We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Democratic Options for Workers Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2095
Description[?]:
| Unless otherwise instructed to do so, I'm not adding a description. It seems to be a debate of philosophy rather than specifics on this one. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:12:21, August 03, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Mark |
| Date | 16:41:43, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | How would any decision be made in these so called democratic workers councils? If they have to decide whether to by iron ore now or to buy it tomorrow, how do they decide? If they get it wrong and the industry starts to fail, who gets sacked? How would a change of policy to recuperate a failing industry be possible without a change of leadership? Why do people think that real management is unnecessary when historical evidence shows that the only successful form of running an industry is to have a strong and competent management team? We oppose this laughable and childish proposal. |
| Date | 17:51:02, August 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | What historical evidence? The Spanish Revolution is testament to the increased efficiency that worker controlled industry brings. Besides, workers deserve to own their means of production, they deserve to not have leeches suck away and exploit them, they deserve to not be wage slaves. |
| Date | 19:02:38, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | If they feel that they are being "exploited", if they feel their wages are not high enough, they are free to quit and search for higher pay. If a "workers council" chooses to create a business, they are free to do so. However, we should not take away a business from its rightful owner to do this. Nor should we shield the "workers council" business from more competent competition. |
| Date | 23:12:59, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Workers, like the rest of humanity, deserve what they obtain. Of course as soon as a worker becomes a bosss, they no longer deserve it. Pathetic. |
| Date | 00:46:51, August 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | "If they feel that they are being "exploited", if they feel their wages are not high enough, they are free to quit and search for higher pay." That is a wage slave looking for a better slave driver - no workers will be paid the full cost of the work they did, because that's the only way corporations make a profit. "If a "workers council" chooses to create a business, they are free to do so. However, we should not take away a business from its rightful owner to do this. Nor should we shield the "workers council" business from more competent competition." Let's level the playing field then, and see who's really more competent. The established corporations already have years of making money off the backs of the workers, they have an extremely unfair head start, and we're rectifying that. |
| Date | 02:38:02, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | The playing field is level. If you have an idea, and you are willing to work hard to make it work, you can become a boss. What you are wanting is that tyhose that don't have the ideas, or are not willing to work hard are carried on the shoulders of the inspired and tireless to the same heights as those more equal men can obtain. Great way to send the message, "don't bother thinking or trying, you'll just be a sucker if you do". |
| Date | 06:58:37, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | I see a "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" mentality here... Wage slave is a misleading term, slavery implies that one has no choice in the matter. In fact, workers have always been permitted to quit or change jobs. In Lodamun, they can also join unions and refuse to work by striking. If management refuses to pay workers the agreed-upon amount, the workers can sue for breach of contract. "Let's level the playing field then, and see who's really more competent. The established corporations already have years of making money off the backs of the workers, they have an extremely unfair head start, and we're rectifying that." Who gave you the right to "rectify that". What you are, albeit incorrectly, referring to is the idea that, in the past, workers have voluntarily allowed themselves to be "exploited"(which we believe you say in reference to "be utilized by a business in earning a profit"). Any "unfair head start" consisted of offering workers wages that they were willing to accept, providing the workers with suitable tools, resources, and capital, and going into business in an attempt to earn more than was spent. Your attempt to "rectify" it can only mean seizing what is the legal property of someone, and giving it to someone else that you feel "deserves" it more, whether or not they have any legal claim to it. I would love to "level the playing field". That would consist of removing all the entrepreneurs and businesspeople from society where they are apt to "exploit" others. If, and only if, they consented to this, they would be removed and allowed to form their own society(completely independent of their former one). We predict that, should this ever occur, the rest of the world would sorely miss their talents and intellect. We predict that, should this ever occur((as it does in "Atlas Shrugged")), the rest of the world will beg for their return, and, lacking them, come crashing down in a complete social, economic, and political collapse. The "workers" do not need the objects that the companies and entrepreneurs own. They do not need the physical materials. What they need is their minds. They