| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:38 |
 harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces. |
Not really - for those in need (real need), there are always solutions provided by the community, starting from personal charity to organized forms of charity, public shelters, asylums, etc.
|
And this wouldn't apply to their provision of justice equally well why? Even in our governmental system pro bono work runs rampant. It would only increase if all justice funding became privatized.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:36 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
|
You can attach the word ideally to anything. That doesn't serve as a justification. The problem is that ideal scenario doesn't really come close to existing under a public police system.
epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
What if the same company is employed by you? What if you're being investigated by the the Tennessee police department? Why is the government necessarily impartial? Sure this is easier if we assume that government police forces don't prefer one party to the next. Unfortunately the way that public goods work is that the provider of the public good is responsive to none of its consumers rather than being responsive to all of them equally. The public good isn't payed for which eliminates all incentive to respond to consumer demands. In fact, a disincentive actually exists in many circumstances. |
No company would be employed by me. Under your ideal, I'd just kill anybody I didn't like. End of problem. 
The government is easily the most impartial in this situation if everyone is funding it more or less evenly. No private company can be more impartial than an organization everyone funds more or less evenly.
And your concern starting at "unfortunately" isn't a problem either, because it assumes one provider (i.e., no collective of elected officials).
Overall, I'd say our local police is a good system. What you haven't done is shown how a private police won't result in thugism (and how much more useful it would be in protecting the rights of the people).
|
The government isn't funded evenly. Not even close. The people in power in government don't receive pay checks due to consumers purchasing their services because they desire them. Their paychecks are guaranteed by government might via coercion. Corruption becomes the main means to acquire profit.
I'm not so sure I have to do that since our public police force has resulted in thugism. Aside from that I don't really no how to respond. Could you explain to me how it would result in thugism?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:36 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces. |
Not really - for those in need ( real need), there are always solutions provided by the community, starting from personal charity to organized forms of charity, public shelters, asylums, etc.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:33 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:32 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:30 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
|
You can attach the word ideally to anything. That doesn't serve as a justification. The problem is that ideal scenario doesn't really come close to existing under a public police system.
epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
What if the same company is employed by you? What if you're being investigated by the the Tennessee police department? Why is the government necessarily impartial? Sure this is easier if we assume that government police forces don't prefer one party to the next. Unfortunately the way that public goods work is that the provider of the public good is responsive to none of its consumers rather than being responsive to all of them equally. The public good isn't payed for which eliminates all incentive to respond to consumer demands. In fact, a disincentive actually exists in many circumstances. |
No company would be employed by me. Under your ideal, I'd just kill anybody I didn't like. End of problem.
The government is easily the most impartial in this situation if everyone is funding it more or less evenly. No private company can be more impartial than an organization everyone funds more or less evenly.
And your concern starting at "unfortunately" isn't a problem either, because it assumes one provider (i.e., no collective of elected officials).
Overall, I'd say our local police is a good system. What you haven't done is shown how a private police won't result in thugism (and how much more useful it would be in protecting the rights of the people).
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:26 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:21 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:11 |
|
sh*t IS BEING DISCUSSED NOW BOY!!!!!
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:11 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:10 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
|
You can attach the word ideally to anything. That doesn't serve as a justification. The problem is that ideal scenario doesn't really come close to existing under a public police system.
epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
What if the same company is employed by you? What if you're being investigated by the the Tennessee police department? Why is the government necessarily impartial? Sure this is easier if we assume that government police forces don't prefer one party to the next. Unfortunately the way that public goods work is that the provider of the public good is responsive to none of its consumers rather than being responsive to all of them equally. The public good isn't payed for which eliminates all incentive to respond to consumer demands. In fact, a disincentive actually exists in many circumstances.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:08 |
Epignosis wrote:
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
That too. 
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:06 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:04 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:01 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
|
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:00 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 19:38 |
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 19:37 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 19:24 |
|
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 19:18 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
