Redeclaring Independence, Libertarian-Style

Each 4th of July, I keep expecting to see some libertarian separatist group declare independence all over again, something akin to a V for Vendetta type hijacking of the airwaves. Maybe I just have a flair for the dramatic, but when I joke about it to random people each year and voice this out loud — “I redeclare a war of independence up in this mofo” — the response is unanimously positive (and my test group has ranged from Los Angeles liberals to Southern conservatives, and now Mid-West folks who are defined mostly as apathetic).

Maybe something like this from a few years back:

The libertarian consensus is not a utopian movement. It’s a mindset, not a policy, vague but recognizable on sight — yet it has to be grounded in reality to work. A starting point is the fact that personal freedom demands personal responsibility and self discipline. This isn’t about abdicating moral authority, it’s about privatizing it.

[…] Part of the dynamic worldview is accepting the law of unintended consequences. That’s key to its counterutopianism. Less regulation might lead to more litigation, for example. Ending the Drug War would save lots of money that is now spent on interdiction, enforcement, and incarceration, but it will cost money, too, to invest in healthcare for drug users and public education about the consequences of drug use.

The libertarian consensus doesn’t mean government spending and social programs are going to go away. Responsibility for yourself does not preclude responsibility to your neighbors and nation.

59 Comments
  1. The libertarian consensus doesn’t mean government spending and social programs are going to go away. Responsibility for yourself does not preclude responsibility to your neighbors and nation.

    Huh? What is this drivel?

  2. Stephen, most of us are non-violent enough to want a peaceful revolution if possible. Thus the Free State Project, for one good example. Claire Wolfe’s line about ‘It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards,’ rings true to many, still.

    V for Vendetta (or Hackers, or a myriad of other movies) style hijackings of the airwaves are fiction. In reality, the blogosphere is one method of getting the word out. Pirate Radio just doesn’t much reach, Pump up the Volume move aside.

  3. The libertarian consensus doesn�t mean government spending and social programs are going to go away. Responsibility for yourself does not preclude responsibility to your neighbors and nation. People want to be left alone, but that’s an amorphous concept. There’s left alone, as in, adults who arent hurting anyone else should be left alone, and theres left alone, as in, left alone to die, or left alone without any real opportunity to join the productive populace, or left alone when your job goes to Vietnam.

    I would be in the left alone to die part. I notice there have been no charities banging on my door helping me pay my bills and keep my house as of yet, even tho I would certainly pass the charity case smell test.

    Maybe they will show up at some point.

  4. The libertarian consensus doesn�t mean government spending and social programs are going to go away.

    What does that mean? Certainly, there are some libertarians who want them to go away. Thus, it’s not a concensus. We don’t agree.

    As to whether there is a concensus in the opposite direction depends on how you define “libertarian.”

    Wikipedia says “Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.”

    According to that definition, which I find acceptable, government programs and social spending are a rights violation.

  5. Responsibility for yourself does not preclude responsibility to your neighbors and nation.

    A “responsbility to your nation” (if nation is defined as state, and responsibility is defined as mandatory: which is in fact the logical inference from the preceding defense of government programs and social spending) is the direct polar opposite of libertarianism.

    Sorry, statism is not a libertarian concensus.

    There’s left alone, as in, adults who arent hurting anyone else should be left alone,

    If I decline to contribute to government spending and social programs, I don’t think you mean to leave me alone, unless it’s in solitary prison confinemnt.

    I notice there have been no charities banging on my door helping me pay my bills and keep my house as of yet, even tho I would certainly pass the charity case smell test.

    It might have something to do with all the money not available to charities because the government stole it at gunpoint….

  6. ….and also the extreme negative effect that government spending and regulation has on economic growth, which also means less money available for charity.

    Then, there’s also the thought – conscious or not – that there’s no need to contribute to a charity since the government will solve the problem.

    Even if you were right, and even if these views were libertarian, they would still not form a concensus or anything like it among libertarians.

  7. That sentence cerntanly is libertarian. Personal responsibility for yourselves does not preclude a responsibility to others and the country you live in.

    It’s the limits defined of what that responsibility contains that is in serious need of adjustment.

