact about what precisely that entails. And this is true even when Rothbard seems to complicate matters by allowing for "partial" ownership as in the case of universal communism. For what "partial" ownership seems to mean, in this case, is simply that you're given an equal vote with your co-owners about how to exercise the rights of full ownership that you all jointly wield.
So, for Rothbard, ownership means one thing, and either you have it or you don't. And if that was really true, then there really would seem to be only three possibilities regarding the ownership of A's body – 1) A himself owns it, 2) Everybody owns it, or 3) Some group larger than (1) but smaller than (2) owns it.
The problem is that ownership isn't this simple. There isn't any obvious natural fact regarding what it means to "own" something. Instead, ownership can mean different things – can have different moral implications regarding the rights and duties of the owner and others – in different situations. And so, as a result, there aren't just three possible options regarding ownership of the self. There are infinitely many options.[1. An extended version of an argument similar to that which I present below can be found in Barbara Fried's review essay on left-libertarianism (published version available here, gated).]
Consider the ownership one might have in a piece of land. At its core, we might think, to own a piece of land is to have the right to use the land as one sees fit, and to exclude others from using it without one's permission. But even if we grant this "core" concept of ownership, it leaves a great number of questions unanswered. What rights does one have to, say, the minerals located below the surface of one's land, and how deep do one's rights go? How high above one's land do they go? High enough to prohibit planes from flying over it? Satellites from orbiting above it? Does your ownership give you the right to dam any rivers that might flow through your land and onto mine? If your land blocks the only path between my land and some valuable unowned resource, like an ocean, do I have the right to cross your land without permission to get there?
The point of this litany of questions – and it is one that would be easy to extend ad infinitum – is not to push a kind of skepticism. I'm not saying that these kinds of questions are unanswerable, or that all answers are equally good. What I'm saying is that different answers to these questions will get you different accounts of what it means to own something, and that Rothbard's "either you own yourself or someone else does" argument depends on illegitimately ignoring a vast range of conceptual possibilities.
Because what is true of your ownership of land is true of your ownership of yourself. One possibility, to be sure, is that we all own ourselves in the robust libertarian way that Rothbard assumes. But there are plenty of others. We might own ourselves in this robust way except that others have a claim-right against us that we provide them with assistance in situations of dire emergency. We might own ourselves in the sense of being able to use and sell our labor pretty much as we see fit, but lack the liberty-right to sell body parts like kidneys or hearts. We might have the liberty-right to use and sell our labor, but not the claim-right to the full market value of our labor. And so on.
All of these positions, of course, would need to be argued for. The mere fact that they are conceptually possible doesn't itself entail that they are morally defensible. But the same is true of Rothbard's own position. Rothbard's argument "works" by wrongly claiming that there are only three possibilities regarding self-ownership, two of which are obviously insane, and therefore his position wins by default. But if there are infinitely many possibilities, this victory-by-elimination strategy won't work. The libertarian position of full self-ownership, just like every other conceptually possible position one might take on the issue of self-ownership, stands in need of independent moral argument.
Here's one take-away point from this somewhat abstract discussion: denying full libertarian self-ownership doesn't require you to believe in the legitimacy of slavery, or forced eyeball-transfers, or any of the other bugaboos that libertarians like Rothbard invoke. Everyone agrees that those things are wrong, and so everyone agrees that we "own" ourselves in the sense of possessing rights over our bodies necessary to block those kinds of forced use. But that leaves open whether we own ourselves in the more robust way that distinguishes libertarianism from other contemporary liberal or conservative positions. Maybe we have the right not to have our labor taxed and maybe we don't. But the fact that chattel slavery is wrong doesn't settle it.
"Does your ownership give you the right to damn any rivers that might flow through your land and onto mine?" Kind of appreciated the typo here. 🙂
Cursed rivers!
Thanks for pointing that out. 🙂
More seriously, though, thank you for addressing this head on. This kind of simple elimination to get to self-ownership is what made me think for a long time that libertarianism was a bunch of nonsense. If people in the media like to call libertarians "market fundamentalists," there might be good reason for that: the proper definition of "fundamentalist" is one who believes in going back to the fundamentals and stripping away generations of accumulated tradition surrounding a set of beliefs. For the libertarian, it often seems enough to reiterate the fundamental point that rights are individual and not collective, rather than get into the dirty work of determining what exactly those rights are and what they mean practically.
Aeon Skoble
Matt, your objection hinges on this claim: "Because what is true of your ownership of land is true of your ownership of yourself." But why is _this_ true? You point out a variety of potential complications in understanding property rights in land (e.g. does it extend into space), and then infer that because these are non-trivial with non-obvious solutions, that therefore ownership of other things besides land must be similarly complicated, ergo Rothbardians (and Lockeans generally) have blundered. While your premise is completely right (and we solve those problems best with common-law, not Rawls), I am not following the inference. Flip it around: can others legitimately claim to own me? If so, I'll need the argument. But if not, then it seems that self-ownership does come out on top. Now, I've seen good arguments against self-ownership on metaphysical grounds, e.g. in NoL chapter 9, but in a purely political context, self-ownership is a perfectly good heuristic, and you seem to be objecting to _that_. I'm not yet on board.
I had a similar thought to Aeon's. Your analysis of Rothbard's argument about property in external objects (external to one's body and mind) is spot-on. But regarding ownership of one's body and mind, I don't see it. Someone who proposes that they own my body has at least a very strong presumption against their view. This is why, e.g., those who support drug laws have a rough argumentative road to hoe. Am I missing something obvious here?
It's possible that I'm misunderstanding your point (and Danny's). But it sounds to me that you're making a claim about the plausibility of the Rothbardian story about self-ownership, vs. the relative implausibility of that account for ownership of external goods. But in this post, I'm not actually making any claims about the all-things-considered plausibility of either of those accounts. I'm simply focused on Rothbard's argument for self-ownership, and its dependency on a claim about the conceptual possibilities regarding self-ownership. Rothbard's argument is that there are only three possibilities, and two of them are very bad, so the third (libertarian) option must be right. My point is that there are many more than three possibilities, and so this argument-by-elimination doesn't work. Self-ownership in the Rothbardian sense might be intuitively plausible; it might be all-things-considered plausible. But you'd need to argue for it in a different way than this.
Aeon Skoble
Well, I'm not seeing the connection you make here: "Because what is true of your ownership of land is true of your ownership of yourself." Why does "it works like this with land" imply "it works like this for your body/mind"?
I see no reason to think that the conceptual space is narrower in the case of one's body than it is in the case of land. And I think I put forward considerations in the post to suggest that it isn't narrower. Ownership in one's self consists of a bundle of rights in just the same way that anything else does, and sticks can be added or removed from that bundle giving us different accounts of ownership.
Aeon Skoble
But the reason we use the bundle idea for property rights is that it's a complex thing in all the ways you note. But I don't see why one's own self has the same problems – there's no question as to whether we reach the sky etc. Might be circular.
Arhur Krolman
Ownership of land and the space above the land out beyond the galaxy might indeed physically conflict with other's ownership rights. But please provide a scenario where my trading my kidney for something of my liking physically conflicts with someone else's property rights. Thanks.
Kevin Swinson
As far as the example of land goes, I feel the problem you propose is not a question of what ownership is (which I think is what you intended) but rather what is owned in that scenario. I assume Rothbard means by ownership "the right to exercise control over," and as far as self-ownership goes its very clear exactly what he's referring to.
Also, with your examples, assuming existing titles are valid those questions are easily answered, infact mineral rights are often specifically adressed in most contracts pertaining to land. (Im a dumb college kid so dont quote me on this but I believe airspace is owned by the state at a certain altitude) Damning the river seems to be rather straightforward as well; if the river is owned by one entity than they can damn it as they please, if you find their river intrusive on your own property they must either redirect it around their property (through their own or a consenting third party/parties' property) or, if no such option exists, damn the river.
Most likely it is because I, by my own decree, am a dumb college kid but I fail to see how these examples kill Rothbard's argument for self ownership specifically.
Nice discussion, Matt. Just one comment:
"The point of this litany of questions – and it is one that would be easy to extend ad infinitum"
Presumably that is another typo: it is not possible to extend the list ad infinitum in a finite time. But it is perhaps easy to see how the list would be extendable ad infinitum.
Incidentally, I have stopped receiving notifications of new posts on this site. Has something on the site changed or is my email playing up?
Maybe "ad nauseam" would have been better.
"Maybe we have the right not to have our labor taxed and maybe we don't. But the fact that chattel slavery is wrong doesn't settle it."
Have you written about Nozick's "Tale of the Slave"? For what it's worth, I don't think it commits the Sorites fallacy; I think it takes stock at each point to see whether the principle has changed, not just whether each step is very similar to the previous one.
If this is typical of Rothbard's style, then I have no idea of why people think he was a great thinker. Not only has he limited his attention to ridiculously extreme options (ignoring the moderate/practical/common-sense alternatives), but his definition of "communism" is completely fabricated.
In practice, Communist rule was class rule. In theory, communism involved group ownership of goods (particularly durable goods), not of bodies. There are reasons to connect the ownership on one's body and the ownership over the product of one's labor, but it is ridiculous to treat them as identical.
If I own everything except human bodies, then I may demand the marginal value of human bodies as well. If I own only all of the Oxygen in the universe, and if no one else monopolizes another element like Nitrogen, then I may also demand the marginal value of every human body. If I corner the market on Oxygen, then the rent I may charge you to use my Oxygen is everything you else produce above subsistence plus everything else you own.
So a state owning all durable goods ultimately owns all human bodies as well.
I think this makes sense. But I would point out there are forms of socialism which reject ownership in all its guises, including group or state ownership.
I would also say that one can salvage at least this much from Rothbard's argument: interferences with liberty amount to a claim of at least partial ownership over other human beings. Claims of ownership, even partial ownership, over other human beings are repugnant; therefore etc.
Fair enough, though I wonder if the repugnancy claim will bear all the weight that's put upon it once we get clear on the many and varied things that ownership might mean. Of course ownership in others is repugnant if it means you have a right to enslave them or steal their eyeballs. It's much less clear that it is if all it means is that you have a right to their assistance in cases of dire need.
Aeon Skoble
A right to whose assistance? This is the, well, a conceptual problem with alleged positive natural rights: who bears the corresponding duty? When positive rights are created by contractual arrangements, we know who has the duty to provide the thing. Outside of such an arrangement, the positive right will be incoherent unless we know who bears the duty. So if Bob has "dire need," he has a right that he be helped by… who? Tom? Tim? Why Tom and not Tim? Make it more concrete: say I'm starving, so on your view I have a right to be given food – that means someone has a duty to give me food, but who? The first person I see? The richest person I see? The answer can't be "everyone has this duty," because after Tom has given me food, Tim can't be said to have the duty anymore, because I'm no longer in dire need. So why was it on Tom to give me the food?
But the positive rights created by contractual arrangements split off some of your self-ownership rights. If I contract to deliver X to Pete today at 3.00, I no longer have the right to spend that time dancing. If Tom has paid me never to wear my favourite, brightly-coloured Hawaiian shirt, I no longer have the right to wear that shirt. If I have a contract of employment, I cannot just wake up in the morning (on a work day) and decide to spend the day in the park. Of course, I can still DO any of these things. People often do what they do not have a right to do. But they are then open to censure and perhaps to claims of compensation.
Why aren't all rights contractual? If I agree not to kill you while you agree not to kill me, then we each have a contractual right not to be killed by the other.
What else is a right to life?
If I agree to defend your life against others, then we have a defense contract. If you also agree to defend my life, we have a mutual defense agreement.
A mutual defense agreement does not create a right not to be killed by others. It asserts no duty of others not to kill us. It only asserts our willingness to impose our will upon others to defend our lives.
When we impose our will upon others to defend our lives, why don't we just say that?
Aeon Skoble
But those aren't examples of your not having rights to x, they're examples of your using your right-to-yourself to trade bits of lesser value for bits of higher value.
You could be saying either of two things here. I will comment on both.
(1) The examples concern trading one thing for another; they do not concern trading bits of oneself.
The response to this is twofold. First I could have picked the example of selling a kidney or clippings of my hair or portions of my blood or semen. Second, 'self-ownership' means the right to use one's body and mind as one wishes. All the examples I gave are instances in which someone cannot use his body and mind as he wishes because he has accepted duties to use them as other people wish.
(2) You can engage in exchange (legitimately) only if you already own what it is you are trading. Thus, all my examples, in which I sell parts of the right to own me, presuppose that, before the trades, I owned myself. Contracting away bits of self-ownership presupposes original self-ownership.
That is quite correct, so I suppose it is what you are saying. We then face the boundary problem. My right to swing my own arm stops at your face (was that Nozick?). If we each have the right to self-ownership, then we each have the duty to respect other people's right to self-ownership. If Ted wants to sing, but his flatmate wants to sleep, they cannot both do as they wish. They are both self-owners, but they cannot both succeed in using their bodies as they wish. They need a rule demarcating where one person's self-ownership ends and the other's begins. It is no use saying simply: they can trade. Until there is a rule (at least de facto) there is nothing to trade.
So far I have been speaking as a libertarian. But, as we know, most people are not libertarians. Some will claim, for example, that other people have, in some circumstances, a right to our assistance. Some of them will construe that right to assistance in ways which are demanding; some in ways which are very demanding. If any of these people are right, our self-ownership does not extend as far as we libertarians think it does. As Matt says, there is, in principle, an infinite number of places where that boundary could be drawn. Where it should be drawn is a substantive question. To answer it, we need arguments.
Aeon Skoble
I agree with your analysis, but don't see how it's an argument against mine. Ted and his flatmate have rights to use their bodies as they wish in non-rights-violating ways, but if they want to share a flat, they'll need to agree on rules. This is an explicit contract between the two of them, and presumably is mutually beneficial. This is totally different from the suggestion that others with whom they have _not_ made a contract have some claim on space in the flat.
Whatever rules Ted and his mate agree on, they will find in the course of time that there are situations for which they need further rules. If they had anticipated the singing-sleeping clash and written it into a contract (that is a big 'if'), there will be other clashes they did not think of, for example, if the noise of Ted's weight-training prevents his mate from enjoying a book he is reading. There is always a penumbra of vagueness around any right, including self-ownership rights. This compares with Matt's example about the plane flying over your property. So, even if we manage to privatise all the public spaces, we won't have got around the problem; because creating property rights involves spelling out rights which can only be spelt out so far. The world always throws up situations we never thought of. This, of course, is one of Hayek's points in L, L & L, Vol 1.
Perhaps the main point Matt was making, though, was the one I made at the end of my previous message, namely, that because self-ownership rights can be divvied up, it is a substantive question about where the line for 'original self-ownership' should be drawn. To say that, in 'a state of nature,' I fully own myself is either simply a consequence of the definition of 'a state of nature' or it begs the question. Which question does it beg? This one: what ought to be the extent of self-ownership?
Don't get me wrong: I am a libertarian, and an emphatic and possibly even extreme one. But I think libertarians need better arguments than many of those they have been using in the past.
Aeon Skoble
I'm not sure I even want to characterize Ted and his roommate's living arrangements as a rights issue in the first place. That they live together at all is presumably something they want to do, and while living together requires compromise of preferences, that's not something characterize as a rights issue. Where it would become a rights issue would be if, e.g., Ted's flatmate thought that because they had agreed to share a flat, he was entitled to 2/3 of Ted's salary, and helped himself to Ted's wallet each night. That's theft, regardless of whether we would also counsel Ted to move out. I am still not seeing how self-ownership can be divvied up. Either others have a natural (viz pre-political or pre-contractual) claim on my life or they don't, It's proponents of the former, not the latter, who a story to tell.
Let's call Ted's roommate 'Jed.' We could put the issues between Ted and Jed in this way. If Ted has a right to use his own body, should he not have the right to sing when he wants (even if Jed is trying to sleep)? If Jed owns himself, surely he is entitled to read when he wants (assuming the book is his)? But if Ted owns himself, surely he has a right to exercise when he wants (even if it prevents Jed from reading)?
They need not live together for these problems to arise. They could be in adjoining flats or even adjoining houses (as long as the walls are not particularly thick).
The fact that people are self-owners entails that they have claims upon each other, namely, not to violate each other's self-ownership. And the fact that one person's use of his body can interfere with another person's use of his body means that self-ownership is vague around the edges.
Further, it is a substantive, and contested, question whether we owe non-contractual moral duties to each other over and above respecting each other's private-property rights. If we do have such duties, then, since duties curtail liberties, and since self-ownership involves liberties as well as rights (and authorities, immunities, etc.), it is quite possible that these duties delimit our self-ownership.
The points made in the last two paragraphs indicate that self-ownership is not an all-or-nothing affair. It is rather a matter of more or less, and the question is where to draw the line. It seems that you and I agree that the line should be drawn in a place that makes the right to self-ownership extensive and robust. I think we also agree that this is in some sense a natural place to draw the line (though I think we disagree over the interpretation of 'natural'). So far as I can make out, you think that, if the line is not drawn in that place, what we have left is not self-ownership. I am not sure whether this last issue is a substantive or a verbal one.
Aeon Skoble
"If Ted has a right to use his own body, should he not have the right to sing when he wants (even if Jed is trying to sleep)?" No. His rights are bounded by the equal rights of others. He has the right to sing in a shared flat only if his roommate consents. If it were Ted's solely-owned house, then he'dhave the right to sing even if Jed were asleep (although this might be morally bad, it wouldn't be a rights violation). If it were Jed's house, Ted would have no right to sing at any hour without Jed's consent. But if it's a shared house/flat, they'll have to have a contractual arrangement spelling out things like this.
"He has the right to sing in a shared flat only if his roommate consents."
That sounds comical. Who is his roommate? Hitler?
"If it were Ted's solely-owned house, then he'd have the right to sing even if Jed
were asleep (although this might be morally bad, it wouldn't be a rights
Well, it would be a rights violation if Jed is paying rent and the agreement says that Ted is not to disturb Jed's sleep.
"If it were Jed's house, Ted would have no right to sing at any hour without Jed's consent."
Again, unless the agreement they had made specified that Ted had the right to sing (but not in the middle of the night, perhaps).
"But if it's a shared house/flat, they'll have to have a contractual arrangement spelling out things like this."
Except that it is unlikely that the agreement they have made will include any such term. If Ted's singing turns out to be a problem for Jed, they will have to agree on new terms or split.
There are two points here: that rights can be divvied up; that rights are never completely defined.
Aeon Skoble
If it sounds comical, it's because you're assuming I think rights theory is exhaustive of ethics, which I don't. I can imagine people treating each other badly where no rights violations are occurring. But I agree with you that there would right violations if they had a contractual arrangement and one of them broke it. I am still not seeing how the possible difficulties that are engendered by having roommates is evidence that the putative right to self-ownership is vague in the way that Matt says land rights are.
If you have a right to a parcel of land, who bears the corresponding duty to walk around the land rather than cross it without your consent? If I don't need to cross the land, a duty to walk around it imposes no cost on me, so your right to the parcel seems to impose costs only on particular people, and thus it seems to be a "positive" right rather than a "negative" one. Why isn't it?
Aeon Skoble
Needs don't create rights. You don't have a right to cross Bob's property just because you feel the need to cross it. Bob's property right is a right to not be trespassed against, not to be taken away, not ti be used by another without Bob's consent. These are all negative rights which impose a duty on everyone equally to refrain from these actions. That said, it's certainly possible that, as a contractual matter, Bob's property right may be mitigated, e.g. if the contract through which Bob acquired it included a clause granting Tom access or whatever.
I don't need a right to cross a parcel of land. Bob needs a right to forbid me crossing the land without his consent. Bob needs to keep me off the land without his consent, because he feels a need for this right.
Why doesn't Bob need a contract with me to impose this cost on me, because Bob says so, because John Locke says so, because Murray Rothbard says so, because Moses says so, because you say so? Why is no one asking me? I'm the one bearing the cost of walking around the land, not you or Moses or Rothbard or Locke or Bob.
If libertarians believe in letting people work things out without direction from above, why can't we let people work out what ownership means?
Because sometimes when you let people work out what ownership means, they decide your property rights don't matter.
If you don't like how others work out what ownership means, they presumably don't like how you work out what ownership means either, so you and the others shouldn't associate.
That's the typical argument against a free market in anything. If we leave health care up to the people, won't poor people die of cancer?
Consider the ownership one might have in a piece of land.
Rothbard's view of ownership leads him to many absurd, essentially royalist conclusions, like title in perpetuity.
According to Rothbard, ownership of land cannot amount only to a right to the value of improvements (which depreciate), because this value exists in the minds of other people (their subjective preferences). A person cannot have a right to the content of another person's mind, he says.
On the contrary, market value, existing only in people's minds, is the only thing free people may have a right to. Your ownership of a parcel of land is my willingness to exchange something for its fruits (including use of the land itself), and that's all it is.
All of these positions, of course, would need to be argued for.
These positions are subjective preferences, like the preference for a gram of silver vs. a loaf of bread.
But that leaves open whether we own ourselves in the more robust way …
In my way of thinking, you own yourself however you want to own yourself. I don't get to tell you how you own yourself, because you are free of me.
Maybe we have the right not to have our labor taxed and maybe we don't.
I suppose I have a right to have my labor taxed, i.e. I have a right to surrender a portion of my labor, without a market exchange, to other people in an association agreeing to respect the terms of association, including all of my rights within the association.
But the fact that chattel slavery is wrong doesn't settle it.
I suppose I have a right to subject myself completely to another person and to serve whoever this person tells me to serve. Am I a chattel slave in this scenario?
I don't suppose that many people are truly willing to subject themselves to another person this way, but that's a separate issue.
Hi, Martin. I'm a bit pressed for time today, so I beg your pardon for focusing in on only one small part of your post. You write:
In my way of thinking, you own yourself however you want to own yourself. I don't get to tell you how you own yourself, because you are free of me.
But I'm not quite sure what this means. Ownership claims are, as I argued in my last post, claims on other people. When I claim that I own something, I am making a claim about duties that you have. So it seems a bit puzzling to say that people can own themselves however they want. What exactly did you mean by this?
I'm trying to be more libertarian than thou, and I possibly overreach, but I don't presume to tell you the rules you must follow, even the rules governing what you govern, even the rules governing the extent of your governance of yourself. You decide the extent of your governance of yourself, and you may decide yourself completely subject to another person, even to a fictional character, like Jesus. I decided myself subject to Sherlock Holmes, as a younger man, for example. He was my hero, even though he never existed, arguably.
The object of your subjection is your choice, not mine, but in my way of thinking, the object of your subjection is always a formal system, a system you choose to follow along with others choosing to follow the same system.
Ownership claims are claims on other people.
An ownership claim claims that other people follow rules that you assert. Either the claim is true, or it's false. Either people do follow these rules, or they don't.
Libertarians agree that people choose the rules they follow, and that's all. A right to life, self-ownership, Lockean property in the land, hereditary title, income sharing, none of these rules are necessary, but liberty rules none of the out. Only each individual's freedom to choose the rules he follows is necessary.
Matt: He wasn't much of an economist, and he certainly wasn't a good philosopher. Why bother with him?
I think a lot of his work is worth reading, even with its flaws. His Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, for instance, is absolutely fascinating. And instructive, even if some of the scholarship is a bit questionable.
But, more importantly, Rothbard has become for many young libertarians definitive of libertarian philosophy and economics, largely due to the work of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. A lot of libertarians think his work is unassailable. And, sadly, there just isn't much good stuff out there assailing it. So I want to get a serious philosophical assessment "on the record," so to speak.
Plus, given that I'm writing a history of libertarian thought I figure I've gotta work my way through this stuff anyway. Might as well double-dip. 🙂
Aeon Skoble
I would strenuously disagree with the idea that Rothbard is "definitive of libertarian philosophy and economics," but nevertheless affirm that he offers some good insights and arguments. His essay from Nomos, "Society without a State" is quite good. Barnett is better, but arguably we needed Rothbard to get to Barnett.
Sean II
Many young libertarians pass through a period where their only choices are to worship Rothbard or to pretend he doesn't exist. Same goes double for Rand. The results can be kind of tragic.
I remember being 19 years old and thinking: "What does it mean that the only argument against Rand seems to be a dismissive, vaudeville eye-roll from my philosophy professors? Where are the papers, where are the critiques? Where is the thoughtful opposition?"
In the end, I decided my professors must simply be full of shit, because if they really cared about young minds they could hardly fail to engage with someone who captured them so powerfully – even, and especially, if they regarded her merely as a sophist and a seducer of confused kids.
The libertarian movement needs to come to grips with its cults, using at least the same patience and decency it shows to its statist opposition. The way Roderick Long writes about Rand is a good model: respectful, courteous to her fans, but in the end unsparing of her flaws.
I think it's great to see Rothbard get the same treatment.
Ok, you think you can take down Rothbardians on economics too? Or are you content with labeling them a cult?
Sean II
That's not fair. The split here is between people who think Rothbard deserves to be read, interpreted, discussed, etc., and those who think he isn't worth the bother at all.
Clearly I am one of the former, very much opposed to the latter. In that respect we are on the same side. Of course that doesn't stop me from calling Rothbard a cult figure, in much the same way that I wouldn't hesitate to describe "Assault on Precinct 13" as a cult film.
In both cases I mean something like: "This man (or movie) has plenty of merit, but try not to get trapped in a lengthy bong session with one of his (or its) diehard fans. They tend to overstate things a bit and can sometimes react dramatically to even the most carefully ventured criticism."
That's not really so bad, is it?
I have never encountered a single libertarian who regards Rothbard's work as "unassailable", let alone "a lot" of them. I'll just have to take your word for it. Then again, maybe they just agree with much of what he said. What a notion!
Sol Logic
Well thanks for assailing it. It's been very helpful. I wonder why more Libertarian philosophers don't?
"He wasn't much of an economist"…Thems fightin' words. Wanna back that up with something? Think you can go toe-to-toe with the Rothbardian Austrians, huh? Well, do ya?
Victoria Granda
Jason, I personally am trying to learn as much as possible about the different schools of thought within libertarianism (I believe they all have value and insight, and as an aside, I think the internal bickering is petty and counter-productive), so I am genuinely asking who would you recommend then? Who do you think is indeed a "good" philosopher and/or economist?
You sound like a buffoon. Whoops, guess I'm in a cult.
If you're the sole human on an island, and you gather some food that you want to save for the next day, you know animals will get it while you're sleeping unless you hide it well. Your claim of ownership means nothing because the cohabitants of the island don't understand it. Your claim is no more valid than your ability to physically safeguard the property. We can also live that way in human society, but we don't want to. So we invent property rights.
With ownership comes responsibility. You are responsible for what you own, but you are free to use what you own as you see fit as long as you don't harm or endanger others.
J. P. Martindale
Perhaps i'm misunderstanding you here Matt, but i'm not sure what you've said here is altogether relevent to Rothbard's point. Rothbard says that for any object (say a piece of land) that is owned, there are only the three ownership possibilities outlied above. What you seem to be suggesting is that there are several ways in which we can argue as to what the boundaries of that object are; i.e. whether that peice of land should said to include space below and above it etc, what actions on that property constitute infringements on other peoples property (the river example) etc. But disagreeing about what constitutes the boundaries of an object doesn't in itself seem to respond to Rothbard's claim that, once we know what the boundaries of an owned object are, only three potential ownership claims can apply to this object (even if Rothbard doesn't seem to give this other boundaries question the attention it deserves).
That's a nice point, J.P. Part of the problem is, as you say, getting the boundaries of the owned object right. But I don't think this accounts for all of the difficulties with Rothbard's account. Take the case of easements. If A owns a piece of land X, one question we will want to ask is whether B has a right to move through X in certain circumstances. If we decide that he does, then A's ownership of X is missing one of the sticks that normally goes into the bundle of ownership. His ownership has changed, not because we've refined the nature or boundaries of the object that he owns, but because we've changed the rights he has over that object. I think a lot of property questions are like this.
Also, if he rents out a part of the land, he still owns it, but he cannot do with it as he likes any more. He has some rights of a 'full owner' (if that makes sense) but not all of them. Compare that with a contract of employment. During working hours, the employee does what his boss says: he cannot do what he pleases. He has less control over his body and mind than does a self-employed person or someone who is retired, for example.
Building off this concept that JP has here: Don't you think that any single right in a property bundle is subjected to the three uses identifiedby Rothbard?
dan dennis
This blog post is spot on.
Everything comes down to what people DO. What activities each person performs,
where one person's activities may impact on which activities someone else can
engage in. Talk of ownership is a very vague and indirect way of talking about
Pingback: Why I Am Not an Anarchist | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()
Pingback: Getting Over Social Justice | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()
Pingback: The Self-Ownership Principle is Bollocks! (AYMFL 0006) - Arm your Mind for Liberty()
One cannot reasonably accept, reject, or entertain the question of owning ONESELF except as a joke–unless one is so caught in the grip of a theory one can no longer see straight.
Pingback: Seven Cheers for Murray Rothbard | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()
Pingback: Seven Cheers for Murray Rothbard | World Liberty News()
Akal Singh Krau
FYI, that Rothbard quote in paragraph 5 should read: it is "absurd to hold that NO man is entitled to own himself, and yet to hold that each of these very men is entitled to own a part of all other men!'"
>Everyone agrees that those things are wrong,
No they don't, morals are relative and many people in the world are okay with slavery. Even in the US slavery still exists in many forms.
Matt Tanous
I fail to see what the possible distinction over what constitutes a unit of land somehow muddles the definition of ownership. Someone is confused as to what constitutes ownership, and it is not Rothbard. Rather, Zwolinski, you have confused the issue. As usual.
Pingback: Refutando y defendiendo la ética de la libertad | Nintil()
Posts by Guest Authors
- Brink Lindsey
- Charles Johnson
- Christopher Morris
- David Gordon
- David Schmidtz
- Deirdre McCloskey
- Elizabeth Anderson
- Eric Mack
- Fred Foldvary
- Hillel Steiner
- John Holbo
- John Tomasi
- Kevin Carson
- Massimo Renzo
- Michael Huemer
- Michael Strong
- Peter Boettke
- Richard Arneson
- Samuel Freeman
- Will Wilkinson
- Zachary Gochenour
Our Books
Recent Comments


