Monday, March 31, 2008

"Ask A Cop"

The title was "Ask a Cop", so I did.
I asked "Do you ever feel guilty that your job is based upon enforcing counterfeit 'laws' that should never be enforced? Do you worry that 'I was only doing my job' wasn't an acceptible excuse at Nurmeberg?"
The cop's answer: "Kent, let me do my job. I work hard to do it well. You go right ahead and question my job, but I work hard and I love what I do. "
That answered my questions better than I could have hoped.

Violent Anti-Gunners

Almost every time (or, possibly, every time) I have been in a debate with an anti-gunner, if the debate goes on for long enough, the person eventually gets around to saying something along the lines of "So if I can carry a gun anywhere, I will just kill the next person who makes me mad!" That is enough to make me think that the victim-disarmers are right: they should not have guns.

The rest of us, since we don't struggle with the burden of a barely suppressed desire to kill people, should not be similarly tyranized.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

"Expect Delays" by Darian Worden

I liked this article for several reasons. The problems of government roads, "drivers licenses", artificially extending childhood, and possibly other related nonsense are all touched upon.

Restore the Constitution

Petition to Restore the Constitution. Read it. If you agree, sign it and pass it on.

What is "Right"?

Is theft right? What if you call it "taxation" and promise to only use the money to benefit the victims? What if you call it "asset forfeiture" and hint that the victims deserved it? How about home invasion? Is it right if there might be dried leaves of a forbidden species in the house? What if it results in the murder of the people who live there? As we have seen, it is not called "murder" if it is perpetrated by agents of the state.

I can't support any system or group that uses these tactics to carry out its objectives. Some people call me "idealistic" or "unpatriotic" for being this way. Say what you want, but I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I supported such career criminals. Because to me, criminals who use badges or agencies to commit crimes are worse than free-lance criminals who hold no self-serving delusions about their actions.

My morals not not shimmer and shift depending on who I am talking about. If it would be wrong for me to do it, then it is wrong for a cop to do it. If it would be a crime for my friends and I to go out and do it, it is wrong for government agencies to do it. On the other hand, if it is OK for government agents to own, such as machine guns, then it is OK for you and I to own. After all, which of us is more likely to kill people? It isn't me. I expect to go through my entire life without ever killing anyone. Right and wrong; It really isn't that hard to figure out. Is it?

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Inevitable Outcome of Democracy

After reading this article, I got to thinking. Fred seems worried that Mexican immigrants will soon be able to out-vote the government-approved hereditary American voters. But, isn't that the whole point of "democracy"? That the will of the majority, even if you are not IN the majority, will become government policy? Or, is it only a "good thing" as long as the "right people" make up the majority of voters?

Those who worship voting think that the majority can vote to violate the rights of the minority, as long as it doesn't violate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Even if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster, the majority can change that Constitution to get rid of the pesky limitations. That is a mighty crumbly ledge to be clinging to. Isn't it better to acknowledge that there are rights that are held by all people that no one, and especially no group of people (be they "voters" or "government") can violate under any circumstances.

Friday, March 28, 2008

"Engraved Invitation - To Steal" by L. Neil Smith

I suppose you have heard about the BATFE's request for Leatherman tools engraved with the reminder to its agent to steal all they can get their paws on. I have been thinking about this news item for a couple of days. I even have a protoblog written about "right and wrong" inspired by the disgraceful arrogance and complete lack of morals in statists like these. L. Neil has written a good article about it. Go read it, please.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Again For the "Anarchy-Phobes"

Another "argument" against anarchy that I run into frequently is that "humans need organization and leaders", so they will never accept anarchy.

I see no problem with organizations or hierarchies for those that need them. However, unlike today's society, these organizations would be strictly voluntary. You could organize yourself into any groups you desired, even communistic ones if that is your dream, but you would not be able to force your group onto anyone else. This is a great disappointment to people who get their jollies from coercion. It would be hard to convince people to join your happy little dictatorship if they have a choice in the matter.