  8. It depends on what you mean by “responsibilty” and “country.” The preceding statement that social programs and government spending won’t end makes clear that you mean “state” and “mandatory” ie backed up by force or threat thereof.

    That is NOT libertarian – and even if, by some mangled definition of the word, it is, it’s certainly not a concensus among libertarians.

  9. dont put words in my mouth. If I wanted to advocate same I’d do it.

    I agree with the sentence, but then again, I’m a constitutionalist who believes that the document is indeed the highest form of liberty that can be obtained in a practical manner in reality rather than some la la land.

    I do not and will not advocate the no force principle, becuase government is impossible without it. I believe in small limited Constitutional government with no apologies and in fact a considerable amount of pride.

    You have nothing to celebrate today. I feel sorry for you.

  10. What words did I put in your mouth? Perhaps I should have said “the author” rather than “you” if all you agreed with was the second sentence and not the first one (about government spending and social programs), although elsewhere you’ve made clear that you agree with both sentences.

    I’m a constitutionalist who believes that the document is indeed the highest form of liberty that can be obtained in a practical manner in reality rather than some la la land.

    I do not and will not advocate the no force principle,

    If we redefine “libertarian” as constitutionalist, it still does not authorize “social spending” (at least without the courts’ creative interpretation).

    I do not and will not advocate the no force principle, becuase government is impossible without it.

    Actually, non-monoply government is possible without force initiation. However, since when do libertarians define what is good by what serves the state?

  11. Paulie — kindly stop using libertarian when you mean anarchist. You know exactly what I mean and based on our previous conversations you know why I say this.

    That is all. Thank you.

  12. Ian C – I’ll go by the wikipedia definition when I use libertarian.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

    “Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.”

    That would be a subset of anarchism, since monopoly government is itself a violation of that principle.

    If you wish to re-define the word libertarian, that is your prerogative; I’m not sure why I have to go along, though.

    I’ll use the traditional definition of libertarian for the time being, since “anarchist” is not descriptive enough (it includes non-libertarian anarchists who oppose private property).

    To make it clear, I don’t define libertarian by the platform of the ex-libertarian political party, nor by the USSA con-art-stution.

  13. Absolutist? That’s even less well defined. Absolutist what? Are absolutist rulers (dictators) libertarian anarchists, then?

    Well, I would rather be absolutely correct than partially wrong.

    I’d rather be absolutely cancer-free. Absolutely, you’re right.

    You all are over-reaching. Your taking over the LP only redefines the party, not the much larger movement and philosophy.

  14. I suspect that paulie is a troll.

    If he’s not, then it’s far worse: he’s a rabid anarch-absolutist, who will not stop posting from his secret hideyhole where the USSA can’t find him until the revolution comes along, or until his mom kicks him out of the basement.

  15. I’m neither in a hideyhole nor a basement. I travel for a living. At least one of the bloggers at this site knows me personally.

  16. Absolutist because it’s perfect for describing the people who ruined the LP for 25 years.

    First off, the word has meaning from the absolutist kings of Europe, who tolerated no dissent from their rule. It’s far enough in the past that it doesn’t have the baggage that “fascist” or “communist” does, and until this convention, they truly didn’t tolerate any dissent from their rule. There was the one true libertarian way outlined in the platform, and if you didn’t agree, tough shit.

    Plus it expresses the all-or-nothingism that was their attitude. We can’t have any serious incrementalism in the platform because that would betray our principles! The electorate must accept us in toto or not at all.

    So yeah, “absolutist” is a perfect fit.

  17. Huh? We tolerated no dissent from saboteurs who joined the LP fraudulently by signing an oath they do not believe? Actually we did tolerate it. As a result, at this convention, they finally succeeded in sabotaging and gutting the LP. Now they plan to kick the real libertarians out (although many are already leaving, because what is the point in being in a “libertarian” in name only party?)

    And now you may proceed to ruin the LP for real.

  18. Who gives a shit about the platform? Really? It doesn’t make a difference, the candidates are the same, and the candidates are the ones that do stuff.

  19. Paulie may be a little tactless, but he’s right.

    Libertarians are supposed to have principle. That principle inevitably leads to no coercive government. Call that what you like, I prefer “The Free Market”.

