Liberals: Where You Went Wrong

[Dick Tuck]

Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that whatever the USSC allows IS the law of the land. Work to get it changed, but calling it "abuse" is just an opinion and neither here nor there. You seem to be falling under the same misconception as PC that there's something "natural" about all this that should win out. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy. Without a government strong enough to makes its laws stick, none of it exists.

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

If you actually believed in the Seventh Amendment rights, you'd demand that limited liability be deprived of all corporations.

 

[Freemason9]

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it just IS. I didn't say we didn't have constitutional law, just that without government we have no law at all. If you don't like the commerce or general welfare clauses, get them changed. Don't act as if there's some sort of unwritten standard that's being violated, because such a standard doesn't exist. If rights/privileges are the result of government, the answer isn't to chafe at the notion, but to make sure the government operates as close to your ideals as possible, realizing that if you don't get everything you want it isn't necessarily "abuse" or "involuntary servitude", but just the way things are.

The rights are inalienable. The constitution was designed to protect these rights against tyranical government, they were not granted for a government to enforce. The constitution/bill of rights iis explicit about this. The enforcement of protecting these rights comes from our representatives. Without these representatives, or their ability to "interpret" the context of enumerated powers, we still have our inalienable rights. If this enforcement agency fails to protect the rights, then we should alter it or overthrow it completely. As per the declaration of I/Bill of rights/constitution.

That's a fairy tale. There's no such thing as an inalienable right. Without government, if I'm stronger than you, I may do anything I want to you with impunity. Take off your rose-colored glasses. You're talking in circles. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place and wouldn't need a government to enforce it. You've proven my contention that the hippies didn't become liberals, they became libertarians.

This. The phrase "inalienable right" is simply propaganda. The Supreme Court has a lot of latitude when it comes to interpreting these "rights" for hapless citizens.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it just IS. I didn't say we didn't have constitutional law, just that without government we have no law at all. If you don't like the commerce or general welfare clauses, get them changed. Don't act as if there's some sort of unwritten standard that's being violated, because such a standard doesn't exist. If rights/privileges are the result of government, the answer isn't to chafe at the notion, but to make sure the government operates as close to your ideals as possible, realizing that if you don't get everything you want it isn't necessarily "abuse" or "involuntary servitude", but just the way things are.

The rights are inalienable. The constitution was designed to protect these rights against tyranical government, they were not granted for a government to enforce. The constitution/bill of rights iis explicit about this. The enforcement of protecting these rights comes from our representatives. Without these representatives, or their ability to "interpret" the context of enumerated powers, we still have our inalienable rights. If this enforcement agency fails to protect the rights, then we should alter it or overthrow it completely. As per the declaration of I/Bill of rights/constitution.

That's a fairy tale. There's no such thing as an inalienable right. Without government, if I'm stronger than you, I may do anything I want to you with impunity. Take off your rose-colored glasses. You're talking in circles. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place and wouldn't need a government to enforce it. You've proven my contention that the hippies didn't become liberals, they became libertarians.

Then all of it is a fairy tale and you are granted privileges by the rulers. The rulers can determine whether or not you can retain any privilege. Therefore, the entire notion of consitutional government null. You have rulers, and the best you can do is bow to the rulers and hope they throw you a scrap ocassionally. The govenment is not the protection service of our constitutionally granted inalienable rights at all. They are the enforcers of the rulers decrees and you're a mere subject.

That's not the way it was founded at all.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that whatever the USSC allows IS the law of the land. Work to get it changed, but calling it "abuse" is just an opinion and neither here nor there. You seem to be falling under the same misconception as PC that there's something "natural" about all this that should win out. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy. Without a government strong enough to makes its laws stick, none of it exists.

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

If you actually believed in the Seventh Amendment rights, you'd demand that limited liability be deprived of all corporations.

Who says i don't believe that? You're making that up and pinning it on me. Much like you made up the enumerated powers of the constitution regarding "so many regulations for corporations".