As I have said before, there is a great difference between "leaders" and "rulers". Leaders would have a place of honor in anarchist society; rulers would be exposed as the parasites they are. Leaders lead by example; like a trailblazer through the wilderness showing others how to safely traverse the territory. Rulers avoid personal danger; sending others to take the risks, often at gun point or through deception, while reaping the rewards for themselves and their co-conspirators. Rulers also have a pathological need to meddle in affairs that are not their concern, usually using "it's for your own good" or "for the children" as the ready-made justification.

The superiority of a society organized on anarchy is clear. Unless you don't wish to accept responsibility for your own actions or have the need to see others ruled. Or if you are a thief who wants the illusion of legitimacy backing you up. In which case you might be uncomfortable or scared. Poor baby.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Proof That Government is BAD!

The most common argument against anarchy that I have run into is that it won't work because there will always be some thugs who will pay people to fight for them and just steal from everyone around them. So, basically, the argument is that anarchy won't work because bad people will re-establish another government. Isn't that a funny argument? It seems to me to be a pretty clear admission that government is established by the bad guys for the bad guys.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Freedom From Hatred

It feels good to be a libertarian/anarchist. While the rest of the world wallows around in hatred over silly things like race, gender, sexual preferences, the status of "official documentation", region of origin, wealth, generational differences, religion, or appearance, I only concern myself with those things that cause actual harm to people. Things like theft, coercion, aggression... you know, things that government and its sympathizers (and the other true criminals) do best.

Some days, it is good to step back and remember how much easier we can have it if we just let a lot of things roll off our backs. I know it works for me when I see the conniptions others have over the weirdest things.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

"Gays in the Military"

I was recently watching an online debate about whether "gays" should be allowed in the military. The hatred and hysteria was shocking. But the division among the war-mongers is encouraging in a lot of ways. When the next American revolution begins, I won't care who is beside me shooting at the government troops. They can be straight, gay, bi, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, black, white, Hispanic, oriental, or from Alpha Centauri for all I'll care. Those of you on the government-sympathizer side would be wise to adopt the same mind-set, but if you don't, it'll make the revolution easier for us liberty-lovers to win.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

"Time's Up" Flag on Lew Rockwell

I feel like my "Time's Up" flag has hit the big-time now that it made it onto Lew Rockwell. Thanks Manuel Lora!

Here is the story behind the flag, for those of you who don't know:

I came up with this design during the summer of 2006 while I was vacationing with my family near Albuquerque, New Mexico (at the cushy American RV park, to be specific). I was relaxing in a chair at the "campsite", looking at my Gadsden flag (which was flying on my parent's motor home nearby) and thought "that snake has been rattling for over 200 years. It is time he finally struck at those who keep treading on him." I pulled a scrap of paper from my vest pocket and did the first sketch. I toyed with different captions (such as "Liberty") before settling on "Time's Up". The final design is a direct scan of my second sketch, which was almost as good as the first sketch. Isn't that the way it always works? The flags I sell have a slightly modified design (for better printing by the flag manufacturer), but I am very happy with them.

Entering the Matrix

I read a fascinating online book called The Day You Discard Your Body by Marshall Brain. He is speaking of trading your body and the external reality it inhabits with an internal computer-simulation of reality.

The reason why you will discard your body so willingly is simple. In the
process of losing your body, you will achieve a level of freedom and longevity
that is unimaginable to us today.

In this book, you will come to understand why you will be so happy to
discard your body. We will look at the many problems that your body creates for
you today, along with the many limitations that it imposes on you. We will then
discuss the technology that will make your body obsolete, and the powerful
social forces that will encourage you to abandon it.

He makes a lot of good points, but I can't help feeling that he is talking about building "The Matrix". Would you be willing to give up reality for a fiction that seemed more real than reality, and was basically a perfect paradise? You could live in your ideal world regardless of what others thought of its impracticality. I worry about who would control and maintain such a system, and who would pay for it. It is definitely food for thought. I highly recommend you read his ideas.

There is one way I would gladly do it, as long as I had paid for it myself, instead of "society" picking up the tab. At the end of my natural life, I would be willing to begin my "unnatural life". At that point, what have you got to lose? Everything is just icing from then on.