    While I support incremental solutions, as it would be foolish not to, I also think we need to be promoting true Liberty. The pragmatists are not promoting Liberty, they are promoting their version of government control. It’s sick. I’ve invited Stephen Gordon on the show tomorrow night to find out exactly what happened at the convention.

    How far are we from eliminating the principle altogether, and totally blending in with all the other political parties out there?

    Sad.

  20. Ian, you wrote: “The pragmatists are not promoting Liberty, they are promoting their version of government control.”

    In a word: crap.

    The “party of principle” has been able to be little to stop the ongoing slide _away_ from liberty. At most, they have played spoiler, shifting the win from a (very) slightly more liberty candidate to a (often) less less liberty candidate, in the hopes of getting the losing party to shift toward liberty. Yeah, that’s worked really well.

    It’s time to play to win, and to win, you have to collect 51% of the votes, or at least %34 in a 3 way race. If that means that softening the planks, or eliminating them, in the attempt to build a pro-liberty party alliance of at least 34%, so be it. They have my blessing. If you insist that they don’t have your blessing, then you are instead supporting the continued loss of liberty in this country, because your ‘principled’ stance isn’t gaining anyone one small step of more liberty these days.

  21. Stuart writes: Absolutist because it’s perfect for describing the people who ruined the LP for 25 years.

    C’mon man, get real. The “pragmatists” have been around for 25 years. They have essentially been in control of LPHQ. All this BS debating has been going on for years. It has more to do with immaturity, political naivete, and ego problems than with political ideology, strategy and tactics.

    The fact is that libertarian ideas go back well over 200 years, but there are always those who think they can improve on ideas that have been vetted over generations.

    The fact is that the so-called pragmatists act more like radical Jacobins than the purists and the anarchists. Many purists can give you well-reasoned and civil arguments why they believe in libertarian ideas. Mostly what you get from the pragmatist side is assertions based on “facts” that only they have knowledge of, finger pointing, and videos with bells, whistles, and senseless translations of what people “really mean”.

  22. both sides need to accept the turn of events. The pledge is still there, but becuase of what happened with the platform I am going to redirect my efforts to the party in general by increasing my monthly pledge.

    Blanton: you give your arguments to any *non libertarian* voter picked at random, and by the 4th sentence, they’ll be looking at their watch. I’ll play my little video for em, and they’ll agree with me on damn near any subject, except for maybe how to give well reasoned arguments about arcana that not one voter in (insert special number here) would care about.

    The TV bimbo was being REALLY NICE to Badnarik. She actually let him off the hook after that graphic by not asking him how he was going to end all taxation and welcome all refugees as President – and asked him a softball question about the war instead.

    He spent minutes talking about how the LP was for the Constitution and then the thing pops up saying things 100% in direct opposition to the Constitution. P0wned.

  23. Nice trick paulie. At first, I was going to say that I do not use the wikipedia definition to describe myself. But then I looked it up.

    You forgot to add:

    “They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (negative liberty). Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both.”

    I am a limited government libertarian.

  24. Ian B: Food for thought; without a strong, monopolistic government possessed of anti-trust laws, the free market cannot exist.

    Example — the corporate town.

    It is in each corporation’s best interest to act to preclude competition; without competition they are able to charge exhorbitantly. Governments are susceptible to popular vote even in the monopolistic state. Corporations are not.

    But you’re not hearing any of that, because “The Free Market” fixes everything. And if an area pointed out where this is not the case — your answer is always, “Just give it a chance! Just because we can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t happen.”

    It could also happen that you, me, or the computer I’m typing on should teleport to the peak of Olympus Mons, disappearing now and reappearing two thousand years from now, spontaneously. This is physically possible.

    Both should be taken roughly as seariously.

  25. Paulie — I will rephrase my terminology for you then, although you are in fact an anarchist and consider only those libertarians whom agree with your anarchist viewpoint as “real libertarians.”

    Others have used the term “absolutist.” I use another these days. Fundamentalist. In a very real sense, to me, Paulie, you are the enemy of freedom in this nation. By requiring ideological purity — an unattainable/non-existant quality in the non-Platonic world — you hamstring the LP & the movement for freedom to the point where it cannot — and HAS NOT — acted to create real, true freedom in this nation.