text:
There's an elephant in the room that I'd like to address. It was put there by the national media, and I'd like to push it back out the door.
That elephant, of course, is the idea that if Gabbert doesn't pan out, the Jaguars will have the opportunity to draft Matt Barkley to replace him.
That's simply not going to happen.
The Jaguars are a solid team with one huge question coming into 2012. Will Blaine Gabbert be able to make the transition to being a solid NFL quarterback? The answer in this instance is irrelevant.
As it currently stands, it appears that Matt Barkley will be drafted in the top 5 (and likely 1st overall). The Jaguars were a 5-11 team last year with deplorable quarterback play and wide receivers that couldn't catch a cold in a hospital. Whether anyone wants to admit it, the Jaguars are a better team this season.
I think the general consensus among most informed fans and members of the media is that the Jaguars really have no chance at having Matt Barkley fall into their laps. This is for those of you that are holding to the idea that Barkley is on deck if Gabbert fails to perform. It's not happening. If Gabbert doesn't pan out, the Jaguars are going to find themselves with a big problem, and help is not on the way.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Edward Bonham Carter and his colleagues at Jupiter Fund Management have received almost £63 million by selling shares as soon as a one-year lock-in agreement expired.
Anthony Nutt and Philip Gibbs, two of Jupiter's most senior fund managers, sold all the shares they could; Mr Nutt took home £18 million and Mr Gibbs £12.7 million. Mr Bonham Carter, the chief executive, raised £1.3 million from divesting part of his holding, while John Chatfeild-Roberts, the chief investment officer, banked £6.7 million.
Several directors and other employees chose not to sell any shares and everyone — including Mr Nutt and Mr Gibbs — still


