The Philosophy of Liberty

[Panache]

I never wrote they are entitled to it. I think in our discussion we will uncover is that in the U.S. you still have a choice to lease your power to people, as long as you retain the choice to retract it, help shape what it's used for, and gain some other power of your own choosing, in return.
In fact, that is the hallmark of efficiency and prosperity and freedom. I did NOT earn the land I live on distinct from the market in which I purchased it. You must accept that basic fact.

Sure, if I purchase an apple, I did not earn it distinct from the supermarket in which I bought it, but I just don't see how that is relevant.

The agreement between me and the supermarket is that they will transfer ownership of the apple to me, and I will transfer ownership of US currency to them. Once I have purchased the apple, regardless of whether I earned it "distinct from the market in which I purchased it," the supermarket has no more right to tell me what to do with my apple than I do to tell them what to do with their money.

10 men live in an island. they divide the land up equally. 1 wants individual sovereignty. the other 9 band together and divide up labor willingly through negotiation based on desire/skill, etc. They come up with barter/money rules, and work out ways to use each others land for their own wants/needs. You trade with them, but they always have the advantage of a more efficient system.

How is it more efficient? One of the nine will be more prosperous/productive than the other eight. Naturally the other eight will decide to force the more productive one pay for everthing, reducing his incentive to be productive.

Seems to me it is more efficient for the one sovereign one to continue being productive without freeloaders leeching off of him.

Now someone women come ashore, 10, fancy that. And a son is born to the 9, and a son is born to the One. Now, the One rules over his son by who's authority?

The one does not have a right to initiate the use of force or fraud against his son.

But continuing, the 9's son is raised with the expectation that he will contribute, as they have, to their mutually beneficial way of life. After all, he reached maturity safely not through his own will, but via a shared will and effort that he is NOT privy to take with force. Once of age enough that they decide youth can fend for themselves, they offer him a choice. Their way, or he can live like the one (you), on a nearby island. The son has a choice. There is no fraud, or force.

If the son's labour/skill/ideas are valuable, they may offer to give him land in exchange. When the son's father dies, assuming he passed all that was his on to his son, the son would stand to inherit his 1/9th share of their communal property. If this "mutually beneficial" agreement where the son does all the work and the other eight "democratically" reap the benefits of it, no longer suits the son, he is well within his rights to take what he has earned through his own labour and what he has inherited from his father and leave the other eight to fend for themselves.

If he stays, only if he's a complete moron will he claim that he owns his house free and clear of any of their attempts to enforce building codes. HE is the one using force. YOU are the one attempting to justify your use of force.

If he actually agreed to abide by building codes, then he should abide by the building codes. If the nine offered him a peice of land in exchange for something of value that he produced for them, then he can do whatever he damn well pleases with the land.

If they want him to build in a particular way, they can pay him to build in a different way or they can threaten to cease trading with him.

Your land came with restrictions that you already agreed to, and now you want to deny it so you can have your cake and eat it too. You ignore the underlying premise, you want to use force on those before you who already through sweat and blood obtained that land, and you commit fraud because I know we can find the papers and the legally binding agreements you made.

If you can find a peice of paper with my signature on it that says I agree to let the popular kids tell me what I can and can't do with the land I bought, you might have a case.

I read my purchase agreement very carefully, and it didn't say anything of the sort.

Incorrect, the video is an abstract ideal, it doesn't know you already agreed to neighborhood or state or city ordinances. In fact, if you did, and break them, YOU committed fraud.

Show me the paper with my signature on it saying that I agree to state and city ordinances. I guaruntee you it doesn't exist.

You gave them the right by living there, voluntarily.

Nonsense. Even if I were renting an apartment, it doesn't give the landlord authority to initiate force or fraud against me.

You were not privy to the negotiations that went on to secure the land in which you are sodomizing someone on, you don't own it individually, so you have, by your definition, no such rights. You miss the premises, again, and go about happily claiming your "Fraud" is justified via a philosophy that claims it's not.

As I have signed no documents stating that I will not have sex with other men, it is not fraud for me to do so. The popular claim of sovereignty over me is invalid as I have entered no such agreement. Simply living here is not a contract.

So, when you band together to defend your land, by hiring a militia, it's unjust? You can't mean that.

