RoR: Forum

It isn't about Jim. It is about anarchy being presented as if were compatible with Objectivism.

Post 21

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 9:49pm

Theresa:

Unless you can prove his motives to be a dubious attempt to undermine the integrity of this site

I am an Objectivist. I disagree with Rand about one assertion she made, because that assertion doesn't seem to me to mesh with all her other assertions. A few other people who consider themselves Objectivists also agree with me about that point, including people who have posted here before.

I don't consider having what is a minority view amongst Objectivists an attempt to "undermine" Objectivism. I think that having a lively and civil discussion amongst like-minded people, vigorously debating the merits of a controversial idea, strengthens rather than undermines a philosophy, unless that philosophy is built on such a shaky foundation that its principles can't stand up to scrutiny.

Now, if someone came on here and made a statement like, "Objectivism is built on the founding principles of sacrifice of one's interests for the benefit of strangers, obedience to a large, redistributive state, and the notion that there is no such thing as objective reality", that might invite ridicule, but would anyone here seriously think that such a statement "undermines" Objectivism?

Based on my experience with monopoly governance, I feel it is incompatible with Objectivist principles, that you can't have such a government without having it initiate force intended to make individuals sacrifice for others, that a "government" that eschews such an initiation of force is a contradiction in terms, that such a principled refusal to initiate force would make a "government" a non-monopolistic private provider of security services.

I have yet to hear anyone here outline a form of minarchist government that isn't based, as I see it, on some form of initiation of force, however small and inconsequential that initiation might seem.

Most here disagree with what, to me, is a seemingly obvious statement. That is fine. Convince me I am wrong, or convince the owners of this website to ban me, or heap such abuse upon me for pointing this out that I leave, and then you'll have a "pure" site that brooks no dissent on this issue.

Post 22

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 10:27pm

Teresa:

Yeah, I know it is. BUT, I think Jim is more sympathetic to Objectivism than he is antagonistic. Don't you, John?

Perhaps sympathetic, but the more I've interacted with him the more it seemed obvious he actually doesn't really understand much of it. But that's a different issue.

But again, not sure why the 'ban' thing came up. I never used that word or suggested anyone gets banned.

Honestly I don't care enough to keep commenting on this. I have more important things to worry about.

Post 23

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 11:00pm

Here is the quick and dirty question for those who say an Objectivist minarchist government is the only moral form of government:

How are you going to maintain your monopoly, and in particular PAY for your government's operations, without initiating force (i.e., without forcing some to sacrifice for others)?

I don't see any way of paying for such a government that doesn't involve forcing others to sacrifice.

Post 24

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 11:24pm

Steve,

I think it's clear from the quote that the quote is not a quote which can or would be used in order to show or prove any kind of compatibility between Objectivism and anarchism.

Roy Childs purposefully pits the hypothetical Objectivist government against a free market alternative, he doesn't go ahead and say that Objectivism is anarchist.

Ed

Post 25

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:22am

Occasionally after reading a news article or editorial, I take a quick look at some of the comments. What strikes me is how often you can paraphrase what people are saying with the sentence "I want free stuff"! The economic or political "argument" is merely just a way of saying the same thing. Other people have stuff! I want it! I want free stuff! Sometimes I feel like replying to them and saying "Yeah! I want free stuff too!".

Arguments by anarchists come off as equal in intellectual clout. But the catchphrase is "I don't want to pay taxes!". And everything else follows. Sure, that's a little better than "I want free stuff", but not much. And like leftists arguing against private property, they aren't really arguing for a system of their own. The details are always fuzzy and when you try to discuss it with them, they seem to only talk about the problems they think exist in the current system (i.e., they can't have free stuff!). Anarchists will talk about the impracticality of privately funded government, but will have no problem suggesting that 50 competing governments can easily be privately funded. They'll talk about how a single government can be corrupted and violate the rights of individuals, but can't imagine that any of the 50 they dream of would ever be tempted. They can't stand the idea of our government getting involved in international affairs and complain about blowback or how they hate us because of our government, but don't see how 50 governments each doing whatever they feel like might run into related problems. But then, it's never about proving that competing governments is a workable system. It's always simply a way of complaining about a minimal government. "I want free stuff...er...I mean I don't want to pay taxes!".

