Hi, I’m Skyler.

Welcome to my website.
Who the hell am I?
Just a man.
And a husband.
And a father of 3.
Also a writer.
And a podcaster. (Join me?)
Sometimes a web designer.
But always a seeker of riches.
And the richness of life.
Explore what I do or have done at the links above.


Contact me if you please.

My Latest Content 

    Skyler J. Collins (Editor) – Everything-Voluntary.com

  • What Can Heleum Do For Your Savings?

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Full disclosure: I work for my good friend Pace Ellsworth’s new fintech startup company, Heleum. I’m their Support Manager and Knowledge Base author. If anyone has issues, they come to me. I tackle the issue and get it straightened out.

    A little over a week ago, I interviewed Pace on what Heleum is all about. You can listen to that here.

    Heleum was founded by Pace, his brother Taylor, and another mutual friend, Dan Pratt. All very good guys and ideological compatriots. I’ve known and worked with them for years, and Pace offered me the opportunity to join this amazing fintech startup, I jumped on board immediately.

    I’ve also funded my own Heleum account to the tune of around $1600, so far. Why? Because I believe it’s one of the best and easiest places to store my savings and watch it grow, hands off.

    How does Heleum work? Here’s an informative Knowledge Base article to explain. And a short animated video:

    Heleum exploits cryptocurrency volatility to produce gains through automated currency exchange. Though it’s still a very new technology and a very young company, Heleum has done some amazing things. Their Private Beta lasted 6 months earlier this year and averaged 21% growth. You don’t have to know a thing about cryptocurrency to use Heleum. Sign up here.

    Since my own funds have been moving around in Heleum balloons for over a month, I thought I’d reveal what’s happened. Heleum doesn’t allow balloons to pop (return to base currency) with anything less than 2% in gains. And Heleum only collects its fee from your gains, so it’s completely free to use (read more about how Heleum makes money here).

    My first balloon pop (Balloon 1) occurred early while my total funding amount was still very low:

    As you can see, it launched at $26.66, moved to BTC (bitcoin), and then a day later moved back to USD, causing it to pop at $28.65. Why did pop so quickly? That’s just the circumstances in which the algorithm found itself at that time. In a mere 34 hours it grew 7.5%, calculated after Uphold’s transaction fees were removed. (Uphold is the platform on which Heleum runs. See their press release about Heleum here.)

    My second balloon pop (Balloon 2) occurred early and quickly as well, USD to LTC (litecoin) and back:

    This small balloon lasted only 16 hours, and grew 7.1%. My third balloon pop (Balloon 3), another USD to LTC and back:

    This one lasted a mere 4 hours, but grew 2.5%. My fourth balloon (Balloon 8) pop occurred about a month later, and started with a bigger amount:

    Now we’re really moving all over the place! This balloon hit BTC, LTC, ETH (ether), and NZD (New Zealand) on its trip back to USD. Starting at $83.34 and popping at $95.28 produced 14.3% growth in a much longer 30 days. My fifth balloon pop (Balloon 9) lasted just as long:

    This one went through all the same currencies as the last, plus JPY (Japan). In 29 days it grew from $83.34 to $101.19, or 21%. And my last balloon to pop (so far, Balloon 13):

    This one started at $84.73 and popped at $107.42, earning me $22.69 in gains, or 27% growth!

    I still have 13 balloon that have been inflated for over a month from different launch amounts, my highest showing a current gain of $42.83 from a $201 launch amount, or 21% growth. Some of them currently show a loss. Here’s the full picture of my balloon activity to date:

    Remember, balloons won’t pop by themselves for less than a 2% gain. Those balloons currently showing a loss will stay inflated, making moves, to achieve their goals before coming back to USD (unless a withdrawal is requested). All the while, other balloons are being inflated and popping, producing gains at varying levels, and reinflating into new balloons. Each new balloon launch waits at least 48 hours from the last in order to diversify among time and exchange rates. Amazing!

    It’s not perfect, however. The team is constantly working on updates to the app and the algorithm in order to make it both safer and better at growing your savings. It’s absolutely stunning what this small team has been able to accomplish in such a short period of time. If you’d like to give it a try, sign up here.