I don't mean that, and that is not what I said. Hiring a militia to defend your land, is not an initiation of force. It is a use of force to protect you against other uses of force.

 

[Mach]

The agreement between me and the supermarket is that they will transfer ownership of the apple to me, and I will transfer ownership of US currency to them.

And when do supermarkets tell you via force, how you must use their product? Typically if you use a product inconsistent with their label, you forfeit the right to sue, that's your choice. The state or federal laws however, may tell you EXACTLY what you cannot do with that apple. And ignoring the laws are fine, but ignorance of the law never has been a sufficient defense on most matters. Why do you think that is.

.... trimmed responses to help save us time

If you can find a piece of paper with my signature on it that says I agree to let the popular kids tell me what I can and can't do with the land I bought, you might have a case.

So you are not aware that as a citizen you are obligated to follow the law? No really, you are or are not aware of this. Disagreeing with it is one thing. Not being aware of it, I want to read you write that so we can see how unrealistic this argument is.

I read my purchase agreement very carefully, and it didn't say anything of the sort.

Show me the paper with my signature on it saying that I agree to state and city ordinances. I guarantee you it doesn't exist.

You accept them by squatting in their territory. You are free to not accept them, by choice, by exiting their territory. If you want to use force to override their rightful claim, you can and violate your premise. You can also lie about "not knowing" or "I implicitly accept it by being here but will ignore it", which is fraud, again, violating your premise. They are all public record and your feigned ignorance of city/state/federal laws is just not acceptable.

Nonsense. Even if I were renting an apartment, it doesn't give the landlord authority to initiate force or fraud against me.

If you agreed to it, it certainly would. Else, you'd be fraudulent again.

As I have signed no documents stating that I will not have sex with other men, it is not fraud for me to do so..

I know of no law against homosexuality, so I assumed you meant "in the public square", as having sex in public is not legal. I responded in context. And yes, the public land does have restrictions for doing such things (even solo).

The popular claim of sovereignty over me is invalid as I have entered no such agreement. Simply living here is not a contract

Ah, there it is. Popular sovereignty is invalid because you say it is. I say it is valid. What now? Force?

It's not bad enough you leeched off the nation for your youth, and then leeched off the public lands and the market economy, in the safety afforded by public works. Even if you left today, you'd still have mooched, and if that was the normal course of things (people mooching for years then leaving) then the system would eventually evolve to force you to sign things stating exactly that, and either denying those things to you or ensuring you compensate them for it. Fortunately we live in a more efficient society that doesn't require to you to sign everything, for every action, that simply WOULD NOT WORK. Apparently we don't have a mass exodus of anarcho-libertarian types do we? They like to sit and mooch and then bitch about moochers. They don't leave because they accept it.

You ignore the laws out of choice, then oddly claim that by simply exchanging money for something, that it necessarily means there are no restrictions on the exchange. I don't recall the video making such wild claims.
That's why I have less issue with the video (since it's just a generalized ideal tutorial), and I do have issue with how people attempt to apply it to their society.

-Mach

 

[Panache]

So you are not aware that as a citizen you are obligated to follow the law?

Certainly I am aware. And if the law serves to protect against the use of force or fraud, it is a just law. If the law serves as an initiation of force or fraud it is an unjust law.

If a woman is aware that her husband is beating her, does that mean that he isn't beating her? Does it mean that she chooses to get beaten? Does it mean she has implicitly agreed to be beaten?

I know of no law against homosexuality, so I assumed you meant "in the public square", as having sex in public is not legal. I responded in context. And yes, the public land does have restrictions for doing such things (even solo).

If the majority wants to make it illegal to do in your own home, they have the power to force you not to. Might makes right and all that.

Ah, there it is. Popular sovereignty is invalid because you say it is. I say it is valid. What now? Force?

That is fine, you say it is valid, I say it isn't. AS long as you don't initiate the use of force on me I won't initate the use of force on you and everything will be hunky dory.

 

[Mach]

Certainly I am aware. And if the law serves to protect against the use of force or fraud, it is a just law. If the law serves as an initiation of force or fraud it is an unjust law.

OK, conditionally.

If a woman is aware that her husband is beating her, does that mean that he isn't beating her? Does it mean that she chooses to get beaten? Does it mean she has implicitly agreed to be beaten?

