Darrell Hougen

You make some very astute observations, Michael. If these new (rehashed) memes are part of a concerted effort on the part of the left to minimize the effect of the election drubbing that Dems received in the mid terms, one might expect to find evidence of coordination. Remember "JournoList"? That was the list hundreds of left-leaning news reporters and journalists subscribed to discuss what to talk about and to plot strategy. There's a Breitbart article here about an attack that was orchestrated against Sarah Palin after she was nominated to be VP on the Republican ticket in 2008. A recent Breitbart article contains hints that there might still be a JournoList in existence. Apparently, there is a once secret list called GameJournoPros that Breitbart just revealed in September of 2014. Here are some of the juicy tidbits from that article (emphasis added): So, in support of your hypotheticals above, it appears that there really has been a coordinated attempt to brand game developers and players as misogynists and sexists. This could well be part of a larger coordinated effort to push the misogyny meme. In fact, there has been a not so secret public campaign against the "war on women" which is really just a campaign to make the left's political opponents appear to be misogynists. The campaign clearly has a public face and a secret agenda as well. Darrell

Hi Michael, I just finished reading those articles. I must admit I didn't even know who Lena Dunham was before reading Breitbart's article about her. This is what bothers me about California's new "affirmative consent" statute for California colleges that requires a person seeking to have sex to obtain affirmative consent at every stage of the process. In a he said, she said scenario, the only way for the statute to have any meaning is if the accuser's words are weighted more heavily than the defendant's. Couple that with the propensity of some accusers to lie, and you have a toxic brew. The stigma of a rape accusation is already enough to ruin an innocent man's life and this just compounds the problem. BTW, Cosby is apparently accusing the woman that is suing him of attempting to extort money from him in the past and is counter suing her. I don't feel like I'm in a position to judge Cosby's guilt or innocence, but it does seem like a lot of his accusers have problems with their stories. Darrell

I should probably review the facts of this case, but when I saw the original news story, it looked to me like the police used excessive force. BTW, I don't think that excessive force is directed only or even primarily against non-white people. The policing culture in this country is just too violent and prosecutors, grand juries, and juries are often reluctant to do anything about it. People shouldn't have to worry about being beaten or killed by the police. Darrell

Nancy Grace? Kill me. What a phony, disingenuous, piece of work. I know you were just joking, but I just can't stand to watch her, despite the fact that I generally enjoy watching murder mysteries. Darrell

It sure is odd to see those two names and contexts paired. Michael Clicking through to the classification matrix is a hoot. Apparently, the survival of the left-wing publication, "The New Republic", into the next century is considered very high-brow and sort of brilliant, but what is really brilliant and sort of high-brow is Harry Belafonte's speech at the Governor's Awards extolling the positive virtues of Hollywood -- "Maybe, just maybe, it could be civilization's game changer." In fact, almost everything on the chart shows highly questionable judgment. Darrell

port. Hence, a mess. That would make the black folks a -victim- of progressive liberal guilt, not a beneficiary. Black folks and other minorities are the -objects- of statist progressive liberal concern but not a beneficiary. It is fortunate for Jews in America that they never received the tender loving "kindness" of liberal, which is one of the reasons they amounted to something. Jews had to hack and dig out a place for themselves in American (in spite of low calorie anti-semitism). Before black folks became the object and target of progressive liberal care they were in the process of hacking out a place for themselves. There used to be black business, black capitalists who got what they got the "hard way". They -earned- it. Unfortunately that is not longer much the case. And we are seeing the results, right here, right now. Ba'al Chatzaf Robert, Your comment gave me a sort of whacky idea. The Jews in this country have been highly successful even though they have faced mild persecution. Japanese have been very successful even though they were rounded up and sent to internment camps during WWII. I've heard that the Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia are highly successful even though they are a persecuted minority. On the other hand, blacks in this country haven't done well since the creation of the welfare state. So, if we really wanted to help them, we should take away their benefits and persecute them, at least to a small degree. There may be actual reasons for the success of shunned or persecuted minorities --- often immigrant groups are more successful than either the indigenous people or than their own people in their home country. A shunned minority has to look inward for support, to the family, or to others of their own kind. That helps strengthen familial and communal bonds which are important to success. Conversely, a minority that is lavished with unearned gifts learns to look outward for support to the majority group. That, in turn, weakens the family and ties to other members of the community. Ties to other community members are important for developing business connections. Jews have been a persecuted minority for centuries in Europe and have become highly successful business people. Other minority groups serve as the trader class in other societies. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals," in which he discusses many such relationships and surprising facts about all kinds of ethnic groups. Darrell