 

[HUGGY]

1. Modern Liberalism, as distinct from the Classical Liberalism of the Founders, was far from a terrible idea. They endorsed two political themes: a) democratic reforms, and b) apolitical managerial expertise.

a. From the former, progressives supported measures designed to promote more direct democratic input, such as direct election of Senators, state ballot initiatives and referenda on the recall of stated officials.

b. The latter involved ‘scientific management’ of government, putting political decision making in the hands of ostensibly apolitical bureaucrats, ‘nonpartisan’ commissions, and regulatory agencies remote from democratic accountability. And these designed to check monopolies and trusts, and regulate railroads and utilities, and favor social welfare legislation.

c. But it didn't end there.




2. For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as ‘progressives’ repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.” Dewey, “Liberalism and Social Action,” p. 17.

a. Charles Merriam: “The individualistic ideas of the ‘natural rights’ school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.” Merriam, “A History of American Political Theories,” p. 307.

3. Let’s be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any ‘right’ at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in “nature and nature’s God.” Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable rights.”

a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"





4. Progressives believed that rights are relative (Dewey spoke of ‘historical relativity’) and that not just society changes, but human nature itself does; i.e., it is malleable. Compare this to the view of the Founders. The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.

b. Where else do we see the progressives view? “Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1] New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c. The view is consistent today: In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.” http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html_____





5. Until the 1930’s, the Constitution served to check progressive’s enthusiasm. But the Imperial President, FDR, wielded enough power to make the enumerated powers merely a suggestion. New Deal Liberals “sought to regulate modern industrial organization, not by returning influence to the individual farmer, worker, or businessman, but by building a parallel capacity in the national government to regulate and direct it.”
James Piereson,”Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism,” p. 6.


6. To review…the modern liberal’s excesses include
a) the removal of natural rights,
b) the attempt to change human nature,
c) denial of the efficacy of the free market with the substitute view that good-natured bureaucrats will know how to assign economic value.
d)Further….that there is no limitation to the power of government.



I don't see any way back from this ineluctable march of totalitarianism.

Fail. You don't get to define someone else's politics. If you feel the need to dig into a parties evolution your disinternment should be focused on the republicans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What are "natural rights" absent government? I don't believe they exist in the form the OP presents. Absent a government to regulate what we'd call crime, your only right, if I'm stronger than you, is to sit meekly by while I eat your kill, in hopes that I'll leave you some scraps. THAT'S Natural Law. Any other formulation has no meaning absent a government to enforce it.

1. "What are "natural rights" absent government? I don't believe they exist..."

And that, of course, is what identifies you as a progressive.
What made you believe said identification was necessary?

While generally the lack of real education, plus the lock-step acceptance of the media Left-wing indoctrination is quite enough....but to insist that a free people are not born with the right of free speech, well....that puts your progressive creds in fine shape!



2. "...Any other formulation has no meaning absent a government to enforce it."

Oops....I left out that one must be so very naive as to believe that an all-powerful government....as the OP informs is the desire of progressives....has any desire to protect your rights do say and do what a free person may.

a. If you studied history, you (would not be a progressive) you might notice that what I have suggested is generally the case.




See if education holds any interest for you:

3. The French Revolution is the well-spring of progressivism, of liberalism

a. Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics. Rousseau: Political Economy

b. “For the rulers well know that the general will is always on the side which is most favorable to the public interest, that is to say, the most equitable; so that it is needful only to act justly to be certain of following the general will.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract and Discourses,” trans. G.D.H.Cole, p. 297

c. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will.
Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

Notice how the Right isn't treated as wrong...but a morally evil?



Guess what the penalty is for any who do not accept the truth of the 'general will.'

Did you see the union thugs in Michigan?
See the assaults of folks who thought they had free speech?



Bet you want to set up re-education camps for some of us, huh?

 

[Rinata]

Are you ever going to get over yourself?? Actually I thought you had. I was a fool!!

 

[konradv]

Bet you want to set up re-education camps for some of us, huh?

As much as you may need it, that wasn't my point. The ONLY reason you have rights is because there's an entity to back them up. You can quote anyone you like, but that doesn't change the fact that, if I were of evil intent and had power over you, your claim of inalienable or natural "rights" would be just so much hot air.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

If you actually believed in the Seventh Amendment rights, you'd demand that limited liability be deprived of all corporations.

Who says i don't believe that? You're making that up and pinning it on me. Much like you made up the enumerated powers of the constitution regarding "so many regulations for corporations".

