|
APRIL 1996 |
|||
|
Had you subscribed, you would have gotten this great information sooner in hard copy form. All you get here are the articles. You are missing all of the notices, lists, photographis, graphics and beautiful layout. Subscribe now! Email DRider@aol.com or call 619/530-1776 Chair's Report As another tax season interferes with my political activities, I ponder how we can rid ourselves of this horrible burden. As I'm sure you know, I'm a CPA and this gives me much greater insight into the problems with the horrendous confiscation of our wealth by the government. As Libertarians, we all want the elimination of the income tax. Of course, the only way this will happen is for the Federal government to shrink immeasurably. Yet I'm somewhat alarmed by the trend of so-called "tax reform." I understand why Libertarians may be attracted to such proposals, but I think our time is much better spent trying to eliminate (through legal political process) the problem rather than reform it. During the last two years, I have spent time discussing the advantages or disadvantages of flat taxes or sales taxes, often with other Libertarians. But quite frankly, I think this futile. Most of the presently proposed reforms SUBSTITUTE our current tax system with either a flat tax or a sales tax. But the real problem is the HIGH RATE OF TAXATION much more than how it is assessed. Any tax that confiscates 20 to 60% of the income is intolerably oppressive. A proposal to substitute a sales tax may have certain advantages, but it will still create huge problems if the rate brings in the same (or nearly the same) "revenue" (read stolen money) as our current tax. So all you would really be accomplishing is substituting one set of horrible problems with another set of horrible problems. Not the same problems, mind you, but big government would still be the result. I do like Harry Browne's proposal, (a maximum and temporary five percent sales tax) but notice that it involves massive cuts in both government spending and taxation NOW. It doesn't just substitute the bad high rate income tax with a bad high rate sales tax or a bad high rate flat tax. It CUTS TAXES immensely. My point is that if you are spending time discussing or campaigning for "tax reform," I hope you'll consider focusing on tax cuts instead. Whether we have a bizarre tax code which eats 40% of the national wealth, or a less bizarre flat tax that eats 40% of the national wealth, or an "easy" (!!) sales tax that eats 40% of the national wealth is immaterial to me. Believe me, so-called reforms to make an easily administered and simple tax are just baloney. No tax can be simple when the dollar amount is huge, because human behavior is complex and people will try (and rightly so) to avoid high taxes. Congress will grant favors to campaign contributors regardless of the form of taxation. (Favored goods can be exempted from sales tax just as easily as favored taxpayers can be granted deductions.) And, flat taxes won't stay flat after a couple elections! (The 1986 tax reform act was supposed to be a flat two-rate system.) Complexity is a given when taxes are high. Yes, I would love to be put in the position of never having to fill out another tax return. My accounting and business talents would be much better used in more productive activities. But that won't happen with either a big flat tax or a big sales tax. It will only happen when the government is minimal and when taxes are nearly or completely non-existent. Let's work toward that end!
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE In an irony lost on Secretary of Veteran Affairs Jesse Brown, he supports compulsory military service for all 18 year olds. This would teach them that "freedom is not free." He notes that the blessings of freedom are the foundation of all else. Washington Post, 11/9/95
DON'T SMOKE MARIJUANA IF YOU HAVE TWO STRIKES According to data from the state Department of Corrections, more than twice as many people have been sentenced for a third strike for a non-violent drug crime than were sentenced for murder, kidnapping or rape. The data shows that 192 people received lengthy sentences for marijuana possession. There were 40 convictions for murder, 25 for rape and 24 for kidnapping. San Diego Union-Tribune 3/7/96
LIMITED FREE SPEECH IN SAN DIEGO Mayoral candidate Loch David Crane was arrested on Thursday, March 14 for picketing the combined Clairemont and Linda Vista Town Council meeting held at the University of San Diego. Mayor Susan Golding was allowed to speak. According to University officials, mayoral candidates were allowed to hand out literature, but not allowed to carry picket signs.
