Why Libertarians Should Be Socialists

[David Floyd]

why would the police enter my land? did they hear the gunshot across the vast expanse? last I checked police can't walk onto ur land at will. so I'd like to know how they ever got close enuff to even sniff a crime.

Easy. Three of the tenant farmers neighbors heard the gunshots, and saw you lurking around his house. They call the police, and the police come arrest you.

Then again, maybe he has no neighbors, and no one saw or heard you, and you manage to cover up the crime. Congratulations. You got away with murder. But how is that any different from now? If you can successfully cover up a murder, then I guess you got away with it.

and its NOT MY OWN SECURITY FORCE. its the gov't sanctioned police force for my land. they pay me rent and collect user fees just like any other gov't sanctioned police force.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. There is ONE government sanctioned police force. There may be many different precincts and stations, but they all report to the same place, and they all have the same power to come arrest you if you commit a crime. If one section of the police is corrupt, and refuse to do their job, then they'll get fired and/or arrested, but either way, you don't have the power to designate which police officers you'll allow to investigate a crime you are suspected of committing.

and also obviously the tenant farmer has not paid any user fees.

Why is that obvious at all?

[David Floyd]

having to prove ur innocence is tyranny.

Sure, but that's not what the issue is. The issue is whether or not you shot someone. You can either deny it, in which case the prosecuting authority must prove it (and, if they DO prove it, your claim that you had permission will look awfully suspect), or you can admit to it, but say that you had permission.

However, if you actually had permission, then most likely you have some way to prove it - the story that someone just asked you to shoot them is extremely implausible, and there is a difference between "presumption of innocence" and accepting a fairly unreasonable story at face value. If you do have a signed, notarized "permission slip", as it were, then why would you complain about producing it? If you do not, then surely you will admit that it looks an awful lot like you committed murder?

[David Floyd]

OK, I'm going to bed. We'll pick this up later.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Easy. Three of the tenant farmers neighbors heard the gunshots, and saw you lurking around his house. They call the police, and the police come arrest you.

Then again, maybe he has no neighbors, and no one saw or heard you, and you manage to cover up the crime. Congratulations. You got away with murder. But how is that any different from now? If you can successfully cover up a murder, then I guess you got away with it.



Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. There is ONE government sanctioned police force. There may be many different precincts and stations, but they all report to the same place, and they all have the same power to come arrest you if you commit a crime. If one section of the police is corrupt, and refuse to do their job, then they'll get fired and/or arrested, but either way, you don't have the power to designate which police officers you'll allow to investigate a crime you are suspected of committing.



Why is that obvious at all?

so three ppl who don't pay user fees call the police to report taht someone else who doesn't pay user fees has had his rights violated. and the police are going to expend labor on them? I dont think so. thats violating ur rights by user fees philosophy.

and where do these police live? do they live 580 miles away from me? are there no police stations at all in my entire territory? cuz last I heard the only sane way to do it is juristiction. so there would be need to be a police station on my land that handled the policing of my land. w/ officers who lived on my land and cars that drove on my land. and thusly the user fees would be done by juristiction.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sure, but that's not what the issue is. The issue is whether or not you shot someone. You can either deny it, in which case the prosecuting authority must prove it (and, if they DO prove it, your claim that you had permission will look awfully suspect), or you can admit to it, but say that you had permission.

However, if you actually had permission, then most likely you have some way to prove it - the story that someone just asked you to shoot them is extremely implausible, and there is a difference between "presumption of innocence" and accepting a fairly unreasonable story at face value. If you do have a signed, notarized "permission slip", as it were, then why would you complain about producing it? If you do not, then surely you will admit that it looks an awful lot like you committed murder?

the issue is not whether I shot someone. the issue is whether I shot someone against their will.

and considering I'm not going to SAY ANYTHING. whatever they attempt to think to charge me w/ I can just plead innocent. then by default their zero labor kicks in and lack of evidence and dismissal.

[Wraith]

Yowsa. Thread explosion. This is one of the reasons I don't get into these things much any more. Not enough time to deal with this.

--"What exactly would a libertarian utopia be? "

The answer you'll get depends on the libertarian you ask. There is a range. Personally, I'm a minarcho-capitalist, so minimum government (involved only in protection of rights) and an actual free market would be what I'm after. Courts, military and police are about it.