As I was listening to the radio this morning, I heard Al Sharpton say something like, "Darren Wilson should have been indicted because there have been so many cases of police brutality against people of color." No surprise, but a particularly glaring example of the tribal mentality at work. Darrell

Samson, I agree with some of the issues you raised in your initial post, however when you make statements like the one above it makes me think you don't really have a good grasp of the concepts involved. In Libertarian terms, it is the initiation of force that is the issue. Both initiation and force are important in that phrase. There may be force on both sides of the equation, but it matters who started it. When you have two kids fighting on a playground, each is quick to point his finger at the other and say, "he started it!" because even children know that it matters. However, you can't say that the word "force" is irrelevant. It's the initiation of what then? Perhaps the word "force" is over used, but that is the common phraseology. Darrell Darrell,Thank you for your posts. They're both substantive and engage my points. I have read a decent amount of libertarian material, so I think I do have an alright understanding of it. Libertarian definitions of words tend to be very out of step from the rest of world and I think this is one of its major hindrances in selling it to other people. If, say, in the case of taking your wallet when you're not looking, the term "force" is being used as a synonym for "taking without permission", fine. But use those words instead, because ,ost people would not recognize it as force. It would be like me using "red" in place of "blood". Force per se isn't a problem, but calling the force that should be illegal "initiatory force" is just as bad as calling it "bad force". Even then, it isn't always force that is the problem. What force is used in hacking? Leaving a child in a hot car? Insider trading? Breach of contract? Copyright or patent infringement? Counterfeit products? Was it force that made Operation Red Dog criminal in nature? Francisco believes fractional reserve banking should be illegal, but his reasons for it aren't good at all. Now, I don't enough about FRB to say it should be illegal. Maybe it's harmful for the economy, but it definitely isn't fraudulent. "Non-initiation of force" (putting aside its emptiness) is also an incredibly crude simplification of law. It doesn't touch upon corporations versus sole proprietorships, bankruptcy, child custody, marriage, trusts, probate, restrictive covenants (I think these should be abolished entirely), personality rights, privacy, electromagnetic spectrum rights, radio jamming, warrants/subpoenas, harassment, emotional damage, restraining orders, stalking, the case of an apple falling from your neighbor's tree into your yard, rules that create property, identity theft, defamation/libel, blackmail, and many, many others. Let's look at North Korea. It's government is the most illegitimate on Earth. I'd call its monarcho-stratocratic regime despotic, fascist, murderous, and controlling. Calling it "coercive", however, just feels sort of awkward for whatever reason. (North Korea is closer to fascism than it is to socialism (a word which is just about meaningless at this point). It's got the iron of Stalinism but none of the worker-oriented stuff.) The libertarian usage of "force" (as well as "voluntary") is only common in libertarianism. You'll be hard pressed to find a non-libertarian who'd view calling trespassing an act of "force" as anything but Newspeakish. Samson, Thank you for your kind remarks. I've found that it helps to listen to what the other person is saying rather than simply trying to score points. Hopefully, we can both learn things that way. I'm afraid that Ayn Rand herself is probably responsible for the overly broad use of the word "force." The example that Rand gives does involve the direct use of physical force, however, many of the examples you listed do not. It is argued that taking your wallet when you're not looking, for example, involves the indirect use of force since it would have required force or the threat of force --- which is the same thing --- if you had been looking. However, such convoluted reasoning is not very satisfying. It might have been better to say something like, "The basic political principle of my philosophy is that no man may act to deprive any other man of his life, liberty, or property," but that would have sounded too much like the Declaration of Independence. Also, the preceding sentence doesn't quite work because it doesn't contain the word "initiate" and it is important to draw a sharp distinction between someone who initiates a conflict with another person and someone who is acting in retaliation. Things like copyright infringement don't involve the direct use of force, but I assume you see how you would get from ordinary property rights to copyrights. In case you hadn't thought of it, if there were no copyrights, authors and/or publishers could protect their works by requiring anyone that purchased a copy of a book, for example, sign an agreement not to copy it or allow anyone else to copy it and to only sell it or give it to someone else that had signed the copyright agreement and so on ad infinitum. A person that wasn't bound by the agreement wouldn't be able to legally obtain a copy and an illegally obtained copy wouldn't absolve the person of his legal responsibilities. Fractional reserve banking borders on fraud for the following reason: When a person makes a deposit, the bank tells him that he will earn a certain percentage interest. The implication is that he will receive the return of his principal plus interest. But, if the bank cannot guarantee the return of the principal, it has a fiduciary duty to inform the depositor that he might not get anything back. If banks were required to make such disclosures, I would wager that very few people would put their money in a bank. A more honest system would be something like a real estate investment trust (REIT). Now, I'll probably get myself in trouble because I don't know much about REIT's, but my understanding is that shares in REIT's can go up and down like stock prices. So, if the REIT makes investments in bad mortgages, its share price just goes down some, but an investor doesn't lose all his money like he does when a bank becomes insolvent. The problem is that people want a safe place to store their money and banks pretend to be that. They have enormous, heavy vaults. They sometimes have security guards. But, they can become insolvent at any moment without warning. That borders on fraud in my book. I don't know why you have a problem with restrictive covenants. If you don't like them, don't move into a neighborhood that has them. The law is complex, but it is necessary to determine the principles around which the law should be based and that involves forming the highest and widest abstractions possible. One cannot, with any sort of consistency, address every problem that comes along in an ad hoc manner. The current crop of politicians has decided that liberty and property don't matter very much so they can play it deuces wild when it comes to writing laws. If it sounds like a law might have a positive effect on society, they don't worry about whose rights they are violating or how coercive their laws are. The result is usually unintended consequences. Look at Obamacare, for example. Many of the same ends could have been achieved with a much less coercive law and when this monstrosity is fully implemented, it will probably drive down the quality of care in this country substantially. If lawmakers had it as a goal to write the least coercive laws possible, the laws might just work a lot better. Darrell

