Against Anarchism

[George H. Smith]

We are going to have a very serious problem if you continue to do this. Specifically, I will pester Michael to get you booted off OL. I don't mind dealing with your philosophical nonsense, but I will not tolerate having you gerrymander my quoted remarks in such a way as to seriously distort or (in some cases) reverse my intended meaning. I might even tolerate this to some extent if readers had some way of checking my original posts, but you don't even give them this option.

Ghs

Well, at least something gets you pissed off at the totalitarian minarchist (not that I blame you, I hate being misquoted too).

Shayne

Are you aware of the nasty exchanges I had with Peter when I became active again on OL over a year ago?. The first flared up pretty quickly on my thread "What's Happening?" and then spread out from there. Our flamewar was merely an extension of our conflicts on A2. As I recall, many of our exchanges were related to consent. I have no interest in rehashing all that with Peter again.

Ghs

[Peter]

George wrote:

I don't mind dealing with your philosophical nonsense, but I will not tolerate having you gerrymander my quoted remarks in such a way as to seriously distort or (in some cases) reverse my intended meaning. I might even tolerate this to some extent if readers had some way of checking my original posts, but you don't even give them this option. Ghs

Seriously, no harm or deceit intended George. I thought some of your remarks about the invalidity of anarchism to Shayne were facetious so I did think it was funny to quote them as if you meant them. Albatross around the neck of Libertarism, for example.

In reparations I just sent "a whole letter" of yours to Bobmac about Rothbard's determinism. I thought you were outstanding there, oh great and wonderful Oz!

Peter

[George H. Smith]

Regarding Rothbardian anarchism, if people in a given city-state (per my definition) don't want it, and I wouldn't want the institutions of justice engaged in profit-seeking (except on the smallest possible scale: the individual employee), then there's no justification for forcing it upon them. So it is clear that Rothbardian anarchism is just a possible variation, it is not a fundamental ideal. Go ahead and have your Rothbardian city-state if that's what you and your associates want, we'll see how it all turns out for you.

Shayne

In short, you agree with Rothbard. He doesn't advocate that anyone be forced to adopt a system of competing protection agencies. If people would prefer to enlist the services of one agency or no agency, that is fine, so long as everyone consents.

Rothbardians have argued that. as a practical matter, the jurisdiction of a given agency would be determined by landowners. If you own land and want it protected by a single agency, that is your right. I believe Rothbard somewhere argues that, for reasons of economic efficiency, we would probably find one agency with jurisdiction over an area of land owned by a group of landowners who have agreed to patronize the same agency. The result in such cases would be a de facto monopoly but not a de jure one. Rothbard never had a problem with de facto monopolies that are arrived at by voluntary means. He only objected to one agency -- the "government" -- coercively preventing other agencies from competing with itself, even when customers would like to do business with the competing agencies.

Gee, it seems like I have heard some of this Rothbard stuff recently. Do you have any idea where I might have heard it?

Ghs

[sjw]

In short, you agree with Rothbard. He doesn't advocate that anyone be forced to adopt a system of competing protection agencies. If people would prefer to enlist the services of one agency or no agency, that is fine, so long as everyone consents.

Rothbardians have argued that. as a practical matter, the jurisdiction of a given agency would be determined by landowners. If you own land and want it protected by a single agency, that is your right. I believe Rothbard somewhere argues that, for reasons of economic efficiency, we would probably find one agency with jurisdiction over an area of land owned by a group of landowners who have agreed to patronize the same agency. The result in such cases would be a de facto monopoly but not a de jure one. Rothbard never had a problem with de facto monopolies that are arrived at by voluntary means. He only objected to one agency -- the "government" -- coercively preventing other agencies from competing with itself, even when customers would like to do business with the competing agencies.

Gee, it seems like I have heard some of this Rothbard stuff recently. Do you have any idea where I might have heard it?