Friday, March 21, 2008

“But you support the State by your own actions!”

I really liked this post from Check Your Premises and felt the need to swipe it, with proper credit, of course. This part really got to me:

I don’t understand how could a patriot could say “if you don’t like it, move.”
Must his country be perfect for him to accept it? Fine patriot he is! ......... what’s the point of believing in something if you refuse to help it
when something goes wrong?

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Paranoia? No, Curiosity.

I check my Sitemeter quite often to see how many visits this blog gets, and where those visits originate. It helps me keep tabs on where people are talking about me. Recently I have been getting more and more visits from an anonymous IP that has piqued my curiosity. I'm not saying that I think "98.220.70.# (Unknown Organization)" is really the BATFE trying to catch me threatening their evil thugs. It is probably just someone who is really bored. It does make me wonder, though.
I suppose if that is you, and you care to, you could send me a note to say "hi".

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

"Heller" Goes to Washington, DC (District of Crime)

The Supreme Court has now heard the arguments in the "Heller" case. I was surprised that they agreed to hear the case at all, since they have a long history of ignoring Second Amendment cases. Either they think they have figured out how to weasel their way out of making a real ruling, or they have a "fix" in place. Perhaps they will view it so narrowly that they will claim that the ruling can't be applied to any other case.

What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change. As I said once before:

"They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of
course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted
justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep
and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled
by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity
to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless."

I have long been of the opinion that:

"If they flat-out state that there is no Right to Keep and Bear Arms, they know
they face an armed revolution. If they admit that the Second Amendment means
what it plainly says, they will be admitting that every victim disarmament
scheme that has ever been perpetrated on America is illegal, and therefore null
and void. .....The lie is that you need it 'interpreted' by legal scholars. You
do not. The authors wrote it for everyone. That includes YOU."

Judging by the DC mayor's desperate verbal flatulence in support of his little empire of tyranny, interesting times may be ahead.


Tuesday, March 18, 2008

A Gov-thug Sends Threats

From JPFO:

An Open Letter To US Marshal Judicial Security Inspector David A. Meyer


The Target of Self-Responsibility

*****I am sick. Just a cold, but the baby is also sick and teething. That makes me more philosophical. So, here is the result of my fevered philosophizing:
The Target of Self-Responsibility.
The further off-center the political philosophy, the less personal responsibility is inherent, and the less liberty exists, from complete self-responsibility and great personal freedom in the center, to a total lack of self-responsibility and ubiquitous, draconian tyranny on the edge.
New rings of increased horror and control can always be added to the outside, especially as technology empowers government to reach new levels of tyranny.
Self-responsibility and liberty withers as government responsibility and control grows. Some individuals may have more or less responsibility that the general population that shares their politics, but that probably means they have actually mislabeled themselves.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Important Causes

I think that many people get involved with dubious causes because they have a deep-seated need to be a part of something important. Something "big". I completely understand that. It is the reason I do the things I do for the cause of absolute individual liberty. Yet, when I look at the logical results of many of the causes and actions that others take up, I wonder if they really think about where their road leads.

Many of them choose to prop up and support the state with their lives. Do you want a world where you are completely "safe"; supposedly protected from all harm by a totalitarian government that controls every aspect of your life? Or do you want a world filled with realistic risks, but where you are free to live as you see fit, as long as you harm no one else? I know which one I would choose, for myself and for my children.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

"Thank You For Your Service"

Some days I think that if I hear that phrase again, I may gag. It has become the "Gesundheit" of our culture. Chanted without thought to the wrong people. Why isn't it said to people like Wayne Fincher who put his life on the line for the right to bear arms and who is now imprisoned for standing up for our freedom? Or to Len Savage who fights against the vindictive and corrupt BATFE and exposes its corruption at great personal risk? Or to Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post for his fight to keep his honest business going after devious and dishonest attacks by the BATFE? Or to David Codrea for his War on Guns blog, where he has had threats passed along to from angry agents of the government?