text:
'Tis the season for doggie raincoats, it is! It's usually hot and sunny in Central Texas by now so maybe I am out of order with all the "Tis the season" jazz but there is nothing quite as refreshing and hopeful as a good spring rain. I like to pretend it is a common occurrence. I imagine the roots of my tomatoes and peppers all swelling with delight and happily absorbing copious amounts of nutrients. They look happy out there. In fact, they look so happy out there that I had to go see what all the garden hubbub and murmuring was about.
I felt like I was in a multi-patient delivery suite. The tomato mamas are all pushing their babies out. I see round little crowns peaking from below the leaves on every tomato plant back there. The Azoychka pulled a fast one on me. I thought she would bear large yellow beefsteak fruit but instead it looks like her offspring will be just slightly larger than cherry-tomato size. The Cherokee is, once again, putting all the other ladies to shame. Her fruit is large and abundant and nearly ready for the table (sorry tomato-baby, don't be too scared).
The rain has washed away enough topsoil to reveal the zinnia seedlings. They've sprouted after just a week. I'm already regretting not having planted more. Tomorrow maybe. And isn't that how gardening goes? There is always tomorrow and it's going to be beautiful when it gets here. Here's to your tomorrow, may it be ever fruitful and abundant. May your tomatoes thrive and your flowers bloom. Have a good weekend!


