Instead of being a candidate, I prefer to vote for someone. In fact, my wife and I have a fourteen-year-old who likes to play baseball and I much prefer running around with them than running for office. But unfortunately, I disagree with those on the ballot: It is wrong to take money from people.

Although I would like to talk with you about contract insurance, which is a way to operate government without taxation, we have an emergency: Phillip Jordan. . . We have people dying: Patrick Nixon. . . We have Americans dying: Frederick Pokorney. . . We have American soldiers dying:

Randal Rosacker. . . Operation Iraqi Freedom was created by our president and voted for by most of our congress to protect us from the political party in Iraq. Our military has done a brilliant job in finding its leader hiding in a hole in the ground--obviously no threat to us now. Bring our troops home to parades and a hearty "Thank you." Our military is to protect our freedom--not anyone else's.

Thomas Slocum. . . Americans have worked hard to create the most powerful defense department that has ever existed. For us to remain safe while our defenders are being ambushed outside our country is very wrong. I hope all Libertarian federal candidates will make this the focus of their campaigns:

Michael Williams. . . At minimum, if we are successful at equating that a Libertarian-vote is a vote to return our heroes, we will show the other parties that a growing number of Americans see our work as being finished in Iraq. While some may disagree with my reasons, I hope we can all agree on this goal.

Thomas Adams. . . As a citizen of the United Nations, I am working to improve that government by calling for the election of a congress representing the people from all the constitutional republics around the world. This should help the Iraqi people if they choose to join, but this has nothing to do with my campaign for federal office in the United States.

Eric Orlowski. . . As president, my first priority would be to keep our military ready to defend all those in the US. If people choose to travel outside our country, they would be wise to join in the efforts to make the UN more effective.

Christopher Seifert. . . While it is wrong for the UN to give membership to kings, it is very dangerous for our US government to give aid to these dictators--like the one in Arabia. Those trying to establish a different system in their country will see Americans as their enemy--like those who killed so many on 911.

Brandon Tobler. . . Our nation was started by removing the English king's influence, and those helping him were our enemies as well. Our government should not take sides, but especially should not take the side of a king. Fortunately the old parties allow airline pilots to carry guns again so they can at least defend themselves and their customers until our party can improve our foreign policy.

Therrel Childers. . . While sometimes our president has to send our armed forces to hunt down those who attack and run, this should be very focused and of short duration with the goal of returning them for trial if possible.

Jose Gutierrez. . . If we do not protect our military personnel, they will not re-enlist and if the old parties draft my son like they did my brother that almost will be unbearable. Please, let us end this latest death list--please.

Jay Aubin, Andrew. . .

Currently, I am spending my advertisement dollar on printed ads like the one that appeared in the business card directory of our national newspaper. I have enjoyed visiting regions and conventions around our country, and have sent my literature and DVD to many of those that I have yet to visit. While being excluded in the last one, I am trying to take part in our next national convention debate.

When people offer their support, I try to persuade those interested in contract insurance to run for federal office or support someone in their area. My focus is to join with other Libertarians to form a team of about one in a million Americans (269) so the voters have a real alternative when the taxing parties finally alienate just over half of us. Please join us because, win or lose, we know that we are doing something important.

Although you probably know that your life began when two cells united, do you know that people who create a nation are continuing a long history of things that unite? Atoms unite and form a molecule; molecules unite and form a cell; cells unite and form a person; and people unite to form a nation. After billions of years of uniting on earth, we are the first units to develop a brain that can understand what is going on.

The biggest threat to our survival comes from people who want to rob us. To eliminate this threat, our ancestors created the first nation by choosing a leader who could protect each person from the violent behavior of others. This wonderful system of electing a leader allows people to live in peace, and is called a government. Unfortunately, no nation has survived for long because government leaders have misused their power.

The people who created the Constitution of the United States solved this problem by writing a list of actions that our leaders are not allowed to take. For example, the first Americans decided that our government will not abridge the freedom of the press, which is why I can send you this book. Our nation has grown very strong because we are the first people to restrict our politicians. I would like to persuade you that we need to add another restriction to sustain the health of our nation.

The worst abuse of power by most politicians is taxation. They start by taking a small amount of money from a few citizens. Then, because every living thing tries to grow as strong as possible, these politicians take more and more money from everyone. To insure the survival of our nation, we should add the following to our list of restrictions:

I would like to offer you a trade. If you vote for me to become the President, I will work to protect all Americans from anyone who tries to rob us. I will introduce contract insurance, which is a way that we can operate our government without taxation. A couple of centuries ago, Americans eliminated the disease of slavery from our beautiful nation. This century, we should eliminate taxes.

