Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’


Recommended Posts

I never said anything about lack of imagination...
George, Sure you did (my bolding).
I think one reason why many Americans, including many O'ists, find it difficult to think of their own government as tyrannical...
The reason people don't agree with you is because of their inferior imaginative equipment. That's what I get from your argument. Is my understanding of your words wrong? Michael

Yes, your understanding of my words was mistaken.

Ghs

:smile:

Me thinks anarchists often find it difficult to imagine a "private defense agency" being a rights violator or catering to a client who wants it to be a rights violator.

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideals are pretty much pipe dreams. There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality. If there were so few rights violators such that either ideal were obtained, there would be so little need for government or private defense agencies that one ideal would look much like the other except territory-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 900
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So what do you call people who use coercion, and nothing but coercion, to dictate to other people how they should live their lives? What do you call people who pass and viciously enforce laws respecting personal behavior -- laws that have ruined millions of lives? Well-intentioned but misinformed? I call them thugs.

I do, too.

We disagree in that I don't believe this is the sole characteristic of the current USA government. You are on record saying that you do believe it is.

What I wrote was this:

In essence, the current U.S. goverment is nothing more than an organized and very powerful union of criminals and thugs, nothing more.

An essential characteristic of an entity or institution is not its only characteristic. Do police and other government employees sometimes do good things? Yes, of course they do. The same might be said of other criminal organizations. If we are to believe the Godfather movies, the Don sometimes performed legitimate services for helpless people. Nevertheless, the Mafia depicted in those movies was essentially a criminal organization composed of thugs, nothing more.

Of course, in a complex governmental bureaucracy, you get the pencil pushers and others cogs in the wheels of tyranny. Their moral responsibility for government crimes is a fairly complicated issue. I addressed some of these problem in Part II of "The Ethics of Voting" (1982). You can find it here:

http://www.anthonyfl...sofvoting02.htm

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

denying to government the power to tax, and an anarchist society will naturally tend to evolve after that point.

Denying taxation by going through the proper channels to gradually whittle government down, or by revolting?

For that Randian society to exist, isn't it necessary that an overwhelming chunk of the population actually want it? And I imagine an anarchic system would definitely need the constant support of its people or else a government would be formed again.

Is it realistic for a major movement to happen without a good amount of public support? And if not, shouldn't the first step be gaining support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wrote was this:

In essence, the current U.S. goverment is nothing more than an organized and very powerful union of criminals and thugs, nothing more.

An essential characteristic of an entity or institution is not its only characteristic.

George,

It's a quibble, but I don't get "in essence... nothing more than..." meaning an essential characteristic. I get it as meaning the essential characteristic

And I think that's a reasonable understanding.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wrote was this:
In essence, the current U.S. goverment is nothing more than an organized and very powerful union of criminals and thugs, nothing more.
An essential characteristic of an entity or institution is not its only characteristic.
George, It's a quibble, but I don't get "in essence... nothing more than..." meaning an essential characteristic. I get it as meaning the essential characteristic And I think that's a reasonable understanding. Michael

Yes, this is a reasonable understanding, especially since this is what I meant to say. But the essential characteristic of an entity or institution is not its only characteristic. There are also nonessential characteristics, such as what Aristotelians call "accidental" characteristics. Thus, to repeat: To say that the U.S. government is essentially a criminal organization is not to say that it does nothing but commit criminal acts.

To say that X is essentially Y is not to say that X is nothing but Y. If I say that Hitler was essentially an evil person, this doesn't mean that I regard every action that Hitler ever took as evil. I hear that Hitler was kind to cats, for example.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George

OK. Let's do it this way.

I disagree that cartel of thugs is the only essential characteristic of the current USA government.

I've already mentioned checks and balances as a different essential characteristic and I thoroughly believe that.

Since I derive government from human nature, my standard of essence reflects that conceptual root.

And I do not agree that essence is singular. I use the standard for essential characteristic that if you remove the characteristic, you no longer have a functioning whole. (Example, a heart is an essential characteristic of an animal. Remove it and you no longer have a live animal. But it is not the only essential characteristic.)