text:
I think about this a lot.
I do feel that it is calories in/calories out....
I am leaning that the issue is how the "out" happens. I know with pharmacokinetics of drug metabolism you can have two phenotypically similar people but due to a mutation in CYP 219 one person will be a regular metabolizer and one will be a poor metabolizer. Meaning if I gave 1 advil to both people the normal metabolizer will react as predicted and the level of advil in their blood will follow the expect pattern of going up, stabilizing and then slowly leaving.... the poor metabolizer will have blood levels where the plateau portion is significantly longer before the body starts to clear it.
Like Boston and NYC can both have the same number of cars enter at the same time but due to the way they're structured all those cars will come out at different rates and different ways.
Tie the concept into the hormones that surround fat retention/insulin release etc.... and you can see how the same amount of calories could be just a blip for one person, but another, say with thyroid disease, it would be significant intake because of how the body processes it.
I don't even think that it means someone is all that broken, just different. I do think it means they'll (and I include myself here) will have a much harder/longer road to the same results AND that you'll never know what will work for each person to get to their personal goals because although we all have the same basic plumbing that can "generally" respond... the actual intricacies of that response is as individual as a fingerprint.
That's why I was drawn to PB... "Blueprint" is simply how to build something right? Like we might all want a house, but perhaps some of us will want 3 bedrooms and a study, while others will want 4 bedrooms and perhaps a third will want 2 bedrooms and a huge loft space.
I like coming here and reading about all the different thoughts and struggles. It is helping me experiment and come to know how my body will respond as I apply the PB for who *I* am and what fits in my overall lifestyle


text:
Tokyo Jungle for PS3On: PS3
Animals rule the world.
Great Value Games promotion launches on PlayStation Store
Deals on games including Rain, Tokyo Jungle, Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon, God of War HD and much more.
Dead Space 3 & Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon reduced in PSN Apocalyptic Sale
MotorStorm Apocalypse, Tokyo Jungle and From Dust discounted too in Armageddon-themed sale.
Tokyo Jungle half price until December 6
Now only £5.19 as part of the PlayStation Store 12 Deals of Christmas.
FIFA 13 heads up European PlayStation Store update
Also Grand Theft Auto III on PS2, F1 2012 and Tokyo Jungle, but no Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.
Tokyo Jungle coming to PSN on September 26?
Bizarre urban survival game Tokyo Jungle will be released on September 26, according to Sony's official YouTube channel.
The best downloadable games on their way to consoles
Unfinished Swan, Deadlight, Retro City Rampage and more. We round-up the best downloadable games heading to consoles.
New Tokyo Jungle PS3 trailer depicts crazy animal Battle Royale
Watch cute yellow chicks take on velociraptors in Sony's bizarre PlayStation 3 exclusive.


text:
At 12:42 AM 11/30/98 , Ka-Ping Yee wrote: >... The whole unpacked distribution >is nearly 30 megabytes for me, which is uncomfortably large. >(The Python distribution is about 6.5 megabytes including the >library and some examples and tools; the jsrc/ directory of >the E distribution is similar in size.) [+] I need to revisit the whole "build a distribution" thing very soon. Getting 0.7.4 to build on my laptop was my first real foray into these Makefiles. >After unpacking, i was surprised to find no compiled bytecode >anywhere. So i can't try it out with kaffe until i compile it. [?] Would you have expected these in a "source" distribution? They are in the binary distribution. >but guavac seems to be unhappy unless you compile dependents >first, and there is a circular dependency between > > org.erights.e.meta.java.VectorSugar [-] I believe you mean org.erights.e.meta.java.util.VectorSugar >and > > org.erights.e.elib.base.ArraySugar [+] Sigh, thanks for identifying this. I'll try to untangle this soon. I assume that cyclic dependencies *within* a package are fine? >It's not bad, but i wonder what's up with Frame having this >recurring size inconsistency. The first occurrences of things >seem to often be larger than later occurrences, whereas the >monospaced example text seems to come in random sizes. [?] Where? Please point me at some examples. Thanks. >Unfortunately an example got mangled on: > > http://www.erights.org/doc/elang/web/control.9.html > >Augh. How hard can it possibly be to convert a simple >block-structured document from one form to another? Geez. I think Frame believes that it can insert newlines when it wishes to break up html output, and does after a character style change. Of course, this doesn't work in
formatted text.
 >At least it's encouraging to see that Frame was able to >generate decent images from your figures. But in the "Quick Links" figure in http://www.erights.org/doc/elang/web/control.1.html Frame didn't generate a working image map for the embedded links, even though I think I followed the directions correctly. Cheers, --MarkM


text:
German superstar DJ/producer Paul van Dyk has been a highlight of the Winter Music Conference for many years, performing his unique, melodic brand of trance-y anthems at everything from small hotel parties to cruises to Space to the Ultra Music Festival. But this year, you've got only one chance to see him spin - at Mansion nightclub (1235 Washington Ave., Miami Beach) on Saturday, March 12. So if you're a fan, get your tickets now and see why Van Dyk is one of only a handful of DJs to ever be named No. 1 in DJ Magazine's annual poll.
What can we expect from your set at Mansion?
I'm pretty much finishing off the production of my new artist album, "Evolution," so there's gonna be a lot of new material. Also, we bring as much as we can into the venue from the "Evolution" tour production.
Will you be checking out other shows during that week?
I didn't get a proper schedule yet of what's going on, but obviously that's part of Winter Music Conference, to see different people and what other artists are up to. This is what it's all about, so yeah - it's a vital part of me being there and looking at everything.
What's your new album like?
I'm really excited about the whole thing. Just yesterday, I was compiling everything and getting a much clearer overview, and it's just a logical progression from what I've done in the past. I did also add my clear signature to it.
Do you feel it's your best work to date?
It's the best album ... You know how sometimes when you sort of look back at an album and you think, OK, well that track wasn't really necessary - it was more kind of a filler? Looking at this album, everything for me as an artist is a stand-out track. Obviously, now it's down to the audience to see if they feel the same, but I'm very proud of every single little beat on it.
What's the weather like now in Berlin, and are you looking forward to coming to Miami?
Right now it's very sunny, but it's minus-10 Celsius, so yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to coming to Miami. And the great thing for me as well is, I've always had this really strong connection with what's going on in Miami and the whole South Florida area in general.
PAUL VAN DYK - Autumn by CiaranVanDon
Paul van Dyk.