  • Rodger’s Journey, the Free State Project, & Radical Unschooling (47m) – Episode 095

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Episode 095 welcomes Rodger Paxton of The LAVA Flow to the podcast for a chat with Skyler. Topics include: Rodger’s podcast production company Pax Libertas Productions, mid-90s awareness of Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, the New Hampshire Free State Project, the importance of homeschooling to advancing liberty, Rodger’s experience with radical unschooling, the heavy costs of authoritarian parenting, drunk driving as a victimless crime, and more.

    Listen to Episode 095 (47m, mp3, 64kbps)

    Show Notes

    Rodger Paxton, Facebook Profile, Twitter
    Podcast, The LAVA Flow
    Pax Libertas Productions, Website, Facebook Page, Twitter
    Free State Project, Website, Facebook Page, Twitter
    Podcast, Essential Libertarianism


    via RSS here.
    via iTunes here.
    via Stitcher here.
    via blubrry here.
    via Player.FM here.

  • Using “Nigger” and Other Racial Slurs Playfully? (12m) – Editor’s Break 036

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Editor’s Break 036 has Skyler thinking about the playful and non-hateful use of racial slurs like “nigger”, and the larger questions of free speech and what we’re teaching our children.

    Listen to Editor’s Break 036 (12m, mp3, 64kbps)


    via RSS here.
    via iTunes here.
    via Stitcher here.
    via blubrry here.
    via Player.FM here.

  • What the Response to the Challenge of Jurisdiction Should Tell You

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Challenging jurisdiction is a very effective way to reveal the emptiness of the claims made by law enforcement, prosecutors, bureaucrats, and politicians.

    These folks exist, supposedly, to protect us from predators and to lead us forward toward our collective destiny of equality and prosperity for all.

    That’s the constant message we receive throughout our lives, anyway. And it’s complete horseshit.

    When any of these people are challenged on the authority they claim to wield in order to protect and lead us, they fall flat.

    See for yourself care of Marc Stevens’ “call of shame” archive at his website.

    They fall flat because their claim is utterly unsupported by hard, factual evidence. If their claim is so right and true, what’s the problem? Shouldn’t it be a simple thing to produce the evidence from which their claim, that their laws apply, derives?

    You’d think so, but it’s not. Quite the opposite. It’s impossible.

    And because of the impossibility of proving jurisdiction, these folks resort to the only tactic they can: deceit.

    If someone can’t support their claims of a positive obligation with evidence, continuing to make them means that they are dishonest.

    If that same someone is willing to use violence to enforce such a claim, despite their emptiness, they are a predator.

    This is how every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, bureaucrat, and politician who’s willing to enforce their non-existent jurisdiction behaves, or they wouldn’t be doing what they do on a daily basis.

    That’s what the response to the challenge of jurisdiction should tell you about our supposed protectors and leaders.

  • Should We Be Our Children’s Friend?

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    You always hear so-called parenting “experts” say something to the effect that, “parents are not their children’s friend,” and “children need their parents to be a parent, not a friend.”

    Now that my commitment and focus is on raising my children peacefully and respectfully, I can say that this advice as absolutely bananas. Hear me out.

    “Friend” means a lot of different things to different people, I’ll grant you. It can mean someone who tempts you to be “naughty” or someone who uses and manipulates you for their own gain, pretending all the while they have your interests at heart. But we all know what kind of “friends” these really are. And if these experts are talking about these kinds of friends, well then, duh! No kidding.

    But they aren’t.

    In my inference, they’re talk about just your average non-manipulative non-troublemaking kind of friend. You know, a “true” friend. The type of friend that you read about from the following sages.

    Jim Morrison (songwriter, singer):

    Friends can help each other. A true friend is someone who lets you have total freedom to be yourself – and especially to feel. Or, not feel. Whatever you happen to be feeling at the moment is fine with them. That’s what real love amounts to – letting a person be what he really is.

    William Penn (philosopher, entrepreneur):

    A true friend freely, advises justly, assists readily, adventures boldly, takes all patiently, defends courageously, and continues a friend unchangeably.

    Kelly Osborne (singer, actress):

    I say find one true friend to help you get through the tough times.

    Len Wein (comic book artist):

    A true friend is someone who is there for you when he’d rather be anywhere else.

    Arnold Glasgow (author):

    A true friend never gets in your way unless you happen to be going down.