Ghs

If this is so, and I would like a citation rather than just your say-so, then Rothbard's error was twofold: First, in not emphasizing this strongly enough, and second, in misleadingly calling a setup which can yield systems of government that resemble in all important ways historical forms of government "anarchy." And central to his first error is the implication that the government "agency" be some other party than the landowners themselves, as if the landowners are clients of some third party rather than in the business of governing their own land themselves.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

By focusing on government or its lack, anarchism and minarchism, instead of individual rights, any debate or argument will eventually devolve into a turf war. It is entirely incongruous because you can't get there--an ideal polity--from here that way. It's really all individual rights, critical and honest thinking, education. That's where the action should be. No system can reform human beings. The system eventually conforms to how people are, though it can mess them up badly first and then continue to mess them up consequently.

--Brant

You are absolutely right that the fundamental has to be education, honest thinking, etc. about individual rights. But this debate is not "instead of individual rights", it's "as a consequence of individual rights." The anarchist/minarchist debate is about what the ideals of liberty mean in the real world.

You can't just sit on the fence. Either government of a certain kind is valid or anarchism is. It can't be both. It can't not matter.

Shayne

It doesn't matter now except to the debaters. The correct premise is moving toward more and more freedom, not rebellion and the establishment of a new order. A long time from now there may be so much freedom and so little government such a debate might be truly apropos.

--Brant

[sjw]

It doesn't matter now except to the debaters. The correct premise is moving toward more and more freedom, not rebellion and the establishment of a new order. A long time from now there may be so much freedom and so little government such a debate might be truly apropos.

--Brant

Cease and desist with your obnoxiously putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I ever encourage "rebellion and the establishment of a new order." You've definitely got screws loose if you get that out of my writing.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

In short, you agree with Rothbard. He doesn't advocate that anyone be forced to adopt a system of competing protection agencies. If people would prefer to enlist the services of one agency or no agency, that is fine, so long as everyone consents.

Rothbardians have argued that. as a practical matter, the jurisdiction of a given agency would be determined by landowners. If you own land and want it protected by a single agency, that is your right. I believe Rothbard somewhere argues that, for reasons of economic efficiency, we would probably find one agency with jurisdiction over an area of land owned by a group of landowners who have agreed to patronize the same agency. The result in such cases would be a de facto monopoly but not a de jure one. Rothbard never had a problem with de facto monopolies that are arrived at by voluntary means. He only objected to one agency -- the "government" -- coercively preventing other agencies from competing with itself, even when customers would like to do business with the competing agencies.

Gee, it seems like I have heard some of this Rothbard stuff recently. Do you have any idea where I might have heard it?

Ghs

If this is so, and I would like a citation rather than just your say-so, then Rothbard's error was twofold: First, in not emphasizing this strongly enough, and second, in misleadingly calling a setup which can yield systems of government that resemble in all important ways historical forms of government "anarchy." And central to his first error is the implication that the government "agency" be some other party than the landowners themselves, as if the landowners are clients of some third party rather than in the business of governing their own land themselves.

Shayne

I've just about had a bellyfull of you. You have made all kinds of outrageous assertions about Rothbard without providing so much as a scrap of a source, or even an indication that you have read anything by him. And then I provide a standard summary of his views -- one that no one who knows anything about his anarcho-capitalism would protest -and you would like a citation rather than just my "say-so."

I knew and worked closely with Murray for years, and I've read almost everything he has ever written. At conferences, we spent countless hours discussing this stuff with students, with fellow faculty members like Randy Barnett, and others. Then there are his many hours of recorded lectures. And you want a "citation."

Well, read his books, you clown -- the first chapter in Power and Market, various chapters in For A New Liberty, etc. Then there are books like The Market for Liberty, by the Tannehills, which was the first extensive treatment of Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism. The post I was working on for the "Thoughts" thread deals with these treatments. I hope to post it later tonight.

But you are still not satisfied. You don't even bother to read the man before you inform us of his "twofold error." The first is that he didn't emphasize this stuff strongly enough. Are you kidding?. These ideas run throughout the Rothbardian literature, including Rothbard's own works. There is probably a fair amount of stuff in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, available on the Mises Website.

Next you want his justification for calling all this "anarchy." Then you go on to declare his supposed error is considering the justice agencies as independent of the landowners. And yet you still have not read anything by the man.

You are unbelievable. I have never seen anything like this before. It defies belief.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do have some thoughts on how to precisely address the issue of rights and children, perhaps I'll write something someday, but I do not believe we need to do that in order to understand what rights normal adults have.