--" My biggest criticism is that I think from what little libertarian theory I've seen here on apolyton that it discount the power of NGO's"

Actually, it relies on it. Libertarians expect NGOs to pick up the majority of government functions.

--"Inflicting harm on a Libertarian's individual freedoms won't happen because of the "magic" properties of moral indignation."

You seem to be coming from a background of moral-only arguments with anarcho-capitalists. We don't all think the same. Lots of libertarians want to keep police and courts, since we think that the only just purpose of government is the defense of the rights of its citizens. Certainly that was the principle behind the founding of the US government.

--"and how does society pay for the enforcement of property rights?"

This is one of the more interesting questions. I personally like things like contract insurance, where you pay a small fee to get a contract "insured" by the government, which simply means that you're buying the privilege of being able to base civil trials on it if something goes wrong (criminal trials always being an option). There are other plans in the same vein, namely voluntary, that can be used for funding.

--"where are they going to get this mythical "land they own.""

The government currently owns something like 25% of the land in the US. One of the Libertarian Party proposals involves auctioning off much of this land to pay the debt and help fund current social security commitments (while at the same time stopping promising new benefits to those who haven't yet joined SS).

--"cuz if they didnt pay the user fees, they have no rights. remember? "

And now we expose a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Libertarians, by and large, are supporters of the natural rights theory. There are no rights you have to pay for. Rights always exist. I can't kill you just because you can't pay me some arbitrary amount of money not to do it.
Privileges are another matter, of course...

--" In a Libertarian society, would these companies have advertising restrictions on them?"

Some restrictions, yes. False claims counts as fraud, and libertarians are against things like fraud. But it's always up to the person themselves whether or not they should do something that they know to be harmful. People knew cigarettes are bad for you long before the Surgeon General got into the act.

You seem to be ignoring the other NGOs, things like Underwriter's Labs and Consumer Reports. There are a lot of watchdog groups out there.

--"Also how is the Judiciary, police, and politicians any different in a Libertarian society?"

The main difference is less power. With less to sell, they don't become less corrupt, there's just not anywhere near as much reason to corrupt them.

--"and such abominations constitutes a violation of their individual right to truly believe in their religion."

What the government says about marriage has nothing to do with your religious beliefs about marriage. Government doesn't set religion in this country.

--"Unless the Libertarian Constitution completely restrains the legislature, I don't see how it could keep them from passing tons of non-Libertarian laws."

Well, that was the intent of the US Constitution. As you can see, it hasn't worked all that well over time. It was too easy to ignore.
The famous saying has it right. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It's up to us to object to the unjust laws. We do it now, we'd have to do it then.

--"I think that the abuses of power from corporations such as railroads during the robber baron era"

Most of them weren't as bad as they get portrayed, but nevertheless this really isn't an issue. I don't know why people think libertarians don't mind people "screwing" others out of money, but it's not the case. Things like the old mining town company stores are exactly the kind of things libertarians wouldn't like. Remember that individual rights are paramount (and, despite current legal views, corporations are not individuals, but collections of individuals).

--"I disagree with you here."

Actually, it's "I don't want to waste my hard-earned money on those freeloading crack-whores and idiots". Haven't the communists filled you on the lines yet? ^_^

--"Probably more of a class thing, with private school kids being disproportionately rich."

So many people have this misconception. It's amazing what a little propoganda does for you.
Sorry, but it isn't true. My parents were lower-middle class when I was in private school. My dad was a truck driver studying to be a police officer. My younger brother and sister got sent to the same school. They really aren't all that expensive. Sure, there are expensive elite private schools, but they're not the norm.

--"Nothing's a better backbone for libertarianism than having a huge chunk of the population being self-employed craftsmen/farmers/merchants"

The key point here is self-employed. What you're self-employeed at is irrelevant. Small businesses stll make up a huge portion of the US economy. In fact, they'd make an even larger portion if corporations didn't get special treatment; there's all sorts of limited liabilities and tax breaks and so on you can get from incorporating. None of this is inherent to anything except the current legal structure, which is quite artificial. Remove the special protections and subsidies, and things would largely go back to this, except where economy of scale is overwhelming or extremely large groups are a necessity (like airliner design/construction).