    Miley Cyrus (musician):

    A true friend is someone who is always there during the ups and downs…

    Bernard Meltzer (entertainer):

    A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked.

    If it seems those quotes were pulled somewhat randomly from the internet, it’s because they were. It didn’t take long to find these wonderful quotes on what true friendship is all about. I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with these, at least not anyone who has a clue about what friendship entails.

    Now, is there anything there that stands out as something a parent should not embrace completely in regards to their own children? If you think so, I think you shouldn’t have any kids. Hah!

    If diving face first into the world of peaceful and respectful parenting has taught me anything, it’s that a parent’s number one job is to be their children’s best and truest friend.

    • Should parents help their children? YES!
    • Should parents let their children have total freedom to be themselves? YES!
    • Should parents let their children have total freedom in what they feel? YES!
    • Should parents advise their children justly? YES!
    • Should parents adventure boldly with their children? YES!
    • Should parents take all from their children patiently? YES!
    • Should parents defend their children courageously? YES!
    • Should parents help their children get through tough times? YES!
    • Should parents be there for their children even when they’d rather be somewhere else ? YES!
    • Should parents only get in the way of their children to protect them from harm? YES!
    • Should parents always be there for their children through good times and bad? YES!
    • Should parents always think their children are “good eggs” even when they know they’re a little cracked? YES! YES! YES!

    We’re all a little cracked, after all. And that’s okay. Good parents understand this and love their children unconditionally anyway.

    YES! parents should be their children’s friend. That’s what children need most from their parents. True friendship, and a very close second, mentorship. Whenever I hear someone say that parents shouldn’t be their children’s friend, either they have zero clue what it means to be a peaceful and respectful parent, or else they have zero clue what it means to be a friend. Either way they’re dangerously wrong, in my opinion.

    (Now where did I put my old toilet paper launcher that I was going to teach my son to use?…)

  • Veteran’s Day is the Worst; I Hate Veterans

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Now before you blow your top, you easily triggered little snowflake you, allow me to rephrase: I hate the idea of veterans.

    We only have veterans because we have war, and we only have war because greedy politicians just can’t help themselves to the spoils that are the result of sending other people’s children to war.

    Whether it’s “our” greedy politicians or “their” greedy politicians, usually both, we simpleton schmucks believe the propaganda and sign up in the thousands to be used as cannon fodder for somebody else’s profit.

    When will humanity learn?

    When humanity stops hitting and dominating its children, that’s when.

    If we want to end the idea of veterans, and what ethical person doesn’t?, we need to end the idea of war. We do that by striking the root of where violence is born, in the home.

    Please, for the love of all that is good and decent, stop hitting and dominating your children!

  • Heleum Rising! Balloons, Balloons Everywhere (38m) – Episode 094

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Episode 094 welcomes back Pace Ellsworth for a chat about his fintech startup company, Heleum. Topics include: the origins of Heleum, the mesh currency trading algorithm, how Heleum grows your savings using fiat and cryptocurrency exchange rate volatility, the results of the Heleum Private Beta, safety measures, fee structures, partnership with Uphold.com, and more.

    Listen to Episode 094 (38m, mp3, 64kbps)

    Show Notes

    Pace Ellsworth, Facebook Profile
    Episode 020, “Pace’s Journey
    Episode 027, “Freedom, Technology, and Transhumanism
    Episode 056, “The Naugler Support Effort
    Heleum, Website, Facebook Page, Facebook Group, SIGN-UP HERE
    Uphold, Website


    via RSS here.
    via iTunes here.
    via Stitcher here.
    via blubrry here.
    via Player.FM here.

  • Will’s Journey, Agorism, & Content Recommendations (1h8m) – Episode 093

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Episode 093 welcomes Will Treadway to the podcast for a chat with Skyler. Topics include: industrial work, his lifelong passion for reading, recommended books and television series, comic book movies, 9/11, becoming anti-war, adoption, agorism, civil disobedience and challenging jurisdiction, occupational licensure, caveat emptor, the courage in digging for truth, and more.

    Listen to Episode 093 (1h8m, mp3, 64kbps)

    Show Notes

    Will Treadway, Facebook Profile
    Leadership and Self-Deception


    via RSS here.
    via iTunes here.
    via Stitcher here.
    via blubrry here.
    via Player.FM here.