CANADA IMPOSES 80% TAX ON ADS The Canadian government put a law into effect in December taxing advertising revenues a whopping 80% for foreign companies that do "split runs". Split runs are the same magazine with Canada-specific advertising. Sports Illustrated suspended publication of its Canadian edition, but continues to sell its American version there. San Diego Union-Tribune 3/12/96
AUDIT FINDS WORKERS' MISDEEDS One worker at the Dept. of Social Services received $55,200 from improper contracting activities. Another unit in the same department paid employees' family members and friends $79,000, violating state rules on competitive contracting. There were many other problems uncovered. This investigation is due to the 2,300 phone calls to a state whistle-blower hotline. San Diego Union-Tribune 3/6/96
Freeway Trash Pick-up 23 June, 25 August, 20 October and 15 December, 10:00 AM Interstate 15, 1 mile north of Deer Springs Rd. exit, or 6 miles north for Hwy. 78 (near Lawrence Welk Resort) San Diego Libertarians have finally received a permit, valid for two years, to participate in the State of California's Adopt-A-Highway program. Our 2-mile portion of roadway is located on Interstate 15, northbound lane, 1 mile past the Deer Springs Road exit (near Lawrence Welk Resort) - approximately 6 miles north of Hwy. 78. Look for the blue and white LITTER REMOVAL sign on your right. (See map for details.) The stretch of roadway is fairly flat, with no on/off ramps or hills to climb. On the 3rd Sunday of each month, at 11:00 AM, we will meet at the "San Diego Libertarians" sign on I-15 to pick up trash along the northbound lane. If you are scheduling your day, plan on 2 hours for trash pickup, then factor in your travel time. If you plan to participate, here are some rules to remember: * AGE - no one under the age of 11 may participate. * CLOTHING - Cal Trans recommends wearing long pants and sturdy shoes. Orange vests, work gloves, safety helmets and safety glasses will be provided. Sunglasses are permitted in lieu of safety glasses. * PARKING - The large turnout located directly in front of our sign can accommodate several vehicles. No parking is permitted on the shoulder of the roadway. Whenever possible, carpool. * TRASH PICKUP - We will be working in small groups to assure maximum safety and provide the least amount of distraction to oncoming motorists. * BEVERAGES - Water will be available for volunteers. Mary Szterpakiewicz is the Adopt-A-Highway coordinator and Bill Holmes is the alternate for the I-15 site. Those interested in participating in our program, please contact Mary Szterpakiewicz for more information: Tel: 619/432-8032 or szterpak@mailhost1.csusm.edu. See you there!
CONGRESSMEN FILNER and HUNTER TAX CHILDREN'S FAVORITE LUNCH With a callous disregard for their constituents and the children of our nation, U.S. Representatives Bob Filner (D) and Duncan Hunter (R) teamed up in a bipartisan move to support price gouging for peanut butter, jelly, and milk, the basic food groups for children of all ages. Both Congressmen cast pivotal votes against two bills that would have dropped farm crop subsidies, bills that would have dramatically reduced the price of peanuts by $500 million a year and sugar (the main ingredient in jelly) by $1.4 billion a year. They also voted to raise the price of milk by 20 cents per gallon (this third subsidy failed to pass). The San Diego Libertarian Party strongly condemns Bob Filner and Duncan Hunter for their reprehensible votes. Libertarian candidate Phil Zoebisch, running against Filner, said, "In reality these subsidies are a national food tax specifically designed to give windfall profits to a small group of wealthy farmers and agricultural corporations at the expense of working families and their children. About the only thing these two congressmen failed to tax in the kids' all-American lunch was the bread for the `PB&J' sandwich. I bet it was an oversight on their part." Dante Ridley, Hunter's Libertarian opponent, noted that the motive for such votes is political contributions. "Obviously there are no peanut farmers, sugar beet growers or massive dairy operations in their districts. These votes are purchased, plain and simple. These two guys should be the poster boys for P. J. O'Rourke's caustically humorous book on Congress, Parliament of Whores." But Richard Rider, local Libertarian Party activist, saw nothing humorous in the votes of Filner and Hunter. "Often I find that reasonable people can disagree on issues. But sometimes an action is so clearly wicked that no debate is possible. Congressmen Bob Filner and Duncan Hunter are two evil men committing evil acts against the consumers of America. They deserve nothing but disdain and censure from all Americans, regardless of political affiliation." Local LP party chair (and CPA) Steve Green's analysis was more dispassionate. "On the peanut subsidy the vote was 209 to abolish it and 212 against. Filner and Hunter together cast the deciding votes. The subsidy costs consumers $500 million a year. For this huge consumer cost, these two sold their votes for at most $50,000 in contributions, and probably considerably less. Thus for every $1 in campaign contributions that they received from the peanut farmers, consumers will pay over $10,000 in higher prices, year after year."