When you understand that they are against something, and not for something, everything will make a lot more sense. If you point out that any of these random "protection agencies" can initiate force, they put their fingers to their ears and say that you would be free to opt out! You might complain that that is just saying that it won't happen, and there's no justification given for it, and they'll come back with "but there will be a free market!". The nonsense only gets worse as you look deeper, which is why they'll quickly change the topic and complain about how minarchy just doesn't work! It's not about whether competing agencies would work. That's all rationalizations, wishful thinking, and delusions. It's only a placeholder for what they really want. It's the excuse they feel they need to justify their anti-government position. They get to feel that they're being radical and rational at the same time by pretending the thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to poor government is something that makes them smarter and more moral than everyone else.

Several months ago, I attended a party and Bill Dwyer went with. The guy throwing the party was said to be very interested in philosophy and libertarian ideas, and was interested in trying to convert us. Near the end of the party, we finally got a few minutes to talk about this stuff, and turns out he and his group of people were anarchists. He started to try to explain how no government was necessary, etc. Bill was interested in discussing it further (presumably to inform them that there is already extensive literature on the subject and some of the problems), but I tried to end it and leave (he has more patience than I do!). There's nothing interesting or innovative there. If we bothered to demolish their fantasies, they'd just ignore it and talk about the various flaws that various governments have. It's never about anarchy. It's about getting something (freedom) without the need to pay for it (with money or violence). The rest is just a blurry dream that helps them believe that somehow it can all be possible. And if you attack their dream, they'll present it as a dichotomy. Your choice is either statism in its most violent forms, or anarchy, with the delusion that the free market will magically make it all come true! And then they'll tell you why Statism is bad.

Post 26

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:28am

Jim,

... a principled refusal to initiate force would make a "government" a non-monopolistic private provider of security services.

... How are you going to maintain your monopoly, and in particular PAY for your government's operations, without initiating force (i.e., without forcing some to sacrifice for others)?

I don't see any way of paying for such a government that doesn't involve forcing others to sacrifice.

Let's start a Gilligan's Island approach to this. I'll go first, and others can chime in to help finish the task. For starters, it's an island with 7 non-primitive people on it:

--Gilligan
--Skipper
--Ginger
--Mary Ann
--Professor
--Thurston Howell, III
--Mrs. Howell

Let's say Ginger steals and eats a fish catch that Skipper had just made (and which he was planning to eat). Skipper confronts Ginger in front of the others. Skipper says that, after this debacle, there are really only 2 ways forward:

1) everyone individually being a judge, jury, and executioner when anyone crosses them -- which may include Skipper killing Ginger later that night, and eating her flesh as "payback"; or simply out of emotion-filled spite (and may also include getting your throat slit while you sleep, if you created a lot of wealth to be confiscated)

2) everyone agreeing that an Objective Rule of Law, enforced by neither victim nor aggressor, and based on Individual Rights -- is the best solution to productively living together

Let's say they all chose "way forward #2" [note: see below** for an alternate ending with a dissenting Professor].

They write out a Constitution of Gilligan's Island and write down some laws about initiating force or fraud. They agree that the third party called in to settle all disputes will -- having an extra task that goes beyond obtaining personal sustenance -- will necessarily have to take time away from being as productive as the others, but that it's to everyone's rational, long-term interest to contribute to make up for the difference of this person acting like a government, instead of totally living for themselves every minute of the day.

They agree on what it would take to administer justice and everyone chips in for food for the person administering government. Gilligan administers government (for the first year, at least) and, unexpectedly, Ginger follows Skipper to the beach and steals and eats his catch again. Now, Ginger is brought before Gilligan, and Gilligan uses written-down rules to administer justice. Ginger is put into a small, bamboo cage for a week that is partially submerged in water -- as described in the Objective and Transparent Law. After that, she doesn't ever steal again (and Skipper doesn't seek any further retribution).

In time, their idea leads to enormous prosperity and everyone is happy.