He may have told her that they needed X amount of money for their child's education and his retirement. He may have coached her on this and gotten her verbal agreement. He may have even told here "I will beat you out of uncontrolled rage if you don't abide by your verbal contract." She may have agreed to this. She may then have then spent all the money on crack, and gigilos, willingly and obviously. And maybe he shouldn't have beaten her, but God damn, maybe we can understand is reaction no? And she perpetrated fraud against him, can he not use force to enact justice? So. What now?

If the majority wants to make it illegal to do in your own home, they have the power to force you not to. Might makes right and all that.

I don't think they do, and under U.S. law it supports minority rights against the majority. Just because sometimes it takes time and effort to correct it does not imply the system doesn't fuction as good as possible in meeting your ideal. Individual freedoms is a core of liberalism which is a very prominent and active part of many democracies. It's not margianlized at all.

That is fine, you say it is valid, I say it isn't. AS long as you don't initiate the use of force on me I won't initate the use of force on you and everything will be hunky dory.

But if I act on my belief, it's upheld by the agreement that you defacto agree to by remaining in the sovereign, which you can exist any time, and which is public record (not hidden), then I am by definition justified. And if that agreement grants me the right to use force against you, you agreed to it by choice.

On the other hand, if you act on YOUR belief, that it's not valid, then you have comitted fraud or used force to attack me when I attempted to use force on you, because you have violated that agreement.

Some people believe they have agreed to the law of the land by remaining there, some do not. I believe you will find it hard to justify that you don't have to accept it on personal grounds.

-Mach

 

[Panache]

He may have told her that they needed X amount of money for their child's education and his retirement. He may have coached her on this and gotten her verbal agreement. He may have even told here "I will beat you out of uncontrolled rage if you don't abide by your verbal contract." She may have agreed to this. She may then have then spent all the money on crack, and gigilos, willingly and obviously. And maybe he shouldn't have beaten her, but God damn, maybe we can understand is reaction no? And she perpetrated fraud against him, can he not use force to enact justice? So. What now?

Let us suppose for the moment that she is just a nice girl and he is just a jerk. Do you believe that the fact that she is free to leave the relationship justifies him beating her for no reason?

I don't think they do, and under U.S. law it supports minority rights against the majority.

That is something I agree with. It is conceptually at odds with the notion of popular sovereignty, and the attepted union of the two in our society is hardly a smooth and cordial one.

Just because sometimes it takes time and effort to correct it does not imply the system doesn't fuction as good as possible in meeting your ideal. Individual freedoms is a core of liberalism which is a very prominent and active part of many democracies. It's not margianlized at all.

And when individual freedoms triumph in our society it makes me very glad. I am not saying the US is the worst place on Earth, far from it. We protect individual freedoms a lot more than many other countries do. I just want that ideal to continue to grow in our society.

There are still plenty of occasions where the rights of the individual are trampled by the "collective needs" of the hive.

Eminent domain for example. Laws setencing people to jail time for letting their grass get to tall as another. Laws telling people that they aren't allowed to sell services that it is perfectly acceptable for them to perform for free. Laws telling people what herbs they are and are not allowed to consume/inhale.

But if I act on my belief, it's upheld by the agreement that you defacto agree to by remaining in the sovereign, which you can exist any time, and which is public record (not hidden), then I am by definition justified. And if that agreement grants me the right to use force against you, you agreed to it by choice.

And if I steal your car then it is upheld by the agreement you "defacto" agreed upon by parking it in a garge that I regularly steal cars from. "Defacto" just doesn't cut it. When we are talking about individual freedoms, we are talking about individual contracts.

The idea of a "social contract" is a nice one, but it assumes that a society is a type of "person" who can enter into a contract. In order for a society to act collectively in such a way, one must assume that an individual component of said society is in fact the property of that society. I don't buy that assumption for a minute.

That is to me the very crux of the Libertarian contention.

On the other hand, if you act on YOUR belief, that it's not valid, then you have comitted fraud or used force to attack me when I attempted to use force on you, because you have violated that agreement.

I did not however initiate the use of force or fraud, so no foul.

 

[Red_Dave]

YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty

I agree with this video entirely, but since my nutty views are always the minority I wonder if anyone has any criticisms against the logic presented in this video.