  • Censorship by Social Sanction is Douchey

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    What do you call it when someone reacts negatively to something you said or wrote in a way intended to make you feel ashamed? I call it douchey.

    Reacting this way to expression is a form of censorship, I think. It’s an attempt get you to shut up by pushing an undesirable consequence your way, that being the inspired feelings of either being frustratingly misunderstood or hated for what you said.

    If they can make you think twice before opening your mouth or putting pen to paper, they have succeeded to some degree in censoring you.

    Which begs the question: should any expression be censored by social sanction? We lovers of liberty overwhelmingly give an emphatic NO to the idea of political, ie. violent, reaction to speech. Political censorship is a grave injustice, in every case, no exceptions, in my opinion. But what about this other kind of censorship, by social sanction?

    One part of me wants to say, “it depends.” If the expression is promoting aggression in some way, shouldn’t it be met with, at minimum, social sanctions, ie. shaming and ostracism?

    The other part of me wants to say, “never!” Expression, no matter how outrageous, should always be allowed its full due.

    This second part of me is growing. Aaron White is to thank for that. He recorded a video in a private group on Facebook arguing against the idea of apologizing for or self-censoring what you have said or written in the past. I had expressed regret that my post on the “Me, too” campaign led to severe backlash due to misunderstanding. I expressed regret and took responsibility for not being clearer.

    His main thesis was the danger in promoting censorship in any degree. Expression should always be free, no matter its content. I don’t know what he would say about expression on someone else’s property, but aside from that, I am finding myself closer and closer in agreement to that idea.

    Thinking about the times this has happened to me, the feeling of being attacked really sucked. I would have much preferred to be questioned for clarification, and in the event that there was still disagreement, been politely dismissed.

    Being attacked because of something I wrote or said, no matter how right or wrong I was, feels really shitty. And it ruins my day because I’ve felt the need to defend myself. I don’t want people to hold a misrepresentation of me in their minds; I care much less about people simply disagreeing with me.

    Which brings us back to the beginning: censorship by social sanction is douchey. It’s a prick move, I think. There’s no reason why a person can’t simply dig in with questions, peacefully and politely. If the expression is promoting aggression, we can point that out and make it clear how we feel about it. But why be a prick about it in attempt to censor an expression you disagree with? The Golden Rule comes to mind. This isn’t to say that I’m innocent of behaving this way; I’m not.

    My biggest concern here: What important truths are not being expressed because people are afraid of social sanction? That’s the unfortunate outcome of allowing censorship in any degree, methinks.

  • There’s No Reason Money Changes The Nature of a Trade

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    It’s common among us libertarian whiners to talk about the widespread belief that money seems to change the nature of an act between consenting adults.

    For example, sex between consenting adults is fine, but sex between consenting adults when one of them is also adding money to the trade, ie. prostitution, is not fine.

    Another example, a Christian baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake as a favor is fine, but a Christian baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake for payment is not fine.

    Whether we are engaging or refusing to engage in a consensual activity with other people is fine until the activity involves money. I can’t for the life of me understand why. Let’s break it down.

    What is happening when consenting adults have sex? They are trading emotional and/or physical feelgoods. And when money is involved? They are likewise trading emotional and/or physical feelgoods… Say what now?

    It’s true. Money is merely a middleman to achieving an emotional or physical feelgood. Having sex with someone is an immediate feelgood, enough to satisfy the effort. Prostitutes need more than immediate feelgoods to make it worth their while, so they request money. But they don’t want money just to have money. They want money in order to trade it in the future for goods and services that will give them emotional and/or physical feelgoods.

    The very same logic applies to the refusal to engage in a consensual activity. The expectation is an emotional or physical feelbad, so its refused. The promise of a future feelgood just isn’t enough, at least not at the offered level. Refusing a favor or refusing a trade are the same thing.

    There’s no reason why money changes the nature of a trade. It doesn’t. All relationships are trades, and all trades are the pursuit of feelgoods somewhere down the line. And all refusals of trade are for either the protection of feelgoods or the prevention of feelbads. The interference by a coercive third party in trade is to limit feelgoods or to create feelbads. It’s never win/win.

    The next time someone tries to rationalize coercion on these grounds, throw this at them.