--"A better example is pollution and how to regulate it in an absolutely libertarian society"

This one's actually quite simple, a tax on pollution. If pollution is infringing on my land, whoever's causing it gets to pay to clean it up.

--"my opinion is that a certain amount of state is inevitable"

As I've mentioned several times, please don't lump all the minarcho-capitalists with the anarcho-capitalists.

--"in libertarian society someone is free to ask someone else to shoot them."

Sure, but I don't see why you think that's a problem. Unless you're just completely anti-suicide on religious grounds.
The trick is that the person doing the shooting really better have good witnesses and a written contract before he goes ahead, ne?

Yavoon, if you expect to be taken seriously in any argument online, at least bother spelling out "you" instead of using "u". Presentation is important, and to be honest, your posts are painful to read just from a basic sentence structure standpoint.

Wraith
"You Say To People, 'Throw Off Your Chains' And They Make New Chains For Themselves?"
"Seems to be a major human activity, yes."
-- Dorfl and Samuel Vimes ("Feet of Clay")

[Imran Siddiqui]

Remove the special protections and subsidies, and things would largely go back to this, except where economy of scale is overwhelming or extremely large groups are a necessity (like airliner design/construction).

Problem being that the modern economy REQUIRES corporate entities. Economies of scale are overwhelming in an ever increasing number of businesses. If you take away corporate structures or partnership structures you wouldn't go back to the way it was with small businesses, because they couldn't do what the corporations do today. Of course the corporations may go overseas. It'd be a severe downward trend on business.

Any btw, most businesses don't incorporate because of the subsidies. Most of them don't recieve those subsidies. They mostly do it for the limited liability, which can be essential to entice investors to buy shares.

[Berzerker]

yavoon -

man ur dense.

But I'm and you're

the current system of land ownership has THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF RESTRICTIONS TO IT. it is NOTHING LIKE THE SYSTEM UR IN. its like saying that jail is libertarian cuz u can shank urself.

Those restrictions did not exist for most of US history and there still is no regulation prohibiting me from selling my land for $100 billion which is the premise of your argument. So, since your premise is that all the landowners will get together and over charge for the use of their land, why doesn't that happen everywhere now? Don't dodge my question again with "there are restrictions".

our present system and ur libertarian paradise are so insanely far apart that drawing paralells is a frigging joke.

Both rely on the notion of private property, both rely on the notion of freedom of contract, and both lack laws requiring me as a landowner to sell or rent my land to you at market value. And yet that is what I would ask for if we were negotiating a contract. So how are they vastly different? Oh yeah, there are restrictions even though you haven't cited one to refute me.

selling land in ur system is retarded, land is the only security.

I've asked you before to support that and you just keep repeating it as if it's a given. Why would I hang onto excess land I don't need when selling it off produces wealth I can use for things I do want and need?

as long as u can't use an army to take someone's land. then land is everything(otherwise army and/or land is everything).

So buy some land, sheesh!

I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said ppl couldn't afford to live on my land. tons do. I said they coudln't afford to own it.

Your original premise was that you owned the land and decided to screw people by imposing a $50 million user fee for police protection. I'd call that an inability to afford living on your land. Methinks you've changed your hypothetical so often you can't keep track of your own arguments.

is it or is it not in one's self interest to carry out the plan I proposed? I say it is. I say that holding onto the land is in one's self interest under ur system.

You can say it all you want, that has no bearing on reality.

so all u have is that "ppl don't act in their self interest." pretty laffable ground to argue from.

Where did I say that? I've repeatedly said the opposite.

again the reason ppl buy and sell land all the time is cuz its safe. and the possible exploitation isnt nearly as high. the possible profit from my scheme is enormous. but it needs the massively deregulated libertarian society.

I don't buy and sell land because it's "safe", I buy and sell land because I see a benefit in doing so. This benefit would not exist if I asked too much for my land.

[Bosh]

The answers to these questions are in the thread. I'm not going over this ground again.

OK, just one then. Were does the authority of the police to detain suspects and adjudicate civil lawsuits for damages (such as say my neighbor always burned fires outside and it makes me cough) come from?

