Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Computer Sci

Why do these self-styled and self-proclaimed Libertarians,

(1) Drive to work on government funded roads?
(2) Use the internet, which relies on government funded antenna, signalling systems and electricity lines?
(3) Drink water from taps, when the water reaching their taps was the result of government funded pipelines?
(4) I’m assuming they don’t have solar panels attached to their roofs –why do they power their homes, or flick the switch when it’s government sponsored power stations and infrastructure that got it there in the first place?
(5) Get university educations in government sponsored universities. Ironically, that’s where many of the loudest anarchist and libertarian barks come from – behind university walls and in academia, the same institutions which are supported by the state much of the time.

I could go on with examples – and there are many more of them. So I am seriously wondering, if they are so independent and anti-government why don’t they just put up or shut up – pack up their bags and go and live in the wilderness in Siberia or the Sahara Desert to carve out a new life for themselves – free of government intervention. They could provide themselves there with their own (1) Energy, (2) Drinking Water, (3) Healthcare system, (4) Infrastructure, (5) Internet, (6) Emergency services etc.

Or are they all talk. Do they realise perhaps that deep down that they are nothing more than verbal warriors who can afford to talk nonsense – given that they are safely situated within the confines of civilisation – and that if they were to actually go and live in the wilderness, that they would not last more than a day?

pragmatic1

Nope. It would turn into hell after a week.

rubensni

TPD wrote: »

That's like that time I wouldn't pay for a plane ticket and wasn't allowed on the plane. Outraged, so I was!

Silly analogy as flying is discretionary, but putting out fires is everyone's business.

Simple question: Would you agree with the 'no pay = no spray' system being adopted by your local fire brigade, yes or no?

PeakOutput

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

If Ireland were to become libertarian there would be no dole, no public health service, and no public schooling. .

That is not true at all but you keep believing whatever you want

'Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.[1] Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs and organizations—all advocate either the minimization or the elimination of the state, and the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.'

Nothing there about not helping the vulnerable. You can have a socially libertarian society (personal freedoms, minimum intrusion from the goverment in day to day lives of people who dont want it) while still have policies and systems in place to help people reach a specific standard of living.

I think I should be able to do whatever the **** I want as long as it dosn't hurt anyone else. That is libertarian. I also believe that center right economic policies are the correct ones. This means as free a market as possible (not the same as no regulation). Lack of regulation can harm people therefore it is not a libertarian ideal. There should be the bare minimum of regulation so that everyone is treated fairly and rewarded on merit and nobody can be taken advantage of, thats it. Taxes that should be taken should be the minimum possible amount to run the goverment with enough money to help the worst of in society by providing the minimum needed to live, providing them with healthcare to live long lives and providing them with education to better themselves and therefore not rely on the state anymore.

I don't believe the goverment should stop me doing drugs, having sex with who i want, gambling my money in any way i want prevent me from travelling were I want or forcing me to do anything basically.

saying that libertarians believe in absolutely no goverment or controls of any kind is the same as saying that anyone on the left wants us all to work for the same wage live in the same types of house drive the same types of cars and eat the same food. simply not true

Big Nasty

I find this attitude very laissez-faire! :pac:

Hookah

Dean0088 wrote: »

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain?

What sort of sick society are you advocating?

Balmed Out

RockinRolla wrote: »

ancient Ireland was libertarian, everything you see today stems from the British .

Remember Brehon Law from school ?

Prior to English rule, Ireland had its own indigenous system of law dating from Celtic times, which survived until the 17th century when it was finally supplanted by the English common law. This native system of law, known as the Brehon law, developed from customs which had been passed on orally from one generation to the next. In the 7th century AD the laws were written down for the first time. Brehon law was administered by Brehons (or brithem). They were the successors to Celtic druids and while similar to judges; their role was closer to that of an arbitrator. Their task was to preserve and interpret the law rather than to expand it.


etc etc from
http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/3CBAE4FE856E917B80256DF800494ED9?opendocument

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon_law

whiteonion

I myself would love to see AK47-wielding chieldren high on crack, down with the nanny state!

dizzywizlw

Stateless society is a dream born of naive intellectualism, a product of a system of thought that scoffs at the self-serving nature of mankind and ignores the pre-eminence of biological imperatives.


Of course I just call them Pinkos but whatevs.

PeakOutput

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Stateless society is a dream born of naive intellectualism, a product of a system of thought that scoffs at the self-serving nature of mankind and ignores the pre-eminence of biological imperatives.

good thing thats not what anyone is looking for so

RMD

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sleeping with a prostitute is rape if you don't pay?

What. the. fúck?