1. How can a government operate without taxation?

     Before people unite to form something, such as a 
marriage or corporation, they usually create an image of 
what their relationship will be like.  If this image differs 
greatly from what they experience, they usually separate.  
Problems may arise if any property was created during their 
union, such as a house or factory.  Whatever caused their 
separation also may cause disagreements in dividing their 
united property.  Ingeniously, many people solve this 
problem by writing a contract before they get together, 
stating how any property should be divided.
     Problems may still exist if people do not honor their 
contracts.  To solve this, governments step in and divide 
any disputed property.  If governments would charge for this 
valuable service, they could make the money to operate--
without taxation.
     When people draw up a contract, they could purchase a 
contract insurance policy from their government.  This would 
insure that all the partners would get what they deserve 
from their relationship.  If someone did not follow the 
terms of the agreement, the government would have permission 
to distribute any common property according to the contract.
     Of course, no one would have to buy this insurance.  
People should be free to resolve any disagreements by 
talking with their partners.  But if partners began taking 
from each other, this would be robbery, and the government 
should stop them.  All uninsured partners would lose the use 
of their common property if they could not agree with each 
other.
     Today, most people buy fire and medical insurance to 
protect them against a major loss.  Most people would 
buy contract insurance for the same reason.  With all the 
contracts that are signed each day, our government could 
earn the money to maintain the best military, police, court 
and prison system in the world.  This would protect all the 
people in our nation--without robbing us to do it.
     With this system, for the first time in history, people 
could live in peace.  Our government would continue to 
defend each person's home and business against criminals.  
The big improvement would be that the no-tax restriction 
added to our constitution would defend each person's 
property against our government.
     With the elimination of robbery in our nation, we would 
find that we could satisfy all our other needs with much 
less effort.  When people can keep what they earn, it does 
not take long for them to trade with each other and acquire 
what they need to live well.  Peace and prosperity are 
possible for those who are willing to think about how to 
achieve them.
     If you would like me to promote these ideas as the 
President, you can vote for me on the Tuesday after the 
first Monday in November of every fourth year beginning 
November 4, 2008.  Feel free to make copies of my material and 
give them to others or keep any money if you sell them, or 
have those who are interested contact me, Dave Hollist, at 
909-980-4198 or Post Office Box 9414, Alta Loma, CA  91701
or constitution@compuserve.com or http://i.am/trading or
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/constitution
     Each person's first 2-page prospectus is free, each 
booklet (first 20 pages of book) is $2, and my book or DVD 
is $20 (including postage and tax).  This offer also applies 
to my literature emailed, faxed or on a computer disk.  If you 
would like me to increase the advertisement of these ideas, 
you are welcome to send me money, or each $100 investment in 
my campaign pays $200 when I win.  The first investor will 
be paid first, second second, etc., with up to all the 
available $1.6 million of my salary being paid out during my 
term in office.
     If you plan to be a delegate at the Libertarian Party 
National Convention, please indicate if you would be willing 
to sign my nomination papers.  Also, let me know if you 
would like to place my name on your state's primary ballot.  
Lastly, please send me any questions and criticisms.

2. What is an image?

     One sunny day, I stepped into an outhouse.  When the 
door slammed shut behind me, it was so dark that I could not 
see anything.  As my eyes began to adjust, I noticed some 
colors flickering on the wall.  When I leaned forward to 
investigate, the colors disappeared.  As I leaned back, they 
reappeared.  Turning to the opposite wall, I blinked as a 
beam of light hit my eye.
     A hole in the wall was letting in a small amount of 
light, and this was creating blue, brown and green colors on 
the opposite wall.  I moved closer to the colors--while not 
obstructing the beam--and saw an upside down image of the 
forest and sky outside.  The trees were even swaying in the 
breeze.  Coincidentally, I had a moment to think about this 
phenomenon.
     A dark chamber that is penetrated by a small amount of 
light will cause an image of the outside to be created on 
the inside.  It was as if I had stepped into a camera.  A 
camera is a dark box that light enters when the button is 
pressed.  If I had had a big roll of film with me, I could 
have made a picture of the trees for my photo album.
     Also, it was as if I had stepped into an eye.  Your eye 
is a dark chamber that can be penetrated by a small amount 
of light when you raise your eyelid.  The image that is 
created in your eye travels to your brain, which gives you 
your sight and a memory of what you have seen.

3. What is a sound?

     In a room with two similarly tuned pianos, if you 
strike a key on one, the other piano will faintly create the 
same sound without being touched.  The vibration of the 
string that was struck will cause its counterpart in the 
other piano to begin to vibrate.  Something else in the room 
will begin to move without you touching it--your inner ear.
     Your ear has a similar string-like structure that also 
begins to vibrate.  The sound that is created in your ear 
travels to your brain, which gives you your hearing and a 
memory of what you have heard.

4. What is an emotion?

     Within a few days after the excitement of his birth, 
Johnny and his mother settled into their routine. He would 
see and hear his mother, and soon was having memories of 
her.  One night she came into his room and spoke without 
turning on the light, which caused him to recall the image 
of her face.  His brain had stored the sounds she made along 
with her image, and hearing her voice triggered a memory of 
her face.  This type of memory is called an emotion.
     Of course the simplest experience can create many 
memories.  For example, Johnny would wake up hungry, see his 
mother's face, hear her voice, touch her soft and warm skin, 
smell and taste her milk, and then fall to sleep satisfied.  
When little John experienced any one of these sensations in 
the future, he recalled the others emotionally.
     The great benefit of having emotions could be observed 
when Johnny was experiencing the pain of hunger and saw his 
mom.  He faintly felt the pleasure of being nourished and 
moved toward his mom for the real thing.  This valuable 
emotional process will help John to seize opportunities and 
avoid dangers throughout his life.

5. What is a thought?

     Before Johnny had reached his second birthday, he could 
say the name of his favorite toy.  When he would make the 
sound ball, he would emotionally recall the image of his 
ball.  One day his mom brought home a bigger toy ball, and 
she also called it a ball.  Confusion could be seen on the 
face of the child as he wondered why his mom would call both 
toys by the same name.  This prompted little John to begin 
a uniquely human action--he started to think.
     When he looked at the smaller ball in his hand, he 
emotionally recalled the sound ball, and the same thing 
happened when he looked at the bigger ball on the floor.  
The balls were the same shape and color, and at the right 
distance from each other, they appeared to be the same size.  
Also, with the balls along side each other, Johnny began to 
focus on the similar shapes of the two balls as compared to 
his other toys.  His mental images of the balls were 
identical, except for their sizes.  
     He noticed that if he disregarded the size of each 
ball, he could understand why his mother called them both 
ball.  Now when he made the sound ball, instead of the image 
of his favorite toy coming to mind, he recalled this new 
mental image that he had created of the basic shape of both 
balls.  This new image is called a thought and the sound is 
called a word.  
     Then his parents began saying big and little.  This 
prompted our little thinker to take another mental step.  He 
used these words to describe the size difference between the 
two balls.  This valuable thought process will allow John to 
understand and describe anything he experiences in life.