And obviously you need some measure of popular support - if no one wants to behave morally, it's pretty tough to make them.

But you can make it in their best interest. It seems that really have is "X is moral, people should really really do X" without really thinking about how to make things work and under what conditions libertarianism is most feasible.

Actually, it relies on it. Libertarians expect NGOs to pick up the majority of government functions.

Right, but they generally don't take it far enough. You need strong unions and various co-operative organizations to keep the poor for getting really screwed over badly under libertarianism (which would make the system untenable).

So many people have this misconception. It's amazing what a little propoganda does for you.

Well my only personal experience with private schools are from attending one in Bolivia for three years while my parents taught there and the fast majority of the kids there were spoiled little monsters with rich parents (with a some exceptions of course).

The key point here is self-employed. What you're self-employeed at is irrelevant.

EXACTLY. The more self-employed people there are the more change libertarianism has of being implemented.

Small businesses stll make up a huge portion of the US economy.

Right, but a much smaller percentage of the population have no boss above them then in the colonial/early US North.

In fact, they'd make an even larger portion if corporations didn't get special treatment; there's all sorts of limited liabilities and tax breaks and so on you can get from incorporating. None of this is inherent to anything except the current legal structure, which is quite artificial.

Good point, agree with you completely here.

except where economy of scale is overwhelming or extremely large groups are a necessity (like airliner design/construction).

Right, but you also have to get some kind of large-scale self-employment rolling in industries in which there's economy of scale. The only way I can see of doing this is by having worker ownership of companies (ie "worker capitalism") or at least unions strong enough to squeeze conditions good enough out of companies so that there's no need for government assistance (although the worker capitalism option is preferable).
The biggest thing holding this thing back is the way the US legal system is set up (specifically the same kind of stuff about incorporation that you were talking about) and the lack of a network of volutary organizations to get things rolling, and those are hardly insurmountable obstacles.

This one's actually quite simple, a tax on pollution.

Makes sense. But in many cases pollution can't be eliminated entirely or cleaned up so I guess the legal system gets to adjudicate damages and distribute compensatory payments, right?

As I've mentioned several times, please don't lump all the minarcho-capitalists with the anarcho-capitalists.

Sorry, I've got a bit too much Floyd on the brain.
But I was making a distinction between the amount of state intervention that's inevitable and the amount of state intervention that's desirable. I think the amount of state intervention that's desirable is a very low level, (probably about the same as you) but the amount that's inevitable varies wildly depending on the socio-economic condition on society and until you give socio-economics a good overhaul it doesn't really matter what amount of state intervention is desirable since a welfare state is inevitable.

Thanks for another good reply Wraith, I feel like I end up smacking my head into a wall most of the time in political debates and get canned answers that don't really answer what I'm saying (but I guess that comes from me coming from a different perspective than people are used to, for example when berzerker (a smart guy) thought I was argueing for government redistribution of wealth when I wasn't (would like a responce on that point some time zerker ).

[Wraith]

--"Problem being that the modern economy REQUIRES corporate entities."

I call bull****. Big companies, I can agree with. Not that they have to be corporate entities (if you can see the difference in the way I'm using terms).

--"They mostly do it for the limited liability, which can be essential to entice investors to buy shares."

Note where I said "special protections". Those limited liabilities are exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. They're the kind of thing that lets the Enron gang run around with millions. I personally find them disgusting and see them as quite distasteful from an individual rights point of view.

--" The more self-employed people there are the more change libertarianism has of being implemented."

Oh, I certainly agree with you here. But there's already a large amoung of small businesses in the US. Most of the people who run them are far more disgusted with the current government system than those who don't. They get to see clearly just how much the government takes, the side of things most people don't see (like the rest of the Social Security taxes that never actually get put on your paycheck, not to mention the regulations).

--"The only way I can see of doing this is by having worker ownership of companies"

Nah, there have been plenty of privately owned businesses on a fairly large scale. I don't see why things like the stock market wouldn't still be around, for instance, they'd just be under slightly different rules. There's still penty of ways to get the kind of investment capital that would make big companies possible.

--"so I guess the legal system gets to adjudicate damages and distribute compensatory payments, right?"

Yes. Defense of property rights would be one of their duties.