Shayne,

I was not discussing the rights of children. I was discussing the conceptual derivation of government using human nature as the base.

If you have one concept of human nature, a certain logical chain leading to government will unfold from that premise, and the government will have a specific nature reflecting that.

If you have another concept of human nature, a different logical chain will unfold leading to a government with a different nature.

If you find contradictions, you have to address them at the premise level since (1) a contradiction arising from a faulty premise will not go away in the logic, and (2) contradictions don't exist in reality.

That's how I learned it. From AS:

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

I hold the Objectivist concept of human nature is incomplete. It serves perfectly for the diffeerntia, but not for the genus, of the Objectivist concept of government. That's why there are contradictions in the concept of government like delegating your use of force to the government when you are not asked to agree to delegate anything, the rights of children (now I am mentioning them) without actually being rights, that the sole purpose of the government is to protect individual rights when it also is supposed to rule (there is more logical fuzziness here than outright contradictions in the literature), and so on.

I strongly suspect this same problem--maybe from a different angle--is in the ancap view of government (or lack thereof), but I need to read more to be able to discuss it correctly.

My scope was far greater than just the rights of children.

Michael

[sjw]

I do have some thoughts on how to precisely address the issue of rights and children, perhaps I'll write something someday, but I do not believe we need to do that in order to understand what rights normal adults have.

Shayne,

I was not discussing the rights of children. I was discussing the conceptual derivation of government using human nature as the base.

You either have a right to form a government that does X or not. "Human nature" broadly construed isn't per se useful in determining whether or not a given kind of government is legitimate (except the part that identifies rights), though it may be useful in identifying the particular kind that is best. I am not so much concerned with the latter as I am with the former, which is not to say that the latter isn't interesting or useful, it's just that I have no personal interest in it.

Shayne

[sjw]

In short, you agree with Rothbard. He doesn't advocate that anyone be forced to adopt a system of competing protection agencies. If people would prefer to enlist the services of one agency or no agency, that is fine, so long as everyone consents.

Rothbardians have argued that. as a practical matter, the jurisdiction of a given agency would be determined by landowners. If you own land and want it protected by a single agency, that is your right. I believe Rothbard somewhere argues that, for reasons of economic efficiency, we would probably find one agency with jurisdiction over an area of land owned by a group of landowners who have agreed to patronize the same agency. The result in such cases would be a de facto monopoly but not a de jure one. Rothbard never had a problem with de facto monopolies that are arrived at by voluntary means. He only objected to one agency -- the "government" -- coercively preventing other agencies from competing with itself, even when customers would like to do business with the competing agencies.

Gee, it seems like I have heard some of this Rothbard stuff recently. Do you have any idea where I might have heard it?

Ghs

If this is so, and I would like a citation rather than just your say-so, then Rothbard's error was twofold: First, in not emphasizing this strongly enough, and second, in misleadingly calling a setup which can yield systems of government that resemble in all important ways historical forms of government "anarchy." And central to his first error is the implication that the government "agency" be some other party than the landowners themselves, as if the landowners are clients of some third party rather than in the business of governing their own land themselves.

Shayne

I've just about had a bellyfull of you. You have made all kinds of outrageous assertions about Rothbard without providing so much as a scrap of a source, or even an indication that you have read anything by him. And then I provide a standard summary of his views -- one that no one who knows anything about his anarcho-capitalism would protest -and you would like a citation rather than just my "say-so."

I knew and worked closely with Murray for years, and I've read almost everything he has ever written. At conferences, we spent countless hours discussing this stuff with students, with fellow faculty members like Randy Barnett, and others. Then there are his many hours of recorded lectures. And you want a "citation."

Well, read his books, you clown -- the first chapter in Power and Market, various chapters in For A New Liberty, etc. Then there are books like The Market for Liberty, by the Tannehills, which was the first extensive treatment of Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism. The post I was working on for the "Thoughts" thread deals with these treatments. I hope to post it later tonight.

But you are still not satisfied. You don't even bother to read the man before you inform us of his "twofold error." The first is that he didn't emphasize this stuff strongly enough. Are you kidding?. These ideas run throughout the Rothbardian literature, including Rothbard's own works. There is probably a fair amount of stuff in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, available on the Mises Website.