I prefer to call it shoplifting. Doesn't sound as sleazy.

HavingCrack

Left Libertarianism-Yes
Right Libertarianism-Definately No

RockinRolla

Computer Sci wrote: »

No it most certainly was not, it was quiet hierarchical and due deference was paid to higher ranking clan chieftains and nobles. Druids in particular were highly esteemed and respected members of Ancient Ireland - particularly regarding social, moral and diplomatic issues.

Could you (I'm thinking that maybe you are American) stick to your Montana Militia, Ayn Rand and Chicago School of Economics ideologies, agenda and outlook, and stop trying to rewrite, or retell the history of other countries to suit your own agenda.

Oh for goodness sake, would you please do a bit of research before derailing a topic that is universally debated to death and accepted.

“For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has writ*ten: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforce*ment of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice.”9

How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Often, two or more tuatha decided to merge into a single, more efficient unit. As Professor Peden states, “the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension.”10 In short, they did not have the modern State with its claim to sovereignty over a given (usually expanding) territorial area, divorced from the landed prop*erty rights of its subjects; on the contrary, tuatha were voluntary associa*tions which only comprised the landed properties of its voluntary mem*bers. Historically, about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland.

But what of the elected “king”? Did he constitute a form of State ruler? Chiefly, the king functioned as a religious high priest, presiding over the worship rites of the tuath, which functioned as a voluntary religious, as well as a social and political, organization. As in pagan, pre-Christian, priesthoods, the kingly function was hereditary, this prac*tice carrying over to Christian times. The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.

Again, how, then, was law developed and justice maintained? In the first place, the law itself was based on a body of ancient and immemorial custom, passed down as oral and then written tradition through a class of professional jurists called the brehons. The brehons were in no sense public, or governmental, officials; they were simply selected by parties to disputes on the basis of their reputations for wisdom, knowledge of the customary law, and the integrity of their decisions. As Professor Peden states:

… the professional jurists were consulted by parties to disputes for advice as to what the law was in particular cases, and these same men often acted as arbitrators between suitors. They remained at all times private persons, not public officials; their functioning depended upon their knowledge of the law and the integrity of their judicial reputations.11

Furthermore, the brehons had no connection whatsoever with the individ*ual tuatha or with their kings. They were completely private, national in scope, and were used by disputants throughout Ireland. Moreover, and this is a vital point, in contrast to the system of private Roman lawyers, the brehon was all there was; there were no other judges, no “public” judges of any kind, in ancient Ireland.

It was the brehons who were schooled in the law, and who added glosses and applications to the law to fit changing conditions. Furthermore, there was no monopoly, in any sense, of the brehon jurists; instead, several competing schools of jurisprudence existed and competed for the custom of the Irish people.

How were the decisions of the brehons enforced? Through an elabo*rate, voluntarily developed system of “insurance,” or sureties. Men were linked together by a variety of surety relationships by which they guaran*teed one another for the righting of wrongs, and for the enforcement of justice and the decisions of the brehons. In short, the brehons them*selves were not involved in the enforcement of decisions, which rested again with private individuals linked through sureties. There were vari*ous types of surety. For example, the surety would guarantee with his own property the payment of a debt, and then join the plaintiff in enforcing a debt judgment if the debtor refused to pay. In that case, the debtor would have to pay double damages: one to the original cred*itor, and another as compensation to his surety. And this system applied to all offences, aggressions and assaults as well as commercial contracts; in short, it applied to all cases of what we would call “civil” and “crimi*nal” law. All criminals were considered to be “debtors” who owed restitution and compensation to their victims, who thus became their “creditors.” The victim would gather his sureties around him and pro*ceed to apprehend the criminal or to proclaim his suit publicly and demand that the defendant submit to adjudication of their dispute with the brehons. The criminal might then send his own sureties to negotiate a settlement or agree to submit the dispute to the brehons. If he did not do so, he was considered an “outlaw” by the entire community; he could no longer enforce any claim of his own in the courts, and he was treated to the opprobrium of the entire community.

http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/murray-rothbard-a-libertarian-society/





And if you're thinking I'm American, you're even more ignorant than I first thought. I'm Irish and just like ancient Ireland, I'm completely anti-state/free market and quite educated on the issue to be clear. But the one jibe that I couldn't resist quoting was your reference to Ayn Rand - no one well versed on the subject would list this in advance of Rothbard, Friedman, Von Mises and Hayek. They are different, I assure you.


Good day.

Capt'n Midnight

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sleeping with a prostitute is rape if you don't pay?

What. the. fúck?

Oddly enough it is legal in Ireland to pay for sex.