6. What is a belief?

     Johnny had been working hard and had learned hundreds 
of thoughts like red, white, coat, beard and man.  One 
winter day when he was getting into something that he was 
not supposed to, his mother said that if he behaved himself, 
Santa Claus would bring him some toys.  "Who is Santa 
Claus?" was his next question.
     As his mother explained, John took the thoughts that he 
had learned, and created an image of a big man with a white 
beard, wearing a red coat and carrying a little ball.  This 
image is called a belief.  This process is the reverse of 
thinking.  Instead of John creating a thought from what he 
had seen, he used his thoughts to create an image of what he 
has not seen.
     While this believing process can be valuable, it also 
can cause John many problems.  If he accepts that Santa 
Claus exists, he emotionally will feel the pleasure of 
having someone to give him presents like his parents.  But 
when he learns that there is no Santa Claus, he not only 
will feel the pain of losing Santa Claus, he may lose his 
confidence in all his mental images.  To avoid this problem, 
Johnny needs only to think about what people say, and never 
just accept what they believe.

7. What am I ?

     I am a thinking animal.  I was sitting at the desk in 
my Upland, California home around 1980.  I was studying 
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand.  
Suddenly, I got it.  I got the answer to this question that 
I had been asking since I was a small boy.  It is a simple 
little question, but it took the first twenty-five years of 
my life to understand.
     One of my first memories is being alone on a moving 
bulldozer, yelling at my father to hurry and close the gate 
that we had just passed through.  He still had to run, jump 
up, push the pedal, and pull the lever to save me from 
falling into the ditch.  He always made it just in time with 
a big laugh at how afraid I was.
     My dad could do everything.  He went to college on a 
basketball scholarship; joined the Army and liberated the 
prisoners that were being held by the National Socialists in 
the Dachau, Germany concentration camp; taught animal 
husbandry at the University of Alaska; and built a three 
stall milking parlor on our dairy farm.
     My dad also could answer my little question.  He told 
me that I was created by God.  When I asked him who created 
God, I did not understand his reply.  I felt bad for asking 
because my father became uncomfortable.  Years later I 
realized that my father had created God by believing.  My 
dad wanted someone to save him when he became frightened.  
While this belief did trigger a pleasant emotion for my 
father, it would be up to me to discover the real answer to 
my question.
     Charles Darwin, about a century ago, wrote On the 
Origin of Species.  He recorded his observations as the 
naturalist aboard the Beagle, a commercial ship navigating 
the waters around South America.  He explained that I am an 
animal who has evolved from a more primitive life form 
through natural selection.  This process has been occurring 
on the earth for billions of years.  While this thought is 
true based on what I have seen, accepting it also triggers a 
pleasant emotion.  I feel that I am part of the universe, 
and I do not feel bad for asking questions.
     To discover what makes me different from other animals, 
I had to turn to epistemology.  This is the study of how we 
think.  We share emotions with the other animals, but the 
day we form our first thought, we leave all the other 
organisms behind.
     Sitting at my desk, I had come to the end of a long 
journey.  Just like Johnny grouping his toys, I mentally 
grouped myself with the other supreme beings called humans, 
whose distinguishing characteristic is a mind, this 
wonderful brain capable of understanding the world.  A new 
journey began that day--deciding what to do with my life.  
But before I could know what to do, I had to answer a simple 
little question:  What am I?  I am a thinking animal.