Next you want his justification for calling all this "anarchy." Then you go on to declare his supposed error is considering the justice agencies as independent of the landowners. And yet you still have not read anything by the man.

You are unbelievable. I have never seen anything like this before. It defies belief.

Ghs

Look, if you couldn't or didn't want to cite anything supporting of your position you could have just said so. I know, you're on this derisiveness kick. So be it.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You either have a right to form a government that does X or not. "Human nature" broadly construed isn't per se useful in determining whether or not a given kind of government is legitimate (except the part that identifies rights), though it may be useful in identifying the particular kind that is best. I am not so much concerned with the latter as I am with the former, which is not to say that the latter isn't interesting or useful, it's just that I have no personal interest in it.

Shayne,

I don't understand this.

You wish to formulate government for rights, not for human beings?

I'm detecting an "intrinsic rights as a separate entity premise" in your concept.

How do you expect to have government without people?

EIDT: In other words, conceptually, which to you is more fundamental for human beings, human nature or individual rights?

In my concept, rights derive from human nature, not exist parallel to it.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

The Market for Liberty, by the Tannehills . . . was the first extensive treatment of Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism.

George, I recently ran across the assertion that the Tannehill's book was actually based on their understanding of Andrew J. Galambos's theories (as conveyed to them by Walter Block, who had discussed Galambos's ideas in some detail with Durk Pearson). I never knew either of the Tannehills (or Durk Pearson, for that matter), so I have wondered about this. Roy knew the Tannehills, but he's no longer around to ask. Walter confirms that he did meet and talk with both Pearson and the Tannehills in the timeframe specified (the late '60s), but says he doesn't recall any specifics of what they discussed. Can you comment on any of this?

JR

[sjw]

You either have a right to form a government that does X or not. "Human nature" broadly construed isn't per se useful in determining whether or not a given kind of government is legitimate (except the part that identifies rights), though it may be useful in identifying the particular kind that is best. I am not so much concerned with the latter as I am with the former, which is not to say that the latter isn't interesting or useful, it's just that I have no personal interest in it.

Shayne,

I don't understand this.

You wish to formulate government for rights, not for human beings?

I'm detecting an "intrinsic rights as a separate entity premise" in your concept.

How do you expect to have government without people?

EIDT: In other words, conceptually, which to you is more fundamental for human beings, human nature or individual rights?

In my concept, rights derive from human nature, not exist parallel to it.

Michael

It's analogous to the concept of optionality in morality. Some choices are morally neutral, such as what particular job you get. Some are not, such as that you don't cheat on your spouse.

In the realm of government, some things are optional and some are not. It is optional whether some group of people might agree to some kind of social safety net. It is not optional that they NOT do it in such a way that coerces anyone into their scheme. It is NOT optional that they refrain from engaging in any kind of right violation.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It doesn't matter now except to the debaters. The correct premise is moving toward more and more freedom, not rebellion and the establishment of a new order. A long time from now there may be so much freedom and so little government such a debate might be truly apropos.

--Brant

Cease and desist with your obnoxiously putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I ever encourage "rebellion and the establishment of a new order." You've definitely got screws loose if you get that out of my writing.

Shayne

Cease and desist with telling me to. I put no words in your mouth. I merely made the necessary extrapolation from yours and George's theorizing. That is, there is no practical use for it unless what I said is coming down.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Look, if you couldn't or didn't want to cite anything supporting of your position you could have just said so. I know, you're on this derisiveness kick. So be it.

What is it you need citations for, aside from the books Murray wrote on this material? I cited two of his books, plus the Tannehill book. (I will be discussing some of this in a post that will appear on my "Thoughts" thread by tomorrow.) Are you unable to read his books? I suspect you could find a lot with a Google search or two. Do you know how to Google?

I was frankly shocked to learn that you were so ignorant of Murray's approach. I knew you didn't know much about him, but I assumed you knew the basics, and I was wrong. My telling you the fundamentals of Murray's anarcho-capitalism is rather like someone telling you that Christians believe that Jesus died for their sins, to which you reply by saying that you need a citation.