Samson, You raised a great many issues in your original post, so I'll only deal with one in this post, namely pollution. I agree with you that it stretches credibility to claim that pollution can be dealt with purely as a property rights issue. Property is most easily defined when the objects in question are compact and don't change beyond certain limited parameters. Your cellphone meets that description. It is easy to see that it is yours and no one else's. A piece of clothing is flexible but can only stretch a certain amount, so it is still easy to delineate. Even a parcel of land comes close to meeting the description, though it is sometimes difficult to determine the exact boundaries. Fluids like air and water fail to meet the above criteria. Because they are fluids, they spread far and wide. Some of the molecules that I am breathing today could very well be the same molecules that you breathed a few days ago. It has been said that nearly every breath a person takes is likely to contain some of the same molecules that Caesar expelled in his dying breath, "Et, tu, Brute?" I know that's a mind boggling thought, but Avogadro's number is very large. Therefore, no one can claim to own a piece of air. However, Francisco has identified the correct principle. The correct principle, in my view, is that people have a right to expect that things like air and water will not be disturbed from their natural state by which I mean that a person has a right to expect that his air will be just as clean today as it was yesterday, or at least close. This is similar to the right to an easement which is certainly a concept of property law. However, Francisco goes too far when he says that the air "is rightfully mine." No, the air doesn't belong to a particular person nor does an easement, generally. An easement is an exception to an ownership right. However, in this case, there was no property in the first place. Air is something that everyone uses. It is something that everyone has used in the past and must use in the future. It is right for everyone to use it and to be able to use it. That implies that no one has a right to modify it in such a way that it is significantly more difficult for other people to use it. It is true that the right to use something is one kind of property right. However, people don't generally have other rights to air. One person's use cannot interfere significantly with another person's use. That is different from a singular object like a cellphone where the owner has an exclusive right to use it and prevent others from using it. So, the question is, how can the government enforce everyone's right to use the air? Personally, I think torts are an unworkable solution. People can't go around suing everyone that is polluting the air. They might be able to sue a big polluter like a factory owner, but what about automobile drivers? Individually, drivers cause very little pollution, but in the aggregate, they may cause a significant amount. In cases where a large number of people are engaging in activity that in the aggregate harms the well-being of other people in a manner that could be construed as violating the rights of those people, I think it makes sense for the government to impose a broad based penalty on that behavior such as a gas tax. The penalty wouldn't immediately change people's behavior, but it would provide an inducement for them to find solutions to their problems that cause less distress for other people over time. Darrell