text:
SALEM - It's a fraternal club that "pushed" for the founding of Mother's Day, provided the impetus for Social Security and pushed to end job discrimination based on age.
Chartered in same year the Wright brothers flew, Ford Motor Company and Harley-Davidson were incorporated, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, over 110 years, has provided support for medical research centers across the country.
It has raised millions of dollars every year to combat heart disease, cancer, helped handicapped kids, uplifted the aged and, in general, made life a little brighter for everyone.
Article Photos
The Fraternal Order of Eagles #16 in Salem honored three people for 50 years of membership last week. The honorees, seated, from left are, William Hoover of Guilford Lake, Harry Regal of Salem and Frank Everett of Wadsworth. Also standing are, from left, Trustees Tim Chestnut, Frank Gibson and Bob Plegge. The Eagles expects to hold a free, open to the public, meet and greet on Feb. 16 at its facility located at 1884 N. Ellsworth Ave. (Salem News photo by Larry Shields)
It has 13 different charities and Aeries in 1,700 cities with #316 located at 1884 N. Ellsworth Ave in Salem.
It's been there since 1991 after moving from the East State State property that is now parking for the Masonic Temple.
The Eagles purchased the North Ellsworth property in 1989 when it had about 1,500 male members.
Today that number has dropped considerably and there are some 170 men and about 100 auxiliary members.
And that's why two of the more tenured trustees, Bob Plegge, who has served as president twice, and past president Tim Chestnut, decided to hold a meet and greet the Eagles on Feb. 16 inviting the public to the 10,000 square-foot facility and, Plegge said, "get people to sign up."
The club still holds dances, but Chestnut said they will start having fish fries from 4 to 7 p.m. on Fridays along with a membership drive.
Both Chestnut and Plegge acknowledge past problems but say they're behind them. Chestnut said, explaining there were "problems with a few officers with sticky fingers ... some were taken to court about seven years ago ... it's behind us.
"We had a bartender charged and convicted years ago in the late '90s or early 2000s," Chestnut said. "It hurt our reputation. I think it did. We had more rumors going around. You go downtown and you would hear more about this place than anywhere. The rumors were overblown, but we've slowly cleaned up. The Grand Aerie told us what we had to do to straighten up."
Plegge turned to bolstering the membership which is $24 a year after a $20 initiation fee for new members.
"Come out (to the open house) it will be open to the public," Plegge said.
He explained that the Eagles "has what they call a memorial foundation with a benefit package for safety workers killed in the line of duty.
He said the first year's membership for firefighters, police officers or EMS employees is free.
"If they keep their membership current and lose their life in the line of duty, their children's education is paid for through college," Plegge said.
The Eagles also has a grant for firefighting equipment through the foundation.
The Eagles building was for sale about a year-and-a-half ago, but not any longer," Chestnut said, noting that the busiest days are Saturday, sometimes Wednesday and whenever on drawing days. There are daily, weekly and monthly drawings, he said.
The facility can seat 400 people. For more information, call 330-337-6211.


text:
Paul Frank Dream Layer Long Underwear Top
Retailers' Descriptions
Here's what other sites are saying:
Your mom just had to invite along another family for the ski weekend at the condo; you're not about to change your habit of wearing your long underwear to breakfast, but maybe you will wear the Paul Frank Girls' Dream Layer Long Underwear Top this time. So now you can show those unknown (and, frankly, kind of strange) kids that you're fashion savvy; you're also ski-savvy in this wicking, breathable, jersey top.
- Backcountry.com
Paul Frank Dream Layer Long Underwear Top
previously retailed for:
$8.99 - $25.97
$8.99 - $25.97
The Paul Frank Dream Layer Long Underwear Top is not available from the stores we monitor. It was last seen May 21, 2013 at Backcountry.com.
If you're looking for a new base layer top, check out the best reviewed current models.


text:
>FALL OUT BOY enlists blink-182's Mark Hoppus for a spacey, digital-only remix of the single "America's Suitehearts." $0.99 at iTunes.com.
JORDIN SPARKS returns with the rock-edged "Battlefield," from the 2007 American Idol's as-yet-untitled second album, due July 14. $1.29 at iTunes.com.
JONAS BROTHERS, less than a year after A Little Bit Longer, preview their June 16 release Lines, Vines and Trying Times with "Paranoid," a pulse-racing fusion of electro-pop and rock. $0.99 at amazon.com.
Picks and Pans Review: Hot Downloads
updated 06/01/2009 AT 01:00 AM EDT
•originally published 06/01/2009 AT 01:00 AM EDT


text:
In commemoration of their 25th year anniversary of their debut album 3 Feet High & Rising, De La Soul unveils this never-before-heard track produced by J Dilla titled "Dilla Plugged In" that'll be making its way on an upcoming mixtape due out later this year. In part of the release, they also shared a special message with their fans:
It's been 25 Years since our "Three Feet High" release. We have a lot great memories and an incredible journey. Amazingly enough, our fans stuck around, supported and still want more. Ok, but before you get that, here's a little De La over Dilla Beats.
Enjoy and look out for the new mixtape Smell The DA.I.S.Y. all beats by J Dilla. Peace... and in advance, You're Welcome.


text: Explore The Coast Mombasa North of Mombasa Inland from Mombasa The South Coast From Kilifi to Malindi The Lamu Archipelago Share Most of the people who live along the southern coastal strip here are Digo, and their neat rectangular houses, made of dried mud and coral on a framework of wood, are a distinctive part of the lush roadside scene. Digo women tend to dress very colourfully in multiple kangas. Although they belong to the Mijikenda group of peoples, the Digo are unusual in traditionally having matrilineal inheritance: in other words they traced descent through the female line, so that a man would, on his death, pass his property on to his sister's sons rather than his own. It is an unusual system with interesting implications for the state of the family and the position of women. However, the joint assault of Islamic and European values over the last century has shifted the emphasis back towards the male line, and in many ways, women in modern Digo society have less freedom and autonomy than they had a hundred years ago. The site of one of the Digo's ancestral villages, a sacred forest at Kaya Kinondo, near Diani Beach, can be visited with a Digo guide. Read More


text:
2. Oxygen
3. Carbohydrates
4. Water
5. Good Friends
6. Hummus(mmmmmm, how did I ever live before I discovered you hummus?)
7. Special Bonus Round: Sriracha sauce! I put it on everything.
If you are a devoutly religious person we might not get along.
If you like smart guys with a sense of humor and the confidence to do something with it.
Especially if you like a guy who's good at telling stories.
And if you're not too old fashioned to be the one to make the first move (it's the 2010s you're allowed to contact a guy first).