Are you troubled that much by the fact that Murray was writing about many of "your" ideas nearly 50 years ago? For that matter, the Tuckerites were writing about them over a century ago.

This is the price you pay when you refuse to read anything by the people you wish to criticize. I would hope you would at least learn something from this embarrassing gaff, so as to avoid repeating the mistake. But something tells me you won't. I suspect you will continue to bluff and bluster your way though the world of ideas.

Well, today was a bust. I wanted to get at least one, maybe two, pieces posted on the "Thoughts" thread, but instead I let myself get sucked into another crazy-making session with you. You asked for comments, I gave you comments, and then you were off the races with nutty charges of ad hominem, etc. And it was downhill from there.

Btw, a number of posts on my Thoughts thread deal directly with some stuff you were bitching about earlier, and the next one will deal with why Rothbard and Co. don't call their protection agencies governments. This is truly basic stuff -- the sort of thing that appears in every standard discussion of anarcho-capitalism within the first few pages. But it will probably be new to you.

Ghs

[sjw]

Cease and desist with telling me to. I put no words in your mouth. I merely made the necessary extrapolation from yours and George's theorizing. That is, there is no practical use for it unless what I said is coming down.

--Brant

You need to learn to think straight, there is no "necessary extrapolation", there is just your ignorant presumption.

Put up or shut up: Either show me the "necessary extrapolation", or stop attributing to me your obnoxiously bad extrapolations.

Shayne

[sjw]

Are you troubled that much by the fact that Murray was writing about many of "your" ideas nearly 50 years ago? For that matter, the Tuckerites were writing about them over a century ago.

Actually I'm never troubled when I find that someone else thought of something before, it's a good sign actually (unless we're dealing with patent law...)

You said Rothbard said such and such, I simply asked where, and as per usual, your only answer is ad hominem. And no, I have no interest in reading everything Rothbard wrote, I've read enough to know he has some good ideas and some bad ones, which doesn't argue against me making my case.

I think you're just mad at me because I don't take your approach, which is to study everything and everywhere that's ever been written. My approach is to have an integrated idea of my own in my own head, and if I find nothing that represents the whole case as I see it, then qua whole, it is potentially valuable, as far as I can objectively tell. So yes, I have read here and there from this person or that, but nowhere have I seen the case put as I wanted it to be put. That all by itself warrants my approach, whether you like it or not.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

The Market for Liberty, by the Tannehills . . . was the first extensive treatment of Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism.

George, I recently ran across the assertion that the Tannehill's book was actually based on their understanding of Andrew J. Galambos's theories (as conveyed to them by Walter Block, who had discussed Galambos's ideas in some detail with Durk Pearson). I never knew either of the Tannehills (or Durk Pearson, for that matter), so I have wondered about this. Roy knew the Tannehills, but he's no longer around to ask. Walter confirms that he did meet and talk with both Pearson and the Tannehills in the timeframe specified (the late '60s), but says he doesn't recall any specifics of what they discussed. Can you comment on any of this?

JR

Here are the acknowledgments from The Market for Liberty:

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Skye d’Aureous and Natalee Hall for numerous ideas and suggestions (including Mr. d’Aureous’ ideas on data banks for intellectual property, educational TV, and the interest of insurance companies in medical and drug safety); to Roy A. Childs, Jr., for several philosophical arguments against statism; and to Anthony I.S. Alexander for the concept of monetary reparations for coercive injustices and the idea that justice consists of rectifying the injustice insofar as is humanly possible, the idea that property ownership is the solution to pollution problems, the idea that Ayn Rand’s “competing governments” argument against anarchy is actually a devastating argument against government, and for many hours of fruitful discussion.

I talked to Roy about this book several times. He claimed to have had many discussions with the Tannehills about the content. He also claimed that the ideas he passed along were pure Rothbard. (As you know, Roy was a major fountainhead for Murray's ideas, before Rothbard had published very much.) Rand's influence is very noticeable. Some of the early chapters are little more than paraphrases of Rand. The book is available online here:

http://alexpeak.com/twr/tmfl/

This book came out in 1970, the same year as Power and Market. Roy's Open Letter was published in 1969. I will be discussing these three sources in my next installment. I'm pissed for allowing myself to get dragged once again into Shayne's World. I was writing at a good clip and had my ideas worked out. Now I have to get some sleep and start over.