require the productive genius of those that they are employed by. "That is a wage slave looking for a better slave driver" Any capable workers that agree with this are free to go into business for themselves...if they can figure out their way through all the socialist "regulations" that is... "No workers will be paid the full cost of the work they did," The full value of the work they did is the wage that the company indicates it is willing to pay them, which they agree to by fulfilling their side of the contract(providing productive labor). "because that's the only way corporations make a profit." The only way any company can make a profit is if their total costs(including labor, natural resources, capital goods, machinery, etc.), exceed their total revenue. If the total revenue is used to pay for labor, there is no hope of a profit and no reward for the productive intellect and work provided by the management/owners. Nor is there any method/ability of paying for the other raw materials, supplies, and tools required to produce. (( (OOC as this concerns real life:) and before you make any more personal remarks... you may wish to know that, in real life, I earn $8 an hour. My company is a "corporation", Mireles Media, LLC. www.elcinemireles.com My boss is the main owner of the company, she owns 90% of the company(with 2 5% partners), and right now she bears 90% of the losses. Should she earn a profit, I will have no just claim upon a dime of it. She pays me a wage that I agreed upon. She has invested several thousands of dollars in the company, with no guarantee that she will ever see a dime of return on it. I have invested several hours of labor, which I am guaranteed to recieve an agreed-upon wage for. )) |
| Date | 18:33:40, August 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Workers do not have the choice, circumstances force them to work, and circumstances determine the wage they are paid. For companies to make a profit, workers must be paid less than their labour is worth. A worker cannot quit his job and work for another company, because the other company will also pay him less than his labour is worth. The 'contract' you speak of is not a fair contract, the bourgeoisie, as the owners of the means of production, have the power to coerce workers into accepting less than their labour is worth. |
| Date | 19:08:50, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | The value of their labor is determined by that which others are willing to pay for it. Are you suggesting that, if a company runs at a loss, the workers should be expected to pay for it? If they are fully responsible for all profits, are they not equally responsible for losses? "A worker cannot quit his job and work for another company, because the other company will also pay him less than his labour is worth." Of course they can. If a worker is unwilling to work for a certain wage, they will quit their job and look for a better one. If they cannot find a better one, then they have over-estimated the value of their labor. "The 'contract' you speak of is not a fair contract," If this were true, it never would have been voluntarily accepted. When I made $6/hour it was fair, (though my company made a large profit). Now that I work somewhere else and make $8/hour, it is still fair, even though my company operates at a loss. I was not responsible for the profit, I am not responsible for the loss. I am only responsible for my job description. "the bourgeoisie, as the owners of the means of production, have the power to coerce workers into accepting less than their labour is worth." No they do not. Coercion is contrary to capitalism, and any capitalist would prevent it by law. An employer has no such ability to harm an employee if the employee refuses to contract for a certain wage. However, with strike legislation, the worker does have the ability to do so to the employer. If you want to "level the playing field", the "right to strike" must go. As well as all the constricting regulations on business that make it nearly impossible to make a profit. |
| Date | 20:03:24, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | If you want to receive the full benefit of your work, then set up your own business, at your own risk. What are the possible outcomes of this: a - You succeed and you obtain the full benefit b - You fail and receive nothing. It is a gamble, and it is one any worker can take at any time. All they need is the knowledge, idea and determination. They do not need capital as they can persuade venture capital companies to back them, or banks, or even the government. However there is always the possibility of outcome b. Now let us assume that they succeed. They obtain outcome a. Now, however they can not meet the demand working by themself, so they have to start thinking about employing someone. What should they offer this person. The same return as they got? After all the other is risking nothing, did not have the idea, did none of the selling of the idea to obtain backing and a market, but all the same, they have to receive the full bemefit of their labour. What is our honest hard working labourer going to do? We bet that he will do one of two things: 1. Pay less than the full benefit of the work done, or 2. Not bother to employ anyone. There is a market there, they can set up in business themself if they want to. Neither of these gives the uninspired laid back (sort of) worker an opportunity to gain full benefit, and he does not deserve this opportunity. The inspired hard working labourer has the opportunity. What you are suggesting is that we take, by force, the business that the hard working inspiered worker has created and distribute it amongst all workers regardless of their contribution or effort. We can not support any such destruction of our industrial base. Additionally, no answers have been provided regarding how decisions will be taken in these "democratic workers collectives". |