text:
Previous Page:Traditional Prayer
The words to The Our Father Prayer are as follows:
To receive a FREE ebook on forgiveness
by the author of this site,
enter your email address in the box below.
Please be assured - I will NOT pass on your e-mail address to anyone else.
The Our Father Prayer
Our Father, who art in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And lead us not into temptation,
For thine is the kingdom,
The Our Father Prayer appears in the Gospels of Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2. in the Bible.
Mark 11:25 does not give the complete prayer, but it does include a similar section explaining the importance of forgiveness:
"And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any:
that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."
The Our Father is the prayer that Jesus gives when asked by the Disciples:
"Lord, teach us to pray."
The Our Father prayer is also known as the Lord's Prayer.
There could be two explanations for this name.
1. Jesus tells us to pray this prayer. Jesus is often referred to in the Christian tradition as Lord.
2. God the Father, the 'I Am' is known as Lord and this is a prayer to the Father, to the Lord.
I grew up calling the prayer the Our Father and I love this name.
The name emphasises for me the Father aspect of God.
My interpretation is that the Our Father prayer speaks of the protection, availability and strength of God.
The meaning of the prayer is to encourage us to be vulnerable and needy with God in a way that is natural in the relationship of a child with its parent.
It encourages us to cultivate a relationship of dependency on a God who is far more reliable than any earthly father. This, in turn, allows us to become less and less dependent on those in this changing world.
The emphasis of the prayer is on our relationship with God as Father – a relationship we share with Jesus.
A further breakdown of the Our Father reveals a message about the importance of the practice of forgiveness.
The prayer says that God's forgiveness of us is dependent upon our forgiveness of others.
This really lets us know how important it is for us to forgive.
My interpretation is that forgiveness by God is already given, but we only understand and receive this love and forgiveness when we forgive the other.
See the page on Prayer For Forgiveness for more on this topic of God and forgiveness.
My interpretation is that the Our Father recognises both our physical and spiritual reality and the needs that result.
We can take the line:
"Give us this day our daily bread" to affirm our belief that God or our belief in God allows us to be provided for in a very physical and practical way.
In Matthew's gospel, the Our Father prayer is
preceded by the statement that God knows what you need before you ask,
underlining the idea that we can trust God to provide for all our physical needs.
When we pray "Thy will be done" we are expressing a
willingness for God to work in our mind and in the physical world to
allow us to experience physical changes.
We are calling for a reality where God is in charge and the earth is transformed into heaven.
We speak as though this will happen at some future time.
This speaks of a physical reality of time and space.
Then, if we include the doxology, we go on to pray:
"Thine is the kingdom."
"Thine is the kingdom."
This is very powerful to me.
Not was the kingdom.
Not will be the kingdom.
"Thine is the kingdom."
The meaning here is that God's kingdom is an ever present reality.
Right NOW in the present moment, God's kingdom is present.
To put it in the language of A Course In Miracles, this world is an illusion. It is only the junk in our own minds that stop us from touching the reality and perfection of God's Kingdom.
To pray the Our Father is to invite God to work in my mind to allow me to drop through the junk into an experience of the reality of His love.
The meaning of the Our Father is that, as we say it, we claim our daily food – both physical and spiritual.
It was such an important turning point when I recognised:
I do not know what is best for me.
I need guidance.
I need my decisions to be made by the energy that unites all things because only then will I make a decision that is to the benefit of all.
In the Our Father we express the willingness to let God decide for us.
We surrender our own expectations about how the situation should be or should turn out:
Thy will be done, we say.
A Poem About the Our Father Prayer
Thy Will Be Done
Thy will be done
Thy will be done
© Katherine T Owen
Spiritual poems by the author on this site
For a FREE ebook of forgiveness exercises – It's OK to...
For a discussion on how to use spiritual quotes as part of your spiritual practice.
The Our Father prayer is said by all Christian denominations. It is a powerful symbol of the Christian unity so many Christians aspire to.
In a discussion on the power of praying a traditional prayer, I talk more about what the Our Father prayer means to me.
Return to a list of daily prayers.
Move from The Our Father prayer to the next page –
The Hail Mary Prayer.
Return to the Contents List for What Is Prayer?
The home page - How To Explore Our Spirituality
Please respect the author's copyright. I am delighted if you choose to share on social media, but please do NOT reproduce any of the contents of this page without permission.
© Katherine T Owen
To receive
Releasing Judgment, FREE ebook
or to keep in touch...
Please be assured - I will NOT pass on your e-mail address to anyone else.
(by the author of a-spiritual-journey-of-healing.com)
For 14 years, Katherine T Owen was severely disabled with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, unable to walk, with little speech, and with inadequate care.
Katherine's small beautiful collection of poems take the reader with her as she journeys to know both self love and
God's love.
Download FREE software to read the kindle book on your computer.
Buy the paperback of Be Loved Beloved here.
"One thing that struck me was the stripping of ego in the work. Most of us have a comfy ego façade, but weakness and disease tore Katherine's away. The poems in Be Loved Beloved come from the heart."
Dana Taylor, Author of Ever-Flowing Streams: Tapping into Healing Energy


text:
|Boxing Champions | Boxing Schedule | Boxing Video | Boxing History | Pound For Pound | Lounge | The Wire | Arcade
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kill The High Horse Watch The Knight Struggle
Posts: 68,533
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Rep Power: 16930
Points: 13,092,260,417,205,602.00
Bank: 1,181,898,525.11
Total Points: 13,092,261,599,104,126.00
Some *******s have everything in life handed to them.
The Rich kid in High School is the one with the girls etc........all of that money comes from his daddy's pocket and it makes him look cool.
So the girls flock to him and all that jazz.
Or another scenario. Dozens.
I was born ready
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: We don't fvck around
Posts: 21,192
Quoted: 864 Post(s)
Rep Power: 64
Points: 12,050,968,650.17
Bank: 1,810,381,744,327,861.00
Total Points: 1,810,393,795,296,511.25
I LOVE Euro Fighters!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 34
Posts: 21,100
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Rep Power: 89
Points: 9,040,521.12
Bank: 10,394,003,421,156.61
Total Points: 10,394,012,461,677.73
My worst job ever was being the doorman at a Deja Vu strip club and it's for the same reason you mentioned above. It just sucked my soul dry in 6 months.
I already had one job at the time and the strip club was a block away and it's shifts started 30 mins after my other job ended so I figured what the hell it was convenient and I could have 2 jobs without having to travel twice or waste a bunch of time in between.
Turns out it was f*cking miserable... for so many reasons.... where do I start
1) You just stand there for 8 hours straight, in a spot thats about 10ft by 10ft. You have to wear dress shoes so your feet *****ng kill you.
2) As the doorman you get to talk to every dumb dickhead that comes through the door. A lot of them like to tell you that your job is awesome and ask how you got it. You usually want to say, "you can f*cking have it"
3) The girls aren't even good looking and the ones that are act like complete cunts. They never remember your name but always want you to light their cigarette.
4) You have to walk them to their cars when they are off their shift so if someone wants to rob them they are probably gonna stab your ass first.
5) The management consists of a couple guys who are nothing but the owners buddies and have no education in properly running a business. They think they are Hugh Hefner because they are in charge of a bunch of sluts and their egos are out of control.
6) It stinks
7) You have to see strippers without makeup and it their pajamas when the night is over
8) You have to see strippers getting picked up by their deadbeet jobless boyfriends who pick them up in rusted out Ford Tempos
9) Crackheads lock themselves in the jerk off booths during the winter to guy high while warm and then refuse to come out..... You have to get them out.
10) Drunk people come into the titty club at 2am after the bar and then throw up near the door.... but you cant move out of your spot.
11) You have to constantly help crippled and handicapped people who can barely walk but show up to get some female attention. I guess it can be funny but ultimately it gets sad over time.
12) Everyone smokes cigarettes in there. F*cking gross.
13) The other workers are generally doushbags as well. I got the job for extra money and convenience. Most everyone else was some early 30's divorced loser who thought working there was the key to gettting married to a hooker.
14) If there was a fight I wasn't allowed to touch anyone... So I couldn't even take out my frustrations of ******y little frat guys on a Friday night.
There are more reasons but I am getting pissed off just thinking about it.
Unreasonably Logical
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dodge City
Posts: 12,610
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 0
Points: 140,067,997.06
Bank: 2.55
Total Points: 140,067,999.61
Worked on an oil rig on several occasions. 9pm to 9am below 0 temperatures moving thousands of pounds of frozen iron in gloves that are frozen solid. Good times. The physical labor wasnt even the part that bothered me though it was working my freezing ass off while the driller and the derrickhand went and smoked the pyrex for hours at a time. I hate rednecks.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,434
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 36
Points: 11,009,501,058.66
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 11,009,501,058.66
factory. in that job i had, you gotta have a strong back and a little fast worker. i lasted for about 1 yr and 7 months. i dont know if i will ever work in a factory again
Business Decisions
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A-town PA(homo thugville)
Age: 31
Posts: 28,567
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Rep Power: 116
Points: 6,011,156,820,378.82
Bank: 84,224,991,667.87
Total Points: 6,095,381,812,046.69
Bee keeper, shit is alot of pressure keeping all those bees and making sure the honey is fresh
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: iladelphia
Posts: 12,794
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Rep Power: 62
Points: 2,284,815,520,315.44
Bank: 327,223,507,778,391.94
Total Points: 329,508,323,298,707.38
Jesus the worst I had was being a dishwasher but after reading all of these posts I feel like a b*tch.
Pretty Please Unban PK
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,526
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 13
Points: 100,024.89
Bank: 931,744,937,371.46
Total Points: 931,745,037,396.35
Factory baker, 30 degree celcius, 12 hour shifts 6 am to 6 pm, then swap that after 4 days off. On your feet all day long. Meh
Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: land of no sweet tea
Posts: 12,578
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 0
Points: 90,740,346,282.16
Bank: 21,891,078,630.25
Total Points: 112,631,424,912.41
security guard. bank headquarters.
sit all night for 12 hours by yourself. trying to find raccoons ****ing on the security cameras.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: land of no sweet tea
Posts: 12,578
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 0
Points: 90,740,346,282.16
Bank: 21,891,078,630.25
Total Points: 112,631,424,912.41
horribly tedious.
stand in an assembly line for 8 hours and do the same thing over, and over, and over. . . And then some more. ..
Picking up pool hoses, sticking them in a mold for the caps to go on.
i set the factory record i got so "in the zone" one time.
|Share This With Friends
|boring, done.............., jobs, tedious, worst
|Thread Tools
Cookie Policy - Privacy Policy - Submit
News - Feedback
- Site Map - Advertise
with Us
Copyright © 2003-2013 BoxingScene LLC All rights reserved.
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2003-2013 BoxingScene LLC All rights reserved.