Press Release from the S.D. Lib. Party, 3/ 5/ 1996 GOOD/BAD GOVERNMENT One of the underlying principles of good gov- ernment is that one city council's vote cannot bind future councils. That is, the current city council cannot make decisions today that will require the next duly-elected council to carry out its whims. Should this principle apply to the issuing of long-term-bonds? Prior to Prop. 13 everyone thought long term bonds required a vote of the people. The current council has signaled its intention to issue the following bonds without a vote of the people: Stadium expansion Convention Center expansion New central library New sports arena Possible new baseball park Multiple species program If we assume, conservatively, that the interest rate on these bonds will not be over 5% per year, this means that over $100. million per year will be required for debt service for the next 30 years. In other words, the next seven city councils will have no discretion over how more than $100 million per year in annual revenues will be spent each year. If a catastrophic earthquake (which CALTRANS deems imminent) hits or just a financial quake, al a Orange County, or any other higher priority arises during the next 30 years, future city councils won't have the use of $100 million a year to deal with such emergencies. It is possible that future city councils will possess the common sense to recognize that it's immoral to subsidize millionaire ball players, and billionaire team owners. Of all the benefits to the city being touted that will result from the issuing of these bonds, no one is suggesting that there will be anything close to an additional $100 million per year in direct revenues accruing to the City of San Diego's bank account. The point to keep in mind is that the cost of these projects is being incurred today (in exchange for votes and political contributions) and not in later years by future councils, during which time the actual payments must be made. In addition, since the $100 million will be going to bondholders and not employers, there will be a loss of $100 million worth of jobs each year for the next 30 years. Fred Schnaubelt, Former Councilman.
CUT WELFARE TO CORPORATIONS HUGE AMOUNTS IN CORPORATE WELFARE REMAIN UNTOUCHED "Eighty-five percent of the corporate welfare safety net survived the 1995 budget process intact," according to Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute. In a recent Cato study, "Ending Corporate Wel- fare As We Know It," Moore and analyst Dean Stansel identified approximately $75 billion in direct taxpayer assistance to American businesses. Testifying today before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which is considering a bill to establish a commission to review corporate subsidies, Moore said, "Congress's first-year performance on the issue of corporate welfare is a mild disappointment.Out of the $75 billion pie, only 15 percent, or about $10 billion to $12 billion was cut." Concerned that the proposed commission could be used as an excuse for congressional inaction, Moore urged Congress to "eliminate corporate welfare immediately by terminating 20 to 25 business subsidy programs." Those programs include the Export-Import Bank, the Small Business Administration, the Market Promotion Program, sugar price supports, the peanut program and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.Moore urged the senators "to weed out corporate welfare wherever and whenever it appears in the budget." "If all federal assistance to business were purged from the budget, the budget deficit could be cut in half," Moore said."Alternatively, this would generate enough savings to entirely eliminate the capital gains tax and the federal estate tax.This would do far more to benefit American industry and U.S. global competitiveness than asking Congress to pick industrial winners and losers." QUOTE The right to life is the source of all rights ... and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Ayn Rand INCOME TAX Wonder why so many presidential candidates and politicians are suddenly calling for the demise of the income tax? Although it was declared unconstitutional for 150 years and proven to be an economic disaster soon after it was implemented, the income tax was retained, because congressmen learned that if they regularly change or threaten to change the tax code every election year, they could expect campaign contributions from those who want tax relief or their tax privileges preserved. Why this sudden change of heart? It has nothing to do with heart. It has everything to do with the fact that the number of non-filers is about 10 million, and climbing at the rate of 1.5 million per year as more Americans engage in a modern version of "Atlas Shrugged," and decline to pay the tax. The IRS files about 3,000 criminal charges per year. At the current criminal prosecution rate, it will take about 500 years to prosecute everyone who stopped filing last year. It will take about 3,000 years to prosecute the entire backlog. Politicians and friends of big government are frantically seeking an alternate means of generating funds: sales, flat or value-added tax, whatever can be foisted on Americans. Since 1972 the Libertarian Party platform has called for the end of income tax and the IRS. Only Libertarian