That's because you never had to kill anyone. Men don't have abortions. Civilians don't fight wars or patrol urban jungles. Are abortions murder? Should the people that started a war get away with it? Should police get away with murder? Killing someone in self defense is not murder. Killing someone that is endangering other people isn't murder either. Murder is the unjustified or insufficiently justified killing of another person. Murder is killing with malice or for personal gain. Darrell

Darrell, what do you mean by "clearance rate?" Acquittals? Unsolved? A... I mean the percentage solved --- the police caught the perp. Actually, I think the rate was probably even higher in my county. Darrell

Samson, I agree with some of the issues you raised in your initial post, however when you make statements like the one above it makes me think you don't really have a good grasp of the concepts involved. In Libertarian terms, it is the initiation of force that is the issue. Both initiation and force are important in that phrase. There may be force on both sides of the equation, but it matters who started it. When you have two kids fighting on a playground, each is quick to point his finger at the other and say, "he started it!" because even children know that it matters. However, you can't say that the word "force" is irrelevant. It's the initiation of what then? Perhaps the word "force" is over used, but that is the common phraseology. Darrell

I understand that you're arguing what would be morally right in an ideal sense, although I disagree with that as well. What's morally right is liberty, not property -- but let's leave that aside for the moment. It bothers me that you seem to think it is a good thing if at least some people get away with murder. By the way, the clearance rate for murders is much higher in some areas. Where I was living in Colorado, the clearance rate was 70-80% according to a guy I know who is a recently retired police officer. Darrell

Adam, I think the "Alternative Vote" is a little different from proportional voting, though it has some similarities. The alternative vote could still work even if there were only one candidate per district. Here is how it would work. A person would rank the candidates on the ballot with a first choice, second choice, etc,. but wouldn't have to rank candidates he or she didn't like. So, for example, a person might just have a first choice and no second or third choices. If a person had a second choice, that vote would only be looked at if the first choice candidate did not get enough votes to win the election. If he did get enough votes, any extra votes for him would still be wasted. Third party candidates would benefit in the following way. Suppose a Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian were running for office. Normally, very few people would vote Libertarian because they'd worry that their vote would be wasted. Now, lets suppose that for 30% of the population, the Libertarian candidate was their first choice and the Republican candidate was their second choice. Those people would be happy so long as the Democrat wasn't elected. Suppose also that for 25% of the population, the Libertarian candidate was their first choice and the Democratic candidate was their second choice. Also, suppose that 25% just wanted the Republican and 20% just wanted the Democrat. Well, with the alternative vote, 55% would choose the Libertarian as their first choice, 25% would choose the Republican and 20% the Democrat and the Libertarian would win. However, if all the Libertarian candidate's supporters thought their candidate didn't have very good odds, they would just vote for their second choice and the Republican would win. Even if the Libertarian candidate didn't win the first time around, he might discover that 10-20% of the voters would actually support him and he could build on that to gain voters over successive election cycles. If he thought that only 1% of the voters would ever vote for him because of their fear of wasting their votes, his candidacy would never get any traction. What do you think of the merits of the Alternative Vote relative to proportional voting? Darrell

I wouldn't hold my breath. Cabinet level officials are rarely prosecuted and Presidents never are. The left were salivating at the prospect of charging Bush and his minions with various crimes like illegally torturing people and nothing much has ever come of it. I predict the same happens with Obama and his cronies. Darrell