The End

**Alternate Endings

Let's say the Professor thought that cut-throat predation on each other (like animals) is the better way forward (way forward #1). The professor had been studying animals and thought that nature should always work out that way (dog-eat-dog) -- even for creatures who not just figuratively, but literally, think for a living. The professor is given a choice to either buy-in to this whole notion of Individual Rights and to pay his portion for Gilligan's sustenance -- or just walk (to the other side of the island, which is currently outside of the jurisdiction of the new government). This leads to 4 endings:

(1) the Professor pays his portion for Gilligan's sustenance and everyone becomes happy.

(2) the Professor says he won't pay his portion for Gilligan's sustenance and that he refuses to leave.

(3) the Professor says he won't pay his portion for Gilligan's sustenance and agrees to leave (and the government never encroaches into the Professor's living space on the other side of the island).

(4) the Professor says he won't pay his portion for Gilligan's sustenance and agrees to leave (and the government ends up encroaching into the Professor's living space on the other side of the island).

Okay, I've set the stage. Endings 2-4 require extrapolation/elaboration. If no one else takes up the task to provide these in the next day or two, then I will go ahead and try to do it myself.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/14, 12:39am)

Post 27

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 6:15am

I think Ed's use of "Gilligan's Island" is totally appropriate as an example of a social microcosm. Sherwood Schwartz, creator of the show, said he intended it to represent a cross section of society, with Gilligan as the youth section, the Professor as the intellectual section, etc. That was clever, Ed.

Post 28

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:42pm

Ed: I was with you up to here:

They write out a Constitution of Gilligan's Island and write down some laws about initiating force or fraud.

Here's where it gets tricky:

Thurston Howell proposes that a third party will have a monopoly on settling all disputes, and that person's judgment will be final -- and, since that person will have an extra task that goes beyond obtaining personal sustenance -- he or she will necessarily have to take time away from being as productive as the others, but that it's to everyone's rational, long-term interest to contribute to make up for the difference of this person acting like a government, instead of totally living for themselves every minute of the day, they should sacrifice and live for others instead of themselves some of the time, and so they should all kick in a supply of food and whatnot to compensate this person who will form a monopoly government. Thurston Howell points out that since he already has a gun, and no one else does, he is the logical candidate to have that absolute monopoly power.

Everyone nods their head at this eminently reasonable-sounding suggestion, except for the Professor, who says this is an EXCELLENT-sounding idea, (with just a touch of mild sarcasm in his voice) except for a few minor points he'd like to resolve up front, just so things don't get sticky in the future:

1) What if the aggressor who is to be judged is Thurston Howell? Not that Thurston would ever let such absolute power go to his head and turn him all tyrannical or anything, or that he is anything but a fine and absolutely trustworthy individual who would never commit a crime, unlike the rest of us n'er-do-wells, but just for the sake of argument, what if?

2) What if someone -- for the sake of argument, let's call him "Professor", just to put a name on it the Professor says, a touch of amusement in his voice -- thinks that a monopoly of ANYTHING is a bad idea, much less a monopoly of force, as has been demonstrated over and over again in places like North Korea or East Germany, and thinks that maybe the better way to handle stuff is using a market process where there isn't a monopoly provider of justice who might let the power go to their head, or start charging too much, or giving shoddy service, or making decisions that most people think are unjust, or whatever? What if one or more of those people decline to participate in this government the rest of you are so eager to entrust to Thurston Howell and his gun? Are you all, as good Objectivists, going to force this person or these people to sacrifice and contribute anyway?

3) And what if everyone else but this Professor guy initially decide to go along with this monopoly governance, but then the rates start seeming too high or the service seems shoddy or the person with the gun seems to be letting the power go to their head -- are you going to let people opt out of this government and go with a different, market provider of justice, or are you going to compel them to sacrifice and stay in this initially voluntary association against their will? If not, why not arrange for a market arrangement for justice upfront, rather than dealing with such hard feelings down the road? He pulls out a copy of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and points to the dog-eared pages describing one such market provision of justice, and says, here's one such alternative to letting the only guy with the gun arbitrate all disputes.