| Date | 20:20:28, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | The "full value of their work" is that which another person is willing to pay them. They do not recieve the "full value of their work", due to government actions known as taxation and inflation. If someone's wages are 10LOD per hour, that is the value of their work. If taxation takes 2LOD from this, they are only recieving part of what they deserve. If you want to give workers the "full value" that they deserve, or whatever, start by reducing taxes and government spending. |
| Date | 21:49:42, August 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Half a measure is worse than no measure. |
| Date | 23:15:20, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | ? sorry but that last comment eludes me... We await a logical, rhetoric-empty, justification on why these "democratic workers councils" are: 1) Morally justifiable 2) Economically feasible 3) Actually able to accomplish their stated goals 4) Beneficial to the "workers" involved 5) Beneficial to the country as a whole 6) In the long term interests of anyone 7) A better option than minimum taxation. Please at least answer some of these. |
| Date | 02:54:40, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | We would also like some definition as to what qualifies as "The commanding heights of the economy and major industry". (( Does this mean that the finance minister is to become a "democratic workers collective" and if so what is Peatling Parva's opinion of this?)) |
| Date | 04:45:34, August 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | 1) Morally justifiable - The workers deserve to own their own means of production and receive the full benefits of the products of their labour. 2) Economically feasible - History has shown that worker control of industry makes it more efficient, and since there are no parasites feeding off the workers, wealth will be better distributed. 3) Actually able to accomplish their stated goals - What stated goals might these be? 4) Beneficial to the "workers" involved - The workers make more money, and reap the benefits of their labour. 5) Beneficial to the country as a whole - Anything that moves toward an egalitarian society will benefit the country as a whole. 6) In the long term interests of anyone - See above. 7) A better option than minimum taxation - Minimum taxation does nothing for the workers. |
| Date | 04:48:02, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Would you care to back any of that up with any real evidence? Preferably before I go dragging up all sorts of evidence that soundly contradicts every part of your last post... |
| Date | 07:07:17, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Let us look at the rhetoric. (Always a fun game) 1) Morally justifiable - The workers deserve to own their own means of production and receive the full benefits of the products of their labour. "The workers deserve" yes they deserve to receive a fair wage, hence the right to strike. They do not deserve to be given anything, no one else was. Fair is fair after all. 2) Economically feasible - History has shown that worker control of industry makes it more efficient, and since there are no parasites feeding off the workers, wealth will be better distributed. Which RL economy is the strongest? Does it or they use this system? Which RL economies use this system? There is no history here at all, what there is is ungrounded theory. 3) Actually able to accomplish their stated goals - What stated goals might these be? Whatever the goals are that they wish to state. 4) Beneficial to the "workers" involved - The workers make more money, and reap the benefits of their labour. Workers make money when someone with money buys what they have to offer. If what they have to offer is labour, then that is what they sell. To be able to sell this there have to be buyers. Under youer system there would be no buyers, just workers, so no money for selling labour. 5) Beneficial to the country as a whole - Anything that moves toward an egalitarian society will benefit the country as a whole. False presumption. Why does stagnant equality benefit a nation? 6) In the long term interests of anyone - See above. Is that an appeal to God? I can not see which above you are referring to otherwise. 7) A better option than minimum taxation - Minimum taxation does nothing for the workers. Except put more money in their pockets for them to use as they wish, including setting up their own business. |
| Date | 02:02:48, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | No answer....Not that one was expected... |
| Date | 22:21:07, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Well at least this will bounce back into debate to give some more time for a reply |