8. What is the novel Atlas Shrugged about?

     Dagny Taggart runs the largest railroad in the United 
States.  Her brother, James, inherited from their father the 
title of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Taggart 
Transcontinental Railroad, but lacks the knowledge to manage 
the corporation.  Dagny had prepared herself for the 
responsibilities of being Chief Operating Officer by 
mastering, or at least understanding, every job that is 
involved in running a railroad.  Her lover is Francisco 
d'Anconia, the competent heir to the largest copper mining 
corporation in the world.
     Dagny becomes alarmed when, one by one, the most 
capable CEO's suddenly retire and leave for parts unknown.  
When her lover vanishes after sabotaging his company into 
worthlessness, she begins a quest to discover the identity 
of a man who had been seen talking to each of the CEO's just 
before they departed.  Her relentless pursuit ends when she 
crashes her plane in a hidden valley, and is pulled from the 
wreckage by John Galt.
     He gives her a tour of the valley.  She discovers all 
the missing CEO's continuing their business pursuits, but 
only within the valley.  John had persuaded them to quit the 
outside world by teaching them the futility of working 
within the current system of government regulation.  They, 
the more productive, were being forced to support the less 
productive, and when the CEO's learned that this system is 
suicidal for all involved, they went on strike.  Atlas, the 
character in the old story who supported the world on his 
shoulders, shrugged.
     John cleverly transmits the terms of the strike across 
all the airwaves just as everyone was expecting to hear the 
President speak about the worsening state of the economy.  
John explains that the CEO's will return to work if all 
their property is protected from government control.  These 
capitalists expect to be stopped by the government if they 
hurt someone, but they refuse to have their productivity 
controlled by anyone.  John with Dagny, and the other valley 
inhabitants, safely wait to hear the response to their 
terms.  Either way, they had won their freedom.
     My response to the author of this novel, Ayn Rand, is 
to acknowledge that she is right.  Several years ago, I was 
interested in discovering if the growing process was 
evolutionally separate enough from the aging process to 
allow me to engineer myself so that I could continue to 
live.  A professor took me to a genetics conference where I 
learned that what I had in mind was so dangerous that the 
government would have to control my experiments.  I do not 
want to hurt anyone, so I took a number and got in line, 
waiting for the old scientists to die to free a place for me 
in one of the few government-approved laboratories.
     While I was waiting, a friend gave me Atlas Shrugged, 
and after reading it and everything that I could find by 
Rand, I began to understand what I had suspected--our system 
could use some improvement.  Philosophy, which is the study 
of what is fundamentally going on, has been littered with 
beliefs in the existence of more than one universe; the 
acquisition of knowledge by other than reason; and the duty 
to give one's life to others.  Rand cleared the debris by 
presenting an integrated view of reality, which recognizes 
that there is only one universe; we understand only by 
thinking; and life is to be enjoyed.
     Most people are just like Johnny, once we start 
thinking, we spend many years forming thoughts about 
everything that we encounter--until we start thinking about 
what it means to be alive.  Our next mental step is usually 
a silent scream, "I'm gonna die, I'm gonna die!"  The 
overwhelming flood of fear that this belief triggers never 
recedes for many people.  Their past had been involved in 
growing bigger, stronger and brighter, and now this image 
makes the future a place that they do not want to go.
     A popular solution to this problem is to stop thinking, 
usually with the help of drugs, or for some, the belief that 
they will live again after they die.  Rand explains that 
survival is a challenge for those who choose to think, but 
for those who do not think, it is impossible.  People can 
accept that living requires effort and that their success is 
not guaranteed, or they can just not think about it and be 
guaranteed of their failure.
     As I navigated the course through the pages of her 
novel, Rand painted a picture in my mind of a place that she 
wanted to live.  It was beautiful.  It was so beautiful that 
I started to build a place just like it.  Such is the power 
of ideas.  If it works in your mind, you cannot wait to 
rearrange the elements to match your mental image.
     I worried about my enthusiastic response to Rand's 
novel because it was similar to my brother's response to the 
Bible.  He began with the euphoria, but after trying to kill 
himself, he settled into a constant state of unhappiness.  I 
have respect for books.  If someone who I considered my 
superior in many ways could start out by reading a book and 
end up in a hospital, I have to be careful.
     I check out every thought for myself, and recently 
enjoyed confirming that I am understanding what I read and 
not merely believing what others say, like my brother.  Some 
of Rand's notes about Atlas Shrugged were published in the 
January 1992 issue of The Intellectual Activist.  On page 
three, she is quoted as writing, ". . . all his emotions, of 
course, are determined by his thinking.. . ."  I think the 
evidence reveals that this belief is false.
     This does not lessen my admiration for Rand because 
many times she cautioned people to question what they read, 
but it is satisfying to disagree with the second most 
intelligent person.  The most intelligent was the first 
animal to form the first thought many years ago.  I think it 
is appropriate to call this first human God because by my 
reading of the old books, that is who is being referred to.  
To learn what people are telling you can save you a lot of 
time, but to simply accept what they believe is lethal.
     One last response to Atlas Shrugged is that we are 
witnessing the birth of a new nation based upon the ideas of 
Rand.  I hope that enough Americans will see the value of 
further constitutional limitations on our government, but if 
too many fail to understand and vote, our nation will 
disintegrate back into independent States, like the former 
Soviet Union, with probably at least one State conforming to 
the image of Rand's valley.

9. Referring to answer number one (1) the fourth paragraph (P4): What would happen to the property?

     The uninsured common property would remain right where 
it is until all its owners came to an agreement, although 
its value probably would decrease from lack of use.  Since 
the purpose of government is to eliminate force from human 
relationships, anyone who tried to dispose of property that 
he or she did not solely own would be stopped from doing so 
by the government.  After a while, the uninsured partners 
probably would begin to compromise and agree to a division 
of their common property, although probably not to the 
complete satisfaction of all.  This potential loss of value 
in a relationship is the reason contract insurance would be 
a much sought after commodity.
     With contract insurance, people could enter agreements 
with the peace of mind of knowing that if they later decide 
that their relationship is not as beneficial as they 
originally thought it would be, they can take the value that 
they had created and move on.  The highly developed capacity 
we humans have of specializing in a line of work that 
interests us and trading our products for those of others 
can be unleashed with the adoption of contract insurance.  
The first group of people to understand this principle will 
be rewarded with longer, healthier lives and the power to 
travel throughout the universe.

10. 1P3: What would be the price of a contract insurance policy?

     One percent of the value being insured.  For example--
in order to buy a house--if I sign a contract with a bank to 
repay one hundred thousand dollars over a thirty year 
period, I would pay our government one thousand dollars per 
year to insure the deal.  If I continue to make the agreed 
upon payments, I could enjoy my house without interference 
from anyone.  Multiplying these common transactions by the 
number of Americans, our government could earn billions of 
dollars.
     This is the revolutionary idea:  "our government could 
earn"--just like what every other law-abiding citizen has 
been doing since governments were invented.  Instead of 
politicians persuading one group to impose a tax on another 
and then using that money to buy votes for the next tax, 
politicians would be elevated to the honorable status of 
people who provide a valuable product, and work to satisfy 
their customers.  This new job description probably would 
not appeal to those who enter government to gain power over 
people--a great byproduct of contract insurance.
     If the one percent premium was too low to operate our 
government, our politicians could either increase their 
efficiency or raise the price.  If the price was too high, 
either the voters could elect politicians who would lower it 
or people would be free to operate without contract 
insurance.  With this innovation, we finally could bring 
government into the civilized world, where people offer 
value for value.