candidates will also reduce the federal government to the extent that there would be no need to replace the income tax with anything. Bill Holmes 619-432-0613 (fax/voice) VERMONT TOWN MEETING LOGIC An `open container' ordinance was defeated in Royalton, Vermont because the town's dogs were illiterate. Selectmen (city council members) had asked Town Meeting support for an ordinance to control drinking on the town green, one of Vermont's prettiest. It was evident that the vote would be close. Townspeople wanted to restrain rowdiness. Yet there's a reluctance in most Vermont towns to pass laws that prevent people from doing things that might not be any of the town's business. "We don't need any more laws," declared an elderly gentleman at the crux of the debate. "We got signs all over the green saying NO DOGS ALLOWED," he bellowed. "We got a bunch of dogs that can't read, I guess." The implication was clear. Since the dog ordinance didn't work, the bottle ordinance probably wouldn't either, and Royalton would be better off without it. The ordinance lost by 58-56. Logic had prevailed. Excerpted from Vermont Life, Spring 1996 issue. PORK CHOPS ARE BEST! Citizens Against Government Waste, a non-profit watchdog organization, began scrutinizing Washington in depth in 1991. CAGW found $12.5 billion of "pork" (unnecessary spending to benefit particular groups) in the 1996 budget, detailed in the group's latest annual Congressional Pig Book Summary, just out. The 1996 total is an increase of 84% over last year, and most of that pork -- $10.4 billion -- is in a defense bill The Pig Book does point out the $10 million added by the Senate for Alaskan railroad rehabilitation, $7 million added by the Senate for research in ocean sciences, $500,000 added by the House for a Fort Bragg (N.C.) water-reclamation project, and $212,000 added by the House for generic commodity-promotion research. To order a copy of the Congressional Pig Book Summary,
send $5 to March 24, 1996, Parade Magazine Taxes - The Cruelist Burden One of the Libertarian Party's goals is to replace taxation with voluntary methods for financing government services. The government uses force to collect taxes. If you don't pay taxes "voluntarily," your property may be seized and you may be imprisoned. Our earnings and property are taken by force if we don't cooperate. If any organization or person other than our government tried this, we would call it stealing. If it is wrong for private citizens to take others' property, it is wrong when government does it. Private citizens and companies would be called criminals for using such methods, so it must be criminal for our government to do it. When taxation takes money or property from private citizens and transfers it to government, economic productivity declines. Employers cannot expand, businesses fail, and jobs are lost. We have seen this repeatedly, particularly during the past 70 years since the federal income tax was introduced. Even successful businesses must still pass on the cost of taxes to consumers. Everyone loses except the government. Experience shows that government is inefficient. Most government services can be provided better by private businesses, private charities, and other community organizations. To begin the process of replacing taxation with voluntary financing of government activities, we propose the following: 1. Neither Congress nor any state legislature should create any new tax or increase any tax rate from this day forward. 2. A "sunset" provision should be added to every tax statute. Such a provision would end the particular tax after two years unless it is re-enacted. 3. The U. S. Constitution and the state constitutions should be amended to provide for a binding initiative process where the voters can repeal any tax by majority vote. 4. Tax money should no longer subsidize any government service which can possibly be provided in the private sector. THREE STRIKES EQUAL TRIPLE STUPIDITY The California Dept. of Corrections says that 3,749 of the second and third strike cases were for drug possession while only 2,432 total were convicted for all violent crimes. All told, 85% of second and third strike convictions are for drug offenses, burglary and petty theft. Of the third strike sentences, 192 convictions were for marijuana possession, compared with 40 for murder, 25 for rape and 24 for kidnapping. Brilliant! Let's let all of the second offense child molesters, rapists, muggers out of prison to make room for harmless pot smokers. "Build more prisons" you say? Since South Africa let its political prisoners (tax protesters in the U.S.) out of jail, the U.S. now has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world. You may want to put everyone in jail who happens to offend your sensibilities, but I don't intend to pay for that stupidity. I intend to vote Libertarian to end the stupidity. Sincerely, Mary Szterpakiewicz