| Date | 05:14:34, August 08, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Sigh. <"The workers deserve" yes they deserve to receive a fair wage, hence the right to strike. They do not deserve to be given anything, no one else was. Fair is fair after all.> So Lodamun has a 100% inheritance tax? People get handouts all the time. The workers are the producers, not the employers, they are the ones that 'create' wealth, they should be able to keep it. <Which RL economy is the strongest? Does it or they use this system? Which RL economies use this system? There is no history here at all, what there is is ungrounded theory.> A RL economy would never be able to use this, we both know that if one attempted this, the Anglo-American capitalist-imperialist world police would destroy their society. This is not ungrounded theory, the Spanish Revolution has proven that democratic communes are as, if not more efficient than private ownership. <Workers make money when someone with money buys what they have to offer. If what they have to offer is labour, then that is what they sell. To be able to sell this there have to be buyers. Under youer system there would be no buyers, just workers, so no money for selling labour.> Labour is not the only thing workers can sell, workers are compelled to sell labour in a capitalist economy because that is all they can sell. Workers can, and if this law is implemented, will sell the products of their labour. |
| Date | 17:52:39, August 08, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | "So Lodamun has a 100% inheritance tax? People get handouts all the time. What's wrong with handouts? What's wrong with someone giving someone else something? No one can "morally" compel someone to give them something, there is no "right" to a gift, that is someone else's property. But if someone dies, their money and property is theirs to dispose of as they wish. "The workers are the producers, not the employers, they are the ones that 'create' wealth, they should be able to keep it." The workers supply labor. The employers supply the workers with wages, and use the labor, along with other resources, to produce a product to sell. The workers cannot do it alone, otherwise they wouldnt get a job and work for someone else. "Which RL economy is the strongest?" Probably the US. "Does it or they use this system?" No. "A RL economy would never be able to use this, we both know that if one attempted this, the Anglo-American capitalist-imperialist world police would destroy their society." A real economy wouldnt be able to use this, because they would destroy their own society with this foolishness and then turn and blame it on others for not preventing it. "This is not ungrounded theory, the Spanish Revolution has proven that democratic communes are as, if not more efficient than private ownership." Then why dont they get used? If a democratic commune is more efficient, why are they never seen? Because they arent more efficient. And even if they were, there is no justification in forcing someone to give up their property for the sake of this insanity. "Labour is not the only thing workers can sell, workers are compelled to sell labour in a capitalist economy because that is all they can sell." What do they have to sell, if not their labor? They own their bodies, they own their labor. All they can provide is their effort and labor. "Workers can, and if this law is implemented, will sell the products of their labour." Assuming there are any products to sell. However, if 100% of the revenue is used to pay workers, then there wont be any capital investment or resources other than labor. The country would end up with labor, and nothing else. Labor would be in over-supply, and become dirt-cheap. |
| Date | 18:14:59, August 08, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | "What's wrong with handouts? What's wrong with someone giving someone else something? No one can "morally" compel someone to give them something, there is no "right" to a gift, that is someone else's property. But if someone dies, their money and property is theirs to dispose of as they wish." That argument holds about as much ground with us as a biblical one does with an atheist (Which most of our party members happen to be). We do not recognize property rights. "The workers supply labor. The employers supply the workers with wages, and use the labor, along with other resources, to produce a product to sell. The workers cannot do it alone, otherwise they wouldnt get a job and work for someone else." Circumstances, namely the need to feed and clothe themselves and their families, compel them to sell their labour. The workers can, and will do it alone. "Then why dont they get used? If a democratic commune is more efficient, why are they never seen? Because they arent more efficient. And even if they were, there is no justification in forcing someone to give up their property for the sake of this insanity." The reason they are never seen is because they are not in the interests of the ruling elite and the businessmen that bankroll them. "Assuming there are any products to sell. However, if 100% of the revenue is used to pay workers, then there wont be any capital investment or resources other than labor. The country would end up with labor, and nothing else. Labor would be in over-supply, and become dirt-cheap." Why do you assume that the decision making body won't vote to invest in capital or infrastructure? |
| Date | 06:00:41, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | (Deleting my quotes for clarity and length) "That argument holds about as much ground with us as a biblical one does with an atheist (Which most of our party members happen to be)." You do not believe that charity should be legal? Other than that, your "bible comparison" makes no sense to me... "We do not recognize property rights." So you would not be paying your "workers" either, or allowing them to buy things? State dependence for all? "Circumstances, namely the need to feed and clothe themselves and their families, compel them to sell their labour. The workers can, and will do it alone." That's life. Everyone has to give something of value in order to get something of value. If you want to eat, you have to work. "The reason they are never seen is because they are not in the interests of the ruling elite and the businessmen that bankroll them." Of course it isnt in their interests. Because it isnt in anyone's interests. The "workers" will lose their jobs, people will lose their property, and everyone will be equally poor and miserable. "Why do you assume that the decision making body won't vote to invest in capital or infrastructure?" Because they would be foolish to do so. Some workers will definitely prefer to have a larger paycheck, or else slack off so that they get paid more for the actual work they do. Others will envy those workers, and do likewise. Why should they care if the business goes under? It wouldnt be their fault right? They would have a "right" to get paid, anyway. They are going to attempt to maximize their own benefit, who cares about the business? Why invest if they feel the pinch now and there are no guarantees that they wont lose money? |