It might be interesting to develop this line of thinking later and come up with other essential characteristics. Rand was probably on to something with her mention of the sheer number and variety of people involved. I sense there's an essence in there, too, but I haven't thought it through just yet.

I do know that individuals on their own generally act far differently than they do in crowds. And in a humongous crowd of over 300 million individuals, it's complicated to keep order.

(It feels weird to defend the current USA government all of a sudden, so let me say that these comments do not annul my previous criticisms of it.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a more civil version of the Shane/Ghs threads of old, regarding the "extremely limited government/anarchy" debate.

I do not claim to be well-read enough to contribute to this debate substantively, but wanted to throw out a few points for consideration:

1. If persons of good will and intellectual integrity (such as those on this thread) cannot agree on this issue, what does this say for the possiblity of strangers doing so in a "state of nature?" This seems relevant because it bears on whether the level of cooperation inherent in either of the two societies being argued for is a realistic scenario.

2. Relative to my last point in #1 above, some would say that their argument need not be "realistic", but represents instead an "ideal." I get that. But isn't this what Peikoff circa 1983 would have labeled rationalism on steroids? If the Randian conception of government is not realistic, i.e., is not consistent with the facts of reality, and also, as Ghs has demonstrated, does not conclusively trump the anarchist's position, what does that say for Objectivism? Doesn't that say something to the effect of: Objectivism isn't actually realistic?

3. Even if the Objecitivst position conclusively trumped the anarchist position, I still have never heard a realistic argument for how an Objectivist government could be financed, without coercion. Yes, I know that Rand brought up lotteries, and Reisman has said some things as well, but the "legal philosphers" have been largely silent on this important issues since the 1960's. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist government presupposes that enough self-responsible

(rational) citizens desire it. They would have no more problem financing,

in individually varying degrees, the essentials of government, than you or I

resent paying for insurance, private security, etc., now.

A vote of no-confidence in a government enterprise, would simply be shown

by a drying up of funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From: "Peter Taylor" solarwind47@hotmail.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Atlantis Cafe

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:36:50 GMT

Brant wrote:

"I just had a horrible thought. When I was growing up I had this idea of Frenchmen at sidewalk cafes sitting around talking endlessly and accomplishing nothing. Is this Atlantis?"

end quote

and Peter Reidy responded:

They aren't as idle as they look. Virtually all the intellectual and artistic life of continental Europe in the last two or three centuries - communism, existentialism, psychoanalysis, serial music, cubism and so on - happened this way.

end of old letter quotes

Michael Stuart Kelly, I enjoy being on this site, which rivals the old Atlantis. George should have a five dollar an answer site that safely takes credit cards. Why not here on Objectivist Living? It is damn exciting when “Mr. Smith who never went to Washington” is in the room.

George H. Smith wrote:

The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . . . In essence, the current U.S. government is nothing more than an organized and very powerful union of criminals and thugs, nothing more. And it has the "protection racket" down pat.

end quote

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote in response:

But this is probably due to our different perspectives. I literally see living under some kind of government as the natural state of human beings as we evolved. So I see freedom emerging from that. Not government being imposed on a natural state of freedom. And this evolution toward freedom is not an on-off switch. It takes time.

end quote

Michael that is an excellent summation of what I wish I had said. When George says he is deeply distrustful of humanity’s response to anarchy which is Government, he is actually deeply distrustful of *human nature.* In essence, Anarchy ALWAYS becomes nothing more than an organized and very powerful union of criminals and thugs. And anarchic humans also have the "protection racket" down pat. It’s always the same villain: human nature. We would possess the same human nature under government or within anarchy, with a tendency for some humans to wish to curtail the freedom of other humans. Thus humanity has always been and will eternally remain.

So, which is better, a *system* or *no system*? Which lasts longer? George said, “Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason.” True. And ninety-nine, point nine-nine percent of humans using their own reason choose government. And going back to George’s original source of fame, religion – religion is the main reason *Government* begins its power creep though humanity’s quest for personal dominance is always there too.

George may call my position “subjectivism” without evidence but I have the whole world and all of history as evidence. He has his reason and rhetoric, with no positive evidence to support the Rational Anarchist position. George is the Subjectivist. Long live King George IV!