And then MaryAnn, who totally wants the Professor to do her, looks at him with shining eyes and says, "I agree with the Professor. I think we should consider a market provision of justice rather than a monopoly of force backed up by a gun."

The Professor says, "since we don't have a consensus, perhaps we should think about this and let Ed * cough cough * I mean Gilligan come back to us tomorrow and see if he can come up with some reasons why the objections I just raised aren't really a problem."

And then Skipper, who is a BIG fan of "Firefly", looks at the Professor and MaryAnn giving each other the eye and says, "I'll be in my bunk."
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 3/14, 12:46pm)

Post 29

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 1:34pm

Ed,

You are wasting your time. Jim doesn't respond to logic except in just the fashion that Joe's post predicts:
"Anarchists will talk about the impracticality of privately funded government, but will have no problem suggesting that 50 competing governments can easily be privately funded. They'll talk about how a single government can be corrupted and violate the rights of individuals, but can't imagine that any of the 50 they dream of would ever be tempted."

And this: "The nonsense only gets worse as you look deeper, which is why they'll quickly change the topic and complain about how minarchy just doesn't work!"

And this: " If we bothered to demolish their fantasies, they'd just ignore it and talk about the various flaws that various governments have."

And this:"...they'll present it as a dichotomy. Your choice is either statism in its most violent forms, or anarchy, with the delusion that the free market will magically make it all come true! And then they'll tell you why Statism is bad."

Jim continues to make the same logic errors that have been pointed out by Joe, by Rand's quotes, by John's posts, and by my posts.

And he continues to think that he is an Objectivist. Yeah, like an anarchist-Objectivist isn't a contradiction in terms, just like a Catholic-Objectivist, or Socialist-Objectivist would be.

His use of the term 'monopoly' is just another example of a bad logic, and context dropping. "The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field." (Rand) This can only be done by a government or a thug. Jim wants to have competing governments. He appears to unable to imagine how one could ever have a single government limited such that it did not use, or tolerate the use of force to create a coercive monopoly. But somehow he can successfully imagine multiple governments, maybe hundreds of them, and they all somehow strictly avoid the use of force in this fashion, even of behalf of the wealthiest and most economically powerful clients. In his system they somehow avoid even the tiniest coercive monopoly. He might say that the competition between them will take care of that. But that is going back to the stolen concept of competition in a market place where the initiation of force is not prohibited and where there is no common set of laws - in other words not Capitalism but the law of the jungle.

Post 30

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 4:10pm

(<-----enjoying the thought of Joe and Bill going to a party full of anarchists, like a couple o' intellectual crashers. lol)

Post 31

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 4:26pm

John, just so you know -

But again, not sure why the 'ban' thing came up. I never used that word or suggested anyone gets banned.

I never mentioned it, either.

Post 32

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 4:41pm

I disagree with Rand about one assertion she made,

Oh, come on, Gym. You know that isn't true.

strengthens rather than undermines a philosophy, unless that philosophy is built on such a shaky foundation that its principles can't stand up to scrutiny.

No argument from me over that. But this isn't what you're doing. You're ignoring counter arguments and hanging on to a bad idea like a fundamentalist. Its dumb. Why do you do that? Rand doesn't go where you want her to, so you drag her ideas into your stupid religion. Its just dumb.

Based on my experience with monopoly governance, I feel it is incompatible with Objectivist principles, that you can't have such a government without having it initiate force intended to make individuals sacrifice for others, that a "government" that eschews such an initiation of force is a contradiction in terms, that such a principled refusal to initiate force would make a "government" a non-monopolistic private provider of security services.

But, as Joe alluded, 50 competing governments would never do that. Right? I mean, they'd all have the same set of standards, set up by and written in stone by...um... whom, or what, exactly? Lots of folks think sacrifice is a good thing. Can they set up a government to accommodate that principle? How long before a competing government of sacrifice initiates force on its competitors? Not long, I'm sure.

Post 33

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 4:45pm

Speaking of Gilligan's Island and politics, it all reminds me of this: Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization.. Some here might be familiar with the author, Paul Cantor, who has written for the Mises Institute.