So you believe that no corporation should be given limited liability. If any damage is proven by a jury, the jury has the right to determine that damage. If a corporation lacks the funds to pay that damage, it's the legal responsibility of the owners of that corporation to pay.

I thnk you're full of shit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If you actually believed in the Seventh Amendment rights, you'd demand that limited liability be deprived of all corporations.

Who says i don't believe that? You're making that up and pinning it on me. Much like you made up the enumerated powers of the constitution regarding "so many regulations for corporations".

So you believe that no corporation should be given limited liability. If any damage is proven by a jury, the jury has the right to determine that damage. If a corporation lacks the funds to pay that damage, it's the legal responsibility of the owners of that corporation to pay.

I thnk you're full of shit.

I absolutely agree with that. Any corp. found guilty in a court of law of fraud or harm should be given the same type of punishment that would be met under any other circumstances of the law. Right up to and including bankrupting the corp. altogether. There should be no free passes within the law, otherwise the law itself is compromised.

But you think I'm full of shit. Which is fine, being that I KNOW you're full of shit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Bet you want to set up re-education camps for some of us, huh?

As much as you may need it, that wasn't my point. The ONLY reason you have rights is because there's an entity to back them up. You can quote anyone you like, but that doesn't change the fact that, if I were of evil intent and had power over you, your claim of inalienable or natural "rights" would be just so much hot air.

Then another protective service would be established in the absent of a current one. In colonial times, this would happen in some instances by the leading families of a settlement to try and convict someone who breached common law. There is no difference here at all. You just have a morbid view of humanity where everyone is evil and greedy and mean spirited....which makes one wonder why you think that a protection service for our rights can determine whether or not you get to keep them.

You believe people are evil, then in the same breath believe government, made up of these same evil people, is omnipotent.

it's a fucking perplexing thought process.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Who says i don't believe that? You're making that up and pinning it on me. Much like you made up the enumerated powers of the constitution regarding "so many regulations for corporations".

So you believe that no corporation should be given limited liability. If any damage is proven by a jury, the jury has the right to determine that damage. If a corporation lacks the funds to pay that damage, it's the legal responsibility of the owners of that corporation to pay.

I thnk you're full of shit.

I absolutely agree with that. Any corp. found guilty in a court of law of fraud or harm should be given the same type of punishment that would be met under any other circumstances of the law. Right up to and including bankrupting the corp. altogether. There should be no free passes within the law, otherwise the law itself is compromised.

But you think I'm full of shit. Which is fine, being that I KNOW you're full of shit.

What a punk ass cop out. If an individual business owner were found guilty of neglect, not only his business assets, but his personal assets, would be up for grabs. If my corner minimart ignored sidewalk ice for three hours after they opened, and I slipped and broke my ass, the business owners Porche and summer cabin would be a tangible asset that could be part of a settlement.

But you right here grant a corporation some extrodinary right, and limit their liability to the value of that "artificial entity". Why shouldn't the owners bear their part in the responsibility? Suppose they were reaping the dividend checks and bonuses when companies like Manville were hiding the effects of asbestos exposure? Why should they be held free of responsibilty?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you believe that no corporation should be given limited liability. If any damage is proven by a jury, the jury has the right to determine that damage. If a corporation lacks the funds to pay that damage, it's the legal responsibility of the owners of that corporation to pay.

I thnk you're full of shit.

I absolutely agree with that. Any corp. found guilty in a court of law of fraud or harm should be given the same type of punishment that would be met under any other circumstances of the law. Right up to and including bankrupting the corp. altogether. There should be no free passes within the law, otherwise the law itself is compromised.

But you think I'm full of shit. Which is fine, being that I KNOW you're full of shit.

What a punk ass cop out. If an individual business owner were found guilty of neglect, not only his business assets, but his personal assets, would be up for grabs. If my corner minimart ignored sidewalk ice for three hours after they opened, and I slipped and broke my ass, the business owners Porche and summer cabin would be a tangible asset that could be part of a settlement.

But you right here grant a corporation some extrodinary right, and limit their liability to the value of that "artificial entity". Why shouldn't the owners bear their part in the responsibility? Suppose they were reaping the dividend checks and bonuses when companies like Manville were hiding the effects of asbestos exposure? Why should they be held free of responsibilty?