Peter Taylor

I will donate five bucks after I send this letter. That guarantees me an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideals are pretty much pipe dreams. There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality. If there were so few rights violators such that either ideal were obtained, there would be so little need for government or private defense agencies that one ideal would look much like the other except territory-wise.

The "debate" is an excellent way to discuss human rights and political-philosophical history respecting them. The issue of our freedom is central to our times. This country has forgotten what it's supposed to be about. Shall we toss water on our fire or fuel?

--Brant

is freedom a pipe dream?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that cartel of thugs is the only essential characteristic of the current USA government. ... Since I derive government from human nature, my standard of essence reflects that conceptual root. And I do not agree that essence is singular. ...

I gave my analysis in #25 above and as usual, it went ignored. If you tell people what they expect to hear, you can get a lot of arguments and maybe some agreements. Say something different, no matter how true or false, and the message finds no receptors.

Socrates: "The government is evil!"

Edison: "No, it is necessary!!"

Selma: "It is a necessary evil."

Calvin: "We had an ideal government, once, almost."

E. Degenerate: "No, we did not, but we could have."

Socrates: "Ellen, how can you claim....?

Edison: "Socrates says that Ellen claims...."

MSK, let me ask you: Government derives from human nature, you say. I ask, then, what institution does not? Language, art, music, myth (story-tellling, literature, speculative philosophy), tools (technology, science),... and they are not that easy to separate. While animal calls are the genetic root of language, clearly, human song is something else entirely, but then, is symphony music not an example of tool-making? And the symphony has a government. It has several kinds of government, in fact: the conductor, obviously, but the board of trustees, as well, and even the sheet music itself is the "law" if you want to think of it like that.

So, all of that is a preparation to ask you, MSK, if you find government in human nature, then, whence market? As I pointed out in #25 above, the supposed inventions of the self-styled anarcho-capitalists all have real world instantiations, far beyond medieval Iceland, and other silly stuff. We have all seen the movie, "Red Dawn." How about the scene near the beginning where the two hapless Russians find one of the arrows dropped by the insurgents. "A native artifact!" It's plastic. "No it is bone, highly polished." What a philosopher you are!

These anarcho-capitalists are philosophers who ignore the facts of the world around them. I have a decade of experience in security. I have a university degree in criminology. So, obviously, my opinion counts for nothing while we argue. I agree with you 100%: government derives from human nature. Moreover, it was here on OL that Wolf DeVoon pointed out that government is just one way that we instantiate law. I point out that the Uniform Commercial Code (accepted in part or whole by several American states) is another example of law, that one created by market processes.

As Aristotle pointed out, tradition comes first. From that, we have law. We debate the specifics of laws plural while accepting the basic premise.

... The demise of dictatorship in the 1940s and the rise of new nations in the post-colonial context has given us over 150 constutionally limited goverments, perhaps double that or more if you consider sub-units such as the American states and their analogs. ... The Uniform Commerical Code was invented whole by jurists with no public mandate ... Similarly, private international law - "the conflict of laws" - was addressed by .... ... when a Japanese automobile company puts German brake pads in cars made in the USA to be sold in Brazil. ... Look in your local telephone directories and you will find arbitrators, negotiators, judges, mediators, and... G4S and Securitas ... Ford Motor Company and General Motors .... Thus, both "limited government" and "anarcho-capitalism" are maps for social interactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my analysis in #25 above and as usual, it went ignored.

Michael,

I just reread it. It looks to me like you cite a whole bunch of organizations that function within a society under a government and call them examples of anarcho-capitalism (because nobody gets shot).

That would proabaly be the reason your post was ignored.

Apropos, I have no idea why you didn't include churches and chess clubs that hold tournaments and so on. They seem to fit the same criteria you were using.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, let me ask you: Government derives from human nature, you say. I ask, then, what institution does not?

Michael,

I don't understand the train of thought behind your question, but I have nothing against other institutions.

My problem is identifying the essential characteristics of government. As I understand the anarcho-capitalist position, noninitiation of force is the No. 1 sole fundamental from which all else derives (in terms of thinking about government--and thinking about doing away with government). NIOF is their ballast for the ship of individual rights.