What happens if you pay first but don't get the sex ?

Is the contract legally enforcable ? expecially if the money has been spent and there is no possibilty of recovering it.

Capt'n Midnight

Computer Sci wrote: »

So I am seriously wondering, if they are so independent and anti-government why don’t they just put up or shut up – pack up their bags and go and live in the wilderness in Siberia or the Sahara Desert to carve out a new life for themselves – free of government intervention.

Somalia is a desert country ...

Capt'n Midnight

TBH Libertarians sound like Mé Feinners

the sort that don't want to pay for health insurance because they don't need it now

most of us don't want to spend the rest of our lives making money or having to continuously make decisions that are about making/saving money.

Is it OK for the rest of us to have a simple life instead of a system where a few go ahead people can profit by playing the systems that the rest of us don't really want to learn about ?

PeakOutput

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the sort that don't want to pay for health insurance because they don't need it now

clearly you dont understand libertarianism very well then

most of us don't want to spend the rest of our lives making money or having to continuously make decisions that are about making/saving money.

what has that got to do with anything?

Is it OK for the rest of us to have a simple life instead of a system where a few go ahead people can profit by playing the systems that the rest of us don't really want to learn about ?

The system should help you to live whatever life you like thats the point


edit; I notice that everyone is jumping on ron paul because they think he is saying he dosnt want there to be goverment or laws or a social justice system when he never said anything of the sort. he is talking about the american system which has a federal goverment that controls the federation of the individual states. most of what he says has got to do with that system and how it is fundamental to that system that the federal goverment should not have any say in anything that the states can decide for themselves (legalising drugs for example, seatbelt laws are another example)

That system is not the one we have so a lot of what he says cannot be applied to here. The only way to compare what he says to here is by considering ireland as one state in a union of many states(the eu for example). he is arguing that ireland has the right to make its own laws first, after that it is his opinion that those laws should not unnecessarily encroach on an individuals freedoms.

Capt'n Midnight

Computer Sci wrote: »

pack up their bags and go and live in the wilderness in Siberia or the Sahara Desert

Then again what would happen if the communists took over the Sahara?

For 5 years, nothing would happen. And then there would be a shortage of sand. :pac:

RockinRolla

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

TBH Libertarians sound like Mé Feinners

the sort that don't want to pay for health insurance because they don't need it now

most of us don't want to spend the rest of our lives making money or having to continuously make decisions that are about making/saving money.

Is it OK for the rest of us to have a simple life instead of a system where a few go ahead people can profit by playing the systems that the rest of us don't really want to learn about ?

It's no a system as such, more like dismantling the current system that interferes in your life at every turn. For example, government stop the poor from earning a living - yes, a person can mind a neighbours child but if he/she decides to accept money for a minding a few children (child-minding is expensive these days) then the government come down on them like a tonne of bricks because they don't have an government issued licence. Absolute rubbish.

Government has monopoly privileges over businesses and take away your hard earned money via a tax system for as they say "the public good" which basically means, subsidising wealthy industries that you may not even benefit from. A person who decides and takes responsibility for their own body i.e - to consume cannabis or other drugs has that right in the privacy of his/her own home instead of some civil service thug coming onto your property and arresting some kid and putting them in prison - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Live and let live. Government intervention destroys economies - look at ours. Bank guarantees ect - those banks should have been allowed to fall. In a libertarian world, you wouldn't be paying any tax to prop up these zombie establishments. There wouldn't be a Euro either for our economy to live and die on - their would be countless private currencies. banks would spring up all over the place if they had gold reserves. The boom bust cycle is a direct cause of government coercion, not the free market. So don't let those socialists tell you any different. Government print money at will and inflate prices - yet they throw anyone else in jail for doing the same thing.

Governments are dangerous. A hazard to your life and your prosperity.

Technique

The countries of the world raked by economic freedom. Not an exact science, but I'd rather be living near the top of the list than the bottom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Somalia is a Libertarian's wet dream.

Somalia is an anarchy. In a Libertarian society, governments main objective would be to protect your (and everyone else's) rights. An army would be provided to defend the country from external attack. A police force would be provided to protect the safety and security of the individuals and businesses and a court system would be provided to prosecute law-breakers ONLY where the law forbids the transgression of anothers rights, and if there is a specific victim to complain that they have been wronged.

None of this exists in Somalia.

FlutterinBantam

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a9549ZeqQ

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

No horse, I wouldn't.

Why?


Because you will get wasters , who will ride the system up to the root in the hole.

Because you will get idiots who think they can exist on their own , on a fucking windswept rock in the North Atlantic, but who in reality only want others to support their 'alternative' lifestyle.