11. 1P3: Could anyone else provide contract insurance?

     No, a nation can survive only if there is one final 
judge of contract disputes.  Our Supreme Court provides us 
with this service, which explains the success of our system.  
It takes little effort to imagine the results of two 
contract insurance providers disagreeing on the disposition 
of one piece of property--degeneration into warfare would 
be inevitable.  Of course anyone could provide the service 
of drawing up a contract, but only our government would have 
the power to enforce its provisions.  If anyone tried to 
seize someone else's property--even if it was a provision of 
a signed contract--our government should recognize that as 
robbery and intervene.
     Robbery (when one takes by force from another) is the 
most important issue affecting the health of an individual 
and a nation.  In your body, the immune system has evolved 
specialized cells that float around bumping into other cells 
with nothing happening until a foreign cell is detected.  
Protecting itself, the immune cell quickly surrounds the 
invader and breaks it down into harmless molecules.  This 
wonderful process allows your other cells to continue their 
life sustaining activities.
     In your nation, the government system solves this 
problem with the police who travel around until someone 
starts to use force against someone else.  To protect 
themselves, the police sometimes have to break down the 
criminal into harmless molecules, but usually they put the 
law breaker in prison.  This allows us to continue our life 
sustaining activities.
     To live, we must use force, from the expansion of our 
lungs for the air we need to the ingestion of organisms for 
their essential nutrients.  But the use of force against 
people is unwise because of the greater value that people 
can create if they are free from aggression.  If you act 
like you own people by trying to control them or by voting 
for politicians who tax and regulate them, all you will get 
is a bunch of angry captives who spend most of their time 
thinking of ways to either kill you or move away from you.  
But if you create an environment where people are free to 
produce and trade, you will be rewarded with a wonderful 
standard of living for a relatively small amount of effort.
     Of course if some people are unwise enough to attack 
other people, they probably cannot be persuaded to stop, so 
the use of force against them is the only way to protect 
yourself.  Government is an effective tool to retaliate 
against those who initiate the use of physical force against 
others.

12. 1P3: Who would insure the contracts between citizens and our government?

     Our government would continue to settle disputes 
between itself and others.  Our beautiful system, with its 
three separate parts, could easily incorporate contract 
insurance.  The Legislature could adopt the program; the 
Executive would run it; with the Judiciary overseeing that 
the program was operated correctly.  Of course, with their 
power to elect, the majority of voters would continue to 
have the final say--the strongest feature of our great 
system.
     If people become dissatisfied with the service provided 
by one company, we are free to take our business to another 
or to do it ourselves, but because our government would be 
the only provider of contract insurance, dissatisfaction 
would be expressed at the ballot box by electing better 
politicians.  While people would be free to operate without 
contract insurance, it would be such a valuable product that 
most people probably would continue voting for the best 
politicians to keep the program running smoothly.

13. Referring to the first advertisement (ad1) the fifth paragraph (P5) [Page 1]: Would you send our military into another country?

     No, unless attacked, and then I probably only would 
send missiles in retaliation to reduce the risk of injury to 
our military personnel.  Fortunately, our military is so 
strong that no large group has attacked our country in over 
one half of a century, and it appears to be as strong as 
ever.  Our elected politicians and those they hire are 
responsible for the protection of all the people inside our 
borders, and I appreciate their efforts.
     Because I like to do business with those living in 
other countries, I send my literature around the world 
trying to persuade people to vote for me to become the 
President of the United Nations.  Of course, I must first 
get enough people to agree to improve the Constitution of 
the U.N. so it will resemble that of the United States.  The 
relationship between the participating national governments 
and the U.N. government would be the same as the 
relationship between our state governments and our national 
government.  Those doing business outside their country 
could purchase contract insurance from the U.N., thus 
supporting the efforts to protect their property in other 
countries.

14. 7P1: Are you an Objectivist?

     No, Objectivism is Ms. Rand's philosophy--the ideas 
that she chose to guide her life.  She focused much of her 
attention on philosophy, which has another meaning--the 
study of what is fundamentally going on.  One good method of 
study is to analyze other people's explanation of what is 
going on.  Because most of Rand's ideas are true, she 
successfully explained most areas of our lives.  I have not 
seen a need to name my philosophy, but I have learned from 
many teachers and have created my own ideas to set the 
course of my life.
     I wrote Rand a letter stating that Atlas Shrugged was 
the best product on the market and thanking her for all the 
time that she had saved me, but I had to take every mental 
step that she took in forming her concepts, which then made 
them my concepts.  I wish that she was alive to read my 
arguments because I am constantly looking for any errors, 
and if they exist, I bet she would find them.  Also, I wish 
that she could benefit from my ideas like I have benefited 
from hers.  I loved her very much.

15. ad1P5: Would you abolish any government programs?

     No, but I would try to persuade Congress to make them 
all voluntary.  Take Social Security for example:  Our 
government has taken money from millions of citizens for 
many years and we have a claim against our government to 
provide for our retirement.  My argument is that we do not 
have a claim against our neighbors.  Our government is the 
wealthiest institution that has ever existed and should make 
good on its promises--I just think that we should stop it 
from robbing people to meet its obligations.
     If not forced to continue, some people may stop paying 
into Social Security and provide for their retirement in 
other ways.  Our government probably would have to sell some 
of its assets, such as its vast land holdings, to meet its 
obligations.  A nice byproduct of this idea would be a 
gradual shrinking of our government to a manageable size, 
and its eventual exit from services that are better provided 
by others.