That's why you should take over. Make up something you like better. Ok. I've started a new thread to discuss different voting schemes, which of course, is only one small aspect of governing. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14643 Darrell

In the interest of starting a discussion about creating a better government, I was wondering what people thought about the "Alternative Vote" and other non-standard voting methods. Watch and There are also other possibilities, but I don't remember where the videos or explanations are for them. My opinion is that such methods make a lot of sense. Of course, politics might become even more partisan if Libertarians and Greenies were actually able to get elected. However, it might turn out that Libertarians and Greenies are capable of compromising on some issues. The way things are now, they never even get a chance to talk to each other because only Democrats and Republicans can get elected. Darrell

There is no inconsistency between the concept of universal objective individual rights and the concept of rule of law. In fact, I would argue that the former is required for the latter. You're not the first person I've run across that advocated getting rid of the legislature and relying completely on the courts to determine the law. However, that person was suggesting that judges should make reference to the concept of individual rights. That's why I was surprised to learn that your system of Laissez Faire law takes no cognizance of it. From a purely practical standpoint, I don't think it makes much sense to eliminate the legislature. Somebody needs to be answerable to the voters. The problem we have today is that we have an unaccountable bureaucracy that is answerable to no one, but is nominally answerable only to the executive. The Congress has been eviscerated of its powers. Throw in administrative courts and the judiciary has had its power reduced too. The power of the people has been severely diminished, but I don't see how your system of a strong judiciary would return any power to the people. Darrell

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the above sort of statement. Moral principles based on universal and timeless truths of human nature are themselves universal and timeless. With respect to incorporation, there might not be a divine right, but there needs to be some mechanism for shielding the owners of a corporation from liability. I feel sorry for the sole proprietor who ends up losing everything as the result of a garbage lawsuit or just because his company went broke and he still owed his creditors. Doing business is hard enough in this country without attacking the basic framework that makes business possible. Darrell

That all depends on what the meaning of IS is. (Sorry, Darrell... couldn't resist. ) Greg Good one! Darrell

Why? (Repeated six times.) Actions need reasons. --Brant In order to reach our strategic objectives. Arming our allies would strengthen them without putting our soldiers at risk. Let's start with the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting IS(IS) directly. Or, rather, IS(IS) is attacking them. The major hurdle might be the opinion of the Turks. They've had problems with the kurds in the past, probably because they were repressing them. Otherwise, arming the Kurds would deal a direct blow to the effectiveness of IS(IS). If we supplied the Kurds with sufficient weapons and took out some of the armored vehicles that IS(IS) got from us indirectly, they'd probably be forced to abandon their efforts to take Kurdish territory. The Syrian Free Army is also fighting IS(IS) in and around Aleppo in Syria. So, same argument applies there. In fact, we should have been arming the Syrian Free Army for years in order to take out Assad who, along with his father, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. and Israel for generations. We should have capitalized on what started as peaceful demonstrations for more freedom in Syria in order to get rid of an enemy in the region and doing so might have prevented IS(IS) from getting any traction in the first place. With respect to Ukraine, we should make it painful for Putin to invade and enlarge his territory. Our objective there should be to welcome Ukraine into the European economy and keep Russia at bay. Our weakness strengthens Putin. If we were to weaken and discredit him, Russia might look for another leader. On our present course, we'll have to deal with him for another generation. It's not difficult. We should have strategic objectives that bolster our long term interests in freedom, free trade, peace, and economic development, and we should pursue those objectives. Darrell

Leftist hand-ringing. First, the U.S. should be arming our potential allies, the Syrian Free Army, the Kurds, the Ukrainians --- oops, wrong conflict. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that we haven't yet taken that step. Then, the U.S. should bomb IS positions and units. We're doing a little of that. Finally, we should provide intel to our allies. I think we're doing some of that too. IS is a fairly small group. It might not go away completely, but they will probably fade into the woodwork if their task appears hopeless. Darrell