Why do people not say "Thank you for your service" to the people who have stood up against the War on some Drugs and lost everything, including their lives? Or those who fight against the IRS?

It turns out that the phrase is reserved for those who fight for the US federal government; not for those who truly are "fighting for our freedom".

Well, I will hereby break with the rest of America and say "Thank you for your service"; all of you who stand up against government oppression in ANY form. Your stance may one day break the beast and make us all a little more free.

Friday, March 14, 2008


Whenever I am reading something or listening to someone talk, I get suspicious if I hear the term "my brothers". I usually run into the term when I criticize some members of a group, or when I am reading about some blatant abuse that is defended by the offender's "brothers". Whether the speaker is talking about "my brother soldiers", "my brother officers", or "my union brothers" it seems that the term is used to end all rational discussion of any possible wrongdoing.

I can see that shared goals and shared experiences would forge a bond that could be called "brotherhood". I understand that. It doesn't excuse a cover-up of the flaws of those "brothers". It almost seems to be a knee-jerk reaction; called forth before the facts are even known.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that brotherhood is a bad thing, just that it seems to be granted too lightly in many cases to those who do not deserve the title, simply because of a common career path. I also wonder what makes people so desperate for a connection that they grab onto some of these "brotherhoods".


Thursday, March 13, 2008

What's In Your Moral Tool-Kit?

I am constantly amazed at the number of people who apparently have an empty "moral tool-kit". To them, only government and its laws dictate right and wrong. If they disagree with the state at all, it is only to insist upon what they want or they need. If it benefits them it must be OK, even if the government says it is bad, but they go no further than that. What about things that harm the other guy even if "legal", or things that help you out "legally", but are not right? Selfishness in liking government edicts is a real problem. My moral tool-kit contains "right and wrong" that are completely independent of "laws". Not that I always live up to them, but I do try.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

America: Love It or Leave It?

I am not the only advocate of liberty who gets told "If you hate the government so much, move somewhere else!" Where exactly would these yappers suggest I go? The cancer of government is a global problem. I have a suspicion that even if a new minicontinent were to suddenly appear, it would immediately be claimed by some country.

Besides, if you know a woman is being abused by her husband, even if she says nothing is wrong, do you turn away and ignore it, or do you try to help in some way? How is the government abuse any better?

What is the right thing to do? Run away or stay and fight for liberty? Why didn't Patrick Henry say "Give me liberty, or I'll move somewhere else." I stay and fight because I care deeply about individual liberty. For me, for you, for my kids, and even for those who don't care.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Why I Don't Fly the "Stars and Stripes"

I used to fly the "Stars and Stripes". I did not like what the federal government had become, but I tried to tell myself that the flag still stood for the ideals of "liberty and justice for all". I never liked it when it was called "the US flag" instead of "the American flag", but I am an oddball in that I see a vast difference between the two. As the federal government transformed into the feral government (specifically after the Waco massacre), I turned away from the 50-starred flag and began to only fly the 13-starred "Betsy Ross" flag of a somewhat more noble era. Upon seeing my flag, people would comment "I understand, and I agree" without me saying a word. Yet, even that was not enough.
I came to realize that when government thugs see "regular Americans" flying the "Stars and Stripes", they take it as an implicit endorsement of everything they do, regardless of your true intent. It is like waving signs cheering on your favorite sports team or wearing their jerseys. You are wearing their colors, and showing that you are on their side. Even if, as in my case, nothing could have been further from the truth. I love America and because of that love, I hate everything the US government has done that destroys and belittles America, and violates individual liberty. I don't want any misunderstanding. I am an advocate of individual liberty: the recognition that as long as you harm no one else, you are free to live however you wish, without asking permission from anyone. That is why I now fly either the Gadsden flag with its "DONT TREAD ON ME" message, or my own "Time's Up" flag with its even more plain message.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Nuremberg II

I just returned from a scouting trip to Nuremberg, Pennsylvania for the "Nuremberg II" project. I needed a road trip! Cute town.