Recognise anyone in there buddy?:rolleyes:

RockinRolla

SeanW wrote: »

Somalia is an anarchy. In a Libertarian society, governments main objective would be to protect your (and everyone else's) rights. An army would be provided to defend the country from external attack. A police force would be provided to protect the safety and security of the individuals and businesses and a court system would be provided to prosecute law-breakers ONLY where the law forbids the transgression of anothers rights, and if there is a specific victim to complain that they have been wronged.

None of this exists in Somalia.

Contrary to mainstream belief, Anarchy per se is not total chaos. I, for example, am a Libertarian Anarchist. Which means that I totally agree that armies, police services and courts can all be provided by the market for cheaper and with a better quality service. In fact, there are no legitimate functions of the State. Anarchy is highly organised - it is governed by the rule of law i.e - property rights.

In Somalia's case, there are no laws at all which is fundamentally different to Anarchy. Just like the Old West, Anarchy was governed by the rule of law. The people that lived in the region during those times developed a system of justice. Anarchism is not to be believed as some kind of total chaos - indeed, Libertarianism advocates freedom but they are quick to agree that freedom cannot be enjoyed without the law as having no consequences with the murder of someone else is not freedom. It's a tricky issue at first, but it is one that's important to understand. Anarchy is not what the majority assume or imply.

rubensni

RockinRolla wrote: »

Which means that I totally agree that armies, police services and courts can all be provided by the market for cheaper and with a better quality service.

You totally agree, as in you don't see any possible drawbacks with private sector companies having their own armies, never mind having their own police forces, or courts.

K-9

I don't think libertarians can even agree on what they mean by it, to some it means very little state intervention, RockinRolla's vision of private armies and police services would be the extreme example, bit like Communism for left wingers.

Tbh even the more realistic options seem very much "every man for himself" type stuff with the market as God. If anything goes wrong it never is the market's fault, it's the lack of regulation or lack of enforcement.

It seems a win, win situation to me. Anything good happens it's due to the market, anything bad, big Government's fault.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Somalia is an anarchy. In a Libertarian society, governments main objective would be to protect your (and everyone else's) rights.
...
None of this exists in Somalia.

actually it does, what doesn't exist is a country wide government, instead it's done on a clan level in most areas but more centralised in Puntland

http://mrgnc.blogspot.com/2011/03/who-gets-paid-when-pirates-plunder.html

It takes a substantial amount of capital to outfit a pirate operation. Motherships (larger craft which carry smaller vessels far out to sea from which they are launched) , skiffs, communications, arms, fuel, and other supplies are necessary as the pirates scour the oceans for their prey. “Like master puppeteers,” financiers and operators including “business and political figures, some with fishing assets, within the region and without” provide the investment. The capital is not necessarily secured before the operation. If not, “then one or more financiers are found to underwrite the costs” after a successful hijacking. A return of thirty percent can be expected. (Eichstaedt 57).

Pirate “stock exchanges” have become a way not only to finance operations but also to improve ties with locals by opening the door to their involvement, be it through contributing cash or weapons. One former pirate boasted that “we’ve made piracy a community activity.” (Ahmed). It is reported that there are currently seventy two “maritime companies” with shares traded in Harardheere alone. Besides locals, members of the vast Somali diaspora is involved in these investments (Ahmed).

The pirates themselves are “foot soldiers” rented out as teams to organizers who transport them to temporary coastal bases. With few other employment options available there is an abundant supply of Somalians who “serve as a labour pool that can be called upon when needed” (Murphy 128). The pirates can be categorized according to their area of expertise. There are ex-fishermen whose navigation and other seagoing skills make them “the brains of the operation.” On shore there are ex-militiamen who provide armed protection of pirate bases and hostages. With the country having been fought over by warlords for almost twenty years, there is plenty of such “muscle” for hire. Third, there are the “technical experts,” who run the “hi-tech equipment needed to operate as a pirate - satellite phones, GPS and military hardware” (Hunter).