You can call it a cheap debate trick if you like, but I like to think of it as being explanatory. Most people understand and agree with the concept of self defense, so that can be a good place to start a conversation about rights. Most people understand that the person that starts a fight initiates the use of force. Most people also understand theft. They understand that if a person takes something that belongs to someone else, the taker is the initiator of the conflict. Of course, the non-initiation of force principle is not an ethical primary. It must be justified. However, most people don't want to get bogged down by a big discussion about morality. So, it's usually easier to start with a couple things that most people understand, theft and self-defense. You are wrong about the use of force. Objectivists don't want to force anyone to do anything. They want to live in peace. Fortunately, there is a set of ethical guidelines that is consistent with human nature that would allow everyone to live in harmony if everyone would follow them. In fact, most people outside of government follow them most of the time. Criminals, in an objective sense, are those people that initiate the use of force against others. Restraining criminals does not amount to initiating the use of force. Whether "policies should be implemented" is a question of ethics. The word "should" implies an ethical value judgment. That's what I'm babbling about. Now it's your turn to babble. Darrell

That's like saying there is only a speed limit if you speed.DarrellSort of applies to all laws. The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed. Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied. If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force. Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force. To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force. Darrell I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules. Moral relativism. Which is objectively coercive? Darrell What does moral relativism have to do with anything? You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism. Darrell WTF? How do you make that jump? I'm saying that communists are forced to comply with the rules of private property since they seek to reject the institution. This has nothing to do with moral relativism. "Involuntary" is not a normative adjective. Your objection is extremely muddled. It is precisely moral relativism. Force or the threat of force is always defined relative to a value system. If one person believes in property and another person doesn't, then, if the second person takes his things, the first person will believe that force has been used against him and the second person won't. That is why an objective value system is so important. If there is no objective morality, then every dispute boils down to a matter of opinion. One person thinks that the other did something wrong and the other person doesn't agree. So, how are we to decide which opinion to listen to? Darrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#Civil_procedural_due_process http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/52-procedural-due-process-criminal.html http://resources.lawinfo.com/civil-rights/constitutional/ http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html More than a set of ancient rules, the common law also became a set of procedures guaranteeing fairness in the resolution of disputes. Although procedural regularity is most important in criminal law, where the individual faces the might of the state, it is important in civil litigation as well. The ability of the common law over the centuries to command the respect of the public was largely dependent on the widespread perception of its fundamental fairness. The popularity of the common law at the time of American Independence derived from its historic association with due process, the legal code word for fair play. Rules may often be settled one way or another; the common law and the civil law, for example, reach opposing results in numerous cases. In the abstract it is usually difficult to develop enthusiasm for one rule over another, but a reputation for impartial decision making after an opportunity to be heard is what grounds a legal system in popular esteem. The common law in the Anglo-American world is synonymous for most people with the rule of law. Beyond specific rules and procedures, the common law also embodies a certain way of handling legal problems. Born in the courts, the common law was always primarily focused on resolving individual disputes. Judge-centered in the sense that it was historically expressed in the decisions of the judges, the common law is in another sense centered on the litigants. The parties generally control the presentation of their own cases, and the judge plays a relatively passive role, limited by and large to deciding which side has the better argument. In consequence, the common law developed a deep-seated attachment to the adversarial process, which in turn fostered a frame of mind that assumes two sides to every case. http://www.worldclassrd.org/sites/default/files/common-law.html Again, I am left with the task of attempting to extract the normative content from your statements. So, let's dissect this statement: "The ability of the common law over the centuries to command the respect of the public was largely dependent on the widespread perception of its fundamental fairness." It appears that the "fundamental fairness" is a matter of public perception. So, to return to our earlier question about how judges are supposed make decisions, it would appear that they are supposed to try to please the public. Later, you state, " ... the judge plays a relatively passive role, limited by and large to deciding which side has the better argument." (emphasis added). That just begs the question, what constitutes better? You cannot construct a system that is value free. Somewhere, the judges have to insert their own notions or biases about what is right and wrong into their decisions, whether those notions are cultural or a holdover from upbringing, or whatever. The system cannot decide. Only individuals can decide. Darrell