16. 8P11: What is the evidence that Rand's statement, ". . . all his emotions, of course, are determined by his thinking.. . ." is false?

     The evidence (e = from + videre = to see) is that from 
the day my son was born, I have seen him experience emotions 
(e = out + movere = move).  When I enter his room, he looks 
at me and moves toward me.  I conclude that his brain has 
triggered a memory of me picking him up and he wants me to 
do it again.  I always oblige, giving him another memory to 
store.  Although my child is obviously brilliant, he just 
now is showing signs of thinking (tongere = to know).  For 
the first year of his life, he was sucking with his tongue--
not using it to explain something that he had learned.
     The word all makes her statement false and indicates 
that some emotions are not the result of thinking.  The 
value of this idea is that we are less likely to repress our 
emotions if we understand that some of our emotions come 
from an integration of sensations performed by our brains, 
and are not a sign of irrationality.  This is important 
because our emotional process is the backup for our thinking 
process.  In our technically advanced society, reason is the 
only way to prosper, but if we make an error in our 
thinking, and the resulting mental anxiety is not 
acknowledged, then without warning, we can suffer the 
physical pain that results from not understanding our 
environment.
     Whether it is the emotions which are formed before or 
after you begin to think, the important fact is that your 
unique means of survival is your ability to think, and to 
act based solely on your emotions is dangerous.  But equally 
as dangerous is to act based solely on your thoughts while 
not acknowledging your emotions.  Happiness is understanding 
your environment, which includes understanding your 
emotions.

17. ad1P5: What is your occupation and education?

     I am a charter bus driver, which allows me to study 
during most of the day while my customers are visiting 
places like Disneyland.  I have the Degree of Associate in 
Science from Chaffey College and am pursuing a Bachelor's in 
Biology.

18. ad1P5: What is your stand on abortion?

     I would not stop anyone from removing anything from her 
body.

19. ad1P5: What is your stand on gun control?

     I would not stop people from owning anything--except 
other people.  Nor would I stop them from using what they 
own in any manner they see fit.

20. ad1P5: What is your opinion on social programs?

     Our government should defend the property of all 
Americans within our borders from anyone who tries to rob 
us.  Our government should be the only provider of contract 
insurance, which would resolve contract disputes and pay the 
cost of defending all of us.  Any other "social programs" 
should not be provided by our government, but if they are, 
our elected officials should have to compete for customers 
on the open market and not force anyone to be part of their 
plans.

21. ad1P5: What is your opinion of President Clinton?

     He speaks for about half of the voters.  They seem to 
want our government to tax the wealthy to pay for programs 
like health care.  I wish his supporters would understand 
that if they continue to give our government this power, 
their "wealth" will be used to pay for other programs, and 
our President does not stop at our borders in his quest to 
set up more and more programs.  Philosophically, I disagree 
with his support of taxation--a nation cannot survive if 
anyone is allowed to rob another.

22. ad1P5: Are you a Libertarian?

     Yes, I joined in 1996 by calling 1-800-ELECT-US and was 
elected secretary of the San Bernardino County region.  "I 
hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the 
initiation of force as a means of achieving political or 
social goals"--that is to say--I will not start the use of 
force against other people.

23. 1P3: Is there a contract that our government would refuse to insure?

     Yes, if it does not have instructions about dividing 
the partnership's common property.  When any insured partner 
places a claim with the government, the partnership is over.  
All that should be done is the complete separation and 
distribution of all property.  Forcing people to stay 
together is a good way to get someone hurt and allowing them 
to fight over their property is dangerous for everyone.
     Of course all partners should be free to re-negotiate 
their deal at anytime and even change their insurance 
coverage, but this involves no government intervention 
because there is agreement among the participants.  
Government should step in only when there is disagreement.  
Hopefully this will be a rare occurrence and everyone's 
relationships will succeed, but to have some peaceful 
recourse if things go wrong is a valuable service that a 
government can provide, which makes the money to protect all 
citizens from those who have yet to learn the futility of 
starting the use of force against others.

A1. Dear Publisher,

     Please quote me the price to place this advertisement 
in your publication.  Feel free to change the size of my ad 
to improve its appearance on your page.  Also enclosed is 
the booklet that I mail to those who respond to this ad.  
Thank you, Dave Hollist

A2. Dear Mr. Hollist, July 21, 1991

     Thank you for your interest in.. . .  I have reviewed 
your advertisement and am glad to see a grass-roots movement 
in government.  Such a desire for participation is both 
refreshing and obviously necessary because of the domestic 
needs of the country.  We would be pleased to offer you 
advertising at our 12-time rate of $370 per page/issue.  In 
this manner, the lowest rate will be provided without 
contractual obligation.  All we will require is prepayment 
and camera ready copy.  We wish you good luck in the months 
ahead.  The country needs new leadership.  Cordially, A