The united states of "America"

Here is a thought that was wandering around lost in my head. Take it for what it is worth:

North America (the continent) contains the countries of Canada, America, and Mexico. It also contains the countries of the Central America region as well as many island countries.

Saying "The united States of America" was originally just a way of saying something similar to"All the parts of my car". Only after the states were defeated by the federal government in Lincoln's War did the "name" of the country start being mistakenly thought of as "The United States of America". I realize that once again, the dictionary will disagree with me.

Thank you, and remember to be a fully-informed juror.


Sunday, March 09, 2008

Too Much Government

Almost everyone (other than the ubiquitous government extremist) agrees that government meddles too much in their own lives. Where I part ways with most people is that I think that government meddles too much in other people's lives also. It is easy to say that government should leave me alone. Why does it seem so hard to say that government should also leave the other guy alone?

Is it because it is easier to see the harm government does in your own life? Is it because too many people enjoy the thought of punishing the other guy? I do see that attitude a lot. For similar "crimes" people say "I only did this, and got punished too harshly for it" and in the next breath say "He did that, and he deserved to be locked up for the rest of his life!" Where is the fairness? Where is the common sense? I would rather risk having too little government controlling the other guy, than risk having too much government controlling me.

Liberty entails keeping the other guy safe from government predations, too. Whether he has government paperwork or not. Whether he agrees with you or not. Even if you don't personally like what he is doing, as long as he harms no one else. Until we start acting on that knowledge, liberty for all will remain elusive.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

"Anarchists" vs Government

I see that government is blaming "anarchists" for a bombing. Yawn. If government knew its place, and stayed there, "anarchists" wouldn't go to the trouble of bombing. As a strategy, bombings don't work well. Government sympathizers become more determined and stronger in their defense of the indefensible when their temples are bombed. Just as any religion does.

Plus, government uses bombings as an excuse to tighten the screws of tyranny even more. If the government extremists really wanted to end threats against their establishments, they could. Rein in the excessive government and the anti-excessive-government forces will wither away for lack of difference. It is a simple law of nature, like a pendulum. The further it swings in the tyranny direction, the further it will necessarily swing in the anti-tyranny direction. The more extreme the government faction becomes, the more extreme its opposition becomes. Anarchy is the middle ground where neither is needed or welcome.

In this case, though, I am suspicious. I suspect that this may just be another "Reichstag fire".

Friday, March 07, 2008

Thoughts on Tariffs and Trade Deficits

I was discussing tariffs a couple days ago when I remembered a thought I have had in the past, but never written down. It is kinda mainstream, so I find it embarrassing. But here goes:

Get rid of the patchwork of tariffs and embargoes and then.... Why couldn't America pass a single tariff-mirroring law? It would simply state that whatever tariff or embargo a country places against American goods is automatically placed upon that country's goods. No waiting; no delay; and no restrictions against countries that place none on us. Perhaps it would also help with trade deficits and outsourcing.

Trade deficits seem a little imaginary to me. Which is more valuable: printed paper with dollar signs or real goods that can be used to make a better life for the people who possess them? When the dollar collapses would you rather have a big bank account or a house full of useful items that you purchased from other countries (who now have your worthless paper).

Outsourcing is a form of "division of labor". If you are good at doing something, people will seek you out to purchase that product or service. As long as you charge a price people are willing to pay, that is. Minimum wage laws mess with that formula. Now, I am not sure what companies are thinking when they set up their customer service phone centers in places where the employees have such a strong accent that they can not be understood by the average person. Unless they really have no interest in "serving the customers".

Eh. Anyway, those are my random thoughts for the day.


Thursday, March 06, 2008

Bad Laws

It's the same old story. Reading a blog post about a bad law (yes, the "law" is a counterfeit one) that was also being applied to retired cops, I commented that I absolutely detest cops, but that the law was still wrong. Of course I was castigated for holding to principle. Show me one cop who has never enforced a bad law and I will give that cop a pass. "I don't make the laws" is not an excuse for enforcing gun laws, drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, most traffic laws ...and the list goes on and on and on.