I guess main question I have to ask is what consitutes legitimately acquired property and how this is legitimate? For example did feudal lords in medieval europe have a right to their property because one of their ancesters effectively stole it?

One thing thats very ironic about the video is that it goes on about how the majority should not be allowed to use force to take away the "justly acquired" property of the minority. In reality the last few thousand years have been largely characterised by the opossite. Land that was owned collectively by tribal societys was stolen and ended up in the hands of the minority purely as a result of force. The very notion of individuals having a right to large abouts of private property only exists because it was insituted and sustained by the use of violence.

For example the situation in alot of Latin American countrys in the 20th century was that the vast majority of their land was owned by a dozen or so rulling familys who sold the land to, or worked in cooperation with corporations based in the developed world [E.G the united fruit company]. These familys were in this possition purely as a result of the legacy of Spannish colonalism and the use of force in perserving this system of ownership over the years.

When democratically elected governments came to power and tried to redistribute this land the normal result was their removal via a U.S backed coup. Proponants of an orthodox understanding of property rights tend to claim these actions were legitimate given how the majority was violateing the rights of the minoirty to private property. What im asking in a nutshell is why does a hierarchy that only exists as a result of violence have more legitimacy in deciding how this land should be used then a government that derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed? Ultimatley things like property rights need to be worked out by society as a whole and not a small group of individuals.

 

[Mach]

Let us suppose for the moment that she is just a nice girl and he is just a jerk. Do you believe that the fact that she is free to leave the relationship justifies him beating her for no reason?

You just stated in your premise that "beating her for no reason".
By definition, there is no justification because there is no "reason" for beating her. Which is precisely why you can't evaluate such things without context.
Eminent domain, for example, not only has clear reasons, but "just" compensation.

That is something I agree with. It is conceptually at odds with the notion of popular sovereignty, and the attempted union of the two in our society is hardly a smooth and cordial one.

I don't think it's at odds at all, it's the "system", and your "no initiation of force" is a rule in the system. You cannot have rules if you have no system. You want rules without a system, again, can't have it both ways.

I just want that ideal to continue to grow in our society.

I agree and I think it is over time, but there will be an equilibrium point that is reached due to public land, public works, and efficiency. (a good equilibrium)

There are still plenty of occasions where the rights of the individual are trampled by the "collective needs" of the hive.

And plenty of times when fraud and violence run rampant and no individual lifts a finger or has the means to control it.

Eminent domain for example.
Laws sentencing people to jail time for letting their grass get to tall as another.
Laws telling people that they aren't allowed to sell services that it is perfectly acceptable for them to perform for free.
Laws telling people what herbs they are and are not allowed to consume/inhale.

These are the things that keep you up at night? Really?

Each one of these has basis in justice, and in some cases specifically include just in their wording. Eminent domain, before you buy something, you already know this law exists, so it's YOUR CHOICE to buy or not. And in the U.S. it's typical for public works to better your life AND you are entitled to just compensation. How is that so horrible, seems awfully fair and balanced.

And if I steal your car then it is upheld by the agreement you "defacto" agreed upon by parking it in a garge that I regularly steal cars from. "Defacto" just doesn't cut it. When we are talking about individual freedoms, we are talking about individual contracts.

Poor analogy.
#1 It's not written in public record
#2 you were not compensated.
#3, it was not for some public good which includes you

In order for a society to act collectively in such a way, one must assume that an individual component of said society is in fact the property of that society.

Sorry, you're projecting things that aren't true. The system is specifically built in this case to differentiate property from citizen.
If that's the crux, then good news, it's true, they are different, and treated differently.

I did not however initiate the use of force or fraud, so no foul.

We disagree here because you are claiming that ignorance of the law is a sufficient defense in all cases. That's a hard hill for you to attempt to climb, and I can assure as a general concept, it will not change. do you really want to argue that?

-Mach

 

[Panache]

You just stated in your premise that "beating her for no reason".
By definition, there is no justification because there is no "reason" for beating her. Which is precisely why you can't evaluate such things without context.

Good. So we agree that simply having the option to leave does not excuse the use of force or fraud. Now we are getting somewhere.

Eminent domain, for example, not only has clear reasons, but "just" compensation.

Ok, so the husband beats the wife because he thinks it builds character. That is a clear reason. And he gives her a lolipop afterwards, that is just compensation. Does that make domestic abuse alright?