text:
Abraham Lincoln visits Winona Historical Society
WINONA- The portrayal of the life Abraham Lincoln was performed by a former resident of Winona, John Paul Brantingham, when the Winona Area Historical Society met recently. The performance was enjoyed by over 100 guests who were also entertained by Rich Russell, banjo player. The evening closed with visiting on the lawn, refreshments of gingerbread cookies, Lincoln's favorite, and lemonade.
Weingart Cousins meet, next breakfast Aug. 12
SALEM - Thirteen members of the Weingart Cousins breakfast group met recently at the Salem Hills Golf and Country Club. The next breakfast begins at 9 a.m. Aug. 12 at the same place.
Deerfield third Monday dance starts at 7 p.m.
DEERFIELD - The Deerfield Historical Society's third Monday dance begins at 7 p.m. July 21 at Deerfield Town Hall, 1450 state Route 14. Music will be provided by the Deerfield House Band. Refreshments available for purchase. Admission is $3 per person.
Oesch family to hold 123rd annual reunion
COLUMBIANA - Games and entertainment are planned when the Oesch family attends its 123rd reunion from 5 to 10 p.m. Aug. 9 at Firestone Park, pavilion four. A buffet meal will be served at 6 p.m. Those attending are asked to bring a coverdish and individual table service. Coffee and punch will be provided.
2014 Snyder family reunion scheduled for Aug. 10
SALEM - The 2014 Snyder family reunion will be held at 2 p.m. Aug. 10 at Waterworth Memorial Park. Door prizes, children's games, bingo, and a white elephant are planned. Family members are asked to bring a coverdish or dessert to share and items to donate to the white elephant.
90th Aaron Buxton family reunion set for Aug. 3
SALEM - The 90th Aaron Buxton family reunion will be held Aug. 3 in Centennial Park, pavilion one. Those attending are to bring coverdish, old pictures, family history information and a gift for the raffle. A 50/50 drawing will also be held. Lunch will be served at noon followed by homemade ice cream after the meeting.
Salem High School '94 reunion set for Saturday
SALEM - The Salem High School Class of 1994's 20-year reunion begins at 6:30 p.m. July 26 at the Guilford Lake Grille. Reservations may be made by contacting the class Facebook page or by emailing Kara Craig at email@example.com or 330-277-3079.
R-Weigh support groups hold weekly meetings
SALEM - The R-Weigh weight support groups met at 1 and 5 p.m. Monday at the First Friends Church. Gerry Heffinger presided at the afternoon meeting. Jo Anne Bogdan was the goalie and Sandy McGarr and Evelyn Peters were the good losers for the week. Members did a show and tell program on their favorite snacks and shared some with the members as a lunch treat. The Happy Hitters beat the Salem Sluggers 8 to 5 winning the baseball game. The Hitters and Sluggers are tied winning three games each.
Karen Pauline presided at the evening meeting. Barb Smith had a question and answer session with the members and Peggy Kurtz gave the inspiration for the week. Diane Hart and Barb Smith were the good losers and Angie Reichle was the goalie for the week. Rita Cecil won the $6 can-do drawing. Receiving monetary awards were Shirley Dias for losing over her birthday and Diane Hart for losing over her vacation. The Disney Divas beat Diane's Diamond Dolls 30 to 22 winning the baseball game. The Divas have won four games and the Dolls have won two games. Three games remain to be played at both groups. New members are welcome at no charge to visit. For more information call 330-332-1078.
Butler Grange meets, learns about 'geeks' and 'dorks'
SALEM - Ida Zepernick presided when Butler Grange met recently. Sally Hays reported on the donation to Columbiana County Fair board grandstand and when the donation records can be viewed by the public. Hays sewed toy animals, which members stuffed after their meeting. Ruth Ann Altenhof presented the program: Embrace Your Geekness Day-July 13 and Be a Dork-July 15. Hays offered "geek"is a slang term originally used to describe odd or non-mainstream people with different connotations ranging from "an expert or enthusiast" to a person heavily interested in a hobby, "one who is perceived to be overly intellectual." Carol Speece added, "I made a list of things I like that may seem geeky like, science fiction, comic books, Star Wars,video games, computers, the internet. I have learned to balance my yin and yang, so I can enjoy all things from the realm of fantasy and sci-fi,while putting aside social ineptness and bad style choices often accompanying such entertainment. Altenhof added, "The day to be a dork, be proud, wear goofy clothing, don't brush your teeth, eat yucky food and fall off a swing set." The poem "Summer is the stuff of dreams" was read by Zepernick. Altenhof offered summer time riddle and jokes. Pomona meets at 7 p.m. Aug. 18 at Yellow Creek Grange with judging craft and sewing and photography contests.
Winona Ruritans host annual steak fry
WINONA - The Winona Ruritan Club's annual steak fry was held June 24 at the Saxon Club. President Rob Doyle Jr. called the business session to order at 7 p.m. Twenty-five members and 31 guests attended. Dee Fletcher and her family catered the side dishes, desserts and beverages. Each member introduced their guests. Homer Althouse introduced the evening's entertainment, The Belles of Harmony. Celebrating wedding anniversaries were Gordon and Janet Dawes, 32 years; Wayne and Betty Herron, 52 years; Homer and Gerri Huprich, 50 years; Bruce and Ruth Marhefka, 47 years; Dennis and Carol McArthur, 49 years; and Donovan and Marilyn Winn, 59 years. Gordon Dawes made a motion to donate $100 to the Columbiana County Special Olympics for the annual golf outing. The club is seeking a volunteer to serve as chairman of the U.S. flag retirement program. Alice Gamble was asked to discuss the Winona Area Historical Society's strawberry festival and the dramatization of events from the life of Abraham Lincoln, by John Paul Brantingham.
110th Greenford High School alumni banquet set for Aug. 16
GREENFORD - The 110th Greenford High School alumni banquet will be held Aug. 16 at A La Carte Catering in Canfield. The social hour begins at 5 p.m. and dinner served at 6 p.m. Cost is $20. Reservations are due by Aug. 1 and may be made by calling Stevie Kelly Coleman at 330-702-1161. Members of the class of 1964 will receive their dinner free in honor of their 50th year.
Damascus Ruritans meet, approve expenditures
DAMASCUS - Twenty-nine members and nine guests were present for the Damascus Ruritan Club's family picnic in the Quaker Canyon building. Secretary John Coldsnow announced the names of members having birthdays and anniversaries in July. Darlene Snyder of the scholarship committee presented checks to three of this year's scholarship recipients: Katelyn Mountain receiving the $600 Ruritan National Build-Your-Dollar Scholarship, daughter of Dale and Kim Mountain of Salem. She plans to attend Ohio State University; Amanda Linhart receiving the $500 Damascus Ruritan annual Ryan Johnson Memorial Scholarship, daughter of Michael and Trisha Linhart of Salem, planning to attend Ohio State University; and Ben Grammer receiving the $500 Damascus Ruritan annual Future Farmers of America Scholarship, son of Bill and Debbie Grammer of Sebring. He will attend West Virginia University. The club's second antique car show is slated 5 to 8 p.m. Aug. 15 in the Damascus Friends Church. Public admission is free, car owner's registration fee is a non-perishable food item or a monetary donation which will go directly to the Friends Church Food Pantry. Hot roast beef sandwiches, potato chips and cold beverages will be available. Coupons will be given out to everyone in attendance for the Bob Evans non-profit organization's fund raiser from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Aug. 20-22. Fifteen percent of the dinner check will go to the Damascus Ruritan Club for community service projects.
The membership voted on several board recommendations of expenditures including monetary gifts to the Ohio Valley Teen Challenge, Damascus Friends Church for assistance with the club's dinner placemats, to the Damascus Methodist Church for the club's use of its facility, and to the Damascus Community Center for help with the park maintenance. Nick Morrison requested a change in his membership status, from regular to associate, which was granted. Dale Morckel will present the club's annual two Outstanding Eighth Grade Student Awards on Aug. 14.


text:
Film by Cassavetes Takes Friendly Jabs
"Minnie and Moskowitz," John Cassavetes's sixth and, in many ways, most ambitious film, is also his friendliest, in the dish-throwing, door-pounding, exclamation-pointed manner of a comic strip. Every frame depicts a bodily assault or an exchange of angry words, representing love.
Because it means to be so friendly, and because Mr. Cassavetes has exercised imagination and discipline that lift the film out of the neo-realist rut of "Husbands" and "Faces," I wish I liked "Minnie and Moskowitz" more than I do. It's as open and vulnerable as someone who tells an elaborate ethnic joke, in an accent that isn't very authentic, with a point that isn't very funny.
The fact is that although I admired specific things about the film, I never laughed very much and only felt slight, distant tremors of the joy that, I assume, rocked everyone connected with the movie during its production.
"Minnie and Moskowitz" is a contemporary fairy tale about a youngish, eccentric, parking lot attendant (Seymour Cassel), who is essentially a middle-class Jewish prince in hippie disguise, and the very beautiful, mixed-up, middle-class gentile princess (Gena Rowlands), whose hand he wins in what is certain to be an idyllic, Maggie-and-Jiggs sort of marriage.
They meet in a parking lot when Moskowitz steps in (and is immediately flattened) as he attempts to stop Minnie's blind date from beating her up. Thereafter, Mr. Moskowitz, when he isn't pushing Minnie around to prove how much he loves her, gets pushed around by people trying to protect Minnie. They scream at each other, share sudden moments of tenderness, and spend what seems to be an extraordinary amount of time ordering and eating in roadside lunch stands.
Mr. Cassavetes's use of exaggerated slapstick gestures to underscore the loneliness and fears of his characters is more interesting in theory than funny or moving in actual fact. This may well have to do with the heavy literalness with which the supposedly comic brawls are photographed (people do get hurt that way), and with the apparent disparity between the characters and their environments.
Minnie, for just one example, works at the Los Angeles County Museum and lives in a posh, book-lined duplex, yet she seems to have the mental equipment of Edgar Kennedy's bird-brained wife in those old two-reelers. It doesn't quite fit.
To the extent that the material allows them to be, Mr. Cassel and Miss Rowlands are most appealing. However, all of the performances are quite special and this, I think, is Mr. Cassavetes's strongest point.
As an actor, he appreciates actors and their mysterious art, as well as their awful dependency on the work of others. This explains why he casts his films so abundantly, using very fine actors in what are practically throw-away roles, or would be throwaway roles in the film of a less fond director.
"Minnie and Moskowitz" is loaded with small, sometimes lovely, sometimes odd-ball bits, by people like Tim Carey (as a nut in an all-night restaurant), Val Avery (as Minnie's aggressive blind-date), and even by members of the Cassavetes-Rowlands families. Two of the best performances of the film are given by the director's mother, Katherine Cassavetes, as Moskowitz's indulgent Jewish mum, and Mrs. Cassavetes's mother, Lady Rowlands, as Minnie's very starchy, WASPy parent.
"Minnie and Moskowitz," which opened yesterday at the Cinema II, does reverse one usual movie procedure in that it improves as it goes along, instead of falling apart. Like Minnie and Moskowitz themseves, the movie attempts to fight its way out of the lower depths, but it's not as lucky as its prince and princess.
The Cast
MINNIE AND MOSCOWITZ, directed by John Cassavetes; screenplay by Mr. Cassavetes; directors of photography, Arthur J. Ornitz, Alric Edens and Michael Margulles; editor, Fred Knudtson; produced by Al Rubin; released by Universal. Running time: 114 minutes. At the Cinema II, Third Avenue, near 60th Street. (The Motion Picture Association of America's Production Code and Rating Administration classifies this film "GP—all ages admitted, parental guidance suggested."
Minnie . . . . . Gena Rowlands
Moskowitz . . . . . Seymour Cassel
Zelmo Swift . . . . . Val Avery
Morgan Morgan . . . . . Tim Carey
Sheba Moskowitz . . . . . Katherine Cassavetes
Girl . . . . . Elizabeth Deering
Florence . . . . . Elsie Ames
Georgia Moore . . . . . Lady Rowlands
Irish . . . . . Holly Near
Wife . . . . . Judith Roberts
Husband . . . . . John Cassavetes
Minister . . . . . David Rowlands