B. Dear David, 7-10-91

     I feel that one of the reasons the U.S. has so many 
political and economic problems today is that so many who 
run and are elected have a vastly oversimplified viewpoint 
of the subjects mentioned in your letter soliciting support 
for nomination.  You evidence that simplicity too.  Taxes 
are merely symptoms of the cause, the greed you point out.
     However, the first nations, and most of those to follow 
were formed by the strongest man to take over, to GET for 
himself all he could, as well as keep it.  The Israelites 
were the first to have a king appointed by an outside source 
(GOD) at the request of the people.  From that point on, 
however, your description fits well.
     The U.S. is the ONLY nation in history to place the 
PEOPLE in charge of the government officials, rather than 
subjecting the people to the government.  The Constitution 
is NOT really a list of what the government cannot do.  Only 
a few items prohibit any action.  The entire document tells 
what government is TO DO, and what it doesn't say can be 
done, cannot be done.  And that includes the Amendments.
     Charley Darwin was wrong, and admitted it before he 
passed on.  Ayn Rand was a socialist.  You sound like a 
confused socialist, yourself.  MAMMAL you may be, animal you 
are not.  I certainly am not an animal, but am a child of 
God.  Slavery was not eliminated, but had a face lift which 
made it more acceptable to society.  Slavery still exists 
today in one form or another, and always will.
     While I like your ideas of "NO TAXES", you will never 
accomplish it in your lifetime by a direct approach, though 
it may get you elected by fools who believe such an 
unrealistic approach to political control.  I gain the 
impression that you do not begin to comprehend the forces at 
work relating to economy and the "almighty buck".  But then, 
maybe you DO, and are merely lying to get elected.  (I 
prefer to believe you are NOT lying.)  Of course, those 
presently IN office are naive or liars, and were elected by 
those who DON'T vote as well as those who DO vote!
     For the above, brief, oversimplified reasons, I cannot 
support your bid for nomination, but I wish you luck in your 
efforts!!  I would suggest careful memorizing of the 
Constitution, and start with the SIXTH ARTICLE!  The most 
important!  Sincerely, B

C1. David Hollist, Alta Loma, CA, July 15, 1992

     I am the president of the Objectivist Club at.. . .  
Our club is not involved with any sort of publication.  I 
decline your request for my club or myself to be involved in 
your campaign advertisement.  I do not think a political 
campaign should uniquely focus on an 'anti-tax' Libertarian 
platform.  Rather, politicians should focus on the proper 
nature and purpose of government from a principled, rational 
perspective like Objectivism.  The closest politician I can 
think of today is Bruce Herchenson (although he is a 
conservative) or Barry Goldwater (from the 60's).
     Your campaign material is frankly empty of any clear 
reasoned definition of the role of government.  I don't 
think it's practical to use contract insurance for all 
agreements, as you imply.  And what do you mean, "All 
uninsured partners lose the use of their common property if 
they could not agree with each other."  What would happen to 
the property?
     The bottom line is that I think men who properly 
understand the limited nature of government and its proper 
role will voluntarily donate to pay for the government.  Of 
course, some selfless people may not donate anything--but I 
do not consider that inaction an abandonment of their 
rights--so they should still be protected by the government.  
Men have rights by their very nature--as conceptual beings 
who succeed by using their minds, not force.  For further--I 
refer you to Rand's Capitalism--The Unknown Ideal.
     I found your 'answers' interesting and original.  But 
there are blatant errors--like your reliance on emotion as a 
form of perception.  Our club will have meetings starting 
again in September.  You are conditionally invited, as long 
as you do not solicit for your campaign during official club 
time.  Please contact me further if you are interested.  C

C2. Dear C, July 20, 1992

     Thanks for the invitation to attend your club's 
meetings.  Even though the condition you stated is 
reasonable, I prefer written communications in matters of 
philosophy.  You can find the answer to the question that 
you posed to me as number nine in the ANSWERS section of my 
literature, but I so enjoyed your criticism of my ideas that 
I will return the favor.
     Referring to "The bottom line" on page two of your 
letter, how can people win a share of the market if we 
voluntarily donate part of our profits for the protection of 
our "selfless" competitors?  Currently, Americans are forced 
to pay taxes for the protection of the "rights" of non-
profit organizations--with disastrous results.  For us to do 
it voluntarily would not change the results.  Please 
reconsider.  With contract insurance, tax-exempt groups 
would not have as much economic power because they would 
have to pay their own way.
     At the risk of mitigating your criticism, I admire your 
understanding of the importance of ideas.  Dave

D1. Dear David, 8-8-92

     Thanks for your packet.  Since . . . is opposed to 
electoral politics and coercive government, it would not be 
appropriate for us to run your ad.  I am enclosing several 
recent issues.  Your idea of voluntarily financing 
governments has been around at least since the 19th Century.  
Henry David Thoreau's friend, Charles Lane, wrote a long 
series of letters in the early 1840's in which he advocated 
'voluntary political government.' These letters have been 
collected and published by me.
     The main problem I see with such a program is 1)  that 
government still maintains its coercive jurisdiction over us 
and our property; and 2)  over time, history has proven that 
even the most 'restricted' and limited governments have a 
tendency to expand their coercive powers.  I have 
photocopied 1 or 2 pages from the book for you, and it may 
be ordered on the enclosed form.  Good luck.  P.S. Please 
send a copy of your advertisement to.. . .  You may enclose 
a note and tell him that I thought he would find it 
interesting.  D

D2. Dear D, August 12, 1992

     Thanks for the literature that you enclosed with your 
response to my ad.  I did mail my literature to.. . .  I so 
enjoyed your criticism of my ideas that I will return the 
favor.  Without a government, what would you do if a large 
group of people tried to rob you?  Thanks again, Dave

D3. David, 8-17-92

     What would a person do if the government stopped 
providing educational services (public schooling). You would 
make arrangements to homeschool, arrange for your children 
to attend private/or church schools, or start your own 
community school.  If the government wasn't there to provide 
us protection, a responsible person would do the same - 
provide for his own protection by hiring night watchmen, 
guards, joining a community patrol, etc. etc.
     Furthermore, does the government really protect us from 
being robbed?  Sometimes you might argue it does, but if you 
consider taxation robbery as I do (how can you define it so 
it differs from taxation - I challenge you to try) the 
government is the chief robber.  There would still be crime 
without government (there is plenty with government, too) so 
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I believe we 
would have a more moral and more efficient type of 
protection without it, than with it.  Thanks, D