The clear reasons for eminent domain are "you have it, we want it, and we have the power to take it by force" and the "just" compensation you speak of is never just. The only just compensation for anything is compensation that both parties consent to.

I don't think it's at odds at all, it's the "system", and your "no initiation of force" is a rule in the system. You cannot have rules if you have no system. You want rules without a system, again, can't have it both ways.

I want a system of rules designed to protect individual liberty. Popular sovereignty is a system designed to pander to the whims of the majority at the expense of the minority.

And plenty of times when fraud and violence run rampant and no individual lifts a finger or has the means to control it.

I agree, and both are problems that need to be addressed.

These are the things that keep you up at night? Really?

Actually I sleep pretty well at night. These things just entertain me on internet forums.

Each one of these has basis in justice, and in some cases specifically include just in their wording. Eminent domain, before you buy something, you already know this law exists, so it's YOUR CHOICE to buy or not. And in the U.S. it's typical for public works to better your life AND you are entitled to just compensation. How is that so horrible, seems awfully fair and balanced.

Before you buy a car, you already know that theft exists, so its YOUR CHOICE to buy or not. Does that justify car thieves?

If I steal your car and leave you with a Maria Carey CD (which I have decided is "just compensation.") is it ok then? After I steal your car, I sell the parts and use the money to buy a new computer from a local retailer, putting money back into the local economy in a way that betters you life, along with everyone in the area. Now is it ok to steal your car? Doesn't that sound fair and balanced?

#1 It's not written in public record

So? Are you claiming that it is some sort of secret that theft exists? That people don't know that there is a possibility their car might get stolen when they buy it?

#2 you were not
compensated.

Ok, so I leave you with whatever I decide just compensation for your car is. Maybe a tootsie roll, or a No 2 Pencil.

#3, it was not for some public good which includes you

If the money I make from stealing your car is put back into the economy by way of consumer spending then it certainly is.

Sorry, you're projecting things that aren't true. The system is specifically built in this case to differentiate property from citizen.
If that's the crux, then good news, it's true, they are different, and treated differently.

Good, then you can understand that this percieved collective decision regarding anything cannot be percieved as the decision of an individual within the society.

We disagree here because you are claiming that ignorance of the law is a sufficient defense in all cases. That's a hard hill for you to attempt to climb, and I can assure as a general concept, it will not change. do you really want to argue that?

I never claimed that ignorance of the law was a sufficient defense for anything. I claimed that a law which initiates force is unjust, and that one against whom it is applied is justified in the use of force or fraud to defend themselves against it. Just as it is unjust to initiate the use of force or fraud to steal a car, but it is justified to use force or fraud to defend yourself and your property from car thieves.

 

[Ethereal]

Which is a principle that in and of itself, both libertarians, moderates, and liberals would agree with. The problem is that it’s like fundamentalist religion for libertarians and thus pragmatism is cast aside even when reason calls for it. For example, taken to the extreme, such a philosophy prevents any sort of effective environmental protection. In fact, the only environmental protection it would allow for would be when the environmental damage is so several that an adjacent property owner could sue for damage to their property.

There is plenty of room for pragmatism and environmentalism within libertarian ideology. We do assert property rights quite vehemently but it can be argued that pollution and ecological destruction are infringements of one's rights in so far as they result in the unwilling ingestion of poison and the like. Most libertarians are not so extreme that they would condone a massive outpouring of pollution in the name of property rights. It's all a matter of interpretation, there are, however, some issues which, most libertarians would argue, require no interpretation.

It also precludes popular soverenity a principle necessary in any democracy.
So yes, while everyone other than social and authoritarian conservatives would agree with the basic principle that your right to live your life the way you choose to extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same, most people (other than hard core libertarians) would also recognize that there is such a thing as a “commons”.

The idea of individual sovereignty does not preclude popular sovereignty. As long as popular sovereignty operates within the confines of the Constitution no libertarian would take issue with it.

 

[Panache]

The idea of individual sovereignty does not preclude popular sovereignty. As long as popular sovereignty operates within the confines of the Constitution no libertarian would take issue with it.

Really? I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the constitution. I know of few Libertarians who take no issue with Eminant domain, the war on drugs, welfare, universal healthcare, etc...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Wow... I unsubscribed to this thread a bit after I created it because I thought it was dead... What an interesting debate. I don't know where to start...