I put human nature in that place. My reasoning is that the institution of government is a human insitution--by and for human beings. So it has a cognitive side (principles and so forth), but it also has a biological side that derives from our preconceptual natures as animals. This last is where the institution of familiy is rooted, for an example of how I am using this idea.

I end up disagreeing with folks in these debates because they try to eliminate (or ignore) one or the other from the base of the concept--mostly the animal side for Objectivists and libertarians--and then derive their arguments from what I call an incomplete premise.

btw - I agree with Rand's minarchist position up to a point. I believe Rand promoted it for incomplete reasons. Whenever you do that, you get a really hard sell once it comes time to look at the logic. When people showed her the inconsistencies, or used her incomplete reasons as premise and did not come to the same conclusions she did (and I agree they actually can lead logically to anarcho-capitalism), she yelled at them. And yelling never persuades anyone to do anything except cow or fight.

As to anarcho-capitalism, I have stated several times if we could find a way to contain bullies and the power-mongering in human nature, I would be an anarchist. I'm starting to add something to that list since I am learning how the persuasion techniques of lathering up a crowd produce such repeatable results. So I will probably end up adding covert persuasion and crowd manipulation that lead to violence to the mix. Like it or not, vulnerability to these elements is part of the dark side of universal human nature, too.

I don't know how any of this fits with your question, but there it is.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote:

"The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . ."

Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.”

And then she said this:

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices.

She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote:

"The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . ."

Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.”

And then she said this:

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices.

She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.

The "law as an impersonal robot" is a gross misunderstanding of the application and use of jurisprudence even in a completely free, ideal society. And a monopoly on force doesn't mean no right to self defense or using private security and detectives, etc., although one wonders if she thought otherwise.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power.

Laws as motive power? Hmm... That doesn't seem to make sense. Wouldn't the government's motive power be people's desire for security and peace?

This conceptual separation of government from people can't be useful. Government is a system in which people govern themselves, it's not really a separate entity. "Eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization" doesn't seem possible, because it's done by establishing a forceful human relationship--one in which certain people enforce the laws, and the others just hope the laws are reasonable. If everyone is not allowed to defend their own rights, what guarantee is there of fair treatment?

What prevents the government from becoming more than just a servant of the people? I can't imagine a monopoly on force that is subordinate to anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

This is glaring, gaping hole in the nature of a government that has a "monopoly on the initiation of force."

Now, I am not sure it is solvable. However, when you have human beings in government, which you obviously have to have, there is the inherent problem of corruption.

Therefore, the individual citizen must maintain the right to not only use force, but to initiate force against a local, state or federal entity that is corrupt.

I do not see any way out of that conundrum.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

It's even worse that appears in Rand's case. Here is one of her worst statements--it is from "The Nature of Government."

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.

The first time I read this, even as a Randroid way back when, I thought, "I don't recall delegaing my 'right of physical self-defense' to anyone." I have yet to hear any argument by an Objectivist (or anyone else for that matter) that convinces me that I can existentially delegate a right without knowing when or how I did it. The plain fact is, I was not consulted.

This led me to the idea that a charter document for a government was a lot different than a simple contract. And it is.

On another point, as I was going through her essay to find the quote above, I found another quote that I used to accept whole-heartedly, but now I don't.

Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

After studying cults for a while, I have to disagree with that statement. I can cite case after case where force was not used, yet people were deprived of their life, enslaved, robbed, prevented from pursuing their own goals and compelled to act against their own rational judgment.

In fact, the term "coercive persuasion" has been coined by those who study cults and mind control and the term is now in wide use. Some "coercive persuasion" involves force, like when brainwashing is attemtped on prisoners. But many cases called "coercive persuasion." especially with cults, do not have physical force even implied in thier processes. Victims are led down a path by baby-steps, but the victims are the ones who do all the stepping.

Most people who have been deprogrammed from cults are extremely grateful to the folks who got them out--even when that meant an act of force to remove them. (I'm not suggesting that doing this as policy is proper, though. I'm merely pointing to the irony of people being robbed of everything when no force was used against them, and saved--by their own acknowledgment--when force actually was used against them.) Many of these people become crusaders against cults and help operate a growing network, sort of like an underground railroad, to help people leave cults.