Cantor touches on the Gilligan's Island/Constitution idea:

"Focusing on four television shows that together span four decades, Cantor traces a conflicted metamorphosis of American national identity. In the first (and weakest) chapter, Cantor reads the popular sixties sitcom "Gilligan's Island" as a study in "the Americanization of the globe." The program's "fearless crew" is a microcosm of the confident and genial democracy once central to the American imagination. Incorrigibly inept to the undiscerning eye, Gilligan emerges in Cantor's reading as a hybrid of Rousseau's natural man and Tocqueville's democratic citizen, whose amiable conformism and lack of distinction constitute his claim to superiority. Despite the presence of martial skill (the Skipper), wealth (the Howells), knowledge (the Professor), and beauty (Ginger), it's still Gilligan's island. The Pacific locale and the castaways' unfazed resilience convey, Cantor believes, cold war America's "sense of its global mission as the chief representative of democracy." Cantor mars this ingenious ideological reading with an implicit equation of democracy and mediocrity that both echoes Tocqueville's overrated canards about "leveling" and ratifies the self-conceit of the boboisie."
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 3/15, 7:42am)

Post 34

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 4:46pm

Ed,

You are wasting your time. Jim doesn't respond to logic except in just the fashion that Joe's post predicts:
"Anarchists will talk about the impracticality of privately funded government, but will have no problem suggesting that 50 competing governments can easily be privately funded. They'll talk about how a single government can be corrupted and violate the rights of individuals, but can't imagine that any of the 50 they dream of would ever be tempted."

And this: "The nonsense only gets worse as you look deeper, which is why they'll quickly change the topic and complain about how minarchy just doesn't work!"

And this: " If we bothered to demolish their fantasies, they'd just ignore it and talk about the various flaws that various governments have."

And this:"...they'll present it as a dichotomy. Your choice is either statism in its most violent forms, or anarchy, with the delusion that the free market will magically make it all come true! And then they'll tell you why Statism is bad."

Jim continues to make the same logic errors that have been pointed out by Joe, by Rand's quotes, by John's posts, and by my posts.

And he continues to think that he is an Objectivist. Yeah, like an anarchist-Objectivist isn't a contradiction in terms, just like a Catholic-Objectivist, or Socialist-Objectivist would be.

His use of the term 'monopoly' is just another example of a bad logic, and context dropping. "The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field." (Rand) This can only be done by a government or a thug. Jim wants to have competing governments. He appears to unable to imagine how one could ever have a single government limited such that it did not use, or tolerate the use of force to create a coercive monopoly. But somehow he can successfully imagine multiple governments, maybe hundreds of them, and they all somehow strictly avoid the use of force in this fashion, even on behalf of the wealthiest and most economically powerful clients. In his system they somehow avoid even the tiniest coercive monopoly. He might say that the competition between them will take care of that. But that is going back to the stolen concept of competition in a market place where the initiation of force is not prohibited and where there is no common set of laws - in other words not Capitalism but the law of the jungle.

Post 35

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 6:16pm

Jim,

Might I assume your line of thought...

You think anarchy is good because the US was most like anarchy when it began, and the US was very successful, people had lots of economic freedom, and criminal activity was at an acceptably low level. Then the US adopted a federal government, and then you think this is the cause of the downfall of economic freedom.

Hence you think anarchy is best, we should restore the US to that kind of "government".

Might I suggest an alternative cause for the US's downfall of economic freedom:

The US was founded by the greatest minds of the world, who all came here to escape their economically oppressive homeland governments, to come here and live and be and make an economically free society. This is the reason why the US started out very economically free: because the US was full of people who wanted to be economically free. The US was full of people who would individually gain the most by having an economically free society, and hence they made it that way. They didn't need much of a government, because they were already mostly negative rights respecting. Hence your perception that it was anarchy.

Then the US government grew to your dislike. Might I suggest, that the US government didn't grow because its simply a fact that governments grow. Instead, the US government grew because over time there were a greater proportion of socialist US citizens. Yes, we started out with mostly capitalists, but the capitalists were generous. Capitalists hired socialists. Socialists worked, and begged and received donations, and multiplied more rapidly than capitalists. The US government grew as the US's citizens became more socialist.