THREE MORE LIBERTARIANS ELECTED IN NH A trio of elections wins in New Hampshire this month has pushed the number of Libertarians in public office to another all-time high: 172. In local elections in the Granite State on March 12th, John Lamb was the top vote-getter in the race for the Plaistow Planning Board, winning a one-year term. Lamb also serves as the Libertarian Party's county coordinator in Rockingham County. Lamb's goal in the non-partisan office, he said, "Is to limit the burden of government, and uphold property rights - which I consider to be personal rights." In Wentworth, Jeff Emery was elected to a six-year term as Supervisor of the Checklist. Emery, the State Chair of the Libertarian Party of N.H., said about his win to the non-partisan office, "This is the grassroots. This is where we [Libertarians] develop a reputation within our communities, which [is] invaluable when running for an office such as State Representative. Townspeople can see a Libertarian taking part in the process, making it easier for them to vote Libertarian for other offices." Also, John Babiarz was elected as Cemetery Trustee in the town of Grafton. Commenting on the three election wins - which boosted the number of Libertarians in public office in New Hampshire to 32 - Emery said, "One of the reasons why we've been successful in New Hampshire is because we are taking advantage of the [local election] opportunities; we are willing to start at the bottom, learn the process, and move up the political ladder." Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, Alan Kreider was appointed to the position of Township Supervisor of Spring Township in Bucks County. He was appointed in December 1995, and fills a vacancy until January 1998. In part because of this ongoing series of Libertarian campaigns and election victories, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on September 28, 1995: "Of all the third parties, only the Libertarians are willing to engage in full-fledged party building and field candidates at all levels." The Libertarian Party plans to run more than 1,000 candidates for public office in 1996 - far more than any other third party. William Winter, 73163.3063@compuserve.com
FREE PUBLICITY FOR CANDIDATES The California Voter Foundation invites all 1996 CA legislative and congressional candidates who have created INTERNET web sites to submit your web site address for inclusion in our 1996 CA On-line Voter Guide. To submit your site, please send your web page address
via fax, E-Mail or US mail to: The California Voter Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to creating an informed and engaged electorate. For more information about our work please visit the web page at: http://www.webcom.com/cvf/
HARRY BROWNE ANNOUNCEMENTS There is never any reason to miss a radio show with Harry Browne, or anything else about the campaign, because the Browne campaign has INTERNET news to which you may subscribe. TO SUBSCRIBE, send E-Mail to: <announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org>, To cancel a subscription, send e-mail to:
QUOTES FROM FRIEDRICH A. HAYEK, AUTHOR OF THE ROAD TO SERFDOM Social planners who believe that their plans are the best are likely to be the most ruthless in coercing people toward what is presumed to be in their own best interest. If in the first attempt to create a world of free men we have failed, we must try again. The experience we have gained ought to have equipped us better for the task. The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as in the past.
ARE YOU RULER, SERF OR LIBERTARIAN? It's time to redefine our class structure. "Upper," "middle" and "lower," relate primarily to wealth. These old classifications have nothing to do with what is most important: how we affect each other. What's really important to distinguish is the degree and kind of control we would impose on each other. Generally, there are those who want to control others (Rulers), those who want to be controlled (Serfs) and those who want neither (Libertarians). Rulers tell Serfs what to do for their own good (where "their" is subject to interpretation). Serfs are happy to be told what to do. Libertarians just want to be left alone. Rulers can wear badges, uniforms or titles to distinguish them from everyone else. Serfs can be branded or bar-coded with their social security and driver license numbers "for convenience." Libertarians hate all symbols of authority or subservience. Rulers tell Serfs how to behave: what speed to drive, what helmets to wear, what to ingest or inject, what to watch or hear, etc. for their own good. If they misbehave, Serfs are fined or imprisoned, or killed if they resist, even when there is no victim of their action --no other person or property has been harmed. Serfs want a risk-free world in which they are protected from even their own stupidity or irresponsibility or that of their children. They don't understand that mistakes are part of the learning process, and for the lesson to be learned, they must be held fully accountable for their actions. They'd rather blame someone else for their mistakes. They want every behavior codified, every product tested and every business and trade sanctioned or prohibited. They will happily tolerate innumerable, complicated and often conflicting rules in their utopian quest for safety. When force doesn't work, they ask for more force. Libertarians know that it's in their best interest to be considerate of others and their property, because their sensitivities and property will be respected in return. They accept full responsibility for their actions and the actions of their children, including any damage their property may cause. If there is a disagreement, they