I didn't say the owners shoudn't be held accountable. You just want me to spell out what a jury/judge decides regarding a case. I say jail time and asset strips are fine as long as the law is upheld properly, not over stepped and there are no free passes for anyone. Limited liability is bullshit. I agreed with you already. Stop swinging from my cock on it.

Jeebus.

 

[Freemason9]

Bet you want to set up re-education camps for some of us, huh?

As much as you may need it, that wasn't my point. The ONLY reason you have rights is because there's an entity to back them up. You can quote anyone you like, but that doesn't change the fact that, if I were of evil intent and had power over you, your claim of inalienable or natural "rights" would be just so much hot air.

Then another protective service would be established in the absent of a current one. In colonial times, this would happen in some instances by the leading families of a settlement to try and convict someone who breached common law. There is no difference here at all. You just have a morbid view of humanity where everyone is evil and greedy and mean spirited....which makes one wonder why you think that a protection service for our rights can determine whether or not you get to keep them.

You believe people are evil, then in the same breath believe government, made up of these same evil people, is omnipotent.

it's a fucking perplexing thought process.

Mind if I interject something here? It's not as if ALL people are evil; indeed, most are not. But that makes most people susceptable to those that ARE evil. As an example, let's say that 97% of our folks mind their own business . . . they love their families, work hard, pay their bills, prepare decent meals, try to have good sex, enjoy vacations . . . however, there is a 3% out there that wants nothing but money, power, and fame . . . they will do ANYTHING to get those things. Those are the sociopaths. Many are in prison, but many more are not. Many are in banking, or are corporate CEOs, or they are in entertainment--a great many "entrepreneurs" are sociopaths. They can't hold jobs in an organization, and they are forced into entrepreneurship.

So, anyway, you have an unsuspecting 97% that gets fucked over by the 3%. It's not because that 97% is lazy, stupid, or undeserving--they are simply unaware.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks, Corky.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatives have been saying that for over 200 years

Progressive are not be as bright as they think they are; they advocate an economic model that is failing right now in broad daylight in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and has failed so totally that it has been abandoned by genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba

Yeah...frank I wouldn't go spouting who isn't smart around here.

Gee....you seem awfully sensitive about "who isn't smart".....


.....I wonder why.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I absolutely agree with that. Any corp. found guilty in a court of law of fraud or harm should be given the same type of punishment that would be met under any other circumstances of the law. Right up to and including bankrupting the corp. altogether. There should be no free passes within the law, otherwise the law itself is compromised.

But you think I'm full of shit. Which is fine, being that I KNOW you're full of shit.

What a punk ass cop out. If an individual business owner were found guilty of neglect, not only his business assets, but his personal assets, would be up for grabs. If my corner minimart ignored sidewalk ice for three hours after they opened, and I slipped and broke my ass, the business owners Porche and summer cabin would be a tangible asset that could be part of a settlement.

But you right here grant a corporation some extrodinary right, and limit their liability to the value of that "artificial entity". Why shouldn't the owners bear their part in the responsibility? Suppose they were reaping the dividend checks and bonuses when companies like Manville were hiding the effects of asbestos exposure? Why should they be held free of responsibilty?

I didn't say the owners shoudn't be held accountable. You just want me to spell out what a jury/judge decides regarding a case. I say jail time and asset strips are fine as long as the law is upheld properly, not over stepped and there are no free passes for anyone. Limited liability is bullshit. I agreed with you already. Stop swinging from my cock on it.

Jeebus.

You moron. You said that liabilty should extend to making a company bankrupt. That limits the liability. The owners of the company, i.e. the stockholders get a free pass. Do you deny that limited liability gives investors a free pass, whcih might deny a Seventh Amendment right?

Personally, I'd put the owners right behind the corporate management in seeking redress. I personally understand that a modern economy can't work without the "limited liability" that corporations offer. I also accept that this fact requires better checks and balances.

To you, this probably sounds like an abridge to government interference in the free enterprise, i.e. socialism. To me, it's the only reasonable way to make free enterprise work.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What a punk ass cop out. If an individual business owner were found guilty of neglect, not only his business assets, but his personal assets, would be up for grabs. If my corner minimart ignored sidewalk ice for three hours after they opened, and I slipped and broke my ass, the business owners Porche and summer cabin would be a tangible asset that could be part of a settlement.