Hence government is not the root cause or problem. Again, the root of the problem is the socialist citizens, not the government they make. Hence anarchy is not the solution. Having too many socialists in the society you live in is the problem.

Capitalists uniting, and forming a "new world" is the solution. Miniarchy is the preferred government, maintained by the capitalists.

==========

My proposed solution after uniting:

1. Despite that we say the government has the "monopoly on force", what we really mean is the currently appointed government is recognized by the citizens as using force legitimately, and hence the citizens permit the government to use force. Yet if the citizens deem the government is not legitimate, the citizens should be more powerful than the government, abolish it, and create a new.

2. My proposal that voting is not weighted the same per citizen, instead weighted by how much money each citizen puts into an escrow account for the candidate they vote for, if their candidate wins, the government keeps the money, if lose, money returned. This attempts to solve two problems with one solution: It would be a non-force-initiating method for the government to generate income. Additionally, I hope that through this voting system, capitalists can maintain their property rights through their increased voting power. People who create the most wealth have the most wealth needing to be defended, and hence should have the most say in how their property should be defended.

3. Objectivists try to minimize initiation of force through taxation by the government. The government is only permitted to do the core things like determine initiators of force (through evidence provided by prosecution and defense, defense is not provided by government) and how the harmony of interest can be restored. Criminals are held responsible for restoring harmony of interest and executed if they are unable. This can't be too expensive. I'm betting the funding from #2 could pay for this.

4. Then the question of funding war with external powers. Again, I would suggest that for each instance of an aggressive foreign power, people vote as in #2 on whether to retaliate, to what extent to retaliate, and how much to tax income to fund for that instance.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/14, 6:24pm)

Post 36

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 6:21pm

By the way, having nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread, when I lived in Hawaii the house I rented for about 3 years was on the windward side of Oahu, on Kaneohe Bay and not more than 100 yards from my dock was Coconut Island, which was used to film some of the shots for Gilligan's Island (although the bulk of the filming was done back in California in a studio). I used to paddle my kayak around the little island which now houses a university research lab.

Coconut Island is that piece of land just a little to the right of center (its only 29 acres). On the photo it is about an 1" long. My place is hard to see in this picture but it is close to the water, on that house-covered hill that sticks out into the bay on the left. Up close its more attractive.

Here's an aerial photo of the island from the South:

And this is looking over the island, from the West and towards Oahu:

Post 37

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 8:28pm

Jim,

... How are you going to maintain your monopoly, and in particular PAY for your government's operations, without initiating force (i.e., without forcing some to sacrifice for others)?

I don't see any way of paying for such a government that doesn't involve forcing others to sacrifice.

But sacrifice occurs in trade-off where you lose a higher value and get a lower one, it's not necessarily about not getting everything you would want (that would be both subjective and irrational).

For instance, it isn't a sacrifice when a murderer is stopped from murdering someone -- because murder isn't in the murderer's self-interest. To be clear, the murderer is interested in murdering someone, but that's merely an irrational desire (and nothing to build an appropriate ethics on):

To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his is frustrated—is to hold a subjectivist view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not. Which means: to hold an irrational or mystical view of existence. Which means: to deserve no further consideration.

--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-interest.html

In the Gilligan's Island example, it wasn't a sacrifice for the Professor to capitulate and to agree to help to feed Gilligan, because Gilligan was meeting an inescapable need of man in society (the need of rights-based law). By meeting that inescapable need, it turned out to actually be in the Professor's rational self-interest to feed Gilligan -- whether it was his initial preference (desire) or not. Remember, there were only 2 ways forward. One might be called jungle law, and the other Objective (natural) Law.

Ed

Post 38

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 8:33pm

Ed: "In the Gilligan's Island example, it wasn't a sacrifice for the Professor to capitulate and to agree to help to feed Gilligan, because Gilligan was meeting an inescapable need of man in society (the need of rights-based law). By meeting that inescapable need, it turned out to actually be in the Professor's rational self-interest to feed Gilligan..."

Actually, when you consider how many times Gilligan's actions kept them from being rescued, they might have been better off NOT feeding him.... >:)

Post 39

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 9:17pm