seek private arbitration and collection services before resorting to a government judicial system. Rulers disarm Serfs and charge them for their protection. Serfs are too cowardly or lazy to defend themselves. They are happy to be "protected" by police who in reality can only try to catch the bad guy after the damage has been done. When police are too busy chasing victimless `criminals' to be responsive, Serfs demand more police. When the police injure nearly four times more innocents than victims do while defending themselves, Serfs demand more police. Libertarians defend themselves and their property at their own expense. Only when that has failed do they resort to their police, whose only duty is to protect persons, their liberty and their property. Rulers tell Serfs how much of the fruits of their labor they can keep. Serfs are happy to have a quarter or more of their earnings spent by Rulers who can spend it more wisely than they. Rulers are happy to give most of the Serf's income to their privileged friends. Serfs are happy to see the Rulers give some Serfs something for nothing. Serfs clamor for more of their income to be taken by Rulers, so that more of them will get more benefits. Rulers are happy to oblige, because it eases their guilt. No matter that their forced transfers of wealth always hurt far more Serfs than they help. Good intentions are more important than results. Libertarians know best how to benefit themselves and others with their earnings. Rulers do with the property of Serfs as they please without compensation. Serfs believe that abstractions like "society" and "the public good" are superior to the individual, so they are happy to have the property of others confiscated or its use limited. Buying the property would cost something and stealing it could be dangerous should its owner attempt to defend it. Having Rulers steal it or limit its use for them allows Serfs to benefit from the property of others at no cost or risk to themselves. Libertarians maintain their property to maximize its value, respect the property rights of others. Libertarians acquire property they want undeveloped (environmentally sensitive) or developed in a certain manner. Libertarians defend their property and prosecute the trespass of persons or their property, including pollution, to the extent of the repair cost or property value loss. Rulers have complete dominion over vast amounts of "public" property from open land to parks and roads, where Serf access and behavior is strictly controlled. Serfs are happy to pay for the property, its `improvement,' its maintenance and its litigation related expenses in exchange for "free" use of the property, or to deny other access to it. Libertarians have no public property. Even the few government offices are leased from private property owners. Property owners retain all property rights and liabilities. Libertarians pay a toll for each use of roads, parks and open spaces. Their quality is superior and cost and congestion less than that of the public lands allowed the Serfs, because the owner has the incentive to make them attractive and the power to set higher prices when the demand is highest and vice versa, dispersing the load on their property over time and minimizing congestion. Rulers tell Serfs how much they can work and who they can hire. Older Serfs don't want competition from younger Serfs or foreign Serfs, so they like labor laws. Rulers are happy to oblige, because the larger the number of perpetually unemployed Serfs who are dependent on the good intentions of the Rulers, the more votes the Rulers will get. Obnoxious and unproductive Serfs like rules that force employers to hire them and make it nearly impossible to fire them. The old Serfs believe "retirement" is a good concept, especially when younger Serfs are compelled to pay for it. Libertarians work as long, for whom, with whom they want for as much as they can get, and in whatever manner as they please. They know that the only businesses that will prosper and survive the competition of an unregulated market are those that hire the best for the least without non-economic bias toward race or sex or any of other categories into which Serfs are divided by Rulers. Ruler children go to special schools where they are taught they are elite and meant to rule Serfs. Mastering the art of sophistry is the only requirement for graduation. Serfs would rather pay high rates for low quality education and have the Rulers teach their children to be good Serfs than allow a few Serfs to teach their children strange things. Serf children are taught to compromise, get along, be subservient, good workers and to respect all authority. There are no performance requirements other than being in school long enough to graduate. Libertarians teach their own children, or pay for their education where, by whom and how they want. Libertarian children are taught to be principled, innovative, independent, self-governing and to question authority. Developing communication skills (English), a basic understanding how things work (math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology) and a sense of their place in space and time (geography, archeology, history, anthropology) are common requirements. Which class are you, Ruler, Serf or Libertarian? William T. Holmes, |
|||