But you right here grant a corporation some extrodinary right, and limit their liability to the value of that "artificial entity". Why shouldn't the owners bear their part in the responsibility? Suppose they were reaping the dividend checks and bonuses when companies like Manville were hiding the effects of asbestos exposure? Why should they be held free of responsibilty?

I didn't say the owners shoudn't be held accountable. You just want me to spell out what a jury/judge decides regarding a case. I say jail time and asset strips are fine as long as the law is upheld properly, not over stepped and there are no free passes for anyone. Limited liability is bullshit. I agreed with you already. Stop swinging from my cock on it.

Jeebus.

You moron. You said that liabilty should extend to making a company bankrupt. That limits the liability. The owners of the company, i.e. the stockholders get a free pass. Do you deny that limited liability gives investors a free pass, whcih might deny a Seventh Amendment right?

Personally, I'd put the owners right behind the corporate management in seeking redress. I personally understand that a modern economy can't work without the "limited liability" that corporations offer. I also accept that this fact requires better checks and balances.

To you, this probably sounds like an abridge to government interference in the free enterprise, i.e. socialism. To me, it's the only reasonable way to make free enterprise work.

Yawn. I already agreed you teeth gnashing troglodyte. Yes, the company, the owner, etc should be held to the fullest extent of the law given a jury and judge sentencing. I didn't word it good enough for you, so you react again. What a fucking loony tune.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did a big time double-take on the title.

You just can't make this stuff up.

.

You have yet to prove to be astute.
This post of yours is consistent with every other one.

Same goes for you. You make a op about how liberals are dumb or how you are right using opinion and loose connect the dots.
Then spend pages insulting peoples intelligence like a wannabe elite.its really fun when you make threads on elites and do this. Oh is the hypocrisy thick on that one.

Its not as fun though when everyone has your number.

Well...not everyone can be as bright as you!
And, on that topic...you wrote "You make a op about how liberals are dumb..." and "how you are right...."


Are we discussing the same OP?
This is the subject of the OP:

6. To review…the modern liberal’s excesses include
a) the removal of natural rights,
b) the attempt to change human nature,
c) denial of the efficacy of the free market with the substitute view that good-natured bureaucrats will know how to assign economic value.
d)Further….that there is no limitation to the power of government.


But, then....you being so 'smart,' that must be in there somewhere.



Did you care to comment on any of the above?
I mean, after all....imagine the benefits of your insights...





"...when everyone has your number."
OK...here it is:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_muFwwTSMs]"PENNSYLVANIA 6-5000" BY GLENN MILLER - YouTube[/ame]



Waitin' for your call.....

 

[Dick Tuck]

I didn't say the owners shoudn't be held accountable. You just want me to spell out what a jury/judge decides regarding a case. I say jail time and asset strips are fine as long as the law is upheld properly, not over stepped and there are no free passes for anyone. Limited liability is bullshit. I agreed with you already. Stop swinging from my cock on it.

Jeebus.

You moron. You said that liabilty should extend to making a company bankrupt. That limits the liability. The owners of the company, i.e. the stockholders get a free pass. Do you deny that limited liability gives investors a free pass, whcih might deny a Seventh Amendment right?

Personally, I'd put the owners right behind the corporate management in seeking redress. I personally understand that a modern economy can't work without the "limited liability" that corporations offer. I also accept that this fact requires better checks and balances.

To you, this probably sounds like an abridge to government interference in the free enterprise, i.e. socialism. To me, it's the only reasonable way to make free enterprise work.

Yawn. I already agreed you teeth gnashing troglodyte. Yes, the company, the owner, etc should be held to the fullest extent of the law given a jury and judge sentencing. I didn't word it good enough for you, so you react again. What a fucking loony tune.

I'm just asking for clarification. You seem to agree that the "limited liability" that corporations receive should be nullified. Any act by any corporation that you own, whether a stock in your retirement account, or a company that you received dividends in the past, should put your personal assets at risk.

Buy a share of Manville, you own part of their liability.

I disagree with that, btw. I just wanted to get clarification on the simple minded lassiez faire idiocy.