    You are not alone in this; and I continue to hope that you and those like you in this area come to your senses or are marginalized sufficiently that “the movement” can make real gains and strides.

  26. IanB (re #23)… Well said!

    IanC… I think it’s a stretch to claim that the free market cannot exist without monopolistic government and their antitrust laws. Such laws, IMO, are merely a smoke-and-mirrors trick used to give government an excuse to expand their powers. If you take a closer look at the early 20th century cases of so-called private monopolies upon which these laws are justified, you’ll find these monopolies invariably came into existence through government collusion, the passing of restrictive laws enabling the politically well-connected tycoons to shut out their competitors. In the absence of government interference, aka a truly free market, there is virtually no possibility of such monopolies coming into being on their own.

  27. Robert, IanB — communal property businesses, then. If you are of the anarcho-capitalist breed, then corporations do indeed exist. And frankly, the refusal to adopt the corporate mold is what did in the global dominance of Islam. So don’t even try me on that schtick.

    Again — Explain to me how the “absolute free market” model will not endorse the “Corporate town” model — wherein individuals in a specific region are economically enslaved to a specific business, individual, or corporation. This is called “Serfdom” and has occurred frequently — repeatedly — throughout history. Anti-trust laws are partially capable of / responsible for combating this phenomenon.

    But again — you don’t want to hear it.

    I’ll wait for a cogent rebuttal on the serfdom/corporate town ‘point.’ Untill then, I will continue to encourage any and all to disregard your positions as total nonsense.

    For the record: “Corporations don’t exist without government” is mere avoidance of the issue.

  28. IanC, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking me since nowhere did I write, “monopolistic behaviors”, although I did quote from your comment about “monopolistic government.” I was merely trying to make the point that in a truly free market, it’s extremely unlikely that any private entity would ever be able to monopolize any kind of business since there would be no forceful barriers to competition.

  29. IanC, America had well over 100 years of history before the creation of antitrust laws and I’m unaware of any cases of the “serfdom/corporate town” problem of which you refer. I’d be glad to examine such cases if you can direct me to the information.

    As for a cogent rebuttal against antitrust, I’ll defer to Mises.org and CapMag.com where much has already been written that’s far better than I could come up with.

  30. It’s typical of minarchists to take their objections to a ludicrous extreme.

    In regards to the corporate town idea, it is true that the founder of Dominoes pizza, a devout catholic, has purchased hundreds of acres in FL and is starting a private town. Of course, everyone is consenting to live there.

  31. Is it a ludicrous extreme to refer to historical precedents that are numbered in the plurality? I think not.

    By the way — though I believe y’all already knew what I was referring to, the proper term is “Company town.”

    Excerpt:
    “The first mention of coal company towns can be found in Friedrich Engels’The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, which described dangerous working conditions, cheating on the weighing of coal for piece rate workers, high prices and unsanitary conditions.”

    Website:
    http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town

    The above is all the demonstration I need to make on why the Free Market concept as described is just plain wrong. It’s been done before, and it was *EVIL* and *UNFREE.*

    IanB — in face of this evidence, I’m going to offer you a chance I very rarely do; hopefully you take this as intended: of respect.

    Convince me I’m wrong. I would *love* for you to be right. You describe a great world. Utopia, almost.

  32. I don’t expect to convince you of anything. In the Free Market, it’s totally possible that religious zealots could create an enclave of voluntary repression, but I wouldn’t be living there.

    The Free Market allows for private laws decided on by the marketplace, not individuals elected by “majorities”.

  33. (Corrollary)

    Now, to be fare in the above, the thing that killed the company towns was the wide-spread development of the automobile. Which permitted motility and mobility.

    The point is that in every instance wherein all services were provided by private companies in the past, these things were explicitly unpleasant — to the point where, given the choice between an actual government-run town and the “company town”, they chose the government… because they had more freedom and the ability to keep more of their own money.

    In addition — Disneyland in FL., is run by its own ‘corporate town’ which most don’t object to. But I find it infinitely interesting that to be management, you must not be married; cannot be. In fact, “family emergencies” are never recognized on the managerial level. Non-management are routinely expected to work exhorbitant hours and are encouraged to put the company before all other ties.