--"but the amount that's inevitable varies wildly depending on the socio-economic condition on society"

I think the amount you're calling "inevitable" depends almost soley on social conditions and isn't bound to economic conditions at all. One thing about freedom is that it takes a lot of work, and not everyone is willing to work for it. But that's social conditioning more than anything, and one of the main reasons we need to get the government out of the "education" business (although they treat it more like the babysitting business these days).
It's always interesting to look into the history of education in the US, as well. Originally the most a government would do is for a town to mandate that there had to be at least one school in town. The pressure for the government taking over came almost entirely from teachers and school administrators, who were hoping to get more pay, etc, from goverment...

To be honest, at this point I don't really see the entire US going back to a more libertarian system to a large degree. I am interested in the free state project, because something like that is a step in the right direction. Find somewhere where the liberty-minded people can gather, and let them set their own government up. Unfortunately, the federal government has far too much power these days, and I don't think this is going to make as much difference as I'd like. If they suceed enough to get a couple Libertarians into Congress, at least there'll be a moderating influence, but I doubt it'll be enough to change the trend completely.
What we'd really need to do is take over (peacefully, yes, by moving in and gaining citizenship) some small country or deserted island somewhere. Which I suspect isn't going to happen unless someone with the same idea gets quite rich (Bill Gates, are you listening? ^_^).

Now, for those still concerned that Libertarians aren't considering practicalities, check out books like Harry Browne's The Great Libertarian Offer. I had to pack everything up to move this week, so I don't have it handy or I'd quote from it, but it goes into great detail on how the federal government can cut spending and still meet current commitments. There's lots of books in the same nature.

Wraith
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand

[Imran Siddiqui]

The biggest thing holding this thing back is the way the US legal system is set up (specifically the same kind of stuff about incorporation that you were talking about)

Obviously you don't know much about incorporation . There is nothing holding back worker owned companies from incorporating. In fact, they should probably do so. I'd argue that if there were NO incorporation laws worker owned corporations may fail, simply because then each shareholder (ie, worker) would be totally liable for anything the company did.

Big companies, I can agree with. Not that they have to be corporate entities (if you can see the difference in the way I'm using terms).

I totally disagree. Without incorporation rules, investing would be severly diminished. I mean, really, who would take stock options in a company knowing that you can be sued for the entire liability costs of a corporation? That's what incorporation prevents.

Those limited liabilities are exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. They're the kind of thing that lets the Enron gang run around with millions.

So one fradulent group and suddenly the whole system is bad? Well, I guess we should junk capitalism then? And, anyway, Enron's problems are with its directors and officers, who are in the process of being sued under breaches of fiduciary duty (part of corporation law, btw). The limited liability is mainly for shareholders.

Put it to you this way, say you own ONE stock in a company and you are by far the richest stock owner. Without incorporation, if the company is liable for anything they can come after YOU PERSONALLY for the entire liability. So, your one stock means they can go after you for anything under the sun, and if they win, they can take your house, etc. Under incorporation, they can't come after you, they can only come after corporation assets. So, the only think you lose is what your one share is worth, not your house or car.

I can't see how anyone would think that's a bad idea!!

There's still penty of ways to get the kind of investment capital that would make big companies possible.

Not really. It'd all basically have to be loans. Hardly anyone would want stock when accepting that stock means that creditors can go after you personally if something happens.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -

But I'm and you're



Those restrictions did not exist for most of US history and there still is no regulation prohibiting me from selling my land for $100 billion which is the premise of your argument. So, since your premise is that all the landowners will get together and over charge for the use of their land, why doesn't that happen everywhere now? Don't dodge my question again with "there are restrictions".

in hawaii bishop estate trust owned a pretty hefty % of the land. I forget what, but they devised a less malevolent version of my scheme. basically they're out in the middle of the pacific, ppl like hawaii, they're just going to lease the land in perpetuity and have an insanely safe and constant(as well as large) income stream.

they were subsequently forced by legislation to sell off their land at court determined market value to the lessee's should they want it.

so no, u can't just not sell land.

in a more general note ur entire position is prespoturous and stupid and never addresses the single cornerstone of my scheme.