text:
Ralph C. Reedman Jr., whose used-car business in Langhorne mushroomed over five decades into one of the largest and most innovative new automobile dealerships in the country, died Thursday at St. Mary Hospital in Middletown, Bucks County.
"He was a legend and innovator in this business," said Bob Ebert, who worked with Mr. Reedman for 39 years and now is the firm's operation manager. Mr. Reedman began operating the mall concept of selling cars - several showrooms in close proximity - decades before it was successfully imitated by others. What made Reedman so unusual was that he owned all the different dealerships.


text:
Light My Fire SnapBox Original
Retailers' Descriptions
Here's what other sites are saying:
The Light My Fire SnapBox Original are two handy little boxes for just about everything you can think of. Tight-fitting snap-lock lids keep contentsand your backpacksafe and sound, while different colors keep you organized. The boxes are easy to open: just pull the tab. Practical measuring lines inside. Real space savers when not in use as they're stack-able.
- CampSaver.com
Light My Fire SnapBox Original
previously retailed for:
The Light My Fire SnapBox Original is not available from the stores we monitor. It was last seen November 17, 2014 at CampSaver.com.
If you're looking for a new kitchen accessory, check out the best reviewed current models.


text: Nike NSW has released a black/bronze colorway for its Tiempo '94 Lunar Mid silhouette. Featuring a predominantly black leather upper with bronze panels at the midfoot, heel and Swoosh, this iteration offers up a bold take on this streetwear favorite. Underneath lies a contrasting white Lunarlon midsole and black rubber outsole. The Nike NSW Tiempo '94 Lunar Mid TP QS will be available soon at select accounts including SUPPA.


text:
From the smallest biotech to the biggest pharmaceutical stock The Motley Fool's Market Check-Up covers the health-care sector's biggest headlines, hottest market movers, and Obamacare's ongoing rollout.
In this segment from Tuesday's episode, health-care analyst David Williamson looks into three big pieces of bad news for big pharma companies GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK ) , Sanofi (NYSE: SNY ) , and Pfizer (NYSE: PFE ) . David looks at one embattled drug from each of these three companies, and ranks just how bad the damage really is case by case.
Another big growth stock to watch
This incredible tech stock is growing twice as fast as Google and Facebook, and more than three times as fast as Amazon.com and Apple. Watch our jaw-dropping investor alert video today to find out why The Motley Fool's chief technology officer is putting $117,238 of his own money on the table, and why he's so confident this will be a huge winner in 2013 and beyond. Just click here to watch!
Follow David on Twitter: @MotleyDavid.


text:
Pantech Wireless Inc, the U.S.-based auxiliary of Pantech Group, one of Koreas major mobile phone makers declared the release of Reveal, a full-characteristic double-keyboard phone, optimized for texting and emailing friends, flirts or family members and browsing the Web. Reveal is the primary in AT&Ts new line of rapid messaging phones to hit stores and is another instance of a stimulating Pantech handset at a striking cost. Obtainable nowadays in a sleek red or blue, Reveal is just right gift for any trendsetting teen or tween.
Reveal is a thin, receptive slider that characteristics an open-faced numeric keypad on the frontage of the phone which glides up to uncover a full keyboard beneath. Exclusively, both sets of keys stay active concurrently, providing consumers fast access to numbers and letters at the same time giving a really quick messaging skill. Perfect for updating statuses with new pictures and videos, texting, IMing or emailing friends, Reveal keeps everyone linked to their digital life at every instant of the day. All of this occurs at the speed of 3G, which creates playing and managing music and videos a breeze.


text:
Why Subscribe To A Chess Magazine When You Can Get Chess News And Updates Straight to Your PC?!
With Chess.com's News and Buzz section, you get updates and news on the latest and biggest chess events. What's even better, you don't need to wait for your chess magazine or run the risk of losing it in the mail. It's delivered straight to your PC!
And here's the sweeter part: Chess.com TV delivers LIVE coverage of the biggest chess tournaments and matches! Whether it's the World Championship Match, European Championship, etc., Chess.com is sure to cover it.
Hosted and commentated by GMs and IMs, you get more than just the moves. You get penetrating insight and analysis by the best players of the game...transforming your average chess event coverage into a priceless and interactive learning experience.
Sign Up Now For Free!
This name will be visible to other Chess.com users.
Never share your password or account information with anyone.
By creating your account you affirm that you agree to the site Terms of Service. You may receive e-mail game alerts, account updates, and occasional newsletters sent by Chess.com and can unsubscribe at any time. See our Privacy Policy.
Your email address & personal info are safe and will NEVER be shared with anyone!
We do NOT send marketing emails. See our complete Privacy Policy here.
Looking for fun site for kids?
Chesskid.com is safe & free!
Home |
Privacy Policy |
Legal |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!


text:
UPDATE: After selling through its initial pressing of 2,000 in two weeks, Film Score Monthly has pressed another 2,000. As label head Lukas Kendall cheekily explained, "I NEED THE MONEY!" Original post: One of Hollywood's greatest film scores and one of the catalogue world's greatest soundtrack labels have finally, excitedly joined forces to produce a definitive box set edition of the Oscar-winning soundtrack William Wyler's classic Ben-Hur. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's Ben-Hur, released in 1959 (and
Archives for March 8, 2012
Eight More ICON Sets for You to Briefly Consider
What you will see after the jump are eight more of Universal's generic ICON titles, released this past Tuesday. There are two country acts, two Motown acts, two Motown compilations, one from Dean Martin and one from pop/rock band Fall Out Boy. A stranger collection you'll rarely find. I'd give a halfhearted recommendation to the Motown ones if you want to spend a little money on someone who has the distinct displeasure of never having heard any Motown song, ever. If you have more money to spend,
Carefree Highway: Rhino Offers Rare "Moments" With Gordon Lightfoot
Gordon Lightfoot's stands at Toronto's Massey Hall have become a cherished tradition over the past forty years, with the Canadian troubadour having taken the stage more times than any other artist in the Hall's 117 year history. Last May 25, 2011, Lightfoot performed his 150th concert there, and as he prepares for this year's stand in November, Rhino Records is reminding fans of his rich legacy there with the April 17 release of Massey Hall Moments - All Live. Why not just plain Live?
Warner Waxes Nostalgic for Record Store Day
Believe it or not, Record Store Day is almost upon us. (It's April 21 - just over a month away!) We've been anxiously awaiting word from the labels on what's coming out this year, and it looks like Warner Music Group is one of the first to the scene. While there's not much in the way of unreleased goodies on the catalogue side of things - there are certainly plenty new or unearthed songs from current acts, which you can read about here - there are a couple of vintage and contemporary classics
Reissue Theory: Tears for Fears, "Big Ideas: The Singles 1982-1993"
Welcome to another installment of Reissue Theory, where we focus on notable albums and the reissues they may someday see. In honor of a recent milestone for one of the '80s' best synthpop bands, we present the idea of something their catalogue doesn't have but could totally need: a box set. Our friends at Slicing Up Eyeballs reminded us yesterday that March 7, 1983 was the day that Phonogram Records (and Mercury in the U.S.) released The Hurting, the debut album by British synth-rockers Tears
Ooh Wah, Ooh Wah, Cool Cool Kitty: Grateful Dead, Ad Libs, Eddie Rabbitt Coming From Real Gone Music
Yee-haw! Real Gone Music has announced its late April/early May slate of releases, and you can count on plenty of country plus helping heapings of R&B, pop and, well, The Grateful Dead! On April 17, the label will release the Complete Hit Singles As and Bs from soul legend Little Willie John as well as a vintage Complete Hit Singles As and Bs collection for "Cowboy" Copas. Then on May 1 comes The Complete Blue Cat Recordings of The Ad Libs, straight from the vaults of Leiber and