    This all is anecdotal report of local inhabitants.

    (End)

  34. IanB — please stop evading and answer the problem posed, or else acknowledge that you cannot answer it.

    Anything resembling evasion will be taken by myself as an admission of inability to back your statements. :)

  35. What’s the question again?

    If a business wants to own a town and people voluntarily choose to live in it, what is the problem?

    If people are being forced to live somewhere, then we clearly have a problem.

  36. Tim writes (26): Blanton: you give your arguments to any *non libertarian* voter picked at random, and by the 4th sentence, they’ll be looking at their watch. I’ll play my little video for em, and they’ll agree with me on damn near any subject, except for maybe how to give well reasoned arguments about arcana that not one voter in (insert special number here) would care about.

    Sorry I bruised your ego with my barb about your bells and whistles video – but the video has no substance. Perhaps the average voter does agree, but remember the average voter voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004. The average voter is not going to move this country in a libertarian direction when their is no leadership to push it. Simply telling the average voter what YOU THINK he wants to hear doesn’t cut it in MY opinion.

    I’m very impressed that you know that by my fourth sentence, the average voter looks at his watch. Usually when I work a booth, the average voters who stop to talk do so because they want to

  37. IanC: Read “Disney: the Case Against.” It includes cases where Disney actively blocked the enforcement of the laws both on its own employes and management at Walt Disney World and on wealthy patrons of the park itself.

    IanB: Company towns were a trap. You had to live there as a condition of employment. If you were a miner, the only choice you had was which company town to live in- all mining companies used the same business model. You were paid a little cash and mostly scrip for the company store- which sold goods at outrageous prices. The company made sure no competing merchants opened up anywhere nearby.

    After a year in such a town, the miner would discover that- needing to buy on credit to get even the most basic necessities from the company store- he was not only in debt but hopelessly so. He couldn’t leave, so the only choice was to stay and work until he died- the only thing which would cancel his debt. The company profited; the workers starved.

  38. Miners are not robots programmed to do only one job. Certainly in such a bad situation they should leave and earn income another way, even if not much.

    Many people did stay in these sad situations, so I have to think that they were being restrained in some unethical way, even if the laws of the time didn’t view it as initiation-of-force.

    Property, in one’s self and in other things, should be defined so to accommodate both autonomy and economy.

    Today’s laws allow a miner to walk out on his debt without being dragged back to the mines by force.

    I think it’s possible to “reform” capitalism in some ways without being a socialist, although that has been the usual path.

    We can prize both liberty and property without considering them exactly the same thing. In this case liberty is more important, and a true anarcho-capitalist should see that.

    When one company gets so strong that it makes the law unilaterally, there’s no longer a free market.

  39. “Today’s laws allow a miner to walk out on his debt without being dragged back to the mines by force.” — Wes P

    In a Free Market “stateless” environment, these laws would not exist.

    Further, the practice of the company town — dominantly in mining but not exclusively — only ended when people had the physical wherewithal to leave privately owned towns and enter towns/cities with governmental rather than company institutions.

    IanB — consider that the question. In the face of what happened the last time ’round re: Private ‘government’ — law enforcement sanitation et al — why should anyone listen to your propositions? History and evidence says otherwise.

  40. IanB — an additional corrolary: What’s the problem if a business chooses to own a town and the people choose to live there? What happens if fraud causes them to be forced live there without the economic wherewithal to move elsewhere?

    Is it still a free society if someone uses fiscal entrapment rather than “majority vote” to force something to happen?

    You state the marketplace would take care of this. I’ll bite — how?

  41. What if, what if.

    I’ve never said the Free Market would be perfect, nor that it would always result in a free society. I just want to be free from government rule, and be free to set whatever rules I want on my property. I want that same freedom for others, and I’m not scared of what they will do with it.

    Clearly, freedom is not for everyone.

  42. IanC — In a stateless environment, no laws would exist.

    But there would still be some social consensus about who’s aggressing on whom. If enough people thought, and acted upon the belief that company-town debt-slavery is wrong, they would make sure that a miner could leave a job that only forced him further into debt.