Of course, then the false argument was made that I just detest any police officer who enforces laws I don't like. Do any of you really think I have any vested interest in whether or not it is legal for anyone to smoke crack or hire a prostitute? I'll do what I want whether it is "legal" or not, but those aren't very high on my "to do" list. There are probably laws on the books that would help me, personally, but are still bad laws. If I notice any of those, I will still insist that the law should never be enforced.

It is really extremely simple, and I have difficulty understanding why people can't see it. It has nothing to do with whether I like the laws or not. It has everything to do with whether the laws violate the individual liberty of people to live life as they see fit as long as they are harming no one else. That is the very basis of "human rights", which is the core of libertarianism.

Of course, that then brings us back to the diversionary procedure of working within the rigged system, playing by their rules, to beg for our rights from those who have no interest in the "common people" having any rights, but only government-granted privileges. Bad laws without complicit enforcers would have no teeth. I'm sorry, but the truth is if you enforce a bad law, you are a bad person. Remember post-Katrina New Orleans.


Wednesday, March 05, 2008


I have always maintained that each person should be free to live life as they see fit as long as their actions harm no one else. One problem that crops up from time to time is the definition of "harm". Take pornography for example. Few people would argue that if your neighbor simply looks at porn, you are harmed. However, if he looks at porn and then gets all worked up and breaks into your house to rape you, he has harmed you badly. Did the porn "make him do it"? Some people apparently think so.

Drugs are the same way. Some drug users burn out their minds and bodies and end up costing a lot of money to take care of. Of course, if welfare were ended that would not be an issue. I don't really buy the "it harms society" claim, since society is only made up of individuals. If you harm no individuals you have not harmed "society". This is not the same as claiming that society doesn't exist. Too many abuses have been excused by claiming "the common good" makes it necessary.

In terms of number of individuals harmed, nothing surpasses government.


Monday, March 03, 2008

"You Were Right..."

I am always hearing "You are wrong" from people. Usually without evidence to back up the assertion, but rather impassioned nonetheless. But yesterday, just hours after debating my opinions with a dear friend of many years (at his prodding), he had an experience that suddenly made it clear to him that I have been right about government all these years. He called back just to tell me that I have been right all along. He related the events of the past couple of hours to me. Things that did not shock or surprise me, but that had a profound effect on his outlook. Because I did not ask his permission to post details, I won't say any more. I wonder if the epiphany will be permanent or if it will fade as the memory of the event dims. Time will tell.

A few years ago I debated libertarian concepts with a guy at work on an almost daily basis. He was curious, but thought I was completely off-base. I moved away and did not see him for over a year. I then moved back and the first time I saw him he told me "You were right." He told me that he had begun to pay special attention to current events and had seen the very things I had told him to expect come to pass. We talked a little more over the next few weeks and discussed his new views. I am glad I was able to help him.

I am gladder, still, that these people (and a couple more) came to me and told me that they had finally seen what I had been trying to say. It makes it worthwhile.

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Labels, Again

Anarchist .... libertarian .... anarcho-capitalist ....

What do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions to see what someone, somewhere, thought they meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you say the words. They seem too all fall short of the concepts. Yet, somehow we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I end up doing. A lot. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Speculation on Alien Governments

If/when an extraterrestrial civilization ever decides to make itself generally known to humanity it will be a complete shock. If it is even possible to comprehend the aliens at all. I know I am making unwarranted assumptions here, but I have to start somewhere. So these are my assumptions:

Quite aside from the appearance of the ETs, they will challenge everything we think we know about religion, science, and government.

I wonder how any government they may have, or may not have, will affect our own. Being completely different from us, their methods of getting along may not even have any application to our situation. Personally, I would hope they have advanced beyond the need for any government other than self-government. That is my bias. What if they are socialists or an even worse kind of slave? Could our ideas of liberty influence them at all? Would it be like bacteria giving our philosophers ideas on how to organize civilization? What if they have no "self"? Or what if their idea of "self" is that each individual is basically at war with every other individual? I think that is very unlikely. I would think that in order to have technology that enables them to travel to earth, they would be rather cooperative. That is not a certainty.