As to a right of people to rebel with force against a corrupt government (the point you brought up)--I think that is a misuse of the concept of right. Under a republic like the American one, the government is by the consent of the people (at least in theory).

If the people ever feel in mass that their consent is being abused (i.e., is no longer operating objectively to use Rand's language) and nothing they can do within the system will fix it, a rebellion will happen, right or no right. I believe in that case, it is more an issue of power--who rules who--than right. Because if the people lose and the government quells a widespread rebellion like that, I doubt it would wind down. I would expect it to turn into an oligarchy with secret police, executing rebels for treason, enacting political crimes and everything else rotten, at least for a long while.

Interestingly enough, America's civil war did not degenerate into that, although it started leaning in that direction. (I know some libertarians will object because the federal government got strengthened, but I have seen the real deal dictatorships up close where that kind of stuff really did exist. Even with all the abuses over the years, the USA never came close to that.)

Apropos, notice that the South in the Civil War did not exercise any so-called "right" to rebel. It just did what it had to do and started shooting. That's the way it happens in reality. Concern with rights comes later (except maybe for some persuasion uses when the term--along with a lot of other terms and rhetorical techniques--can help lather people up into a fighting mad state).

Imagine if the South had won. Does anyone think it would have been content merely to secede, start another country and leave the Union alone? Or would it have taken over the whole shebang? My vote is on the latter--and there goes the whole arguement about any concern with rights. War, including rebellion, is about power and nothing else. Worrying about rights is for peacetime.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if the South had won. Does anyone think it would have been content merely to secede, start another country and leave the Union alone? Or would it have taken over the whole shebang? My vote is on the latter--and there goes the whole arguement about any concern with rights. War, including rebellion, is about power and nothing else. Worrying about rights is for peacetime.

Michael

Michael:

Gingrich played with this possible idea in the Civil War Trilogy which has Lee winning the Battle of Gettysburg...

The Civil War is the American Iliad. Lincoln, Stonewall Jackson, Grant, and Lee still stand as heroic ideals, as stirring to our national memory as were the legendary Achilles and Hector to the world of the ancient Greeks. In their bestselling, action-packed and painstakingly researched Civil War series, Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen examine some of the great “what-ifs” of American history: Could Lee have defeated the Union Army at Gettysburg and led the South to triumph in the war?

http://us.macmillan.com/thegettysburgtrilogy/NewtGingrich

I read them and they are excellent.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The South winning would have meant the North letting its states succeed. It doesn't mean the South conquering the North, an absolute impossibility. Both sides knew the limits of its own military power in that regard. The real "what-if" question is what if Lee hadn't ordered Picket's charge? Lee had forgotten his essentially inferior position of cannot afford to lose.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

This is glaring, gaping hole in the nature of a government that has a "monopoly on the initiation of force."

Now, I am not sure it is solvable. However, when you have human beings in government, which you obviously have to have, there is the inherent problem of corruption.

Therefore, the individual citizen must maintain the right to not only use force, but to initiate force against a local, state or federal entity that is corrupt.

I do not see any way out of that conundrum.

Adam

Of course, only it's not a "glaring, gaping hole" in anything, nor a "conundrum." The government only retains its legal monopoly as long as it restricts its function to that of administering retaliatory force. Once it begins to operate outside its legitimate functions, the citizens have every right to take up arms against it.

And Rand never questioned anyone's right to use retaliatory force in emergency situations. She would have been appalled at the suggestion that anyone should not act in self-defense when necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

It's even worse that appears in Rand's case. Here is one of her worst statements--it is from "The Nature of Government."

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.

The first time I read this, even as a Randroid way back when, I thought, "I don't recall delegaing my 'right of physical self-defense' to anyone." I have yet to hear any argument by an Objectivist (or anyone else for that matter) that convinces me that I can existentially delegate a right without knowing when or how I did it. The plain fact is, I was not consulted.

This led me to the idea that a charter document for a government was a lot different than a simple contract. And it is.

Michael

Michael--This, of course, is the basic anarchist position. See the second question posed to Branden in the post which began this thread.

"Look. I wasn't consulted, I wasn't asked my opinion about this system of government..."

I'm sure George will be delighted to welcome you to his side. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now