 

[Ethereal]

Really? I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the constitution. I know of few Libertarians who take no issue with Eminant domain, the war on drugs, welfare, universal healthcare, etc...

Those who interpret the Constitution in this way are sorely mistaken. Simply because one labels themself a libertarian does not make it so.

 

[Panache]

Those who interpret the Constitution in this way are sorely mistaken. Simply because one labels themself a libertarian does not make it so.

I am not sure I understand your response. Are you saying that you support all these things? Or are you saying that they are all specifically addressed in the constitution?

 

[Kushinator]

no, the world is very different today and the interconnectivity of human behavior, particularly economic behavior, means an ideology basically designed for agrarian land estates is unworkable.

Due to the fact that a much more advanced means of communication exists, protection from ones government is non-important? If anything, advanced technology obtainable and/or even created by government allows for greater opportunity for it to spy as well as attempt to control its citizenry.

Enlightenment style libertarianism is incapable of managing entities like Wal-Mart or Halliburton which due to technological advances are capable of projecting just as much force, and removing just as much "personal sovereignty", as any government.

I beg to differ especially when considering lobbying power. You act as if governmental provision keeps business in check, when reality would dictate quite the opposite. Why is Microsoft allowed to keep its monopoly, when a greater occurrence of competition would inevitably allow greater benefit to the consumer? How about the FDA passing drugs on to the prescription consumer market even though they are falsely advertised (see vytorin)? One can even observe governments ability to arrest, seize property, and imprison an individual on the sole regards of possessing "contraband". Contraband that will not directly harm the population, but instead only the individual.

Whats next, will we be fining people based on metabolic genetics due to the threat of obesity in America?!?.

Saying it's "all about personal choice" is just as ludicrous as when Marxist's say "it's only about material conditions".

Power subjected to the deeds and desires of men will fail to realize its limits. You should thank your lucky stars the founders were quite aware of democratic manipulation, and therefore limited mans ability to make law based on populism. It should be noted the rule of law is subject to interpretation, which is why a federalist based checks and balances system is in place. We are a government based on law. We are not a democracy...

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."- Keynes

Care to explain why black markets and organized crime thrive in area's where governmental control is the strongest? For a more recent example, the Chicago drug gang wars...

 

[Dezaad]

One of the areas where I disagree with Libertarianism is its extreme notions about property rights.

I believe that property, the wealth of the nation, is ultimately owned by the people in common, and that a system of rights to it are granted to individuals because that is what works to induce people to efficiency and productivity. As a society, We let people own things as a result of their labors because it motivates people to get more stuff, or more money, to own by being more productive, not because there is some intrinsic right to own.

To the extent that private ownership rights leads to inefficiency, society has the right and responsibility to withdraw property rights. Taxation in all its forms is an example of this. Anytime society takes any tax from anyone through the force of law, society is abbrogating individual rights to property which were formerly granted by that society through law. From there it is merely a matter of where to draw the line, but it is of utmost importance that property rights are shown by this to be something far from absolute. In fact, the rights are shown to be quite arbitrary.

Now the libertarian of course recognizes this, except in the most extreme cases (perhaps where libertarianism overlaps anarchism). Yet their drawing of the line at a certain set of property rights and limits is one they hope serves their purpose. But in any case it is still arbitrary. And, the main point is that these limits are an admission that everyone in society has some claim upon the life of the other members of that society.

It is my view that society has a responsibility to see to the general prosperity of the individuals within it by granting limited, rather than absolute, property rights. It is in the fulfillment of this responsibility that society serves all the needs of its members including individual desire for liberty.

Despite the fantasies of free market extremists, free markets do lead to inefficiencies that compound over time. Society, through government, is the only mechanism to correct these inefficiencies. Without this correction, free markets fail, along with the governments that protect liberties, and become exceedingly inefficient.

It is my view that Liberals embody the correct balance of free market government intrusion so as to maximise and preserve individual liberty.

 

[Mach]

Wow... I unsubscribed to this thread a bit after I created it because I thought it was dead... What an interesting debate. I don't know where to start...

Well get on it!
Start at the top, I asked a few general questions to you in post #3

I was wondering, you're not the type to drop and run, especailly on this subject! Glad you re-discovered it.

-Mach