1)its in the best interests of ppl to execute my scheme
2)ppl do whats in their best interests

[Berzerker]

yavoon -

in hawaii bishop estate trust owned a pretty hefty % of the land. I forget what, but they devised a less malevolent version of my scheme. basically they're out in the middle of the pacific, ppl like hawaii, they're just going to lease the land in perpetuity and have an insanely safe and constant(as well as large) income stream.

Oh come on, yavoon. That's a trust effectively run by the Hawaiian government! The scandals involved were a result of politicians and cronyism, don't try to pass that off as "libertarian" much less "private". The land was part of the estate of a KING and his lineage and the trust was made long before Hawaii ever became a state. Oh, it was 500,000 acres btw. Please cite a LAW that requires us landowners to sell our land at market value, not some lawsuit involving a government corrupted trust in Hawaii.

they were subsequently forced by legislation to sell off their land at court determined market value to the lessee's should they want it.

so no, u can't just not sell land.

Next time provide a link so I don't have to do your homework.

Here:

Until 1984, the Estate was land-rich and cash-poor. Of the trust's estimated 500,000 original acres, a large percentage was leased to homeowners who eventually sought to buy the land under their homes. After an arduous 17-year legal battle to keep the leaseholds -- a battle that wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bishop Estate lost, forcing the liquidation of thousands of acres, yielding more than $1 billion for its coffers.

http://dir.salon.com/business/feature/2000/07/11/bishop/index.html?pn=4

There was no legislation, the land was sold off as a result of a lawsuit. I asked for legislation... We have no law requiring Kansans to sell their land at market value, so why hasn't your scheme been done here?

in a more general note ur entire position is prespoturous and stupid and never addresses the single cornerstone of my scheme.

The only systems your "scheme" has worked in were autocratic systems ala feudal lords where rich people hired armies to force people off their land.

1)its in the best interests of ppl to execute my scheme
2)ppl do whats in their best interests

1) is your unsupported assumption, and 2) includes self-interest with altruistic results. You haven't proven 1) and you keep ignoring our arguments explaining why it isn't in every landowner's self-interest to join your scheme. And you keep ignoring all the good deeds people do as a result of their self-interest. All you've been doing is repeating
"it's in the interest of all landowners to accept my
scheme" as if it is the gospel.

I'd think after repeated requests from both David and I for you to prove that your "cornerstone" is valid you'd
actually try to tackle that one.

[Bosh]

Oh, I certainly agree with you here. But there's already a large amoung of small businesses in the US.

Right, but the more the better.

Nah, there have been plenty of privately owned businesses on a fairly large scale. I don't see why things like the stock market wouldn't still be around, for instance, they'd just be under slightly different rules. There's still penty of ways to get the kind of investment capital that would make big companies possible.

Think you're missing what I was saying.
The only way to have anything that equates to the pro-libertarian benefits of having lots of small businesses to industries with huge economies of scale is via worker ownership (basically Partnerships writ large).

I think the amount you're calling "inevitable" depends almost soley on social conditions and isn't bound to economic conditions at all.

Well I did say socio-economic
But economic issues really influence social structures (although of course not in a narrowly deterministic way). Basically nothing fuels desire to be dependent on the government like being dependent on someone else at work or at home (or at church or at whatever) and nothing fuels the desire to not be babysat by the state like being independent (or at least having some kind of equality of power) in all spheres of life. Human life over laps and you can't partition bits of it off.

some small country or deserted island somewhere

Or New Hampshire

how the federal government can cut spending and still meet current commitments

That's definately some good pragmatic thinking, but not exactly the issue I'm looking at (ie how to make the majority of people want libertarianism).

Obviously you don't know much about incorporation

Wasn't talking about incorporation specifically, just some broad stuff that gets rather complicated (and this stuff isn't the main problem really, the problem is lack of support institutions), what happens is that its hard to set up a functional worker owned corporation that will stay worker owned without some relatively complicated legal machanisms, which means that unless workers buy out a corporation and hire some very specific kind of expert legal help (with a kind of expertise that's very very rare in the state) the corporation ends up getting set up in such a way that its pretty much impossible for it to stay worker-owned over the long haul. I can go into more detail and bring up specific examples if you want.

[David Floyd]

I'll get a substantive reply in later tonight - I'm working on an assignment right now...