    If the physical wherewithal doesn’t exist, the laws and the social consensus don’t matter.

    The “market” can include people who care enough to take the situation into their own hands. Without that, the form of government doesn’t matter.

  43. Wes — “they would make sure that a miner could leave a jobt that only forced him further into debt” — how? Majority rule? Something there is awfully fishy.

    Ian B: Pointing out historical precedent and then insisting that these problems be resolved before enacting a model that is based on said precedent is not a “What if” scenario.

    Further — “[…] nor that it would always result in a free society.” — try “reliably” and maybe I could on board with you.

    Right now that “reliably” just isn’t there. Please — and I mean that with sincere honesty — demonstrate how this isn’t the case.

  44. Ian B — further; “[…] nor that it would always result in a free society. I just want to be free from government rule, […]”

    Am I to read this segment correctly as meaning that you do not give a damn how free the end result is, so long as there’s no government?

    Then by definition you are anarchist, and *NOT* libertarian. Since your end-goal is the abolition of state regardless of the state of liberties for the people in this government free state; that when push comes to shove you are *anti*-freedom where government is concerned. That is to say, if there could exist a scenario wherein a new law or governmental regulation would induce *GREATER* personal liberties, you would still be against it — because it’s still government.

    I can’t roll with you on that, man. I care about freedom too much.

  45. Blanton:

    Pfffftttt. P0wned. Poeple were telling me the platform never hurt the party or our candidates, so the platform’s not a issue, or no voter ever reads the platform, so it’s not an issue.

    400 people around the country got to see it was a issue for their very own eyes. If I had gotten it done the week before, it would have been thousands.

    I got 3 other videos of actual LP candidates getting bushwhacked by candidate forums and local TV shows, but I went with Badnarik for obvious reasons.

  46. Tim: The one video I’ve seen wasn’t convincing to me- and I’m on your side! Maybe the other versions are more open on showing the damage extreme stands do?

    There really needs to be scientific polling to determine what the voters DO think about our positions- and how many of them that won’t support the most extreme ones might support less radical steps.

  47. Ian B — “Government Freedom ” — that’s true now, and that’s where you and I agree. But your statement is that it will *ALWAYS* be true.

    And here I’m going to through your words at you: “Just because you and I cannot imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t happen.”

    Pwned, Ian — again. Sorry. :)

  48. Govern: To keep under control; restrain
    Freedom: The condition of being free of restraints.

    Government is the antithesis of freedom.

    Sorry, you cannot “pwn” if you can’t spell. “Throw”, is what you were looking for, I think.

  49. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:govern&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

    The above is the ‘common’ definition of the word “govern.”

    There are four definitions. None include the wording “To keep under control.” Sorry. The most telling is as follows: “direct or strongly influence the behavior of”

    Government is then the business of directing nations.

    Right now, yes, the current government models indicate exactly that. But here’s a newsflash, Ian — tribal government is still government. Customary law is still government.

    And what the hell are you referring to with the “throw” reference? Or are you attempting to indicate that I have thrown the argument? *shaking head* Mr. Bernard, I don’t know how else to put this, so I’ll just come out and say it:
    (cont’d)

  50. Ian B — you have been proven wrong.

    Historical precedent, rhetorical recollection, logical argument, evidenciary practice — all of these amongst others have demonstrated this to be the case.

    I doubt you’ll ever *recognize* that unfortunately. And while I won’t hold my breath on it, I do hope you’ll come around to better thinking someday. In the meanwhile, just keep plugging away, man, and don’t get in the way should we ever actually *manage* something. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and even try to act on them. If you start hurting freedom, then I’ll truly advocate against you. But for now, even misguided, there’s hardly anything you could do to cause this.

  51. Caught the throw part. Yeah, I had *a* typo — another in my previous post.

    Don’t go down the road of juvenile behavior, eh? Doesn’t do anyone any good.

    And with that, I am through. This has gone on long enough.

    Oh — and for the record; next time you start spouting this “Free Market fixes everything” schtick in a forum I’m in, expect a two word rebuttal — “Company town.”

    Go enjoy your day, folks! :)

  52. You’re the one who used the term “pwn”, and you accuse me of being juvenille?

    Toodles!