D4. Dear D, August 31, 1992

     I would like to be your "community patrol" leader.  My 
point is that whatever I call it, I am building on your 
concept of community patrol.  Unfortunately, irrational 
people usually are just rational enough to learn the 
benefits of specialization and trade, and organize into 
growing gangs with the power to crush any individual.  In 
response, rational people have tried to create a system to 
combat this assault.  I call this system government, but if 
this sound makes you sick, I will be glad to insert 
community patrol.  I understand people's anger with 
government, but when my truck stops running, I do not wish 
that it had never been invented, nor destroy it, nor rename 
it--I fix it.  Please reconsider.  In a community with 
competing patrols, what would you do if two patrols 
disagreed?  Dave

D5. Dear David, 9-4-92

     How do national governments solve these problems today?  
World Wars - is that something that my community patrols 
should emulate?  I don't think that my community patrols 
would get the coercive power (derived from taxation) nor the 
legitimacy to enslave their citizenry, nor be able to resort 
to military conscription.  Your analogy fails - for me at 
least - because there is a difference between voluntary 
protection and the monopolistic, coercive nature of 
government.
     May I suggest you read one to the following books, 
which might help answer your questions in greater detail.  
All deal with the problem you are raising.  Robert Ringer, 
Restoring The American Dream, Morris and Linda Tannehill, 
The Market For Liberty, Murray Rothbard, For A New Liberty.  
We can continue the correspondence after you have gotten a 
better perspective on the . . . position of competing 
governments.  P.S. I wouldn't do anything.  If they wanted 
to fight it out (as you are suggesting) at least they 
couldn't force me to be involved (either by conscription or 
via taxation).  Sincerely, D

D6. Dear D, September 11, 1992

     I know that my questions irritate some people, but my 
intent is to understand what they are thinking. Your 
response reminds me of my brother's:  "Don't bother me, 
David, the answer is in the Bible."  I hope you never 
experience the anxiety that he has after years of trying to 
substitute a book under his arm for knowledge in his mind.
     Would not the possibility of a fight breaking out at 
the slightest disagreement between patrols make a 
technically advanced society impossible?  Dave

D7. David, 9-15-92

     My time is limited and my aim is not to convert anyone 
to my way of thinking.  Each person has to convince himself.  
If your intent is to understand 'what I am thinking' then 
read one of the books I suggested, and then raise your 
questions.  The fact is, no matter what I reply, you have a 
standard response (eg - your 2nd paragraph above).  You have 
yet to answer my question:  how would we be any worse off 
with private defense agencies that couldn't coerce or tax us 
like nation-states?  Would not the possibility and do not in 
fact these fights occur in actuality of a fight breaking out 
at the slightest disagreement between nation-states make a 
technically advanced society impossible?
     Please do not write again til you have understood the 
free market defense agency argument as found in Rothbard or 
Tannehill.  I am not using them as 'authorities' but simply 
as time savers.  D

D8. Dear D, September 22, 1992

     I have read Rothbard.  He advocates hiring a defense 
company to protect himself against people just like hiring 
an exterminator company to take care of pests.  But before 
his system can be implemented, the destruction of all 
governments is necessary.  And that is the rallying cry:  
"Death to all governments!"  And that is what I hear in your 
literature, which does "convert" some people to hatred and 
destruction.  I will not write if you do not reply, but 
maybe you have continued our correspondence because you are 
tired of tearing things down, and long to build something 
up.
     We live in the first technically advanced society 
because of our government--not in spite of it.  I am 
persuaded as to the greatness of government because it is 
homologous to the immune system of my body, which has proven 
its effectiveness after billions of years of evolution, but 
you are a busy man and I will not bother you with facts.  If 
you are successful in destroying our government without 
destroying me, I will be glad to work with you in trying to 
solve the grave problem that we will have with your warring 
defense companies across our land.  Dave . . .

1 = Answer #1, A1 = Letter A1, ad1 = advertisement 1 [first page]

abortion, 18, E2
advertise, A1, G2, AV2, BS14, CL1
apology, CA2, CB2, CC2
Atlas Shrugged, 8, 14
belief, 6, 8, L4, AJ3
capitalism, 8, S2, AP2, BW10, CA4
Constitution, ad1, Z2, BW16
contract insurance, ad1, 9-12, AD2
Darwin, Charles, 7, L3
defense, D2, I2, P2
emotion, 4, 8, 16, AR4, BS19
epistemology, 7, BW14
evolution, 7
father, 7
freedom, E6, M8
God, 7, 8
government, ad1, 8, 15, D4, F2, O2, P4
gratitude, CF2, CH2, CI2
human, 7, 11, D8, E12, AP2
I, 7, 17-22, V2, Z4, AX2, BI2, BR2
image, 2
law, BW7
Libertarian, 22, H2
military, 13
mind, 7, D6
mother, 4
nation, ad1, 11
natural selection, 7
Objectivist, 7, 14, W2, AA2, AR5, CU2
persuade, BS2, BX1
philosophy, 8, C2, M10, S3
programs, 15, 20, M12
property, 1, 9, 19, K2, M6
Rand, Ayn, 7, 16, AC2, CN2
right, E10, M14
rob, ad1, 11, F4
separate, 8, E4, BS26
socialism, M4
sound, 3
tax, ad1, 21, X2
thought, 5, 8, 16, CS4
trade, ad1, 9, E8, BS23E
union, BW12
unite, ad1, M2
United Nations, 13
word, 5

My book is growing. Today--November 2007--it is about one hundred and fifty pages for twenty dollars (including postage and tax). Thanks for your consideration, David Lynn Hollist, Post Office Box 9414, Alta Loma, CA 91701