Shit, even a dog knows enough to get in out of the rain....

Ghs

[sjw]

I'm pissed for allowing myself to get dragged once again into Shayne's World. I was writing at a good clip and had my ideas worked out. Now I have to get some sleep and start over.

Shit, even a dog knows enough to get in out of the rain....

Ghs

Yes, why don't you leave. As I have already noted, all you've offered and all you are evidently capable of offering is derision.

Shayne

[jriggenbach]

I'm pissed for allowing myself to get dragged once again into Shayne's World. I was writing at a good clip and had my ideas worked out. Now I have to get some sleep and start over.

Shit, even a dog knows enough to get in out of the rain....

Ghs

Yes, why don't you leave. As I have already noted, all you've offered and all you are evidently capable of offering is derision.

Shayne

But it's good (i.e., very high quality) derision - some of the very best and available free on the Internet.

JR

Edited March 30, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Brant Gaede]

Cease and desist with telling me to. I put no words in your mouth. I merely made the necessary extrapolation from yours and George's theorizing. That is, there is no practical use for it unless what I said is coming down.

--Brant

You need to learn to think straight, there is no "necessary extrapolation", there is just your ignorant presumption.

Put up or shut up: Either show me the "necessary extrapolation", or stop attributing to me your obnoxiously bad extrapolations.

Shayne

I can't help it if you can't or won't think. But I can trash you. You are to political theorizing as Ellen Moore was to Objectivism, plus gross obnoxiousness. I can guarantee you I'll never read another word you ever write. I can and do.

--Brant

[sjw]

I'm pissed for allowing myself to get dragged once again into Shayne's World. I was writing at a good clip and had my ideas worked out. Now I have to get some sleep and start over.

Shit, even a dog knows enough to get in out of the rain....

Ghs

Yes, why don't you leave. As I have already noted, all you've offered and all you are evidently capable of offering is derision.

Shayne

But it's good (i.e., very high quality) derision - some of the very best and available free on the Internet.

JR

True...

Shayne

[sjw]

Cease and desist with telling me to. I put no words in your mouth. I merely made the necessary extrapolation from yours and George's theorizing. That is, there is no practical use for it unless what I said is coming down.

--Brant

You need to learn to think straight, there is no "necessary extrapolation", there is just your ignorant presumption.

Put up or shut up: Either show me the "necessary extrapolation", or stop attributing to me your obnoxiously bad extrapolations.

Shayne

I can't help it if you can't or won't think. But I can trash you. You are to political theorizing as Ellen Moore was to Objectivism, plus gross obnoxiousness. I can guarantee you I'll never read another word you ever write. I can and do.

--Brant

Incessantly spewing broad and usually barely intelligible generalities you refuse to back up with any kind of reasoning or to take any responsibility for -- pure Brant Gaede.

Shayne

[caroljane]

My approach is to have an integrated idea of my own in my own head, and if I find nothing that represents the whole case as I see it, then qua whole, it is potentially valuable, as far as I can objectively tell. So yes, I have read here and there from this person or that, but nowhere have I seen the case put as I wanted it to be put. That all by itself warrants my approach, whether you like it or not.

Shayne

Shayne,

I have read this paragraph three times and I don't understand it. I don't mean in context, I know the context, but are you saying, "I have an original idea/theory, and as far as I know nobody else ever had it in the way I have it?"

Just asking,

Carol

[kiaer.ts]

My approach is to have an integrated idea of my own in my own head, and if I find nothing that represents the whole case as I see it, then qua whole, it is potentially valuable, as far as I can objectively tell. So yes, I have read here and there from this person or that, but nowhere have I seen the case put as I wanted it to be put. That all by itself warrants my approach, whether you like it or not.

Shayne

Shayne,

I have read this paragraph three times and I don't understand it. I don't mean in context, I know the context, but are you saying, "I have an original idea/theory, and as far as I know nobody else ever had it in the way I have it?"

Just asking,

Carol

Without particularly meaning to be mean to Shayne, and not having read any of this thread except the last few posts, and not understanding the context at all, I have two comments:

(1) Ellen Moore?

and

(2)