| Date | 17:10:41, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Where is this Spain that the CNT keeps referring to in their debates. We can not find it on the map. ((OOC rohan - The spanish revolution produced an intensively right wing corporate state. Those companies favoured by Franco thrived and exploited whoever they wished, those which were not favoured disappeared. We suggest you review your history on this. If you are referring to the communes that appeared during the Spanish civil war, then these worked on a very local subsistence level only. They were isolated villages, where most people were related to each other. They were not communist in the sense that you are arguing for, they were far more like the Celtic clan system than any communistic ideal. If you were not related by blood or marriage, you were outcast from these communes. Hardly the ideal situation you are presenting. Additionally these arose from a complete breakdown of social structure and as soon as some overall society was re-established, they disappeared.)) Why are you trying to impose an economic system on a nation when you recognise that this system would fail inb the face of more efficient competition from other nations that use the current system that we have? Do you wish to create misery and poverty for our people? |
| Date | 18:13:19, August 09, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | It's around there somewhere, some believe it's in close proximity to Atlantis. (("In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state. "Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity . . . "This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other." From The Anarchist Collectives, by Sam Dolgoff. The reason these collectives did not last had nothing to do with the establishment of order, it was because they made too many enemies: the PSUC, taking cues from, and armed by the Soviets, who were worried that Spain would slip out of their sphere of influence, and naturally, the Fascists, armed by Hitler and Mussolini.)) |
| Date | 04:38:12, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | Actually in RL many U.S. companies use this system. and to imply the US is successful for the very reason that most don't is rediculous. |
| Date | 14:57:08, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | ((Rohan - try some less biased sources. In almost all civil wars there is collective support in the local community. This arises as the only possibility given the lack of any functioning general social structure. What it does is to provice a basic survival level of existence, nothing more. There is no possibility or provision for any technology development, nor for any improvement in the standard of living. It is simply a mechanism. Additionally you insist on referring to the Spanish Civil War as the Spanish Revolution. It was not a revolution in the sense that you would like to see. We are sure of that. The actual history, not the biased propoganda of Dolgoff, shows that the people involved in these communities were miserable, hungry, scared and on the verge of dying through disease and starvation. Is that what you want for any nation? The reason these collectives did not last is because the people involved in them wanted something better. Try asking the people, rather than the political theorists. Try discovering the eyewitness accounts. Your accusation of fringe communist groups as having the power to dismantle these commuines speaks either of te complete fragility of the system or of political naIvety on your part. The fascists set up a social system that worked, regardless of whether you approved of their ideals or not, they did manage to take a nation that had been decimated by civil war and make it one of the striongest economies in the mediterranean region. History shows your ideals to be unworkable.)) Which system DSP? Democratic Worker Councils? If so please give examples of successful companies that use it. |
| Date | 05:43:08, August 11, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | (("Fringe communist groups?" That made me laugh. the PSUC were the largest party in Catalunya, affiliated to the PCE, the largest party in Spain, and were both financed, armed and taking cues from Stalin's foreign ministry.)) |
| Date | 02:32:38, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Democratic Options for Workers Act |
| Message | I oppose. Democracy is barely compatible with government, let alone big business. this will only lead to increased burecracy and slower decision making. This in turn will lead to higher costs and as such companies may produce losses. If profit is not being made, there will be nothing to reinvest. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 301 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 77 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 72 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's need to think." - Adolf Eichmann |