Usually about a dozen of these “grunts” are hired for an attack at the cost of “about five thousand dollars per day,” with an average total operation cost of up to $150,000 (Eichstaedt 62). If a ship is successfully hijacked and ransom paid, each pirate can expect a return of about $10,000. A percentage of the ransom may also go to militias on the ground either for protection of safehouses and bases or merely as a “port tax.” Local communities may charge up to “$100,0000 or more just for the right to … anchor a ship offshore” (Eichstaedt 62). Furthermore, “local merchants sell food and supplies to pirates at outrageously high prices,” such as a can of Coke for $10 (62).

also look at this https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Xeer
for an example of how Somali law works

Law and, consequently crime, are defined in terms of property rights. The law is compensatory rather than punitive. Because property rights requires compensation, rather than punishment, there is no imprisonment, and fines are rare. Such fines as might be imposed seldom exceed the amount of compensation and are not payable to any court or government, but directly to the victim. A fine might be in order when, for example, the killing of a camel was deliberate and premeditated, in which case the victim receives not one but two camels. Fines figure in another interesting way. It is expected that a prominent public figure such as a religious or political dignitary or a policeman or a judge should lead an exemplary life. If he violates the law, he pays double what would be required of an ordinary person. Also, since the law and crime are defined in terms of property rights, the Xeer is unequivocal in its opposition to any form of taxation.[6]

RockinRolla

rubensni wrote: »

You totally agree, as in you don't see any possible drawbacks with private sector companies having their own armies, never mind having their own police forces, or courts.

I welcome a debate about the issue and I assure you that I am not picking ideas out of thin air. I've researched the area quite extensively and even though others may not agree fully, I'll be honest and played with the theory for quite some time myself. However, I've been convinced that private enterprise in the Free market can provide all of these things at a better quality and cheaper price to the consumer.

For example, the reason young men and women are not falling all over themselves to join the army is because of the pay. In fact, a hired military is very feasible if the proper amount of pay is available and offered. This can be done in the Free Market. The market will dictate the pay of these individuals. If the government does not pay them well, then there is no national defense - if the market dictates that these people will be paid €100/hour (purely example) then the army won't be able to handle the amount of applications.

The police - there are literally hundreds of books on this subject. In a truly Libertarian society, roads would all be privatised. This means that the owners of those roads would be responsible for the security of the patrons on those roads - if there is not protection while shopping or even in a residential area, then people will just go elsewhere to a place with more security. For example, the Gardai cannot patrol your area all night but private guards can if contracted. However, with government laws, these private guards cannot legally arrest a thief but they do provide better protection. In all, the owners of those roads have a financial and economical incentive to provide trust-worthy and friendly security that have your interests at heart as they're being paid by you, the consumer as opposed to civil service thugs that receive funding from faceless taxpayers.

The courts have already been debated in this thread. In ancient Ireland, Brehon Law was purely private and not provided by the State in any way, shape or form. Private courts also have a financial motivation to be credible in the marketplace.

I invite you to dive deeper into the discussion. I'm sure when you read about it, you will find yourself agreeing more and more with the Free Market and Libertarianism. The end result is that government is a coercive and dangerous entity with no legitimate functions. In ending, they're a menace to society.

Aurum

I really wish people would stop calling for a new Constitution when they clearly haven't got a clue about the provisions of the current Constitution.

PeakOutput

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think libertarians can even agree on what they mean by it, to some it means very little state intervention, RockinRolla's vision of private armies and police services would be the extreme example, bit like Communism for left wingers.

Tbh even the more realistic options seem very much "every man for himself" type stuff with the market as God. If anything goes wrong it never is the market's fault, it's the lack of regulation or lack of enforcement.

It seems a win, win situation to me. Anything good happens it's due to the market, anything bad, big Government's fault.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with economics and the market why is that so difficult for people to understand? It is very clear that peoples views of libertarians are skewed because of who gets called one in the united states. The political compass goes 4 ways not two

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Being far left and authoritarian leads to communism and being far right and authoritarian leads to fascism. as far as i know there has been no really libertarian modern society so we dont know what either left or right leads to when coupled with it

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

actually it does, what doesn't exist is a country wide government, instead it's done on a clan level in most areas but more centralised in Puntland

what has that got to do with anything? it is nothing like libertarianism

HavingCrack

RockinRolla wrote: »

Contrary to mainstream belief, Anarchy per se is not total chaos. I, for example, am a Libertarian Anarchist. Which means that I totally agree that armies, police services and courts can all be provided by the market for cheaper and with a better quality service. In fact, there are no legitimate functions of the State. Anarchy is highly organised - it is governed by the rule of law i.e - property rights.

.

To be honest I would disagree that what you're calling is really anarchy as I would understand it. It sounds much closer to anarcho-capitalism which most classical anarchists would not consider anarchism at all. The idea of property rights would be anathema to most classical anarchists.

Under true anarchism nobody really 'owns' anything, at least not in the way that we currently understand it.

Have a look at the anarchist communities that existed in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War or the Shinmin area of Korea or the Cristina area of Copenhagen to see what I would consider real anarchism.

Referring to anarcho capitalism as anarchism is a tad disingeneous I feel.